Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Silvercore Podcast explores the mindset and skills that build capable people. Host Travis Bader speaks with hunters, adventurers, soldiers, athletes, craftsmen, and founders about competence, integrity, and the pursuit of mastery, in the wild and in daily life. Hit follow and step into conversations that sharpen your edge.
Before we dive into this one, two things.
First, The Silvercore Club.
This is honestly the simplest
way to keep yourself covered.
ATT, support, and liability
insurance all in one membership.
No piecing things together, no
gaps, just clean, straightforward
coverage so you can focus on the
range and not on the paperwork.
Secondly, today's guest, Noah Schwartz,
tells me that publishers don't really
have an appetite for books like his.
They don't think that people out there
are actually interested in reading them.
If you like what Noah has to say and you
want to see more work from him and others
like him, I would highly, highly, highly
recommend that you purchase his book.
There's gonna be a link in the bio.
I know times are tough.
Things can be tight with a lot of people.
If you're unable to make a purchase,
leaving a review for the book or
sharing it with others would mean
a great deal to helping authors
like Noah be able to produce more
content like this in the future.
Now, without further ado,
let's get on with this episode.
For years, Ottawa has passed
sweeping firearms legislation
without a single study to back it up.
My guest today is the political
scientist who checked the homework.
He took the safety courses himself.
He sat at 84 kitchen tables across the
country, and in his book Targeted, wrote
the first academic book about Canada's
gun community told in their own words.
Welcome to the Silvercore
Podcast, Noah Schwartz.
Thank you so much for having me.
Oh, it's good to have you here.
It was, uh... I enjoyed, uh, chatting with
you at the NFA event where, uh, you were,
you and I were both guest speakers there.
Yeah
That was a fun one, eh?
It was great.
It was great to be able to get together
with, with other folks, uh, who doing,
doing work on this and, and, yeah, share
our stories and share our thoughts.
Yeah.
Okay.
So educate me, a fellow who just did the
minimum number of university credits so
he could apply when he's 20 years old
to the Vancouver Police, uh, what does a
political scientist do, and why would you
be attracted to writing about firearms
and guns, particularly in an environment
that seems to be adverse to that?
Yeah.
Those are two great questions.
So a political scientist, uh,
a type of academic that looks
at the study of politics.
Mm. So broadly speaking, the study
of, of power and how power operates.
Uh, mainly we look at sort of polit-
big political institutions, parliament,
the courts, things like that.
Um, but I've always been interested in
how politics happens in different ways
and, and advocacy and social movements
are one of the really interesting areas,
'cause it's where citizens can really get
involved and have their voice heard in
a way that's hard to do when you live,
you know, 5,000 clicks from Ottawa,
where these decisions are being made.
Mm.
So that, that sort of got my
interest in st- in studying advocacy.
And, and how I studied firearms, started
studying firearms, was completely a fluke.
So I was doing my, uh, doctorate
back in Ottawa and, and for
context and background, I grew up
in a family that, um, was very,
very, you know, against guns.
Mm.
I wasn't even allowed to play
with Nerf guns when I was a kid.
Oh, really?
Yes.
Okay.
Fair enough.
Um, and so when I... You know, going
into this, doing my PhD, I, I really had
no idea about guns and the gun world.
Um, I was gonna do my PhD on
the politics of history in the
relations between China and Japan.
I was even taking Mandarin
courses at the time.
Okay.
I very quickly realized that learning
Mandarin and doing a PhD at the same time-
was maybe I'd bit off a bit too
much, a bit more than I could chew.
Uh-huh.
So I'm kind of searching around
for another subject that involves
those kind of two loves that I
have, history and politics, and
I'm messing around in the internet.
There was a story in the
news, I, I can't remember now.
This was, like, a decade ago.
Um, but I went on the website
of the American NRA, and I found
that they have firearms museums.
Mm.
Not just one, but three, and
that kind of got me interested.
So I started doing research
on, on gun politics.
Um, I said, "You know what? If I'm gonna
study this, I need to know actually what
the process looks like from the inside."
Mm. Um, so as you said, I took
the PAL class and the RPAL class.
I'm very proud to say I passed.
Good.
I was in Ontario, so I took the
Hunter's Ed program as well.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and just kind of fell
into this area of study.
So as I said, I started off looking at
the, the politics in the United States.
I very quickly realized that there
is a debate going on here in Canada-
Mm
um, that's I think way more
interesting actually than
what's happening in, in the US.
What's happening in the US, the, the
gun debate in the US has been, you know,
the battle lines have been drawn for
ages, and there's, there's not really
much movement a- and nothing happening.
But in Canada, there's so much shifting.
Um, the, the- typical cast of characters
that you have doesn't look like it does
in the stereotype of the United States.
Mm.
So I actually found the Canadian gun
debate much more interesting, and
I said, "I'm gonna study this now."
So you talk about the cast of characters.
Yeah.
I, I'm sure you had a bit of a, uh,
a preconception of what that would
look like prior to getting into this.
How did that change as you
started going through your study?
And what did it look like to you to
begin with, a guy who couldn't even
touch Nerf guns, to, uh, where you
endeavored to stick your toe in the
water and then jump full into the pool?
Yeah, no, I m- it, it,
it's been a wild ride.
I think m- so my first experience
actually with real firearms was,
was through, uh, an ex-girlfriend.
Okay.
So she was obviously
not my ex at the time.
Uh, but she was from rural Alberta.
Um, and we went back to visit her
family, and, uh, they had firearms, so
we went shooting on, on her property.
And that sort of was one of the cracks
that first started to appear in my, my old
view of kind of guns and gun owners coming
from completely the outside and having- Mm
you know, those... I'm,
I'm from suburban Ottawa.
I have those kind of urban preconceptions
that a lot of people had, uh,
about people in the gun community.
And, and that was kind of the first
crack that started to appear, 'cause
I realized these are normal people.
You know, her parents were
school teachers, right?
The, these, um, we're shooting safely
in the backyard with, uh, all of
the rules in place, and everybody
was licensed and, and, and following
the, you know, the regulations.
And I was like, "Oh, wow, this is actually
an activity that people do that's fun and
safe and, and completely normative." Um,
and as I got further into that world, I
think those preconceptions broke down.
You, you, you know, the, the best
solution to political polarization is
meeting people, and meeting people-
Yes ... that you, are different from you
and come from different walks of life.
And over the course of my research, I've
had the com- honor of meeting hundreds of
people from across Canada, from the far
north to downtown Toronto, um, who are
interested in guns, and getting to know
their perspective and, and they look...
Every pers- each of those people
is completely unique, you know?
Y- you know, the more people that I
meet that are completely different
from myself, they come from different
backgrounds, they have different beliefs,
they have different perspectives on,
on the world, the more I find how
closely we actually are related and
how much we really do have in common.
And we seem to live in a society that
wants to, and I guess we've always lived
in a society that wants to polarize,
maybe not at the velocity that's
happening right now, but the, uh, the
tribalism has always been in place.
Um, being able to just sit down at
the table with people who you have a
preconception about, or you might even
completely disagree with what you think
their, their, uh, their background or
their ideas are, like that's, I think
that's something that's really tough for
a lot of people, particularly nowadays
when you're rewarded with a short
attention span, you're rewarded with
the quick clips on, uh, social media and
the quick comebacks, and I don't even
have to listen to you because you're
in this camp and I'm in that camp.
Did you, did you find that... Like,
obviously you would have to park your
preconceptions going in, but that
doesn't necessarily mean the people
that you're talking to are gonna
park their preconceptions about you.
No, that- That's for sure.
And being... You know, I always
talk about being, like, the, you
know, uh, Jewish academic from the
suburbs with glasses and, you know.
Sure.
I, I don't look like I sat at the cool
kids' club, right- ... in high school.
Fair
enough.
So, so it's always, you know, going
into the, into spaces and, and...
But I've, I've always been amazed
by how friendly people are, right?
Mm. Like, when you, when you
put yourself out there in, in a
non-online space, and you introduce
yourself to people in real life.
Like, it's really easy to be
mean on, on X or on BlueSky.
Mm. It- it's really hard to be mean
to someone in person to their face,
and, and I, I think that that really
helps us get over a lot of stuff,
especially in a, in a country as
geographically enormous as Canada.
Mm.
Where, like, how many people who grew
up in Ottawa are gonna go out and
shoot guns in rural Alberta, right?
Like, three hours north of Edmonton.
That, you know, that's not an experience
that every- everybody gets to have.
And, and so I think, once again, that
meeting face-to-face, talking to people,
going out a- a- and shooting with folks,
um, yeah, it's just, it's eye-opening.
So you talk about the American
gun culture, and you talk about
Canadian gun culture, and there's a
difference between the two of them.
And the Americans, they're enshrined.
These are our rights.
This is what we have.
Whereas Canada, we're looking to be
treated like citizens, essentially.
I think that was c- coming
out in your work there.
Can you walk me through that
distinction and why that's load-bearing?
Yeah.
That, that was really the key point
of Targeted, the book, uh, the book
that I wrote, um, that I, I really
wanted to drive and, and get across.
As I said, my first book was on the
National Rifle Association and American
gun culture and politics, right?
Um, and, and looking at it in Canada,
um, just- The differences that I
observed in the way that people think
about themselves, think about firearms
in their lives, and think about their
community, uh, was, was quite stark, and
that, how that comes out in advocacy.
So I think Canadian gun owners
see themselves as highly regulated
people who have worked really hard.
They've sacrificed elements
of their personal privacy.
One thing I tell people, especially
my students in, in my gun politics
class, I say, "You know, when you
apply for your firearms license, if
you've had a breakup in the last two
years, you have to tell the RCMP and
give them your ex's information."
Mm-hmm.
O- o- or give them a phone call.
Mm-hmm.
Which, you know, when I, uh, uh, for the
project I applied for, for my license,
and I'd had a breakup recently, I had to
call my ex and have that conversation.
Right?
Yeah.
It, it, it, it's, it's, uh, you know,
and, and we parted on very good terms.
We- Sure ... we were lucky, uh,
but it's still an uncomfortable
conversation to have.
And I think when, when people outside
of the, the gun community or who aren't
familiar with it hear that, they say,
"Wow, this is, like, this is something
serious." So a lot of the folks I spoke
to said, "We've sacrificed these huge
elements of our personal privacy,"
which, you know, uh, apparently are, are
sometimes subject to cyberatta- cyber
hack, right, as we've learned recently.
Um-
Yeah, and have been.
They have been hacked, and they've...
There's a lot of the information has
been, been leaked, which has come out.
Which is really scary and, you know,
problematic when you think about it.
Mm-hmm.
Um, yeah, so, so people have made
that sacrifice, and, and they
kind of just want it to be treated
fairly by the government, right?
They've been vetted.
You go through a daily background
check with the Canadian
Police Information System.
Um, and, and after that, I think
people just wanna be say, you know, "We
follow the rules. We've gone through
this. We just kinda wanna be left
alone to, to do our thing," right?
In, in a way that I think i- in the United
States, even the idea of something like
safe storage laws is a non-starter- Hmm
in a, in a lot of places, or the
idea of licensing and vetting, people
are very, very resistant to that.
Where I think as Canadian, the
Canadian gun community broadly accepts
that, you know, we're willing to
make these sacrifices in the name
of public safety, but after that,
just kinda let us do our thing.
Hmm.
So what does being
treated fairly look like?
Yeah.
Because that'll differ.
If you talk to a gun person, they're
gonna say, "Look, I've done my courses.
I'm background-checked.
I'm daily-checked.
You talked to my ex. You
talked to everybody around me.
You got doctor's notes," whatever it
might be depending on the time when
they put their application through, and
now you can go back the entire person's
lifetime for any history of instability
or violent sort of tendencies in nature.
Um, they're gonna say, "I've done it. I'm
good. Leave me alone," whereas I would
think that somebody who's, uh, afraid
of firearms or anti-firearms or has an
agenda to the contrary, uh, would have a
very different perspective on what's fair.
Yeah.
So, so what's fair, and how do you
keep yourself objective in this when
you're, when you're looking at this?
Because I can personally look at it
and say, I try my damnedest to be
objective as to what could be fair, but
the... I can't overcome some of my just
biases, which I con- I consider logic.
No, exactly.
I mean, I, I think being treated fairly
is, i- is, you know- I've owned and used
something for m- my entire adult life.
I've, I've always acted responsibly.
Just let me keep my stuff.
Mm.
That's what I heard from people.
Um, and, and we definitely know what
being treated unfairly looks like, which
I think is a lot of the legislative
changes that have been made, uh, in the
past decade, things like the ban on what
the governments label the assault-style
weapons, like the handgun freeze.
