Editor: I鈥檓 writing this in response to thesubmitted by Bill Dallas with regards to the Times advertising for firearms in the Aug. 23 edition.
As a retired 35-year RCMP member and competitive firearm shooter, I take exception to Mr. Dallas鈥� comments.
He says Canada is going down the road with firearms issues such as the United States have.
Our countries are completely different, with the Americans having the right to firearms enshrined in their constitution.
Canadians have no such right and there are many checks and balances in the Canadian firearms program to make sure only those who are allowed to have firearms get them.
He mentions assault rifles being advertised in the paper.
An assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire and Canadians cannot buy such a firearm.
The proper term would be a modern sporting rifle. This is no different than the lever action repeating rifles that came on the scene in the 1800s when compared to the single shots they replaced.
People like to have the latest and greatest.
Soldiers returning from the wars wanted firearms resembling the guns they carried in battle.
This is the same with the modern sporting rifle.
It resembles an assault rifle used in combat but is far from it.
Modern sporting rifles are not designed to kill people and are used extensively in three-gun completions along with handguns and shotguns.
Just because Mr. Dallas does not like the looks of these firearms is no reason other law abiding citizens should not have access to them.
No one has a need for a 700 horse power car either, as they are only designed for speeding and racing. Should we ban advertisements for these as well?
In my 35 years with the RCMP I never attended an incident where a modern sporting rifle was used nor heard of any such incident.
Live and let live, I say.
If Mr. Dallas doesn鈥檛 like these ads then he doesn鈥檛 have to look at them or shop there.
Dave Jones,
91原创
