There’s a reason people don’t like Stockwell Day. Here’s another one.

What I love most about the report is the bit at the end:

Officials in Day’s office, though, say the latest figures don’t paint the whole picture. They point back to 1997, when Britain’s handgun ban took effect.



In the two years immediately following implementation of the ban, homicide rates in England remained stable, but shot up dramatically between 2000 and 2002 before falling back to near 1997 levels, according to combined FBI and Home Office figures.

It would stand to reason that it takes time for a ban on handguns to make a dent in statistics. Afterall, the day a ban is introduced, the city would still be flooded with guns. It would require some time for law enforcement to find and reduce the amount of guns and enforce the law. How much time? Apparently, more than 5 years.

What the Star fails to make clear is whether or not the homicides rates in England between 1997 and 2002 involved just guns or some other weapons.

So what’s the answer? Baning guns and increasing efforts to get them off the streets would seem like a prudent first step.

Related posts:

1. Angry and Sad
2. Politics: Not for Ryerson students
3. Holiday Dollars
4. Toronto’s 31st Homicide in 2007
5. Violence in Toronto Today