I have put my foot in hot water before, this time it might be a case of scalding hot water.

Let us have a discussion about gun laws without the hysteria and jumping up and down. But before we do that let us look at some legal controversies to put things in context. Over the years we went after drunk drivers using continuous enforcement and upping the legal anti of consequences. It worked because it had the overwhelming support of the public.

Smoking was not made illegal but sale, distribution, legal ages, health warnings and a host of other restrictions to a significant degree have worked. It hasn’t eliminated smoking but it has put cigarette consumption on a steady decline. Why is it working? Public acceptance of mainstream thinking.

Turning to marijuana, how did it become legal in Canada and in some US States? The governments collectively spent more than a trillion dollars in a war against weed. A war that did not have public acceptance. Some of its harshest critics are getting rich from its sale and distribution. Once out of the closet pot is viewed with a dollar value in mainstream society.

Before I address guns, there are a few issues that lurk in the shadows. Illegal gambling exists but gambling is legal with rules and regulations and is now socially acceptable. Alcoholism is now treated as a medical issue instead of a legal issue.

Prostitution is another of those silent activities that operate in the shadows of society. Since the dawn of history – governance does not really know how to deal with it. If they just legalize it without restriction, rules and regulation there could be an enormous backlash. If they start with legal enforcement how do they enforce laws against what operates in the shadows?

There are a couple of easy to remember debates where people metaphorically lit their hair on fire. Stores and malls opening for Sunday shopping. Two – the howl from hades as to whether or not Canada should have its own flag. Sad but true.

Now the gun laws as amended or brought into being. Was the method a threat to democracy? No that scenario is hype to frighten people and solicit a negative reaction. At the same time was the new law a fair assessment of the size of the problem? Again in my opinion no but then my opinion is one of millions.

Putting things into perspective there are those fun loving people who want to ban all weapons regardless of logic, on the other end there are what some affectionately call Bubbas. This group doesn’t want any laws and some think they have second amendment rights of another country. I know I met two.

In my view they should have narrowly focused on changes they can enforce. There are keepsakes and weapons of history and all kinds of restrictions that could have applied so those guns could still be legal. The real victims of this will be grass and bushes as people find hiding places for their guns. Feel good laws might make people feel safer but it fails to protect public safety.

At the same time there are assault weapons and military style weapons that should have been defined to narrow the focus of enforcement. What guns are those? Automatic weapons you wouldn’t hunt squirrels with. Gun owners should be respectfully stating their case because the future of gun laws will come down to public opinion. And no I do not own a gun. And yes I am for sensible gun laws.

Fred Steele