Almost a year ago I deemed a Globe and Mail proposal (made in an editorial) to be nonsense. Now the Good Grey Globe is back at it, in another editorial, from about three weeks ago, in which they actually explain what the problem is ~ “The unsettling rise in gang violence and shootings in (mostly) Toronto …[and] … a series of unrelated mass killings … [which have] … left the public jittery and governments desperate for politically palatable solutions,” but still stick to the nonsensical position that a gun ban will solve it.
Despite saying, correctly, that the problem is with a few, isolated, groups of people, the Globe‘s editorial writers still say that “partial firearms bans” would be a “welcome possibility.” That’s still nonsense.
The problem is with a few small groups of people, often readily identifiable groups, who are disconnected from societal norms and values. Some are a small subset of the Canadian precariat; they live lives of near hopelessness in the midst of plenty. Others are afraid of change, of the “other,” of the newcomer who attends a different church or temple and who asks for some tolerance of her or his social customs. Neither group notices nor cares about “partial firearms bans;” they don’t notice or care about most laws. They, not “military-style assault rifles.” are the problem.
Canada cannot afford to have a permanent, inner-city underclass that is so disconnected from societal norms that it sees often violent crime as a legitimate life choice. Something, it seems to me, must be wrong with at least some of our institutions, because this identifiable, inner-city slice of the precariat has given up and has turned to crime and violence because it cannot see a better option. But there are better choices for 99% of Canadians, including many people of colour. So, why not for that group? Is it systemic racism? Has the education system failed? Has our generous desire to help the poor actually made them dependent? I’m not sure, but I know, for certain, that guns are tools; they are not the root cause of social problems. Banning guns will do nothing to help those who need help the most … it will only make criminal guns smugglers richer.
Equally, Canada cannot afford to encourage social intolerance. There is nothing wrong with a kippa or a hijab. It certainly is permissible, in a free and democratic society to insist that people uncover their faces to get a driving license or to vote, but beyond that, what people wear (and why they chose to wear it) is not usually the government’s business. When a whole province decides to punish whole segments of society for wearing items of clothing they believe their faith requires then the province is wrong and its laws must be disallowed, even if that means upsetting all the Constitutional scholars. It is just a small step from e.g. Québec’s Bill 21, which exploits people’s fear of the “other,” to making it OK to murder worshippers in a mosque.
Canada, society as a whole and those in high political office, need to address the real problems in our country. Banning handguns or “military-style” rifles is nonsense which only really stupid people, like Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and Bill Blair …
… believe can help. The proposal plays on peoples’ fears without offering any real hope for change. Like the prohibition of alcohol in the USA in the 1920s, this will do little except make millions of ordinary people into petty criminals and make real criminals (guns smugglers) rich. But it’s the kind of knee-jerk stupidity that characterizes the Trudeau-Freeland regime.