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}
- Appeal court upholds ruling on protection of orca habitat
- Foreign takeover score is 14,218 to two calculates Mel Hurtig, who speaks Saturday
- Abbott blames teachers' union, hints at legislation
- Greens exaggerating fracking fears 'to control you': Santorum
- Prime Minister Harper mixes oil with human rights on visit to China
- Civil jury finds former BC premier Vander Zalm guilty of defamation
- Vancouver theatre runs down curtain on section of BC's outdated liquor laws
- BC Premier Clark to replace throne speech with radio appearance
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- 'The Kids Are All Right'
- 'Leave Your Shoes On'
- Glaciers, BC Hydro's Melting 'Batteries'
- Frankie Rose Makes Life Tougher for Journalists
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Could SOPA Pervade Canadian Copyright Law?
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Who Pays Huge Power Bills for Clark's Gas Plants?
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Bill Rees' Last Lecture
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Is Canada Ignoring Signs of a Coming Economic Collapse?
- Eleven Oily Questions for Every MP
- How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway
- Harper in China
- Bruce Carson Scandal Greased by Harper's Oil Sands Agenda
- BC Child Care Advocates in Geneva to Complain to UN
- Make It the Canadian Webcasting Corporation
- Harper in China
- How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Expert on Healthy Democracy Takes BC's Pulse
- Remembering Lloyd Dykk's Wit, Generosity and Superb Prose
- When the Prize Is a Chance to Toil on BC's Farms
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- BC, You Love You
- Tweet Us What You Read Today
- Scientists unveil bold new definition of addiction
- The most hellish ‘internships’: China sends 100,000 teens to work for a pittance at Foxconn making gadgets for Apple, others
- World Press Photo Contest: Editor’s choice pictures of the day
- Banks come first in a Greek rescue plan
- We’re more unequal than you think
- Cambodia launched restaurants for vultures
- Flavored vodka: sign of the imminent apocalypse?
- With Obama’s new foreclosure deal big banks win again
251
Login or register to post comments
Dan the socialist
2 years ago
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.
2 years ago
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...
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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.
Zapodidae
2 years ago
Saying the critics are all wrong doesn't make it so
I don't know where to start with this jumble. But how about the continuing confusion between the registry and licensing?
"1,833 firearms licences were revoked and 462 firearms licences were refused" This has nothing to do with the registry. A firearms license can be revoked and refused, not a registration. I fully support licensing. It requires proper training, background and criminal record checks, etc. It provides real information for police.
"checks if a licence holder has been the subject of a police incident report by checking the registry" I don't think so. The registry only tells police whether someone has registered guns. The police have other ways of tracking "police incident reports" (I hope).
"homicides by rifles and shotguns have dropped by nearly 50 per cent, while handgun deaths are up" Handguns are registered too! Two registries + stats in opposite directions = no relationship. There are plenty of other correlates and alternative explanations for these stats.
The one thing the registry is admittedly good for is returning stolen guns to owners. But that's not a public safety benefit, it's a private benefit to gun owners.
I notice there's no quotes from criminologists - the ones who really do the research on these things. Why don't you ask a few for their opinions?
Jeffrey J.
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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.
Dr Alexander
2 years ago
When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong
I usually start assuming that they are full of crap.
Nice display of disrespect Bill. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.
Dr Alexander
2 years ago
When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong
I usually start assuming that they are full of crap.
Nice display of disrespect Bill. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.
Dr Alexander
2 years ago
When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong
I usually start assuming that they are full of crap.
Nice display of disrespect Bill. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.
Dr Alexander
2 years ago
When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong
I usually start assuming that they are full of crap.
Nice display of disrespect Bill. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.
Dr Alexander
2 years ago
When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong
I usually start assuming that they are full of crap.
Nice display of disrespect Bill. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.
Dr Alexander
2 years ago
When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong
I usually start assuming that they are full of crap.
Nice display of disrespect Bill. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.
Dr Alexander
2 years ago
When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong
I usually start assuming that they are full of crap.
Nice display of disrespect Bill. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.
Dr Alexander
2 years ago
When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong
I usually start assuming that they are full of crap.
Nice display of disrespect Bill. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.
Dr Alexander
2 years ago
When somebody starts off an argument by telling me I am wrong
I usually start assuming that they are full of crap.
Nice display of disrespect Bill. It helps me figure out where you are coming from.
jwstewart
2 years ago
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?
David Beers
2 years ago
Darn gremlins!
We're working on the bug that makes comments sometimes repeat...and repeat...and repeat.
Thanks
alive
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
Create a Weapons registry
While I am on the soapbox:
Lets include all fire arms and weapons!
freebear
2 years ago
"How political parties failed us"
Just this once?
Turfman Jones
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
Tieleman fires back
Mr. Tieleman, your naievete is shocking.
michelt13
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
Mikemah
2 years ago
registry
According to you Bill According to YOU ! I didn't!I won't! COLD DEAD HANDS BIll remember?
jereld Hannis
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
registry
This is mainly a case of public opinion manipulation. Through dis mis or just plain old information
Intention Pure
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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 (not verified)
2 years ago
seriously
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is "biased" and "political"? A ridiculous argument.....
a likewise ridiculous comment.
sjfmeyers
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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?
G West
2 years ago
Feldgrau
Your spelling is 'shocking'.
Reynald
2 years ago
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.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
G West
If all you can find fault with in my arguments is a typo in one word then I should thank you for the de facto validation. Have a nice day.
Mark5
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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.
PatrickMcEvoyHalston
2 years ago
Put down the guns, Bill, and sit down for some tea
The "save lives" Bill T. is to be preferred to the one forever returning fire. Your stance against long guns, notwithstanding, in spirit we have good cause to wonder if you are in fact more peace-activist, than you are Sarah Palin. Can we more readily picture you talking sweet to tree-huggers, or showing the girly-framed weaklings the meaning of Tielemen muscle? I know which way I lean.
Anybody know if there a fish with a bit less muscular, populist way to resist the stream?--and if it has a website?
Mark5
2 years ago
Bill Tieleman AKA, the King
Bill Tieleman AKA, the King of the Borg " You must comply. Resistance is futile!"
dorothy
2 years ago
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?
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
NRA
How much money has the NRA provided to groups in Canada fighting the gun registry?
KWD
2 years ago
Patrick
Please don't give up. This is a necessary part of the cycle.
A shudder on the redd, any shudder, even yours, will hopefully fertilize the future. Do not despair; despite the overwhelming dead and dying, and once prolifically powerful carcasses, that float downstream from the Triassic and Jurassic , obscuring the evolutionary process, this is still a productive, and evolutionary stream.
ReeferMadness
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
"Are we Tyee-ites soft in the head?"
Please, keep your collectivists attitudes to yourself
michelt13
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
God, Guts, and Guns
We have the right to bear arms against enemies of the state and the state itself.
Skywalker
2 years ago
Herman's Hermit
Where is that written?
ME2
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
Not wrong necessarily.
Just presenting a rational, sensible position. Since when were you, ME2 anointed the arbiter of things right or wrong?
RickW
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
OilbertaRedTory
2 years ago
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
OilbertaRedTory
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
Herman's Hermit
Obviously you don't live in Canada.
Frank
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
G West
I am fully aware of the simple typographical error in my earlier post...but, it is irrelevant to the current discussion, especially in light of the many other such errors that are common in on-line discussions such as this one. And yes, it would seem that I don't share your sense of irony, but then, live and let live.
The fact remains that despite attempts to prove otherwise, popular consensus is against the continued existence of the gun registry. Mr. Tieleman has tried to convince us that he is right and the registry should remain, but the overwhelming majority believe him to be in error.
Your statement:
"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."
...is unclear. Are you saying that the registry does not prevent safe storage? In other words that safe storage is independent of the registry? That people were always capable of storing firearms responsibly? If so, then you would be correct.
The registry has absolutely nothing to do with that aspect of firearms ownership. Safe storage laws as part of the Firearms Act are completely separate from registration. While the incident you describe is indeed a tragedy, registration would not have prevented it any more than registering your vehicle would prevent you from driving while impaired if you so choose.
You also wrote:
"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."
The above statement reveals the same error that many registry supporters repeat constantly: that the registry is a regulatory mechanism of some sort that exerts some control over who can and cannot have firearms (although I am uncertain as to how pedagogy fits into it).
The registry has no regulatory function whatsoever.
As a registry, it is a list, an inventory and nothing more. However, having said that, I should note that the Liberals in their arrogance, decided to criminalize people over registration. Had they not done so, it's existence, despite its dubious usefulness, would likely not be at issue today.
offended
2 years ago
Ya need to do some proof reading bill.
"Long guns aren't a problem?..."
"Of the 200 homicides committed with a firearm in 2008, 61% or 121 were handguns. There were also
34 homicides committed with rifles or shotguns, up slightly from 2007 (from your link).
"Firearms were used more often in gang-related homicides than in other types of homicide. In 2008,
77% of gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm, compared to about 20% of homicides
that did not involve gangs.
"Rural Canadians can handle their guns? And some of us can parse Government reports..
"Canadians living in large urban areas tend to be at slightly less risk of being a victim of a homicide than those living in smaller urban or rural areas. In 2008, the 22.9 million Canadians living in one of the 34 census metropolitan areas (CMA) had a lower homicide rate (1.8) than the 10.4 million Canadians living outside a CMA (2.0) (Table 3)." That's your link again. And then there's this:
A CMA is defined as a area with a population of less than 100,000. A town with less than 100,000 population is not necessarily rural. Do you consider White Rock rural, Bill?
"when it come to who the killers are--rural or urban--the statistics are disturbing:..." Yes they are. May I suggest you reread them.
"Most victims knew their killer. In 2008, 70 solved homicides (17%) were committed by someone not known to the victim,"
"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."
I agree with you, Bill, on your stance regarding firearms licensing. Revoking the long gun registry will not stop the requirement for licensing and storage.
"Registered long guns are hardly ever used in crime?" That is true. They hardly ever are. But if they are used in a murder, someone's still dead. Registering the long gun didn't stop it. Ammo control might.
PS The highest homicide rate in the country? Abbotsford, not a CMA until 2001.
xox from
A woman, a lifetime NDP'er, and the proud possessor of a registered---are you ready for it--BB gun. Yup the goofs in Miramichi registered a BB gun as a long gun. Yes, they are incompetent.
Frank
2 years ago
wanderingraven
"Your comments are offensive and wrong."
Unfortunately they're not either.
"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."
No, much of the acrimony is caused by rural voters that have a tv show view of urban crime.
"For example, I've lived in Alberta since birth 59 years ago, and have never voted for any political party except the NDP."
Yet there has never been an NDPer elected in rural Alberta. So apparently one of your neighbours might not be a Dipper wanderingraven.
"None of your comments applied to me."
Excellent, because they weren't directed at you.
"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."
Really? Rural Albertans, BCers and Saskatchewanians didn't already vote Conservative before the registry? You may want to google that.
"Whenever I see Harper cut another social program, I'll think of you and your friends."
No, think of the people that voted for them. Your neighbours.
Frank
2 years ago
feldgrau
"The fact remains that despite attempts to prove otherwise, popular consensus is against the continued existence of the gun registry."
