A tale of two countries

For those of you who didn't notice, Canada held national elections on Monday. It was not widely reported, simply because nothing really changed: The Liberals lost some seats, but will still be in control after forming a coalition with the socialists of the mis-named New Democratic Party (NDP).

Compared to other events, this has not stirred much interest, and most Americans don't really care, anyway. I posted some comments at Spoons' website where I compared the attitudes of gun owners in both countries. Specifically, why are Americans willing to fight to keep their guns, while Canadians don't seem to care?

Let's compare recent gun control history. Almost exactly 10 years ago, the US Congress passed a law banning the sale and manufacture of new semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features and "high-capacity" magazines (the infamous "assault weapons" ban). No guns were "taken off the street"; the law grandfathered all existing weapons and magazines. It has largely been unenforced since then, with only a handful of persons prosecuted for violating it. By all measures, it has been a cosmetic "feel good" law that had little real impact.

And how did American gun owners react? They flooded the polls on election day in 1994 and contributed significantly to the Republican landslide that year. Even Bill Clinton admitted that at least 20 Democrats, including then Speaker of the House Tom Foley, lost their seats as a direct result of the law. Since then, Congressmen on both sides of the aisle have been extremely reluctant to address gun control, and because of this reluctance the law will be allowed to die a quiet death this September.

In Canada, Parliament passed in 1995 the bill known as C-68, a massive licensing and registration scheme forcing all gun owners, not just pistol owners, to register their firearms with the Federal government. Not only did it require registration, it specified stiff penalties for simply failing to register. By all measures, it has been a gun owner's nightmare, a nightmare that has been made worse by the massive cost overruns which have ballooned to some 500 time the original estimates.

And how did Canadian gun owners react? Well, they appealed to the kangaroo, er, Supreme Court of Canada, who of course held 9-0 that the law was "constitutional". Still, many refused to register until the last minute; some continue to defy the law. Yet even with the cost overruns, the gross inefficiency of firearms bureaucracy, the refusal of almost every province except Quebec to enforce it, the law still endures. There have been two Federal elections since then, and the party responsible for the registration scheme is still in power.

Why? Why would Canadian gun owners, by most estimates at least 1/3 of all Canadians, be unable to effect any change through the ballot box? The answer? Socialized Medicine.

No, the Canadian health bureaucracy didn't impede the voters directly. But the idea to eliminate the gun registry was linked to health care anyway. Liberal politicians and their allies in the Canadian media portrayed the Conservatives as scheming to "take away" Canada's system of free health care (kind of like someone threatening to "take away" a beat-up '84 Yugo sitting in your front yard). The candidates who were most likely to eliminate the gun registry were portrayed as being most likely to support health care reform. While valid, it was a desperate smear campaign by the Liberals, and it worked.

When push came to shove, the average Canadian gun owner decided he would rather have free (albeit mediocre) health care instead of the Right to Bear Arms. The Gun Registry still lives, and will continue to live, even though it will continue to be grossly expensive and inefficient. Canadians chose security over liberty, and if Benjamin Franklin was correct, they will eventually end up with neither.

The lesson for American gun owners is clear: If you want to keep your guns, oppose the welfare state. The greatest threat to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not the anti-gun politicians or the United Nations or the Brady Campaign. It's Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I'm afraid that too many gun owners, when confronted with a choice between keeping their guns and keeping their government handouts, will choose the handouts. If that happens, we will be both impoverished and unarmed. Not an attractive combination.