Last week I wrote an entry entitled “The Conservative Attempt to Eliminate the Gun Registry.” In that entry, I asserted that the mandatory registration of non-restricted firearms under Canada’s Firearms Act should not be eliminated, as it has helped to protect the lives of many women throughout Canada. Since writing that entry, I have received over fifty comments, and have posted many that are respectful and polite. However, while engaging in debate with those whose opinion varies from mine is healthy, helpful, and appreciated, I made the decision to delete comments that are disrespectful and derogatory to me or to those who have written in defense of the registry. Calling someone an idiot, Hitler, uneducated, childish, or a liberal self-righteous fascist is not the type of dialogue I like to engage in, and because of this I refuse to post such comments, no matter how many times the same individual submits a comment.
While domestic homicides occur with weapons besides firearms, such as knives or fists, guns are more deadly, and increase the risk of death by twelve times. The risk of physical harm, threats, and intimidation to women and children increases when a gun is present in the home. In Canada, one in three women killed by their husbands is shot, making it hard to imagine what that statistic would be without the registry in place.
The registry was passed into law in 1995, and contains measures targeted at keeping guns from those who are at risk to commit domestic violence. These measures include screening risk factors for suicide and domestic violence, background checks, and notifying current and previous spouses of an individual’s intent to acquire a firearms license.
Between 1997 and 2006, Canada has seen the rate of firearm-related spousal homicide decrease by nearly fifty percent, according to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. In addition, according to the same source, since 2008 police have seized 8,261 guns from owners who were either violent or had threatened violence; seventy-four percent of these guns were non-restricted firearms.
In Canada, everyone has the fundamental right to own a gun. At the same time, the government has the fundamental responsibility of keeping its citizens safe. Recognizing that the protective benefits outweighed the costs, the Canadian government implemented the registry, and its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000. Thus, while law-abiding gun owners may frown upon it as a burden and a waste of money, the Supreme Court, Parliament, and most importantly, women who have escaped death as a result of the registry, view it as a necessity and, in many instances, a lifesaver. It has been close to fifteen years since its implementation; if the registry were as ineffective as those opposed to it claim it to be, enough support in Parliament would have by now been garnered to scrap the measure.
Thumbs up – good response.
The truth is for every stat you cite we can cite a stat to the contrary. However what you fail to realize is the utility of firearms and why the U.S. embedded it into the Constitution and why the English Parliament put it into the English Bill of Rights 1689. To ensure that democracy will reign. You have obviously studied human rights and are fully aware of history, and that it is the unarmed individual that is subject to the tyrant. The Gun Control Laws of Canada believe it or not have precious little to do with public safety,however it is the pretence which they are enacted. Registration is always the first step to confiscation, whether it is Lenin’s Russia or Hilter’s Germany. Mao put it aptly power comes from the barrel of a gun. Therefore you disarm those that would disagree with you.
Each and every enactment of Gun Control in Canada has been on the heels of a significant act of civil unrest. The unfortunate part of gun control is it always requires more gun control in an attempt to curb what it caused in the first place.
There is one thing I would indict you for, that is that you are working to maintain the “Victim” status of women by keeping them defenceless. The Government you speak so highly of also placed stun guns and pepper spray on the prohibited list. So keep telling everyone that it is about public safety, well at least for criminals.
Suicide is also in part the reason for licencing and registration, oddly it is third to poisoning and hanging(#1)Perhaps licencing and registration of rope is in order. The point you miss most is that the presence of an inanimate object does not predicate whether violence will occur.
You obviously have adopted the public health model concerning firearms, which treat them as a disease vector. Therefore all one need do is contain and isolate and the disease goes away. This amounts what could be termed “Sage Craft”. There is no empirical evidence linking the presence of a firearm to violence.
I’m afraid I don’t derive much comfort from the thought that a few gun owners might decide to take over the government if they disagree with something. That seems both far fetched and highly undesirable. Gun owners of the type who complain about filling out a registration form sure don’t speak for me.
As for guns being used to prevent crime, how many people would get shot in error because someone panicked? How many petty thieves would be killed because someone over-reacted? How many of those guns would be stolen and wind up contributing to crime instead of fighting it? The U.S., with its high rates of gun ownership and extremely free access, sure doesn’t seem like a very good model. Its crime rates are much higher than ours.
There are legitimate uses for guns, controlling the populations of some wild animals. People who need such guns should be licensed and the guns should be registered so that police can tell if a household has one if they are called to a violent confrontation. Someone who commits violent acts or issues treats should lose their guns and the right to own them. And people who refuse to register their guns should lose them too. That is the only way to make the register accurate.
The ~80 Million a year it takes to run the registry would make a real difference if spent on programs for at risk families and youth. The 1 or 2 Billion spent on the registry so far could have put a MRI machine in every hospitable in Canada. In one hand we have a registry of inanimate objects and in the other we have options that could actually have tangible results.
There are many more legitimate uses for firearms then hunting. There are many forms of target shooting both those recognized as Olympic events and those that are not. Private security guards for example armored trucks. Historical animations of both the private and public funding. The collection of firearms both in private or public presentation. I could list more, but I have made my point.
While in Canada the legitimate use of firearms for self defense is frowned upon by the government of Canada and is not a legitimate reason to acquire a firearms license, but the statistics from the United States on concealed carry indicates a vastly different view then yours.
