Tag Archives: shooting

Women and Gun Control – Part 1


The Gun Control Lobby is working hard to convince the public and our MPs that gun control is a gendered issue, in particular, a women’s issue.  They’re right, but not in the way they would have us believe.

Their angle is that abusive men use firearms to intimidate, threaten and harm women.  While this is true in some cases, it still doesn’t make sense to focus on the gun rather than on the person who is wielding it.  Take away the gun and the abuser will use a knife.  Take away the knife and the abuser will use their fists.  The key is to stop the abuse, not to regulate objects that an abuser may or may not use.

This is where the long gun registry becomes a women’s issue.  By taking away money from programs that could actually help victims of abuse, gun control activists are ensuring that the abuse will continue.

Estimates vary regarding how much money will be saved by scrapping the long gun registry – most are in the neighbourhood of $3-11 million per year.  However, those estimates don’t take into consideration the hidden costs of the registry.  Things like law enforcement, court fees, and endless mountains of paperwork to name but a few.

Looking at law enforcement alone, let’s do a quick run through the numbers.  Taking the RCMP numbers at face value, the registry is accessed 3.4 million times per year.  Assuming each “hit” takes five minutes that works out to 283,333 police hours per year.  At an average work year of 2000 hours per officer that means that 141 police officers do nothing but registry checks each year. 

If that wasn’t bad enough, how about we take it a step further?  Let’s take an average salary of $70,000 per year, plus an additional $30,000 in benefits, giving us an approximate value of $100,000 per officer per year (not taking operating expenses into account).  That’s a total of $14.1 million per year spent, or 141 officers off the streets, without solving or preventing a single crime.

Even with my very low estimates, if you add those numbers up we could save $17-25 million in tax dollars per year!!!!!

Now, let’s go back to the issue of abuse:  there are approximately 10,700 beds in 569 women’s shelters, nationwide.  Those beds accommodate well over 100,000 abused women and children each year.  The money saved from scrapping the registry could fund an additional 550-830 new shelter beds across the country. [Source: Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile, 2009]

The money doesn’t have to go towards shelters though.  Imagine what $17-25 million could do in public awareness or education campaigns to teach young women how to avoid abusive relationships, or what their options are if they are in one.  Imagine what $17-25 million could do for mental health programs that help treat and prevent abusive behaviour.

Over the last fifteen years, hundred of millions of dollars have been funneled into the firearms registry.  According to the Auditor General’s Reports in 2002 and 2006, large sums of that money are still unaccounted for.  What have our tax dollars purchased?  The registry didn’t stop the Dawson College shooting.  It did nothing to save Jane Creba.  Nor did it prevent the murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta.  There has been no impact on the spousal homicide rates either.  Those have been falling steadily since the 1970s – long before the registry was ever considered.

Organizations like the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC) thrive on women as victims.  In fact, they need victims to support their cause.  They manipulate victimized women and their grieving families, convincing them that they or their loved ones would have been safe if not for the presence of those “evil” guns.  They know there are no facts to support their claims, so they parade these unfortunate people in front of the media in a blatant attempt to influence public opinion with emotion instead.

With the help of many of the organizations that make up the Gun Control Lobby, we have been trained to expect women to be abused.  We have been urged to believe that there is no way to foresee this abuse, prevent it or stop it, even though there are several identifiable risk factors.  The Gun Control Lobby ignores sources like the Department of Justice or Statistics Canada, who point out that substance abuse, particularly alcohol, makes a person six times more likely to abuse their partner.  They neglect to mention that common law couples are four times more likely to experience abuse than legally married couples.  Instead, they loudly insist that the mere presence of a gun in the home leads to intimidation and abuse.  Where are the facts backing up those claims?

For the last fifteen years, despite a complete lack of any data to support their statements, the CGC and their Gun Control Lobby cohorts have been trying to convince us that guns are the problem.  Their inability to look past the object to the person who is wielding it, has caused immeasurable harm to the women they are supposedly trying to help.   Fifteen years and billions of dollars could have made a huge difference in the lives of abused women across this country.  If that money had gone towards even one of the issues mentioned above, countless women and children could have been helped.  It’s time to stop throwing good money after bad, and direct our resources to where they are really needed.

WOMEN AND GUN CONTROL – PART 2
WOMEN AND GUN CONTROL – PART 3

“Montreal Massacre” – Twenty years later


This year marks the 20th anniversary of the “Montreal Massacre”.  On December 6, 1989 Marc Lépine/Gamil Gharbi embarked on a shooting spree at École Polytechnique in Montreal.  In twenty minutes, he shot 28 people, killing 14, before turning his gun on himself.

Tragedies of this sort are extremely rare in Canada.  Since 1975, when the first recorded shooting took place, there have been only 8 school shootings in this country. The École Polytechnique shooting claimed more lives than all of the other shootings combined.

The real tragedy though, is the way that left-wing fringe groups continue to use the events of that day for their own purposes.  While I don’t agree with them, I can understand why the founders of the Coalition for Gun Control reacted as they did in the immediate aftermath of the shooting – the CGC was co-founded by Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen, who was present at École Polytechnique the day of the shooting. 

What I can’t understand or condone is how they justify their actions now, twenty years after the fact.  Every year, militant feminist groups and gun control advocates brazenly disinter the victims, parading their ghosts before the public in a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate and shame people into supporting their cause.

The shooting at École Polytechnique was unique because the gunman specifically targetted women for the purpose of “fighting feminism”.  Much discussion has taken place over the last two decades as to what motivated Marc Lépine/Gamil Gharbi.  Some point to his upbringing with a mysoginist father, others say he suffered brain damage due to abuse, but the most commonly trumpeted response is that he was representative of wider societal violence against women.

It is this thinking that has led extremist feminist groups to hijack the anniversary of that day to shamelessly use it for their own ends.  Rather than seeking real solutions to violence in our society and the causes of domestic abuse, they instead sully the memory of those who died in order to promote their own brand of misandry.

Approximately 70 women are killed as a result of domestic violence each year. Since 1989, that’s roughly 1400 women who have lost their lives.  If these organizations claiming to be for the advancement of women’s rights were truly interested in preventing violence against women, you’d think they would be focussing on the 1400, rather than the 14.

There’s a very simple reason why these groups focus on the 14 though: it’s easier.  Concentrating on the 1400 would require them to look for real solutions to complicated and deeply rooted problems in our society.  By making a lot of noise and focussing on the gun control legislation that sprang from this tragedy, they can go to bed at night content that they’ve “done something” to prevent violence against women.  It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t work.

This year, when the Gun Control Lobby and the extremist feminist groups dishonour the victims of École Polytechnique, which they’ve already started, take a moment to remember that the women who lost their lives that day were people, not symbols.  See the organizations who debase the memory of these women for what they really are: a group of angry, scared and grieving people who would rather blame men and guns for all of their problems than tackle the real issues.

Rest in Peace

Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968)
Hélène Colgan (born 1966)
Nathalie Croteau (born 1966)
Barbara Daigneault (born 1967)
Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968)
Maud Haviernick (born 1960)
Maryse Laganière (born 1964)
Maryse Leclair (born 1966)
Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967)
Sonia Pelletier (born 1961)
Michèle Richard (born 1968)
Annie St-Arneault (born 1966)
Annie Turcotte (born 1969)
Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958)

The puzzle starts to make sense


Michael Bryant is the former attorney general of Ontario and was tipped to become the next leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.  Note, I said was.  That was before he was involved in a road rage incident last week that left a 33-year old bicycle courier dead.

Bryant is perhaps best known as the author of several controversial pieces of legislation.  He’s the King of the Ban in Ontario.  Problems with aggressive dogs?  Ban dogs.  Street racing an issue?  Ban speed.  Gang crime getting you down?  Ban legal shooting sports.

I’m not going to go into the details of any of these laws.  Instead I’ll invite you to take a wander with me through some of my random thought processes:   

  • Bans of any form are nothing more than a fear response.  Period. 
  • Projection: Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts. [emphasis added by Jayde]

What is Michael Bryant afraid of then?  Following on with the two points I made above, the pieces slowly start to come together. 

