Banning Guns In Canada

Alright, time for a little background.
Within the last decade or so, anti police sentiment has grown. Rightly or wrongly, the actions of police are often criticized by the public who have very little to do with police actions or use of force. The police often have their hands tied in response, as a complete education in all things police is not possible in the soundbite news cycle we’ve come to accept. As such, at least in Canada, several measures and acts have been put into place to ostensibly curtail the abuses that the public are subject to at the hands of police. As a former cop, who was in the position when many of these measures were coming into effect, I could see the writing on the wall. That is an increase in violence. To summarize the issue in a word:
What is carding? Well commonly it means when a police officer stops a citizen with no underlying reason, but rather just to gather information on that person. In my understanding, carding became an issue due to some absolutely moronic performance metrics given to officers in Toronto, insofar as collecting peoples names meant the officer was doing a good job(not unlike ticket quotas). Well, this is obviously unacceptable(srs), so the public demanded change. Introducing…. COII. That’s Collecting Of Identifying Information Legislation(note section 10), for those of you who dislike acronyms as much as I do.
Get to the gun part…
I am. So when this legislation was introduced, it mandated that officers issue a receipt of sorts to a citizen when they are stopped without cause defined in law. The receipt includes things like the persons name, age, etc, but also the person’s perceived race and gender, and information about how to complain about the officer. What??? Perceived race and gender? That’s a recipe for disaster. The concept is that this legislation will curtail police abuse of power. Except it already was.
There’s a concept in Canadian law called arbitrariness, what that means is that if an officer arrests and charges a person, when the judicial system takes over, the officers actions and intent will be brought into question. The arbitrariness of the interaction is brought up all the time, as a way for a accused/defendant to suggest that the officer didn’t have due reason under the law to even begin the interaction. When these cases are put forward properly, they can and do often result in a accused/defendant being found not guilty. So you see, there are already impositions on officers to not take action which could be construed or perceived as arbitrary. In fact it’s such a big deal that Staff Sgt’s will squash charges themselves prior to the completion of the report if the officer doesn’t properly articulate their case.
What the introduced COII legislation told me as an officer, and others who are far less apt to admit it openly, is that the province and the public no longer support proactive policing. Every single stop, whether it be a person or vehicle, instantly was professed to be arbitrary and always resulted in an argument. So what’s an officer to do? Nothing. Like, actually nothing. Why would an officer risk complaints, arguments, fights, or unnecessary escalations over trying to do the job? Answer: No reason. Result: Cops began taking a step back from proactive police work. Myself included. There’s a saying, I don’t know if I came up with it but it’s apt:
The sheep needn’t questions the actions of the sheepdog, lest the sheepdog steps back and the wolf does wolfing.
The world is a dangerous place, mes amis. And the wolves of the world will stop at nothing to take from you what is yours. When COII legislation was introduced, I, in a very fortune teller kind of of way, said a uptick in violence will follow. Today, it has happened, and gun violence is increasing. A local police Chief even stood up, when others were too cowardly to even be in the room, and proclaimed that carding has led to the increase in violence. Why has it increased because of carding? Well, it has emboldened criminals into a false sense of safety while travelling with illegal firearms, and as previously mentioned it has discouraged police from doing the job they actually want to do.
Now to the gun ban.

– Amazon Advertisement –

With the increase in gun violence, the cities of Toronto and Montreal recently introduced bans on handguns, Montreal even suggesting a national ban on handguns and assault style firearms. What I hear, is that these cities, and the peoples/politicians who support these bans, are trying to ban implements of violence. Namely firearms. I’ll be straight, firearms are largely used as implements of violence. Whether they be hunting or defense, they are used to shoot things. This is obvious. What isn’t obvious to these politicians(or it is and they’re pandering as usual), is that banning specific implements of violence is an action against a manifestation of violence, not the causality. Violence is caused by violent and dangerous people. Banning one tool used by violent, dangerous people, doesn’t stop violent and dangerous people from existing. They don’t go away. They adapt.
The United Kingdom.
The UK banned handgun sales in 1997. Decrease in gun violence? Yes. Decrease in acid attacks and stabbings? No. For those who aren’t clicking the links, over 2000 acid attacks have been investigated in the UK in the last 3 years. The Mayor of London wants to increase control of knives. Sorry, what? Knives aren’t strictly implements of violence, they are largely tools. And now, after having banned handguns, London is going after knives? Will a crackdown result in violent and dangerous people not being just that?
Now, I don’t like to complain without providing a solution. Solution: Do a crackdown on violent and dangerous people, in Canada of course(London can explore the rabbit hole of what can be used as weapons and ban them accordingly. Hint: everything). Instead of focusing on the implements of violence, focus on the causality of violence. That’s the people doing it! Maybe put them in jail, so the rest of us who contribute can continue doing just that without shooting, stabbing, throwing acid, running over, punching, suplexing, or throwing beer bottles at each other.
To summarize, I suggest that politicians start banning violent and dangerous people. The avenue for this already exists, it’s called jail. Legal handgun ownership, to me, signals any emergent group’s resilience to violence, and the foresight to not get caught in the paradigm experienced in London, UK. Maintaining legal firearm ownership, in a safe and responsible way, signals to me that a country has the fortitude and intelligence to address the causality of violence.
Or don’t listen to me, and in 20 years expect to have acid thrown on you by violent and dangerous people. But hey, at least handguns are banned for legal owners(they’ll still be smuggled into the country though).
Thanks for reading.

April 2020 Update

This post was initially posted on the last iteration of my website, in August 2018. Since that time I have joined the CCFR – Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. There may be new gun laws coming on the books soon, it seems

If the rights of Canadian Firearms owners is of interest to you, please consider checking them out. Having a consolidated front of information and lobbying is invaluable with the current infringement which has been suggested.