Attack on the long-gun registry: An interview with Wendy Cukier

| September 13, 2010

Wendy Cukier is the president of the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC) and a professor at Ryerson University in Toronto. The CGC is an alliance of more than 300 policing, public safety and violence prevention organizations including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Canadian Public Health Association, and YWCA of Canada. The coalition was founded after the Montreal Massacre in 1989, when 14 women were shot to death and 13 more were injured at the École Polytechnique de Montréal.

Cukier was interviewed by rabble.ca about the proposed scrapping of Canada's long-gun registry, brought forward in Parliament by a private members bill, Bill C-391. A motion to kill Bill C-391 will be voted on in the House on Sept. 22. If that attempt to stop it fails, the bill will go to a third reading, probably within the next few weeks.

Cathryn Atkinson: Let's open with your general response as the president and co-founder of the CGC. What has the coalition been trying to do to have an impact?

Wendy Cukier: We are hoping the motion on September 22 will kill the bill. I don't think anyone believes there is anything that can be done to change the government's mind on this because they've been clear from the outset. The use of a private member's bill was a really clever strategy to advance government policy but dress it up as a private member's bill and then undermine party solidarity.

The real issue is not what the government does, it's what the opposition parties do and, more specifically, what the leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, does. It's really the NDP that is going to determine whether this bill passes or does not pass.

CA: What's the latest with Layton and the NDP?

WC: There are 307 voting members of Parliament. Four seats are vacant, that makes it 303. In order to carry this bill, they need 152 votes. As it stands now, there are 148 votes against the bill, if everybody shows up. There are 147 votes absolutely, for sure, for the bill.

And we expect at least three NDP MPs in addition, making it five NDP... We figure it is 150 for the bill, 148 against the bill, and five NDP votes that could go either way.

CA: Wow. This must be driving you to distraction.

WC: Well, yeah. It really is down to the fact that they are at 150 and they need 152 to carry [the bill]. We need at least seven NDP members voting with the Liberals to defeat this bill. The gun lobby, the U.S.-based NRA [National Rifle Association] reported that the NDP had six on their side, and we [at the coalition] know they have five for sure.

The NRA has claimed that there are six NDP members committed to voting with the Conservatives. And if that's the case, then the bill will pass.

CA: It's interesting that the NRA is watching this so closely, though maybe not surprising.

WC: Absolutely. And not only that they've been watching it closely, but they've been actively engaged in mobilizing, coaching, raising money for the Canadian gun lobby, because they see this as having global significance. So the president of the NRA has been up here several times, speaking at fundraisers; they did election-readiness training; they've done infomercials that are broadcast in border towns and seen on both sides of the border.

The NRA, we have no evidence that they've actually given money to the Canadian gun lobby, but they've certainly done everything short of that and you can combine that with a very aggressive advertising campaign by the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has been ranting and raving and putting a lot of resources into this as well. In a scene out of the Gong Show, they testified in front of a parliamentary committee, saying the gun registry cost $2 billion, the auditor general said it a waste of money, unreliable, and so on. And the very next day you had Sheila Fraser, the actual auditor general, speaking for herself, saying, no, it was a billion dollars over 10 years and she was satisfied that the costs were taken cares of and so on.

She has actually refuted it, and yet mainstream media continue to talk about the $2 billion that was spent on the firearms registry.

CA: Is that laziness or politics on the part of the media?

WC: You can't impute motive, but what you see is that claims get repeated over and over without being challenged. One Globe [and Mail] editorial was particularly entertaining, because it said sometimes registered guns are used, like the gun at Dawson College, so the registry doesn't work, and sometimes unregistered guns are used, like the gun at Mayerthorpe, so the gun registry doesn't work.

To me, this is like arguing that sometimes licensed drivers are killed in car crashes so now we should no longer license drivers or register cars, have speed bumps, photo radar. Sometimes the opinions are just so entrenched that the nonsensical arguments get repeated over and over. The facts don't matter, certainly in terms of the political positions.

CA: It seems ideologically driven to an astonishing degree.

WC: It is. That's why it is so shocking that some of the NDP members, and, in particular, the leader of the NDP, are in advancing arguments like the registry punishes rural citizens, when in fact a substantial proportion of rural citizens, i.e. the women, support the registry. The whole effort to characterize this as urban vs. rural, as opposed to acknowledging that it's about power and ideology and very aggressive lobbying tactics, is shocking because the rates of gun violence in rural communities are much higher than in urban communities.

The rates of women killed with guns in rural communities is higher, the rates of suicide with guns is much higher, and yet none of that is factoring into the positioning of those rural MPs or Jack Layton's positioning, he's been buying into the argument that those claims [of rural gun owners] are legitimate. When the second reading vote came forward last November, friends of mine inside the party said there were two talking points: If you want to vote with the Conservatives say this, and if you want to vote against the Conservative bill, say that. No real effort on the leader's part to exercise leadership.

At the same time, I would say [Liberal leader Michael] Ignatieff bears the bulk of the blame in this because had he stood firm and recognized that this was a Conservative bill dressed up as a private member's bill and whipped the vote in the fall, when it came for second reading, I doubt that Jack would have been as flexible as he has been. I don't think that even Layton wants to be seen as the person responsible for helping the Conservatives dismantle the registry, but that is, in fact, what he will be given the way things are unfolding.

CA: What is the tone of debate like this time compared with the level of debate that took place at the registry's creation? The enemies of the registry have been talking this way for years, but now they have more power.

WC: I think that's really all that has changed. Their arguments are identical. They're much more sophisticated; when the bill was passing in 1995 and if you looked at media coverage there was no question that they were on our side. The arguments that were being made on the other side were not being parroted, they way they are now. The spokespeople that were advancing those arguments were not slick Bay Street lawyers.

One of the things that is really shocking to me is the amount of resources being marshalled in the effort to dismantle the run registry, and that is partly because the Conservative Party of Canada has lots of cash and it has pulled out all the stops in terms of radio advertisements and trips across the country. They are sparing no expense.

In the gun lobby groups there is more money and more sophistication. They have PR professionals, corporate lawyers... [more] than they did in '95.

CA: There must have been much more momentum in the public and from politicians after the École Polytechnique de Montréal murders. Would you say the passage of time has made people softer in terms of wanting to protect the gun registry? The massacre and other attacks don't seem to be mentioned much in debate.

WC: That is part of it, but I think emotions were much rawer when Kim Campbell's legislation passed in 1991. Even by '95, outside of Montreal there wasn't quite as much invested. What has changed is that in 1995 the journalists that we met were journalists who covered the Montreal massacre, who, even in 2000, when we were fighting for the laws in the Supreme Court, they were able to critique claims that were being made on both sides.

What I find concerning is that you don't see the same level of questioning of claims that are made. You see more replication of arguments.

One thing that has happened recently is the moving out of the commissioner of the Canadian Firearms Program, Marty Cheliak, and the release of that RCMP report, which everyone said was going to show that the costs were responsible and that it was working, police were using it, etcetera. That did get a fair amount of attention. It could account for some of the recent shift in public opinion [in the registry's favour].

I have the sense that there is more awareness of the issue than there was. Having the police come out as strong as they have has made an impression on some people, because even the gun lobby... it's hard for people to give much credence to the idea that the police are doing this for political reasons.

CA: Have the opponents to the bill been working together?

WC: The majority of Canadians, I am convinced, still support gun owners registering guns. But the salience of the issue is not that high. If we have public meetings we are always swamped by the gun lobby. Whenever there is an article published the comments are usually swamped by the gun lobby.

So in terms of public events, the gun lobby has always, from the outset, been able to organize hundreds of people waving their fists and shouting against gun control, more than we have. What we are seeing that is really gratifying is that the same organizations that were there at the very beginning, whether it's the chiefs of police, the police association, the police boards, public health, or the pediatricians, or the Canadian Labour Congress... they are there again.

What has surprised me is the vehemence amongst some of the core NDP supporters, who I think just realized what Jack Layton was or was not doing. So many people were not aware of what was going on with gun control. There have been so many different bills and threats over the years... and everyone assumes it is going to work out fine.

When Bill C-391 passed its second reading, and it wasn't even close, it was a big margin, I think a lot of the gun control supporters, who perhaps had moved on to other issues, were given pause, are now mobilized and have started writing. They are making it clear to the NDP that they may pick up a few votes in some rural ridings if they support C-391 -- thought there is the question as to whether hardcore gun owners are NDP supporters -- though it's becoming clearer that they are putting risk on their core support among women and people in urban communities, and certainly the gains they were making in Quebec.

For the first time in many months we are seeing evidence that Jack is trying to provide some leadership and coax his MPs into defeating this bill, although he's adamant that he won't whip the vote, he has given some indications publicly that he is trying to persuade people.

I think that in many of those rural ridings, the number two competition [to the NDP during election campaigns] is not the Conservatives, it's the Liberals. So the NDP were trying have it both ways, as supporters of the white ribbon campaign and defenders of the victims in urban centres and Quebec, and they were going to be able to beat up on the Liberals for supporting gun control in the rural ridings.

That strategy has started to catch up with them. Before the last vote [in Nov. 2009] there was no letter from Jack Layton saying ‘I'm the founder of the white ribbon campaign. I embraced the victims of Dawson College and promised I would do everything I could to defend gun control, please do not support this bill.'

