Liberal gun plan not based on evidence

In response to demands from the Liberal base, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has announced he will soon move to ban and confiscate certain firearms in Canada. This will entail vast amounts of time, effort and public money; all for the greater good, of course.

However, the problem is the Liberal plan is not based on any credible evidence, but is a surrender to the demands of an implacable group of supporters who wish to see Canadians stripped of all firearms, save for the government.

Justin Trudeau has always had much to say about how his government would make decisions and set policies based on sound evidence. However, on the firearms file, the government has exactly zero evidence to support its decision to ban and confiscate. What it does have is the emotion-based demands of the gun control crowd. The Liberals have conducted no scientifically sound research or studies into the problem they wish to fix. In fact, the only hard data they have is their own online public consultation, which overwhelmingly showed no support (80 per cent of respondents) to move ahead with further bans and confiscations.

Adding fuel to the fire are Blair’s recent words in which he stated that legal gun owners are not a problem as they have always followed the law in regard to Canada’s already strict gun control regime. Further to this, Blair states legal gun owners must be dealt with fairly and respectfully because of this. And this begs a question: How does the government propose to go about forcibly separating people from their legally acquired and used firearms, against their will, under threat of state-sanctioned violence and or imprisonment whilst simultaneously claiming to be treating them fairly and with respect?

A uniquely Canadian Gordian Knot and one I suspect would be solved, as was the original of legend, with the application of force; but in this case, without the benefit of wisdom and insight.

And while, Trudeau, Blair and the rest of the Liberal caucus fiddles, Canadian cities burn as young gang members continue to shoot each other and innocent bystanders with their illegally obtained, illegal firearms (as I write this, I note there is a news story of a 15-year-old suspected gang member who used an illegal handgun to shoot another 15 year old in Ottawa).

These young thugs are further emboldened by the simple fact the government is leaving them alone, while it schemes to take away rifles and shotguns from hunters, farmers, collectors and sport shooters; people, who by Minister Blair’s own words, have always obeyed the law.

George Fritz

Garson

Province has to live within its means

May I give my opinion on the teacher strikes? I am not taking sides, just trying to be objective as possible.

I’m not necessarily a Doug Ford fan. However, I don’t think all the abuse he has taken is fair.

Does anyone think Ford has a hidden agenda to punish teachers? Why would he? We all realize how important they are and their job is to prepare our next generation to run our country. It’s quite the responsibility.

Having said that, running a government is like running a household or a business. If a family brings in $100,000 a year and spends $110,000, what happens? If a business brings in $5 million a year and spends $6 million, what happens? I think the answer is obvious.

Well, our government is the same. There is only so much to go around. In my 50 years of voting, I have come to realize how fickle voters are. They all want a government that provides more teachers, nurses, police officers, firemen, roads, bridges, snowplows, etc.

However, if a government provides all that, there is quickly a deficit, taxes go up and the same people start screaming for a government that will reign in expenses. It’s a no-win situation.

I have limited education and I certainly don’t profess to have the solution, but I was raised to be responsible and live within my budget. It’s worked for me for 68 years. Maybe the government is trying to do the same?

Mario Rovinelli

Sudbury