Surely one of the most dim-witted editorials on the recent spat of gun violence in Toronto has to be Rondi Adamson’s in today’s Toronto Star. While marginally better, Adamson’s nemesis, Linda McQuaig, gives more-or-less the opposite argument. While I appreciate the Star giving a voice to ‘both sides’ of various issues (as though only two exist), the Adamson/McQuaig pen battle illustrates how ideologues favor clarity over reality; unfortunately, these editorials dumb down the debate. To right-wingers (like Adamson), the simple ‘solution’ is more police. To left-wingers (like McQuaig), the simple ‘solution’ is more social programming. And this debate isn’t just in the mainstream press, either. Take, for example, Warren Kinsella’s recent attacks on Toronto Mayor David Miller because he believes Miller is “soft on crime” (he would prefer his friend and Ontario conservative leader John Tory, who lost the mayor race to Miller). While other bloggers like Brett Lamb have come to Miller’s defense.

I must say, I have been unimpressed with most of these arguments. Adamson says that “criminals just don’t obey the law” and that “’American guns’ are no more threatening than any other variety”, thus begging the entire question on guns and gun control. McQuaig concludes by simply blaming rising gun crimes on conservative tax cuts. Kinsella claims that Miller sees crime as “an invention of the Fraser Institute… a fictional right-wing construct… a spin line.” And Lamb, for his part, explains gun crime violence as a “sign that the neoconservative policies and attitudes of past governments”, namely the Tory decision to amalgamate Toronto.

Such commentaries simply play the blame game — an attempt to clarify who is at fault without acknowledging the causes of gangs and gun violence are so varied that no one thing is to blame and no one person or program can solve it. And, it should be obvious to anyone that like any problems, you need to treat both the cause and the symptoms. Surely, poverty is a factor. And surely the lack of stable and positive role models on kids contributes to their choice to join gangs. So, clearly, social programs can help. Access to handguns is an obvious factor, so making it as difficult as we can to get a hold of one surely is a wise course of action (either by making them extremely costly at the source, tighter security at the U.S. border, by requiring background checks at least via the legal route, etc). Rising crime stigmatizes neighborhoods, which only empowers gangs further (since those neighborhoods become marked as their turf). So, clearly a greater police presence is necessary to ensure that public space is not claimed by any one group, but a right for all citizens. And yes, the Mayor must lead – go to the trouble spots, talk to people, see what they need from the city to combat the problem (i.e. it isn’t just a photo-op). Even city planners can help by directing, to the extent possible, re-investment and development towards susceptible areas to counteract the stigmas.

So, in multiple ways, government (at various levels and in various ways) can help. But the problem of gangs and violence also needs to be something that the affected communities themselves want to solve. It is difficult enough to just get by in troubled neighborhoods, but community leaders must organize to ensure gangs aren’t passively accepted (either because they sympathize with their anger at those that have better opportunities or because they like the quick money that results from crime). Responsibility and culpability must be shared by parents, community leaders, the police, the mayor, border agents, failing social programs, etc. And everyone must do there part to ensure the gangs and gun violence stops. Solve the problem because the only people who lose in the ‘blame game’ are those unfortunate enough to be in harm’s way.