12.06.2011 09:27 AM

Fourteen reasons

…we need gun safety laws in this country:

  • Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student
  • Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
  • Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
  • Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
  • Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student
  • Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student
  • Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique’s finance department
  • Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student
  • Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
  • Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student
  • Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student
  • Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
  • Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student
  • Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student

 

74 Comments

  1. Marc L says:

    What would gun safety laws have done to prevent that. Absolutely nothing. That said, I’m all for tougher gun control laws. I don’t see why “recreational” gun use should even be legal.

    • HarryR says:

      Really, Marc? Which other recreational activities involving projectiles would you outlaw – archery, darts, golf, snow-balls…………..? Can you see your reflection in your jack-boots?
      No! Guns didn’t kill those women. Misogyny killed those women. Guns, knives, base-ball bats……just tools.

      • Michael Radan says:

        A question to those of you who believe that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”:

        Could those women have been strangled one afternoon on the campus of Ecole Polytechnnique?

        • Cameron says:

          Willy Pickton killed many women without a single shot fired.

          What would the gun registry have done to stop the Polytechnique killings?

          Nothing.

          • Cameron Prymak says:

            You’re conflating the botched investigation of a serial killer with gun control?

          • Attack! says:

            actually, the LGR — specifically, the fact that a witness reported seeing a gun a Pickton’s place, which an enterprising RCMP determined wasn’t registered to him as the pretext for the warrant (to see how many unregistered weapons he had) — is what gave them the first search warrant for the first hard evidence (a scarf or something) to crack that Pickton case. And I think there was a victim’s DNA evidence ON that rifle, too, because he used it to threaten & abuse them while holding them captive before killing them. So, piss off w. the ‘there are other ways of murdering so leave this one alone’ tripe.

        • Kevin says:

          Would it undermine your case if he hurled a bomb into the classroom and killed them all?

      • Marc L says:

        Did you read the first two sentences?
        About other recreational projectiles: guns have only one purpose: to kill. That’s what they are made for. I think that sort of differentiates them from golf balls etc. I also think that should make them subject to a very high level of scrutiny and control (but not the gun registry, which is a waste of money).

    • Ted says:

      We need to foster a culture of gun safety and control.

      Harper is actively undermining that.

      And not just by getting rid of the gun registry. He is also unwinding a lot of other gun control laws he would never have mentioned in public during an election, like not tracking sales of guns at all.

      It is deregulation by stealth.

  2. Al in Cranbrook says:

    And all the laws that can be dreamed up, not to mention registration, would have stopped this whacko how??? In fact, we had lots of laws in place at the time.

    And we had gun registration in place during all those similar incidents since.

    No doubt someone will ask why doesn’t Canada just eliminate civilian ownership of firearms, and leave guns to the military and police?

    Answer: Because Canada isn’t some kind of jerkwater despotic tyranny in which government covers its corrupt ass by disarming its population to keep them helpless.

    One of those things that differentiates a truly free and democratic country from the likes of those, eh?

    History has taught, and continues to teach, us all this lesson over and over and over.

    • Man in the North says:

      “And we had gun registration in place during all those similar incidents since.”

      What a truly stupid response. Obviously all the gun-related incidents that happened while the gun registry was in effect happened while the gun registry was in effect. Duh.
      Are you implying that the gun registry had no effect on reducing deaths by guns? This can never be known for certain but ask your local police chief what he or she thinks.

      • HarryR says:

        I wish I could share Al in Cranbrook’s vision, but I believe that Canada is rapidly degenerating into a politically correct, “papers, please’, police-state. So, to answer your question, MITN, what jackbooted commissar WOULDN’T want to see his serfs disarmed? I have a multi-tooled, Swiss Army pocket knife which I carry for practical purposes but which, if I were to be even innocently involved in some altercation would be regarded by the “authorities” as an offensive weapon for which I could be charged. Ridiculous but fact. Mark my words, “they” will eventually come for our pitch-forks and shovels!

