Dr. Alok Mukherjee is the current Chair of Toronto’s Police Services Board. He joined the board in 2004, having been appointed by the City Council, and was elected by his colleagues as Chair in 2005.
Prior to his service with the Board, Dr. Mukherjee served as Acting Chief Commissioner and Vice Chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and was also a member of the Ontario Civilian Coalition on Police Services. Additionally, he was an instructor of South Asian studies at York University.
The Toronto Police Services Board has many responsibilities, including determining the objectives and priorities of their municipalities police services in conjunction with the Chief of Police, establishing policies for the effective management of their police services, and establishing guidelines for the administration of the public complaints system.
Despite his very busy schedule, Dr. Mukherjee spent time with me talking about the usefulness of the Firearms Act not only in combating domestic violence, but also other problems such as gang violence.
According to Dr. Mukherjee, because police officers are the individuals that actually utilize the measures included in the Firearms Act, they are best equipped and most able to comment on its effectiveness. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Association of Police Boards, and the Canadian Police Association all publicly support the Firearms Act. Dr. Mukherjee feels that this should carry more weight with policymakers and the public than it currently does.
Dr. Mukherjee thinks that there is a direct parallel between gun control, crime, and quality of life. With gun control measures in place, fewer domestic disputes turn deadly, and fewer mentally ill individuals gain access to firearms and use them during psychotic episodes.
In addition, a reduction in gang violence results (which is a significant problem in Toronto), and even rare situations, like guns being pulled during bouts of road rage, decrease. In other words, gun control correlates with safety, and when individuals and communities are safer, there is an increase in quality of life.
In fact, although the Police Services Board supports the Firearms Act, they think that it should go even further to protect society. Among the changes the Board believes need to be made to the Firearms Act are stricter enforcement measures at the borders, and clearer marking of stolen firearms. By marking seized firearms that may lack serial numbers, the government and police would have a clearer idea of the total number of guns in Canada.
Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected.
Lastly, although there has been no consensus on this, as it is more of a ‘big city’ issue, the Board believes that handguns should be banned. They are often used in instances of gang violence, and are not used for sporting purposes. As a result, Dr. Mukherjee asserted that civilians should be banned from acquiring handgun, and that only police officers should have access to them.
Coming from a human rights background, Dr. Mukherjee understands the importance of equality. He recognizes that there are many gun owners in Canada that use their firearms for sporting purposes, and do so safely.
However, gun control measures established by the government must take into account the objectives of public safety, the protection of marginalized communities (such as those who are domestically abused), and the reduction of crime, before catering to the opponents of gun control.
By filling out paperwork and answering questions related to relationship status and mental well-being, taking safety training courses, and registering their firearms, law-abiding citizens are helping to keep themselves, and their country, safe.
In the following, Dr. Mukherjee shares his thoughts on the Firearms Act.
Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence Campaign, domestic abuse, Dr. Alok Mukherjee, gang violence, gun control, IANSA, Toronto Police Services Board
Ms. Mandelman:
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support for the firearms registry has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with the CACP protecting several lucrative sources of funding for their corrupt group. For example:
The CACP receives funding from Power Corp, a very powerful group in Quebec with a long history of Liberal Party of Canada support. The CACP supports the Liberal long gun registry, they continue to receive funding.
The CACP also receives funding from the CGI Group, a computer/technology company, also out of Quebec. It just so happens that the CGI Group is the compant that supplies the registry with the computer systems and software to maintain it.
This interview with Dr. Mukherjee contains alot of his OPINIONS, alot of he FEELS, and he THINKS, with little FACT to back it up. He feels only police should have handguns. He does realize police have their firearms stolen as well right? Just today, August 3rd, there is an article in the Toronto Star talking about an OPP officer having his service pistol and a bunch of police equipment stolen. Two or three months ago, yet another OPP officer had a semi automatic rifle, four 30 round magazines (which are prohibited devices to civilian firearms owners) and well as a quantity of ammunition stolen out of his cruiser while it was parked in front of his house……for THREE DAYS.
