Firearms Owners Association
Reflections on 06 December 1989
"If It Saves Just One Life"
Twenty-five years ago a rabid misogynist walked into a classroom at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. After separating the male and female students, he then murdered fourteen female students. Following this tragedy the Coalition for Gun Control was formed "to support strategies to reduce gun death, injury and crime."(1)
These are admirable goals for anyone or group.
The Coalition supports "licences that are periodically renewed for ALL gun owners."
The mission of the Coalition is to counter "the myth of arming for self-protection."
Simply stated, the Coalition for Gun Control does not believe that Canadians have the Right of "Armes for their Defence."(2)
More to the point, the Coalition also believes that armed self-protection is a "myth".
This is all well and good. People should be allowed to believe what they like, provided that their beliefs do not harm anyone else.
But let's examine the effects of the core beliefs of the Coalition for Gun Control.
In 2013 the Canadian police services reported 505 total homicides.(3)
Of those 505 homicides, only 131 were firearm-related.
Significantly, 374 - almost three-fourths - of those homicides were NOT "gun death".
And as Regina Police Chief Troy Hagen noted, homicides are “very hard to prevent” because police are called only afterwards.(4)
In their desire "to reduce gun death" the Coalition "supports legislation" that strips responsible citizens of the innate Right to have a firearm to protect themselves in those situations in which someone has the intent and the means to harm or kill them. Therefore the Coalition's goals are pernicious to our lives.
Is it right and proper for someone to seek an action or a result that makes us less safe in our own homes? What perverted principle of philosophy supports the Coalition's actions?
I endorse the provincial requirement to pass the hunter safety course to hunt ducks, deer, and grouse in Saskatchewan. That provincial safety course could very easily be applied to everyone taking a firearm off his or her property.
But I absolutely refuse to submit to a Government that presumes the authority to prescribe:
"the circumstances in which an individual does or does not need firearms to protect the life of that individual."(5)
The Government's overbearing claim that a federal bureaucrat has the authority to decide our fate in our homes represents the height of arrogance. As current events clearly demonstrate, armed self-defense in one's home is a necessity.(6)
My associates and I currently possess, and will continue to possess, firearms to protect ourselves, our families, and our property in our homes. We have openly declared that we do not have a licence to possess our firearms.(7)
We have a proud heritage of responsible firearms ownership. We must not let the hysterical cry of "If It Saves Just One Life!" destroy our Canadian culture - and our lives.
As you reflect on the terrible event that occurred twenty-five years ago, I encourage you not to fall prey to the Government's siren call to surrender to licencing. Resolve now to preserve the Right to own firearms for self-protection.
Edward B. Hudson DVM, MS
1. Coalition for Gun Control
2. English Declaration of Rights, 1689, Article Seven
3. Canada’s murder rate the lowest level in almost 50 years, Sun News
4. Sask’s 2013 homicide rate second-highest in Canada
5. The Firearms Act, chapter 39, Statues of Canada -1995; Section 117, p. 54
6. Thornhill woman held at knifepoint, National Post Staff, 03 December 2014
7. The Time for Sacrifice Has Arrived
Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association