    • Ted H says:

      The idea that the ability to readily obtain firearms is somehow a yardstick to measure “freedom” is to say the least immature and is likely a contributing factor to the actions of the “whackos” that commit these mass shooting incidents.

      We don’t live in the frontier anymore, grow up. We don’t need guns to get food, we don’t face bandits on the road on the ride home from work, and despite the whiff of Fascism the current Conservative government exudes at times, even they probably wouldn’t see a relatively unarmed populace as an opportunity to impose totalitarian rule.

      • Pat says:

        I would note that some farmers need access to weapons in order to protect their products (crops and livestock), and many people in the north need access to a weapon for protective purposes… but the “I should have a gun cuz I want a gun and if I can’t have one I’m being oppressed” group is ridiculous

        • Justin says:

          Yeah and these are the same people who would agree with terror laws being tightened in order to protect us ‘from the A-rabs and towelheads’ you know liberty loving people.

    • Pat says:

      “by disarming its population to keep them helpless.”

      Really? You think that a small percentage of the population owning bird guns keeps the government accountable? Holy shit.

      • smelter rat says:

        No kidding . the average podunk police force in Canada is already better armed than our army was during WW2. That ship has already sailed.

        • Pat says:

          I was commenting more on the lack of faith in our democratic institutions, and the suggestion that Canada is – like the USA – built on the theory that an armed revolution SHOULD happen if government gets out of hand… but your point is good too…

  3. Al in Cranbrook says:

    The next proof I see that the registry prevented anything will be the first.

    Every RCMP member I’ve talked to thinks the gun registry is a joke….but they don’t say anything because, as one told me, who wants to get transferrerd to Inuvik.

    Statistically, and this has been the case for decades since handguns have been registered, only 4% on average of firearms involved in crime are registered.

    The same truth holds up in Australia, BTW.

    Proof, if you want it, that registration solves nothing. Criminals don’t register their guns, or use registered guns. Even they aren’t that stupid.

    • Man in the North says:

      Yeah, it’s not worth it for the 4%. We can tell those victims to just go suck eggs.

    • Attack! says:

      What a bunch of crap. First, the lowly constables in the police & RCMP forces aren’t always the sharpest tools in the shed, particularly those assigned to smaller communities like Cranbrook & who’d befriend a redneck like you enough to mutter about guncontrol, so: who cares what they say?

      Second, you’re just pulling that “only 4% on average of firearms involved in crime are registered” figure out of your ass.

      There’s only ONE type of crime in Canada for which the registered status of a firearm suspected as being involved is systematically collected and released: Homicide.

      So the % of reg’d guns used in attempted homicides, robberies, pointing at, discharging with intent, even Firearms Act offenses like safe storage…. who know? Certainly not Mike from Canmore, here.

      And we’ve only had the requirement for ALL types of firearms in Canada to be registered in effect since Jan. 1, 2003 (tho’ an awful lot of you law-abiding types didn’t make that deadline; it plateaued by about summer ’03): before that implementation of the LGR b/w 2001 and 2003, the long guns — you know, the 90% of the actual guns in this country — weren’t registered at all, so if that mythical 4% you’re citing is just 4% of the homicide guns being registered handguns: big deal.

      So, what were the stats for that ONE type of gun crime we actually HAVE reliable stats on in Canada for their registered status for the period covering where there’s actually a fighting chance of covering most of the actual guns in the country?

      Well, as it happens, your boy Mauser (likely via the public dime thru a Breitkreuz’s Parliamentary Library request, as usual) got another one of their special data requests of the Homicide Survey from StatsCan, and even though he does one of his usual sleight of hand ‘analyses’ of it, the facts are:

      Although most of the guns either couldn’t be recovered, or conclusively ID’d as the murder weapon, or didn’t have an intact serial number, in the year the stats were compiled,

      114 of the 1,314 guns the police identified as the homicide weapons between 2003 and 2009 inclusive WERE registered.

      http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Scrapping+registry+harm+criminal+investigations/5724414/story.html

      So that’s 8.7% (not 4), that were registered, just for that one type of gun crime, homicides, EVEN THOUGH over 2/3rds of the guns either weren’t recovered or couldn’t be traced.

