Returning Fire on Gun Registry Critics
Last week, many Tyeesters assailed my defence of the registry. Here's why they're wrong.
Since registry started, long gun murders are down by half.
-
If Long Gun Registry Is So Dumb, Why Do Police Like It?
Most Canadians want it, too. So why are opposition members helping Tories kill it?
-
Living Next Door to a Gun Culture
The PM may have the gun registry in his sights, but there is no political support for the American way of firearms. The body count is just too high.
-
Rising Tide of Smuggled Guns
Why British Columbia is being flooded. A two-part series.
"The recent vote is appalling. We will witness the tragic consequences of this bill." -- Dr. Carolyn Snider, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
A lot of people had strong opinions on last week's column opposing the vote in Parliament to kill the long gun registry, passed with all Conservative and some Liberal and New Democrat MPs voting in favour.
Today, I return fire on registry critics.
Long guns aren't a problem? In 2008 a full 17 per cent of all homicides committed using firearms were committed using rifles and shotguns -- that's 34 deaths, Statistics Canada reports.
Rural Canadians can handle their guns? In non-urban areas rifles and shotguns were responsible for 48 per cent of all firearm homicides. And surprisingly, rural residents are at higher, not lower, risk of being a homicide victim than city dwellers.
When it comes to who the killers are -- rural or urban -- the statistics are disturbing: in 70 solved homicides in 2008, 40 per cent of victims were killed by an acquaintance and 33 per cent by a family member, while just 17 per cent of deaths were at the hands of strangers.
The registry isn't effective? Since the registry was passed in 1995, homicides by rifles and shotguns have dropped by nearly 50 per cent, while handgun deaths are up and non-firearms homicides are down slightly.
Last year 1,833 firearms licences were revoked and 462 firearms licences were refused, Firearms' Commissioner William Elliott report to Parliament stated.
Number one reason for revoking firearms licenses -- 75 per cent of them? "Court-ordered prohibition or probation." Yes, 1,366 revocations last year alone were because a court ordered someone not to possess firearms -- gee, maybe they had a criminal problem.
And another 201 applications were refused for the same reason.
What are the second-through-seventh biggest reasons for revocation or refusal of a firearms license? "Potential risk to others; potential risk to self; mental health; violent; drug offences; domestic violence."
Or look at Firearms Interest Police reports, which checks if a licence holder has been the subject of a police incident report by checking the registry. That only happened 102,841 times last year, including over 12,000 in B.C. alone.
Perhaps the information in the Commissioner's report is why Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan didn't want to release it to Parliament until two days after the vote.
Registered long guns are hardly ever used in crime? A number of Conservative MPs have information on their website using two-year-old stats claiming that of 2,441 homicides between 2003 and 2007, under two pe rcent -- or 47 -- were committed using registered rifles or shotguns.
Up to date statistics are not readily available, but logic is. First, 47 homicides in five years with registered long guns is not insignificant. Second, as the registry continues to revoke and refuse long gun registration to criminals and others, as seen above, the homicide rate should drop.
Third, if stolen guns are used in a crime they can be traced through the registry -- see an example below -- meaning criminals will increasingly avoid using registered long guns.
Does it work? Here's one example from the report: "The Canadian Firearms Program provided support to an RCMP detachment, assisting with a Criminal Code of Canada warrant to recover firearms from a subject who had reportedly pointed a rifle at a co-worker and threatened to kill him."
"[It] confirmed the suspect had... nine long guns registered in his name. A warrant was granted and executed, resulting in the recovery of all nine long guns, including the suspect firearm and a quantity of ammunition."
Or this one: "Canadian Firearms Program provided support to an RCMP detachment after a suspect was stopped with four non-restricted 'long guns' in his vehicle. The suspect was evasive when questioned, leading investigators to believe the firearms had been stolen... checks on the recovered firearms determined all four were registered to a local resident and not the person who was in possession of them.
"The registered owner, who was working out of town, was contacted by police and said that, as far as he was aware, all of his firearms were safely stored at his residence. Police attended the owner's residence and discovered evidence confirming that his residence had been broken into and that all 16 of his long guns had been stolen. Subsequent investigation resulted in the recovery of the remaining 12 long guns from the suspect."
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is "biased" and "political"? A ridiculous argument but let's hear from police chief Mike Osborne of Midland, Ontario with a population of 16,000 -- in other words a small town chief, not Toronto's.
"If we’re en route and we know a person has firearms -- you always try to be cautious anyway -- but it just gives you that added information. We do use it when we attend residences to help us gauge what the threat level is," Osborne said. "I do, regardless of whether it's a handgun or a long-gun, see the value of the registry."
"To scrap it now would almost seem like a real waste of the millions that have already been spent," he said. "There's some value in making people feel responsible for their firearms in a way that makes them store and secure them properly, so that was one of the positive things that came out of this whole system.
"It changed people's attitudes about gun and ammunition storage. It put some tough laws in place that regular gun owners are more likely to secure their firearms so they're not being stolen or misused so often," he said, adding it also provided tougher licensing and training for firearms. "People had to really want a firearm for a particular purpose... and I believe that made them take gun ownership more seriously," Osborne concluded.
Others argued that "rank and file" police oppose the registry. But that argument is completely bogus. Only one, repeat, one police union has publicly opposed the long gun registry -- the Saskatchewan Police Federation, representing 1,100 municipal officers.
But Yves Francoeur, the head of Montreal's 4,700-member police union says the registry is essential and can't believe people are complaining about registering rifles.
"We have to register our vehicles, we have to register our properties, we have to register our trailers and we shouldn't have to register our guns?" Francouer asked. "It doesn't make any sense."
Don't polls show opposition to the registry? A new Harris-Decima poll last week said 46 per cent of those surveyed said getting rid of the registry was a good idea, while 41 per cent thought it would be a bad idea.
But an Ipsos-Reid poll in 2006 found 67 per cent supported having a gun registry.
And even in the Harris-Decima poll, 44 per cent of urban residents oppose killing the registry versus 42 per cent who want it gone. Only in Conservative-held ridings are a majority in favour of abolishing it.
The reality is that the former federal Liberal government's incompetence in creating the registry at great cost in the first place has biased many against it, even though the current annual budget is just $8.4 million and getting rid of it now won't recover the money already spent -- but will waste it.
Lastly, some critics thought it was great that the NDP leader Jack Layton and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff allowed a "free vote" that let 12 NDP and eight Liberal MPs from rural ridings to vote to kill the registry.
How political parties failed us
Political parties exist with platforms and policies to give voters clear choices that distinguish one from another. Like it or not -- and some don't -- most voters decide to cast their ballot based on the party and leader, not the local MP.
And party members and donors join and fund their choice of party based on its ideological perspective and goals -- not because it has hundreds of candidates for office who all hold different views on important issues.
That's why many New Democratic and Liberal supporters were appalled by the free vote -- they feel the gun registry is a fundamental value question, not a minor one where a free vote has little consequence.
Jack Layton was a founder of the White Ribbon Committee in Canada, a group of men working to end violence against women. It was created after the Montreal Ecole Polytechnique massacre on December 6, 1989.
And Layton promised he would let provinces implement an "absolute ban" on all handguns -- something I oppose -- in the last federal election campaign.
How does Layton square those positions with letting a third of his NDP caucus vote to kill the long gun registry?
Ignatieff told Liberals in just April of this year his caucus would block Prime Minister Stephen Harper from killing the gun registry: "We won't let him. We won't pass his bills."
But now he has done exactly that.
Both leaders face serious credibility questions on the gun registry -- and both are getting a backlash for their new positions from supporters.
And so they should.
But as I said last week, there is still time for Canadians who support the long gun registry to influence the final vote by MPs. Contact Layton, Ignatieff and other MPs to let them know it is a vote-determining issue for you -- it's the only way to save the registry -- and save lives. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Dan the socialist
16-11-2009
Harper is just playing to
Harper is just playing to his base and his ideology.
I think it should stay but it is going to go anyway whether now or after the next election when our Chairman finally gets his majority and continues to sell out Canada and run it into the ground.
It is not just the gun registry either. We will have civil unions replacing marriage for gays, drug enforcement for drugs like marijuana will be increased, more prisons, private prisons etc etc
We are headed for a nasty 4 -6 more years of Harper and his archaic minions..not because he is good but because of Liberal party incompetence.
Jeremy J.
16-11-2009
I'm glad the dumb thing is gone
So what if a bunch of information was requested by police? How much was actually used after? Do people decide NOT to shoot someone once their weapon is registerd? Nope.
Crime rates in general have been going down since the 90s, so giving credit to just the registry is really cherry picking.
As for Van Loan, I emailed him asking who he thinks he is withholding a report to Canadians when they paid for it and it has nothing to do with national security.... still no answer.
make_up_another...
16-11-2009
This Is An Opportunity!
I don't think the idea of a registry is wrong on principle. We obviously register all kinds of things without a second thought. I just think there are a certain number of voters out there who have their backs up on this issue, and with good reason.
This is a golden opportunity for Liberal or NDP members to reach out to clubs and associations and get some buy in.
1. Reframe this from a Urban vs. Rural issue by showing respect for the tradition around gun ownership and for the rural way of life. Let's make sure gun owners don't feel they are being put on the same level as gangs in the inner city.
2. Make every attempt to clear the air about any lingering privacy issues or rights issues. Kill the big government intrusion bogey man once and for all. Involvement at the local level is crucial.
3. Subsidize the cost of registering for a few years and/or give registrants a break on fees when registering more than one. Times are tight and I think people would be willing to forgive the money spent so far if they could get a break on fees.
4. Get some transparency on these projects. Sponsership scandal, e-health in Ontario, the Liberals have some work to do here. Stop handing the Conservatives ammunition.
