Skip to content

Letter: Keeping our freedoms well worth the potential cost

There should be no more changes to ownership and use of non-restricted firearms than currently exists, says reader

Re: Commentary: Firearms battle costing millions

While I don’t see the need for people to own restricted automatic weapons originally intended for military use against other people and I am supporting restricting their use and ownership, I think there should be no more changes to ownership and use of non-restricted firearms than currently exists with the requirement to have a Possession and Acquisition Licence certification to enable ownership of non-restricted firearms by law abiding people who keep and use them appropriately and safely.  

Obviously the current federal government legislators who are insisting on rewriting the laws for firearms ownership have no real understanding of that significance nor realize their proposed changes to existing laws will do nothing to lower the use of guns for crime and violence because they can’t control illegal gun transactions any more than they can illegal drug transactions. 

This misguided legislation is their futile attempt to try and make the general public believe they are actually doing something, but in reality they’re not doing anything that will be effective at reducing the public risk to gun violence and associated crimes. 

And yes it may cost us Albertans some tax money to make sure such misguided legislation with the potential of negatively affecting responsible, non-restricted firearm ownership does not in fact become law is well worth the potential cost. 

Yes potentially keeping our freedoms as responsible Canadians and Albertans comes with a cost, but will be well worth it in the end.

Darrel Florence,