Canada Nova Scotia Shooting
A tribute is displayed Monday, April 20, 2020, at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, following a weekend shooting rampage by a gunman, disguised as a police officer, that killed multiple people including an RCMP constable. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press via AP)
Previous Post
Next Post

From the CCRKBA . . .

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today said the weekend rampage in Nova Scotia provided more proof that strict gun control laws will not prevent determined individuals from committing mayhem.

Authorities now say at least 22 people were killed, as more victims have been discovered by investigators. Many were apparently killed in their own homes while obeying “stay home” mandates due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

“We offer our sympathies to our Canadian neighbors, and especially to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for their loss,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “But we do not believe adding more restrictions on gun ownership for law-abiding Canadian citizens will to anything to prevent such tragedies in the future.

“For decades,” he continued, “we have been on the front lines in the battle to protect our Second Amendment. We’ve listened to repeated claims that the next new gun law is going to prevent violent crimes and make people safer. The only people made safer by restrictive gun laws are criminals and crazy persons who attack honest citizens, even in their own homes, and to whom ‘gun-free zone’ signs translate to a risk-free environment.”

Gottlieb noted that the presumed Nova Scotia killer apparently fooled at least some of his victims by dressing as an RCMP constable, and driving around in what apparently was a decommissioned patrol vehicle he had restored.

“Canada has very strict gun policies, but those regulations did not prevent the murder spree,” Gottlieb observed. “We find it appalling that many in the U.S. gun prohibition movement have argued in support of Canadian-type gun laws for this country. It is time for gun control extremists on both sides of the border to admit their strategies have consistently failed, and in some cases have even cost lives.

“Instead of allowing anti-gunners to exploit this tragedy,” he said, “let’s learn from it. The very first lesson may be hard for some to accept, but it is this: Extremist gun control laws do not prevent unspeakable crimes and they perpetuate a false sense of security that often has tragic results. Adopting new restrictions will not change that dynamic and may even make things worse. We cannot allow what happened in Canada to influence our policies here. We must zealously protect our right to keep and bear arms.”


With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ( is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “The only people made safer by restrictive gun laws are criminals and crazy persons….”

    And the authoritarian politicians…

      • On my own scale of scummiest people, politicians are worse than regular criminals. I can legally shoot a criminal that is trying to attack me, steal my property, or kidnap me. If I shoot the goons that, in essance, a politician sends to my house, I probably end up in jail and have a better chance of dying in general.

  2. And we are still waiting to find out what type of gun he used…..usually, when they don’t tell us right away it means it is likely not an AR-15….but we will have to wait and see…

    • Wouldn’t it be (contextually) hilarious if it was a .38 special revolver, or something fuddy like what happened in Cali a few years back? Perfectly compliant, no extreme lengths needed to purchase, just demonstrating the complete futility of saying that “‘military style’ weapons have no place in civilian hands.”

    • Regardless of the gun he owned, he had to go through a lot to get one, even a shotgun.

      Rifle magazines are limited to 5 unless you have pistol mags for a restricted. Certain rifle designs are banned. You can’t have an AK, but you can have a VZ.58. ARs are banned to, but there are certain variants that are similar.

      • Correction: He had to go through ‘a lot’ to obtain one LEGALLY. If the ‘legally’ part really doesn’t matter, one can always obtain a firearm by other means.

        As he did not particularly care about obtaining his tools legally, and had no fear of the consequences of doing so as he also intended to commit murder, which is just SLIGHTLY more harshly punished in some jurisdictions than is possessing an illegal firearm, he very probably just went ahead and obtained those firearms–including taking one from a dead officer. Plus, he somehow managed to escape all judicial punishment for his crimes by killing himself, or at least fostering his own killing by breaking laws (with SERIOUS penalties, mind) against shooting at police officers, possibly with ill intent. I’m not absolutely sure about the penalties for corpses possessing illegal firearms, though. Clearly, our legislators have missed the boat in that regard.

        Maybe if we made the after-death punishment for corpses possessing illegal firearms AND for committing murder AND arson, more corpses would think twice before doing those awful things. Or, if we made it illegal for criminals to either kill themselves or get themselves killed before appropriate punishments could be administered, or something, we could cut down the number of criminals murdering other people and then getting themselves dead to escape punishment dramatically. /sarc

        You, as do most Disarmists, never think things through. We keep TELLING you that criminals just don’t OBEY laws, which is why they are called ‘criminals,’ but the logic just eludes you.

        A brain is a terrible thing to waste.

        • no one is talking about the firearm that was used, there might be a reason is the firearm does not meet the so called military assault weapon standard. normally that is one of the first things that the media wants every one to know.

