"There's Nothing Cukier Than A Gun Control Nut"

There's Nothing Cukier Than A Gun Control Nut
Kate McMillan at SDA,
by way of Volokh (Original article from the G&M)

Vancouver school board trustee Sharon Gregson [publicly argues that] Canadians need to broaden their thinking about handgun ownership. "There is a thinking that guns can only be bad and related to crime, and that's not my experience as a legal gun owner, participating in a gun sport," Ms. Gregson said, explaining why he decided to get a handgun permit in Utah....

But some of Ms. Gregson's colleagues have urged the trustee, a married mother of four, to stop shooting her mouth off. Trustee Clarence Hanson said her comments send the wrong message to kids. [Ed note - "stop shooting her mouth off"... how clever!]

"I was quite shocked," Mr. Hanson said after he heard Ms. Gregson on a morning radio program yesterday, in which she argued in favour of easier access for permits to carry a concealed gun, especially for women who feel threatened. "As a school trustee, my concern is basically, we have a number of children ... who sometimes feel harassed and bullied. I don't want them to get the impression that this is the way to protect yourself," Mr. Hanson said. "If they get a feeling that a school trustee who represents them thinks it's okay to protect yourself in this way, ... we're going down a dangerous road, I think." ...

Ms. Gregson said she did not mean to suggest that kids in the school system be urged to carry guns. However, she did suggest that the outcome of the Montreal massacre might have been different if any one of Marc Lepine's 14 female victims had been carrying a weapon.....

The head of the Canada's main gun-control lobby[, Wendy Cukier,] denounced Ms. Gregson's comments as well .... "It's an absurd comment. It's completely contrary to Canadian traditions. It has no basis in fact, and for someone who is associated with schools to be making those comments is particularly alarming, especially a woman." ...

"Well, Ms. Cukier... here's a comment from a woman. I hope you find it alarming.

Not only did I shoot the gopher that graces the top of this page, I did so with what is now a prohibited firearm - the same .22 rifle I've used to dispatch gophers since I was 12 years old. And God willing, I'll dispatch a few more with it in years to come.

And never mind the teachers - thinking back to the class of 16 that I graduated with, at least half of the girls I knew in school with would have proven a worthy match for Garbi or any other nutcase intent on turning them into next year's excuse for your precious televised candle-light marches - given half a chance and access to the appropriate firepower.

That any individual would presume to define "acceptable" thought for an entire gender is completely contrary to our western democratic traditions, not to mention, an insult to all Canadian women. Suffice it to say, Wendy Cukier - you don't speak for me." Kate McMillan.

------------------------------
There has been a lot of press concerning this, and some very stupid comments, notably from the solicitor-general of BC, John Les (see below), and this excerpt from an editorial at the Province :

...
"Besides, the heavily-tattooed Gregson makes at least a couple of good points. Canada's national gun registry has been a colossal waste of money. And there may be times when a woman is safer being armed than relying on the police for protection.

Nevertheless, we should take the overall views of this zealous gun champion with a healthy pinch of salt. Carrying a handgun is a two-edged sword. And there's invariably a big risk that those who do so will find themselves at the receiving end."

"...heavily tattooed Gregson..."? "...zealous gun champion..."? There's a point to the hyperbole and comments about tattoos? Or was that just innuendo? Just a half-assed comment to attempt to describe Ms Gregson as somehow "not normal" (i.e. "Liberal normal"). And what exactly, is the last paragraph attempting to say? Or is it as it appears, just empty verbiage with a pinch of, what, smugness?

The main focus of the editorial was about freedom of speech, and it is supportive of that. Was it necessary to try to trash Ms. Gregson in the process?

John Les' commentary to the Vancouver Sun, is way over the top for an elected official, and somewhat more disturbing (according to the article, "Les contacted The Vancouver Sun after Gregson was quoted in the media this week..."):

"Provincial solicitor-general John Les blasted Vancouver school trustee Sharon Gregson Tuesday, saying comments she made about firearms are "outrageous", and describing her as a "rogue" trustee.