It wasn't always so. Somehow I think you weren't a big advocate of popular opinion until it swung marginally in your favour.
oldcynic
2 years ago
unslopogaas
Only register the long ones!
blackie
2 years ago
Made my day
Offended says: "A woman, a lifetime NDP'er, and the proud possessor of a registered---are you ready for it--BB gun. Yup the goofs in Miramichi registered a BB gun as a long gun. Yes, they are incompetent."
Hilarious. That one wins the prize, and illustrates what happens when bureaucracy trumps common sense. I must be a scofflaw because I have a nerf gun that is neither licensed nor registered. What would happen if I got so mad at my neighbour that I beat him senseless with my nerf gun? Would that be a long gun crime?
It's quite clear from all the comments I've read on this that the long gun registry wastes a lot of money for very little gain. And I'm in favour of gun control -- always have been.
blackie
2 years ago
Made my day
Offended says: "A woman, a lifetime NDP'er, and the proud possessor of a registered---are you ready for it--BB gun. Yup the goofs in Miramichi registered a BB gun as a long gun. Yes, they are incompetent."
Hilarious. That one wins the prize, and illustrates what happens when bureaucracy trumps common sense. I must be a scofflaw because I have a nerf gun that is neither licensed nor registered. What would happen if I got so mad at my neighbour that I beat him senseless with my nerf gun? Would that be a long gun crime?
It's quite clear from all the comments I've read on this that the long gun registry wastes a lot of money for very little gain. And I'm in favour of gun control -- always have been.
blackie
2 years ago
Made my day
Offended says: "A woman, a lifetime NDP'er, and the proud possessor of a registered---are you ready for it--BB gun. Yup the goofs in Miramichi registered a BB gun as a long gun. Yes, they are incompetent."
Hilarious. That one wins the prize, and illustrates what happens when bureaucracy trumps common sense. I must be a scofflaw because I have a nerf gun that is neither licensed nor registered. What would happen if I got so mad at my neighbour that I beat him senseless with my nerf gun? Would that be a long gun crime?
It's quite clear from all the comments I've read on this that the long gun registry wastes a lot of money for very little gain. And I'm in favour of gun control -- always have been.
blackie
2 years ago
Made my day
Offended says: "A woman, a lifetime NDP'er, and the proud possessor of a registered---are you ready for it--BB gun. Yup the goofs in Miramichi registered a BB gun as a long gun. Yes, they are incompetent."
Hilarious. That one wins the prize, and illustrates what happens when bureaucracy trumps common sense. I must be a scofflaw because I have a nerf gun that is neither licensed nor registered. What would happen if I got so mad at my neighbour that I beat him senseless with my nerf gun? Would that be a long gun crime?
It's quite clear from all the comments I've read on this that the long gun registry wastes a lot of money for very little gain. And I'm in favour of gun control -- always have been.
G West
2 years ago
Feldgrau
Nothing 'unclear' about it.
barryglasgow
2 years ago
Someone tell Tieleman; Licensing is not registration
Bill Tieleman stubbornly persists with his misguided defense of the long gun registry by citing 3-year-old polls in favour of more recent polls.
He also uses some bizarre logic in a lame attempt to prove that all those who disagree with him are "wrong".
Tieleman boasts that "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 has licensing got to do with registration?
Registering 7 million inanimate objects (while not accounting for an equal amount held by unlicensed criminals and unseemly characters who can't be licensed) is a waste of billions of dollars that could instead be directed at the "criminal problem" - which is what we all want.
Polluting the issue with false claims that "most Canadians" support the registry and that the Conservatives are somehow tied in with the NRA does not do Mr. Tieleman's credibility any good.
He should also see National Post contributor Lorne Gunter's take on the Chiefs of Police position on this to see why their view on this had also corrupted the debate
(see http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2234640&p=2#ixzz0XE8xONSB )
Frank
2 years ago
barryglasgow
"Polluting the issue with false claims that "most Canadians" support the registry"
Why, that's the same argument feldgrau makes in support of the registry. That 46% is the "majority" opinion.
"He should also see National Post contributor Lorne Gunter's take"
Considering Gunter's columns on other subjects I doubt anybody except right-wing Canadians read anything he says.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
Frank
The gun registry was put in place via a whipped vote and a level of party discipline that could be considered draconian. Popular opinion outside of major urban circles was considered irrelevant by the Liberals at that time.
The current popular opinion may not have always been so, as you correctly point out, but, we may never know what it really was back then. However it certainly is now.
I detect the applicability of your closing sentiment to your own position on the matter.
Frank
2 years ago
Feldgrau
"The gun registry was put in place via a whipped vote and a level of party discipline that could be considered draconian."
So every law that is passed on the basis of party discipline should be considered illegitimate?
"Popular opinion outside of major urban circles was considered irrelevant by the Liberals at that time."
Maybe they looked at popular opinion in the whole country and not just the parts you would have preferred them to look at?
Apparently some Canadians, no doubt only urban left-wing rabble, were upset at the Marc Lepine shootings and wanted some action.
"I detect the applicability of your closing sentiment to your own position on the matter."
If you don't like hearing my left-wing opinions then why are you on this site? You don't see me hanging out at the National Post site.
If Gunter is what you prefer to read you know where the door is.
Frank
2 years ago
By the way
I hope your handle "feldgrau" is not indicative of your support of a certain country's armed forces in the first half of this century.
Frank
2 years ago
feldgrau
"The current popular opinion may not have always been so, as you correctly point out, but, we may never know what it really was back then. However it certainly is now."
We don't have to guess, polls were done at the time and supporters of the registry outnumbered opponents. Yet that didn't stop opponents from continuing to fight the legislation for another decade. So I doubt the argument can now be ended by wrapping oneself in the flag of Harris-Decima.
Reynald
2 years ago
YOU CANNOT REASON WITH A CLOSED MIND
Tielman has no interest in debate. He simply ignores valid criticism while pushing his own questionable 'facts'. The science AGAINST the long gun registry is solid & that is why a clear MAJORITY of Canadians from all parts of the country want to see an end to the wasteful, unsecured & ineffectual LONG gun registry.
We all want gun control that is reasonable & effective. It should include:
1. Personal licensing, that would include a criminal background check, national standard training & a PRACTICAL storage standard.
2. A national computerized register of those banned from firearms ownership for reasons of criminal conviction or mental illness. This would be a real police tool.
3. More resources put into border security to dry up the smuggling of guns, drugs and cigarettes.
4. More police resources that are needed to counter the violent urban gangs & criminal biker organisations. Illegal guns will continue to be a problem as long as there are criminals that create the demand. Registration does nothing to counter crime.
5. More up to date laws are needed to address the evolving crime situation, i.e. id theft, hacking crimes etc.
REASONABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE REGISTRATION OF LONG GUNS.
Confidential information is not secure with the RCMP/CFC because it continues to be hacked by criminals and given to third parties without the government's knowledge. If the long gun registry is ended then the records must be destroyed for security reasons.
Frank
2 years ago
Reynald
Another anti-registry person who had no trouble registering on the Tyee?
"We all want gun control that is reasonable & effective"
Really? So where is the legislation to do that? Harper has been in power now for years yet I've never heard of any gun control legislation in the works. You would think that if Conservatives were all for gun control they might have dreamed up a bill at some point.
"3. More resources put into border security to dry up the smuggling of guns, drugs and cigarettes."
Unfortunately the ridings that oppose the gun registry are the same ridings that vote for reduced taxes to pay for things like increased border security.
"4. More police resources"
Why? Police can only arrest people after a crime has been committed. After all, I hear from anti-registry people that the registry doesn't stop people from shooting each other. Well, using the same logic, there are few cases of police preventing crime. The best they can do is lock the perpetrator up afterwards.
Housing and social supports for people is the best way to reduce crime yet rural western Canadians vote against such things in every provincial and federal election.
G West
2 years ago
The Gun Registry
HAS NOT PREVENTED ANYONE WHO IS QUALIFIED FROM OBTAINING, KEEPING AND USING A LONG GUN RESPONSIBLY.
In short, what exactly are you complaining about?
If it has prevented one single death from happening - and I'd argue it has done far more than that - then it is a good idea and should be improved and continued.
Harper blew away more than 159 millions flying useless Leopard tanks to Afghanistan a few years ago...perhaps you missed that.
Frank
2 years ago
Missed one
"5. More up to date laws are needed to address the evolving crime situation, i.e. id theft, hacking crimes etc."
Again, the parties that rural western Canadians support are in power in the 3 western provinces and federally yet I don't see a lot of legislation being passed.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
The real violence threat in society
The assumption has been that it is only the extreme right who are against the current gun registry. It is clear here however, that the "non-centrist" left as well concedes at least a certain right for "the people" to bear arms, unmolested by the State.
(And I am not opposed to some degree of gun control either. Though I see no need, in the available gun crime/violence stats, for anymore control than has historically existed in this country. No one in their right mind wants to see anyone suffer violence, of course, but it is an unavoidable fact of current life at the same time. But then, we are not really in a gun induced crime wave in this country at the current time either, certainly one evolving long guns, and that becomes clear here, even in the sources provided by Bill T.)
There is a crime wave though, but it is more a "free market" crime wave that is impoverishing millions, and sending young men to die of gun violence in Afghanistan. It is to this crime wave that our focus would be better directed, than controlling overwhelmingly otherwise peaceful folks at home, who for their own purposes posses a gun for hunting or target shooting.
For the violence we more seriously need to be concerned with is, the violence that is destroying peoples social and individual lives, impoverishing them and destabilizing the entire community, wherein is the real breeding ground for rage, desperation and violence. All of which may yet indeed lead to a real increase in violence involving guns, legal and/or illegal. But even then, as a secondary outcome, rather than the real underlying cause even then. Which no manner or form of gun control will be able to in fact control.
In the heat of this kind of emerging societal environment, as a result of yet another failure of class society, the ruling class and the State, people, if they feel the overwhelming need, will get arms regardless of the diktats of the ruling class or its State.
Frank
2 years ago
coyote
"The assumption has been that it is only the extreme right who are against the current gun registry."
The assumption is they are the most vocal opponents.
In regards to your omments about a violent society...
It is the Right that votes, in every election since WW2, for the provincial and federal parties that are most likely to make our society even more dog-eat-dog. They vote against anything smelling of "community".
Feldgrau
2 years ago
Frank
"So every law that is passed on the basis of party discipline should be considered illegitimate?"
Nobody but you has even suggested that.
"Maybe they looked at popular opinion in the whole country and not just the parts you would have preferred them to look at?"
I'm sure they looked at popular opinion across the whole country. They just happened to dismiss out of hand those opinions that didn't mesh with their own, or apparently, yours.
"Apparently some Canadians, no doubt only urban left-wing rabble, were upset at the Marc Lepine shootings and wanted some action."
Why does the left always assume that they are the only ones who want improvements in society? However, where people often diverge is when one group's desires trample other people in the process. The Firearms Act is an example of such trampling. Many rights that we take for granted in Canada were arbitrarily lifted for firearms owners. An earlier post gave examples such as loss of the right to remain silent, loss of the right to avoid self incrimination and loss of the right to be free of undue police attention.
"'I detect the applicability of your closing sentiment to your own position on the matter.'"
In spades.
Are you looking for a bogeyman? I have read that left-wingers often resort to name calling and personal attacks when faced with stiff opposition to their views. I see some truth to that statement.
Frank
2 years ago
German army uniform guy
"Nobody but you has even suggested that."
