Article content continued

Now here’s the relevant point for the current debate over a total ban: Confiscating hundreds of thousands of legally owned firearms did nothing — absolutely nothing — to cut down on murders and robberies committed with handguns.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the relatively few firearms murders Canada has every year were committed two-thirds with rifles and shotguns, one-third with handguns.

By the 2000s, that ratio had flipped. Even after Rock’s large-scale confiscation, firearms murders (which we still have mercifully few of in Canada) were two-thirds or more by handguns, just one-third by long guns.

That’s because firearms murders were no longer mostly crimes of passion — one angry spouse killing the other — but rather crimes stemming from the drug trade and gang activity.

The government can grab all the guns it wants from law-abiding Canadians (who we know have a lower crime rate than the population as a whole) and such a ban will not prevent another Danforth.

The theory behind a ban is that somehow legally acquired handguns are getting into criminal hands. Take handguns away from law-abiding owners, and they won’t be sold to or stolen by criminals.

The theory is bunk because it is already difficult to get a handgun licence in Canada, and there are severe regulations about storing them and transporting them safely — say to a gun range.

It is far easier to smuggle a handgun in from the States — in the wheel well of your car, the upholstery of the seats or down the front of your sweatpants — so that is where most crime guns in Canada come from.