Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Gutless NDP, Liberals help Conservatives try to kill Canadian gun registry


If Long Gun Registry Is So Dumb, Why Do Police Like It?

Most Canadians want it, too. So why are opposition members helping Tories kill it?


UPDATE - Saturday: Thanks for the comments here - well, some of them - and I have lots of responses but I am saving them for next Tuesday's column here, in 24 hours newspaper and The Tyee - stay tuned for me to return fire with both barrels!


Bill Tieleman's
24 hours/The Tyee column

Tuesday November 10, 2009


"The elimination of Canada's national firearms licensing and registration system for rifles and shotguns will make Canada less safe."

--
Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair


The Conservative Party may get away with its drive-by shooting of the long gun registry, thanks to 20 rural Liberal and New Democrat MPs riding shotgun in the getaway car.


So while both Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton opposed a Conservative MP's private member's bill to eliminate the registry, their gutless unwillingness to rein in their MPs allowed a
key vote to pass last week.

It was 12 NDP and eight Liberal MPs -- including two from B.C. -- who joined the Conservatives to easily pass the bill in principle.


The 164 to 137 vote on second reading of Manitoba Conservative MP
Candice Hoeppner's Bill C-391 came despite overwhelming opposition to eliminating the registry from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, other law enforcement officials and community organizations, and polls showing two-thirds of Canadians support the registry.

Bill C-391 would end registration of rifles and shotguns from a database police across Canada access over 10,000 times a day.


And -- unbelievably -- it would require the destruction of eight million existing firearms records!


Ads mimic US's National Rifle Association


But while the Liberals and NDP were gutless in allowing a "free" vote of their MPs, it was shameful Conservative Party attack ads
targeting rural Liberal and NDP MPs that likely pushed the vote over the top.


The radio ads and flyers were based on National Rifle Association
tactics in the United States to pressure British Columbia Liberal MP Keith Martin and NDP MPs Nathan Cullen and Alex Atamanenko in their constituencies to vote to kill the registry.


The radio
ad script is outrageous, claiming that the vote would "scrap the long gun registry and protect our local way of life," but that "political bosses in Ottawa" want the local MP to keep the registry.


While the ads may have worked on some MPs -- Martin and Cullen voted to kill the registry -- Atamanenko bravely stood up to the Conservatives, voting no.


Annual budget is under $10 million


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.


And don't believe the Conservative hype about the long gun registry being an expensive waste of money.


The former Liberal government was incompetent in setting the registry up at great cost but its annual budget is now just $8.4 million, certainly a small expenditure to ensure millions of firearms are registered.


And if the Conservatives hadn't waived the registration fees it would have paid for itself.


I am not opposed to gun ownership at all. I have shot both rifles and handguns myself.
I have no problem with hunters, target shooters or people in rural communities owning guns for sport or their own protection.


But those guns should be registered, making owners accountable for them and police able to track the firearms for everyone's safety.


'We lose it at our peril'


Give the last word to Toronto's police chief Bill Blair, who is also president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.


Blair says that Bill C-391 is: "intended to gut the gun registry, and to make it impossible for law enforcement officials to have access to the information, the same type of information, that enabled us to seize these weapons -- and frankly, make our cities safer."


"We believe that the gun registry provides police services across this country with the information they need, first of all to help us keep communities safe, and also to keep police officers safe," Blair
said. "We lose it at our peril."


There's still time to save the long gun registry. Tell your MP to keep it when it comes back for a
final vote.

.

56 comments:

Maureen said...

Hear, hear! 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. And then in the US with women's reproductive freedom being dealt away by the Democrats to get pseudo healthcare reform....

Anonymous said...

Anything Harper is trying to change is usually bad for Canada and good for his real country the USofA

Anonymous said...

"guns should be registered, making owners accountable for them and police able to track the firearms for everyone's safety"

I am mixed. Our police forces are being increasingly militarized and seem to be less accountable for ever more serious offenses every day. I'm for a bit of balance even if it means the redneck contingent keeps their rifles without interference.

this latest weapon is not for terrorists - its for us:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/10/bc-long-range-accoustic-device-vancouver-police.html

To be clear it is not bad apples that create an oppressive police force - it is governments that allow our forces to run unchecked and that allow our forces to remain unaccountable when mistakes are made.

And I'm beginning to fear our governments.

Henri Paul said...

Here we go with the fear mongering again, just as the activist did before, to force in this useless draconian long gun registry which only achieved to cause a colossal amount of money spent and wasted on an obscene bureaucratic expensive quagmire.
The cops are warned do not put credence in the registry when searching out information on suspects, in others words, approach as if guns are in the suspects possession.
The only ones toeing the line on this useless registry are the law abiding gun owners.
Yesterday two well known bothers who had been charged with weapons offences were acquitted . The Judge didn't gave a Sh!t for the useless gun registry, I doubt if it even came up in the court.
If you think this gun registry is some how going to protect you from some wing nut, your in for some bad news.
In August 1989, Marc Lépine (Gamil Rodrigue Gharbi ) picked up an application for a firearms-acquisition certificate and received his permit in mid-October. On November 21, 1989, Lépine purchased a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle at a local sporting goods store.
The gun registry is a useless a false sense of security, nothing more.
There are more guns on the streets today than before the registry was implemented, because of this registry ,its created a demand for guns.
A Mountie I knew quite well a few years back, took a course regarding the gun registry, he then receive a nice promotion , than started driving around giving little courses to other mounties. Here was a good cop, did his job well, was very much respected in the community, now removed from the beat.
How many other cops were removed from their beats to go around glad handing and handing out pamphlets to other cops, just more bloody waste due to the gun registry.

Darren Barefoot said...

Where did you get the statistic about the annual budget being $8.4 million?

Every citation I've found indicates that the annual cost is much higher--anywhere from $15 to $80 million.

Anonymous said...

The handgun registry we have had for decades is unchanged by Bill C-391. The requirements for firearm posession and acquisition are left intact by Bill C-391. As a crime fighting or public safety measure the registry for long guns has been an obscenely expensive falsehood propagated by the really gutless NDP and Liberal MPs. Bill C-391 ends the lie.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the outcome, but at least the MP's voted their constituents interests, amen.

Bill Tieleman said...

Hi Darren - here's one source on the budget:

Toronto Star editorial:

"The Royal Canadian Mounted Police report that the registry for handguns and long guns cost $8.4 million this past year to operate, hardly an onerous amount."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/722449--distorting-the-gun-facts

Anonymous said...

The gun registry was a waste of money to start with. It did not make us any safer than we were pre registry. We should be looking at other examples were firearms are essentially banned in(England,Australia) to see what has happened to their violent crime rates (escalated) and then compare them to a country such as Switzerland, a nice safe polite society where every household has a firearm. The argument that after billions wasted on setting up the registry it only costs so many million to run it is specious garbage. If we are no better off then every single dollar spent on maintaining it is a flagrant waste. The police already have a record of everyone who could potentially have a firearm the PAL would flag someone as potentially owning a non restricted firearm and if a person held an RPAL it would flag them as potentially owning a restricted weapon. So what purpose does the registry serve? Common sense tells me that criminals do not register firearms so I guess it makes the sheeple feel safer in their little police state. Conversely it was a great day for Democracy in this country when the MP's had a free vote, Imagine that, being able vote how you felt not how you were told to vote. Bill, in shooting terms your column is way off target. Do your research and then your mind WILL change.

DPL said...

Our cars are all registered and nobody seems overly concerned.Our homes are registered. The aircraft I used to own was registered and folks figured that was pretty normal. We all were given a social insurance number (except for a few folks like John Diefenbaker who was dead against it) and we all managed to survive that one. I lost my military number that day but I survived the trauma. So why the heat about registering weapons? I found it odd that some NDP MP's went along with the conservatives on the vote and possibly they will get some heat from their constituents. My God as for the cost, we throw more money at far less important things. Yes crooks don't register their guns and it makes it harder to keep track of them but honest law abiding citizens should register their guns, keep them in secure places and take some safety course before packing heat.

Anonymous said...

The last time I fired my grandfathers shotgun was 1950,
shooting ducks on the prairies. We also had a 30/30 that we used to get a deer for our winter meat. We had no registry,didn't need it. No license either. I'm for gun registry.The people that don't generally have something to hide.
Police can trace a slug back to the gun barrel. I'm sure this all comes from the US They run The Hopeless Harper show. There are more unregistered hand guns than there are registered long guns.
When this registry was started
older people brought in thousands of guns and handed them over to the police. Yes and a lot of them were antiques. I often wondered if any of these policemen were gun collectors. It opens the door for smuggled guns from the US.

Anonymous said...

"Welcome to Collectibles, Etc. - 113 North Main Street Boaz, Alabama 35957" at least that's what is says if one does a search to find out where you "borrowed" the photo from Bill.


The cost to run the gun registry might be $8.4 million this past year, but its the billion dollars that was spent when it was supposed to cost $2 million per year just to set it up.

Its the billion dollars that could have been spent on training and hiring police officers to get the hand gun owners off the streets, you know, the ones who have a preference of not registering any of their weapons, or body armour.

Anonymous said...

Another waste of time article from B.C.'s biggest ego.

Bill Tieleman said...

I think DPL made the best point here - having a gun ownership license is like having a driver's license - it has absolutely nothing to do with the gun or car you might possess.

As to Henri Paul - fear mongering?

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

Not one of you opponents has yet explained while all the chiefs of police are opposed to the Conservative motion to get rid of the registry.

And really, come up with a lot better argument than that all police chiefs are politicians, under the thumb of politicians, afraid to challenge politicians etc. - that's just pure crap.

I don't always agree with the police - as any reader of this blog knows. But when prominent police chiefs like Bill Blair and their entire organization say "this is important - we need it" - I say we should listen carefully.

The fact that criminals use unregistered handguns to murder people doesn't mean that registering other guns is a waste of time - use some logic!

If anything, the thugs who are terrorizing our cities would love to see even more unregistered guns available to them - think about it.

Kim said...

Bill, I come from pioneers on the coast. We have been here since before Canada was a country. My people survived hunting, fishing and gathering. We try to keep these skills in the first generation. We would never take a life that wasn't fully utilised and respected and future sustainability is paramount. Firearms are not a right, they are a privledge. The registry never reduced any urban, gang related crimes, they just cost hunter/gatherer people extra money, cost Canadian taxpayers hugely and helped polarise understanding and opinion between urban and rural populations. Unfortunately, the urban majority has been 2 generations removed from the farm. They don't understand that meat comes from living beings, and ethical meat would be free range/organic "happy" meat, ie. wild meat. Also, some of us live in "interface" areas (i love that, it's like, WAS wildlife corridor, NOW, coming soon Wallymart!) where wild predators sometimes get confused on the boundaries. Nope, I'm not convinced.

Anonymous said...

Gun control promotes public safety? Vancouver cops take 12 minutes to respond to major crime calls. And that only puts them on-site. They take another 10 minutes or so to access databases, including the Firearms Registry.

So the cop lobby - which promoted this - is part of dutiful saints who "serve and protect"? Since the founding of Canada, sued cops have denied that they have a duty of care to those who pay their wages. 100%.

The NDP deserves to retain its wallpaper status, if it serves as cop doormats. Let me throw this trump case which reveals how cop used his Registry toy, to trample ownership rights, and spent "200 hours" to smear a man in the process:
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2001/2001bcsc579/2001bcsc579.html

Anonymous said...

People who have grown up in a culture in which firearms are used day-to-day for hunting (or warfare) tend to be quite safety-conscious.

I personally own an unregistered long firearm, which is technically in defiance of Canadian Law. My particular gun was built in 1908 and is beautifully engraved. The gun was owned by my grandfather, who served at both Passchendaele and Ypres.

The weapon is religiously oiled and polished. I still have a few original bullets left, but they will never be fired.

Anonymous said...

Of course the police are going to have a love in with any database that gives them more personal information on private citizens. We all know how big brother likes private information. I am surprised that you of all people Tieleman would fall for this invasive police BS all because of your hatred of the Conservatives.

Fact is this one is a vote getter because Canadians know it is waste of time and money and invades our privacy. Real criminal do not check their firearms at the door and only and idiot (like you in this case Bill) would think otherwise. Maybe take your head out of the political sand sometime and spend a day in the real world.

funny, huh? said...

Don't we all take our administrative support for granted? That's what this is. A supportive administrative program that is taken for granted by most police officers in the field. The senior officers are the ones seeing its success by numbers.

It has succeeded in reducing family-related violence and victimization. Suicides, homicides, accidental deaths- especially that committed by long guns.

Anonymous said...

"Not one of you opponents has yet explained while all the chiefs of police are opposed to the Conservative motion to get rid of the registry."

That's the inconvenient truth for those opposed to the registry and why Van Loan sat on the report until after the vote.

Bravo for calling members of ALL parties out on this one.

Darren said...

Thanks for that reference.

Henri Paul said...

funny, huh? said... 8:13 AM
It has succeeded in reducing family-related violence and victimization. Suicides, homicides, accidental deaths- especially that committed by long guns.

HP,- Substantiate this remark with facts.
-----------------------------------
Anonymous said... 8:45 AM
"Not one of you opponents has yet explained while all the chiefs of police are opposed to the Conservative motion to get rid of the registry."

HP- First my friend reexamine your question, Im not sure what you expect to hear.First off, are they getting rid of the registry?
To question the police chiefs as to why they oppose to the motion, is in the same category as asking a priest to ban alter boys so as to allow alter girls in their place. You already know the answer, so why bother asking.
These chiefs of police are the same bunch that advocated tasers as a safe tool in the police arsenal against crime.We know that's false, many people have died from their use.
Up until a couple of years ago people were able to purchase Bic lighter size dog repellent spray, but these same chiefs, in their infinite wisdom had them labeled a prohibited weapon and banned. Why?
I wonder how many rape, assaults, serious dog attacks,possibly even the young women killed by coyote's could have been prevented if the citizenry were still allowed to posses them?
Here in BC, police brass they cant even substantiate thier own "e" mails amonst them selves,and you want us to believe their stats, yeah sure you betcha Buck-o
-------------------------------
Bill Tieleman said... 7:08 AM
As to Henri Paul - fear mongering?
Take a look at the firearms deaths stats my friend. Take a look at domestic violence in rural communities.
prominent police chiefs like Bill Blair and their entire organization say "this is important - we need it"

HP,- yes fear mongering, why else would you write up this article if not but for fear mongering?Its not intended to educate, but to instill fear, cast doubt in those that are all ready paranoid about guns,any gun.
You have no hard numbers to back your claims, isn't ironic you and your anti gun supporters have no conclusive facts or evidence to back up your claims but yet expect even demand that long gun supporters , advocates to supply facts, e.g. you say, "Take a look at the firearms deaths stats my friend. Take a look at domestic violence in rural communities."
What are you alluding or referring to? Be specific, is it the Picton murders, the woman missing on the highway of tears, the many women who have gone missing or killed in Manitoba?There has not been any mention of guns involved in all these cases that Im aware of.
In closing for now ,in regards to your comment of Bill Blair of "this is important - we need it"
What was the "it" he referred to “the registration,” or the registry" These are two different things
Bill ,I certainly respect you but, you should stand up wind on this topic

Rod Smelser said...

In order to have an effective registry of unrestricted weapons, that is rifles and shotguns, is it necessary that the registry be a criminal law matter, with criminal level proceedings against people who have not registered all the rifes and shotguns they have?

If you fail to register your car, is that a criminal matter or a regulatory matter?

Anonymous said...

Bill,

Funny; I heard the same arguments from a family member not 2 or 3 days before you wrote this. And she's a staunch NDPer too. And I'm going to say to you what I said to her. Here are some facts.
No one is trying to kill the Canadian gun registry. There is a bill to remove the registry for non-prohibited firearms only, which inlude some, but not all long guns. Licensing for owners of non-prohibited firearms will still be required. Licensees will still be required to abide by rules for storage and possession. The police will still have access to the names of those who have those licenses, because the police get the application for these licenses. They should assume that those people (licensees) will probably have long guns. Actually they should presume that all people, licensees or not, may have some type of firearm, including long guns, pistols, and revolvers, if they want to be safe. Not everyone who has a firearm registers it or gets licensed.

And regards domestic violence against women leading to murder:
Stat Can published a report in 2008 on family violence

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2008000-eng.pdf

that says the following on page 39:

Methods used to kill spouses differed for male and female
victims. 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
compared to males (36% of female victims versus 11% of
male victims) (Table 4.4).
Over the past decade, the rate of firearm-related spousal
homicides decreased by nearly 50% (1.14 per million
spouses to 0.59 per million spouses). In 1996 there were
27 firearm-related spousal homicides compared to 16 in
2006 (Chart 4.3).

There were 16 firearm-related spousal homicides in 2006. Some of the firearms were registered. Some were not. Some of them were long guns. Some were not. How did the registry make a difference to these 16 people (some of whom were men)? Did it stop their death?

And the most infamous and egregious example of someone using a legally obtained firearm would be the monster who killed the women at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. He had a legally obtained Ruger Mini 14 AC556. Having obtained it legally did not stop him.

BTW if the long gun registry is abolished, the monster (I refuse to dignify him by naming him) would not be able to purchase the same firearm. Why? Because the model he used, an AC556, is a prohibited weapon now and will continue to be so under the gun registry, even if long guns that are non-prohibited firearms are no longer required to be individually registered.

There are three classes of firearms under the gun registry; non-prohibited, restricted, and prohibited.

The private member's bill affects non-prohibited firearms only, not all firearms.

BTW I am not a yokel, a red neck or a Conservative voter. Nor am I a man.

I am a women who believes in gun control; I believe in licensing of non prohibited firearms and severe restrictions on the possession and use of restricted and prohibited firearms.

The setup of the gun registry cost taxpayers a fortune. Billions wasted. I think the money would have been better spent on womens' shelters, health care or education. Or increasing the number of police. What do you think?

Don't blame me, I vote NDP. Always have, always will.
PS Im a delegate to Provincial.

Anonymous said...

Nice try Bill!

So first you condemn the MPs who voted against the party line (because of the "gutless unwillingness to rein in their MPs" of the leaders) and voted for their constituents.

Later on you suggest that we "Tell [our] MP[s] to keep it when it comes back for a final vote".

Isn't this RIDICULOUSLY hypocritical, even for you? It's not OK for MPs to follow their constituent's wishes if it means voting away the gun registry, but it is OK if it means voting to keep it?

Your message is not just hypocritical, but it's manipulative too. You write under the guise of making our politicians accountable to their constituents, when in reality your purpose is a completely political one.

Dan Grice said...

Bill, I am glad to agree with you for once and happy for you to return to the progressive side.

Gun registration makes absolute sense, and C-391 would actually make Canada less accountable than even the US, which has required every firearms sales since 1968 to be logged. Switzerland and all of Europe now require all firearms to be registered.

The gun lobby likes to inflate the costs. The entire budget of the national firearms center over the last 13 years has been $1.3 billion, and the conservatives like to spin this as being the registries cost. The registry was only a portion of it, and the cost was moving the licenses, prohibited weapons and others from an old paper based system to one which can be accessed. This includes gun tracking, anti-smuggling costs and much more. There was mismanagement in tis first few years, but that was in the late 1990s when the government didn't know anything about databases and got bilked by contractors.

It is absolute irresponsible for the government to be scraping 7 million firearm records and allow anonymous purchases on the hopes that firearm dealers will actually check for licenses when they are no longer forced to record them.

Scrapping the registry is not worth the risk.

BTW..

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=162437519819&v=wall

Anonymous said...

Bill Blair says we lose the registry at our " own peril" because he is the head of the Canadian Association of Police chiefs. This organization receives large sums in the form of donations from the company contracted to run the registry. Talk about his pocketbook having a vested interest in seeing the registry continue.

safety for all said...

i heard that a new evaluation was just done on the firearms program. Has anyone seen it? Bill, you? Its not posted on the firearms site-just the programs own report is. Or is it conveniently delayed too?

Anonymous said...

I am 100 per cent onside, Bill.

The firearms registry can and will never stop a crime from being committed. But it will help police solve some crimes.

For that reason alone, I support keeping the registry, despite its outrageous set-up costs.

Thankfully, the registry's annual operating costs appear to be lower than expected.

Anonymous said...

Bill, this column is what results when you believe the notoriously Liberal Red Star, the ethically challenged CACP, or outright liars like the discredited Wendy Cukier as your sources. In short, every one of them have knowingly and deliberately lied to you and the Canadian public.
C-391 KEEPS all the licencing requirements: written and practical firearms safety tests, RCMP background checks, spousal permission checks, etc.
It merely shreds the 80% INACCURATE registry entries, which have not and never will solve or prevent a single crime.
Bill, imagine what 2000 million dollars could have done for the health care system, women's shelters, front line policing, and increased checks at the border to prevent or at least slow the smuggling of illegal firearms.
You know, the ones the criminals don't register anyway.

Rod Smelser said...

There is a new poll out by Harris-Decima which holds that the long gun registry is no longer supported by a majority or even a plurality of voters, except in Quebec.

From the Globe and Mail for Wed Nov 11, 2009:

Quebeckers alone in wanting gun registry saved: poll

Most Canadians outside that province favour abolishing long-gun registry, according to results

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebeckers-alone-in-wanting-gun-registry-saved-poll/article1359466/

robins111 said...

You really don't know what you're talking about Billy.

See article.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/11/project-safe-city.aspx

Anonymous said...

Firearms death stats?

Here you go, Bill.

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx

Less than 2% of homicides since 2003 were committed with registered long guns.


You think the police on the street are for the registry?

An officer in Edmonton has been polling police across the country for a number of months now, and the results so far (Nov. 19) are:

2053 for scrapping the registry
188 for keeping it

Believe what you like about CAPC being a political organization. It's pretty clear to me that they don't speak for the police on the street.

"The fact that criminals use unregistered handguns to murder people doesn't mean that registering other guns is a waste of time - use some logic! If anything, the thugs who are terrorizing our cities would love to see even more unregistered guns available to them - think about it."

Hard to believe this is true, Bill, when most (97%) of the unregistered guns seized in Vancouver in 2003 (see the above link) were illegal guns smuggled in from the US.

And again, we have the tired old number of 10,000 accesses of the registry per day. Well, only 19 of those queries are based on a registration number.
The rest are based on other info (name, address, Licence #, etc.) which will still remain after the end of the long gun registry. Not to mention the fact
that a routine traffic stop/drivers licence check automatically queries the registry system....

As to making police safer, checking the registry may or may not tell them what firearms are in the house. Since the registry is incomplete, filled
with out of date and inaccurate data, and does not account for both unregistered or legally borrowed firearms, no police officer should dare risking his life based on the information in it. All you need is the licencing database. If the person has a firearms licence, then assume there are firearms present.

Hell, if I was an officer answering a call, I'd assume firearms present in ANY case, regardless of what the licencing or registry databases said.

Anonymous said...

Wow are you ever missinformed.

Go ahead and believe everything that CFGC tells you.

What is a few billion between friends anyway.

Anonymous said...

Bill - this column was nothing short of bigoted.

Long gun owners are not criminals. In fact, as a group they commit far less crimes than the 'average' canadian. So a person in a room with you is far more 'at risk' than they are with me and my guns.

Maybe we should register 'radio hosts'?

Your logic is no different than when they registered the Jews in the war. WE ARE NOT CRIMINALS, and the stats prove it. I shouldn't have to risk jail for a 'paperwork' offense.

Anonymous said...

Bill, I was a supporter of firearms registration but you are doing progun control advocates damage by quoting stats. The facts don't support our position for GC anymore in the form of a registry. Anybody can read the information put out now by Stats. Canada, the Justice Department etc. Their is better ways to spend $2B to reduce violent crime.

Cariboo Carl said...

Typical slant from Mr. Tieleman when he finally has something worth saying. Great topic because it's so controversial. If he had stayed on topic this could be considered a great blog but lo and behold, out come his political views that dictators are wonderful people.

Gutless!?! Did I read that right? Playing follow the leader is gutless? Allowing people you supposedly "control" to speak their own mind is a bold move, not gutless. I'll start voting when free votes become the norm instead of the exception. Until then our "democracy" is a failure, much like Mr. Tieleman's blog.

Perhaps the failure of our system is that we have politicians who won't listen to experts in their field such as the police in the long-gun registry matter. Perhaps the vote on this issue should not have been done by the MPs, instead they could have had the "guts" to defer to the police chiefs. Unless this might set a precedent, such as having scientists decide how to handle climate change or health professionals determine hospital service levels or business leaders give feedback on impact of proposed major tax changes before implementation.

This should have been a no-brainer, perhaps explains why elected officials act as a puppets instead of thinking for themselves more often, I won't argue that it will save lives but we couldn't possibly be worse off with the registry. And yet, with so much ammunition to post a scathing attack that even some of his opponents are in agreement with him, Mr. Tieleman still gets it wrong in blaming opposition leaders for the result of the free vote.

Anonymous said...

Sir, there are many falsehoods and misleading statements in your blog, most of those have been addressed, however, I am going to take exception to another one. If you investigate further you will find that most gun owners in this country would be classified as URBAN not rural. The typical use may be in rural areas however most owners reside in urban areas. I guess we are not all rednecks...also a nice change to see politicians voting for their constituents, not telling them they do not matter, we know better than you what is good for you....

Anonymous said...

A new tibit. The CAPC accepted a donationfrom GCI, the company that runs the firearms registry for $117000. They also accepted a $250000 donation from Taser intl. The CAPC ethics commissioner has since resigned over non disclosure of corporate donors. Hmmmmm begs the question why Bill Blair is so interested in seeing the registry continue.

Gary E said...

Cariboo Carl

I live in the Cariboo and know the perils of the registry. And I vehemently disagree with Bill on this matter. I am also a member of the NDP Provincially and Vote for them Federally for other reasons.
But Bill is here to voice his opinion and provoke thought on the matters at hand. He does that very successfully both here and in other online messengers. To call this blog a failure is ridiculous.
Maybe , just maybe, the thought provocation here will help the 75% of BC's population to get off their collective asses and start voting.

Anonymous said...

First of all stating support for the registry based on the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) claims of the registry is accessed 10,000 times a day. Lets be honest here it does not matter how many times you state this fact it does not make it any more relevant. Actually it hurts the support for the registry because while it is true the way it is constantly twisted makes it and outright overstatement. Anyone that has paid attention to this debate knows full well this number is no where near an accurate number of legitimate police access to the system that in any way helped a office do there job.

Let’s also not forget the CACP is a political lobby group which is not accountable to the people of Canada. Let’s also not forget they accept corporate donations. I hold there opinion the same as any other lobby group with a touch of distrust, but that is part of the problem because most people do not know they are a lobby group. We must even question chief Bill Blair’s agenda let’s not forget the Major of Toronto is ravenously anti-gun and chief Bill Blair is his appointee.

Let’s say I agree with your number of 8.4 Million which I don’t. Let’s say we invested that money in MRI facilities and staff? What do you think would have a greater impact on the lives of Canadians? I think it is a safe bet the MRI facilities would win hands down. Not only that we would have tangible tractable results. Let’s not forget the government has a set limit of recourses it can put forth every year.

Why do those that support the registry constantly confuse licensing and registration is it by design or they not understand the topic at hand even in the most basic way. Either way it’s unacceptable.

If there was any proof the registry actually did anything positive don’t you think the CACP would have something better to say then it is access 10,000 times a day. I’m sure the Liberals would love to be able to say look at the great results of this 2 Billion investment in public safety. Finally the Coalition for Gun Control could come up with better numbers in terms lives saved other then one that can be easily explained by a drop in suicides which actually is countered by the fact the rate of suicide statistically remained unchanged. Even then this was not the registry in action but licensing and waiting periods.

I don’t view either a yes or no vote on this topic gutless. It is a very politically charged issue. The only vote I view gutless on this topic is if someone did not vote.

At one point in time I was very anti-gun. Upon having my views challenged multiple times I keep coming back to the same conclusion. Emotionally I was anti-gun, but factually I could not support it. I eventually took up one of the many offers that had been offered to me in the past and went to a range as a guest. Long story short I now participate in two shooting sports and my wife participates in one.

DPL said...

Well it seems that the article raised a few hackles. Now if the same folks could be steered to argue to reduce child poverty, raise the minimume wage and keep the medical system working we would be in better shape.
I don't own a gun anymore, my last one was a 32 Cal. Berreta.I have no need for one.

The family farmer does have a couple of rifles to shoot stray dogs that drop by to savage his sheep now and again. Each year I go get the special permit he needs, from the conservation officers and get the same comments about call the cops before you shoot, and if its a deer , here is how its the be field dressed, and all parts must go to a family selected by the government and on it goes. Of course his guns are registered, as its part of doing business. If a working farmer can take the time to register his guns, why not the sports hunter? Maybe some folks feel that governments are meddling in their affairs, but maybe they all complain as they figure they are losing the wild west senario, something that hasn't existd in this country for a very long time.
The cost should not be the overriding issue, safety and being able to track weapons should be the important point. If the registry is a bit screwed up, well time to improve it not throw it away.

Cariboo Carl said...

Point taken Gary E. If the measurement is, does Bill Tieleman get people motivated to talk about issues then yes, he does a great job. However that is not the only concern. If the only way to get people talking is by inserting misleading and/or false statements (I don't know in this case but I've seen it before), then he discredits himself. As I said, our "democracy" is the failure and Bill's blog is not unlike what happens in our political arena.

Mike Geoghegan said...

First of all Bill the police like anything that allows them to track citizens law abiding or otherwise.

The long gun registry was a $2 billion boondoggle that criminalised hunters and farmers while doing nothing to curb urban gang violence.

First of all gang bangers use hand guns and d'oh criminals do not register their because duh their criminals.

The long gun registry did worse than waste taxpayers money it created amongst the terminally urban naive the illusion that this was doing something about gun violence.

It is much like the closing of gun ranges in metro Vancouver. Again a political sop to the ill informed, and another cost to the taxpayer when the slapheads realised that the police used those gun ranges for proficiency training, and then had to construct a new indoor range.

So far from being gutless let me instead thank those rural Lib and NDP MPs for representing the views of their constituents rather than being continued to being bullied by the terminally naive urban anti gun voter.

Mike Geoghegan

Anonymous said...

CACP is a registered lobby group(Look it up if you don't believe me).Believing them would be like believing a tabacco lobbying group that tells you smoking is good for you.

I'm still wondering why your so upset that our elected officials voted the way the majority of their constituants wanted them to.Is democracy so repugnent to you?

Anonymous said...

All those people have made the point very clearly so I am not going to comment anyting. All I want to say is: Bill, I've been on your side all the time, but I have to say that I am disappointed this time. I just can't believe that you would've said something such stupid and non-sense.

DPL said...

So how does anon know that the MP's all voted the way their constituents wanted them to vote? Or for that matter, was in the hoiuse at the time. My MP sends out news articles and askes what issues concern us. The gun registry was, as far as I can recall, not one of the issues. And yes, she is NDP and I expect to hear from her as I have requested. The other option is go back to Hansard and see who voted for what.

Henri Paul said...

DPL said... 7:49 AM
So how does anon know that the MP's all voted the way their constituents wanted them to vote? Or for that matter, was in the house at the time.
------------------------------
Here is a way to find out about the questions you ask of your MP, or any MP for that matter.
My MP voted for the Gun registry, which doesn't surprise me as he never did grow any gonads. This Monday I will personally tell him that.

http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/

Mike said...

Okay, fact check:
1) The CACP's word on the registry is meaningless: They happily took money ($125,000) from a primary contractor (CGI) working on the gun registry. Their own ethics advisor quit because they would not stop accepting questionable payments from companies. They are not credible. End of story.

2) According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, less than 2% of firearms used in homicides are registered (http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx). The worst possible way to go after any type of crime is to target the tiniest segment with huge chunks of cash. $2 billion could tighten up our borders or hire a number of new police officers. Go after criminals, because after all....

3) ....Criminals don't register guns. Period. Ever.

4) Statistics Canada says that two thirds of all firearms homicides are with handguns, which are still registered as they were before. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080220/dq080220b-eng.htm). Gang crime is rising. Why don't we target our leaky borders and catch a few more illegal guns, rather than confiscate firearms from the law-abiding.

5) LICENSING and REGISTRATION are two very different animals. Licensing provides a screening process that can actually block unsuitable people from legally purchasing firearms. Registration has no equivalent safety increase. Anti-gun lobbyists love to confuse the issue for Canadians. You have to question their motives behind that.

Bill Tieleman said...

Thanks for the comments - well, some of them - and I have lots of responses but I am saving them for next Tuesday's column here, in 24 hours newspaper and The Tyee - stay tuned for me to return fire with both barrels!

Henri Paul said...

Bill Tieleman said...1:56 PM
stay tuned for me to return fire with both barrels!
----------------------------------
There you go, if a normal person (with hair) made such a statement, the gestapo would kick down his front door demanding him to turn over his double barrel.

DPL said...

I am pleased to tell Heri Paul that my MP voted against cutting down the resistry. But I noticed the Liberal next riding over voted to shut it down.But do free votes actually work that well? A caucus should be meeting prior to such votes and thrash it out among themselves. So lets hear some of Bill's other points early next week.
Lots of sound and fury on this item.

Anonymous said...

I don't mind to register my guns. My only problem with the registry is why it has to cost so much money to maintain it. I guess there are many people and group benefit from the budget.

Honetly, the registry does not provide any safety at all. Just like vehicle licencing, we only know who owns what but there are still many fatal accidents on the road everyday. I personally dont believe that the officers will risk their safety base on the info provided by the registry while criminals don't register their guns.

I support gun licencing. I support gun registry. I also support licencing for Concealed Carry too. Give us that!

North Van's Grumps said...

DPL, I take it you found out how your MP voted on Bill C-391 at:

"How'd They Vote?" aims to be a non-partisan website which provides a variety of in-depth information on the operations of the Canadian Parliament,.... SNIP"

http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/findmember.php?s=10 - To find your MP

However here's the full list of the MP's voting on the Repeal Long Gun Registry dated 2009-11-04 17:55:

http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?o=lvf_d&id=781#votes

DPL said...

Actually Grumps I emailed her and was told how she voted. I always prefer to contact my elected officials directly and to date have had no problem, mind you, my Mayor, MLA and MP are ready to takle theje time to tell folks who ask. I guess they figure the voters put them there so the like to be accountable. But thanks for your suggestion.

Anonymous said...

2 billion dollar boondoggle,for the gun registry,for a computer system,that didn't work and another 4 billion for the small business and development bank,the grand hotel in Quebec scandal,sheila cops flag handout,the sponsorship scandal,what a great man this Chretien, character was and the queen even gave him a medal go figure,along with the rest of these incestuous,politicians Canada is done for!