I realize it’s early in the week but thanks to Tony Bernardo of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association I’m ready to call the competition for Asshole of the Week to a close and nominate him for Asshole of the Year.
Following the murder of innocent bystander John O’Keefe by what media reports say was a 22-year-old using a legally owned and registered handgun, Mayor David Miller and Councillor Michael Walker spoke out on the need to ban all handguns. That got the media knocking at Bernardo’s door seeking comment. According to the Globe and Mail Bernardo, executive director of the organization that is essentially the Canadian arm of the American National Rifel Association, had this to say:
“In 2006, 2 per cent of the firearms homicides in Canada were done with a legal firearm,” and not necessarily by the gun’s legal owner, Mr. Bernardo said. “The year prior to that, it was 4 per cent. We’re talking about something that statistically is so small, it isn’t significant to even count it.”
In 2005, the year Bernardo says 4% of murders were committed with a legal firearm, Canada experienced 223 shooting deaths. Quick math tells me that that 4% equals nine lives. I call that significant, it’s certainly significant for the families of those nine people and it’s significant enough to justify making all handguns illegal.
While I’m not going to suggest that outlawing handguns will end all gun violence in the short term, there is no good reason for anyone to carry a handgun at any time. Guns are an entirely unnecessary risk to public safety and worthy of an outright ban.
For saying that the murder of nine people is insignificant and continuing to lobby for the right to put everyone in Canada in harms way, Tony Bernardo is Asshole of the Week.
Photo courtesy RainDog61.
24 comments
I couldn’t agree more with you. Neither could the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Canadian Police Association, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, Canadian Public Health Association, National Association of Women and the Law…the list literally goes on and on.
For more information on gun control issues in Canada, I’d refer you to the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control at http://www.guncontrol.ca. They do very good scientific research work on firearms policy in cooperation with the legal and medical communities, and they deserve the full support of those Canadians who agree with the principle of gun control.
Notwithstanding the sweeping “there is no good reason for anyone to carry a handgun at any time” – good luck persuading TPS/OPP on that one – I personally would be happier if Spacing didn’t nominate Assholes of the Anything.
Yes it’s fitting, but putting the a–hole in the title of your post is very unprofessional. We’ve all come to expect more of Spacing.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
While I agree that it is terribly insensitive and uncouth to refer to nine lives as insignificant, I would also agree with Mark Dowling in that the contention that “…there is no good reason for anyone to carry a handgun at any time,” is too broad.
Not including police officers, registered handgun owners are never allowed to carry their handguns with them, anywhere. The closest they can get to this is having the authorization to transport a handgun from their home to a shooting range.
Conversely, long guns (like rifles or shotguns) which are considered unrestricted weapons can technically be carried anywhere in public by the owner. It is perfectly legal for the owner of a 12-gauge shotgun to carry it over his shoulder down Yonge street. Indeed, if one were to look at this history of gun violence in Toronto, or Canada, involving legally owned guns, they would find that prior to the 1990s much of these deaths were the result of long guns and not handguns.
Also, I would note that those who consider target shooting a legitimate sport, or are simply enthusiasts would likely see a good reason for the right to own a handgun.
Ultimately, though, I do agree that something needs to be done to make our streets safer, and I do agree that even one crime involving a legally owned handgun – fatal or not – is far too many.
This ass hole of the week thing will just end up meaning the change of spacing.ca to robford.ca.
But seriously folks. You know the ass hole of the week, as long as it doesn’t get out of hand, is a nice diversion from the times when Spacing gets a bit lost in the clouds taking things way too seriously.
But back to guns, I was a target shooter at one time and I saw the light and totally would love to see a complete handgun ban. And you know what, shooting at targets gets pretty boring pretty fast anyway.
I second the nomination, Adam.
And I’m glad you brought this up because it allows me to offer my bright idea:
Private Gun Insurance – heavy enough to pay serious compensation to the survivors. Premiums would be 100% paid by gun owners and should be prohibitively expensive. How can they argue against a nice, right-wing, free-market, business model concept like that?
A little swearing is fine. This guy deserves the title. We’re not Puritanical Toronto anymore.
Yep, this guy is definitely an ass-hole and unlike Joe and Mark I agree with Adam who called something by its name regardless of what is considered professional or not. Apparently 50% of guns used in crimes are smuggled from the US, the other 50% or so are either legal or were once legal and stolen from “law abiding†gun owners. So if there is a total ban of hand guns that means at least half of the guns are gone from the streets, isn’t this a good reason to ban them? Sure, there might be a surge of smuggled guns, but tougher laws towards those caught smuggling and carrying or storing weapons would mean a huge fall in supply and as a consequence a raise in cost when purchasing an illegal gun in the streets. Economics sometimes can work for good social causes. Any kind firearms shouldn’t be allowed in urban centers and if you are caught with one you go to jail for a long time. Rifles should remain legal in rural areas. Create a “snitch line†promising good rewards given anonymously for every time a gun is apprehended, I am sure there are plenty of characters who would sell their own mothers for a couple of thousands of dollars, I would be willing to have city hall use my property tax money in such schemes. But a plan to create sound policies against guns is not good for the Federal Government, since it is something that would benefit Toronto, and we all know who much these guys love Toronto. They don’t give a crap that 90% or more of Torontonians would support a ban on hand guns. Whenever an innocent bystander gets killed in Yonge they can always use it as ammunition (forgive the pun) to tell the rest of the country how we are a shitty city who don’t deserve their respect, it makes good policies for those other ass-holes in the Federal Government. I apologize for another rant, but it kind of helps me cope with my anger that a 9 year old was left without a father because of a couple of cowardly punks who got kicked out from a strip club…
The point which seems to have gone over your head was that banning guns when 96-98% of the crimes committed with them are with guns that are already illegal is not the most efficient approach to the problem.
I’m at work, longer reply to follow later.
This photo looks like Dundas Sq. Did the people get charged for the power-washing that it takes to get chalk off? That’s what happened the first time someone chalked on the Square. That was in the first issue of Spacing if I remember correctly.
Bernardo said legal firearm not legal handgun. Does he mean handguns? Considering the amount of rifles and shotguns out there run into the millions, it is a surprising small amount of deaths by legal guns. Can anyone confirm that his numbers are even true?
According to statistics canada 68 cyclists are killed a year in traffic accidents. Maybe we should ban bikes to protect citizens…..
Calling people assholes isn’t productive and either is banning bikes.
I agree that hand guns should be banned, but as someone who enjoys recreation rifle shooting, I cant agree with banning all guns.
but I’m a risk taker, after all I’m about to bike 6 km through the city in the winter.
First off, I won’t state my position in this discussion, because that will just exclude one side from seriously considering what I have to say, and I think that this applies to both sides equally.
So now, here is my recommendation to those who want to understand the issue better, and who don’t trust partisan websites like http://www.nra.org or http://www.guncontrol.ca to give an objective view:
1) Go to http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/fin_art_index.jsp or the website of an academic library that you have access to and begin a search of academic articles (every library offers this for free to cardholders)
2) Do a search for “gun control” or something of the sort, and be sure to only include peer-reviewed academic publications (i.e. exclude newspapers and magazines, etc., because they are not peer-reviewed and they are too biased for an academic search)
3) Browse the results of your search (only looking at academic publications that are marked as “peer-reviewed” and, if you are short on time, read only the abstracts, to try to get an idea of where the consensus lies amongst those who devote their careers to studying such things objectively.
It’s one thing to read a compelling and emotive letter, newspaper article, or speech and be convinced that way. It’s certainly another to know that you have reviewed the available facts, not opinions but facts, as presented in the most objective manner humanly known (the peer-reviewed academic journal).
And just for those who don’t know, peer-review is the process by which a number of other, randomly chosen experts in the field (eg. physicians for a medical journal) review an academic article from afar to ensure maximum objectivity.
At the risk of going off topic, peer-reviewed journals are a good source for information but they are hardly the “most objective manner humanly known.” Peer-review also has caveats (ie. who funded the research, how big was the sample size, etc.) and should be interpreted with an equally critical, if less skeptical, eye.
