The Surrey government reportedly is on-page with the federal party in government, and wants to “ban handguns.” Surrey readers concerned about violent crime (but not well-informed about Canadian firearms history, or issues) might first be inclined to agree. For those readers, I offer these points to consider:
• If “bans” work, why don’t they start with banning violent crime; you know, as a trial run?
• Any sort of law banning firearms can only affect legal, licensed, address-vetted, registered firearms owners… the ones who have taken courses, lock up their sporting arms, are criminally record-checked daily and are the most crime-free cohort of Canadian society. Criminals – by definition – are the ones that ignore such laws.
• Policing resources are finite. Every hour and dollar that police spend on something useless – pestering licensed shooters, for example – is that hour and dollar taken away from pursuing actual violent criminals.
• By way of analogies, when Surrey has a coyote problem, should the proposed solution address coyotes, or ban dogs?
• Or, one of your kids sneaks out at night, drinks heavily, steals cars and robs houses – should you punish the other kid, the one who volunteers for the blood donor clinic when she’s not home studying for medical school?
To the point, as a Surrey resident and taxpayer, do you want your tax money and local policing effort going to pursuing: Plan A) violent criminals, or Plan B) law-abiding range hobbyists?
The Surrey government evidently supports putting your tax money and safety into Plan B.
David Danylyshyn, Surrey