Four Shot in Vancouver Shooting Despite Strict Gun Control Laws

AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File

The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as any shooting where four or more people are shot--not killed, mind you, only shot--besides the perpetrator. This is a controversial definition that I've long argued exists just to artificially inflate the number of mass shootings in this country and to scare people into supporting gun control.

But GVA only tracks shootings inside the United States. That's a bit of a shame, actually.

You see, while we all know that their mission is to support the anti-gun narrative in this country, there was a shooting in Vancouver that meets their definition that they're not going to track.

Four men were left with serious injuries following a shooting early Thursday morning in gun-controlled Vancouver, British Columbia.

The Daily Mail reported that the four men were in a BMW when “a gunman wielding an automatic weapon unleashed a hail of bullets” on them.

However, CBC noted White Rock Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Constable Chantal Sears indicated law enforcement does not know exactly how many gunmen may have been involved.

But four people were injured. That's enough to qualify for inclusion in the GVA database where it in the United States.

Why does that matter?

It matters because the GVA exists to facilitate the exact same kind of gun control laws here as what Canada currently has and that clearly did jack squat.

The truth is that gun control doesn't work. It's never worked.

Canada has been cracking down on just about every gun you care to name and what good did it do? Four people got shot despite literally the same laws we've been told we need here in the US to stop these kinds of shootings.

"But Canada doesn't have as many shootings as we do."

No, they don't. They didn't before they passed their gun control laws, though. Canada has never had our violent crime rate in general. Hell, our non-gun homicide rate outstrips their total homicide rate.

See, the problem with gun control is that it doesn't control guns. 

Instead, it only controls a very large subset of the total population, namely those inclined to follow the law. They give up what they're told to give up and they don't try to buy that which has been banned.

This act wasn't carried out by someone like that, though, because those are the type of people who would never try to shoot people who weren't trying to hurt them. They're the exact opposite of the people gun control activists claim they want to target.

But that's how gun control works.

Instead, the criminals of any country who already have access to illegal things like drugs also have ways to get guns. Yes, many come from the United States, but do so illegally. If they weren't from here, though, they'd get them from somewhere else.

Gun control doesn't work.

This kind of thing may happen regularly here in the United States, but it'll keep happening no matter what laws you care to name. Look at GVA some time for all the shootings in New York or California that are exactly like this.

You can't legislate away already criminal behavior. Trying to do so may be the dumbest thing a human being could attempt to do.

Which tells you all you need to know about the gun control side of things, doesn't it?

If they want to keep beating their heads against the wall, that's on them, but infringing on our rights won't prevent the so-called mass shootings being used to justify those infringements. Vancouver has all of them and we see how that worked out, now didn't we?

Stopping these shootings requires something that the anti-gunners don't possess. It'll take understanding.

Blaming guns is quick and easy, but it ignores the fact that a stabbing carried out in anger can be just as deadly. It ignores the fact that drugs are illegal and those keep showing up on our streets, so why would guns be any different. Taking away guns doesn't take away violence. It takes away our ability to meet it and defend ourselves.