Herald Column: Registry Proponents Do Not Have Moral High Ground

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the recent debate over whether to scrap the gun registry, and is particularly critical of the arguments which were advanced by the pro-registry side:

 

...It is insufficient -- and frankly, irrational -- to simply cite gun-related tragedies and let that stand as an argument for the gun registry.
Yet, through this entire debate, that's exactly what happened.
How often, not just over the past few months but over the past 15 years, have we heard the invocation of the Montreal massacre in selling and now defending the long-gun registry? There is no evidence or logic to suggest that the existence of the registry would have made an iota of difference in that horrendous tragedy.
To then claim the registry -- which would not and could not have stopped Marc Lepine -- is a "monument" to the 14 women he murdered, is to try to link support for the registry to compassion for the victims. In other words, those who would scrap the registry may as well be urinating on the graves of these women.
Once we arrive at that point, we've long surpassed any pretence of rational debate.
It's just as craven -- and even more bizarre -- for registry proponents to invoke more recent tragedies.
The Dawson College shootings, which left one student dead and nearly 20 injured, has been cited repeatedly in this debate. Survivors have been vocal in demanding MPs save the registry.
Yet, gunman Kimveer Gill had legally registered his weapons.
One survivor, though, went so far as to claim the registry "was probably one of the reasons that the killing was limited that day."
However, the killing was "limited" only because two police officers were on the scene for an unrelated reason and responded when they heard gunshots.
It should say something about the weakness of the pro-registry position that it would need to be buttressed by such obvious falsehoods.
The appeal to emotion featured prominently on the day of the fateful vote on the registry last week. Reporters were tipped off that within the Liberal caucus meeting, MP Scott Simms had emotionally discussed his father's suicide -- a tragedy that apparently convinced him to support the registry.
Mind you, Simms's support was already decided for him by his leader's decision to whip the caucus vote.
The obvious point once again is that the registry did not prevent Simms's father from using a long gun to take his own life.
The closest thing to an evidence-based argument from the pro-registry side is the study done by the National Public Health Institute of Quebec. It argues that the murder rate fell faster in the period following the 1998 implementation of Bill C-68, which mandated long-gun registration.
They then conclude that the registry saves an average of 300 lives a year.
There are some obvious flaws in such logic: their "no registry" scenario does not factor in other methods governments might have employed to fight crime.

It also overlooks the fact that between 1991 and 2004, the homicide rate in the U. S fell by 44 per cent as compared with the 36 per cent decline in Canada. Clearly there are factors not exclusive to our country.
There is also the simple fact that the registry didn't come into effect until 2001 and it didn't become mandatory until 2003.
Interestingly, after years of decline, the homicide rate increased by 12 per cent in 2004 and then by another four per cent in 2005. Also, from 2002 to 2008, the rate of firearm homicides increased by 24 per cent. Factor in the fact that 1998 and 1999 saw 30-year lows in the murder rate, and you're left with a much more complicated picture.
But why should we expect anything complicated from the "we're saving lives" crowd?
My sentiments are obviously with those seeking an end to the registry, but there is a legitimate debate to be had. Portraying one side of that debate as having blood on its hands is shameful and has no place in Canadian discourse.