He claims that handguns have no sporting purpose. What is his definition of “sporting purpose”? Maybe he should call th Pan Am games and tell them thier handgun shooting events aren’t “sporting.” Tell all the people who use handguns to shoot events with IPSC or IDPA or Cowboy Action Shooting they have no “sporting purpose.” We ARE NOT ALLOWED to use them for hunting, because the Liberals specifically put it into the Firearms Act, simply to protect the anti gun establisment in Canada’s tired old “they serve no purpose” argument as justification to continue to demand they be banned.
While Dr. Alok Mukherjee has expressed some very good points at the end of his interview, specifically pertaining for the need for better discussion and better debate on the subject of gun control.
Obviously, I am disagreement about the relevance of the gun registry. I believe Dr. Mukherjee’s experience is all theoretical and based upon information provided to him by his own sources. Again, the credibility of some of the sources he cites in my mind is questionable at best (mentioning either the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or even Toronto, in my mind and the mind of firearms owners across the country is enough to make us feel any information he cites as being discredited).
This dwells deep into an all encompassing notion of political and social philosophy. That being that within society, there are those who feel comfortable believing Government should have all encompassing power over it’s citizens and there are those who feel terrified of that same principle.
Within both bodies of people, there are those who can be trusted to hold the better interest of themselves and those in their community, and there are those who will violate the that interest for whatever selfish reasons they may have.
The current system of Canadian Gun Control is a paramount example of Government having an encompassing power over it’s citizens, and worse, specifically targets the people within society who are not dangerous, under the guise of trying to maintain safety from those who are.
Again, how can the Gun Registry be effective when it is full of errors and incomplete? An Auditor General’s report in 2006 found there were unacceptably high error rates in the data contained in the Registry. It is estimated that 50-60% of all legally procured firearms in this country are registered.
How can the current system of classification of firearms be considered effective when it is ambiguous and unenforceable? As you mentioned, often times manufacturers produce firearms that are still within the letter of the law, but completely against the intended spirit of it. (You were incorrect on this one, all firearms still must be registered, regardless of their classification).
What recourse do the millions of Canadians who own firearms have, if bans and confiscation advocated by Dr. Mukherjee come into affect?
You mention the “protection of marginalized communities,” but the reality is that the gun owners in Canada has become a marginalized community and there is no one protecting us.
Libertarians believe that no one has the right to deny the life, freedom, or happiness of anyone else, except as reasonable means of self defense. This principle has to apply to Government, just as much as it does to individuals. Therefore, creating a system designed to manipulate and control one group of people (such as the Canadian system of gun control does over gun owners) is just as unacceptable as individuals using violence, aggression, or coercion to manipulate and control other individuals (as is universally the case in situations where abuse or violent crime is present).
Thanks Elizabeth,
HTC
Elizabeth:
Why are people like yourself and Wendy Cukier, who claim to be interested in women’s rights and protecting women from domestic violence, against giving women all the tools necessary to protect themselves from falling victim to the acts of violence?
Take the concealed carry of handguns. If an attacker thought there was the possibility of a woman carrying a concealed handgun, don’t you think the attacker would think twice before going after her? In the first year after Michigan passed their concealed carry law, rapes fell 7%.
The fact is, in order for you to continue to receive money and feel relevant, you NEED women to continue to be victims.
So Mukherjee asserted that civilians should be banned from acquiring handgun, and that only police officers should have access to them?
the police in favor of a “police state” go figure
name one bout of road rage where a gun was pulled in Ontario?, i f you find one i something tells me the person had it illegally in the first place
“Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected.”
All modern firearms must be registered, so the above sentence is very misleading and totally false. Based on mistakes like this, it should not be surprising that dialogues of yours receive criticism. Also, if someone’s criticism of your work is undeserved or is based on bad information, don’t not post the dialogue, show why the criticism is unjustified.
Graham, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this is a self-funded fellowship. I’m not receiving ANY money, from anyone.
Additionally, as I’ve also said before, denying the fact that women are victimized and that I “NEED women to continue to be victims” to feel relevant just continues to illustrate the way in which pro gun advocates (and I’d add to that father’s rights groups) marganilize the subject. It’s sad, really.