On using the word “asshole”…personally, I don’t think it fits — it doesn’t say “this is a place where you can exchange ideas.” It’s just not necessary and conveys an impression of the readers and editors of this site to new visitors. Remember that not every Torontophile urbanologist uses that kind of language and some people do find it offensive. And once you drop that first piece of litter….
In the same way that I would view a study on drinking and driving differently if it were funded by Molson versus funded by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, I would view a blog peppered with a-holes and f-bombs as having less credibility than one that doesn’t. But that’s just me.
Guns don’t kill people, people do. And people with guns kill more people than people without guns.
In Toronto in 2007, 42 of the (total) murders were shootings, 22 were stabbings, and 14 were caused by trauma (blunt force). Two of these were in my neighbourhood.
I can’t wait until I have the right to walk around my neighbourhood knowing nobody is packing heat. I also can’t wait until the cops stop carrying guns.
“I can’t wait until I have the right to walk around my neighbourhood knowing nobody is packing heat.”
Like the article above points out, 96-98% of crimes committed with guns are committed with guns that are already illegal to have.
How exactly is knowing non-criminals aren’t allowed to pack heat the same as knowing nobody is packing heat?
Second, how is that a ‘right’? To be free in your person is a right, but for somebody to violate that it requires an act against you, someone simply packing heat is not an act against you since they have not used a weapon against you in any way.
BEING STABBED HURTS TOO-THE NEW YEARS DAY VICTIM WAS PROBABLY QUITE TERRIFIED–HAVE BEEN A FEW STABBINGS SINCE THAN–BASEBALL BAT IN THE HEAD ISNT FUN EITHER-THEY ARE JUST AS DEAD –AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE JUST AS UPSET—THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE ANYTHING LARGER THAN A PARING KNIFE IN THE HOUSE–NOBODY HEEDS A “HUNTING KNIFE” OR A “FIGHTER”
OR A FOLDING KNIFE.
BASED ON THE INFO ON TV NEWS OR IN THE PAPERS 100% OF THE SHOOTERS ARE BLACK OR BROWN–NO OLD WHITE MALES ARE DOING ANY KILLING–JAMAICA HAS ABOUT 1600 MURDERS A YEAR–ISLAND POPULATION IS 2.7 MILLION–
SOME OF THOSE GANG MEMBERS MADE IT TO TORONTO—A LOT OF THEM CLEARLY CANT AIM OR SHOT STRAIGHT–THEY MUST PLAY TOO MUCH VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES WHERE BUTTOM MASHING IS THE ONLY SKILL REQUIRED.
THE POLICE NEED TO SEARCH THE GANG NEIGHBOURHOODS.
My point was i’d rather live in a city where I knew nobody owned a gun versus knowing everyone owned one (to use an extreme example).
I know most guns used in crimes are illegally owned, but somewhere along the line it came from a legal source. Banning guns is not really going to hurt anyone but the gun industry.
And Homey – you ok?
Despite a 10 year-old handgun ban, gun crime in the UK (according to official Home Office statistics) has more than doubled since the law was introduced. Gun crime in the city of Manchester has become so rampant that the British media now refer to it as “Gunchesterâ€Â. Manchester now ranks as one of the most violent cities in Western Europe.
While the number of fatal shootings and stabbings amongst teenagers in the UK has reached epidemic levels, Labour Party politicians have been left scrambling for some fairly desperate solutions given that there are no more handguns to ban. Just recently in what appears to be a final attempt to address rising criticism from the media and public the Labour government announced further gun restrictions banning the sale of replica and deactivated firearms, despite evidence that out of the 21,000 reported firearm incidents last year that only 4 replicas had been used. The absurdity of this latest rule was highlighted this week when the BBC reported that a children’s pantomime production was forced to register its toy stage gun, and four swords with local police, even though the gun only produces a flag with the word bang on it, and the swords were made of plastic. All if this news comes on the announcement that the Labour government will be installing hundreds of metal detectors at schools across the UK to deter gun and knife crime.