Um, I was, you know, just on, on, uh,
r/CanadaGuns today, on Reddit, and,
and there was someone talking about how
their, their father had, uh, a pistol that
he, you know, was his service pistol, a
revolver, when he was a police officer.
He kept it, was able to keep
it in his civilian life.
Um, and it's hugely
meaningful for, for him.
Mm.
It's part of his, you know, it, it... A
big part of his career that he carried
it, and he wants to pass it down to
his son, and he can't do that even
though his son has the same license,
has gone through the same process,
is legally able to own handguns.
He's not allowed to inherit that
firearm because of the handgun freeze.
That to me is unfair.
Mm.
So I think it's easier sometimes to
see, you know, what's unfair than, than
what's fair, and, and I feel- I agree.
Yeah.
Yeah.
A lot of people are, are, have raised
red flags with me when we spoke
about how they're being treated
right now by, by the government.
So talk about sitting at the
cool kids club in school.
What's this like in university?
Like, you've gotta be a social
pariah by speaking out about this
kind of thing because it puts you
in a completely opposite camp to
what, to what I would think most
universities' and higher education's,
uh, political leanings would be.
Yeah.
I... It, it's tricky.
I, I think it, it...
Once again, it's one of the
situations where you have to have
face-to-face conversations with people.
'Cause when I explain my research, when
I lay it out, um, you know, and, and,
and publish it in a book, um, people have
been broadly accepting of it, I think.
And especially, maybe I'm
at a bit of a special place.
Uh, the University of the Fraser
Valley, it's a small university.
It's kind of on the cusp between,
you know, urban Vancouver and,
and the rural Fraser Valley into
the interior of British Columbia.
We get students from a
variety of backgrounds.
Um, I teach a course on guns and politics.
Uh, and we, you know, I get
students, I have them do a
reflection at the beginning.
They tell me, uh, their position
on guns and why, what factors in
their life they think led them
to developing that position.
Mm.
And I'll get students who say, you
know, um, "I don't think anyone
should be able to own guns at all."
And I get students who say, you
know, "I think, uh, we shouldn't
even need a license to own guns."
We get a, a broad spectrum of opinions.
Mm.
Um, and, and that makes it easier
'cause I, I think most people, when
you, when you sit down and you explain
the way the laws work, um, and have a
reasonable conversation, they say, "Oh,
yeah, you know, I don't see a problem
with that. Like, you know, if someone's
willing to go through that vetting
process to store their firearms safely,
they should be allowed to own them."
I think the problem is that the, the
debate often happens on this level of
hyperbole and, and especially this... We
see everything through an American lens
because so, so many people in Canada
follow American news much more closely
than Canadian news that- It's hard to
have those long-form conversations with
people and, and kinda talk them down
from their, their preconceived position.
Well, what's, what's the
end goal of that course?
Is it just for the students to develop
epistemic discretion and be able to
come up with their own decision based
on something that is, you can weigh and
measure, or is there, is there something
else to that that I might not be seeing?
Yeah, no, the goal of the course is to
have students explore and learn political
science concepts, looking at a really
interesting issue that excites them.
Ah.
But for me, part of the, the goal
of it as well is to really have them
observe and examine this issue in a
way that they might not have before.
And what I find... So I have a reflection
at the end of the class as well, right?
And, and- Interesting ... they all go
into it with really extreme opinions.
Mm-hmm.
And by the end they're like, "Oh yeah,
you know, I, I can see why people would
wanna..." Even, like, the anti-gun
students will say, "Oh, I can see why
someone, a hunter or a sport shooter or
a collector, might wanna own firearms,
and, and you know, broadly they should
be allowed to do that." Or, or students
who might have been on the other end
of, of the extreme will say, "Okay, I
can see that, you know, some things like
licensing are actually kinda reasonable
as long as they're carried out in a
transparent way a- and they're done right.
Um, and, and I think I'm accepting
of that." So I like that.
I like that everyone kinda comes
and coalesces ar- around, around the
middle ground by the end of the course.
I think it shows that they've thought
about the issue more critically.
I think, I think you're hitting the
nail on the head when you say you have
to talk to somebody face to face if
you wanna have these more difficult
discussions, because that doesn't give
a person a place to run if they just
wanna snipe, throw jabs and run away
and hope other people will do the same.
But when you sit down face to
face... I think Mike Tyson had
a quote about that, didn't he?
Like, um, more people would, uh...
I think people would be a lot more
polite if they knew that they'd be
punched in the face if they didn't,
uh- Right ... for what they say.
Yeah.
Like, something along those lines.
But, uh, when you're sitting down face
to face, there's accountability for your
words and for your actions, and I think
people consider what they're gonna say
perhaps a little more carefully, and
they consider the person that they're
dealing with, 'cause now you're a human.
You're not just some text on the screen.
How, how would you suggest people
of the... Well, let's, let's start
just with the, the gun community,
'cause that's my background.
That's kinda what I know.
People in the gun community.
"From my cold, dead hands. You
ain't getting them." Right?
Whatever it might be that a position
that an extreme person on, in the
gun community might take, what would
be an approach that they can take to
articulating their thoughts and the, um,
the points in a way if they're talking to
somebody- Who's ve- m- ly against firearms
Yeah.
I, I think the biggest thing
is always telling stories.
Stories are a part of our DNA, they're
a part of who we are, they're part of
how we evolved, uh, as, as beings to,
you know, we're s- we're social animals.
We, we emerge telling
stories to one another.
Mm. That's how we've become, you know,
the apex hunters, is because you can
go, you can tell stories of how you
hunted in the past, and other people
can learn with that, from that, without
having to, you know, put themselves in
danger and learn that trial and error.
Mm.
So there's an evolutionary component
to the importance of storytelling.
But it also, it, it humanizes things.
Like, I, I think people outside of
the gun community fundamentally don't
understand what guns are used for.
I think they think of them as, you
know, there, there's all these kind
of negative stereotypes about people
overcompensating or, you know, "I
just want to own a gun to look tough."
And when you talk to people,
they say, "No, you know, what
this gun actually means to me is
I got it from my grandfather."
Mm.
"
And it reminds me of going whitetail
hunting in the woods with him," or,
"I, you know, got this for skeet
and trap shooting, and it reminds me
of spending time with my skeet and
trap club and making friends there."
So I think telling those stories
and, and, and explaining why firearms
are important to you, because that's
something that might seem obvious to you.
Mm. But to someone outside the gun
world, it seems completely foreign.
I think the other thing that,
um, would help the community,
uh, especially online, is I think
toning down some of that rhetoric.
Uh, because I think people,
the community's frustrated.
I feel that.
That came out in so many of the
conversations I had with people, where
I literally had people break down crying
with me over Zoom, talking about how
they're gonna lose their collections,
these firearms that, you know, belong
to their uncle, their father, that
are hugely meaningful for them.
So I, I feel that frustration
on a really visceral level.
Mm.
But when, I think when people express
themselves online in a way that's
very, uh, you know, aggressive or
intimidating or using that from my cold
dead hand, hands rhetoric- Mm ... it
kind of undermines the legitimacy of the
community, and it, it's really easy for
people on the other side to use that, to
take that screenshot and say, "Look, look
at these crazy gun nuts, you know, waving
their re- their rifles around like this."
Um, so I think turning down the
tenure, focusing on, on storytelling,
and then also explaining, you know,
just explaining the way the laws work
in Canada, the process to people.
W- there's actual research that
was done by, uh, Dr. Gary Mauser a-
and his colleagues showing that the
overwhelming majority of Canadians know
absolutely nothing about our gun laws.
Mm.
They might be vaguely aware that Canada
has something called, you know, gun
control and the United States- ... doesn't
have gun control, both of which
are oversimplifications, of course.
Mm-hmm.
Um, but they don't know
any of the details of that.
And, and when you tell them
even that licensing story, a
lot of people go, "Oh, wow.
I didn't realize it was that
hard to get a gun in Canada.
I didn't realize that p- that's
what people have to go through.
You must be, you must
be serious about this.
This isn't kind of something frivolous."
Mm.
So I, I f- I find that useful just to
build bridges, bring down the tenor
of the debate, and, and really show
people why these are meaningful-
tools to you, not just, you know, a,
a, a brand of, you know, something
to make you look tough, right?
Make you look tough, yes.
And Gary, he's done a lot of good work.
He's been on the podcast as well.
Oh,
nice.
Yeah.
Known, known him since I've been just a
little kid going to the gun shows, but,
uh, and, and he's got some interesting
perspectives on things too, um, and things
that I haven't thought of before that,
um, that applied to how, uh, firearms laws
were created initially in Canada and in
sort of the, um, the racism behind that.
The, uh, I guess it was an anti-Irish
sentiment is, uh, something that he was
talking about, and, um, maybe not so
much racism, but more, um, uh, elitism.
Because it was the, uh, the new
Irish immigrants that had less
money, and they thought, "Well, if
we don't want these, we don't want
these guys having guns now too."
And so, like, there's all these
different little aspects to th- the
human nature and why we create these
laws and, and move forward with them,
which I find kind of interesting.
And, you know, when, when we look at the
last question about how do we have this
conversation with somebody who's against
it, and I would say I would apply the
same thing for somebody who's against
firearms to somebody who's pro-firearms.
I, I tend to ask questions, and I try
to... I do my damnedest to try and
understand, and then I will ask them
questions, like you say, about license.
"Oh, you said that anybody can own a gun,
and they can run around with the thing in
their car and do whatever. Did you realize
that we have a system in place that blah,
blah, blah, and we go through this?"
I, I think a problem that, uh, I've heard
iterated by gun owners often is that,
um, gun owners try to lead with logic.
"Look at the numbers. Look at the
percentages. Look at this," right?
And, uh, an anti-gunner
would lead with emotion.
Mm. "If it could just save one life,"
and, like, "What if it was your child?"
And, um, and it's hard to have a
logical debate at emotional level or
an emotional debate at a logical level.
Yeah.
And that's, I think, where a big
part of the disconnect comes.
So maybe through storytelling, we can
take some logic and interject emotion
in a way that the other person can feel.
Yeah.
There's... The tricky part about that gets
in the way of, of good political discourse
sometimes, unfortunately, is, uh, human
nature and the way our brains work, right?
Yes.
We, we're using, uh... I heard
someone say, you know, we- we're
using Paleolithic hardware to deal
with Space Age problems, right?
Yep.
Like, our, our brains haven't changed
that much since we were, were running
around as, as hunter-gatherers.
Um, a- and that makes it tricky.
'Cause when you do face someone
with facts and logic, right?
We know that people don't
just absorb facts and logic
and readjust their worldview.
Mm. It's really cognitively taxing.
Like, it's really mentally
straining to change the way that
you look at the world on things
that are deeply ingrained for you.
And so people's brains will do a lot of
mental gymnastics to avoid doing that.
Right?
Um, so when you trigger,
it's called defensive bias.
When you trigger someone's defensive
bias by presenting them with a fact
that they're not familiar with, that,
that, that, you know, contradicts their
worldview, they get, um, angry and
upset, and it can actually often make
people double down- Mm-hmm ... on their
opinions rather than change their mind.
And I find storytelling, stories
are sort of Trojan horses that are
able to kind of sneak facts a- and
logic into a debate in a way that
people find less threatening, right?
That are, are humanizing.
Hmm.
Um, that, that a- allow you to really
present those facts, but not in a
way that's going to immediately pose
a fundamental threat to someone's
worldview and might actually get
them to think about it more deeply.
And yeah, this is where gun control
is tricky because the, um, the
argument for control always has
really powerful stories on its side.
Because it just takes... You can have
all of the statistics in a wor- in the
world that show that, you know, in Canada
your chances of being killed in a mass
shooting are 1/10 of one in a million.
Mm-hmm.
0.11 out of a million.
Hmm.
Right?
Which is, like, less than your
chances of being struck by lightning.
Hmm.
Um, but one story of a really tragic,
horrific mass shooting is enough to
sort of override that and say, "Okay,
no, I'm scared now. I feel threatened,
so we have to do something." Even if
it's something that, you know, the
evidence shows isn't gonna work, um, I
don't pay a price for that because I,
you know, it- the person isn't, isn't
impacted by the laws that are passed.
They don't, they don't understand that,
that, you know, these laws are, are
a form of political power, the, the
execution of political power, right?
Um, a- and so it's very easy to
support that just because you've
heard this, this scary story.
Mm-hmm.
And so I, I think it's, it's why
it's so important and, and why
I really try hard in the book
to tell the stories of Canada's
communities of gun owners, because
that's the story that we don't hear.
It's a longer story to tell.
It's not as exciting, right?
It, it's not as dramatic.
Um, it, it doesn't meet the
qualities of newsworthiness, right?
If it bleeds, it leads.
Mm-hmm.
Um, but it's the everyday reality of gun
ownership in Canada in 99.99999% of cases.
So who's gonna care enough to read this?
Like, if, if, if I've based my own persona
and my personality on a certain viewpoint
and somebody attacking that or w- stating
things out of fact that I feel are
attacking that is gonna be an existential
threat to my own existence, my own
reality, why would I pick up your book?
Yeah.
I th- I think because- Once again,
it, it explores the topic in a
way that's not saber-rattling.
It's not, uh, necessarily... I mean,
the- Targeted doesn't deal specifically
with those kind of legislative questions.
Hmm.
It's really about examining, it's
telling the story of the community
of gun owners, how they practice
advocacy, how the community's formed.
Um, and, and I think it, it... So
it explains the legislation as it
stands in Canada, I think, in a way
that might not necessarily threaten
someone's defensive bias in that way.
You're just reading stories about
people, um, who are in the gun community,
and at the end of it, hopefully
you have a more complete and human
picture o- of what that looks like.
How do we practice advocacy in
Canada, particularly in the firearms
realm, and what are we getting
right, and what are we getting wrong?
That's a great question.
Yeah, so there's, uh, the interesting
thing about the community of gun
owners in Canada and the political
advocacy around that, um, is, is
the different factions, I would say.
Right?
You have the more o- the older and more
established groups, uh, like the BC
Wildlife Federation, like the Ontario
Federation of Anglers and Hunters,
who are the conservation groups.
And, and they came out of this
unlikely marriage between sportsmen
and conservationists in the late 19th
century, throughout the 20th century, um,
that led to the development of Canada's
wildlife management framework, the way
that we preserve species in Canada.
Hmm.
Right?
The end of the 19th century,
overhunting has led to huge
crises across North America.
We have the disappearance
of the wild bison.
You have turkey, the turkey
population collapsing.
You have white-tailed deer and, and, um,
other species disappearing, and this,
hunters and sportsmen get together with
conservationists, and they create this
framework for managing wildlife in Canada.
And that gets into, you know, the,
how we legislate hunting with tags
and licenses, managing wild species.
Um, I- I'm sure I don't have
to tell this to your audience.
Everyone's probably pretty familiar
with it, but it, it leads to the
resurgence of all of these species,
the protection of vast wild spaces
in Canada and the United States.
Um, and it gives these groups a,
a ton of legitimacy, uh, because
suddenly hunters aren't just people
that are off having fun in the woods.
They're integral to the way
that we preserve wildlife
and wild spaces in Canada.
Hmm.
Um, a- and they do something really
powerful, which is harnessing
self-interest to create good
public policy goals, right?
Hunters, a lot of hunters that I've
met care deeply about conservation
and go above and beyond, but even
if, if you're a hunter who doesn't,
you know, doesn't care at all- About
conservation, you're still buying tags.
Mm.
You're still paying taxes on equipment
that are funding conservation.
Uh, right in the United States, they
have the Pittman-Robertson Act, so any,
um, any firearms, ammunition, outdoor
equipment, there's a tax on that that
goes towards funding conservation.
Mm.
So these harness the self-interest
of people in the outdoors
community to protect wildlife.
I think it's one of the most beautiful,
you know, examples of public policy.
Mm. And I, I point to it whenever I can.
Um, a- and the other side of the gun
community in Canada is more advocating
for collectors, for sport shooters.
They've emerged more recently out
of the political battles of the
1970s, although the groups have
kind of changed over the years.
Um, we have the more recent iteration,
right, the National Firearms
Association, the NFA, the CCFR,
the Canadian Coalition for Firearms
Rights, um, and the, the CSSA.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and these folks, you know, they,
they practice a little bit of grassroots
li- uh, a- a- advocacy, right?
Um, mobilizing the community for
letter-writing campaigns, talking
to their members of parliament,
um, which is really useful.
Um, and then they practice a bit
of sort of that, that lobbying in
Ottawa, talking to decision-makers.
Um, a lot of people... Sorry,
when you hear lobbying, it
sounds like a bad word, right?
'Cause we're, we're- It's not, but yes.
Exactly.
Lobbying, I, as I tell my students in my
advocacy groups class, lobbying literally
just means talking to politicians.
Mm.
If you go talk to your
MP, you are lobbying.
Mm. You might not be a paid lobbyist,
but you're engaging in lobbying, right?
Um, which is, you know,
something that these groups do.
Because policymakers, um, as I also
tell my students, being a member
of parliament is one of the few
jobs in the world that you don't
actually have to be qualified for.
You just have to convince
enough people that you are.
And, and- That's right ... a lot of
folks are put in cabinet positions
for reasons other than their
expertise on the issue, shall we say?
Sure.
Right?
Their visibility, they're a
member of a certain group that the
government wants to, to be seen
associating with, things like that.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and so lobbyists serve a super
important function, which is educating
policymakers about things that
they might not know a lot about.
Um, so this is w- this is sort of
what advocacy looks like in Canada.
Um, where I think that advocacy
could go next is finding a way to
create another marriage, right?
And I, I, I think the moment that we're
seeing right now, the need that I think we
see is for Canada to get a handle on its
national defense- Mm ... in a way that we
haven't worried about in the past, right?
The world is a more dangerous place.
We've realized with the changes down
south that we can't necessarily count on
the Americans, um, for, for our defense
in the way that we used to, right?
We have threats in the Arctic
from, from Russia, from, um,
from other hostile nations.
Uh, a- and we really have to start
taking responsibility for our own
defense and, and thinking that through.
We see the government doing that sort
of i- in, with regards to increasing
funding for the military, which is great.
It's something that we've been
needing to do for a long time.
Mm-hmm.
But what we haven't thought through
and, a- and what we could, I think
we could really get back to, is
that civilian-military connection.
Interesting.
So the first sport in Canada to receive
federal funding- Was not ice hockey
Mm-hmm
It was rifle shooting
That's right
Because governments at the time understood
that having a population, um, that was
responsibly a- and, and reliably trained
to use, uh, firearms, and having that
population be regulated obviously- Mm
um, could be a useful tool
for national defense, right?
Changes in the way that warfare
was fought changed that policy.
I think government started to get away
from the idea that individual marksmen
mattered on the battlefield in an age
of artillery and planes and tanks.
Um, but I think what we're seeing now, a-
and i- in places like, you know, the war,
Russia's war in Ukraine and stuff like
that, is that, no, individual soldiers on
the battlefield matter, and their, their
ability, their marksmanship is important.
And so I think getting back to a model,
if we can, if we can create another
marriage between sport shooters and
national defense in Canada, I think that
can move the community a long way, right?
That's interesting.
I mean, there's a lot to be
said for the perception of
power over the reality of power.
I mean, if s- that was the famous saying
back in the day, the, um, what was it?
I think it was Japan didn't wanna
come into, uh, the US because they
would have marksmen everywhere.
Everyone had a gun, and it was, uh...
that was the, the part that instilled
fear in, uh, in coming over, is how
armed of a populace that they have.
And Canada's always had a reputation
for marksmen, for robustness.
We got that lumberjack, the
cold weather, um, being able to
hit things at a long distance.
Uh, th- there's this, this idea
that goes along with Canada.
Whether that's a reality or not,
there is that perception of it.
Yeah.
And I think... So I'm gonna
completely step outside my realm.
I'm not a political scientist,
but, you know, just somebody
looking at it from the outside.
Like, I look at the need for
rough-and-tumble people to come in and
help create a country, and to, um, be
able to f- defend the weak and those
who are defenseless, and be able to,
um, uh, stand up to foreign forces.
And, like, there's a need for that
when you're creating a country.
Once a country starts getting established
and they think, "Okay, we're going.
Th- think things are pretty good here.
I mean, there's no wars going on." All
of a sudden, these rough-and-tumble
people, and we can call these people
firearms owners or whatever it might
be, these armed people that can
portray a perception of competency
and ability, w- they kinda feel a
little threatening right now, right?
I mean, we've got... we've put more
and more rules in place, so people have
to follow the rules, and we have this
subset of society that existed because
they could push those rules in a way
that, um, that most others wouldn't.
Now that feels a little
bit threatening to us.
What do we do?
Do we just, um- Let's get rid of them
because that's a, that's a threat
to our ability to govern if we have
this subset that doesn't need us.
You know, they say if you have
a problem, call up the police.
Well, if they don't need the police,
well, why are they calling them, right?
Um, if they can grow their own food, if
they can take care of their own injuries
or whatever it might be, there's less
of a reliance on a system that starts
being put into place, and that, I think,
looks like a bit of a threat to the
system, which may just be why so much of
our policy seems aesthetically driven.
Like, if I look at, um, what's
being banned and what isn't.
Like, the, the famous example of the
Mossberg Plinkster, a little .22 rifle.
I think it was a 702.
Perfectly legal, but if you put a stock
around this, a clam shell, and call it the
715T, holy crow, that thing's prohibited.
We've got to get rid of that
thing because aesthetically,
maybe it looks like it imbues the
individual with more competence.
Mm. Um, I, I, and again, might be
stepping outside my re- uh, realm
there a little bit, but, uh, I
see that played on both sides.
I see it from my position as
a government looking like a
citizens claiming capability that
the state hasn't granted them.
Mm.
And I see the individual looking at it
perhaps in an aesthetic as I haven't
surrendered my capacity as a citizen.
Mm.
Um, what are your thoughts on that?
Did I completely step
outside my realm on that one?
No.
No, that... I think that's
a really profound thought.
I, I, I think the aesthetics c-
thing also comes down to, once again,
that, that identity component and
how Canadians think about themselves.
Mm.
Um, because, uh, Canadian identity, um,
has always, I think, been constructed in
opposition to American identity, right?
We have probably more in common
with Americans than we often
like to think about, right?
Sure.
We share the world's
largest undefended border.
We consume probably 99% of what most
people consume, unless you're an
avid, uh, you know, CBC Gem watcher.
I- i- is American content, right?
Yeah.
So, uh, we have that kind of
little brother syndrome, feeling,
uh, uh, w- wanting to assert our
identity in, in opposition to
what it means to be American.
Mm.
And I think for a lot of the Canadian
public, the way that Canadian identity
was constructed in the '60s and '70s
with the CBC, with the National Film
Board, with these big government
institutions that were putting
out Canadian content partially to
push back on Quebec separatism-
Mm
...
but also to push back o- on these sort
of en- what they saw as the encroachment
of American culture in Canada.
They created this image of Canada and
the Canadian that is r- antithetical,
I think, to gun ownership.
It's urban.
It's Eastern.
You know, a- as it engages with
the outdoors, it does so in kind of
like a, a Laurentian sort of way-
Mm ... where you're, you know, you're
in a canoe wearing plaid, like- Sure.
Sure ... like the prime minister, right?
Yeah, yeah.
That, that's how we
engage with the outdoors.
We don't, you know... We, we're gonna
ignore that entire history of hunting
and trapping and exploring in Canada.
Mm.
Um, we're gonna ignore the legacy of-
Canadian soldiers who struck fear into
the hearts of Germans in World War I.
Mm-hmm.
You know, Canadian outdoorsmen
who patrolled the Pacific coast
during World War II, uh, protecting
against, uh, you know, a Japanese,
potential Japanese invasion.
We're gonna write these things out of
history and kind of focus on this way.
Um, a- and I think this is where
changing that story, changing how we
think about ourselves as Canadians,
um, i- in a way that allows us to
flex our muscles a bit more, I think
meets the demands of the moment.
Mm-hmm.
Once again, that changing threat
environment that we're facing.
We- there's nations, you
know, all over the world.
Germany is waking up and
rearmament- rearming and potentially
bringing back conscription.
All over Europe, Finland is building gun
ranges and encouraging their citizens
to, to train to learn rifle shooting,
'cause they remember the Winter War.
Mm-hmm.
The last time the Russians came across
the border, and they remember that it
was, you know, folks on cross-country
skis in the backcountry, um, sniping
at Russians that, that was able to,
to turn the tide of that war, right?
So I, I, I think we
have to get back to it.
We have to change the way that we think
about what it means to be Canadian,
to recognize that firearms have
played a role in our history, right?
Explorers, um, you know, people
trading with, with indigenous folks.
Um, indigenous peoples in Canada have
used firearms to do good and bad things-
Sure
throughout, throughout our past.
Sure.
Right?
That's a part of our, our,
our national story, too.
Um, a- and we shouldn't be
afraid to protect what we have,
e- especially in the North.
Um, uh, there's a lot of countries
that I, I think, especially as, um,
the climate continues to change and
we see more shipping routes, uh, up
north and more access to those critical
minerals, um, there's a lot of countries
that are, are gonna want what we have,
and if we're not prepared, uh, to
protect the North, um, Canada, the map
of Canada could look very different
in 20, 30 years than it does now.
Well, Finland, the example you put
there, I was in Finland last year, and
it was a common point of conversation.