You should read your own posts then before you hit send. I'll be helpful and quote it back to you :
"The gun registry was put in place via a whipped vote and a level of party discipline that could be considered draconian. Popular opinion outside of major urban circles was considered irrelevant by the Liberals at that time."
Why mention that the vote was "whipped" when almost every vote is? Why mention that party discipline was a major factor when almost every other vote is influenced by the same thing? Why mention what the level of popularity for the legislation was in rural areas since it doesn't matter when any other legislation is passed?
"Why does the left always assume that they are the only ones who want improvements in society?"
Because we are the only ones apparently if how we vote means anything.
"However, where people often diverge is when one group's desires trample other people in the process."
Your rights aren't being trampled, the law was put in place by an elected government. I have to live with the carbon tax and the HST and cutbacks to social programs and healthcare, you apparently never want to endure any law you don't like.
By the way, I didn't see gun owners up in arms over cutbacks to legal aid which really does affect the rights of people too poor to pay for legal advice and representation.
"I have read that left-wingers often resort to name calling and personal attacks when faced with stiff opposition to their views."
Read this thread and the previous Tielmann column, the over the top comments and name-calling come from you and your friends. As it always does.
"I see some truth to that statement."
You apparently see the world through an interesting set of lenses then.
Hermans Hermit
2 years ago
Frank
We have the right to bear arms against enemies of the state and the state itself.
Frank:
"Obviously you don't live in Canada."
Damn if anyone is going to take away my right to bear arms and esp. my long gun here in urban BC.
I wake up at 5 am almost every morning with a murder (no pun intended) of crows outside my home sitting on the trees waking everyone up with their squawking.
As far as I am concerned they are enemies of my state of sleep. So I plug in a pellet (one at a time) into my long gun and start shootin' to get rid of the pests to bring back peace and solace to my sleep.
And my pellet long gun ain't registered either.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
Frank
Touch a nerve did I? I still see you looking for a bogeyman. Discourse with you is to condone degeneration into name calling and mudslinging. Keep it up and you'll have the playground all to yourself.
Frank
2 years ago
Feldgrau
Apparently you gun advocates don't have a single argument that holds any water. Every argument you've tossed up has been demolished and you no longer even post feeble responses.
I'll accept your surrender just as the Allies accepted the surrender of WW2 Germany.
Tieleman
2 years ago
Hey Dave! How come only the anti-registry comments get repeated?
Just notice that! Perhaps the problem is a failure of computer logic.
Frank
2 years ago
Herman's Hermit
"We have the right to bear arms against enemies of the state and the state itself."
Where exactly in the Constitution can I read that?
Frank
2 years ago
By the way
it only reinforces the stereotypes about you guys when you name yourself after right-wing militaries.
Why not just call yourself Steve or Gordon?
Frank
2 years ago
Herman's Hermit
By the way, I'm referring to the Canadian Constitution, not the one you may be more familiar with.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
Frank
I just spit coffee onto my computer screen in laughter over your latest little diatribes. You don't know me from Adam, yet you presume to declare that I have "surrendered" to you? Better yet, that I am some sort of white supremacist? Talk about stereotypical behaviour. But, I digress from the topic at hand, which is the registry. I haven't surrendered, I am just thinking that if I continue to "debate" you over it, that I might be tempted to sling some mud as well, and I'd rather not participate in that sort of low-brow activity.
Frank
2 years ago
Feldgrau
Stereotypical behaviour? I didn't have anything to do with the selecting of your handle feldgrau, you did that all by yourself. But if you want to assert that I'm the author of why you find yourself being stereotyped then by all means do so, I won't care.
You haven't surrendered? Good to know. I'll await your next attempt at an argument with gleeful anticipation and will ignore the fact you haven't defended your previous ones.
Frank
2 years ago
Fun with words
By the way, if I changed my handle to "Stalin worshipper" and then cried everytime someone accused me of being a left-winger its possible I should not be allowed to own a gun on the basis of my mental health.
jwstewart
2 years ago
It's a Success of Computer logic!
Most of the pro-registry comments don't bear repeating..
Frank
2 years ago
jwstewart
No need to repeat them, all you gun advocates have gone into hiding because you can't defend your silly arguments.
Reynald
2 years ago
Tsk tsk finger pointers
It is apparent from this blog that deep divisions exist in this country over how to fight crime. Those that don't own firearms equate firearms registration to registering a car or a dog. The two processes are entirely different. Those with firearms simply point to the science and the history of failure of Firearms Act and wonder how the anti-gunners can be so blind and unreasonable.
The real failures of the gun registry are conveniently ignored while the same old tired rhetoric makes the rounds. If the point can't be refuted we just see a personal attack or some comment on the NRA bogeyman.
Ah, that old Americanism, the "Gun Lobby" seems to have great currency with those that disparage the sports culture of millions of Canadians.
Frank asks why the Conservative Party doesn't put ANOTHER bill forward. Wake up call. The minority parties have consistently opposed any attempt at ending the long gun registry. The vote for C-391 reflects the wishes of rural Liberals and NDPers who have experienced the reality of the registry and it's failures.
Name calling and denying the facts changes nothing. We can but hope that common sense and the truth will win out in the end and we will see an end to the scandalous boondoggle of the long gun registry. No matter how much you bleat to the contrary this is very much a question of minority cultural rights and the right to private property.
michelt13
2 years ago
Ignoring the root of the problem isn't helping any one...
as some of you might recall (if you are old enough), this whole mess pretty much got started because of the shooting at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.
Fast forward a decade or so, Montreal is yet again the victim of another school shooting. This time at Dawson College.
What have we learned from these tragedy? Apparently, not that much.
In both cases the coroners said that
- we were dealing with sick and disturbed young men.
- These young men had some violence and aggression problem.
- They were depressive and suicidal
- Kimveer Gill had some alcohol problems
- They had tried to get help through the local CLSC (medical center) but for a reason or another the staff weren't able to help them.
So what did we do?
Provide more resources to social workers helping violent individuals? NO
Provide additional resources to help people dealing with depression? NO
Provide more resources to help prevent suicide? NO
Instead our MPs created a whole new bureaucracy to monitor sport shooters and hunters... If there ever was a prize for missing the obvious... The gun registry would be a top contender.
Social work CANNOT be replaced by paperwork.
Frank
2 years ago
Reynald
"Those with firearms simply point to the science and the history of failure of Firearms Act and wonder how the anti-gunners can be so blind and unreasonable."
Lots of other things have apparently failed then too. Having police, laws, capitalism. Its all led to the same crime statistics that the gun registry has. So if the registry is a failure then all the other policies the Right has saddled us with are also failures.
"Frank asks why the Conservative Party doesn't put ANOTHER bill forward. Wake up call. The minority parties have consistently opposed any attempt at ending the long gun registry."
That's no reason to assume they'd vote against a bill. Each bill stands or falls on its own merits.
"The vote for C-391 reflects the wishes of rural Liberals and NDPers who have experienced the reality of the registry and it's failures."
And the vote that brought in the gun registry passed because MPs had experienced the reality of not doing anything.
"Name calling"
I guess you don't like being called a "rural western Canadian".
"and denying the facts changes nothing."
Step up to the plate, drop the rhetoric and list what facts are being denied.
"We can but hope that common sense and the truth will win out in the end and we will see an end to the scandalous boondoggle of the long gun registry."
Rhetoric, no argument here.
"No matter how much you bleat to the contrary this is very much a question of minority cultural rights and the right to private property."
Oh please, you're playing the "cultural card" now? That your family has owned guns since Jesus walked the earth and you have to keep doing so because otherwise your ancestors won't feel respected?
As for the right to private party, I want my own bengal tiger that I can take walks but I have to live with the fact the government won't let me have one.
Frank
2 years ago
michelt13
"Provide more resources to social workers helping violent individuals? NO"
Because gun advocates don't like social workers or the taxes to pay for them.
"Provide additional resources to help people dealing with depression? NO"
Because gun advocates don't like handing resources over to people needing help. They say we can't afford it.
"Provide more resources to help prevent suicide? NO"
Because gun advocates don't want to pay taxes that would go to such programs.
"Instead our MPs created a whole new bureaucracy to monitor sport shooters and hunters... If there ever was a prize for missing the obvious... The gun registry would be a top contender."
There's lots of bureacracies I don't like either. The carbon tax bureacracy comes to mind yet gun advocates voted for the government that imposed it on me.
Social work CANNOT be replaced by paperwork.
gomer
2 years ago
Is it just me?
Is it just me or are the majority of the comments from the anti anti long gun registry coming from the same person or at least reading from the same script?...read from the play, "Keeping Our Guns", author NRA
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Frank's Assumptions 1...
No doubt coming in here with a handle like Feldgrau, you've got a problem at the get/go. :-)
Still, it would be wrong for anyone to assume that while the extreme right has indeed "attempted" to make the gun control issue their own cause celebre, it is not really an issue that touches a much broader base than that, as the presence of a number of NDPers, independents and non-centrist Left persons here attests. And to attempt to portray everyone who supports a citizen right to possess guns unharassed, as Hitlerian German army supporting quasi-fascists is simply dishonest, and paints with too broad a brush. In doing so, as it appears you are attempting, and others, does yourself a disservice, because I know you are capable of a more discerning, insightful judgement than that, and is simply dishonest tactics.
My request of you Frank, is that you can still support the current gun registration system without resort to this kind of simplistic character assassination and dishonesty. I assume your sincere good intentions here, as I do everyone here who supports the current registry system (Save maybe for the State and, perhaps, the police interests as may be here too.) A rational discussion that will lead to real solutions assumes that you likewise return the courtesy.
Continued further along...
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Frank's Assumptions 2...
Continued from above...
Systemic crime and the existence of real violence in this society deserves to be treated more seriously and less cavalierly than this. We need real solutions to the real causal chain at work here, within an exploitive and flawed democratic society and processes, not targeting instead the historically established defence rights of the citizenry and/or their hunting and sporting pursuits.
Their may not be a formal Constitutional right of citizens to maintain arms in this country Frank, I grant you, but I've lived long enough to know that there is sure as hell a long established historical precedent, common law one. Yet even then, if you and others could seriously make the case and convince me that abolishing this historical right and establishing your precious "registry" would eliminate what was even a developing or actually existing crime wave in this country, driven by the common ownership of guns and not other more deeply rooted issues within the social order fabric itself, I would indeed give up my resistance to the current gun registry system. But you cannot. And you cannot because to what degree there is a crime wave within this country, the root of that problem, or that even of violence which is ANOTHER issue, is NOT the least consequence of the ownership of guns by citizens. Nor will this/these problems be resolved by harassing the right of peaceful citizens to possess guns.
Wackos, criminals and the State will still get guns, legally or illegally.
By all means deal with illegally smuggled guns from largely the US, which is the weapon of choice for street gun crime (According to the Vancouver Police. And indeed establish what systems of checks and balances may help weed out the disturbed from accessing guns, though I doubt this is entirely 100% possible, even in the best intentioned arrangement.
Propensities to violence and crime are part of the prevailing social order, and MAY even not entirely be rooted from any social arrangement, but will always be there to some degree, if with a less fertile societal, even economic soil for it to spring from. Hopefully we can get to there.
