Tory MP tells high schoolers they should carry guns

[dre]

Obviously maturity level is not a constant amongst teenagers, young adults and “old farts like me”………I can think of many people, of all ages, that shouldn’t own firearms due to a myriad of reasons, namely mental capacity. Just as those that have a mentality of fearing a piece of metal, wood and polymer, would probably be best served by being unarmed and being protected by others, clearly those fearful of a tool that can be used to take another’s life, shouldn’t be put in a situation where their irrational judgement is paramount.

But the above examples I listed of a 17 year old, are clearly instances in which the teenager has demonstrated his or her maturity, hence them being given a firearms by another.

That said, the Tory MP in the OP is being unfairly judged in my view (Granted, I’ve only seen the text quoted in the OP), in that he opined that Canadians (notice not age specific) should be armed…….If a Canadian can obtain a firearm’s licence, with all necessary prerequisites, from the RCMP and be trusted to keep said firearm at home, what is the difference if they have one in the glove box of their car or in their purse?

The police and military are trusted with firearms after taking safety courses by society, why doesn’t society trust itself? Criminals obtain and use guns illegally, why can’t the average Canadian do so, after meeting a set criteria, legally?

If you, and I don’t mean to “pick on you” dre, had a firearm in a safe in the closet at home or in your glove box, do you not trust yourself to do “the right thing”?

My guns are in a steel cabinet. And yeah, I trust myself to "do the right thing". But I dont trust school kids to carry around loaded weapons at school. It would mean more shootings and more accidents. That doesnt seem like a result to strive for.

But the above examples I listed of a 17 year old, are clearly instances in which the teenager has demonstrated his or her maturity, hence them being given a firearms by another.

I dont think we are on the same page here. You are pointing out that some children can responsibly use firearms. Thats undeniably true.

But I focused in on the idea of ALL 17 yearolds being armed. I just think thats a bad idea.

I think the laws we have now are pretty good. Its not tough to obtain and use guns in this country, and the rules seem pretty reasonable.

[stopstaaron]

Why didn't he just say all women should carry mase or pepper spray on them?

Or take self defense classes?! No, he had to go right for guns

[stopstaaron]

btw Derek, I don't like guns and I don't need someone with guns to protect me like you said

There are plenty of weapons one could use instead of a gun

[Guest Derek L]

My guns are in a steel cabinet. And yeah, I trust myself to "do the right thing". But I dont trust school kids to carry around loaded weapons at school. It would mean more shootings and more accidents. That doesnt seem like a result to strive for.

Good for you dre!!!! But that’s the chicken and egg debate we’re having………Clearly some teens can be trusted, and would have no problem meeting required prerequisites, those that can’t, can play Nintendo…..

I dont think we are on the same page here. You are pointing out that some children can responsibly use firearms. Thats undeniably true.

But I focused in on the idea of ALL 17 yearolds being armed. I just think thats a bad idea.

I think the laws we have now are pretty good. Its not tough to obtain and use guns in this country, and the rules seem pretty reasonable.

I think we’re on the same page, just different t paragraphs………….I agree, there are not only teens, but many adults that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a loaded firearm……..I don’t contest that…….But if we define a prior requirement, like the PAL/RPAL, that will preclude the turnips, those that desire and “meet the grade” should be allowed to remove the Government ordained Huggies pull-ups……..

I have no problem with licensing nor storage laws (other then the lack of precise definition in the law) but I feel there would be a place, as outlined above, for the ability of the individual to obtain an ATC…….Make even more hoops to jump through……require a month long night schooling safety course, that not only includes gun safety and the laws, but peaceful conflict resolution techniques also………But the individual should have the inherent ability to protect themselves, their families and property and not rely solely on the state.

[dre]

Good for you dre!!!! But that’s the chicken and egg debate we’re having………Clearly some teens can be trusted, and would have no problem meeting required prerequisites, those that can’t, can play Nintendo…..

I think we’re on the same page, just different t paragraphs………….I agree, there are not only teens, but many adults that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a loaded firearm……..I don’t contest that…….But if we define a prior requirement, like the PAL/RPAL, that will preclude the turnips, those that desire and “meet the grade” should be allowed to remove the Government ordained Huggies pull-ups……..

I have no problem with licensing nor storage laws (other then the lack of precise definition in the law) but I feel there would be a place, as outlined above, for the ability of the individual to obtain an ATC…….Make even more hoops to jump through……require a month long night schooling safety course, that not only includes gun safety and the laws, but peaceful conflict resolution techniques also………But the individual should have the inherent ability to protect themselves, their families and property and not rely solely on the state.

But the individual should have the inherent ability to protect themselves, their families and property and not rely solely on the state.

Yeah I cant relate to that I guess. My guns are for hunting and fun. If I lived in a place where I was so afraid that I felt I needed to carry a gun around all day, I would go and live somewhere else.

If you even GET to the point where people are afraid to go out in public without firearms, then you have some serious problems that WONT be fixed by gun ownership.

[jacee]

Good for you dre!!!! But that’s the chicken and egg debate we’re having………Clearly some teens can be trusted, and would have no problem meeting required prerequisites, those that can’t, can play Nintendo…..

