The Canadian Parliament adjourned on Friday until September 14th. This means, until session resumes at least, that Canada’s Firearms Act will remain as it’s currently written, and that the gun registry will continue to be used by police as a preventative measure in protecting women and children from domestic violence. During the final days of session, it was unclear whether an election might be called; under Canada’s Parliamentary system, a no confidence vote against a fiscal bill introduced by the minority party in charge, the Conservatives, would result in an election and all of the bills currently under consideration would in effect die.
Confused by Canada’s political system? Me too, but what I do know is that an election was averted, thereby maintaining the ability by Parliament to discuss those bills introduced to eliminate the gun registry (C-391 and S-5) come September. C-301, another bill that had been introduced during session, was dropped from the House of Common’s calendar because on two separate occasions the author of the bill, MP Garry Breitkreuz, was a no show for scheduled floor debates. C-301 was controversial even to some Conservatives, as it included a laundry list of changes to the Firearm’s Act, not just an elimination of the registry. As a result, Breitkreuz refused to debate the bill and successfully eliminated any future possibility of discussion. C-391, authored by MP Candice Hoeppner, was introduced as an alternative to Breitkreuz’s bill, but session ended before it could make its way to the floor for debate. Hoeppner, following Friday’s summer adjournment, issued a press release claiming that opposition party members deliberately tried preventing debate and a vote on the bill. Perhaps those who Hoeppner claims attempted to kill the bill in committee had read any of the most recent Canadian newspaper articles on the subject. The following are two of the most recent:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/handguns+collected+city+since+fall/1640924/story.html
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/703339
It seems that although statistics illustrating the registry’s effectiveness are plentiful, with the help of MP Candice Hoeppner, discussion regarding the gun registry will continue into the summer, with the Conservatives, sportsmen, and the gun lobby united, fighting to eliminate the registry on account of what they claim to be a violation of their freedoms and a burden on tax payers. As one of only four countries with harmonized gun control and domestic violence laws, Hoeppner and the Conservatives should focus on illustrating the importance of protecting women and children through gun registries rather then on eliminating Canada’s, which does nothing to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning firearms.
Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA, MP Candice Hoeppner, MP Garry Breitkreuz
Are you aware that victims of violent crime are primarily young men?
Your arguments to retain the failed long-gun registry are devoid of logic and baseless. Could you cite even 1 example of the registry being responsible for preventing even 1 crime?
At a cost of over 2 billion dollars to Canadian taxpayer, the registry IS a colossal waste of taxpayer money with absolutely no return on investment. Police can’t even use the database to keep themselves safe, as even if the database says there aren’t registered firearms at a particular premises, there is a 60% chance that the information is incorrect, thereby rendering that information utterly useless.
And your closing statement regarding the registry not preventing law-abiding citizens from firearm ownership is fallacious. The fact is, the only people the registry affects ARE law-abiding, creating a pointless and prohibitively complex system of red-tape to be shuffled by beaureaucrats in the name of public “safety” with a negligible end result. Criminals are, by definition, unaffected by ANY firearms laws, and will continue to carry firearms in our streets until the root of the problem (crime itself) is adressed.
You state statistics illustrating the registry’s effectiveness are plentiful? Where did you get that misinformation from? I have been studying the issue of the gun registry for years. I can’t find one instance where the registry was the key factor in solving a single murder.
The idea that the registry protects women is not only incorrect, it is offensive to me and it is sexist. My better half is a crack shot with her semi automatic M-14 rifle.
I’ma little puzzled by the claim that the registry protects women and children. If it did, Anastasia D’Souza, killed at Dawson College, would still be alive; all of Kimveer Gill’s firearms were legally registered. All the registry does is list some data on a computer in Miramichi, which really cannot prevent a firearm from being misused. If registries stopped crime, putting license plates on cars would stop drunk driving.
The registry is simply security theatre, nothing more. It has no real impact on the public safety, especially in light of the fact that the firearms license database will tell police whether or not drivers or residents at a given address are licensed firearms owners. It is a spectacular failure and should be scrapped, with the funds that would be otherwise go towards funding it spent instead on progressive programs that actually have a chance of preventing violent crimes.