Politicians looking to ban handguns from competitive shooters in this country are burying their heads in the sand, and are merely politicking to score cheap points with voters, if they think that such legislation will have an impact on gun crime. The UK’s experience clearly debunks the notion that confiscating guns from legally licensed gun owners will reduce gun crime. In fact, it can be argued that no correlation exists between the availability of guns and gun crime; both Norway and Switzerland have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and yet have some of the lowest rates of gun crime.
The problem of violence we face today has nothing to do with the availability of guns but what we have allowed society to become. Our politicians aren’t prepared to tackle this problem for fear of contravening the codes of political correctness. In short, gun owners and their guns are easier to vilify. Furthermore, despite the fact that Toronto’s first murder of the year was committed with a knife, there have been no calls since to ban knives.
It would be extremely naive of our politicians to embark on further draconian gun control measures that fly in the face of reason without looking first to the experiences that other countries like the UK have encountered.
According to a recent article in the UK’s Independent newspaper just under 1000 people were shot in the UK last year. Given this vast number it doesn’t look like their gun ban has worked.
The vast majority of you people are nut jobs. Perhaps you can’t appreciate that fact that responsible individuals should be allowed the right to bear arms. And I’m not talking about carrying handguns down the street either. It’s obvious to me that none of you even realize how hard it is to legally obtain a handgun. They are only available to target shooters that belong to a range and serious collectors. And they can absolutely NOT be carried anywhere but an approved shooting range. It’s a fun sport, perhaps some of you should try it before you knock it. And Tony Bernardo is a good guy fighting for what he believes is right, and many people agree and support him. If you guys want to make a difference in this world how about pressuring polititians for longer jail terms for criminals and not stripping the rights of decent hard working canadians. Do you honestly believe the criminals are just going to turn their illegal guns in? But then again you left wing hippies are probably all on dope anyway.
While I agree with the intent of the ban, to remove guns from thugs, it won’t work. It is already illegal to carry a loaded handgun. It’s already illegal to brandish a handgun. It’s already illegal to sell drugs. It’s already illegal to discharge a firearm on city streets. It’s already illegal to shoot oneanother. Hom many of these dirtbags are “known to police”, gang members, or drug dealers? Put the criminals in a cage where they belong, and leave law abiding gun owners alone.
PS – the correct statistic from Vancouver Police Department is 4~7% of firearms used in crime are or were legally owned firearms. Not an insignificant number, but if you consider the % of legally registered cars that are involved in illegal activity (speeding, dangerous driving, drunk driving, etc), would it be fair to ban private ownership of cars?
WHERE do you guys get your stats?? 50% of homicides are with legal guns?? huh?? The number is closer to 5% of guns on the street have been stolen. And even that’s a stretch. Check your stats with the department of justice before you go preaching them as gospel.
There were 4.. count them.. FOUR deaths in ALL of Canada in 2006 by legally registered guns. OF ALL TYPES, not just handguns. 2005, same number….. And so on and so on.
That works out to something like 0.000000001% of all the legal guns in Canada have ever been involved in a crime.
Toronto has a crime problem, stop making us LEGAL.. That’s right, LEGAL gun owners your scape goat. Get off your arse and demand Mayor McCheese do something about all crime, not just crimes committed with guns.
The 14 year old girl killed on new years day was just as innocent, and is just as dead as Mr. O’Keefe.
However, I don’t see anyone rushing to ban knives.
Get your head out of your butt Toronto…..
The rest of Canada does not need it’s recreational policies dictated to by a bunch of tweed jacketed bespectacled nerds who have never set foot in a forest.
I see why this place is called “spacing”… ’cause you must be… “spacing” to believe the drivel contained here.
Get the facts straight. Banning handguns in the UK, Austrailia and Jamaica did not have any effect. In fact gun murders by CRIMINALS have doubled in the UK since their ban.
So if you’re interested in stopping the other 98% of the murders in this country, where are your ideas.
Or do you feel criminals should be exempt?
It is a FACT that the government who bans handguns will have to pay the legal owners. Even Wendy Cukier of The Coalition for Gun Control admits this.
In Austrailia it was $500,000,000, or half a billion dollars.
Yes nine murders should not be discounted but unless you’re going to foot the bill, lets find a way to stop the other two hundred or so.