Dangerous applicants hard to spot

Montreal Gazette (Canada) ^ | 10/23/06 | Andy Riga

[kiriath_jearim]

The shooting rampage at Dawson College last month refocused the gun-control debate. Today's report is the third in a five-part series Guns: a question of control.

*** As Kimveer Gill and Dragolub Tzokovitch have shown in recent weeks, little stands between a mentally unstable person and perfectly legal semi-automatic handguns and rifles.

To get a licence to buy such restricted firearms, all a deranged person has to do is answer No to gun-licence application questions about suicide attempts, alcohol addiction, divorce, job loss, bankruptcy and calls to police about violent behaviour.

Two references must vouch for the application's accuracy - but there is little to stop a crazed person from choosing people who don't know about, or turn a blind eye to, his or her problems.

They must also take a safety course and belong to a gun club.

Both Gill and Tzokovitch passed the checks and had licences for their restricted guns.

Gill, who posted violent, suicidal messages on the Internet, killed Anastasia De Sousa and left 20 others injured at Dawson College. Police suspect Tzok-ovitch, a psychologist suffering from depression, shot and killed his wife and two daughters in Beaconsfield. Both committed suicide.

The shootings sparked a societal debate, raising questions about gun licensing. Should psychological testing of applicants be imposed? Should psychologists meet each face to face before licences are handed out?

"Is it too easy to get a licence? Well, we know that an individual like Gill was able to get a licence to own a restricted firearm," said Universite de Montreal law professor Louise Viau, who was on a federal advisory committee that looked at tightening gun-control laws after the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique massacre.

Today's gun laws are more stringent than they were when Marc Lepine legally bought his semi-automatic rifle, she said.

[BenLurkin]

Police state mentality.

[DPMD]

Divorce? Job loss? Bankruptcy? These are the only questions on the firearms application form? What about these:
What books do you read?
What thoughts do you have?
What political party do you support?
Who will you be voting for next election?
Do you plan to shoot anyone on Canada's "Approved
Human Targets List?" (Conservatives,
Christians, for example)
If no, why not?
And, may we count on you for support of yet higher
and higher taxes?
Now THAT's a firearms application worthy of being Canadian.

[CountryBumpkin]

As Kimveer Gill and Dragolub Tzokovitch have shown in recent weeks, little stands between a mentally unstable person and perfectly legal semi-automatic handguns and rifles.

Sadly, that might be true in the few extreme cases that are grossly over-reported and used as Communist "ammunition" against a free society. However, in a well-armed polite society, an almost unlimited arsenal stands in the way of an armed mentally unstable person and his/her victims.

[goldstategop]

Unless you want to ban gun ownership outright, in a free society, there's always the chance a mentally unbalanced person might obtain a gun. My rejoinder to banning gun ownership is that if we're prepared to trade our freedom for temporary safety, no one is going to remain free.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[CountryBumpkin]

Amen!