Guns in Toronto
Dear Editor:
Mr. Miller, you have scored political points by pointing out the man who shot John O’Keefe was a legally licensed gun owner. This is disingenuous. Millions of Canadians are legally licensed gun owners (mostly long guns). Just because he was a licensed gun owner does not mean HE HAD A CONCEAL CARRY PERMIT.
Did he have a conceal carry permit? Was he charged with unsafe storage of a firearm?
Three inconvenient truth:
1) The highly-publicized mass shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Technical Institute (among others) could have been stopped much earlier had faculty who possessed conceal-carry permits been allowed to carry their weapons on the job. In the case of Virginia Tech, there were also students who held conceal-carry permits but were not allowed to bring their guns on campus at risk of dismissal or expulsion, as the case may be. The gunman could potentially have been outnumbered HUNDREDS TO ONE. Instead, he was allowed to not only go away but come back hours later and kill even more people.
2) In U.S. states where conceal-carry laws exists, violent crime is lower as is CRIME OVER ALL. See http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm (National Centre for Policy Analysis).
3) There has been a correlation between Canadians who registered their guns with the billion-dollar-boondoggle and subsequent break-ins of their homes.
Socialists like you who have succeeded in disarming Canadians have made us easy prey for criminals (who don’t tend to bother with permits or licenses). I say this as someone who, as a teenager, once faced down an armed robber with a 9mm. I’m not sure the gun was registered. I also doubt the man who pointed it at my head - and then my back - had a license to carry it. And please spare me the claptrap about wild-west shootouts in our streets. Conceal-carry holders have undergone special training, testing and screening. Permit holders are responsible, and therefore will not fire wildly and indiscriminately into the public. You are obviously confusing such people with the criminals.
Women who are conceal-carry holders can FIGHT BACK. There is no excuse for a woman (or a man) being victimized when it can be prevented. This point is particularly awkward for politicians who gush supposedly “pro-woman” policies. I’m not suggesting you want to see women being raped. But I am suggesting you DON”T want women to have the means to defend themselves from a distance.
I am sure you are aware Washington, D.C. is designated as a gun-free zone. Hell of a lot of good that’s done.
Since you are known for being so vehemently anti-police, I know you with agree with me on this point: they are useless. They are not there to protect us or prevent crime. They are there to investigate after the fact. Ask Norm Gardiner how useful a gun (and conceal carry permit) can be in protecting one’s own property, and more importantly, other people.
In closing, sir, I will boil it down to one simple point: In U.S. states where conceal carry laws exist, crime is not lower because would-be victims are shooting their assailants. Crime is lower because of deterrence. Criminals are considering whether their target is armed or not. In the words of fictional San Francisco Police Inspector Harry Callahan, punks are asking themselves “do I feel lucky?” A rapist is going to think twice about attacking a woman getting off a city bus at 2 am if he risks getting his pecker blown off for his trouble.
DAVID WEATHERBE
OSHAWA, ONTARIO
Toronto Star Article