      And, again, I betcha it’d be MANY times that for the lesser crimes like ‘discharge with intent’ (shooting at but missing), or aggravated assault, etc., where they simply don’t bother to track that.

      And even though Mauser tries to make hay out of the fact that 52 of those 114 homicide guns from 2003-9 were registered to someone other than the accused, as though these should therefore be considered irrelevant, he’s conveniently silent about who that someone is.

      But when they did this previously, they at least showed that sometimes it belonged to the victims (e.g., 4 of the 23 registered homicide guns in 2005 (17%) were reg’d under the victim’s name).

      http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006_new/106.pdf

      So the homicide guns might be registered to someone else in the house, like a parent or spouse, e.g. Or they might have been borrowed from a buddy, which, far from being irrelevant to the utility of the registry, would show it can wind up implicating accessories to murders.

      The way some of you twist these statistics to help owners avoid accountability for their weapons makes me sick.

      • Cameron Prymak says:

        Plus, isn’t it true that long guns represent the single largest weapon used in cases of domestic violence that end in death by shootings? I saw the statistic recently but would have to dig it out.

        • Attack! says:

          Usually it’s for women spousal (including ex’s & commonlaw) homicide victims that points made; I’ve got the #’s & rates by type for 1995-2008:

          There were 243 women killed by means of firearms by (ex)partners over that 14 years (ave 17/yr); and of those:

          1 (0.4%) by a Fully automatic firearm; 26 (10.7%) by Sawed-off rifle/shotguns; 66 (27.2%) by Handguns; & 150 (61.7%) by (intact) Rifle – includes shotgun / long guns; for a total of 72.4% of those guns being some form of rifle or shotgun (whether long or sawn-off), not incl. that fully auto.

          (and, fine, before the whackos ask, an almost equal number – 237 – were killed by knives over that same interval, and 154 were beaten with hands/ft etc, & 77
          were clubbed to death, & 42 strangled with something, & misc other methods, for a total of 844, or 60/yr…

          … so the LG & sawn-off methods have ‘only’ been about 1/5th (20.9%) of all the wife-killings over that period.

          But there were an ave. of 15 of them in the initial years after C68 was first passed (1995-2000) & before the LGR was being developed in 2001-3; and only an ave. of 10/yr for the years after the LGR was in the can (2004-8), without a concomitant increase in other methods (the ave totals for same periods went down from 61 to 55), so:

          it’s really not such a stretch to say 5 lives have been saved per year just for female domestic homicides alone.

          Which is about to be reversed thanks to Garry Breitkreuz, Candice Hoeppner, Vic Toews, & of course our the ‘avuncular’ Steve & the rest of the CPC caucus.

    • Carolyn says:

      TORONTO, Sept. 15 /CNW/ – At a press conference held today in Toronto of victims and survivors of gun violence, Heather Imming stated, “the firearms registry saved my life.” The registry was used to remove guns from her violent, estranged husband. She survived a final beating that left her savagely battered but firmly believes that the fact that the registry was used to remove his guns “is why I am here today.”
      Imming was one of several survivors of gun violence who spoke in support of the Canadian Association of Police Board’s Day of Action to save the gun registry.

      Al. There was a 41% reduction in homicides from long guns from 1995 to 2010 as a result of the registry. Mostly domestic violence. This is a serious issue and lives will be lost, mostly women’s lives. I’ve not heard that any police or RCMP think it’s useless. In fact they are the ones shouting the loudest to keep the records! Gun lobbyists targeted rural Canadians with misinformation to support their own interests.

    • Ted says:

      Soooo don’t get it.

      Prove to me how many lives have fingerprinting saved? Can’t? So let’s get rid of fingerprinting then.

      As the police from across the country have shown over and over and over again, the registry has many uses, including the ability to track the history of the gun back to an owner and then a store it was bought from. Can’t do that now.