I didn't have any evidence last fall that the NDP leader was exercising influence, but I think you're seeing that now. He recognizes that his legacy is at stake, and he will be the person that is held responsible is this bill passes.

CA: What happens if the gun registry is dismantled? What do you envisage?

WC: I think what's important, what many voters don't understand, is that a lot of people, including Conservatives, [and] the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, will claim that they support the licensing of gun owners.

However, what the Supreme Court said is that you can't sever registration from licensing, and there is really good evidence to reinforce the notion that if you don't have registration, you can't enforce licensing. If you have a license and you can buy as many guns as you like and none of them are registered to you, there is little to stop you from giving several of those guns to me, an unlicensed gun owner.

So without registration, there is a strong argument to say licensing doesn't work, there is also a pretty strong argument to say there is less incentive to store guns safely, because if guns are stolen -- a major source of illegal guns in Canada -- why would you report it stolen if you are going to be held accountable?

The whole notion about registration is about accountability and holding gun owners accountable. What we've seen since the bill passed, and since we have steadily tightened control over rifles and shotguns in Canada, we've seen a steady decline in gun deaths.

In 1995, about 1,200 Canadians were killed with guns. Last year, it was about 800. If we were talking about any other public safety intervention, if you saw a 30 or 40 per cent decline in deaths, you would conclude that you were being pretty successful.

The evidence that licensing or registration has had an impact and driven down death and injury in Canada is pretty convincing. Which piece is licensing, which piece is registration, is hard to disaggregate, but it's fair to say that taken together they have contributed to lowering death and injury, in particular suicides, and murders of women and their children in domestic violence.

If you get rid of a key piece of that system -- ie. the registry -- I think the chances are pretty good that death and injury will increase again.

CA: Should there be a shift in the sitting government's attitude to the registry, it would be very difficult to re-establish it.

WC: Absolutely. Seven million guns have been registered. If this bill passes, they get rid of the registry, they get rid of the records.

I don't believe any government would ever, ever, ever attempt to start this process again because it has been far too expensive, far too difficult, far too painful.

CA: Could axing the gun registry be an election issue?

WC: I think there are a cluster of issues, of which this is one, that Canadians should be concerned about, that are taking us further and further towards a set of right-wing policies. If you look at the steady erosion of accountability, of fact-based policy [like the long-form census], of critics - the silencing of critics, the underfunding of equality-seeking groups, or anyone who dares criticize the government... There's a cluster of things that go together and I think gun control is one of those.

Unfortunately, I think the issue has the most salience among the 1.2 million gun owners in the country who oppose the registry, and the average Canadian who thinks the registry is a good idea is not likely to vote based on it unless they have lost a child to gun violence.

CA: You're on the board of the International Action Network on Small Arms. We started off talking about the interest and possible interference of the NRA. Have your colleagues in other countries commented on the importance of keeping the registry?

WC: One of the ironies is that there is now a global movement, and some of it started in Canada, to end armed violence against women. Canada's firearms laws and some of the provisions put in specifically to protect people from spousal violence -- primarily women but also children, and some cases, men -- are now considered best practice internationally. So other countries have adopted similar laws that link their firearm regulations to domestic violence laws. There was a fairly high level of awareness around the world about Canada's success in dealing with violence against women and using firearms laws in that regard.

There's concern [about the gun registry being dismantled]. In the United States, finally, there is growing acknowledgement of the fact that gaps of firearms laws there fuel armed violence. And probably with the exception of the United States, most countries in the world are moving towards strengthening their laws.

The fact that Canada is moving in the opposite direction, is, again, part of a cluster of issues where Canada used to be viewed as a leader in a whole portfolio of progressive issues by the United Nations. Our status is slipping because we're no longer considered one of the "good guys" on a lot of these issues.

Cathryn Atkinson is rabble.ca's news and features editor.

embedded_video

Comments

The firearm registry is a failure. It failed to prevent Montreal school shootings... it failed to prevent the Mayerthorpe RCMP shootings... it failed to prevent Toronto gang shootings... and relying on it contributed to the death of Montreal police Constable Daniel Tessier.

Registration can't prevent anyone from acquiring an illegal firearm, nor prevent anyone from doing anything illegal, immoral, or stupid with a firearm.

All the Registry can do is tell who may have owned a specific gun. I’m certain shooting victims care who used to own the gun as much as car crash victims care who used to own the car. For this were supposed to keep paying millions?

Again Wendy is lying.

The NRA does nothing in Canada. Its constitution prohibits it. ONCE its president and another time a minor official were invited to speak in Canada. The NRA is NOT "mobilizing, coaching, raising money for the Canadian gun lobby."

