Educate Not Terrorize

In the August 12th, 2009 edition of the Calgary Sun, columnist Jeremy Loome wrote an interesting article titled “High-Caliber Programs Solve Gun Woes”. Loome is clearly not a supporter of handguns. He even makes the rather absurd comment that he would not attend a barbeque hosted by a handgun owner because of the likelihood of being shot.

Despite his clear distaste for guns, however, Loome writes a fairly informative article surprisingly suggesting that gun control advocates are wrong. The premise of his article is essentially that guns are not the root cause of problems, rather anti-social behavior is rooted in economic and social issues, which education, not abolishing firearms would solve. He draws from the experience of gun populations, such as those in Vermont. According to his article, Vermont has some of the least strict gun control laws in North America. In Vermont, anybody can carry a concealed weapon and anybody can buy a gun without a background check. Vermont’s gun crime rate is amongst the lowest in the United States and several points lower than gun control paradise, Canada.

The Swiss have an armed population – in fact, each household is expected to have a gun, with ammunition. From their perspective, an armed citizenry, dedicated to protecting itself is more effective than a paid military. Citizens with a vested interest in their country have a greater stake than paid mercenaries. Swiss gun crime is amongst the lowest in the world.

Loome concludes that tax payer dollars invested in the ineffectual and now virtually defunct gun registry would have been better spent educating Canadians on the root causes of crime. It is hard to argue with his point.

Gun ownership is about balancing costs with benefits. From a democratic perspective, firearms represent the great equalizer. In a true democracy, the government exists for the people, and if the government steps out of line, democracy expects the people to purge the government. Firearm ownership sits at the very heart of this principle, for an unarmed population has little ability to resist the despotic will of a heavily armed State. Firearms also equalize differences between young and old, male and female, criminal and law abiding.

With firearms possession there are costs. Just like more cars on the road equals more accidents, the greater the number of guns in society translates into more accidental shootings. Just because something poses a risk, however, does not mean it is necessary to remove the thing altogether. After all, we license motorists and allow them to hurdle themselves down highways at high rates of speed on a quotidian basis.

Taking away guns does not solve criminal behavior. Criminals will either obtain guns or find other weapons to do the deed. The question is, why should law abiding Canadians necessarily be the only unarmed group? When the State tells us they are the only ones allowed to carry firearms, citizens should be worried. The heart of democracy is that citizens can, if necessary, resist the State. My point is, lets educate instead of terrorize. Lets do what Loome suggests: “…combat the poverty based roots of crime”. That seems to be a sensible and democratic objective.

David G. Chow
Criminal Defence Lawyer

www.calgarydefence.com