Under the current laws, a legal gun owner cannot use a firearm for self defence. You would be charged. As a rural dweller I find that insane. Police response time to my property is 45 minutes minimum. If we simply allowed that change it would be a deterrent to would be criminals. They're far less likely to walk up the long secluded laneway of a rural property if they know the owner (who almost certainly owns at least one rifle or shotgun) has a right to use it for self defence. Which doesn't necessarily mean firing it. Just having it at hand. Most crime is crime of opportunity.
I am a long time, legal gun owner. The reality is that properly stored firearms and ammunition, by definition, are not readily accessible. In the event of an immediate, dire threat, they are not a viable option. The more dangerous scenario is the point at which gun owners abandon safe practices as a reaction to increasing criminal activity.
That depends on which problem you're trying to solve for. It has increasingly become my observation that ideologically driven policy almost always creates unintended consequences when reality is encountered.
The primary problem here is that the tacit agreement between Canadians and their government (you protect us and we'll renounce private use of violence) seems to be breaking down. One possible solution would be for government to, once again, do a better job holding up their end of the bargain. But they seem largely uninterested (or unable) to do that. The only other "solution" I can see is adopting some form of public vigilantism. But that has its obvious disastrous consequences. Is there a third option?
Public vigilantism, organized or individual, is likely the last stage before anarchy reigns. Far better, I suspect, for the public to protest en masse until the government is forced to restore the previous quid pro quo. Sadly, the loss of faith in law and order is occurring within the context of a broader distrust of once reliable institutions. I would argue that there are parallel dynamics within the judiciary, health care, education, media and the civil service.
I have a much better understanding of the kinds of vulnerabilities faced by rural folk since last year, when I "enjoyed" a brief home invasion in the middle of a "safe" Toronto neighborhood. Police took more than two hours to arrive, by the way.
While I was researching this, I asked GPT about the status of using legal guns in self defense. Bearing in mind that neither I nor GPT are lawyers, here's what I was told:
"It is crucial for individuals to understand that while the law provides for the right to defend oneself, the justification for using deadly force is strictly scrutinized."
I cant stand guns, period. But to take it restrict the ability of the individual to own a firearm , and individual like yourself, is just dumb legislation. I dont know if you have happen to notice. , its not law abiding citizens perpetrating car jackings in Toronto. I will go a step further for you,and prove my point,in 2023 Montreal had murders that totaled to 33. Seven of those homicides were in a fire in old Montreal. Then there were they Unorganized Crime gangs that were responsible for a number of homicides. Killing each other, Including murders of innocents. Most of all the rest were domestic abuse, femicides, infanticides.
There was the SQ officer stabbed by the mentally ill person.
So how many gun deaths were there actually? We have a city of about 4.3 million, the province has over Eight Million residents.
I think that the legislation needs to modified to reflect the realities of Canadians from coast to coast.
Your final paragraph starts with the idea that, "... I feel that this [changes to gun ownership laws] is an important conversation to have." I absolutely do feel a resentment to the federal Liberal party for it's stupid concentration on gun laws and changes thereto. I am neither a gun owner nor do I intend to be one. The reason for my resentment is that the LPC government has been concentrating on making outlaws of law abiding gun owners and trying to implicate those law abiding citizens in all sorts of crime while that same LPC government does nothing of any use with respect to the flow, nay, the flood, of illegal weapons from the south. In "addressing" gun violence, the LPC government is more worried about people who have not committed crime than they are about the people who actually HAVE committed that crime. That makes the LPC government at best stupid and idiotic and, more likely, simply not interested in dealing in any effective way with the issue: performance as compared to effectiveness.
About half way through your essay you ask, "Do governments have the moral right to expect us not to act in defense of our lives and property?" Given the comments which I offer above, I emphatically answer that the governments do not have that moral right.
I must say, Sir, that you are tilting at considerable Canadian windmills recently: last week asking what if we cannot fix medicare and this week asking a) what if Canadian police cannot keep us safe and b) do governments have a moral right to prevent us from protecting our lives and property.
If you are not careful, someone will start asking if you are the "right" sort to be allowed to continue to make commentary - online harms and all that, you know. Keep up the good work and ask many, many more uncomfortable questions and keep tilting at any windmill you can find, Sr. Quixote!
