Hard facts and cold truth should decide fate of ineffective gun registry, not emotional rhetoric

I know many of you have been waiting for a really great post, on any of the hot political issues right now. However, I have been watching and hearing the seemingly endless emotionally driven rhetoric that champions of the gun registry are using to push for its continuation. Quite frankly, I can no longer stomach the lack of facts and truth these champions use to argue. It’s an emotional, heated issue for certain, but if one breaks down those emotional arguments and looks for the truth behind them, it is un-arguable  that there is not one bit of proof that this registry does anything but give uninformed people a false and dangerous sense of security. To say I am extremely disappointed to see Jack Layton and the NDP take the direction they have, is to understate my sentiment. I am nowhere near being a Harper-Con, but scrapping the registry that was a failure from day 1 is the only thing that man has done that speaks of sense.

This is a re-post of a blog I wrote earlier this year, in response to the ongoing debate on the gun registry, that originated on Bill Tieleman’s blog. An ardent supporter of the registry, Bill has been very vocal in favour of it, and  certainly we will have to agree to disagree.  Many are shocked that a woman who has directly experienced domestic abuse would fight against this registry, but read on for my views on why all this money could have been spent on programs and initiatives that would truly save lives.  Be sure to read the comments that follow the original post for another serving of reality.

Sometimes I just can’t keep my mouth shut.

Posted on November 13, 2009 by Laila | Edit

and this would be one of those moments.

 There has been a lot of discussion going on at Bill Tieleman’s blog in response to his post in support of the gun registry in Canada. I’m not going to get into all the details, but suffice it to say that the comments are heated and there are very few people without a firm opinion on the  matter. That’s all fine and it’s great to see the debate evolve from opinion to hard facts. But this one point is why I must open my mouth.

Using gun related spousal murders as a reason for continuing this gun registry is not only ridiculous, but possibly dangerous to women on the receiving end of domestic violence. (I really like you Bill, but I’ve got to say this). I back up my points, rather than relying on vague allusions and unsubstantiated generalities to make a case, unlike some of the largely anonymous commenters under his post.

 After looking around the net at discussions currently ongoing, it appears that there are a large number of gun registry supporters across Canada who  would have you believe that the gun registry can prevent or at least reduce the number of spousal murders in this country, especially in rural areas where rifles are more prevalent.  Bullshit on all counts.

 One commenter (the first – Maureen) had this to say:

  It was a bad week for women’s rights last week – first the gun registry attack by the NDP and Liberal enablers, a registry that has reduced gun-related spousal homicides.

 Sorry to say Maureen, but I can’t find any hard facts to back that up. If you happen to read this, point me to your information source.

 Bill says this in his post:

 Despite claims that the registry unfairly discriminates against rural gun owners, the reality is that access to firearms is a key factor in domestic homicides.

 Now, this is  partially correct, because traditionally in rural areas ,rifles are a common household item. More on this in a bit.

 However, Bill goes on to say this in the comments section:

 Take a look at the firearms deaths stats my friend. Take a look at domestic violence in rural communities.

 So, I did look at firearms death stats- with relation to domestic violence, and conveniently enough, another commenter to his post brought up a recent, 2008 report that indicates firearms are no more significant in cases of spousal murder than stabbings ( but no one seems to be stepping up to register or prohibit knives…) info quoted is from page 39

 Between 1997 and 2006, the most common method
used to kill male spouses was stabbing (69%). In contrast,
female victims of spousal homicide were equally likely to be
stabbed or shot (30% each). A larger proportion of female
spousal victims were killed as a result of physical force
such as beating, strangulation, suffocation or drowning

Over the past decade, the rate of firearm-related spousal
homicides decreased by nearly 50%

 In 1996 there were
27 firearm-related spousal homicides compared to 16 in
2006 (Chart 4.3).

Sadly enough, there isn’t a lot of recent or current Canadian research on spousal murder in Canada , but there has been research done in the past that says this:


While the prevalence of violence using guns against women in rural and urban communities is not statistically significant, the current literature does highlight the greater accessibility and use of guns in rural areas to intimidate, terrorize and murder women who are in violent relationships (Websdale, 1998). In many rural areas, guns are part of the household, often used for hunting and protection. Nolan (1992) suggests that:

Domestic killings occur disproportionately in rural areas and it is believed that this may reflect the high levels of gun ownership in the country. Many victims of domestic violence also report being threatened with firearms. (1992:23)

 This finding has also been reiterated by Dansy Consultants Inc. who found that violence was a factor in 80 percent of the cases involving firearm homicides (1992:15). While gun ownership and accessibility may not be the sole reason for wife-killing in rural areas, the fact that they are present and accessible may accentuate their use in situations of violence. Second, it may be more viable to discharge a firearm in a rural area without being detected or attracting police attention.

 There you have it. Guns are used to kill women and men in that sometimes screwed up institution of marriage – but so are knives, fists, hammers, boots, boards, ropes, pillows and anything else the murderer can get his or her hands onto. In fact, I know, when responding to a domestic violence call,  the RCMP will  operate under the assumption that there ARE weapons in the house,unless told otherwise. Yes, you may argue that the gun registry will tell them prior to arrival if there is a registered weapon in the home,but how the hell that prevents the murderer from firing it, I don’t know. 

 Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. ( credit to Alex T. )  No gun registry is going to stop a man from pulling the trigger when he chooses to kill his wife or girlfriend.

 Please. Don’t use the excuse or pseudo-concern of women getting beaten and  then possibly murdered with rifles as an excuse to continue this  gun registry. It sickens me to hear that. It’s like saying having a license to drive will prevent deaths on the road from alcohol, or speed. They don’t, they just show you passed a test and keep track of your personal information. Again, bullshit.

  If someone really wanted to prevent needless deaths of women, they would be lobbying for much-needed changes to the Criminal Code that still treats the abusers with kid gloves( especially on a first offence) , demanding a reinstatement of mandatory charges for the abuser in BC, and educating Crown on how to handle domestic violence cases – not fighting to save a gun registry!

