Canadian liberals are about to get trounced in the upcoming election (recent polls are saying there is a 13 point margin).  And what do you think the issues are that are getting them in so much trouble?  Health care and gun control!

Among the main policy differences is health care reform. The Tories want to allow for public and private health care provision, and, along with the Liberals, have pledged to shorten waiting times. The Liberals and the NDP have vowed to stop any privatisation of the system.

On gun control, the Liberals have promised to move towards a ban on handguns, which are already tightly regulated, and consider tightening gun crime laws.

Handguns have been essentially banned in Canada for decades.  And in the last few years spent nearly two billion dollars on registration of all guns.  And what is the result?  The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has the scoop on that:

CANADA’S GUN REGISTRATION FAILURE: VIOLENT CRIME RATE DOUBLE THAT OF U.S.

For Immediate Release: January 17, 2006

BELLEVUE, WA – Canada’s billion-dollar boondoggle – the national gun registration scheme – has proven itself an abysmal failure, as that country’s violent crime rates are double those reported in the United States, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) noted today.

“We looked at violent crime rates per 100,000 population in both countries, using the most recent available data,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “and we were not surprised at what we found. Since Canada started this ridiculous and costly program, violent crime has gone up dramatically, at the same time that crime in the United States has declined. Yet, there are people in the states who think Canada’s gun legislation should be the model for America.

“By comparing the data,” he detailed, “we found that the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 population, while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 population. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 population is more than double that of the United States, 74 as opposed to 32.1, and the assault rate in Canada is also more than twice that of the states, 746 to our 295 for the population rate.”

Noted CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron: “What happened in the states to actually contribute to a reduction in our overall crime rate is simple. We’ve got 38 states with shall-issue, right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. While Canada has clamped down on its citizens’ gun rights, our citizens have been empowered against criminals by passage of these laws. The disparity in crime rates between the two countries says it all about how well gun registration works to stop crime, as opposed to actually carrying guns to deter criminals, and fight back if necessary.”

A Jan. 3 story in Canada’s National Post by writer David Frum confirmed CCRKBA’s independent finding. Frum wrote, “Canada’s overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States.” Later, Frum added: “Gun registries and gun bans…do not work.”

“Instead of promising to ban legally-owned handguns in Canada,” Waldron observed, “Prime Minister Paul Martin should be urging citizens to arm themselves. He should encourage Parliament to scrap gun registration and replace it with a gun ownership and training program.”

“Since going on the warpath against guns, Canada’s Liberals have presided over the sharpest rise in violent crime in the nation’s history,” Gottlieb said. “There are more rapes, more robberies and more murders. If that tells Canadian citizens anything at all, it’s that Paul Martin and his Liberals have literally been ‘dead wrong’ on guns.”

What is it called when you keep trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result?  Yeah, that’s right, it’s called insanity.  Socialism and gun control have been shown again, and again, and again, to be the tools of tyrants and cost hundreds of millions of lives.  Won’t people ever face reality?

Bruce at mAss Backwards left a comment for my post Just One Question:

I’ve been contemplating the “just one question” approach for a while now. There’s a series of town meeting-style forums coming up in Boston with our Mayor Tom “Never Met a Gun Control Scheme I Didn’t Like” Menino.

I’m going to put my name in for one of the limited slots available. Shoudl I get the chance to address the Mayor, I’d ask:

“Mr. Mayor, as you know, the City of Boston over the last year has seen a marked increase in the rate of homicides and armed robberies. My question for you is a simple YES or NO question. Do the hard-working, law-abiding citizens of Boston have the right to defend themselves from violent criminals?”

A “yes” answer woudl be an outright lie.

A “no” answer, though truthful, would be cause for his immediate removal from office (not that that’s very likely, though).

That seems to be a very good question to ask as well.  The only disadvantage I can see is that they can say, “Yes.”, “Yes, but not with a gun.”, or “Yes, but guns only make the situation worse.”  And you are left with having to justify the use of a firearm for task of self-defense.  My question forces them defend their desire to impose restrictions on firearms.  In nearly all situations it’s better to make your opponent defend rather than for you to defend against them.

As I write this I see Bruce has posted on this “Just One Question” topic with the request “So…what would your “one question” be?” in the context of being able to ask some politician a question in a public forum.