Public Safety
The Hand Gun Ban
While I am wholehearted agreement with the broad objective of this motion – to reduce gun crime - I do not believe that a handgun ban is the way to achieve it.
If there was any proof that a hand gun ban would actually reduce violence on our streets and in our communities, I would be first in line to support it. But banning handguns is a largely symbolic gesture that will costs billions of dollars to implement without appreciably reducing violent crime.
This is borne out by the experience of other jurisdictions. For example, a scan of recent reporting on the subject reveals that in the decade following a total ban in 1997, hand gun injuries in Britain nearly tripled and hand gun offenses doubled.
Some countries with high rates of gun ownership have low gun crime rates, while others with restrictive legislation have high crime rates. Washington, D.C., which ranks among America's murder capitals, has had a ban on handgun ownership for more than 30 years.
Luxembourg prohibits private handgun ownership altogether, but its murder rate is nine times higher than Norway, which has one of the highest rates of firearms ownership in all Europe.
There is no generally accepted evidence to suggest that there is any consistent link between legal gun ownership and gun crime.
In Canada in 2006, for example, the federal government reports that 102 of 106 handgun homicides involved illegal or unregistered weapons – guns that would get around any ban.
On January 17, OPP Commissioner Fantino told the Hamilton Spectator: “Finding out why youth are turning to gangs and guns will have better results than simply banning all handguns… “Criminals will find guns or other weapons, but society should ask ‘why is this happening.’”
The questions is: “Do we want the federal government to spend billions to implement a largely symbolic handgun ban, or do we want them to provide money for something that might actually help to solve the problems behind gun violence?”
I think we must make a clear distinction between the philosophical and the practical. If our intention is to fight crime, we should not be wasting our time with this motion.
Yes, we should do our best to ensure that legal handguns don’t become illegal handguns. And yes, we should increase efforts to prevent the illegal importation of weapons from the U.S.
But we must understand that these actions will not solve the problem. No matter how hard we crack down on supply, as long as criminals want guns, someone will find a way to provide them. It happened with alcohol during prohibition, it is happening now with drugs. You don’t cure issues of demand by attacking supply. All you will achieve by doing so is to raise prices and increase the violence.
If we really want to solve the problem, we must deal with the cultural, social and economic problems that are behind gun violence. We must find ways to address the causes that are driving young people to weapons. We must attack the issue of demand, not of supply.
Pardon the analogy, but there is no silver bullet that will solve gun crime. To develop a meaningful solution, we must attack the problems that lead to violent behaviour. Only then will we reduce the demand for guns, and their use as a means of settling scores, earning “respect” and resolving conflicts.
Spend the taxpayers money on effective programs that address the causes, and don’t waste time on symbolic gestures.