"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.