Mark5
2 years ago
federal car registry
Lets see, motor vehicles kill and injure many more people every year than firearms. We have vehicular homicide and suicide using cars and vehicles are used to commit sexual assaults and kidnappings, among other things. We have impaired drivers, enraged drivers, distracted drivers, drivers with criminal records, drivers who beat their spouses and the list goes on. I would say this is a public safety issue if I ever saw one. But I do not hear any arguments from the gun controllers for federal licensing and federal registration of cars and trucks. Why is that? The argument for federal registration of guns is because they are used interprovincially. I see lots of out-of-province plates here in my province. Obviously vehicles cross provincial boundaries all the time. Expensive motor vehicles are also used on a daily basis for the most part.How many times are guns taken out of a private home to be used? Maybe a half dozen times a year? Otherwise they sit safely in a gun safe or a closet with a trigger lock,not causing any trouble except in the paranoid minds of the anti-gun crowd. Certainly on occasion they are used maliciously, but that is not the norm.
Speaking of paranoia, look up the definition in the dictionary and it perfectly describes those who want guns registered. Their "mission" is gun registration. Motor vehicles are also weapons of war.Can you imagine an army riding into battle on horseback or on foot? The Liberals almost created that situation for our military through underfunding. I don`t have enough room here to go into how the oil used for our cars is a major cause of war and strife and pollution on our planet. The gun controllers don`t want to hear about that anyway. They feel superior to gun owners sitting in their "death machine" automobiles. Sure, we can say cars have a purpose and we NEED them. I guess we need cars with 500 horsepower engines and big military style Hummers and cars that go 350 kilometers an hour. Hmmm.And who wants to take public transit or, heaven forbid, walk? Yes people LOVE their cars and many HATE guns. They say guns are only meant to kill. But their glorious cars don`t kill anyone, right? Automobiles may not always be designed to kill and maim but kill and maim they do, at an unprecedented rate in human history. They kill and injure us directly and indirectly by polluting the air, making us fat and lazy and causing conflict as stated above. So why aren`t gun controllers on the streets demanding an end to the slaughter?
Mark5
2 years ago
federal car registry 2
Why doesn`t registering cars stop the carnage? Why am I afraid to walk down the street or drive in traffic knowing I could be killed at any moment? Why am I NOT at all afraid of getting shot if guns are worse? The reason why we accept the slaughter and suffering created by automobile use and abuse, is because of what it does for us. It gives us freedom and power and mobility. We are willing to pay the price for these things. The same holds true for firearms. There is a price to pay for anything that has value. Firearms ownership by citizens is the hallmark of a free people. Firearms are used to control bad people, bad pests and for sporting purposes. Firearms registration has undeniably, been used previously by tyrants and dictators and others who want to rule the world to subjugate and slaughter million of innocent people. Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. Those here who advocate for the registration of firearms do so without a thought or care to history and even current events. Their pacifistic over- idealistic view of people control is unrealistic and dangerous. If all the Canadian citizens who owned cars told the government that they would no longer be registering their cars or getting drivers licenses, that would be the end of both car registration and licensing. Drivers only accept this now because we know it is in our best interest, barely. However, gun owning citizens KNOW gun registration is NOT in our best interest and so if gun registration does not end legally, it will end because gun owners will end it themselves. Already, there are tens of thousands of guns in Canada that are not registered and many gun owning citizens have failed to renew their licenses. This is just the beginning. Like the Quebec city bridge that fell into the St. Lawrence river in 1907, the gun control act was built with flaws and weaknesses that must be addressed. The gun control act has made "criminals" out of law abiding citizens and this is not right. Gun registration is not the be-all and end-all to gun control. Education and co-operation is the real key.
Luke
2 years ago
Frank
Do what I do. Go to Playland at the PNE, grab one of those machine guns, shoot out the red star and then win a prize! It feels oh so good. ;)
Then leave the PNE and support the anti-gun registry. :D
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Mark5
"Lets see, motor vehicles kill and injure many more people every year than firearms. We have vehicular homicide and suicide using cars and vehicles are used to commit sexual assaults and kidnappings, among other things. We have impaired drivers, enraged drivers, distracted drivers, drivers with criminal records, drivers who beat their spouses and the list goes on."
Outstanding, Mark5.
dorothy
2 years ago
Not terribly straight, GWest
"..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."
Why? What would the registry have accomplished? certainly a registered rifle could have been stored inproperly...?
as for the 'regulatory and pedagogical machinery', it is entirely associated with licensing, not with registering, and is pretty skimpy to boot. It remains a question of general attitude and comprehension.
We all have tragic 'things' we can come up with, but I kind of think it is below your usual standard to try to shut people up who disagree, by playing such a card, which is purely anecdotal, no matter how tragic. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth, sorry.
Frank
2 years ago
Mark5
Another new face...
"We have impaired drivers"
We call such people "Mr Premier" and the base of his support comes from "rural Western Canadians". What a surprise. If you are a "rural Western Canadian" chances are you voted for him or his fellow drunk, Premier Klein.
"Otherwise they sit safely in a gun safe or a closet with a trigger lock"
When Ontario Liberal MPP Michael Bryant wanted to bring in a law that required trigger locks the Conservative party and gun lobbyists opposed it. You'll have to do better than that.
"not causing any trouble except in the paranoid minds of the anti-gun crowd."
Much like the gun registry itself which causes no trouble of any kind except in the paranoid minds of the gun advocates.
"Certainly on occasion they are used maliciously, but that is not the norm."
I could say the same thing about your long-winded diatribe about cars.
"Motor vehicles are also weapons of war."
Wow.
"The Liberals almost created that situation for our military through underfunding. I don`t have enough room here to go into how the oil used for our cars is a major cause of war and strife and pollution on our planet."
I don't see rural western Canadians" voting against oil extraction, do you? If not, what's your point?
"Firearms ownership by citizens is the hallmark of a free people."
No, it isn't.
"Firearms are used to control bad people, bad pests and for sporting purposes."
Which explains why gun advocates support governments that get rid of nuisances like conservation officers.
"Firearms registration has undeniably, been used previously by tyrants and dictators and others who want to rule the world to subjugate and slaughter million of innocent people."
Oh thank god for the rifles sitting in closets that will protect us from the Chinese PLA. Somebody was forced to watch Red Dawn over and over when they were young and impressionable.
"Those here who advocate for the registration of firearms do so without a thought or care to history and even current events."
I've forgotten more history than you'll ever read.
"Their pacifistic over- idealistic view of people control is unrealistic and dangerous."
Which explains why all of you refuse to vote for progressive social policies. You'd rather keep society going by pointing a rifle at them.
"However, gun owning citizens KNOW gun registration is NOT in our best interest"
And why is that pray tell? What horrible fantasies does your mind entertain on this subject? I'd like to hear them.
"The gun control act has made "criminals" out of law abiding citizens and this is not right."
No, it hasn't.
"Gun registration is not the be-all and end-all to gun control. Education and co-operation is the real key."
Two things "rural Western Canadians" vote against in every election provincially and federally.
Frank
2 years ago
coyote
"No doubt coming in here with a handle like Feldgrau, you've got a problem at the get/go. :-)"
You forget Coyote, he blamed his name on me, for "stereotyping".
"And to attempt to portray everyone who supports a citizen right to possess guns unharassed, as Hitlerian German army supporting quasi-fascists is simply dishonest, and paints with too broad a brush."
I have to deal with the types that post here. If there's reasonable gun advocates somewhere that don't use names like "feldgrau" and who vote for progressive policies then they should step forward.
"In doing so, as it appears you are attempting, and others, does yourself a disservice, because I know you are capable of a more discerning, insightful judgement than that, and is simply dishonest tactics."
I didn't even post on the original Tielmann column. Didn't stop the wingnuts from having a party.
"My request of you Frank, is that you can still support the current gun registration system without resort to this kind of simplistic character assassination and dishonesty."
Support a system that has failed?
"A rational discussion that will lead to real solutions assumes that you likewise return the courtesy."
Before I entered this little debate it was a bunch of sycophants slapping each other on the back for posting empty rhetoric and which all declared Tielmann to be wrong in bigger letters than the last. At some point adults have to step in and ask people to produce something logical and which isn't based on paranoid delusions.
"Their may not be a formal Constitutional right of citizens to maintain arms in this country Frank, I grant you"
Thank you, Herman is I'm sure still googling trying to find one.
"...Hopefully we can get to there."
No, we can't because "rural western Canadians" vote against anything remotely smelling of positive change.
michelt13
2 years ago
What is so wrong with...
Stopping the "blame the object" game... and starting to hold people accountable for their own actions?
I can understand some one making a honest mistake and us needing to give him a chance...
But when some one keeps on beating his wife, abusing his children... Do we really need to give him a 5th/20th chance?
Seems to me that been a little less criminal friendly would cut down a lot on spousal abuse...
Violence ang aggression are a behavior problem, not an object problem.
RickW
2 years ago
Frank
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/election-2008/story.html?id=880072
Some might be tempted to say that Edmonton is "rural" compared to Calgary......
G West
2 years ago
dorothy
That's not my understanding. In fact, the additional cost of properly securing and storing long guns and ammunition came about as a requirement at the same time as the registry was created.
I know this because I had to purchase a secure gun safe at the time to store the several long guns we've had in the family for a couple of generations...something I never would have done without the registry...and something about which, if you consult letters to the editor from the time, was a large point of contention for the registry's critics...
RickW
2 years ago
PS.....
I am surprised that this quote hasn't been put forward (until now):
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
- Thomas Jefferson
Frank
2 years ago
RickW
I used to live in the "City of Champions". Great city but certainly not rural.
cboo44
2 years ago
GWest- You are wrong
The Gun Registry HAS NOT PREVENTED ANYONE WHO IS QUALIFIED FROM OBTAINING, KEEPING AND USING A LONG GUN RESPONSIBLY."
Wrong. There are MANY,MANY examples of The Registry refusing qualified persons.The most common reason? Lost information, misdirected information, registrations being sent TO THE WRONG ADDRESS ! Every year, there are HUNDREDS of critical mistakes made by The Registry. It is a nightmare!
ALSO, the safe firearms storage laws ARE NOT part of the enacting Registry law and will NOT be revoked.
------------
For those who THINK that police can access The Registry data on the way to a residence ? Nope. It WAS SUPPOSED to be possible, but the data base is so totally screwed up that it sometimes takes DAYS to retrieve data, not minutes or hours.
Mark5
2 years ago
Frank
I doubt you have forgotten more history than I know. I have been studying history for around 45 years. You should read up about the Vietnam war where people small of stature with outdated weapons and living on rat meat and rice balls brought a powerful nation to it`s knees. Did you know that China has millions of guns in arsenals ready to arm it`s Peoples Army? There are nations all over the world armed to the teeth. I am certain you would like all Canadians disarmed and ready to be conquered by anyone who has a need for land and resources. You might crawl meekly to the gas chambers but some of us would rather die fighting. War is the norm in human history, not peace. Obviously you really don`t know much about history at all.
Mark5
2 years ago
Frank
My point about oil is how smug people like yourself think you are without sin and are not causing any trouble in the world when you are in reality a contributor to a much bigger problem than gun ownership. Unless you don`t drive or use any products from oil, you are guilty. The automobile is a destructive death machine. Gun advocates such as hunters WANT conservation officers around because hunters follow the rules and regulations. Poachers who are criminals do not. I have explained why gun registration is wrong but I will add that gun owners with registered guns are given "special attention" by the police. With the gun control act it is "guilty until proven innocent", which is against the very foundations of our justice system. So gun owners are considered "armed and dangerous" because of fear mongering and prejudiced by people like you. How many people have died when trigger happy police have shot and killed citizens armed with TV remote controls or wallets? Lots. And a young fellow in North Van was gunned down by police when they burst into his apartment looking for his sister for a drug charge. She wasn`t home. But this young man was target shooting with a pellet gun in his home and turned with the gun in hand to see who kicked the door in. He died in a hail of police bullets. Gun owning citizens should have the same rights and freedoms and privacy as any other citizen. The onus is on the government, which has vast resources and money, to prove wrong doing, not on the citizen, who is usually living pay cheque to paycheque, to prove they are innocent.
