12.06.2010 09:00 AM

Twenty-one years ago today

Fourteen reasons we need gun control in this country:

  • Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student
  • Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
  • Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
  • Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
  • Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student
  • Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student
  • Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique’s finance department
  • Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student
  • Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
  • Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student
  • Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student
  • Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
  • Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student
  • Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student


  1. Lance says:

    An unfortunate, mind-numbing tragedy that still rings today. But gun control would have done absolutley nothing to stop it.

  2. Gun control,as we have it today,would have saved these people??
    Probably not.
    No amount of rules and regulations will protect us from an individual(or group of individuals) who is/are intent on their mission and who don’t care what happens to themselves.
    Perhaps increasing the severity of sentencing for people convicted of gun crimes will make us all safer.Perhaps increasing the severity of sentencing for people convicted of ALL “crimes of violence” will make us safer.
    Some people are born to be violent and commit violent crimes.Rehabilitation is unlikely.
    Perhaps these people need to be removed from society….permanently.

    • Lance says:

      “No amount of rules and regulations will protect us from an individual(or group of individuals) who is/are intent on their mission and who don’t care what happens to themselves.”
      That is EXACTLY what I mean.

      Lepine picked up an application for a firearms-acquisition certificate in August 1989, he got his permit in October, bought his Ruger Mini-14 in November, and went on his rampage that December.

      So Lepine’s weapon purchase was already known to police when they issued that FAC permit to him. He took the time to jump through all of the given hoops that were in place during that time to get his weapon legally, so there is NO indication to believe that he wouldn’t have been able to do likewise with current gun registry legislation, and still be able to carry out his heinous actions.

      This was a tragedy that no piece of paper would have prevented.

  3. smelter rat says:

    Warren’s post is in memory of 14 women who were murdered, it’s not about gun control. Keep your petty political arguments to yourselves today.

  4. Brine says:

    We did have gun control at the time. What we didn’t have was the wasteful gun registry, which would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this tragedy.

  5. bell says:

    Terrible tragedy. We were students in Montreal when it happened. Not something anyone ever wants to see happen again. Also not something any party should ever exploit to advance a political agenda.

  6. Ted H. says:

    It’s true that the Ecole massacre was a singular event and gun control may or may not have prevented it but that is not the primary purpose of gun control as I see it. Gun enthusiasts generally oppose gun control either as a assault on their freedom or as an ineffective tool for crime prevention but most gun injuries that show up at hospital emergency wards are the result of accidents, often involving children, or of opportunity. For example, a couple of guys get into a serious fight, if all they have is fists, thats what they use, if a bat or a knife is available, they use that, if a gun is available, they use that. If the gun was not readily available, it could not be a factor in the fight, it would not be accidentaly discharged. Most gun injuries or deaths are not the result of crime, so increasing the severity of sentencing for gun crime is closing the barn door after the horse, it will prevent nothing. Surly even the most avid member of the NRA or a Canadian equivalent has to admit that some people are too stupid, irresponsible or unbalanced to be allowed to own a firearm. So why do those who oppose gun control in principle continue to defend the right of morons and whackos to obtain guns? Experienced hunters and sportsmen exhibit responsible gun ownership for the most part but not everyone who wants a gun is like them. Illegal guns start out as legal guns so reasoned control of all gun sales will mitigate the supply of illegal guns. Maybe a change in attitude towards gun culture would contribute to prevention of school massacres. Social attitudes towards drinking and driving and smoking in public have changed in the past two decades, a well thought out approach to gun control could change social attitudes towards firearms. They are not symbols of freedom, they are not sporting devices in the same class as fishing rods or golf clubs, they are not sources of family fun in the same class as game consoles and trampolines, they are not tools in the same class as chop saws and cordless drills, they are instruments of lethal capability and have to be treated differently than anything else. Marc Lepine was not a criminal, he was a disturbed individual who should not have been able to purchase a gun. Maybe he still would have gone to the Ecole that day with a knife or a baseball bat but at least fewer women would have been killed or injured. Gun control is not just about preventing crime but about ensuring that each and every day fewer people are hurt by guns for whatever reason.

    • james Smith says:


    • james Smith says:

      Why do people who oppose gun control often start their argument with a similar statement; pray tell!
      Guess this would not have helped either: http://is.gd/ijHWh

      I guess I’m perplexed, we have dog, & cat & boat, & moped & scuba diving & car & semi trailer & motorcycle & sailing & engineering & architectural & doctor’n & Lawyer’n registries why not guns exactly?

      Oh, I forgot it’s somehow one’ right to kill stuff with fire sticks; please.

  7. sj says:

    Twice I have been to remembrance services with mothers of victims of this tragedy. There were among the most poignant and tear-filled events I have ever attended. Many of those mothers have worked tirelessly to help to build a better Canada. It seems reasonable that if your bright, young, full-of-promise daughter was gunned down that you might decide to dedicate your remaining life to helping to ensure that fewer Canadians mothers come to share a similar grief.