5. Let's highlight the positives this registry can bring to public safety but be realistic about what it can actually do for gun crime. It's not going to prevent all gun crime, common sense tells us that, but it could save lives.
The Conservatives have capitalized on this very emotional issue time and again, so why not remove their ability to crank up the rhetoric?
cboo44
16-11-2009
Figures don't lie, but liers can always figure
You are STILL confusing the alleged facts between gun owner licensing and the gun registry.You've also provided cute "examples" of pro-registry effectiveness but wouldn't it be more balanced to share the negatives? Like how LONG it takes to access the registry information by police? In DAYS not minutes? A court ordered ban on possessing guns has absolutely NOTHING to do with the registry. Court orders have PERHAPS prevented people from using them, the registry does not. Has the registry slowed the smuggling of illegal/prohibited weapons into Canada? Nope. Has the registry prevented the possession of firearms by individuals? Nope. Does the registry provide info to police in a timely manner? Nope. Does a lousy 17% of the murders in this country deserve 2 billion to set up and 10 million a year to run? Nope, not when it is already redundant by virtue of licenses to possess. "....homicides by rifles and shotguns have dropped by nearly 50 per cent,..."were they ALL registered? Nope. BUT firearm homicides had been dropping for several years PRIOR to the registry coming into affect!
Oh yeah, try polling cops in BC about the registry, instead of in the "Centre of the Universe". Your highly selective stats and quoted opinions still don't cut it. Opinions aren't facts.
Jeffrey J.
17-11-2009
Good article
A good article about a topic well worth discussing.
If we lived in a real democracy, like northern Europe, the gun registry is a no brainer. But almost any good policy is sure to be mangled when it's implemented by most of our current provincial or federal governments. They are sure to wreck a good policy. If they don't, their 'base' will.
I continue to support all good policy ideas, but I am very leary about having them launched in Canada's present 'failed state'.
Always good to read Mr. Tieleman.
StructuralEngineer
17-11-2009
Misinformation does not help the cause, unless
I am a strong advocate of gun control, as well as a fervent advocate of our socialist principles in this country. I support the registry, in principle. However, that said, when you lie to people convincingly by using only half arguments, overlooking counter-facts, and do this consistently, and with a great deal of fervour, the majority tend to be fooled. The only problem is that it is an abuse of our right to free speach. Poorly researched and plainly biased articles are an affront to our democratic process and society in its socialist ideals, and a betrayal of your fellow man.
The registry itself is NOT a bad thing, however twisted statistics, misrepresented and re-packaged "facts" and half truths are a wholehearted lie. People who do not use firearms, or are not exposed to them, feel that somehow, in some way, the registry will help protect them. I will not touch on this point, however I will point out that when such people will do anything to force their position through our democratic system, it is as much an abuse as the criminal who sources and uses an illegal gun. Unfortunately liars are harder to catch and convict than thieves.
You should be ashamed of how poorly researched, irrevocably twisted and flawed an article you have written. As misrepresented and falsely trumpeted a set of factoids as I have ever had the displeasure to be subjected to. SHAME!
In solidarity.
michelt13
17-11-2009
People ought to read up on a subject before writing about it...
- First off, bill C-68 was INTRODUCED in 1995, but the law didn't came into effect until 2000.
- Secondly, even though the number of 'gun' crime went down between 1995 and now, it is wrong (and misleading) to credit the Long Gun Registry for this... Since 'gun' crimes have been going down since the mid 1970's
*-*-*
What should we tackle next? Mr.Yves Francoeur (of the Montreal police union) that believe rifles should be registered because cars are registered?!?
I guess it never occurred to him that you DO NOT need to register your car if you don't plan on drive it onto public road... Just like you DO NOT need a drivers license to drive a un-registered car on private property.
*-*-*
This been said, if the government is willing to give me as much liberty with my firearm as I have with my car... I'll be the first one in line to support some sort of registry!
Until then, I think we should scrap it and use the money for more meaningful program, like helping our youths stay away from street gangs and drugs.
jwstewart
17-11-2009
Wow, just wow.
So, more opinions, but no significant facts showing any benefit to the registry. Not surprising.
And if only 42% or 44% of urban or rural residents support the registry, that somehow justifies ignoring the majority? In what democracy does the minority rule?
What this diatribe actually demonstrates is Mr. Bill is a fan of partisan politics where MPs don't get to vote on thier conscience or their contituents wishes, they must toe party line like good little puppets.
It's just too bad the majority prefer to think for themselves, it really bothers you doesn't it Bill?
alive
17-11-2009
forget the parlimentarians
Quote: "party members and donors join and fund their choice of party based on its ideological perspective and goals -- not because it has hundreds of candidates for office who all hold different views on important issues."
That is why I support the idea of making elections all about party policies and not about personalities!
I realize most voters are too lazy to take a stand on every issue, and that is why we have a parliament, otherwise we could have referendums on everything.
As a matter of fact with modern technology it is now possible to have every citizen participate in lawmaking and cut out all the BS in out legislatures.
Elections should not be about who is better on a TV set, but about how we are governed.
On the issue of guncontol, it would be nice if all the lobby groups were unable to influence the procedure and make it cut and dried:
"Should anyone be able to have guns at their disposal, YES or NO?"
KWD
17-11-2009
the registry is not a bad thing
“Does it work?” For starters, significance is not logic; it’s a measure of probability. Revoking long gun registration, by criminals, and a drop in homicides, by criminals with long guns, does not mean it alone is responsible for a drop in homicides. In fact, criminal avoidance of long guns, because they assume the guns are registered, only supports the claim that criminals avoid long guns as the weapon of choice … nothing more.
What should be obvious, but apparently isn’t, is that legislation like the long gun registry, serves one purpose: it avoids looking at the realities that drive folks to murder. To do so would mean an exposure of an ideology that places wealth, status and power (which would include crimes of passion) above all else. Since those that sit in positions of power are not about to do that, they need to find ways of protecting the rich from the poor.
Until we start asking the right questions, we will continue following the path of least resistance and legislate the masses into submission. The justification usually goes like this: “If you’ve got nothing to hide why object?” The problem is, those with the most to hide object the most.
coyoteman
17-11-2009
figures don't lie but...
I don't have the stats immediately to hand, but again, if my memory serves, more people die of flu each year than get killed by guns, or any other means of homicide. ( 700 to 2500 annual flu related deaths.) Try registering that out of existence as well. (Neither is registering guns going to eliminate homicides or criminal violence with illegal guns-, just the choice of weapon to hand in some "spontaneous" cases.)
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/6/761-a
I've never seen so many "statistics" taken out of their overall larger context in one place, as has been done here by Tieleman. Proving once again what is said about the misuse of facts and figures, whether intentional or not, or however well meaning.
This gun registry thing has become an article of religious faith for its "urban liberal" proponents. And you can't argue with true believers. They just "believe".
Feldgrau
17-11-2009
On the Registry...
Mr. Tieleman does mount a spirited defense of the registry, but, despite his insistence that anti-registry proponents are wrong, it is in fact Mr. Tieleman who is in error.
Mr. Tieleman has perpetuated the pro-registry error (or deliberate blurring?) of confusing the distinction between registration and licensing. The registry has nothing to do with refusing or revoking a firearms license. Licenses will continue to be issued or refused/revoked whether the registry exists or not.
If 17% of all homicides equals 34 deaths (those Tieleman states were committed with a firearm) that would mean Canadians kill only 200 of their fellow Canadians every year. I suggest that the author review the tables at StatsCan with a little more care.
It is not at all surprising that 48% of rural firearms homicides involve long guns: they represent the most common firearm type in rural settings. Of course, the flip side is that most urban homicides are committed with handguns because they are the most common firearm type used by drug addled young males engaged in illegal activities...and handguns have been registered since 1934. While on the subject of homicides, it should be noted that pimps, prostitutes, drug-dealers, drug-buyers, long time violent offenders and rival gang members are counted among the murdering acquaintances and relatives of victims.
Further along, Mr. Tieleman repeats the pro-registry mantra of how the registry has reduced homicides. If Mr. Tieleman were to again closely inspect homicide data from StatsCan, he would see that homicides have been on the decrease since the mid 1970s. It is hardly credible, or logical to assume that a 15 year old piece of legislation is responsible for a 30 year old trend.
On the subject of Firearms Interested checks by police, Mr. Tieleman is again off the mark. Of what relevance is the information that is presented? As a firearms owner, I have been the subject of a police incident report on a few occasions; for involvement in a dispute with a neighbour in which I was assaulted, for being the key witness to a serious crime, for having my vehicle stolen and for being the subject of criminal harrassment among others. And, what does checking the registry have to do with confirming whether or not a license holder has been the subject of a police incident report? Nothing. They are completely unrelated.
Finally, Tieleman's dismissal of the CACP's lack of credibility is unfounded. I'm sorry Mr. Tieleman, but it is all about politics. I knew Mike Osborne both as a constable and as a hunter, and he is a good man. However, aside from the fact that he has also blurred the line between licensing and registration with some of his comments, his official position as chief of police in Midland is entirely political. Contrasted with the Constable Mike Osborne I knew, Chief Mike Osborne is toeing the party line.
jimorsheryl
17-11-2009
The only people who really
The only people who really support the gun registry are those who want to know where ALL the guns are, so that the citizenry can be disarmed if those in power think it is the way to control the masses.
The gun registry is USELESS and should never have been brought in. Just another example of Liberal vote pandering with taxpayers money.
They are masters at it.
dorothy
17-11-2009
Bill
Did you just shake a finger in the face of your readership and writers and tell us WE WERE WRONG??
