The Calgary Herald reckons it’s OK for the Canadian paper to get on their soapbox re: the Safeway massacre because a bunch of Canadians own property in Arizona. Some close to the scene of the crime. “Former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed owns a residence not far away, as do many other Albertans.” Gotcha, although why the editorial board felt the need to justify their hectoring when the rest of the world just jumps right in is a question best left to anthropologists. Anyway, the paper’s got a recipe for what ails Arizona in the stop-the-nutter-with-the-high-cap-mag-fed-Glock arena. Speaking to that point, they point out that “Loughner only had to pass a quick background check at the gun counter of a sporting goods store.” In contrast . . .
In this country, that check would be performed by the RCMP and he would be subject to a 10-day-waiting period. He would also have to pass a comprehensive gun safety course. Spouses, present and former, would have to be notified, and references provided. His handgun would have to be registered. His large-capacity magazine, which held 30 rounds, would be illegal.
The powerful American gun lobby argues that criminals do not abide by such rules. This is true.
Yet one cannot deny that the hoops that one must go through in Canada to purchase even a hunting rifle, not to mention the more strict handgun requirements, deter those on the fringes of stability.
Can’t one? Is it illegal in Canada? And if you think that logic’s a bit tortuous, check out the Canadian’s coupe de grace:
The U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to bear arms. But it does not enshrine the right to have no gun laws, as in Arizona, home to Tombstone, site of the most famous gunfight in America, at the OK Corral in 1881.
As for the argument that a gun provides protection, it did little good for Giffords, a Glock owner herself, or for the other undoubtedly well-armed people at the mall.
If only.