"I'm not anti-gun-ownership or anything like that," Les said in an interview. "But she's gone a big step further in saying that people ought to be able to conceal them on their person."

"I can't imagine what makes her advocate for that kind of thing. You know, responsible gun owners -- I've never run across one who would advocate that kind of thing."
...
Les, the Liberal solicitor-general, said it was outrageous for Gregson, a former president of the Vancouver-Hastings NDP riding association, to suggest people should have the right to carry a concealed weapon in Canada and, as a school trustee, she shouldn't be spouting such views.

"She's advocating the kind of behaviour that I don't think we're interested in in our society," Les said, noting most gun violence on Lower Mainland streets involves handguns that are often concealed.

Gregson has offered her support to a National Firearms Association campaign promoting the right of women to carry concealed firearms for protection.

Les said he was disappointed NDP Leader Carole James did not pull Gregson, a long-time New Democrat, into line first thing Tuesday. Gregson was elected to the school board last year as a member of the Coalition of Progressive Electors.

"There are lots of good people out there working hard every day to keep our community safe. When we've got a rogue school trustee with views that are way out of whack I think we should all be saying and suggesting in the strongest possible terms that her views are irresponsible."
...
Les said he hopes the reaction to her comments will convince Gregson to re-think her "bizarre" position."

I hope Gregson goes "rogue" all the way to her lawyers. The comments by Les are libelous, and highly inappropriate for a Crown minister. So much so, that the premier of BC should be asking for his immediate resignation. The degree of virulence in his comments calls significantly into question whether or not he can objectively perform the duties of his office in a "multicultural" society such as BC's. If he holds these views of an ordinary citizen, how does he view the truly fringe thinkers in BC? And can he administer laws with the necessary freedom from bias required of his office? His comments to the Sun suggest not.

What did she know and when did she know it...

Steve Janke has the goods on Anne McLellan, via a memo from William Baker concerning the cost overruns at the Canadian Firearms Centre.

"The right to keep and bear arms would henceforth belong to all English subjects, rich and poor alike"

[...]
In 1668, the government of James was overturned in a peaceful uprising which came to be know as "The Glorious Revolution". Parliament resolved that James had abdicated and promulgated a Declaration of Rights, later enacted as the Bill of Rights. Before coronation, his successor William of Orange, was required to swear to respect these rights. The debates in the House of Commons over this Declaration of Rights focused largely upon the disarmament under the 1662 Militia Act. One member complained that "an act of Parliament was made to disarm all Englishmen, who the lieutenant should suspect, by day or night, by force or otherwise — this was done in Ireland for the sake of putting arms into Irish hands." The speech of another is summarized as "militia bill — power to disarm all England — now done in Ireland." A third complained "Arbitrary power exercised by the ministry. . . . Militia — imprisoning without reason; disarming — himself disarmed." Yet another summarized his complaints "Militia Act — an abominable thing to disarm the nation...." 22

The Bill of Rights, as drafted in the [British] House of Commons, simply provided that "the acts concerning the militia are grievous to the subject" and that "it is necessary for the public Safety that the Subjects, which are Protestants, should provide and keep arms for the common defense; And that the Arms which have been seized, and taken from them, be restored." 23 The House of Lords changed this to make it a more positive declaration of an individual right under English law: "That the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." 24 The only limitation was on ownership by Catholics, who at that time composed only a few percent of the British population and were subject to a wide variety of punitive legislation. The Parliament subsequently made clear what it meant by "suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". The poorer citizens had been restricted from owning firearms, as well as traps and other commodities useful for hunting, by the 1671 Game Act. Following the Bill of Rights, Parliament reenacted that statute, leaving its operative parts unchanged with one exception — which removed the word "guns" from the list of items forbidden to the poorer citizens. 25 The right to keep and bear arms would henceforth belong to all English subjects, rich and poor alike.
[...]

From: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Report of Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th United States Congress, February, 1982. [referenced in Resource Library - Historical Perspective]

Liberal Party Agenda, Post Convention - UPDATE

Resolutions 42 and 47 presented below were reviewed at the convention, and resolution 42, in all its inaccurate glory, was ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED and incorporated into the LIBERAL POLICY PLATFORM.

