Angry in the Great White North

Yeah, I'm going to take this tragedy and use it to make a point.  You've been warned.

Michael Bryant, former Attorney-General for Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government, will be charged with the death of a cyclist:

Ontario's former attorney general Michael Bryant is facing two charges after a fatal hit-and-run in Toronto's Yorkville neighbourhood Monday night.

Mr. Bryant will be charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death, a police source tells the Globe, after a collision left a 33-year-old cyclist dead.

What sort of reckless driving?  According to witnesses, we are lucky that Michael Bryant didn't cause deaths in vehicles in the oncoming lane, or among innocent bystanders on the sidewalk:

Witnesses told police the cyclist collided with a black Saab on Bloor St. W., at Bay St. at about 9:45 p.m.

Dozens of witnesses couldn't believe what they were seeing as the cyclist hung onto the driver's side of the car with its convertible top down and the driver yelling at him to get off the car.

In a bid to shake the cyclist off the car, the driver veered onto the eastbound lanes and mounted the curb brushing against trees and poles, a witness said.

"He was driving on the wrong side of the street and up on the curb trying to knock him off the car for about 100 metres. Lots of people were watching and they couldn't believe what was happening," said Ryan Brazeau, a worker with a crew laying sewer pipes down the middle of Bloor St.

As the car approached Avenue Rd., the cyclist fell off and was run over by the rear wheels of the car.

It's had to recall such a reckless use of car.  I mean, not only was the target killed, the use of the car in this incident would have put all sorts of other people in danger.

What would have prompted this sort of crazed behaviour?  As we all recall, while Attorney-General, Michael Bryant was responsible for the No Gun No Funeral astroturfing effort to have guns banned. 

Perhaps Michael Bryant thought the cyclist had a gun. 

On the other hand, maybe we should take a (cached) page from the No Gun No Funeral (the gun-control site Michael Bryant created on the sly while he was Attorney-General).  Here is Michael Bryant (or his proxy) discussing the problem with guns:

It's true that knife crime is a problem, and there is lots of it. On first blush, there are more knife crimes than gun crimes - i.e., in 2006, knives were used in 31% of aggravated assaults, while guns are used in only 4%. 

But look closer - in 2006 guns were used in 32% of all murders and attempted murders. Why are guns more likely to be used for serious offences like murder, and not lesser offences like assault? Because guns are much more likely to be lethal.  

That's exactly the reason that handguns are such an enormous problem: they are easy to conceal, they can be fired at great distance without any risk to the user (so are easier to use than knives), and they are incredibly lethal. Perhaps most importantly, handguns can also accidentally strike and kill innocent bystanders, something knives generally don't do.

We need to combat both knife and gun crime, but stopping the flow of illegal weapons to our communities is definitely a critical step if we are to reduce the number of random violent deaths.

Hey, that's prescient:

Perhaps most importantly, cars can also accidentally strike and kill innocent bystanders, something pedestrians generally don't do.

So while there are crazed and irresponsible car owners out there recklessly using their legally owned cars to kill people and endanger others, and while it remains far too easy to steal a car to commit a crime, and while too many cars flow into this country, especially from the car-crazed United States but from other places too, maybe we should ban cars.

I'm serious.  The logic is the same.  No one needs a car.  Cars are dangerous.  There is no such thing as a truly responsible motorist.  Every owner of a car is a potential killer.

Even if that owner is a former attorney-general, perhaps.

I'm sure that after some reflection, Michael Bryant could get behind an effort to ban cars.  And if not, he might yet end up being a poster boy for such a movement.

A question to ask of Michael Bryant: If it is established that Michael Bryant is guilty of this, and his excuse is that he thought his life was in danger, I would like to ask him whether, if at the moment he decided to dislodge this cyclist by crossing into the oncoming lanes and mounting the sidewalk to sideswipe trees and mailboxes, did Michael Bryant wish that he had a gun in his hand?