by Nat Bowen

On December 6, 1989, Marc Lepine walked into l'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal wielding an assault rifle. He held a classroom full of bright and aspiring young engineering students at gunpoint, separated the women from the men, aimed at the women, and opened fire.

After shooting for a number of minutes, Lepine turned the gun on himself and ended his own life. His victims: 14 young women who he believed had taken his rightful place in the School of Engineering. Fourteen young women who were well on their way to leading important and fulfilling lives were blown to pieces by the gun of an angst-ridden person. The massacre at l'Ecole Polytechnique, and other needless tragedies have prompted concerned Canadians to ask themselves whether or not they want to live in a society with guns. The federal government has responded to this concern by putting into effect a piece of legislation, Bill C-68, which will require that more than seven million guns across Canada be registered.

For years, the pros and cons of a Canada-wide gun control policy have been debated by various lobby groups and political parties. Proponents of gun control argue that if we wish to live in a truly safe society, lower crime rates and avoid tragic accidents, we must take guns out of the hands of the citizens. Opponents of gun control argue that stringent gun control regulations are unnecessary, unfair and invasive. This debate was brought to a boil over the Liberal Government's controversial decision to pass Bill C-68.

Obviously, there is more at stake here than whether or not Canadians want to live in a society without crime or fear. If the issue was that simple, there would be no debate. The real issue centres on the question of whether the implementation of a gun control policy will really solve any problems at all. Many people accept as truth the old slogan of the American National Rifle Association: "guns don't kill people, people do." They argue that guns cannot be blamed for the actions of human beings. Curiously, proponents of this "punish the person, not the gun" theory, are unwilling to take the logical step of removing guns from the hands of those who would abuse them. If people want to live in a society where they do not have to worry about being shot on the way to the grocery store, is it not a logical first step to take the guns away? Though Canada is fortunate enough to be a country where crime, especially crime involving guns, has not yet reached the epidemic proportions it has reached in many major U.S. cities, there is still cause for concern. Gun control is a positive means of acting on that concern.

The argument of many advocates is that by focusing on guns, the government is missing the mark on the best route to preventative crime control. Why focus on guns when every day violent crimes are committed using other weapons? The answer is simple. Guns are a quick and convenient medium through which people can act out their aggression. In a moment of confusion and irrationality, it is dangerously simple to pull a trigger and end a life. That is why the implementation of a gun control policy would be an effective route to crime prevention. If guns are not present when people lose their capacity to reason, it is possible that irrational people will be prevented from killing.

There are many who believe that gun control does not invariably equal crime control because the people who are targeted by such policies are exactly the ones who will ignore them.

Opponents of gun control believe, that even after legislation, those determined to do wrong will find a way to secure a gun. The black market weapons trade will continue because no such policy will be effective in routing it, because gun control policies target the guns rather than the people who misuse them. However, this argument does not take into consideration the fact that many crimes involve firearms owned by previously law abiding citizens. So would it not make sense as an effective step to crime prevention to make these weapons harder to come by and easier to trace? The criminal element in society is not just a secret band of thieves and murderers, hiding in a forest outside of town. Evil is not apart from us, it is a part of us; for this reason, it is necessary that guns not be around when humans¹ anger overtakes them.

What is the alternative to gun control? Take a look at our neighbours to the south. Every year, they suffer countless tragedies involving firearms. Then look at a country like Britain, which through imposing stringent gun control regulations on its people, has enjoyed a significant reduction in crime involving firearms. There is no reason to assume that by imposing similar policies, Canada cannot achieve a similar result. Simply put: if firearms are made less accessible, then it is not likely that they will fall into the wrong hands. Though it is true that gun control legislation will mean that many law abiding gun owners will pay the price for the negligent actions of a few, the legislation must be universal. Only a Canada-wide imposition of gun control policy, where only a very few people are exempted, will be effective. It is sad that people who enjoy firearms on the strictly recreational level will have to surrender their own personal hobby or passion in order to make this country a safer place, but it is necessary if gun control is to be effective.

In closing, it seems appropriate to consider the alternative to a country in which guns are not readily accessible and responsible ownership is encouraged. In the past few years, the world has witnessed three shootings in the United States in which disgruntled students got their hands on guns and brought them to school to get revenge. It is doubtful that any of these incidents would have happened had the American government taken a tougher stance on gun control. This is a reality that the Americans will have to deal with since it is written in the Bill of Rights that Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms. This originally meant the right to bear arms against outside aggressors, but American opponents of gun control have come to use it as a justification for gun ownership by civilians. Our constitution contains no such provision, not even one which could be misconstrued to support the anti-gun control case. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians are not given the right to bear arms, so it would be erroneous to argue the case against gun control on a constitutional basis. Going further, by imposing gun control policies, the Canadian government is actually upholding the principles of the Charter. The first legal right of the Charter states that "everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and has the right not to be deprived thereof," so by imposing these policies and helping to ensure the security of the person, the government will be promoting the constitutional rights of its citizens.