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

Guns, sense and nonsense: Instead of gun registries, try programs that might stop people from shooting each other and themselves

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

Few issues in recent years have created more emotion and generated more polarized newsprint in this country than the issue of gun control, in particular restrictions introduced after the L'Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal in 1991.

The present Conservative government is moving in a different direction and vows to scrap the notorious long-gun registry, generating a storm of criticism in light of the recent tragedy at Dawson College in Montreal; but much of this controversy results from public confusion over gun control and the registry. Gun control involves a legislative scheme that restricts a citizen's right, or ability, to own firearms; and Canada has had very strict laws and regulations in this regard dating back to the end of the nineteenth century. You can't just skip down to the 7-Eleven and pick up a rifle and box of ammo with the milk, and if you want to own a handgun there are a ton of restrictions (dating back to 1934).

This, of course, is a good thing; we call it being civilized and we are a pretty sensible nation in that regard.

The recent long-gun registry, however, is no more than a list, with no clear purpose other than some fuzzy notion that if we know where most of the guns are bad things are less likely to happen. It is a key component of regulations introduced in a reflexive effort to prevent, among other things, a repeat of the first Montreal tragedy. It comes with a mind-warping price tag; but can it curb random attacks on vulnerable groups by deranged men?

The recent Dawson College killer, Kimveer Gill, was strangely obedient to that area of the law where it mattered least; he actually passed the tests and registered his guns. Yet, his act of butchery is cited as an endorsement for the very scheme that has failed so miserably.

A few facts are revealing when considering some of the arguments advanced in support of the registry. About 80 per cent of all gun-related deaths are suicides and the pro-registry theory seems to be that people who register a gun are less likely to shoot themselves with it (whereas an unregistered weapon is an open invitation to do just that). Since the registry was introduced in 1998 there has in fact been a slight decrease in the number of gun-related suicides. But the actual suicide rate hasn't changed (death by hanging in fact has gone up). About 3,600 people kill themselves every year in this country and this number was strangely stable between 1993 and 2002. You can reduce the availability of one means of self-destruction, but suicide, it seems, is not a random act.

The remaining 20 per cent of gun deaths are caused by violent crime and accidents. Again the pre-1998 pattern appears undisturbed. Homicide has been steadily declining in this county for years, despite increased gang warfare. This trend started well before firearms legislation was amended and criminologists relate it to simple demographics and an aging population. Old thugs apparently are less prone to violence.

Accidents, activity related (hunting) and unsafe storage (a loaded gun left unattended) account for a small number of deaths; in 2002, 31 people were killed. However, this figure should be considered in the context of other accidental fatalities. For instance, 3,129 people died in traffic accidents, 1,769 from falls and 26 children under the age of 10 drowned.

The questions to be asked are what difference can a registry make to reduce gun-related deaths and how does the cost of it compare to the expense of other programs that might really save or improve the quality of peoples' lives?

Lots of activities come with an element of risk. Recreational driving probably causes more death than anything. We can't eliminate all risk just as we will likely never control every deranged maniac. The latter will always find a way to create mayhem (remember Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma federal building bombing).

It is perhaps trite, and somewhat irritating to hear "guns don't kill people, people do" -- but this simplistic dictum has a point. Would anyone seriously argue that cars kill people, and not the distracted driver or selfish drunk at the wheel? And what effect does licencing have on traffic fatalities?

The important question is to figure out how to use limited resources to the best effect, and when public health and safety are issues how should the government invest to get the best return? Rather than spending more than $1 billion registering guns, what about initiating social programs for disaffected youth, identifying anti-social behaviour and groups or perhaps employing more school counsellors? Maybe more police and parole officers might work better.

There are a host of options to suit every political taste and with so much money at stake, is there not a better way to spend it?

John Burgoyne practises law at Macaulay McColl in Vancouver.