Firearm Registry Saga - III
I am going to ignore your last two juvenile posts. Instead I will address this addition to an earlier post in the chance others might be interested.
You know it would be nice if you're going to accuse me of something that you wouldn't do the same thing in the same paragraph in which you make the accusation.
Your contention of how the registry and the PAL system work is factually incorrect.
snip ... all the helpful information that tries to put words in my mouth.
You are aware that I never claimed the registry provided all the things you point out the PAL provides?
I claimed the registry provided the paper trail that leads back to the person who bought the firearm in the first place ... besides the case where someone buys a firearm for a person who shouldn't have one, there's also stolen and lost firearms that may end up misused.
A PAL doesn't provide a real external motivation to properly store your firearms to protect them from ending up in the wrong hands, nor does it provide a real external incentive to report a lost or stolen firearm .... who cares, they can't trace the firearm back to me anyways, right?
In the end the real power and potential for meaningful gun control rests in the PAL system and by strengthening and reforming it. The registry does little but provide a wedge issue and to divide good people of good intentions on both sides of this issue. As I said before regardless of the outcome of the vote, nothing meaningful will be accomplished as the politicians in Ottawa will just go on their merry way using public saftey and rural/urban divides as nothing put political chess pieces to use or sacrifice in their larger game playing.
So what about the RCMP.police chiefs, womens groups, victims groups, are they all just wildly misinformed or purposefully playing wedge issue politics ... is that the deal, someone disagrees with you they must be only interested in playing 'wedge issue' politics?
It takes two sides to play "wedge issue" politics, if you're so concerned about this being one of those issues, then instead of convincing the other side to give in, why don't you "give in" ... wouldn't be a "wedge issue" if people like you just shut up about the registry, now would it?
Same goes for "people like me" as well, but it seems that in this "wedge issue" you simply assume the "other side" doesn't have any valid issues, only your issues are valid enough to be fought for.
So, assuming that you get the point and understand that there are valid issues on both sides, then the real debate comes back to how to move the debate within the house to one were the concerns on both sides get addressed ... the path Layton is following right now does not do this, he's simply letting the opportunity to attempt to force the Cons into compromise go by in favour of simply allowing the registry to die ... my suggestion may bring about that opportunity, then again, maybe it is doomed to fail, but at least it's a damn strategy that pays more than meaningless "lip service" to BOTH sides.
Thread drift about Heather Mallick: its not the first time she has exposed a side that is pretty condescending about rural or working class culture. Nor is she above being cavalier about the 'facts' that she uses.
The registry is basically a point of sale ledger of legally purchased firearms and their whereabouts. That's about all it does. The registry does nothing to control safe storage. In fact, there are documented cases of the registry being hacked and subsequent break-ins as a result.
When the registry was created the idea was, I think, to figure out where the legal firearms were, and who owned them.
The problem was: this was already being done. There already was a paper trail. A person bought a firearm and it was duly noted and recorded. Transfer of ownership was, I think, supposed to be recorded.
Another problem: there's an assumption that all the firearm owners registered their firearms. This is not the case. I believe it was the OPP who said they would not be enforcing registry related issues because they were not given the resources to do so. Is this the same OPP that is in support of the registry? How many direct registry related fines or charges have been laid across Canada?
I think most of us are in agreement that this issue is not about the registry itself. It is now a political soccer ball that everyone is kicking around in hopes of scoring a goal. If anything, the NDP benefits from the discussions taking place because it gives MPs like Angus a chance to show their skills. There's no bad press, after all (Rob Ford, anyone?).
I suspect the motion will be defeated, and it will be the NDP which decides the issue. That's not a bad place to be. And I really have serious questions whether rural people or urban people are intently monitoring this specific issue with their votes at stake. From my experience as a rural person and firearm owner the registry is a very fringe issue. And I would guess there are more firearms and firearm owners in urban Canada than rural. This could go some way to answering Writer's observation that there's more to this issue. Perhaps the NDP sees gains to be made in some urban areas by allowing their MPs to be split on an issue like the registry.
@KenS
Such as? You do realize that it is in rural areas where most (around half of the incidents with about a quarter of the population if I recall the stats from the recently released report correctly) of the firearm related violence (both fatal and non fatal) against women happens, right?
She is possibly being "condescending" about a "male sub-culture" of violence, and the fact that it happens to be more prevalent in rural areas is a fact that should not have to be swept under the rug because it might offend some rural citizens.
If she was so condescending about "rural culture" then why would she give a hoot about "rural women" at all? She could simply say "hell, it's mostly only rural women being threatened and killed, no skin of my arse."
But what does she know, she's only one of those downtown Toronto luminaries, right?
But wayyyyy more men get shot every year in Canada than women - so why are we singling out women? Men seem to be the primary victims of guns.
In any case, I find it cheap and exploitative when people start trying to buttress their arguments in favour of whatever policy they favour by going on about "women and children". (i.e, we can't run a deficit - we will be leaving a debt to our CHILDREN). We need longer prison sentences so we can protect WOMEN from criminals etc...).
The issue of what makes people violent and want to use weapons is a whole different issue from whether making people register guns will make people less likely to use them. I'm trying (without success) to conjure up an image of violent man in northern Ontario thinking of going on a rampage with his rifle - but then saying to himself "wait a minute, I REGISTERED my gun with the National Firearms Registry - I can't possibly shoot people with a REGISTERED gun. If the gun were unregistered it would have been no problem!!" I'm sorry, I just don't connect the dots. I can totally see how its important to license people to have a gun and to make them do psychological tests and criminal record checks etc...all of which will continue to happen. But how does the fact that a person registers their guns make them any less likely to use those guns in any way???
Here's an interesting take from a blogger on some recently released Angus Reid poll
Which brings us to the infamous gun registry. One question you’re seeing be latched-onto is if the registry has been successful or not fighting crime. Just 13 per cent said it was (up two) while 43 per cent said it wasn’t (down four) and 20 per cent said it had no effect (down three). Those are interesting results, particularly when compared to the complete ban results. Do they mean many want the government to go further because the registry hasn’t been effective enough, or scrap it all together because it’s ineffective? Probably both, but it’s impossible to say with the available data.
On support/oppose scrapping the long gun registry, the figure you’ll hear most is that 44 per cent support scrapping it, while 35 per cent oppose it. That those numbers aren’t more wide given the opinion on its effectiveness shows that some simply want a more effective registry. And again, here, the trend is telling. Support for scrapping the registry has dropped by seven points since last November, while opposition is up by one point. Which means some former registry opponents are on the fence, and support for scrapping the registry is on the decline.
Finally, going further than just a handgun ban, Angus Reid also asked if it should be legal or illegal for ordinary Canadians to own firearms all together. In a reversal from last year, a plurality of Canadian (45 per cent) said it should be illegal, and 40 per cent said it should stay legal. Illegal was up by six points, while keep it legal declined by seven.
So, look at the numbers and the trends in totality and what can we take away? Canadians are increasingly favouring stricter gun control, not looser. Support for scrapping the registry is declining, and support shouldn’t be taken as a condemnation of gun control.
In other issue related news, an NDP ally and noted bunch of Downtown Toronto luminaries, the CLC, have join the debate, and it doesn't look like they are uncritically falling in line with Layton's "strategy".
Once again, they are letting Tory MPs in urban and Quebec ridings get off scot-free. I'm sure Josee Verner a WOMAN from QUEBEC who is going to vote to scrap the registry is whistling a happy tune - since she is not getting any flak whatsoever for her position. She probably thinks that women in Quebec City hate the gun registry since no one is bugging her about the issue at all.
In other issue related news, an NDP ally and noted bunch of Downtown Toronto luminaries, the CLC, have join the debate, and it doesn't look like they are uncritically falling in line with Layton's "strategy".
Good, I'm glad they are joining the debate and that they are tactfully asking people to lobby NDP MPs (why no Conservatives??) to vote to save the registry and they are doing so in a respectful manner. My issue with Toronto luminaries like Heather Mallick or NOW magazine has nothing to do with what side they are on in the debate - but rather the condescending and abusive language they are using against people who happen to disagree with them on this issue.
But wayyyyy more men get shot every year in Canada than women - so why are we singling out women? Men seem to be the primary victims of guns.
In any case, I find it cheap and exploitative when people start trying to buttress their arguments in favour of whatever policy they favour by going on about "women and children". (i.e, we can't run a deficit - we will be leaving a debt to our CHILDREN). We need longer prison sentences so we can protect WOMEN from criminals etc...).
The registry was created in response to the murder of women, and at the demand of women.
In order to avoid more posts of the above nature, I'm requesting that this and similar threads be moved to the FF.
But wayyyyy more men get shot every year in Canada than women - so why are we singling out women? Men seem to be the primary victims of guns.
In any case, I find it cheap and exploitative when people start trying to buttress their arguments in favour of whatever policy they favour by going on about "women and children". (i.e, we can't run a deficit - we will be leaving a debt to our CHILDREN). We need longer prison sentences so we can protect WOMEN from criminals etc...).
The issue of what makes people violent and want to use weapons is a whole different issue from whether making people register guns will make people less likely to use them. I'm trying (without success) to conjure up an image of violent man in northern Ontario thinking of going on a rampage with his rifle - but then saying to himself "wait a minute, I REGISTERED my gun with the National Firearms Registry - I can't possibly shoot people with a REGISTERED gun. If the gun were unregistered it would have been no problem!!" I'm sorry, I just don't connect the dots. I can totally see how its important to license people to have a gun and to make them do psychological tests and criminal record checks etc...all of which will continue to happen. But how does the fact that a person registers their guns make them any less likely to use those guns in any way???
Men are the primary victims of gang related gun violence, women of spousal related gun violence, so depends on how you want to cut it .. unless you feel that gang violence and spousal violence are the same issues and we should consider marriage the same way we consider gangs.
Do you also find it cheap and exploitative when people bring women and children when discussion shelters for victims of spousal violence, and abortion clinics, or is it just the certain debates that the effect on women and children should be mentioned .. if so, can I get a list of topics that women and children shouldn't be mentioned, or ones where women and children can be mentioned (whichever is shorter, don't want to waste too much of my time reading through a list of nonsense.)
