By Chris McGarry

April 26, 2008

December 6, 1989 was supposed to be the rallying cry for nationwide awareness about the epidemic of violence against women in Canada. The actions of one man who possessed a legally owned Ruger Mini-14 semiautomatic carbine (an ‘assault rifle’ according to the Coalition for Gun Control) and used it to carry out the most horrific mass shooting in Canadian history led to a firestorm of anti-gun hysteria and ultimately to C-68, or the Firearms Act, the most nonsensical and invasive piece of legislation ever passed by Parliament.

All of a sudden every man who owned or aspired to own firearms was a potential Marc Lepine, capable of horrendous crimes of violence against innocent, unarmed women. Here is where the problem lies.

Some in the pro-gun camp have speculated that if all or even a few of those 14 engineering female students murdered at Ecole Polytechnique that day were carrying concealed handguns, mores lives could easily have been saved. Why then is the Coalition for Gun Control lulling millions of Canadian women into a false sense of security by discouraging them from having the best possible means of self-protection, most notably a handgun?

Sharon Gregson, a Vancouver School Trustee and Utah carry concealed permit holder came under fire two years ago when she publicly stated that Canadian women should enjoy the same rights to self-protection American women in as many as 42 states currently do. Well, Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control was appalled by Gregson’s activism, stating that “The trustee is sending out a dangerous message by advocating putting guns into the hands of more women. Carrying concealed weapons runs contrary to Canadian traditions and certainly runs contrary to Canadian law.”

Funny, rapists, psychopaths and gangbangers seem to have no problem violating “Canadian law”. Heck, ordinary citizens in this country aren’t even allowed to carry pepper spray, batons or stun guns for self-defense.

I’m bothered every time I hear males but especially females state that society would be safer if only the police and military were allowed to have guns. One woman naively told me: “Nobody needs firearms for self-defense because it’s wrong to take the law into your own hands and the police will be there to protect you.” Truth is, in almost 100 percent of cases, the police arrive after the crime has been committed.

To radical feminists, firearms represent a symbol of male authority and independence, something they’re been battling against since the women’s movement began in the 1960s. Unfortunately, many men of my generation who were often raised in urban centers by single parents never had the opportunity to experience what was only a few decades ago a rite of passage for boys (or even girls) such as going on a hunting or fishing trip with their father or uncle.

Males are traditionally the providers and protectors of their families. Much of the anti-gun rhetoric coming from feminist groups and the media is telling women that if their husband or boyfriend keeps his legally owned firearms in their house, he’s a potential danger to them and their children.

Imagine the outcry, human rights complaints and possibly lawsuits someone could face if they publicly stated that all members of a particular ethnic group were all potential murderers? So why then are gun owners, whether female or male, made the scapegoat for much of the crime and social upheaval in Canada and not protected from discrimination?

The bottom line is, violence against women is an ongoing problem in this country but women don’t have to be helpless victims. If feminists truly cared about the welfare of all women, they’d be lobbying for better self-defense laws, not draconian legislation that ensures potential victims will always be defenseless and weak.