The Editor
The Telegraph Journal
210 Crown Street
P.O. Box 2350
St. John, NB
E2L 3V8

March 21, 1995

To The Editor:

On March 15th, your newspaper published an article submitted by Heidi Rathgen, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Gun Control in which she attacked the New Brunswick Firearms Alliance. In the interest of balanced journalism, enclosed is an article written in response to Ms. Rathgen's comments that we request be published.

Also enclosed is a letter sent to us by a New Brunswick firearms owner that illustrates the fears of those in the NBFA. Because a letter was printed in support of Ms. Rathgen's article, would you be so kind as to publish this letter to complement our submission.

Thank you.

V.E. LeBlanc
Secretary

Enclosures

Heidi Rathgen, the Executive Director of the National Coalition for Gun Control, took it upon herself to accuse the New Brunswick Firearms Alliance of spreading misinformation in reference to justice minister Allan Rock's proposed firearms legislation. Such is not the case, and in fact the contrary is true. It is she who is attempting to deceive the public into believing further restrictions on law abiding firearm owners will increase public safety.

Let us examine the misinformation put forth by Ms. Rathgen and her Coalition for Gun Control. These individuals state that groups like the NBFA are "prophets of doom" by suggesting that "gun control means gun abolition." Firstly, the NBFA supports sensible firearms control and Canada already has stringent legislation in this regard. Therefore, it is Ms. Rathgen's statement that is misleading as she would have people believe that, unless the new legislation passes, there would exist no firearm regulations in this country. The NBFA is however concerned about the registration of all firearms under the guise of public safety when the only logical reason for registration is confiscation. Here are the facts:

In 1979, a number of firearms were required to be registered and, in 1992, many of them were deemed prohibited and subsequently forfeited to the state without compensation. That same year, further types of firearms were ordered to be registered and within a few years, on January 1, 1995, Allan Rock prohibited them. The irony of this is that not one of these 13,172 firearms were ever used in a violent crime. Given this, it would be impossible to argue that Mr. Rock's actions were an effort in crime control as he and Ms. Rathgen would have the public believe.

So there exists a recent history of registration followed by confiscation in this country with no effect upon crime. That is a fact which cannot be interpreted as misleading. Speaking of facts, Ms. Rathgen does not cite any to support her premise that registering all firearms will reduce crime. The reason being is because she cannot. Fact - firearm registration in this country has resulted in firearm prohibition and confiscation with no demonstrated positive effect on crime. In other countries somewhat similar to ours, such as Great Britain and New Zealand, registration failed miserably. New Zealand eventually scrapped the whole system whereas Great Britain, on the other hand, used registration to confiscate publicly owned firearms and subsequently has had an alarming increase in violent crime. Extremely restrictive firearm controls introduced in Great Britain in 1988 decreased the rate of legal gun ownership by 22% between 1988 and 1992. Despite this dramatic decline in firearm ownership, the violent crime rate increased by 109% during that same period. (Criminal Statistics 1992, U.K. Home Office Research and Statistics Dept. - December 1993)

If someone should ask Ms. Rathgen how registration would increase public safety, they would not get a satisfactory answer. She would state something like "We register cars don't we?" Well if a person painted their car red, that is not reason enough to paint one of their rifles red; also, the revenue generated from vehicle registration is used to improve transportation and, more significantly, there exists no history of confiscating cars or trucks in this country because the government does not approve of them.

The NBFA has called for a royal commission to study registration to see what effect it would have on crime, and as yet the government has refused to support us in this pursuit. If it was clearly demonstrated that registration of all firearms would be a cost effective method to reduce crime and gun owners could be guaranteed that their property would not eventually be confiscated, such an initiative could be considered for support.

Ms. Rathgen is also misinforming the public by calling Mr. Rock's bill "moderate" and stating that it would pose only a "little inconvenience" for firearm owners. Prohibiting private property, as well as requiring extensive recurring licensing and registration, with no empirical data to suggest such would reduce crime, is excessive rather than moderate. This is especially true in light of Canada's existing firearm regulations. Prohibiting a commonly used hunting rifle because a firearm of that type was employed in a crime is unnecessary and heavy handed. Using Ms. Rathgen's logic, all Chevrolet Pick-Up Trucks should be banned if one were to be used as a getaway car in the commission of an armed robbery.

Mr. Rock's proposals call for numerous fees/taxes to be imposed on shooters for things such as registrations which must be renewed, licenses to own firearms and to purchase ammunition, import and export permits, as well as taxes on ranges. New Brunswickers are overtaxed presently and further such revenue grabs can certainly not be viewed as "little inconveniences." Ms. Rathgen stated gun owners are not experts in violence prevention suggesting that NBFA members are ignorant in this regard. The fact is many NBFA members know first hand about violence as they include individuals such as police officers, attorneys, correctional officers, criminal psychologists and victims of violence. The reality is that law abiding firearm ownership deters violence and does not promote it. To illustrate, take the example of two New Brunswick cities; St. John and Fredericton. Let us say in St. John, law abiding citizens are permitted firearms and in Fredericton all legally owned firearms are banned (because legal firearms are the only ones that can be banned). If a person was a violent criminal, what city would they seek out their victims? The answer is obvious.

Ms. Rathgen in her article appears to take exception to firearm owners joining the Liberal party. This is the way the Canadian political system works and it is what must be done in order for individual Canadians to be represented by their federal politicians. The NBFA experience, in reference to the current debate, has been that many MPs want to follow the direction of the Prime Minister rather than those who have elected them. Many will do as the Prime Minister directs even though they themselves are not in full agreement with Mr. Rock's bill. What will occur if the bill passes and New Brunswick MPs do not vote against it, is that the NBFA will dedicate its efforts into ensuring that these MPs are not on the ballot next election. This is a reality, as the NBFA currently has the membership and the organizational structure to easily make this happen.

What is most startling about Ms. Rathgen and the Coalition for Gun Control is that they accuse groups like the NBFA of misinforming the public. They are the ones who are being deceitful in order to push their agenda to abolish firearm ownership. Close examination of their strategy clearly demonstrates this. In her article, Ms. Rathgen stated the following: "Unrestricted firearms figure prominently among (firearm) deaths; one-half of gun related homicides were committed with hunting rifles and shotguns" - Hunting rifles and shotguns, not registered handguns or military style rifles but hunting rifles and shotguns! (It must be noted that the other half of homicides were most likely committed with illegally owned unregistered handguns. This is supported by a recent survey in Ontario whereby it was revealed that 16 out of 17 handguns used in crime were smuggled into this country illegally.) Logically, Ms. Rathgen would want hunting rifles and shotguns banned as they figure so prominently in her gun death statistics. The truth is, she and Mr. Rock both know that they cannot come out and state that all firearms should be prohibited and surrendered to the government. This would never occur as people would not give up their property. However, once all guns are registered, they could easily be gathered up by the police. This scenario has already occurred with previously registered firearms in this country. Now we know why Ms. Rathgen wants registration even though she cannot articulate how it would reduce crime - it would facilitate the confiscation of "hunting rifles and shotguns."

The deception employed by Ms. Rathgen is unfair to organizations like the NBFA because it implies that they are against gun control. The NBFA supports laws that effectively reduce the criminal use of firearms and ensures the safe use of firearms by law abiding Canadians. We are however against the confiscation of private property, further taxes upon New Brunswickers and costly legislation that will not increase public safety.

In conclusion, once the facts are examined in terms of existing firearm regulations, the historical consequences of registration and the true agenda of groups like the Coalition for Gun Control, it is evident that it is Ms. Rathgen who is attempting to misinform New Brunswickers, not the New Brunswick Firearms Alliance.

To become a member of the NBFA, send 10$ to:

NBFA
P.O. Box 7153
Station 12
Riverview NB
E1B 4T8

V.E. LeBlanc
Secretary
NBFA