Tory MP tells high schoolers they should carry guns

[madmax]

So what you're saying is that you still have no proof as to what was actually said. On a related note, I've received a letter from an individual claiming that you sell drugs out of a highschool cafeteria. And so far, it's just your word against the person I received the letter from. You have some explaining to do.

There is a statement... thats as good a start as any.

Did he ever address what he did say

[Signals.Cpl]

Ahh yes ... the classic Con denial.

So it's his word against the teenager's, as reported by the mother.

Given the Cons record ... my money's on the teenager and the mother for the truth.

From my previous link:

Sakisheway said she had no objection to Breitkreuz defending the government's decision on the long-gun registry, even though she disagreed with it. What most bothered her were the "what if" scenarios that, in her view promoted vigilantism. ÎÎ"It's one thing (for Breitkreuz) to say, 'I have supported the abolition of the gun registry.' If he'd left it at that, fine. But he went much further with his'what if' stories. He was talking about vigilantism." Breitkreuz should have known better than to describe violent and frightening scenarios - such as robberies and rapes - to an audience of impressionable children, Sakisheway said.

I agree. And that's my opinion and my decision as a parent. Breitkreuz, and anyone else, has a right to speak to his own kids that way, but he had no right to talk to OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS that way without their permission.

And I doubt he'll get that chance again because I expect he's now dropped from the list of approved speakers in schools, and that's a very good thing.

So you are saying if a girl is being raped and she fights back with any means at her disposal she is a vigilante?

Or if someone in a rural area defends his home and family from criminals who illegally enter his property is also a vigilante?

Im sorry but the "what if" scenarios he supposedly presented might have been taken a little out of context. I personally don't believe that we should have the same freedom with fire arms as the US has but that is my own opinion, because ultimately it is not guns that kill people but people with guns kill people. The Idea to label anyone who fights back with any sort of weapon a vigilante is ludicrous, I believe that kids should be tought weapon safety at an early age, and show them the truth about fire arms, and change the culture associated with them. Right now how many kids have seen war movies and played combat games and don't understand the gravity of using a firearm? Many don't think its a big deal to play with firearms because of the cultural impact that firearms have had on society through media.

[cybercoma]

Has anyone else noticed that when someone says, "so what you're saying is," "what you're suggesting is," "are you suggesting that," "what you're intimating is," "are you telling me," or some other introductory statement to a summary that whatever follows typically is not at all what the other person is saying?

[Shady]

Has anyone else noticed that when someone says, "so what you're saying is," "what you're suggesting is," "are you suggesting that," "what you're intimating is," "are you telling me," or some other introductory statement to a summary that whatever follows typically is not at all what the other person is saying?

We're just looking for actual proof and facts, not speculation.

[Signals.Cpl]

Has anyone else noticed that when someone says, "so what you're saying is," "what you're suggesting is," "are you suggesting that," "what you're intimating is," "are you telling me," or some other introductory statement to a summary that whatever follows typically is not at all what the other person is saying?

The way I see it, the evidence provided states that the "what if" scenarios that the minister said were promoting vigilantism and then the evidence goes to mention the "frightening" scenarios of robberies and rape as being those what ifs.

Quotes from the "source":

"What most bothered her were the "what if" scenarios that, in her view promoted vigilantism"

"Breitkreuz should have known better than to describe violent and frightening scenarios - such as robberies and rapes - to an audience of impressionable children, Sakisheway said."

[Shady]

The way I see it, the evidence provided states that the "what if" scenarios that the minister said were promoting vigilantism and then the evidence goes to mention the "frightening" scenarios of robberies and rape as being those what ifs.

Quotes from the "source":

"What most bothered her were the "what if" scenarios that, in her view promoted vigilantism"

"Breitkreuz should have known better than to describe violent and frightening scenarios - such as robberies and rapes - to an audience of impressionable children, Sakisheway said."

She sounds kind of a prude.

[g_bambino]

Given the Cons record ... my money's on the teenager and the mother for the truth.

You're guessing. That's not the same as knowing. You don't know what was actually said.

[Guest Derek L]

Let's not forget that the OP article and thread topic is about whether an MP should be telling teenage girls to carry a gun to shoot (eg) date-raping teenage boys.

What are your thoughts on an MP giving those instructions to minors without their parents' consent?

And what do you think about teenage girls packing guns, as he recommended they do?

To clarify, are you asking what my position is on a Canadian citizen’s, of any age, right to defend themselves?

[Guest Derek L]

waldo has already demonstrated ad nauseum the fact that Derek can't follow an argument. He'll just ignore things, pretend he didn't say them, and stick to his guns. Pun intended.

Speaking of ignoring things:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20617&st=150

Or would you suggest that by using aggregate statistics, one could determine the likelihood of being directly effected by such a crime? Now, with said data, could one also deduce that effecting ones own sleep pattern is not warranted?

[Guest Derek L]

I suppose a Canadian citizen can belong to the NRA?

I wonder if Mr. Breitkreuz is a member?

You bet they can!! Been a member since ‘95 and had the pleasure to meet Tom Selleck at the ‘96 Shot Show in Dallas.

[Guest Derek L]

Nope, I would do whatever I felt was necessary to protect my family, and worry about the legality of it after.

As would I. But the Crown has a tendency to allow self defence with a firearms cases, even if they know the defendant didn’t do anything morally wrong, to be drawn out, hence bankrupting many gun owners with legal fees…….The laws clearly should reflect the moral justification of defending one own self or their families.