Chris, No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list for over a decade. This is indeed a loophole, and it’s being exploited by many firearms retailers. Many new firearms have been designed that are being sold in Canada that meet the criteria to be on the prohibited or restricted lists. Here’s an example of a website advertisement from Wolverine Supplies is Manitoba:
The final class is the Prohibited (With out grandfathering) this
would include (but not limited to) firearms from all the Prohibited
Grandfathered classes that were not registered into the system prior
to their respective cut off dates. Do not try and register one of
these firearms (Even during an amnesty) you will lose it! If you
have something interesting in this area contact me and I will explain
your options, Yes you do have more options than simply surrending
her, but don’t delay.
There are many errors and misunderstandings concerning the
classification of different firearms. The following are just a few
examples. Lots of people think all Fifty cal rifles are prohibited.
WRONG!!!! Some are, and some are not. The Mini 14 is still not
restricted, folding stocks are legal, so are factory shotguns with 14
inch barrels. An MP5 SMG would have to be either a FA or CA. The
factory semi auto version, the HK 94 would be in the 12.5 class. This is
very straighforward and easy to understand. However when you look
at the FN FAL family you have firearms that could be in either FA, CA
or the 12.5 class, and some FN FAL whose correct classification can
not be determined. These last ones are accepted at face value in
whatever class they are currently registered in.
Here at Wolverine Supplies we deal in all classes of firearms. We
supply both private citizens and Government Agencies, literally from
coast to coast. Whilst we do not support all the current facets of our
firearm control system, we will follow the law. Due to my long
extensive involvement in the Canadian Firearms Industry I have a
better than average understanding of our system, if you have any
concerns regarding any intended purchase, please phone or e-mail me.
John Hipwell
President
Wolverine Supplies
“Chris, No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list for over a decade.”
Now hold on, you wrote that the firearms didn’t need to be registered, which is incorrect. You mentioned nothing about prohibition orders, and what you said in your reply is completely different than what I replied to. Also, how is not adding to the prohibited list a loophole?
“I’ve made clear in many of my posts, and comments, that I’m not opposed to people owning firearms safely and legally for sportsmanship purposes. I’m pretty sure there are even a few gun nutz who would be willing to back me up on that one. You may want to take a look back at my entries and comments.”
I’ll back you up on this one, but I think that hand guns are sporting arms, along with the AR-15 and many other firearms that are currently restricted….
Elizabeth,
You should read up on the CACP and where they get funding before trusting anything they say in relation to the registry.
Give who the good Dr was hired by his views are inline with the agenda the people who appointed him.
“Lastly, although there has been no consensus on this, as it is more of a ‘big city’ issue, the Board believes that handguns should be banned. They are often used in instances of gang violence, and are not used for sporting purposes. As a result, Dr. Mukherjee asserted that civilians should be banned from acquiring handgun, and that only police officers should have access to them. “
Hunting with handguns is a sporting activity, but that has been legislated away. The Olympics have handgun events that are sport. Many people all over Canada participate in IPSC, IDPA, 3 Gun and on and on those are sporting events.
I guess the logic here is that if handguns are illegal criminals will respect the law. Criminals will not respect the rule of law. The only people that will be punished are law-abiding owners.
“Coming from a human rights background, Dr. Mukherjee understands the importance of equality. He recognizes that there are many gun owners in Canada that use their firearms for sporting purposes, and do so safely.”
But yet he would take my property and sport away. Interesting he would erase my rights because criminals also use firearms.
“However, gun control measures established by the government must take into account the objectives of public safety, the protection of marginalized communities (such as those who are domestically abused), and the reduction of crime, before catering to the opponents of gun control.”
Yes, because we have been so catered too. Unless by catered you mean smashed in the teeth by a hammer.
Chris, Go back and read my original entry. I wrote that there are new firearms being designed that haven’t been added to the prohibited or restricted list, and if I didn’t use those words explicitly, it was implied. Retailers are able to market these firearms as ones which can be purchsed and not registered, because the lists have not been updated. My original post clearly states this, and the example I provided backs it up.
P. Dusablon-You’ve clearly chosen to read my statements how you see fit, rather than putting them into perspective and that’s become very clear over the course of my time here. Because of that, there is no point in me wasting my breath.
Jayde, The interview I had with Dr. Mukherjee lasted an hour and he did provide facts. In fact, in the beginning of the video clip he offered statistics of the use of firearms in instances of sexual assault.
I have looked into Professor Mauser’s history. Do an engine search on his name. If he at one time was for gun control, he definitely isn’t anymore, and that becomes clear through a simple search. I’ve taken the time to talk to many people in the pro gun community, a couple of whom told me they too used to support gun contol. I’ve done a sufficient job of soliciting the opinion of both sides of the argument, regardless of being told otherwise.
Edward, Your owning guns may not place others in danger, but how is the Canadian government to know that unless you go through the proper procedures to determine whether you’re fit to own a firearm. Additionally, oftentimes mental illness creeps up on an individual, which is why there are periodic screening measures in place. The registry also helps with this. If an individual has a psychotic breakdown and officers become involved, the register helps them prepare for the situation. Therefore, it is the business of the government to know what you’re in possession of, in case of such an episode. Lastly, you fail to mention that in England the crime rate in involving firearms has gone down since the legislation’s implementation.
P. Dunaldson, Your persepctive is quite different in that you’re twisting my words to mean things that they don’t. It’s very unfair. I have never likened law-abiding firearms owners to criminals or gang members, nor have I portrayed all soldiers to state-sanctioned murderers or all firearms owners owners to rapists in waiting. Open your eyes. You’re not the victim. The women being abused and threatened with firearms are. What gives me the right to advocate for removing firearms from the hands of perpetrators? As a human being, I am afforded that right. As human beings, we have the responsibility to help keep our communities and our world safe. You just care too much about “you” and about playing a victim whose rights are being violated to realize that.
Elizabeth: You need to the check the LAW. The statement: “Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected”, IS WRONG. By law ALL firearms in Canada must be registed.
Mark, Thanks for the suggestion, but I have checked the law. Apparently though, the law, Dr. Mukherjee, and the law enforcement officials I’ve checked with are just flat out wrong. Not surprising, since apparently I’m wrong about everything, along with all of the individuals I’m interviewed during my time here, no matter what their credentials.
“but how is the Canadian government to know that unless you go through the proper procedures to determine whether you’re fit to own a firearm.”
First, who says they need to know?
Second, we already go through a measure that determines fitness. That is what the PAL licensing program accomplishes. The registry on the other hand contributes nothing as far as determining fitness is concerned.
Thirdly it is not up to me to prove that I am fit, the onus is on the powers that be to determine that I am not. This is the ONLY circumstance where a restriction of freedom ought to be permissible in a free society.
“Additionally, oftentimes mental illness creeps up on an individual, which is why there are periodic screening measures in place. The registry also helps with this.”
No, the registry does not help with this. At all. The reality that a database containing names and serial numbers does not speak to the mental health of certain individuals, ought to be self-evident.
Also, even if the registry were a useful tool in screening for mental illness, mental illness is an exception, not a rule. Therefore in addition to being useless in terms of screening for mental illness, arguing that it is justification for preserving the registry is a logical fallacy.
Re: current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered
Elizabeth; re your comment : “Apparently though, the law, Dr. Mukherjee, and the law enforcement officials I’ve checked with are just flat out wrong. Not surprising, since apparently I’m wrong about everything, along with all of the individuals I’m interviewed during my time here, no matter what their credentials.”
I realize your above comments are sarcastic and that you would much rather believe a gun control “expert” with questionable credentials than someone who actually works with firearms, but please do yourself a favor and check out the RCMP’s CFC web site at : http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a2.
According to this RCMP/CFC web page: “Both the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act contain offences and penalties for illegal possession or misuse of a firearm. For example, a first-time offender who has failed to register a non-restricted rifle or shotgun may be charged under the Firearms Act or under the Criminal Code. A person who has failed to register a restricted or prohibited firearm or who has used a firearm to commit a crime would be charged under the Criminal Code.”
