”Post mortem examinations by the Edmonton Medical Examiner have determined that all four deceased died as a result of gunshot injuries. It has been determined that three of the deceased sustained multiple firearm related injuries while the fourth succumbed from what appears to be a single, fatal, self-inflicted injury. Investigators remain confident that the person responsible for all four deaths is among the four deceased. In consultation with the Medical Examiner this is now being classified as a triple murder-suicide.”  (RCMP “K” Division Media and Communications Services news release, July 29^th, 2009)

On July 26^th, Slave Lake police received a call suggesting that a homicide had taken place on a property located in rural Alberta.  Upon responding to the call, the RCMP Emergency Response Team entered the property and found four deceased persons.

The RCMP, through their investigation and with help from the Serious Crimes Unit, concluded that Ian Jeffrey Paget, 58, shot dead his estranged wife, his daughter, and his nine year old granddaughter.  After shooting his family members to death, he turned the gun on himself, committing suicide.    

This tragic story highlights one of the arguments I have made repeatedly during my time as a Peace Fellow with the Advocacy Project: guns are more lethal than any other type of weapon.

Firearms are designed to kill, and are able to eliminate many people instantly.  According to Statistic Canada’s most recent data, between 1961 and 2003, firearms were the weapon of choice in the majority of homicide-suicides in Canada.

A firearm in the home increases the risk of death at the hands of a violent perpetrator; Ian Jeffrey Paget was able to eliminate his entire family, including himself, in a matter of seconds. 

DV Logo

Statistics Canada found that three-quarters of all homicide-suicides in Canada between 1961 and 2003 involved family members, and over half of these cases were committed by male spouses or ex-spouses; ninety-seven percent of the victims were female.

According to a report released by the Alberta “K” RCMP Division in January (the same division to investigate the Paget homicide-suicide), fifty-three homicides were investigated by their Serious Crimes Unit in 2008.  Of these fifty-three homicides, fourteen (or twenty-six percent) were the result of domestic violence and six involved intimate partner relationships.  Additionally, fifteen of the fifty-three homicides were committed with a firearm, accounting for over a quarter of the total.

In 2006 (a report was not submitted for 2007), twelve of thirty-six homicides (thirty-three percent) resulted from domestic violence, and firearms contributed to twelve (thirty-three percent) of the total number of homicides.  In 2005, thirty-one of the forty-nine homicides (sixty-three percent) investigated were attributed to domestic violence, and eleven of the forty-nine homicides were a result of firearms (twenty-two percent).

These statistics illustrate the need for gun control not only to reduce and prevent domestic violence, but violence in general.  Many weapons are used to domestically abuse and assault people, but none are more lethal than firearms.

This week I was lucky enough to meet and talk with Detective Rick Hawes of the Peel Regional Police in Ontario.  Detective Hawes has been a police officer since 1978 and for the last four and a half years, has been the Coordinator for the Family Violence Unit.

As part of his position, Detective Hawes holds multi-day classroom seminars for officers on how to properly handle domestic dispute calls, as they are much different from other situations to which officers respond. 

Talking with Detective Hawes solidified for me many of the things I have learned and heard during my weeks in Canada.  For example, knowledge of a firearm in the home makes it more difficult for a victim of domestic abuse to seek help and leave their abuser, as firearms act as tools of intimidation and work to induce fear.  In fact, on the question form victims are asked to complete when officers respond to a domestic call, six out of the twenty-eight questions are related to firearms and licensure.

In addition, exiting an abusive relationship is not as simple as just making the decision to leave and leaving.  Often times, there are elements involved in abusive relationships that prevent victims from seeking help, such as children, housing, or financial dependency. 

When I asked Detective Hawes about the registry included in Canada’s Firearms Act, he asserted that it is helpful in eliminating the guessing game of whether or not households to which officers respond have firearms. 

Although cautious officers responding to calls never assume that a home is free of firearms even if the registry has nothing on record (especially with the rise of unregistered firearms by once legal owners), Detective Hawes views the registry as a very useful safety tool for both officers and victims.  The only substantial argument Detective Hawes has heard against the Firearms Act relates to cost and according to him, it is hard to put a price on public safety.