First of all I totally appreciate what you are trying to do, and the focus of your site.
I am not a gun owner but I do understand that people should always be allowed to have guns if they are stored and used in a safe and secure manner. In addition, training and certification should be delivered to ensure the gun owner and their families are safe. This all happens now in Canada.
However, the gun registry has been a colossal waste of time and money. It is simply ignored by the criminals who plague cities and small towns with drug and gang related violence. Criminals do not have anything to do with the law or with the registry. Otherwise the simple fact that it is unlawful to commit a crime would be enough to deter criminals.
This focus on over regulating law abiding citizens has not produced any results except wasting massive amounts of time and money. The registry is not even close to being finished and is filled with inaccuracies. Some estimate it has only 30% of all guns registered, and that many of the guns have been incorrectly registered. This is not a reliable tool for policing.
I would like the focus to return to the criminal, to revamping the justice system, and to focus precious tax resources on areas of life where results will be significant.
I would rather the 1-2 billion of dollars and 84 million dollars (2005 figues) per year in maintaing the registry go into making life safer. Perhaps focusing on why crime happens in society would be a better way to spend our collective time.
Regulating firearms excessively and focusing this anti-gun rhetoric on law abiding citizens makes about as much sense as banning death. People should be able to choose for themselves whether they want a gun or not, and to not face restrictions on their liberty.
Respectfully,
Clayton R. Siggurdson
Isn’t it nice to know that the safety of women and children rest upon a card and a slip of paper. How absurd! I have studied the statistical information from Juristat and quite frankly your article is rubbish. It is indeed pollyannic to think that the absence of an inanimate object determines whether violence will be committed. More disturbing is the support for gun control, which disarms women equally, leaving them at the mercy of heavier stronger assailant. Focusing on firearms trivializes the deaths of those who did not die from a gunshot. Saying in essence ” you don’t count, and thankfully you were not shot.”.
More is the pity, none of you realize the current firearms laws have nothing to do with public safety but everything to do with “Politician Safety”. Every enactment of gun control in Canada has followed civil unrest. from the first laws 1892 to present bill C-68, which followed the OKA crisis, every firearm used by the Mohawk were placed on the Prohibited list, yet the mini ruger used by Gamil Gharbi is still available. The law requiring a permit for a pistol in 1892 followed the first political assassination in Canadian history. An outspoken MP critical of the Fenian Brotherhood was gunned down outside his home. Truth is there are 7 million firearms owners in control of 21 million firearms. Yet we have so few deaths viz firearms. There are more firearms in the hands of civilians than that of the police and military. So ask yourself earnestly, who feels more threatened women and children or corrupt politicians?
Interesting train of thought. The logic that a piece of paper will keep a violent criminal from using a firearm is the same logic saying that a restraining order will keep a violent person away from a victim.
By this logic, there should be no news stories about women being attacked by estranged husbands breaking a restraining order.
I think the Conservative Government is right to eliminate a black hole for public money. 2 Billion could be much better spent on community programs and policing.
Safety for women and children can never be legislated.
PS: I would challenge anyone to provide ONE, just ONE case where the registry has provided “safety” for women and children.
I also find it interesting that women and children deserve more consideration for their safety in this day of “equality”. I think that’s called lifeboat feminism.
A dirty secret the gun control lobby will never admit: Liberals, New Democrats, Greens, Bloc, and Wendy Cukier’s Coalition for Gun Control push legislation that increases violence against women.
Current regulations ensure women are defenseless and easily murdered, because a desperate woman’s only defense from lunatics and thugs is to hide behind a paper restraining order.
Wendy has convinced Canadians that murdered women are morally superior to women who must explain to police why they shot their attackers.
Gun control is misogynist because it removes the equalizer small-statured women have against larger, violent men.
During the long process to legally acquire a firearm, the surest way to be denied by bureaucrats is to indicate on the multi-page form that you want a firearm for “protection”. Target shooting and hunting are the only “approved” uses.
If a woman successfully clears the hurdles and flaming hoops necessary to legally purchase firearms, she is prohibited from owning small-caliber and short- barreled handguns — exactly the kind she can use easily. If a woman wants a handgun it’s got be man-sized.
