The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50813
letters to the editor Two sides to the gun debate the way to deal with airplane hijacking was to give every passen- ger a gun. If it is frightening to think of passengers on a crowded airplane engaged in a gunfight, then so it should be if teachers and students were armed as Levant proposes. I can cite several studies that show the high rate of gun own- T ership in the United States is a major cause of its much higher homicide rates. For instance, one study showed states with a high prevalence of gun ownership have a homicide-by-firearm rate that is more than double that in states with a lower preva- lence. Similarly, another found that the suicide rate by firearms in states with high rates of gun ownership was double that of states with low rates of ownership. Even these studies may un- derestimate the problem with gun ownership, since another study found the risk of death by suicide is five times higher and the risk of homicide three times higher in homes with firearms. The sad reality of gun ownership in homes is much higher homicide and suicide rates. In fact, homicide rates overall would be comparable between the United States and Canada were it not for their much higher gun ownership (hence, gun homi- cide) rate. Add to that the increased likelihood of accidents and you have a very lethal situation indeed. It is truly alarming that anyone could think that arming teachers and students would be a good idea. Preventing those with violent tendencies and/or mental health issues from having firearms in the first place is a far better and more effective way to proceed. I guess Mr. Levant likes to be identified with Archie Bunker. TIM QUIGLEY Professor of law University of Saskatchewan In articulating his support for gun-toting teachers, Ezra Le- vant asserts that being "gun free" invites violent crime by "lone gunmen." That may be true if angry, depressed, and criminally minded people are born with a firearm in hand. Psychology teaches that most people want to be heard and achieve signifi- cance. Pointing a gun may very well be the quickest way for any person to achieve both ends at once. Where there's a will, there may be a way. But my question is, should there be a gun too? Mr. Levant asserts that the presence and carrying of firearms by potential victims should deter would-be criminals. If that were true, criminals would not perpetrate crimes in public ven- ues with high levels of surveillance and police patrolling. By Mr. Levant's logic, the Dec. 26, 2005, Toronto shooting should never have happened. Police officers, equipped with firearms, were he article, "Gun free = vulnerable," by Ezra Levant in your October edition reminds me of an old episode of All in the Family in which Archie Bunker suggested that on patrol. Yet, up to 15 people may have been involved in the shooting that killed Jane Creba and injured six others. Contrary to popular belief, guns are not the common thread in violent crime. In 2007, 406 of the 594 homicides in Canada did not involve firearms. The number of gun-related U.S. homicides in 2007 is 5.9 times greater than in Canada (per 100,000 people). In a nationally representative study, the Harvard Injury Con- trol Research Center found homicide rates are higher in states where more households have guns. Even suicide rates in states with high rates of gun ownership more than double that in states with low gun ownership. Are people in some jurisdictions more suicidal than others? Or, are suicide attempts in jurisdictions with more guns likely to produce more completed suicides? Are we to believe that making schools into "gun zones" will solve the problem? The more a jurisdiction looks like an ar- moury, the greater the number of gun-related murders. Period. Why would anyone think — in the era of École Polytechnique, Dawson College, and Columbine High School — that the pic- ture would be different in a school? RYAN TESCHNER Toronto I am compelled to write to express my agreement and sup- port of Ezra Levant's comments concerning Canadian gun laws. I am a law-abiding, registered gun owner (most of which guns are restricted weapons, such as semi-automatic handguns and short-barrelled rifles) who never hunts, but uses his weap- ons for sport and target shooting only. I regularly travel to the U.S. on business and recognize that many states allow their citizens to carry firearms pursuant to concealed carry permit laws. I understand that most such indi- viduals carry their weapons responsibly and in a huge majority of cases, serious crimes have been averted or aborted due to re- sponsible armed citizens being on the scene, invariably well in advance of the police authorities. With our country's growing population and the attendant growing crime problem, I am hopeful that one day, as Canadi- ans, we will be permitted to protect ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens in the same responsible way many American jurisdictions do. It is articles and opinions such as those of Mr. Levant which may light the way in that direction. As I expect others may not agree with him, I wanted to let him and your readership know that there are many reasonable and responsi- ble Canadians who very much support his views in this regard. ALAN S. RUDAKOFF Macleod Dixon LLP Calgary Canadian Lawyer welcomes letters to the editor but reserves the right to edit for space, taste, and libel considerations. Please send letters to gcohen@clbmedia.ca and include your full contact information. 6 JANU AR Y 2009 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com