Pages

08 December 2005

Connie gun control

At its convention in March of this year, the Conservative Party delegates were asked to vote on a gun control motion that would provide:

- mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms;
- strict monitoring of high-risk individuals;
- crackdown on the smuggling [this incomplete/poorly translated phrase survived into the actual policy manual];
- safe storage laws [we already have this];
- firearms safety training [we already have this];
- a licensing system for all those wishing to acquire and use firearms legally [we already have this];
- and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets."

The motion that made it into policy manual changed one bit: the bit about the licensing system, which we effectively already have and which has been in place for the better part of the last 25 years.

Instead, the section was changed to read "a certification screening program..."

No one knows what that means, but the implication is that the level of firearms ownership control we have had in this country since the early 1980s and beforehand would be reduced down to something far less burdensome for everyone - law-abiding gun owners and criminals alike.

That's what I posted before on this and by gosh, by gum, I am sticking to the interpretation that the Conservative Party policy manual actually appears to call for an elimination of licenses for firearms owners. Instead, they'll just have to clear a screening program of some kind.

Experience in Canada shows that deaths attributable to firearms are about half the rate they were 25 years ago. The rate of deaths per 100, 000 females dropped from 1.2 in 1979 to a mere 0.3.

Our current gun control laws work. Stengthening them makes sense.

Rolling back the clock, as the Conservative policy suggests, doesn't make any sense.

Unless you take your public policy advice from Ben Hur.

Res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers say.

The facts speak for themselves.