Wendy invented the gun lobby. Until she channeled her irrational fears into demonizing and blaming the most law-abiding group in Canada (check insurance stats for proof) for the actions of a lone Arab nutcase (Kimveer Gill, who changed his name to Marc Lapine), there was no organized political group acting for firearm owner's rights. Wendy's irrational hatred created it.

 

read.. thought.. posted this: (I'd love to see the look on her face at my using her own words against her in the ending quote.)

 

A few points Wendy never addresses... every time she and others tout the X number of X guns were used in crime etc etc.... they NEVER state how many of their numbers were legal guns.. ... sounds more impressive if they omit the actual truth,

How about Wendy's claim to be a volunteer.. and yet she has been caught having been given hundreds of thousands of dollars... conflict of interest? ie: If I don't promote this agenda I won't get $ in my pockets.

Reality is the problem is the CRIMINALS and C-68 as a whole is an unequivocal disaster. It was touted by Wendy and others as "improving public safty and stopping crime". Well it has not stopped even one gun crime yet... it has not saved even one life.

It has however in effect cost directly the lives of naive young officers whom foolishly believed the massively flawed disaster.. aka the registry. Reality is it can NOT ever tell anyone if there is a gun present.. and even at it's "best" it can only tell an officer there is a gun registered to X address. Not if it's actually there... never mind any illegal guns.

The entire premise is massively flawed from the outset.

Many like Wendy chant things like "womens issues"... sorry but it's not a womens issue... it's a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN issue. Statistically men are more likely to be shot and killed than women.. but that's somehow a womens issue?

In the case of an abusive relationship the registry cannot ever stop that abuse from happening.. (from men or women!.... shocking yes.. but the flip side happens too). The same registry is often touted for saving lives and preventing suicide.. and yet suicide rates have remained very stable since long before the registry. Wendy and others fail to state while there have been less suicides by guns there has been an increase in hanging. And that change has been happening for many years again before the registry.

Virtually every "fact" she drags out lacks context.. has been picked over carefully to try to pull at heart strings etc etc..

Reality is the registry and c-68 has cost BILLIONS... and currently upwards of 100 Million a year (RCMP report she was so desperately waiting for even quotes it as high 80's approximately)..

Now look at the cold hard reality.. if it is just about saving lives and we ignore all of the other crap associated with Wendy's disaster..

Lives saved by the registry: ZERO

Lives that could have been saved by using all of those billions on other programs.. like Womens shelters.. better mental health treatments to prevent suicide... more LEO's to catch and deal with the thugs, gangs, rapists and murderers whom have ILLEGAL guns regardless of the registry. More border patrols to catch those smuggling in the ILLEGAL guns...

Anyone care to guess which side of that simple question gets the win?

 

Fact is Wendy's lil project is a complete unequivocal total FAILURE which has deprived Canadians of inestimable value in other areas.. It;s time for everyone to clue in and demand the end of this debacle.. and then focus on the real problem.... something Wendy has never done yet..

 

ie: THE CRIMINALS


I end this with two quotes that are very appropriate to say the least.

"After the period of sort of inflated expectations and hype, people start looking more critically at what the costs really are, what the limitations really are, what it really can do, really can't do, what the unintended consequences are, etc., and start to bring their expectations more in line with the reality."
- Wendy Cukier


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1775.

 

I love the hypocrisy.  It's perfectly acceptable for anti-gun activisits to accept international assistance from organizations like IANSA, yet it's wrong for pro-gun activists to accept help from organizations like the NRA.

Where did I put that pot and kettle again?

This is, of course, assuming that Ms Cukier is being honest about the level of support that the NRA provides in Canada.  Which she's not.

Wendy is doing a great job!  Without the registry the process of civilian disarmament cannot proceed, and it is clearly an essential part of the larger agenda. 

Clearly, guns belong only in the hands of police and military, and no-one in Canada has the right to "self defense" or "duck hunting". 

Likewise the Authorization to Transport (ATT) provision has made great headway in the process of restricting, if not  halting the movement of restricted and prohibited firearms to the so called "gun ranges" where so-called "law abiding" shooters blast away at paper and clay targets.  This activity must be stopped as it is an affront to our sensibilities.   After all,  if we don't do it, then others should not be allowed!!!

The very best part of Wendy's interview is how we have exported this same approach to so-called "responsible firearm ownership" to other countries.  This has helped to turn "law abiding citizens" into pariahs.  Oh, what fun!

What I find totally Obscene is the fact that a woman being attacked is not allowed, BY LAW, anything that will prevent her attacker from getting close enough to harm her. Consider small containers of pepper spray.. These can be legally carried for protection from 'dogs' and coyotes, but you can't legally carry them for YOUR protection from muggers and rapists. Under Canadian law a woman MUST be a victim, able to fight off or even kill her attacker using only her bare hands. It's truly unfortunate that some women have become victims of not only their attackers, but also victims of the Canadian Grief Industry that without a continuing supply of helpless victims, will surely go broke. Smart women fight back, with what ever they want, regardless of the legal grey areas, they believe that their lives, and the lives of their children are far more important than the politically correct claptrap thats fed to them by the Liberals, the NDP, and the Canadian Grief Industry. If your 'Ex' is kicking down your door at 3am, the recognizable sound of a shotgun slide will cause him to think twice. Whereas 'only' dialling 911 will certainly summon the Police, but you may very well spend the rest of your life waiting for 'them' to bring a gun to your rescue...
Think About it..

It's amazing how Ms. Cukier can talk sideways with xenophobic and libelous (the NRA cannot spend money in Canada) generalizations of NRA influence without mentioning IANSA and the international gun prohibitionist lobby her organization is a member of. She'll never tell you that IANSA's director, Rebecca Peters, wants to ban every rifle that shoots more than 100m. Prohibition can only happen in stages, so it's best to chip away at the stone. She never mentions that she is or was on the board of Directors with IANSA, and was part of its strategic planning panel earlier this decade. She never mentions that IANSA, and by extension her organization, gets money from American lobby groups.

She appears to do this purposefully, in a vain attempt to hide Canadians who support civilian firearms ownership and continue to support licensing: not registration. It seems she wishes to incite xenophobia whilst hiding the international movement that is attempting to steamroll Canadians into IANSA's worldview on guns.

When the Liberal government contracted Ms. Cukier to strategize Canada's firearms law, it was tantamount to putting PETA on point in agricultural legislation, or contracting Greenpeace to strategize Canada's environmental policy. IANSA had some good points on illicit transfers of small arms to bad governments or rebel militias, but their standpoint on civilian ownership is idealistic, misguided and easily disproven by statistical evidence. The UN Programme of Action on Small Armaments and Light Weapons specifically stated it did not wish to address the issue of civilian firearms possession.

Yet IANSA and their Coalition for Gun Control partners in Canada continue to bark up the prohibitionist tree and fight for registration to stay on that path. The money is there (Ford foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, various governments, George Soros: Wikipedia IANSA), the idealists are still fighting to control other non-criminal Canadians, and the media and roughly half the government still support their dream of living in a Steppenwolf song.

Unfortunately, Stats Canada evidence since 1977 shows the gun prohibitionist ideology to be ineffective at best, and criminally counterproductive at worst. Gun violence has doubled in the decade since the UK imposed their IANSA-backed ban. Australia cannot show any positive effect of registration and bans. Jamaica has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and the highest murder rate. Canada's murder rates have been decreasing constantly since 1977. Wendy's crew cherry-picks the data and only talks about 'since 1991'. Deliberate and deplorable spin.

 

 

To DaveC you claim gun owners are the most law-abiding group in Canada. If that is true why do you have a problem obeying the law an registering your guns ???? I wish you gun owners would remember owning a gun in Canada is a NOT A RIGHT !!!

@Robby:

Why would you have a problem if the government decided motorcycles were too dangerous and demanded them forfeit to the crown for destruction?

Why would you have a problem if owning a motorcycle meant that the government was entitled to arbitrary inspection of your home?

Why whould you have a problem if you are classified as a criminal the second your motorcycle license expires, and the government comes around to take your motorcycle, as Chief Blair's Toronto Police Service did in 'Project Safe City', which rounded up legally-purchased guns from Canadians who had done nothing, including Toronto Star columnist Joe Fiorito?

Why would you object to being charged with criminal negligence if your motorcycle was stolen from your garage?

Why would you object to having your regulatory paperwork put in criminal code?

Owning a motorcycle is NOT A RIGHT!

@ Robby


Because registering them does absolutely nothing good. It does not help public safety.. it does not prevent any crime. It does not stop any criminal with illegal guns. What it does do however is treat the law abiding gun owner like a criminal which is unacceptable. it also wastes tax dollars that would be infinitely more effective if spent with tools that do help.

In the case of illegally smuggled guns that $ would help patrol the borders better.

In the case of gangs / thugs etc in Toronto etc etc... more LEOs to deal with the offenders.

In the case of "womens issues" how about more beds in shelters... something that is massively under funded now.


Instead of paying attention to the BS feelings.. pay attention to the simple LOGIC.


The idea of the registry was to "prevent crime and improve public safety". On both counts it is an unequivocal failure.


