The pattern of reaction following a shooting is painfully predictable.
There are sides that demand tighter restrictions on guns. Sides that demand arming more people to somehow protect the public. And then side arguments about terrorism, mental health and whatever the political hot button topic de jour may be.
Following the tragic shooting in Toronto where two were killed and 13 injured, it has played out almost to a "T."
In the U.S. this issue is of the most complicated quagmires possible with the NRA fuelling the fire, leaning hard on the second amendment.
In Canada, it should be far simpler. There is no constitutional right guaranteeing the right to bear arms in Canada. It is viewed far more as a privilege than anything. There is the Firearms Act which outlines the parameters in which a firearm may be owned, but like any act, that can be changed.
The reality is, Canada should take a long hard look at banning handguns for the general public – law enforcement officers and armed forces personnel being the exception.
If anyone can point out a valid reason why they should not be, I am all ears.
Let's debunk the first, go-to of the pro-gun crowd. Self defence with a hand gun in Canada is laughable at best. First of all, open carry is illegal in Canada. The permitted use of hand guns, being target practice, is extremely limited to begin with. You need a special permit just to transport the gun, in a locked case, to and from the shooting range.
Self defence at home is even more ridiculous. Restricted firearms, like hand guns, must be kept locked up while their ammunition is secured in a different location not readily available to the gun. Sorry, by the time both elements are tracked down and brought together, it is probably too late.
The fall back argument always