If you are a hunter and you are not yet convinced that the Liberals WILL take your semi-auto hunting and trap firearms, we respectfully suggest you look at the firearms in the poster HERE, and review this resolution, PASSED by the Liberal Party:

Resolution #42: Automatic and Semi-automatic Weapons

WHEREAS automatic and semi-automatic weapons are illegal for hunting purposes; and

WHEREAS automatic and semi-automatic weapons do not support the hunting culture found in all parts of Canada;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to support legislation to eliminate the personal use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

National Women’s Liberal Commission
Liberal Party of Nova Scotia

Debunking the Gun Registry in Real Time

The following essay is provided by one of our readers...

"The favorite quotes of the firearms registry supporters and anti-firearms advocates are "It is in place and it works, why remove it now?", or "Why remove the registry when Police use it 6500 times a day!" and also "Just ban guns as there is no need for them!"

Here are facts to debunk them. I'll start with "It is in place and it works, why remove it now?"

You own a car that cost $20,000 and looks awesome from outside and you get great comments from everyone that passes by your driveway about how awesome it must be and how sleek and sporty it is. On the inside however, there are gaping holes in the floor where you have lost shoes and papers. The roof leaks at the sunroof edges, which causes all the occupants to get wet during a rain storm, and you have severe electrical problems that continually mix up switches and lights.
The engine uses premium fuel and you can get up to 25kph downhill but it requires constant maintenance. While going to the shop for repairs, you can look up a part and the manuals have a dozen different versions of the same part you want, some of which can only be purchased with the proper permit. Of course you cannot fix it yourself and you must rely on mechanics to do the work.
After a decade of ownership, you have a car which has cost you over $1,000,000 (One million dollars). Are you going to keep the car? I know the answer to that. That is the registry, an inefficient program that barely does what it supposed to and not what it was meant to do, and costs HUGE dollars. Why on earth would you continue to use it and not put your money into a better solution?

"Why ban the registry when Police use it 6,500 times a day"

The numbers game...! So let us assume for a second that this number is true. So with 365 days a year that is roughly 2.5 million times a year. Wow. That is pretty close to the legally registered number of gun owners. So the police COULD be checking every gun owner at least once a year to see if they have changed their status/ownership of registered firearms.
There is approximately one police officer for every 500 or so Canadians, which equates to 60,000 police. Out of 60,000 police, does that mean that only 10% use the registry each day?
There is one police officer for every 42 reported crimes in Canada, which equals roughly 2.5 million crimes annually. Seems like a pretty poor showing of numbers, when you consider that the registry is hit at least once for every speeding ticket, reported accident, domestic dispute, B&E, mischief, etc..., let alone for violent crimes like rape and murder. Oh yes very effective for actually stopping the use of firearms for illegal purposes.
How does it help them? A list for the police concerning the fact a suspect has access to three hunting rifles, two shotguns, and an old civil war pistol? Even though that would only apply to those who legally registered their gun? What about the subject accessed who shows no firearms registered in their name, and may have one or more illegally? Should a cop approach a motorist accused of speeding, who is a licensed firearms owner, any differently than a domestic dispute where the homeowner has no firearms according to the registry? I don't think so.

"Just ban them as there is no need for them!"

