That’s a phrase you see a lot of these days. In almost every news story involving the arrest of a suspect, the list of charges will include possessing a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.
That one charge should be proof enough to anyone with a grain of common sense to see that A) gun control does not work, and B) our justice system is badly broken.
You see in order for a person to have this charge leveled against them, they must be a repeat offender. Prohibition from possessing a firearm is usually a condition of their parole. For me this raises two very obvious questions:
- Why is this person still on the street committing crimes?
- What is the point of our gun control laws if criminals are still getting guns?
The answer to the first question is our incomprehensibly soft justice system. For some reason, in this country, judges seem to be afraid to hand down meaningful sentences. Even if someone commits a crime heinous enough to result a life sentence, thanks to our parole, credit for time served, and two-for-one credit systems, that criminal could be back on the streets in as little as 7 years. 7 years of actual jail time for a life sentence! I don’t know about you, but that royally pisses me off.
We need a leader who recognizes that our “hug-a-thug” policy doesn’t work. Decades of liberal bleeding heart programs have now ensured that the criminal has more rights than their victims. How many times have you heard these lines?
- “Johnny is such a good boy. Sure he did a lot of drugs and hung around with a bad crowd, but my Johnny’s not like them.”
- “We shouldn’t be too hard on Susie, she was trying to turn her life around. Beating that old lady half to death for her purse was just an innocent mistake.”
- “But poor Tony was abused as a child. It’s no wonder he turned to a life of crime. It’s not his fault.”
Thanks to decades of liberal “soft-on-crime” strategies, personal responsibility is now considered a bad word. Well, I say enough is enough! You commit a crime, you do some serious time. No more early parole. Two-for-one and three-for-one credit is gone. Bring back mandatory minimum sentences and consecutive sentences.
I can hear the cries now, “But criminals have rights too!” No. Criminals had rights. They gave up those rights the second they chose to victimize another human being.
I understand the reasoning employed by the gun control crowd. They see guns used in crimes, so they think that limiting access to the gun will reduce the crime. The problem with that line of thinking is that it fails to address a couple of issues.
First, a firearm is only a tool. It does not have any magical powers. It is not evil. It will not “possess” its owner and force good people to do evil things. A gun can’t point itself at a person and pull its own trigger. A gun is only as dangerous as the person who wields it.
And that brings me to my second point. A bad person will not give up a life of crime simply because a particular tool isn’t available. A carpenter isn’t going to stop working just because he can’t buy a power saw. He’ll just use a hand saw instead. It might take him a little longer, it might be more work, but the job will still get done. A person killed or injured with a knife, a stone or fists is no less dead or injured than if their attacker had used a gun.
Let’s go back to the title of this post: possessing a firearm contrary to a prohibition order. The Firearms Act is a piece of paper. The long gun registry is several hundreds of millions of pieces of paper and a flawed computer database. A prohibition order is yet another piece of paper. Does anyone honestly think that the gangbanger with the illegal gun down his pants really cares about any of those pieces of paper? Or how about the crystal meth junkie breaking into cars and houses to pay for his next hit? Or that kid who stole a rifle out of an Ontario police officer’s car? Do you think that any of them gave even half a second of thought to any of those pieces of paper while they were committing their crimes?
Pieces of paper do not deter crime. Consequences and prevention do. The long gun registry and enforcement of the Firearms Act cost billions of dollars of taxpayer money. What have all those bits of paper and that massive expenditure actually accomplished? Crime rates haven’t changed. Criminals are still using guns. What has our soft justice system and all of those pieces of paper actually done?
They’ve given criminals the peace of mind that comes from knowing that their victim will be unarmed, and even if they are caught they won’t be punished for their crime.