The problem with the American model has nothing to do with registration, but licensing. No safety courses and very minimal rules depending upon the state around the purchase of firearms.
One cannot ignore the history of the world when talking about gun registration and confiscation of firearms both of which have happened in Canada. Very silently and without any media uproar, but it has happened.
The simple reality is Canada does not have the resources to go out and collect all the registered firearms that are owned by people with lapsed licensing this does not even included the millions of firearms that have not been registered. It also does not include those illegally transported in the country by criminals who have ever intention to use them.
In closing I will quote a great leader “Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.” Benjamin Franklin
The cost of the registry can sure vary depending on who you listen to. Different people, with different agendas put different things in or leave them out, I guess. But even if we take your $80 million at face value, that’s only about $2.50 per year for each Canadian. I can afford that, I think.
Gun lobbyists complain endlessly about the cost, but they themselves contributed hugely to it. They deliberately tried to mess up the system as much as they could by submitting inaccurate forms and other methods. Their endless complaining resulted in the fees which were supposed to pay for the system being waived.
These are major reasons for the high costs which they now want to use as a reason to scrap the registry. Scrapping it would, of course, really ensure that the money was wasted. On-going costs to run the system would be minimal given a reasonable level of co-operation.
I have no problem at all with guns being confiscated from some people. That is a major, and quite appropriate use of the registry. People who are convicted of a violent offense should not be allowed guns. An accurate registry is the only way to make this happen. Confiscating guns from those who refuse to register would help to make the registry accurate.
The notion that gun lobbyists are going to take their guns, march on Ottawa, and set everything right would be very scary if it weren’t so ridiculous. I’ll take my chances with the ballot box, thanks.
Mr Friesen,
Sure it is $2.50, but tell that to my mom who had to wait 9 Months for a MRI Or the hundreds of women that will be turned away from shelters tonight So you think it is more important to register inanimate objects then to fund real programs with real tangible results. I pay my taxes I obey the laws and every time I turn around there are new laws and fee’s all of which are to control lawful citizens. I’m sick of the nanny state and constant need of new laws to protect people from there own stupidity. And I’m sick and tired if being nickeled and dimed to death in taxes by both federal and provincial governments. There is a finite amount of resources the government has and wasting $2.50 of it is too much. . In your socialist dream you would have the government take another $2.50 as hay it’s only another couple of dollars per person. When it’s not even really $2.50 given the demographics of actual tax payers.
Civil disobedience is a key and important part of democracy. Unjust laws and government regulations should be challenged.
I was not talking about gun confiscated based on failure to comply with the laws of Canada. I was referring to those where a firearm becomes magically prohibited and the firearm is destroyed and owner not compensated for there loss. There are many examples of this in Canada and then we are asked to continue to trust the government.
I’m sure you have no issue with the removal of people’s property without compensation or the ability to sell those items. Let’s apply that to all property in Canada so that whenever the government wants they can take whatever they want.
People point to historical events to highlight that registration is the first step to disarming a population and you twist it to inference an armed attack on parliament.
When was the last time a criminal registered a gun he bought on the street or the last time a criminal applied for an ATT to transport his gun to a 7-11 before he robbed it the answer is never. 99% of these laws are aimed at discouraging firearm ownership a shame in the name of public safety and the control of law abiding citizens as they are the only ones that will ever comply anyways.
The registry will go away it’s just a matter of time unless of course the gun advocates win and we end up like the UK who now has the highest violent crime rates in Europe, but its all good because honest citizens allowed themselves to be disarmed.
“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” Thomas Jefferson
Thanks,
Paul
Hi Elizabeth: I’ll leave the point about declining rates of firearms-related spousal homicide being part of a trend that long predates the inception of the registry to other commenters.
But on the main point that I would like to discuss, as a fairly progressive, feminist, left-leaning, relatively recent (since 2005) Canadian gun owner, the violence against women arguments in favour of the registry seemed very convincing to me until I did a little digging on the subject.
Firstly, you write that “In Canada, one in three women killed by their husbands is shot, making it hard to imagine what that statistic would be without the registry in place.”
I’d like to ask why you think that the registry actually prevents spousal homicide from occurring? In other words, how does a data entry in the registry and the existence of a registration certificate for a given firearm deter its owner from committing spousal homicide with it?
When buying a firearm, I present my R/PAL (gun license); the vendor checks to ensure that it is still valid and that I have not been subject to any restraining orders or the like; R/PALs are checked daily by the licensing system for such events. If my license is valid, the vendor then proceeds to transfer the registration by telephone. I can usually leave the store with a long gun inside of an hour; handguns take several days (and why the lowest-powered, shortest-ranged firearms in my collection are subject to such excessive over-regulation when I can buy a far-more-lethal elephant gun with much less fuss is another question).
Eventually, I get a slip of paper, i.e. the registration certificate, in the mail. The certificate does absolutely nothing to prevent me from misusing my firearms for criminal purposes. My wife is asleep upstairs as I type this. I have several firearms in the house. However, there is absolutely no risk of my going upstairs and shooting her in her sleep. My guns being registered is not the reason why she is safe. What do you think that reason might be?
Since Bill C-86, we’ve seen that a person who is going to commit murder is not going to be deterred by the prospect of the penalties for Firearms Act. All of Kimveer Gill’s firearms were registered when he walked into Dawson College, and neither the registry nor the ATT system (Authorization To Transport permit for Restricted firearms) had any effect whatsoever on his murderous actions. James Roszko, the perpetrator of the Mayerthorpe Massacre, had a borrowed, registered rifle with him when he killed four Mounties several years ago (the actual murder weapon was unregistered, by the way). The registry did nothing to stop him and it was useless in apprehending the people who lent the rifle to him; the owner claimed it had been stolen and it actually took months and a multi-million-dollar undercover sting to bust the guy who lent Roszko the rifle.
Registration poses no obstacle to misuse. So if a licensed Canadian gun owner is going to commit spousal homicide, it’s not the registry that’s going to stop him or her. And the fact of a gun being registered is not going to prevent it from being used by a non-licensed individual, either.
And then there’s the fact that we’ve had a handgun registry since 1934 that to date, has had no discernable effect on crimes being committed with handguns (another factoid is that you’re twelve to fifteen times more likely to be struck down by lightning than shot by a licensed Canadian handgun owner with a licensed handgun). You’d think that increasing the dosage of a medicine that’s so far had no effect on the disease would not be the sort of thing a rational doctor would do…
IMHO, the licensing provisions are really the only parts of the Firearms Act worth saving, as they ensure that the only people capable of legally buying firearms are at extremely low risk of misusing them for criminal purposes. There are all sorts of factoids tossed out there about how licensed Canadian gun owners are the single most law-abiding segment of Canadian society, that we’re two and a half times less likely than the average Canadian to commit a crime, etc. I haven’t verified them personally, and they aren’t central to my point, which is that a) the licensing system and the registry are two entirely different things that are frequently conflated, with licensing’s benefits being falsely ascribed to the registry, and b) that ensuring that only safe, responsible, trained individuals can legally buy firearms can and does prevent some criminals from buying firearms (given the ready availability of illegal firearms in Canada, it only stops the laziest, least motivated, most poorly connected ones from getting guns, but that’s still enough of a benefit for me to support it).
But, you’re probably going to argue, the registry allows police to know what guns are present in a residence, allowing ease of confiscation.
This might be true if the registry contained all firearms in Canada. At present it contains somewhat more than several million firearms, which depending on the estimate you trust, is one half to one third of the firearms known to have been legally imported into the country prior to the registry’s inception (and we have no idea about the number of illegally imported guns). This means that the police cannot rely on the registry, as it contains at the very best only half the firearms out there. Police confiscating firearms do not rely solely on the registry leave once they’ve found all the guns registered to a suspect; they’re going to contiue searching until they’re reasonably certain that there are no more firearms hidden there.
The police are not the sort who are going to trust people to reply truthfully to “So these are all the guns in your possession?”, nor should they be.
So in the horrible, hypothetical event that I were to assault my wife and she get a restraining order against me, the registry would be of no benefit to the police; as I’m in the license database, the police would simply show up, thoroughly search the house, and leave once they were satisfied they’d found all my guns.
Given these realities, not to mention the fact that anybody with a file can defeat the registry in minutes by filing off a gun’s serial number, I can no longer support or justify the registry.
As I’ve mentioned before, the registry includes screening measures and the notification of current and previous spouses of an individual’s intention to acquire a firearm. This serves as a preventative measure. By preventing an individual who may domestically abuse from owning a gun, the registry prevents possible spousal homicides from taking place.
Oh, and to Paul Friesen, I felt much the same way about the risks of firearms use and carriage until I researched the actual incidence of firearms violence in Canada versus other sorts of violent crime, and the track record of concealed carry permit holders in the forty or so US States that issue concealed carry permits.
Suffice to say that in Canada, gun violence is practically negligeable (in fact, given the far more frequent use of knives in violent crime in Canada, there’s an argument to be made for home cooking being more of a threat to the public safety than sport shooting), and that the dire predictions, similar to yours, that I made about concealed carry permits when I first became aware of them twenty years ago, have failed to materialize.
In other words, in the big picture, the social cost of sport shooting doesn’t justify our gun control system. Cost aside, the registry is clearly ineffective (see my comment above for some of the reasons why) and unfairly targets people who pose no threat to society, while ignoring the people responsible for causing the vast majority of what “gun crime” we do suffer from.
I think that the reason I was so alarmed about firearms when I was younger is the demonization, ignorance, and negative stereotyping about guns and gun owners that are the key tools of the anti-firearms movement. The anti-gun movement are a lot like homophobes in this respect; they exploit fear, ignorance and lack of personal experience in order to drive their agenda, but this only works for the prejudiced, ignorant, and sheltered, and backfires on them when people actually learn more about firearms and the gun culture, and discover that in reality, they’re not the dreadful things they’d been told they were. In my own case, some objective research and personal experience were enough to convince me that our gun control laws are severely misguided; and now that I’ve done my homework, I’ve gone from solid support for the registry to thinking that the only part of the Firearms Act worth saving is the licensing system.
From what data have you arrived at the figure of 1/3 of homicides against women by domestic partners are committed with firearms?
My sources indicate it is much lower (less than 10%).
Violence against women is a serious concern, but liberties should similarly be a concern. They should be properly balanced. I personally view the registry only as a collasal waste of money.