[dre]

As would I. But the Crown has a tendency to allow self defence with a firearms cases, even if they know the defendant didn’t do anything morally wrong, to be drawn out, hence bankrupting many gun owners with legal fees…….The laws clearly should reflect the moral justification of defending one own self or their families.

They do reflect that and we have pretty wide lattitude in such cases, especially when you are on your own property. But thats not a case for more liberal use and ownership of firearms.

[Guest Derek L]

They do reflect that and we have pretty wide lattitude in such cases, especially when you are on your own property. But thats not a case for more liberal use and ownership of firearms.

Exactly, wide latitude……..We need clear definitions. The Authorization to Carry is already in place, we just need clarity on what levels a person can use a firearm for defence.

[dre]

Exactly, wide latitude……..We need clear definitions. The Authorization to Carry is already in place, we just need clarity on what levels a person can use a firearm for defence.

No the authorization to carry is not really in place. You can have a gun on you, but no rounds can be chambered, and its supposed to have a trigger lock. At least thats how I transport my guns. Makes them not super usefull for self defense unless you are guarding your own home, although you could swing it at someone like a bat...

[Guest Derek L]

No the authorization to carry is not really in place. You can have a gun on you, but no rounds can be chambered, and its supposed to have a trigger lock. At least thats how I transport my guns. Makes them not super usefull for self defense unless you are guarding your own home, although you could swing it at someone like a bat...

You're thinking the ATT (Authorization to Transport), the Authorization to Carry is a different permit.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Derek L

[Jack Weber]

You bet they can!! Been a member since ‘95 and had the pleasure to meet Tom Selleck at the ‘96 Shot Show in Dallas.

Yippee fricken skippee?????

[Guest Derek L]

Yippee fricken skippee?????

Hey, you asked.

[dlkenny]

Whacko, those are your kids, you can't make the case for everybody elses kids

wacko

So you would rather your children not know gun safety? That to me is irresponsible considering 26% of Canadian households have guns. Just because they might not come across guns in their own homes doesn't mean they will never come across them. Guns do not kill people, people kill people and ignorance breeds misinformation. Ignorance, coupled with curiosity while in the presence of firearms is a recipe for disaster and is a major reason why accidents involving firearms happen, especially when children are involved. Perhaps the minister went too far in suggesting everyone should be armed, but the idea of educating people from a young age in firearm safety can only help to save lives.

We teach our children how to safely handle knives, we teach them as teenagers how to safely handle a car, we teach them how to use power tools and how to use a great many things that can be potentially dangerous. Why is the notion of teaching firearm safety so taboo? Maybe the idea isn't so crazy.

[dlkenny]

I have no issue with allowing people to carry a gun for self defense. I had a discussion once with a police officer who was teaching a PAL course about this issue and one sticking point is the idea that the gun needs to be a person's LAST line of defense. Lethal force cannot legally be used unless there is a clear, imminent threat of lethal force. This implies that the person possessing the firearm would need to be highly trained both in the use and handling of the firearm, and other non-lethal options because obviously not every threat is that severe. The current laws do not allow lethal force as defence against sexual assault, nor do they do not allow lethal force against being robbed or physically assaulted. As a result the training requirement for carrying a concealed firearm would need to include training regarding the law, threat assessment, assertiveness training, hand to hand combat training and tactical training involving the firearm. This kind of training would permit the carrier the ability to assess the situation and react with an appropriate level of resistance.

[cybercoma]

Speaking of ignoring things:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20617&st=150

Yeah. I don't make it a habit of answering stupid questions that have nothing to do wtih the subject at hand, which is you using anecdotal evidence against the national statistics provided by stopstaaron.

[cybercoma]

So you would rather your children not know gun safety?

Stop making crap up. No one said that or even suggested it.

What they suggested is that teenagers, who are prone to thinking ever little thing is the end of the world, should not be packing heat on campus.

[The Right One]

if i had a child attending a school in a 'priority' neighbourhood, i would arm him and teach him to defend himself against the thugs.

this MP is speaking 100% truth. children starting at middle school at-least should be taught gun safety and how to properly defend themselves against predators and thugs!

[jacee]

No, just stating facts. It's a bit more solid than the classic allegation and accusation without any substantial evidence that the opposition is so fond of. I'm not sure what's worse, the unsubstantiated allegations, or the fact that the media eats this stuff up, duping poor souls like yourself.

What's worst is Cons duping themselves.

Ya sure, it's a plot by teenagers to make Cons look bad.

And look at what the kids are learning: When a Con makes a stupid mistake and shows bad judgement ... THEY LIE and try to cover up the truth.

Nice example to set for kids.

[jacee]

if i had a child attending a school in a 'priority' neighbourhood, i would arm him and teach him to defend himself against the thugs.

this MP is speaking 100% truth. children starting at middle school at-least should be taught gun safety and how to properly defend themselves against predators and thugs!

And perhaps that's your parental right, within the law, of course.

And perhaps Breitkreuz has the right to talk to PARENTS about arming their children.

However, no adult has the right to talk to other people's kids about arming themselves.

The issue isn't gun control (or lack of): The issue is violation of parental rights.

[Guest Manny]

Exactly, wide latitude……..We need clear definitions. The Authorization to Carry is already in place, we just need clarity on what levels a person can use a firearm for defence.

Like, if someone gets insulted...