My respect for Jack Layton

…just took a turn for the better:

The fate of the gun registry rests with a dozen New Democrats, who are in the position to cast the deciding votes after the party signalled Friday it will not crack the whip by forcing the caucus to support the federal database.

Imagine that, allowing MPs to break from the party line and vote as per their constituents’ wishes.  This whole “breaking ranks” thing, that’s new and different, eh?

Not really.  The supposedly “unofficially pro-choice” Liberal Party does it whenever their socially conservative contingent votes “their conscience” on  abortion-related bills, votes which are driven less by the wishes of constituents than by the anti-abortion ideology of the individual MPs.  If some of the rural NDP MPs break ranks with their party and vote to ditch the Long Gun Registry, they will be doing so in direct response to their constituents, not to further some dimwitted cultural anti-abortion crusade.

As a rural resident, I can say with some certainty that there are many in ridings like mine who will take approving note of this development and, for maybe the first time ever, feel that their elected representatives are actually listening to them.  Considering the Long Gun Registry is little more than an insanely expensive monument to legendary brainless emotion-driven Liberal excess, dumbness and pandering,  the NDP MPs who vote to put it to sleep will also be leveling the field between themselves and their Conservative opponents in ridings where there are a lot of single-issue voters.  Allowing them to do so is some surprisingly high-calibre political cogitation on Jack Layton’s part.

61 Responses to “My respect for Jack Layton”


  1. 1 Bleatmop Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Wow. Good on Jack. That was a good article too. I never knew that the NDP has never whipped a private members bill before.

  2. 2 Greg Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Liberal excess, dumbness and pandering, the NDP MPs who vote to put it to sleep will also be leveling the field between themselves and their Conservative opponents in ridings where there are a lot of one-issue voters.

    They will also be losing urban voters like me, for a generation. I hope they enjoy fighting Conservatives for the pro-gun vote in rural Canada. Urban Canada will be off the table.

  3. 3 CfSR Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 11:53 am

    to further some dimwitted cultural crusade?

    Put your checkmark here.

    Good on Jack indeed.

  4. 4 CanNurse Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Totally agree with Greg. Not only will they lose Urban votes for a long long time, they will also lose the majority of women’s votes actoss the country. This is one vote that the NDP members, by a large majority, want to be FOR keeping the Gun Registry. Those 5 or 6 NDPers who represent rural ridings where people just can’t seem to get around that tough concept of filling out a form so their gun is registered should perhaps think of moving over to the Libs.

  5. 5 JJ Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Bleatmop – Jack can afford to let his MPs vote their consciences because the NDP is ideologically far more solid than the Liberals, and generally vote on party lines anyway. This is one of the few where they’re not. The Libs have a bigger tent, so there’s sometimes more dissent in the ranks.

  6. 6 JJ Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Greg – Why would that be, when the long gun registry does nothing to address crimes committed with illegal handguns, by far the weapon of choice for urban criminals?

    Of course, given the mindless hysteria around this issue, you could be right.

  7. 7 JJ Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    CfSR – That wasn’t exactly the kind of personal crusade I was getting at, but okay.

  8. 8 JJ Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Can Nurse – FWIW, I’m not opposed to gun control in principle, but not some bottomless pit that taxpayers throw money into for little return other than the emotional value of a wedge issue for the Liberals (edit: and the Conservatives). I would have been very supportive if that budget had been put toward fighting the traffic of illegal handguns, which is what most criminals use. I am also supportive of the police program controlling handguns, which has been used with pretty good effect for the last 30-odd years.

    I just think there are far better ways that the LGR money could be spent that would actually address gun crime, and I think that is what a lot of people have against the registry. They feel they are being targeted instead of real criminals.

  9. 9 ck Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    I know that this will more than likely cost Mulcair’s Montreal seat amongst many of their other seats. Outremont is where the Polytechnique is. There is even a small park in the area named after the date of this tragedy. Marc Lepine used a long gun.

    In fact, I believe the gun used in the Anastasia de Souza murder at the Dawson massacre in Sept 2006 was a long gun.

    The registry had start up costs but the actual annual operating costs aren’t that much. And yes, here are a few graphs looking at some crimes by firearms before and after the registry.

    http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2010/05/07/tommy-why-is-your-research-so-biased-why-gun-registry-must-remain-this-time-with-feeling/

    Not to mention, Steve’s slow frog cooking methods, we know that this won’t be enough. Gun control will be scrapped. It will lead to gun control laws so lax like in the U.S.or even more so.

    I simply don’t get these farmers and hunters who claim to be law abiding citizens; if they’re sooooo law abiding, then what’s the problem with registering these firearms? Nothing to hide right? Iggy even came up with a proposal to make things easier to register a firearm.

    The more they protest registering their firearms; the more concerned I get. They have something to hide.

    One must register their dog and their car; why not firearms?

    Jack didn’t even come up with proposals to perhaps amend the registry.

    No, as usual, this is about Jack having to be contrary to the Liberals.

    Oh, and the NDP has shifted more to the center these days.

    There are no more progressive political parties in Canada simply because most Canadians are not progressive; they are centrist shifting rightward.

  10. 10 RR #666 Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    To an almost lifetime (‘cept for a spell to get me some book learning) rural resident and progressive the LGR was nothing but a cynical attempt by the LPC to appear to be doing something after the École Polytechnique incident.

    To the uniformed who don’t know a shotgun from a rifle from a handgun or how a CPIC query works it played well. Even out here in the sticks while the right was divided between Reform and CPC the LPC still survived. Not any longer.

    This one cynical divisive policy has cost the country dearly. Let us leave it behind.

  11. 11 fern hill Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    I totally agree with Canadian Nurse and ck. This is a vote that should be whipped. But, hey, I guess the NDP is as good as the ReformaTories at ignoring experts when it suits their political purposes.

  12. 12 Greg Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Why would that be, when the long gun registry does nothing to address crimes committed with illegal handguns, by far the weapon of choice for urban criminals?

    Your comment about handguns is a red herring. The police say they use the thing and it has value to them as a tool, so why scrap it? Scrapping the registry is based on paranoia, imported from the NRA, against “big bad government, gonna take my guns!!! and make me a communist!!!!!”. Just register your rifle. What harm does it do you? None that I can see.

  13. 13 Cari Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    The laughing thing ,it is no longer a Private members bill , it is a Government bill, but hiding behind a private member.

  14. 14 rev.paperboy Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    I’m afraid I’m with Greg, CFSR, Fern Hill and CK on this one. The registry is not a panecea, but it is a useful public safety tool. My respect for Layton has taken a dive.

  15. 15 Reality.Bites Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    And I’m with rev.paperboy

  16. 16 croghan27 Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    All of the above about keeping this important program.

    Dreams of Tony Blair and ‘new labour’ are not needed, not progressive and dunderheaded. Becoming more like the Liberals will not defeat the Cons.

    The registrary is well justified and sanely supported.

  17. 17 JJ Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    ck

    Marc Lepine used a long gun.

    One of the things that irritated me about the LGR right from the start is that it seemed like such a cynical ploy to use the memory of the EP tragedy to create an intrusive program that wouldn’t have changed a thing, had it existed before the massacre. Like a lot of initiatives, this one appears to have been created primarily to make the government look like it was “doing something”.

    if they’re sooooo law abiding, then what’s the problem with registering these firearms? Nothing to hide right?

    If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear. That about right?

  18. 18 JJ Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    RR #666

    This one cynical divisive policy has cost the country dearly. Let us leave it behind.

    Couldn’t agree more.

  19. 19 JJ Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    FYI — Dr. Dawg did a post about this back when the bill first came up. He’s a lot more articulate than I am in explaining why he doesn’t care for the registry, either.

    Edit – Stageleft also posted about his opposition to the registry, unfortunately I can’t find the post because it’s on the old site. But his sentiments were similar to Dr.Dawg’s.

  20. 20 Bleatmop Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 12:03 am

    Cannurse – It’s much more than simply signing a form. It’s signing up for $60/year/gun for the rest of your life, plus a possession license every year, plus a license to purchase ammunition if you ever want to shoot your gun. It’s not simply signing a form to make sure your gun is registered. This bill punishes legal gun owners.

