12

Mulcair slams Harper’s comments about people who arm themselves

In Saskatchewan, Stephen Harper said that in rural areas, guns were for ‘certain level of security’


 

MONTREAL – NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has called Prime Minister Stephen Harper irresponsible for encouraging people to arm themselves if they live too far from a police station.

Mulcair was referring to comments Harper recently made in Saskatoon where he was questioned at a meeting of rural municipal leaders about the government’s priorities in dealing with firearms.

“It’s a tool that many people use in their lives, obviously in their livelihoods,” the prime minister told the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.

“My wife’s from a rural area, gun ownership wasn’t just for the farm, it was also for a certain level of security when you’re ways away from police, immediate police assistance.

“But also it’s something people use for recreation and the vast, vast majority do so safely and, as you know, in many parts of the country, (it’s) an important business.”

In Montreal on Tuesday, Mulcair accused Harper of “using the firearms dossier to divide Canadians.”

“This time it’s an attempt to divide the rural world from the world that lives in cities,” he said.

The NDP leader added he was “quite astonished” to hear the prime minister tell people to use their own weapons to protect themselves.

“Mr. Harper conducted his last campaign on the firearms registry and he’s trying to stir up passions again,” Mulcair added.

Harper made his comments while being questioned about the government’s plans after dismantling what the moderator called “the ineffective and wasteful long-gun registry.”

The prime minister went into detail defending Bill C-42, the so-called Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act currently before the House of Commons.

“We’re obviously trying to make the rules and life simpler for conscientious law-abiding gun owners which represent the vast majority of the millions of people who have firearms in this country,” Harper said.

Asked for his reaction to Harper’s remarks, Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard said Tuesday a country with an abundance of firearms in circulation is not a country in which a majority of Canadians and Quebecers want to live.

“The fewer firearms in circulation in the country, the better,” said Couillard, adding he hunts small game such as partridges.

The province is waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada to hear a Quebec government appeal to preserve data from the long-gun registry which was scrapped by the Harper government in 2012.

Quebec wants the data to support its own registry, saying it would cost too much to start a new one.

The province asked the top court to hear the case after losing at the Quebec Court of Appeal which said it had no right to the data.


 

Mulcair slams Harper’s comments about people who arm themselves

  1. Curious?

    Would this be the same Thomas Mulcair who demanded that he receive an armed guard to protect him during the day?

    Apparently, having someone with a gun protect YOU as a politician, is allowable, but allowing an ordinary person to do the same thing for himself and his family is immoral?

    • I don’t know the details of Mulcair asking for an armed guard, but I bet the requirement was for something more than “someone with a gun.” I’m guessing it was a requirement for a trained and licensed security guard or police officer.

      As opposed to Harper’s hypothetical rural resident engaging in armed self-defence. Which is literally “someone with a gun” and only legally acceptable in the most narrow of applications in Canada.

      • TJCook…..

        In case you are unaware (clearly you don’t know anything about firearms legislation in Canada)………..Every legal gun owner is trained and licensed. That is a requirement to own a firearm in Canada.

        And the “hypothetical” you discuss above, is not a hypothetical. Civilian firearms owners have repeatedly defended themselves with firearms, against both human, and non-human agressors.

        The problem is that the police don’t want people to defend themselves. That’s is why a guy who shoots an intruder during the home invasion is charged more harshly than the crimanal who broke in. that is what has to change.

        If someone breaks into your house…..you should legally be allowed to shoot them in the face. It will certainly stop the repeat performance at the next house.

        • Just the neighbours young teenager trying to pull off a break in because he thought you weren’t home but screwing it up. Oh well!

          • J.W.

            It could also be a couple of thugs who have been watching your house and decided to break in with knives and baseball bats to beat you to death if you don’t tell them where the safe is. If you happened to have your wife and three young kids home at the time…….wouldn’t you do everything you could to protect your family?

            As for the teen neighbour breaking in…….some judgement is required, however, if you do shoot the kid who broke into your home, his age and motive should have no bearing on the consequences. You were protecting your home….the kid is at fault. The homeownder shouldn’t be responsible.

            If you are worried about your kid getting shot while committing a burglary, then perhaps you should take some parenting courses to allow yourself the knowledge to inform the kid that break-and-enter is not just illegal…it is wrong.

          • Halifax
            Since you favour the death penalty for break and enter, what are your views on reinstating the real thing in the nest Harper mandate?

          • James, presumably if you have something worth stealing, you probably also have insurance. Property is not worth a life. And there’s no guarantee, if you pull out a weapon, just who it is that will end up dead. It might be you; it might be your wife, or kids.

            Risking your life over possessions? It’s a boneheaded thing to do.

          • J.W. wrote:
            “Since you favour the death penalty for break and enter, what are your views on reinstating the real thing in the nest Harper mandate?”

            Actually, J.W. I’ve always been OPPOSED to the death penalty. A person in prison is no longer a threat…just keep him there and don’t let him out. he’s not a threat….no need to give the state license to kill.

            There is no such assurity in the case of someone breaking into your house. You don’t know what their motives are, and frankly it shouldn’t be the homeowners burden to figure it out. If someone is breaking into your home, and you are there, you would be wise to consider the worst case scenario. You shouldn’t have to guess. If you “get the drop on him” and the cops are close by, give them a calll and let them sort it out. If however, you’re family is in the house and the perp looks to inflict violence……you should have every right to kill him.

            Keith wrote:
            “James, presumably if you have something worth stealing, you probably also have insurance”

            Keith, I have a lot of property worth stealing, but it is not the property I would be concerned with. The very fact someone is breaking in to your home while you are still there is reason enough to think the worst. I can replace the property, but I can’t replace the lives of my wife and children. Anyone who comes into my house without my express permission…..is leaving in a bag.

            you go on:
            ” Property is not worth a life.”
            I agree……so if you want to preserve your own life, I would recommend you not use your time trying to break into homes to acquire someone elses. They may be armed, and you may get dead.

            more:
            ” And there’s no guarantee, if you pull out a weapon, just who it is that will end up dead. It might be you; it might be your wife, or kids.”

            That’s right Keith, there are no guarantees. But if someone violent breaks into your home, don’t you think there is a better chance of your wife and kids not getting harmed if the bad guy is bleeding at your feet? I’m rather good with a firearm….been using them for years as a hobby, and as part of my previous profession. I don’t miss.

            finally:

            “Risking your life over possessions? It’s a boneheaded thing to do.

            I agree Keith, people shouldn’t break into someone else’s home to steal property. See above…as it can get you killed.

  2. The logic of the media and the NDP and the LIberals is confused.

    Stephen Harper just effectively said that urban and suburban “folks” don’t need guns, because they have the police to protect them. He was discouraging gun use and possession, not encouraging it! -).

  3. Here comes the NRA and Republican politics. Sigh.

  4. It wasn’t really fair that Joe Clark’s luggage got lost, sealling his fate as our “hapless PM” (still not sure what a hap is or why one would want one)

    It wasn’t really fair that Dion’s poor hearing meant he could not understand a question asked quickly leading to his judgement as the clueless candidate.

    And it isn’t really fair that our current PM, valiantly rallying his troups by inciting fear (troubles lapping at our shores have converged with the brownies brought in by his own TFWP and ladies in scarves and all) is often charactertured as hiding in a closet.

Sign in to comment.