DWilliams
Member
Thanks, Ed, for the considered response. (And I won't challenge you on whether Newfies think of themselves as part of Canada or not - ha!).
You know far more about the particulars of this case and the laws involved than I do having only read the news report that you posted. From what you write, yeah, I agree that I'd have real concerns about both how the law is written (e.g. why not let the husband demonstrate that his guns were secure? why is the confiscation permanent?) and also how it was applied in this case (e.g. is a nurse's opinion qualified?). I'm sure the list of flaws is much longer than those examples.
But at a 30,000 foot level, it seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction in someone taking the position that the weaponry is not at fault so it should not be controlled but rather these incidents are due to flawed/deranged/criminal people, whose rights to gun ownership cannot be infringed. If I were a pro-gun moderate in this debate (oh, hang on, I guess I am), then I would take a long look at laws or constitutional amendments (thanks, Mark, yes I did miss that point) that took guns out of certain hands rather than all hands. Admittedly, this would mean trading off individual rights for societal ones and I do know enough about the history of America to respect that that is no small matter.
You might fairly ask why a Canadian is sticking his nose in on this topic. It is of objective interest to me but also of personal concern - Canada is not free of gun violence or gun control extremists and is strongly influenced by US culture. The posts here give me lots to consider. And I hope that I have provided a third-party perspective without offence.
Regardless, I will sign off on the topic, lest my "very active" rating is downgraded to "too active"... (insert winky smiley-face thingy).
Thanks and take care,
Dan
You know far more about the particulars of this case and the laws involved than I do having only read the news report that you posted. From what you write, yeah, I agree that I'd have real concerns about both how the law is written (e.g. why not let the husband demonstrate that his guns were secure? why is the confiscation permanent?) and also how it was applied in this case (e.g. is a nurse's opinion qualified?). I'm sure the list of flaws is much longer than those examples.
But at a 30,000 foot level, it seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction in someone taking the position that the weaponry is not at fault so it should not be controlled but rather these incidents are due to flawed/deranged/criminal people, whose rights to gun ownership cannot be infringed. If I were a pro-gun moderate in this debate (oh, hang on, I guess I am), then I would take a long look at laws or constitutional amendments (thanks, Mark, yes I did miss that point) that took guns out of certain hands rather than all hands. Admittedly, this would mean trading off individual rights for societal ones and I do know enough about the history of America to respect that that is no small matter.
You might fairly ask why a Canadian is sticking his nose in on this topic. It is of objective interest to me but also of personal concern - Canada is not free of gun violence or gun control extremists and is strongly influenced by US culture. The posts here give me lots to consider. And I hope that I have provided a third-party perspective without offence.
Regardless, I will sign off on the topic, lest my "very active" rating is downgraded to "too active"... (insert winky smiley-face thingy).
Thanks and take care,
Dan