In the first throne speech following the federal election, the government laid out their plans for the upcoming . . .
parliamentary session, putting a focus on the environment, tax cuts for parents and disappointingly, a ban on “military-style” firearms.
The call for a ban, delivered Thursday by Governor General Julie Payette, came the day before the 30th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre, a vicious shooting spree that claimed the lives of 14 young women. The victims and their family members have been some of the most vocal advocates for stricter gun laws in Canada, and have called on the current government to crack down on the vague collection of firearms they call “assault weapons.”
While it’s laudable to try and create positive change in the wake of such a horrific tragedy, the measures that the current government is proposing are an inefficient use of resources and will do very little to curb gun violence. Public Safety Minister Bill Blair is in the process of creating a list of models that will become prohibited, and during the election campaign, he estimated that there are 250,000 such firearms in the country with an average value of around $1,500. The government buyback program to reimburse current owners of these weapons is estimated to cost between $400-600 million.
This poorly thought out policy is akin to banning “sports cars” to try and cut down on motor vehicle accidents. It’s a proposal that will appear effective to people unfamiliar with firearms, while doing little to address gun violence or its root causes.
Canada is not like the United States. This country isn’t awash with mass shootings brought about by decades of militant arms industry lobbying and an idiotic interpretation of the constitution. Owning a firearm in Canada isn’t a right; it’s a privilege that comes with many restrictions.
Semi-automatic rifle magazines in Canada are already capped at five rounds (with some exceptions), and semi-automatic shotguns have similar limitations. Classifying guns based on their looks rather than their capabilities is a ridiculous strategy that won’t bring about any significant change.
Many of these so-called “military-style” rifles that are set to be banned are already classified as restricted weapons, meaning that their owners have to jump through many more hoops and face more scrutiny than the owners of hunting rifles. They are essentially status symbols for collectors and gun nuts, as they can only be used legally on a target range. They aren’t an existential threat to our society in the same way that gear heads with fast cars aren’t an existential threat to our highways.
The van attack in Toronto proves that deranged, murderous individuals don’t need military-grade weapons or training to kill large amounts of people. Our public safety dollars would be better spent cracking down on firearms illegally imported from the US and increasing funding for robust, proactive social and mental health care services. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
This ban is ineffectual posturing that will cost an exorbitant amount of money and should be reconsidered.
Caleb Nickerson
