| March
3, 2008 - National Post Column: A Handgun Ban Won't Work http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/2008/880.htm -----Original Message----- Mr. Gunter, I read with interest your recent article in the National Post on the subject of firearms crime statistics. And it struck me that, like every other published piece on the subject I have ever read, the legitimate users of handguns for self-defence were not listed with "sport shooters and collectors" as affected by a national ban on handguns. Can it be that the Canadian
news media are entirely unaware that there are thousands of Canadians
who require handguns for protection from bears and cougars in the bush?
I realize that the RCMP and the government are obsessively secretive about
the fact that permits for such use are issued, so secretive that even
someone like me, who has had such a permit for five years, cannot find
out what the criteria for obtaining one are. So secretive, that I have
never seen any statistics for the number of such permits issued, in which
jurisdictions, and for what purpose (the application form provides three
categories From personal experience I know that mushroom picking may be refused as a qualifying occupation, while photography is accepted. I would dearly like to know why this distinction exists. I suspect it is because mushroom pickers are many, relatively poor, and have little political clout, while photographers are few, better off, and more likely to make a fuss. Beyond that, I have never understood why those who work in the bush should be allowed the protection of a handgun, while those who recreate there are denied. I remember the "bad old days" of two decades ago, when each province had its own restricted firearms policy, and the Chief Firearms Officer of B.C. decreed that only full- time prospectors would be issued a wilderness carry permit for a centre-fire handgun, while trappers were only allowed rimfire pistols. That was insanity that also went unchallenged by our media, but at least one knew the rules. Today, the madness continues, but the bureaucrats make up the rules as and when they please, without any need to let the public know what they are. I've been trying for decades now to get an official justification for prohibiting citizens who have been screened and tested and found fit to own, handle, and transport a handgun, from carrying the same handgun for protection of themselves, their family, and their companions, in the bush. Worse, I've been unsuccessful in getting the associations that pretend to defend and promote the interests of backcountry users from joining me in demanding an answer. People are being killed in increasing numbers by bears, cougars, and now - wolves, across the country, and most of these fatalities could have been averted, had the victims been armed with a suitable handgun. On a recent trip to New Mexico, while buying some bow hunting equipment, I happened to mention that, in Canada, bowhunters are not allowed to carry a handgun for protection. The store's staff had trouble believing me. And I really couldn't offer any sensible reason for this prohibition. In fact, I feel every hunter, whether with rifle, shotgun, or bow, should be equipped with a holstered backup firearm, especially if he hunts alone. In the Fall of 1995, two experienced hunters, one a former B.C. Conservation Officer, were killed by a grizzly bear not 50 km from my home while they were field dressing an elk. They both had high- powered rifles, but no sidearms, and so the bear was able to surprise and kill both before they could employ their weapons . Had even one of them had a holstered handgun, both would have stood a good chance of surviving. When will someone in the national media, or in our Parliament, finally ask why ALL law- abiding Canadian handgun owners should not be allowed to carry their sidearms for protection in the bush? Sincerely, Achim Lohse |