Toronto’s latest tragedy unfolded at a Latin festival where gunfire erupted in a crowded public space, leaving two dead and others wounded in what police are calling a targeted exchange rather than random violence. The incident underscores a familiar pattern: when law-abiding citizens are disarmed by policy, the only people carrying firearms are those already willing to break the law. Canada’s strict handgun restrictions and “assault weapon” bans did nothing to prevent the shooters from obtaining and using their guns; they only ensured that festival-goers had zero legal means to defend themselves once the shooting started.

For the 2A community south of the border, the takeaway is straightforward—restrictive gun laws concentrate lethal force in the hands of criminals while stripping it from everyone else. Toronto’s experience mirrors what we see in other high-regulation jurisdictions: criminals ignore magazine limits, background checks, and carry bans, yet the law-abiding public is left hoping police arrive in time. The festival shooting also highlights how cultural and enforcement failures, not the mere presence of firearms, drive urban violence; blaming “easy access” to guns ignores that Canada already has some of the toughest firearms laws in the developed world.

The broader implication is that shall-issue concealed carry and constitutional carry regimes in the United States demonstrably correlate with lower violent crime rates in many jurisdictions precisely because they shift the risk calculation for attackers. Rather than doubling down on failed prohibitionist models, policymakers would do better to study what actually deters criminals: swift prosecution, armed citizens, and cultural norms that treat self-defense as a fundamental right rather than a privilege granted by the state.