Hi there,
re this reply:
“July 3, 2009 at 5:33 am
As I’ve mentioned before, the registry includes screening measures and the notification of current and previous spouses of an individual’s intention to acquire a firearm. This serves as a preventative measure. By preventing an individual who may domestically abuse from owning a gun, the registry prevents possible spousal homicides from taking place.”
You are 100% mistaken as are most people who are Pro-registry.
The Registry is ONLY a database of Firearms and their theoretical location. This information is incredibly inaccurate and not relied upon by front line police despite what the Chiefs of Police say.
So you refuse to post comments you disagree with, what does that say about you? Doesn’t human rights include freedom of speech? Oh but not i suppose when that speech disagrees with your uneducated and biased opinions.
Someone called you an idiot..well, when you cling to propagandist beliefs and refuse to really look at the statistics in an honest way an idiot is precisely what you are. Fortunately for you there are many people of your ilk that will support your habit of obtuseness and stupidity.
That won’t change ths facts though, facts which you refuse to refute, facts that you are afraid to believe lest the become the proverbial brick aimed at your glass house. After all, what is the truth relative to your need to believe in your perfection.
E. Mandelman, why is it that you can’t seem to grasp the differences between the two components of Canada firearms law, Licensing and registration? They are two different things.
Everything you have written about can be achieved through the existing licensing component, which the Conservatives have no intention of eliminating.
Firearms Licences will always be required.
Registration of individual firearms achieves nothing and is simply a total waste of taxpayer’s money.
I am consistently left with the impression that writers such as yourself deliberately try to confuse an unknowing public about the differences between licensing and registration.
I will quote you:
“The registry was passed into law in 1995, and contains measures targeted at keeping guns from those who are at risk to commit domestic violence.”
The registry does not contain anything that prevents anybody from owning guns. The registry doesn’t screen anybody for anything much less domestic violence. The registry is a database.
You are confusing the registry with licensing.
Please do your research before spreading more misinformation.
Oddly I find myself in agreement with Mr Friesen on one point in part. I would not take much comfort in a bunch of armed thugs taking over the Government just because they didn’t like it either. Such happens in South and Central America not Canada. The operative words are “THUG” and “like”. However there are “just” reasons for citizens putting on the line in opposing a Government.
When a Government disregards the rule of law, the principles of democracy and freedom a line must be drawn some where. As Pastor Martin Niemöller poem states at the end “when they came for me there was no one left to speak out for me”. It would require much to get to that point however disarmed citizens could do little to prevent it. It is frightening however how Allan Rock’s words mirrored Himmler’s. I believe tyrants also round up journalist do they not?
On another note I love how those who do not own firearms are experts on the laws governing them and their owners. Licencing is the part that screens and weeds out the undesirables. Registration in only registering a firearm to its owner and where it is kept. No screening is done, a transfer from one owner to another a check is made to ensure licencing is in order. I guess if Ms Mandelman keeps repeating it long enough it will be true?
No Ms Mandelman there is no screening nor notification at the registry point, only a check to make sure you have the correct licence. Now you can believe the people that actually have to work with the system or you can continue to believe the lie you have been told. However given your affiliations you might just be one of the ones making it up.
The registry is however so inaccurate that it can not be used as evidence in a court of law. It cannot tell an officer responding to a call at a violent domestic that there is an unregistered firearm there (or any other call for that matter) thus mitigating its value as a tool to law enforcement. Chief Fantino has also stated that it has neither prevented nor solved a single crime. Another tid bit Moms Boucher of the Hells Angels registered a submachine gun successfully without having a licence. Yes indeed Canada is a safer place with the registry.
The best for last. Mr Friesen worries that a petty thief will be gunned down by an over reacting firearms owner. May be a change in occupation would be in order, one that wouldn’t involve preying upon unsuspecting people? In Florida when they enacted a “Shall Issue” policy concerning Concealed Carry Permits they noticed a dramatic drop in muggings and sexual assaults (50% reduction). Seems it isn’t as much fun when your victim might be able to fight back with lethal force. Nor is it worth the risk guessing who is armed and who is not.
But I suppose Mr Friesen prefers a Country that affords it’s criminals the safety and comfort of defenceless victims. That’s progressive thinking for you and from someone who has never been a victim of a violent crime.
The registry is a useful… OK.
Does printing 2″x3″ registration certificats for shotguns and hunting rifles help women who are physically abused…
- NO
Does printing 2″x3″ registration certificats for shotguns and hunting rifles help women stuck in abusive relationship…
- NO
Will printing more registration certificats for shotguns and hunting rifles change any of the above…
- NO
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Are women shelters a helpful tool for abused women?
- YES
Are women shelters having a positive impact in the lives of vulnerable individuals?
- YES
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Why is more money been wasted on futile paperwork, then on meaningful social work programs???
- I don’t know…
Elizabeth, lets put this in terms you may be more familiar with.
I own a car, and I have a license to drive. The car is registered, but, it is not this registration that the police check when I get pulled over. They check my license. Yes, they may check to see that the car is registered, and to whom. That is the extent of it. If they want information about who I am, my driving record etc. that is all contained in the license info. It is my license that requires I pass all the requirements set forth by the government allowing me to legally drive.
Firearms licensing and registration is the same. If the police need to know about “me”, it is not the registration certificate of the firearm that they check, it is my firearm license.