Where the dickens was your inner voice, or your outer proofreader?
Now I think you must tell us where the limits are, as in what opinions we cannot state here, because those are the ones that go against things sacred to you, which are untouchable. What has happened here is, you have acted on a set of unspoken rules for what you will let people say, and so I believe you owe all of us to make those rules spoken. I know the other approach is popular in many schools, which is why we have a fear-ridden, sycophant-driven non-democracy, but in the TYEE?? You just turned my universe upside down, and I call on you to tell me why.
Christian
17-11-2009
SAVE THE GUN REGISTRY!
Only in North America!
We have to register our car. Why? There is a certain responsibility attached to using a car.
We have to register to vote. Why? There is a certain responsibility attached to voting.
We have to register information when we open a bank account. Why? There is a certain responsibility attached to opening a bank account.
I even have to register to post a comment here. Why?
There is a certain responsibility attached to posting in the public domain.
BUT...guns are the exception. Why? because of emotional rhetoric related to personal freedom.
Unfortunately, one only has to look south of the border to see what happens when we do not vet individuals, some of whom should never have access to a gun. This has also spilled over into Canada.
The gun registry is first and foremost there to ensure weapons--yes they are weapons and deadly at that--are accessed by those responsible enough, stable enough and mature enough to use them safely.
No Gun Registry will prevent criminals from getting weapons--they go south to get them.
What it will do is prevent anymore harm when ordinary folks who have a weapon but are not responsible from creating more carnage.
Past experience in the armed forces says to me that security and safety are paramount with weapons (guns, pistols...). Such a culture of safety is not possible without a gun registry.
Lets remember we strip individuals of their right to drive, if they are irresponsible, or we deny them a licence when they do not demonstrate competence.
What makes weapons.. uhh guns different?
Christian
17-11-2009
Create a Weapons registry
While I am on the soapbox:
Lets include all fire arms and weapons!
freebear
17-11-2009
"How political parties failed us"
Just this once?
Turfman Jones
17-11-2009
Put your stats in context
Nice job cherry picking the stats Bill. Let's see if we can't put some into context. So, in 2008 there were 200 homicides out of 611 committed with a firearm of which 34 were committed with a long gun. That means 83% of firearms deaths was committed with a handgun. Jeez, that was easy. Now, out of 611 homicides in 2008 33% was due to stabbing, 20% by beating leaving about 14% done by other nefarious means. This of course boils down to 5.5% of all homicides being committed with a long gun.
My question is this. Why didn't the long gun registry prevent these homicides from happening? Isn't that what it's suppose to do? I mean that's what all of the registry supporters say it's meant to do.
News flash Bill, registries don't and by their very nature can't prevent anything bad from happening.
Let's get a couple of other things straight. The "Firearms Act" became law in 1995 not the registry. The registry came later and long guns faced mandatory registration by Dec. 31, 2002.
You keep talking about licences being revoked or refused. What does that have to do with the registry? Absolutely nothing, that's what. The registry and licencing provisions of the "Firearms Act" are 2 distinctly separate entities.
One more thing before I finish. You talk about the Firearms Interest Police reports and the registry. Let's give the readers here the full story shall we. And I quote:
"All current POL or PAL firearms licensees are recorded in the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS), which automatically checks with the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) every day to determine whether a licence holder has been the subject of an incident report in CPIC. All matches generate a report entitled Firearms Interest Police (FIP) that is automatically forwarded to the relevant CFO for follow-up. Some of these reports require no further action, but some prompt a review of the individual’s firearms licence and may result in its revocation, allowing police to seize the firearms. This continuous-eligibility screening reduces the likelihood that an individual who has been identified as a potential risk to public safety will be permitted to retain possession of firearms."
Where in the above does it say anything about the registry?
Perhaps instead of trying to snow your readership with deliberate misinformation, you could offer some truth and let people decide for themselves.
Skywalker
17-11-2009
Interesting.
Last time Bill wrote on the gun registry a whole bunch of the responders told him he was wrong. Here he refutes their position and their version of statistics and what do you know, they object to being called "wrong".
Gee what do you know, you can't have a rational discussion about the gun registry. Why is that? Is there something about owning a gun which immediately puts the brain in neutral; which immediately means you have to attack the individual and wouldn't you know it we wake up the NRA shouting, "The government will come and confiscate all my guns!"
No matter how much factual information is given it is brushed aside by "figures don't lie but liars can figure" That constitutes intelligent debate? Beam me up Scotty!
Feldgrau
17-11-2009
The registry does not vet or screen people for gun ownership
To Christian:
The registry does not ensure that firearms are accessed only by those who are responsible enough to own them. That is accomplished through licensing. The registry is merely an inventory attached to licenses, and in no way prevents access to firearms.
Your argument:
No Gun Registry will prevent criminals from getting weapons--they go south to get them.
What it will do is prevent anymore harm when ordinary folks who have a weapon but are not responsible from creating more carnage.
...makes no sense.
Your analogy of stripping irresponsible drivers of their license is exactly what happens when someone behaves irresponsibly with a firearm. The registry has absolutely nothing to do with it. Like most registry supporters, you have also confused licensing with registration.
Tieleman
17-11-2009
Bill Tieleman fires back again
Several posters say I've confused the registry with gun licensing. Not at all - try a little logic.
If I am convicted of a criminal offence and lose my gun license and my firearms are NOT registered, which if any would be confiscated by the police? Answer - none.
It is only through the gun registry that police know firearms are owned.
Another post claims: "gun crimes have been going down since the 1970s" so the reduction in long gun homicides is meaningless.
Wrong. Read the 2008 StatsCan report linked above and you will find this line: "The rate of firearm homicides has increased 24% since 2002, including a 5% increase in 2008. About 6 in 10 firearm related homicides were committed with a handgun in 2008."
Firearms homicides up by a quarter since 2002 but rifle and shotgun homicides are down - leaving the handgun responsible for the increase. We can argue whether or not the long gun registry is the sole or a major reason but what's clear is that use of long guns is diminishing.
StucturalEngineer - I hope you use more care putting up building than you did with that argument - point out the mistakes and let's deal with them. Ad hominem attacks don't do anything.
Dorothy - I said many posters were wrong and backed that up with factual arguments - that's what a debate on public policy should be all about. And in case you didn't read the posts on the Tyee responding to my last column, people told me I was wrong and far worse. Big deal.
Dr. Alexander - Once again, you are wrong, too. Make a cogent case for your position - if you have one.
Feldgrau - Saying all police chiefs, from Toronto's Bill Blair to little Midland's Mike Osborne, are all politically motivated just doesn't cut it. Quite the conspiracy that every police chief is not only "toeing the line" - but also opposing the Conservative federal government.
And if so many "rank and file" police officers oppose the registry, why aren't their unions out fighting it?
Quoting retired and anonymous cops - like Conservative MPs do - proves nothing.
oldcynic
17-11-2009
Dispense with it!
The gun registry has been a failure from the start due to implementation bungling and liberal rhetoric. Wonder how much backroom money exchanged hands to the liberals with it?
Tielemen suggests that 47 deaths using "registered" firearms is significant. Of course it is, but you completely miss the point. What value did the registry have for the 47 people killed? It like suggesting that having a drivers license makes you a responsible driver. What nonsense!
Skywalker
17-11-2009
A strange way to start a debate of any kind.
"When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong I usually start assuming that they are full of crap."
It does tell you something about the person you are trying to have a discussion with and maybe there is no point even starting. I think Bill is pretty well dead on with his stats but no matter how accurate he is, it won't matter because on this issue emotion dominates reason. The only thing the anti gun registry people have in their favour is the high initial start up cost. That we can thank the liberals for.
Hrosenthal
17-11-2009
Effective?
Are those the BEST examples the Police in this country can come up with to desparately save a registry that is apparently so 'essential'?
Why not tell us how it stopped Mayorthorpe? oh, because it didnt.
Why not tell us how it stopped Dawson College? oh, because it didnt.
Why not tell us how it would have stopped Ecole Polytechnique? oh, because it wouldnt have.
Best of all you tell us that long gun crime has gone down but handgun crime has gone up. So much for the effectiveness of a handgun registry first implemented in 1934. You sure arent helping your cause much.
Harold.
michelt13
17-11-2009
Car registry VS Gun Registry
Where should we start...
- You do not need a license to buy a car... But you do for a gun.
- You do not need to have a back ground check to own a car... But you do for a firearm.
- You do not need to ask for permission from the government to buy a car... but you need to for a firearm.
- It is perfectly legal to drive a non-registered car on private property even though you do not have a license... Simply owning a non-registered firearm (even if you have a license) will get you a criminal record.
Feldgrau
17-11-2009
Tieleman fires back
Mr. Tieleman, if you as a licensed owner have your firearms license revoked, do you honestly believe that the police will stop searching for firearms once they find the magic number the registry says you have? Are you really that naive? On the contrary, I suspect that you are fully aware that in the above circumstance police would search every building, outhouse, doghouse, vehicle, workspace etc that you have access to in order to ensure that you no longer have firearms in your possession. This regardless of whether the registry is in place or not.
michelt13
17-11-2009
To: Skywalker
The registry was bound to fail from the get-go, unfortunately for us the government of the time did not want to listen to RCMP commissioner Murray when he told them that the VERY information used to justify the gun registry was wrong and taken out of context!
http://www.whyfor.com/firearm/rcmp_murray.html
jereld Hannis
17-11-2009
Misguided journalist with a personal agenda?
Tielman says:
"Several posters say I've confused the registry with gun licensing. Not at all - try a little logic.
If I am convicted of a criminal offence and lose my gun license and my firearms are NOT registered, which if any would be confiscated by the police? Answer - none."
