Large Fierce Mammal

Left to Right: Cst. Dave Joseph Ross (32), Cst. Fabrice Georges Gevaudan (45), and Cst. Douglas James Larche (40) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Killed in an ambush in Moncton, New Brunswick on the evening of Wednesday, 4 June 2014. Click the image to enlarge. (Photo source: RCMP release via CTV News)

For the information of anyone who has somehow missed the news of the tragic events that played out this past week in Moncton, New Brunswick, I’m going to recap here. For a complete time line of events as reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), see here.

The infamous photograph of 24 year old Justin Bourque, taken by a witness on the evening of Wednesday, 4 June 2014. (Click the image to enlarge)

On the evening of Wednesday, 4 June 2014, 24 year old Justin Bourque dressed in camouflage, armed himself with what reports from witnesses say was a collection of weapons including at least one knife, a crossbow, a rifle, a shotgun, and a supply of ammunition, and walked brazenly out of the trailer park where he lived alone. The timing of his actions made it a certainty that he would be seen by many witnesses, one of whom shot the picture at left.

Police responding to reports of an armed man, dressed in camouflage, walking through a residential neighbourhood, found themselves ambushed when they were fired upon from a concealed position. Seconds after their arrival at the scene, Constables Dave Joseph Ross, Fabrice Georges Gevaudan, and Douglas James Larche were dead or dying, and Constables Darlene Goguen and Eric Dubois were wounded and down. By all appearances, the suspect let himself be seen near the selected site of a planned ambush where he then set himself up to wait for his selected targets – law enforcement.

The police reaction was, not surprisingly, swift and massive. The portion of Moncton where the initial assault occurred, along with a large portion of the surrounding area was placed under lockdown. Everyone was asked to remain inside, and at night to leave all exterior lights on, while the area was gone over with a fine toothed comb. Citizen cooperation was pretty much universal, and finally, in heavy rain at 12:10 hours Atlantic Daylight Time on Friday,. 6 June 2014, a soaking wet and unarmed Justin Bourque surrendered to RCMP with the words, “I’m done.”

Speaking for my own part, I believe the fact that Bourque was still breathing so he could utter those words – innocent until proven guilty notwithstanding – stands as a testament to the professionalism and self-restraint of those RCMP members who took him into custody.

As usual in any case where someone turns a firearm against other people, particularly when the targets are members of an identifiable group suggesting their execution to be part of the assailant’s agenda, the political grist for assorted gun control mills – pro and con – is inevitably going to be ground with vigour. It was with this in mind that I was disappointed (to say the least) at the nature, and most particularly the timing, of the statement from the Canadian National Firearms Association that struck the first blow in this sadly undying rehash of an age old argument, even before the bodies of the slain were cold. I was not alone.

In an article posted yesterday by the CBC under the headline Moncton shootings: National Firearms Association response ‘premature’, we have this:

“I thought it was pretty premature,” said Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Sport Shooting Association, adding that discussions about the causes of the Moncton shootings should “not [be] about gun control.”

He said the focus has to be “on identifying people who have mental health issues.”

On Thursday afternoon, while the manhunt for suspect Justin Bourque was still in progress, the NFA released a statement saying that while it “deplores the terrible actions by a clearly deranged individual,” the killings demonstrated that “Canada’s excessive firearms control system has failed again.”

Despite his misgivings about the timing of the NFA statement, Bernardo said that shooting rampages, which happen more frequently in the U.S., always result in finger-pointing at the gun lobby.

“When this kind of thing happens and the immediate talk is, ‘Let’s put more regulations on the law-abiding,’ you can understand why the NFA might be feeling a little twitchy here,” said Bernardo.

Most important to my point today are the words quoted in the article from University of Toronto sociology professor Jennifer Carlson, “… who said that given the high emotion surrounding events like these, it’s inevitable that talk will quickly turn to regulation.”

It’s to Professor Carlson that I’ll give the next to final word because I couldn’t have said it better:

“Part of the reason for why this debate is reproduced ad infinitum in the U.S. is because shootings have no intrinsic pro-gun or anti-gun meaning: both sides see them as vindication of their own perspectives.

“Unfortunately, it seems like this same deadlock is also at work in Canada.”

So for now, let the grinding of the mills be silent. Beyond that, let’s use this latest human tragedy as an opportunity to learn something, once and for all, about realistic, effective, and most importantly relevantly contextual response that doesn’t end up looking, yet again, like entrenched lines of wild eyed zealots jabbing accusing fingers at each other from behind their respective shield walls.