"Yes, there has been more injuries from handguns because there is greater use by criminals for which this law never applied ... criminals rarely sign up to handgun bans"

However the theory of 'leakage' of legally held handguns into the hands of criminals WAS cited as a reason for the pistol ban. The 1997 act was claimed to be a general crime measure and it is simple revisionism to now deny it.

But the most potent argument against the 1997 pistol ban is that it sought to prevent something that is extremely rare (two instances in over 100 years) and is as likely to happen today as it was 20 years ago. It was an act of political expediency and has had no sugnificant effect on public safety. I would have thought that all those things would be sufficient to oppose it.