Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 30/8/2018 (675 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
With the possible exception of "reproductive rights," there likely isn’t a two-word combination that has become more divisively politicized in the current societal conversation.
Those who are committed to addressing firearms-related violence in Canada — including both homicides and suicides — tend to favour greater restriction on the types of weapons available to the public and the manner in which they can be legally obtained. Of particular interest to gun-control advocates are handguns and military-style assault rifles, neither of which have any real practical application for civilians, hunters or rural residents who keep firearms at hand to protect their livestock from predation.
Those who oppose gun control are inclined to fly into a bit of a tizzy at the mere utterance of the words, retreating to familiar cries that any discussion of weapons restriction represents "the thin edge of the wedge" in a process that will inevitably lead to the government "coming for your guns."
Canada clearly should not ‐ and, thankfully, does not ‐ seek to emulate the gun–related attitudes and politics of its southern neighbour.
There is, as evidenced by reactions to this week’s report that the federal government will consider an outright ban on certain firearms, simply no middle ground on which to have a measured, collaborative and hopefully productive conversation about guns.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau released the mandate letters given to new cabinet ministers; among the assignments for Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister Bill Blair is the direction to "lead an examination of a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada..."
Here’s what not one single person said in response to the mandate letter’s release: "An examination of that issue seems reasonable, given the perceived increase in gun-related violence in Canada; we should seek expertise from both sides and work toward a compromise that satisfies both proponents and opponents while at the same time making Canada safer for its citizens."
Instead, the heated discussion broke along the expected lines of ideological demarcation: guns bad, or government bad for taking away guns. Neither side seemed interested in the fact Mr. Blair’s instructional sentence regarding a possible gun ban ends in the following manner: "... while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians."
Gun-control advocates are correct when they assert that ease of access to firearms — particularly handguns and military-style weaponry — contributes to gun-involved violence. All one needs to do is cast a cautious glance south of the border, where gun culture is embedded, guns are readily available and the gun-related homicide rate far outstrips that of other high-income countries.
Contrast that to Australia, which introduced comprehensive gun control 22 years ago, reducing their rate of mass shootings to zero. Simply put, fewer guns necessarily means less gun violence.
But gun-ownership defenders are also correct in saying a ban will not deter those who employ firearms for criminal and violent purposes. Handgun ownership and transport are heavily restricted in Canada now, but those regulations — and any law that might result from Mr. Blair’s study — are hardly front-of-mind considerations for individuals bearing arms with wrongful intent.
Canada clearly should not — and, thankfully, does not — seek to emulate the gun-related attitudes and politics of its southern neighbour. But it also cannot pattern its gun response after that of Australia, which is an isolated island continent and not a nation sharing a largely undefended border with the most gun-crazed country on Earth.
Canada needs its own plan for dealing with gun-related violence. And the creation of any such strategy must begin with the willingness to have a serious adult conversation.
Editorials are the consensus view of the Winnipeg Free Press’ editorial board.
Your support has enabled us to provide free access to stories about COVID-19 because we believe everyone deserves trusted and critical information during the pandemic.
Our readership has contributed additional funding to give Free Press online subscriptions to those that can’t afford one in these extraordinary times — giving new readers the opportunity to see beyond the headlines and connect with other stories about their community.
To those who have made donations, thank you.
To those able to give and share our journalism with others, please Pay it Forward.
The Free Press has shared COVID-19 stories free of charge because we believe everyone deserves access to trusted and critical information during the pandemic.
While we stand by this decision, it has undoubtedly affected our bottom line.
After nearly 150 years of reporting on our city, we don’t want to stop any time soon. With your support, we’ll be able to forge ahead with our journalistic mission.
If you believe in an independent, transparent, and democratic press, please consider subscribing today.
We understand that some readers cannot afford a subscription during these difficult times and invite them to apply for a free digital subscription through our Pay it Forward program.