Detective Hawes also views the Firearms Act as an aide to the Justice of Peace throughout the court process against perpetrators of domestic abuse.  During the bail hearing, if it is revealed through the registry that more firearms are registered to the perpetrator than officers were able to seize, the perpetrator will be held until they are all accounted for.  

Additionally, during the court process, the firearms license of a perpetrator is seized and put on review, prohibiting the individual from owning or acquiring any type of firearm.  Clearly, these measures act to safeguard victims from further violence through the use of a firearm.

I stated above that I was lucky enough to spend time talking with Detective Hawes; this is because during my time in Canada, I have not met anyone more dedicated to tackling the issue of family violence.  Not only does Detective Hawes work with officers to help them understand the complexities of domestic abuse, but he also works with the community to help prevent abuse from ever taking place, and prioritizes victim safety.  I am very grateful to the time Detective Hawes was willing to spend with me, and find his commitment to prevent and end domestic abuse admirable.   

Dr. Barbara Kane has been a psychiatrist in Prince George, British Columbia for nineteen years.  She is one of only eight mental health professionals in town, which is home to 75,000 residents.  In an earlier entry, I featured a letter by Dr. Kane that was published in the Guelph Mercury newspaper.  This week, she was kind enough to sit down with me to share her views on Canada’s Firearms Act and the registry requirements contained within it. 

Dr. Kane became interested in firearms legislation prior to the passage and implementation of Canada’s Firearms Act, when she experienced firsthand just how difficult it was to remove firearms from the hands of individuals either dangerous to themselves or to others. 

During our interview, Dr. Kane stated that often times in the field of mental health, situations escalate swiftly, and quick actions are necessary in order to control the circumstances.  Thus, in a 1993 article published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Kane made the argument that physicians should have more of a voice in whether or not their patients are stable enough to own firearms. 

Dr. Kane made this argument because she found that prior to the registry, when she contacted law enforcement officials with concerns about the safety of one of her patients (or that of their friends and family as a result of the patient), they were unsure of what actions to take and had no way of telling whether the person of concern owned any firearms.

Since the implementation of the registry, however, when a concerned physician contacts law enforcement, they can easily determine whether an unstable individual has a firearm registered to them, and can act quickly to take it away, if necessary.  In Dr. Kane’s opinion, the registry has been very useful in aiding mental health professionals and the police in removing firearms from the hands of dangerous individuals.    

Of course critics of the registry will point out that it only contains records of legally registered firearms and not those that may have been obtained illegally.  This is true; however, working to save as many lives as possible is better than working to save none at all. 

In addition, the registry is important in helping law enforcement trace the origins of firearms that may have been acquired illegally, according to Dr. Kane.  During our interview, she spoke of a patient who shot himself using an illegally acquired firearm.  After shooting himself, the patient decided he did not want to die, but was unable to be saved.  This incident occurred before the registry was in place.  As a result, the gun could not be traced.  With the registry, law enforcement would have been more easily able to trace the origins of the firearm.  Without it, however, and lacking information from the victim, they were unable to determine from whom he had acquired it.  With the registry, more accountability exists.

Dr. Kane does think that more frequent screenings should be required of firearms users.  This is because mental illness can surface at many different stages of life, and Dr. Kane believes that someone perfectly stable at the time they receive their firearms license may not be mentally stable three, four, or five years later.  With more frequent screenings, the registry would not have to be utilized as often in order to remove firearms from the possession of dangerous individuals, as the licensing process would work to do it instead. 

 My interview with Dr. Kane provided me with a new perspective on the importance of the registry contained in Canada’s Firearms Act.  Not only has it worked to harmonize gun control and domestic violence laws in the country, but it has also helped mental health professionals, working in conjunction with law enforcement, to save lives and prevent tragedy.    

Unfortunately, stories of the registry successfully saving lives never make headline news, and therefore the gun lobby continues to claim that it is a waste.  I wonder if they would continue to call it useless if it were to save the life of one of their children, spouses, or friends.  I think I can pretty well imagine the answer to my own question, as I have been told many times that saving one life is just not worth the money that the Canadian government has invested. 

On June 30^th, I wrote an email to Garry Breitkreuz, who has to date been the most vocal Member of Parliament to oppose the long-gun registry provision contained in Canada’s Firearms Act.  Mr. Breitkreuz has repeatedly introduced legislation to scrap the registry, and I wanted to hear from him directly and also share his opinion on my blog.

Large Portrait Photo

Garry Breitkreuz, Member of Parliament

I understand that to some I am just a grad student working with the Advocacy Project ‘to change the world’, but I thought Breitkreuz might recognize the importance of healthy debate and take a few minutes out of his busy schedule to talk with me, or at least to return my email.  What was I thinking?  I never heard back.

On July 14^th, I followed up.  This time I included a link to my blog, so that he would see that many of his supporters have been leaving comments in support of him, and against the registry.  Of course this time, his office replied.  It was a polite reply, albeit generic.  Not once in the email I received was it mentioned that I had requested a brief interview.

Instead, to help me in my “quest to determine the legitimacy of the firearms registry,” one of Mr. Breitkreuz’s assistants invited me to read an essay that clearly states his position.  I am already aware of his position.  During the two weeks I patiently waited for a reply, I had already read the article, more than once.  I wanted to talk to him.

I was also kindly directed towards Mr. Breitkreuz’s website, in order to take a historical peek at his involvement in firearms issues.  In addition, I was provided the link to a publication that contains comments from frontline police officers on their feelings towards the registry.  I have already seen these things. 

I can take a hint.  I know what a response like this means.  His assistant did his job well by successfully deflecting my request for an interview.  Having to talk to someone who disagrees with him would have been an inconvenience for Mr. Breitkreuz.; pointing me towards websites and suggesting others that I may want to contact was a much easier route to take.

I must say that I am disappointed in the response I received, as I think that individuals who strongly disagree with one another are more easily able to find common ground when face to face (or in this case, phone to phone) dialogue takes place.  Additionally, Mr. Breitkreuz spent an impressive number of years teaching before entering politics, which led me to believe that he might understand the importance of engaging students. 

I sent the same request and follow-up email to Member of Parliament Candice Hoeppner.  Ms. Hoeppner has essentially taken over the fight for Mr.  Breitkreuz through her introduction this session of a bill that would eliminate the registry. Maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on Mr. Breitkreuz.  At least his office responded to my request, something Hoeppner’s office has yet to do.

The following letter was published on July 3, 2009, in the Guelph Mercury newspaper.  The letter was written in response to another published submission speaking out against Canada’s Firearms Act and asserting that the registry does not prevent crime.  It was written by Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist based in Prince George, British Columbia, who has worked in the field for many years.

The letter does an excellent job of describing why the registry is useful and should be maintained.  Rather than adding more commentary, I’m going to let it speak for itself.

Canada’s gun registry has proven very useful

GuelphMercury.com – Opinions – Canada’s gun registry has proven very useful.

Dr. Barbara Kane
Dear Editor – I am writing in response to a recent letter stating that the gun registry had not solved or prevented a single crime.

As a psychiatrist in a rural area where guns are prevalent, I have invoked the gun registry at times where it is necessary, to either get someone’s guns removed or prevent them from getting guns because of mental illness. I am sure this has prevented tragedies but, unfortunately, none of those events make headlines.

I practised psychiatry in Prince George, B.C., before the gun registry was available, and it was difficult then to have guns removed.

There have been some 22,000 licences denied to date, and a recent Ottawa Citizen article reported that the number of firearms surrendered and confiscated since Nov. 1 is 8,281 — 74 per cent of which were nonrestricted shotguns and rifles. The same article reports that the reason for these confiscations is usually that the individual has threatened or used violence.

So, are we really comfortable with allowing these people to arm themselves by removing the mechanism which allows authorities to locate and remove firearms, the long-gun registry?

It is impossible to truly measure the prevention of suicides, accidents and crimes. However, we can measure rates of all these over time. We know the incidence of gun deaths and injuries are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years. Since 1995, the rate of homicide with rifles and shotguns has dropped by 50 per cent, and gun-related murders of women have fallen by two-thirds.

The gun registry is an inconvenience for hunters, farmers and other gun owners, but it helps people like me and the police prevent tragedies.

Since gun owners are only required to register their firearms once per gun, it is a minor inconvenience that is having a major impact on gun crime, suicides and accidents, perhaps more than any other intervention we have. The registry needs to be preserved.

“I am fearful the world will be able to see what happened by looking at me.”  This was part of a victim-impact statement read in court by a county attorney on behalf of her client earlier this week in Hennepin County, located Minnesota.  This quote was part of an article published in my local newspaper describing the court appearance of a man who attacked his girlfriend, and I think it does a good job of illustrating just how severe the psychological consequences of domestic abuse can be.

Many individuals, in response to my last entry, called Pat weak and passive.  In fact, most of the comments I received blame Pat for the abuse she endured and attack her character as well as her strength and will.  I find this very disheartening, but unfortunately not surprising, as these are exactly the type of names I expected Pat to be called by individuals who care more about their own personal freedoms and rights than the safety of their neighbors or friends.

DV Logo

Escaping an abusive partner is far more complex than simply making the decision to leave and leaving. To begin with, as illustrated above, many women are embarrassed to admit that they are the victim of an abusive relationship, in part due to the kind of comments left on my last entry. Victims of domestic abuse are viewed as weak by those who refuse to recognize the extreme mental hardships endured by those who suffer. The stereotypes placed on victims by individuals unable to grasp the severity of domestic abuse often times prevent many victims from seeking the help they need.

In addition, the greatest risk of danger to an individual being domestically abused is at and directly following the point of initial separation. Many women who try leaving an abusive relationship are stalked by their partners, and more often than not they have their lives threatened; perpetrators are unable to cope with losing control of their victims. I think it’s pretty easy to understand why this fact alone makes it so frightening for an abuse victim to leave.

There are other obstacles that prevent victims from leaving, one of which is the lack of financial independence. Women who are domestically abused often times are not allowed control of their own money, and in some cases are not even allowed to work outside of the home. This is a tactic many perpetrators use to keep their spouses from leaving. As a result, many women feel financially helpless, and stay in an abusive relationship based on financial dependence.

Another reason women stay in abusive relationships is because they are afraid to lose custody of their children. Although the court system has come a long way in regards to domestic violence and custody battles, perpetrators usually threaten to either fight for child custody in court and win (ensuring that they will create stories to make the victim look ‘crazy’), or they threaten to take the children with no court approval so that the victim will never see them again.

These are just a few of the many, many reasons victims of domestic abuse find it hard to leave a violent relationship. I could dedicate the rest of my blog entries to the psychological consequences of domestic abuse, but I think I’ve made my point.

I have had some people write me with unfortunate stories of crimes of which they have been the victims of, mostly involving muggings using a firearm. Clearly living through such an experience results in a dramatic psychological impact and induces fear. Imagine living with that same kind of fear each and every day of your life.

Before concluding this entry, I find it necessary to address the accusation made by many that I’ve made the story about Pat up. Fabricating a story of domestic abuse and being told that there are no double-decker bus tours in Montreal is outlandish; I am spending my summer in Canada to try and help prevent domestic violence, not to make up stories about it.

If you have read any of my recent blogs, you understand just how controversial Canada’s Firearms Act is, specifically the provision requiring that all unrestricted firearms be registered.  This is why, when I sat down with Barb MacQuarrie, Community Director of the Centre for Research and Education on Violence against Women & Children at the University of Western Ontario, I asked her to address those criticisms that are heard most often from opponents of the registry. 

At the Centre, Ms. MacQuarrie promotes collaboration between community-based professionals, advocates, and the academic world, pursuing research questions that help to better understand and prevent abuse against women and children.  She is an advocate for survivors of violence through her work at the Centre, as well as through her management of Ontario’s provincial Neighbours, Friends and Families public education campaign, which she helped to establish. Ms. MacQuarrie has spent many years in the field, working with individuals directly affected by violence, and alongside those whose mission it is to end and prevent it.  As a result, she gives a voice to victims, with the intention of determining how best to prevent and respond to violence against women and children.