It is my license that contains all the background checks and other information which makes it legal for me to own firearms.
Here’s a scenario for you:
Say I have a firearm license, but I don’t own any guns, but I borrow one from a friend to go hunting. (which is perfectly legal I might add)
Now lets say the police are called to my home for a domestic disturbance (God forbid) and they check the registry. It would show that I don’t own any guns.
So, just because of the registry, do you think the police should then breath a sigh of relief and go “whew, thank God there’s no guns at this house”??
I think any police officer worth his or her salt would enter my home being prepared for any eventuality, regardless of what the registry would tell them.
Does that help you understand the difference in the two pieces of legislation?
Regards
Steve
Elizabeth-
As a new gun owner, I’ve just been through all the hoops required to purchase firearms. As someone who seems confused about this process, might I suggest that you do the same? You’ll learn that the licensing of an individual is very different from the registration of a gun.
I went through the checks when I got the initial license. When registering a new gun, it is checked that my license is still valid. It does not screen me for suitability for firearms ownership a second or third, or fourth time dependent on how many guns one owns.
By the way, it’s the gun control people that got me into guns. With their wacky stats, I had to do research for myself, as just what I see about didn’t relate to what was being said. What I found was a sea of misleading info. Contrary to what the gun control stance is, I’ve found the fellow legal gun owner to be a responsible, honest person willing to help, with a focus on safety to the extreme. I take issue with people implying anything to the contrary, as it’s all about research. Do that, and I’m certain you’ll come to the same conclusion, assuming you don’t go into it with the “all gun owners are potential murderers” theme. Not only is it wrong, it’s also slanderous of a great group of people who’ve been very wrongly persecuted over the past years.
The shooting sports is a tradition that goes back hundreds of years. It’s an Olympic sport. It’s a great method for families and those not athletically able to participate in a fun environment. It promotes comradeship & focuses the mind.
The criminal element don’t register their guns, nor are they licensed. The gun control folks should be targeting them, not the law abiding people that simply enjoy a fun sport.
Kent
I would like to point out to the author here of her reference to the Supreme Court of Canada case noted above:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html
This case was a “division of powers” case, and as a matter of fact is not about the substance of the Firearms Act (Bill C-68) at all. This case was about whether the Federal government was constituionally able to enact this bill, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with whether the contents of the bill are constitutional or not.
The heart of this case is whether the Federal government had constitutional authority to enact a bill containing measures which could tread upon property rights, which is traditionally under Provincial jurisdiction.
And as far as the other mentioned items go, licensing is the key to public safety. A piece of paper (which may in fact not even be factually accurate) does absolutely nothing to prevent, solve or even investigate gun crime. How many paper restraining orders have ended with injury or death? How many paper driving prohibitions ended with DUI charges, accidents, etc.? How many paper weapons prohibitions have ended with illegal weapons charges?
The Registry has done absolutely nothing but create thousands of paper criminals at a cost of billions of dollars.
No sensible person can argue against safe owenerhip and usage of firearms. But sometimes enough is enough. Over-regulation simply leads to making more criminals out of normally law-abiding citizens and forcing controlled items into the uncontrolled underground. Nobody wants that. History is repleat with examples (Prohibition in the U.S., the “war on drugs”).
Currently, there are about 200,000 Canadians who have not renewed their license. Who are they, where are their guns? Are they dead, alive, sold their guns? Nobody really knows, and there aren’t enough jail cells to hold them all if in fact they are criminals. The current registry is not accurate enough to say for certain.
So now what?
Elizabeth,
I would like to thank you for allowing both pro and con comments on your blog open dialog even with those we disagree with is key especially around heated topics like Gun Control. It is a very brave thing to do and I applaud you for that.
Thanks,
Paul
The most violent country in Europe
Britain has made it to the top. The Labour Government has made it so comfortable for thugs that crime has run rampant. Did I mention that they have stricter firearms laws than Canada, Handguns outlawed there. We by the way placed 6th.
Everyones favourite target for being the most dangerous place because of their lax firearms laws didn’t even make the list.
Ms. Mandelman,
As the chief of a very busy ER close to the GTA, I can attest that the registry is a useless tool with nothing but wasteful plundering of our tax dollars. I follow evidence based medicine to provide the best care for my patients. Until recently we did not have a simple CT scanner (1969 technology!) – can you imagine how many CT scanners could have been added, or as another reader stated, MRI units that help in diagnosis and treatment – real life saving devices – rather than the useless registry? I have called the resgistry many times to report that a woman, child or man is worried about their safety because someone that abused them has a gun. Each time I get the answer…call the police. Why? Because the registry is useless and has no power to do anything that the police already can do! I cannot fathom how anyone in their right mind would support an illogical system that has a pointless, useless registry and an illogical, ill-conceived act to back it up. C-68 has to be the most dimwitted piece of legislation ever written!
Sorry about the rant, but people have to realise what a real waste the registry is!
Dr.O.Ramirez B.Sc.MD.CCFP
I’d really appreciate it if you would back up your assertions with actual citations of credible sources, instead of just leaving us to take your word for it.
Here’s a couple of statistics for you: Senator Anne Cools discovered, after much browbeating and considerable delays, that in 1995 there were 23 women who were shot to death by their spouses. *23*! Do you really think it is fair to blame and hold responsible the other 2,199,997 gun owners who did not kill their spouses for the actions of these few individuals? I think not.