Like, it's on the tip of their tongues
talking about the, the fact that,
you know, our- we have neighbors that
we gotta make sure that we, um, uh,
are- we keep ourselves prepared for.
Yeah.
Um, Canada doesn't have that quite
as recent of a, uh, um, a memory of
it, and it definitely seems to have
suppressed any, any past memories.
How do we tell those
stories as we move forward?
How do we tell that story in a way...
'Cause I can tell the story, and I
can preach to the choir, and I can
talk inside an m- an echo chamber.
I mean, it's a reason why I started the
Silvercore Podcast, is to try and talk
about issues to a wider demographic.
I will- I'll understand
the fact that I'm- Biased.
We all are.
We all have our backgrounds.
I try my best to be open, and I try
my best to be able to, uh, introduce
people into the world of, that I
know, uh, through ancillary ways.
It's not always gonna be the, the gun
manufacturer that I'm talking with.
Sometimes it's gonna be the person who
just likes to hike or ski or be outside,
'cause there, there is, there's a bleed
over between all of this, and it's,
uh, personal agency and resilience and
capability while you're in a remote area.
And firearms play a role, but
they've... I try my best to keep it
as a, not the talking point, right?
It's not about the gun.
The gun just happens to be a piece
of the puzzle that's in there.
So am I doing an okay job in how we
tell the story, or how should we as,
uh, Canadians tell this story so that
the Laurentian r- elite say, "All right.
Well, it's not my story, but I get it."
Right?
Right.
Yeah, we have, we have
to be careful there.
I, I, I come from the Laurentian elite.
So I always I always i- introduce myself
like that as a, as a, you know- ... a
central Canadian out west, right?
Sure.
Yeah, I
hear
you.
Um, no.
I, I, I think building those
institutions, right, what you've
done building this co- podcast and
building Silvercore, what Dan Fritter
has done building Caliber Magazine.
Mm. Like, I think the most
powerful thing that you can do to
make change is build something.
Mm.
Right?
And, and build something that goes
beyond you and reaches a wide audience.
One thing that I, I think if, if the
community of gun owners got together
and, and put the money together, um,
and built a Canadian firearms museum- Mm
to preserve and tell that story-
I think that would go wonders.
You, you put it somewhere in
the Quebec-Windsor corridor,
so you have, you know, 80% of
Canada living in, in that area.
You have the highway that k- sort
of connects those communities.
Um, you get a lot of visitors, right?
There are firearms museums in
the, in the US that get hundreds
of thousands of visitors- Yeah
every year, and people who
aren't necessarily gun people.
They just sort of saw the sign
on the highway and said, "Hey, I
have a kid who plays Call of Duty.
Maybe that'll kind of get
him off his phone for-
Yeah
...
for a couple of minutes," right?
And they're cool, those museums.
Yeah.
I- The Springfield Armory, have
you ever checked that one out?
Oh, no, no.
Awesome.
I'll have to add it to my list.
Yeah, I mean, there's- Yeah ... there are
a whole history aspect to all of it, and
then there's a machining aspect, and then
there's- Yeah ... st- industrialization
and community aspect, and yeah,
the firearms are a big part of what
they're telling in there, but there's,
there's a bigger story being told.
And, and they open up stories,
and they open up histories, right?
Mm. Like, uh, so much of my, my
interest outside of academia, you
know, in, in looking at firearms
is that connection to history.
Mm.
'
Cause you, you, you know, um... And,
and one thing that's interesting
reading Caliber magazine, I remember
reading one about the Winchester
rifle and its connection to the
Pacific Coast Military Rangers- Mm
here in BC, right?
'Cause they weren't gonna issue them
with, you know, Lee-Enfields that they
were gonna send to the battlefield.
These guys are hanging around in the bush,
keeping an eye out for, for Japanese boats
and submarines or planes or- Mm ... for
X balloons, one of the big things.
Yeah.
Right?
Those musi- munition balloons
that they'd- That's right
send over.
Um, the, you know, they're gonna go
out, and they're gonna have a lever
action 'cause it's, it's handy in the
woods, and, and they can use it to
hunt, but also, you know, it gives
them some capability if, if they end
up, uh, in, in a violent exchange.
So guns as windows to history is
something that I think, um, helps
us to tell those stories- Sure
and once again sort of highlights the
significance of firearms to people
who have no idea about them, have
never touched one before, and you say,
like, "No, look at this connection
to history. Look at what this, this
object tells us about Canada's past."
Mm.
Um, I, I, I think having a, an, a place
where we can tell those stories would
be hugely impactful and hugely powerful.
You know, I've always felt that, um,
that both sides, the anti-gunners, the
pro-gunners, have made the object too
much the object of their attention.
Mm. They've made the gun the
point that they talk about.
Gun is good.
Gun is bad.
Or as Shakespeare said-
Yeah ... it's neither good nor
bad, but thinking makes it so.
Mm.
The gun in the hands of someone who's
willing to do ill intent, bad, right?
That scares me.
Yeah.
Not the gun, the person with the gun.
That's scary.
Yeah.
Um, but, like,
telling the story about the gun and the
history of the gun, I, I, I can see that
as an important piece, but there's such
a, a much bigger story that's being told
every single day through media, through
movies, and, and they will glorify the
gun, and they make the gun, well- This
person was down and out, but now they got
a gun, and now they're the hero of the...
They can kill the bad guys, they can do...
And it's all 'cause of this gun, right?
Right.
Yeah.
Especially like '80s-type,
uh, movies that- Yeah.
There's Rambo.
I mean, he's just one man, but he'll
take down armies because look at all
the guns he's got and the bandolier.
Um, I, I, I can see the importance
of having the gun and, and trying to,
uh, tell that story, but there's a
big part of me that thinks that the
story shouldn't even be about the gun.
Like, it really shouldn't.
Somebody goes in and they do damage.
So what is, in the last 100 years, I
will ask people this, and a listener
might correct me on this one, but
from my research anyways, if we look
at the four largest by death count
intentional, uh, taking of human life
in the last 100 years, do we have
an idea of what they are in Canada?
I'm guessing automobiles are, are-
No ... gonna
be
one of
them.
Well,
uh, so the intentional, so
somebody ramming into p-
somebody with au- an automobile-
Yeah
...
taking them out, that
would be number four.
Right.
So I think that was 11 people in Toronto.
Right.
Uh-
Well, and more recently in
Vancouver with the, the Lapu Lapu-
That's
right
Festival attack.
It was... How many do you...
How many was on that one?
I, I don't remember.
It was, it was quite significant.
Uh-
Yeah, it was significant.
And there's... But you don't
hear about it all the time.
We don't hear, "Let's make automobile
regulations," and, um, because
the object of what's being used.
Number one, uh, so number, uh,
three is gonna be Polytechnique.
That was, what?
Mm. 14 people, was it, at Polytechnique
that were murdered by, um-
Yeah
...
Gabriel Gaveil, Marc Lépine.
Uh, Portapique, number two, and most
people will call that one number one.
Uh, that was, I think, 22 people that,
that, uh, that Arsal went and murdered.
Mm-hmm.
And number one was the Bluebird Cafe.
You remember the Bluebird Cafe?
No.
No, because people never
talk about the Bluebird Cafe.
Mm.
But some guys got themselves
drunk at this cafe.
What, I don't... I guess they
were serving alcohol there too.
I think there was three of them.
They got kicked out.
They got pissed.
They go over to the, um, gas
station- Mm ... fill up a can of
petrol, throw it down the stairs.
How many people there?
I think it was 37 that they killed.
And yeah, there was...
What, what did they do?
The government turned around and
says, "Okay, we need fire exits.
They have to be able to push to get out.
We're gonna have to have building
inspections." They looked at pieces
to put in and they, and enacted
some change there, but nobody goes
on about, oh, look at this petrol,
uh, look at this gas massacre, which
could happen, which is really easy.
It's really easy to...
Everyone's got vehicles-
Yeah
...
to steal a vehicle, to use
somebody else's vehicle, to rent
a vehicle and cause mass damage.
But that doesn't occupy
people's attention.
Yeah.
The gun does, because the gun's got
a mystique behind it which rightly
or wrongly I think people have built
up through media, through movies.
It's a p- it's a piece of power.
From a political standpoint, I think
they look at it as, um, twofold.
Number one, it's a threat to the,
uh, systems that we currently
have in place if somebody has the
ability to defend themselves or,
or what if they hold us accountable
and there's, like, an overthrow.
So there's that side.
And I think the other side is, wow,
we can use this popularized item out
there as a point of division, and if
we make that our, our piece that we're
gonna push, we'll get rid of it, and
the other side says, "No, we wanna
keep it." Aha, now the other side
looks like the jerks out there that
just want, you just wanna see carnage.
You're okay with people
getting killed by guns.
And I, and I think that's
all because we've made the
conversation about the object.
Yeah.
Well, a- and it's a
numbers game, too, right?
Okay.
You know, if you're proposing regulations,
increasing regulations on cars, right?
Automobile deaths surpass firearm deaths
in this country by an order of magnitude.
Yes.
But everybody drives.
Sure.
You have to.
Like, in Canada, it's... You, you, you
can't... You know, I live in Abbotsford.
I came, I drove here- ... to Delta, right?
I- Right ... I, it would be
logistically almost impossible for me
to take public transit to get here.
Mm.
Right?
This is a big country.
We have wide open spaces, but there's
only 2.4 million gun owners, so proposing
regulation that only impacts 2.4 million
people, there's a low cost for that
if you're a politician, especially a
politician, uh, on the, you know, in
the center or, or on the left- Mm-hmm
who doesn't need those p- they don't think
they need those people's votes, right?
Um, so there, there's that aspect of
it as well, but I, but I think that
focus on the tool is interesting.
I open the book not talking about
guns, but talking about alcohol.
Mm.
Because once again, alcohol is something
that kills orders of magnitude more
people in this country than guns, and even
there's an intersection 'cause if you d-
you look at, um, interviews they've done
with inmates and th- and folks like that
who have been incarcerated, they found
that, you know, a, a significant number
of them were on drugs or, or alcohol- Sure
at the time that they
committed their offense.
Yeah.
Right?
Just in Abbotsford the other day,
across the street from where I
live, um, there's a grocery store,
and someone was, was struck.
Uh, and, and I, I don't know
if they were killed or if they
were just in critical condition.
Just in critical condition, I should say.
Just, yeah.
But, you know, there... But you ne-
you would never hear politicians
considering further restrictions o-
on, on alcohol consumption, right?
Right.
Even though it kills far more people, once
again because the uproar would be huge.
People would, people would get mad
at, you know, everybody likes a, a,
to rela- not everybody, but more, a, a
larger number of people likes to relax
with a beer on a Friday afternoon.
Sure, and there's a ton of money
being made by the government
through the taxes on alcohol.
Yes.
And there's, uh, yeah.
Exactly.
So, so I, I, I think there's that,
that component where we really have to
focus on looking at the wider causes
of crime and violence and, and not
focusing specifically on, on the objects.
When people ask what I think we should
do about the gun debate, I think it's,
you know, regulate people, not guns.
Mm. And, and that's what the Canadian
system does really well, is licensing.
You're, you're automatically sifting
out people who- You know, are, are
gonna be problematic and are gonna
be more likely to use those guns.
Mm. We know, for example, that PAL
holders are less likely to commit
crimes than the general public.
Sure.
And that makes sense.
They've been subjected to
background checks, right?
There is the sort of informal sniff test
of the, the firearms courses where, you
know, when if, if you've been through a
firearms course or, or taught one, you
know instructors are looking for people
that, in that course, that like, "Ooh,
I have a bad feeling about that person.
Maybe I'm not gonna... I, I, I'm
not gonna recommend that they,
they get their license," right?
There are systems in place
to, to keep bad actors out.
Mm-hmm.
Right?
Um, it w- which I think is,
is really the key and the core
to Canada's successful system.
But when we start picking guns as,
this gun's too scary, this gun,
you know, um, looks like a nice
wooden grandpa's hunting rifle.
Fine, that's okay.
Mm.
Um, we get into, into treacherous
territory, I think, really quickly.
So 2.4% of Cana- 2.4 million
Canadians, that'd be about 6%
of Canada, are firearms owners.
So that makes- Mm ... a small demographic
that are typically gonna be rural voters
and not playing towards what, what, um,
some politicians would really deem as
statistically significant if they were
to step on them a little bit- Mm-hmm
in order to win votes in another place.
However, I'm wondering if there's a
way for that, for what's happening to
the 6% to be told in a story where a
larger percentile will say, "Well, hold
on a second. If they can, in 2020, say,
by decree through order and council,
take privately-owned property, what
does that mean for me going forward?"
You gave the example of vehicles.
