After yet another shooting kills yet another innocent bystander in Toronto the not in a death spiral, Mayor David Miller and Premier Dalton McGuinty have, yet again called for a handgun ban. This time, their pleas seem to have some validity as the handgun in question appears to have been legally owned by a registered handgun owner.
The problem with the above is simple: while the shooter may have had a permit to own the gun, it was still an illegal gun at the time of the shooting. How's that? you say. In order to own a handgun, you must agree it will be in one of two places: at home, locked in a safe; at your gun club, locked in a safe. There are two exceptions to this rule: You may take it out at the gun club for target shooting; you may travel between the club and your home with the gun. In order to do the latter, you must go to the police, notify them of your intent to travel with the gun, and get a temporary travel permit, that allows you to drive with the gun in your vehicle between the two locations. That's it. Take the car, with the gun, to a strip club at 1:00 on a Saturday morning, and the gun is illegal. It is in a non-approved location. David Miller has said one of the reasons he wants a ban is if someone has a gun on them in the streets of Toronto, they can be arrested, no questions asked. That is true either way, if someone has a gun, then they are violating any permit they have, and can be arrested. No questions asked.
Proponents of a handgun ban use such baseless arguments all the time, and they do so for a reason. There is no evidence to suggest banning handguns will have any effect on violent crime. Some States have found letting more people carry guns around results in less violent crime. Britain has found banning the handgun went along with an increase in handgun use. Neither of which proves a pro handgun causation, but they do make a mockery of anti-handgun arguments. There is no reason to ban handguns.
But, some would argue, it can't hurt. There's no legitimate reason to own a handgun, so what have we got to lose? To which I would ask, when the handgun ban fails to decrease violence, which item will be next on the banned list? Which hobby next to be declared pointless? Which freedoms taken away for David Miller's political expediency? What possession of yours will the state confiscate because they have no interest in solving the problem?
Because that's what this is about, finding red herrings to yell about, finding bucks to pass instead of facing up the the real challenges of solving the problem. And when you ask what have we got to lose, the answer is, freedom.