Stop handcuffing the Police Officers? ( sorry I had to)
Put the violent offenders in Jail and keep them there. Build a prison like El Salvador has done and keep the criminals in there. Do you want the Paul Bernardo's of this world set free. Give the police the ability to do their job unencumbered, give judges and prosecutors the leeway to sentence criminal offenders.
I'll necro this post as I'm just discovering your substack. The first thing that jumps out at me is the framing of your thesis.
The idea that gun control should be revisited in Canada is one idea to consider. The idea that loosening restrictions is something to be considered in light of an increase in gun violence itself seems eye-wateringly st----.
Why not do a data-driven look at causes of crime and policies found to reduce it instead of this, which points to the weakness in the correlations between gun ownership and crime and then, seemingly in contradiction to the earlier datum, argues that we might want to start thinking about relaxing gun ownership laws?
In general, I like the premise of your substack, but I find this argument pretty weak.
You're looking at this from the perspective of the state - which is a perfectly valid approach. But my article is about individual citizens who know they're not criminals and who want to protect themselves from violent crimes when the police demonstrably can't. There's obviously going to be a conflict of incentives here and that's understandable.
Even though this site is all about data, I'm not sure this is really a data story at all. Why should rising violence somehow compel individuals to ignore their own safety incentives? Why, in other words, should law-abiding people be forced to submit to the risk of violence when the police can no longer guarantee their safety?
Fair point - I completely subscribe to the “have least harm” approach which is a state / society level approach.
An individualist perspective begs the question that someone has the right to kill or threaten someone with a gun because that person is suspected of perpetrating a crime against them (with or without a gun). I’m personally not convinced that this is a desirable world to live in in a general equilibrium once everyone who wants to be able to shoot someone in some situations has that ability.
I think supporting the liberalised gun ownership view requires either an overwhelming emphasis on individual liberty and a high tolerance for gun violence (the de facto choice made by Americans) OR a partial equilibrium view of how gun liberalisation will interact with overall crime levels.
Anyway thanks for the response; looking forward to future posts :)
Under the current laws, a legal gun owner cannot use a firearm for self defence. You would be charged. As a rural dweller I find that insane. Police response time to my property is 45 minutes minimum. If we simply allowed that change it would be a deterrent to would be criminals. They're far less likely to walk up the long secluded laneway of a rural property if they know the owner (who almost certainly owns at least one rifle or shotgun) has a right to use it for self defence. Which doesn't necessarily mean firing it. Just having it at hand. Most crime is crime of opportunity.
I am a long time, legal gun owner. The reality is that properly stored firearms and ammunition, by definition, are not readily accessible. In the event of an immediate, dire threat, they are not a viable option. The more dangerous scenario is the point at which gun owners abandon safe practices as a reaction to increasing criminal activity.
That is an excellent point. It could be that there are no good solutions.
That depends on which problem you're trying to solve for. It has increasingly become my observation that ideologically driven policy almost always creates unintended consequences when reality is encountered.
The primary problem here is that the tacit agreement between Canadians and their government (you protect us and we'll renounce private use of violence) seems to be breaking down. One possible solution would be for government to, once again, do a better job holding up their end of the bargain. But they seem largely uninterested (or unable) to do that. The only other "solution" I can see is adopting some form of public vigilantism. But that has its obvious disastrous consequences. Is there a third option?
Public vigilantism, organized or individual, is likely the last stage before anarchy reigns. Far better, I suspect, for the public to protest en masse until the government is forced to restore the previous quid pro quo. Sadly, the loss of faith in law and order is occurring within the context of a broader distrust of once reliable institutions. I would argue that there are parallel dynamics within the judiciary, health care, education, media and the civil service.
I have a much better understanding of the kinds of vulnerabilities faced by rural folk since last year, when I "enjoyed" a brief home invasion in the middle of a "safe" Toronto neighborhood. Police took more than two hours to arrive, by the way.
While I was researching this, I asked GPT about the status of using legal guns in self defense. Bearing in mind that neither I nor GPT are lawyers, here's what I was told:
"It is crucial for individuals to understand that while the law provides for the right to defend oneself, the justification for using deadly force is strictly scrutinized."