 The amount of money spent on this registry so far, would have done far more to prevent spousal murders, through public education programs, shelters and resources for women suffering the kind of severe abuse that often leads to murder. Especially in those rural areas where  women are often isolated and stay silent because there are no resources to go to.

 Yes, Bill Tieleman was right to call all these politicians gutless – but in my opinion, for the wrong reason. At least, that’s the way I see it

54 Comments on “Hard facts and cold truth should decide fate of ineffective gun registry, not emotional rhetoric

  1. I agree fully with you on this Laila. And for all your reasons in you research plus something I have noticed.

    Remember the guy on the Island that shot someones dog. He was over the age of consent and had his own rifle. But the police didn’t stop there. This guys father had his own registered guns and the cops arbitrarily marched into the fathers home and confiscated his firearms. My point here is that if you register then the police can do what they want using scare tactics.

  2. Laila, your comment “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” is what I’ve been saying since this gun registry crap started. It seems some women look at this registry as a means of saving their life while they remain in a bad relationship, and react badly (almost hysterically) at the thought of removing it. It makes me wonder how many women this registry has given a false sense of security to? A registered gun kills just as effectively as a non-registered one…and the penalty for murder in Canada has become a joke. Let’s create stronger penalties and enforce them without fail in every case of spousal murder. Period.

    There is another “pick” I have to voice too – at the risk of having my head taken off. Yes, we do need women’s shelters and we need to provide the help they need to make the decisions that will enable them to live safer, healthier lives. But – at some point women also have to take a stand in their own defense, and take some responsibility for staying in a bad relationship. Inflicting pain is not love. Jealousy, threats, and intimidation, are not love – they’re a sign of disrespect and assumed ownership – and the carrier needs psychological help whether male or female. Get out, stay out – do not go back, do not look back! They need to understand completely, that if their man/woman assaults them ONE time, he/she WILL do it again. It’s only a matter of time – and place. End of rant.

    I’ve no doubt the RCMP really like the idea of the registry – it tells them who has a gun and who doesn’t – BUT – only if the gun owner is honest. How many people own them – with no intention of registering them?

    This thing has been a ginormous waste of money, an invasion of privacy…and an exercise in stupidity from day one. At some point in the future, the government will try to remove firearms from all Canadians – leaving only RCMP, military and criminals with them. That doesn’t make me feel safer.

    Great article Laila.

  3. I totally agree Laila and have also been saying all along that the gun registry only works for gun owners who are honest. How many criminals are going to register their guns? And it’s supposedly the criminals the registry is meant to apply to. The money wasted on this registry could have been spent in a much better way.

  4. Good luck with your son Laila – I can only imagine how difficult it must be dealing with such a situation – especially in Campbell’s version of Paradise.

    Meanwhile on the topic at hand I was happy to see you too are sane about this issue. I frankly find Harper’s promise to can the useless registry about the only policy of his I can tolerate (and even agree with).

    You captured it well with:

    It’s an emotional, heated issue for certain, but if one breaks down those emotional arguments and looks for the truth behind them, it is un-arguable that there is not one bit of proof that this registry does anything but give uninformed people a false and dangerous sense of security.

    The city mice get all scared by the Bacon Bros. type OK Corral incidents – yet the gun registry has absolutely NO effect on this – the real criminals would no more use a registered gun that could be traced to anyone than join a monastery.

    As far as helping the police know if guns are in a home when they respond to a call – it is useless – all they know about is the most law-abiding gun owners who have registered their firearms, who also, being the law abiding sort, would be the least likely to greet the police with return fire. That is why your mention of a “false sense of security” is so apt.

    One aspect (other than the cost for a useless bureaucracy and to the gun owners themselves) that irritates me is the aspect that once you register a firearm, you are essentially signing a search warrant to your home that can be used by the police at anytime in the future at their convenience – a gross violation of one’s right to privacy in my estimation.

    I guess you and I feel similar on this because we both grew up in the country. I was riding the range with a 30-30 in a saddle scabbard when I was 12 or so, having been well taught about safe firearm use years before, and practicing with my .22 Remington and 28 gauge shotgun long before moving up to heavier caliber hardware.

    Regarding the red herring of the effect of the gun registry on spousal violence – I wonder how often the presence of a firearm has allowed a smaller woman to defend herself against her larger male abuser.

    Home invasion seems to be a much less popular crime in the USA (where they go overboard with the right to bear arms up to your own personal rocket launchers damn near), simply because unless the invader knows the household, they may be walking into an armed camp ready to rock. The police should assume upon answering a call that guns might be present, registered or not, until they have determined otherwise by on the scene examination, not by consulting some faulty database in the comfort of their squad car.

    It is disgusting how the NDP seems poised to lose on this issue no matter how the vote turns out. On the one hand Jack Layton should be praised for originally allowing his MPs to do what we elect them for – represent their constituents. On the other hand, I am disgusted that now he is trying to twist their arms into compliance with his misguided Toronto/Big City centric views.

    Good to see you blogging at least some, again!

  5. I’m with you on this issue Laila, as a small woman who reserves the right to sustanence hunt, as archaic as that may seem. I grew up with long guns, our table was graced with the organic bounty indiginous to our province.

    The registry does nothing to prevent violent crime and the police, of course, assume everyone is armed, as you say. There is another faultline in our social fabric as a nation, city people tend to be at least one generation removed from the farm, they simply don’t understand how their food comes to the table.

    It’s unfortunate the NRA has surfaced in this debate, they do more harm than good. I think that’s why Jack has put the pressure on his MPs.

    I hope you find the care you need for your son, no small feat these days. He has the best advocate possible on his side though in you, my friend.

  6. Ok, time for some fun facts. The Chiefs of Police and RCMP say it’s useful. If it wasn’t, why is Steve doing his best to keep them hidden?