        • I think you were not talking to me because I don’t support Republican gun control as much as I don’t support Democrat gun control. If you were talking to me, your brain must have been destroyed with drugs.

    • Based on him being a holster sniffer, I’d guess a S&W 5946 (RCMP issue) or other gun issued to a nearby jurisdiction (Sig 225, Glock 17, etc). Probably loaded with the same ammo that’s issued (if available). I wouldn’t expect a revolver unless he was into vintage gear.

  3. “We offer our sympathies to our Canadian neighbors, and especially to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for their loss.”

    “Especially”? If the death tally is now at 22, that means (after removing the perp himself from the total) a single RMCP is put on a higher pedestal than the 20 deceased innocents. If anything, LE should certainly get an extra nod of respect for serving and sacrificing in the line of duty, but extra sympathies over the others? And from the CCRKBA no less? I had to read that portion twice to be certain I wasn’t misinterpreting it. Thin Blue Line posturing at its finest.

    • I’ll tell you why. She was the only victim whose oath and duty propelled her towards that murdering bastard rather than away from him. The word “especially” is more of an acknowledgement of that duty and her sacrifice than an indication that she deserves more sympathy.

      If you don’t get that, you probably can’t get that.

      • No, I don’t think you get it. At least, not the point I was making. I clearly said she deserves an extra nod of respect for honoring her oath and sacrificing in the line of duty, which I believe falls in line with what you wish to convey. But I don’t agree at all that any one innocent life should be placed above others who met the same fate with extra sympathy. Does that mean, then, that all the other 20 innocents who were murdered don’t deserve the same sympathy? Would you say the same if your wife or daughter were among those 20? Do you want to tell that to the families of all those others who were murdered…that the RCMP is being bestowed with extra sympathy while their loved ones are being given less?

        I understand the general sentiment, but the CCRKBA’s wording and delivery – and yours by extension if you agree with it – is off.

        • Shockingly, at times of mental anguish and the pain of personal loss, real people sometimes don’t parse their words as carefully as they might, and make mistakes in diction and form, or misspell words, or even phrase something poorly without meaning to do so.

          The important thing to do, in cases such as this, is for SOMEONE to immediately take offense and point out, in all moral superiority, how ‘someone’ more sensitive and tactful would have better phrased, spelled, or otherwise composed the otherwise-sincere condolence message.

          THANK you for taking on this noble and completely necessary task. You may now bask in the glow in your personal achievement. However, please remember that there will be 22 obituaries for you to proof-read and correct as necessary so as to bring them up to your exacting standards.

        • I understand what you’re saying, John, even through your sarcasm, but words matter. I lost my daughter at a very early age long ago, so I am acutely aware of the pain a parent experiences upon the death of a child. Yes, I do find offense in the fact that someone publicly bestowed greater sympathies on a single individual over the others – who themselves had parents who are grieving the loss of their adult children (and husbands, and wives) tonight. Greater respect for the RCMP? Yes, of course, that is not in question. But diminish the others in favor of that one individual? No.

          Those in positions of leadership are held to higher standards when making public statements. Words matter.

  4. I read that murderer wanted to be a cop when he was a teenager. Odd how that profession tends to be a place where bad people want to work for the authority and a gun. When he didn’t become a cop he bought 2-3 old police cars, police uniforms and some guns.

    • Why bother with old police cars and what you read when all you had to do is be up front and spew the garbage that has been floating between your ears for some time?

      • He was really into cop stuff. He acquired all that you see him wearing and driving. He had genuine police stuff.

        People have said he was well off and would buy expensive things. He likely bought all that police stuff illegally from a corrupt cop. That would not be a surprise considering the police in Canada.

  5. The arson and killing spree took 12 hours. They are being suspiciously hush hush about the details. Must need time to spin the crime so it fits their sleazy anti gun narrative.

    • He bought former cop cars so he could restore them back to service. He acquired a uniform. The first victims he killed were people that lived near him, he had gotten in an argument with them before. While he was killing those three people, a neighbor heard what was going on and ran over to see, he was shot dead. Then the killer got into his police car and went after government workers. He killed correction officers and nurses. At one point he shot a male cop in the leg. He was later intercepted by a female cop, but she was shot dead and her car set on fire. He then went to a near by gas station, where he sat in a grey/silver SUV. The SWAT team arrived at the gas station and shot him multiple times.

      Not sure if he was trying to steal the SUV after the female cop smashed his police car. Reports were saying he ditched his police car and was in a SUV.

