Monday, August 06, 2007

Nanny U. knows best

Lorrie Goldstein picks up on the arbitrary decision by the U. of T. to shut down the 88 year-old Hart House Rifle and Revolver Clubs - Putting a gun to their heads.

Goldstein calls the move, "political correctness run amok."

I concur. As I previously posted, there is no valid reason for U. of T. to make this decision other than that they are buying into the Bryant theme that GUNS ARE EVIL.

Criminals on the other hand, are just victims of poverty, and a basketball-court-less neighbourhood. They are not responsible for their actions and have no control when THE EVIL GUN is around to tempt them; even if it's locked up in someone else's house, and they have to break in to steal it.


I have no interest in guns myself, but I agree with Lorrie Goldstein that:

...a university guided by administrators who make such arbitrary and unfair decisions cannot be counted on as a bulwark against arbitrary and unfair decisions by governments and tyrannical majorities...


The Libertarians out there should be screaming.

But as usual, we good Canadians do what we are told. We reprogram our minds to reflect what the lefties tell us, because we are spineless lemmings.


* * * *

Related: Great column by George Jonas - Memo to U of T Financial donors. (H/T Candace and Jack's Newswatch). Enjoy!

Wednesday Update: Put sharp edge on knife justice (Sun)

30 comments:

Jeff Davidson said...

But as usual, we good Canadians do what we are told.

did it ever occur to you that most canadians support the U of T's decision to shut down the gun club?

please remember that an awful lot more of us don't vote conservative or support conservative agendas than do.

for the many canadians, shutting down a gun club on an university campus was the right thing to do.

...regardless of what goldstein may think.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

did it ever occur to you that most canadians support the U of T's decision to shut down the gun club?

Boy, now you're starting to sound like CTV. I missed the poll.

RJ said...

By that logic, since most Canadians think the NDP is an electoral "also-ran" and waste of tax dollars, does that mean that we should shut down the NDP?

Personally, I think that would reduce more harm to society than shutting down the U of T gun club.

It doesn't matter what the majority thinks Jeff, since our freedoms are not subject to a majority vote. The club has had a spotless record for 88 years and has harmed no-one. There is no reason to close the club and infringe upon the activities enjoyed by the members--other than the university administration deciding to follow the prevailing winds of political correctness.

Torian said...

hey, I know! Let's close down ALL shooting ranges. In fact, since the gun is-on its own- such an evil object, let's make sure that officers don't have the facilities or the proper training on how to handle guns.

Joanne, I missed the CTV poll, too!

"most canadians"...heh, so because we don't support the closure like "most canadians", does that make us "less canadian"?

Paul Martin part deux.

Jeff Davidson said...

do the math. most canadians don't vote conservative. in fact, most canadians vote for progessive parties.

what you call political correctness is simply the voice of the people.

the club's safety record is irrelevant. the message is more important.we don't want guns for fun on our campuses.

Anonymous said...

let's make sure that officers don't have the facilities or the proper training on how to handle guns

Police officers have ranges to go do. They do not use Hart House.

After the Virginia Tech shootings it makes no sense to have a ready supply of weapons on a university campus.

wayward son said...

"The Libertarians out there should be screaming."

Really? Most libertarians I know think that organizations should be able to do as they wish. Do you know a different group of libertarians who think that they should be able to force organizations to do something against their will?

I think that people should be allowed to go to shooting ranges. However, I don't think that shooting ranges should be automatically supplied to them where ever they wish. (And according to the Globe and Mail, no other University has a shooting range on campus - not even in Conservative Alberta)

Rosie said...

A point to ponder-didn't two people shoot themselves in the face with guns at a gun club in Edmonton just recently? I know if someone is going to kill themselves they will probably do it anyway, but guns are a lot easier and quicker with a higher chance of success. Just a thought.

Rosie said...

Jeff, there are lots of progressives who hunt and collect guns. Although even rabid gun-lovers I know in Ontario hated the Harris Gov't so much they voted for a party that was hoping to restrict their sport. Says something.

