A classic illustration of liberal/progressive politics is playing out in Toronto, Canada. Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.
A handgun ban would fail to stop Toronto’s violence and murders, the head of the Toronto Police Association insisted on the heels of three weekend homicides in Toronto.
Mike McCormack said a ban would divert resources at a time when Toronto requires an investment in police and social services.
“I would support anything that would have an impact, but a ban wouldn’t get to the core of the issue. A municipal government banning handguns will have zero impact,” McCormack added Monday.
Mayor John Tory countered while “there is no magic answer” to the murders and gun violence, a handgun ban will help deal with the problem.
“I don’t know why anyone would need a handgun in Toronto. If we can take one gun out of one hand, we can save one life,” Tory said, adding along with the ban there needs to be changes to the laws and stricter bail conditions ... “We have done a lot of things … We have to keep at it.”
There's more at the link.
Like I said - classic. Expert, who understands the issue, says bluntly that liberal politician's wet-dream idea won't do anything to solve the problem. Liberal politician insists on wet-dream idea anyway, because "we have to do something!", even if that something will be utterly useless and ineffectual - not to mention taking away an effective means of self-defense from an entire city's population, It doesn't matter to him that the idea is just plain wrong-headed. That's irrelevant. It gives the appearance that he and his ilk are doing something - and for a liberal/progressive politician, the appearance is all that matters.
I don't look forward to the chaos if the rising crop of liberal/progressive Democrats, who are displacing old-school candidates, get elected to Congress in November. They'll try to ram through their cloud-cuckoo-land ideas, and insist on funding for them, even though none of them will actually accomplish anything (except to further impoverish the US taxpayer). On the other hand, it'll allow them to feel smug, superior and fulfilled. That's the important thing, after all. "We're doing something!" The fact that it won't solve the problem is neither here nor there.
I have a proposal. If such people aspire to public service, let's take them at their word. If their proposals are rammed through Congress and inflicted on us, let's give them a couple of years to demonstrate whether or not they work. If they do, all well and good. Let's re-elect them. However, if they don't, let's take these aspiring public servants and allow them to serve in our zoos - as food for the various and sundry predators and carnivores living there - while repealing their laws. Either way, we win!