So, by the same logic, if the registry says the person has 4 guns registered, then the police will only take those 4? Ridiculous. Registry or not, if a person loses his gun license, the police will search the house and take them ALL.
Tielman says:
"Another post claims: "gun crimes have been going down since the 1970s" so the reduction in long gun homicides is meaningless.
Wrong. Read the 2008 StatsCan report linked above and you will find this line: "The rate of firearm homicides has increased 24% since 2002, including a 5% increase in 2008. About 6 in 10 firearm related homicides were committed with a handgun in 2008."
So, we've had to register handguns since 1934, yet handgun homicides have gone up? Hmmm....
Your ship is sinking, Tielman. When your supporters (StructuralEngineer and Dorothy) start taking you to task, and you attack them, it's time to admit that you're the one with the problem.
Mikemah
17-11-2009
registry
This is mainly a case of public opinion manipulation. Through dis mis or just plain old information
Miss aware-beware
17-11-2009
Guns: I HATE them but . . .
"Firearms: Everyone should have one and know how to use and clean it - it may just save your life. But more importantly there's nothing that demoralizes an invading enemy more than being shot at" (George Orwell: A Life in Pictures, 2003).
Civilian ownership of firearms is a major deterant to tyrannical governments. Switzerland is the only country in the world where every man has a military rifle in his home. Nazi invasion plans acknowledged the dissausive nature of the armed populace (Police State Road Map, 2005).
All the major tyrannical regimes of the twentieth century imposed restrictive gun laws on the populations before they murdered and terrorized them en masse (David B Kopel, Lethal Laws).
I used to think that anything that sets us apart from the US is to be protected (ie: gun registry). I still hate guns and those who abuse the power they bring, however, at the very least I will need one to hunt for meat that is not toxified with hormones, antibiotics, dyes, perservatives, vaccines, and GM feed.
fluke
17-11-2009
Some points of disagreement...
There are a number of issues that I have with Mr Tieleman's comments. First of all, Mr. Tieleman stated in his article: "...criminals will increasingly avoid using registered long guns". Now, if one takes a look at the statistics published by Statistics Canada ("Firearms and Violent Crime", by Mia Dauvergne and Leonardo De Socio, Statistics Canada publication no. 85-002-XIE, Vol. 28, no. 2, 2008), and look at related statistics going back through the years, you will find that well over 80 % of violent crimes using firearms are done using handguns, not long guns. For a criminal, the reason is obvious: a handgun is easier to hide. Secondly, if one groups all offences done using a firearm of any sort, 2.4 % of violent crime is done using firearms. By far the majority of violent crime is done using physical force (59.2 %). So, if one were to apply an interpretation of these statistics, it is far more likely that a violent crime will be committed through physical force.
If one were to extrapolate this and say "Criminals are using physical force (or guns or knives or blunt objects or "other means" to commit violent crimes", by the sheer definition of the term "criminal" it matters not what a criminal uses in the commission of an offence - a criminal doesn't care. Criminals don't abide by laws, register guns, become licensed to use a firearm, and so on.
There was another quote in the article: "We have to register our vehicles, we have to register our properties, we have to register our trailers and we shouldn't have to register our guns?" Francouer asked. "It doesn't make any sense." Francouer is right - it doesn't make sense. However, he has inadvertently pointed out one salient fact: the registration of a car, a property, a dog and so on has not stopped one single drunk driver from taking a life because of a car accident; has not stopped one dog from mauling a person; property registration did not prevent injuries or deaths from chemicals or toxic waste buried on that land. By extension, a registry will not prevent a crime.
Of course, when I mention vehicle licensing and drunk driving, it will be said that the authorities will prosecute the person. This emphasizes the point about the lack of a registry's existence in preventing crime. Legal authorities will focus far more time and money on the person who did the drunk driving, not the vehicle in which the driver was in. Have you ever seen a car convicted of drunk driving?
So, as far as a gun registry goes, lets apply the same logic: go after the perpetrator, not the object. There's the old adage that states:" an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Would money not be better spent on identifying at-risk youth and working with them so that they don't follow a criminal lifestyle? Would not the money be better spent properly dealing with a criminal once a crime has been committed, so that the criminal does not re-offend?
Regards,
Frank Luke
Dave Mac
17-11-2009
Here We Go Again
I am still waiting for a registry proponent to present an argument that shows a basic understanding of our present firearms laws. Mr. Tieleman, you certainly have not.
Firearms licensing and the registry are two different things, but Mr. Tieleman has confounded the two and presented them as one. The present changes before parliament do not effect licensing, they effect the registration of firearms. License revocations have nothing to do with the registry or this legislation. This is misinformation, pure and simple.
This article's examples of crimes solved are lame at best, and certainly don't warrant the registry's price tag. Moreover, why were police questioning the gun thief in the first place? I bet the answer is he had no license and they were being confiscated anyway. A man threatened to kil lanother with a rifle while pointing it at him, and we were saved by the registry? How? Was he not in jail in the first place? Would a warrant not be issued to search his home for firearms anyhow after this incidednt? If this is the best you can come up with, you are only shooting yourself in the foot.
What I see over and over is registry proponents that assume more gun control is good and less is bad, but really don't understand the issues. The vast majority of firearms owners fully support firearms control and licensing. But are looking for meaningful firearms laws. Not laws generated for political purposes like this one, that accomplish nothing but invade the privacy and criminalize law abiding citizens.
freebear
17-11-2009
Have you seen that promo
for an American t.v show which takes place in a real gun shop? Gun loving Grandmas and postal service employees!
Seems like the scariest thing in America is how armed to the teeth your neighbours are! Less so in Canada I hope!
jereld Hannis
17-11-2009
Don't believe everything you see on TV
And when you watch Real Housewives of Orange County, you assume that's an accurate portrayal of the average married american woman?
StructuralEngineer
17-11-2009
Respectfully...
An ad hominem attack is all that remains when the proponent of a position refuses to review, consider, or give thought to point by point arguments. Your previous article had as many well formed, technically correct, counter arguments in an attempt to clarify and correct. You ignored them. You've ignored those provided prior to me on this article as well, so you have proven that the only possible retort is to openly call your position and interpretations flawed and biased.
And regarding my work: I am held to absolute standards of technical excellence and safety. My work is reviewed by a peer, and often I am called to task on issues. I recant, racalculate, and ensure that the final drawings are absolutely correct. It is unfortunate that journalism does not apply such stringent standards.
But you're quite correct; Accusational postings are not helpful... Unless of course they serve to elicit a pause in someone who has otherwise ignored all other forms of debate. Did you pause? One might hope, but I fear I'll simply have to give up...
A sad day when an author with the Tyee will not think through their writings prior to posting. I suspect I'll have to stop reading for fear of the potential damage to my better sense.
samuidave
17-11-2009
seriously
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is "biased" and "political"? A ridiculous argument.....
a likewise ridiculous comment.
sjfmeyers
17-11-2009
gun registry doesnt protect woman
Criminal backround checks will still be done on gun owners... It's really not even a well put together article... mostly all misinformative... What's so smart about giving anyone a list of where all are country's guns are located? I doubt the RCMP's ability to maintain the privacy of such a list anyways.
Do yourself a favor and send this journalist packing... He sucks
Skywalker
17-11-2009
And here's another silly comaparison..
"It is perfectly legal to drive a non-registered car on private property even though you do not have a license... Simply owning a non-registered firearm (even if you have a license) will get you a criminal record."
Have you ever tried sitting in your car on your property and doing injury to another person 500 yds. off your property. It just goes on an one for what? What fundamental human right is being violated by you having to register something that hurls a small projectile fast enough and far enough to kill someone. What basic freedom in OUR constitution is violated?
Reynald
17-11-2009
Tieleman exhibits the usual weaknesses of the anti-gunners
1. He confuses licensing with registration.
2. Registration has failed to result in one criminal conviction in 75 years.
3 Police of all services and ranks are on record as opposing the long gun registry, including Commissioner Fantino of the OPP.
4. Cherry picking stats and spokespersons does not alter the reality of the Firearms Act's FAILURE to lower violent crime stats, lower suicide rates, decrease violence to women etc.
5. Financing more of a failed program is foolhardy.
6. A MAJORITY of Canadians want the long gun registry ended. What part of this does he not understand?
7. The Act came out in 1995 and has proven to be a disaster in both cost and non-results.
8. The RCMP & CFC have GIVEN confidential information to a private agency without even waiting for their data base to be hacked.
ONLY A FOOL WOULD TRUST THE LIBERALS AGAIN ON THE ISSUES OF GUN CONTROL AND CRIME PREVENTION.
Mark5
17-11-2009
Why are so many people
Why are so many people confusing the gun registry with gun licensing? All the arguements that Bill Tieleman and others are uing to defend the registry are actually arguments for LICENSING, not the registry.Gun control advocates seem to think that the registry is the be-all to end-all of gun control.This is simply not true. Read this
"There is only one official reason why the gun registry was created. To try and prevent people with a gun license from selling or lending a gun to someone without a gun license. It was not meant to be a tool for the police to know what guns they may or may not encounter or any other superfluous reason. It was meant to act as a deterrent so that each licensed gun owner is accountable for each and every gun they own.
This reasoning however presumes that the licensed owner, who went through hell to get his gun license, is going to commit a criminal act and sell or lend a gun and ammunition to an unlicensed person. It also presumes that an unlicensed person, will also commit a criminal act and buy a gun from the registered owner. The registry reasoning also presumes that a person with registered guns will NOT sell or lend a registered gun to someone else if the guns are registered. So in the first two situations, we have two people colluding to commit a criminal act and in the other situation we are still having to trust the licensed owner that he won`t lend or sell one of his guns to someone else who is not licensed. If that unlicensed person buys a registered gun and holds onto that gun and it is rarely taken out in public, who would ever know? Gun audits are not done on gun owners. If he uses it in a crime and it is recovered, the licensed person who it was registered to could claim that it was stolen or claim he had no idea it was to be used maliciously. The registered owner might have his other guns seized but really, what else will happen to him? Probably not much.
