So PM Harper was in Toronto yesterday, standing next to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller to announce tougher gun crime rules - namely the use of reverse onus for determining bail for gun-related charges.
But hidden just beneath the surface of this announcement was the division between these leaders when it came to the real issue - gun control.
It was quite clear that while the leaders agreed that tougher rules were needed for gun crime offences, they could not agree on a handgun ban. Guess who didn't want to ban handguns?
Yup: Mr. Redneck.
I don't get it. What possible use could someone have for a handgun other than to threaten someone with it? And don't even start with home protection. Let's just say for a minute that someone does invade your house - are you really going to use it? Is it worth the risk if the intruder is simply a burglar? And even if the intruder was a threat, would you even have time to get to your gun before the intruder got to you? Would you have time to load it or would you pre-load your gun? Do you really think it's a good idea to have a loaded gun in your house? Not so much.
Oh, right: guns don't kill people - people kill people. Guns just make it a whole lot easier.
When's the last time you heard about someone accidentally bludgeoning someone to death? When's the last time you heard about someone acidentally getting shot?
And did you hear this one? Seems some 92-year old lady was shot dead by police. Tragic. Seems the police were executing a warrant at her house regarding drug activity. The police claim they knocked and announced themselves. Obviously feeling threatened, the elderly lady fired a gun at the officers, striking each of them. The officers understandably returned fire, killing the woman. The lady's niece claims it was a case of mistaken identity. The officers say there was no mistake when it came to the address (so perhaps someone was dealing drugs out of the house?).
Reverend Makel Hutchins, a "civil rights leader" said: "Of the police brutality cases we've had, this is the most egregious because of the woman's age."
I'm not even going to touch the ridiculousness of claiming that officers returning fire are engaging in "brutality", or that age should have anything to do with how officers deal with being fired upon.
No, what strikes me is that this Associated Press story doesn't even blink at the idea that a 92-year old lady had a handgun! What the f**k?! 92?! I don't think 92-year olds should be driving let alone carry live ammunition.
Never mind that the incident took place in Atlanta, Georgia. This is indicative of the absolute insanity that can result from the proliferation of firearms.
When I'm Prime Minister, you can bet your ass that one of the first things I'm gonna do is ban private ownership of handguns and automatic weapons. You think it's a right to collect weapons? Kiss my ass. You want to hunt? Fine. Keep a rifle with a trigger lock on it. You can take the lock off when you get to the hunting ground. Anyone who is caught with an unsecured rifle or any other gun gets 20 years. Period. Use it in the commission of a crime? Life.
And that's in addition to the reverse onus for bail conditions.