Dawson College - In the aftermath

by Paul F. Coppin    Editorial Times .ca

The horror of the events at Dawson College in Montreal create an incalculable shock to the psyche of Canadians, a somewhat smug society that believes, on balance, "these things don't happen here". But they do. They did in Montreal in 1989, at Ecole Polytechnique, they did in Taber, Alberta.

With typical predictability, both sides of the gun control debate felt obliged to marshall their troops to deal with the expected onslaught that was sure to follow. And follow it did. The MSM blasted the landscape with speculation, half-truths, and outright lies. Editorialists continued to demonstrate their poor to non-existent knowledge of both firearms and Canada's present firearms laws.

The gun control crowd smelled blood and once again trotted out their manufactured and manipulated statistics, innuendo about gun owners, and fanciful schemes to save the world. Firearms owners were once again dragged into a debate that did not and does not, have anything to do with them. The gun control crowd stood atop the tragic events and defended the registry, even though not a single official could find any way the registry could have, and did not, prevent this event. Family members involved were understandably upset and vocal.

Because this was Montreal, again, Quebec, again, firearms owners across the country felt the weight of personal guilt being heaped upon their shoulders by the now professional victims of Ecole Polytechnique and their sycophants. Liberal Premier Charest, in the throes of a collapsing government, promised to maximize his advantage of the tragedy by going to Ottawa to pound on Stephen Harper to keep the useless long gun registry, because, well, because he needs the votes in Quebec to survive. Everybody admits the registry could not, did not, save the children. But the registry was never created to save children. It was created to save politicians.

The tragedy at Dawson College is not about guns. It is not about gun control. The tragedy of Dawson College is about disaffected youth, sociopathology and mental illness. Its about unpredictability in the human condition, which we all know lies out there amongst us.

Once again, the practice of insisting firearms owners carry the guilt, by demanding ever more ineffectual legislation, as before, is immoral. The fault lies not with them or their tools. If blame has to be distributed, there are a myriad other social targets to look to, but firearms owners are not among them.

Our ill-advised "tolerance" abetted Dawson shootings

by Brigitte Pellerin online

It's been almost a week since the Dawson shooting, and you probably think everything that could be said about it has been said. Several times. But it's not true. What hasn't been said about it says a lot about us. The professional chatterers, I mean. And what it says about us isn't very flattering.

For starters, it appears we are unduly focused on material things. Primarily firearms, increased security in schools and ghoulish websites. In the general rush to denounce the very existence of firearms and to indulge in illogical babblings about gun control and the national long gun registry ("If it turns out this gun was registered or not, it will show that the gun registry is ineffective in controlling crime. On the other hand, the debate will be that if the Conservative government had not proceeded with the amnesty and the demonization of the gun registry and in effect, condoning the ownership of guns in our society, it encourages this kind of conduct that you can use weapons for resolving whatever the issue is." NDP justice critic Joe Comartin), we wandered so far away from the essential we might as well be in a different time zone.

Why are people allowed to say the dumbest things about guns and not lose credibility? Wendy Cukier, of the Coalition for Gun Control and a Ryerson professor of information technology, was quoted in Le Devoir that "French language protects Quebec from American influences," particularly the "romantic character" of many Americans' relationship to guns. When the reporter asked whether it was a bit odd to make such a claim on the day a Columbine-like massacre took place in Montreal, she replied: "Oh you know, in the United States, Columbine-like events happen almost every year!" No they don't, and this kind of stereotyping doesn't advance the discussion.

Or consider Quebec City Conservative MP Luc Harvey, who unburdened himself of the opinion that "Currently, you can order a pistol from the United States via eBay and it will be sent to you via Purolator. Most of the weapons arrive like that." Hum. I wonder if Purolator is as surprised to hear that as I am.

Anyway, firearms were not responsible for the attack. The attacker was. If anything, firearms kept the number of victims down, unlike what happened in 1989 when Marc Lepine (aka Gamil Gharbi) was given enough time to kill 14 women, then himself, while police secured a perimeter outside the Polytechnique. Since that massacre, the police modus operandi has changed; officers are now meant to rush in and neutralize the gunman, as they did with admirable dispatch and bravery last Wednesday. That Kimveer Gill took his own life before police bullets could finish him off matters not one iota.

What does matter, and bizarrely enough what most people failed to mention or even acknowledge, is the evil nature of Kimveer Gill's actions and the responsibility he bears for them, in this world and the next if indeed there is one. I've heard a lot of folks ask why such events happen, especially in a tolerant city like Montreal. Some blame it on guns, others blame it on violence in the media, the Internet, school bullies, a failed love affair, or an inadequate social safety net. Yes, the social safety net. As Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair explained, "True peace is not something you can buy with more equipment. It's something that comes with quality social services."

Kimveer Gill's problem wasn't that he was dissatisfied with welfare in Quebec. It was a hatred for life so deep he was determined to kill others and himself. He didn't hide this hatred but gave plenty of warnings. Unfortunately most of us are so determined not to be judgmental that nobody tried to do anything to help him climb out of his dark hole and start enjoying the sunshine at least as much as the rain.

Worse, we're so used to treating life as something that's only valuable as long as it fulfils our earthly desires (witness the high suicide and abortion rates - not just in Quebec, by the way - growing support for euthanasia and the recent survey showing 42 per cent of Quebecers believe suicide is "acceptable") that we rationalize anything, however ghastly, that seems to bring a person temporary pleasure. Ultimately we shrug off the "Angel of death" stuff as just another, equally valid lifestyle.

Until it's too late. Then we rush to blame inanimate objects or a lack of adequate anti-poverty programs as though we couldn't bear to face the obvious wickedness of a tortured soul.

That says a lot about us. And it's not flattering.



This column first appeared in The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday September 19, 2006 (A-16)
© The Ottawa Citizen

Kimveer Gill's weapons were registered, but it did not stop him from killing

from The Star,

Sep. 17, 2006. 01:00 AM
RONDI ADAMSON

I have to admit, I've been wrong about the gun registry in the past. I always thought that it should be scrapped, for the simple reason that criminals don't obey the law.

It turns out, however, that the registry is useless for another reason. Some criminals do obey the law, dutifully registering their guns before using them to slaughter people.

On Wednesday, at Montreal's Dawson College, Kimveer Gill used three apparently legally registered firearms to kill (as of this writing) one person, and injure and traumatize many others.

In one sense, at least, he was law-abiding. But given what he was able and willing to do with his registered weapons, how can it be argued that the registry is anything but a misuse of funds, time and energy?

Even had Gill's weapons not been registered, what difference would that make? It isn't paperwork that will prevent the kind of violent crime Gill committed. That kind of crime can probably never be completely prevented.

Mandatory sentencing, tougher bail and parole legislation, while laudatory initiatives in terms of other crimes, would not have stopped Gill.

He had no police record. Hiring more police officers, while also a good idea, would most likely not have stopped him.

And even sounding the alarm at the sight of his nihilistic web profile might not have helped.

Were we to scrutinize every young male who posts similar ramblings (an impossibility), there would be few police left for anything else. Not to mention the crucial matter of freedom of expression, be that "expression" disturbing or not. All of this is tragic, but no less true for that.

The registry of long guns, and more talk of gun control in general, came about, in part, as a reaction to the 1989 Montreal massacre.

But, if anything, one could argue that the 1989 tragedy and Wednesday's events, would more likely have been stopped earlier on, if not prevented, by supporting the right to bear arms.

Had all, or many, students and faculty at L'Ecole Polytechnique, or Dawson College, been armed, Marc Lepine and Kimveer Gill would have been taken out quickly.

I'm not suggesting Canada should be like Tombstone, Arizona. I'm arguing that it is fatuous to insist these rampage killings would be stopped by stricter gun laws.

We should, after incidents such as this, ask questions. We should look for solutions, or at least improvements.

But the inevitable political manipulations that take place in the aftermath of the Lepines and the Gills are dismaying.

The reflexive reaction on both sides - the latte-drinking, pro-gun control urbanites, vs. what the latter view as assorted loners, rubes and crazies, is not productive.

But as a latte-drinking urbanite, who has no interest in owning a gun of any kind, I see no societal benefit to making rubes, crazies, or anyone else, register theirs.


Rondi Adamson is a Toronto-based writer. rondi.adamson@gmail.com

Gary Mauser: Debunking Myths About the Canadian Firearm Registry

June 23, 2006

Gun Registry Myths

Registry Myths
Download Paper in PDF to obtain corresponding graphics.

Debunking Myths About the Canadian Firearm Registry
by Professor Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University


Claim #1: The registry allows the police to know where the guns are:

Facts: The registry provides false security. There are too many errors and omissions in the registry for any police officer to trust the registry,

- Approximately half of all firearms are in registry,

- Criminals do not register their firearms,

- The RCMP does not trust the registry and cannot use it in court,

- The RCMP found 42% - 91% of registrations or licences have errors,

- 4,438 stolen firearms were accidentally re-registered to new owners,

Sources: Auditor General of Canada, http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html /20060504ce.html
Garry Breitkreuz, MP, www.garrybreitkreuz.com/ firearmsquickfacts.htm

Claim #2: Police investigations are aided by the registry:

Facts: The government has not been able to show that the registry has ever been critical to solving a single violent crime,

Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino: "(The) law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered .... (T)he money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives." (Source: News Release, Ontario Minister of Public Safety and Security, Jan 3, 2003),

We need a registry of high-risk persons: "After the gun registry," Fraser Forum, http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/
May06ffMauser.pdf

Claim #3: The registry is used frequently by "public safety officers":

Facts: Activity is not a measure of effectiveness,

- The bulk of queries are generated by automatic checks of driving licences,

- Multiple entries are made for each firearm transfer,

- Maintaining any data base requires a lot of activity,

Source: Will Gun Control Make Us Safe? Ontario Police College Presentation, www.garymauser.net, Auditor General of Canada, http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx? SourceId=146767

Claim #4: Deaths involving firearms have declined:

Facts: No lives have been saved,

- Total homicide rate has increased since 1998,

- Total suicides have increased despite drop in gun-related homicides,

Source: Hubris in the North, www.garymauser.net

One thing's for sure, crime causes gun laws...

by Gary Mauser.

There are many ways to kill: bombs, knives, poison and guns, to name just a few. How effective would it be to limit the availability of any one of these tools if we want to reduce the incidence of murder? The answer, quite simply, is that it would not be very effective at all.

As comforting as it might seem in the wake of last Wednesday's shooting spree in Montreal, proof is lacking that more restrictive gun laws will make society safer. In fact, it's time to ask if the money spent on stringent gun laws might be better spent on other programs.

And make no mistake, gun laws impose very high costs on citizens, both through compensation for confiscating outlawed weapons and by stimulating the growth of government bureaucracy.

When Canada's gun registry was introduced, it was claimed that it would cost $2-million, but the Auditor-General found that the costs of only part of the registry were more than $1-billion. And she did not examine the entire sprawling program. Estimates of the total cost to taxpayers now exceed $2-billion.

Yet, the firearms registry has not saved any lives. While gun homicide numbers are indeed down, the total homicide rate has increased.

This suggests that crime rates are driven by sociological factors rather than availability of just one method of murder.

In Canada, as in other countries, recent changes in firearms policy were precipitated by a media frenzy over a multiple murder. In 1989, Marc Lepine went to the University of Montreal, where he killed 14 women before he finally shot himself. The Montreal coroner stated that the type of weapon used was not a significant factor. Nevertheless, Canada twice introduced sweeping changes to its firearms laws, in 1991 and again in 1995. These changes included prohibiting over half of all registered handguns, prohibiting a wide variety of semi-automatic firearms, licensing gun owners and requiring the registration of rifles and shotguns.

But to what effect? Since 1998, when firearms were required to be registered, the homicide rate has increased by more than 3 per cent. Despite the outrageous cost of the registry, the percentage of gun homicides has remained fixed at 27 per cent. The percentage of family homicides involving firearms has remained at 23 per cent.

Canada is not the only country that has introduced such gun laws.

Both the United Kingdom and Australia brought in stringent firearms laws following garish media coverage of shootings in the 1990s.

But despite the effort, police statistics show that the U.K. is enduring a serious crime wave. In contrast to the U.S., where the homicide rate has been falling for more 20 years, the homicide rate in the U.K. has been growing.

Nor did the introduction of stringent gun regulations in Australia make the streets any safer. The country's homicide rate remained basically flat from 1995 through to 2001. And the destruction of the confiscated firearms cost Australian taxpayers the equivalent of $420-million Canadian, with no visible impact on violent crime.

(The costs of the confiscation do not include the costs of bureaucracy, which, as has been shown in Canada, can be considerable.) Would a more thorough firearms ban have been more effective? In the 1970s, both the Republic of Ireland and Jamaica passed legislation to prohibit virtually all firearms. In neither country has the attempt to ban and confiscate firearms reduced the homicide rate.

