New Paragraph

OpEd: Will Handgun Bans Prevent Violent Crime in Canada?
December 21, 2021
Physicians and health workers protesting in Toronto, walk past a volunteer from the anti-gun group 'Silence the Violence and Shun the Guns,'

My short answer is NO. Not in the slightest.

The Trudeau government recently committed $1 billion to help the provinces and municipalities ban handguns. How on earth they believe that this tremendous chunk of taxpayer money is going to take handguns out of the hands of criminals who would do others harm, is completely mind-boggling to me.



I’ll admit that at one point several years ago, I whimsically supported banning handguns. I was tired of seeing innocent lives taken and reacted in the macro sense, thinking ridding society of handguns that are really only good for shooting “paper (targets) or people” would have an impact. But sober reflection combined with research, analysis, discussions with true law enforcement experts and many friends who are handgun aficionados, told me two things: 1. Banning handguns is an unreasonable expectation. There’s about a million lawfully owned handguns in Canada; and 2. Legal handgun owners are not the threat.


I don’t personally have any skin in this game. Although I Iike guns and carried a handgun (as well as rifles and shotguns) throughout my 36-year police career, I no longer own any firearms. When I did, I was fully trained; acquired and stored them lawfully; and was not a threat to public safety. Similarly, that describes 99.999% of the over 600,000 legal handgun owners in Canada. These folks are not members of gangs and are not committing violent crimes. They’ve had appropriate background checks; are properly trained; and store their firearms safely. The bottom line is they obey the law.


The current Canadian firearms legislation is some of the most restrictive in the world. Unlike our friends to the south, Canadians don’t lawfully carry handguns on their belts, in their nightstands, pockets, gloveboxes and purses. Police here don’t approach every person they encounter with the underlying assumption that the person is armed – either legally or illegally. Our legislation is quite effective.


Crime guns in Canada almost always are smuggled handguns from the United States, where there are more guns than people. Occasionally they are legally owned guns that are stolen for criminal purposes from homes or retailers. On very, very rare occasions, a lawful owner illegally sells a handgun to a criminal or uses a handgun to commit a violent crime. In all my years in policing – including years investigating homicides, I never once saw a lawful owner commit a murder with a handgun. Shotguns, rifles, illegally owned handguns, vehicles, tools, cross-bows, knives, axes, baseball bats and more yes, but never a lawfully owned pistol.

So, who will a provincial or municipal handgun ban impact? Not criminals. Not street gang members, bikers or the mob. It will impact the lawful owners that already obey Canadian legislation.


Criminals are already breaking many serious criminal laws when they possess hand guns and even moreso when they use them. These offences carry potential sentences that may see them incarcerated for years – as long as members of the judiciary don’t treat the offences lightly and have dangerous criminals beat the investigating officers back out onto the streets of their cities.


How often have we read media reports where criminals arrested for violent crime were out on bail when they committed further violent crimes, only to be released on bail yet again? How many police chiefs have made public pleas to judges to seriously recognize the threat gang members are to public safety before releasing them to commit more violent crimes and put the public and cops in further jeopardy?


Just this month, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which if passed will see some mandatory minimum penalties repealed, including several firearms offences.Offences like Discharging a firearm with intent; Using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of offence; and Robbery with a firearm. You know, those run of the mill crimes that have little or no impact on public or police officer safety. Akin to shoplifting a candy bar or unlawfully trapping a bullfrog out of season!


Criminal laws are the only effective leverage we have left, but government doesn’t want to get tougher on gun crime, they want to pull some of the teeth from that one remaining tool. Police are continually threatened with defunding. They’ve lost the ability to street check known gang members. Strategies like bail compliance aren’t effective in a catch and release environment. Gang bangers are no longer afraid of being shaken down by good officers despite proudly wearing gang colours and insignias to show their criminal organization affiliations to the world.


The RCMP are so underfunded that they have little to no resources to chase organized crime or fight smuggling. And gun smuggling requires a tremendous focus. But let’s take a billion dollars and establish provincial and/or municipal laws banning handguns, with limited search and seizure provisions and almost no imprisonment ability. That is not going to cause gang members to run out to find God and seek lawful employment. They aren’t afraid of criminal laws and jail, so the threat of a Provincial Offence Notice from a cop or a ticket from a by-law officer likely won’t result in them cowering in fear or lining up to turn in their guns. Much like the Liberal government promise that legalized marijuana was going to put organized crime out of the marijuana business, it’s laughable.



 It’s time to get tougher, not weaker. Let’s put the money into better protecting the public and our men and women in blue, as opposed to placing them at even greater risk.

Chris Lewis served as Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police from 2010 until he retired in 2014. He can be seen regularly on CTV and CP24 giving his opinion as a public safety analyst.

By Chris Lewis February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?
By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.
By Chris Lewis December 28, 2024
Violent Crime Remains High
Share by: