"We all support the licensing of people who own firearms and the registration of prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns). That's not going to change; this Conservative government is unwavering in that. We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective,"
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
Criminals can not register their guns. Being able to register a gun presupposes that one has a Possession and Acquisition Licence and a criminal record is grounds for being denied a PAL and for a PAL being revoked. However, this does not mean that some criminals do not try to register their guns. "More than 1,500 Canadians were refused licences for their guns from 2006-2009, on the basis of background checks triggered when they went to register the weapons." The most common reason for denying these gun owners a license was that they were a risk to others. "The program revoked another 6,093 licences in the same period as a result of continuous screening, court orders and complaints to its public safety line. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1
Semantics aside, Weston's argument does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with ICBC either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse for Weston, it is impossible for him to on the one hand throw his support behind registering "prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns)" and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason he gives for the latter is that criminals do not register their guns. So, he should be calling for the entire registry to be abolished. Weston can not have his cake and eat it too.
Weston:
"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.
The Conservatives like to hammer the Liberals over the cost of the gun registry and rightly so. That said, the gun registry's 1 billion dollar price tag does not have any baring on whether long guns should be registered. What matters is whether the annual cost (between 1.5 and 4 million dollars) of registering long guns is worth it. Implying that the initial cost over runs justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference . http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-staffer-accuses-tories-of-trying-to-discredit-auditor-general/article1667099/ It makes no sense.
Now as for the justifications the Liberals have given for continuing to register long guns, other than to point out that the fact that the gun registry is used x number of times each day by the police, the Liberals have said remarkably little about the gun registry over the years. Their refusal to say much more has hurt them. They would have been in much better place had the continually come up with justifications.
Moving on, it is rich of Weston to imply that the Liberals have politicized the issue more than other parties. Not only have the Liberals not continually come up with justifications, they have spent a fraction of the Conservatives have on the issue. The Conservatives have spent money on radio ads and billboards. The Liberals have not. Not much has changed since Weston made these comments. The Conservatives were first ones to raise the issue this election and seem to be the only party wanting to talk about it.
Weston:
"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.
There's an Angus Reid poll that says 72 per cent of Canadians want the registry scrapped. There was a nationwide survey of rank-and-file police officers that said 92 per cent of them thought the registry was ineffective."
In 2006 Conservative candidate form Ajax Pickering famously said “The facts don’t matter.” I see John Weston is of the same mindset.
The auditor general put the cost of the gun registry at just under 1 billion, no Angus Reid poll ever showed those numbers and and this so called nationwide survey of rank and file police officers was chat room poll and so was no more scientific than Ted White's many "polls". My hat goes off to the North shore News for pointing this out.
"Setting up the registry ran notoriously over budget, reaching nearly $1 billion, according to the federal auditor general."
"In fact, the Aug. 24 Angus Reid poll of 1,005 Canadians reported that 44 per cent favoured scrapping the registry, with 35 per cent opposed and 21 per cent unsure. The police survey was an unscientific online poll conducted by an Edmonton officer on a police chat forum. The forum's operator later disavowed the survey, calling the results "mixed and inconclusive."
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
By the way, one of the most recent poll showed this.
"Overall, 48 per cent of those surveyed believe it's a bad idea to abolish the registry, with 38 per cent supporting its abolition. (Harris/Decima interviewed just over 1000 Canadians. A sample of this size has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.)"
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1
John Weston:
"The answer remains that we don't have any documented cases -- that I know of -- where the registry has performed its avowed purpose," he said. "In each case, if you look closely the registry would not have saved the victim. It's not doing its job. All it's doing is intruding on the liberties of Canadian farmers, duck hunters, and other law-abiding gun owners."
The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people who should no longer have them. I doubt even Weston would deny that it makes the seizure of guns easier. This was the thrust of what West Vancouver police chief Lepine said.
"Having a detailed inventory of the 4,029 registered firearms in West Vancouver helps police with court-ordered seizures of weapons from convicted offenders, said Lepine. If legally held weapons are stolen and eventually surface somewhere in the criminal economy, the registry records give officers a place to start in their investigation, he said.
"The next one is public safety. We get calls from mental-health providers saying 'We're concerned about a particular individual.' We'll do that check and go and seize (their firearms) so they don't harm themselves or someone else."
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
The problem is that Weston refuses to acknowledge that sometimes legally registered weapons need to be seized because the owner has, for example, been convicted of a crime. In this he is not alone; I have yet to hear a Conservative acknowledge that there have been thousands of "Canadian farmers, duck hunters", who acquired a criminal record over the last 12 years and over the next 12 years there will be thousands more.
As for specific examples, Weston must not have looked very hard.
“I think we've probably prevented some major events,” says Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist in Prince George, B.C. The RCMP has called Kane asking whether she is concerned about certain individuals applying to register a gun. She believes such a call prevented tragedy after a millworker was fired.
“He could easily have gone into one of the mills and done something bad,” she says. “But we were able to get his guns away from him.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1
30 comments:
Why don't we cut to the chase -- the formulation of the Bill -- even going back to 1969 and Bill C-150, was flawed -- or intentionally left open for 'opportunistic changes.' The reality is: Historically, in our social/political/legal system it is not a proper nor justifiable function of the law to place a peacefull person pursuing peaceful activities in jeopardy. Period. If that still leaves a "need" for legislation, then such legislation must always be based on the above premise.
As an owner of both firearms, and vehicles, I can assure you that there is one big difference between the registration of a firearm, and the registration of a vehicle. I'll give you a hint; it concerns the acts under which each registration is governed. In this way, the registration of a vehicle is quite unlike the registration of a firearm. In fact the two cannot be equated; they are apples, and oranges.
The major question I do have is, if the registry is primarily used to take guns away from people who do not have them, why can't the licensing system be used for these purposes?
By having "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" register their firearms, authorities can ensure that guns, owned by "duck hunters and farmers" who are no longer fit to own a gun, are properly disposed of. A gun license only indicates that person has the right to own a firearm. It does not tell the cops whether someone actually owns a gun or how many guns they might have.
Furthermore, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets."
http://www.aspq.org/DL/Declarationang.pdf
Bill are you seriously saying that the gun registry is unconstitutional?
That you ignored my first point seems quite damning. Since you said, nothing, then may I assume that since cars kill far more people annually than guns, that we can expect criminal background checks for new drivers, a campaign for criminal penalties for lapsed driver's licenses and registrations, a public tip line for drivers who pose a safety concern, and a centralized license and registration registry?
Or didn't you know that driving offenses are with a very few exceptions governed by (at least in Ontario) the Highway Traffic Act, where offenders typically face fines rather than jail-time, while registry offenders always face the prospect of jail time, and criminal convictions?
As to what you've stated...
So, what you're saying is;
1) The police are incompetent because they won't be able to find guns when they are called to seize them. To whit, I'd be quite happy to see police budgets trimmed, I've recently observed that they've got too much time on their hands, and are therefore, clearly under worked, and over paid. Two billion dollars cut from police budgets should just about make up for the long gun registry.
2) That gun ownership is a questionable activity, and that gun owners cannot be trusted. This says much more about you than it does me, for instance. What's worse is that this absurd assumption ignores the fact that the kind of people who shouldn't be trusted owning guns also for the most part happen to be the type who don't bother with licensing or registration.
As for me personally, it's truly astonishing that the same political movement that stands ready to make me into a criminal for what is essentially a paper crime has the audacity to also expect not only my support, but the support of gun-owners everywhere. Why would gun-owners be so foolish?
No, I ignored it because I was not making that analogy. All I did was to point out that the fact that criminals can not register their guns no more makes "the registry wasteful and ineffective" than the inability of car thieves to insurance their cars makes car insurance pointless. Weston was condemning the gun registry for failing to do something it was obviously never designed to do.
Look the issue is this. The number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (1.85 million) and with any large population certain very accurate predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a small percentage of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that a small percentage will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership at least for period of time. Now, even though this number is small in percentage terms, in absolute terms the numbers are quite large, in the 10s of thousands. Enter the gun registry. It makes it easier for authorities to seize the guns of people who should no longer have them. Why? Because the onus is on the gun owner in question to produce any registered weapons. If the police do not have proof that someone owns any unrestricted guns, how can they demand that he produce them? Ask your buddies. They all seem to agree that the registry makes it easier to seize their guns.
I think you were making that analogy. But even if it was unintentional, it is a frequently repeated liberal talking point. I can find at least 10 examples in a few seconds of people saying "We register our cars, why not our guns?" We've heard repeated it so many times, despite the fact that it's so obviously wrong, what are we supposed to think?
And even so, car thieves don't typically drive stolen cars for very long; they're typically exported, or more likely taken to a chop-shop. So the registration analogy is nonsensical.
To the latter, while what you say is true on its face, it is quite a biased and unfair statement. Your implication is that gun owners will hide their guns from the authorities should they be deemed unsuitable for gun ownership. This clearly demonstrates your bias against gun owners, one which is not rooted in reality. Gun owners Canada are more closely scrutinized than sex-offenders, so I'm afraid that your unstated assumption is completely irrational and unfounded.
But beyond that, it is not the same issue that is bothering gun owners. It is not the reason that the Liberals cannot rid themselves of this registry albatross. Confiscation is a concern, founded or not, of many gun owners; of this, I'm acutely aware. And while this is certainly a contributing factor to the disdain that gun owners currently have for the Liberal party, it isn't actually the best argument against the registry. That argument is twofold. First, it's well-known that not all guns in Canada are registered, and there is nothing that the government can do to register them all, since we know that guns that are used to do violence against people are almost always not registered.
Second, if I get pulled over for speeding, and I can't produce a vehicle registration for example, the police have a number of remedies. They can fine me. They can check their database against my license plate and driver's license, and assuming that everything is in order, they can issue a warning. They can give me seven days to produce my registration. The one thing they can't do is charge me with a crime under the criminal code, because quite frankly, driving without the physical registration is certainly an offense, but it is a trivial one.
On the other hand, if I'm out duck-hunting, and a Conservation Officer asks for my registration certificate, and I can't produce it, then I face criminal charges. Never mind the fact that they can check the gun's serial number, against my PAL; it's a criminal code violation, despite the fact that it's roughly on the same level of triviality as driving without the physical registration in the vehicle.
So, to recap, the registry will never get all the guns in Canada, and second, the penalties for honest mistakes are extremely disproportionate concerning the real level of threat they represent.
Therefore, the registry, or more accurately the Firearms act treats gun owners unfairly, and punishes them disproportionately. Sex-offenders face less registration and vetting than gun-owners. To us, this is an unacceptable situation, especially considering the level of threat we actually represent. Hunting, and sport-shooting being statically among the safest activities, and in the case of the former, one of the most environmentally friendly activities available, we can't help but fight with all our strength against a left-wing gone a little mad.
So, though I agree with your assessment, that gun registry exists to take guns away from people who shouldn't have them, it is hopelessly ineffective, since it is impossible to know whether any given gun owner has registered all his guns. Additionally, it's already cost 2 billion dollars, and provided minimal benefit at best. Licensing, which is much more beneficial, has always been cheaper than the gun registry, and that's why you'll find that many gun owners are actually in favor of licensing; it's not perfect, but it helps a lot. Unlike the registry, which only serves to unfairly target gun owners.
The biggest obstacle to implementing a gun registry was how to convince the huge number of existing gun owners to register their long guns. The Liberals thought the best way of accomplishing this was to threaten criminal sanctions. The effectiveness of such an approach is debatable.
What I do not think is debatable and what the Liberals have at last recognized is that they have treated those who actually registered their guns badly and that the registry was adminstered badly. With regard to the later, if the your aim is get people to register their guns and you are facing a major backlash, what sense does it make to charge people a fee to register their guns? It serves as a disincentive. Your duck hunting scenario is good example of the former. If what you are trying to do is to use the threat of criminal charges to compel people to register you should make it possible to distinguish between someone who registered their gun but does not have the paperwork on their person and someone who has not registered their gun at all.
All that being said, both these issues can be addressed without having to dump the registry.
"the registry will never get all the guns in Canada"
I agree -- especially in light of what have already happened. Two points though. One, the argument I laid out still holds. After all we are talking about guns that have been legally registered. Two, the problem is with guns that were purchased prior to the registry and not with new guns being purchased. So, as time passes the percentage of unregistered guns will decrease.
If that's what the Liberals (and I'm assuming you mean the Liberal Party) truly believed at the time, then it expresses something incredibly sinister and evil about the Liberals, and justifies a Conservative vote all the more. Attempts at social engineering through crass manipulation of the Criminal Code are the antithesis of liberty.
But fortunately, we can be reasonably certain that C-68, the Firearms Act was simply opportunistic vote getting. The Liberals saw that they needed votes in Quebec, and votes from Women, and their gift to both those groups was the C-68 hydra, including the registry.
As to your assertion that liberals (in general?) have seen the err in their ways... Well, let's start with the left-wing. The Green Party's recently released platform promises to ban handguns and semi-automatics. Clearly, the Green Party hasn't got it. I don't believe that the NDP has yet released a platform, however Jack Layton has recently been quoted as being in favor of banning handguns and semi-automatics as well. Do I really need to cover the Bloc Quebecois, who are in favor of more punishing gun laws.
Which brings me to the Liberals specifically.
I take it that the folks here wouldn't do something so... gauche as owning guns.
Ignatieff's proposal as I understand it is threefold. First, the Liberals will decriminalize first time failures to register. Second, the Liberals will eliminate fees for new licenses, renewals and upgrades. And third, the Liberals will simplify the forms.
First, it's already basically impossible to legally transfer a firearm without it being registered. Thus, this offer really only effects those who are not already in compliance with the law, and this is of course, despite repeated amnesties. It's estimated that some two million guns are still unregistered. So really, the Liberal offer only effects those who remain unregistered. Is it really realistic to expect that gun-owners will suddenly rush to register their firearms despite having endured this long, just because Ignatieff offers some platitude about bringing the country together? And he's going to fine them for the privilege? This part of the offer is absolutely meaningless and does nothing to address the problems of C-68. Next.
While attracting fees is attractive, there haven't been any registration fees since the registry was introduced. That fact effectively robs this promise of any weight as well. Next.
Simplify the process. Well, having gone through it, it's pretty hard to imagine how much easier it can actually get, so this is a meaningless promise as well.
Are the Liberals really listening, because the evidence that I've seen strongly suggests that they are in fact NOT really listening. For one thing, their promises were only offered when it became clear that the C-391 vote was going to be as close as it was. Rather, I think that these promises are little more than more opportunistic attempts to buy votes.
As to my duck hunting scenario, if I make a valid point, then why isn't a more comprehensive remedy being offered by the Liberals? Rather, that ground has been utterly yielded by the Liberals, and the Conservatives have stepped in to fill the void.
You see, what the Conservatives have consistently offered is a real compromise, the Liberals have offered as little as possible, and what little they have offered is meaningless.
You see, Chretien needed votes in Quebec, and someone deemed it an acceptable compromise to throw gun owners under the bus. Now that policy however has come back to haunt the Liberals, and there's really very little they can do about it.
Come again. You are okay with a party's "crass manipulation" of the criminal code for political gain, but god forbid they do the same because they actually believe such a policy is good for the country. That makes no sense. Moreover, motives are a best a secondary issue. What really matters is the effect of such "crass manipulation" and not the motivations that spawned it.
Now going back to what I said, I do not care to speculate just what it was that motivated the Liberals to introduce the Firearms Act. All I will say about motive, is the two motives that you laid out are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, whatever motivated them to pass it, they faced one serious obstacle to implementation, viz., how to convince the huge number of existing gun owners to register their long guns. Surely they recognized this and surely the criminal sanctions had something to do with addressing this issue.
"Is it really realistic to expect that gun-owners will suddenly rush to register their firearms despite having endured this long, just because Ignatieff offers some platitude about bringing the country together? And he's going to fine them for the privilege?"
I agree and fining them will certainly not help.
"Simplify the process. Well, having gone through it, it's pretty hard to imagine how much easier it can actually get, so this is a meaningless promise as well."
Yep.
"Are the Liberals really listening, because the evidence that I've seen strongly suggests that they are in fact NOT really listening. For one thing, their promises were only offered when it became clear that the C-391 vote was going to be as close as it was. Rather, I think that these promises are little more than more opportunistic attempts to buy votes."
If memory serves Igantieff had talked about decriminalization during the various leadership races. I am pretty sure this was not a new idea. Anyway, if it was about votes, it was more about buying the votes of the Liberal MPs who voted with the Conservatives the first time around. These MPs were not going to abandon their origin position without some political cover.
"As to my duck hunting scenario, if I make a valid point, then why isn't a more comprehensive remedy being offered by the Liberals?"
You have got me. Ask the Liberal candidate in your riding, or failing that email the party. I would be interested to see if you get a response and if you did what they said. They should address it.
"The Green Party's recently released platform promises to ban handguns and semi-automatics. Clearly, the Green Party hasn't got it. I don't believe that the NDP has yet released a platform, however Jack Layton has recently been quoted as being in favor of banning handguns and semi-automatics as well."
You are not going to like this, but provided the NDP and Green's are not advocating actually seizing people's guns, I am okay with stopping future handgun and semi automatic sells.
I guess it does seem counter-intuitive, so props to you. I disagree about the motivation however. If you understand a person's motivation, you can control that person. If you understand a government's motivation, you can control that government. The PEOPLE should be in control of the government, wouldn't you agree? If the motivation for an action is vote-buying, it is instantly understandable. Even if the policy is flat-out wrong, it can be changed because the root is doing what is popular, not doing what is correct. If the motivation is ideological however, it CAN'T be changed. That's incidentally why people on the left view the Conservatives with a great deal of suspicion. It's widely believed, and it could be true, that a number of Conservative back-benchers are Evangelical Christians who want to push a a pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-democratic agenda. It's all over the left-wing rhetoric, "Harper hates democracy!" No actually, Harper dislikes the way that we express our democracy; he dislikes the Senate masquerading as a democratic institution. If Harper truly hated democracy, he could have gone all Gbagbo on us, but he didn't. Seems pretty democratic for a guy who reportedly hates democracy. I do agree with the left that his behavior in the House leaves much to be desired, but that doesn't make a person anti-democratic. Motivation is everything to the left recently. So why shouldn't the right be concerned with the left's motivation? Kathleen Lahey, a self-identified feminist, was just in the National Post decrying Harper's income splitting plan because it would allow more women to stay home and raise their children. Funny, a feminist wants to take choices AWAY from women? Motivation is everything.
Now, in the aftermath of the Montreal Massacre, there was significant public appetite for gun control, and Kim Campbell's PC government actually introduced a bill that would have greatly strengthened gun control in Canada. But the Campbell bill DIDN'T include a registration on non-restricted firearms. The Campbell bill would have introduced many of the restrictions, for good or ill, that gun owners face now. In other words, that version of gun control would have been very similar to what we have now. However, being the opportunists they were, the Chretien Liberals promised an even more restrictive scheme including registration. The effect was to make Campbell look weak on gun control. We know the result; Chretien won the election with an overwhelming majority.
Like corporations making profit, I understand vote buying, even if I don't agree with the method. Social engineering however is a much greater threat to the right of self-determination. If the Liberals truly believe that what they were doing was good for the country, then they also believed that firearms have no place in our society, something which is demonstratively false in every way.
Guns are green. Guns actually promote public safety. Gun-owners are generally safer than non-owners. The old sod is that people who trade freedom and liberty for security, or in this case, the illusion of it, deserve neither. If we don't change course, if we don't recognize what guns can do for us, then we deserve neither freedom nor security. And indeed, we've given up a lot of both in the gun control crusade. The Liberals have made us less safe in the long term, less environmentally friendly, and punished some of the best and most civic minded of us. If the Liberals did truly believe that they were doing something good for the country, then they must never be allowed near the reigns of power again! If they'd take steps to correct their mistake, then they might be forgiven. Seeing as how they've steadily refused, they merit only our scorn and condemnation.
In sum, gun registration specifically has been an acute failure. Things that work in our gun-control scheme, namely licensing have been accepted by the firearms community. Things that don't work, like registration, authorizations to transport, magazine limitations, and orders in council are not accepted, not because we're ideologues, but because they aren't effective!
to Ignatieff's leadership campaign, my memory evidently has failed.
Why haven't they come up with something more complete? Well, I actually DID ask Ignatieff himself back when C-391 was approaching the final vote, and all that his staffers could tell me was that they'd heard our complaints, and basically repeated what the Liberals are promising now. To be honest, I didn't really feel like he answered my question at all.
Your right, I don't like it. But, hey, if you want to hate freedom, then sooner or later the pendulum will swing back to us, and I've got time. Hell, an Ignatieff coalition will prove to be Goddess-sent just as soon as his four years are up, and by then, we might even benefit from an even MORE pro-gun leader. And, when we finally do slay the albatross, building it the first time was so expensive and controversial, that no party in their right minds will ever try to do it again.
Guns are green. Guns actually promote public safety. Gun-owners are generally safer than non-owners. The old sod is that people who trade freedom and liberty for security, or in this case, the illusion of it, deserve neither. If we don't change course, if we don't recognize what guns can do for us, then we deserve neither freedom nor security. And indeed, we've given up a lot of both in the gun control crusade. The Liberals have made us less safe in the long term, less environmentally friendly, and punished some of the best and most civic minded of us. If the Liberals did truly believe that they were doing something good for the country, then they must never be allowed near the reigns of power again! If they'd take steps to correct their mistake, then they might be forgiven. Seeing as how they've steadily refused, they merit only our scorn and condemnation.
In sum, gun registration specifically has been an acute failure. Things that work in our gun-control scheme, namely licensing have been accepted by the firearms community. Things that don't work, like registration, authorizations to transport, magazine limitations, and orders in council are not accepted, not because we're ideologues, but because they aren't effective!
to Ignatieff's leadership campaign, my memory evidently has failed.
Why haven't they come up with something more complete? Well, I actually DID ask Ignatieff himself back when C-391 was approaching the final vote, and all that his staffers could tell me was that they'd heard our complaints, and basically repeated what the Liberals are promising now. To be honest, I didn't really feel like he answered my question at all.
Your right, I don't like it. But, hey, if you want to hate freedom, then sooner or later the pendulum will swing back to us, and I've got time. Fortunately, when we finally do slay the albatross, building it the first time was so expensive that no party in their right minds will ever try to do it again.
"I disagree about the motivation however."
Of course, what motivates a person matters. It enables to us to predict how they might act in the future. The fact that Harper was president of an organization dedicated to the destruction of public health, for example, is very good reason not to trust him with the Canada Health Act. However, you are running two issues together. I was talking about policy and when it comes to evaluating a particular law or policy (e.g., the Firearms Act), what matters is not what motivated the policy, but the effects of such a policy. Too often public policy debate in this country is paralyzed by a search for motive.
Now as to the unprincipled pander vs rigid ideologue, Stephen Harper is fine example of the later. Not only does he personally exemplify such characteristics, but like his American right wing brethren he celebrates them. "This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion.” He also has no qualms about denigrating Canadian public opinion. "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task. " "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous". Based on what you said you should be far more comfortable with the Liberals than Conservatives. Pundits have been saying for years that the Liberals stand for nothing save wanting to return to power.
"If Harper truly hated democracy, he could have gone all Gbagbo on us, but he didn't. Seems pretty democratic for a guy who reportedly hates democracy."
No he could not have gone all Gbagbo on us and even if he could, setting up Gbagbo as a comparison in the hopes of elevating Stephen Harper is patently absurd. Stephen Harper may have likened Chretien to a "second world strongman", but such hyperbole hardly prepares the ground for such comparisons.
As to whether Harper has strengthened Canadian democracy or weakened it, amongst scholars the latter view prevails. Peter Russell, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto believes that a Conservative majority. "would send a bad message about Parliamentary democracy if a government brought down for contempt, very serious contempt, on the finding of a Speaker, is rewarded with a majority. I think it would encourage Mr. Harper and maybe those after him to be contemptuous of Parliament. And then I think we’re in real trouble.” Others are worried about his treatment of the bureaucracy. The Conservatives, for instance, flat out lied about CIDA being onside with the CARIOS decision and came an inch of doing the same during the Census dust up with Stats Can. The head of Stats Canada resigned resigned in protest after Clement suggested his agency had signed off on the decision.
"If the Liberals truly believe that what they were doing was good for the country, then they also believed that firearms have no place in our society, something which is demonstratively false in every way."
What! That makes no sense whatsoever. You might has well have said this. The Liberals believe that dogs and cats should be registered. Ergo the Liberals believe that dogs and cats have no place in our society -- something which is demonstratively false in every way.
"Gun-owners are generally safer than non-owners."
No, gun owners are most certainly not safer than non-owners. Legally licensed gun owners are safer than non gun owners and the registry is designed to keep it that way. It makes it easier for authorities to temporarily seize weapons.
As I was saying.
"Canada's auditor general has rebuked the Conservatives for recycling an unrelated quote by her about a previous Liberal government's security spending in a parliamentary report on the costs of the G8/G20 summits in Ontario last summer, CBC News has learned.
The Conservatives' report, presented as a dissenting opinion to the Commons the morning Parliament was dissolved last month, quotes Sheila Fraser giving high marks to the Harper government for prudent spending on the summits...
Instead, she said, the Conservatives inserted an 2010 comment she made during a CBC News interview on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the Sept. 11 attacks a decade ago.
“The comments attributed to me in the [Conservative] report are completely unrelated to G8/G20 spending,” Fraser writes in her letter.
“I would appreciate it if the report could be modified as it is clearly erroneous.”
I'm aware that Harper lead the National Citizen's Coalition, and while I'm not inclined to agree that we ought to dismantle socialized medicine, I am inclined to agree that the system needs to change. To that degree, Stephen Harper is the only politician who seems to be willing to agree that things need to change, and change soon.
So, the cumulative effect of the Firearms Act on Public Safety? Okay, I'll take that bet!
If this woman had been allowed a pistol in her defense, she might still be alive:
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/966105--jurors-hear-911-tape-of-brutal-rape-in-murder-case
By denying her that right, and continuing to lobby for stricter gun-laws, the unstated opinion of the left in general is that rather than be able to defend herself, she can simply accept her fate.
Further, by creating a gun-negative culture, the Liberals have encouraged law enforcement to dangerously over-react when dealing with gun issues, effectively endangering the safety all Canadians, citizen and police officer alike! There are ways to test this for yourself, but I don't want the liability. I'm sure you can figure it out if you're so inclined. Therefore, gun control, as it exists now, has made us less safe.
Stephen Harper the ideologue. Well, is it always ideology, or does logic creep in there sometimes? Tell you what, I'll give you the long form census. As for the rest though, it sounds an awful lot like patriotism to me. Sounds like he wants to make us strong, on our own merits. And pundits have been saying that Liberals just want to return to power? Well, thanks to today's developments, I'd say that they've actually been right all along!
Gbagbo. Yeah, okay that was a bit hyperbolic on my part. Let's put this another way: for a guy who hates democracy, Harper LOVES elections now doesn't he?
Scholars. A single scholar from a Liberal-leaning university, in an extremely Liberal department says that Harper is bad for democracy? Why am I not surprised... As for KAIROS, what is bugging you is the HOW, not the WHAT. Minister have the right to override the recommendations of their bureaucracies, in fact, it's part of their job. What they did wrong was try to avoid responsibility for a ministerial decision. This is strange, yes, and probably highly partisan. But the action in and of its self, is not undemocratic. The reaction might be undemocratic, but it's relatively minor. It's not like Harper canceled the elections or something.
Imprisoning people for trivial crimes has not made us safer. We're more dangerous, thanks to the Liberal's gun-negative culture. Are you denying that the Firearms Act created a gun-negative culture?
Actually, licensed gun owners are less likely to commit murder than the national average, and that has nothing to do with registration. Stringent licensing is what prevents unfit people from becoming gun owners, and that has nothing to do with registration.
LOL. Actually, I was referring to the Liberals who attempted to manufacture a scandal by claiming that the auditor general was going to table a report that suggested that the Conservatives had mislead parliament and possibly broken the law. Turns out, that while their behavior is questionable, the description appears to be an exaggeration.
Now, thanks to an anonymous supporter, the Liberal's hail-Mary has only made them look desperate, and what was it that desperate Liberals do again? Something to do with the Bloc and the NDP...? And what's worse, the left has had to settle on a lesser "scandal" while the more serious accusation is conveniently forgotten, lest we suddenly remember what Liberals like to do when they get desperate...
"Turns out, that while their behavior is questionable, the description appears to be an exaggeration."
No the description was not an exaggeration. She said that. However, there were two drafts and in the second one her wording was different.
All that being said, the point at hand is Conservative's tendency to attribute to people opinions they never held.
Kairos is one recent example, the Stats can case another and now we have Shelia Fraser.
“The comments attributed to me in the [Conservative] report are completely unrelated to G8/G20 spending,” Fraser writes in her letter.
Of course the Conservatives have been doing this sort of stuff for years. My favorite is what they did to the Conference board of Canada in 2006.
The Conservatives made a big to do about the Conference board of Canada saying their platform is fully costed in 2006. However, the Conference board of Canada economist who did the analysis said that the platform he examined was not the same platform the Conservatives released. In other words, the Conservatives were trying to pass off the new platform as the one given the ok by Conference board of Canada. Global and Mail: “Economist washes hands of new Tory agenda”
“Paul Darby, deputy chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, originally concluded that Stephen Harper's Conservative platform “is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011.”
The Conservative party promoted that conclusion last week as evidence its election platform had been “independently verified” by the Conference Board, an Ottawa-based think-tank.
But Mr. Darby says the version of the platform he was given to vet didn't include a Conservative health-care guarantee which states patients will be transported to another jurisdiction if they can't get timely care at home.
It also omitted a Tory platform promise to redress the so-called “fiscal imbalance” between Ottawa and the provinces.
Mr. Darby wouldn't comment on whether the timely health-care guarantee would bear a significant cost.
“Talk to Harper,” he said. “It is not in the platform I received from them.”
Now, isn't it funny that you should mention promises that aren't accurately represented, misleading parliament about the true costs of those promises, and the auditor general in the same comment...
What were we talking about again... Something about a boondoggle... Oh well, I'm sure it wasn't that important anyway...
ha ha
"If, as the Conservatives say, there is a later draft, or a final report, which removes the “inflammatory” language contained in Fraser’s draft, they were unable to get it formally released.
John Baird, the Conservative house leader in the last Parliament, called on Fraser to release her final verdict (as did all party leaders).
Fraser refused.
Rules, you know.
With Parliament dissolved, there is nowhere for Fraser to table her report.
Just a week ago, the Conservatives were leaning on the same rules which had them hamstrung Monday evening.
When Ignatieff called for the release of the Fraser report on the G8 legacy fund on its scheduled April 5 release date, the Conservatives moved into high dudgeon, calling the request “ridiculous.’’
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/973219--tim-harper-tories-bit-by-their-own-playbook-in-bid-to-downplay-summit?bn=1
If the Liberals had waited until April 6th to bring down the government, they might have a lot of traction thanks to this report. But they didn't do that. Instead, they brought down the government on March 25th.
If they had waited ten days, they might have had the election in the bag. But now, the AG's report will be delayed until May 3rd at least, and even when she's dropping hints that the report isn't as bad as the Liberals say it is... Well, it sure makes them sound desperate to me!
While it's certainly possible that the final report will be damaging, it sure looks like it won't be nearly as damaging as the Liberals were hoping.
Oh, and as to the rules, well, if the AG can't table a report during an election, who was it that brought down the government and sent us into a snap-election again?
"As for the rest though, it sounds an awful lot like patriotism to me."
Never mind, the fact that the quotations come from a editorial entitled Separation Alberta Style, in what sense of the word can the following comment be considered patriotic?
Stephen Harper: "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous".
"As for KAIROS, what is bugging you is the HOW, not the WHAT."
Of course the Minister has the right to override the recommendations of their bureaucracies, but that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It is a Tory red herring. Bev Oda lied about what those recommendations were. That is the issue and yes it is important one.
"We're more dangerous, thanks to the Liberal's gun-negative culture."
The homicide rate has gone down since the bill's passage and the percentage of homicide victims with criminal records has increased, but you are going hang your hat on a hypothetical and say the Fire Arms Act has made Canada less safe. That is not going to work for you.
"Actually, licensed gun owners are less likely to commit murder than the national average,"
You are comparing apples to mixed fruit. Take away anyone with a criminal record and when you do that you see that licensed gun owners are more likely to commit murder -- and suicide for that matter -- than non gun owners.
"Stringent licensing is what prevents unfit people from becoming gun owners, and that has nothing to do with registration."
Going back to my original point. "The number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (1.85 million) and with any large population certain very accurate predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a small percentage of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that a small percentage will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership at least for period of time. Now, even though this number is small in percentage terms, in absolute terms the numbers are quite large, in the 10s of thousands. Enter the gun registry. It makes it easier for authorities to seize the guns of people who should no longer have them. Why? Because the onus is on the gun owner in question to produce any registered weapons. If the police do not have proof that someone owns any unrestricted guns, how can they demand that he produce them?"
"in what sense of the word can the following comment be considered patriotic?"
If the speaker became Prime Minister, and then set about trying to correct these perceived flaws, in the sincere belief that they would make the country stronger, prouder, and more confident, I would say that is the epitome of patriotism. It's been right there in front of the country all along in the Conservative slogans "Standing up for Canada." It's only now that some of us are starting to see it.
"Bev Oda lied about what those recommendations were."
That's bad yes, but certainly not the first time a partisan lied in the House of Commons and gone unpunished. Given the hegemony that the Liberals have enjoyed, and the great treasonous actions that they've taken against the country, I'd say that the country is going to be willing to overlook this incident. That doesn't excuse her actions, and I hope that a re-elected Conservative Prime Minister does the right thing, and assuming she's re-elected as well, relegates her to being a backbencher. But even if he doesn't I question the overall significance. Yes, it's a serious issue, but I don't believe that lying to the house is a crime. If lying to the house was a crime, why are Jean Chrétien and Allan Rock free men? And finally, if her constituents are sufficiently outraged, they can decide not to send her back to Ottawa.
"the Fire Arms Act has made Canada less safe. That is not going to work for you."
When police begin defaulting to kinetic entry, which we're beginning to see in Canada, especially when dealing with gun issues, we're less-safe. If you call the Firearms hotline and report a safety concern, "I saw this guy with a gun!" especially if you report around say, Jane & Finch, the police are likely to respond with overwhelming force, even when it is not warranted. These kinds of dynamic entries are increasing at an alarming rate in Canada, and several entirely innocent people have been unfairly assaulted in their own homes without any means of seeking compensation or self defense.
Actually, the homicide rate has been relatively steady throughout the 90's and 2000's. It has NOT declined very significantly; it actually showed a minor spike in the early 2000's. Gang-related homicide on the other hand, has actually increased dramatically since 1991. Firearms-related homicide HAS been on the decline, but this is part of a long-term trend that predates the firearms act by and therefore, cannot be conclusively linked to the firearms act. Furthermore, the rate of homicide with long-guns has been declining since 1979, with one exception in 1989 (I'll let you guess the cause of that.)
ownership.
The firearms act on the other hand has removed the only adequate means of self-defense from the hands of the citizenry. Therefore, we are less safe now, than we were before because we lack the means to resist and deter violence that may be directed against us. An armed and prepared citizenry is the only statistically effective means of significantly deterring violence - stopping violence before it starts, rather than forcing the innocent to try to pick up the pieces. Most criminals want to live long enough to enjoy the spoils of their activities, and so when there is a high chance that a criminal will be killed or injured at the hands of a citizen defending his or her life or property, that a violent criminal is comparatively more likely to find a safer, more honest way of making money. It does 'work for me,' the only question is whether or not you sufficiently understand the argument, consider the facts presented, possess the strength of character, and intellectual humility to be persuaded that my position in this is clearly superior.
"licensed gun owners are more likely to commit murder -- and suicide for that matter -- than non gun owners."
That's actually not true. If it is, I want to see some facts. Mine on the other hand are interesting.
The United Nation's own statistics indicate that there's a small negative correlation between the rate of gun-ownership, and the murder rate. More guns means LESS murder, though the correlation is very small. There is NO correlation between the rate of gun-ownership and suicide.
"If the police do not have proof that someone owns any unrestricted guns, how can they demand that he produce them?"
To whit, I said that your assumption is "That gun ownership is a questionable activity, and that gun owners cannot be trusted." You ASSUME that gun owners will not be forthcoming when presented with a court-order to surrender their guns. I think this assumption is simply erroneous. Furthermore, your assumption could potentially be argued to constitute an assumption of guilt, reverse onus, which is in its self a violation of the Charter of Rights. Furthermore, if there has been an error made in recording the description or serial number of a firearm, compelling an owner to produce a firearm would be a violation of the charter right to free of self-incrimination.
Therefore, it is the duty of the State, not the owner, to take appropriate remedies which correspond to the specific situation wherein a firearm owner is found to be unfit for continued ownership.
I think that Liberals need to understand something about Stephen Harper.
Liberals have made many accusations about Stephen Harper, but I've yet to see anyone on the left fully grasp what is REALLY going on, what is behind the mask, so to speak.
I'll make this as simple as I can: Stephen Harper wants to reform Canada and create the conditions in Canada that allow for greatness. Or at least, greatness as he understands it.
You may disagree on the qualities and conditions that make Canada a great country certainly. You may disagree that Stephen Harper's approach will make Canada great, and that's certainly a debate that I'd be interested in. It may well be that Harper's approach will NOT make Canada great. What I think you can't dispute, is that Harper's goal is to make Canada great as he understands the quality of greatness. Stephen Harper is a fierce nationalist.
I tell you this, because I am starting to think that the left wing is being left behind if only because they can't seem to figure out what makes Stephen Harper tick. And unlike some of my more rabid right-wing ideologues, I believe that our democracy requires a balance. A pure right-wing government is only too willing to overlook the needs of those who cannot provide for themselves.
I've asked myself, "Why isn't Ignatieff more effective?" While it's certainly true that Ignatieff has suffered a truly relentless attack from the right-wing, that's an excuse more than a reason. I can only conclude that his current popularity is merely the residual popularity of the Liberal brand. He has not taken the time and intellectual effort to understand the socio political motivations of Stephen Harper, while Harper knows that Ignatieff doesn't really have firm socio political aspirations of his own. His "vision" for the country is rather vague, while Harper's vision is very clearly defined, and therefore, Harper will always be able to outmaneuver Ignatieff. Ignatieff must be clear about what changes he wants to effect, and then simply communicate that to Canada. If he doesn't know what those changes are, he cannot succeed against an opponent who knows precisely where he is going, and how he wants to get there. I've read the Liberal platform, and I'm afraid that it is the status quo platform among the parties.
So I'm asking you to take a second and understand this: Stephen Harper's goal is to make Canada into a great nation, in the way that he understand what constitutes a great nation.
If you take the time to understand that, you'll find your arguments more effective, less negative, and more truthful.
If you can't do that, then expect the acceleration of the decline of the Liberal brand.
"gun control, as it exists now, has made us less safe."
The evidence for such a claim is non existent. The homicide rate climbed in the early 90s, started to decline in 1993 went up again in 1996 and in 1997 dipped below 2 for the first time since 1969. With the exception of 2005, it has not been above 2 since. During this time, the number of attempted homicides fell even faster than the homicide rate. Needless to say, none of this is consistent with your claim that the Firearms Act has made Canada less safe for the law abiding folk.
However, what spells even more trouble for your thesis is the fact that homicide has increasingly being confined to the criminal underclass. Not only do most murders have criminal records, but most victims do too.
"If this woman had been allowed a pistol in her defense, she might still be alive: ....
By denying her that right, and continuing to lobby for stricter gun-laws, the unstated opinion of the left in general is that rather than be able to defend herself, she can simply accept her fate."
With the exception of times of war, a female is infinitely more likely to be sexually assaulted by a loved one or by an acquaintance than by a stranger. What holds for sexual assault goes for assault generally. Women are far better served by having guns removed from abusive gun owning partners than they are by being able to pack heat.
"An armed and prepared citizenry is the only statistically effective means of significantly deterring violence - stopping violence before it starts, rather than forcing the innocent to try to pick up the pieces."
The notion that the biggest threat poised to your average law abiding citizen is some bogeyman lurking in the dark is ridiculous. The vast majority of murder victims, for example, know their assailant (85%). Family and non criminal acquaintances are the most likely perpetrators. Alcohol and drugs frequently play a role.
"I'll make this as simple as I can: Stephen Harper wants to reform Canada"
Yes, there is no question that he has a "hidden agenda". That said, his agenda is not hidden at all; it is just that most the media, with the exception of Thomas Walkom and few others, are just to lazy to look for it.
"I said that your assumption is "That gun ownership is a questionable activity, and that gun owners cannot be trusted." You ASSUME that gun owners will not be forthcoming when presented with a court-order to surrender their guns."
Of course gun owners can be trusted. Otherwise they would not be given the right to own a gun in the first place. However, when the police have reason to believe that a domestic assault has occurred and are deciding whether to lay charges, it is prudent that they remove guns from the residence until the issue is resolved. As to how cooperative such gun owners are, I can assure you the guns cops do not get many calls where the husband admits to slapping his wife and around and offers to surrenders his guns as a consequence.
"The evidence for such a claim is non existent."
Seeing as how you've presented no evidence for any of your previous claims, I don't see why the burden of proof has suddenly shifted to me.
"started to decline in 1993..."
The Firearms act, along with the orders in council et al. began coming into force in approximately 1998. Thus, what you take as an indicator actually predates the introduction of the Firearms act by at least three years, and the beginning of enforcement by at least five years. The two therefore cannot be related. Correlation does not imply causation.
On the other hand, there's considerable evidence to show that the police routinely step all over citizen's rights, and safety in the crusade against guns.
"infinitely more likely to be sexually assaulted by a loved one or by an acquaintance than by a stranger."
So, you justify the disarmament of women on the grounds that the numbers of random home invasions, sexual assaults, and other random violence are not statistically significant enough for you? Lovely. I'm sure women are so glad to know that you're so ready and willing to make the tough choices on their behalf...
"The notion that the biggest threat poised to your average law abiding citizen is some bogeyman lurking in the dark is ridiculous."
So, again, you think that because the chance is low, that we should take absolutely zero precautions.
"Yes, there is no question that he has a "hidden agenda"."
Wow, I make a point of giving you the benefit of the doubt, a truly debatable topic, and you want to go the hidden agenda route?
Okay fine. What's this hidden agenda exactly? I can't wait to hear this...
"Of course gun owners can be trusted."
Oh! So this has really been about domestic assault all along then? And here I thought we were talking about suicide! Well, since female intimate partners are the initiators of assault in the majority of cases, it's good to know that your gender bias is now showing so clearly.
Let us not loose site of who is claiming what. You claimed that "gun control, as it exists now, has made us less safe.". I pointed out that the evidence for such a claim is nonexistent and it is. It is that simple. There is no causation without correlation and the overall homicide rate has remained stable and the number of attempted homicides has declined slightly. However, scratch below the surface and your case gets even weaker. Homicide has become increasing concentrated among the criminal under class. Gang related homicides, for example, have goon through the roof over the course of the last 20 years. Indeed, in 1993 there were 627 homicides and 13 of those were gang related. In 2008 there were 611 homicides and 138 were gang related. The flip side of such a raise, of course, is the continued decline in the number of law abiding folk, "us", being murdered.
As for Harper's agenda, it is rather rich or you to say that he has one and then to climb all over me for agreeing with you. Harper has said plenty over the years. Rediscovering the Right Agenda is great place to start. There he lays out his incremental social conservative agenda and includes an infantile overview of what the "modern left" supposedly stands for.
"Conservatives need to reassess our understanding of the modern Left. It has moved beyond old socialistic morality or even moral relativism to something much darker. It has become a moral nihilism - the rejection of any tradition or convention of morality, a post-Marxism with deep resentments, even hatreds of the norms of free and democratic western civilization.
This descent into nihilism should not be surprising because moral relativism simply cannot be sustained as a guiding philosophy. It leads to silliness such as moral neutrality on the use of marijuana or harder drugs mixed with its random moral crusades on tobacco."
WITH THE GUN REGISTRY you will make damn sure if you decide to sell that long gun THAT the person who buys it is licensed to own firearms and you will make sure the registration is transferred into the buyers name.
WITHOUT THE LONG GUN REGISTRY you can sell that gun to anyone you feel like BECAUSE without the gun being registered in your name it can no longer be traced back to you should it end up at a crime scene.
Hence getting rid of the gun registry opens up a whole new gun market for the criminals out there.
NOBODY talks about this part of the gun registry. I wonder why?
Post a Comment