"Jim Creechan, a University of Alberta sociologist,
said some of the love of guns may have its roots in
Alberta's pervasive free-enterprise model of behaviour.
'It's the whole idea that the individual
is more important than the collective.'"
"Canada's Copycat Killing: Gun ownership in Alberta approaches U.S. levels", Globe and Mail, April 30, 1999, p. A-1.
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
 -- Anonymous, reston, VA US      
What complete nonsense! Those who are anti any kind of gun control/regulation/registration always seem to be the most rabid supporters of right wing political groups who, despite what they say, are not at all interested in individual liberty but only in the power of the few as exercised through the aparatus of the state. Not too many liberals on that side of the fence! Pro-gun people also seem to suffer under the delusion that they are the last bulwark against an oppressive government that might try to take away individual liberties, but it seems to me they are more likely to use their guns to support a right wing or fascist government against those who truly support the liberty of the individual. Who did most members of the NRA vote for? Bush!
 -- Simon, Deep Cove     
  • 1
    The copycat killer is responsible for his or her actions, NOT society. Collectivism has perverted the concept of individual responsibility, blaming others for individual wrongdoing. Collectivism reasons that everyone must strive for equality. But that is an inductive fallacy, because not everyone is equal.
     -- Joel, Rochester, MI     
    As an avid 2nd Amendment supporter, NRA and ILA member, it is obvious when reading most gun-control literature that those suggesting gun-control don't understand the root of the issue. The right to keep and bare arms is a fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, specifically to keep tyranical governments in check, ours included. Once a group looses the right to defend itself, all other rights become the privy of the government. Logic suggests that an unarmed population is more controllable than an armed one. Gun-control in any form is a slippery slope that leads ultimately to complete government control. Germany proved it, Iraq proved it, and soon Canada, England, Australia, and Japan will prove it.
     -- Robert, Charlotte, NC     
    God bless the individual and damn the hurd's oppression.
    Quite a sensable assessment.
    This is why Alberta's Former Mayor (of Calgary) and Current Premier is a Journalist and B.C. (the frmr. Vancouver) Has the same in the form of an economist who mucks up the place.

    -- Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco [Mes(-)Van Dongen] Buday
     -- Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco , Vancouver, GVRD(Paine Cnty), BC(SU), USoEh!(USoA)     
    ". . the individual is more important than the collective.." This is a basic truism which gets swamped by the inane utterings and writings of socialist collectivist thinkers (or non-thinkers). After all, the Lord made Adam as a single individual with the ability to stand upright - not to be trampled into the dirt by any socialist-minded collective.
     -- john-douglas, nassau     
    Rights are a gift of the God of Nature (a popular 17th, 18th century term describing the Creator of all). Rights are inalienable as a faculty of birth. In a de jure republic (as apposed to a de facto democracy), the individual is sovereign, a Caesar to his servants and representatives. Since an individual maintains all rights in and of himself, it is impossible to have more rights in a collective.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    Individuals make up a collective. If each individuals is important ... the collective is better off.
     -- Joe, Rochester, MI     
    Hey Simon of Deep Bull, wake up: fascism = socialism=left wing=you just because you have drunk the koolaid don't expect me to. I fear the government that fears my guns.
     -- helorat, Milton     
  • 1
    I am neither for nor against Gun Control as I do not have a true understanding of the problem or subject. While guns protect us against crime (though that has been proven incorrect as most are killed by their own weapon) and fascist Governments (though in America I can't see that happening) do they really act as a safeguard against the reason for having them. We killed off the Indians with guns to grab their land. Likewise, we killed off the Mexicans to grab their land - I really do not understand the argument for or against the right to bear arms, all I know is that they do a lot of killing. I do not believe the human race is ready to give up protecting itself with guns; perhaps one day that may change but not today. If a million Americans were killed by some cataclysmic event we would demand immediate answers and heads would roll but because it happens in the one's and two's (usually) we think nothing it. 3000 get killed on 911 and we invade another country - since 1933 it is estimated that 1.5 million Americans have been killed with firearms more than have died on the battlefield this century - perhaps I shouldn't have noticed...
     -- Robert, Sarasota     
    I am more important than the collective..to me. The collective knows that and is in fact built upon that fact. I risk myself (my life here fellas) for the collective by my individual choice for my individual reasons. It certainly is not because I think the collective is more important than me, and anyone that really thinks that the collective is more important than themselves does not deserve to be a citizen of a republic - even the USA.
     -- Eric Engstrom, Wichita, KS     
    Collectives are wonderful things...for bee hives and ant hills. They will, however, destroy the very essence of humanity and turn men into miserable, soulless animals.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
    Make that a "0" please.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
    Not sure what all the hub-bub is. Simply that guns are a part of Canadian history and that there are at least a few Canadians that share an independent spirit. The collective is NOT more important than the individual. However, it is the individual's choice in how he/she might/will serve the collective. The key here is the 'choice' to further the collective interests (with their related benefits and consequences) or not. When collectivism is mandated upon all (like in communist countries), there is no longer a choice to serve -- i.e. slavery.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    A praiseworthy article has been submitted here. The endeavor to provide encouragement to perform at your best is appreciable. I found a great site for finance and business quotations at http://financequotations.com
     -- Finance Quotations, u     
    With the realization that the collective interest and individual interest are one and the same their will be the realization for no firearms.

     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    Sillik — too, too funny (not humorous). Your "realization" is a mental illnesses' delusion of a mythologically fabricated vision. This "collective" you mention, can you give me its/their (?) postal address so that I might subpoena Mr./Mrs./Ms/Gender Pronoun of Choice Collective. In the past, I've needed (I know you like to talk about needs) to subpoena this allusive "collective" to protect my self / person. Sillik, what is the lawful nexus, at nature's law, that equates your "collective" to being "one in the same" as my personal interests. My personal interest may or may NOT be the same (or even antagonistic) as/to you or your referenced "collective's" interests. Again, we’re speaking rights vs. needs. Another nexus request; in your word salad ethos, what reality realm does an individual’s right(s) equate to a realization for no firearms? ? ? Please be specific in your lawful articulation!
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?

    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2024 Liberty-Tree.ca