Canada's schizophrenic Conservative government: Drunk drivers vs. "law-abiding" gun owners

Why does it make sense to assume all shotgun and rifle owners are law-abiding citizens, but that everyone behind the wheel of a car is a drunk? Isn’t that the message behind the federal Justice department’s recent proposal to institute random roadside breathalyzer tests?

On one hand, the government, hiding behind the skirts of its latest sock puppet, sends Candice Hoeppner to pontificate: “Irrational government policy had to be challenged…The long-gun registry is a massive Liberal policy failure and it needs to end. It makes no sense to force law-abiding individuals with firearms licences to register their long-guns. It makes no sense to believe the registry will prevent a gun crime from taking place.”

But apparently it makes perfect sense to assume that all drivers are drunk. Memo to Justice Minister Nicholson: if a policy has the Western Standard saying “Harper government wants full-blown police state,” you have a problem on your hands—a “Houston-we-have-a-problem”-sized problem.

Minister Nicholson is said to approve of the random breathalyzer idea, while Mothers against Drunk Drivers Executive Director Andrew Murie does, too (by the way, aren’t there any actual mothers capable of executive directing that organization? Or is this an example of “the best woman for the job” being a man? I’m just asking).

Purchasing a gun must magically confer “law-abiding” status on an individual through some noble alchemy of lethal weapon possession. Meantime, the latest example of small town gun mayhem unfolds on our front pages: the sad murder of Ontario Provincial Police Constable Vu Pham, 37, allegedly by the late 70-year-old Fred Preston, former reeve of the Township of Joly, and lifelong resident of Sundridge ON. Const. Pham was a Vietnamese War survivor and father of three who also spent part of his youth in Sundridge. Current accounts suggest Mr. Preston may have gone off the deep end after his decades-long marriage broke up. Add a gun to the mix and voila: the perfect domestic violence storm. A “domestic violence call from what is reportedly the home of Mr. Preston’s estranged wife in Leadbury” preceded the shooting, according to The National Post, reporting that a man named John Driscoll resides at the home, since put under police guard. (Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has skedaddled!)

Tim Williams, an acquaintance of Mr. Preston, said, "I'm quite stunned at this news, given his personality."

But should anyone really be surprised? Anger and guns make a lethal cocktail.

Roughly 100,000 Canadian women and children annually take refuge in domestic violence shelters. How many of them live in homes with rifles or shotguns, remembering some 11 million such guns are in Canadian hands (and that 90 per cent of those hands are male)? How many Canadian women have been threatened with guns? How many of these guns are owned by “law-abiding” gun owners?

How long does it take to pull a trigger, anyway? That’s the amount of time it takes for a “law-abiding” gun owner to become a law-breaking one.

Here’s how the gun registry helps prevent crimes, including murder (I’m typing slowly so even the dullards among us will understand): knowing who has which guns allows the police to remove them as a preventative measure, should it become necessary. For example, in this case, if Mr. Preston’s estranged wife had been threatened by him and reported this to the police, they could have removed the guns from Mr. Preston’s possession. ALL his guns, which wouldn’t be possible if he hasn’t listed them with the registry.

Why do critics of the long gun registry persistently ignore this simple truth? Enforcing the registry DOES prevent crime. Since its creation, close to 23,000 firearms licenses have been refused or revoked because of just this kind of public safety concern. And it only costs $3 million a year to maintain, despite gun lobby bluster.

For years now this “tough on crime” government has encouraged the flouting of the Firearms Act—still law in this land, despite their efforts to ignore it. They instituted an “amnesty” for those who failed to renew their gun licenses and waived or refunded licensing fees, over $120 million-worth. Far from being “tough on crime,” they actually facilitate law-breaking!

Canada's Supreme Court has ruled, “The registration provisions cannot be severed from the rest of the Act. The licensing provisions require everyone who possesses a gun to be licensed; the registration provisions require all guns to be registered. These portions of the Firearms Act are both tightly linked to Parliament’s goal of promoting safety by reducing the misuse of any and all firearms. Both portions are integral and necessary to the operation of the scheme.”

