David Miller and Dalton McGunity's Continuing Call for a Handgun Ban

Lately, there have been a rash of gun related crime in Toronto, most notably in several schools, as well as the high profile murder last Tuesday of a fellow who was shot right on the 401 (a major 8+ lane highway in Toronto) and dumped onto the highway in the middle of the day, in front of shocked drivers. Of course, with it now being election season (again), politicians are positioning themselves as trying vet their own political agendas, under the guise of trying to find solutions to crime. The latest account of this is with Toronto mayor David Miller (NDP) and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (Liberal), both of whom have renewed calls for a handgun ban not only in Toronto, but nationally.

On the surface, to those who aren't well read on crime and guns, and who are generally not in favour of firearm possession, it sounds like they are getting tough on crime, right? But let's look at their position a little deeper here.

Let's face it, few want to publicly admit this, so I will be happy to do it. First, let's look at these crimes - make no bones about it, you will see a very clear commonality here, that few are wanting to admit. These crimes, for the most part, are perpetrated by young black men, and the victims are often young black men. The crimes have occurred in relatively heavier-populated black areas. You can't debate this with me - just pull up the news and check out the location of the shootings. Second, there is a gang component tied into a number of these shootings. Third, from the few arrests that have been made, it is discovered that the handguns used are by and large stolen and smuggled from the U.S. David Miller actually has the gonads to flat-face lie to the public and say that 60-70% of guns from crimes are either legally obtained or stolen from legal owners here in Canada. A police officer was interviewed this afternoon, who was on an anti-gang squad in Toronto, and he vehemently maintained that the percentage is more like 3 - 6%, and confirmed what we all know - that guns used in crimes are almost always stolen and smuggled from the U.S.

Why am I mentioning all this? Because of the fact that if the municipal or provincial jurisdiction were able to successfully enact a handgun ban, nothing would change. Crime would not go down. Why? Because the criminals don't give a rat's ass about following the law. Does anyone seriously think that a law outlawing all handgun possession would cause any criminal element to think twice about using handguns and / or register their stolen handguns? Think about this - it is illegal to rape or murder someone. It is illegal to steal someone's car. Yet these things happen every day, because criminals do not observe or respect the laws in place - that is the nature of the criminal mind.

If nothing else, such a handgun ban would target and penalize the law-abiding handgun owner, who took the time and expense to fill out an application for a licence, take the mandatory course, pay the fees, subject themselves to an exhaustive criminal check and waiting period, after providing written approval by one's spouse and several references. And to top it off, in Canada, owning a handgun is very restrictive as is. There are maybe a handful of people in CANADA who have a conceal carry licence. For the average Joe who wants to get a handgun licence (Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence, or RPAL), they would then need to apply for a Authorization to Transport (ATT) licence, who only allows them to transport the handgun from their residence to an approved shooting range. That's it.

And, if you look at the typical profile of a gun owner, it is not a young black male from a broken home with little to no education. The vast majority of gun owners, whether it be handgun or long gun, are older folks with no criminal records, and who use the guns for sport shooting, hunting, or target shooting. They store their guns responsibly and obey all laws regarding the safe transport and use of their firearms. Those are the people who would be targeted with such a proposed ban, not the criminals.

You can draw a parallel to prohibition in the 1920s. How did that turn out when all alcohol was banned? People still managed to find alcohol illegal and a whole underground criminal element came into being in order to smuggle alcohol.

This is a complex issue, so I don't presume to have all the answers. Some people have said that the answer is for young black men to keep it in their pants and not father child after child with different black women who can't keep their legs shut and subsequently are faced with the daunting task of raising a child without a father present, and in trying to work long hours just to provide for the child, ends up not being able to spend the quality time with him, and as such the child joins a gang, and on and on it goes. This argument is fine, but it's not realistic - you can't change the problematic element in the community by idealistic wishful thinking. Sure, these young men who father these children should take responsibility for their actions, but who among us is going to enforce this or even teach it?

For me, I think that a possible solution is to increase the penalties for gun crimes. Some say that this would flood the system, but better these people in jails than on the street. With the Canadian revolving door justice system, no one spends an inordinate amount of time in the penal system - with good behaviour and a good lawyer, you'd be lucky if you even served half your sentence. By making the laws tougher, it at least removes more criminals off our street. And if they are 15 or 16, treat them as adults - they know what they are doing.

