Letter: Victims are not responsible for what criminals do;
Date: Mar 17, 2006 6:43 AM
PUBLICATION: Times & Transcript (Moncton)
DATE: 2006.03.17
PAGE: D10
SECTION: Opinion
BYLINE:
WORD COUNT: 399

————————————————————————
——–

Victims are not responsible for what criminals do;

————————————————————————
——–

To The Editor:

Regarding Wednesday’s story “Stolen guns haunt collector,” Ron
Robichaud’s reaction to the theft of his legally owned firearms displays
some of the typical reactions of a victim of crime.

If someone had their car stolen and it was subsequently used by the
thief in a manner that resulted in the death of an innocent, the owner
would likewise be prone to feelings of guilt. At the same time a victim
counsellor, in the case of a rape victim for example, would be quick to
advise the client that they are not to blame. Their advice to Mr.
Robichaud should be the same.

In this case the advice should be to go ahead and collect. A victim of a
rape is not responsible for that rape, a car owner for car theft, or a
gun owner for a gun theft.

Further victimizing himself Mr. Robichaud expresses support for the
doomed gun registry. He opines that the gun registry has, “done a lot of
good” but only offers up safe storage as evidence. As a collector one
would think Mr. Robichaud would be aware that safe storage laws predated
the registry. As a victim Mr. Robichaud would be served by revisiting
his erroneous position.

Miramichi Police Force Detective Brian Cummings likewise, “believes in
the value of the registry” while acknowledging it is of no value in Mr.
Robichaud’s case. “Once those things are on the street, you’ve lost
control,” says Cummings.

Mr. Cummings goes on to say, in defending the registry, if police are
called to a domestic dispute, they can check the registry to see if
there are any guns in the home. Mr. Cummings, abandoning logic, fails to
see that the guns “you’ve lost control” of, may be illegally possessed
by the party or parties in the next domestic dispute he is called to.

Most police exercising prudent logic would treat every domestic dispute
and any other potentially dangerous situation as if a weapon of any kind
might be available.

Similar thefts in Ontario have lead to calls for the ban of private
ownership of handguns. Blaming the victim, in regard to firearms
ownership, appears to be in vogue.

The whole point of the above, is that criminals do not register their
firearms and legitimate firearms owners are not responsible for the
actions of those criminals. That is why the registry will never work.

The 21 month sentence, of which only a portion will be served, reflects
little on Nick O’Hearn’s responsibility for the subsequent misuse of Mr.
Robichaud’s property.

Mr. Robichaud needs to get over his misplaced guilt and recognize that
the gun registry is focused on the wrong people.

The registry suggests that by closely monitoring the law abiding you can
control criminals, but that is not the case.

Understanding that will help Mr. Robichaud come to grips with his
victimization.

Al Muir,
Stellarton, N.S.