Hopefully some feminists will weigh in and confirm if they find themselves being exploited less if we just ignored spousal violence as a specific statistic of firearm violence, or if they feel more exploited by being highlighted as being part of a specific group of victims of firearm violence.
ETA: cross posted with Unionist .. I don't disagree with your FF suggestion .. what say you stock, care to take that opinion to the FF?
Moving it to the FF is BS. It is not just a womens issue, or one where womens concerns ipso facto are paramount.
You already criticised Stock, U.. Your criticism stands perfectly well in its own right. But dont use this as a smoke screen to ensure this is treated in the moral absolutist terms you prefer.
In other issue related news, an NDP ally and noted bunch of Downtown Toronto luminaries, the CLC, have join the debate, and it doesn't look like they are uncritically falling in line with Layton's "strategy".
Good, I'm glad they are joining the debate and that they are tactfully asking people to lobby NDP MPs (why no Conservatives??) to vote to save the registry and they are doing so in a respectful manner. My issue with Toronto luminaries like Heather Mallick or NOW magazine has nothing to do with what side they are on in the debate - but rather the condescending and abusive language they are using against people who happen to disagree with them on this issue.
Again, what does "Toronto luminaries" have to do with anything? Is being from Toronto, or being a "luminary" suppose to mean something in regards to this debate, or are these just new words you learned today and want to practice using them in a sentence as much as possible?
Women did initiate a push for more gun control in response to the murder of women.
But its also true that that is blatantly used as a divisive wedge around this gun registry. That women do not in general use it that way does not make it any less real.
The fact it is used as a divisive wedge is why I object in principle to stoking that further by 'elevating' the discussion to the feminist forum.
I have been reading along. I don't want to distract, but did want to ask what this means (from the Gazette piece writer linked to in the previous thread):
Police from across Canada use the registry 11,076 times per day and 2,842 of these applications are connected to events relating to public safety.
What would the other 8,000 applications relate to?
Intriguing suggestion, Unionist--I do think it is important to ground some of the discussion of the registry in the feminist response to the polytechnique massacre, and its subsequent influence on gun control. However, I don't see many women posting in these threads (two or three exceptions, of course) so I'm not sure whose interests moving it would serve. If you'd like to start a separate thread about Gun Control from a feminist perspective, I'd encourage you to do so. So my current thinking is no: but I'll wait to hear what Maysie and other babblers have to say.
This echoes the arguments from those on the Right who insist that there's no point in gun control because only law-abiding citizens, not criminals, would register their guns.
All I can say is I will not be partipating in this thread as it stands. Men slinging shit at each other, screaming that the other isn't listening. Not. Interesting. Not any way to move forward in the discussion. I find Stockholm's tone re: women and this issue highly offensive. I also find No Yard's tone unproductive and verging on abusive. So kudos all around.
Edited to add: This was not in response to Lord Palmerston, who knows how to discuss and not spew. Cross-posted with Ripple and Catchfire as well.
Gun CONTROL has nothing to do with gun REGISTRATION. I'm all for the fact that in Canada we restrict whole categories of firearms and that we make people get FACs etc... The problem with the gun registry is that it does nothing to "control" guns - it just makes people pay money and jump through some bureaucratic hoops to register guns that are all already legal in Canada. People can still own as many guns as they want. I still don't see how the fact that a gun is registered makes it any less likely that it will be used in a criminal way?
More gun "control" would imply laws that would place stricter limits on gun ownership and maybe making all guns illegal. We can debate the merits of that if we want - but the useless "registry" doesn't control guns - it just makes people pay to register what they already lawfully have.
If we want to do something about the use of guns in domestic disputes - there is only one solution - making it illegal for anyone in Canada to own a gun of any kind if they are married or in a common-law relationship of any kind. Sorry, but that's the only solution - either support it or you don't care about domestic violence.
The registry resulted from the gun control movement. You can mince all the words you like, but it doesn't make them true.
The registry resulted from the gun control movement.
So? lots of bad public policy was hatched in a botched response to movements that had laudable goals.
So: you're statement that gun registration has nothing to do with gun control is patently false.
I'd like to know how registering guns does anything to "control" them. If I own a 100 long guns - all I have to do is register them and then i am free to shoot as many people as I want with them - but THANK GOD that I committed my crime with REGISTERED guns - I'm sure that will a be a great consolation to my victims!
Registration is about bringing accountability to firearm owners.
If my car drops it's transmission on the middle of the 401, and I decide that "screw this, I can't afford a new car, so I'll just leave it here in the middle of the highway, take a cab home, and use the bus until the day when I can afford a new car.
So what's to stop me from doing that? What's to stop me from ignoring my responsibility as a car owner and user of our public highways?
Maybe I have an old clunker that I really don't want anyway, so I just give it to the unlicensed kid next door to use .. no big deal, if he kills someone with the car that's his problem, right?
Maybe it's because the car is registered and can easily be traced back to me? Maybe that's what keeps people who have a "lower" sense of responsibility from simply dumping their old vehicles in the Don River for the city to deal with?
Laws are not necessarily designed to prevent all criminal acts, they are designed to define what a criminal act is, and set the limits and conditions that are required in order to stay with the laws ... there is a law against murder, but murders still happen, so logically then murder laws don't prevent murders, so no need to have a murder law on the books ... or am I missing something and there is still a use for a law that doesn't completey prevent the crime it defines?
Kudos @charlieangus
There was some useful discussion in the previous thread, ehich was a good process to watch.
But maybe that had pretty much reached the end of what there was to say. Which would leave only the immovable hardheads.
Not to discourage anyone who wants to take a further crack at thoughtful and useful.
I'd like to know how registering guns does anything to "control" them. If I own a 100 long guns - all I have to do is register them and then i am free to shoot as many people as I want with them - but THANK GOD that I committed my crime with REGISTERED guns - I'm sure that will a be a great consolation to my victims!
Sure you could .. and you could also just be completely irresponsible and leave those 100 firearms laying around for kids and criminals to get a hold of ... some kids takes one and accidently shoots theirself, some criminal takes one and robs a bank. The police find the dead child with a gun lying next to them; they capture the criminal with your firearm, but because there is no law to register these firearms the police are unable to do anything about your criminally irresponsible actions with your firearms.
Like I stated in my previous post, homicide is a crime, but murders still happen, anyone with the will to do so can go out and commit a murder .. does that mean homicide laws are useless?
The registry resulted from the gun control movement. You can mince all the words you like, but it doesn't make them true.
So: you're statement that gun registration has nothing to do with gun control is patently false.
I'll try a more careful or measured response to this.
The registry idea may well have come from the gun control movement. Three things about that.
1- I like gun control. But unlike the advocates, its not my number one issue, and even less do I trust that the proponents will take everything into account. They may treat my concerns as beneath their consideration.
2- Typical of lobbyists and public policy advocates on any issue, a piece of legislation may be something they are seeking to get a foot in the door... that they may in fact have thought little on the merits of the legislation as a stand alone. [And because of 1.), may not care about broader impacts they werent looking for.]
3- The initiative for the legislation may actually have come from the Liberal government. Long time proponents of gun control may not have seen it as something they would have thought of. But would support it as better than nothing. [With 1) and 2) coming into play.]
End result: as motivated as the registry may have been by general firearms controls principles, it can still be a lousy piece of public policy. And that become important when people get into ''its better than nothing" defenses of the registry. To you maybe.
It would SAVE LIVES if absolutely all guns of any kind were illegal in Canada. That means that unless you support the abolition of all firearms ownership in Canada (including banning all First Nations and Inuit people from hunting on ancestral lands) - I declare you to be in favour of death!
The registry resulted from the gun control movement.
So? lots of bad public policy was hatched in a botched response to movements that had laudable goals.
In case it wasnt noticed, I thought I'd point out that in post26 my conclusion is the same as Stockholm's.
So: you're statement that gun registration has nothing to do with gun control is patently false.
Are we back to this canard? Why did I even waste my time in the other thread? After this I am with writer- who's contributions to this discussion have been balanced, thoughtful, heart-wrenching and constructive and give me a great deal of hope for a real solution some day.
The registry is not gun control. Despite rhetoric and pretence the Long-gun Registry was never intended to be gun control. The Long-gun Registry is a simple database of who owns what firearams and where they are supposed to be. Not a single shotgun or rifle is controlled by the registry. Not one. This deliberate confusion by some parties is what makes the registry so flawed and useless in my opinion because it gives people a false sense of saftey and also lets politicians off by being able to say - look we did something - when in fact they haven't. In my opinion the registry is not worth much in its present form because it does little to control the misuse and abuse of firearms. That doesn't mean though that I don't share the goals of many good people on both sides of this issue. I just believe strongly based on years of experience from different angles with the registry that it is a very, very poor tool.
What controls unrestricted firearms in Canada is the PAL system. It is under the PAL that people can have their access denied to own a firearm or purchase ammunition. The registry has a big fat zero to do with this. Yet people persist in conflating the two and on the wedge politics go. Just once it would be lovely if people would stop the macho posturing and actually look at the reality of gun control, or the lack of it, and work forward towards solutions.
Actually I think this discussion has run out of rope too, at least until there is another development. I doubt anyone is changing anyone else's mind, and does anyone not yet understand how any of the other parties feel?
In the first post I made on this issue (three or for threads ago?) I bemoaned the fact that the flaws in the registry would probably never get dealt with because it is such a highly-politicized issue, and I still think so. As much as the Liberals and the NDP talk about fixing the registry, the only circumstances under which I see that happening is under a Liberal minority if the NDP actually have a means to squeeze them. Somehow I can't see the Liberals getting behind a reform that they don't control. So far as the parties are concerned, I think this issue ceased to be about the registry quite some time ago. The only exception (to some degree) is the NDP because it is an attack on them from both the Tories and the Liberals.
Moving this to the feminist forum? Well, you won't be hearing from me, since the last thread I participated in there ended with the open and unchallenged question of whether men should be allowed to post there or not. No disrespect, but so long as there are some women who feel that men do not belong in there at all, and it is an unresolved question, my position is to respect that and stay out.
Of course gun registry is largely a feminist issue, and of course Bill C-68 was spurred on by the Montreal Massacre. But if you try to box it in and see it ONLY through that lens you miss the fact that it is also a rural issue, a native issue, a poverty issue, a health issue, a sexual orientation issue, a privacy issue, an animal welfare issue, an environmental issue. And with respect to this current bill, it is a naked political issue.
