Hypocritical to suggest public is safe: Why do the elite need bodyguards?

——————————————————————————–

Re “Judge’s ruling not a call to arms,” Journal, March 17.

Of course Alberta Justice Minister Hancock is correct when he states that the judicial ruling in the Pogson case was “not a call to arms.” The judge’s decision was, however, a comment on reality that many would apparently rather not face. The hypocrisy of politicians who tell the public that appropriate, effective means for self-defence and defence of others should not be available to them, while the “elite” travel with armed bodyguards paid for by the public purse, is staggering. There should be no double standard on the value of protecting human life from predators, whether two- or four-legged.

Average response time to a 911 call in Edmonton slipped to 15 minutes last year. What is a defenceless victim to do during that interval — beg her attacker not to hurt her?

Regarding two-legged predators, the powers of citizen’s arrest are virtually identical to the arrest powers of police, and the penalties for negligent or unlawful use of a firearm are the same as well.

Lastly, the statement of Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control that guns are required to be kept “under lock and key” is disingenuous at best. When a gun is in use for predator control, or for any other lawful use, it is not in storage and does therefore not need to be under lock and key.

Richard Fritze, Barrister & Solicitor,
Delburne