So we as taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on something that in reality still comes down to just trusting a law-abiding Canadian gun owning citizen to obey the law and not sell or lend a gun to an unlicensed person. The registry is redundant, and is based on false and negative reasoning. It has been a total waste of money, of time and effort because when it all comes down to it, it is simply a matter of trusting good people to do the right thing, something we all do on a daily basis."
The cop killer at Maythorpe Alberta was able to "borrow" a registered gun from a terrified "friend".The actual gun he used was a prohibited and unregistered gun.Gun owners should be treated like any other citizen, free from persecution and "special attention".Gun owners are not "armed and dangerous".The end of the registry will be the beginning of a better Canada.
Charger
17-11-2009
Learn to read statistical charts
Mr Tieleman,
I read your article Returning Fire on Gun Registry Critics with interest and disgust. I have taken aim at your arguments and I believe I have shot them full of holes.
Long guns aren't a problem? In 2008 a full 17 per cent of all homicides were committed using rifles and shotguns -- that's 34 deaths, Statistics Canada reports.
That only leave 83% of all homicides to be committed by other means. Quick test: which number is bigger?
Rural Canadians can handle their guns? In non-urban areas rifles and shotguns were responsible for 48 per cent of all firearm homicides. And surprisingly, rural residents are at higher, not lower, risk of being a homicide victim than city dwellers.
When it comes to who the killers are -- rural or urban -- the statistics are disturbing: in 70 solved homicides in 2008, 40 per cent of victims were killed by an acquaintance and 33 per cent by a family member, while just 17 per cent of deaths were at the hands of strangers.
Citing your references,
“For the past 30 years, there have been two primary methods used to commit homicide: shootings and stabbings. In 2008, this trend continued as shootings and stabbings each accounted for approximately one third of all homicides. There were 200 victims killed by shooting, 12 more than the previous year, and 200 killed by stabbing, an increase of 10 from 2007. A further 20% of victims were beaten, 7% strangled/suffocated and the remaining 7% were killed by other methods such as vehicles, fire (smoke inhalation, burns), poisoning and shaken baby syndrome”
Should we have a registry of all things pointy? What about rocks, bats, and fists?
Continued
Charger
17-11-2009
Continued
The registry isn't effective? Since the registry was passed in 1995, homicides by rifles and shotguns have dropped by nearly 50 per cent, while handgun deaths are up and non-firearms homicides are down slightly.
Last year 1,833 firearms licences were revoked and 462 firearms licences were refused, Firearms' Commissioner William Elliott report to Parliament stated.
Number one reason for revoking firearms licenses -- 75 per cent of them? "Court-ordered prohibition or probation." Yes, 1,366 revocations last year alone were because a court ordered someone not to possess firearms -- gee, maybe they had a criminal problem.
And another 201 applications were refused for the same reason.
What are the second-through-seventh biggest reasons for revocation or refusal of a firearms license? "Potential risk to others; potential risk to self; mental health; violent; drug offences; domestic violence."
Or look at Firearms Interest Police reports, which checks if a licence holder has been the subject of a police incident report by checking the registry. That only happened 102,841 times last year, including over 12,000 in B.C. alone.
Perhaps the information in the Commissioner's report is why Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan didn't want to release it to Parliament until two days after the vote.
With handguns being restricted and registered since 1934, how could there be a rise in crime using them? Shouldn't the number of crimes involving handguns be zero by now if registering a firearm makes it safe? One would think that in 75 years, the trend should have dropped to nothing.
You state that the use of long guns has been declining since 1995 when C-68 was passed. However, if you look at CHART 5, you will note that there was already a downward trend that begins in 1981, a full 14 years before the registry. Using that logic, one could argue that the sun has risen over Parliament since the registry.
As for the rest of your argument, it is a moot point because C-391 had nothing to do with licensing, please stay on topic. The RCMP could just as easily check to see if a licensee has been the subject of a police incidental report by checking a license database, separate from the registry. If police are concerned about a certain individual having firearms, they can obtain a warrant to search their property for firearms. The registry is accessed for many reasons including REGISTERING FIREARMS and TRANSFERS. If it were not a requirement to register firearms when purchased from a store or transferred from another licensed individual, the number of accesses would drop significantly.
Continued
Charger
17-11-2009
Continued
Registered long guns are hardly ever used in crime? A number of Conservative MPs have information on their website using two-year-old stats claiming that of 2,441 homicides between 2003 and 2007, under two percent -- or 47 -- were committed using registered rifles or shotguns.
Up to date statistics are not readily available, but logic is. First, 47 homicides in five years with registered long guns is not insignificant. Second, as the registry continues to revoke and refuse long gun registration to criminals and others, as seen above, the homicide rate should drop.
Third, if stolen guns are used in a crime they can be traced through the registry -- see an example below -- meaning criminals will increasingly avoid using registered long guns.
Lets try using logic on this one. I will agree that 47 homicides is not insignificant to those families, but it is when looking at statistics. What would it be like if in an election, only 1.925% of votes counted? Would you be happy if your child came home from school with a 1.925% average? Why should such a small number have so much clout in your mind? For comparison, according to 2003 collision stats, there is an 6.9% chance that a licensed driver will be in a fatal crash. What are the odds that those vehicles were registered? Where do you think we should be spending our money?
Does it work? Here's one example from the report: "The Canadian Firearms Program provided support to an RCMP detachment, assisting with a Criminal Code of Canada warrant to recover firearms from a subject who had reportedly pointed a rifle at a co-worker and threatened to kill him."
"[It] confirmed the suspect had... nine long guns registered in his name. A warrant was granted and executed, resulting in the recovery of all nine long guns, including the suspect firearm and a quantity of ammunition."
Using the license database, which will be kept under C-391, the RCMP could have checked to see if the suspect could have had firearms, obtained a warrant and recovered both guns and ammunition. What if a friend had loaned him a gun? It would not have been in the registry under his name. Would the RCMP have stopped looking after they found 9?
Continued
Charger
17-11-2009
Continued
Or this one: "Canadian Firearms Program provided support to an RCMP detachment after a suspect was stopped with four non-restricted 'long guns' in his vehicle. The suspect was evasive when questioned, leading investigators to believe the firearms had been stolen... checks on the recovered firearms determined all four were registered to a local resident and not the person who was in possession of them.
"The registered owner, who was working out of town, was contacted by police and said that, as far as he was aware, all of his firearms were safely stored at his residence. Police attended the owner's residence and discovered evidence confirming that his residence had been broken into and that all 16 of his long guns had been stolen. Subsequent investigation resulted in the recovery of the remaining 12 long guns from the suspect."
The officer was correct by reading the suspect's actions. Without the registry, he could be held on suspicion of possessing stolen goods and had the guns seized. Upon seizing the guns, the police would run the serial numbers through reported thefts. In doing this there would be a record of the guns when the original owner calls in to report his firearms stolen.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is "biased" and "political"? A ridiculous argument but let's hear from police chief Mike Osborne of Midland, Ontario with a population of 16,000 -- in other words a small town chief, not Toronto's.
"If we’re en route and we know a person has firearms -- you always try to be cautious anyway -- but it just gives you that added information. We do use it when we attend residences to help us gauge what the threat level is," Osborne said. "I do, regardless of whether it's a handgun or a long-gun, see the value of the registry."
They can check to see of the suspect has a firearms license while en-route, however, there is no substitute for being cautious. Remember, someone with a license but no registered, firearms can still borrow one.
Continued
Charger
17-11-2009
Continued
To scrap it now would almost seem like a real waste of the millions that have already been spent," he said. "There's some value in making people feel responsible for their firearms in a way that makes them store and secure them properly, so that was one of the positive things that came out of this whole system.
"It changed people's attitudes about gun and ammunition storage. It put some tough laws in place that regular gun owners are more likely to secure their firearms so they're not being stolen or misused so often," he said, adding it also provided tougher licensing and training for firearms. "People had to really want a firearm for a particular purpose... and I believe that made them take gun ownership more seriously," Osborne concluded.
Others argued that "rank and file" police oppose the registry. But that argument is completely bogus. Only one, repeat, one police union has publicly opposed the long gun registry -- the Saskatchewan Police Federation, representing 1,100 municipal officers.
But Yves Francoeur, the head of Montreal's 4,700-member police union says the registry is essential and can't believe people are complaining about registering rifles.
"We have to register our vehicles, we have to register our properties, we have to register our trailers and we shouldn't have to register our guns?" Francouer asked. "It doesn't make any sense."
We should be asking why do we have to register any of these items. Do they reduce the number of property break ins, trailer thefts and car accidents? Do they serve any real purpose beyond costing those who have to register their time and money and to justify the jobs of clerks?
Continued
Charger
17-11-2009
Continued
Don't polls show opposition to the registry? A new Harris-Decima poll last week said 46 per cent of those surveyed said getting rid of the registry was a good idea, while 41 per cent thought it would be a bad idea.
Forgive me, as grade one was a long time ago, but isn't 46 greater than 41? In a democracy, majority rules.
But an Ipsos-Reid poll in 2006 found 67 per cent supported having a gun registry.
And even in the Harris-Decima poll, 44 per cent of urban residents oppose killing the registry versus 42 per cent who want it gone. Only in Conservative-held ridings are a majority in favour of abolishing it.
