Here in Ontario we love to ban anything that does us or anybody (i.e. innocent bystanders) harm. Smoking in public. Incandescent light bulbs. Plastic bags (in liquor stores, for now). Trans fats. And, more recently: handguns. Our dear mayor is trying to get as many people as possible to sign an online petition so they can be banned nationally. He's got a catchy quote, too: "It's clear. Strict gun laws, fewer people shot." Can't argue with that logic. It's right up there with, "Strict speeding laws, less people in speed-related car crashes," or perhaps, "Strict pedestrian laws, less people run over." Nope—that kind of logic is unassailable.
The problem is a that a surprising amount of people buy into it. Of course, we already have very strict gun laws, although how well they're being enforced is another matter. (Good luck stopping across their flow across the border. How many handguns do you think you can hide somewhere amidst the average car engine?) The crux of this proposed ban, however, is the focus on banning legal handguns. That way criminals can obtain their guns illegally like they always do, and legal gun owners can, well... give up their hobby.
I know what you're thinking. (Actually, I don't, although there's a good chance that you're thinking I'm a gun-toting red-neck Conservative. You sure know how to hurt a guy.) You're thinking that anything we can do to prevent even one innocent life is worth the cost. There I would have to disagree. Because, of course, many deaths are preventable if you're only willing to continue tightening the noose on the many personal freedoms we enjoy—because, yes, so many of them are dangerous in some way and will plausibly get us or others killed. In fact, I can suggest a ban that would save countless lives: Ban alcohol. It's often a big factor in domestic violence, brawls, accidents, suicide and even homicides. If you drink too much over time, there are over 60 ways in which it will destroy your body and eventually kill you. It might solve part of the homeless problem. It would stop anyone from driving drunk and killing another person.
So why aren't we banning alcohol?
Oh, yeah. It's been done. It was called "prohibition". And, boy, did it ever fail miserably.
So alcohol is again legal, and despite the horrible toll it continues to take on many lives, it remains a fun an enjoyable pastime for the great many.
And so do handguns, believe it or not. Last year I had the chance to go to a gun club. My co-worker is an internationally-certified pistol coach with a gold-medal-winning student. I wasn't terribly interested in going but thought—why not? No opportunity wasted. So I tried it. And I loved it. Turns out: target shooting isn't about a feeling of power. Rather, it's very zen-like. You have to focus on every part of your body: breathing, stance, arms, shoulders, sight, fingers, hands, mind. Any faltering in attention on any one thing will affect your shot. It was great fun. I met a lot of great people. People that defy our stereotypical image of "gun toting rednecks": Men. Women. Black. Chinese. Indian. White. Physically disabled. Young. Old.
The optics regarding handguns here in Canada are very negative, though. I can understand that. It's sometimes hard to understand why people enjoy the things they do. Pipe smoking. Skydiving. Gorgonzola cheese. Everybody Loves Raymond.
But handguns are serious things. They have the capacity to kill. Arguably, that is their purpose. So let's look at some actual statistics:
Of the 108 handguns used in Canadian homicides in 2006, only six (5 per cent) were registered. Of the 129 handguns used in Canadian homicides in 2005, only four (3 per cent) were registered.* That's about 3-5 homicides by registered handguns a year. Across the country. That means the odds of getting shot and killed by a legal handgun in Canada in any given year is... what... 1 in 6,600,000? Each year, six to 12 Canadians are killed by lightning and many more are injured. Can we ban lightning instead? But let's be reasonable—we can't ban lightning. So lets just ban standing under trees or playing golf during the rain at the very least.
"It's clear. Stricter laws against standing in the rain, less lightning deaths."
What's even harder to measure is if those 3-5 handgun homicides are actually eliminated by a handgun ban, will there still be 3-5 less overall homicides? Usually, homicides involve people who know each other. So let's assume that handgun homicides follow the same pattern. If a handgun isn't at hand, is it not plausible that a knife or other weapon would be used instead? In which case, less people killed by handgun—but possibly same number of people killed anyway.
I'm not trying to be trite about handguns. They're dangerous and need to be treated and regulated as such. I just don't feel that legal handgun owners, who enjoy a wonderful pastime, harming no one, should suffer from a ban that will not have any effect on the criminals who will continue to use them. The estimated $2-billion cost of banning legal handguns could be more effectively used on, say: Enforcement. At-risk youth. Prevention. Reducing poverty. Fixing the TTC.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to take my pitbull to the park and have him chase lawn darts.
* Source: the Canadian Shooting Sports Association website
No.1 Pas un problèmeThe real issue, as I see it, is actual gun violence, which is a systemic problem more closely associated with a culture that arises out of poverty, crime, addiction, income gaps, and a glorification of violence (and finally "yes" lenient sentencing for violent crimes), which you touch upon at the end.
