A response to the negative comments on gun control letter

To the Expositor:

Although certainly not the norm, I feel compelled to put pen to paper in a follow-up to a letter I wrote to the editor that was printed in the June 22 edition of The Expositor. The letter was on the subject of gun control and although I received numerous positive remarks and much support, this letter is a reference to the negative aspects of some comments I received from some of our Island folk.

Now, it is quite understandable that when one makes a public statement on a critical issue such as gun violence and gun control in Canada, there will be different opinions from various people: sometimes in a small way and sometimes in a big way. Sometimes in the case of such an extremely important issue of public safety it is very hard to understand the negative opinion and, frankly, I was quite aghast hearing these negative opinions from Islanders. 

Seems a few of the local Island good ‘ole boys have really taken exception to my concerns. They seem to be quite upset on my pro-stronger common sense gun control stance and my references to the politics of the issues at hand has really got the boys’ dander up. They seem to be offended by the coalition I make between the two.

To me it is not rocket science to realize that gun control is almost 100 percent political. People need to realize that in Canada, firearm ownership is not a right, it is a privilege—one a citizen must earn by obeying the laws of the land.

It simply comes down to the political will of the people to ensure what two-thirds of Canadians are demanding from government, which is stronger common-sense gun control and to get assault-style rifles and semi-auto hand guns out of the hands of the general public. 

I have yet to hear any of the recent local naysayers explain why they feel the public should be able to purchase and possess these weapons of war. 

I will end this letter with quotes from two professionals, one a military man and one a surgeon. 

Major General (Rtd.) Paul Eaton: “As a former Commanding General of Infantry Centre, Fort Bennington, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally for all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful difference between it and the M-4 Carbine that the military carries—there really aren’t.”

Dr. Peter Rher, leading trauma surgeon, of the AR-15: “It is designed for maximum wound effect. It is the perfect killing machine.”

Thank you,

Greg Young