Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Senior Member chuckbuster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    The Land of Beer and Popcorn.

    Article in National Post debunking myth of gun bans saving lives

    Tim Thurley: Don't believe gun-control advocates who say bans would save lives
    There is precious little evidence that a new Canadian firearm ban would reduce homicide at all

    Author of the article:Tim Thurley, Special to National Post
    Published Mar 19, 2023 • Last updated 3 hours ago • 6 minute read

    Multiple groups and individuals, portraying themselves as experts in firearm research, have misstated the current body of comparable research on firearm deaths in Canada and continue to mislead readers at home and abroad.

    One such organization, Doctors for Protection from Guns, falsely claimed in Time Magazine that “Canada risks following the path of the U.S. on gun violence” and stated in an opinion piece in the Toronto Star that the research is “unequivocal” that the bans proposed by Bill C-21 and the withdrawn amendments would save lives.

    This is not true. It is not a difference of opinion. It is factually incorrect.

    Canada has a substantial body of domestic research on firearm control issues. I know. I’ve even written some. It showed that the so-called “erosion” of gun control from 2006 to 2015 — which was mostly just the elimination of a costly, wasteful and ineffective register of non-restricted hunting and sporting guns — had no demonstrated effect on homicide, a fact backed by other rigorous research.

    To be sure, some properly designed gun control absolutely can work. Licensing, permits, safe storage and background checks are all measures supported by a paper commonly cited by gun control lobbyists in Canada. Their only problem? Canada has all these measures. It has for over 30 years. Not only that, but the measures are widely supported by Canadian gun owners and even the Canadian gun lobby. Not a single major political party proposes eroding them.

    Some properly designed gun control absolutely can work

    What is not backed by evidence? Bans of specific firearm types, which is what gun control lobbyists are pushing and what the government is attempting to do. The very study commonly cited by Doctors for Protection from Guns in supporting expansion of Canada’s suite of firearm type prohibitions states that “evidence suggests that laws restricting the sales of certain firearms are not associated with variations in all (homicides) or firearm homicides.”

    Indeed, there is precious little evidence that a new Canadian firearm ban would reduce homicide at all, or even just mass shootings. Caillin Langmann is a medical doctor and one of Canada’s preeminent firearm researchers as well as an accomplished statistician who has testified on multiple occasions before a parliamentary Committee, yet his work – including his demonstration that even Canada’s 1977 ban on assault rifles and 1994 ban of many types of so-called ‘assault-style’ rifles did not impact mass homicide – is consistently discounted by gun control advocates. So is the mountain of evidence from Australia that its National Firearms Agreement of 1996 did little or nothing to prevent homicide or suicide rates from continuing on their existing trajectories. Those on the front line know this, too: many Canadian police chiefs do not support the new prohibitions.

    While the government and gun control lobbyists insisted that common hunting guns would not be impacted, one of the single most widely owned and used rifles in Canada was on the proposed ban list, an inclusion that sparked outrage from Indigenous groups. The SKS, with wide-ranging estimates of between 250,000 and one million rifles present in the country, was named as prohibited by the legislation despite not even meeting the government-proposed definition for an “assault weapon.” It is in such common use as a hunting rifle that it features prominently on some official government hunter education advertising. The inclusion of that and similar firearms even sparked outrage from the Canadian left, such as the member of Parliament for Nunavut, in whose constituency hunting is often preferred to grocery shopping.

    Many Canadian police chiefs do not support the new prohibitions

    The absurdity continues: multiple .22 calibre rimfire rifles and even some shotguns would have been categorized as “assault weapons” by the same amendment, in addition to further entrenchment of a ban on numerous larger calibre single-shot hunting firearms already prohibited by the government in 2020 — some worth well into the tens of thousands of dollars. This is not “gun lobby disinformation,” but a well-documented fact that can be further verified simply by reading the now-withdrawn C-21 amendment G-46.

    Of course, part of the kerfuffle is the difficulty in defining what constitutes an “assault-style” firearm in the first place. This is a subjective exercise sometimes based on little more than appearance, evidenced not only by the use of the word “style” but by the gun control group PolySeSouvient’s attack on a Canadian company as an “assault weapon dealer” despite that company only manufacturing bolt-action rifles. Much ink has been spilled on the absurdities inherent in the current system and the impossibility of trying to define a concept that has no definition without adding a whole extra series of absurdities to Canada’s classification system.

    These continued misstatements by misguided advocates may be explained by one factor: Despite the claims of the groups to be advocating moderate, sensible gun control, it is hard to overstate their radicalism.

    It is hard to overstate their radicalism

    The founder of the Doctors for Protection from Guns lobby group has personally publicly supported a total ban on civilian firearm ownership, a position almost violently out of touch with public opinion in a country where over 2.2 million people are licensed to own firearms and spend $18.9 billion a year on fishing, hunting, trapping and sport shooting while supporting 107,000 jobs and generating $6.1 billion in government revenue — revenue which in 2020-21 would have been more than enough to fund the federal share of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency combined.