I mean no disrespect but it is often the case that extreme and shocking events sometimes produce flawed or imbalanced legislation. While I think that our existing gun control registry IS a good thing (in that I disagree with Stockholm) I think the Liberals definitely exploited the anger and shock of that event to their own ideological advantage. Falling back on the memory of that horrible event to shut down discussion and say it is untouchable is to ignore that exploitation, and to ignore the larger reality of what is a very complex issue.
And the notion that we can actually function in this country with no firearms whatsoever? If we pave it all the way to Baffin Island, perhaps. Most people who have spent any time outside of city limits realize how out-of-touch that notion is, regardless of the poll numbers. If I needed any convincing of that, the day I went around with a conservation officer blowing up beaver dams as fast as they could be built (because they were flooding the land that grows the food that you and I eat) was a pretty clear demonstration.
Anyway, unless I see something that really gets in my craw I'm bowing out for a bit too.
It would SAVE LIVES if absolutely all guns of any kind were illegal in Canada. That means that unless you support the abolition of all firearms ownership in Canada (including banning all First Nations and Inuit people from hunting on ancestral lands) - I declare you to be in favour of death!
Is this some "unproductive" way of saying you agree then that laws do not have to prevent all the crimes they define in order to be useful?
BA, maybe you could elaborate a bit more. People here are arguing that the registry, by tracking specific guns, cuts down on (illegal) gun trade (and perhaps owner negligence). Do you think this is important? Do we need the registry for this? Or is there something in the PAL that tracks what happens to specific guns?
I know so little about what's actually involved in getting a gun.
My earlier post considering wher legislation like this comes from brings to mind....
I have lobbied for environmental legislation. And participated in a LOT of discussions about that.
No matter how important the end goals to me, I would NEVER push for or support such a divise piece of legislation as the long gun registry. And beleive me, there are plenty of ideas that come up that when you are checking out 'who isnt going to like this' you at least pass over 'wouldnt bother me".
And while not everyone in groups I have been in would be inclined to that degree, I can say that no piece of legislation as devisive as the registry would ever get the group's approval in the end. Push things people dont want, yes. Divisive, no.
There are at least two distinct types of argument going on in this thread:
1) The registry was created to address public concerns;
2) The registry is or is not useful in meeting its stated objective.
To a large extent people making these two kinds of arguments are talking past each other.
BA, maybe you could elaborate a bit more. People here are arguing that the registry, by tracking specific guns, cuts down on (illegal) gun trade (and perhaps owner negligence). Do you think this is important? Do we need the registry for this? Or is there something in the PAL that tracks what happens to specific guns?
I know so little about what's actually involved in getting a gun.
You need a PAL (license) to buy a firearm(s).
In order to get a PAL you must take and pass a safety course, and a background check.
After that it is up to the registry to keep track of how many firearms you have and their "life cycle" (who you give, trade, sell, or dispDoesose of your firearms with/to.)
Buying a firearm is only the first phase of the life cycle of a firearm ... the PAL doesn't do anything regarding that part of the life cycle.
ETA: I think most progressives are fine with considering the complete "life cycle" of modern day products in order to ensure that the lest damage is done to society throughout that products life cycle, but for some reason firearms seem to be placed on a pedestal above all other consumer products (probably because they so easily get mixed up with US 2nd amendment rights, which to me is such an old fashion concept in a modern society .. it's not the 18th century anymore, freedom doesn't come from the barrel of a gun in a modern society, it comes from the free flow of information in today's communications age.)
There are at least two distinct types of argument going on in this thread:
1) The registry was created to address public concerns;
2) The registry is or is not useful in meeting its stated objective.
To a large extent people making these two kinds of arguments are talking past each other.
I'd propose a 3rd argument which I tried to stick to, but which I admittedly got derailed on, namely that the way in which Layton is handling the issue sets the NDP up to hand the CPC all the "credit" for destroying the registry, and the NDP all the "blame".
So: you're statement that gun registration has nothing to do with gun control is patently false.
Yours and others continual misinterpretation and ignorance about this issue shows how shockingly deep your bias runs. I browsed through a bunch of these threads this morning, there are too many inaccuracies on the pro registry side to even mention, but Stockholm has been doing well with that. One thing though, and it is an obvious problem, amongst many, with the pro registry side. The minimum number of employees that seem to work at the firearms centre in NB is 40, if the registry only costs 4 million a year to operate those 40 people are basically volunteering, another site said there were 200 employees, thats seems high though, but you get the idea. if you think it only costs 4 million dollars a year to operate the registry you will likely believe anything that suits you regardless of common sense, and it's attitudes like that and 'women wanted it' (women are always right?) or 'the victims mothers wanted it (uh.. same thing) that lead to this waste of time and false hope to begin with. But it sure did get the libs some votes and thats what really matters.
BA, maybe you could elaborate a bit more. People here are arguing that the registry, by tracking specific guns, cuts down on (illegal) gun trade (and perhaps owner negligence). Do you think this is important? Do we need the registry for this? Or is there something in the PAL that tracks what happens to specific guns?
I know so little about what's actually involved in getting a gun.
I'll try my best to help with the questions
Once an unrestricted firearm is registered there is nothing to stop that firearm from being sold into the illegal gun trade by someone intent on acting illegally. And really there is not much of an unrestricted rifle/shotgun illegal gun trade. That's a red herring. Illegal guns are mostly a handgun issue, and some automatic weapons which are restricted weapons and quite a bit different. If a rifle/shotgun were sold illegally and were used in a crime and then confiscated by police you could trace it back to the orginal registrant, but then you would need a serial number for that. And it might be long gone because obviously a person selling weapons illegally is operating outside our legal norms. All they would have to do is keep re-registering it and no one would be the wiser.
The registry does little to cut down on negligance as police would have to be randomly spot checking homes to ensure their proper storage and so on. That is unlikely to happen any time soon. The PAL does require a saftey course be attended, but again without spot checks it can't enforced. If you were to get caught in some other way doing something stupid and/or dangerous you would likely have your licence revoked and the courts or police would be looking for all potential weapons, not just registered ones to be on the safe side.
You need a PAL to register a firearm. So your first line of defense in controlling the misuse and abuse of firearms is the the PAL system. Your PAL is required to be renewed every 5 years at this point. It is under the PAL that someone is determined fit or not to own and posses firearms and ammunition.
As for specific weapons tracking that is only good after a firearm has been used to kill, harm or control. The registry does not do anything to stop that from happening. Tracking a specific weapon requires that you have that weapon in your possession as a police officer. Otherwise you can't know who it belongs to. The real world is not CSI- you can't look at a bullet and say that bullet was owned by this person and fired by that person's gun. So tracking in the way you mean is an after the fact response. I suppose that has some positive policing aspect to it, but I would be willing to guess that if you are a suspect the police will be looking for any weapons you might possess, not just registered firearms. So again it gives a false sense of saftey.
In the end the only real solution is to try and keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse, or abuse them, or to ban all firearms for all people in all locations -which I would argue is not feasible or desirable, but others might in conscience disagree. In short the goal is to try to get them away from those who would use them as a weapon, not a tool. Strengthening and reforming the PAL or something similar is the best chance to actually deal with gun violence and irresponsible gun owners.
That won't make the extremists on the anti-registry side happy either, but I expect for the great bulk of Canadians, including me, that would be a doable and workable solution that would actually create tangible results. The registry was brought in for the crassest of political reasons by the government, and that crass politics continues.
Thanks for elaborating. I have a few more questions.
Once an unrestricted firearm is registered there is nothing to stop that firearm from being sold into the illegal gun trade by someone intent on acting illegally. And really there is not much of an unrestricted rifle/shotgun illegal gun trade. That's a red herring. Illegal guns are mostly a handgun issue, and some automatic weapons which are restricted weapons and quite a bit different. If a rifle/shotgun were sold illegally and were used in a crime and then confiscated by police you could trace it back to the orginal registrant, but then you would need a serial number for that. And it might be long gone because obviously a person selling weapons illegally is operating outside our legal norms. All they would have to do is keep re-registering it and no one would be the wiser.
Are you saying then that (with the registry in place) a gun owner could remove the serial number from a gun, sell it, and keep registering the gun?
As for specific weapons tracking that is only good after a firearm has been used to kill, harm or control. The registry does not do anything to stop that from happening. Tracking a specific weapon requires that you have that weapon in your possession as a police officer. Otherwise you can't know who it belongs to. The real world is not CSI- you can't look at a bullet and say that bullet was owned by this person and fired by that person's gun. So tracking in the way you mean is an after the fact response. I suppose that has some positive policing aspect to it, but I would be willing to guess that if you are a suspect the police will be looking for any weapons you might possess, not just registered firearms. So again it gives a false sense of saftey.
How would the police go about looking for any weapons someone might posess?
I don't really get it. Maintaining a database of such information is relatively inexpensive. With web interfaces and a place to mail registrations to, it shouldn't cost that much at all. I suppose I was under the impression that it was expensive because there needed to be registry agents all across the country physically verifying firearms. But if people are just filing registration info for each gun, cost should not be an issue. And, with proper web interfaces (which I imagine that they do not have at this point), hassle wouldn't be much of an issue for the owners either.
BA I have another question. We have a couple of rifles locked up at our house. Family things - all registered and dismantled for safety. If I were to sell one of these, do I have to report the sale and who I sell to, or is it up to the buyer?
Not that I am about to, just wondering how it works.
Maybe I can help with some of the questions.
Wage Zombie. There is no re-registering of firearms. Once they are purchased, and registered, then they are registered forever until the weapon changes hands: ie, sold, traded. I speak from experience when I say that the trade in unregistered firearms is quite active and ongoing. And it is entirely possible for someone to have a registered firearm sold to someone else and never report it as such. Barrels can be swapped, serial numbers ground off, etc.
The police, I believe, can enter the home of a firearm owner if they have justification that the firearms are not being treated properly (cue jokes); ie unsafe storage. I'm not a hundred percent positive of this, and whether a search warrant is necessary.