Remember there are 3 classes of firearms in Canada, ( prohibited, restricted & non-restricted firearms) and according to the above paragraph, you can be charged under the Criminal code for not registering any of the above class of firearm.
Cheers Mark
Ps I think Dr Mukherjee maybe confused with the American “Assault weapon” law which defined an assault weapon based on some cosmetic features rather than function. As a result of this bill many of the American small arms manufactures removed or changed some of these banned cosmetic features in order to avoid being banned.
Edward, In keeping society safe, government does need to know whether you’re fit to own a firearm. It’s part of their responsibility in keeping society safe.
The registry is helpful not in determing whether someone with a mental illness is fit to own a firearm (I clearly know this is done through licensing), but in helping police officers prepare the proper response in instances where individuals having psychotic episodes may be involved. I have a relative with a mental illness. I have seen them have psychotic episodes. Would I want the police to know before responding to a call my relative might be involved in whether they have a firearm registered to their name? YES. 100% YES. I never said that the registry speaks to the mental health of an invidual. What I said it is helpful in a situation like the one I just spoke of.
And, you mention the powers that be. The ‘powers that be’ is the government.
Lastly, unfortunately, mental illness is not an exception. Many people suffer from many different types of mental illness. Does this mean that anybody with a mental illness should not be allowed access to a gun for sportsmanship purposes? No, not at all, but it’s important to recognize that the screening process and registry are there for a reason, and it’s not to take away your rights, but to keep society safe.
I have a question: Setting aside the issue of the registry for a moment, where do you stand on the question of using a firearm for self-defense, registered or not? Would you use a firearm for self defense? If you wouldn’t, would you still allow that others have the right to do so?
BTW you still haven’t established the efficacy of gun control in terms of reducing violence. Statistics don’t support that assertion.
As to the example of your mentally ill relative, there are plenty of other items that that one could hurt themselves or others with. Should we therefore register these as well? Would it not be more effective for the police to assume that they may use ANYTHING that they might put their hands on in such a fashion if it became necessary for them to intervene? In fact you will find that police officers who value their own safety do just that, registry or no.
There sure is a lot of “IF’s”, and “in case” excuses in the above – Our licencing and storage requirements already takes care of these supposed scenarios.
We also have to remember – murder, assault, the use of force against another person is already illegal, no matter which weapon or tool you use…
Those that choose to step over that boundary will not care about a little piece of paper saying this gun is registered.
The registry has been and will continue to be a colossal waste of money. Why can’t we take the money spent on it and hire more police, better social programs, etc…..
You will never get criminals to comply with licencing or registration, and with the reports of the inaccuracies of the current registry, why throw good money after bad??
I do get concerned about the inaccuracies reported here and by Wendy Cukier, David Miller, etc. Why is fear such a part of the strategy??
Why is there so many questions about the CACP and their views on the registry, tasers, etc. that do not seem to get properly answered??
I agree with the comments someone had put on your last interview about the women’s shelters – put some of the registry money towards a hand up for those women.
I guess I do not understand why the focus on guns themselves.
The questions on mental illness on the PAL application are intrusive. The goverment does not need to know if I have a mental illness, they do not need to know if I’ve lost my job, thought about suicide or been divorced, seperated or have any ex-girlfriends (or boyfirends if I was so disposed). Plain and simple.
But the best part about it all, they could not possibly know if I answered any of those questions truthfully. There is no mental illness registry, no lost job database (unless I claim EI), there is no suicidal tendancies list, nor any ended relationship registry.
So, now, you tell me, Elizabeth, how many untruthful answers are out there? How many are truthful? Is there anyone to know the difference, or be able to verify the true from the untrue? I’ll save you the trouble of wasting time on Google, there isn’t anyone or any resource to do this.
So, tell me again how the license system in Canada prevents someone unfit from having a gun, other than someone making a public safety concern call (which has been done long before the Registry came along)? Two billion dollars well spent, they don’t even know if all that costly info is correct at all, not even a clue.
Any claim that our license and registration system helps anyone just evaporated. Any further attempt to justify it is a plain, old lie, and you know it.
Why should the law-abiding have to prove their law-abiding-ness to the State? All so-called “gun control laws” do is to shift the burden of responsibility from those who commit criminal acts onto the backs of those who don’t. This is “reverse onus”, “prior restraint”, “guilty until proven innocent”, not to mention unfair and unjust.
*This* is why we are so dead-set against your version of “gun contorl” – because it does nothing to target the actual problem – actual criminals who actually misuse guns to actually commit crimes!
Elizabeth,
Perhaps you should focus on violence and gun control within you own country. The “loose” gun laws and the higher rate of crime in America are often cited in Canada as an example for the need of tighter firearms laws here. Additionally, perhaps tighter gun control within your own country would lead to less firearms being smuggled illegally into Canada, thus keeping unregistered firearms out of the hands of Canadian criminals. I would also note that many firearms sold in Canada are manufactured within the United States. Perhaps campaigning to regulate, reduce or end the manufacturing of firearms withing you own country would be an effective weapon against violence. While you are at it, perhaps you can fight the glorification of criminal activity and gun violence that is common within your country in the pop music industry. In fact, I support you in effecting change within your own country, just not mine.
Steve.
Elizabeth
“Lastly, you fail to mention that in England the crime rate in involving firearms has gone down since the legislation’s implementation.”
Of course it has for the last 4 years because that’s way the government wants it. They changed the way the information is reported. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html)
If the ban is working why does the government need to put its thumb on the scale? It’s pathetic and a shame of public safety just like what has and is happening in this country.
Thanks,
Paul
Why are gun registry opponents so unprepared to listen to the police, whose lives are at stake when they respond to a call?
Even in its current form, the registry has been very useful in getting guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.
Think what we could do if the registry were properly enforced. If responsible gun owners register their guns, any other guns out there should be liable to seizure.
Right now, of course the registry is incomplete because of the lack of will to stand up to the registry opponents. That makes it much less effective than it ought to be.
We need a way to allow firearms to be used by people who need them for legitimate purposes, but get them out of the hands of people who develop mental illness or become violent for other reasons. The registry is an important piece of that puzzle.
You continually state that the registry is a valuable tool for police in the case of individuals who develop mental illness. Yet I question this in general. When the Police run a name, they find out if he (assume for your arguments that it is a man) has/has a firearms license. That license tells the police what types of firearms the man can legally possess. Non-Restricted, Restricted and several classes of Prohibited fireaems. Tell me now how the registry makes any difference when the police ALREADY know that the person can own firearms. Maybe the police should assume that if the individual has a PAL that allows for restricted firearms, that he most likely has a handgun? Heaven forbid that you somehow cannot fathom that police cannot make such a leap of logic. So if he can legally own handguns, does it matter if he has 1, 2, 3, 10, 20? He has possible access to handguns. Period. End. discussion. Usefulness of registry? Zero.
The problem is that what if that same individual has never had a PAL? Do you believe that the police will assume that if the mentally ill individual does not come up a a legal firearms owner that they should approach the situation as though there are no firearms present? I would hope not. Again, usefulness of registry equals zero.
Your reasoning that registration allows for “a full inventory” of what said mentally ill individual possesses is pitiful as every single time there has been a legal firearms owner who has been charged has had their homes searched for everything gun related. Go look up Ernest McKenzie, a gun smith who had several hundred firearms confiscated because of something that his roommate did. Three years later and tens of thosands of dollars of legal fees and he was acquitted of all 4 charges, yet his method of employment was destroyed for three years, he is still missing several thousand dollars of missing firearms which the police say they never had in their possession. An innocent man, whose life was destroyed because of this vaunted program supposedly to help keep Canadians safe. This person and many other Canadians who were law abiding have had to face tens of thousands in legal fees, negative media, and years of legal battles to prove their innocence. Yet Criminals who do not get a licence or register their guns get free lawyers, and 2 for 1 credit for time served and a “Prohibition on possessing weapons”.