Even if a woman owns a gun, ridiculous firearm storage laws — dreamed up by Wendy, enacted by the Liberals, and maintained by Bloc, New Democrats, and Greens — ensure the poor woman will be murdered before she can find the keys to the separate locked room, open the safe, open the gun case, unlock the trigger lock, run to another room, unlock the safe, open the box, remove the ammunition, and finally load the gun.
The only solution to violence against women is to offer the equalizer of a firearm and proper training, followed by regular practice, continuous training, and allow her to carry it wherever she goes.
ALL women deserve to exercise self-preservation, which is not merely a fundamental right, but also an instinct.
Of course nothing is foolproof, but the idea is to make those who victimize women think twice about the consequences of making an error in the victim selection process.
Current victim disarmament policies contribute to the amount of violence women experience. Turning women into helpless victims is stupid. They are safest when allowed to defend themselves.
Like many so-called “good ideas”, gun control is counter-intuitive. In practice it makes the problem worse. It’s long past time politicians recognized gun control is a colossal costly failure.
Voted for obamma did you?
Figures…
Actually, there’s some very good evidence that the registry is working to get guns out of domestic violence situations. In a recent report, 74% of weapons seized by police to get them out of violent situations were unrestricted weapons, mostly shotguns and rifles. 43% of the weapons seized had been registered.
What the registry needs is enforcement. Set a real deadline, and then let police start seizing any unregistered weapon. Using a gun should be like using a car. If you don’t have the proper registration for a car, you can expect to lose your license if stopped for speeding. If you don’t register your gun, you should lose it if you are caught hunting illegally or if the police decide to check it for any reason.
That would be the way to make the registry more accurate and useful. Of course, it can’t be nearly as useful now as it would be if years of pandering to the gun lobby had not rendered it incomplete and out of date.
These blogs are terrific. We need people like you to remind us that guns kill vulnerable people. I can understand these comments, and some of them seem to raise a serious point about the registry. Hopefully you can answer that. But in the meantime, these skeptics need to remember why Canada enjoys the international reputation it does - and all the multiple benefits that flow from that. The reason? A deep commitment to social protection and human rights. How different from the US….
just to put things in perspective
Homicides 1996-2006 Juristat.85-002-XIE, Vol. 27, no. 8
ten year total homcides 6239
ten year total homicide using firearms 1975
ten year total all other methods 4264
all other methods include; beating, stabbing, strangulation, poisoning, suffocation, and burning.
not even half of all murders are with firearms legally owned or otherwise. To put an issue to rest. the keeping of arms for our defence is a right. Surviving into our law viz s.26 of the Charter. The saving value is that it can be rationally connected to s. 7 of the Charter, and s.1 of the Bill of Rights 1960 which is still in force and applicable to federal legislation.
Not bad for a hillbilly redneck gun nut, I’ll bet you are all surprised that I could even scrape the words together to articulate the argument..cheers
Hi Elizabeth,
I’m with you and the many other gun control advocates that live and work in Canada. I suggest that your critics read the following article to gain some perspective and statistics that show how useful the registry is:
Nation’s long-gun registry a valuable tool for police
http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/article/498654
“In a 2007 survey by the Canada Firearms Centre of police officers from various agencies, 92 per cent of respondents reported that their agency used the registry, and 74 per cent reported that in their experience the registry had proved beneficial during major operations. Gun lobbyists often say that criminals will not register their guns. If so, the solution seems simple. Responsible gun owners should register. Then, police can simply confiscate any unregistered weapon they come across. Registration allows people to be held accountable for guns they possess. It reduces the chance that careless storage will lead to theft or that guns are sold illegally.”
One last note, don’t let these people distract you and waste your time, keep up the good work!
[...] The Conservative Attempt to Eliminate the Gun Registry [...]
[...] The Conservative Attempt to Eliminate the Gun Registry [...]
The comment period for this entry is now closed.
Ms. Mandelman, if true welcome to the club!
The (FAKE) liberal party has been doing the exact thing to us and also Mayor Miller of Toronto he has yet to answer the question asked by multiple people as to where he got his statistics !
but i must say your blog is the pot calling the kettle black as you closed your comments
Maybe if you were a Canadian citizen Garry would feel more obliged to respond.