R v Ferrigon – 2007 OJ No 1883 (SCJ – Molloy):

[25] Guns are dangerous. Handguns are particularly dangerous. Loaded, concealed handguns are even more dangerous. A person who loads a handgun with bullets and then carries that handgun, concealed on his person, into a public place is by definition a dangerous person. Handguns are used to shoot people. A person who carries a loaded handgun in public has demonstrated his willingness to shoot another human being with it. Otherwise there would be no need to have loaded it. That person is dangerous. He is dangerous to those with whom he associates; he is dangerous to the police and other law enforcement personnel; he is dangerous to the members of his community; he is dangerous to innocent bystanders, including children, who may be killed or maimed by stray bullets. And equally importantly, he is dangerous to a way of life that is treasured in Canada and to which all residents of Toronto are equally entitled – a way of life that respects the rule of law to ensure the peace and safety of those who live here.

[26] It is because of the extreme danger of handguns and the senseless carnage and loss of life occasioned by their use that our courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for weapons offences. In R. v. Danvers, [2005] O.J. No. 3532 (C.A.), Armstrong J.A. stated (at para 78): “There is no question that our courts have to address the principles of denunciation and deterrence for gun related crimes in the strongest possible terms. The possession and use of illegal handguns in the Greater Toronto Area is a cause of major concern in the community and must be addressed.”

[27] Also, in Danvers (at para 77), the Court of Appeal endorsed and adopted the comments of the trial judge, Ewaschuk J., as follows: “It is my view that the circumstances of this murder and this offender bring into play the principles of deterrence, both general, and more especially individual, the principles of denunciation and the protection of society. Death by firearms in public places in Toronto plague this city and must be deterred, denounced and stopped. Only the imposition of exemplary sentences will serve to deter criminals from arming themselves with handguns. In particular, the use of handguns in public places cries out for lengthy increased periods of parole eligibility. Society must be protected from criminals armed with deadly handguns. (Emphasis added)”

[28] Similar comments were made by Trafford J. in R. v. B.B., [2006] O.J. No. 4681, (S.C.J.). In that case, the 21-year-old offender had been arrested in the vicinity of a community college after he attempted to flee from uniformed officers investigating an armed robbery. When searched incidental to that arrest, he was found in possession of a loaded handgun and a small quantity of marijuana. Trafford J. noted, at para. 9: “The possession of a handgun may have led to a random, or unintentional, act of violence, including the death of an innocent person in the area of any confrontation. Unforeseen, provocative circumstances could have led to a senseless act of violence, and consequential grievous bodily harm or death and all of the emotional devastation that goes with it. Recently, in the City of Toronto there has been a significant increase in the possession, and use, of such firearms. This increase has alarmed every reasonable person in the City and eroded its reputation as a safe place where people may flourish in its multicultural environment. The defendant, and others like him, must be deterred. Crimes of this nature must be denounced. The public legitimately expects the Courts to protect society against any such criminal activity. The confidence of the public in the administration of justice depends, in part, upon the sentencing in cases like this one.”

[29] From these and many other similar cases, I conclude that the protection of society must be a paramount consideration when sentencing for offences involving loaded handguns. General and specific deterrence and denunciation of the conduct involved are of particular importance in reaching a fit sentence. That does not mean that other sentencing factors become irrelevant whenever a handgun is involved. However, those other factors may be less influential if the sentence that might otherwise be imposed would not constitute sufficient condemnation of the conduct or adequate protection of the public.