search
top

The Canadian Gun Control Movement’s Bridge Too Far

Like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was for the gun control movement in the United States, the long gun registry might turn out to be a bridge too far for the Canadian gun control movement:

“The vote against the registry was a historic day, no two ways about it,” says National Firearms Association spokesman Blair Hagen. “But we’re still opposed to a licensing system that makes paper criminals out of peaceful firearms owners.” The NFA’s ongoing complaints with guns laws range from “possession-only” certification introduced in 1998—which forced all gun owners to acquire a licence, when previously you just needed a licence to purchase a gun—to still-standing provisions in C-68 for warrantless searches of homes by firearms inspectors. “We’re not so much celebrating the defeat of part of a particularly hated law, as we are coming to the realization that reform is possible,” says Hagen.

Read the whole thing. This is what has energized our movement as well; the realization that we could not only stop them, we could push them back to the point of near destruction. But we kept pushing, kept talking to gun owners, and kept waking them up to what was happening, and what our opponents end game was. A big source of our success, I think, is getting more women involved in shooting. Canadian shooters would do well to emulate that. Women are, surprisingly, much easier to radicalize on the issue of gun rights then men are. I don’t know what that is, but it is.

12 Responses to “The Canadian Gun Control Movement’s Bridge Too Far”

  1. Gray Peterson says:

    “Women are, surprisingly, much easier to radicalize on the issue of gun rights then men are. I don’t know what that is, but it is.”

    Ask a group of women if they carry any personal protection devices at all (gun, knife, pepper spray, stun gun). More than half will hold their hands up. That’s why.

    • Brad says:

      You are on to something. There are gender differences in pro-gun activism the basis of which is self-defense.

      Which reminds me of a peculiar opinion I have seen stated online. There are men who proclaim that firearms for self-defense are unnecessary and even an indicator of weak character, and back up this assertion by boasting of their own fighting skills or martial arts background. So there may be gender differences even when it comes to anti-gun motivations.

      I couldn’t help but think though that those boasters were anti-gun because they really feared having to face a firearm the next time they picked a fight with someone weaker than themselves. Those thugs think their brawn entitles them to a higher status, and so of course they abhor ‘the great equalizer’.

  2. MicroBalrog says:

    That’s sadly probably not true outside the US. I do not hold out much hope for Canada.

  3. Bitter says:

    I don’t think that women are “easier to radicalize” as much as it is that women are more willing to do something to protect the right, support the sports, and generally be involved in the things that revolve around our issue once they get involved in the first place. In general, I think women are more likely to do things that aren’t totally centered on themselves and their direct interests.

    If their kid participates in shooting sports, women are more likely to be the one bringing them to competitions and practices. You don’t want to mess with a mom by taking her kid’s sport away. She’ll be all over legislators and anyone who will listen.

    Gray’s point about tools for defense stand as well. Once women decide something works for them, they aren’t going to want to lose the right to use it.

    • Brad says:

      A two-edged sword?

      “In general, I think women are more likely to do things that aren’t totally centered on themselves and their direct interests.”

      I have heard the same explanation used to explain the motivation of anti-gun women too.

  4. Weer'd Beard says:

    Also, speaking as a former anti, the AWB was the big dumb lie that got me to question EVERYTHING the anti-rights movement has pushed.

    The AWB seems like a good idea if you believe the guns are more deadly and dangerous than ban compliant guns.

    Mandatory permits and training and registration sounds like a great idea if you believe these things lower, or solve crime, or prevent accidents.

    Gun-free Zones seem like a good idea if it saves lives.

    Of course data shows all of this is crap, and the backers of the laws are liars, and that converts pretty hard.

    People don’t like being lied to.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      Banning guns sounds like a great idea too if you believed that they actually caused crime. Antis have always been focusing on the very end of a tragic event, not the beginning of it. For the true believers, it’s as if they cannot determine the actual sequence of events that leads to someone becoming a criminal. Somehow, the gun ends up being what started it all.

      For the rest, they’re just a bunch of liars and want to control everyone.

    • Gareth A says:

      Similar thing over here. It was the GCN’s claim that replicas (mentioning Airsoft RIFs in particular) could be modified to fire real live ammo with a minimum of effort.

      We’re not even talking about the £1000+ Inokatsu stuff – their main issue was the £2 springers that you got down the markets.

      Took me a little light reading, but found out that their justification for the 1997 ban – that the shooter was a “law-abiding” gun owner – was bullshit according to law and the letter. Licensed, yes. Legally so… not really.

      I used to put up a blog back in my younger more emotional days (linked), but I’ve stopped since I did tend to get a bit ranty. And of course, by the time I get round to writing anything, Sebastion and several others have said it better and more concisely (see this post for example).

  5. ExurbanKevin says:

    “We’re not so much celebrating the defeat of part of a particularly hated law, as we are coming to the realization that reform is possible,”

    Yes, yes it is. And the recent brouhaha in the People’s Republic of Ontario is going to help the cause of reform as well. Once non-gun owners realize that THEIR rights are in as much jeopardy as gun owners are, the tide will have turned.

  6. DirtCrashr says:

    It’s hard to dismantle the Leviathan, but you can do it bit by bit – it’s all incremental. Also it was sold to Canadians on the “science” of safety, and that turned out to be a lie by every measure, while the costs of amassing and running it exploded – and those low-ball estimates were revealed as lies too.

  7. Alpheus says:

    If gun rights gain momentum in Canada, what will that do to Australia and Great Britain? I hope that this will spark an interest in those countries, too…and perhaps open up the issue for the rest of the world, as well.

    At least, we can only hope!

    • Garrett Lee says:

      Australia’s probably salvageable, but Once Great Britain? The culture shift required would be epic. When a bill for allowing .22 target pistols can’t even find traction…

      Eventually, after a collapse in law and order, maybe. But it will be a looong time, methinks.

top