Regarding the gun registry editorial and Mr. Richardson’s letter in the Sept. 15 Gazette, both the editorial and letter’s main point is that police should continue to have the "tool" known as the long-gun registry at their disposal as a means to keep the public safe and cited cost of operating it as not enough of an argument to justify it being repealed.
The writers even provided some scenarios where the registry may be helpful, particularly during domestic disputes and described how simple it makes confiscating weapons from offenders.
I find this argument minimizes the concern many people have of the current state of public safety and how ineffective we as voters have made the increasingly difficult job of police officers. Consider the fact that as voters we continue to attend the polls at increasingly lower rates. This complacency has deteriorated our relationship with government and sent a message that little or no change is fine by the public. Now we stand by as political parties dictate to their ridings what is good. Now that’s representation by population isn’t it?
What does it matter if there are operating costs? After all if the police chiefs say the registry is good, then it must be. Here’s a scenario to think about. At the annual Chiefs of Police conference, regional crime stats are displayed and the best numbers admired. Once it is determined who the best domestic dispute crime manager is, does everyone pack up and go home because the gun registry has saved the day? Or do they discuss the matters of everyday policing, what is working well what isn’t and current trends? Why does our government not give them the good tools, such as increased staffing levels, accountable judiciaries and laws that can be enforced? Because as public we "help" by letting past government decide for us where the money should be used.
I can see myself as a police officer attending a call, how comforting it must be to have a list of names, addresses and firearms on my dashboard. Certainly the time it takes to access the system and decipher if the information is even current or valid and then identify the level of risk I am facing will improve officer effectiveness. Hmmm, let’s see, if Uncle Pete still has that shotgun, is it a threat if Aunt Mabel disposed of the shells 20 years ago? Or would it be more appropriate to approach all scenes with the assumption a loaded firearm is on site? Maybe having another officer available would help too. And knowing if a suspect is apprehended, they will not return to the street before the report paper work is completed would help bolster confidence. I am sure everyone agrees swift convictions and stiffer sentences to offenders goes a lot farther than a list of possible deviant farmers and duck hunters.
I choose to help officers and my fellow neighbour by exercising my vote, putting pen to paper to different levels of government and educating myself about crime and firearms. Hopefully soon this country will get tired of seeing victims of crime suffer and violent criminals allowed more and more rights. I guess as a statistic, it’s all right if crime goes on in our communities and only when our names are in the column next to the offence will it become an issue of greater importance, right? For now this registry debate is a nice controversial topic we can socialize about — no harm done.
Darren Giacobbo, St. Albert
