Gun control cannot protect victims

civil disarmament gun controlCan more bureaucracy protect victims from violent criminals?

Gun control cannot protect victims from killers. Canada’s gun laws prove it.

Both Kim Campbell (in 1991) and Jean Chrétien (in 1995) justified bringing in additional restrictions on guns in part because Gharbi bought his gun legally before murdering helpless students at Montréal’s École Polytechnique in 1989.

The government’s emotional posturing resulted in a complex gun control scheme that imposes owner licensing (the Possession and Acquisition Licence) and required rifles and shotguns to be registered. Long-gun registration was repealed in 2012, but owner licensing continues. More than three billion dollars has been spent to date on this complex yet ineffective system. Hundreds of civil servants are employed at Miramichie — and in every province — as part of the Canadian Firearms Program. They decide who can own firearms and who cannot.

Two cases illustrate the failure of gun controls. Despite onerous restrictions on purchasing firearms, the new gun laws did not stop the crazy shooter at Dawson College in Montreal in 2006, nor the spree killer in Moncton in 2014.

Gangsters still manage to get guns despite Canada’s strict gun regulations. Despite bogus claims by the police in Canada, the best available data show that the bulk of guns used by violent criminals are smuggled. More gun controls are not the answer.

Research shows that restricting firearms to the general public does not reduce homicide rates. Mass murders happen just as frequently in countries with strict gun laws – such as France or Germany — as in the United States.

Research has convincingly shown that the most effective way to stop spree killers is having someone armed on the scene.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.