Everyone needs a vehicle
or places are vast.
Well, there's all this talk that we
keep hearing about 15-minute cities or
five-minute cities or whatever they are.
And, you know, you'll own nothing,
and you'll love it, or whatever,
whatever the, the, the current
trend that they're talking about.
But, um, but there is a push
for if you were to take the idea
to the furthest degree, I mean,
we're gonna have driverless... We
already have driverless vehicles.
Mm. Uh, governments can say, "Our money
should be better served for public
transit, and we'll supply everything
you need. You don't need a vehicle."
Like, uh, at some point, uh, and if
you're in a rural area, maybe you can
get a special license to operate this
vehicle and only certain types of vehicle
in certain areas because think of the
environment and the pollution it puts out.
Like, there's all this
spin that can be put on it.
Like, is there a way that the
6% can make their plight, uh,
relatable to the larger percentile?
Yeah.
I, I think part of that, yeah, it goes
back to that storytelling element and,
and then building those coalitions, right?
Mm. In politics, you win by building
coalitions, by making friends, right?
By building alliances with other groups.
So I, I think- That advocacy
a- a- and that trying to find a
way to connect sport shooting to
national defense I think is huge.
Mm.
Because I think i- if we get official
recognition for sport shooting, if
we build those alliances with the
military, suddenly you go from, you
know, being annoying to the government
to being, uh, an important part of
Canada's national defense picture-
Mm
that the government is gonna
be hesitant to, to step on.
I think the other thing is, is
building a broader coalition with
people who we haven't in the past.
There's a concept in the study of
politics called interest group capture.
Mm.
And that's when an interest group gets,
you know, captured by a political party,
so that interest group can't plausibly
defect to another political party.
Mm.
This has been kind of one of the things
that the American pro-gun movement
has been really good at, i- is, uh,
because a lot of gun policy happens at
the state level in the US, there are
states where that, you know, the gun
movement has build, uh, built a coalition
and built alliances with Democrats-
Mm-hmm
in a way that pro- protects them
from, from, you know, uh, regulation.
So I think the Canadian, as long as
the Conservative Party remains the only
safe party for Canadian gun owners,
we are, uh, the, the community's
guaranteed to lose 70% of the time.
Right.
Because the Liberal Party is the
most suc- electorally speaking-
Mm-hmm
the Liberal Party is the most
successful party of any democracy, um,
in terms of, like, the actual clock
of how long they've been in power.
Sure.
Right?
They're very ideologically flexible,
which allows them to change positions
quickly to meet the demands of
the moment and stay in power.
Mm. And, and they've built that
sort of big coalition in the center
where they can now kind of steal MPs
from the Conservatives, steal MPs
from the New, New Democrats, right?
Mm. Um, so I, I think the community
needs to ... During my research,
one thing that I found was that
there are a lot of progressive gun
owners who feel politically homeless.
Mm.
They, they feel like when they go
to the gun range, you know, all,
all of the conversation is, is maybe
somewhat alienating to them or a part
of their, their identity, um, right?
Or, and they feel like when they're in
their progressive circles, you know, they
get, you know, called ... There was one
guy who said his, his cousin found out
that he had guns, and he called him a
Trump supporter or something like that.
Right.
Right?
So there's all these
stereotypes and ideas.
So, so I think building that coalition,
giving those people a home within
the mainstream of, of, uh, of gun
advocacy and then broadening the
appeal to parties like the NDP, which
traditionally had a, a rural and
working class base, which- Traditionally
which traditionally, right?
Um, and, and I've met people in
the NDP who are, are, are sort of-
Trying and, and working very hard to,
to push for that within the party-
Mm ... but, but they feel kind of
like lone voices in the wilderness.
So I think building that broader
coalition, finding a way to build
institutions, and then, and then
build partnerships with, with big
Canadian institutions like National
Defense, these are all kind of broader
systemic-level strategies that can
help overcome the numerical weakness
that gun owners in Canada have.
I don't disagree with your concept on,
uh, alignment with National Defense.
Mm-hmm.
I think that's a very astute point.
Where I'm a little cloudy is how do
you do that, particularly- Yeah ... in
the... Like, have you, uh, given
thought to the, the mechanism for
implementation on something like that?
Like, we look at service rifle
being wiped out and the, um, uh,
a, a lot of the, um, BCRA and DCRA
disciplines being, coming under attack.
Like, that, that was the obvious point,
I think, in the past for civilian and,
uh, national defense sort of overlap.
Yeah.
Have you given thought to how, how
gun owners out there can properly
advocate, or what, what would need to
happen in order for, um, that to even
be entertained, the idea of firearms
ownership and national defense?
'Cause I think it goes contrary
to, uh, the aspirations of somebody
who would be against firearms.
Yeah.
The, the, the fact that we have
capable people out there who
know how to use... Like, e-
spitballing, I would say mandatory
conscription might not be a bad idea.
Right.
Um, because I look at countries that have
mandatory conscription, and I know it's
not a popular standpoint, but you talk
to anybody who's been through it, not the
people who are waiting to go through it.
Nobody wants to do it.
Then they go through it, and they're
like, "Holy crow, I got to stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with different
people from different religions and
different backgrounds, and I have this,
this sense of civil pride now, and I
have... We all have eaten the same dirt,
and we have a shared understanding."
There's a cultural, um, significance to
being able to have mandatory conscription.
Uh, I can see that as being a very
beneficial piece to marrying in the idea
of firearms and, and national defense at
a, at a national level, but I c- also see
that one being unpopular with a lot, too.
Um-
Yeah.
I, I think that marriage
has to come from advocacy.
Okay.
Right?
It comes from at the grassroots level,
you know, talking to your member
of parliament, writing letters to,
to the newspaper, things like that.
Mm-hmm.
Right?
The advocacy component.
And then at the organizational level, it
comes from people in organizations, you
know, like, uh, like IPSC, like other
disciplines that, that might be relevant,
reaching out and, and doing that kind
of lobbying component to see where can
we find tho- build those partnerships.
Um, can we have a, you know, a, a
military day at our range where active
members of the force can come and shoot
for free and, and, you know, have,
have different types of competitions
with civilians, things like that.
Mm. So I think it comes with i- i-
it's gonna have to sort of happen
at, at, at the, at the group level.
I don't think the government at this point
is gonna reach out and make that case.
Mm. But I think that there are probably
civil servants within, within the
government, even if the political
level doesn't see eye to eye, making
those connections with powerful civil
servants who are able to or- you
know, uh, facilitate events like that.
Um-
Yeah, there might, there might be a
political appetite for it now too, based
on the recent, uh, things I've read about
Carney saying, "Oh, we're gonna turn our
civil servants into, uh, active military
members, or a certain percentage of." Yes.
"Or we're going to, uh, create a, um,
an immigration system where we can
immigrate soldiers from other countries."
I can't see that going wrong at all.
But, um, uh, there, that component,
I think, would, uh, fly a heck of
a lot further than the past two
things that I've read about in
the media that have been floated.
Yeah.
A- and I think this is the moment.
Mm. Like, that speaks to the fact
that this is really the moment.
Canadians are thinking about national
defense in a way, a- and, and identity
and patriotism in a way that they haven't,
for context, within my lifetime, right?
Right.
Like, growing up when I was a kid, like,
Canadian soldier equaled peacekeeper.
Right.
That, that was, that was
our image of ourself.
Um, and, and now we're starting to talk
about, like, well, no, you know, the,
the Canadian military, it, during World
War I and World War II, was, um...
Am I allowed to swear on the, the podcast?
You can swear
all
you want.
All right.
It was a kick-ass fighting force, right?
Yes.
That, that handed our, our,
our enemies their, their butts
on a silver plate, right?
Yeah.
So- They were
savages.
Yeah.
So, so I, I, I think, you know,
Canadians have that within us.
I think Canadians are a friendly
and polite people, but you don't
wanna confuse friendliness and
politeness for, for meekness.
Mm. 'Cause I, 'cause I think w- when
Canadians are threatened, they have each
other's backs and, and they stand up.
And, and telling that story and getting
back to that, that strength, I think
makes us, gives us a better negotiating
platform on a global stage a- and
helps us, and, and a better negotiating
platform with the United States.
Mm. 'Cause right now they, they, you
know, um, we might hate when Trump
taunts us and, and the folks working
in, in his- Sure ... cabinet, but, you
know- When we're, when our, our, you
know, defense umbrella is based around
our integration with the Americans
and relying on the Americans, like,
there's not a lot we can say back.
Yeah.
So, uh-
Kinda asked for it.
Yeah.
Right.
So I, so I think patriotism is cool again.
Mm. And I think that's a good thing.
I do, too.
And, and I think that we, we need
to use this moment to, to, once
again, retell Canada's story and
assert the place of a responsible and
well-regulated, um, not, not, you know,
in the in the- Well-regulated was-
Second Amendment says.
I know well re- well-regulated
might have a, a, a bad connotation,
but, but seriously, you know,
like, a very regulated community
of people who follows the rules.
Mm. Who are, are willing to jump
through those hoops, um, and,
and who can be an asset and, and
help the community a- and their
government when, when the time comes.
Who are already criminally record-checked,
vetted, trained, all the rest.
Exactly.
Interesting.
Um, I'd like to hear what the audience
thinks about that because, uh, yeah.
Throw it in the comments,
s- your thoughts.
I'd li- I'd like to see what,
uh, people think about that
one 'cause, uh, I like it.
I think it's got legs.
Um, so here's one I wanted to
pick your brain from a, um,
political science perspective.
So the 2020 OIC was enacted by
cabinet decree, no Parliament debate.
From a political theory standpoint,
what does it mean that a liberal
democracy has built mechanisms by
which the executive can criminalize
entire categories of citizen behavior
without legislative scrutiny?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think it's, it's part of,
um, a dangerous trend in politics
that actually goes beyond Canada,
uh, um, to the United States.
A- and, and this is where, you know,
this is something that whether you're a
conservative or progressive, you should
be really concerned about, um, because
what we're seeing in the United States
is a broad overreach of executive power,
and executive power being stretched, and
this has happened over decades, right?
Mm. People have been writing about it,
uh, the u- unitary presidency, um, uh,
theory in political science, where, where
you're seeing the executive take more
and more power onto themselves and kind
of bypass that legislative scrutiny.
Mm.
Um, and in Canada, I think we've been
see- seeing it happen, too, and I
think this, this OIC is part of that.
We've seen more and more power
concentrated in the prime minister's
office, less and less power with
individual MPs. You're seeing sort of
more and more MPs stick to the party
line versus do their job, which is
represent their constituents, right?
What was the big line during the
recent defections to the Liberal Party?
Mm. Was that you vote for a person, you
don't vote for a party in Canada, right?
Mm. That's the reality of how our
parliamentary democracy works.
Well, if you're voting for a person,
that person should represent their
constituents, um, and they should
have the em- be empowered to do so.
Um, so I think enacting this stuff
through OIC, um, was it legal and
legitimate within the rules of the game?
Yes.
Does it have negative implications for,
for democracy and, and the ability to have
this stuff out in the open with debate?
Definitely.
And is it bad just from
a process perspective?
Even if you're, even if you don't care
about guns, if you care about good
public policy, it's really clear that
this ban is not good public policy.
Hmm.
I think everybody's waking up to
that now, even people who, once
again, don't care about guns.
And if this had been done properly
through the legislative process,
right, that's where we catch bad ideas.
Mm-hmm.
That's the point of having Parliament
is- Mm-hmm ... is to have ideas
flooded through this sort of as wide
a net as possible, have multiple
perspectives shared, and have policy
be improved through the process.
That didn't happen here.
The government missed
a ton of opportunities.
Even, like, with, with
the handgun freeze, right?
A lot of Canadians are-
Freeze
...
freeze, yes.
Well,
a lot of C- 'Cause
you can't ban them.
We'll just call it a freeze.
Freeze.
Right?
A lot of Canadians don't realize that
single-shot flintlock black powder
pistols were banned alongside Glocks.
Mm-hmm.
Right?
And when you tell people that, their
eyes kind of... I- if you explain to
them what it is, they're like, "Really?
That, you know, that's something that
should be too dangerous for people to
own?" And it's, once again, it's 'cause
the government didn't consult with this.
They didn't consult with the,
you know, advocacy groups.
They didn't consult with
the sports shooters groups.
They just put in this blanket ban,
um, that really makes, makes so
little sense considering how strictly
regulated handguns were in Canada
beforehand and the hoops that people
had to jump through to get them.
So once again, I, I, I, I think
this is just bad public policy.
Hmm.
And, and, and it speaks to why we
need to think really carefully about
how much power we're allowing to
be concentrated in, in the Prime
Minister's office versus Parliament.