Yes lets support a registration which does ZERO to actually protect Canadians from those who would commit violence on others. How about a registry of those NOT allowed to own firearms. It would be alot simpler and cheaper to maintain and far more easier to enforce.
Elizabeth said:
Additionally, oftentimes mental illness creeps up on an individual, which is why there are periodic screening measures in place. The registry also helps with this.
===========================
Elizabeth, could you please explain to me how the registry helps with this?
I look forward to your response.
Jeff
[...] Posted by cgccanada on August 5, 2009 Dr. Alok Mukherjee is the current Chair of Toronto’s Police Services Board. He joined the board in 2004, having been appointed by the City Council, and was elected by his colleagues as Chair in 2005. Prior to his service with the Board, Dr. Mukherjee served as Acting Chief Commissioner and Vice Chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and was also a member of the Ontario Civilian Coalition on Police Services. Additionally, he was an instructor of South Asian studies at York University. The Toronto Police Services Board has many responsibilities, including determining the objectives and priorities of their municipalities police services in conjunction with the Chief of Police, establishing policies for the effective management of their police services, and establishing guidelines for the administration of the public complaints system. Despite his very busy schedule, Dr. Mukherjee spent time with me talking about the usefulness of the Firearms Act not only in combating domestic violence, but also other problems such as gang violence. According to Dr. Mukherjee, because police officers are the individuals that actually utilize the measures included in the Firearms Act, they are best equipped and most able to comment on its effectiveness. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Association of Police Boards, and the Canadian Police Association all publicly support the Firearms Act. Dr. Mukherjee feels that this should carry more weight with policymakers and the public than it currently does. Dr. Mukherjee thinks that there is a direct parallel between gun control, crime, and quality of life. With gun control measures in place, fewer domestic disputes turn deadly, and fewer mentally ill individuals gain access to firearms and use them during psychotic episodes. In addition, a reduction in gang violence results (which is a significant problem in Toronto), and even rare situations, like guns being pulled during bouts of road rage, decrease. In other words, gun control correlates with safety, and when individuals and communities are safer, there is an increase in quality of life. In fact, although the Police Services Board supports the Firearms Act, they think that it should go even further to protect society. Among the changes the Board believes need to be made to the Firearms Act are stricter enforcement measures at the borders, and clearer marking of stolen firearms. By marking seized firearms that may lack serial numbers, the government and police would have a clearer idea of the total number of guns in Canada. Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected… more [...]
Brad, Clearly you think the government is good for some things, like collecting EI if you lose your job. It’s funny how you think the government should support you if you lose your job, but that they have no right to help other citizens by keeping them safe through the Firearms Act. I see how it is.
Stephen, People keep telling me that I should go back to my own country. Do you think that the other fellows working with AP who are working in places like the Congo and Namimbia should also keep their noses out of the business of those governments, where corruption and violence run rampant? Or is it just me, because domestic violence with firearms and things like gang violence aren’t important to gun owners here in Canada?
Pittsky, If you’re going to quote something I said, quote everything, not just what you feel like you need to, to make a point. Go back and read what I wrote in it’s entirety, and you’ll have your answer.
Paul (tandy), Is there any government that you trust, anywhere? It sure seems like there’s not. Perhaps if you put a little more faith into the fact that the Canadian government isn’t out to get you and your fellow gun owners (because it’s not, I promise you), but to help protect you, you’d understand the importance of the Firearms Act.
Jarlath, Nobody ever said the registry is foolproof, as what sort of registration system is? Any police office who uses it understands that an illegal firearm may be at the home, but that doesn’t eliminate its usefulness. The registry helps police officers prepare the proper response. In addition, I stated that the licensing process and registry work well together to help prevent individuals who shouldn’t have firearms from acquiring them and yes, that includes mentally ill individuals.
Edward, There are plenty of other tools that someone in a state of distress can use, you’re correct. However, what you fail to point out that with a firearm, someone in distress can do A LOT of harm, to A LOT of people, in a very short period of time. A gun can kill multiple people in seconds, something like a knife or another weapon, cannot.
The comment period for this entry is now closed.