Be It Resolved: “Lorne Gunter is Canada’s smartest columnist”

63 Replies to “Be It Resolved: “Lorne Gunter is Canada’s smartest columnist””

And this my friends, let us not forget, is supposed to be the “Conservative” paper of record here in Canada.
McParland:”But no one needs these [sniper] weapons, so why aren’t they just banned?”
McParland:”Why can Canadians still buy firearms that are clearly intended for uses that have nothing to do with getting rid of gophers or stalking deer?”
McParland:”I can see why farmers or hunters should have appropriate weapons. But if the only point of a weapon is to kill people with, I start to miss the point.”
McParland:”All the arguments are fine, but still don’t explain why you need a sniper’s rifle to shoot a bear.”
McParland:”I keep asking what the legitimate use is for a sniper’s rifle in modern Canada, since it doesn’t seem to be for killing bears or squirrels, but no one seems to be able to say.”
McParland:”I’m asking a simple question: why not put restrictions on rifles that have no particular practical use, which would appease the anti-gun crowd, while letting hunters and farmers have their fun?
McParland:”I still want to know why its a curtailing of my rights to deny me the right to own a snipers rifle, but not a landmine or a Predator drone or other weapons.”
Gawd. He can’t shut up, can he? If you told the guy that a “sniper rifle” is functionally and physically identical to a “target rifle” except for being a different colour, I’m quite certain he’d brush you off and ask the same question again, louder. He’s an uneducable, militantly ignorant liberal.
McParland argues here as the -classic- mush brained Torontonian, continuously asking the same question over and over as if it hadn’t been answered THREE SEPARATE TIMES in comments addressed directly to him. The city is absolutely filled with idiots like this, who have risen far above their intellectual capacities by glad handing and brown nosing.
We let morons like this decide public policy in this country. We are INSANE.

Kind of sad, isn’t it.
All these educated, experienced columnists – who would self-describe as classical liberals/small c conservatives – can’t quite get their heads around the liberty thing.

“Nobody “needs” a gun.
(But then, nobody “needs” the National Post …)”
Lord of the Fleas at November 2, 2011 3:34 PM nails it. If this is the National Post debate then I’d really hate to hear from the Star chamber. I have heard more logic from an Occupy groupie.
My Lee-Enfield .303 has been used as a “sniper” rifle. As far as killing bears the old fashioned way, I’m sure some of those folks would like to license Bowie knives too.

Since the word sniper means one who is capable of shooting a snipe, and rifle simply means a weapon that adds gyroscopic stability to is projectiles by means of curved grooves in its barrel then in my youth my old .177 pellet gun was a sniper rifle since I used it to shoot snipes when there was nothing else to shoot at.

But .. But .. What about cop killer bullets? No-one used that term. Never could figure out what they are. Either they are hardpoints that are required on people or soft points as required on game or maybe both.

Everybody “needs” a gun, because people like McParland exist. After that, they’re particularly fine for hunting, food gathering and just plain fun. But mostly because people like McParland exist. How is that not so blindingly obvious to so many people?
I’ve quit referring to semis as “semis” in mixed company. I call them what they really are: “self-loaders”. Oddly, the trolls seem to understand that. If I have to explain it (often), the usual response is “neat”.
Barbara Kay needs to be taken to the range for a real self-loader experience. We did that with several Toronto columnists several years ago. Worked out wonderfully – most of them “got it” immediately after a proper hands on. Many fewer kneejerk editorials from them after that.

There is nothing more infuriating or utterly useless than a debate in which one or more of the participants are completely ignorant of the subject being debated.
It’s amazing that very few of these fools are ever called on their misrepresentation of the facts. What’s wrong with someone stating outright “You are completely full of sh*t on this subject.”? Barbara Kay with the semi-automatic comment is a fine example of ignorance, as are McParland’s numerous references to sniper rifles.
I am probably more qualified to debate this matter and my small foray into gun ownership was many, many years ago when I purchased a new, army surplus Lee-Enfield .303 at MacLeod’s for $25. It had an 8 shot clip so Kay would probably describe it as a semi-automatic. It was also equipped with a tangent sight which would, in McParland’s world, make it a sniper’s rifle.

If I learned anything from this debate it is that very few people know what they’re talking about when it comes to guns and gun owners. Even columnists who normally appear to have critical thinking skills and the ability to inform themselves on any issue, seem to have a blind spot when it comes to this topic. They should all at least spend some time with gun owners, go and shoot a few targets on a range or something. They seem to think that just looking at a gun causes a kind of moral contamination.
In a democratic society, people shouldn’t have to beg for permission to make their own choices. If you’re going to ban something, make it very specific, make sure you understand the reasons why and make sure it’s addressing a real problem. All this pre-emptive banning, done with the intention of preventing all sorts of ills, will never solve anything. Once you’re on the banning path, there is never an end to it.

McParland – How did someone this ignorant and impervious to new information get invited on a serious panel. Can he actually walk and breathe simultaneously?!
How many different ways can you say: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE (Other than cosmetics) between a hunting rifle and a “sniper” rifle, much as there is no real difference between a Semi-Automatic “Assault styled” rifle and basic semi auto plinking or vermin rifle. And still NOT have him twig to how dumb his question is.
Oh, and with modest training most young men can put as many aimed shots on target in most scenarios with a bolt action e.g. Lee-Enfield, as a Semi-auto.
Aside from which I have no interest in hunting and like shooting, what about me?
Oh and blow McP’s mind I’m sure he thinks more people packing pistols legally would RAISE CRIME and VIOLENCE. In direct opposition to the experience of every state in the US that has tried it.

In that company it would be tough not to appear to be brilliant.

It seemed that Matt Gurney provided most of the responses to the others.
How about Matt and Lorne?
GM

I vote: “YES!” Such innate common sense should be rewarded.

‘set you free’ opined: “Lorne Gunter = Western Canadian. The rest = Ontarians and Quebeckers?”
You’d be wrong, and we don’t need inter-provincial bigotry here or anywhere else.
The majority of gun owners fighting hardest for our rights, and getting the most accomplished are, in fact, from Ontario. But, hey, all you western and eastern Canadians concerned with our rights and liberties are more than welcome to join us. We are accepting of ALL good Canadians. And it will take ALL of us to win this fight.

63 Replies to “Be It Resolved: “Lorne Gunter is Canada’s smartest columnist””

Navigation