    Next, the annual operating costs are actually nominal.


    Yes, women are 12 times more likely to be killed by her partner if there is a gun in the house, and that gun is usually a long gun.

    More fun facts: myths and truth from Canadian Police Association:

    Below: more stats and facts about how well the registry does work, including a story of people I knew who were saved because of the registry; had it not been for the registry, lord knows how many people in that house or neighbourhood would have been killed or at least, injured that day.

    Scrapping this registry is a move toward weakening gun control laws. Especially with school shootings on the rise, we need even tougher gun control laws,not weaker.

    As for Jack and rural MPs, good on them! Do they want to wear the indellible stain of the NRA; those who push for the right of pâcking a gun to the mall or to the park or to work, like they do in Texas or Arizona. Yeesh!

    Not to mention, not a finer moment being aligned with Brute Breitkreuz who wanted to beat Iggy black & blue (hate him if you must, but threatening violence on another is still wrong) & James Bezan with his redneck video and faux Arkansas accent and silly horse as well as the author, Candice Mullet-head Hoeppner.

    • Good points.

      But I would hold little stock in what either the Chiefs of Police say, or the RCMP say, for several reasons.

      May I remind you the Chiefs of Police and the RCMP also thought TASERS were useful, as well as safe, inspite of the plethora of evidence to the contrary. May I also point out the overwhelming contradictions and secrecy that exist within a force so riddled with problems many Canadians are calling for other law enforcement? May I remind you of the numerous individuals who have died under suspicious circumstances while in police custody ? Or that when someone issues a complaint, it more often than not becomes an internal investigation within the force which prevents the public from ever finding out what happened. When one cannot trust the law enforcers who repeatedly put their own interests above those of the public, it is hard to side with anything they state.

      You have to read the stats and links I posted. The fact a gun is registered is not going to keep any man intent on killing, from killing her. Far more women are actually killed by other means than a gun of any sort. Knives seem to be rather popular these days, and as I pointed out, no womens group is calling on a registry of them – why not? Because having a weapon registered , again, does not keep anyone from using it.

      Scrapping the registry has no bearing on weakened gun control laws. The vast majority of weapons used in the commission of a crime are unregistered, illegal weapons. We have a shooting here in Surrey nearly once or twice a week. Those guns arent registered, and they arent long guns either. People are already packing them in their waistbands everyday, all around us as we conduct our business in the community. THAT, is a fact we must all understand when looking at this registry.

      This has nothing to do with the NRA. We are living in a country where hunting and protecting livestock has been part and parcel of many Canadians lives for generations. These are not the people out committing drive by shootings, bank robberies and the like.

      One has to be licenced and take a FAC to purchase , trade or give someone a gun, and that process is done so people can be screened before handing them a weapon. http://www.ncf.ca/ip/sigs/sports/shooting/fac-info

      Does that keep all tragedies from occurring? No. Just as no one can stop a man from beating his wife to death and burning her body. People kill people, not guns, not knives, not anything else, but people. And that is where parliment has gone horribly wrong in all of this.

      What CAN and WILL keep more tragedies from happening is making changes in the criminal code that institute stiffer penalites, and remove conditional sentences from crimes of violence and crimes committed with a weapon OF ANY SORT to show that violence is not acceptable. Lawmakers need to address the unending stream of illegal weapons flooding our streets. The guns that are being used in crimes are more often than not, shipped into the country.

      What can and will prevent tragedies is focussing on training officers in domestic violence issues so they don’t continue to overlook crucial indicators that are predicators for future violence.

      What won’t prevent tragedies is the endless flogging of the emotional argument to save women. The gun registry will not keep that from happening, ever. Domestic homocide rates will not drop because of this registry, and to claim that it will save endless lives is a lie.

  7. Pingback: The Moral Liberal

  8. Oops! Forgot that link with graphs and story of how the registry saved a household.


    Gary: “…But the police didn’t stop there. This guys father had his own registered guns and the cops arbitrarily marched into the fathers home and confiscated his firearms…”

    You didn’t mention whether or not the son lived with the father or in close proximity. If that were the case, then the cops did their job properly; that registry saved other lives, possibly even their own. If those cops hadn’t have removed the guns from the father’s home, how many more dogs would have been shot by his obviously deranged son? Also, it is known that those who start by shooting or killing animals in other insidious ways, generally graduate to human beings not far off down the line. Not to mention, many of these unstable types do resort to killing their own family members.

    Sorry, but the safety of all, rural or urban, including the blogger of this post must come above all, including privacy. Besides, it’s not like the registry asks intimate questions like your sex habits or anything weird like that.

    The original expensive start up costs are not a good enough reason to get rid of the registry; it’s the same analogy as building this house went over budget, I’m going to blow it up now; it’s not logical.

    As for those crying privacy, find a better fight; like Bill C-42, which practically cedes our sovereignty to the US.

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

    the registry saved this household. Also, graphs with links and fun facts.

    Cops ain’t the most trustworthy given; but I’ll take their word over Steve and his redneck harpercons any day of the week. Again, why is Steve muzzling them? Why did he send Marty Cheliak away for French lessons he didn’t need?

    What CAN and WILL keep more tragedies from happening is making changes in the criminal code that institute stiffer penalites, and remove conditional sentences from crimes of violence and crimes committed with a weapon OF ANY SORT to show that violence is not acceptable. Lawmakers need to address the unending stream of illegal weapons flooding our streets. The guns that are being used in crimes are more often than not, shipped into the country.

    Excuse me? That sounds like more of a boost for STeve’s super mega prisons. More punishment. Look in the US, that just doesn’t work. Prevention is key. A great start is tougher gun control laws.

    None of the gun lovers seem to be able to give me a valid enough reason as to why public safety shouldn’t go above and beyond all.

