Firearm changes make sense

Letters to the Editor (The Guardian)
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Editor: With regards to Kevin O’Brien’s letter “Blaney’s comment way over the top”, July 26.

Firstly, nothing in the proposed amendments to the firearm’s act has anything to do with putting more “dangerous” guns in people’s hands. Most of it relates to streamlining the onerous, redundant amount of paperwork currently required for something as simple as taking certain firearms from your house to the shooting range.

Another key part of it involves a grace period for renewal of your Possession and Acquisition Licence if you forget to renew it before it expires. Currently,  the law criminalizes an individual the moment their PAL expires and has provision for the imposition of a jail sentence for offenders.

This is draconian in the extreme, considering that an expired driver’s licence warrants nothing more than a fine.

With regards to the issue of firearm ownership being a right, you have a right to own as many kitchen knives, axes and baseball bats, as much rat poison and anti-freeze, as you like. It’s not considered a privilege.

Yet far more items such as these are used each year in Canada to commit the relatively few homicides that we have than firearms, and nobody’s trying to take away your right to own these, so why the hysteria over the ownership of firearms being a right?

Why the outrage at a fair-sized percentage of Canadians wanting to be treated fairly and not have their personal liberties and freedoms trampled upon?

Clint Smith,

Charlottetown

Geographic location: Canada, Charlottetown

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page