      They have not said what guns he had. They have not mentioned his business was shutdown by the lockdown. They did not mention how he spent a lot of money before his businesses were shut down by the government because of the virus. They don’t really talk about the confrontation he had with police in the past when he locked one of their police cars on his property for parking there without permission.

      They did mention how he wrote in his year book that he wanted to be a cop. That he acquire police gear and vehicles.

      It looks like he went after people he had personal beef with and their families. He started killing near one of his properties and went down to his other. In between those locations he killed.

      The first family he killed were drug users with a combative father who got in his face one day. They used to own guns but got rid of them because they consider them dangerous to have around their daughter. The daughter was also a weed smoker.

      • His victims included his ex-gf and her new boyfriend. Maybe she threw him over for the other guy. As to his business, he made dentures. Business must have been good; he owned two houses and traveled frequently between them.

        • From what I hear. The family did drugs. I think that man and his daughter was his ex’s new family. The man got in the shooter’s face one day and wanted to beat him up. I heard the man used to be some biker tough guy in the past.

          I don’t think the shooter was happy that his woman left him for that guy and they would sit around getting high (including the daughter). The shooter always wanted to be a cop.

    • Their police were shocked into inaction. A special team worked night and day to create a catchy team name for the assignment.

  6. This event is being packaged as a gun problem rather than a failure of police to protect people and keep them safe. Guns will have to be the only mitigating factor they will cite. That and fake cop cars and uniforms.

    • Police do not exist to protect people. They exist to police a community and enforce “laws”. Police are tyrants. Stop trying to sugar coat a piece of shit.

  7. Toronto Star had previously reported that Wortman was convicted but conditionally discharged after a Oct. 29, 2001 assault, which led him to be tasked with reporting to a probation officer for nine months.

    He was also required “not to own, possess or carry a weapon, ammunition, or explosive substance,” according to court documents. Wortman was further required to attend anger management “for assessment and counselling” as directed by his probation officer.

  8. Let’s be honest: laws and restrictions will stop really lazy, dumb, and/or impatient scumbags who seek to maim and murder. (No doubt many/most scumbags who seek to maim and murder are lazy, dumb, and/or impatient.) Of course laws and restrictions will NOT stop scumbags who are motivated, smart, and patient.

    Regardless, we should NOT be highlighting failures of laws and restrictions to advance our right to keep and bear arms. Instead, we should advance our RIGHT which is NOT subject to social utility.

    And how should we advance our right? Our arguments should ALWAYS start with compelling emotional pleas based in fact, and end in assertive emotional statements that it is our inalienable RIGHT to have effective methods to defend our very lives, period, regardless of social utility.

    • He killed his ex, then killed government workers, while wearing a government uniform and driving a government vehicle.

      Sounds like he was mad at the government and his ex wife. He shot dead a couple but didn’t hurt their kids. He was looking for particular people.

        • Oh, and don’t forget about the Trump 2020 campaign sign on the front lawn, and the Make America Great Again hat, and the “Build the Wall” T-shirt, and the “Dont’t Tread on Me” flag, and the secret Hitler room (like the army surplus store owner in “Falling Down”), and the dinner plates with the swastika on the bottom, and the swastika tattoo….

          Did I leave anything out?

  9. It’s my understanding that ordinary Canadian citizens are prohibited from using firearms for self defense!
    But I guess it’s legal to cower in the cellar while the maniac torches the house!

  10. I am a Canadian. But I am also an adopted American. And so. This will happen again. It will happen in the States, it will happen in Canada, in Europe, in Asia, anywhere. It will happen , regardless of the affected nations gun control policy. It will happen.
    When, on a regular basis, we hear about shooting incidents in the States , we tut-tut and think to ourselves how we are safer in Canada. We are wrong.
    When you comment from the States how a nation of armed civilians would have prevented this, you are wrong.
    When we, collectively, use any of these incidents, be it Sandy Hook , Vegas,or the shootings in Nova Scotia , to advance our agenda or indulge in political grandstanding, regardless of which side we are on, we are wrong .
    A nation, any nation, should not base its gun control policy or have its gun control policy influenced, no matter how horrific, on any such events.

  11. “Canada’s Strict Gun Control Laws Couldn’t Stop a Determined Madman”

    Maybe not but… this doesn’t happen In Oh Canada nearly as often as in the U.S.
    So is it a difference in motivation; you know, them being lazy people and all. Or is determination really what we should be legislating? Yes what we need is a socialist police state to keep all our heads right boss.

  12. I’m reminded of what the bartender says to the main character in “The Lost Weekend” (who is an alcoholic) about drinks:

    “One is too much. A hundred is not enough.“

    The same thing can be said about gun control laws.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here