There were already a number of legal remedies to take care of those miscreants who use guns or other objects to threaten, intimidate or even kill other people. If the justice system only took such crimes seriously, and punished such people to the full extent of the law, we’d be much further ahead.
Think how many women might be safe if the billion dollars that had been wasted on this boondoggle had been put towards helping them. How many women might be safer if *they* had access to firearms for their own defence against these criminal thugs – which is what they are.
Another statistic is that Canadians use firearms to defend themselves, others and their property from both four and two-legged predators some 80,000 times per year. For every life lost to a gun, 40 are saved. Read Mauser and Buckner’s “Canadian Attitudes Toward Gun Control: The Real Story” (1997).
Hope this helps!
Point One: Partisan results are not-objective
The various entities conducting such sociological studies produce reports that are invariably uninteresting to the general public, because they are invariably the product of political bureaucratically
A layman can usually tell which ideology’s report it is by glimpsing at the same old, tired out conclusions drawn in it. If generated by conservative dominated segment, they will produce conservative conclusions. If generated by a Liberal dominated segment, they will produce Liberal conclusions. Lets be honest here. If this principal were not true, Liberals would be lauding the outstanding Auditor General’s report the waste generated by the long gun registry, and there would be nothing to rally against.
And they must thank God each day for having that, as they have had little else as a party to run on as a wedge issue these four years gone by.
This is the simple reality of the bureaucracy.
To survive, the bureaucrats in management must surround themselves with underlings most likely to take all measures to achieve the political objectives they have been commanded to produce.
The very continuation of their career is at stake. It has the effect of producing individuals most often notable only for their singular ability to act out of an instinct for self preservation.
This practice is so common that it might as well be filed under “business continuity”.
Your claim to validation of your point of view through sociological reports is about as comical as the court royals in the film Braveheart loudly proclaiming the rightful claim to land titles. About as probable too.
As stated by others, for every report you raise we can counter with five. And we’d all look more the fool for it.
I’m sure someone will be along shortly to pooh-pooh this notion. And that will be a lot of casual Sunday fun to address too. But in the meantime I’ll reflect on gun control outside of the realm of statistical interference; which is so obviously poisoned as to border on ludicrous.
Point Two: Gun control in the world failing
The stress cracks in the facade of what once appeared to be absolute ‘impenetrable wall ‘ of common sense for gun-control and community safety as presented by various globally orchestrated gun-control groups are beginning to show
Badly.
And you are a long way out of touch with the common citizen if you don’t understand how clearly they see this.
Just read today’s news from countries like England. Countries that foolishly abolished gun ownership a decade before sinking into a proverbial toilet of crime and civil unrest. Again, I’ll reference no statistics about how many gun crimes are committed daily on this relatively easy to secure Island nation. Its a fools errand to chase these.
But please explain just how is it that that violent crime occurs in such unprecedented numbers there? After examining the effects of gun control in post ban Britain, it is baffling to understand how anyone could believe gun control works. The only guns there now are in criminal hands.
Bravo Ms. Peters.
We don’t need to dwell on England though because, quite frankly, English crime reporters are doing enough of that for us already, and they’re growing sick to death of the official party line. Their bosses don’t mind, and are letting more and more of these contrary articles through, because they can smell the epic fail. And nothing sells newspapers like scandal.
Point Three: Gun control in the US is failing
Never mind that over 20 States in the Union to our South officially confirmed in State Legislature the legal right of the individual to one form of carry or another. Those same States have also repealed duty to retreat legislation as well.
These two actions spawned numerous Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaigns against those States. And those FUD statements sold a lot of news print, as scary tales always do. But I need to stop and take a minute to thank those behind that FUD plan, because it actually did more to help our case than any amount of full page news print.
Think about it. People paid attention to those articles because they WERE worried. But a great amount of time passed by and yet there was no emergency. Where was the blood in the streets we were warned about?
In the end, there was no case to be made against gun ownership. Even better, nothing needed to be sold to the public to prove it because it was already bought, paid for and well advertised in the media.
Their was no crisis. In State after State, the crime rates nose dived.
It has now become apparent after more than a decade of operation of these laws in places like Florida that these States have a far better track record of reducing crime than any state mandating gun-control.
Once again, I’m not going to play the stats game. But are you aware that the higher a State scores on the Brady scale, the more likely it is to have the worst violent crime rates in the nation? As someone advocating the protection of women against victimization, doesn’t that give you any pause for thought regarding your current hypothesis?
Maybe not.
But here’s a small strategy tip for you guys. FUD campaigns have a very nasty tendency to backfire, because the worst case never happens without forcing it. And like all things forced, you don’t want to get caught in that kind of lying or you’ll never make good with your word again.
Don’t get offended, because some in my camp screaming about Obama taking our guns need to learn this lesson quite desperately too.
For the time being, it is sufficient to state as fact that the second amendment was re-confirmed in the SCOTUS in DC vs Heller much to the dismay of radical groups such as the Brady campaign.
For the future, gun ownership rights remains in the hands of the patriots who have not and will never rest on this all-important issue.
Point Four: Gun control in Canada failing
Lets talk a bit closer to home now.