You are correct to point out, WZ, that the registry should be simple. In my experience, the early days of the registry were messy. Just a lot of paperwork and bizarre rules at point of purchase in legit gun shops (vs the illegal or purposefully negligent trade\sale of firearms between people who may or may not possess a PAL). The last time I traded in a firearm, which was registered, and bought a new one, the transaction was extremely simple and easy. I was the registered owner of a firearm, which I traded in to buy a different one. The shop owner was skeptical that the system would work quickly, but in less than five minutes the registry system did the transaction. If I had been flagged in the system, or the firearm had, I suspect there would have been repercussions ensuing from that transaction.
PollyBee:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/sell-vendre-eng.htm
Once again, they are letting Tory MPs in urban and Quebec ridings get off scot-free. I'm sure Josee Verner a WOMAN from QUEBEC who is going to vote to scrap the registry is whistling a happy tune - since she is not getting any flak whatsoever for her position. She probably thinks that women in Quebec City hate the gun registry since no one is bugging her about the issue at all.
I agree with you that some heat should be applied to Conservative MP's in urban areas, particularly those in Quebec City, as to why they are voting to abolish the registry. Do they expect us to believe that this is what the voters there want them to do?
Anyway, I assume that if the Quebec MP's vote down the registry that the BQ will use it against them in the next election. The Cons could lose seats to the BQ in that region.
I'm disappointed that I haven't heard from any of the MPs I wrote to asking them to reconsider their vote. I copied Pat Martin, my MP, on each message I sent and his staff were quick to respond that he was voting for keeping the registry in place.
But it has been zilch from the other Manitoba NDP and Conservative MPs I wrote to. I am truly disappointed in Niki Ashton. I thought my letter would have at least caught her attention and merited a response.
Even before this bill came up, i knew that there were problems with the Libieral approash to gun control. I knew that rural people felt that they were made to feel like criminals. I know that they thought the system needs to be changed and I applaud the suggestions made by Jack Layton. But my biggest concerns are (a) dismantling something worthwhile that can be fixed and (b) being painted as a Conservative ally when this disingenuous government bill was put forth to create a wedge.
Harper has been abusing the parliamentary process of introducing legislation by making or allowing his MPs to introduce government objectives as private members' bills. I can't accept any opposition party accepting these bogus bills as being initiatives made by individual MPs.
That's another question journalists should be asking the PM at his next press conference - if this issue matters so much to your party, why not introduce it as an official government bill rather than as a private member's bill?
Laine, I would guess that for the MPs who are considering their position on the vote, they will likely not commit anything to paper until closer to the day, if not the day itself, Don't think your letter hasn't been read, counted, and considered though.
Back to my original line of thought regarding the politics of this issue concerning Jack and the NDP (the pro/anti registry debate has been fought for years, and minds are not going to be changed on specific "tactical" issues of the firearms act and the registry itself in the short time left before the vote unless something drastic happens ... maybe the recent report might have some effect on giving politicians some cover, but I doubt any ordinary anti-registry citizen who doesn't have to concern themselves with politics will be much swayed.)
Did anyone catch Layton's press conference on Monday (I believe it was Monday, maybe Tuesday?) where he tried to explain his and the party's stance on the un-whipped vote?
After his statement when the press started asking questions things didn't go so well for Jack ... whatever Jack's intentions the press is not going to play this in a light that favours Layton and the NDP, that seems pretty obvious.
Link here to video of the followup questions from the press (try to ignore the less than helpful comments inserted in the video by the creator, I assume he is a big Liberal fan and wanted to make sure other Liberals knew what to think,) I think the questions and the tone from the press - frustration from most which eventually turned to out and out treating Jack's attempts to change the subject and refusal to directly answer the questions asked (which were all basically about his leadership) as a joke - speaks for itself as to how the press is going to play this issues if the registry is killed with the help of the NDP.
Yes, sure, if you listen to Jack's answers they would be fine if it was not the case that the CPC have no intention of letting reason or compromise into the official debate ... might as well try to train your dog by giving it a book on dog training ... Jack is not dealing in reality here, or at least totally ignoring one very important part of the reality of this issue.
I'm a bit hampered by not being able to watch the videos. But only a bit. Its mostly the context and framing we are talking about.
I already said up thread(s) how this shows the Liberals have at least got part of their communications groove back. Not touching the Conservatives of course, but they havent even been able to touch the NDP for a long time.
And it isnt that hard having the media eating out of their hands. Its just that it has been a long time. But look at all the articles and columns... let alone what is in them [repition of the theme: see Jack squirm. dont we love it.]
You obviously understand that much. But you do a really poor job of trying to read in a script of what a bad job Jack is doing... someone who doesnt like the position therefore doesnt want Jack to do as good a job as possible, doesnt like electoral politics as it is and therefore has not paid a lot of attention to the "little" details of how it works, etc.
A basic Communications 101 point- when you KNOW you are not in a good place, and we all do know that there is NO position in this that would not be difficult for the NDP- when you know you are not in a good place, and its time for the news conference.... you will be best off sticking to your message as narrowly as possible. And when the media predictably comes after you and makes you look stupid for sticking to your message..... eat shit and keep looking stupid. There are worse things.
Short form: you aren't the audience No Yards. And you havent a clue what works with the audience.
You are fine saying whats wrong with the NDPs position subsatntively, and how much you dislike it, how cowardly it is, etc.
But you are on very weak ground arguing details of how this isnt in the NDPs interest. Kind of laughable really.
So in other words having the media against you is of no consequences in politics?
The "left wing media" seems to be solidly against Jack's stance to not whip the caucus.
The "MSM" is treating Jack's position as a joke.
The only support Jack has is from the "right wing" media, which is something I suppose, but I don't think there is much chance that the National Post is going to start giving the NDP a "fair shake" from now on and maybe even advise their readers that the NDP is a party to seriously consider.
OK then, let's assume you are right and I don't have a clue .. please explain how this situation helps the NDP, teach me something.
I already said it. You just dont listen.
The NDP is not in a good position. Duh. [Though some people seem to pretend there is a good one. Yourself included apparently.]
When you are not in a good position you just want to get through to the other side. You do that by sticking to your short and simple message, and eat shit if thats required.
You are helping the NDP by not walking into something much worse.
And by the way, Jack would still be saying as little as possible if he did what you wanted and whipped the Caucus. That would be an even harder position to say as little as possible. And it would work even less well than what hes doing now. [Leaving aside the howls we'd be hearing from the side of the NDP and supporters that would now be REALLY unhappy.] But the point is that he'd still be saying as little as he possibly could.
Its interesting to hypothesize about what would happen if Jack decided to be dictatorial and order everyone to vote against the PMB no matter what their personal views or the view of their constituents. I suppose that NOW magazine and Heather Mallick would lay off on the gun registry issue and then go hunting for some other issue to accuse the NDP of not being "pure" enough on.
On the flip side, probably half a dozen MPs would almost certainly defy the whip and then all the people who demanded the whip would start getting into a bidding war over how much punishment they think needs to be meted out against the dissidents - and i'm sure the usual suspects would make some ex cathedra statement about how whipping the vote wasn't enough - NOW Layton must tar and feather anyone who disobeyed the whip and make sure they never run for public office again! Then we would probably see the provincial NDP in Saskatchewan (and maybe Manitoba) decide to disaffiliate from the federal party...and that would just be the beginning. Then we would also see a concerted Tory campaign to accuse the NDP of being insensistive to rural needs and of being run out of downtown Toronto and with any luck (for the Tories) you would see half a dozen or more NDP seats in rural Canada go Tory in the next election, bringing Harper one giant step closer to a majority.
Maybe its worth it to have all this happen, but I'm just saying that we haven't even begun to explore the consequences if the NDP actually did try to whip the vote.
Here's an idea: Jack should threaten to resign as leader if the gun registry is abolished. That would show he is willing to put his career on the line in pursuit of a noble cause.*
* The point is not that I'm wrong or uninformed about the gun registry - Jack Layton says he very much believes in the gun registry, that it saves lives, even if has flaws.
Why don't I give a flying fuck about this issue?
I already said it. You just dont listen.
The NDP is not in a good position. Duh. [Though some people seem to pretend there is a good one. Yourself included apparently.]
When you are not in a good position you just want to get through to the other side. You do that by sticking to your short and simple message, and eat shit if thats required.
You are helping the NDP by not walking into something much worse.
And by the way, Jack would still be saying as little as possible if he did what you wanted and whipped the Caucus. That would be an even harder position to say as little as possible. And it would work even less well than what hes doing now. [Leaving aside the howls we'd be hearing from the side of the NDP and supporters that would now be REALLY unhappy.] But the point is that he'd still be saying as little as he possibly could.
OK, I don't think I ever claimed that either position was a "good position" for Jack and the NDP, but let's look at the possibilities first before we go claiming that whipping the vote is the worst of all possible positions. My point of that post was how the media IS playing this and how the media will likely play this in the future ... you may believe I am looking at this through the lens of wanting Jack to fail, which is fine, but then try to consider how when the session starts back up and this issue comes front and centre in the public eye, how will your average voter see it when the press starts asking these kinds of questions and Jack ignores the questions in favour of blaming others for not cooperating with him? At best I believe the thoughtful ones will think "yeah Jack, that's the way it should work, but let's live in this reality for a minute and deal with the situation at hand where no one wants to cooperate with you. What is your plan for THIS reality?"
First though I think we need to clarify that whipping the vote is not "undemocratic", it's a part of the democratic process in a democracy that operates on a party system. It wasn't undemocratic to whip the votes for marriage equality, nor was it undemocratic to whip the votes for the omnibus bill ... the only question of "democratic difference" between those two cases IMO was that in the former it was whipped and the result was equality, and in the later it was whipped and the result was discrimination ... in the case of the registry debate I don't see any overwhelming progressive principle at work here .. there seems to be a "privacy" issue and a "public safety" issue in conflict (and for whatever reason though, most of the traditionally "progressive" allies of the NDP are on the opposite side of Jack) ... progressives I believe can lean in either direction and still be considered progressives.
Now, what are Jacks alternatives:
1) Don't whip the vote and the registry falls
2) Don't whip the vote and somehow at the last minute Jack convinces enough of the 12 MPs to vote against the bill (or to stay away) and the existing registry is saved.
3) Whip the vote and save the existing registry
4) Whip the vote, enough of the 12 MPs ignore the whip and the registry falls.