I've always endorsed the death penalty for murder, and for those who talk about crowding in jails with convicted murderers, this is one way you can cost-effectively deal with the situation. Sure, the bleeding hearts will say that it is cruel, but so is the murderous act that they did. Too bad, so sad.

I'm Glad I Don't Live In Toronto

Every year, something happens to confirm that we made the right choice seven years ago not to buy a home in Toronto. Whether it was the garbage strike a few years back where the entire city had no garbage pickup and intersections were littered wtih hundreds of rotting garbage bags in the middle of the summer, whether it was the TTC (public transit) shortages / stoppages or strikes (if I lived in Toronto, I would have to take public transit, and you know my opinion on public transit already, as seen in a previous blog entry), the ridiculous left-wing socialist mayor that is currently in office, the ridiculous amounts of "tolerance" events that goes on in the city and the eroding of traditional family events, the constant contruction on roads which never seen to be fixed, the countless road closures (including more than regular closures of major parkway/arteries into and out of the city), not to mention the amount of crime that goes on in the city - well, all this has just re-affirmed to me that it's much better to live in the suberbs, even though the 'burbs have their own share of problems, albeit significantly fewer than Toronto.

The latest item which has simply re-affirmed my gladness that we never decided to live in Toronto is the ridiculous new taxes that David Miller, Toronto's socialist mayor has decided to impose. On the forefront are two new, very controversial taxes, one being an increased land transfer tax, and the other being an additional drivers' licence renewal tax of 60 bucks on top of the provincially set $74.50 (though humourously I don't think they consulted the province since they refuse to help Toronto collect the extra 60 bucks). Also planned was an additional tax on alcohol, but that's been pulled for now. I also read that they had proposed a tax on cigarettes (good!) and amusement parks (???).

The mayor and his supporters claim these taxes are supposed to help offset a budget shortfall (I think whenever this happens in politics, it's an indication that the government is not working within their means or that they are not aggressively looking at cuts - how governments get themselves in debt, I will never understand) - anyway, I would take this rationalization seriously if it weren't for the fact that Toronto council recently voted themselves a pay raise. And that the city has put really dumb-ass things in their budget, like commissioning something like $300,000 - $400,000 to do a manual count of how many trees there are in Toronto. I'm not kidding here.

I'm no economist, but I've always believed heavier taxes drive people away from spending (resulting in less taxes collected through sales) and so your economy suffers as a result. Increased taxes discourage spending and companies will be forced to let go of staff since their sales will drop, reducing in less jobs and higher unemployment.

Now, as a suberbanite, this news makes me chuckle, but in a way, it's not bad for me. People who were planning to buy houses in Toronto will likely think twice, and that will make our suberbian regions much more attractive, thus driving up our housing prices (which are very high to begin with, but as a guy who has no plans to sell his house anytime soon, I'm basking in the increased investment value in my home as it is, and its certain continual rise in value).

The additional driver's licence renewal tax is ridiculous at best. What this will do is simply get people to register their vehicles outside of Toronto. Who is going to go to two places to renew their drivers' licence, anyway? Sheesh...

The thing is, this is not a big city thing. Others large cities in Canada have their budgets in order and in fact cities like Calgary have a nice surplus to work with (OK, they're in oil country, but...). Ultimately, this is not about having more money; rather, Toronto elected (and re-elected) a mayor whose philosophy is spend and tax, so what do you expect? I suspect that had Jane Pitfield been elected (and while I was not eligible to vote in last year's municipal elections, as I am not a resident of Toronto, I still supported Jane Pitfield and financially contributed to her campaign), things would be much different. Now I realize that Toronto's mayor has to deal with a not-too-swift Ontario Premier to get money for the city, but the previous mayor, Mel Lastman, as controversial as he was, was able to get money for the city much more successfully than this guy. I am hoping that my Torontonian friends who are fed up with this would not take it lying down and consider moving into the land of the 905 region where at least many towns and cities are run much more reponsibly. I look to see you there!