When a public safety measure comes too late, surely we can conclude that its time has come
Self-defence policy is the elephant on the shooting range
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
The Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) has studiously avoided engaging in the self-defence debate because the concept is widely misunderstood by anti-gun advocates.
We tend not to open the self-defence door when we are “in the room” with our elected representatives because many prefer to play, politics instead of seeking solutions. As responsible gun owners, we are stuck with that reality.
As a national organization that promotes the shooting sports, CSSA does not actively support paintball sports because it involves aiming a “firearm” at another person. We fully understand the attraction of war games and many CSSA members enjoy taking part in paintball events. But, to remain consistent with basic firearms safety best practices, the CSSA does not promote activities that promote aiming any projectile at a human being.
This philosophy belies our own “unofficial” belief that self-defence is a basic right for all free men and women. There is a perceived schism here for the CSSA, as defending oneself with a firearm could result in both pointing a gun at a human being when force becomes the only remaining option. That said, few would argue that defence of oneself and family is a primal right, the right to life itself. It is enshrined in Canada’s constitution and British common law. It is so basic that it’s accepted by all humanity, with the exception of people too vacuous to care about their own survival.
The right to self- defence has nothing to do with firearms. Firearms are merely one of many tools available to ensure a higher degree of efficiency when confronted by a pumped-up, intoxicated, testosterone-filled 25-year-old career criminal.
We are the first to admit that it’s unfortunate that the human condition evolved to the point where the option must be discussed, but changing the evolution of humanity is beyond our power or the scope of this commentary.
This discussion is now necessary, but it comes too late for too many. When a public safety measure comes too late, surely we can conclude that its time has come.
The media and the anti-firearm groups are in a lather regarding the growing debate on whether schools should provide armed guards and/or administrators for our children. We need to remind them that a short two years ago, they thought it was a brilliant idea to put Toronto police into 50 schools as a result of recommendations made from the Jordan Manners inquest. Has anyone noticed how well it has worked on passenger aircraft? Apparently, it is only a stupid idea when the anti-gun advocates don’t think of it.
The wrath of the anti-gun lobby is crashing down in the United States, and as we all know, its effects may be much in evidence on our side of the border, too. Responsible gun owners in Canada are already being unfairly demonized across the board from media talk-shows to private family gatherings. The anti’s are feeling their oats in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, and their quarry – however nonsensical – is us.
The knee-jerk nanny-statists demand the government keep them safe. In the case of firearms abuse, logic be damned. The outcry for redundant legislation has never been louder. No responsible gun owner wants to see firearms in the hands of criminals or the mentally ill, and most tolerate appropriate laws that purport to screen out those who appear destined to create havoc with guns.
Defending our children is the mandate of a responsible society and their defence must be allowed. Eradicating mass shootings cannot be achieved by writing laws that attempt to put the toothpaste back into the tube. All of the stock solutions put forward by the anti-firearms zealots have miserably failed. We have always contended that gun control is the only social policy where its total failure prompts an outcry for more of the same.
The solution we all seek to end violence against our children is outside this box.