So in your research and talking with all
the different sides and your exposure
within the university environment, why
do you think they brought in the, uh,
handgun ban and the, the OIC prohibitions?
Because I'm not entirely certain
it's got anything to do with guns.
I, I think it's about politics.
Okay.
I think it's, it's about the, you
know, they looked at the numbers.
It, it's, it's partially, you
know, politicking over what's
happening in the United States.
Hmm.
Right?
'Cause the US has a gun violence problem.
Most people in Canada follow American
news quite, quite closely, right?
And so the, you know, politicians decided
they could score a lot of points by
pretending we're the United States,
and that they're bringing in strict
gun laws that are gonna save this.
And you see this in the
rhetoric that was used, right?
Hmm.
Um, Prime Minister Trudeau, when
he's announcing the ban, he says
thoughts and prayers, uh, ar-
aren't gonna be a part of it.
It's like that's not a
Canadian talking point.
Mm-hmm.
Nobody here says that because,
you know, we changed our laws.
We, we, we've had two
rounds of massive sweeps.
This is the third round, right?
We had the round in the '70s.
We have the round in the '90s,
and now, now a third round, right?
This, this isn't the United States.
We don't have a political
inaction problem on this, right?
Hmm.
When was the handke-
gun freeze brought in?
After the Uvalde, Texas massacre.
Right.
Right?
Last time I checked, Tex- Texas
wasn't a province of Canada.
That's
right.
Um, a- a- it, r- so, so this is all
about scoring political points off
of, once again, sh- playing to that
idea that people want- Canadians wanna
feel smug about not being American.
Hmm.
So you play to that Canadian self-image
of, "Look how much better we are to
the Americans." Yeah, you're gonna
tick off these 2.4 million people,
but they were never gonna vote for
you anyways 'cause they live in rural
areas or, or, or places that ar- aren't
necessarily the, the big urban, urban
bastions of, of the Liberal Party.
Um, and, and from that perspective,
from that real politic Game of Thrones
perspective- Sure ... politically,
like, it, it sort of makes sense.
Except that once you bring in these
policies, you have to own them.
Hmm.
And just like the long
gun registry, right?
When the public starts seeing the price
tag, suddenly it makes less sense to them.
Hmm.
When you have six years for, you know,
uh, idiots like me to stand up in the
media and say, "Hey, you know, hello.
I don't think this is a good idea."
Um, that, that you start to break
through, and people start to hear
that other perspective, and they start
to think about it carefully, right?
Mm. And you see public, uh, opinion
turn, which once again speaks to
why we should put things to the
legislative process normally.
I agree.
Right?
And, and why we shouldn't, you know,
why public policy should be based
on sound evidence and not, you know,
a desire to score political points.
Obviously, that's a perfect world.
That's not the world we live in.
We l- we live in a world of politics,
and, and that's how decisions are
made, but, um, you know, we can dream.
Okay.
Well, in your book you talk
about the Czech Republic.
Yeah.
And you talk about a, there was a
shooting that happened over there,
and then afterwards as a response
to the shooting, they took action,
but they did it in a different way.
Why, what did they do?
What happened over there, and,
uh, why do you think they took a
different approach than Canada?
Yeah.
So the Czech Republic, their, their
firearms laws are, are really interesting
because I think Canadians have a
tendency to imagine Europe having
stricter gun control than Canada.
Hmm.
But I think that's 'cause we're so
historically tied to Great Britain.
Hmm.
Right?
And, and we imagine that everything
that the British are doing is
happening on the continent.
Yeah.
And, and we know the British, like,
that, that, uh, you know, British
and, Britain and Australia, um, have,
have quite draconian firearm laws.
Hmm.
Right?
Um, uh, on the continent, things
are, things are different.
You see a, a wider variety, right?
You have places like Norway and
Finland and Sweden where suppressors
are widely available- Sure
for people to use.
Uh, the Czech Republic is an
interesting example because they
have, uh, g- civilian concealed carry.
Right.
And they've brought into their
constitution a, a sort of quasi
right to, to own firearms.
Um, and studies that have come out,
so there was a, a really interesting
study, uh, that compared, you know,
uh, violent- levels of, of firearms
violence in the UK and in, in the,
uh, Czechia or the Czech Republic.
Yeah.
And they found that Czechia
was much safer, right?
Um, which points to, you know,
firearms regulation, obviously
firearms are dangerous tools.
They have to be regulated in
some capacity, but that's not
what's going to stop crime.
Like, that, that's- You know, a baseline
Mm
...
but there are tons of other factors
that contribute to crime and violence.
And so if we keep thinking that, okay,
you know, every time there's a violent
incident, we just have to kind of ratchet
the gun control thing tighter, we're,
we're chasing really, really diminishing
returns- Mm-hmm ... and we're not paying
attention to, to the root of the problem.
Which is?
Which is, uh, complicated, right?
Mm. There are components of psychology,
there are components of sociology, right?
I think, uh, a lot of... U- ultimately,
crime stems from unmet need, right?
A person who is able to get what
they want through mainstream
institutions in society, right,
isn't gonna resort to crime, right?
Mm. If you're able to get a good job
or, you know, go to school and, a-
and then get a good job after, things
like that, right, you don't feel
the need to, to do things like that.
But when I was doing research for
a, a recent project, I spoke to
people working with communities,
uh, where poverty's concentrated.
Mm. I spoke to a worker in, you know,
downtown Winnipeg who, um, they would
take people who were involved in, in,
you know, um, the gang lifestyle and
they'd offer them legitimate employment.
Mm.
And, and oftentimes those folks would
say to them, you know, "Man, this work is
really hard. I can make- ... I can make
a, you know, two months' salary in an
afternoon on- Right ... the street selling
drugs, so, so why am I doing this?" Right?
So I think a- addressing those really
complex social problems- Mm ... having
those conversations, uh, you know,
about supports for mental health,
'cause we don't have good supports
for mental health in this country.
We
don't.
It's really expensive-
Mm
...
to have access to mental health services.
Having those conversations, a- about,
um, programs that, that help these
at-risk communities, um, and help get
people out of the gang lifestyle, that's
where we see the bang for our buck.
Mm.
When... And, and that also helps to cut
through that partisan divide, right?
Because a lot of the organizations
that work in this space are private
nonprofits, so there's... If you're,
if I'm... You know, you're speaking to
conservatives or conservative politicians,
you say, "This isn't a big government
program. These are small," right?
The, you know, this is just
funding to these private groups
that are doing really good work.
Right.
If you're talking to progressives, you
say, "We're tackling poverty, we're
tackling systemic injustice, we're
dealing with those root causes of
violence." So it's a, it's a win-win.
Mm-hmm.
It's a program that can be sold to both
sides, but it's not as politically sexy
as saying, "Look at this scary rifle.
We're gonna ban it."
Mm-hmm.
And so it doesn't satisfy, unfortunately,
that, that political, political itch, um-
Yeah ... that
it needs to.
Because mental health is
a huge aspect of this.
Yeah.
I- it's a, uh... Mentally healthy people
don't go around shooting other people.
Yeah.
By and large, right?
It's, it's, um-
Well, a- and sorry to k- cut you off,
but the suicide component as well, right?
Well, it's huge.
The major- majority of firearms deaths
in Can- or the majority of firearms
deaths in Canada are death by suicide.
81% or so.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So this is, this is a mental health
co- And, and it's, it's- Politically
sketchy to say that sometimes because
I think people feel like you're
passing the buck or stigmatizing
people with mental health issues.
We know people with mental health
issues are much more likely to
harm themselves than anyone else.
Mm-hmm.
So we don't want to risk, risk, uh,
contributing to that stigma, but
it doesn't mean we can't have that
conversation about having better,
better supports for people who need it.
It's kind of funny because when
they brought in the new Canadian
Firearm Safety Course program back
in 1994, and prior to that they
didn't have this training program- Mm
one of the first things they want
people to know is the breakdown of
deaths in Canada by firearm through
homicide, suicide, and accident.
And it's a test question that they'll
ask people about, and they should
know that b- 80, 81% of firearms
deaths in Canada are suicide.
Yet they spend all of this money
putting in this training program
for people with firearms and with
the knowledge, and gotta know that
suicide's gonna be the biggest killer.
If, if there's a firearm death-
Mm ... 80, 81% of them are
gonna be suicide in Canada.
But why aren't we seeing the
same amount of attention and
resources being attributed to
mental health as we are firearms?
Or are we seeing it and
I'm just not seeing it?
Well, a- and not only that, but recent
legislative changes have made it more
difficult, I think, for gun owners to, to
have access to tho- to those, uh- Right
right?
So, you know, what's something
that happens in the community
when someone knows that they're
going through a tough time?
Mm. Often they'll pass their
firearms over to someone else, right?
They'll, they'll have a friend,
you say, "Listen, I'm not doing
so well. Can you hang on to my
guns until I'm doing better?"
Mm-hmm.
If you're
an
RPAL holder right now, how do you do that?
How do you tr- legally
transfer your handguns?
S- right?
Then you're dealing with a whole
bunch of bureaucracy, um, if, if
you're even able, able to do that.
Mm-hmm.
Um, if you're, you know, in Quebec
and they have the registry, you've
added another layer of complexity-
Mm
to doing that, right?
Even with, uh, the regulation of private
sales now, if you're doing a temporary
transfer and then having your buddy
hold onto your guns, right, suddenly the
CFO's office is getting involved in this
c- in this conversation potentially.
So you're, you're adding barriers for
people- Mm ... to be able to, these
informal institutions for people
to be able to do what they need.
And then plus you have the component
of, with the, one thing I heard
from folks about the, the red and
yellow flag laws is that there are
people who are scared to seek out
help.
That's it, and that's the one I think
that people don't talk about as much.
100%.
The other ones, you can
see them on the surface.
You can see, okay, there's barriers
here to them being able to go out.
I have people come by here, we're a
licensed firearms company, they'll
bring firearms, they're going through
a divorce, "Can you store the firearms
here?" Or, "Having a hard time, can I
store firearms here?" Yeah, absolutely.
Not a problem.
Is there anything else we
can do to help you, right?
Mm. Um, here's some people you can talk
to, here's some literature you can read.
B- whatever we can do to, to help.
"No, no, no, I'm good, I'm good,
I just, you know, I'm taking
precautions." Fair enough.
You talk to people who are- Who
firearms make up a larger part of
their life, whether that be because
it's their profession, like I own
a firearms business, or they're a
competitive shooter, or it's they're a
collector, it plays a larger portion.
Maybe some of their
identity's tied up in that.
They go and they want to talk to a
talk doc, who are they talking to?
Does that person have personal biases?
Yeah.
One phone call, one note in the
binder, and, or on the notepad there,
and they might never see their guns
again in the future, and that's
a legitimate concern for people.
Yeah.
I could lose my business if
I'm going through a tough time.
I, I know personally, like there's
an apology letter on the, the wall up
there from the RCMP, but they raided
here and, uh, that was a six-year
ordeal that, uh, eventually they
ended up paying out an undisclosed
sum and a, um, an apology letter.
Mm. Rare one.
But you think it wasn't tough?
You think it wasn't tough when you're
selling your furniture in order to
be able to make payroll, when you're
eating freezer-burnt meat from friends
from, uh, uh, years past 'cause you
didn't have enough money for food?
Who am I gonna talk to?
I'm not talking to anyone.
I don't want to jeopardize my ability to,
uh, to run a business, so that's, I think-
Yeah ... a very real one right there.
100%, and this is what happens when
you treat this like a criminal justice
and regulatory conversation, right?
Every other community in
Canada seems entitled.
Like, we, we've started to shift
our way from this sort of punitive
view to, to harm reduction, right?
When we think about the way that we're
dealing with the toxic drug crisis,
when you think about that we're- the way
we're dealing with other social issues.
But with gun owners, it
seems to always be punitive.
Mm.
Why aren't we talking about harm reduction
when it comes to, to firearms owners, and
why aren't we ta- Like, the- to, to me, it
just seems so obvious that we would want
to create a regulatory environment that
would allow people experiencing mental
health issues first and foremost to get
help without that, that fear of, of losing
their, in many cases, social circle.
Right.
Which is a lot of people, what, what, you
know, folk- there are folks I talk to,
um, this woman was talking about her dad,
and she said, you know, if her dad loses
his firearms, that's his social group.
Right.
We talk about, you know,
senior citizens and loneliness.
Right.
Right?
So I, I don't know, that, that
part just, just it- I can't see
it as anything but vindictive.
Mm.
Just 'cause from a policy perspective,
like, it, it, it, it makes no sense to me.
I don't-
Mm.
And then I, it makes me really frustrated
when I see what people like you have,
have gone through and, and yeah,
that, like, my heart really breaks
for, for folks in that situation.
So I'm gonna switch
gears here a little bit.
There's a, um, fellow by
the name of Blake Brown.
I guess he's my wife's second cousin.
Oh.
So at some point in the back,
I got a book sent over to me.
He says, "You should read this book.
It's, uh, from a relative." I've-
I don't think I've ever met him.
I never read the book.
But I, uh, I looked through it.
There's got a chapter in there
called Angry White Man, and I, it
is a quick thumb through on this
thing, and I'm like, "I don't know.
Do I want to read this book?" And I,
other people in the gun community, I
kind of have to go Hush hush that there's
some relation to this, this fellow,
which by and large it looks like it was
supposed to be a historical account of
firearms in Canada, but it also seems
heavily flavored if I talk to others.
Should I read this book by, uh, Blake
Brown and, um, where do you think his
lens misses what's actually happening?
I would say absolutely yes.
Read it.
Okay.
Um, it is one of the books
that I actually cite the most.
Hmm.
Um, and I think up until the coverage of
maybe more modern d- modern debates, it's
an incredibly fair telling of the history
of guns in Canada 'cause it, it, it
really sh- talks about this relationship
between guns and political power.
Hmm.
Not always explicitly, but often
implicitly when we talk about the
sort of those, you know, um, after
the Battle of Quebec, for example,
when, when Great Britain takes
possession of, of New France's, uh,
colonies i- in Canada, um, right?
What's the... One of the first
things that the, the government does
is they disarm French Canadians.
Mm-hmm.
Right?
They disarm the Ca- Quebecois.
Um, i- with indigenous people, right?
You have the, the Northwest
Resistance, you have Louis Riel.
What's one of the things
that the government does?
They, they disarm indigenous people-
Right ... and disarm Metis people, right?
So I, I think that's such an important
component of our history that we
ought not forget because often fire...
gun control policy is seen through
the prism of this, like, just kind
of benevolent public safety policy.
Hmm.
And if you're a scholar and a
good scholar, you should know,
first of all, there's no such
thing as benevolent public safety.
Right?
Like, policy is always, uh, ab-
about picking winners and losers.
Sure.
We present policies as
solutions to problems.
They're more often than not trade-offs.
Hmm.
And they, and anything that the
government dal- does involves
the exercise of power, right?
Paying your taxes, right?
Who's gonna pay your
taxes if it's voluntary?
No, there has to be some component
of force backing that up.
No community in history has survived
based on, on voluntary taxation.
It's part of solving those collective
action problems, but it means
that the exercise of policy is
the exercise of power, and we have
to be responsible and careful and
thoughtful when we, when we do that.
So I think that's what Brown's book does
incredibly well, is it tells that story.
I think when it gets to the, uh, you
know, I really take exce- that name
of that chapter sticks out to me too.
I know.
I
know.
Uh, 'cause, 'cause up until there I'm
like, "I, I'm with you. I love this
book." And as I said, like I, I, I cite
it very often, but, but I think there's
that, that's where sort of the maybe
the political perspective can, can,
can sometimes cloud that because- Hmm
uh, I, I think that's an unfortunate way
to characterize any large group of people.
Hmm.
It speaks to the political
moment that we're in, right?
Um, like, white men are seen as a group
that we can, we can pick on politically.
Hmm.
And, and that we're... You're not gonna
face a social cost for that, especially
in, in progressive or academic circles.
Hmm.
Um, but I, you know, I'm of the mind
that we, we... I don't think we should
stereotype anyone- No ... regardless
of whether they're from a more
powerful or a less powerful group.
And, and from my- empirical
observations, talking to hundreds
of gun owners across the country.
Whether that fit in the '70s
and '80s, the period that, that
he's writing about, I can't say.
I, I, you know, I wasn't alive then.
Fair
enough.
But, but what I can say now
is that doesn't characterize
the gun community now.
Mm. Um, and, and the
people that I've spoken to.
Like, I talk to people from indigenous
backgrounds, um, people from, from,
uh, you know, women who are as
passionate about holding onto their
guns as the men in the community,
so I, I wouldn't say that's a fair
characterization anym- at the present.
Yeah, it just makes it really easy
to slot people into a group, and-
Yeah ... like you say, it's politically
expedient to say, "Well, okay. Well,
you're obviously on the other side now."
Yeah.
Hmm.
And if w- you know, if you think
about historically if we were writing
about the suffragette woman, right,
i- it might be empirically valid to
say that, you know, the suffragettes
were angry white women, right?
But they had good reason
to be angry, right?
Sure.
They were being mistreated
by the government.
They were, they were considered not even
citizens, let alone second-class citizens.
Mm-hmm.
So, um, yeah.
I, I, I think that, uh, I d- I wouldn't
agree with that characterization, but
I think broadly speaking, the book is,
is something that firearms owners would
appreciate because it really does give
that deep dive into the history of Canada.
And then because of that fact about,
um, rifle shooting being the first, uh,
sport in Canada to get federal funding,
that comes from that book, right?
Mm. So I, I wouldn't know a lot of
what I know now if I hadn't read
it.
In your NFA keynote, you told a room
full of gun owners that treating the
media as the enemy is a losing strategy.
Hmm.
It's not a popular thing to say.
Why'd you say it, and what does
engagement actually look like when
so many feel they've been burned?
Yeah.
So, uh, I think engagement means
having good faith conversations,
uh, with people in the media.
I, I think there is, you
know... It's observable.
We can see that there is slant in the
coverage of gun owners in the media.
Hmm.
And that, I think, by the community
is often interpreted as kind of like a
personal attack or some sort of vigni-
vigni- dictiveness or, or hatred o-
on, on the part of the media, and,
and I don't think broadly that's true.
I think there are obviously some,
some people in the media who are very
political and see gun owners as the enemy.
I don't think that's the majority.
Hmm.
Um, people, you know... I've spoken
to a lot of reporters, uh, as a,
um... And for the most part, um, I, I
think they are, they really just don't
know much About the gun world, right?
I agree.
The majority of them are
coming from big cities.
Like, a lot of them are based
in Toronto and stuff like that.
They might have never met a gun owner
or have one in their social circle.
They might have never been shooting.
Um, and from their perspective,
it's really hard to get the
perspective of gun owners.
Mm.
Because it's not like there's a re-
like, uh, you know, I'm an academic.
My picture's on a website.
They can call me and
ask me about it, right?
You can't cold-call people's houses and
say, "Hey, are you a gun owner?" Right?
Actually getting access to people in
the community is tricky, so you'll
see when they do interviews, it's
often with business owners, because
business owners have a website.
Right.
Right?
Um, and this is where I think the w-
part of that storytelling and outreach
angle, I think if more gun ranges in
Canada had someone on their board who
was in charge of media relations- Mm
and public relations for the range,
and was able to have their f- you
know, reach out and say, "Hey, if you
need to get the perspective of gun
owners on a story, reach out to me.
I'll con- connect you with someone
in our club who's willing to talk."
Mm.
I think that would go a long way,
'cause I've even had reporters ask
me, like, "Hey, do you know anyone
who's affected by the ban- Mm-hmm
who I can talk to?" And I'm like, from
an ethical perspective, I can't just
cold-call my past research participants
and say, "Hey, are you..." You know.
"I want to talk to a reporter," right?
Yeah.
And a lot of people aren't willing
to, because it- it they're afraid it
puts a target on their back, right?
Yeah.
So, so that's where having, like,
someone who speaks for the club, and
the collective voice of the club,
and, and it, and can s- and maybe has
a bit of media training, right- Mm
um, a- as well, so that they're, they're
putting, you know, the- their best
foot forward and, and representing the
community fairly and in a good light-
Mm-hmm
...
I think would go a long way.
Um, but I, I think the strategy that
we've seen more broadly of antagonizing
the media to score, to try to build,
like a, a, you know, political points,
I think is ultimately counterproductive.
Mm-hmm.
I understand why a lot of people
who are in politics do it.
Um, it's, it's, it's a good
strategy for fundraising.
Um-
Right
...
but it's not a good strategy for building
bridges and, and for, for educating the
public and, and having a richer, better
debate that's not based on emotion.
Yeah.
I think, um, I think that's something
that, uh, people who belong to
gun organizations should be aware
of, and hold the directors and
the organization accountable for.
Are you doing something that's moving
the needle in a positive way forward
for what we all believe to be the shared
cause, whatever that organization is,
or are you just speaking to the masses?
Are, or sorry, to- Yeah ... are
you speaking to your base?
Yeah.
Are you trying to, uh,
just sell memberships?
Are you putting billboards up in
cities that are already, they are,
you're singing to the choir, right?
It's, they're on the same song
sheet, and often I see a lot of that.
G- gotcha.
We got our gotcha points.
We're gonna sit down with this,
a member of parliament, and we're
gonna make him look really bad,
and we're gonna raise some money.
Yeah.
Well, try getting an interview
with another member of
parliament after that one.
Try having your voice heard somewhere.
Um, so I think there is a
responsibility on anybody who's a
part of an organization to look long
and hard as to- What they're doing.
There's so many people
are looking for a savior.
Like, I feel hard done by, I feel put
upon, I feel like there's all these rules
being created, and I'm losing my property,
and I got a lot of money in these things.
Who's gonna save me?
Mm.
And I think the reality
is you're gonna save you.
Each individual has a high level of
personal agency if they exercise it.
And- Yeah ... by putting that
power into a third party, into a
group or an organization, unvetted,
uncontrolled, is you- you're falling
into the same traps as other people.
One- 100%.
I was listening to your episode
that you did with Dan Fritter
where- Mm ... where you, you know,
talk about a similar, a, a similar
topic, and I, I, I completely agree.
Um, once again, you know, there,
there are things that every person
listening to this podcast can do.
A- and, you know, I imagine that most
listeners are, are members of a gun range.
You can show up to your, your, the, you
know, the annual general meeting of your
range or the monthly board meeting, and
you can say, "Hey, how come we don't
have a media relations per- person?
I'm reasonably articulate.
I, I'm, you know- ... a thoughtful person.
I'd be happy to volunteer
to do that position." Right?
And it probably wouldn't be a very
labor-intensive position to begin with.
If you've got some social media skills,
if you, you know, you can, you can
build a website, something like that.
Mm-hmm.
I, I think there, there are ways for
everybody... The, the basic cornerstone
of, of pluralist democracy is the
idea that everybody needs to play a,
a role in the way that we're governed.
Mm-hmm.
And when you give over the responsibility
to someone else to be your voice, you
might not always like what they say.
So yeah, I think it's incumbent upon,
uh, upon everybody to take action
to, to make the political change that
you wanna see in the world in a way
that's positive and constructive.
I'm looking at the laws here.
So we look at the RCMP.
They classify a firearm as non-restricted
in 2017, and then prohibit an AR-15
as a prohibited AR-15 variant in 2020.
So 2017, non-restricted.
Oh, 2020, now it's a prohibited
AR-15 variant, without any
new technical information.
What does political science tell
us about why that bureaucratic
reversal happens with no consequence?
I think it... Yeah, I think we need a
lot more transparency on the way that
these decisions are, are, are being made.
I'll give you some perspective.
I'm working on a research project right
now, um, that's not on firearms, but it's
about Canada's weapons laws more broadly.
Mm.
'
Cause I've spent a lot of time with
the criminal code in my research.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and, and I found, like, there are
some sort of strange things in there.
It's like, why can't... why
are nunchucks illegal in
Canada?
I know.
Why are throwing stars?
And, and I asked that question.
I'm like, I actually wanna find out.
Yeah.
So I, I filed a whole bunch of ATIPS,
and, and I've... and I'm trying to get...
and looked at the parliamentary
debate, the Hansard, and I'm sort
of trying to get a sense of how
those decisions are being made.
And, and I, I f- it's very, very difficult
to do that- About even historically,
about decisions that were made in
the 1970s that aren't even remotely
politically contentious right now.
Mm.
Um, so I, I, I think this is maybe
one area where, where we should think
about demanding more transparency from
government because I, I... And where I
think, y- you know, if the government
is serious about reconsidering the
classification system in Canada and
wants to do that in a good faith way that
actually makes us safer, that we should
really think about having, like, objective
criteria that people can, uh, can point to
when we're making these classification- Mm
decisions.
Because it's one of those areas where
I think if the general public, like,
got into the weeds and looked at this
stuff, they would say, "This seems
very, very complicated for..." Right?
For needlessly so.
Yeah.
I think, I think, uh, you kinda
hit the nail on the head there
with having objective criteria.
Like, when we look at the OIC prohibitions
and what, what's happening here, like,
if you're gonna create laws with harsh
criminal consequence, that discretionary
power cannot remain unfettered.
It has to have a list of checks and
balances as to why you did that.
And to my understanding, I don't see that.
It- I don't see that in there
it has to be easily
understood by the public.
Like, how many people- Mm ... now
are running around with firearms
they have no idea are banned?