Anonymous said...

Through all of this talk of gun bans and range closures I have to wonder why firearms have become such a right versus left issue.

I am a sport shooter and know many other who enjoy the shooting sports. We are a broad base of Canadians from all political stripes, but we have to support the CPC because they are not screaming for us to turn in our guns.

If the Liberals truly were what their name implies, and started supporting the law abiding Canadian firearms owner instead of vilifying them, they would see support from us.

As for gun bans, well if I thought that handing in my legally obtained and properly registered handguns would make one iota of difference towards criminal use of firearms, I would do it...but it won't so I won't.

If the so-called progressives wanted to really make a difference, they should be calling for the abolition of golf. Every year people die on the links from violence and accidents, not to mention the huge tracts of prime land that could be turned into low rent co-op housing!

If it saves just one life!

wayward son said...

Anonymous,

U of T not providing students with a place on Campus to shot firearms is much different than a ban of firearms.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

W.S. - It's the underlying assumption that is similar.

SouthernOntarioan said...

Rosie:

The two people were not recently (only one was, but the article recalled a time several years ago when another did).

Actually the way to kill oneself with the highest probability of success is not with a gun. Its actually using commonly available drugs. But its not as dramatic as a gun right? (that's what I think they are going for) And no, you don't want to know why I know this.

Anonymous:

Funny that you should mention Virginia Tech.. cuz it was a "gun-free zone". So, guns were banned from the campus anyways. Fat lot of good it did eh?

SouthernOntarioan said...

Jeff: your comment, "the club's safety record is irrelevant" is very important.

Important because it highlights the thinking surrounding firearms. The facts don't matter, safety doesn't matter, all that matters is "the message". Right?

The club's safety record IS relevant because in 88 years it has never posed a threat or caused problems. And now you support shutting it down because it makes a good statement.

And accomplishes nothing do you agree?

wayward son said...

"Funny that you should mention Virginia Tech.. cuz it was a "gun-free zone". So, guns were banned from the campus anyways. Fat lot of good it did eh?"

It is impossible to say that the banning guns on that campus didn't do any good. Just because one incident was not prevented doesn't mean that no other incidents were, or that allowing guns on campus would not have led to the use of at least one of them.

For instance Israel trys to prevent suicide bombers. The success of a single suicide bomber does not mean that Israel's attempts to stop them has not done any good.

wayward son said...

"It's the underlying assumption that is similar."

Perhaps, but I think that there should be places where guns should not be allowed - like bars for instance. U of T is an organization and if they feel that having a shooting range on their campus contradicts the image they wish to promote then they have every right to do so.

RJ said...

No Jeff, you do the math.

Firrst, your claim that Liberals are "progressive" is a mistake.Liberals have had a policy of campaign from the Left and govern from the Right that kept them in power for decades. Face it, most Canadians are not progressive (whatever that means) and never will be. That is why the NDP is in fourth place among Parliamentary parties and the Greens get...oh right, no seats whatsoever.

Your views are not those of "most Canadians" and never will be. That is why progressives are on the fringe in Canada and have to resort to the politically-correct arm-twisting and lobbying to get anything even remotely resembling "progressive" policies enabled.

There are numerous gun ranges in Canada which have excellent relations with their communities despite what "progressives" say and most Canadians realize that the law-abiding gun owners are desirable members of their community. Most Canadians do not want the multi-billion-dollar gun registry and would rather focus on gun crime than on harassing law-abiding citizens. And most Canadians are willing to live and let live with gun ranges within their communities.

Don't believe me? Take a look at how many gun ranges there are in Canada--every community has at least 1 within a short driving distance and many communities have several. There is no public outcry--none whatsoever--to shut those ranges down. The U of T decision has nothing to do with the "voice of the people"--it has everything to do with political correctness and wanting to be seen to be "progressive."

wayward son said...

rj,

Good point, there are tons of gun ranges, therefore U of T closing theirs is no big deal. They don't want to keep it open for whatever reason, they shouldn't be forced or coerced to do so.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

but I think that there should be places where guns should not be allowed - like bars for instance.