    • First of all, every police officer who responds to a domestic assault call already operates under the assumption there are, or may be weapons in the home, which is why they generally have their weapons drawn when approaching the home. Good for this family that it worked, and I mean it. My stance remains the same. The exception is not the rule.

      Stiffer sentences and removal of conditional sentences in violent crimes of any sort, have nothing to do with mega prisons. The reality of facing a stiffer sentence will deter many, especially those who now fall under the conditional sentence, or conditional discharge sections. Prevention could have been happening all this time helping all women in violent situations, not just those with long guns.

      The question is, if you think tougher gun control laws are the key, then why push for the long gun registry when the majority of guns being used in crimes are illegal weapons that are from out of the country? The weapons seizures reported often by the rcmp arent long guns, they are semi- automatic machine guns, defenders, handguns with silencers, the majority not traceable in any manner because they are prohibited weapons by law. The registry doesnt address that.

      The argument being used is ineffective at addressing the real gun issus we face as Canadians. And let me add that just because one doesnt belive the gun registry is anything more than an ineffective waste of time, does not mean one is a gun lover. They are as much a tool to many Canadians as a Leatherman, or a hunting knife. I will defend the right of anyone in this country to own a long gun for hunting, collecting, or defending their livestock. And again, those are the people the long gun registry affects most. The criminals arent apt to register dick all, are they?

      Let me tell you a story. I live in a suburb of Surrey. I operate under the assumption that many people around me are carrying weapons of one sort or another, because that is simply the way things are down here. Go to a bus loop and guaranteed if you watch the people around you, you will see a knife tucked into someones pants, or attached to their belt inside the pocket.

      Many women, and people in general are killed with knives everyyear. Tim Maclean was beheaded with one. Why not a knife registry? I know some people in PG who have an arsenal of hunting and fishing knives, not to mention a full set of kitchen chef knives. People get murdered with those too.

      The point is, simply registering a weapon of any sort doesnt stop the murder from happening, doesnt stop the crime from being committed and I believe any drop in long gun usage for crimes is simply because they are pretty freaking obvious to be carrying or transporting around.

      I grew up in the North, where hunting and protecting your home and livestock is a way of life and a necessity for a large majority. Having several rifles in a home is common, and always has been. I can honestly say in all the years I lived there, with a population of over 70000, I knew of one woman getting shot with a rifle. Speaks volumes. No, it wouldnt scare me to know my neighbour had a bunch of rifles, not unless he was a known gangster or a dealer, but then again, we live among all of them down here too. havent seen a rifle once, but I was on the scene of a drive by once where a handgun was used to shoot up the gangsters house down the street from mine, in a lovely nice residential neighbourhood.

      Damn, should have had that weapon registered.

  10. I have my own issues with hunting. I lived in rural Quebec where hunting was the past time. Disgusting! Suffice to say, hunters ain’t that law abiding neither.

    Poaching was a big issue. Leaving cadavers around the woods was & is common place. The whole town stinks.

    The woods, which made up half my backyard, wasn’t safe for my then, preschooler step-sons to play in. Dont know about you, but I have a problem with kids not being able to play outside for fear of gun fire, and people say the city is dangerous.

    It’s against the law to kill babies, but it’s done anyway. Killing female licenses are like lotteries, not everyone gets ’em, but…

    Those fools, to declare how macho they are drive their gas guzzling pick up trucks with their kill mounted on the vehicle for all to see.

    And yes, I did report these sightings to the Surete de quebec to no avail.

    I am a vegetarian, which is better for health and environment.

    Also, as a survivor of conjugal violence, I do take offense to those who trivialize it and presume to patronize us telling us we don’t want a gun registry or tougher gun control laws. I’m here to say, “yeah, we do!”

    As for knife registry, for certain knives (knives used outside the kitchen, naturally; like switchblades); Not a bad idea. Another thing to be worked on.

    And the analogy that the gun registry doesn’t work is silly. It’s synonymous to saying “let’s not register our cars; it doesn’t prevent traffic accidents” or ” let’s not register the dog’ it won’t prevent dog bites”. The point is to make some kind of effort.

    Curious though, you say you need a long gun to protect your home. Protect your home from what? I had heard many folks from the country tell me that they fear the big city; that the country is much safer place to be. I live in the big city where we’re supposedly crime infested and normal citizens don’t have guns, unless, they’re drug dealers or gangsters.

  11. I must say ck, I did not comment on your long gun registry posts at your blog because I did not agree with your position and did not want to bite the hand that feeds me, so to speak.

    However, I do agree with Laila on this issue for the simple reason that I was raised, like Laila, in the country. My father was a hunter and an excellent trapshooter. My Grandfather was a hunter before him. Legendary. He was known to feed a large part of the community some years. My great grandmother was also an excellent marksman. Why? When she went out into the field to tend her crops she had to take the baby in his basket, and she had to take a rifle, because the cougars on the island are not only the most agressive in North America, but the densest population.

    I am Metis and my culture believe in eating indigenous meat. Venison, elk, moose, salmon, crab, clams. That’s what we do and we do it with the utmost respect. I respect your right to tailor your diet to your own ethical and dietary standards, but I’m not feeling that from you.

    It sounds like you lived in some kind of Hicktown back there, it must have been awful to experience, but I have lived with firearms and firearms enthusiasts my entire life and have not once felt threatened or been threatened by one. And yes, I have been beaten up, raped, financially abused and discarded by men and I’m still not even tempted to shoot one!

    In the country to this day (fortunately) we have large predatory animals that are not afraid of humans. Some species are more agressive than others but they are all unpredictable and potentially lethal.

    I may be fortunate enough to recieve some game this winter from my hunting friends, because if I don’t, I may not eat.

  12. But, back to the point I guess. It doesn’t work. It really hasn’t stopped any crime. The old lady in your story with the registered weapons was at fault. She should have had her firearms stored in a gun safe, with trigger locks, the firing pin and ammo locked separately. And nothing happened anyway.

    As for the Edmonton WCB Office, well, there’s all sorts of reasons those folks work under so many levels of security, but insurance corruption is a whole nother subject. Point is, he was registered as an acceptable risk for a firearm, so how did the registry save a life there?

    • CK, Kim raises a good point. Any responsible gun owner keeps their guns safe and inaccesible to children or anyone else but themselves. However, living in rural areas often does require gun protection and I was taught to shoot at a young age, as was my brother. It was required, because if we went out camping, exploring or hunting in the backwoods, and something happened to our father, we needed to be able to protect ourselves from bears, both black and grizzlies, as well as cougars and wolves. Worst case scenario, we could also hunt our own food. I love wild meat and it is far more lean and healthy than anything you can buy in the store.

      People are not allowed to hunt where-ever they want CK, so how the heck it wasnt safe for kids to play in the backyard, I don’t know. If people are shooting in the woods behind your house, then frankly, it is up to you to contact police and conservation officers to have it stopped, and certainly they would. No one is going to stand for kids being shot by an errant bullet.

      I am aware there are poachers, they exist everywhere. However, I never saw or heard the conditions you speak of, it does sound like a backwoods hillbilly place. Sorry you went throught that, but to let it colour your attitude towards all hunters and people who eat meat is frankly quite silly.

      To address why rural people need guns for protection, many people have livestock, and if a wild animal is taking your stock, you might need to shoot it. In the country, we don’t put out traps for wolves, cougars or coyotes, and not all conservation officers will come out or are able to come out to address it.
      The registry is not a good, or effective policy, and no one can provide any proof of how it has improved public safety. No one. From what I have seen and read, it is all anecdotal at best.

      If someone can show me some hard proof, some real numbers and cases and evidence – not hearsay and conjecture- I will eat my words. But from the information I have read in the links in the story above, the documentation of information across the country, and from province to province, is inconsistant and unreliable by the words of those who administrate the policies.

      That, is not good policy in my eyes. The gun registry is simply another way for big brother to stick their noses into peoples lives and find out what they are up to. Really.

      It wont prevent someone from stockpiling weapons and it wont prevent another nutbar like the fellow who shot all those women in Montreal from doing the same thing.

      I’m sorry that sounds harsh, but it wont.

      Effective screening done during the FAC does a good portion of it, but no one can predict who is going to go nuts, and when they are going to do it.
      The FAC does the best at catching those people before they legally obtain a gun, but again, the registry cant do a damn thing about all the illegal guns and nuts out there.

  13. As one who grew up ranching, I would like to point out another use country folk might have for firearms beyond hunting or protection from predatory animals.

    When you are the steward of say 300 head of cattle and fifty horses and town is an hour or two away it is inhumane AND irresponsible to not have the means to put a terminally injured horse or cow out of it’s misery. I guess you can, and people have, go Rambo and use a knife to slit the poor animal’s throat, though depending the circumstances it may be touch and go avoiding the flailing hooves of a terror stricken horse in agonizing pain. Animals undergoing trauma ARE NOT necessarily calm and relaxed.

    Laila, you do an excellent job of sticking to facts and trying to explain to the less than rational like ck whose entire attitude on this issue is based on emotional rhetoric that is not supported by any facts. Of course that is exactly what our boy Stevie wants is 35,000,000 Canadians arguing irrationally with each other in a fact free environment (scrapping the long form census furthers the creation of the fact free environment), in hopes that they will become confused enough to give him his coveted majority.

    • Thanks Koot. I appreciate the support on this, and I’ve got to say, nice to see your name on the comment board again -it’s been far too long and your opinions have been missed.Not that I have been doing any hard core blogging..lol.. but you know you are among friends here. You are right about having to put animals down. My dad has had to many times over the years.

      I’ve been getting the heat on this post, via my contact page, but c’est la vie. Some women in particular seem to think I am going to personally be responsible for more deaths because of my views on this issue.
      It’s sad that they can’t see how much I dearly care for the safety of women, which is why I can’t stomach using that as defense for this registry. Too bad I can’t bring this article to parliment, because I honestly think it would clear things up for a large number of people. The NDP is going to take it hard on this one.

      If people actually read the links and excerpts in my post, it is pretty hard to refute the facts. I see no reason why the RCMP, if they want to see who has weapons or not, can’t link the FAC system into JUSTIN or CPIC somehow,which in my opinion would provide them with a wealth of information. If one has a FAC, they likely have a weapon or weapons, in the home.

  14. That was the most important point of all Koot, didn’t even think of it. Also, your point about this becoming a distraction, there’s been alot of those. Remember Helena? Just in time to distract from the Afghan Detainee issue and the Confidence issue. It works so well for them that it’s time to go digging. The Environmental Assessment on the Tesako Mine and Fish Lake is due any day. I bet you it comes out late this afternoon.

    This will pass soon, one way or another and we will just have to disagree and respect regional cultural differences. The important thing is we all want Canada to be a place we can be proud to call home. Let us concentrate on that.

  15. Well said Kim, and I’m glad you found your voice to speak your mind here!I know very well that lump in the throat that happens before you say or write something you know somebody is not going to like, or even want to hear. But I find I feel better once it’s said..lol. Good policy is at the heart of this issue, among others.

  16. Pingback: The Moral Liberal

  17. Here is comment I read and copied, this person speaks volumes of a wrong with the registration ,there are many more wrongs. His or hers comment speaks volumes in regards of long gun act.
    Its very apparent to me that CK has not researched the Long gun act and appears very arrogant on its inner workings.
    I do not reject the registration of firearms but I do strongly object to the Liberals hidden clause in the registry which allows any police force to enter, search, and seize property in the house of a law abiding citizen. This is the same Liberal Party of Canada which is so proud of passing The Charter of rights. They passed it then took away one of the cornerstones, rights, in any civilized democracy; that police MUST have a search warrant in order to enter any citizens house.
    Strangely they allow this freedom to known rapists, child molesters, murderers, drug dealers, terrorist bombers, etc., but not to a person who has not committed any crime. Strange people these Liberals and dangerous.
    What will be their next curtailment of freedom. Maybe they will open up the concentration camps left over from WW 11.
    Of course it is you the ones out there who are loudly supporting that loss of freedom. Look over your shoulder you may be next on their hidden list.

    A shameful era for Canada thanks to the Liberals, and more shameful to those who support them.

  18. Well, seems to me that Harper and his Cons support a police state, just like any good right leaning individual. That is why we are spending billions on new prisons and fighter jets.

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if we register long gguns, why not all weapons? They are all potentially dangerous!

    Oh, and animals can be put down with drugs these days. Any good farmer can get access to these, it they wanted. No long guns required.

  19. Island Cynic, when I have a panicked horse tangled up in barbed wire in a ditch with a broken leg, kicking with the other three, I’ll call you to administer the drugs, OK?

    Henri Paul, as I mentioned in my first comment, that is perhaps my biggest beef with the registry – Illegal semi-automatic weapons found in a hidden compartment in a Bacon Bros. car involved in a shoot out may be thrown out of court for lack of a search warrant – but my home is open to search by police 24/7/365 if I have a registered LEGAL gun – something very wrong with this picture.

  20. islandcynic, first off the mark the term Farmer mainly refers to someone in the agriculture business.
    Ranchers is the term known for those who tend to animals.
    Drug dealers generally supply to humans ,not animals, as animals have no pockets to carry their cash.
    Me thinks you been alone to long on Lulu land.

  21. If we wanted to reduce the amount of gun- related crime in this country we would seriously consider disarming our police, except for special occasions. Worked damn well in Newfoundland for centuries and continues to do so in other jurisdictions where the police are not armed for no good reason. Our present system perpetuates gun crime and will continue to do so until we do something about it besides throwing useless bureaucracies at the problem.

  22. Revised
    kootcoot, on September 18, 2010 at 9:17 am Said:
    but my home is open to search by police 24/7/365 if I have a registered LEGAL gun
    Too many people like islandcynic have no idea they have lost rights under the gun act.They do not realize even though they( do not )own a gun they can still be victimized by the law.
    Here is only one example of a pitfall .
    E.G. lets say Lulubell who does not own a gun, pisses someone off, in retaliation , they call the cops reporting seeing something being menacingly displayed through her window, it had the appearance of being a rifle of some sort.
    The cops arrive, Lulubell is told of a gun complaint,They ask her if she owns or posses a gun, she “must” answer truthfully as she is obligated by the act to tell the truth. The police insist they must look for themselves , they search her house while searching they discover a little grow op in a spare room, but no guns.Lulubells in trouble and now, also her likelihood of ever attaining a gun registration are probably gone .
    I know of a guy who lost his guns for six months, had to go to court. He and several of his neighbors were having an on going argument, this went on for 4-5 months, then one evening after consuming to many pops this guy and his three neighbours are having one of their heated discussions, during this heated discussion he allegedly made some type of comment regarding a gun to these neighbours ,after a few moments they left , he returned to his garage which was near next to his home.
    About 5-10 min later a Mountie walks in, asked him where all his guns were,( they knew as they were all registered) with him in tow, went into his home seized his guns, arrested him for making a threat, he spent the night in the clink.
    Here’s the kicker I do not own any guns, If I was to make the same remark as he did , the cop would probably come over, maybe search my house and leave, as I have no guns no threat exist , probaly end of story. Unless they want to trump up a fictitious charge to hold me for 24 hrs, which they can carry out with anyone.

  23. Actually, the same thing happened to a friend of mine. It was an estate dispute with his brother, who knew that he had inherited two antique rifles from his Dad and that he hadn’t had time to register them. So the brother phoned the police and told them there was a grow-op (which there wasn’t) and unregistered firearms.

    This was nothing more than harassment and intimidation, but the cops went in and siezed the weapons and searched the entire house before they realized what was going on. Our friend had to rush all the paperwork and go through all the investigation involved with retrieving his inheritance.

  24. Police Cheifs , Politicians , anti gun activist, all have one thing in common their gung ho on the control of firearms here in Canada.
    Where do most of these hypocrites , shop, holiday, receive medical attention, buy retirement homes, spend thier winters?
    This is where the two faced ass holes go , the United States of American, where there are guns and gun shops every where. Where people can pack heat at will all most.
    Do we hear these two face Canadian ass holes say anything to the Americans about their gun laws? No, their too chicken shit to talk openly about the Americans in their country , but they sure mouth up and criticize the Americans while their nice and safe here in Canada.
    We should document these ass holes names and send their names to the NRA in the states.
    I know of a lard ass Mountie with rank, who retired full pension not long ago, he moved lock stock and barrel to Arizona where owning a gun is religion.
    But as far as he was concerned we Canuckle heads should not even have a peashooter. This cop was also a taser nut freak.
    These are the people who are telling us ,do as I say not as I do. Phonies the whole bloody lot of them.

  25. Henri,
    Never looked at the gun registry from your point of view before. I bet the same people who are gung ho about B.C.’s new drinking and driving laws will happily have an extra shot or two before getting behind the wheel while they are south of the border.

  26. Mr. Beer N. Hockey
    When it comes drinking and driving. We would be better off with 0 tolerance,as it stands now, its a suckers game, people will still temp faith, but when its 0 . You know exactly where you stand.
    Take for example the women that killed little four-year-old Alexa Middelaer.
    She felt that although she had consumed only a couple of drinks she was OK to drive. If the law would have been 0, possibly the little girl would still be alive and the women who killed her,well , you may as well say her life is over, now she really has a reason to drink, with the death of a child she caused on her mind 24/7.

  27. Zero tolerance – one of the most bogus concepts ever invented if you ask me. We are all free to move to Saudi Arabia or other such zero tolerance locals if we think that is the best way to order society. See you later. As for the late Alexa Middelaer – hard cases make for the worst law.

  28. Mr. Beer N. Hockey
    This new law isn’t going to help Alexa Middelaer jack shit, shes in the ground. At least your still above ground, for now , maybe tomorrow though you may meet someone on the road by accident, with the same attitude as you have on drinking and driving. Then, instead of referring to Alexa Middelaer as being killed by an impaired driver it will be, Mr. Beer N. Hockey. Enjoy tonight, it could easily be your last.

  29. I enjoy every night because I know it could be my last. Tell me though, how is the zero tolerance policy towards street drugs working south of the border? All I am saying is that laws are poor, ineffective instruments of social change. The previous .08 drinking laws presented people an opportunity to drink responsibly. Some did, some did not. At .05 the opportunity to drink responsibly has pretty much been erased. People afraid of being caught up in the law will turn to agents of altered consciousness more difficult to detect than booze. Just watch.

    Human beings alter their consciousness just as surely as we seek food and shelter. They have to presented with the possibility of doing so responsibly. That is reality – something governments everywhere are divorced from.

  30. Mr. Beer N. Hockey, on September 22, 2010 at 6:48 am Said: Tell me though, how is the zero tolerance policy towards street drugs working south of the border?

    HP, I have no idea,Its the states, has nothing to with me here in BC.
    Mr. Beer N. Hockey, All I am saying is that laws are poor, ineffective instruments of social change.

    HP, lot there are laws that I also don’t approve of, but, their there for a reason, someone or something caused them to be on the books.
    Mr. Beer N. Hockey,The previous .08 drinking laws presented people an opportunity to drink responsibly. Some did, some did not. At .05 the opportunity to drink responsibly has pretty much been erased.

    HP, you’ve answered your own question, they lack responsibility.
    Mr. Beer N. Hockey,People afraid of being caught up in the law will turn to agents of altered consciousness more difficult to detect than booze,

    HP Give them a blood test , tells everything.

    Its not to difficult to to see your a reasonably intelligent person, why would you defend or support the use of alcohol while driving?
    If a doctor while preparing you for major surgery takes a couple of swigs of whiskey ,would that bolster your confidence in surviving your operation?

  31. I do not defend demonstrably impaired people driving, all I am saying is that laws aimed at addicts (if you drive while impaired you are by definition addicted to alcohol) do not make them non-addicts and therefore does not generally change their behaviour.

    Encouraging people to behave and act ethically and morally is what changes behaviour. That is one of the reasons why I oppose the gun registry: laws do not promote ethical and moral behaviour. In fact, they tend to encourage the exact opposite. i.e. deviousness and a don’t give a shit about anything but getting caught attitude. Laws do not prevent murder, behaving ethically and morally works pretty good though.

    If we really wanted to reduce people getting hurt by cars we would not permit vehicles on the road that could exceed about 10 mph. Unfortunately most all of us belong to a cult – the Cult of Speed. It began in Italy about 90 years ago and shows no signs of slowing down.

  32. Mr. Beer N. Hockey, I do not defend demonstrably impaired people driving, all I am saying is that laws aimed at addicts (if you drive while impaired you are by definition addicted to alcohol)

    HP,Jeez,thats a tough one,I don’t think that all impaired drivers would be classified as alcoholics, problem drinkers are generally defined as alcoholics not addicts, although some do carry both titles as they combine or use both liquor and drugs.
    Mr. Beer N. Hockey,Encouraging people to behave and act ethically and morally is what changes behaviour.

    HP, I agree.

    Mr. Beer N. Hockey,If we really wanted to reduce people getting hurt by cars we would not permit vehicles on the road that could exceed about 10 mph.

    HP this still wouldn’t prevent an impaired driver from driving over a cliff (possibly take his or some else’s family with him) additionally, you can still badly injure or kill a pedestrian at 10 mph (16 kph)
    Time for us now to concentrate on those Spineless Liberals and NDP who voted to keep the asinine Gun Law today, and boot them all out next election..

  33. Henri Paul – you don’t seem to get it and live inside some weird debate in your head in which no one else is participating. NO ONE is promoting drinking and driving. Mr. Beer and Hockey is merely trying to point out that simply making things illegal doesn’t necessarily solve problems – indeed often makes them worse – ie Prohibition in the US last century and the laughable War on Drugs everywhere which does nothing to reduce drug use but does promote profits for the Prison – Industrial Complex.

    As to your last suggestion – “Time for us now to concentrate on those Spineless Liberals and NDP who voted to keep the asinine Gun Law today, and boot them all out next election..” I certainly wouldn’t recommend electing a Harper majority government on the basis of their ONLY policy of which I approve. Mr. Harper is using this as a wedge issue to arouse his rationality challenged base. Considering that Canada is a more urbanized country than most with approximately 80% of Canadians being urban, which may surprise some folks, as an issue in a general election it is a loser (Thank God) for Harper.

    As far as your last contribution and the double offender in Vernon – expect to have more and more suspended drivers on the road as this insanity continues. Until people outside the Lower Vainland have optional means of getting from Point A to Point B, people will continue to drive in spite of carbon taxes or license suspensions. It is indeed ironic and hypocritical that this particular government, who can’t seem to find a solicitor-general with a valid driver’s license or not under investigation and composed of convicted and/or facing charges MLAs and premier should be bringing in this legislation(or was it another order-in-council fiat by dictator?). I have no doubt that like many other LIEberal policies (tearing up HEU contracts, bargaining with crown counsel in bad faith, etc.) this law that completely avoids due process will be found in conflict with the charter, even in the corrupt BC Supreme Court. If you recall, years ago someone challenged the relatively sane 24 hour suspension issued at the roadside as a warning, due to lack of process. In that case a 24 hour suspension was found to not be an unreasonable deprivation of life,liberty or property under the circumstances – the penalties imposed with this law with a cop acting as arresting officer, judge and jury at the roadside will not stand up to legal challenge.

    Anyone in the hospitality industry who votes for the Campbell Crime Family needs to have their head examined .- with the imposition of the HST (saving the forest industry as we can see by the 185 given notice by CanFor) and now making it impossible to have even a drink away from home unless you live where there are cabs and public transit without risking heavy penalties. This doesn’t mean I am promoting drinking a driving – but since I can’t afford to move into a hotel with a pub, I will confine even more of my occasional drinking to an activity undertaken at home.

  34. Old cut cat koot , always sneaking in from the side lines, trying to blindside.
    In your opening remark you say,”you don’t seem to get it and live inside some weird debate in your head in which no one else is participating”.
    The question begs, then, what the hell are you doing here then, participating in my delusional discussion?Obviously you must also suffer from the same affiliation as I, or, possibly even more serious.
    Let me help guide you through the morass old timer.
    Go way back up to September 20, 2010 at 7:48 pm, where Mr Beer Nuts N Hockey, “says I bet the same people who are gung ho about B.C.’s new drinking and driving laws will happily have an extra shot or two before getting behind the wheel while they are south of the border.”
    The discussion was the Gun Registry(apples)
    Mr Beer Nuts N Hockey starts talking about booze (oranges)
    Me being the nice fella that I am, simply accommodated him with his topic of choice, booze and drivers.
    As Im pressed for time just now(have pre- winter chores to carry out)
    I will reply later on the rest of your comment, unless of course ,were once again being delusional and none of this really exist accept in our minds.

  35. Mr. Beer Nuts N. Hockey , yes, I thought it a good name.
    But ,you can’t have it ,its mine all mine,Oh there I go again, being delusional, sure hope old cat gut hooter shows up with his meds soon.

    • All of you men are very informative, thought provoking, and entertaining. Just so you know, although I haven’t had the mental acuity to blog all week, it’s been a pleasure to read your ongoing debate daily. Love to see it, actually.

  36. Henri, perhaps we’ve all wandered off topic – the point I was trying to make (though obviously not very well) is that government’s can’t just keep trying to make stuff illegal in order to solve problems. There are too many laws and as a result enforcement becomes lax or non-existent. Indeed many laws aren’t enforced at all or the sanctions are meaningless compared to the damage to society (ie environmental protection regulations or laws regulating corporate behaviour).

    When there are too many laws to be actually enforced other than selectively – people tend to lose respect for the law in general. When we have a justice system like we do in BC. the law becomes a laughing matter or a reason to cry!

    Instead of trying to understand behaviour and through this understanding move toward meaningful change in behaviour governments pass laws that do little more than raise cash for government through fines, or add cost to taxpayer’s for prisons without actually addressing the causes of the so-called “criminal” behaviour and thus not really changing it.

    The gun registry, by criminalizing those who have a problem with signing search warrants for their premises in advance make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens and does absolutely nothing to solve the very real problem of gun crime – which is almost always committed with non-registered and usually restricted/non-allowed pistols and/or automatic weapons.

    I must admit, Mr. Beer and Hockey has a good point with:

    If we wanted to reduce the amount of gun- related crime in this country we would seriously consider disarming our police

    But then how could police protect themselves from individuals carrying a cell phone, a matte knife or someone in custody for having an open beer outside the hockey rink!

    I must admit that

  37. kootcoot, sad in part,But then how could police protect themselves from individuals carrying a cell phone, a matte knife or someone in custody for having an open beer outside the hockey rink!
    I must admit that
    Im not a fan or supporter of the Mounties either.
    I wouldn’t piss on the best part of a Mountie if he was on fire.
    Im a supporter of BC provincial police.

  38. Pingback: The Progressive Mind » I’m Laila Yuile, and This Is How I See It

  39. Wow. Attacked for not agreeing. Might as well be down south for some of the behaviour here. It is clear that guns bring out the worst in us.

  40. HP, thanks for the lesson on the diff between a farmer and a rancher. What is a farmer who keeps some animals as well? Cause that is me.

    Can ‘t take the drama that you and Koot dished out. You both act as though you aren’t allowed to own any long guns. Yes, I admit the registry may not be perfect, then change that. I also admit that I don’t own a gun, and likely never will. Some of us are f’ing afraid of them.

    Down south, means Amerika

  41. islandcynic, on September 29, 2010 at 2:38 am Said:
    What is a farmer who keeps some animals as well? Cause that is me.
    Confused , Kinky??

  42. HP, seeing as how you do not want to debate the topic at hand, this will be my last visit to this thread. I don’t care what farmers and ranchers are called, it seems that you do. That is why I asked, to prove the world is not black and white.

    You need to come to terms with the fact that you knee jerk everything. If someone has a different view than yourself, then debate, don’t attack. We won’t get anywhere otherwise. You’re not always right you know.

  43. islandcynic, on September 30, 2010 at 2:00 am Said: You’re not always right you know.
    And Im sure as shit not always wrong either.

  44. Thank you SO much Laila for posting this!!! 🙂 You did some research, you’re patient with others who don’t agree, and in general it made my day. The reason I came across this was because of a Liberal party group on Facebook celebrating Michael Ignatieff coming to London Ontario this weekend. I said curiousity was going to bring me out maybe, but then it got brought up that I disagreed with the gun registry (and being in a Liberal party group, I don’t have much back-up!) but I decided to post this in there to give them a first-hand experience side of things… I’ve been raised around guns too, and DO feel much more secure with them. I was raised out in the country, and we’ve been robbed a couple times, once while my dad was home (a registered gun owner) and my brother’s house twice. When I got older my dad taught me that if I was home and someone broke in and for some reason tried chasing me, he taught me where to access the guns and what to do. Anyways, getting side tracked, just wanted to say you’re my hero!! 🙂