The other day, the Federal Government announced regulatory changes that immediately bans some 1500 types of what are called military style or assault-style weapons.
Among the predictable criticisms was that this was just a knee-jerk response to the massacre that happened over a week ago in Nova Scotia where a lone gunman killed 22 people over several hours, while masquerading as an RCMP officer.
Those criticisms ignore the fact that changes in gun regulations have been in the works for some time now and probably would have been presented to Parliament by now if this virus outbreak hadn't interrupted things. So it's not really knee-jerk anything, but the events in Nova Scotia certainly presented the opportunity for a timely response of some kind.
Personally, the mere fact that another mass murder happened strikes me as a perfect reason to take a very long, hard look at gun laws in Canada, among other pertinent matters.
Other examples of what I'll call faux outrage is that the government's actions were undemocratic and didn't follow "due process", whatever that means in this context.
First, what the government did was make regulatory changes and these didn't have to come before Parliament. I'm expecting that they will, along with other changes, when Parliament returns to more normal operations.
Second, those nay-sayers need to be aware that the previous government under Stephen Harper brought in numerous changes by Order-in-Council, a total of 25, according to one source, and to top it off, Harper tried to hide those changes from Canadians, trying keeping them secret. I'll give Trudeau credit for being open enough to announce these changes publicly rather than trying to sneak them through as Harper repeatedly did..
Claims that these bans infringe on some people's rights is specious. There is no right to own a firearm in Canada. This isn't the USA. Owning a gun is more or less in the same category as driving a car. You can do it, under certain conditions, but it's not a right. That's just the way it is in Canada, and all the chest beating on Facebook posts won't change that fact.
Also high on the list of criticisms is that these bans "make criminals out of ordinary gun owners". This is really just poppycock. To this point, I haven't heard anyone say that they had to turn in their AK47s or whatever they're called, because very few "ordinary gun owners" own such weapons. I know what kinds of guns are used for hunting deer, moose and gophers, and I would imagine that it's pretty rare that any of the now-banned weapons would be used. So you "ordinary gun owners" really aren't being affected by this ban. You don't own them, you don't have to give them up. You can still go hunting. Life really hasn't changed for you at all.
So the guns in the Nova Scotia rampage weren't legally owned. Stolen, likely, and it would be interesting to know where they were stolen from. Perhaps brought into Canada from the USA, where they REALLY have a major gun problem. If there is one point that the critics have made that is eminently reasonable it is that Canada needs to tighten up border controls to prevent guns from entering. No argument there.
As for the fact that the guns were stolen? True. Stolen from where and from whom? That would be worth knowing. But someone, perhaps not realizing what he was saying, noted that the airplanes that flew into the World Trade Center were stolen. Hmmm. Yes, that's true. What's also true is that in the aftermath of 9/11 there was a massive change in screening and other laws to control what you could take on a plane, how luggage is handled and to security in general. If you've flown in the past 15 years you will know all too well how you have to remove your belt, your shoes, take only toothpaste tubes under 125 ml on the plane, can't take drinking water through security, get scanned.... It's all a big inconvenience, to everyone. I'm a responsible citizen and I'm being inconvenienced just like everyone else is. I'd never do anything with a pair of scissors if I were allowed to take them on a plane with me. But I'm subject to the same restrictions that everyone else is. That's life, if I want to fly.
I know that nobody likes to be inconvenienced by such things as this, but let's examine another situation.
When I fly, I have to be searched, I have to take off my belt and shoes, I can't take a toothpaste tube holding more than 125 ml on the plane. I once even had a small ball confiscated, something I used to massage a painful muscle and one which I had carried, unchallenged, through at least 4 or 5 different security clearances in 3 different countries. You might think that my age, my profile, my history should all show that I am a very, very low risk person on a plane. No matter. I have to be subjected to the same restrictions as anyone else. And that little massage ball was taken away. As was a toothpaste tube that held 250 ml of Colgate's finest.
Claiming that most gun owners are "not the problem" is undoubtedly true, but it seems to miss the point. We are all inconvenienced one way or another by various laws and restrictions, even though "we are certainly NOT the kind of people the law is designed to control".
If responsible gun owners really believe that there are better solutions to this problem of gun misuse, perhaps they should band together with everyone else who is concerned about the problem and lobby for those actions that WILL make a difference. But this whining about "anti-democratic, dictatorial, power grabbing libtards" isn't winning them any support at all. They are looking like the special interest group that I suppose they really are, whining for special treatment because "they're not the problem".
Finally, for now, let me say this. The overwhelming majority of Canadians are of the opinion that these weapons need to be banned. One recent poll I read about suggested 80%. It's high time that the government acted on those opinions rather than caving to the gun lobby the way they cave to the NRA in the USA. This is democracy in action, folks. Get used to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment