Alex Frenzel

Gail, You might not believe me, but you and I have the same goals, that being that no one dies ever again in Canada at the hands of their partners. Domestic violence is a scourge on society. The vast majority of domestic violence, including the most serious cases, are committed by men, towards women. We all must do more to stop it. It is a serious issue demanding action from all levels of government, and society writ large. Where you and I clearly disagree is the means to achieve that goal. As I’ve stated, I am a serving police officer. I have attended countless domestic violence calls over my career, from the most benign to the most horrific you can imagine. I have completed the Ontario Intimate Violence Investigator Course. I’ve also served time as a Homicide Investigator. I have had a front row seat to IPV for many years at this point. Taking firearms from lawful owners, who have never committed a crime, or outright banning civilian ownership of firearms, as you’ve suggested, will not have any effect on the rate of homicide violence, including death. I say that, because, if we assume that removing firearms from lawful owners will decrease firearms violence, including deaths, then we must assume further that the perpetrator of the violence would NOT have committed the violence if a legal firearm was not available. So yes, of course a firearm, legal or otherwise, is an effective way to kill a person. I don’t doubt that it’s five times more effective than a pop bottle. But taking that firearm away from a person, does not take away their INTENT to cause harm. I have been part of the investigating team of domestic violence deaths that involved a crossbow. And a knife. And an illegal firearm. And bare fists. If a person wishes to cause harm to their spouse, they will find a means to cause harm to them. Legal weapon or not. Put another way, no man has ever thought “jeez I’d really like to kill my wife, but unfortunately I don’t have a legally acquired firearm, so I guess I’ll let her live”. Have men killed their spouse in Canada with a legal firearm? Yes of course, I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But that’s a leap that can’t be made with any available data to suggest that he would NOT have killed her without access to said weapons. He will find another weapon. Please consider the mindset of a killer. Especially one that would kill their spouse. Someone that they once said “I do” to. How utterly demented and deprived he would have to be to even think of doing so. That mindset is what we are fighting against. And yes, that’s a challenging fight. But it’s a fight worth fighting. The PAL system in Canada works. It prevents the vast amount of people that shouldn’t have guns from obtaining them. Legally at least. More lose their licences every year for valid reasons. I’ve seized guns from lawful owners, if they have committed an offence. I’m not advocating for unfettered access to firearms. The system isn’t perfect. But it’s pretty damn close. There are approximately 2.5 million PAL holders in Canada. On average, less than 30 a year commit a murder. With any weapon. Stats Canada only tracks if a PAL holder committed a homicide, not if they used a firearm. A person that happened to be a PAL holder, but killed with say a hatchet would still be included in that number. We’re well into the 99.99999 etc % of gun owners who don’t. All Canadians should be proud of the PAL. It works. Full stop. I will defend it to anyone. Pro or anti-gun. What I won’t defend, or can’t defend, is taking lawfully acquired firearms away from people who have never committed a crime. Any crime whatsoever. Further, the type of firearm, or the number of firearms a person lawful possesses, has no bearing on their propensity to commit violence. You’re not going to trap me in a ‘gotcha’ post. I’m always happy to have a respectful conversation about these issues. But one based on facts. Not emotions. Thank you. @TWilsonOttawa