I think we’re on the same page, just different t paragraphs………….I agree, there are not only teens, but many adults that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a loaded firearm……..I don’t contest that…….But if we define a prior requirement, like the PAL/RPAL, that will preclude the turnips, those that desire and “meet the grade” should be allowed to remove the Government ordained Huggies pull-ups……..

I have no problem with licensing nor storage laws (other then the lack of precise definition in the law) but I feel there would be a place, as outlined above, for the ability of the individual to obtain an ATC…….Make even more hoops to jump through……require a month long night schooling safety course, that not only includes gun safety and the laws, but peaceful conflict resolution techniques also………But the individual should have the inherent ability to protect themselves, their families and property and not rely solely on the state.

By "individual" I think you mean adult, and minors with parental permission.

An MP has no right, however, to tell minors to carry guns without having their parents' permission to do so.

It's extremely irresponsible of him.

Also, his focus on girls carrying guns to protect themselves from sexual assault is just another way of telling girls that getting sexually assaulted is their own fault ... because they didn't have a gun to shoot the guy with, presumably.

I'm not opposed to shooting rapists. It would improve the human gene pool considerably. However, I seriously question the sanity and fitness for public office of someone telling children that it's their responsibility to do so.

Of course, most of those sexually assaulting teenage girls will be teenage boys ...

Edited March 30, 2012 by jacee

[Keepitsimple]

Is that what he (Breitkreuz) really said and is that the way he said it? Is that what he meant? We only have an indirect quote from a NP journalist - likely trying to make a name for herself.

No kidding....actually what we have is the editing of the journalist from the paraphrasing of a Liberal MP who provided a letter from a mother who was told by her daughter of something she heard.

[cybercoma]

Why? What is the difference between a 17 year old in the military, shooting gophers on the farm or hunting out in the bush? Does this translate into said 17 year old going on a shooting spree at their high school if they were armed?

Stop changing the channel, Derek. The Member of Parliament was telling these students that they should be packing heat for personal protection. This isn't about "shooting gophers on the farm or hunting out in the bush."

[cybercoma]

Why didn't he just say all women should carry mase or pepper spray on them?

Or take self defense classes?! No, he had to go right for guns

Self-defense classes are the worst thing a woman can do. They give them a false sense of security. Instead of fleeing from an attacker, they may try to stay and fight.

[Wild Bill]

Stop changing the channel, Derek. The Member of Parliament was telling these students that they should be packing heat for personal protection."

Did he? I read the link and it's not clear at all. I would dearly like to see a transcript of the MP's speech.

The only definite claim was that he cited a Texas study claiming that fewer women carrying arms were raped compared to unarmed others. I would think that would be self-evident!

Once again, my Utilitarian gene wakes up! I'm looking at this issue from the point of view of what does and doesn't work. Guns don't have to be mandatory to be a deterrent. I've seen studies that show that in states where it is legal to keep a gun the burglary rate is lower, since criminals know that there is a much higher risk of being greeted with a shotgun.

In Canada it would seem the only thing a homeowner could do to avoid being charged himself would be to offer the invader a cup of tea!

I just don't see how anyone can argue that a woman who MIGHT be armed is not safer than one in an environment where NO women are armed! Telling a woman that she is better off unarmed as an attacker might wrest her gun from her and use it against her is a specious argument at best. She might also get hit by a falling meteor! "What if" scenarios are always an incredible stretch.

As for those who say a woman should never resist - I suggest you do the same! Bend over and take it! Now, how do you feel? Do you really think a bit of counseling will make it all better?

However, let's go back to the beginning. We know that the MP cited the Texas study. Did he actually suggest that ALL women should go armed? We all know that newspaper reporters would rather imply such, as a lurid claim will sell more papers! They are in the business of telling stories, after all.

Hand in hand with this practice is that of Tory critics, who absolutely would accept the implication as Gospel from on High! After all, the MP is a Tory, right? They are all evil! So he MUST have said that!

Again as a Utilitarian I could accept the anti-gun side's arguments better if they had ideas to offer that would WORK! Hell, they rarely seem in favour of increased sentences for those who molest women in the first place!

It also seems that some people have such a hysterical fear of firearms that they cannot think logically in these debates.

The idea should be to ensure that attacks against women do not succeed in the first place. Supporting after-the -attack counseling is truly uncaring towards women and a totally lame-ass approach.

I hope more of the story comes out. I strongly suspect this report has been "doctored" by those with an agenda.

[cybercoma]

If you defend yourself with a gun, you're engaging in gun violence. You might agree with that gun violence. You might even think it's a right. It's still gun violence.

[madmax]

Why? What is the difference between a 17 year old in the military, shooting gophers on the farm or hunting out in the bush?

Considering I did both .. there is a HELL OF A LOT OF DIFFERENCE being in the Military vs knocking off a groundhog. I suggest you not travel down that path.

The Pro Posters on this forum are playing possum, and the Con Posters are at the other extreme.

The MPs Brain is Unarmed and his both foolish and dangerous.

