Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said this week that the Liberals will be promising more gun-control measures during the upcoming election campaign but he declined to get into details.
I don’t see why.
Because it should be relatively simple – go all out.
Ban the sale and possession of automatic weapons, and by this I mean all automatic weapons, not just the kind used by the military, and at the same time ban large ammunition clips.
I thought the government made a good start this year when it expanded the scope of background checks on those wanting to require guns to cover an applicant’s entire lifetime, rather than just the five years preceding a licence application.
But as well as the background checks and a ban on automatic weapons, our legislators should now also be pushing for something similar to the “red flag laws” in use in some states and which U.S. President Donald Trump says he would support federally, although he may, considering how flighty he is at the best of times, have changed his mind by the time you read this.
A red flag law, according to information gleaned from the Internet, enables those who have seen warning signs to seek a court order to intervene and temporarily prevent someone who is in crisis from having access to a firearm. For example, under California’s red flag law, it’s legal for family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat.
Red flag laws at the moment exist in only 17 states plus Washington, DC, Critics of the “Red Flag” measure say it won’t prevent all shootings and that is true. But the thing is, it may prevent some. The same can be said of background checks. To me that means they are worthwhile.
Critics also say that banning automatic weapons, the military types often referred to as assault weapons, won’t prevent any mass shootings, that it is the shooter, not the gun, that does the damage. Again, that is true, but the point is that it could decrease the carnage.
The shooter, if armed only with a bolt-action weapon, will not get off near as many shots as compared to what he would with an automatic.
Again, critics say that even with a ban automatic weapons will be available through the black market to those who really want them.
Yes, that will indeed be the case, but again, it will be much harder for these people to do so and we have to do something. The status quo is not acceptable.
There are those why say instituting any ban on guns will lead to a slippery slope, the banning of automatic weapons eventually leading to a ban on all guns..
I think this is a ridiculous thought but a lot of people believe it, especially in the United States.
There they believe the Second Amendment to the constitution gives them the right to carry the fire-power of their choice.
The Second Amendment, ratified on Dec. 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This was written in 1791. Muskets were in the hands of the infantry, which meant they probably got off three rounds in a minute or so. Also, when it talks about militia, it probably means the army of the state, considering it just won independence from Britain, not of a group of armed citizens ready to make war against the new state.
In any event, I see no need for automatic weapons in the hands of any citizen of any country, other than possibly those attempting to throw off the yoke imposed on them by a dictator.
I believe all we need are bolt-action guns for hunters to engage in their sport, and I use the term “sport” loosely because I see no sport in hunting.
Sport to me means two people or two groups of people battling it out on equal terms and equal rules.
There is nothing equal in hunting.
The prey is unarmed. I would only term hunting a sport if the prey could shoot back.
Anyway, I digress.
My point in this piece is that instead of pussy-footing around, our politicians better throw off their ideological cloaks and get down to the business of making things as safe as possible for the people who elected them to office.