No argument there.


They don't want to keep it open for whatever reason, they shouldn't be forced or coerced to do so.

The University big-shots are making this decision without input from the students or members. Rather sneaky to do this during the summer, don't you think? After all we are talking about a very venerable institution here. A lot of history.

wayward son said...

"The University big-shots are making this decision without input from the students or members. Rather sneaky to do this during the summer, don't you think? After all we are talking about a very venerable institution here. A lot of history."

Well that is true, but a University, like any business is not a democracy (although my suspicion is that if the students voted the range would not survive either). I wonder if the shooting range costs the University money to maintain or if it self-sufficient?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

W.S. - I guess I'm wondering why, after 88 years, this thing has to be shut down now?

wayward son said...

"I guess I'm wondering why, after 88 years, this thing has to be shut down now?"

Well they did talk about increased security measures added a couple years back, which I am sure cost more. But no matter when they shut it down, whether it was 10 years ago, or 20 years from now there will always be people asking "why now?"

I guess U of T decided that they had little to gain from keeping it, but the potential to loose much. I am not a anti-gun crusader (I find both sides to be silly and prone to gross exaggerations, and I think that there are far more important things to worry or care about) and I think that U of T's fears appear overblown, but let me give you two scenarios.

Scenario 1: a nutbar goes bizerk at and surrounding a shooting range killing some people. Reaction? people are justifiably angry and on top of the senseless loss of life, the shooting range will probably be shut down.

Scenario 2: a nutbar goes bizerk at the U of T shooting range and leaves the basement going into the recreation centre (above the shooting range) killing some students. Reaction? people are justifiably angry and on top of the senseless loss of life, U of T's reputation takes a significant dive, partly because this was different from other school shooting - as there was a shooting range right there. Unlike other school shooting - U of T would be blamed for this, as no matter what security could have always been better. Given the risk/benefit analysis and given that there are plenty of other ranges, I, personally, am surprised that U of T kept it open as long as they have.

SouthernOntarioan said...

Wayward son:

"It is impossible to say that the banning guns on that campus didn't do any good."

Obviously it didn't prevent that shooting. Compared to say UT where they have a gun range on campus and so far haven't had such a nightmare scenario. But I'm just saying, establishing "gun free zones" is useless feel-good propaganda that accomplishes nothing.

But I think you may have a point about UT, that the university body sees it as a needless risk. Still, they are scapegoating the gun range for potential future problems rather than any that exist now.

One more thing, I wonder if closing the gun range will actually decrease the security in the area, since you know, the gun range is gone.

SouthernOntarioan said...

I just thought of this, it might also be an insurance thing. Universities are having a lot of trouble getting insured at reasonable rates these days.

My old university clamped down on drinking and made it virtually impossible for a university club to organize a party where any alcoholic beverage was available. Liability issues were the main rational given.

Perhaps its the same for UT? They are having trouble getting insured, so they need to make some high profile announcements about increasing safety on campus to decrease their insurance rates?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

If it is about the insurance, they should just come out and say so.

I could buy into that perhaps, but this other thing is just too soon after Bryant's decree.

SouthernOntarioan said...

But they are sort of saying that it by calling it a public safety concern. But maybe they think it might also get the brownie points from the Ontario government?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

But maybe they think it might also get the brownie points from the Ontario government?

Bingo! That's what I think. That's where their funding comes from after all.

Anonymous said...

The University big-shots are making this decision without input from the students or members.

Why should they?

When was the last time the CEO of a major company made a decision without consulting the employees?

liberal supporter said...

WOw, Conrad is convicted only a week, and Barbara's ex husband is busy honing his right wing credentials. Maybe he can get her writing a column at the Post, after she has spent all of Lord Black's money.

Attack the messenger. I love being a right winger!

Brian in Calgary said...

I love being a right winger.

LS - something tells me you'll make as lousy a right winger as Joanne did a progressive. Of course, I could be wrong. Hope does spring eternal, and I do believe in miracles.