EDITORIAL
More politics: guns ‘n ammo
One election behind us, we now buckle down for another big debate: gun control. Both the province and the feds are working on this one, with plenty of amendments and counter-proposals to examine.
In Ottawa, gun control has been a continual agenda item; September 20’s business in the House included exchanges between Pontiac/Aylmer’s MP, Greg Fergus, trying to inject a little sanity into the fear-mongering (that’s what it is) of several opposition MPs, including the Member representing the riding just to our west.
This MP, from the Ontario side of the Ottawa Valley, claimed that Valley residents reject all gun control, especially Quebec’s. She went so far as to claim that the Pontiac’s Allumette and Calumet Islands are really within Ontario, not Quebec, and thus should not fall under Quebec’s gun registry. Only a few history buffs discuss the boundary line, following the navigable channel of the Ottawa River. Mr Fergus countered that since his own riding, abutting the Ontario MP’s, does not much support her anti-Quebec registry sentiments, he doubts that the anti-Quebec sentiments are as widespread as his colleague claims.
A rural riding likely contains more pro-gun hunters than Fergus’ riding, which includes a substantial urban population. But the Ontario MP is not talking hunting; she sees any registration, and certainly a ban, as attacks on private property and as attempts to deny citizens their rights (to pursue sport-shooting). She claimed in the House that any attempt to regulate handguns is a step toward banning all guns, including hunting rifles.
Considering the various claims within all sides of the registry debate, a potential solution to the impasse jumped off the page: (we are talking hand guns, since assault weapons are already banned, and hunting rifles are not under discussion) if gun owners want “the right” to own handguns assured, so they can pursue their sporting interests, and in disregard of the statistics which tell us that merely the availability of guns in homes contributes significantly to suicides and domestic violence (but not to criminal acts in general) why not allow the sports shooters to buy and own their guns – but also specify that those guns can’t be stored in homes?
I could buy myself a pistol under these rules, but would have to store it at the shooting gallery or range, which would be professionally equipped to keep arms secure. This meets the sportsfolks’ desire to own legal guns, but also acknowledges the need to keep guns away from unstable situations. Where’s the problem? Is there another “right” -- to hold a gun in one’s hand at any time?
However, if gun owners want guns to protect themselves from “big goverment” – this is insurrection, clearly illegal. What’s wrong with owning a gun or two or five, but keeping them in a regulated, secure environment? Is “gun control” even the issue?
