Gun Crazy: Why is America Different from Other Countries?

The 1989 school shooting at the École Polytechnique, also known as the Montreal Massacre, was, and remains the worst in Canadian history. 14 people were killed by shooter Marc Lépine, all women, before he turned the gun on himself. This exceeds the victim death toll of the later Columbine massacre by one, though it’s eclipsed by the events in Newtown, Connecticut this past December.

Some people might be surprised that we have school shootings in Canada. It’s true: we’re not immune to those rare bouts of madness that drive a person to do the unthinkable. There may always be people whose minds break in that way, no matter where you live, no matter how much headway we make against society’s endemic problems. And yet the numbers tell a story of gun violence in Canada that is wildly divergent from that of the United States.

The Canadian story begins in the small town of Altona, not far from where I live, where a disgruntled teacher killed several school trustees and children before turning the gun on himself, way back in 1902. It’s one of 11 such incidents in Canadian history, and the second worst. The majority of school shootings here have only had a single death, and the most recent, in 2010, ended without loss of life.

The United States, meanwhile, has had school shootings in every decade since the 1850s, and the last two full years to go by without one of these horrific events? 1990 and 1981. Last month alone there where eight gun attacks in schools in the United States. It’s getting worse instead of better, perhaps even exponentially so.

To what can we attribute such a stark difference between two such culturally and economically similar countries? Some hint might be found in the public response to these tragedies. The Montreal Massacre sparked a huge public outcry that became a powerful and ultimately successful movement for tighter gun control. Lépine was armed with a semi-automatic rifle that was legally obtained and registered to him. A few years later, he would not have so easily been able to obtain that type of weapon.

In the wake of Columbine, and more recently, the Newtown shootings, the public response in America has been almost exactly the same — on the left. But it’s also been immediately met by a counter-current from conservatives defending the second amendment and decrying gun-control advocates as reactionaries or un-American. Yet this is only a political issue in the United States.

We certainly have conservative politicians and voters in Canada, but the right to carry weapons simply isn’t considered a partisan issue. Most of us don’t argue about gun control because we don’t have a centuries-long history of casual access to guns which we’re afraid to lose. Many of us hunt, but not with assault weapons, and not without proper training and deep respect for gun safety. Beyond hunting, few feel the need to own a gun and are happy to limit their use. And this isn’t just Canada, but virtually every Western country outside of the United States.

Easy access to guns is clearly a critical factor in incidences of gun violence. Before first-person shooter video games and copycat killers and mass media madness, in the middle of the 19th-century, American kids were even then bringing in guns to school and shooting people. Maybe by mistake, maybe as crimes of passion, or maybe as pre-meditated, cold-blooded murder. It was easy to get guns, and so momentary lapses in judgement became irreparable mistakes.

At one time, everyone accepted guns as a ubiquitous tool of rural life. It wasn’t about being gun crazy. It’s just how things were. The part I just can’t figure out is how the idea of needing lots of guns became so entrenched that decent people would actually fight tooth and nail to keep them out there.

Here in Canada, I’ve been threatened with a knife by someone at a party I didn’t even know, robbed several times while tending shop alone, and just recently, almost witnessed a completely pointless and random assault on public transport. We’re not saner up here. But fewer of our crazy people have guns, and that makes a considerable difference.


Related Stories:

Colorado Proposes Holding Gun Manufacturers Liable For Gun Violence

How Ending the War on Drugs Could Curb Gun Violence

It’s Never Too Soon to Discuss These 5 Ways to Curb Gun Violence


Photo credit: Thinkstock


Ruth R
Ruth R10 months ago

What about people who use guns to get the food they eat?

Ruth R
Ruth R10 months ago

What if they did ban firearms? What if no person had firearms? They still have the second amendment. People still have a right to self-defense.

Dale O.

Amusing Robert H, I speak cat and have never been communist nor do I hop or sing with the Spring Peepers. If Spring ever arrives again. It is almost May but give it time to arrive. But I do enjoy listening to thousands of frogs singing in the wetlands, a stirring symphony indeed. Anyone can borrow a Cyrillic keyboard off the internet.

= ^ . , . ^ =

Cynthia Blais
cynthia l5 years ago

thks for posting

lee e.
lee e5 years ago

I wish the 2nd amendment had never been written - at the time we were under attack by the Brits and had no military - and a divided country that had British sympathizers - the necessity for the amendment in that period was valid -- today we do have a military - with very strict regulations on its weaponry! Would that the citizens have more restrictive regulations! Assault weapons don't belong in civilian hands, I'm not a gun owner, but am not aggainst those wha are per se, they don't need large capacity clips, or semi and automatic weapons - back ground checks should be mandatory. If people get their "rocks off" by playing with automatic guns -- let them go play at a range under supervision - not in schools or on playgrounds!

Duane B.
.5 years ago

Thank you for sharing.

Scott haakon
Scott haakon5 years ago

The difference is that the founding fathers of the United States were wise in the manners of humanity.

Linda McKellar
Past Member 5 years ago

I find it strange that some people here alternately call "left wing" folks, "A" - anti freedom and at the same time "B" - refer to them as free spirit, tree hugging hippies who want everyone to be happy campers running around, presumably naked and embracing the GLBT community while sharing the wealth with the poor. Which is it? A wee bit paradoxical according to the particular topic.

Robert H.
Robert Hamm5 years ago

Nice Tirade John D

Unfortunately for you no one is destroying the 2nd amendments and no one is taking away your ability to defend yourself

John Doe
james rico5 years ago

the left wing anti freedom authors of these studys will tell you all kinds of lies and stupid reasons why a gun can not protect you. is anyone that gullible to beleive them. when you are alone in an unsafe place by accident car broke or whatever are these self serveing gun banners going to protect you if you are attacted.. only be sure of what you can do for yourself because in the end that may be the only thing that will save you banning guns suggests that a big government with more police will always be there to save you that is false. and wishfull thinking banning guns take power and safety away from you and puts that power in the hands of corrupt buroecrats. if it was not for the NRA showing you how guns were able to save lives you would never know as 99% of the news media is left wing and anti freedom they hide this but yet they get hard to get gun carry permits when they want them and armed guards as well like they did in rockland county NY women because of their very nature are much more varnable to crime so along come these lie spinners to say you might some how shoot your self. drugs were the cause of much crime and black on black shooting. but yet this gives the right to ban guns for everyone how fair is that