Look how effective bans are against non-law abiding people. Marijuana is illegal to grow/distribute unless you are one of the under a thousand people who are medicinally allowed to get it from the government, but how many of you have smoked it? It's illegal for youths to purchase alcohol and tobacco products, but how many people do you know who were drinking and smoking before the age of 18? Making it illegal has always stopped people from breaking the law now, hasn't it? It has been shown that in trends of homicides, the rates remain roughly the same, but it is the methods they use that vary.
But then again, you bring up the matter of need. There is no NEED for you to own a cell phone as land lines are better and you cannot be distracted in your car while driving. There is no NEED for you to own a car as you can use public transit to get to work, or a train to visit relatives outside of your city/town. There is no NEED to own a television or radio as you can get the newspaper delivered to your door which has all the news you can stand. There is no NEED for rich, fattening foods or vices like alcohol and tobacco. There is no NEED for you to collect stamps, sports cards, autographs, vinyl albums, or figurines.
It was never a matter of needing anything; it was always a matter of personal choice and circumstance. If someone chooses to own a car, computer, camera, firearm, lawnmower, Cuban cigar, telephone, kayak, lawn dart, stiletto heels, or whatever, it is their right as long as it is used responsibly.
If someone chooses to use an item, ANY item, irresponsibly, that's when it may affect the rest of us, either directly or indirectly. Legislation regulating those who are responsible, in a vain attempt to curb those who are willingly irresponsible, is a very shallow and superficial action taken by those who will not, or cannot, look into root causes and their solutions.
Still don't agree? Ok, so new laws make it so that the only people who have guns are the military, police, political bodyguards, armored car security and criminals. We lose literally 100's of millions in economic value that was based on the hunting industry alone. Olympic teams could never represent Canada fully in Skeet/Trap or Biathlon events due to having to train outside of Canada. Britain has this problem.
7% of ALL Canadians would want to be compensated for their firearms as well. Current numbers put over seven million firearms registered in Canada, average resale value of a used firearm, (using low figures), is about $500, each. That's a minimum $3.5 billion to buy out all the firearms in Canada. Not a very effective or efficient use of taxpayer money. $3,500,000,000 buys a LOT of increases to hospitals, police officers, prisons, taxes.
But why should we get any compensation? After all, those who own guns are apparently "evil" and "waiting to snap", if you believe the standard droll messages from anti-gun organizations like the Coalition for Gun Control. Ever wonder why they only ever say that Canada is a role model for gun control? They never mention that England has some of the harshest gun control laws around and has effectively banned many classes and types of firearms from civilian hands. England now has some of the worst rates of gun violence in the world despite the removal of guns from its responsible populace. Other countries which had enacted similar laws and bans, are headed in the same direction, so obviously restricting responsible firearms owner is ineffective, to say the least.


Sick of references and logical statements yet? Let us talk numbers then...

From StatsCan 2003:

Total Deaths in Canada: 226,169
Nutritional deficiencies: 232
Assault: 447
Assault (Firearms): 138
Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV): 440
Intentional Self Harm: 3,765
Intentional Self Harm (Firearms): 618
Cancer: 65,990
Cancer (Breast): 5,097
Cancer (Skin): 748
Parkinson's: 1,679
Alzheimer's: 5,504
Heart Disease: 73,827
Pneumonia: 4,739
Land, Water, Air transport: 3,125
Non-transport accidents (Falls): 1,978
Non-transport accidents (Firearms): 27
Non-transport accidents (Drowning): 266
Non-transport accidents (Poisoning): 866

Wow... Firearms were the cause of 783 of 226,169 deaths in Canada in 2003. That is 0.35% of the total, suicide makes up 78.9% of that, and we know that those who commit suicide use any means possible. The anti-firearms advocates always spout "If it saves only one life it is worth the cost". Of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a questionable firearms registry, how many lives could have been saved in cases of pneumonia on simple antibiotics? Transport accidents prevented by higher numbers of highway police officers? Nutritional deficiencies? How is this even a cause of death in Canada?

