Drizzt
January 10, 2003, 02:53 PM
Copyright 2003 CanWest Interactive, a division of
CanWest Global Communications Corp.
Edmonton Journal
January 10, 2003 Friday Final Edition
SECTION: Letters; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 319 words
HEADLINE: Typical gun owner isn't a Terminator: City people naive to think guns are bad
BYLINE: Robert Hobbs
BODY:
Your editorial of Jan. 3, "Gun-law violators tread risky ground," is somewhat ambivalent in its ramblings cautioning Oscar Lacombe and MLA Doug Griffiths that the law must be obeyed and pointing out that civil disobedience has a bad reputation.
To be fair, the editorial also alludes to the important role that civil disobedience has had in changing opinions and policy.
As a student of the controversy spanning many years, let me state that the issue has nothing to do with the registration of firearms. If this were the only issue, there would be none, and each and every firearm would be duly registered now. Rather it has to do with the imposition of a a badly conceived, unnecessary, unworkable and unjust statute.
It has to do with the violation of nearly every basic right guaranteed under the Charter of Rights. Senator-elect Ted Morton did an analysis of the Firearms Act versus the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and found virtually every right being violated.
To some urban residents whose familiarity with the issue has been limited to TV and Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing up 23 baddies in 12 minutes the issue is clear. Guns are bad.
To the rancher living 60 miles from the nearest police detachment, things are different -- he needs this tool to ward off predators, harvest his game, and protect his home. He resents the storage requirements that completely preclude the capability to use his rifle for self -defence.
What we need today is an accommodation to both philosophies: the urban owner should not be compelled to own a
gun, nor should he or she begrudge trained and qualified gun owners who, as an incidental benefit, also provides protection to them.
I have the utmost respect for these very brave individuals who are putting their personal safety at risk to draw public attention to what is a very bad law.
They may be over 70, but they lead the way.
Robert Hobbs,
Devon
CanWest Global Communications Corp.
Edmonton Journal
January 10, 2003 Friday Final Edition
SECTION: Letters; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 319 words
HEADLINE: Typical gun owner isn't a Terminator: City people naive to think guns are bad
BYLINE: Robert Hobbs
BODY:
Your editorial of Jan. 3, "Gun-law violators tread risky ground," is somewhat ambivalent in its ramblings cautioning Oscar Lacombe and MLA Doug Griffiths that the law must be obeyed and pointing out that civil disobedience has a bad reputation.
To be fair, the editorial also alludes to the important role that civil disobedience has had in changing opinions and policy.
As a student of the controversy spanning many years, let me state that the issue has nothing to do with the registration of firearms. If this were the only issue, there would be none, and each and every firearm would be duly registered now. Rather it has to do with the imposition of a a badly conceived, unnecessary, unworkable and unjust statute.
It has to do with the violation of nearly every basic right guaranteed under the Charter of Rights. Senator-elect Ted Morton did an analysis of the Firearms Act versus the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and found virtually every right being violated.
To some urban residents whose familiarity with the issue has been limited to TV and Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing up 23 baddies in 12 minutes the issue is clear. Guns are bad.
To the rancher living 60 miles from the nearest police detachment, things are different -- he needs this tool to ward off predators, harvest his game, and protect his home. He resents the storage requirements that completely preclude the capability to use his rifle for self -defence.
What we need today is an accommodation to both philosophies: the urban owner should not be compelled to own a
gun, nor should he or she begrudge trained and qualified gun owners who, as an incidental benefit, also provides protection to them.
I have the utmost respect for these very brave individuals who are putting their personal safety at risk to draw public attention to what is a very bad law.
They may be over 70, but they lead the way.
Robert Hobbs,
Devon