If you familiarize yourself with the growing number of cases such as Pogson v. Alberta, you’d be far more aware that judicial decisions are now being made here in Canada in recognition of the alarming institutional tendency to overly-ambitious political bias against gun ownership.
Thanks to the uncensored nature of the Internet, Canadians are learning more about their individual rights and entitlements than at any other time in history.
Here’ s the source article:
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abpc/2004/2004abpc41.html
According to Honourable Judge D.E. Demetrick:
“one prominent if not fundamental characteristic of a free and democratic society …is that the citizens of such society generally are “at liberty”or “free” to possess and acquire property without first having to obtain permission from a governmental bureaucrat or the judiciary.
In a free and democratic society any exception or deviation from the general rule deserves close scrutiny even though mandated by law.
Casual or ambitious administration of the law’s exceptions to the general rule could endanger substantially that prominent, socially important, and historically ingrained characteristic of Canadian society.”
This contemporary ruling is directly on net with the majority views of Canadians.
I could spend the better part of my day here responding with similar if not identical precedents. But that would be non-productive. The more salient point to be made regarding official statistics and political bias is that the majority of common Canadians KNOW that violent crime is worse now than it ever has been despite the well-funded presence of the long gun registry.
We are incensed that such a great sum of money was wasted chasing the ideas of a failed ideology. Instead of fighting real crime, this ideology targeted duck hunters. Instead of helping women, this ideology stole the funding to underwrite a socialist agenda.
I’m here along with two million other Canadian gun owners to stand up and tell this agenda “no more”. Not on my dime.
As gun-control advocates, you have had your say for over a decade.
Now you have the opportunity to hear our voices. You will be hearing them in vastly growing numbers over the coming decade. In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, we are a movement. And movements NEVER disappear. They only ever grow stringer and stronger.
In my personal, regular observations of online media ‘polls’ discussing abolition of the long-gun registry, I have noted a disturbing trend with certain vendors. These polls tend to always split the yay vote, and yet they tend to lose so catastrophically as to magically disappear every time the results come up over the last year?
I can help you tackle that one. It is because they rarely display any less than 80% popular support for dismantling that particular white elephant. Wouldn’t it be sort of fun to track a few here. You and me? Just as an experiment?
Maybe while you’re explaining why THOSE statistics tend to disappear you could take a run at explaining why the opposition in Canada need to force a whipped vote to beat the minority conservative government on the issue of abolishing the long gun registry? It is fairly clear to me that many opposition MPs represent ridings where the idea of a long gun registry is not very appealing.
Or perhaps you could explain why the opposition feverishly tried to kill C-301′s successor while moving the hearing committee in camera?
I guess I’d just be satisfied if you could answer the main question for me Elizabeth. If gun control is such a great idea, why does it require such sweeping lies?
Sure, comments here are moderated. But as a friend reminded me elsewhere,
“Your blog, your rules.
Her blog, her rules.
Censorship is practiced by governments. Free speech is practiced by people, but that doesn’t mean you can go into their house and spout off whatever you want.”
When I wrote my first response, it was lengthy. And frankly I was pissed off that it did not appear.
Elizabeth wrote the following above in the main article, which I mistakenly took to mean that ALL comments without offensive material would be published.
“Since writing that entry, I have received over fifty comments, and have posted many that are respectful and polite. However, while engaging in debate with those whose opinion varies from mine is healthy, helpful, and appreciated, I made the decision to delete comments that are disrespectful and derogatory to me or to those who have written in defense of the registry. Calling someone an idiot, Hitler, uneducated, childish, or a liberal self-righteous fascist is not the type of dialogue I like to engage in, and because of this I refuse to post such comments, no matter how many times the same individual submits a comment.”
Now, its obvious that I do not agree with Elizabeth’s opinion on gun control.
I don’t even think it is a good idea to moderate comments where you hope to appear to have open feedback. Believe me; a fine mess that can create.
I WANT comments posted here. I WANT discussion on this topic. But if the only way it occurs is because the author feels she is being pressured to do so, I will respectfully take my comments out to other forums.
We MUST respect a first amendment right as much as we support a second, else they are not human rights at all.
Her forum, her rules.
But lets all agree to keep it clean, and on point about gun control so it can be discussed in the clear.
We ALL have a strong interest in seeing what we believe is best for Canadians.
Roddick, to parallel homophobia to those who are against the inappropriate usage of guns is a completely unfounded claim. As a strong advocate for gay marriage and an equally strong advocate for IANSA, I could not disagree more with your comparison of the two. Homophobia – to me – is a demonstration of people’s ignorance. My support for the gun registry is one based on the facts and data provided by IANSA that show the immense benefits the registry will create.
Call me a tree-hugger, but ideally I wish there were not any guns in the world. If you look at IANSA’s website you will see a spreadsheet with shootings in schools since 1997. Do the math. Add those big and small bodies up. Unless I remember wrong I believe the amount of deaths tallies up to 588. FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-EIGHT teachers (for the most part) and students killed. Look those specific cases up and try to tell me that you think that a single one of these killings was justified. These murderous children were psychology unstable and mentally unsafe. Some had even been previously referred to psychologists due to concerns over their mental conditions. Take for example the murderer at Virginia Tech. According to Wikipedia, “Cho, a senior English major at Virginia Tech, had been diagnosed with and was treated for a severe anxiety disorder in middle school and continued receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. While in college in 2005, Cho had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice.[3] At least one professor had asked him to seek counseling.” Cho purchased his guns without problems and his bullets on eBay. Luckily the massacre at Virginia Tech caused the federal government to pass the most significant gun control law in over a decade. The bill, H.R 2640, authorized up to 1.3 billion dollars in federal grants for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to halt gun purchases by criminals, those who are declared mentally ill and others who have been prohibited from possessing firearms.