I cant stand guns, period. But to take it restrict the ability of the individual to own a firearm , and individual like yourself, is just dumb legislation. I dont know if you have happen to notice. , its not law abiding citizens perpetrating car jackings in Toronto. I will go a step further for you,and prove my point,in 2023 Montreal had murders that totaled to 33. Seven of those homicides were in a fire in old Montreal. Then there were they Unorganized Crime gangs that were responsible for a number of homicides. Killing each other, Including murders of innocents. Most of all the rest were domestic abuse, femicides, infanticides.
There was the SQ officer stabbed by the mentally ill person.
So how many gun deaths were there actually? We have a city of about 4.3 million, the province has over Eight Million residents.
I think that the legislation needs to modified to reflect the realities of Canadians from coast to coast.
Sir:
Your final paragraph starts with the idea that, "... I feel that this [changes to gun ownership laws] is an important conversation to have." I absolutely do feel a resentment to the federal Liberal party for it's stupid concentration on gun laws and changes thereto. I am neither a gun owner nor do I intend to be one. The reason for my resentment is that the LPC government has been concentrating on making outlaws of law abiding gun owners and trying to implicate those law abiding citizens in all sorts of crime while that same LPC government does nothing of any use with respect to the flow, nay, the flood, of illegal weapons from the south. In "addressing" gun violence, the LPC government is more worried about people who have not committed crime than they are about the people who actually HAVE committed that crime. That makes the LPC government at best stupid and idiotic and, more likely, simply not interested in dealing in any effective way with the issue: performance as compared to effectiveness.
About half way through your essay you ask, "Do governments have the moral right to expect us not to act in defense of our lives and property?" Given the comments which I offer above, I emphatically answer that the governments do not have that moral right.
I must say, Sir, that you are tilting at considerable Canadian windmills recently: last week asking what if we cannot fix medicare and this week asking a) what if Canadian police cannot keep us safe and b) do governments have a moral right to prevent us from protecting our lives and property.
If you are not careful, someone will start asking if you are the "right" sort to be allowed to continue to make commentary - online harms and all that, you know. Keep up the good work and ask many, many more uncomfortable questions and keep tilting at any windmill you can find, Sr. Quixote!
I hope not.
Stop handcuffing the Police Officers? ( sorry I had to)
Put the violent offenders in Jail and keep them there. Build a prison like El Salvador has done and keep the criminals in there. Do you want the Paul Bernardo's of this world set free. Give the police the ability to do their job unencumbered, give judges and prosecutors the leeway to sentence criminal offenders.
I'll necro this post as I'm just discovering your substack. The first thing that jumps out at me is the framing of your thesis.
The idea that gun control should be revisited in Canada is one idea to consider. The idea that loosening restrictions is something to be considered in light of an increase in gun violence itself seems eye-wateringly st----.
Why not do a data-driven look at causes of crime and policies found to reduce it instead of this, which points to the weakness in the correlations between gun ownership and crime and then, seemingly in contradiction to the earlier datum, argues that we might want to start thinking about relaxing gun ownership laws?
In general, I like the premise of your substack, but I find this argument pretty weak.
You're looking at this from the perspective of the state - which is a perfectly valid approach. But my article is about individual citizens who know they're not criminals and who want to protect themselves from violent crimes when the police demonstrably can't. There's obviously going to be a conflict of incentives here and that's understandable.
Even though this site is all about data, I'm not sure this is really a data story at all. Why should rising violence somehow compel individuals to ignore their own safety incentives? Why, in other words, should law-abiding people be forced to submit to the risk of violence when the police can no longer guarantee their safety?
Fair point - I completely subscribe to the “have least harm” approach which is a state / society level approach.
An individualist perspective begs the question that someone has the right to kill or threaten someone with a gun because that person is suspected of perpetrating a crime against them (with or without a gun). I’m personally not convinced that this is a desirable world to live in in a general equilibrium once everyone who wants to be able to shoot someone in some situations has that ability.
I think supporting the liberalised gun ownership view requires either an overwhelming emphasis on individual liberty and a high tolerance for gun violence (the de facto choice made by Americans) OR a partial equilibrium view of how gun liberalisation will interact with overall crime levels.
Anyway thanks for the response; looking forward to future posts :)