Why The U.S. Is Right To Not Do As Canada Has

Here we go.

Canada has a mass shooting and then bans assault weapons, thus prompting American anti-gunners to pontificate on how we totally should have done the same thing. It’s as predictable as the sunrise. We all knew it was coming. The op-eds would certainly flow.

Take this one, for example.

It didn’t take long for this chief executive to respond to a nation’s anguish with decisive action. Immediately following the slaughter of 22 Nova Scotians, 13 with firearms and nine by fire, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed to do something about assault weapons — the instrument of death used in this massacre as well as others on Canada’s short list of mass shootings. Within two weeks, Trudeau made good on his promise.

Capitalizing on his added powers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, Trudeau summarily banned the sale, transfer, and use of more than 1,500 assault weapons identified by make and model. Existing owners of these firearms were given a two-year grace period after which Trudeau expects to launch a massive buyback.

What a contrast to President Donald Trump’s vacillating response to repeated acts of carnage that occurred prior to the coronavirus pandemic, when the “March for Our Lives” movement — not physical movement — was the focus of debate and demonstrations.

The problem here is that the writer has accepted gun control as the only viable option.

Like I pointed out earlier today, this is the politician’s fallacy or politician’s syllogism.

  1. We must do something
  2. This is something
  3. As such, we must do this.

Except, the argument we’re having isn’t over whether something should be done, but whether this particular something will yield the results people except without causing even more problems.

Proponents of gun control continually fall into this fallacy, arguing that we need new gun laws in the wake of such shootings without ever really considering if that’s what we really need. After all, we’ve prevented numerous mass shootings with the laws we already had on the books. Do we really need another law, or do we need to do a different something?

Yes, Trudeau did something, but what’s the effect of that something in the long run? Are Canadians any safer?

Probably not, actually. While Canada doesn’t have a lot of violent crime, what they do have is usually carried out with a handgun. Mass shootings are exceedingly rare there as it is, much less a mass shooting with an AR-15.

Meanwhile, many Canadians are being deprived of their ability to have an effective self-defense tool because their prime minister was desperate to make a political point.

Sure, they did something when the United States isn’t so quick to act, but there are a lot of ways that “doing something” is worse than doing nothing at all. I’m mighty much afraid Canada is going to get to experience all of them before all else is said and done. They’re going to experience them and likely curse Trudeau’s name.

We, however, will remain secure in our persons as we have the means to resist almost anything that might come our way. That’s freedom for you.