  • Bryant decided it was was best to ban aggressive dog breeds rather than punish the owners who don’t take responsibility for their pets.  Not too much of a leap to assume that Bryant doesn’t think he would be able to handle a more aggressive dog.  And since he can’t do it, nobody else could possibly do it either.
  • If you’re caught speeding excessively you immediately fall under the purview of the new street-racing laws in Ontario.  Your car is impounded and your license is suspended on the spot.   Perhaps Bryant has difficulties driving in a safe manner, and could only be stopped from driving this way by having is vehicle and license revoked.  Again, because it’s true for him, it must be true for everyone else.
  • Working to enact a gun ban to reduce gang crime is actually the easiest to peg out of these three examples.  Bryant is one of those types who think that owning a firearm automatically makes a person a killer.  He’s afraid that because he wouldn’t be able to control his temper/emotions and shouldn’t be trusted with a firearm, that nobody else should be trusted with one either.

Now let’s go back to the main story.  I’m not going to discuss the likelihood of a Liberal politician getting off scot-free in Liberal-dominated Ontario.  I’ll leave alone the probability that even after this incident Bryant will still go on to lead the Liberal Party.  I’m not going to go into why Bryant chose to hit the accelerator rather than the brakes with a person hanging off the side of his car.  I don’t know the details of what happened on that road, and I honestly don’t care.  It’s irrelevant. 

The key is this: Bryant was involved in a road rage incident that involved aggressive driving.  Once again, let’s take a look at two of his fears from above: an inability to drive in a safe manner or to control his temper.  Hmmmm.  Pattern? 

What’s my point?  Politicians are not immune to human emotion and psychoses, and projection is one of the most common human defense mechanisms.  So the next time you hear someone calling for any type of a ban, pause and ask yourself a couple of questions. Who and What are they really afraid of?  Is society at large really the problem?  Or are they?

Family law is unfair you say?


I read with interest the story of Alison Shaw in today’s issue of The Star.  After joking in an email that her marital problems could be solved with a gun, Ms Shaw was arrested, jailed overnight, forced out of her home, and ordered to stay away from her three children.

The cries of “overreaction” regarding this case can be heard for miles.  I say: it’s about bloody time.  If more women had to experience the judicial atrocities that men have been subjected to for decades, then maybe…just maybe…our horribly gender-biased family courts would finally be overhauled.

In today’s world of divorce and blended families, fathers have been reduced to ATM Status in the lives of their children.  They are villified and portrayed as unfit parents, and even as abusers and sex offenders “waiting to happen”.  They have no recourse against ex-wives who actively attempt to alienate them from their children (known as Malicious Mother Syndrome).  They often have to deal with slander and false accusations, which, even if disproved, will usually follow them for years.  While they have the option of civil court as recourse to the latter two issues, they are often emotionally and financially bankrupted by the divorce and child support proceedings, making a civil suit virtually impossible to pursue.

Going back to Ms Shaw’s case: while it is refreshing to see the shoe on the other foot for once, she still got off lightly.  She was released on bail and has since been granted 50/50 access to her children.  Had it been a man who had joked about shooting his wife, bail would have been set significantly higher.  As for 50/50 access to the children – don’t make me laugh.  He would be lucky to see them at all, let alone have any shared access rights.

Men’s rights groups have been screaming about the inequalities and bias in our family courts for years without success.  Why does it take a woman being subjected to the same laws for the courts to finally realize that something needs to change?

The militant feminist groups who preach “equality”, (but who are truly seeking “superiority”) have, unfortunately, succeeded in shaping our family court laws.  They have succeeded in emasculating men, and, as a result, society as a whole.  The venom and hatred these groups direct towards honest men under the guise of “equality” and “human rights” is disgusting.  The actions of these groups, and of women who think nothing of manipulating the courts in order to destroy their ex-husbands, make me ashamed to share their gender. 

I hope to see many, many more stories like Ms Shaw’s in the future.  Because the more women who are “victimized” by these laws, the sooner they will change.  I don’t know about you, but I have no desire to live in a world where men are nothing more than sperm donors and bank accounts.