So shouldn't that $2-billion-and-counting be better spent on things that might actually improve public safety? For example, the country's police budget has been effectively frozen since the 1990s. At the same time, public policy changes have left too many mentally ill people and violent criminals on Canadian streets. Perhaps we would have been better off had the money wasted on the gun registry been invested in better treatment of the mentally ill or longer prison terms for violent offenders.

It is an illusion that further tinkering with our gun laws will protect the public, and it's about time we realized this and spent our resources more wisely.

Gary Mauser is a professor in the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University.

Statement Update: CSSA, NFA, CILA

Canadian Shooting Sports Association
Canadian Institute For Legislative Action
National Firearms Association
Press Statement -- September 15, 2006

All members of the Firearms Community are shocked at the tragedy that occurred yesterday at Dawson College in Montreal. We wish to extend our deep and sincere condolences and best wishes to the innocent victims of this heinous random violence, and to their families.

And while our attention and sympathies should be focused on the victims of this senseless act, there are those who will use it to further their own political agenda and call for increased restrictions on firearms in Canada.

Despite the existence of one of the toughest firearms control systems in the world, specifically introduced to prevent incidents of this type, the simple fact remains: the system failed again.

Enacted in response to the tragic Montreal Massacre, Canada‚s $2 billion system of licensing and registration has been criticized by many sources as being intrusive, expensive and ineffective. The past decade has proven all three of these criticisms to be true.

Additionally, recent events prove that anything, from farm fertilizer to jet aircraft, can be used as a weapon by suicidal people intent on the destruction of innocent lives. Clearly, the time has come to change our focus from the regulation of inanimate objects to the root causes of such destructive behaviour.

Many experts have stated that you cannot legislate against the insane acts of a disturbed mind. Despite the obvious truth in this statement, perpetrators of these offences usually have a history, however obscure, of alienation, resentment and revenge, feelings clearly recognizable to the trained clinician.

It is fortunate that tragedies like this are rare in Canada but that certainly does not give much comfort to the victims and families. Let us concentrate our efforts in finding out how this obviously disturbed person fell through the cracks as opposed to scapegoating the firearms community with more expensive and useless laws.

-30-

For more information, contact:
Tony Bernardo
Executive Director - Canadian Institute for Legislative Action
1-905-571-2150
abernardo343@rogers.com

Larry Whitmore
Executive Director - Canadian Shooting Sports Association
1-888-873-4339
l.whitmore@cdnshootingsports.org

Blair Hagen
Vice President, Communications - National Firearms Association
1-604-736-2711
pathjm@aol.com

NFA, CSSA and CILA issue a statement concerning the shootings today in Montreal

In relation to the shooting incident in a downtown Montreal college today, the National Firearms Association, The Canadian Shooting Sports Association, and the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action have released the following preliminary statement:

"STATEMENT FROM NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION AND CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

A very great tragedy has occurred today in Montreal.

Although the facts of the incident are not yet clear, it appears that an individual with hate in his heart has perpetrated a senseless act of violence against students at Dawson college in Montreal.

Although the firearms issue will be very present in this, our thoughts at this time must be with the victims of this incident and their families. And we all must look deep into our hearts to try and understand just how any individual could commit such a senseless act of violence against his fellow human beings.

This incident is obviously being compared to the murders committed by Marc Lepine at Ecole Polytechnique Montreal in December 1989, which resulted in two pieces of gun control legislation. Bill C-17 from a Progressive Conservative government and Bill C-68 from a Liberal government.

After introducing Bill C68, former Justice Minister Allan Rock was asked if his legislation would have the effect of preventing another incident like the murders at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal from ever happening again.

He responded: "You can't legislate against insanity".

He was right. You can't.

But one thing is quite evident, gun control laws utterly failed to prevent this most recent act of violence. You can't prevent insanity with legislation of any kind.

But our thoughts, now, must be with the victims.

As this situation develops National Firearms Association, Canadian Shooting Sports Association and Canadian Institute for Legislative Action will be advising their memberships and all firearms owners on any situations that might develop because of this.

But now, we must all join the victims, their families and the nation in a period of grief and contemplative observation of this senseless violent act.


Blair Hagen
Vice President, Communications
National Firearms Association

Tony Bernardo
Executive Director
Canadian Institute for Legislative Action"