Mr. Joe Costello:

Some of it has been covered to an extent, but there are a couple of key phrases that keep coming up, "weapon" being one. The other is the concept of resembling something. If one asks someone to consider something that resembles a car or a spaceship, that is fine, as long as he or she knows what a spaceship and a car are. However, if a person was one of the early explorers talking to someone in the Polynesian islands, he or she would probably not know what either was. It would be very hard for that person to make a good accurate judgment on whether something looked like them, apart from it being a flawed concept in the first place. The appearance of something has absolutely no bearing on its use or effectiveness. A black shotgun is no more and no less dangerous than another shotgun. If it was pink, it would not be safer. I would not feel particularly happy to see a burglar coming in with a pink shotgun. The appearance means nothing, but I have heard about many cases in which people have had difficulty in having licensed something because it was black. To me, it is a non-issue.

The other term that comes up a lot is "designed for". There are many things that are designed for one particular purpose that could be used for another. Jamie Oliver's kitchen knives can be used very successfully in preparing meals. Unfortunately, if a person is of ill intent, he or she could use them to inflict serious harm on somebody. I propose that the criteria be the suitability of a person to hold something and his or her intent in using it. Legitimate target shooters and firearms owners have already been through a very rigorous vetting exercise and, surely, their intent has been spoken to; their sanity and their health. It is an ongoing matter which can be examined and the licence withdrawn. Their intent is covered, after which the phrases "designed for" and "appearance of" are largely immaterial.

The idea that something should be done in case somebody does something is an equally flawed piece of logic. If one were to follow it to its ultimate conclusion, one could not sell a car that could exceed the speed limit as the person might exceed it. It would be a huge restriction on civil liberties. Normally, we make a law and expect citizens to follow it. If they do not, there is a penalty. We do not say we will penalise a person on the basis that he or she might do something in the future. That is what a lot of those calling to restrict the legislation even further are looking to do.