NRA: Guns Terrify Canadians How Much? THIS MUCH.

This is what Biathlon is supposed to look like.

“Invictus,” my rosy-red fundament. The Canadians have conquered themselves.

“Invictus” means “unconquered” in Latin, and it’s a particularly ironic way to title a Canadian winter-sports event. What’s amazing about Canada is that it has always had very low violent crime rates, both before and after it banned handguns. In addition to that, most of the country is unpopulated by humans, with plenty of wildlife that’s best fended off with a firearm. You’d think that our neighbors to the North would be even more comfortable with civilian firearm use than Americans are, given those conditions. And yet, the country continues its “purity spiral” of removing even the idea of firearms ownership or use from its collective life.

Even in athletic contests that by their very nature include firearms use. As the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action neatly illuminates, “The Gunless Invictus Games” are set to begin. Try not to giggle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The first Winter Invictus Games are due to take place at the Whistler ski resort in British Columbia, Canada early next month. In addition to snowboarding, curling, and alpine and Nordic skiing, the games will feature a biathlon event.

In a January 21 post on X, game organizers announced that competitors will be using “Ecoaim optic (infrared beam) rifles” for the biathalon’s shooting portion, instead of the traditional rifles and live ammunition. “As a Games legacy, future users can experience Biathlon without the safety risks and environmental impact associated with live fire ammo,” it reads. A spokesperson for the Invictus Foundation apparently advised the Daily Mail that the “principal reason for the lasers is inclusivity. [They] can be used by a wide range of those with disabilities.”

However, an American biathalon competitor, U.S. Army veteran Christopher Bryde, points to some serious problems. “After having some time shooting the guns on the range, I can see several disadvantages. We had a couple of issues with the cold and some of the guns just not working. Also, snow seemed to obstruct some of the targets, so for example, I shot perfectly for five laps, and then one lap I only hit one target. And then we checked out the gun and there was a bit of snow …covering the… laser thing.” As for the reason for the switch to optic guns, in a Facebook page comment Bryde confirmed that it’s due to “inclusivity.” “The explanation I was given was that certain countries do not allow disabled people to use firearms or air rifles, and they wanted to allow them to compete… Still think real guns are better though…”

This begs the question: Why wouldn’t “inclusivity” be best served by making the optic rifles available to those who wanted them, while allowing others, who trained with and felt best competing with real guns, to use those firearms instead.

Regardless of the reason, the situation gives some insight into the dishonesty behind moves to restrict and ban so-called “assault weapons,” and firearms more generally.

It’s been a standard talking point of many in the anti-gun community that untrained “civilians” shouldn’t have access to firearms. Canada’s Liberal government, for instance, justified its 2020 “assault style firearms” ban and confiscation law, which has prohibited (so far) around 1,800 makes, models of guns, devices, and their “variants,” by describing the “newly prescribed firearms [as] primarily designed for military or paramilitary purposes with the capability of injuring, immobilizing or killing humans in large numbers within a short period of time.”

The extravagant rhetoric that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his ministers employed in announcing the ban and confiscation measures was even more extreme. The banned “military grade assault weapons” were “designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time,” and were “guns that were designed for soldiers to kill other soldiers … guns that belong on a battlefield and not on our streets.” (At the same time, a government document on the ban admitted that “[w]hile some of these newly prohibited firearms were previously used by individuals for hunting or sporting purposes, it is the view of the Government that those firearms are unreasonable and disproportionate for such purposes. The significant risk that these firearms pose to the public’s safety outweighs any justification for their continued use and availability within Canada.”)

It’s entirely possible that the switch to optic rifles allowed game organizers to avoid dealing with potential headaches over Canadian firearms laws and what is or isn’t a banned gun or “variant” under those edicts. Yet Invictus competitors are active duty or former servicemen and women. According to the logic of Justin Trudeau and his ilk, this is precisely the class of individuals best or exclusively qualified to use firearms, those presumably familiar with the use of “weapons of war.” It’s also more than a little strange that the January 20 Invictus X post describes trained athletes like Christopher Bryde as mostly “novices” who will benefit from a “big range safety advantage” that the optic rifles offer, without the risks “associated with live fire ammo.”

Unfortunately, the decision’s implication is that even combat veterans can’t be relied on to act responsibly with actual firearms and ammunition. The “Games legacy” is really the message that no one can or should be trusted with firearms.