Bill's Bulletin Board
By Bill Rea

"I'm not a liberal, so I have a poor grasp of stuff I don't know anything about." P.J. O'Rourke

This is one of those occasions when I'm a little reluctant about the topic on which I'm writing.

The problem is it deals with a subject about which I know next to nothing, at least in a technical sense.

"So what else is new?" I hear some of you mutter.

But it is an emotional issue, as was demonstrated to me yet again last week.

This column is about guns, and was inspired by last Wednesday's public meeting on the Township's proposed discharge of firearms bylaw.

There were about 25 people there, mostly men, and a couple of them evidently checked their manners at the door. But over the years, I've noticed that same observation can be made at just about every such meeting, regardless of the subject.

Now as I already stated, my knowledge of guns and firearms is limited. I do not own a gun and have no desire to possess one. I can

think of no one off the top of my head who I know for sure owns one, and I can't think of a good reason why I would make inquiries to that effect.

I also know that if someone points a loaded gun at my head and pulls the trigger, my life is in all probability over. That's because guns are primarily made for killing, be it people, pests, big game or whatever. And for that reason, a lot of people are afraid of them, and would probably prefer they didn't exist in our society.

I have fired rifles on three occasions in my whole life. All three times was on a supervised range back in the days when I was but a Boy Scout, meaning more than 30 years ago (my marksmanship was actually pretty fair, for a beginner).

That pretty well sums up the extent of my knowledge about guns. If some of you want to accuse me of not knowing what I'm writing about, I guess I have given you plenty of justification.

Some of you might think that I would advocate the banning of guns, but such is not the case. I chose not to own guns or use them. I choose, also, not to bungee jump, but I have no objection to any of you engaging in such activity. I also don't object to people having guns, provided they use them safely and responsibly. And there is where the problems can start to develop.

Last week's meeting covered a range of positions, with some people apparently wanting no guns, while others wanted no bylaws, and still others found plenty of room in the middle.

There is an argument that states if no one could get their mitts on a rod, this would be a much better world. At the risk of sounding flippant, I would submit that argument is too shallow to have many holes in it. True, it would be hard to kill someone with a bullet unless one had a gun with which to fire it. And wars would be a lot less hideous without guns.

But the fact is guns exist in our society. Their existence and their advancement over the years has been a sign of what is generally known as progress. The irony is humanity has found better and more efficient ways to communicate with each other, and kill each other at roughly the same pace.

So the reality is guns are here to stay.

And they do have their uses. Police officers carry

guns for a reason, and I have heard few calls over the years to have that procedure changed. And there are those who use guns for the skills involved, such as target shooting. In fact, there are even firearms involved in some Olympic events.

So the idea of eliminating guns anywhere, including certain areas of King Township, is hardly realistic.

There are people, such as farmers, who either need guns to deal with pests, or the services of hunters to do the job for them.

I'm not a big fan of hunting, but I'm realistic enough to understand that it's an important activity. At a previous meeting on this proposed gun bylaw last fall, it came out hunting offers considerable social, economic and cultural benefits in Ontario. As well, it is seen as an important tool in wildlife management. And John Almond, a fish and wildlife specialist with the Ministry of Natural Resources, made the point at both meetings that hunting is a lot more safe than the average person might think. Last year, he said that approximately eight out of every 100,000 hunters are injured in Ontario, as opposed to the roughly 93 people who are injured swimming. I'm not much of a hunter, but I do like to swim, and according to these statistics, I'm at greater risk of doing myself harm with my recreation activity of choice.

Almond also said last week there has been no case in recorded memory in Ontario of an innocent bystander being injured by a hunter.

I guess now I'm beginning to sound like a gun advocate, but don't forget that I've already stated I don't know my topic.

But I think I know people, and I understand that some of them are apprehensive about guns and firearms. No matter how safe and regulated hunting is, and regardless of its safety record, which is impressive, according to the statistics Almond put forth, there will always be people who will worry about a bullet fired as the result of carelessness. There may be no case of an innocent bystander being injured by a hunter, but there's always that first time, or at least the perception of the first time.

So while there are some who charge that a Township bylaw regarding firearms is not needed, I would maintain that people who might have a perceived fear of being injured by a gun also have the right to perceived protection.

I guess this would have made a lot more sense if I really knew my topic. On the other hand, if I knew from whence I was coming, I might have taken a stronger side on this issue, and made no sense at all.

I guess that's why they say "ignorance is bliss."