      It also alerts them to the possibility of a gun in the case of a suicide, domestic violence or other volatile situations.

      By tightening overall control of guns, you reduce the number of guns that become more easily available on the street. You also make it easier to find where the unregistered guns are coming from.

      It’s why cops like it and want it.

      But what Harper is doing is worse. Not only is he getting rid of the gun registry, but he is getting rid of a lot of the gun tracing requirements that were in place before the registry.

      • JenS says:

        Gotta say, if I’m looking for insight into whether we need a long gun registry, I’m going to go with what Chiefs of Police say a damn sight before I’m going to go with what Al in Cranbrook has to say.

        • Philip says:

          But…..but…… Al from Cranbrook has talked to RCMP constables!!!!!! Literally had undocumented conversations with constables (plural). What Al from Cranbrook doesn’t know about the gun registry now, isn’t worth knowing. Unlike your fat cat elitist latte sipping bike riding police chiefs.

          I’ll see myself out.

      • Matt says:

        “Prove to me how many lives have fingerprinting saved? Can’t? So let’s get rid of fingerprinting then.”

        We all have fingerprints. We don’t have to register them. The minute the state requires me to submit to fingerprinting without due process of law is the minute that a revolution should start.

        • Attack! says:

          Even if your strong, stable, victim- & lawnorder loving majority Conservative government passed it?

          And hasn’t the CPC’s bff Israel passed such a law — the Biometric Database Law — that they’ve been phasing in (from voluntary to mandatory) over the past couple years?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_Database_Law_%28Israel%29

          Holy Cognitive Dissonance, Conmen!

          But, again, if you’re willing to engage in armed rebellion just to oppose a measure designed to make you more accountable for, er, your arms — that’s a demonstration of WHY laws like the long gun registry are needed to keep whack jobs like you on the police’s radar.

          • Justin says:

            Yeah but we all know the only time a gun loving CON supporter talks about an armed rebellion is when a Liberal is in office. My god you should read the SUN’s comment board, the “oppression” here in Ontario, its like living in the Soviet Union 😉

          • The Doctor says:

            Actually Justin, there are also a lot of gun-loving NDP and Liberal supporters. That’s part of the reason the long-gun registry vote was such a painful experience for those parties, and why the CPC was able to steal votes from the Dippers and Liberals over that issue. It’s not an issue that neatly conforms to party affiliation; it’s much more of an urban-rural divide issue.

        • JenS says:

          The next time you hear of someone killing someone with their fingerprints, make sure you post a link to the story, Matt.

          It was perhaps not the best comparison, but if you look at criminal records checks in Ontario, required for most jobs and volunteer positions working with vulnerable sectors like children, an awful lot of people are having to take the additional step of being fingerprinted. Police have said it’s to ensure no mistaken identity, in cases where one shares a name or gender and birthdate with someone who does have a record. No fingerprints, no passing the criminal records check. It’s an additional, albeit time-consuming, safeguard. I think that’s the sort of thing Ted might have been getting at.

  4. William says:

    Would have been the perfect day to let Quebec have the registry data.

    I remember that day vividly here in Montreal.

  5. MCBellecourt says:

    A wise person once said a picture is worth a thousand words. Would a vid be worth a million?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vtp9N-XPig&feature=youtu.be

  6. steve says:

    Bottom line, more guns in circulation means more guns on the street, this is a nose in the camels tent similar to medical pot.

  7. MCBellecourt says:

    The so-called ‘tough on crime’ omnibus bill goes to the Senate today. Hopefully, it will actually get a good going-over rather than just getting the rubber stamp.

    Otherwise, not only will we see a lot of our youth get locked up, for longer than some paedophiles, for smoking pot, we will also have to be careful what we say online.

    Speaking out against things like killing the long-gun registry might become a bit risky, and there are 1500 paid staffers in the PMO. Internet freedom is under attack as we chat here.