Now if you have X tax dollars to spend and are aiming to prevent crime and improve the public safety why on earth would you waste those $ on attacking legal gun owners. We are not the problem..

The registry cannot ever work as promised... and has instead been ABUSED repeatedly to confiscate legal gun owners property without compensation. It has wasted countless tax dollars with LEOs on "paper crimes" instead of focusing on the criminals. And due to it's insanely flawed design and the cries of "the registry tells the cops if there is a gun" bullshit it has cost several officers their lives since they foolishly believed it.

It is a broken tool that never worked... so why on earth would you want to continue paying $ for it?

Pull your head out of your ass and do a reality check.. legal gun owners already go through a full backgrounds check by the RCMP before we get a license.. we are not the problem.


But criminals do NOT register their guns...

 

 

 

 

My, the aficionados are out in force today! If the NRA isn't funding these posts, could it actually be that they are writing this stuff for free? NDP MPs switching votes almost daily must really have their trigger fingers twitching.

Well done, Wendy, and all the organizations who are mobilizing on this issue. Let's ensure that every single Harperbot that supports this C-391 bites the dust - no matter what party label they wear.

 

Some facts on Wendy Cukier:

*Cukier ILLEGALLY received nearly $400,000 in grants, from then Justice Minister Allan Rock's office, to act as a government lobbyist...lobbying the government. Both Cukier and Kim Doran are currently under investigation for this.

*Cukier's firm Telecon Consulting has large contracts with the RCMP, several police departments and provincial governments, on IT services involving the Federal Firearms Centre.

*Cukier's recent book, "Global Gun Epidemic," has been panned for fabrications of facts, including referencing models of firearms which don't exist.

Some other tidbits of information:

*Gun Registry IT contractor CGI funds (that's right--FUNDS) the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, making the CACP a paid corporate lobbyist and putting the organisation into a gross conflict of interest position.

*CGI and fellow Registry IT contractor Honeywell donated heavilly to the Chretien Liberal campaign.

*The $2B Gun Registry was never about public safety at any cost. During their tenure, the Liberals disbanded the Ports Police, refused to arm border guards and attempted to close two RCMP crime labs, all for 'cost reasons.'

*Calgary's Police Chief Rick Hansen, the OPP's Julian Fantino and the majority of rank-and-file police officers have dismissed the Registry as worse than useless.

*The RCMP's 'report' which states that the Registry only costs $4M per year to operate is a blatant fiction. Eliminating the long-gun registry portion of the bureaucracy alone (not licensing, or Restricted/Prohibited registrations) would result in the layoff of about 200 people, the annual wage and benefit costs alone reaching into the tens of millions. Add the costs of IT contracts and planed replacements of legacy computer systems, and the long-gun portion of the Canadian Firearms Centre's operating budget runs FAR higher than the quoted figure. Remember that the Canadian Firearms Centre once claimed $13.5M, IN ONE YEAR, on 'travel expenses.' The Auditor General needs to have a look at the RCMP's accounting procedures.

*Bell-Globemedia (CTV, The Globe and Mail) own CGI. PSAC (fighting to save those 200-odd Registry jobs) funds Rabble. Draw your own conclusions about media bias.

*Like the old (1935 onwards) Handgun Registry, the Long-Gun Registry has the dubious destinction of having never prevented, nor solved a crime. This is why Registry proponents, like Cukier, flog the '11,000 hits per day' statistic, instead. Actually, this is the result of an automated protocol, by which police computers access the Canadian Firearms Centre's computers, on everything from fender-benders, to purse-snatchings.

*According to Canada Customs records, about HALF of the legally-acquired firearms in Canada have never been registered, and many of their owners never licensed--a staggering level of non-compliance.

*The Firearms Centre's database has been accessed by organised crime, leading to break and enters by criminals who have treated the Registry as a shopping list.

*There is a database of the MILLIONS of Canadians legally able to own firearms. These people must also submit to WARRANTLESS 'inspections,' at firearms officers' whims. Yet there is no database of people PROHIBITED from owning firearms, the rights of whom are protected by the Charter against warrantless searches. James Roszko was in the latter category, along with being a repeat violent sexual offender, with a smuggled, UNREGISTERED weapon.

*Gamil Gharbi (AKA, 'Marc Lepine') used a firearm bought under Trudeau's old Firearms Acquisition Certificate regime, which he modified (his clumsiness turning a semiauto rifle into a single-shot weapon) to murder young women in a mysogenistic rage inspired by his wife-beating father. Kimveer Gill did much the same thing, only with the aid of Chretien's new and improved Posession and Acquisition Licensing and registration regime. Gill, however, never bothered to get an Authorization To Transport to bring his guns to that school. And the killers of Jane Creba--members of Kingston's criminal diaspora, living in Jane & Finch, some of whom were on Conditional Sentences--never bothered with either licensing, or registration of their smuggled-in weapons. Here, in Calgary, a career criminal who would have been rotting in jail under Canada's old, 'unenlightened' Criminal Code, shot a bystander's eyes out. Yet the Wendy Cukiers don't like to draw a link between post-Trudeaupian immigration and criminal justice policies and gun crime. (Prior to 1976, school shootings and drug-gang shootings of bystanders were unheard of.)