Mark5
2 years ago
Frank
People in favour of gun registration use the same arguments as racists and bigots. First, they put individuals into groups so that they are faceless (gun owners).This dehumanizes them and categorizes them. Then they use pre-conceived ideas and set out to prove them. They use generalizations and isolated incidents to make them "guilty by association". They never get to know individuals and judge everyone by the group. History is rife with this kind of activity. In Canada it was the Japanese-Canadians and Ukrainians and the Métis and natives. The big threat now is "gun owners". A nut case goes crazy with a gun and all of a sudden anyone who owns a gun is suspect. If he had used a knife or a car would a knife and car be blamed? Never. The person would be blamed. We have spent hundreds of millions monitoring and tracking law abiding gun owning citizens. For what? To try and maybe catch the odd person who might have a registered gun and who might use it in a bad way? Would that money have not been better spent building up support centres for people to go to that might have thoughts of duicide and murder? It`s hard to believe that anyone can defend the infrastructure that has been built up to monitor law abiding people who have done nothing wrong. This was created in case they MIGHT do something wrong. Over two hundred highly paid people, sitting in cubicles in Miramchi NB, furiously monitoring and tracking people and their guns like there is some kind of national crisis with blood running in the streets. Gun owners checked every twenty four hours for the rest of their lives to make sure they are still alowed to own guns. .Meanwhile, there are still tens of thousands of unregistered guns and people who because of conscientious objection, failed to register. It boggles the mind
G West
2 years ago
cboo44
I disagree. And I have all kinds of personal and anecdotal evidence that whatever difficulties a qualified, sane and competent prospective registrant has encountered are not insuperable.
Furthermore, even if the odd ‘qualified’ applicant is refused, I think it a small price to pay for even the “potential” that some lives will have been saved because of the operation of the registry…
Had, for example, the system refused to permit the registration of the guns which had belonged to my family for generations it would hardly have been a tragedy for me and my family…On the other hand, if one of my kids had been shot (even accidentally) by a long gun which some Neanderthal hunter had refused to register and kept in his barn I think that WOULD be a tragedy.
The suggestion that the interests of the gun lobby are in any way co-equal with the safety and security of the general population is, in my view, absurd. I just don’t see why I should care that some people have a problem complying with a perfectly reasonable law.
Had opponents not been whipped into white heat by a few fanatics (not surprisingly many of them members of the same idiotic NRA that makes Americans look like jerks every few years) this would be an entirely forgettable issue.
In short, I care a lot more about safety and security than I do about the feverish maundering of gun nuts!
crankypants
2 years ago
Bill
You state that the MPs should not have been allowed a free vote on this issue. You can't be more wrong. If the only criteria for electing someone is the party that they are representing then why are we even having to vote for a living person at all. Our elections may as well consist of a ballot that names the parties from which the electorate gets to choose one. The winning party then gets 1 vote for each riding in which they were the top vote getter. Then when the votes are all tallied the parties can be represented by the number of ridings they have won, and the leaders of the four or five winning parties can run the affairs of Canada on their own.
Just think of the savings to the taxpayer. We would save about 300 MP salaries, expense accounts and future payments in pensions. We would not have to listen to inane questions from opposition malcontents. We would also be spared the pain of hearing from various cabinet ministers that haven't a clue about either their ministry or what they are talking about.
You also state that the parties each put forward a platform during an election. Yes, that is correct, but it may as well be written in invisible ink. They invariably fail to adhere to that which they espouse, and instead invoke their other platform which for some reason was never brought forward during the election campaign.
You state that most voters vote for the party rather than the candidate. If this is indeed a fact, then what is the effect on the voter when their candidate decdes to leave the party he or she was elected under and joins another party? Did the electorate get what he or she voted for? The voter that voted for the person did, but the one that voted for the party got screwed.
What we need is free votes on every issue in parliament if we have a true democracy. Anything less is just a facade.
ME2
2 years ago
Nothing new yet
So far, the ant-long-gunners argument always boils down to this simplistic statement as offered by GWest.
Quote:
"If it has prevented one single death from happening - and I'd argue it has done far more than that - then it is a good idea and should be improved and continued."
Following that logic, as Mark5 notes, we should ban the automoile.
GWest's anti long-gun agument is just another version of the Precautionary Principle, an appeal to which is supposed by its advocates to stop all other argument dead in its tracks.
But carried to its ultimate logic, it could be made illegal to get out of bed lest we be tempted to commit suicide.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
G West
"I know this because I had to purchase a secure gun safe at the time to store the several long guns we've had in the family for a couple of generations...something I never would have done without the registry...and something about which, if you consult letters to the editor from the time, was a large point of contention for the registry's critics..."
Once again, the issue with respect to firearms legislation in Canada is misunderstood. Safe storage laws enacted under the Firearms Act are a separate entity from the registry. The registry has nothing to do with safe use, transportation, storage or display of firearms. Laws pertaining to these things came into force with the Firearms Act. The registry is merely a list of the firearms that Canadians own. The angst many feel over the registry stems from the instant criminalization that accompanied the registry's introduction.
If someone woke up tomorrow morning to find that the government had enacted criminal sanctions for some aspect of their life that was enjoyed, done for many years and in which they had never bothered anyone, I think they too would be somewhat perturbed.
"...if one of my kids had been shot (even accidentally) by a long gun which some Neanderthal hunter had refused to register and kept in his barn I think that WOULD be a tragedy."
Just how would registration and the registry itself prevent such an event from happening? Kimveer Gill, a mentally ill individual who slipped through the cracks, managed to cause his damage using registered guns. The registry failed to stop him because it is a list. A list cannot stop individuals from doing as they wish.
Registration does not stop drinking and driving, it does not stop people from driving irresponsibly on the highway, it does not stop the many, many motor vehicle deaths that occur every year in Canada. Why then, would people assume that a list of firearms will prevent crime, or ensure safety in their daily lives?
Furthermore, if registration could prevent crime, then we should be able to assume that Canada is free of crimes committed with handguns.
Handguns have been registered since 1934 (and their registration will be unaffected by the abolition of the long gun registry). However, that is far from the case. Since crime with handguns is rampant in many large Canadian urban centres, we can safely state that handgun registration has accomplished nothing. Indeed, as far as I am aware, no crime has been solved or prevented by virtue of registering handguns either.
Reynald
2 years ago
Crankypants
"What we need is free votes on every issue in parliament if we have a true democracy. Anything less is just a facade."
I agree. This proposal makes a citizen's vote meaningful. The opposition votes for C-391 is a case in point where the rural majority opinion against the long gun registry was truly presented in Parliament by their MPs. If the Libs & NDP use a whipped vote now to kill the bill then we will have a prime example of party politics suppressing the democratic will!
G West
"I care a lot more about safety and security than I do about the feverish maundering of gun nuts!" This is part of the problem. The "if it saves one life" argument has no merit when there is a 1/1,000,000 chance of being killed with a firearm (Mr. T) Think cost/benefit and refute the Auditor General's comments against the long gun registry. Your emotional rant is no argument and addresses none of the noted issues.
Frank
2 years ago
Mark5
"You should read up about the Vietnam war"
Of course, everyone watches a few Hollywood movies and thinks, hey, we could do that. Vietnam wasn't the first geurilla operation in history. Why not bring up Spain in 1808-1814 or the Boer War? Because there were no Hollywood movies about them so you gun advocates have never heard of them.
Well, Vietnam is not the Canadian prairie, the population in Canada can't grow their own food and we don't have another border country that can supply us with whatever we need. After all, the only threat to Canada being occupied is America. No one else has the capability.
You also mention "gas chambers" which of course means that unlike Vietnam the invader won't try and win over our "hearts and minds". So given that according to you the invader wants to wipe us out how will your rifles protect us? When the city of Calgary's infrastructure is bombed how are you going to feed that city of 1 million people?
You can't and you won't. Resistance will collapse immediately as soon as the Wal-Marts stop selling ammunition.
"Did you know that China has millions of guns in arsenals ready to arm it`s Peoples Army?"
I'm not planning on invading China.
"You might crawl meekly to the gas chambers but some of us would rather die fighting."
Do so anytime you like. I've heard dances in Camrose can get pretty heated.
"Gun advocates such as hunters WANT conservation officers around because hunters follow the rules and regulations."
Not true, it was a right-wing government whose base of support is "rural western Canadians" that cut the numbers of officers to the bone.
"I have explained why gun registration is wrong but I will add that gun owners with registered guns are given "special attention" by the police. With the gun control act it is "guilty until proven innocent", which is against the very foundations of our justice system."
And yet you elect governments that trample on everyone else's rights by slashing legal aid, and abandoning the weak to the vagaries of the dog eat dog markets. The lesson is that gun advocates don't care about "rights" except their own.
"So gun owners are considered "armed and dangerous" because of fear mongering and prejudiced by people like you. How many people have died when trigger happy police have shot and killed citizens armed with TV remote controls or wallets? Lots."
And yet its gun advocates that always cry they want more police and more discipline in society. And unlike the poor, they almost always get the government they want.
Frank
2 years ago
Feldgrau
I see that in the almost 24 hours since your last post you were unable to come up with any not-already-demolished arguments. Why is that? Could it be because you have no other arguments?
Let's sum up, you guys think
1. The gun registry strips away rights the Americans have and is one step away from Nazi Germany crushing us all under the heel of the state.
2. That its ineffective (although this sort of contradicts #1)
3. That its expensive and the money could be better spent on arming more of the state's police forces to use against us.
Anything else? Or is that the entire thing in a nutshell?
As I keep repeating,
1. You guys are the biggest advocates of stripping away everyone else's rights so I don't have any sympathy for you. Also, your governments are in power in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Canada which means you're getting your way on every issue far more than the rest of us that don't share your warped world views.
2. The big money is already spent and just like banning ther 2010 Olympics in 2020 is not going to save us any money, neither is banning the gun registry now. The year to year expenses are very small.
3. I don't want more police. I wanted the money spent on better social programs but you guys are always against that too. And you always get your way which is why you got were able to keep your guns and meanwhile your fellow citizens are sleeping on the street with no access to legal aid.
Frank
2 years ago
Reyanld
""What we need is free votes on every issue in parliament if we have a true democracy. Anything less is just a facade."
"I agree."
Sure you do, in principle. But the fact is the Right opposed the Coalition of last winter because you don't like MPs having the freedom our system allows them constitutionally.
Add to that the biggest blocks of opposition against electoral control is always on the Right. You guys see it as a threat to your constantly being in power. Which it is.
Reynald
2 years ago
AN UNNECESSARY REGISTRY
If we have all legal gun owners licensed then police known who owns legal firearms. An added registry does add to public safety.
The argument "we need registration to know where the guns are" is bogus. Licensing individuals as we do now is everything that is reasonable and required to meet police needs.
Registration is simply a make work project (two billion $ for 200 jobs) with well paid management and staff jobs that require some justification. Hence positive reports from the CFC & RCMP.
I am still waiting for a call for a national registry of those barred from firearms ownership because of a criminal background or mental illness. I guess the concept is too simple, hasn't enough jobs tied to it and has not the emotion/fear aspect that has milked votes so successfully in the past.
Frank
2 years ago
Freudian slip
"electoral control" should be electoral reform.
Reynald
2 years ago
Frank
Was it not the Conservative Party that has fought for an elected and reformed Senate and the Liberal Party that opposes any real Senate reform?
I voted for proportional representation in Ontario but I also stand for minority rights and protection against the tyranny of the majority. Canada has two solitudes, urban and rural and the rights of both must be respected and protected.
Frank
2 years ago
Pathetic
If repeating the same old discredited lines from 10 years ago is the best you guys can do I have to wonder why you suddenly all bothered to sign up Tyee accounts at the same time.
Frank
2 years ago
Reynald
"Was it not the Conservative Party that has fought for an elected and reformed Senate and the Liberal Party that opposes any real Senate reform?"
And is it not the NDP that wants the entire Senate disbanded because its not a democratic institution and there's no pressing need to have to pay for something that costs more than the gun registry and is more ineffective?
"I voted for proportional representation in Ontario"
Excellent, thank you
"but I also stand for minority rights and protection against the tyranny of the majority."
Feldgrau says polling now shows gun advocates are the majority.
"Canada has two solitudes, urban and rural and the rights of both must be respected and protected."
But you don't vote to protect anyone's right's but your own.
KWD
2 years ago
Mark5
“War is the norm in human history, not peace.”
I agree, but does it have to be that way? People don’t suddenly become racists or bigots or killers of a dehumanized enemy anymore than they are suddenly in favour of gun control … and for all the reasons you mention. Go to the head of the class.
But are you going to stop there? Is there no need to look a bit further? Expand on how and why that happens. Why is it hard to believe folks can defend infrastructures that scrutinze those that abide by the law, and at the same time not question thinking and infrastructures (including the war machine) that wastes huuman lives and valueable resources?
G West
2 years ago
Baloney Feldfrau
They were, and are, of a piece. Once you got the registry the other issues came along, rightly so, in tow - why do you think there was so much screaming about the costs of making the necessary changes for safe storage.
The registry has 'everything' to do with proper safe storage and anyone who says it isn't is simply blind.
The good ole boys who used to carry their 30/30s in the back window of their pickups are all the proof I need.
I know what gun safety there was back then and I know what there is now.
The registry is the difference and I'd suggest it's sophistry to suggest anything else is the case.
Once again, I could care less that gun owners have to change their behavior a bit. I did too – it sure didn’t kill me. I think you guys have little if anything to complain about – you want these toys – play safe and follow the rules like the rest of us.
StructuralEngineer
2 years ago
The failure of the Canadian political Left
I really do need to stop holding out hope for rational thought on this issue... I must be the only left-wing Canadian alive who actually hunts, traps and leaves the city (other than to travel between them).
Do you know why the NDP has never formed a government? Because we have completely alienated our base, and left the rural voters as sheep to be scooped up and devoured by the political right.
It would be useful to point out that it was a Conservative government which first brought about gun registration (1934; Hand Guns), and the most vociferously opposition came from Social Credit, one of the pre-cursors of the NDP.
When I have conversations with other NDP supporters who say to me, straight faced, that they see no reason for anyone other than a police officer or a soldier to own a gun or pistol, I know we have lots the soul of our party. Note that while I do not own any pistols, I do hunt. I assume the responsibility for the death of animals I eat directly, not through a butcher or abattoir.
The laws which HAVE saved lives regarding gun control have been in place since 1978 and 1992 (or immediately there abouts). They PRE DATE bill C-68, which was a poorly written and hastily compiled farce which has done NOTHING to improve safety or reduce criminal access to guns. Given the FACTS presented when reviewed by an impartial third party (refer to the report by the Auditor General, May 2006) that the registry has not demonstrably increased safety or reduced risks, the only possible conclusion regarding persons who continue to trumpet the registry using false, twisted, or misrepresented facts is that the true intent is to eventually seize all firearms.
There can be no reason to need a registry which does not prevent crime, increase safety or decrease risk. The only possible reason to track firearms is to take them away from their legal owners at some point in the future. Any other argument has either been borne out as false or ineffective. Couple this with statements by Allen Rock and others that no Canadian should own a pistol, as well as official party policies (Liberal, Bloc and -shamefully- NDP) regarding gun control, and it is not paranoia which causes gun owners to fear and oppose governments and laws regarding firearms, but logic, history and knowledge.
Reynald
2 years ago
Frank
If you mean I should vote against C-391 then you are right. By voting for the end of the long gun registry I believe I am voting in the best interest of ALL Canadians.
I Lived in Toronto for thirty years so I think I understand the urban mindset. Urbanites see the world through their individual values. In a country like ours that is not enough. Unfortunately, the political left only really considers the populated centres because that is where a majority government sits vote wise.
The anti-gun lobby makes no pretense that their values are strictly those of urban Canadians. I would bet your life that NOT ONE RURAL riding would have a majority vote supporting the long gun registry. You really need to be respectful of opinions other than your own.
The country is split on the long gun registration. That is largely the result of Liberal policy and the demonization of law abiding sportsmen/women by groups and individuals like you. You seem intent on getting your way at any cost. There is no sign of compromise or serious debate in your responses. Name calling and demonisation only weaken your position and makes the rest of us wonder who is out of control here.
StructuralEngineer
2 years ago
Any reply forthcoming?
I would love to see a point by point rebuttal of the issues raised in this comments posted by Bill Tieleman. Or is he too busy moving on and ignoring the points raised? Will the real Bill Tieleman please stand up? Still waiting for your retort to the specific questions. Praising Dorothy for asking good questions and ignoring her points does not cut mustard. Nor does your silence.
To Frank: As a long time reader, I have only signed up for an account recently because this is the first time I've found a Tyee article which is so obviously flawed and full of errors. I have not needed to voice my concerns previously, and as such had no need of an account. AND I VOTE TO PROTECT EVERYONE'S RIGHTS. In fact I vote NDP at the sacrifice of my own personal views on firearms controls, as I am not a single issue voter. However, MANY of my fellow hunters detest the majority of the official Conservative platform, but vote for them anyway, as they ARE single issue voters who fear loosing their right to hunt, and own weapons, more than they dislike the "rest" of the Conservative platform. Your presumption that gun owners are politically right-wing is insulting. Your presumption that they don't care about your rights is just that, a prejudicial assumption. And it is wrong as well as insulting.
StructuralEngineer
2 years ago
Not understanding the issues involved...
GWest: With respect, I don't believe you understand the issue. C-391 does nothing to reduce safety or mandatory storage, handling, training, or use laws which are in place regarding firearms. Nor did C-68 do anything to increase them.
Reynald
2 years ago
StructuralEngineer
Well said sir! What do they say about "casting pearls before swine" not that I consider any fellow Canadians as swine?
Reason and reality should always trump political platforms. I keep going back to the cost/benefit analysis the Liberals refused to do and their doggedness at hiding the real costs of the registry. That says it all.
Frank
2 years ago
Reynald
"If you mean I should vote against C-391 then you are right. By voting for the end of the long gun registry I believe I am voting in the best interest of ALL Canadians."
That would be because you don't consider people that support the registry to be Canadians?
"Urbanites see the world through their individual values."
Really? All of them? So the rhetoric about "rugged individualism" that I hear in rural areas is just a facade?
"the political left only really considers the populated centres because that is where a majority government sits vote wise."
No it isn't. Our system is weighted towards giving rural people a bigger voice than their numbers would demand. The Left ignores rural people because they've been voting Conservative since Confederation and will never vote anything else so talking to them is a waste of time.
"The anti-gun lobby makes no pretense that their values are strictly those of urban Canadians."
And vice versa.
"I would bet your life that NOT ONE RURAL riding would have a majority vote supporting the long gun registry."
I've been saying the same thing. Rural ridings vote only for themselves.
"You really need to be respectful of opinions other than your own."
Unlike you and rural people?
"The country is split on the long gun registration. That is largely the result of Liberal policy and the demonization of law abiding sportsmen/women by groups and individuals like you."
No, its because of rural demonization of urban people. Which the Conservative Party supports.
"You seem intent on getting your way at any cost."
Then you can't read because my side has already lost. Its you guys that have been fighting this thing for 12 years to "get your way".
"There is no sign of compromise or serious debate in your responses."
And none in yours.
"Name calling"
I guess you don't like being called "rural", fine, don't call me "urban". I've decided to be like you and declare myself a victim of name calling when someone says I'm "urban".
Face it Reynald, you have no argument. You can't even construct anything remotely coherent in support of your position.
Frank
2 years ago
Structural Engineer
If the only argument you have is based on paranoia that the government (Conservative by the way) is secretly planning to strip you of your guns then you have no argument that getting over your paranoia wouldn't solve.
demotto
2 years ago
Rights cannot
Rights can not be protected by voting. Voting for government whose only purpose these days is to exact as much toll from the people as they can to give to the bankers is not going to protect your rights. You,I, and everyone can only protect our rights by asserting them. If we do not assert our rights we have none and that is what the powers that be are counting on. If you want the government to be your nanny then expect no rights, if you want to be free you have to walk the walk. You have to read the Acts and Statutes and interpret them through the language of Legalese not English as English is not the language they are written in they are written in Legalese. Good luck to one and all who choose freedom.
Frank
2 years ago
StructuralEngineer
"Your presumption that gun owners are politically right-wing is insulting."
Its also educated. Look at the ridings where support for guns is highest, its the same ridings that overwhelmingly vote Conservative.
"Your presumption that they don't care about your rights is just that, a prejudicial assumption."
Yet you agree with me. You called them "single issue voters" because they care more about their guns than anyone else's rights.
"And it is wrong as well as insulting."
Prove it.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
"Rights can not be protected by voting."
Pro-gun AND anti-democracy? Quelle surprise.
demotto
2 years ago
Can't be
Can't be anti something that does not exist. Not so much pro or con just our right to property.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
What right to property? You just declared you have no rights based on voting and governments. The "nanny state" as you say. So who gave you a right to property? God?
demotto
2 years ago
I might ask
Who then took it away.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
Its not a "right" if you're the only one that defends it because it means if someone takes your property away then its theirs.
demotto
2 years ago
You're saying
You're saying that if I come and take you computer, it is mine. No one can take your rights you can only give them away and I do not wish to.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
No, you're saying that. Because you're saying government doesn't give us any rights so if I can't protect my computer then you're free to come and take it away.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
Try exercising your right to legal representation when you don't have any money.
G West
2 years ago
I do understand the issue
The gun registry has been a source of apoplectic over-reaction from the beginning.
Please re-read my posts on the subject.
Obviously, the people who were being forced to register their guns would, under the registry, face the eventuality of being compelled to prove that their registered firearms were being stored and secured properly.
That was a big part of why they made the connection and - they're selfish and narcissistic - they're not necessarily stupid.
Furthermore, I would suggest that serious research would indicate that a good deal of the costs explosion associated with the registry came about because of the aggressive recalcitrance of the Gun Lobby and the NRA.
demotto
2 years ago
I didn't say that
I didn't say that at all, you're the one saying I'm free to come and take something from you. I'm saying no one has the right to take anothers rights and you can protect those rights from being taken. If you want to give your rights away someone will gladly accept them from you. It is your choice to either say yes I give up my rights or no I do not give up my rights. I choose no, I do not consent.
Frank
2 years ago
StructuralEngineer
By the way, you said that Social Credit was a precursor to the NDP, that isn't true.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
G West
"Once you got the registry the other issues came along, rightly so, in tow..."
So, registration is not the same as requirements for safe storage after all.
"...why do you think there was so much screaming about the costs of making the necessary changes for safe storage."
Because safe storage laws as part of the Firearms Act that necessitated the purchase of ancillary objects at the time, and the criminalization that the FA brought with it. However, in the present debate, nobody is complaining about safe storage.
Two separate items.
Call it what you like, but people do not store firearms safely because of the registry. It matters not a whit if police find an improperly stored firearm that is registered to the license holder, or that has been borrowed (and so not registered to the license holder in question), or is even unregistered. Storage under the law is done as required because of criminal penalty for doing otherwise.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
That isn't a "right", that's survival of the fittest.
demotto
2 years ago
Frank
The government does not give us rights, our rights are inherent, the government is their to protect our rights. If one chooses to exchange ones rights for privileges then that is ones right to do. Alternatively if one does not choose to exchange ones rights for privileges the inherent rights remain intact. Rights can not be taken they have to be given up by consent.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
Again, try and exercise your right to legal representation when you have no money. Then thank gun advocates for cutting legal aid.
demotto
2 years ago
Frank
Natural selection eh. You have the right to protect your property, it would benefit all of us if that were not necessary as in DO NO HARM. However if one is intending harm upon you or your property you have the right to protect yourself and your property.
demotto
2 years ago
Legal representation
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
StructuralEngineer
2 years ago
Like the law, posts need careful reading...
I did not say that Social Credit was one of the parties which formed the NDP, I said that it was a precursor to it... The CCF and Labour Congress joined forced to form the NDP, and then scooped up much of the support formerly belonging to various other left wing groups, including Social Credit.
Frank: You must be the most inflammatory of all posters here. Single issue voters are manipulated because they care about a KEY issue, not because they do not care about other issues.
You are not going to help our cause by being single minded, nor by ignoring rational arguments. This issue needs calm debate, not hot-headed rapid-fire shots from the hip. Same goes for Demotto.
Let's slow the postings, read each other's thoughts, and have a calm and collected discussion about the issues and facts. Anything else is not worthy of anyone's time or effort.
demotto
2 years ago
Rational debate
Rational debate seems to be dependent upon what one considers rational. Is it rational to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people or is rational to not make criminals out of big pharma for all the deaths attributed to the pills they push. Big pharma pill deaths each year are many multiples of the gun caused deaths but alas they line the pockets of the politicians so there is no law or liability attached to big pharma for murdering people. As far as hot headed I'm not sure where that came from as I am very calm and actually my head feels quite cool at the moment. The registry will never make Canada safer except for the State, it will no doubt make it less safe for the people as the Police State moves forward. How's that for rational or maybe the new laws pertaining to security will never be used against the common people. Didn't Vancouver just acquire a sound weapon to make sure people do not execise their rights.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
"Are you a child and so cannot re-present yourself."
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR] that thinks he knows the law better than trained legal teams?
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
"However if one is intending harm upon you or your property you have the right to protect yourself and your property."
And if you're weak and unable to protect your property then you soon won't have any property. Again, that's survival of the fittest.
Frank
2 years ago
Structural Engineer
"Frank: You must be the most inflammatory of all posters here."
Thank you, and unlike you I've been here almost since the Tyee started because a lot of issues matter to me.
"Single issue voters are manipulated because they care about a KEY issue, not because they do not care about other issues."
So? Its up to them to not allow themselves to be manipulated. When they allow it to happen I'll point it out.
"You are not going to help our cause by being single minded, nor by ignoring rational arguments."
What rational arguments? Show me one lousy rational argument put forward here that hasn't already been demolished. As for "our" cause what would that be?
"This issue needs calm debate, not hot-headed rapid-fire shots from the hip."
That isn't what I found going on here last week or this week before I joined this conversation. Go back and read the posts before I showed up.
"Let's slow the postings, read each other's thoughts, and have a calm and collected discussion about the issues and facts."
I did take the time to read all of your thoughts and opinions in the days before I posted. Too bad none of you do the same for people you disagree with.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
Frank
"So? Its up to them to not allow themselves to be manipulated. When they allow it to happen I'll point it out."
And we thank the King for being generous.
Frank
2 years ago
Feldgrau
[COMMENT OFFENSIVE TO ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
Reynald
2 years ago
Frank
Here is something you might understand.
Frank
2 years ago
Reynald
Enlightening
Reynald
2 years ago
Bloggers, I suggest we move on ...........
I have given up on Frank as it is a waste of time sparring with a closed mind.
I can accept some want firearms registration but I expect a factual reposte rather than silly ridicule and I demand respect for other opinions. Debate is point and counterpoint, not emotion and denial.
If personal licensing results in criminal record screening, national training standards and storage standards then what further can be gained from the registration of long arms? Keep in mind none of this will change with the passing of Bill C-391! ONLY the registration of long guns will go.
In 75 years handgun registration has not resulted in ONE criminal conviction. Neither has long gun registration.
The trend in suicide has not come down since 1995.
The downward trend in firearms deaths has continued since the 1980s, well before the Firearms Act.
There is no indication that the estimated 50% of unregistered firearms will ever be registered (incl. approx. 5 million 'missing' preregistration firearms [RCMP] plus the unknown number of criminal firearms). For two billion $ we can only account for perhaps half the guns?
The long gun registry would not pass a cost/benefit analysis. What does that tell you?
Spending more $ on a non-productive registry is sheer recklessness. Where are the convictions due to the registry? Even the Chiefs Association stays away from results. Instead they snow us with procedure and use stats that as the AG said previously, have nothing to do with increased public safety or effectiveness!
No one has refuted the lack of security for what is sensitive private information.
Why does a state collect information on private citizens that does not relate directly to increased public safety?
Wishing it so does not make it so but there seems to be many that accept wishing as a legitimate defense of the long gun registry.
Reynald
2 years ago
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."
Frank
2 years ago
Reynald
"I have given up on Frank as it is a waste of time sparring with a closed mind."
translation : I just came to this website from Ontario and have never posted anything on any other subject such as child poverty, homelessness, wealth disparity etc because gun laws are the only thing I care about in life but I hate Frank because he wants my arguments to be coherent.
As for respect you haven't shown me one iota of respect so don't expect any back.
Frank
2 years ago
"Todays Vancouver Sun"
A poll?
When polls were for the gun registry everyone else was wrong and the fight against government went on. But now that polls are on our side, everyone else should just STFU.
Frank
2 years ago
"By thy own words we shall know them"
"In 75 years handgun registration has not resulted in ONE criminal conviction. Neither has long gun registration."
Yet all we hear from gun advocates is that the state has turned them all into criminals. Apparently not.
"For two billion $ we can only account for perhaps half the guns?"
The money has already been spent. Cancelling the program means the $2 billion is still spent.
"The long gun registry would not pass a cost/benefit analysis. What does that tell you?"
That its just like the Olympics.
"Spending more $ on a non-productive registry is sheer recklessness."
The amounts now being spent are less than what the Conservative spends on ads promoting itself. Of course you will never hear a gun advocate criticise the Conservatives.
"Where are the convictions due to the registry?"
Yes, where are they? You've been beating the paranoia drum for 12 years that you had all been turned into criminals. I guess not eh.
"Even the Chiefs Association stays away from results. Instead they snow us with procedure and use stats that as the AG said previously, have nothing to do with increased public safety or effectiveness!"
Translation : We don't like what the police chiefs say.
"No one has refuted the lack of security for what is sensitive private information."
Why is that sensitive? Is it more sensitive than all the other data government keeps on us?
"Why does a state collect information on private citizens that does not relate directly to increased public safety?"
Health reasons? Educational reasons? The need to direct resources to where the people who need it are?
Mark5
2 years ago
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.
Frank
2 years ago
Conservative policies
The Cons want to abolish the gun registry because it cost $2 billion to set up 10 years ago. Yet the Winter Olympics are costing at least 3 times that much and the reductions in the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15% will be costing us 7 times as much every single year.
Regardless of the huge loss in revenue that will lead to deficits and service cuts "rural western Canadians" remain firm Conservative supporters having guns is more important than having health and education systems.
Mark5
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
Frank
Go buy and gun and experience what we are talking about. You obviously don`t own a gun and so you really don`t have a clue.
Frank
2 years ago
Mark5
What do I do with the gun once I've purchased it to feel the "experience" Mark? Should I stroke it? Talk to it? Rub it against me?
Perhaps one day you'll own a motor vehicle and will "experience" how its useful for things besides running people over.
Until then, keep voting for a $14 billion dollar hole in the budget and reduced social programs.
Frank
2 years ago
Mark
"The gun controllers have decided that they are going to change the world and create heaven on earth."
With Conservative governments in power? Oh sure.
"They are going to put a stop to violence and war that has plagued mankind since time began."
You haven't told me yet how you're going to defend Calgary from the Americans. Did you forget?
"Yes, take away the tools that people use and that will end war and violence!"
Yes, all we need is more guns in the world to end war and violence. I think having your head too close to your police scanner isn't healthy.
"In one battle alone, Hannibal's army killed 20,000 Roman soldiers. No guns were present."
I assume this is a logical argument among Mike Harris fans in Ontario? Fact is the Roman system had consuls take command on different days. Hannibal destroyed the Roman army at Cannae because the wrong consul was in charge that day.
"Soical engineering is alive and well in Canada and the first victims are gun owners."
Yes, you're such victims. Huddled around your police scanners stroking your guns instead of getting to sleep outdoors like those lucky homeless or grow up in poverty like a huge number of Canada's kids. You're so deprived.
"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."
You can get to be premier of BC if you drink and drive too, you forgot that one.
Feldgrau
2 years ago
Confidential Information
"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."
That's quite interesting. I had no idea that what was supposed to be confidential information was openly broadcast in that manner.
G West
2 years ago
I disagree Feldgrau
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.
As I said, the issues and the actions of those who don't 'want' to register their guns are not all that difficult to understand.
People are more important than guns - I have no problem with the long gun registry and I can't understand who anyone else does either.
So far no one, including your own good self, has made a convincing argument against the modest amount of protection and security the admittedly flawed legislation provides.
In fact, the meaningful polls I've read seem to indicate that a fairly significant majority - and a huge majority of women - seem to agree with me.
I wonder why?
For my part, I wish that parliamentarians had a little more backbone to stand up against the blustering of a lot of loud-mouthed bullies who seem to feel they need to hang onto their guns under any circumstances.
I'm perfectly prepared to continue to work within this law and I've been a gun owner all my life.
What's wrong with the rest of you?
Mark5
2 years ago
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?
Mark5
2 years ago
Frank
I think you were talking about cars Frank, not guns. People stroke and wash and baby their cars all the time. Cars are suppose to be a phallic symbol for guys. Cars kill over 3000 people per day worldwide.Go play with your death machine.
Frank
2 years ago
Mark
[OK... ENOUGH. THESE MESSAGES HAVE BEEN BORDERLINE OFFENSIVE UP TO NOW BUT CLEARLY THEY'VE SERVED TO CHOKE ALL RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION IN THIS THREAD. PLEASE STOP WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS. -MODERATOR.]
Mark5
2 years ago
Frank
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
Frank
2 years ago
Mark
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
Feldgrau
2 years ago
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.
Frank
2 years ago
Spoiler alert
I know you've only reached 216 BC and think that with Capua now on side Hannibal has that war in the bag but the thing is he loses. And his brother Hasdrubal, after following him over the Alps, gets defeated at the battle of Metaurus and has his head chopped off. After losing the battle of Zama to Scipio Africanus your hero Hannibal has to flee and years later takes poison to avoid being captured by Roman agents.
I feel bad about telling you how it ends but I think you oughta know.
michelt13
2 years ago
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.
Frank
2 years ago
Stormtroopers in the night
"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"
Yep, really suffering under the heel of oppression... unlike those lazy poor kids.
Luke
2 years ago
Frank...
You are outta step with other New Democrats on this one.
From Ekos today "On Abolishing the Long Gun Registry":
Con: 56% yes, 20% no;
NDP: 35% yes, 29% no;
Green: 29% yes, 32% no;
Lib: 27% yes, 47% no;
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full-report-november-19.pdf
NDP voters more in favour of abolishing the Long Gun Registry than Liberals or Greens?
And BC is more in favour of abolishing the long gun registry than Canada as a whole?
Methinks you are becoming a closet Liberal. ;)
Frank
2 years ago
Luke
"You are outta step with other New Democrats on this one"
How shocking, me out of step with other NDPers. I thought it was only you Liberals that walked in lockstep with each other because you have to share the one brain?
Hmm, perhaps its the NDP that is becoming more Liberal since the Liberals have become more Conservative? I guess that makes me a communist? Cool. Man the barricades Luke, the Prussians and French reactionaries are coming and Bismarck looks pissed.
Save the commune and shoot dissenters.
offended
2 years ago
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
2 years ago
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.
Frank
2 years ago
To all those that refuse to listen
To all those that think poverty is benign, ponder this...
Ever notice that the poor never write the laws that concern them?
Why is it always people in the top 10% of incomes that decide how much homelessness and child poverty there will be?
Why don't we ask single parents scraping by on less than $20,000 a year if they think we should spend $6 billion on a 2 week party for the rich and give corporations, many of them American owned, $14 billion a year in reduced taxes that will have to be made up by taxing single parents more and reducing the resources available to their kids?
Luke
2 years ago
Frank...
Jack Layton is overjoyed by Toronto's successful $2.4 billion winning bid for the Pan Am Games - a third rate, 2 week party for the rich.
As Jack said:
http://twitter.com/Jacklayton
Perhaps the Canadian Action Party is more to your liking??!! ;)
Frank
2 years ago
Brad...
"a third rate, 2 week party for the rich."
Funny, I don't recall you dismissing the Olympics with such flowery language.
As for Layton, I don't have to look to the federal party to see NDP party support for circuses, I can find that right here in BC.
As for the Action Party, aren't they still led by that Liberal minister of defence that was kidnapped by aliens?
StructuralEngineer
2 years ago
Hello? Hello, Bill?
Good Mr. Tieleman: Any response to the counter points raised?
StructuralEngineer
2 years ago
Frank
Your have some good points buried in a great deal of rhetoric...
Two of your posts are quite good; Namely "Conservative policies" and "To all those who refuse to listen". All the rest could have easily been done without in the debate, or been framed to be much more constructive. You will not win arguments by being argumentative, ironic as that may be, and in fact it is nearly impossible to win most arguments. You can, as many people have, convince people to see the legitimacy of your point of view through constructive debate.
I would suggest you stop and think for a minute about the fact that you are the only poster (of which I have noted or am aware) who's posts have had to be edited or deleted by the moderators.
Frank
2 years ago
StructuralEngineer
"Two of your posts are quite good;"
Which is two more than your side. As for being deleted, only one of my posts was edited, when demotto asked if I was a baby and I responded by asking if he was an idiot. The other post that was deleted was demotto's. And that's because I don't call people names. Whereas you my friend called Bill T a liar, accused him of twisting facts and then accused people like me (although I hadn't posted yet) to be nothing more than the equivalent of criminals.
In fact, I would have to say gun advocates seem to come naturally to a morally superior view of themselves which allows them to treat other people's views in a way which they can't tolerate when the shoe is on the other foot. And I'm simply the other foot.
Now I asked you earlier to list the arguments put forward by gun advocates that held up to attack and you couldn't. Because in the end every pro-gun argument boils down to either paranoia, irrelevancies, misconceptions, appeals to emotion, erections of strawmen, ignorance of Canada's history or willful ignorance.
Which is what makes the arguments so easy to ridicule.
(Not that I don't enjoy discussing the actions of the Roman consuls at Cannae in 216 BC, because I do, but the history of Hannibal has no bearing on today's debate. Its simply irrelevant)
StructuralEngineer
2 years ago
Unbelievable...
You know why people like you, and I'm not talking anti or pro registry, get the last word? Because you simply wear your blinders, ignore other posters, and continue to fill the debate with hot air.
Sad that you've learnt so well from Fox news and other shameful examples of strong-arm tactics.
Good luck with your life; I can assure you that I shall not see your reply.
Reynold, Dorothy, et al. attempting to shine light on the flaws of this article: With any luck time will bring a rational response from our government on this issue. Unfortunately we must all accept that the internet is a medium easily abused by individuals. I have enjoyed your posts, and appreciated the even tempered portions of this debate.
Frank
2 years ago
StructuralEngineer
Touched a nerve obviously. I guess you hate it when someone points out that you're not quite "holier than thou" eh?
Being as you called people liars and criminals in your very first post because you didn't like their opinions I doubt you could handle it here anyway.
alive
2 years ago
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?
demotto
2 years ago
Frank
Why would anyone need legal representation, aren't the Acts and Statutes that supposedly have the force of Law supposed to be understandable by the common man. If they are not understandable by the common man then how can he be expected to comply with Acts and Statutes that are worded so only liars(lawyers) can understand them. I would much prefer to put my fate, if I was in a position that I needed the Courts services, in my own hands and make the Courts explain the meaning of each word they speak as I do not speak Legalese and therefore would be unable to respond to any queries they might have. Most if not all Acts and Statutes have an Interpretation section or sections in them where they define certain words . It must be that the meanings are not what the common meaning is. However they use the word includes quite frequently when they are defining word but they do not define it so I believe it means to shut in, bar all others. If that is the case all Acts and Statutes do not apply to men and women. So if you get legal representation you are admitting you are incapable of managing your own affairs. I choose freedom not servitude.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
"So if you get legal representation you are admitting you are incapable of managing your own affairs. "
Fine, whatever, at least someone knowledgeable is which wouldn't be the case if you need the court to explain each paragraph of the law to you.
Why do people being paid millions a year to run a corporation hire not just one lawyer but entire departments of them? Because they're idiots that can't handle their affairs or read? I don't think that's the reason.
Frank
2 years ago
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?
demotto
2 years ago
Frank
Money, it's all about money. If you know Legalese you are a far more learned man than most and I include myself as it takes liars years to master it.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
I think you're saying that you don't have a high opinion of lawyers?
I very much doubt you're alone in that opinion.
demotto
2 years ago
Frank
You're response to Alive is bang on. Why do we the people allow the theft of the wealth of the commons when there is so much need in the Best Place on Earth. I do not know how to fix the situation we can only demand our servants act in our best interest and somehow hold them accountable. Turfing the present government will solve little as all the Politcal Parties are bought and paid for by the same monied people. We need to hold them to account as men and women personally and not let them hide behind the Office.
Frank
2 years ago
demotto
I agree with you in general. The NDP certainly don't have a flawless record but I still see their record as being better than the Liberal one.
Everyone's opinion of how to make things better is going to be different. Mine was an electoral reform that would make more votes count and weaken the ability of political parties to discipline the MLAs as well as dramatically reduce the chances of majority government. Its not a perfect solution but I thought it was a step in the right direction. But non-voters weren't interested in change.
Tieleman
2 years ago
Bill Tieleman gets Structural
I've let StructuralEngineer build his house of cards for awhile now but here's a response.
First, when you start by denouncing not the content but the approach of a writer and the quality of their work, don't expect them to respond when you demand it.
You started the discussion with this statement:
"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!"
After that, why bother responding to you?
But you continued to berate me for not immediately replying.
You also claimed I said Dorothy had good questions but I didn't answer them - wrong!
Dorothy didn't like me saying gun registry critics were wrong - tough luck. What she did show was, like yourself, paranoia about the government seizing all guns from its citizens, presumably before some authoritarian coup. Get a grip people - this is not 1776 in America.
However, I will say this again - I am not anti-gun, I am not even anti-handgun, I believe Canadians should be able to own guns, including pistols, under reasonable regulations and laws.
But I do not believe any firearm should be unregistered. That's a fundamental disagreement with the critics here and one we will simply not resolve.
Now we'll see what Parliament does.
G West
2 years ago
Ummm - I don't think so
Structural engineer says 'this' of Frank:
Furthermore, if you'd been paying attention, you'd have seen that that little contretemps actually began with a personal and offensive remark made by 'demotto'...
From what I can gather he started the personal stuff and Frank simply responded.
As for your other suggestion, that Frank hasn't held up his end of the debate, I think you need to look back over the comments again.
In fact, Frank has dealt the whole facile contention that the gun registry has somehow affected anyone's freedom to own, use and store rifles and shotguns a well-nigh fatal blow.
For all the blow and bluster of the NRA clones on this thread, not a single one of you has posted a solitary example of any sane qualified gun fancier having been unlawfully denied whatever pleasures he or she gets from possessing and owning long guns of any kind. In fact, all I’ve read here amounts to little more than a recitation of threadbare Second Amendment garbage from South of the Border….
I'd say that pretty much seals the deal for me.
And well done Frank!
dorothy
2 years ago
Over the line!
"Dorothy didn't like me saying gun registry critics were wrong - tough luck. What she did show was, like yourself, paranoia about the government seizing all guns from its citizens, presumably before some authoritarian coup.."
Hello! Do you think because so much water has run under the bridge and so much BS has flown, you can just assign opinions to me that I never voiced? This is pure invention. I never expressed concern about an 'authoritarian coup', but about the very real possibility that data can fall into the wrong hands, and civil servants have been known to sell or otherwise provide information to parties that had no right to have it. This ain't paranoia, but reality, and it only takes one rotten apple. Surely you have not forgotten the RCMP staff member, who delivered names and addresses of workers at an abortion clinic to his pro-life friends, after running their licence plates? Someone else mentioned the ease with which the Nazi troops in Norway could round up all privately held guns.
Bill, I really resent being used this way. What you ascribe to me is not what I have said, and it is not cool to do this because you feel pressured.
This is a debate, where there are viewpoints of some merit on both sides, and so my 'problem' with you defining those who disagreed with you as 'wrong' is that the debate really ends there and becomes acrimonious hammering and bullying. If you cannot abide people being in disagreement and just go on arguing your case and take it like a man, when someone brings up another side, this is just plain disappointing.
I don't know where we go from here. This should not have happened. It has become really ugly and petty, and damage has been done that I don't know if can be reversed. I think the 'rebuttal' article was a big mistake, and I hope such a step will not be supported in future.