Alphecca: Montreal Shooter and Gun Control

September 14, 2006

Montreal Shooter and Gun Control

As I write this at about 7:30 in the morning there is precious little information coming from Canadian authorities about the 25-year-old mutant who committed this horrible, cowardly act. They know who he is and have searched his apartment but they aren't revealing anything yet. No name, no motive; nothing.

No doubt, in days to come, we'll hear about his abusive upbringing or his loner status or bouts of depression. It won't be the shooter's fault; the blame will be placed on the firearm used. Just one problem with that. Canada has pretty strict gun control. Already, though, some there are calling for more. From the Canadian Press:

...The latest incident comes with the Conservative government poised to debate legislation this fall that would repeal the federal long-gun registry, in effect undoing some of the moves made by Ottawa in the wake of the Lepine slayings in 1989.

Events should dictate a different course, said Wendy Cukier, a Ryerson University professor who heads the Coalition for Gun Control.

"Every time there's a tragedy you have to ask 'How did this happen, where did the gun come from, was there something that could have been done?' It's evidence that we can do better."

[...]

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, whose party firmly supports gun control, insisted that despite its financial and administrative problems, the long-gun registry is needed.

Others may argue that tragedies will occur no matter what the law, but Duceppe was having none of that.

"That logic doesn't apply. Otherwise we'll say well, there's a lot of cars being stolen so why don't we stop registering cars?"

The purpose of car registration is to return the car to the rightful owner. Police never return stolen guns used in crimes to their rightful owners. (Actually, here in the U.S. at least, car registration started in 1906 and was simply a scheme to tax those playthings of the wealthy.)

Secondly, while there might be a lot of stolen cars, mass shootings in Canada (actually, even here in the U.S.) are extremely rare events. We only think they're plentiful because of the media coverage they receive.

The fact remains that for now, Canada still has it's long-gun registry, has an "assault weapons" ban, has all sorts of storage requirements, and so on yet here we see a brain-damaged mutant committing mayhem with a rifle.

There's more in an article from Canada.com:

Both sides are expected to use the shootings to advance their cause, with registry supporters saying the shootings show we need to control guns, and opponents countering that Canada's laws do not work.

''We've got potentially a vote coming in the fall, and this will add some more fuel to the debate on both sides of the arguments,'' NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said. ''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.''

[...]

Wendy Cukier,[Again! She sure gets face time in the press. --ed.] spokeswoman for the Coalition for Gun Control, said it's ''absurd'' to suggest that dismantling the gun registry and thus making it easier for people to get guns will make Canada safer.

''No law can prevent every tragedy but we know that the evidence is very clear where you have stronger laws tragedies like this happen less frequently,'' she said.

What evidence is that, Wendy? England bans almost all gun ownership and their violent crime is skyrocketing. Washington DC bans guns and they're in a "crime emergency".

Criminals don't obey laws. Any of them. Gun control only punishes the law abiding, it does not control the lawless.

Clearly this shooter was insane. There is no difference between him and a muslim murderer detonating a strapped-on bomb in the middle-east and targeting innocent civilians. No law in the world will stop him.

Too bad one of the teachers in that school wasn't armed with a handgun.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at September 14, 2006 08:05 AM

Comments

From my little missive on this subject:

The truly sad part of this story is that even if the Province of Quebec had enacted Vermont-style CCW laws, it's likely (as in 99.9999% likely), given the environment where this incident took place, that an overwhelming number of people there would have followed the advice spelled out in the Self Defense for Liberals Handbook to the letter, and CHOSEN to remain unarmed...FOR THE CHILDREN.

But, hey, at least they would have had the opportunity, as a free people, to make that personal choice on their own terms. Imagine that, a world where the government has no say in how you choose to use AND PROTECT your body! Now, THAT would be "progressive". What say you, Senator Barrios? Mayor Menino?

Surely, we can get the National Organization for Women behind us as we try to loosen the restrictions on women's ability to protect their uteruses from being perforated by psychotic gunmen. Right?

Yeah...didn't think so.

Posted by: Bruce at September 14, 2006 08:57 AM

Tin-foil hat time.
Is it me or does it seem that incidents like this begin happening every time discussions regarding additional gun control legislation start coming around?

Posted by: emdfl at September 14, 2006 10:16 AM

"Too bad one of the teachers in that school wasn't armed with a handgun."

I wish Wayne LaPierre agreed with you on that.

Unfortunately, NRA's position is: "[W]e believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."

Posted by: David Codrea at September 14, 2006 10:35 AM

"Criminals don't obey laws. Any of them. Gun control only punishes the law abiding, it does not control the lawless."

I can't understand why people don't get this simple concept. This extends to other areas beyond gun control laws, too. People just don't get that you can't stop criminals, who are already breaking existing laws, by creating more laws.

Posted by: charity at September 14, 2006 12:12 PM

Some more info:

The shooter, Kimveer Gill, a Canadian apparently of East Indian extraction, was a licenced gun owner, and the three firearms that he had with him were legally purchased and registered with the State. The machinegun/SWAT-style/combat rifle he owned was a Beretta CX4 Storm in 9mm; he had a semi-automatic pistol of unknown make (reported to be a .45 of some sort), and a 12ga shotgun.

The CX4 is classified as a "restricted firearm", because it has a barrel length under 16 inches (part of the legal definition of such), as would be the pistol. Canadian law requires us to obtain the permission of the State, in the form of an "Authorization to Transport", to take restricted firearms from our homes to a State-approved shooting range, and then back again, by the most direct route possible. We are legally not permitted to possess restricted firearms at any other place but our residence, or a range, a gunsmith's, or a gun show for sale. Some poor schmoe was recently charged for not taking his restricted firearms to and from his residence by the most direct route possible.

When being transported, restricted firearms must be unloaded, disabled with a trigger or other kind of locking device, and locked inside a case that cannot be readily broken open or into. They must be locked in the trunk if you have one, or otherwise kept out of sight of the general public.

When not in active use, all firearms are required to be placed "in storage", again, unloaded, disabled with a locking device, and locked in a case, cabinet, room or vault that cannot be readily broken open or into, and must be stored separately from any ammunition.

Any violation of these laws or regulations can result in a Criminal charge of "Careless Storage/Transportation/Handling/Etc", which has a penalty of a term in prison of up to a maximum of five years.

Of course, as has already been pointed out, making something "more illegal" has no effect on those intent on committing a criminal act to begin with.

Posted by: Nimrod45 at September 15, 2006 01:02 AM

Others may argue that tragedies will occur no matter what the law, but Duceppe was having none of that. "That logic doesn't apply. Otherwise we'll say well, there's a lot of cars being stolen so why don't we stop registering cars?"

So registering cars stops cars from being stolen? If that was the case, wouldn't car theft be nonexistent?

Posted by: CAshane at September 15, 2006 02:27 PM

Mass shootings don't happen because a man has a gun, they happen because only ONE man has a gun.

Posted by: Billll at September 15, 2006 08:42 PM

Note: Comments close down on posts after seven days and then
the comment input form disappears.

Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that.

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...

Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah.
See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips.

Alphecca

Check it out: My group sci-fi blog novel: Colony: Alchibah

September 14, 2006

Montreal Shooter and Gun Control

By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...

Check it out:

My group sci-fi blog novel:

Colony: Alchibah