Printed transgression.

The January 7 issue of the Toronto Star (Canada) paints a bleak picture of guns and crime in Canada--where guns are already regulated tightly--vilifying guns and gun owners.

The Star's main article on this subject was about Mike Hargreaves, a gun collector and respected expert on firearms training whose entire gun collection was stolen sometime around New Year's Day in 2004. "Police issued a warrant for Hargreaves arrest, claiming the firearms were unsafely stored and improperly imported," even though he had a permit to purchase each one (including his submachine guns), regularly used the guns to train police officers, and stored the guns in a 1,700-pound safe that took the thieves two days to break into using sledgehammers and a blowtorch. Hargreaves has not yet been arrested because he has been residing in Florida.

Despite Hargreaves' security precautions concerning his guns and his impeccable background as a police firearms instructor, the Star portrays Hargreaves as the bad guy. On page one, instead of headlines designed to vindicate Hargreaves--such as "Police Gun Instructor Made Scapegoat" or "Going Overboard With Gun Control"--the Star led off with "GUNS AND GANGS: One break-in put 30 weapons on the street and started a bloodbath" and "Fugitive in paradise." Of course, the Star remembered to demonize Hargreaves' guns as well, calling them "his dangerous stash." By the Star's description, it seemed that the guns had a mind of their own and might somehow escape and hurt someone: "Housing officials were unaware that [Hargreaves] was storing firearms near families with children."

Near the end of the article, readers are left to believe that Hargreaves is not only in the wrong, but that he is too obstinate to acknowledge the error of his ways: "[Hargreaves] defiantly refuses to accept responsibility for the Gilder Dr. break-in." Finally, the Star wraps up the article by listing some of the carnage caused by the criminals who obtained the stolen guns, implying that the guns themselves caused the shootings that they're associated with.

A second article in the same issue of the Star, which purportedly was written to defend citizens' access to guns, was a halfhearted attempt at best. The article actually states about gun owners and their reasons for having guns: "Almost none uses them for self-defence. This is Canada, after all." If one thinks about this statement for a moment, it is clear that the author means that guns are not used often for defense in Canada because the laws make it difficult to use guns in that fashion, but if the article is read quickly (as it surely will be), the statement implies that there's no need for defensive firearms in Canada.

The article's anonymous author, after speaking of the simple beauty and elegance of guns (and not their practical aspects), gives an unconvincing summation as to why guns should not be outlawed: "I know they seem a dangerous luxury to some, that young lives and whole neighborhoods ... have been destroyed by guns. I tell myself that the alcohol in my cupboard and the car in my driveway can be even more dangerous.... I tell myself I'm not the problem; my guns are not the problem. But I keep them locked away. And I keep quiet about them." Some defense!

Ironically, placed next to the article described above is another that talks about "swarmings," where gangs choose a victim at random and assault the victim in order to steal money and property. The article says that swarmings are common place in Toronto. One would think that this would cause even the editors at the very leftist Toronto Star to realize that crime is caused by criminals, not guns, and that keeping people defenseless against crime is a crime in itself. God bless America.