A Response to Negative Gun Control Letter Comments

To the exhibitor:

While it’s 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 Exhibitor. The letter was about gun control and while I received many positive remarks and a lot of support, this letter refers to the negative aspects of some comments I received from some of our Islanders. .

Now, it’s completely understandable that when making a public statement on a critical issue like gun violence and gun control in Canada, there will be different opinions from various people: sometimes to a small extent and sometimes to a great extent. Sometimes, on such an important public safety issue, it is very difficult to understand the negative opinion and, frankly, I was quite appalled to hear such negative opinions from Islanders.

It seems like a few of the good boys on the local island really took notice of my concerns. They seem pretty unhappy with my pro-stronger common-sense stance on gun control and my references to the politics of ongoing issues really got the boys’ dander up. They seem offended by the coalition I make between the two.

For me, it’s not rocket science to realize that gun control is almost 100% political. People must understand that in Canada, owning a firearm is not a right, it is a privilege that a citizen must earn by obeying the laws of the country.

It is simply the political will of the people to deliver what two-thirds of Canadians are demanding from the government, which is stricter gun control and the removal of assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns from the hands of the general public.

I have yet to hear any of the recent local naysayers explain why they think the public should be able to buy and own these weapons of war.

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

Major-General (Retired) Paul Eaton: “As the former Commanding General of Fort Bennington Infantry Center, I know a bit about weapons. Let me say unequivocally for all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and similar rifles are weapons of war. Those who oppose the assault weapons ban continue to play games with the AR-15 semantics, claiming that there is a significant difference between it and the M-4 carbine that the military door – there really is none.

Dr. Peter Rher, Chief Trauma Surgeon, AR-15: “It is designed for maximum wound effect. It’s the perfect killing machine.


Greg Young

Comments are closed.