Short-term tradeoffs

Last week, I shared my thoughts on the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Today, I’m sharing a reminder that expedient, short-term decisions can have long-term consequences.

In the wake of the tragedy in Texas, and in true Justin Trudeau fashion, Canada’s Emperor announced a “handgun freeze.” I guess the word ban seems a bit harsh and authoritarian.

Canadians can no longer buy, sell, or trade handguns. But if you already own a handgun, you get to keep it. Any 17-year-old Canadians that would have bought a handgun next year are out of luck. Should have been born in 2004 instead of 2005, sayeth the government.

A few comments. First, the shooting that prompted the resurrection of this law was done with a high-powered rifle, not a handgun. You don’t suppose that optics and convenience could have been a part of this law’s passage, do you? 

Second, part of the ban includes toys that look like real firearms. It seems that playing airsoft and shooting varmints from your front porch are off the table in the Great White North.

Don’t misunderstand my sarcasm. Perhaps these short-term tradeoffs also lead to the optimal long-term outcome. There very well could be a reduction in crime by limiting the flow of handguns. And certainly people are sometimes killed for carrying things that appear to be real firearms.

But there could be other ramifications to this kind of legislation that play out over a greater time horizon. The question we might ask, therefore is:

Are the benefits of gun restriction decisions made in the short-term worth the long-term consequence of an unarmed citizenry?

Maybe so. There are probably strong arguments to affirm this position (though I’m rather confident that protecting long-term liberty is of little importance to Trudeau, now famous for freezing the financial assets of lawful protestors).

But perhaps the short-term benefits won’t outweigh the long-term consequences. After all, the 2nd Amendment exists in America not for the purpose of unfettered freedom or even hunting, but for the purpose of protecting its citizens from a tyrannical government. 

Trudeau might be making the case that America’s Founding Fathers were right: the government is not to be trusted with protecting individual liberty. Trudeau, and others like him, may well be the reason that Western nations need strong gun rights. You’ve got to appreciate some good irony.

That probably sounds like I’m picking a side, but I’m not necessarily. My point is that we are all too prepared to concede freedom for a “quick fix.” Sometimes such fixes probably offer a real benefit.  Sometimes, they probably don’t. Other times they are for pure political gain and are simply well-marketed to the public. 

Regardless, “a handgun freeze to protect the people” sounds like an easy solution to a multi-dimensional, emotionally-charged, and complex problem. That may be a strong indication that the short-term tradeoffs aren’t worth the long-term price that people will pay.