National Affairs
The 'absurdity' of position is 'breathtaking'
Claire Hoy
Of all the criticisms leveled by the media and political opponents at Conservatives, the most persistent is that they want to "impose" their "narrow" views upon the unsuspecting populace.

Apparently there is nothing wrong with journalists - or Liberals, New Democrats and Blocheads - holding strong views which, given the chance, they would happily "impose" upon the public. Why? Because their views, unlike Conservatives, are correct.

Anybody who doesn't understand that is clearly not in touch with what "real" Canadians think.

This anti-conservative phenomenon is particularly pronounced when it comes to major social issues, e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage, capital punishment and gun control.

The latest example flows from the tragic shooting death of 15-yearold Jordan Manners

in a Toronto high school, resulting in the arrest and charges of murder against two 17-year-old acquaintances.

Typically, Toronto Mayor David Miller - until recently a card-carrying member of the NDP - used the occasion on the very day of the murder to attack the federal Conservative government for failing to ban all handguns.

Miller and his ilk apparently can not grasp the idea that if all it takes to stop bad behavior is legislation banning it, why do we still have bank robberies, murders, and all sorts of activities which have been declared illegal?

Could it be that the people who commit these crimes don't care about the legalities? The last thing they want is a legally registered gun to allow the police to track them down. Isn't that self-evident? The absurdity - and hypocrisy - of Miller's position is simply breathtaking.

But he's not alone.

In its' continuing zeal to pursue one side of every social issue - the side it agrees with - the Toronto Star this week published a story following up on the Manners murder by breathlessly reporting that the Conservative government's firearms advisory committee "appointed and operating in virtual secrecy, is made up almost entirely of pro-gun advocates opposed to the firearms registry."

Really? Anybody who has paid the slightest attention to the ongoing political concerns about the expensive - and virtually useless - Liberal-generated firearms registry will know that the Conservative Party (and millions of Canadians) has opposed it from the beginning.

And just as the Liberals took their advice from activists who advocated a registry, the Conservatives are seeking counsel from those who don't. Imagine that?

To The Star, however, this shows that the Tories are "out of step with urban attitude(s) on weapons," perpetuating the notion there is just one acceptable "urban attitude," and the Tories, unlike The Star, do not share it. (Oh yes, the story neatly tosses in the Manners murder and the shooting death of Toronto philanthropist Glen Davis as somehow being related to gun registries, although since we do still have both a handgun and longgun registry, one might ask how these murders actually happened if the registry idea is valid? But we digress.)

It gets worse. We are told - and obviously meant to be shocked - that not only do some of the Tory advisors actually enjoy target shooting, but one of them, Dr. Mike Achermann, a Nova Scotia physician, actually wrote a letter to the Ottawa Sun in April suggesting that if some of the students and staff at Virginia tech "had been allowed to exercise their right to self defence, then this tragedy would have been stopped in its very beginning and dozens of lives would have been saved..."

Imagine somebody holding such views. He should be shot, er, lectured to by an all-knowing, all-caring social worker. Doesn't everybody know it's better to allow mad-dog killers to run amok against defenceless students than it would be to allow some people, given proper training and security clearances, to actually be able to fire back?

Actually, the largest study ever done on gun-related issues in the U.S. - looking at every state over several years - found that the only thing which significantly cut down on violent gun crime was - you guessed it - laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons.

But even if you disagree with that, it hardly makes Dr. Achermann a threat to society who is unsuited to sit on a government panel because he holds a different view, a view more in keeping with the government which appointed him?

Consider too that a 2004 analysis by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, certainly not a pro-gun lobby, found no evidence that gun control or gun bans reduce gun crime.

There is considerable evidence, however, to show the opposite is true. Ask the British. They imposed a nearcomplete ban on civilian handgun ownership and in a decade, handgun possession by criminals has skyrocketed, and handgun crime has virtually tripled.

All of which just illustrates the real point here and that is, it's not the gun, stupid, it's the gunner.