    Far from the claims of the government and lobbyists alike that they had no intention of impacting Canada’s safe traditional hunting and sporting cultures, it was not just the “gun lobby” but Olympians and prominent hunting organizations alike who begged them to recognize the devastation that Bill C-21 would cause to these cultures. The Assembly of First Nations passed an emergency resolution by consensus opposing the new law. Jim Shockey, probably one of the most famous hunters alive today, appeared before a House of Commons Committee and pleaded for members of Parliament to understand the effects these prohibitions would have on Canada’s hunting community.

    It goes almost without saying that such punitive measures on a large industry would not only “dampen” Canadian hunting and sport shooting cultures but would cost the Canadian federal government billions of dollars in both gun “buyback” spending and future tax revenue without any demonstrated public safety benefit, leaving a pittance for highly lauded programs to address the social determinants of crime.

    The increasingly fragile trust between Canadian gun owners and the Canadian federal government risks total collapse, especially in rural areas, the West, and the North. Canadian gun owners take great pride in being and knowing they are considered safe, responsible citizens by their government, and most feel that the current rules form a reasonable compromise to ensure Canadians can have both public safety and legal, responsible civilian ownership and use of firearms. Undoing that typically Canadian consensus in this uncompromising, tone-deaf way risks the worrying prospects of political alienation, noncompliance and societal division in a country that desperately needs unity.

    To address violence while maintaining trust, Canada can do what we know works. We can maintain those existing firearm controls that are popular and have been shown to work, such as safe storage requirements, mandatory training and thorough background checks. We can expand their enforcement to ensure references are called and people are aware of the existing red-flag system. Most importantly, the federal government can focus on the demand-side root causes of violence, such as drug use and addiction, youth gang involvement and poor economic outcomes, to make sure young people don’t get involved in gun crime in the first place.

    There is room for a reasonable debate on gun politics in Canada. It is a complex and multifaceted issue that must start with facts and sensitivity, and not ideological fixations or invoking the American bogeyman. Those who do not care to learn and incorporate the facts will serve Canada better by staying in their lane.

    Special to National Post

    Tim Thurley earned a Master of Science from Leiden University with his analysis of the long-gun registry’s lack of effect on Canadian homicide rates and spends much of his personal time continuing research on firearm policy.
    Last edited by chuckbuster; Yesterday at 07:36 AM.
    Magua took the hatchet to colour with blood...It is still bright.

  2. The Following 10 Users Like This Post By chuckbuster

    Aniest (Yesterday), ESnel (Yesterday), M1917 Enfield (Yesterday), Purdom234 (Yesterday), RangeBob (Yesterday), Relic49 (Today), Rory McCanuck (Yesterday), Satain (Today), Scoutertracker (Yesterday), Swingerguy (Yesterday)

  3. #2
    Senior Member Strangeday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Gun control laws aren’t about saving lives. Never has been. It’s about political theatre

    This gun control legislation will go down in history as the largest mass disobedience in Canada.

    They will have to create a special courts or policy to deal with it
    Last edited by Strangeday; Yesterday at 11:24 AM.
    Calvin Martin, Q.C. 1933 - 2014

    I would like to apologize to anyone i have not offended. Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

  4. The Following 7 Users Like This Post By Strangeday

    762mm (Yesterday), Aniest (Yesterday), chuckbuster (Yesterday), M1917 Enfield (Yesterday), Satain (Today), stevebc (Yesterday), stewbud (Yesterday)

  5. #3
    Senior Member 762mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2022
    Gun control 'advocates' and their dumb as a post politico 'allies' are the best gun salespeople in history, bar none!

    Remington, Winchester, Colt, Glock, Girsan, HiPoint, etc, etc, etc could never buy enough marketing material to match the gun frenzy purchasing effect that these gaslighting idiots are having on actual gun sales.

    This is because anyone who's even remotely interested in owning a gun at some point in their life knows that these unhinged gun grabbers will ban anything and everything they can, evidence and facts be damned. We are not dealing with rational lawmakers, but with well-financed civilian disarmament lobbying groups who follow an agenda and refuse to listen to ANY legitimate arguments or statistics.

    So you can either buy the gun today, or you may never again get that chance... and just like that, a buying frenzy is in permanent effect these days!

    How very ironic...

  6. The Following User Liked This Post By 762mm

    Aniest (Yesterday)

  7. #4
    Senior Member Scoutertracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    It could be argued that our gun control regime is the cause of our current firearms issues.

  8. #5
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by OriginalPost
    It is in such common use as a hunting rifle that it features prominently on some official government hunter education advertising
    SKS in Government Hunter image, as mentioned in original post's link


  9. #6
    Senior Member Satain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Never thought the day would EVER come where a major media outlet would write words of facts and "some" truths when it comes to the firearms topic..
    I am extremely shocked.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts