{"id":101357,"date":"2026-03-15T03:00:44","date_gmt":"2026-03-15T07:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=101357"},"modified":"2026-03-14T12:02:17","modified_gmt":"2026-03-14T16:02:17","slug":"using-us-gun-statistics-to-argue-against-canadian-gun-owners","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2026\/03\/15\/using-us-gun-statistics-to-argue-against-canadian-gun-owners\/","title":{"rendered":"Using US gun statistics to argue against Canadian gun owners"},"content":{"rendered":"

On the social media site formerly known as Twitter<\/em>, Gun Owners of Canada<\/a> respond to a troll post trying to confuse the legal situation for Canadian gun owners by using statistics from the US, where the laws are significantly different:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Typical. He blocked without further discussion. <\/p>\n

But, he’s wrong. <\/p>\n

There is a fundamental flaw in using that 1998 [US] DOJ literature review to argue the Stand on Guard Act<\/em> will lead to more gun deaths. The claim relies on a completely broken comparison between U.S. and Canadian law.<\/p>\n

Here is why applying that specific American data to this Canadian bill proposed by the CPC simply does not work.<\/p>\n

The DOJ report relies heavily on American statistics where firearms kept for self defense are typically stored loaded and unlocked. That specific environment, meaning immediate and unrestricted access to a loaded weapon, is the primary driver for the increased rates of accidental shootings and suicides highlighted in those U.S. studies.<\/p>\n

The Stand on Guard Act<\/em> does not create that environment in Canada. Saying it does such is just fear-mongering.<\/p>\n

This proposed legislation is strictly an amendment to Section 34(2) of the Criminal Code<\/em>. It establishes a presumption that force used against a violent home invader is reasonable. The goal is to spare Canadians from years of legal limbo for defending their families.<\/p>\n

Crucially, this bill does not amend the Firearms Act<\/em> and it does not repeal Canada’s strict safe storage regulations.<\/p>\n

A legally compliant Canadian firearm owner must still store their firearms unloaded and secured with a locking device, or locked inside a sturdy cabinet or safe. Ammunition must also be stored separately or locked up securely in the same safe.<\/p>\n

The specific risks identified in the U.S. data, like a child finding a loaded gun or someone in crisis having instant access to a weapon, are mitigated by our existing storage framework.<\/p>\n

Debating the merits of self defense thresholds is perfectly fair. However, importing U.S. data based on a completely different regulatory baseline to predict Canadian outcomes is a clear misapplication of the evidence. We need to ground this conversation in actual Canadian law rather than American statistics.<\/p>\n

So, as a reminder — welcome to Canada — let’s buy Canadian, support Canadian and recognize Canadian facts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On the social media site formerly known as Twitter, Gun Owners of Canada respond to a troll post trying to confuse the legal situation for Canadian gun owners by using statistics from the US, where the laws are significantly different: Typical. He blocked without further discussion. But, he’s wrong. There is a fundamental flaw in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,9,13,663],"tags":[343,49,661,217,290],"class_list":["post-101357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cancon","category-law","category-usa","category-weapons","tag-crimeandpunishment","tag-guns","tag-regulation","tag-rights","tag-statistics"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-qmN","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101357","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101357"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101357\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":101359,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101357\/revisions\/101359"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}