Sure.
Because instead of saying like, "Okay,
we're gonna regulate semi-automatic
firearms in this way," they said,
"These are, you know, military-style,
assault-style weapons, and, and
what counts as one is it means
it's on this massive list," right?
Mm-hmm.
Um, s- so yeah.
I think, I think even if you're supportive
of, of... Even if you're someone who's
very supportive of strict gun regulation,
you could see that this, the way that,
that this has been done makes no sense.
Yeah.
Um-
It, it's funny how many people over
the years I've run into, educated
people, lawyers, judges, mayors,
MLAs, MPs, like, people that should
have a good understanding of what's
kinda going on saying, "Oh, you
know, I got a couple of guns.
I just keep them under the bed.
They're not hurting anybody, and
maybe I should take this course
and get my license." And, like,
they look at it exactly for what it
is. "I'm not doing anything wrong.
I'm not a bad person.
It's an inanimate object.
It is sitting there," without even
realizing the level of criminality
that they're just talking about, and
they're in a position of authority and
knowledge and, and all the rest where
you'd think that, you think they'd know.
And people in the gun community will come
out, like, come flocking in like, "You
can't do that. That's wrong. There's a
rules that you gotta have in place." Yeah.
But when it's become so complicated
to understand the... It becomes
illusory essentially when, uh,
when it comes to enforcement
Yeah.
It, it, from a policy perspective- Yeah
it should be as easily, easy as
possible for a person with good
intentions to follow the law.
Mm-hmm.
It should be clear and easy.
And the way that the laws are
written in Canada, it's really not.
Even if we think about safe storage
laws, the way that the laws are
written leaves a lot of ambiguity.
And, and you see if you look at
firearms forums on the internet- Oh
there's, "Is this safe storage?
Am I, am I storing this safely?
Am I following the rules?" Right?
Yeah.
Whereas, like, if we just had clearer
criteria, if it'd just been written
in a way that, that was clear and easy
to follow, the public would be safer-
Yeah
...
and firearms owners would be happy.
I think conceptualizing the gun debate
as this zero-sum equation where we
need to hurt gun owners to make us
safer, it's, it's, it's not correct.
We can do both, right?
We c- we can make it, life easier and
better for gun owners and make us safer-
Mm-hmm
...
at the same time.
But if we continue to view this
through this polarized political lens,
we lose out on those opportunities.
You do.
Yeah, I was, um... I put together an
affidavit, like a few hundred-page
affidavit for the, uh, 2020 OIC, and
then I was crossed on that one, and a
lot of what I said was held and actually
referenced by, um, the judge in the, uh,
the proceedings, I think not because I'm
such a smart guy, but it's just common
sense stuff, and there's nothing said
to oppose what I had to say in there.
But you look at the, um, y- you look at
the information, like w- the reference
I gave earlier about the, the 22 that's
non-restricted, or you put a sh- shell
around it, it's completely prohibited.
They'd look at bore sizes over 20
millimeters and over 10,000 joules, and
so you rely on SAAMI specifications,
which is kind of the industry standard.
If you look at the government, what they
put out, they just went and prohibited
12-gauge and 10-gauge shotguns, so they
quickly make an, an amendment on the
website which has nothing to do with-
anything in law Mm But it, it just, it
seems haphazardly kind of thrown together.
Yeah.
You, you talk about weapons.
Okay, so brass knuckles, they're
named as a prohibited device.
Yeah.
But a carabiner isn't.
Yeah.
And in fact, if you take scissors and
you turn them backwards, it isn't.
Or if you get an Eskimo ulu, which is
a big blade on the f- Yeah ... on the
front, that's perfectly legal, right?
Or a polymer, like, the, uh, there
are companies in Canada that sell
polymer brass knuckles, right?
Which can do a, you know, a
considerable amount of harm to someone.
But, but, you know, we, they're, they're,
because they're made out of a different
material, it's the same object and, yeah.
Yeah.
I think, um, it, does it say it
has to be metal or does this has to
be... Like, at, at some point- Yeah
... intent has to play a role in this.
Yeah.
And I don't care what you pick up,
if the intent is to do harm and you
show that intent or verbalize that
intent or whatever it is, that's-
that's where the, I would think,
the crime should start coming in.
Yeah.
Nunchucks.
Okay, so I- Oh.
Yeah.
It was there.
Go.
I, I mean, what happens if
you hit somebody with a stick
and, uh, okay, that's okay.
But all of a sudden, if you tie
them together with a string in
the middle, that's not okay?
Or if they break halfway through and it's,
they're just kind of dangling and around
like nunchucks, is that now prohibited?
Blowguns.
Yeah.
Blowg- I, I saw on YouTube this,
you know, Nerfer saying, showing
people how to make a Nerf blowgun.
Mm-hmm.
And somebody pointed out that that
would be a prohibited weapon in Canada.
Ah.
Well, I
think- You're, you're allowed to have a
tube, and you're allowed to have a dart,
but the second- That's true ... they're
found next to each other, right?
A- and this ambi- we c- we can laugh, but
this ambiguity, first of all, can be used-
Mm-hmm
by law enforcement to maybe, if
there's someone that they don't like
and, and they find that there, they
can do what's called charge stacking.
Yep.
Right?
Where they use multiple charges to try
to scare someone into, uh, into settling
and, and, um, which y- yeah, I think you,
you talked about being familiar with.
Um- Well, I, I mean, I've consulted on,
for Crown and defense counsel at all
levels of court, and on weapons related
use of force and firearms related matters.
It doesn't mean I'm an expert.
You're an expert on that one small area
if qualified, if the judge says, "Yeah,
okay, I accept you as an expert." And
then they'll say, "Okay, what weight
do you ascribe to your expert status?"
Because maybe you're an expert, but
they're like, "Yeah, you're a small
expert or a big expert," right?
But, um, yeah, the, um, uh, the charge
stacking is an interesting one, how
quickly firearms charges disappear.
Mm-hmm.
You'll have a whole bunch of firearms
charges thrown on in an offense, and those
are the first ones to disappear, 'cause
those are the hardest ones, I think, for
Crown to, to actually, um, hold true.
Hmm.
To actually push on through, 'cause
there's so much gray area and ambiguity.
Yeah.
Yeah, a- and you know, there's a case
I read from the '80s when I was doing
this research of, uh, a young person
walking down the street in Calgary in the
'80s, and they had a spiked wristband.
Hmm.
And spiked wristbands
are prohibited weapons-
Right
according to the criminal code, thanks
to these changes that were made in
the 1970s, also by ordering counsel.
Mm-hmm.
And so, you know, this, this young
person now has a criminal record
of possessing a prohibited weapon.
He bought it in a shop
in downtown Calgary.
He thought he was being in compliance
with the law, um, and, and found
out that he wasn't through,
through no fault of his own.
Mm-hmm.
So things like this, they seem sort
of innocent to the public, and I
think the public would say, "Well, why
would anyone need nunchucks," right?
That would be the line.
Um, but when you stack these up and you
start having all of these laws in the
books, right, they're gonna affect people
in, in ways that we can't always predict.
So it's, it's important to think
carefully about these things.
If a political science PhD student
walked into your office tomorrow
and they said they wanted to
work on Canadian firearms policy-
Hmm
...
what would you tell them to read
first, and what's the question
you wish someone would tackle
that you haven't gotten to yet?
That's a great question.
I'd send them to read, uh,
I think Gary Mauser's paper.
I, I would have them read R. Blake Brown's
book, just 'cause it's such a good, uh, a
good historical primer, even if we don't
always see eye to eye on policy issues.
Um, you know, it, it's always sort of
embarrassing, but I would probably have
them read my book just because it's, you
know, it, it's- Of course you should.
Well, yes, it's... I think it, it,
you know, not to toot my own horn,
but I think it's a- addressing a gap.
Hmm.
Right?
I don't, I don't... You know, I'm
not gonna say it's a great book, but,
uh, I think it addresses a gap, um,
and, and it writes about a topic that
there hasn't been very much written
about in Canadian ac- academia.
Um, so I think I would have them start
with that, uh, and, and then get out
there and then actually talk to people
and do some interview research, uh, do
some, like, participant observation and
things like that, because I think that's
such an important part of this issue.
We have a lot of people talking about
gun policy who have never, you know,
either been through the process, uh, the
regulatory process, or handled a firearm.
And to me, I think that's a shame,
because if you're going to... I-
it's, you know, it, it's like people
who are... You think about in places
historically which had the death penalty.
You're willing to convict someone, but
you're not willing to, to, you know, pull
the lever that's, that's gonna hang them.
Hmm.
Right?
I think you should...
I- if you wanna talk about regulation,
you should put yourself through
the regulation that, that people
are, are, are having to go through.
And is there a question that
you'd wish someone would tackle
that you haven't gotten to yet?
Ooh.
I, I-
I'm, uh, I don't think so just
'cause there's, you know, there,
I'm saving space for myself.
There's a lot of projects that I wanna do.
Uh- Gotcha ... you know, one thing
I'm working on now, uh, is policy
on suppressors, 'cause I think
that's one of the big, one of those
aha moments that I had during my
research, because once again, I
grew up watching Hollywood movies.
I'm a huge James Bond fan and,
and what do you see in James Bond?
Someone has a suppressor and
the gun goes pew, pew, pew.
Or what's happening in John Wick 2, right?
He's having a firefight in a New York
subway station with two suppressed
handguns, and everyone's walking
around like nothing's happening.
Mm-hmm.
So I think there's a lot of
misconceptions about suppressors, uh,
silencers, right, that the public has.
Um, and if you look at countries like
New Zealand, where they're completely
le- uh, legal and easy to have access
to, countries like Finland, Norway,
Sweden, where you're able to have
easy access to them, um, they are
good for people's hearing, and they
reduce the negative externalities
that come from hunting and, and target
shooting, uh, and there's no negative
public safety implications with them.
So I, that's something that I wanna start
pushing on as well, 'cause I think it's
something that we're not talking about.
I, I do think that there is
legitimate public safety and, um,
OH&S, occupational health and safety
concerns that suppressors can solve.
100%. You would, you know, um,
people often make the allusion
between guns and cars, right?
Mm. You, you have a
license to drive a car.
Why don't you need a license to buy a gun?
It's like an American talking point.
Mm-hmm.
Um, okay, if we're gonna regulate
guns like cars, you know, uh, I... If
you drive around without a muffler,
you're gonna have a bad time.
That's it.
Right?
That's
it.
So your keynote speech for the NFA.
Mm. You ended your keynote with, "The
image of the Canadian cowboy need
not be gunless. Rather, we can tell
another story." If a young Canadian
hunter, sports shooter, or collector
is listening right now and feels like
the ground is shifting under them, what
story do you want them to carry forward?
Yeah, that's a fantastic question.
I think, I think I would encourage them
to, first of all, look to our history.
Canada has a rich history that
people tend not to explore.
Once again, we live next to the US.
The US is way better at telling
their own story than we are.
There's, you know, way more...
I, I, I was searching recently
for a biography of John A.
Macdonald on my e-reader.
Couldn't find one, or an audiobook.
Hmm.
Right?
'Cause I wanted something that
I could just l- put on in the
car when I'm stuck in traffic.
I couldn't find an audiobook- Huh ... that
told the story of our, you know, our
first prime minister's life, right?
Huh.
So I, I think look to Canada's history.
Do the research.
Look into it.
Find those stories.
Carry them forward.
And, and then think about the way that
we wanna tell Canada's story going
forward, and how you can do that in
a way that asserts your, your place
in it as a, you know, responsible-
law-abiding firearms owner who wants to
contribute positively to our community,
um, who's probably already contributing
positive to the, the community.
If you're involved in a
shooting sports league, right?
If you're a member at a range and
you're con- you're a positive in-
i- influence at your range, right?
You're, you are f- part of a
community, and you are, are forming
a community, and that's something
that's very rare these days.
We're, we're so divided by
technology and, and, you know, most
people aren't a member of a club.
Mm.
So I, I think you should tell that
story that you are a, a highly
regulated person who's contributing
to the social fabric of Canada, who's
continuing that legacy of responsible
firearms ownership, of hunting,
of, of just enjoying the wilderness
that is so a part of Canada's story.
Um, a- and that you want to be someone
who can contribute positively to the
defense of our nation, and, and you
should be allowed a space to do that.
Is there anything that we haven't talked
about that we should be talking about?
No, this is comprehensive.
I'm looking at the time.
We've been talking for two hours.
We have
been.
I never get to talk this long.
Noah, I really enjoyed this.
Thanks.
Thank you so much for making the
trek out from Abbotsford, for showing
up in the studio like this, and for
sharing all of your knowledge and
everything
that you've been working on.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
It's such a pleasure.
Thank you.