Registry means proceeding with facts rather than from ignorance
Victoria, British Columbia - Thursday, September 16, 2010 by: Eugene Parks
The gun registry debate boils down to this. On the one side, the registry is understood to be a step towards curbing support for arms and militancy. And on the other, the registry is seen as interfering with benign activities like duck hunting.
Fire arm management is particularly difficult because our good neighbour to the south manufactures and distributes guns like bottled water - including firearms that are not appropriate for duck hunting or much else except combat.
There is a real and pragmatic difference between a duck hunter's shotgun and hand guns or automatic weapons. To sort out who has what kind of weapons where, the first thing to do is ask the public, "what do you have?" Interpreting the answer requires a database of "registered" firearms. Of course such a registry does not solve the issue of the circulation of assault weapons but it is a step toward attempting to distinguish between them and more benign firearms.
We do not need combat weapons in the public domain. We can approach the problem in one of two way. Either we proceed with facts or we act in ignorance and blindly hope we know truth from ficton. No gun registry means less facts and turns getting to the heart of the issue - militancy and crime - a more ignorant effort.
References:
Tibbetts, Janice and Kennedy, Mark, Prime minister to take another shot at dismantling long-gun registry, September 16, 2010, The Vancouver Sun
National Rifle Association, Canada: Where gun registration equals confiscation, February 2, 2000, NRA
Photo credit: base image by Adrian Lam, Times Colonist