Re: Police Practices

Edward Kennedy | Aug 05, 2015

Re: Police Practices

David Whalen demonstrates in his letter (Police practices, Jul 8/15) the reality of the situation relative to crime and police response times.

Police cannot be on the spot during most criminal act commissions nor can they be blamed, as they have to actually drive to the crime scene, often arriving after the fact when the injustice has already occurred.

It is a reality most refuse to face, but it is long past time to willfully ignore that we all have the right to security of the person and must needs take the responsibility to defend ourselves and our own, including neighbors, in the event of criminal attacks. Do we not intervene when someone is injured, or drowning, to mitigate/prevent that event?

Like it or not, the wild card in defending from criminals is that they are usually armed and a similar response is required to effect protection of the victim.

The current mindset is ludicrous, with most decrying the use of violence and rightly so BUT when nothing else will work, violence must be used. Thus police are armed as it is a given they may be shot at, or attacked with other dangerous weapons wielded by criminals. Crime in Canada is at an all-time low BUT violent crimes such as assaults and home invasions have/are rising. Home invasions often involve not only robbery, but also physical abuse, rape and even murder.

Oddly enough, the response to murders is to blame the firearm, and effect idiotic regulations such as C-68 that target innocent duck hunters and law-abiding citizens. One would think, even as stupid and cowardly as politicians are, they would at least know enough to target the group responsible, and the problem, which is not long guns but is handgun use, unregistered and illegally owned. Self-defense non lethal weapons such as pepper spray are not legal here, nor is concealed carry entertained by a corrupt and vapid system.

Firearms are important TOOLS for safety and security in rural areas and none can deny we all have the inalienable right to self-defence. The incident Mr. Whalen describes is all too common, substantiating my point. Self-defence is a basic right that cannot be denied legally by government, and as it stands, liberals and dippers oppose this basic right, preferring instead that we all be at the mercy of armed criminals. Anyone who dares to defend from even murderers and arsonists is subject to the malicious hoplophobic system prosecutors, who appear to be without the sense God gave a billygoat. How anyone in their right mind, could equate a man like Mr. Thompson defending himself against arsonists trying to burn his home to the ground, and prosecuting him for doing so, is beyond me.

While many nations around the world are allowing concealed carry, and Britain is seeing that its gun banning mentality was a mistake, Canada is hobbled to the fantasy that somehow this crime thing will not escalate here and criminals will be magically transformed into law abiding citizens and live at peace with the rest of us.

In my case for the record, I do not blame police for not being able to be on the spot when criminality occurs, and I do not bother them with little things, including death threats against me, nor will I. In return I expect the same courtesy if I ever have to defend against an armed criminal and will not hesitate to practise my inalienable right to self-defence against same, political correctness and the hoplophobic bureaucrats be damned.