*Meanwhile, people with no criminal records, who legally acquired firearms under the old FAC system, inherited them, or let their POLs, or PALs lapse have been subject to warrantless searches by the Toronto Police, under Chief Blair (you know, the nice guy behind all those G20 arrests). 'Unsafe storage' (e.g., only one lock on a 'restricted' firearm), or a lapsed license can land you in jail for five years--this is NOT like auto licensing, where you can simply let your license lapse, if you keep your car in the garage. Some of the people visited by Blair's goons have included war vets.

*However, Chief Blair and his boss, David Miller have refused to address the horrendous, and politically-incorrect gang and gun problem, in places like Jane & Finch. While happilly playing the thug with legal firearms owners and peaceful G20 protesters, Blair doffed his uniform and gun to do a kowtowing photo-op with Jane & Finch gangsters. Even though legal gun owners have faced legal harrassment, violent criminals (e.g., the one who shot Jane Creba) are rarely jailed.

*Registration IS a prelude to civilian disarmament. The old handgun registry was used to confiscate <105mm barrelled and  .32, .25 handguns, under the Campbell regime. Allan Rock, among others, have stated that they would like to see civilian firearms ownership abolished. And the handgun registry, like its British counterpart, was a response to fears of Communist and Anarchist groups threatening the Capitalist system during the first Red Scare. Licensing and registration were also employed by the Nazi regime to disarm Jews and dissidents.

*While Cukier speaks darkly of the NRA and shadowy funding, she doesn't like to point out the fact that groups such as her Coalition For Gun Control, Project Ploughshares and other anti-gun groups are funded by donations from billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffet, who have made fortunes off of less than ethical activities, and fear the idea of armed civilians opposed to their business agendas.

 

 

 

@ Unionist

 

Got news for you.. I do not get paid.. I do it because it needs to be done.

Wendy has done nothing but lie and pocket $... which has been proven time and time again.

And if you honestly think the registry is such a good thing lets have YOU pay for it from your pocket... I'd rather spend my tax dollars on things that actually work.

You don't need to be a PC or a Liberal etc to open your eyes and realize a gun is an inanimate object... just a TOOL..

What you should be concerned with is the criminals whom continue to have guns regardless of what laws are put in place for legal gun owners.

Oh and BTW... I'm a classical LIBERAL  / NDP.   Not everyone that is pro-gun is a PC.  But your being that closed minded is hardly a shock.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"If the NRA isn't funding these posts, could it actually be that they are writing this stuff for free?"

===================

I'm a Canadian writing on my own time because I care about this issue. I'm just as Canadian as you. Take your tin foil hat off.

The difference is that I don't have the pretext of telling you what you can or can't do or have according to my ideological sensibility. I won't arbitrarily limit or infringe on your Charter Rights and Freedoms, though you have done and would do the injury to me despite a complete lack of evidence, for the warped dream that unarmed citizens make for a crime-free society.

You have no place in my bedroom.

You have no place anywhere else in my home.

You have no place telling me what I should or shouldn't think or say.

You have no place telling me what I should or shouldn't have or do as a means of self-expression.

You have no place telling me whether or not I am allowed to preserve the security of my person.

I am Canadian. I am the True North Strong and Free. I will defend my home and my rights. Look up our national anthem in both our languages: It's what Canadians are supposed to 'stand on guard' for.

 

It's also amazing how gun controllers can condemn the totalitarian leanings of a police chief as he presides over the largest arbitrary mass arrest in Canadian history, and then turn around and support him as he campaigns for some of the largest arbitrary seizures of property in Canadian history on behalf of his organization's membership in IANSA.

Remember that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police voiced their 'unanimous' disapproval of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the House of Commons in writing when our Charter was being tabled. They aren't the golden cherubs that uncritical authoritarians would make them out to be.

Unionist deason't think you're as Canadian as he his, afterall the only Canadians that count want guns under governentt lock and key, and he's more than willing to talk about actual facts and statistics when they are in his favor, but not so much on the gun registry.  Instead its because the victims want it! They must be right!  But that isn't quite true either, people like him don't actually believe that, he's too smart for that, he will simply say anything or play on the fears of anyone it takes in order to further his agenda.  Its right out of wendy's playbook, using the terrible deaths of primarily women in order to further an anti gun agenda that has little to do with safety and more with social engineering. 

Gun owners need to be enlightened by our progressive betters, it is as simple as that.

Wendy Cukier states:

"To me, this is like arguing that sometimes licensed drivers are killed in car crashes so now we should no longer license drivers or register cars, have speed bumps, photo radar. Sometimes the opinions are just so entrenched that the nonsensical arguments get repeated over and over"

========================

The point was and is that police union members of the Coalition for Gun Control, as well as the Liberal Party of Canada, are running around with logos on GIFs and buttons purporting that long gun registration saves lives. Logically and actually, it does not and has not. There hasn't been one documented instance where registration has been the catalyst in saving a life where licensing didn't already do the job. Lots of slogans and spin, no proof.

Conversely, Constable Daniel Tessier is dead arguably because he trusted his faulty interpretation of the registry rather than taking a more cautious approach to police work. Given that the vast majority of crime committed by drug dealers and other criminals is committed by unlicensed people with unregistered guns, wouldn't you assume a gun at every early - morning raid?

Registration of guns prevents murder and death about as much as registration of vehicles prevents drunk driving, accidents and exhaust-pipe suicides.

 

 

Tonight on the CBC News I saw a discussion about the NRA getting involved in the scrapping of the registry because they placed an Ad on TV that was available to Canadians. The CBC said 100,000 was spent on the Ad which made the point that scrapping the registry would be good on the world stage. They probably received that info from Wendy Cukier.

I'm a Life Member of the NRA like thousands of other Canadians. Why, because they provide the gun enthusiast with the facts and truth. Try to catch Wayne LaPierre, the VP of the NRA in a lie. He went against CNN for lies and got a retraction. I am the NRA. Members are the NRA. So that's who is paying them.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police say the police want it, that is a downright lie, because the majority of Police Officers say it's no good. They say the yearly cost was a few million. I don't believe it because how did it cost 2 billion to start with?

England has banned all guns and knife crime has risen to take it's place. I'm not a criminal. Shooting is a sport like any other and guns provide personal defense.  

I don't want to be like the UK, a camera on every corner. Look at the statistics and make the correct decision. Scrap the 2 Billion dollar registry and get rid of those who made it. Put the money preventing crime.

As for what Wendy Cukier fears,  she is out of a comfortable job.

What I find encouraging is that the ultra-right U.S. libertarian kooks find rabble to be so subversive to their interests that they feel the need to swarm here and peddle their wares.

And, errr, Questor, "defence" is spelled with a "c" here in Canada when it's a noun. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it. Shoot early, and shoot often!

"What I find encouraging is that the ultra-right U.S. libertarian kooks find rabble to be so subversive to their interests that they feel the need to swarm here and peddle their wares."

===========================

Again with the tin-foil hat and xenophobic ad hominem. Haven't you got a reasoned argument? Or do you just like to throw poo at people? Perhaps a rebuttal instead?

I'm a Canadian through and through. Disagreeing with and defending myself from IANSA's totalitarian collectivist policies of prohibitionism does not make me an "ultra-right U.S. libertarian kook" any more than condemning police and government action at G20 makes me one. It makes me a Canadian concerned about keeping my Charter Rights and Freedoms. Calling me names doesn't change that.

Take IANSA's job and shove it. The UN specifically stated it had no bearing on my firearms, and your bigoted pretexts of political orientation are as grating to me as people who tell me I have to believe in a Christian or Muslim God, be a vegan in a 'civil society', or that my speech or writing 'offends' them and should be subject to censure. Your world view is just that: yours. I don't fit in your box. Keep your nose out of my life and your grubby hands off my Charter rights.

Remember that the Liberal Party of Canada enshrined the rights of individuals in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Are you implying that I'm not a true Liberal (as opposed to the current collectivist and elitist "political class" Liberal Party of Canada)?

I wasn't born a free Canadian to keep mum so you can be comfortable in your misguided and simplistic perspective on human existence and societal function while you trample on my birthright. Don't like it? Then stick your fingers in your ears and take them out long enough to keep flinging poo, just like the Creationists do when confronted with factual evidence. I'm sure you won't have to hear anything you might agree with...

Ummm... I wasn't talking about you, Eupraxsopher - I think you rock! I was talking about Questor.

Oh, by the way, this just in:

U.S. woman on trial in Newfoundland for mistaking her husband for a bear and shooting him dead - oh, and collecting USD $550K in life insurance

We really have to start being more picky at our borders. Either that, or enshrine in our Charter the right to arm bears. As a true Canuck strong and free, I believe in a fair fight.

Login or register to post comments