And I am assuming from your statement, that only urban residents are allowed an opinion? But let's look at a more recent survey, maybe one that happened November 12, 2009 that indicates the only province that wants to keep the registry is Quebec.
Majorities in Atlantic Canada (50 per cent), British Columbia (51 per cent), Alberta (64 per cent) and Manitoba-Saskatchewan (61 per cent) said it's a good idea to get rid of the registry.
Ontarians were split on the issue, with 42 per cent favouring abolition and 40 per cent opposed.
Almost 61 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec said they believed the gun registry had made no difference in reducing gun crimes.
Your argument doesn't seem to hold water anymore. Remember, majority rules in a democracy, not a small group who wants to control everyone else
The reality is that the former federal Liberal government's incompetence in creating the registry at great cost in the first place has biased many against it, even though the current annual budget is just $8.4 million and getting rid of it now won't recover the money already spent -- but will waste it.
That means there should be $8.4 million each year to pay front line officers to help combat the rising gang problem in Canada. That should help reduce the amount of gun violence.
Lastly, some critics thought it was great that the NDP leader Jack Layton and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff allowed a "free vote" that let 12 NDP and eight Liberal MPs from rural ridings to vote to kill the registry.
MP's vote the way they believe their riding wants. An open vote is a vote that represents each riding's values, not that of a federal party.
oldcynic
17-11-2009
license or registration?
Neither will stop criminals from using them. Licensing is done when you buy a hunting or firearms permit. I usually enjoy Bill T. on Bill Goode, but not today!
ReeferMadness
17-11-2009
Put down that rhetoric!!
... and back away slowly.
I can't understand the reasons for all the hystrionics and hyperbole. If I was a police officer responding to a dispute, I would be interested in whether there were firearms present and what firearms. The argument that "criminals won't register their guns" assumes that you can neatly divide the world into "criminals" and "law abiding citizens". The world isn't that simple.
Certainly, the registry was botched and far too much was spent but that's no reason to get rid of it now.
A lot of weapons aren't registered (due to gutless or oppotunistic politicians) but that's a reason to fix it, not to get rid of it.
There are plenty of crimes where the registry will be of no assistance in preventing or helping to find the guilty parties. That's also no reason to get rid of it.
Mandatory firearm registration is a reasonable imposition by society on individuals. Is there anyone out there who can articulate reasonable concerns about the registry with reasonable suggestions about how they might be fixed?
jereld Hannis
17-11-2009
Rhetoric free reply
"If I was a police officer responding to a dispute, I would be interested in whether there were firearms present and what firearms."
Licensing will tell you that there are probably guns present. The registry can't be relied on for that information because:
- not all guns are registered
- the registry is rife with incomplete and inaccurate information
- it doesn't track the lending/borrowing of registered guns
"Certainly, the registry was botched and far too much was spent but that's no reason to get rid of it now."
That's no reason to keep it, either.
"A lot of weapons aren't registered (due to gutless or oppotunistic politicians) but that's a reason to fix it, not to get rid of it."
That's no reason to keep it, either. Fix it how? You will never register all the guns (criminals don't/won't register).
"There are plenty of crimes where the registry will be of no assistance in preventing or helping to find the guilty parties. That's also no reason to get rid of it."
That's no reason to keep it, either.
"Mandatory firearm registration is a reasonable imposition by society on individuals."
How so? Why? You're imposing laws on people who are already complying with the law. Try strengthening and enforcing the existing laws. Punish people who commit crimes!
fluke
17-11-2009
re: Reefer Madness' comments
Reefer - a good cop will assume a gun or similar weapon is present when going to a dispute. It is what is called "prudent". The information in the registry can be misleading. I can cite one case in Quebec where the police did rely on the registry - only to have one of theirs killed. The homeowner involved was found not guilty of murder. So much for the value of the registry to the police.
oldcynic
17-11-2009
reefer
How about spending the money on more police and crime prevention?
I agree that much of the sentiment is because of the huge cost the liberal's saddled us with, but throwing good money after bad will do little to solve the problem.
PS: last time I was hunting, was stopped by CO's for a license check. I brought out my registration card as well and his comment was "we are not interested in that at all."
maroon
17-11-2009
A few facts about the basics of firearm ownership are in order
For those wondering how an issue can raise such ire:
There are two requirements for anyone wishing to own a firearm. The first is that before anyone can acquire or possess ANY firearm they must obtain a Possession-Acquisition License (PAL). This is akin to a driver’s license, and the requirements for obtaining one are similar: you have to pass a written examination demonstrating knowledge of how to handle firearms safely in theory, and that you know the laws pertaining to firearm ownership (and there are a bunch….) You must also clearly show that you know how to handle firearms in practice and can do so safely.
After those tests are passed, one is screened on the basis of potential risk to public safety. This screening continues for the term of the PAL, and it can be revoked at any time.
Although a PAL is akin to a driver’s license, it is far stronger in it’s reach. Without a PAL, one cannot take a firearm in to be repaired. Nor can one buy ammunition. So, for the analogy of PALs and Driver’s licenses to be exact, you’d have to imagine that not only could you not drive a car without a license, but also that you couldn’t even buy a car, nor own one, nor get one repaired, nor even buy gas!
The above requirements are NOT at issue in the current debate. There is NO proposal to change them, and I know of NO group that has put forth ANY pressure to even review the current system.
What IS at issue is the ADDITIONAL requirement that owners of long guns must also, in addition to all of the above, REGISTER each long gun they own with the good folks in Miramichi. (Note that the analogy to cars fails here- this isn’t about insurance, which isn’t required, but simply registration.)
All of the above should put the shortcomings of Mr. Tielman’s article in sharp relief: It repeatedly conflates ( or equally damning, confuses) the two distinct requirements, and repeatedly uses effects of gun licencing to argue for long gun registry. Either it’s confused or it chooses to ignore basic facts to make it’s case. Case in point: the statement: “Last year 1,833 firearms licences were revoked and 462 firearms licences were refused.” This has no relevance whatsoever to the long gun REGISTRY. A simple reading of the link Mr Tielman himself provides shows that he has confused firearms licences with gun registration. The article he cites is clearly referring to revocation of PALs and similar ‘firearms licences’, not the removal of registration certificates of rifles!
As you might have guessed, I am a long gun owner. I have a valid PAL, and registration certificate. I am a strong proponent of gun control, and registration is, and has always been, a non-issue for me. I figure that if registration saves a single life, it’s worth it. But if Mr Tielman’s article is the best that proponents of the long gun registry can come up with, I completely understand the ire of gun owners.
Mark5
17-11-2009
non compliance
If the gun registry is not abolished soon, then gun-owners themselves must do it with massive non-compliance. I suppose those who favour the gun registry will want to build Gulags for gun owners but I doubt they will send goon squads to round all gun owning citizens up for that.Already there are millions of unregistered guns in this country. It is time for the gun controllers to try and work with fellow gun owning citizens rather than against them like they are doing now.
dorothy
17-11-2009
And what was the question again?
“..So we as taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on something that in reality still comes down to just trusting a law-abiding Canadian gun owning citizen…”
“…It is time for the gun controllers to try and work with fellow gun owning citizens rather than against them like they are doing now.
I think both of these statements speak to the real heart of the matter: It is about mutual trust within the Social Contract.
What I hear from those who are adamant about ‘controlling’ their fellow citizens in almost all aspects of life, and good luck with that, is that they sort of think of the rest of mankind as a big dangerous soup with all kinds of riffraff blended in, and which they really don’t want to deal with or confront in any personal way. They just want to make sure this soup is ‘under control’, so nothing bad can happen to them and people they care about. To those people I would say: This is a gigantic copout, and it is underdog mentality. The remedy is to make sure we raise responsible citizens; that we repair the social ills that send people out on the skids; that we see fewer people left with a sense of defeat and disenfranchisement, and that we deal adequately with the psychopaths among us.
To ask the powers of state to do our ‘dirty work’ for us and control the masses in every aspect is simply endorsing the bully mentality that sent us into this vortex in the first place. You cannot, said some wise man, solve a problem using the same type of thinking that created it.
I think that the discussion about the gun registry actually has very little to do with the gun registry. I think the underlying mentalities are those two schools of thought I described, and that is what we are really discussing. This is why it gets so ‘emotional, because this is fundamental rather than just political. How do we keep our society just, fair and civilized: By modeling those ideals to the next generation and to all comers, and by steadfastly standing up for them like little tin soldiers, or broken records if you will, or do we attempt to do it by coercive measures, by invoking Big Brother?
I believe you give the first option your best shot, and grow up and realize that if one thing about this joint is sure, it is: no one gets out of here alive. Maybe that can make it more peaceful for the obsessively anxious...
Bill, are you going to call us on the carpet again for not agreeing? How many times will you do it?
coyoteman
17-11-2009
Miss Aware Beware... And others.
"Guns: I HATE them but . . . "
Out of everything I read above, where many good points are made, actually, mostly by opponents of the current registry, I nonetheless thought that your piece made the most important and powerful argument really.
Most others, on both sides, are hung up on the legalities of the current system which, I think, assumes the relevance of "the system's" concerns, again, over that of ordinary citizens... whom is what they really want to still further control with the registry.
The fact is, far fewer folks are killed by gun crime, especially long guns, in this country, than by other homicidal means or by the flu. There is no crime wave with guns... Violent crime incidents, are in fact down in this country, the police tell us. ...that might otherwise, for sake of argument, justify the need for greater controls over guns, than what has historically existed in this country. (Canada is even considered notoriously peaceful.)
Most street crime homicides, on the other hand, which should be the real issue of concern, over the one time acts of passion murders that are the majority of murders, even then of which mostly use other options than guns, will not in the least be prevented by the registry. And it is not even claimed by "the system" that it will.
So what then is the real issue?
Creating a pretence for keeping/ minimizing guns out of the hands of the masses , such that it is only, or near only, the forces of The State in whose hands is concentrated the potential for real violence.
The times are changing, such that there is the potential for restiveness amongst the populace at large... and they know it as well as any revolutionary counterpoised to "The System" does. This is what is really at work here, not concern about the safety and wellbeing of the masses, but control of same.
Bill has just bought into the bullshit, however well meaning. Which is typical for the "political correctness" penchant of social democratic liberalism.
greengreen
17-11-2009
NRA
How much money has the NRA provided to groups in Canada fighting the gun registry?
ReeferMadness
17-11-2009
Responses
Jereld: You've provided no good reasons to get rid of the registry. The police think it works, it doesn't cost that much to run and IMV, it's a smaller imposition than the original licensing. If you're going to go through the effort of licensing people, why wouldn't you take the extra step to record what firearms they have? As I said earlier, the registry could be much more complete if it weren't for gutless/opportunistic politicians.
fluke: I'm sure police do assume that firearms might be present. But an assumption is not a good replacement for information.
oldcynic: If police associations all start saying dump the registry and spend the extra few bucks on cops, I'll reconsider my position.
dorothy: Nice pscyoanalysis but sometimes a registry is just a registry.
coyoteman: If you think the registry is a pretence for taking away people's guns, how about supporting that supposition with a bit of evidence.
frank2
17-11-2009
I'm flabbergasted at the
I'm flabbergasted at the attention this issue has received -- especially since guns tend to be a "right-wing" issue. Are we Tyee-ites soft in the head? Or do we just feel a need to weigh in on an issue which, compared with the consequences of climate change, inequality,nuclear proliferation, is minor.
michelt13
17-11-2009
Is the cost worth it?
Each firearm certificate in costing us $286 (assuming a $2 billion price tag)
Is this the best way to spend money if we want to reduce criminality in our cities?
I don't think so. I have a few of them for target rifles and they are nothing but a 2"x3" piece of paper...
On the other hand, $286 can send a disadvantage kid to summer camp... Which in my humble opinion would be a better initiative to help them get back on the 'right' track and stay out of street gangs... then printing more certificates.
But that's just me.
michelt13
17-11-2009
REF: registry is a pretence for taking away people's guns
ReeferMadness,
That's a pretty easy one...
Just go trough the various "Order in Council" that were done... these list will tell you which firearms the government seized and destroyed...
Even though these firearms were legally bought and registered by their owners, AND the government had no emperical data showing these firearm been more dangerous then any other firearms.
Individuals lost thousands of dollars, with no financial compensation or as much as an excuse/explanation.
soleprobe
17-11-2009
"Are we Tyee-ites soft in the head?"
Please, keep your collectivists attitudes to yourself
michelt13
17-11-2009
Skywalker: What basic freedom in OUR constitution is violated?
For the benefit of the readership who might not have had the 'chance' to go through bill C-68 and the firearms act... Here's a few points that are currently been fought in court.
- Loss of the right to be presumed innocent.
Section 117.11 of C-68 states "The onus is on the accused to prove that the person is the holder of the authorization, license or registration certificate."
- Loss of the right to be immune from arbitrary search and seizure.
Firearm collectors can be inspected at any time.
- Loss of the right to remain silent.
- Loss of the right to consult with an attorney.
- Loss of the right not to incriminate oneself.
Under section 103 of C-68, you must cooperate and give any information requested by a police inspector. Those who refuse to comply can be jailed for up to two years.
Skywalker
17-11-2009
You are so right frank2
A hot button issue that was cultivated by the reactionary Reformers of old. Now it has been taken over by the Harperites in an attempt to create divisions.
Umslopogaas
17-11-2009
Guns a right wing issue?
If the left lacks guns the right wins.
As a red-neck socialist...I think penises should be registered because someone might use one to commit rape.
Hermans Hermit
17-11-2009
God, Guts, and Guns
We have the right to bear arms against enemies of the state and the state itself.
ME2
17-11-2009
This is getting tiresome.
The consensus that quite clearly remains after two of your tries, Bill, is that you are wrong.
Let me spell that out for you, Bill ......W R O N G.
G West
17-11-2009
Feldgrau
You clearly don't appreciate irony.
In fact, this is what YOU wrote about Mr Tieleman
under this label: Tieleman fires back
Mr. Tieleman, your naievete(sic) is shocking.
Now perhaps you'll understand the point.
As for the argument, so far as I know, the gun registry has not prevented anyone who is 'qualified' from possessing a long gun and storing it carefully and properly.
One of my children happens to have had a young friend, under the age of 8, who, using an improperly stored rifle, accidentally killed his own sister.
I'm naïve enough to believe that, had the registry been in place at the time (it wasn't) perhaps that child might have grown to maturity.
In my view, if only a few such unfortunate 'accidents' are prevented by the registry and its regulatory and pedagogical machinery, it will have been a small price in treasure and annoyance for those among us who 'like' and use long guns.
In my view, it's all a question of selfishness and priorities....
Respectfully yours.
Skywalker
17-11-2009
Not wrong necessarily.
Just presenting a rational, sensible position. Since when were you, ME2 anointed the arbiter of things right or wrong?
RickW
17-11-2009
Christian (& Bill)
Why not go about this in the simplest fashion? Let's just make registration for EVERYTHING compulsory.
What? Did I hear someone mutter 'what nonsense'? Well, I submit that it's no more nonsensical than the majority of arguments in this here thread.
Question: At what point does public (ie. government) interference with the private lives of citizens constitute an erosion of democratic rights and privileges?
Turfman Jones
17-11-2009
greengreen
"How much money has the NRA provided to groups in Canada fighting the gun registry?"
I am a member of 3 Canadian firearms organizations and the NRA. I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt, the NRA has not nor ever will provide monetary support to Canadian shooting orgs. It is not a part of their mandate and against their charter. Moral support yes, money NO.
OilbertaRedTory
17-11-2009
Democratic Rights and Privileges
... in Canada can be discovered in the Charter:
'Section 7 - Life, liberty and security of person
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.'
So, when gun owners refuse to comply with a simple registration requirement and the right to life, liberty and the security of the persons in their or others' households is infringed, government is obliged to interfere with irresponsible and careless citizens who refuse to assist with homicide reduction:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AdvProject#p/search/4/4aqTC9QStqU
wanderingraven
17-11-2009
Dump the registry, build a new consensus on gun violence
I agree with anti registry side that the registry has contributed little to crime reduction, that it reduces civil liberties for many, that the billion dollars plus would have been better spent in other areas of violence reduction.
Normally I would be willing to shrug this legislation off as just another cost one bears of living in a democracy where we don't always get our own way, even when we are right.
But in this case the way that this legislation was imposed by the Liberals was so high handed, so self righteous, and so authoritarian that it has made the issue a toxic bomb in the politics of Western Canada in particular, and rural Canada in general.
As someone who feels strongly about violence in our society, and never fails to pause to reflect at memorials to victims of violence (including the one to the fallen of L'ecole Polytechnic in front of the Vancouver Via Station), I believe that scrapping the registry would have no negative consequences.
Instead of fighting to save the registry, progressively minded people should seize the opportunity to create a new consensus about how to address violence, including gun violence, which involves gun owners in solving the problem of gun violence.
Rational arguments are of little value in a debate that is largely emotional. It is time to get the emotional content out on the table and deal with that before we move on.
Frank
18-11-2009
Western rural gun owners...the hypocrisy phone is ringing...
Y'all think we should spend more money on reducing crime?
Oh sure, then why is it you guys ALWAYS vote for right-wing politicians that reduce social programs that reduce crime on the basis that you prefer tax breaks?
You vote against gun control. You vote against child support programs. You vote against increased social assistance.
But you vote for reducing the number of conservation officers... Would that be because its easier to shoot wildlife whenever the urge strikes when there's only two dozen people employed to cover all of BC?
An argument can also be made that crime rates have been falling since we started allowing abortions. Yet "rural western Canadians" apparently vote against that too...
Seems to me you guys are against everything that might reduce crime. Do you all work in the prison industry?
wanderingraven
18-11-2009
Frank: Your comments are
Frank: Your comments are offensive and wrong. Much of the acrimony of this debate results from the bigotted, stereotypical opinions that some urban people, including some women, have of rural people, men in particular.
For example, I've lived in Alberta since birth 59 years ago, and have never voted for any political party except the NDP.
None of your comments applied to me.
You may think you have the high moral ground, but the reality is that there would be no Harper majority government in our future if this legislation had been handled properly so many years ago.
Whenever I see Harper cut another social program, I'll think of you and your friends.
wanderingraven
18-11-2009
Ideas that were ignored at the time
This legislation was correctly perceived by gun owners as an attempt to blame them and hold them responsible as a group, for gun violence against women.
People rarely mention the scientifically invalid assumptions that underly the questionaire that accompanies the registration.
'Make up Another', above, had some excellent suggestions.
It's still possible to sell the registry as a voluntary service that protects owners from theft, for example.
It's still possible to have the registry and drop the offensive and scientifically invalid intrusions into personal affairs, for example.
It's still possible to ban hand guns and assault rifles while ignoring hunting weapons.
It's still possible to make registration of new guns mandatory, while grandfathering existing guns.
Reynald
19-11-2009
Todays Vancouver Sun
"VANCOUVER - More than 80 per cent of British Columbians believe that gun crime is at least a moderately serious problem, but only eight per cent believe that Canada's $1 billion long gun registry has been effective at preventing crime, according to a survey conducted by pollsters Angus Reid."