  21. 21 SD Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 5:03 am

    To the NDP supporters in downtown Toronto who say that they won’t vote for the party if some of the members vote against their wishes: Remember that the NDP has about eight seats in northern Ontario, but only two in Toronto. The party also holds seats in Windsor, Hamilton, and other parts of industrial Ontario and Canada. I have lived in northern Ontario. NDP voters in northern Ontario are not what Conservatives would describe as downtown granola crunching environmentalist “Zoës.” They are people who either work in a primary or secondary industry, and who may have friends who go hunting once or twice a year. They may own or have access to a cottage, boat, and snowmobile. Either directly or indirectly, they are financially supporting the NDP. If the NDP wants to expand, it is going to need to go after current Conservative supporters–people who hunt, fish, burp, and fart.

  22. 22 CfSR Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Bleatmop Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 12:03 am

    Cannurse – It’s much more than simply signing a form. It’s signing up for $60/year/gun for the rest of your life, plus a possession license every year, plus a license to purchase ammunition if you ever want to shoot your gun. It’s not simply signing a form to make sure your gun is registered. This bill punishes legal gun owners.

    I’d be upset if that was true, but it isn’t.

    There is no cost to register firearms. Registration is only done once over the period that an individual possesses a firearm.

    There is, if you only own “long guns”, a $60 fee for a five year licence. That works out to all of $1 per month and that fee doesn’t go up if you have one/ten/one hundred/lots of long gun(s).

  23. 23 JJ Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 11:00 am

    fern hill

    But, hey, I guess the NDP is as good as the ReformaTories at ignoring experts when it suits their political purposes.

    In fairness, both sides of this issue have been able to come up with plenty of “experts” to support their side of the debate. As with most issues, the truth is somewhere in between.

    Unfortunately, because of the cynical way the Long Gun Registry rode on the highly emotional coat tails of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, it became a feminist issue. As a result, many feminists are unwilling to admit that it was a failure. Not me.

  24. 24 JJ Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Greg

    Scrapping the registry is based on paranoia, imported from the NRA, against “big bad government, gonna take my guns!!! and make me a communist!!!!!”.

    Maybe for some, but I don’t think they’re the majority. Most of those opposed to the registry simply resent being told how to deal with their rifles and shotguns by people who have never set foot outside a city, and don’t give a flying fuck about them the other 99% of the time. Especially when it doesn’t look like the registry is either efficient or effective.

  25. 25 Bleatmop Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    CfSR – There is currently only no fee to register because of the current fee waiver that ends May 16, 2011. After that expect that the fees will go back to the way they were.

  26. 26 Peter Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Surely it it obvious we have a longstanding and bitter urban/rural divide here. I’m an urban conservative, and I see no case for any guns at all in cities, provided there is an efficient and responsive police force. In fact, I’ve never even seen a long gun in a city in my not-so-brief life. But I don’t recall any cogent threat to my safety and public order from rural gun owners, either

    So, they have lotsa guns and object to the registry vociferously. We don’t have guns and don’t want them. So, why do we need a uniform, “national” solution? And why should urban Canada prevail here, seeing as guns are not part of the (lawful) urban culture?

  27. 27 fhg1893 Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    To those who ask what harm registration does: Something that the progressive movement in Canada is afraid to address ought to be the shot that finally sinks the long gun registry.

    According to the RCMP, and as presented to the Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety by Tony Bernardo, the Canadian Police Information Center or CPIC was breached 306 times between 1995, and 2003. CPIC contains a considerable amount of personal information, including all the information on a person’s driver’s license, vehicle registration information, and a listing of a person’s registered firearms. Indeed, when police respond to a domestic incident, CPIC is the database they use to determine if anyone at the residence is licensed to own firearms, and a list of all firearms registered to that person. Any CPIC breach is serious, and on average, CPIC is breached about 40 times per year.

    There is considerable anecdotal evidence that some of those wishing to acquire guns illegally have taken to using the registry to discover who owns guns, where they live, what guns they own, and then breaking-in and stealing their guns. All guns start as legal guns, but once a person’s guns are stolen, those guns will never be legal guns again. Ultimately, while the chance of this happening is relatively low, if you were a gun owner would you not think twice about registering your firearms knowing that your most intimate details might be acquired by someone looking to steal some guns?

    All of this is without mentioning that registration can and has lead to the harassment of many gun owners by police. Registering more than 10 firearms is almost guaranteed to result a warrant-less police inspection.

  28. 28 Willy Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Too many wide brushes being stroked here. This urban/rural divide is a bit of a myth. I would put forth that there are more urban long gun owners than rural gun owners, there are that many rifles and shot guns in Canada and that many more people that live in cities.

    Similarly to JJ, I too was put back when the gov’t first brought in this law. In fact I immediately drove to a gun shop in Hamilton and signed up for my hand gun course. I hate being told I can’t do something and hate loosing a right, even if I’m not currently taking advantage of it.

    I never bought the hand gun and over time my anger quelled.

    What changed my mind were the articles quoting the usage of the registry by law enforcement, all branches and to some degree the hypocrisy of the Cons with their so called law and order stance, but they want to kill the registry to keep a promise to their Alberta based reformers.

    I think it is also a rural myth that there are no crimes committed in rural Canada with long guns. With just lost an OPP officer in Ontario who stopped an 60 year in the country who decided to start a shoot out across a highway. This was a retired mayor of a small town. He was pissed at his former wife and loaded his shot gun in his car and decided to visit her.

    Although I disagree with JJ on this issue, she brings up a good point. If you live in a city riding with a Con MP, go after them on it. Email him or her and get their response about the Con free vote and which way they are going to vote. If they are voting to kill it nail them on it on your blog, raise shit. If they are going to vote to keep it, give them credit.

    Like JJ said your MP should be representing the views of their constituents in a free vote.

    For the record I have old dual barrel twelve gauge, registered and locked up in the basement. I

  29. 29 Rob F Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    A few elections ago, I remember the local news interviewing local candidates from the (then) four parties about their party’s platforms on various issues. One of them was guns. I distinctly remember the NDP representative, that pocketer Svend Robinson (hence this event was years ago), saying that his party had no policy on the gun registry. If the NDP hasn’t changed this “part” of its platform, then the decision for a free vote in entirely consistent with the NDP’s previous platforms; ie, you can’t whip the caucus to support a policy on an issue the party has no policy on.

  30. 30 fern hill Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    JJ, with respect, I’m kinda dismayed that you would characterize/dismiss this issue as feminist vs. libertarianism.

    Whatever political opportunism was in play, the truth is that women and cops intervening in domestic fuckups get hurt/killed.

    If the financial cost is nothing or close to nothing to the (responsible) gun owner, and the result is faster cop response and/or fewer deaths injuries to women and cops, like, what is your problem?

    This IS a feminist issue.

    I’ll come back tomorrow when I’m less tired with links to Antonia Zerbisias. Of course, the other side has experts (Farm-Hair Cover Girl, Shelley ‘StatsCan Is Wrong’ Glover), but . . . you are entitled to your own opinion …

    There are facts.

  31. 31 rev.paperboy Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    Well said Willy!

    And Bleatmop — boo-frickin-hoo! I don’t care if they raise the cost of registering your death machines to $100 a day, I doubt very much that if you live south of the NWT that hunting is so vital to your livlihood. I grew up in Northern Ontario and I know that people hunt to fill the freezer and all that, but unless you live north of 60, its a choice. And i see no reason that the police shouldn’t be forewarned about anyone’s gun collection.

  32. 32 Bleatmop Monday, June 7, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Rev. Paperboy – Apparently you can’t distinguish when I say I am against this gun registry bill as to being against a gun registry. It’s easy to do when you don’t read a persons posts carefully.

    Also, as an aside, I’m getting the sense that most people that are for the registry are simply against gun ownership. If that is the case, then you should be against this bill too. It does little, other than the financial penalty, to deter it. You should be lobbying your MP’s to institute a gun ban like they have in England.

  33. 33 Janus Monday, June 7, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Well, I’ve been away skywalking for awhile, so this is my first time to comment here, and I’m amazed and dismayed at the divisiveness I’m reading. So here’s my two cents (if we didn’t get rid of the penny while I was gone):

    I’m nowhere near being ideologically sympathetic with the NDP. I live without fear in the middle of a city known for its violence. I’m a woman. I’m a feminist. I’m more of a libertarian than anything else. I’m an individualist. My firearms are hidden and not registered. And I resent the hell outa being compared with some dude named Marc Lepine, who would have found some other way to kill however many people he did if he hadn’t had access to a rifle!

    Don’t like firearms? Don’t have one! But touch mine and I will strangle you with your own intestines. See? No gun violence…

  34. 34 fern hill Monday, June 7, 2010 at 10:46 am

    As promised, here is a linky-filled post by Antonia Z.

    Here’s a quote from it:

    According to Statistics Canada, there were 818 firearm deaths in Canada in 2005. 72.5% (593) of these firearm deaths were suicides. This amounts to one person every 15 hours. Over 80% of these suicide deaths were due to long guns. Gun control saves lives. Since the gun control registry was introduced in 1995, firearm suicides have decreased by 35%.

    Those opposed to long gun registration claim that there is a lack of criminal activity involving long guns. This is not true. Of firearm-related homicides in 2008 in Canada, 34% were by rifles or shotguns, 61% by handguns and 17% by prohibited firearms. Long guns were used in 72% of firearm-related spousal homicides. Between 1995 and 2004, there was a 36% decrease in the use of firearms in spousal homicides.

  35. 35 Janus Monday, June 7, 2010 at 10:49 am

    “Over 80% of these suicide deaths were due to long guns. Gun control saves lives.”

    Disagree on two counts, Fern. One, suicides are not due to (caused by) long guns. And gun control does not save lives. If a suicide really wants to be a suicide, the lack of a firearm will not stop him.

  36. 36 JJ Monday, June 7, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Peter

    So, why do we need a uniform, “national” solution? And why should urban Canada prevail here, seeing as guns are not part of the (lawful) urban culture?

    Excellent point, and it speaks to another of the reasons the LGR is such an irritant to rural dwellers.

    In the minds of many who dwell outside the Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal axis, the registry has become symbolic of wasteful, centralized, urban-controlled government that tries to impose rules & regs on every aspect of our lives from thousands of miles away, and we don’t want it.

  37. 37 JJ Monday, June 7, 2010 at 11:38 am

    fhg1893 – Yes, the shopping list aspect of this thing is something that LGR supporters seem extremely reluctant to address.

    While I object to even more of my personal info being plugged into some vast government database that any bored cop driving behind me can access by running my plate, I REALLY resent the fact that the powers-that-be who set up this authoritarian rat’s nest didn’t even bother setting it up well enough to protect ME from criminals. It can apparently be broken into in a matter of minutes by even a moderately talented hacker.

    But nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right? 🙄

  38. 38 fern hill Monday, June 7, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Janus, I agree, guns don’t cause suicide, but they make it easier and faster than many other methods. There was an anecdotal story from a rural emergency room doctor — sorry, no link, but it’s just anecdotal — about a man treated for severe depression. Before they sent him home, they had the cops check the gun registry. Not perfect, I know, but if you’ve been touched by suicide, you’d like there to be more arrows in the prevention quiver. Hm, that’s probably not a great metaphor in the circs.

  39. 39 JJ Monday, June 7, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    fern hill

    I’m kinda dismayed that you would characterize/dismiss this issue as feminist vs. libertarianism.

    I’m not, although some have suggested it’s an either/or situation and I must be a “bad feminist” because I don’t support the LGR. (Although I’d argue that if feminism is really about womens’ independence, I’m a pretty damn good feminist.)

    I am just calling it as I see it. If the registry would have stopped Marc Lepine (who used what is considered an assault weapon, not a hunting rifle, but that doesn’t stop the uninformed from shrieking “LONG GUN!!!”), I probably wouldn’t be so dismissive of its effectiveness. But it wouldn’t have — the EP tragedy was just used as a convenient venue to launch something that the Liberals could use to pander to their urban base, and that the CPC uses as a political football to this day. As a woman who cares about what happened at Ecole Polytechnique, I resent THAT.

    the result is faster cop response and/or fewer deaths injuries to women and cops, like, what is your problem?

    I have yet to see any convincing arguments that the registry saves lives. People can shoot each other with registered hunting rifles just as easily as they can with unregistered hunting rifles. My “problem” is that an onerous, intrusive multi-billion dollar program doesn’t do anything to stop that, so why have it?

  40. 40 JJ Monday, June 7, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Rev

    And i see no reason that the police shouldn’t be forewarned about anyone’s gun collection

    Neither do I, in principle, which is why I have nothing against the handgun registry that the cops do, and do very well. But this long gun registry is just wrong headed, IMO.

  41. 41 JJ Monday, June 7, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Bleatmop

    I’m getting the sense that most people that are for the registry are simply against gun ownership.

    You read my mind, Bleat 😉 I use the same argument against abortion law — why have it if it doesn’t change anything? Why have a law just for the sake of having a law? No — the purpose of legislation is to beget ever more restrictive legislation. As it is with abortion, so it is with the long gun registry, IMO.

  42. 42 JJ Monday, June 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    Janus

    My firearms are hidden and not registered.

    Haha, not any more!

    Okay, maybe that’s a little paranoid 😉

  43. 43 JJ Monday, June 7, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Willy

    What changed my mind were the articles quoting the usage of the registry by law enforcement, all branches and to some degree the hypocrisy of the Cons with their so called law and order stance, but they want to kill the registry to keep a promise to their Alberta based reformers.

    My understanding is that the registry is accessed automatically in any police query — ie. the scenario I mentioned to fhg1893 above, bored cop driving behind you runs your plate (happens 100s of times a day), and the LGR is automatically queried. IMO this isn’t indicative of the registry’s effectiveness. But there’s no doubt the information is being accessed.

    The CPC are massive hypocrites on this issue — not so much because of their supposed law & order stance, since the registry does SFA to prevent crime anyway — but because they use it as a political football as much as the Libs did.

    Am I the only one who feels like Canadians are being played by both sides on this issue??

  44. 44 JJ Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 6:10 am

    SD

    If the NDP wants to expand, it is going to need to go after current Conservative supporters–people who hunt, fish, burp, and fart.

    I’ve wondered before on this blog why “the left” (for want of a better term) seems to be losing the working class, which was their traditional base.

    I got into a discussion about it at Ck’s place — I can’t help but wonder if the left’s increasingly dismissive attitude towards average working class people and their average working class concerns (ie. not progressive cause of the month) might be the reason for their mass exodus.

    The NDP might be catching on to this.

  45. 45 fhg1893 Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 7:07 am

    MP Mark Holland, or his office, has responded to some writers concerning the registry by claiming that,

    “The argument that the gun registry wouldn’t have stopped Marc Lepine from murdering 14 women in Montreal’s Polytechnique massacre in 1989 is a fallacious one.”

    Unfortunately, he doesn’t clairify this at all, so I can’t figure out if he means that the argument concerning Polytechnique doesn’t apply, or that the registry would have somehow prevented or allieviated the Montreal massacre.

    … Um… What? Kimveer Gill owned a registered Berretta CX-4 Storm. I’ve heard that the CX-4 can be non-restricted, or restricted depending on barrel length. Gill’s version was restricted. That means that Gill was legally obligated to obtain an Authorization to Transport to even be allowed take his CX-4 out of his house. Yet, he managed to shoot and injure a number of people at Dawson College. The stringent registration and regulation of restricted firearms did absolutely nothing. There are only two reasons that the Dawson College shootings did not have a higher body-count – the first is that two police officers were visting the school, and happened to be armed, the second is that Kimveer Gill was apparently a lousy shot.

    If the registry, which incidentally includes both non-restricted and restriced firearms didn’t do anything to stop Dawson College, how exactly would it have stopped the Polytechnique massacre?

    Why is it that this is the one and only issue that is an exception to the usual party-line? The Conservatives are the party of “No you can’t,” tough on crime rhetoric, and restriction on personal freedom. The Liberals are the party of “Yes you can,” rehabilitation not punishment, and greater personal freedom.

    Why is this the ONE issue that is the exact opposite?

  46. 46 JJ Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    fhg1893

    If the registry, which incidentally includes both non-restricted and restriced firearms didn’t do anything to stop Dawson College, how exactly would it have stopped the Polytechnique massacre?

    It wouldn’t have, and even most supporters of the registry usually stop short of claiming that it would have. But because the registry came to be as a result of Ecole Polytechnique, the 2 are linked in the public’s mind. along with the inference that the registry would have prevented the tragedy.

    Why is this the ONE issue that is the exact opposite?

    Because the majority of Liberal support is in big cities where guns aren’t viewed as another tool like a chain saw, they’re viewed as vehicles for mayhem.

  47. 47 JJ Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Good grief. The hysteria is really spiraling when they start pointing to a year-old story about a Nazi dingbat in downtown Toronto and his *registered and legally-owned* gun collection as proof that a huge government database is needed to keep track of ranchers in Northern BC.

    We are all Nazis now, eh!

  48. 48 Holly Stick Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 11:51 am

    I grew up on a farm in the days before people even worried about storing their guns away from thieves. I was in the next room when one child shot another child. It was just luck that the bullet went into the child’s back at an angle and did not hit the child’s spine or anything else fatal. The child who pulled the trigger thought the gun was empty; that child knew how to use the gun, but like many children, did not display good judgment.

    Just because people on farms use guns as tools does not mean they are intelligent about how they use or keep their guns. Keep the registry.

  49. 49 JJ Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Holly

    Just because people on farms use guns as tools does not mean they are intelligent about how they use or keep their guns.

    I’m starting to feel like a broken record, but how exactly would the registry change that?

  50. 50 Bleatmop Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    JJ – To also to a broken record, it also sounds like Holy wants no guns, not registered guns. No guns would have prevented the story (s)he told. A registered gun would have let the police know that the gun officially belonged to the injured child’s father in a quicker manner. People who want no guns should be the most opposed to a registry because it actually legitimatizes gun ownership, legally speaking.

    I still think that thousands of millions of dollars spent on this registry would have stopped a lot more gun crime if it actually went to hiring and training more police officers to stop weapons from crossing our boarders illegally and taking on organized crime syndicates.

  51. 51 fhg1893 Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    Not to mention the registry, along with the draconian gun-laws, they are I think, sexist.

    Though there seems to be a slowly increasing proportion of female gun owners, the substantial majority continues to be men, and that isn’t likely to change for at least several years. Since we’re pretty sure that Lepine was a misogynist, it stands to reason that one of the effects of draconian gun regulation, registry included, is on some level, an attempt to punish men. While I doubt that many are willing to admit it, it comes as no surprise to me that the opposition called representatives of many women’s groups, and many women’s shelters to testify at the committee meeting.

  52. 52 JJ Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Bleatmop

    it also sounds like Holy wants no guns, not registered guns.

    A lot of people no doubt share that sentiment. It would be refreshing if they just came out and said so, instead of citing crimes that the registry would supposedly prevent, and being unable to answer when I ask how it would do so. I’m gobsmacked that people can defend this thing so passionately as a crime prevention tool and yet be unable to explain how it does so.

    I have the feeling that what they might really mean when they talk up the registry’s crime-prevention capability is the empowerment of law enforcement to do warrantless seizures of private property 😯 something that, if true, I obviously have a Big Problem with.

    But in fairness to registry supporters, maybe it’s just a matter of believing that doing *something*, no matter how ineffective it might be, is better than doing *nothing*. I understand, but don’t happen to concur with, this line of thought, and frankly, $2billion seems like a lot of dough for feelgood legislation that involves putting personal info on a hackable database.

  53. 53 JJ Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 11:15 am

    fhg1893

    it stands to reason that one of the effects of draconian gun regulation, registry included, is on some level, an attempt to punish men.

    When Lepine pulled the trigger, all men pulled the trigger? I get where you’re coming from, but I think that sounds a little far fetched, especially given that a lot of men support the registry.

    However, you have a point that the perception of collective punishment is out there. It’s why some men are so dismissive of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre (dismissive? Some are absolutely celebratory, declaring Dec.6th “Marc Lepine Day”, etc.). But I doubt this is sexism against men: if the registry targets anyone, it’s gun owners, just for owning guns — not because most of them happen to be men.

    it comes as no surprise to me that the opposition called representatives of many women’s groups, and many women’s shelters to testify at the committee meeting.

    They don’t do this to demonize men, but to put a human face on the concept of women at risk, because the registry itself was a response to an infamous incident of violence against women (Polytechnique). Their stories are compelling and can affect the kind of policy the government makes — unfortunately, I’ve seen no evidence that this particular policy would make any of them safer, and nobody seems to be able to tell me how it would.

  54. 54 Holly Stick Friday, June 11, 2010 at 8:39 am

    “it also sounds like Holy wants no guns, not registered guns.”

    Did I say that? Don’t impose your prejudices on what I write.

    The thing is that rifles and shotguns may be treated far too casually so that children, or thieves for that matter, can easily get at them and cause tragedy. I know of another rural fellow who habitually treated his rifle so carelessly that he eventually accidently shot himself in the head. There are plenty of intelligent farmers and ranchers; but there are stupid ones too.

    I don’t know, does the registry have regulations about storing guns?

  55. 55 fhg1893 Friday, June 11, 2010 at 11:04 am

    The registry exists entirely indepenent of the storage and handling regulations. Dismantling the registry does not effect the requirements regarding safe storage and use at all.

  56. 56 JJ Friday, June 11, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Holly Stick

    There are plenty of intelligent farmers and ranchers; but there are stupid ones too.

    Once again, how does the long gun registry stop this?

    By now it must be pretty obvious that the registry is about as effective a crime prevention tool as it is a stupid prevention tool.

    I don’t know, does the registry have regulations about storing guns?

    Safe storage regs pre-exist the registry. Should the registry disappear tomorrow, nothing would change.

  57. 57 Holly Stick Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    JJ wrote “…instead of citing crimes that the registry would supposedly prevent, and being unable to answer when I ask how it would do so.” Evidence is there if you look for it.

    Here you go; a decrease in crimes. Fewer men murdering their wives with rifles and shotguns. Fewer men blowing their own heads off.

    “…According to their study, since the Firearms Act came into force in 1998, we have witnessed an average decrease of 250 suicides and 50 homicides by firearms in Canada each year…”

    http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/News/climay262010.metro.pdf

    http://www.truthsandmyths.ca/top-10-myths.html

    Be sure the click on the big red arrows a few times on that second link, which provides specific instances where the registry had been useful.

    “…Registry helps in seizure of disturbed youth’s guns

    As the result of an online search, the CFP Enhanced Screening Unit identified a youth posing with a firearm. Further searching uncovered several more photographs involving firearms. A CFRO check revealed the individual was a licensed owner of several registered weapons. Using the internet, it was determined that not only were the registered firearms being used in an unsafe manner, posing a threat to the public, there was a prohibited weapon in the subject’s possession. A public safety warrant was executed on the licensed firearms owner’s residence. Registered firearms, along with unregistered and prohibited weapons that had been photographed and placed online, were seized…”

  58. 58 JJ Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    Holly

    Here you go; a decrease in crimes. Fewer men murdering their wives with rifles and shotguns. Fewer men blowing their own heads off.

    How has the registry accomplished this?
    As long as people keep making this claim, I have to keep asking that question.

    The decrease in gun crime since the introduction of the registry didn’t start there, it’s part of a downward trend that started 20 years before the registry. At best, I guess one could say that the registry at least hasn’t made gun crime *go up* 😉

    Registry helps in seizure of disturbed youth’s guns
    As the result of an online search, the CFP Enhanced Screening Unit identified a youth posing with a firearm.

    Youtube Poseurs beware, there’s an army of government bureaucrats combing the web in search of your dumb videos!

    That particular story is actually pretty remarkable. Not because it proves the registry’s awesome crime prevention capability, but because it shows Law Enforcement empowered to seize *legally-owned* private property. That scenario, along with a distinctly nonchalant attitude towards privacy as personified by the “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear” comments from registry supporters, should be a terrifying wakeup call to anyone who values privacy and personal liberty.

  59. 59 fhg1893 Monday, June 14, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Holly Stick – You should remember that the registry, along with some very stringent restrictions concerning the storage and use of guns and ammunition came into being along with the registry when C-68 was given royal assent.

    Those restrictions will not be touched at all by scrapping the registry.

    Virtually all anecdotes from truthsandmyths.ca do not make strong cases for the firearms registry, rather, each result could have been replicated using just good old fashioned police work. And, CPIC will STILL inform police about whether someone has a PAL/RPAL; licensing isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. If the police can’t find someone’s guns, registered or otherwise, is the problem with the gun owner, or the police? A gun can actually be pretty damned hard to hide versus the resources of police.

    As for crime, according to Statistics Canada, stabbings have generally become the prefferred method of homicide, shall we register knives?

    And while violent crime is decreasing, suicide is slowly trending upward. The majority of suicides are now done by hanging, which seems a pretty awful way to die, especially if you get it wrong. Shall we register belts, ropes, clothing, thread, twine etc?

  60. 60 JJ Monday, June 14, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    fhg1893 – Thanks for the info, maybe people will read & learn.

  61. 61 JJ Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    FYI to anyone interested:
    At “We Move To Canada”, they ask the same question about why registry supporters believe the registry prevents crime.


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 631,445
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: