PUBLICATION:        The London Free Press

DATE:                         2004.12.08

EDITION:                    Final

SECTION:                  Opinion Pages

PAGE:                         A10

COLUMN:                  Our view 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PULLING TRIGGER ON GUN REGISTRY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's always best to acknowledge a mistake, turn the page and move on in a new direction.

This is what Sarnia-Lambton Liberal MP Roger Gallaway is doing on the federal long-gun registry, which he supported at its inception in 1995.

Two motions by Gallaway that would cut off $96 million in additional funding to the program -- in effect killing it -- are expected to go before the Commons tomorrow when MPs vote on spending estimates.

Supported mainly by the opposition Conservatives and a few dissident Liberal MPs, they're likely to fail, as the Bloc and NDP line up with the governing Liberals. That is a shame because the long-gun registry, known as the National Firearms Program, is very much about politics and very little about gun-violence prevention.

Politically, it was Chretien-era posturing to show Ottawa was doing something about gun violence. In reality, the program's potential impact is almost nil. A criminal's weapon of choice is almost always a handgun, because it's easily concealed. Handguns have been registered in this country for more than 70 years, but criminals are rarely stupid enough to intentionally leave their card at a crime scene. Guns used in crimes are usually smuggled into the country or stolen.

Long guns had strict controls long before the registry began. Before buying a rifle, a person must pass written and practical tests on safe handling of the weapon. This qualifies him or her for a possession and acquisition licence (PAL). Then, the candidate must comply with federal gun storage laws and, if a hunter, acquire a provincial hunting licence.

Long guns are used mainly by hunters and farmers, who tend to perceive the registry as unnecessary government intervention. Laws that don't have public buy-in often fail.

But the bottom line is that the registry, originally expected to cost $2 million but now up to $1 billion, is not value for the money.

Rather than throwing good money after bad, Paul Martin's government should axe the program now and use the money that is saved in a variety of law-enforcement initiatives.

Martin didn't hesitate to kill the sponsorship program when he became prime minister a year ago. It's time to abandon another losing cause.