Mark5
19-11-2009
I listen to the police
I listen to the police scanner here in my city where I live because it has to do with my work. The police routinely ask the dispatcher to check the CFRO (Canadian firearms registry online) when visiting citizens homes if there is a report of a domestic dispute or complaint of some other nature. The dispatcher announces the make and model of firearms, the number of firearms registered to the owner, the name of the person who owns them and the address of the house. How wonderful. I guess they never heard of how "loose lips sink ships". Of course criminals have police scanners too so all of a sudden they have information that was supposed to be kept private and confidential. So now the gun owner is put at risk of break and enter or a home invasion and the guns could fall into the wrong hands. The Toronto Star published a map showing where many of the guns are located in Toronto. They wanted to publish the exact address, but the police would only give them the first three characters of the postal code. Why the Toronto Star would want to do such a thing is beyond my understanding but it probably has something to do with their witch-hunt against gun owners and their belief that guns are the problem, not people. About two months ago I heard a call come in over the police airwaves about a man who might have guns and the caller stated that she didn`t think he was allowed to have them. The gentleman's name was given over the airwaves, the make and model of the guns and where he had them stored. Apparently his firearms license had expired a few months previously. The police arrived and found the gun owner, an 84 year old war veteran. He had been cleaning his guns. He had two war relic guns that were not registered. He was arrested, his guns seized and he was taken down to the police station where he was stripped down to his underwear and thrown in a jail cell. That will teach him.
Mark5
19-11-2009
cont`d
I was able to contact him because of all the information given out freely over the air. He told me that it was cold in the jail cell and they finally gave him a blanket after some time. Great way to treat a senior citizen and a war vet. He has a court date set for some time soon. What kind of a law does this? What kind of people want this kind of thing to happen? The gun controllers have decided that they are going to change the world and create heaven on earth. They are going to put a stop to violence and war that has plagued mankind since time began. How are they going to do this? They are going to take away guns! Yes, take away the tools that people use and that will end war and violence! Hmmm.I guess they don`t realize that there was war and violence before guns were invented. In one battle alone, Hannibal's army killed 20,000 Roman soldiers. No guns were present.
Soical engineering is alive and well in Canada and the first victims are gun owners. Of course law abiding gun owners are innocent of any crime and have done nothing wrong. However, the gun controllers feel they might, just might, like maybe, like one in a million chance, go mental one day and shoot someone. So lets use an iron fist approach and treat them like suspects and spend billions just in case. Of course real criminals with unregistered guns go about free from this persecution and gun violence with handguns continues unabated even though handguns have been registered and restricted for decades. And in the meantime, people are dying and being injured by the thousands in cars where anyone at all can get a license. No background checks and doesn`t matter if you have a criminal record with violence. Everyone loves cars and so they wouldn`t dare put any restrictions on something that is loved. Go figure.
Mark5
19-11-2009
Feldgrau
Yes I was rather shocked and disturbed to hear that too.I actually have made some complaints to my MP and the police and others about gun information being broadcast openly on the airwaves like that.I told them that it should only be sent via their computer terminals.But they seem to think that this information must get to the police officers as quickly as possible so that the police can be prepared in case the law abiding gun owner goes berserk and shoots at them. I guess the police can have their guns at the ready with fingers on triggers ready to shoot the citizen at a moments notice. Hopefully the citizen won`t have a TV remote or wallet in hand when he answers the door. I guess gun owners should also be trained in surrender techniques. I am also wondering what other ways the registry has been breached. Again, this goes against the original reason of why guns were supposed to be registered. They were only supposed to be registered to make each gun owner accountable for that particular gun. All these other reasons cited are only byproducts of the real reason and most likley go against the privacy act. Registration was not really meant to do anything else.The police do also broadcast over the airwaves people names who are NOT supposed to have firearms. This is because they have committed a criminal act and have a prohibition against them. Once you have committed a criminal act, you give up certain rights and privledges.But if you have NOT committed a criminal act, you should not be treated as though you are a criminal. President Johnson once said something about how laws should not be made that can be used against innocent people.Right now,the registry is in the hands of good people. But what if it fell into the wrong hands. Who can predict the future?
Feldgrau
19-11-2009
Registry is not much of an Incentive for Safe Storage
"Those who had firearms and stored them improperly are/were afraid of the registry - that much is obvious.
In fact, I suspect that is because they now knew someone might actually have the ability to check up on them and police their irresponsibility."
The usefulness of the registry as a tool for forcing compliance with safe storage regulations is dubious at best. Constitional objections as to the legitimacy of firearms safety searches or inspections by police aside, I will concede that the process itself can be relatively painless. However, as a means of enforcing safe storage, the registry falls flat. For example, I can leave all of my registered rifles lying about a basement work room even as the police arrive to check up on my safe storage arrangements (they do need my consent, but can obtain a warrant if I refuse to let them in initially). If I have trigger locks, or locking cabinets nearby, I'm in the clear. Why? Because I can claim that they are out for any number of reasons while I am home, and as such they are considered to be "in use" under the law and not being stored. How has the registry enforced safe storage then? No,in discussion with many other hunters and shooters, the overriding factor in enforcing safe storage is the criminal penalty for not doing so. Those who would store their firearms irresponsibly would do so whether or not the registry is in place, and conversely, those who have always done so, would continue in their practices with or without it as well.
michelt13
19-11-2009
Speakin of police trusting their lives to the registry...
If my memory serves me right, Quebec as already lost two police officers who were gullible enough to believe what the registry told them...
Officer Valerie Gignac was shot and killed by a man on a firearm prohibition order, who wasn't suppose to have any firearm at home.
Same thing goes for Constable Daniel Tessier, when his team made a dynamic entry for a drug raid... There wasn't suppose to be any firearms at that location. Next thing you know, Basil Parasiris shot and killed the officer.
_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+
The registry is given them a false sense of security... something the police don't need.
offended
19-11-2009
Two things
I read what I posted yesterday and realize it did not make much sense - kinda like Bill's article.
1. Bill refers to the percentage of homicides in rural areas caused by a long gun (I believe he said 48%). Unfortunately he did not read the Stats Canada link properly and did not either not see, or did not mention, that this figure (48%) refers to homicides by long gun in non CMA areas. A CMA area (or Census Metrolpolitan Area for long) is a city or town with a population of 100,000 or more. A non CMA area would be any city or town with a population of less than 100,000. A non CMA area is not necessarily a rural area. White Rock is an example of a non CMA area.
There goes Bill's talking point about the urban-rural divide on homicide by long guns.
2. The poll that Bill referred to in his piece in 2006 was done by the pollster for The Montreal Gazette. Here's what Bill wrote:
"But an Ipsos-Reid poll in 2006 found 67 per cent supported having a gun registry."
What Bill forgot to mention, or did not know, is that the level of support for a gun registry has always been higher in Quebec. And I kinda wonder why Bill thinks support for a gun registry is the same as support for a long gun registry. That is not the question that was asked in the poll. Not to mention that the poll is three years old. But hey, what do I see online in the Vancouver Sun today? Yup: a new, current poll, about the long gun registry. And here's some of what it says:
"Half of British Columbians support ending the long-gun registry, compared with 30 per cent opposed, numbers roughly mirrored by the rest of Canada. Support for eliminating the long-gun registry is highest in Alberta (77 per cent) and lowest in Quebec (31 per cent)."
30% of BCer's oppose ending the long gun registry, compared to 69 percent in Quebec.
Quebec statistics shouldn't be used to make a point, Bill. Fail, Bill.
Here's a link to the Vancouver Sun article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/believe+long+registry+reduces+crime+poll/2241758/story.html
Mark5
19-11-2009
To all those who think
To all those who think registering guns is benign ponder this.The gun control act was created by people who don`t own guns and don`t like guns.In fact they often say they "hate' guns.Alan Rock publicly stated that he believed that only the police and the military should have guns.He was one of the main creators of the gun control act.He is responsible for having some guns banned or given prohibitive status. Other gun haters have talked about wanting guns stored at armouries where citizens have to go and sign thier guns out if they want to use them. Even the police don`t like that one because then the armouries could be stormed by criminals or other bad people and they would get all the guns.Or anti-gun fanatics might burn the place to the ground. Armouries would have to have 24 hour armed security and it would cost a lot to maintain them. Others have talked about an outright ban on all guns too. Their utopian world does not include firearms.But I think an outright ban would be very difficult to implement.There would be strong opposition and perhaps even civil war.So the next best thing is to try and register all the guns(impossible) and slowly, over time, take them away from people. Death from a thousand cuts. Many guns are destroyed each year. They have a lot of work to do. Already Canadian citizens here cannot legally go out and buy a gun unless they go through extensive screening and testing.Of course the criminals don`t do this.Like with illegal drugs, there is now a lucrative black market in guns, especially among the drug world.But they aren`t really on the radar. It is the law abiding easy targets the gun haters are after.
alive
20-11-2009
Just wondering
Just a stray thought:
Did the people opposing gun registry also oppose the seatbelt law?
Seems to me I hear the same old tired arguments about individual rights to take chances.
Then again, maybe it is OK by you if it is your own life you protect?
Frank
20-11-2009
alive
Why do people that complain about the one-time cost of the gun registry not complain about the Olympics?
Why do they not complain about corporate tax breaks?
Why do they not complain about the carbon tax?
Why do they not complain about operating rooms going to waste because of a government's refusal to fund operations in it?
Why do they not complain about building a free highway for the rich while building toll bridges for everyone else?
Why do they not complain about the cost of building a convention centre when they'll never use it?
Why do they not complain about paying railway executives millions of dollars of public money in salary when there's no actual railroad?
Why do they care more about an inaminate object than about the 1/4 of Canadian kids being raised in different degrees of poverty?