5) Threaten to whiip the vote to save the registry with an offer to the CPC to join them in working to fix the registry flaws (likely outcome of either 3 or 4, but may also lead to a fixed registry.)
6) In any case where the registry falls, wait until the Liberals take pwoer and bring back the registry, hopefully working with the Libs to fix the flaws.
There may be other possibilities, such as whip the vote and the Libs or BQ switch sides and the registry still falls, but I don't see that as worth mush consideration.
Now, I assume that in the name of compromise neither the outcome of a failed registry, or the rescue of the existing registry is the preferred outcome, and that a fixed registry would be the winning outcome for the NDP.
The only two scenarios that the outcome would be a fixed registry are 5 & 6, with 6 not being much of a win for the NDP.
So, in my view scenario 5 is the only real possibility of a decent outcome for the NDP and all sides in the registry debate ... scenario 2 may also result in causing minimal damage to the NDP, but it does nothing to solve the issue of a registry that needs fixing. (I am aware that this scenario also has the possibility of Jack not being able to successfully whip the vote in the likely case where the Cons refuse to compromise, and that might call in to question Jacks leadership, but so what? Since when is party leadership suppose to take priority over the "right thing to do"? And anyway, if Jack is seen to be putting his leadership on the line there may be a lot of people, me included, that would consider this real leadership, even if he ultimately fails and the registry is killed.)
Oh, yes, I guess I did miss one sub-scenario, that of Jack not saying much of anything ... which I suppose is just as much a part of the democratic process as is vote whipping, but keeping everyone in the dark and refusing to answer serious questions on a controversial issue only gets you so far, and unless it's the "other side" that is taking the heat while you sit back and say nothing, then it doesn't usually end up with much of a gain .. at best it limits the damage, but "limiting damage" for the 4th party is hardly the way to the seat of power.
Its interesting to hypothesize about what would happen if Jack decided to be dictatorial and order everyone to vote against the PMB no matter what their personal views or the view of their constituents. I suppose that NOW magazine and Heather Mallick would lay off on the gun registry issue and then go hunting for some other issue to accuse the NDP of not being "pure" enough on.
On the flip side, probably half a dozen MPs would almost certainly defy the whip and then all the people who demanded the whip would start getting into a bidding war over how much punishment they think needs to be meted out against the dissidents - and i'm sure the usual suspects would make some ex cathedra statement about how whipping the vote wasn't enough - NOW Layton must tar and feather anyone who disobeyed the whip and make sure they never run for public office again! Then we would probably see the provincial NDP in Saskatchewan (and maybe Manitoba) decide to disaffiliate from the federal party...and that would just be the beginning. Then we would also see a concerted Tory campaign to accuse the NDP of being insensistive to rural needs and of being run out of downtown Toronto and with any luck (for the Tories) you would see half a dozen or more NDP seats in rural Canada go Tory in the next election, bringing Harper one giant step closer to a majority.
Maybe its worth it to have all this happen, but I'm just saying that we haven't even begun to explore the consequences if the NDP actually did try to whip the vote.
Nah, if the vote was whipped and 6 MPs defied the whip, the worst that would happen is that Jack would have to resign or announce he was not running for the leadership at the next convention .... which he may have to do anyway if he simply allows the registry to fall without even the appearance of a fight..
There will be a at least one federal election in between now and the next time the NDP picks a leader so that's not going to happen. In any case that scenario would be the worse of all worlds - the vote would be whipped but because of a caucus revolt, the registry gets killed anyways. what exactly does that accomplish? except to make the NDP look bad and have NDP seats in rural areas go Tory in the next election.
If the gun registry is elinminated, i predict that very little will happen except that in the next election, the Liberals and NDP will will put forth new policies around gun control which will be quickly put into law when the opposition coalition takes power after the next election.
Why would those seats go Con if the MPs defied the whip?
So if I understand your position then, to paraphrase - the pro-registry side is concerned exclusively about the registry and nothing short of the NDP allowing it to fall would permit them to vote for the NDP, but the anti-registry side couldn't care less if Jack personally went to NB and set the office on fire?
The key to the NDP surviving as a political option in rural and remote and aboriginal Canada is the notion that the party respects a diversity of viewpoints on the gun registry and that NDP candidates and MPs elected in those areas have some freedom to express the views of the people who elected them. If the vote is whipped then that notion is lost and the NDP is no longer seen as an option in rural, remote and aboriginal Canada.
This is certainly the view in Thunder Bay area ridings, northern Manitoba, and so on.
Elmwood-Transcona is entirely within the urban Metropolitan Winnipeg Area. Jim Malowey has no excuse for opposing the gun registry.
Sackville-Eastern Shore is entirely within the urban Metropolitan Halifax Area. Peter Stoffer has no good reason to oppose the gun registry.
Welland: only 6% of the riding is in rural Wainfleet. Malcolm Allen has no good reason to oppose the gun registry.
Sudbury is entirely within the urban Metropolitan Sudbury Area. Does Glenn Thibeault have good reason to oppose the gun registry?
BC Southern Interior riding has nothing more urban than Nelson; yet Alex Atamanenko voted with the party.
Sault Ste. Marie is a Northern Ontario riding, yet Tony Martin voted with the party. Logical, since his riding is 84% within the urban city of Sault Ste. Marie.
Nanaimo-Cowichan has well over 13% rural areas, yet Jean Crowder voted with the party.
Sackville-Eastern Shore is entirely within the urban Metropolitan Halifax Area. Peter Stoffer has no good reason to oppose the gun registry.
Distorted all around. A lot of it is rural, and Sackville is largely people that "think rural."
Nonetheless Peter Stoffer, knows he could vote however he wanted and be secure in re-election.
So "no reason" to vote against the registry... except principles. But Dippers voting against cant have principles.
This is all true and I think it shows that in the case of Jim Maloway and Peter Stoffer - opposition to the gun registry is based on their personal views and not on any political calculation.
Its also not as simple as just looking at the urban rural % of a riding. Sudbury may be an urban seat - but it is very much part of the northern culture and a huge percentage of people in Sudbury hunt and have camps they go to etc... conversely, there is not much hunting on Vancouver Island and the rural areas of Jean Crowder's riding would be mostly back to the land aging hippies and hobby farmers.
All that being said, i still think that its symbolically important for he NDP in rural and northern areas to be able to say that it respects a diversity of opinion on this issue.
Brilliant post, Wilf (as is often the case, but how about hanging around here more?)! Thanks for puncturing the "rural-urban" meme, which is used not only by Harper, but by many who should know better.
Well I don't know if I'd call Transcona metropolitan....
(and sorry, but I am entitled to make that joke)
That aside, I think it's pretty clear that the rural/urban divide is not a direct relationship. The notion that every rural person thinks one way, and every urban person thinks another, is just as absurd as the notion that all westerners think one way and all easterners think another.
I could get into an argument about how some smaller cities have a closer connection to rural areas, or have a larger proportion of people (like me) who have lived most of their lives in the country, but really, it's a blind alley because I don't think Wilf's numbers disprove a gulf which is very clearly there.
The divide between those who understand and those who do not understand the use and necessity of firearms in rural areas is clear and you don't have to look any further than some of the uninformed comments on this thread to see it. I mean no offense, but some of the ideas floated here are based on a complete lack of understanding; they simply would not work in the real world
Cooking up a straw figure of an argument equating people's values with their postal codes isn't going to change that reality. Sorry.
@ Stockholm #58
Really? That's all it will take for rural progressives to move to the Cons? Have I been under a mistaken perception about NDPers and in truth all rural NDPers are really just one issue conservative voters that somehow mistakenly ended up voting for the NDP and will only realize that mistake if the 10 year old registry is allowed to survive?
Could be I guess, so as a quick unscientific experiment I took a look at the comments in the Winnipeg Sun for one article that seemed to be reasonable, if not exactly pro-registry http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/joseph_quesnel/2010/09/03/152...
Here is a few of the typical comments to that article:
We as Canadians need a whole new governemntal process....!
We need the power moved away from Quebec
Do these sound like NDP supporters to you? Yes I only picked the "crazies", but that wasn't much of a chore to weed though the comments and find the nut jobs (heck, I even left out the ones that compare the registry to a plan by Hitler and Stalin in case it made it sound like I was making this shit up.)
And yes, there are a few scattered reasonable letters against the registry, mostly claiming in the face of the evidence that the registry doesn't do anything, or the costs too much, and "criminals don't register firearms", and while I think they are wrong in their accusations I am not going to say it would be impossible for these people to be NDP voters, but then again they didn't seem so angry in their comments as to obviously disown the NDP if the registry were to survive.
Point being that yes there may be angry people out there supporting the axing of the registry, but are they real NDP voters that are so angry that they write in to newspapers and make comments such as the ones above? If any of the people who sent in those kinds of comments are NDPers, then I'd suggest that the NDP is better off without their support, even if it means losing a couple of seats (actually I seriously doubt these clowns are anything but FDers freeping the newspapers, but whatever they are, they are NOT NDP supporters.)
Maybe the rage you seem to see from the anti-registry is manufacured to a large extent, and just like you dimiss angrey ex NDPers like Malick and myself, maybe the opposite is equally applicable, and the people who you believe to be angry Manatobian anti-registry NDP voters are even less NDP than you believe I am.
people who write letters to newspapers tend to be extreme ideologues - by all accounts opposition to the gun registry on Firt nations reserves is almost unanimous - but i guess they don't write letters to the Winnipeg Sun.
Guess not, but are they all one issue conservative voters that mistakenly voted for the NDP last election and will only discover that mistake and vote Con if the registry isn't killed on the 22nd?
Brilliant post, Wilf (as is often the case, but how about hanging around here more?)! Thanks for puncturing the "rural-urban" meme
You'll have to explain this "puncturing".
Wilf made a fallacious assumption that the sole reason for an NDP MP for voting against the registry is fear of retribution of consituents, according to how many of them are rural. And then he punctures his own fallacy.
Yes, brilliant.
84% of Tony Martin's riding might be in the Sault, but there are excellent hunting and fishing spots to the North and East of the city. I would think more Saultites are avid anglers and hunters than, say, those living in London or Kingston. I think the old line party will be bringing in a sure winner type of candidate to bring down Tony Martin. Hatred for the NDP among the local clique runs deep in the Sault.
How respected is the Sault Police Chief Bob Davies, he's in support of the registry so maybe his opinion might mitigate any blowback from the NDP hunting and fishing crowd?
Sault Chief Backs Gun Registry
In recent Sault news:
No, those would be Tory-NDP swing voters, which might be hard to believe, but they are quite common in rural Canada, particularly west of Ontario. What matters to these people is not ideology so much, not whether you're on the right or left end of the spectrum, but are you prepared to listen to your constituents and stand up for them. It's a key reason why the populist vote went from the NDP to Reform, because Reform painted itself as a grassroots-driven entity that spoke for those people fed up with the way things were. (Incidentally, it's also why Liberals tend to do so poorly, because the Liberals try to be all things to everyone and end up convincing no one. One thing NDPers and Conservatives in Western Canada can agree on is their dislike of the Liberal party.) Whipping the vote on this issue will just provide more ammo to those who want to paint the NDP as elitits who are out of touch. Even though individual MPs who defy the whip (to say nothing of how badly split the party would be, which I don't think you realize how serious that would be) may be re-elected, it would certainly hamper efforts to build bridges in other constituencies.
And something else I have to emphasize:
There is absolutely no consensus within the rank-and-file NDP on this question. When the gun registry comes up among the rank-and-file NDP members I've talked to in this part of the country, most of them feel it's a waste of money and would be better spent elsewhere.
I know a few avid anglers and hunters too. None of them rant about the long-gun registry. I do know one gun fan who is vehement against the registry, but he is a gun hobbyist who loves to shoot at the local gun range, not a hunter at all, and an otherwise very sensible person. And for every hunter I know, I also know a wife who wishes (quietly or otherwise) that her husband would lose the gun.
Some anti-gun-registry people locally use it as a proxy for their anti-Quebec sentiments. People do remember the Montreal Massacre. They know that Quebec is solidly in support of the gun registry. They know why. They don't think that Quebec should be able to "impose" it on "us." Have any pollsters explored the cross-tabulations on this issue?
In response to Ken, my point was, the media are over-simplifying by saying the NDP is torn by an urban-rural split. I was just showing it's not that simple.
Until recently, I thought Peter Stoffer had just voted for the bill to go to committee because he always votes for private members' bills to go to committee. I was surprised that he supports killing the registry. I am disappointed that, unlike Charlie Angus, he is already painting himself into a corner of being unwilling to consider new evidence like the RCMP report, and unwilling to consider the many requests he is getting. Not nice.
According to polls I've seen, Quebec is the only region of the country solidly behind the gun regisrty.
Cooking up a straw figure of an argument equating people's values with their postal codes isn't going to change that reality. Sorry.
That is exactly Wilf's point. Thanks for reiterating it.
Wilf made a fallacious assumption that the sole reason for an NDP MP for voting against the registry is fear of retribution of consituents, according to how many of them are rural. And then he punctures his own fallacy.
Hmm, I must have been dreaming when I read all the posts here praising the NDP for allowing its MPs to represent, not their conscience, but their constituents. And how if they voted the wrong way, they'd lose their seats to some rural backlash. And that we urbanites just don't have the brainpower to grasp the realities of country life. Do I need to go back and catalogue the examples, or can you locate them on your own?
Wilf punctured that.
You're right, Wilf. It's not simple.
I think that if his constituents don't appreciate the registry, then it's not Peter Stoffer's fault. Let's face it, the Liberals botched the gun registry, and I think this is partly why so many are against it.
@Aristotleded24 #70
OK, I take your point that there has been movement between NDP and Reform, but these people don't have the Reform to fall back on any more, the Cons aren't the Reform party, they aren't listening to the "grass roots". Why would these people side with the Cons in general over the registry? Layton just announced a new initiative for Northern Ontario, probably with that same issue in mind (give them something else to consider beside the registry when deciding who is listening to them ... maybe he has something similar in mind for Manitoba and other "hot spots"?)
I also understand there is no consensus within the rank-and-file NDP, that's why there needs to be a solution that addresses the concerns of both sides ... killing the registry, or simply saving the status quo version of it is unacceptable, and I know the end result is not simply in the hands of Layton, but he needs to be seen at least SERIOUSLY attempting to address both sides of the issue (ie: saying he's for it while letting it die without a fight is not being serious.)
And while we're emphasizing things, I need to point out that a lot of large progressive groups are on the pro-registry side. Groups that provide lots of money and manpower to the NDP efforts ,,, if these groups decide that the NDP is not on their side any more, the effect could be as bad or worst than losing a few seats (with a big organization behind you you can always work to get back the votes, but if you destroy your organization in favour of some immediate votes, then you may have essentially "killed the goose that lays the golden egg".)
Calgary is the 3rd biggest city in Canada (1.1 million) and Edmonton is 4th (1 million). They're both pretty "urban", no?
Albertans take aim at gun registry
When it comes to scrapping the long gun registry, there’s no question where the majority of Albertans stand.
They want this tax-gobbling monster laid to rest.
While some Canadians view Albertans as rootin’-tootin’, six-shootin’ holdovers from the Wild West, nothing could be further from the truth.
We back responsible gun ownership, just as we believe in responsible government.
In this part of the country, responsible government doesn’t equate with state control of every facet of our lives.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/this-registry-doesnt-register/article1696103/]Globe & Mail editorial[url]:
If passed, a vote in Parliament on a Conservative MP's bill to end the long-gun registry would not represent the end of gun control in Canada. Stringent and necessary requirements will remain in place for handguns, and restricted weapons such as automatic rifles. A process that already requires gun owners to be licensed before obtaining a firearm would remain, with safety and background checks required for gun owners. Rules for safe handling and storage of guns will remain in place. What will end is the cost, the red tape and the stigmatization of the “law-abiding duck hunters and farmers,” often cited by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In the absence of any meaningful evidence of the long-gun registry's efficacy, the program should be ended.
Cooking up a straw figure of an argument equating people's values with their postal codes isn't going to change that reality. Sorry.
That is exactly Wilf's point. Thanks for reiterating it.
To clarify, there are some urban areas where people do have an understanding of the traditional use of firearms, so Wilf's model isn't really valid. On the other hand, it doesn't really matter because the divide in understanding is there, whatever you want to call it, and there are certain ridings where it is more of an issue than others . Parse it any way you want, it ain't going to go away.
Wilf I am really disappointed and offended by the tone of your comments.
There are good and PROGRESSIVE reasons to be against the registry. Painting those against the registry as a bunch of anti-Quebec rednecks is offensive and far, far beneath you and the usual esteem I hold you in. And to imply that all rural women are afraid of the men in their lives and the guns in thier homes is demeaning to a great number of women- many of who hunt, or who have had to protect livestock as well Mr. Day.
And in case you have missed it Charlie Angus is not say the registery is working. He is not saying that is doesn't have significant flaws. He is simply saying he will not vote for Hoepner's bill. Big, big difference.
Reading posts like yours makes me dispair and wonder if we should just let the right take over when those who say they are our allies don't give a damn about our concerns. Why bother, at least the right pretends to be our friend and care- which is better than the cold contempt I see coming from so called allies these days.
To clarify, there are some urban areas where people do have an understanding of the traditional use of firearms, so Wilf's model isn't really valid.
You mean, like, Calgary and Edmonton, as per my citation just above from the Calgary Sun?
The "divide in understanding" is NOT a "rural-urban" divide. That was my only point. There's also a "divide in understanding" over same-sex marriage and abortion. Is that one "rural-urban"? Of course not. And I deplore those politicians who paint rural folk as basing their votes - as the Calgary Sun lyingly ranted - on which party will oppose "state control of every facet of our lives".
My view of the working people of the countryside was very clearly expressed here:
As for First Nations, I have stated for years, and repeat here, that in their communities they should not be governed by Canadian firearms laws without their consent. They are sovereign and have hereditary rights to hunt and fish which are recognized not only by progressive people everywhere, but by the Supreme Court.
Gun control is for the rest of us - no matter where we live. And it doesn't mean no hunting, sports shooting, or exterminating the evil coyotes. It means the most restrictive possible control of firearms that allows those activities to continue.
And further down that page:
And today, when all these attacks rage against rural Canada, they [those who count nothing but votes] convince themselves (and you as part of the chorus) that all these farmers care about is the registry!
That's the most profound disrespect I can imagine for the working people of the countryside.
STOP MISREPRESENTING THE LONG GUN REGISTERY AS GUN CONTROL. IT ISN'T. IT DOESN'T. IT NEVER WILL BE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD- GUN CONTROL IN CANADA IS ACHEIVED THROUGH THE PAL.
@ Unionist #81
Well like I said, I don't really care what you call it, but if this numbers game is some sort of way to imagine it out of existence, good luck.
And you know, this tactic of trying to gloss over legitimate concerns by demonizing people (#64, in particular) is something I find really offensive. What is your point, No Yards.
84% of Tony Martin's riding might be in the Sault, but there are excellent hunting and fishing spots to the North and East of the city. I would think more Saultites are avid anglers and hunters than, say, those living in London or Kingston. I think the old line party will be bringing in a sure winner type of candidate to bring down Tony Martin. Hatred for the NDP among the local clique runs deep in the Sault.
Yes, I assume the Conservatives will be targeting Sault Ste. Marie in the next election since they came a close 2nd to the NDP in 2008:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/186/
BA, all-caps are hard to read and unnecessary.
I grew up in a rural setting. Lots of people had guns. Lots of people used guns. For lots of reasons.
As a teenager, I found that there were a lot of kids allowed unsupervised access to rifles and shotguns. And they did some pretty stupid things with them. I would regularly hear about how someone blew apart some small animal or shot some derelict appliance full of holes. I've been personal witness to some rather unsafe shooting situations. It was amazing that none of the people I knew were killed (although one guy did dislocate his shoulder firing a shotgun single-handed like he saw on TV). So, when I hear NRA-types contrasting "criminals" and "responsible gun owners", I have to assume they've never met kids like this (who don't really fit into either camp).
As an adult, I knew someone who broke up with a guy; a guy I thought was one of the nicest, most considerate people I've ever met. This guy didn't handle it all that well and she soon noticed him making a habit of parking near her place of residence, drinking. With his guns in his car. And he would phone her and threaten to shoot himself. A common friend went to this guy's house and took his guns away until he promised to behave. The story didn't end tragically but it easily could have.
I bring up these stories to try to bring a little texture to the gun control debate (yes, BA, registration is part of control). The spokes people in the anti-registry lobby like to pretend that you can neatly seperate people into hardened criminals and law-abiding citizens. And gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens, leaving all the guns in the hands of hardened criminals.
The world isn't that simple. Lots of "law abiding citizens" are sometimes irresponsible. And sometimes "law abiding citizens" find themselves in situations where they lose control and are no longer law abiding. So I find it quite reasonable that when police are called into a situation, they should be able to query a database and find out how many weapons someone owns. Yes, I know it isn't perfect. But it's what we can do.
You could make some attempt to not blatantly mischaraterise people's positions. Could you please point to some evidence of something someone said that would justify this attribution that there are a ton of voters only vote for the NDP because they think the party is opposed to the gun registry.
Hmm, I must have been dreaming when I read all the posts here praising the NDP for allowing its MPs to represent, not their conscience, but their constituents. And how if they voted the wrong way, they'd lose their seats to some rural backlash. And that we urbanites just don't have the brainpower to grasp the realities of country life. Do I need to go back and catalogue the examples, or can you locate them on your own?
Thats a grotesque simplification of the positions taken here against the registry. And no, dont bother cherry picking the quotes, that taken out of the context of the discussion stream they are in would falsely support your point. ONE of the arguments being made is that the NDP would pay in votes in rural constituencies. Since you all just wave it off, it keeps coming up.
Its already been pointed out numerous times by the way that its not thought you lack the brainpower. Its a matter of lived experience. Some have the basic empathy to know it makes it harder for them to understand, some are thick enough to beleive they understand everything. You can have basic empathy without changing your mind that the registry is vital. Or you can be thick and flail at people because its your right and you are right.
There are a number of themes in why people/MPs are opposed to the registry. And the different themes play differently, but they recurr. Some NDP MPs who dislike it enough to want to vote against it do so, if for no other reasons, because they dont want to face the backlash. Some primarily because they have a visceral dislike of the way the wedge issue was foisted on people, and have seen no or little compensating practical benefits to the registry. Some because of that and because on top of that the NDP will pay a price for supporting the registry even if I am at no risk of losing my seat.
Like Charlie angus was saying- its not just about how you vote in the end.
Its dishonest you and others trying to simplify opposition to the registry down to one thing.
The spokes people in the anti-registry lobby like to pretend that you can neatly seperate people into hardened criminals and law-abiding citizens. And gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens, leaving all the guns in the hands of hardened criminals.
These are the arguments of people who oppose ANY gun control. The arguments used here is that the registry does precious little on an aggregate level to actually deal with the situations you have outlined. The specifics of that have been tossed back and forth discussed before.
[Since I've been critical of the tone of other posts, so it could be construed I see yours in the same light, I'd like to make it explicit that I find your criticism respectful and attentive.]
In response to Ken, my point was, the media are over-simplifying by saying the NDP is torn by an urban-rural split. I was just showing it's not that simple.
Until recently, I thought Peter Stoffer had just voted for the bill to go to committee because he always votes for private members' bills to go to committee. I was surprised that he supports killing the registry. I am disappointed that, unlike Charlie Angus, he is already painting himself into a corner of being unwilling to consider new evidence like the RCMP report, and unwilling to consider the many requests he is getting. Not nice.
That response to me is I think disengenuous. You were taking the media portrayal as if it was THE reason for NDP MPs opposition to the registry, and then [attempting] to puncture it. Why else would you say so-and-so has NO reason to oppose because his seat is mostly urban.
Though how "rural" a seat is, is a pretty strong factor in what NDP MPs, or members, want to do on this. And the point was made below that with the way seats are divided in Canada you cant just play a numbers game. For example, there is no "urban" seat in Saskatchewan, and maybe 2 in Nova Scotia, though a third of Nova Scotians live in Metro. You and I particpated in a little discussion on that just this week in Pundits Guide. Where I said that even though we commonly referr to 'rural' and urban seats, there was no clear measure. You said something similar.
Peter Stoffers seat would be a good example of the problems. Its entirely within the boundaries of the HRM, but at least a quarter of it is rural and VERY rural- more so than the officially rural place I live. And the whole urban part of it would have a majority of people who would not identify themselves as urban, In any meaningful sense, its rural.
As to Peter Stoffer's reason. Peter is a very opinionated guy. He's unlikely to change an opinion like he formed about the rgistry, barring some compelling arguments. And the arguments there are have failed to convince open minded people. So Peter's opinionated. Like I said before, there are all kinds of things that go into the choices MPs will make. Taking a reductionist approach to it, yes you will fail to understand.
Some of them are. Not, obviously, all.
I'm slightly torn on this issue, with five considerations:
1. I naturally support Labour's campaigns to save the gun registry, such as:
Keep Our Communities Safe
Save our National Gun Registry
Save the Gun Registry
2. I naturally support women's campaigns to save the gun registry. To cite only a sample:
Suzanne LaPlante-Edward
The Canadian Federation of University Women
Write to NDP MPs Who Voted to Abolish the Long Gun Registry, Urging Them to Support It This Time
Disarm Domestic Violence
The NDP obviously will have problems if it doesn't join with labour and women's groups. Normally there should be a free vote on a private members bill. This bill has obviously been adopted by the government. It is a private member's bill in name only. A whipped vote would obviously be justified. Jack looks weak for saying otherwise. This issue is not about the cost/benefit analysis of the gun registry, which may well be less effective than it should be, in which case, gun control should be strengthened, not weakened. This is a political issue: stop violence against women. Why it is any more offensive to farmers to register their gun than to register their vehicle?
3. I naturally hate American-style gun culture.
4. I naturally support Quebeckers on this issue. The discrepancy between Quebec support for gun control and support in the rest of Canada bothers me no end. I have seen this since the day of the Montreal Massacre. I was a school trustee at the time. Quebec and Montreal declared three days of mourning. The Ontario legislature declared one minute's silence. Our school board's regular meeting happened to be the night after the massacre. The 15 trustees unanimously decided to lower the flags at all our schools to half-mast during the three days of mourning. The next morning I got a phone call from the feminist who had moved the motion. A number of school principals were doubting the legality of our motion, on the grounds that the Ministry's protocol manual said when flags were to be lowered, and Quebec women students were not in the manual. Some of them had commented "If it was Ontario students, I could see it." For an unprecedented event, they wanted precedent. So she asked us all to leave our jobs, go to our schools and make sure the flags were lowered. We did. They were. But I have noticed ever since that otherwise decent people seem to feel it was something that happened in Quebec, not in Canada. I have no sympathy whatever for this. Quebec has lots of hunters and anglers; it's a major part of their culture; but they overwhelmingly support the gun registry. When I see the difference in opinion polls between Quebec and Ontario, I see no other explanation than this one.
5. On the other hand, it was not a party policy in the last election. The party has always been divided on it. Some MPs in our caucus were, unfortunately, elected on a pledge to vote against the gun registry. Some are from ridings where public opinion is, misguidedly, opposed to the gun registry. Some are from ridings with special considerations like Churchill, heavily aboriginal, which I gather has not been properly addressed.
Therefore, giving a few such MPs an exemption from caucus policy is justifiable, as long as the bill does not pass. Joe Comartin has been trying to work along this line, which we should all applaud. Charlie Angus will, I hope, be only the first to listen. We all have to keep up the pressure, so that MPs like Charlie Angus have the political back-bone to say "I will not be used by those who are trying to paint rural residents as rednecks."
In my work as a family lawyer, I often see women who were scared by their ex-partner's guns. Registered or not, rural or urban, hunters or not, it made little difference. If the guy started drinking, they worried. They want gun control strengthened, not weakened. I support them, professionally and personally.
You could make some attempt to not blatantly mischaraterise people's positions. Could you please point to some evidence of something someone said that would justify this attribution that there are a ton of voters only vote for the NDP because they think the party is opposed to the gun registry.
Well, first off this was part of a conversation I was having with Stockholm and addressed to his specific position regarding his posts #51 where he hypothesized the disaster that would happen if the vote were whipped ie: NDP seats would go CPC, and then in post #56 where he predicts that if the registry falls basically nothing would happen and there would be no consequences for the NDP.
I can see where taken out of context you might get the impression you did that this was my theory, but in actual fact it is your fellow anti-registry supporters, Stockholm's theory (barring further clarification from Stockholm, which I'm sure he would like to do as I assume he doesn't really believe what his predictions say about the voting habits of some NDPers.)
Now, what reason could there be for this (whipped vote = lost NDP seats) to happen other than the rural NDP voters in the ridings in question were simply single issue conservatives?
Of course I'm not in agreement with the conclusion I was FORCED to come to if I took Stockholms' predictions at face value. I don't believe for a second that these voters are all single issue conservative NDPers
For instance, you seem to be against the registry, and I assume you are an NDP supporter, so if Layton were to whip the vote would you decide to vote CPC next election?
If you say "yes", then I guess Stockholm has a good point and the NDP voters in these 6 to 12 ridings may well be basically single issue conservatives that somehow got tricked into voting NDP last time.
If you say "no", then one would assume (as do I, and I assume given your response to my post, as do you) that the registry is not the be all and end all for your average anti-registry NDP voter.
STOP MISREPRESENTING THE LONG GUN REGISTERY AS GUN CONTROL. IT ISN'T. IT DOESN'T. IT NEVER WILL BE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD- GUN CONTROL IN CANADA IS ACHEIVED THROUGH THE PAL.
That is your opinion, and you're perfectly within your rights to have it, but yelling it doesn't magically turn it into fact.
What's next? Threaten us with your gun if we don't accept your opinion as fact? (just kidding, but really, an anti-registry supporter screaming at those who do support the registry is not going to convince us that the registry is not needed. Quite the opposite in fact.)
Now, what reason could there be for this (whipped vote = lost NDP seats) to happen other than the rural NDP voters in the ridings in question were simply single issue conservatives?
Presumably youve heard of the concept of tipping points, of the reality that the degree of peoples support of any party varies and is contingent, that many seats are decided by not many votes, and that there are many seats like that which are two way NDP/Cons contests?
Hmm, I must have been dreaming when I read all the posts here praising the NDP for allowing its MPs to represent, not their conscience, but their constituents. And how if they voted the wrong way, they'd lose their seats to some rural backlash. And that we urbanites just don't have the brainpower to grasp the realities of country life. Do I need to go back and catalogue the examples, or can you locate them on your own?
Thats a grotesque simplification of the positions taken here against the registry. And no, dont bother cherry picking the quotes, that taken out of the context of the discussion stream they are in would falsely support your point. ONE of the arguments being made is that the NDP would pay in votes in rural constituencies. Since you all just wave it off, it keeps coming up.
Its already been pointed out numerous times by the way that its not thought you lack the brainpower. Its a matter of lived experience. Some have the basic empathy to know it makes it harder for them to understand, some are thick enough to beleive they understand everything. You can have basic empathy without changing your mind that the registry is vital. Or you can be thick and flail at people because its your right and you are right.
There are a number of themes in why people/MPs are opposed to the registry. And the different themes play differently, but they recurr. Some NDP MPs who dislike it enough to want to vote against it do so, if for no other reasons, because they dont want to face the backlash. Some primarily because they have a visceral dislike of the way the wedge issue was foisted on people, and have seen no or little compensating practical benefits to the registry. Some because of that and because on top of that the NDP will pay a price for supporting the registry even if I am at no risk of losing my seat.
Like Charlie angus was saying- its not just about how you vote in the end.
Its dishonest you and others trying to simplify opposition to the registry down to one thing.
Sorry, but from where I'm standing I see the anti side (yourself included) doing all the same things you mention in your post.
There's also plenty of reason to vote for the registry beside some lack of "lived experience" and misguided beliefs. For instance there is just as much to lose, maybe even more, by alienating all the progressive groups now coming out in support of the registry, so if we are going to concern ourselves with "backlash" we should concern ourselves with ALL the backlash, not just the anti-registry backlash .. if we are going to concern ourselves with "understanding the other side", then we should concern ourselves with understanding both sides and not just the anti side.
To me that would mean the NDP party as a whole standing up together and demanding that the flaws as seen by both sides be addressed and that the registry not simply be killed (allow the MPs an unwhipped vote) or saved in its current form (whipped vote but with no demand to immediately start the process of fixing) ... do you disagree? Or do you simply want the registry killed and that's that, end of discussion?
Of course I'm not in agreement with the conclusion I was FORCED to come to if I took Stockholms' predictions at face value. I don't believe for a second that these voters are all single issue conservative NDPers
For instance, you seem to be against the registry, and I assume you are an NDP supporter, so if Layton were to whip the vote would you decide to vote CPC next election?
If you say "yes", then I guess Stockholm has a good point and the NDP voters in these 6 to 12 ridings may well be basically single issue conservatives that somehow got tricked into voting NDP last time.
If you say "no", then one would assume (as do I, and I assume given your response to my post, as do you) that the registry is not the be all and end all for your average anti-registry NDP voter.
The idea that you think that Stockholm, even with his tendency to be less than subtle, FORCED you to take logical leaps... its goofy.
Its good that you have the sense to not think they are all single issue voters. But your follow-up questions, if thats what they are, show that here at least the sense is very limited.
There's also plenty of reason to vote for the registry beside some lack of "lived experience" and misguided beliefs. For instance there is just as much to lose, maybe even more, by alienating all the progressive groups now coming out in support of the registry, so if we are going to concern ourselves with "backlash" we should concern ourselves with ALL the backlash, not just the anti-registry backlash .. if we are going to concern ourselves with "understanding the other side", then we should concern ourselves with understanding both sides and not just the anti side.
When "lived experience" and lack of understanding came up that was directed at someone else. While I think you also terribly mischaracterise people positions... you dont always do that, and you do seem to understand where people are at in terms of substantive principles people bring to the issue.
And I perfectly understand the underpinnings of the support for the registry. Have you ever seen me attack them? Not to mentioned that like other people I've mentioned I'm mostly tired of the issue. I sure as hell dont feel anything like righteous about it. And I very much appreciate that at least in this current itteration there are some people who unequivocally support the registry, have a growing understanding of why the registry is opposed.
But when the trivializing zealots come riding in, they attack whether there is even a legitimate anti-registry position. Period. And that I will continue to object to.
As to what there is to lose. Remember, I said a number of times this is a difficult position for the NDP: there is no winning position. I'm quite certain that are is a huge amount more to be lost in votes for the NDP, AND support seen in broader terms, by taking the position you want. Its extremely difficult to have a discussion of whether thats true with someone who doesnt seem able to take the 'mechanics' of that seriously. How about I just leave it as a statement of agree to disagree: what the NDP risks with the stand it is taking, will have the much smaller impact. That the impact of what you want the NDP to do instead will result in seats lost to the Conservatives. And I'll admit it, competitive as I am with the Liberals, if it turns out we're wrong and there's some evidence that the comparison between the Liberals and NDP on this issue costs us some urban seats lost to the Liberals.... I wont regret it, because the risks of deflating our compettiton with the Consrvatives across Canada was much greater.
And I shouldnt have to do this, but I'm going to preempt what someone is bound to do: say thats all I care about.
With full respect to opinions otherwise that I understand, I dont tink the registry is defensible. Some pro-registry people ALSO make the argument that the NDP has more to lose- in purely partisan terms- from not doing everything to save the registry. Thats an point that is empirically argued. And arguing with that is the point being made here.
Now, what reason could there be for this (whipped vote = lost NDP seats) to happen other than the rural NDP voters in the ridings in question were simply single issue conservatives?
Presumably youve heard of the concept of tipping points, of the reality that the degree of peoples support of any party varies and is contingent, that many seats are decided by not many votes, and that there are many seats like that which are two way NDP/Cons contests?
Yes, but I wasn't aware that this concept only applied to was NDP/Cons contests ... NDP/Libs contests can never have this issue?
Peter Stoffer - won over his nearest rival by over 40% of the vote, no problem here
Malcolm Allen - won in a 3 way race in a former Liberal riding by less than 1% , so will anti or pro registry support/outrage win the day in this one?
Charlie Angus won by over 30% against his Liberal opponent, Cons weren't even in this one.
Niki Ashton - 20% over the Liberal
Dennis Bevington (Incumbent) - 4% win over Con, so this one might qualify for a slide to the Con side.
Nathan Cullen - incumbent with a 13% win over the Cons (I consider that safe, maybe you don't?)
Claude Gravelle - 20% over the Liberal
Carol Hughes - 13% over the Liberal (I consider this safe as well, see Nathan Cullen)
Bruce Hyer - 9% over the Liberal
Jim Maloway - 5% over the Con
John Rafferty - 8% over the Liberal
Glenn Thibeault - 5% over the incumbent Liberal
So, for the sake of argument let's say a 10% or less win puts these seats in danger of sliding to the next likely party, by my count then we have 6 seats where the registry vote may play a part.
Of those 6 seats, 3 are Liberals leaning, 2 are Con leaning, and 1 is up for grabs.
Or maybe we go with 5%? Then we have one Liberal leaning, two Con leaning, and the other up for grabs.
Or, less than 1% difference? Then there is one seat that could go either way.
So, strategically speaking which side is it better to piss off? I'd call it a wash with maybe a slight leaning to it being better for the NDP to piss off the anti-registry people given the results from the last election and the direction of current polls today.
ETA: I see I missed on of the 5%ers for the Cons (corrected now,) so that probably makes the 5% bracket slightly in favour for pissing off the pro-registry side, but over all I'd say we still have a wash, certainly not a big game changer in favour of the side against the registry ... and given the progressive groups that might decide to withdraw some level of support for the NDP, maybe we need to look at ridings where the NDP didn't win but have a base to build on to have a chance in the next election and see if the anti or pro stance would be of any benefit .. but that's for another time.
@ Unionist #81
Well like I said, I don't really care what you call it, but if this numbers game is some sort of way to imagine it out of existence, good luck.
And you know, this tactic of trying to gloss over legitimate concerns by demonizing people (#64, in particular) is something I find really offensive. What is your point, No Yards.
Did you read the entire post, where at the end I explain that I don't believe for a second these people are actual NDP voters .. the point being the the ANGRY opposition to the registry may not be coming from the NDP voters ... essentially we need to be careful taking what is in the right wing media as actual outrage from NDP voters to the registry .. yes, there are NDP voters that oppose the registry, but I doubt any large portion (if any) are against it for any of the far right libertarian reasons commonly presented in the media.
There are two answers to this.
First, to quote the Canadian Federation of University Women kit linked above "Call the following MPs (and/or your own) and share your disappointment, shock and disgust that they would threaten public and women's safety for pure political gain."
Second: how many?
Western Arctic, yes.
Welland, yes.
Elmwood-Transcona, yes.
That's three; only one is "rural."
Sault Ste. Marie, yes. But Tony is not for bending.
Edmonton-Strathcona, yes. Linda Duncan is not wavering.
Burnaby-Douglas, yes. Bill Siksay is firm.
Nanaimo-Cowichan, yes. Jean Crowder is firm.
British Columbia Southern Interior, yes, with an 11.6% margin. Alex is not wavering.
London-Fanshawe, maybe, with a 12.3% margin. Irene Mathyssen seems solid.
New Westminster-Coquitlam, maybe, but the by-election margin was 14%, and anyway Fin Donnelly seems solid.
Not really Skeena-Bulkley Valley, where Nathan had a 13.4% margin.
Not Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing, where the Conservative came third with 17.6%.
Not Churchill, where the Conservative came third with 20.5%.
Not Nickel Belt, where the Conservative came third with 21.7%.
Not Thunder Bay-Rainy River, where the Conservative came third with 23.6%
Not Sudbury, where the Conservative came third with 25.8%.
Not Thunder Bay-Superior North, where the Conservative came third with 26.8%.
Certainly not Sackville-Eastern Shore: 61.4% NDP, 20.7% Conservative.
Sorry for yelling in my post above but it
refects me deep frustration at the distortion, lies, ignorance and misrepresentation from both sides. There has not been much from the anti extremists, but like the pro extremists they claim the registry is gun control- which they oppose. It isn't. You can argue for and against its public saftey effectiveness but it is not gun control.
That's not opinion it is fact.
It shouldn't be too much to ask thay both sides stick to reality and truth.
Closing for length.