I've opposed all anti-gun legislation since the 1970s, instinctively knowing that each step would be built upon with future steps intended to erode not only the guns that can be owned, but also erode our citizens interest in gun ownership and participation in lawful, shooting related, activities. It bugs me when I see some members of the firearms community say that Canada's low incidence of gun related crime is a result of the laws which have been already been inflicted upon us. Canada has always been a nation were the incidence of violent gun crime has been low, so the reasons for our peaceful society must be something other than our repugnant gun laws, which there was never justification for in the first place. We need to stop saying that Liberal and red Tory imposed anti-gun legislation has in any way been positive. Firstly, it is not true, secondly it cannot be statistically corroborated, and thirdly, it weakens any argument we might have which opposes any proposed legislation, now or in the future, that builds upon the restrictions we already face. Murder, assault, and coercion are demonstrable crimes. Laws which prohibit the ownership and use of guns empower the criminal, who might choose to murder, assault, or coerce his lawfully disarmed victims. As long as the right to life, liberty, and security of the individual remain in the Charter, Canadian citizens have a right to defend their lives against criminal violence. The debate over which tools are best for self defense has concluded, and these tools are represented by the pistols that are worn on the hip of every cop in the country, and the ARs and shotguns that ride in their patrol cars.