Globe Editorial: When legal guns are used to kill
Date: Sep 15, 2006 8:14 AM
PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: 2006.09.15
PAGE: A20
SECTION: Editorial
EDITION: Metro
WORD COUNT: 638

————————————————————————
——–

When legal guns are used to kill

————————————————————————
——–

All three guns in the Montreal shooting rampage, including the
semi-automatic weapon wielded to such terrifying effect, were legally
registered to the gunman. That comes as a terrible shock. If Canadians
are permitted to own guns that prove useful to those bent on mass
murder, is the list of tolerated guns too broad? Or is the Canadian
Firearms Centre, which runs the federal gun registry, missing some red
flags when dangerous people apply for licences and gun registration? A
semi-automatic weapon is one that reloads automatically and fires a
bullet for each pull of the trigger. (Fully automatic guns shoot
multiple rounds for each squeeze of the trigger; they are prohibited.)
Hunters are permitted some types of semi-automatic rifles, but only if
the rifles hold no more than five rounds of ammunition. The Montreal
shooter, Kimveer Gill, reportedly used a Beretta CX4 Storm, a carbine –
a gun that is shorter and less powerful than a rifle.

This weapon is designated “restricted” under Canadian law. And whom is
it restricted to? Mostly to sport shooters. The weapon may be legally
obtained and registered if it is to be used in target shooting. There
are different models of this gun. Some may legally hold five cartridges,
others 10. A gun advocate yesterday called the Beretta CX4 Storm “a fun
little gun” and “very accurate” but not an assault weapon. The problem
is how to keep guns meant for shooting clubs out of the hands of
deranged killers.

Jacques Dupuis, Quebec’s Public Security Minister, confirmed yesterday
that Mr. Gill’s weapons were registered in his name. That is highly
unusual. Most guns used in homicides in Canada are not legally
registered. Of those gun killings between 1997 and 2004 in which police
had detailed information on the firearms involved, 84 per cent were not
registered, and 79 per cent of accused persons did not have a valid gun
licence. As for the 20 per cent or so of legal guns used in killings,
Canadians have no idea how many owners slipped through the safety net of
the registry.

They need answers. Were criminal records or mental-health problems
missed because of poor communication? Were statements of gun-club
membership faked? Do authorities use their powers to check up on whether
owners of restricted weapons are storing their guns properly? All those
questions will have to be asked in the case of Mr. Gill.

At least one young person, apart from the shooter, is dead, and of the
score wounded, several are in critical condition. Canadians need to know
how Mr. Gill was able to jump all the hurdles that the registry puts in
place. If the registry is failing to meet its goals, how broad is that
failure? There are 367,000 restricted firearms in the hands of
individuals in Canada. It’s a huge job to oversee them all. Still, it’s
agonizing, after the fact, to discover that a man who was legally
permitted to own restricted weapons published homicidal fantasies on his
website, where he called himself the “Angel of Death.” The RCMP, who are
responsible for the operations of the Canadian Firearms Centre, were not
answering reporters’ questions yesterday — not even straightforward
ones on how the registry works. Ottawa is going to have to do better
than that. After the shootings at Dawson College, we need to know to why
deadly weapons fell legally into the hands of a man bent on murder.