I’m sorry but is that what you want? Would you like 32 murders and many others wounded to PROVE that these laws are necessary? Personally I believe in stopping the problem before it happens rather than buying a mop to clean the mess after it has occurred. Guns aren’t a joke. They are tools of murder. As a college student myself, I would rather not wait until it is too late.
On that note, I don’t feel that the debate should be solely about the registry but on gun proliferation itself.
KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK ELIZABETH!
Natasha wrote:
“My support for the gun registry is one based on the facts and data provided by IANSA that show the immense benefits the registry will create.”
You see, the problem here is that there is currently 11 years of in-force legislation for the Registry in Canada, and it has not made any bit of difference. You can bear down on all the stats you like, they are quite conclusive in this respect. This is tempered by the fact that there is an estimated 1/3 to 1/2 compliance rate, and this is not not likely to change anytime soon.
So, when will these benefits be created, and at what price? 10 years more, and another $1 Billion in operations expenses alone, 20 years and another $1 Billion, a lifetime and countless billions? You can own a car that you could survive in any accident, but it might cost you $250,000. Is it worth it to you, and more importantly, is it worth it to the 15 million other taxpayers in Canada? The answer is no, and rightly so. Cost-benefit analysis applies everywhere.
Natasha also wrote:
“Personally I believe in stopping the problem before it happens rather than buying a mop to clean the mess after it has occurred. Guns aren’t a joke. They are tools of murder.”
I absolutely agree with you. If 20 students had been armed at Virginia Tech, perhaps the only death would have been Cho himself. Guns are not a joke, but they are not a tool for murder. A gun can be very useful, even if it is never fired, and can be useful even if it is not loaded. It’s use can be as much for the threat of force as in the use of force itself. This is the reason Police and the military openly carry their weapons.
When criminals know for a fact that citizens are not armed, they are very bold, and will make a victim out of anyone, at anytime. If they are given cause to think that they may in fact encounter an armed citizen, and that their activity might cost them their lives, well, survival instinct says they will look elsewhere. This is the reason why states in the U.S. show very marked reductions in violent crime when “Shall Issue” CCW laws come into effect. This is also why gun-free countries like the U.K. show very marked increases in violent crime when disarming laws come into effect.
A world without guns is simply impossible. Now that this is put to rest, the reality is that unarmed citizens are victims to armed criminals. Good luck disarming the criminals.
@ Natasha.
I find it odd that you feel that exercising of homophobic judgment is a demonstration of peoples ignorance, but that exercising of hoplophobic judgment is a well grounded in research.
That is seriously disturbing behavior
Do you really believe that providing the limited evidence you see supports the conclusions you want to hear, it is valid?
That is unacceptable.
In doing so, you validate the equally limited mindset of every homophobic and hateful person roaming the planet.
The only thing you have successfully demonstrated to me from your post is that is that you strongly support one camp and have little to no interest in examining the findings of the other.
I’m sorry, but that is doesn’t exactly ground you as someone with an open mind.
It is almost crass for you to use schoolyard shootings as an example. Schoolyards are the ultimate product of failed social engineering.
We’ve had well over a decade of “gun free zones” and every time there is a shooting at a school, it is an absolute massacre. Teachers in inner city schools would question your sanity if you told them that schools were safe because they were declared gun free zones.
Except if you consider the ones where students were armed like at the Appalachian School of law.
Disagree all you want. The fact of the matter is that Concealed Carry rights are being spread to all manner of locations including campuses, because years of empirical evidence support the conclusion that citizens are better off armed.
Yes, I watched the dreadful puff piece on 20/20 where they pitted students with no real experience in silly clothes with gloves and helmets, made drawing impossible, and pointed out to the SWAT trained officer who the defenders were.
It was so badly rigged, it was painful.
We can certainly at least agree on one thing though. It is a deadly serious matter.
@ Dr. Ramirez.
Thanks for your contribution. While we can never replace the squandered funds paid friendly partisan contractor companies, we can ensure that future funding goes to useful civic ventures.
Here’s a novel idea. Enforcing the laws we’re already got and holding humans accountable for their actions.
People will need to get over the fact that you cannot have a ‘gun free’ world… Once a technology becomes widely available, it will not go away until it is replaced by a ‘better’ technology.
As it stands, handguns (and firearms in general) are the nest tool available for self defence. That’s why millions of police officers (and civilians) carry them every day.
Trying to ban them (or register them) will not make them go away… They are man-made items…
For all we know, criminal organisation could be producing thousands of illegal handgun using ‘legitimate’ serial numbers and marking… and there is nothing you can do about it…
The comment period for this entry is now closed.
Given that men are physically stronger than women, gun laws are by nature gender-discriminatory. If more women could acquire a gun and the training to competently use it, there would be less women and children murdered by drunk and/or temporarily insane men. The laws that leave women defenseless drip with blood. shame on those who promote them.