“No significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates were found,” reads the abstract on the study, written by Caillin Langmann, a resident in the division of emergency medicine at McMaster University, and himself a vocal foe of gun-control measures who has argued instead for enhanced social programs to combat the causes of gun violence.
To be published in an upcoming issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Interpersonal Violence, the study took Statistics Canada data on Canadian firearm homicides and compared them to three key pieces of Canadian firearms legislation.
The three pieces of legislation were the 1995 long-gun registry, a 1977 bill that imposed a requirement for criminal records checks and a 1991 bill that imposed mandatory safety training and a 28-day waiting period on firearms purchases.
Of course, in fairness, some folks have been saying exactly that for years.
By most major metrics available, "gun control" has proven to be an abject failure, both in America and abroad. Even by limiting the playing field to only self-serving, specific statistics (like "gun deaths"), "gun control" extremists still have a remarkably hard time demonstrating that their desired legislation results in anything better than a wash once you factor in the salutary benefits of having a lawfully-armed populace, and the problems that can arise from a lack of the same. And when you broaden your gaze to the elemental, individual rights at play, "gun control" becomes a titanic disaster.
It is also interesting to note that this study is being published in an official, middle-of-the-road, peer-reviewed journal – while the process has some serious flaws, it is also pretty much the only process available to us, and the anti-rights cultists have a frustrating (and logically fallacious) habit of ignoring anything if it was not reviewed, despite the fact that "not peer-reviewed" != "not accurate". Of course, "peer reviewed" does not necessarily equate to "accurate" either, but that is another story for another post…
As we have repeatedly touched on before, in the end, studies like this are completely meaningless, even when they support our case – our individual, Constitutionally-protected rights are not dependent upon the outcome of any law, study, sampling, or poll, nor can they be justly limited due to other people’s actions. However, this is yet another arrow in our quiver for when "gun control" extremists start bleating about how their laws will "help".