    BTW., speaking of those staffers, I seem to recall that they got a 50% raise during the election campaign. Could someone here help me find a link to the story so I can remind people of that? It’s proving to be a little elusive, and my computer skills aren’t the greatest.

  8. GPAlta says:

    For everyone who says that the registry is not required because licensing alone is so “strict,” this is a day to remember that the murderer had an FAC, and the gun was obtained legally, and if the registry had existed, he probably would have registered it too.

    What this teaches us is nothing at all about the registry, but rather that the licensing process was inadequate then, and is probably inadequate now. Would making a firearm impossible to obtain legally by a mentally unstable person with no legitimate use for it have saved them? Maybe, but maybe not, he might have been motivated enough to find an illegal weapon (which is much easier to do under Harper’s new law than it was in 1989 by the way).

    If he was intent on finding and using a firearm at that point in his life, there may not be much that we could have done to stop it.

    And if that is the case, the only thing that could ever have saved these innocents would have been some intervention in the life of the murderer that might have directed him into effective mental health care.

    There were probably many opportunities throughout his life to recognize red flags, and all kinds of people who are paid through our taxes– including doctors (including a psychiatrist), school teachers, the Canadian Forces, his employers in the healthcare system, and his mother (a nurse)– who had many opportunities to recognize those red flags and intervene for many years prior to the shooting.

    A well funded system that would support early childhood development, protect children from abuse, and respond effectively to the mental health needs of Canadians, especially children could have prevented this, just like it also could prevent homelessness, not to mention domestic violence and most other types of crime.

    But with all of that said, lax firearms regulations made it easy for him to do, and if we are not going to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like this one, I for one would at least prefer it if actions like this were as hard as we can possibly make them to carry out.

    • Attack! says:

      Well, it’s not clear that licensing screening process is the problem: people can be stable enough at the time of the initial licensing not to warrant denying them one, but develop mental health issues (whether due to schizophrenia, e.g., or to the loss of a job or relationship) & crack up later.

      The thing is, the LGR can’t work in isolation, but was somehow expected to.

      Sure, they tried to do continuous monitoring of people’s criminal records & new purchases, to decide whether to revoke it or pay them a visit…

      But the Firearms Program should’ve been granted a continuous (not just occasional) budget to do Public Service Announcements like the gov’t spots on recognizing drug or alcohol abuse in loved ones, to get people to REPORT their concerns about someone that might be going off the deep end who has an unhealthy hatred about someone like a boss or estranged partner or “feminists,” and who has access to and an unhealthy fascination with guns.

      Then the police can look up their existing guns & recent acquisitions in the arsenal, maybe pay them a visit, & seize the guns, & do a mental health referral.

      That could’ve stopped the Dawson Creek killing, 5 years ago, and the death of that OPP Officer last year (in the latter case, the shooter was separated from his wife; had recently learned of her affair, was very upset by it, & she was staying at a shelter. And everyone knew he was a crack shot. Flags, anyone?

      “According to relatives, he and his wife Barbara had been experiencing marital problems, however, and Preston had been upset recently over learning of her extramarital relationships.”
      http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/777593

      “Various family sources later confirmed Preston and his estranged wife had argued two days earlier. Barb Preston had confirmed she was at women’s shelter in North Bay at the time of the shooting.

      Preston’s brother, Alex, had said Fred Preston went to his sister-in-law’s home on North Line in Huron early Monday, but no one was home. He said Preston broke in, then called one of his daughters and said something that caused her to contact police, which led to the confrontation a short while later.

      Fred Preston, police sources said at the time, was returning north and had threatened to kill his wife and possibly others.”
      http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/08/05/14936751.html

  9. TheSilentObserver says:

    Such a dark day for Canada. I was not yet born, I have no idea how it would have affected me, but it’s impossible not to mourn for all affected. I think it’s a damn shame that it seems most other people in Canada have to politicize the event somehow. Would a long gun registry have prevented Polytechnique? Would its repeal cause another? Was a school shooting embematic of domestic violence? Must men be responsible for solving the problem of violence against women? Are men as a type to blame for Polytechnique? Is domestic violence a one way street? Some of these questions are no brainers, some are near unanswerable. Regardless, my one wish would be for people just to recognize the immense tragedy and loss, never forget, and leave the politics for a more appropriate occasion

  10. AmandaM says:

    I wouldn’t mind cars having those breathalyzers that the car won’t start if the driver blows over.

