Rick Stiebel/Columnist
Why is it necessary to assign style points to weapons of mass destruction?
Any weapon that can blast a burst of bullets with a single squeeze is, in essence, an assault rifle, or an assault-style rifle, as the federal government has decided to describe them.
Whatever they’re called, they are engineered for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, end of story. While some are wringing their trigger fingers over the definition described in the Liberals’ ban, we’re losing sight of one simple but central fact. Each and every one of these killing machines was designed for military use. They are the tools of those who wage war. There is really no logical explanation for them to be considered part of any responsible gun owner’s personal collection.
We already live in a country where 34 people out of every 100 law-abiding citizens claim legal ownership of a firearm. Who knew there’s that much of a need for protection, or that many forms of wildlife hanging around the homestead in need of a good blasting? Exactly how many hunters or target shooters do you know, personally? Canadians imported 70,160 restricted semi-automatic rifles between January and July of 2019 alone, which we’re all led to believe are stored safely alongside the 9,967 prohibited rifles brought into Canada during the same time frame.
READ MORE: Rickter Scale
I only know a couple of responsible gun owners, not counting the Mounties I worked with at the West Shore RCMP detachment. The fact four out of five Canadians support the ban of assault-style rifles should stop any discussion that the ban infringes on the rights of responsible gun owners dead in its tracks. And please, spare me the argument about how the ban punishes law-abiding citizens. The other premise being trotted out with diarrhea-like regularity by gun rights groups is that criminals don’t get their guns legally. A quick Google search of weapons stolen in Canada in any given year should put that to rest quicker than you can lock and load. The fact the government is coughing up the coin to provide a buy-back plan for owners is good enough for me.
When a previously law-abiding citizen, you know, that quiet guy on your street who kept to himself for the most part, suddenly snaps, he shouldn’t be able to find an assault-style rifle within ready reach of his fingertips. Our history as a peaceful country is scarred enough already by mass murderers who made assault rifles their weapon of choice.
When it comes to procuring protein, I prefer the meat section at the supermarket to hunting, but I don’t begrudge those who pursue that activity passionately, whether it’s to put food on the table or part of a family tradition I’ll frankly never understand. One of the nicest guys I ever worked with was an accomplished pistol packer who took great pride in his skill as a competitive target shooter.
For me, any argument against the ban on assault-style rifles, however, is a bogus smokescreen wafting from the barrel of a weapon that may wind up one day being pointed in my direction, or at you.
Rick Stiebel is a semi-retired local journalist and a Sooke resident.
