--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimveer Gill's weapons were registered, but it did not stop him from killing, says Rondi Adamson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to admit, I've been wrong about the gun registry in the past. I always thought that it should be scrapped, for the simple reason that criminals don't obey the law.

It turns out, however, that the registry is useless for another reason. Some criminals do obey the law, dutifully registering their guns before using them to slaughter people.

On Wednesday, at Montreal's Dawson College, Kimveer Gill used three apparently legally registered firearms to kill (as of this writing) one person, and injure and traumatize many others.

In one sense, at least, he was law-abiding. But given what he was able and willing to do with his registered weapons, how can it be argued that the registry is anything but a misuse of funds, time and energy?

Even had Gill's weapons not been registered, what difference would that make? It isn't paperwork that will prevent the kind of violent crime Gill committed. That kind of crime can probably never be completely prevented.

Mandatory sentencing, tougher bail and parole legislation, while laudatory initiatives in terms of other crimes, would not have stopped Gill.

He had no police record. Hiring more police officers, while also a good idea, would most likely not have stopped him.

And even sounding the alarm at the sight of his nihilistic web profile might not have helped.

Were we to scrutinize every young male who posts similar ramblings (an impossibility), there would be few police left for anything else. Not to mention the crucial matter of freedom of expression, be that "expression" disturbing or not. All of this is tragic, but no less true for that.

The registry of long guns, and more talk of gun control in general, came about, in part, as a reaction to the 1989 Montreal massacre.

But, if anything, one could argue that the 1989 tragedy and Wednesday's events, would more likely have been stopped earlier on, if not prevented, by supporting the right to bear arms.

Had all, or many, students and faculty at L'Ecole Polytechnique, or Dawson College, been armed, Marc Lepine and Kimveer Gill would have been taken out quickly.

I'm not suggesting Canada should be like Tombstone, Arizona. I'm arguing that it is fatuous to insist these rampage killings would be stopped by stricter gun laws.

We should, after incidents such as this, ask questions. We should look for solutions, or at least improvements.

But the inevitable political manipulations that take place in the aftermath of the Lepines and the Gills are dismaying.

The reflexive reaction on both sides - the latte-drinking, pro-gun control urbanites, vs. what the latter view as assorted loners, rubes and crazies, is not productive.

But as a latte-drinking urbanite, who has no interest in owning a gun of any kind, I see no societal benefit to making rubes, crazies, or anyone else, register theirs.

Rondi Adamson is a Toronto-based writer.
rondi.adamson@gmail.com