    • Raymond says:

      Why not. Just what a ‘free’ society needs: even more laws in the name of public safety.

      How about refrigerators that automatically lock out fat people? Surely obesity kills as many people as drunk driving and guns do.

  11. Ted says:

    Ah, but we have strong drunk driving laws and it did nothing to stop an accident I read about last week. So the only conclusion to draw from that is that drunk driving laws are useless and we should just get rid of them.

  12. Attack! says:

    Not so funny you should mention that – a certain MP of your persuasion is against DUI laws, too…

    http://www.petergoldring.com/media_/community-articles/an-uneasy-balance

    … for ‘methinks the lady doth protest too much’ reasons, as it tuns out:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/edmonton-mp-quits-tory-caucus-to-face-drunk-driving-charge/article2260596/

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/05/edmonton-conservative-mp-peter-goldring-resigns-from-caucus-after-impaired-driving-charge/

    So, yes, maybe we should have more MV safety laws & procedures — and fewer CPC MPs — to reduce drunk driving.

  13. MCBellecourt says:

    We all need to be responsible where violent crime is concerned, be it against men or women, of all races. We have to be more aware of what each party stands for at voting time, especially.

    It’s too easy to dismiss all politicians as being the same, but when you take a closer look, they’re really not. Stephen Harper just wants you to think they are, so that you (especially young folks) would feel that it isn’t worth voting.

    And that is because, when clear-thinking, inquiring-minded, good-hearted young people like yourself become politically aware and urge your friends to go to the polls, it robs corrupt politicians like Stephen Harper and his cabal of absolute power. A high voter turnout tells people like Harper, Flaherty, Clement, Toews, Oda, and that nasty old hag Finlay that they CAN’T do what they want.

    Right now, they’re running roughshod over Canada because, with the low voter turnouts, ***we gave them de facto permission to do so.***

    TSO, I like your post because you put your questions out there. They are very valid and very important. I wish all the young folk in my much-too-Conservative riding did the same thing. Keep asking those questions and sort out what is right and what is wrong with your friends. Don’t let corrupt politicians like Harper and his cabel turn you off of being aware. Keep asking. Keep reading all news sources, not just the mainstream media. Look to other news sources out-of-country, like the BBC and Al-Jazeera English. Stay aware and stay strong.

    And let’s all work on getting the vote out in 2015. Also, we might have to take an active role in making sure the next election is run cleanly and above board–we live in rather interesting times. If we can fend off the cancerous ignorance spread about by those who would vote against their own best interests, we can win the fight to keep Canada the best country in the world.

    All the best to you and your family and friends.

    • TheSilentObserver says:

      This is the most encouraging thing I have ever read on WK’s site. I wish all older adults could be as intelligent and tolerant as yourself. The only other time I brought up my relative youth on this blog, I got trolled by some prick who posts under the name of Lance. People of my generation can be woefully disengaged, but when credit is paid where credit is due, they due tend to respond in force. For the record, I felt that some of my questions are manufactured consent playing off anti-male bigotry, but not even those discussions are being held right now

      • MCBellecourt says:

        I do what I can to encourage youth to do the things I listed above because I do care. I guess being a grandparent has a lot to do with it…I witness the daily struggles fought by my daughter and her wonderful husband and they are truly courageous people–my grandson is a very lucky little fella.

        We’re out here. Don’t ever forget that. Sometimes our voices get drowned out by the ignorant, but not always.

        I’m glad I was able to help someone today. Keep on keepin’ on, matey!