Const. Pham’s shooting is a tragedy--for his family, his community, for us all, as is the death of Mr. Preston. But just imagine how much more danger our cops will be in when they pull us over to sample our breath if our gun laws are even further eroded.

Countering gun registry disinformation

In the attempt to delegitimize Canada's long gun registry, a concerted disinformation campaign has been mounted by those ideologically opposed to it.

Myth 1: gun death is an urban, gang-related problem. The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians points out nearly 75 per cent of gun deaths are suicides. Here’s the perspective of a small-town doctor and coroner in rural Ontario:

"My own personal experience with gun-related death has mirrored the national statistics. Most are suicides, the great majority have involved long guns and, of course, they live in rural environments. I have never seen a death with a handgun and have never seen a death committed as a criminal act, with one notable exception of a murder as a result of domestic violence. Typically, I am called to a rural property or farm, where some headless corpse lies with blood and brains bathing the hunting rifle or shotgun that lies by the motionless body. As if this image wasn't soul-wrenching enough, I then have to deal with the anguished cries and the shattered lives of the loved ones of the deceased huddled in the family kitchen…Those who have voted to repeal the long gun registry clearly have a sterilized view of gun-related deaths. How else to explain their callous disregard for the health and safety of rural Canadians?"
--Alan Drummond, Perth ON, The Ottawa Citizen, November 9, 2009.

Myth 2: the gun registry does nothing to prevent gun deaths. In the words of a rural psychiatrist in an area of B.C. where guns are prevalent:

"I have invoked the gun registry…to either get someone’s guns removed or prevent them from getting guns because of mental illness. I am sure this has prevented tragedies but, unfortunately, none of those events make headlines…Before the gun registry was available…it was difficult…to have guns removed. There have been some 22,000 licences denied to date, and a recent Ottawa Citizen article reported that the number of firearms surrendered and confiscated…is 8,281 — 74 per cent of which were nonrestricted shotguns and rifles…the reason for these confiscations is usually that the individual has threatened or used violence. So, are we really comfortable with allowing these people to arm themselves by removing the mechanism which allows authorities to locate and remove firearms…?"
--Dr. Barbara Kane, the Guelph Mercury, July 3, 2009.

The long-time psychiatrist also notes gun deaths and injuries are at their lowest levels in over 30 years, that the rate of homicide with rifles and shotguns is half what it was in 1995 (when the long gun registry was introduced), and that gun-related murders of women have fallen by two-thirds. The gun registry may be an inconvenience for hunters, farmers and other gun owners, she says, “but it helps people like me and the police prevent tragedies.”

Myth 3: the long gun registry has cost $2 billion. Two-thirds of the costs opponents attribute to “the Registry” are related to screening and licensing all gun owners, not to the registering of long guns. These costs will remain even if the registry is shot down. Between 1995 and April 2005, net costs for the Canadian Firearms Program were $946.4 million, or about $95 million per year. In 2006, the auditor general found eliminating the long gun portion of the registry would only save a projected $3 million annually. (http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/11/04/gun-registry-vote004.html).

To put this in perspective, not long ago, the federal Government invested $400 million to widen a stretch of highway in New Brunswick where 43 people had died over 5 years. In the same period, guns killed 5,000. In any case, the cost issue is easily solved: make the gun owners pay.

Myth 4: Long guns are not associated with criminal activity. The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians points out that last year, 34 per cent of Canadian gun-related homicides were committed with rifles or shotguns, as were 72 per cent of firearm-related spousal homicides. Between 1995 and 2004, the drop in the use of firearms in spousal homicides was 36 per cent.

We register our cars, boats, trailers, dogs and bikes: why is the registration of long guns such a unique hardship? And how does ignoring the opinions of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Quebec Public Health Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the civic administrations of Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg advance the Conservative government’s devotion to "law and order"? Not to mention their duty to protect Canadian women, children, and of course men, who make up the lion’s share of gun violence victims.