I guess there is an exemption for sport shooting. We look at the Olympic program, and it's very tightly tied with respect to the kinds of guns that are used. They're very specific. This is all going to be about risk management. The risk of those guns turning into crime guns is probably lower.
If we look at something like IPSC on the other side, we see it's a very broad definition. There are five categories of handguns, including “open”, which basically means anything.
In terms of a control measure or being able to say what kind of gun should be used or not, or there being a risk that the number of those guns will grow because suddenly somebody is an IPSC elite shooter, we're just very skeptical that that could be managed. We think it undermines an objective we have.
We know this is not going to be easy and it's going to disappoint some people. On the other hand, we've been victims of gun violence. We're the examples of what happens when it goes wrong. It's obvious why we're coming through with this motivation. We're asking that somebody give something up to make sure that we have safer streets.
The guy on the Danforth was not a gang member. Richard Edwin, from Toronto, in the spring, was an RPAL holder. This perfect vetting process does not exist. It can't. It can't possibly understand the motivation of everyone who successfully gets through the RPAL process, or that they might change their mind or change their behaviour. He accumulated a cache of weapons and started shooting people at random in the downtown core of Toronto. These risks happen. They happen in addition to the other kinds of crimes we see that are the product of crime guns.
We have to solve the whole problem or we will be sitting here again and having other sad people standing here making the same testimony.
Thank you.