        • MCBellecourt says:

          Oh, and one more thing. When people like this Lance guy do shit like that, call them out on it. If you’re asking a valid question and they respond with venom and vitriol, it means that they cannot justify what they are saying and they resort to schoolyard bully tactics to put you off.

          Remember, there are 1500 people hired by the Prime Ministers’ Office that are there to do just that–it is part of the Con strategy to put folks like you and me off politics.

          It pisses me off to know that they got huge raises during the election campaign. When’s the last time you or I got a 50% raise?

          And our tax dollars pay for this bullshit.

          Channel that anger and hit them with facts. The more they try to obfuscate and neme call, the worse they look. Use their own idiocy against them, and don’t let up. See it for what it is, and research, research, research. Facts are your best weapon, research is the ammo. When you have a wealth of the two, you can be unstoppable.

          Woot!!

  14. mrburnsns says:

    I would like to think that the legacy of that day is that that male students and professors faced with a similar situation in the present day would fight to the death rather than leave those singled out to their fate. The willingness of others to intervene in overwhelming numbers to help their friends is what whackjobs like Lepine fear more than any law/minor hindrance to gun ownership.

    Do I think the culture in engineering has changed that much since 1989? Happily, yes. I see evidence every day in my classes that it has – from in-class behavior to study groups to social circles it is clear that females in engineering are now treated as equals by their male colleagues.

    • TheSilentObserver says:

      You cannot shame humans for being humans. It’s easy to fight against injustice when individuals are in a controlled environment, but I doubt few would be willing to die at the hands of a mad gunman on a moment’s notice for an ideal, however commonsensical and noble it may be

  15. Cameron Prymak says:

    Once again your counter argument is to change the channel.

    Your hero, Newt Gingrich, would have said it less kindly, ‘the fundamental points of your argument are stupid’, or something to that effect.

    And yes, if we quintupled the penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders, I’d say we’d have made a good start.

  16. Woody says:

    ‘Answer: Because Canada isn’t some kind of jerkwater despotic tyranny in which government covers its corrupt ass by disarming its population to keep them helpless.”

    So, you want people to be able to own rifle to protect themselves from the government? Closer to Cranbrook, I guess you would argue for the good people of Mayerthorpe, Taber, and Breton to have every right to fight “jerkwater despotic tyranny”? Apart from giving us a good idea for a new band name, your delusions are sad.

  17. Steve T says:

    I didn’t mind the long-gun registry when it was active (other than the huge waste of money in the initial setup), but it is naive to think that it would have stopped Ecole Polytechnic from happening. Criminals will find a way to get guns to commit crimes, period. Hundreds of handgun crimes are committed in Canada every day, and handguns are very highly regulated and registered.

    The real benefit of the registry, as far as I could see, was the ability of police to identify homes in which there were guns, in case the home was broken into. It had nothing to do with stopping crimes like Ecole P.

  18. Al in Cranbroook says:

    I once worked with a man who was a youth in Nazi Germany during the war, forced into the Hitler youth, and was in Dresden the night it was bombed to ashes. Watched them pile bodies in the street, pour gas on them and light it to stop the spread of disease. Watched Soviet soldiers try to rape his sister, and ended up on the Russian side of the border after it was all over. His family lived in western Germany before the war, so they were turned over to the Americans, whereupon they were finally fed, clothed and give medical attention. He knew what “freedom” was all about.

    Worked with another man who, at the age of 18, fled Hungary ahead of the Soviet invasion, spent 6 months in an Austrian refugee camp, and finally came to Canada. He recalled coming to Penticton on a train, unable to speak a word of English. All he remembered from his first three days there was walking across the street to Kings Park and watching a baseball game, with people coming and going, having fun, and not a policeman or soldier in sight. He remembers nothing else of the three days, so great was the culture shock. In his home land, a friend made his own rifle and kept it hidden for the day when the “authorities” might come for him…even though he knew that to own a firearm of any kind meant certain death in front of a firing squad. He knew what “freedom” was all about.

    Worked with yet another man who also grew up in Austria, and remembered well when Nazi Germany marched in and took over. He remembered, as a youth, being shot at by Nazi soldiers. He knew what “freedom” was all about.

    I remember from my own youth a conversation with an old couple, friends of my Dad, who fled Russia with the clothes on their backs ahead of the communist revolution. They knew what “freedom” was all about.

    Some of the comments here make me literally sick. Too many Canadians have no GD idea of their own history, world history, nor where they come from. And take for granted so, so much about their own “freedom”.

    Those who fought for that freedom would be rolling in their graves to read the tripe about “freedom” so glibly muttered this day.

    • Ted H says:

      A red herring dragged across the real issue and total BS. The freedom you talk about and that we all appreciate has nothing to do with a bunch of red necks wanting to buy any kind of gun they want whenever they want and keeping the fact secret from the government.

    • Jason King says:

      Al, you’re just a box of anecdotes and assumptions aren’t you? Too bad you’re often short on facts and never provide any proof.

      I once worked with a man too… Geez. I know what freedom is and I don’t need someone lecturing me with stories of people he talked to while failing to make a point.

      Are you sure you actually know what freedom is? Or do you have to go and talk to someone about it?

    • Austin So says:

      You mean like implementing internet policing? You mean like putting everyone in jail for any crime? You mean purposefully passing on bullshit to people in an MP’s riding just because? You mean like abusing privilege to get helicopter joyrides and to spend other peoples’ money to build useless gazebos for your friends and neighbors?

      Yeah…freedom does become glib when people blindly put up with shit for as long as the ruling party is “their team”. The question is whether they will continue to consider you a part of the “team” when they no longer need your sycophancy.

  19. MonicaTM says:

    Right on!

  20. Village Idiot says:

    I agree with the entire Liberal platform except for it’s anti-gun stance. Honestly, there are bigger fish to fry than to ridicule the “gun nuts”. I’ve canvassed for Liberal candidates in rural ridings and it would have been a lot easier to get people to vote Liberal if it weren’t for the gun registry issue.

    Marc Lepine is not representative of law-abiding gun owners anymore than he is representative of men’s attitude towards women. Maybe he just needed a sieve to talk things through with someone, or maybe no amount of reasoning would have stopped this demented sociopath. He belonged in a mental hospital.

    I’m not sure what could have been done to stop him from doing what he did. All out bans on guns? Should only the police and military have them? I’m a Liberal, and I dislike the concept of ceding power to authoritarians. I’ve had the displeasure of being arrested in a case of mistaken identity, I can understand the point of view that civil libertarians and anti-government skeptics have.

  21. Wally says:

    If Lemire/Gharbi was unable to get a gun, he probably would have done it with an ax, sword, machete. It’s not the “arrow”, it’s the crazy “indian”.

  22. Kavius says:

    We don’t need “gun safety laws”, we need “effective and useful gun safety laws”.

    I don’t think there is any argument that gun safety laws should be in place, I think the argument revolves around whether a given set of laws serves any useful purpose. Let’s not forget that there was a licensing process in place at the time Lapine went on his rampage.

    For the record, I prefer the pre-Long Gun Registry laws, they were just as effective (maybe even more effective) at preventing dangerous people from receiving firearms.

  23. MCBellecourt says:

    You and I must have posted at the same time. Pretty revolting stuff, eh?

  24. MCBellecourt says:

    …or, then again, with my lousy eyesight, I might have missed it on first reading… :/

    We really need to get these videos out everywhere, and I mean everywhere. And, I think we really need to put personal feelings aside for now and get behind Bob Rae’s efforts 110%. We Liberals cannot afford to allow the past to cloud our thinking about the future.

    We need both the experience of the old hands AND the fresh new faces we hope to attract to the Party. It will do no good whatsoever to bring up old grievances while trying to rebuild. It’s time for some dialogue and some compromise. It’s time to put aside the petty stuff and look at needs to be done to save our Canadian ideals as a united front against the foul stench of the Harper Party.

    What say you, Mr. K?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*