Comments on: An Interview with Dr. Alok Mukherjee, Chair, Toronto Police Services Board http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/ Project Ploughshares in Canada Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:18:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Elizabeth Mandelman http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-599 Elizabeth Mandelman Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:21:23 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-599 The comment period for this entry is now closed. The comment period for this entry is now closed.

]]> By: Elizabeth Mandelman http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-592 Elizabeth Mandelman Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:33:54 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-592 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. 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.

]]> By: Elizabeth Mandelman http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-591 Elizabeth Mandelman Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:31:37 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-591 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. 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.

]]> By: Elizabeth Mandelman http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-590 Elizabeth Mandelman Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:27:21 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-590 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. 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.

]]> By: Elizabeth Mandelman http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-589 Elizabeth Mandelman Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:25:00 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-589 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. 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.

]]> By: Elizabeth Mandelman http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-588 Elizabeth Mandelman Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:23:39 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-588 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? 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?

]]> By: Elizabeth Mandelman http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-587 Elizabeth Mandelman Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:20:40 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-587 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. 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.

]]> By: From Advocacynet, August 3, 2009, An Interview with Dr. Alok Mukherjee, Chair, Toronto Police Services Board « The Coalition for Gun Control/Pour le Controle des Armes http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-586 From Advocacynet, August 3, 2009, An Interview with Dr. Alok Mukherjee, Chair, Toronto Police Services Board « The Coalition for Gun Control/Pour le Controle des Armes Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:09:27 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-586 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Pittsky http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-585 Pittsky Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:17:39 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-585 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 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

]]> By: Jarlath http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/2009/08/03/an-interview-with-dr-alok-mukherjee-chair-toronto-police-services-board/comment-page-1/#comment-584 Jarlath Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:16:55 +0000 http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/?p=130#comment-584 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. 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.

]]>