In 2005, there were 658 homicides reported in Canada, 107 of which are gang-related. 222 of the homicides were victims of firearms. We have all heard that the sources of half of the firearms used in crimes are stolen from legitimate owners, but this is according to manipulated statistics and hearsay, and the actual numbers are far, far, less. Police estimate the 78 firearms recovered from these homicides are about 40% of the totals used, which equates to roughly 200 firearms used in 222 homicides. Of those 78 firearms only 23 were registered, that is around 11%. Thats a far cry from 50% that you keep hearing.
The rate of homicides per firearm is virtually the same as it was in 1975 at 0.69 firearm homicides per 100,000 Canadians. Please show me how the registry has helped us control gun violence? Of the 658 homicides in Canada in 2005, 34% are from firearms, 30% were from stabbings, 22% were from physical assault, 7% from strangulation and suffocation, 2.6% is unknown and the remaining 4.4% include fire, shaken baby syndrome, poisoning, etc...
Two thirds of adults accused and a third of youth accused in homicides have a criminal record. Half of the adult homicide victims and one quarter of the youth victims had a criminal record. According to these statistics, of 658 homicides, 375 were committed by adults with prior criminal records (205 of them violent offences), 24 of the homicides were committed by youths (under 18) with prior criminal records (13 of them violent offences).
Back in 1975 shootings accounted for roughly 42% of homicides, with stabbings a distant third (17%) behind beatings, which were the cause of 23% of all homicides. But wait a minute: that means that gun homicides are down as the cause of homicide by almost 10%? I bet you thought that it was going higher with all the media coverage. Unfortunately, the only thing that can compete with sex and scandal for headline news is death and devastation, which is the biggest indication of how poor society has adapted its values to the changing times.
We as a nation were part of a grand crusade to rid the world of the terror known as the Nazi regime back over sixty years ago. While those that participated in that terrible loss of life were forever changed, all of them felt they were doing the right thing. Today we have youths desecrating historical memorials and soldiers who would rather desert and be in the headlines than actually do the job of a soldier. We have politicians who would rather look good for the world than to actually be beneficial to Canada, and we have Canadians who forget about the causes of society's ills and treat the only the outward symptoms, not the true causes beneath the surface.
Of course if you are an anti-firearm advocate, you either don't know, or don't care, about any of this data, or the pro-firearm argument. If you don't care you probably stopped reading as soon as you realized this was composed by a gun owner. If you didn't know, then I hope you have at least read the facts and I thank you for that.
You can prosecute the guilty and the majority of firearms owners will gladly stand behind you with full support; persecute the innocent and responsible and you will find that you are harming the very rights of the individuals you are trying to protect.
If you want better gun control to prevent gun crimes, you need to do several things, but punishing responsible firearms owners for the acts of the irresponsible ones, and listing of the personal property of every legally licensed firearm owner should be at the bottom of the list, as it is a seriously wasteful use of resources and only targets those who are already law-abiding."

Liberal Party continues to try to deny you your democratic and historical rights

Pop Quiz: What's more important to a Liberal? (a) slavish adherence to dishonest, self-serving and blind ideology, or (b) constituent democratic rights, honesty and truth?

The answer, of course, is (a) slavish adherence to dishonest, self-serving and blind ideology.

And if you are a hunter, and you are not yet convinced that the Liberals WILL take your semi-auto hunting and trap firearms, We respectfully suggest you look at the firearms in the poster in the sidebar [Semi-Auto Ban], and review the policy program of the Liberal Party at its convention, happening this weekend in Montreal. In particular, review these resolutions to be tabled:

Resolution #42: Automatic and Semi-automatic Weapons

WHEREAS automatic and semi-automatic weapons are illegal for hunting purposes; and

WHEREAS automatic and semi-automatic weapons do not support the hunting culture found in all parts of Canada;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to support legislation to eliminate the personal use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

National Women’s Liberal Commission
Liberal Party of Nova Scotia Resolution #47: Gun Control

WHEREAS the cancellation of the gun registry is part of the Conservative Party’s program; and

WHEREAS the Conservative government has started to slash into the registry by ending requirements to register long guns; and

WHEREAS police forces have continually supported the gun registry and spoken out against efforts by the Conservative government to weaken or end it; and

WHEREAS the continued support of police forces for a total gun registry is a strong indication of the capacity of the current system to reduce the harm caused by guns; and

WHEREAS certain dangerous weapons are not found on the current list of illegal weapons; and

WHEREAS it is necessary to continue to effectively control the possession and use of guns;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada take the necessary steps:

1. to counter the efforts by the Conservative government to end or reduce the scope of the current gun registry that was enacted by parliament several years ago;

2. to review the classification of guns so that semi-automatic weapons be classified as an illegal weapons; and

3. to enact more severe laws to better control the possession and use of guns.

Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec)