Pro-gun Activists and the Dichotomous World-View

It's such a weird thing. I see pro-gun people talking about "criminals" as though that was a definable group in society. Static and unchanging. They like to juxtapose "Law-Abiding Gun Owners" with "Criminals". It sounds a bit like those games we used to play as kids; cops and robbers, or cowboys and Indians (Yes, I am that old, and that's what it was called then. I know it is insensitive and wrong, but for the purpose of this rant it is important to context. I'm sorry)

There is a black and white, right and wrong, good and bad dichotomy built into these arguments. This is a feature of contemporary conservative politics in Canada. (For a more detailed discussion of this dichotomy, go to: https://thecailleach.blogspot.com/…/why-do-conservatives-se…).

There is great peril to the pro-gun side in admitting that there could be any cross-over one way or the other between "Law-abiding gun-owner" and "criminal". It takes the edge right off the protest that gun restrictions punish law-abiding gun owners, if it can be seen in a more nuanced way. If it can be allowed that there are shades of legal gun ownership, for example, it becomes clear that lines can be a lot blurrier than immediately assumed.

"Law-abiding gun-owners" are supposed to store their guns unloaded, in a locked cabinet, and store their ammunition is a separate locked cabinet. If someone believes they need their gun to protect themselves or their property or family, it is clear that this arrangement will be a great encumbrance should something happen that makes them want to use the gun in this way. This may lead some gun owners to not follow the storage rules.

"Law-abiding gun-owners" are not supposed to point their firearms at anyone, but some do, sometimes, either as a joke or a threat. People who work in emergency women's shelters will tell you that some women stay in violent, abusive relationships because there is a gun in the house, because he has threatened them with it, or threatened to shoot the kids or the family pets. He's a "law-abiding gun-owner" by virtue of no one knowing that is able to talk about the threats. And before everyone piles on, I am not suggesting all gun-owners are abusive, or that all gun owners threaten their partners. But the fact is, some do. The Nova Scotia massacre appears to have started with a domestic dispute and escalated into the biggest mass shooting in Canadian history.

"Law-abiding firearms owners" are not supposed to keep a firearm in their vehicle without the right permit, but some do, sometimes.

"Law-abiding firearms owners" are not supposed to modify the cartridge on their weapons, but some do.

"Law-abiding firearms owners" are not supposed to hunt on private property without permission, but some do, sometimes.

Looking at the argument online over the past several days, it is clear that firearms owners consider themselves "law-abiding" if they haven't shot anyone, held up a business at gunpoint, or been caught doing any of the things that skirt the rules of ownership. This inserts a grey-zone into who are, in fact, "law-abiding gun-owners".

Likewise, the cut and dried bogey man inspired by the label "criminal" is far more nuanced than those using this argument would like people to think. Cries of "But the criminals won't obey the law!" suggest that there is a specific set of people who roam the streets terrorizing citizens at random. Crime statistics suggest this is not the case. Gang gun violence usually only involves members of other gangs, not the general public. There are far, far fewer armed robberies and armed muggings in Canada than in the US. And yet, the conservative view promotes the idea of this criminal "them" who are to be feared and hated, that we must arm ourselves to be safe from.

The term "criminal" suggests a specific type of person, one without redeeming features, without a multi-faceted personality, without circumstances and experiences that have led them to the point of committing an act against the Criminal Code of Canada, and without any hope of redemption.

And what of those who are gun owners, who have done non-gun-related criminal things? Cheated on their taxes? Been drunk and disorderly? Shoplifted? Made a false declaration when bringing purchases back into the country? Brought more wine or beer than allowed across provincial boundaries in the trunk of their vehicle? Driven drunk?

The world is far more complex and nuanced than is encapsulated in the pro-gun side's arguments.

The notion that the gun ban penalizes "law-abiding gun-owners" ignores the concept of public good. People realised that seatbelts save lives. Recognizing that this was in the public good, governments made seat-belt use mandatory. And it was very unpopular at first. But it is the responsibility of the government to make laws to protect the public and benefit society. It is not an attack on any specific group. It is public policy to save lives.

There is also a tendency for the pro-gun side to speak as though there are two completely distinct gun economies. As though there is the totally clean, above-board, all certificates and licences present, all the Ts crossed and the Is dotted, market where "law-abiding gun-owners" purchase their weapons, then a wholly separate, dark-web, underground, smuggled in from the US gun market, where the "criminals" get their guns. The firearms marking treaty was intended to help figure out and trace guns as they pass through different hands, but Stephen Harper, as PM, refused to sign on. There are guns that get stolen from the homes of "law-abiding gun-owners", guns that get pawned, guns that get sold at gun fairs with a bit less regulation than in a store, gun that are "borrowed" by a family member... Again, the picture is much more nuanced than the pro-gun side would have you believe.

Doug Ford is saying the government should be putting all its resources into stopping gun smuggling at the border, ignoring the fact that considerable efforts are already being made to curtail guns coming into Canada, and the fact that Bill Blair is promising more announcements of smuggled guns in the near future.

Listening to Cross-Country Check-up on CBC this afternoon, there are quite a few callers, including some self-identified gun owners, who agree with the ban. They say it is common sense. Then there are those gun-owners who call in to defend their particular favourite gun which happens to be on the banned list. "It's not that powerful" is one of the things they say to defend it. "It's only on the list because Marc Lepine used the same model to shoot up Ecole Polytechnic", and many attempt to explain that the general public who support the ban (almost 80% of Canadians are in favour) just don't know enough about guns to be able to say if any particular model is dangerous in civilian hands. This may be true, but the list was compiled by a team of experts, headed by former Toronto Chief of Police, Bill Blair, who surely knows a thing or two about guns and public risk.

Finally, there is the fallback, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Which is often followed by something along the lines of, "cars kill more people than guns, are we going to ban cars next?" Which is a red herring, of course, because cars are primarily intended as a means of transportation, whereas guns, particularly the ones now banned, are primarily a machine that kills, and kills as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible.

We can easily access statistics that show that jurisdictions who have the strictest gun control also have the fewest gun deaths.

How often do we hear news stories (primarily from the US) about someone who suddenly lost it and went and shot their neighbour over something stupid like cutting down a tree or not returning a borrowed garden implement? Or a child who has got hold of a gun (again, primarily in the US) and accidentally shot a sibling, playmate or parent? Or a parent who has accidentally shot a child coming home late (again, US primarily), mistaking them for an intruder? And what about suicides? People who try to kill themselves with a gun are far more likely to be successful. These things do happen. If there was no gun available, many outcomes would be quite different.

And for those who like to say, "you can kill someone with a knife/shovel/rope/axe/fireplace poker, etc... There is a HUGE difference. First, those things have other primary purposes. Second, being successful in killing someone in any of these ways means getting up really close to them, and being at least as quick. Because you can run away from an angry person with a shovel, it is much harder to outrun a bullet. And you probably need an element of surprise, which probably means the killing is limited to one person under most circumstances. Anyone around who saw what you were doing would either have the opportunity to run or attempt to stop you. There are exceptions, of course, but in the normal course of things, there would be less loss of life and the incident would end quite quickly.

Here endeth the rant... for now. 😉