Previous Post
Next Post

Following some prominent recent shootings in Toronto, Canada’s leftist government is considering a complete ban on all handguns in the country, similar to the one that currently exists in the UK. It’s a perfect example of the gun control “slippery slope” that US supporters of the Second Amendment have been warning against for decades.

Canada instituted mandatory registration of handguns in 1934. In the entire history of the Canadian handgun registration, not one case has been found where the handgun registry solved or prevented a crime of violence.

Then the government took the next big step . . .

In 1993, the Liberals brought in additional changes to gun laws, passing Bill C-68 in 1995 (the Firearms Act). Over half of all registered handguns in Canada were prohibited. No evidence was provided that these handguns had been misused.

Now there’s a significant push to outlaw all handguns in the Great White North.

But among the skeptics who don’t believe an all-out handgun ban would have any meaningful effect on “gun violence” are Toronto’s police officers.


“There’s no way in my world or any world I know that this would have an impact on somebody who’s going to go out and buy an illegal gun and use it to kill another person or shoot another person,” Mike McCormack, the president of the Toronto Police Association, said Friday.

“It really has no impact on the psyche of a gunman.”

The intention is noble, he added, but it’s “A notional gesture at best.”

Instead, McCormack would rather see more resources poured into policing and social services.

He said his years of experience in policing have taught him something about gun crime — individuals who steal, sell or use guns illegally are already facing mountains of jail time, so they’re unfazed by one more law that condemns their actions.

It’s almost as if in Canada, just as in the United States, criminals don’t really care about or comply with gun control laws. A fact that police are all too familiar with.

Most police in the United States agree with the TPA president. But it may soon be too late for Canadian gun owners.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Most police in the United States, except big city police chiefs far and wide, agree with the TPA president. Along with Dianne Feinstein, they all believe that Heller was wrong to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms….

  2. What happens in strict gun control areas is dismissal and plea bargain of gun charges.
    In Indiana:

    “The Star’s analysis showed that, among cases with a disposition, there were 502 convictions on the possession by a serious felon charge. But there were 371 dismissals, including 212 because of a plea agreement.”

    In Chicago:
    “The gun control measures have not been shown to reduce homicides, but rather more funding for policing have shown to reduce homicides in Chicago. Once police have done their job in taking violent offenders off the street, Chicago politicians and the local criminal justice system seem to place favor toward the criminals. There appears to be a serious lack of prosecution in Chicago’s Criminal Justice System. With sub-par prosecution rates, criminals have little incentive to stop committing crimes including homicide.”

    Suppose plea bargains end. That every gun charge is brought to trial. The courts system would be overwhelmed. Then there are the prisons:

    “One of the problems in Chicago is that there is a lack of prison housing. Even if convicted of a gun-related crime, there just isn’t enough room to house the current 10,000 inmates. As a result, felons get reduced sentences and are back out on the streets to re-offend the public again (Reynolds, 2013).”

    Add in the “Too many many minorities in jail” and lawsuits about overcrowding, simply keeping criminals locked up is difficult.

    • Living in Indiana, I can say that this is not a heavy gun-control state, if that’s what you’re trying to assert. More felons go to prison than are plea bargained down, although there are still too many plea bargains to reduce penalties for crimes committed with illegal firearms.

    • That last fanatic, I believe, was homegrown, although of immigrant stock. Crazy knows no ethnic or racial barriers.

    • Canadians are subjects, not citizens. Citizen means the government (in theory) is under you, your interests, and your rights. Canadians only have the rights their benevolent overlords grant to them. This law they are considering is mearly a roll back of “rights” granted to the subjects by the government. The process to roll back a “right” in America always has the potential to erupt in to civil war to overthrow a tyrany. The right to assmeble, agree, and stand up in armed revolt for the preservation of a free state is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen…. but, you better make sure you have a hell of a lot people on your side…. tyranical governments tend to look down on that sort of thing.

  3. I’ve yet to see a law stop murder, drug trafficking or even spousal abuse, so how is another “gun law” going to stop crime?

  4. One thing that Canada (and the UK) have that we don’t is a parliamentary government system. In effect, it’s a one-party, majority rules government with few or no checks and balances on its power. The party that wins the most votes forms the government and its leader becomes prime minister. Because the PM has the majority in the House of Commoms (the Senate/House of Lords is mostly symbolic), he/she can ramrod through anything they want. The Supreme Court and lower courts have little power to check the Government or its acts. They have a Charter of Rights (instituted in the 1980s), but provinces (like Quebec) can opt out and it doesn’t include anything about RKBA. But even if the ruling party loses an election and another party takes power, the laws that have already passed remain and are rarely overturned. Having lived in Canada and seen how its parliamentary system works, all I can say is God help us if the progressives down here succeed in instituting such a system. While our government is no longer “of the people, for the people, by the people,” it can be resisted through the courts or….. and is a helluva lot better than any other system.

  5. Make sure your long-term goals are also reasonable and doable. For example, if you are 25 years old, a reasonable long-term goal might be financial security by the time you retire at age 65. An unreasonable long-term goal would be becoming a billionaire by the age of 30.

  6. Be patient with yourself. Personal evolution does not generally take place overnight, nor is it usually very easy. But it is doable, so don’t get discouraged if change doesn’t happen immediately.

Comments are closed.