Canadian op-ed pokes holes in proposed gun ban

Canadian op-ed pokes holes in proposed gun ban
Brett_Hondow / Pixabay

Up in the Great White North, some lawmakers are considering something rather ridiculous. They’re pondering a gun ban.

In particular, it’s a ban on handguns. Now, following Heller, this is a non-starter here in the US, but in Canada, they’re more than willing to curtail people’s right to keep and bear arms.

An op-ed up that way, though, says what a lot of American gun owners would say.

With all the troubles in our world, the “silly season” – election time in Ontario – has brought out some silly suggestions.

The Ontario Liberals have pledged to ban the sale, possession, transport and storage of handguns if elected. Their plan will also accept the federal government’s offer to fund a buy-back program; partner with the federal government to stop gun smuggling at the Ontario-U.S. borders, and advocate to extend the ban nationally so that guns can’t be funneled through inter-provincial borders.

Once again, our politicians are firing blanks to speak.

The “facts” about gun control aren’t always as they seem. And you can read “control” in very real terms.

The Liberals point out that 49 people have been killed or injured already this year in Toronto alone. Handgun homicides have been increasing year-over-year, and made up 61% of firearms related deaths in 2020. Canada ranks 4th in firearm deaths among OECD countries.

Well that right there is inaccurate, and should be qualified. Perhaps on a per capita basis, but given our relatively small population these figures are pretty much useless. People have a tendency to cherry-pick data to suit their needs.

Half of Ontario guns deaths were from self harm, they point out. Well those intent on taking their own lives will find a way.

There’s obviously more, of course, but I can’t post all of it. I put a link there so you can go and read it yourself.

However, he’s right.

Look, criminals aren’t buying guns lawfully. They’re getting them through any means they can manage. If you ban their ownership entirely, what you’re going to get is armed criminals facing a population ill-equipped to defend themselves.

Obviously, this works out pretty well for one party, and I think we all know which one that is.

Gun bans sound great as a way to disarm criminals unless you understand that we already have bans on cocaine, heroin, meth, and a host of other drugs that criminals don’t seem to have a lot of problems getting their hands on. If they can get that, why would anyone assume that guns can’t be acquired just as easily?

And don’t try to tell me that drugs are more compact than drugs because we also have an issue with human trafficking and a single handgun is much smaller than any person being trafficked.

Criminals obtain whatever goods they want. Guns are like water, looking for the low spots. Banning them may make it a bit more difficult, but just a bit. They’ll still get guns.

Only this time, the guns aren’t going to be what’s available to everyday folks now. It’ll be nastier stuff that no one is prepared for.