Updated: Nov 13, 2020
Ok, I am not going to mince words here. I want to be extremely clear—if you are advocating for further gun control measures in Canada, you are, at a minimum, completely ignorant to facts.
If you’ve reviewed the facts and still demand more gun control, then I am completely convinced that you lack the mental capacity to be a sufficiently functioning member of society,.
Or you are just a straight up fascist.
Now this isn’t a “stupid anti-gunners” rant. In fact, I would say there are tones of anti-gunners who are seeking to do good, but are ill-informed and just completely blind to logic.
If we look at gun control strictly from a risk management perspective, a few things become apparent. Gun control has absolutely no discernible impact on intentional homicides nor should it ever be intended to.
The layers upon layers of rules that gun owners follow to ensure their firearm is secure, the requirements for transporting a firearm, the requirements for storing a firearm, the required training—all point towards guaranteeing the safe and responsible use of a firearm. From a risk management standpoint, this only serves to prevent harm from firearms due to reckless and irresponsible use. I would say that considering this, these measures have been exceptionally effective. The current rate of accidental death with a firearm in Canada is close to 1 in 1,000,000. You aren’t going to make it any safer than it currently is with more layers of control.
Now, if we consider deranged individuals that intend to do harm—we start tapping into the real issues that plague society. A deranged individual isn’t going to follow any of the aforementioned layers of control. That being said, none of these layers of control will mitigate the potential for someone who desires to cause harm to do so.
To make the argument that a deranged, homicidal individual is going to commit a murder because of guns is completely illogical. That would be the same as claiming that drunk driver commits vehicular homicide because of cars. In fact, I would argue the opposite correlation is a stronger one. A deranged homicidal individual, in my opinion, would be more likely to avoid committing a homicide because of the potential for a given target to have access to a gun. Whether or not the individual in question has access to a gun has a negligible effect on whether or not they will commit homicide. Guns don’t make people want to kill. Sick people want to kill.
A deranged, homicidal individual is going to commit murder with whatever tool they can get their hands on. That’s just common sense.
Now we do have some controls in place to prevent deranged individuals from legally obtaining a firearm, much in the same way we have measures to ensure that a drunk driver cannot gain access to a vehicle. In my opinion, these controls are adequate in both cases, as the acquisition of either item requires the individual to break the law, be dishonest or steal. More laws will not prevent this.
Society doesn’t design our risk management measures to deal with the extremes; they are intended to maintain control and safety in a steady state operation. To design for extremes and anomalies in any system results in a completely illogical series of controls that restricts human behavior to the point where it is either cost-prohibitive to continue to operate—or completely removes the incentive to think and behave independently with no measurable benefit statistically. In this case, building risk mitigation around extremes and anomalies will result in pure authoritarianism and ‘thought-policing.’ The benefit is significantly outweighed by its negative impact on society.
Murderers will murder. More rules don’t cause them to stop and reconsider. Sick destructive people will always find a way.
Another significant fact that comes to mind in the gun debate is the rate of homicide amongst legal gun owners. It is a known fact that men commit the vast majority of murders in society. When you measure the likelihood of a legal gun owner to commit homicide over that of the general male population in Canada, the result is astounding. Legal gun owners are one-third as likely to commit homicide compared to the average Canadian male. Kind of makes the point we should have more legal gun ownership in Canada—don’t you think?
To put this in perspective, a leftist male pounding their chest demanding gun confiscation is 3 times more likely to commit a homicide in Canada than a legal gun owner. Who is the real threat to society?
Another point to note regarding murder in Canada. Overall 60% of homicides that occur are committed by gangs. I think we can all agree that it is highly unlikely gang members are legally purchasing firearms and using them in homicides. Again, murderers will find a way to murder. Interestingly, we have only heard of restrictions on legal gun owners in response to this. There has been almost no coverage or measures put in place to prevent gang related homicides.
Now, I’ll tackle the argument that restricting access to firearms overall is the solution. This is based on the assumption that the theft and trafficking of legally owned firearms on the black market is the issue—this is also wrong. There is little to no evidence to support this except anecdotal evidence. Even if it was the case, eliminating firearms completely in Canada would only result in more traffic coming over the border and a larger market share coming from other countries. Not less illegal firearms overall.
The Liberal gun ban is thus a completely illogical risk management effort. The guns being banned are not complicit in any discernible crime stats. Not to mention, guns are strictly being banned based on physical appearance, not functionality. This is the famous “they look scary so I feel artificially safer by banning them” approach. Functionally, as we all know, there is no difference between banned guns and legal guns, as they have the same caliber and rate of fire. Another failed, ineffective risk management effort.
The ultimate aim of the gun control lobby is not to reduce gun incidents. Based on the facts I’ve listed, that is a completely illogical conclusion. The only reasonable conclusion is that the anti gun lobby is aiming to completely disarm Canadian population. There is no other end that makes sense to me. To them, guns are equated with murder—so why would they ever stop at just a few more restrictions?
The reduction of gun owners’ rights is simply a slow trickle; a gradual means to a fascistic end.