    It demeans those efforts to debate whether gun control or the gun registry would have saved any of those young women. Instead we should be inspired by the good deeds of the women who raised them.

    • Lance says:

      “It demeans those efforts to debate whether gun control or the gun registry would have saved any of those young women. ”
      How? The premise, as stated at the top by the authour, is: “fourteen reasons we need gun control in this country”.

    • The Other Jim says:

      So, what, good intentions are all that matter in terms of developing and debating public policy? Seems like a pretty dangerous way of thinking.

  8. Namesake says:

    “using the victims of his crimes to push a political agenda should be reconsidered”… maybe so; would that the Conservatives & Republicans could abide by that for even one year; and yet you yourself keep playing the “scary Muslims” card every time this case is mentioned.

    The facts appear to be* that his father was “non-practicising” w/r/t religion and that he himself was raised as an atheist w/o any religious instruction, so how is it even remotely relevant that Marc Lepine’s father was a “Muslim” — as opposed to the fact that he was “a mutual funds salesman,” always on the road, and a ‘player’… (and abusive, etc.) Maybe cuz that strikes a little too close to home re: your own profession? (Sure, the father sounds like a reactionary MCP throwback, but so are plenty of non-Muslims.)

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine

    • Namesake says:

      I should hasten to add that it’s NOT part of the tenets of the actual Islamic religion & the Qur’an that women shouldn’t be able to do advanced studies or work (the feminism Marc Lepine objected to). Apparently, it’s quite the reverse: the search for knowledge is perhaps the greatest right & duty for every Muslim, male or female; and women ARE allowed to earn a living (esp. when their husbands have forsaken their duties, like Lepine’s, which is why his mother went back to nursing); in fact, apparently even the Prophet Muhammed was employed by his own wife, Khadiga. Lepine & his father may have thought women should stay in the kitchen, but that shoudn’t simply be attibuted to the latter’s former religion.

  9. J. Coates says:

    It saddens me that a memorial post to those unfortunate women is sidetracked into the subject of gun control.
    If the life of even one young woman can be saved by confiscating every firearm in the country, fine with me.

    • Wes Werkman says:

      Well if you read the post, it was about gun control right from the first sentance, not sure how you can say it has been sidetracked.
      Would you say the same thing about cars? They kill waaay more youbg women than guns do.

    • Paul says:

      A strong argument could be made that if a professor and/or one or more students had been carrying lawfully-held concealed handguns, many of those women would be still alive and well today.

    • The Other Jim says:

      Out of curiosity, do you feel that any limitation on freedom can be justified if it “saves one life”?

  10. Lance says:

    “If the life of even one young woman can be saved by confiscating every firearm in the country, fine with me.”
    My word, I hate this inherently dishonest statement. What if the possession of a firearm were to lead to saving the life of a particular woman; what does that say about confiscation then?

    That statement that you share with the rest of your leftist friends puts paid to the denial that registration isn’t about eventual confiscation. Thanks for revealing your hand.

    • Namesake says:

      As Lance comes to a boil.

      I dunno _what_ he is, but J. Coate’s hardly a leftie.

      Most of the time he comes off sounding like fellow-Calgarian Tom Flanagan (pro- ‘wipe em out there before they get us’ Afghan war; pro-Rod Ford; anti-Toronto (remember when he wanted to nuke them cuz he was sick of hearing about their election?); pro- Sara Palin’s a hottie…). This sounds out of character for him.

      But even if he does vote Liberal once in a while, he’s clearly indicated he’s speaking just as a citizen, and doesn’t represent any official party view, here — in fact, vanishingly few if any of the posters here ever do — so this whole ‘Gotcha’ conclusion about this tipping ‘The Left’s’ confiscatory hand is… absurd. (see the http://warrenkinsella.com/2010/12/power-and-politics-dec-3-were-talking-heads-we-dont-have-any-power/ thread)

  11. Harith says:

    Fourteen reasons why we shouldn’t see mental health cuts, either.

  12. Michael Teper says:

    We could save the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands, of people across the country if we went one step further than confiscating every firearm in the country, and just put everyone in jail. We could eliminate crime almost altogether by turning the country into one huge penal colony. Only one small problem with the idea, though. If everyone is to go to jail, who will serve as the prison guards? And who will guard those guards? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  13. dave says:

    I am just finishing Bolano’s novel 2666 in which he takes on the murders and missing women in the maquiladora. As I am reading it I am thinking, too, of our Downtown Eastside, and the Sisters in Spirit account of up toward 600 murdered or missing aboriginal women in our own country. I live close to the Highway of Tears here in Northern BC.
    Late last winter a young woman in our (small) city disappeared while walking in the early evening from her home to another person’s home. Just a couple of years previous, another woman, same circumstances, but a dalylight spring evening, disappeared.
    We have a short term shelter, and a medium term shelter: good to have, but bad that we have to have them.
    I used to work with teens who suffered this kind of thing.
    When I try to think of it in larger than just personal terms, I just don’t know where to start.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *