In response to the recent school shooting in Florida, demands for gun-safety reform have reignited.
Hundreds marched to the legislature in Victoria, adding to the clamour. And in Ottawa, the federal government is putting the finishing touches on legislation intended to tighten gun regulations.
No surprise there. The Liberals have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. In 1993, then-prime minister Jean Chrétien introduced a long-gun registry, replacing the totally reliable firearms-acquisition certificate.
The change was largely optics, since the FAC already required rigorous police checks. The new system was not, however, inexpensive. A project that was supposed to cost $2 million a year ended up with a price tag of more than $1 billion.
What did we get for that? Nothing. After more than a decade of wasted effort, the federal auditor general found no evidence of any benefit to public safety.
The Conservative government of Stephen Harper eventually abolished the registry, though restrictions were retained on certain weapons.
But here is the point. Gun-related deaths in Canada have been falling for decades, with or without the involvement of government regulation. In 1974, the peak year the baby boom reached adulthood (no coincidence), firearm-related fatalities topped out at 3.03 per 100,000 population. By 2016, the rate had declined to 0.61.
And even that figure is misleading. Deaths due to legal weapons (rifles and shotguns) amounted to just 0.14. The majority of the fatalities were caused by handguns and sawed-off shotguns — that is to say, gangland shootings. But these weapons are already illegal or heavily restricted.
So where is the problem we’re trying to solve, and what options are there that we haven’t already discarded?
“Ban assault rifles” is the usual trope. Never mind that the U.S. tried this and it didn’t work. Never mind that we don’t permit them in Canada.
A true assault rifle is a machine gun, which keeps firing as long as you pull the trigger. Those are illegal in our country.
The assault rifles you hear about are nothing but semi-automatic hunting rifles with cosmetic add-ons to mimic the military version. These do nothing to increase the weapon’s lethality.
But can’t you fire a semi-automatic more quickly? Not if you intend to hit anything.
High-velocity weapons kick violently when fired: It takes two or three seconds to get the gun back under control. You can reload a standard rifle in that time.
Remember Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who killed president John F. Kennedy? Using a cheap bolt-action (the slowest of rifle actions), Oswald got off three aimed shots at a moving target in eight seconds, two of which were hits. You can’t fire a semi-automatic any faster.
How about restrictions on magazine size? I’m perfectly happy with limiting magazine capacity to five rounds in any high-velocity weapon (this is already the usual practice in hunting rifles).
But same problem. You don’t achieve much. Any experienced shooter can drop an empty magazine and shove in a loaded one with virtually no loss of time.
What about the risk that semi-automatic rifles can be converted to full automatic by an experienced gunsmith? First off, it’s almost unheard-of in Canada. Second, it’s already illegal.
And here we come to the real problem with calls for more gun control. The vast majority of fatalities are caused by gang members; suicides also play a role. In neither case will adding more legislation have any effect.
The first group aren’t bothered by laws. The second will find some other method.
The only people who suffer are law-abiding hunters, target shooters and farmers protecting their livestock.
Bottom line: This is a purely artificial crisis ginned up by the anti-gun lobby, helped along by politicians with attention deficit disorder.
