Vincent J. Curtis
29 Jan 2020
Minister of Public Safety William Blair issued a press release concerning the Liberal government's forthcoming actions on gun control The details are still unclear, but it may include a ban on "military style assault rifles" and empower municipalities to ban handguns within city limits - constitutionally problematic in Canada where munipalities are creatures of the provincial governments. Blair's press release was published as an op-ed in the Hamilton Spectator on 28 January 2020.
The contribution by Minster of Public Safety William Blair is just the sort of thing you’d expect from an ignorant brute. Blair may once have been Chief of Toronto Police, but that doesn’t mean he knows much about firearms. And it shows in his arguments.
Take “military-style assault rifles” as an instance. This expression is a joke among knowledgeable gun owners, but it continues to play well with the informed public. The U.S. had an “assault rifle” ban from 1994 to 2004, in which “assault rifle” was carefully defined because – strictly speaking- assault rifles were not what were actually being banned. Regardless, the ban was allowed to lapse because it was found to be ineffective.
Now, consider the argument that civilianized versions of military rifles have no place in Canada. The AR-15 platform, for instance, to my personal knowledge has been sold in Canada since 1972 – nearly half a century. It was in the civilian market fifteen years before the Canadian Army had adopted the C-7 (the Canadian M-16). Even Blair complains that Chiefs have been calling for bans “for decades,” which means such firearms have had places in Canada for decades, half a century at least. So, the no place argument falls to the ground.
He called them “powerful guns.” What distinguishes these guns is that they are not powerful as compared to their military predecessors. Again, Blair either expresses or plays upon ignorance.
Blair says these guns “were designed to kill people.” Again, untrue. Guns, in general, are designed to fire projectiles known as bullets. Whether that projectile is used to kill a person, an animal, or to punch a hole in a paper target depends entirely on the skill and intent of the shooter, not the gun.
But what about “military?” Since the 1870s, militaries and civilians have been using each other’s small arms for their distinct purposes. The famous Colt cowboy gun started out as the “single action army.” Millions of surplus Lee-Enfield rifles were released to the general public after both World Wars – when they were still current military issue. Canada’s Ross rifle, began as a civilian rifle, was adopted by the Canadian military, and finished off back in the civilian market.
The AR-15 platform is the most popular rifle in the United States, not only because of its many qualities, but also because something like it is military issue. There is also great interest in former Russian military issue firearms, the Mosin-Nagant and the AK-47. That something like the AR-15 is in current military use makes it also of interest in the civilian sphere has been the rule for 150 years at least.
What Blair doesn’t realize, and isn’t saying, is that there are rifles he is going to leave alone that are much like the AR-15, but have a lower public profile.
Blair makes reference to the Liberal government granting municipalities with the power to ban handguns. This is quite unconstitutional, but never mind.
The point of this high profile attempt to ban guns is to divert the public’s attention from failure. It is supposed to make people feel that the government is doing something to reduce “gun violence.” There is plenty of experience with these efforts in banning guns that we can learn from in the United States, and they all show that gun bans don’t work. They may, in fact, be counter-productive because the criminal are guaranteed never to encounter effectual resistance.
Stupid brutes are in charge of Canada’s gun policies. What they propose not merely makes liars of their predecessors who promised no bans in return for cooperation by the suspicious but law-abiding (concerning the gun resistration). They engender resistance from the law-abiding. It is a massive distraction from the failures of their other policies. There is no accountability. When it is discovered how useless and harmful this gun-ban is, they’ll be resting on their pensions having created great distrust of government among the most law-abiding, cost the taxpayer a billion dollars, and achieved nothing good.
-30-
