‘What kind of idiot would use me for a crime?’

Bill C-21 was originally a relatively routine piece of gun control legislation intended to freeze the sale of legal handguns. But a couple of weeks ago, the Liberals slipped in a pair of 11th-hour amendments that instantly transformed it into the most sweeping gun ban in Canadian history.

Despite Liberal claims that they have “no intention” of including hunting rifles in the ban, this claim is quickly dispelled by any cursory glance at the amendments themselves, which include dozens of low-powered, slow-to-fire long-guns that were only ever designed for hunting. The most common among them was a .22 calibre Ruger No. 1; a single-shot, wood-stocked hunting rifle often given to Canadian children learning to hunt.

In Dear Diary, the National Post satirically reimagines a week in the life of a newsmaker. This week, Tristin Hopper takes a journey inside the thoughts of the Ruger No. 1.

MONDAY

You may have heard this rhetorical koan; “what if a gun had a soul?” What if a firearm was awake to the purposes to which it was applied … and it objected? Every crime, every act of terror, every suicide. It’s a nightmarish prospect, but one with which I’ve never been able to fully identify. Because, well, what kind of moron would ever try to commit a crime with a rimfire Ruger No. 1? You have to reload me after EVERY. SINGLE. SHOT. Good luck trying to shoot up a mall while fumbling another cartridge into the chamber after each trigger-pull. And as far as concealed weaponry goes, let’s just say that not a lot of drug dealers are trying to hide a seven-pound rifle in their pants.

TUESDAY

Here’s another slogan I’ve heard: “Who needs a semi-automatic rifle to go hunting?” I can sort of see the logic there, provided you’re hunting in one of those parts of Canada without bears, cougars or wild boars. But again, I’m still not entirely sure how this applies to me. You could equip an entire firing squad with .22 calibre Ruger No. 1s, and they might be able to slightly annoy a charging grizzly. You feel like shouldering one of me and going toe to toe with a charging moose? At least they’d be able to use my serial number to identify your corpse.

WEDNESDAY

This whole time, I never really considered why the Canadian government had scheduled me for prohibition. I guess I figured it was some kind of protectionist thing; I’m manufactured in Connecticut, so maybe Ottawa shut off the supply to punish the Americans for some aluminum tariff. But no, apparently I’m being sent to the foundry purely as a public safety issue. I don’t want to belabour the point, here, but if the government is looking for dangerous objects to ban, you could do a lot better than a 93 centimetre-long length of pipe chambered for glorified firecrackers. Do you know how many people are crushed by vending machines each year?

THURSDAY

When you send some 98-pound financial criminal to jail, it’s not like you put him in the general pop, right? You can’t take some pasty computer nerd and put him in the yard with hardened gangbangers; he’d be eaten alive. Similarly, I don’t think I would do well among the other prohibited firearms. They’re talking about throwing me in with AKS, Uzis, anti-tank rifles and even a few rocket launchers. I am the epitome of a grandpa gun; If I’m going to have any chance of looking intimidating in that kind of crowd I’m going to at least need a pistol grip, a half-can of black paint and maybe a couple “Don’t Tread on Me” stickers.

FRIDAY

I had this weird thought the other day. So there’s all these rules governing firearms, right? How long they are, their rate of fire, their magazine capacity, that kind of thing. But what if you got people — criminal people — who just decided not to do any of that? You hear a lot about people using guns for crimes, so what if these crime-doers also OBTAINED and OWNED their guns using similarly criminal means. It’s certainly never something I’ve seen firsthand; I’ve spent my entire life being taken out of storage once a year for a thorough cleaning followed by a few hours of plinking cans. But it’s just something to think about; at this moment there could be hundreds if not thousands of gun owners who are just not following the law, and are therefore unaffected by legislative changes. I wonder if anybody in charge has considered this?