Article content continued

Whether you’re for banning guns or an active sport shooter, surely we all agree that less gun violence is desirable.

Where we disagree, is on how to achieve this.

But, there is more we should all readily agree upon.

We should all agree common definitions are necessary.

Currently, there are no common definitions for many of the terms that feature prominently in the gun debate. “Crime gun,” “gun used in crime,” “assault rifle,” “military-style weapon,” etc. — all mean different things to different people and agencies. No wonder we can’t agree with each other — we can’t even understand each other.

We should all agree facts would be helpful to the discussion.

There are far fewer facts available than there should be. We should all agree some authority should be mandated and equipped to gather and track those facts.

Where do shootings occur? When do they occur? Who gets shot? Who shoots them? What, if any, criminal record or associations do the shooters or victims have? What type of gun is used? Who made the gun and where? Was the gun imported legally to Canada? How did the gun get into the hands of the shooters? And, so on.

None of these data are currently tracked consistently by any authority anywhere in Canada.

We should all agree it’s important to understand what laws already exist before we propose new ones.

Too few stakeholders in the gun control debate actually know what laws around gun ownership, storage, transportation and use already exist. Or, what the existing punishments for criminal use of firearms already are.