Clowns like him give Gun owners a bad rap, no actually Clowns like him give MPs a bad rap.

I don't agree with many of the arguments in this thread.

This thread isn't about Gun Safety programs.. however the statements made by the MP are not Safe Practices for anyone.

[cybercoma]

Wow, really? So every police officer in this country who carries a sidearm is guilty of gun violence?

Every officer that uses their sidearm is guilty of gun violence, of course.

[madmax]

It's extremely irresponsible of him.

Also, his focus on girls carrying guns to protect themselves from sexual assault is just another way of telling girls that getting sexually assaulted is their own fault ... because they didn't have a gun to shoot the guy with, presumably.

Of course, most of those sexually assaulting teenage girls will be teenage boys ...

the data is that the Sexually assualts on young woman is most often from a Relative or Close Friend. On top of that the vast majority of Sexual assaults are never reported, few go to any kind of court/trial system.

But you are correct... the whole things sends the wrong message.

And it puts Gun Owners on the defence to defend such stupidity.

[cybercoma]

I find this statement ridiculous, bordering on ignorant. Sidearms are used as a method of defense whether they are used or not. The very possession and carry of them is a form of defense.

The accusation that every person who carries a firearm is guilty of gun violence is absurd, and is the main reason gun owners resisted C-68. Responsible gun owners have no problem with regulation, but have a very big problem with being labeled as potential criminals, simply because they possess a gun.

The only thing that's ridiculous and ignorant is your leap in logic to criminality. Defending yourself with a gun is an act of violence. Full stop. There may be circumstances where it's justified and even legal, such as when a cop uses his/her gun. That doesn't change the fact that it's gun violence.

[Bonam]

The only thing that's ridiculous and ignorant is your leap in logic to criminality.

Actually the leap was yours. Notice your terminology:

Every officer that uses their sidearm is guilty of gun violence, of course.

The word "guilty" has a very specific meaning.

[Bonam]

Self-defense classes are the worst thing a woman can do. They give them a false sense of security. Instead of fleeing from an attacker, they may try to stay and fight.

Patronizing and ridiculous. You assume here that a woman couldn't actually be good enough at self-defense to actually defend herself successfully.

More importantly, any half-decent self-defense instructor will drill it into your head that the best way to come out of a dangerous situation unscathed is to escape that situation rather than to fight.

Have you ever taken a self-defense class of any sort?

[Tilter]

Imagine if he made those remarks in Montreal.

I don't think he speaks French so the remarks would have had little effect.

If the ladies in the assaulted school were all armed there would have been far fewer casualties.

[stopstaaron]

Self-defense classes are the worst thing a woman can do. They give them a false sense of security. Instead of fleeing from an attacker, they may try to stay and fight.

if everyone is armed the rapist would have a gun too, he'd just shoot her in the back

[Tilter]

You're using your own experiences to vouch for the arming of young people .. and people in general

that is why I called you a wacko

Maybe you don't understand what just happened in Florida.. incidents like that happen a lot in the U.S

And (so far) he & his family haven't been assaulted or killed and, as far as we know, none of them have assaulted or killed anyone.

By the way--- his own experience is the only thing he can vouch for and he has a valid argument whereas you have cited some unknown incident in Florida.

I lived in Vernon BC when a disgruntled ex husband shot & killed 11 people preparing for a wedding with, incidentally, 3 registered weapons . If there had been a gun available & someone who knew how to use it there would have been far fewer victims that day.

[stopstaaron]

And (so far) he & his family haven't been assaulted or killed and, as far as we know, none of them have assaulted or killed anyone.

By the way--- his own experience is the only thing he can vouch for and he has a valid argument whereas you have cited some unknown incident in Florida.

I lived in Vernon BC when a disgruntled ex husband shot & killed 11 people preparing for a wedding with, incidentally, 3 registered weapons . If there had been a gun available & someone who knew how to use it there would have been far fewer victims that day.

I havent been assaulted or killed either and ive never touched a gun

[Tilter]

wtf are you talking about hunting and target shooting? this is about an MP telling high schoolers they should be armed and you agreed with his views

a hunting rifle is different than a glock

and no, I haven't, I don't ever want to

Ignorance is (with an apology to anyone named Bliss) bliss.

If you know nothing about firearms and are criticizing someone who does, you are talking thru the wrong orifice.

[Tilter]

idc, you can't give your own examples of you and your family being responsible and then assuming the rest of the population is responsible enough to handle a gun let alone handle it in public

Or--- could he have been preaching that people SHOULD know more about guns?

[stopstaaron]

Tilter the last thing we need is the American gun culture here with american style gun violence

[Tilter]

Yeah. I'm sure all those gun safety courses are going to make high school kids responsible enough to carry firearms to class.

Let's say there are 1 million??? high School kids in Canada.

So far we have had what?? 20 or 30 shooting incidents in Canadian Schools, 99% of which are gang related which has nothing to do with your argument, and 1 related to an irresponsible high school student.

High school kids are, generally responsible enough to carry firearms to class if we eliminate the blighted areas of Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver.