http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vo...91734.300k.asx
I think our Chief's in Canada could learn from this gentleman. This is the Police Chief of San Francisco. Responding to media charges of wrong doing in the pursuit if a suspect and his death.
In Canada we have a similar situation. We have judges that treat lightly the acts committed by habitual offenders. If that isn't enough we have what is called "good time" which is the time spent in lock up waiting to be tried x2, that is if you are locked up at all. This has created a revolving door justice system. Our Police keep arresting them and judges keep letting them off easy. Of course plea bargains do play a part in all this but to what end?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Missing Link
It has been nigh on to 14 years since Bill C-68 The Firearms Act has been law in Canada. I know many Canadians believe that this was a good idea and was way over due. Sadly many of these same Canadians were sold a bill of goods in what they were told about this Act. They were lead to believe that this would solve the problem of gun violence, and "We" could all sleep safely in our homes knowing the law will protect them. Unfortunately there are two worlds in Canada, the first is the world that we are familiar with. It is a world filled with friends, family,bills,work and play, a world filled with optimism and hope. It is not all smiles and chuckles it is a world of struggle to keep our lives afloat, we have our misfortunes and tragedies. Be that as is may we all try to get along and do our best for the most part. Most of all we try to play by the rules of civil society at all times. The second world in Canada is not such a pleasant place, it is a world of mistrust and pessimism. A world where the struggle is just to stay alive. It is a predatory world where the weak are eaten up by substance abuse and are prey to the predators of that world. I am talking about the criminal world. A world where survival of the fittest is the rule not the exception, where the strong band together to be stronger. The world where the rules of civil society are not in play but rather their own code. You need something take it, Need money steal it or sell drugs. Do what ever you want to do all you need worry about is who might come gunning for you. The law is just an inconvenience, time in jail or prison is like going to school or summer camp. Given the sentences that are handed out by our judiciary it is like camp and in this world a criminal record is a badge of honour.
I have outlined this as accurately as I can. I have met some very scary people in my time and I am only an observer. What many people fail to realize is that to the second world life is a deadly game played by cheats, liars and sociopaths. Where the ideal of "COOL" is how tough you are or at least appear to be. In my own opinion true toughness is not sinking to criminal activity to get to where you want to go in life but rather working hard toward that end. As I have said though in this world the law is merely an inconvenience. There is a missing link between the world of the law abiding and the world of the criminal. I know from time to time, an other wise law abiding person slips commits a grave error in judgement and they find themselves on the wrong side of the law. It happens. For the most part we obey they laws of the land. That is the missing link, we don't think like they do, we don't behave like they do.
Therefore the logic escapes me why anyone would think that the firearms act would stop them. In fact it has encouraged them. It has created a new revenue stream for them (smuggled/stolen guns). This is where the "missing link" again becomes apparent because to them it is just another law to be broken. I ask you does it make sense? If someone has the stones to murder someone what possible effect is making the ownership of a gun illegal? Even if we were able to remove the invention of the gun from the pages of history to the point that they never existed there would still be the means to kill. If a person is willing to break our highest law who or what is going to stop them? Even if mankind had never discovered metal the means to kill would still exist. The firearms act did not solve this problem nor could it. It has only ever affected people like you and me. Law abiding people, solely because we reside in the first world I mentioned. We don't want to go to jail, not even for a day. We don't want a criminal record because it is a badge of shame to us. The logic follows that even if guns were outlawed completely the denizens of the second world would still have them. England is an Island, it has it been a hopeless effort preventing guns from finding their way into the hands of their denizens.
But when worlds collide tragedy follows. There is not a wall between our worlds we co-exist side by side we intermingle on the streets bump into one another. We don't judge books by their covers nor people for that matter, so we don't have the means to identify citizen from denizen. We don't know for sure until we are confronted alone by a denizen(s) and their intent made clear, we are todays prey. I am passed the idea that we can change them all we might be able to do is reclaim a few. Perhaps a 3 strikes rule would serve as a deterrent. I think a place like Baffin Island would be a good location to lock them up, hungry bears would be the best guards. Feeding them and clothing them would be the extent of the care, if they want to kill each other who cares? They are not on our streets. The main flaw to be addressed in this line of thinking is, for every one locked up there is one in the wings waiting. That is where the social engineers energies might be better spent. Applied solutions at the early years of life would be more productive.
But still there is that missing link between gun control and crime. How do we make our streets safer? Drugs are heavily controlled substances in Canada yet they still find their way to our streets. You cannot buy a gun without a licence yet guns find their way onto the streets. 90 % are smuggled. Ban handguns to take care of 10% that are stolen from their lawful owners? That would be unfair to the owners who have not had their guns stolen, and just wrong. We do not hold car owners responsible for the crimes committed in stolen cars. The difference in most peoples minds is that we need our cars but we don't need guns. Then the question is do we? Since when do we need to justify the things we own? But guns hurt people, they were made only for one thing and that is to kill. No not entirely true. The electric chair and the gas chamber were made for killing for that matter a hangman's noose. But these serve an entirely different purpose in Society.
What many fail to realize and I hope I am pointing out this missing link. The worry and concern is not people like you and I having guns. Indeed you and I could own what ever small arms we wanted to. The concern is the denizens what is in their hands. Now ask yourself what did thieves and bandits use before guns? Passing any laws restricting our access to firearms only does that affect our access. Leaving the denizens alone and unaffected. What we are seeing happening now with our current law is the imbalance. We are seeing denizens running free because they know to a high degree of certainty(like 100%) we don't have anything but a cell phone on our hips or breast pocket. That we have nothing in our cars that will hurt them. Bill c-68 has seen to this. This is why crimes like rape, car jackings, home invasions, and that old favourite muggings can happen in our day and age. It is this missing link or in legalese a rational connection between the firearms act and denizens of the criminal world.
The largest concern is firearms falling into their hands. While we might be able to plug some of the holes in the border it would be nigh to impossible to plug all of them. Remember we have a very long frontier that is unguarded but it is worth trying to do. The trouble with the firearms act and its registry is it creates a list of who is licenced and who has what kind of firearm. It is all in a central data base on a Government computer. Can you say "hacker", no computer is entirely secure what would prevent an enterprising wanna be denizen with computer skills from hacking the system? In fact it has been hacked, providing a complete list of who owns what and where. What do you think such a list would be worth to the denizens? To make matters worse The Province of Ontario has the Ammunition Act or as it is also known the Baylis Law, named for the Police officer gunned down by a crack dealer (one that was scheduled for deportation). This act requires each store that sells ammunition. to collect personal details of the purchaser including home address and type of gun it is for. This document or book is in the hands of your average worker in places like Walmart and Canadian Tire. There is no requirement for the security of this book. Any employee can get access to this book. What do you think that book is worth to the local denizens? Perhaps the store clerk is a student and is being bullied into obtaining copies? These are examples of Government provided catalogues for firearms. Perhaps if these did not exist there would be fewer stolen guns? If you have noticed I just made a link to gun control and crime. I am sure it is a link that none of the politicians nor advocates for gun control intended, nor would they concede that link. But it does illustrate the law of unintended consequences. The safest gun is the gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen, away from the well meaning prying eyes of regulation. The idea is keep the denizens guessing, as long as they think that we are armed the safer we citizens will be.
Just as an end note the Chief of Police in York region has announced to all denizens that there are 80 000 lawfully owned firearms in Vaughn. Do you think there will be an increase in break and enters there?
I have outlined this as accurately as I can. I have met some very scary people in my time and I am only an observer. What many people fail to realize is that to the second world life is a deadly game played by cheats, liars and sociopaths. Where the ideal of "COOL" is how tough you are or at least appear to be. In my own opinion true toughness is not sinking to criminal activity to get to where you want to go in life but rather working hard toward that end. As I have said though in this world the law is merely an inconvenience. There is a missing link between the world of the law abiding and the world of the criminal. I know from time to time, an other wise law abiding person slips commits a grave error in judgement and they find themselves on the wrong side of the law. It happens. For the most part we obey they laws of the land. That is the missing link, we don't think like they do, we don't behave like they do.
Therefore the logic escapes me why anyone would think that the firearms act would stop them. In fact it has encouraged them. It has created a new revenue stream for them (smuggled/stolen guns). This is where the "missing link" again becomes apparent because to them it is just another law to be broken. I ask you does it make sense? If someone has the stones to murder someone what possible effect is making the ownership of a gun illegal? Even if we were able to remove the invention of the gun from the pages of history to the point that they never existed there would still be the means to kill. If a person is willing to break our highest law who or what is going to stop them? Even if mankind had never discovered metal the means to kill would still exist. The firearms act did not solve this problem nor could it. It has only ever affected people like you and me. Law abiding people, solely because we reside in the first world I mentioned. We don't want to go to jail, not even for a day. We don't want a criminal record because it is a badge of shame to us. The logic follows that even if guns were outlawed completely the denizens of the second world would still have them. England is an Island, it has it been a hopeless effort preventing guns from finding their way into the hands of their denizens.
But when worlds collide tragedy follows. There is not a wall between our worlds we co-exist side by side we intermingle on the streets bump into one another. We don't judge books by their covers nor people for that matter, so we don't have the means to identify citizen from denizen. We don't know for sure until we are confronted alone by a denizen(s) and their intent made clear, we are todays prey. I am passed the idea that we can change them all we might be able to do is reclaim a few. Perhaps a 3 strikes rule would serve as a deterrent. I think a place like Baffin Island would be a good location to lock them up, hungry bears would be the best guards. Feeding them and clothing them would be the extent of the care, if they want to kill each other who cares? They are not on our streets. The main flaw to be addressed in this line of thinking is, for every one locked up there is one in the wings waiting. That is where the social engineers energies might be better spent. Applied solutions at the early years of life would be more productive.
But still there is that missing link between gun control and crime. How do we make our streets safer? Drugs are heavily controlled substances in Canada yet they still find their way to our streets. You cannot buy a gun without a licence yet guns find their way onto the streets. 90 % are smuggled. Ban handguns to take care of 10% that are stolen from their lawful owners? That would be unfair to the owners who have not had their guns stolen, and just wrong. We do not hold car owners responsible for the crimes committed in stolen cars. The difference in most peoples minds is that we need our cars but we don't need guns. Then the question is do we? Since when do we need to justify the things we own? But guns hurt people, they were made only for one thing and that is to kill. No not entirely true. The electric chair and the gas chamber were made for killing for that matter a hangman's noose. But these serve an entirely different purpose in Society.
What many fail to realize and I hope I am pointing out this missing link. The worry and concern is not people like you and I having guns. Indeed you and I could own what ever small arms we wanted to. The concern is the denizens what is in their hands. Now ask yourself what did thieves and bandits use before guns? Passing any laws restricting our access to firearms only does that affect our access. Leaving the denizens alone and unaffected. What we are seeing happening now with our current law is the imbalance. We are seeing denizens running free because they know to a high degree of certainty(like 100%) we don't have anything but a cell phone on our hips or breast pocket. That we have nothing in our cars that will hurt them. Bill c-68 has seen to this. This is why crimes like rape, car jackings, home invasions, and that old favourite muggings can happen in our day and age. It is this missing link or in legalese a rational connection between the firearms act and denizens of the criminal world.
The largest concern is firearms falling into their hands. While we might be able to plug some of the holes in the border it would be nigh to impossible to plug all of them. Remember we have a very long frontier that is unguarded but it is worth trying to do. The trouble with the firearms act and its registry is it creates a list of who is licenced and who has what kind of firearm. It is all in a central data base on a Government computer. Can you say "hacker", no computer is entirely secure what would prevent an enterprising wanna be denizen with computer skills from hacking the system? In fact it has been hacked, providing a complete list of who owns what and where. What do you think such a list would be worth to the denizens? To make matters worse The Province of Ontario has the Ammunition Act or as it is also known the Baylis Law, named for the Police officer gunned down by a crack dealer (one that was scheduled for deportation). This act requires each store that sells ammunition. to collect personal details of the purchaser including home address and type of gun it is for. This document or book is in the hands of your average worker in places like Walmart and Canadian Tire. There is no requirement for the security of this book. Any employee can get access to this book. What do you think that book is worth to the local denizens? Perhaps the store clerk is a student and is being bullied into obtaining copies? These are examples of Government provided catalogues for firearms. Perhaps if these did not exist there would be fewer stolen guns? If you have noticed I just made a link to gun control and crime. I am sure it is a link that none of the politicians nor advocates for gun control intended, nor would they concede that link. But it does illustrate the law of unintended consequences. The safest gun is the gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen, away from the well meaning prying eyes of regulation. The idea is keep the denizens guessing, as long as they think that we are armed the safer we citizens will be.
Just as an end note the Chief of Police in York region has announced to all denizens that there are 80 000 lawfully owned firearms in Vaughn. Do you think there will be an increase in break and enters there?
Friday, February 13, 2009
Keeping Canada Wholesome, Censorship and Canada Customs
It is hard to believe in the 2009, I am writing such a piece. Yet here I am. I do not believe in collective rights but rather in the rights of individuals to decide what is right or wrong for themselves. I grew up in William Davis's Ontario that is to say a Province run by fellow that believed that all you had to do was pass a law against something and problem solved. One of his creations was a commission headed by one Judy Lemarche, she was tasked to study obscenity and porn blah blah blah. But if that wasn't enough Davis acted upon her recommendations and implemented them viz the Ontario Censor Board. In Ontario the average person was not mature, intelligent nor worldly enough to make such decisions for themselves oh heck no. Worse was Davis was arrogant enough to justify the censor board by saying Ontarians want to be protected. Oddly enough you could watch as much violence as you wanted as long as no one got naked in the process. The Censor board could edit films or out right ban them if the film makers didn't agree to the changes. It was during the 70's and as a teen with a strong independant streak decided that censorship was wrong. I spoke out against censorship as best I could, in school and in my personal life. I can honestly say that I have always been against government imposed limits on freedom. I first heard of a book store in Vancouver that was being charged with possesion of obscene material back in the late 80's. Canada Customs as it was then known as was confiscating began stopping shipments of books to them at the border. Information was passed along to police who raided the book shop confiscated and charged them. This book store specialized in gay and lesbian literature but the offending books were leaned toward the rough trade BDSM. The part that raised my ire was that they felt the should be excepted from the law because they were GAY. Which for me is niether here nor there, no one is above the law. If the is wrong then task yourselves to getting the law changed for everyone not just your special interest. Moving along to 2009 to and the age of the information super highway, this same book store is still having its shipments stopped at the border. However any other book store can get the materials shipped to them no problem. Canada Customs seems to only open boxes addressed to them. Now this is just plain wrong. Not only that it is just plain stupid in this day and age of the internet borders no longer exist were information and media are concerned.
The CPC has a bill that will alow police access to your internet communications. It is being packaged and being sold as an update to a law that was written in the age of rotary phones. It is also being sold as means to combat crime and terrorism. I highly doubt it. Never trust the government with such power. While the internet may be viewed as a safe haven for the undesirable elements of society, you and I use it every day to convey information and opinions. Opinions that might one day attract attention from the authorities, would you want to be watched every time you surf? Would you want the Govenrment watching what you consider to be annonymous and private affairs? Write your MP and tell them no. They cannot guarantee that it would not be abused.
The CPC has a bill that will alow police access to your internet communications. It is being packaged and being sold as an update to a law that was written in the age of rotary phones. It is also being sold as means to combat crime and terrorism. I highly doubt it. Never trust the government with such power. While the internet may be viewed as a safe haven for the undesirable elements of society, you and I use it every day to convey information and opinions. Opinions that might one day attract attention from the authorities, would you want to be watched every time you surf? Would you want the Govenrment watching what you consider to be annonymous and private affairs? Write your MP and tell them no. They cannot guarantee that it would not be abused.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Ten Myths of Gun Control
Myth #1: The Gun Registry is a valuable tool for the police and they access it 9,500 times per day.
The “9,500 hits” figure for the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) is misleading per the Public Security Ministry’s website of May 17 2006 (Ques 18). Whenever police officers access the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for any reason, such as for a simple address check, an automatic hit is generated with CFRO whether the information is desired or not. This is the case, for example, with the Toronto Police Service (5,000 officers), the Vancouver Police (1,400 officers), Ottawa Police Service (1,050 officers) and the BC RCMP (5,000 officers). Additionally, every legal purchase of a firearm generates three administrative hits to the registry; for the buyer, for the seller and for the firearm. These changes to the computer records are conducted by police agencies and are counted in the totals. Given the seven million firearms registered in the system, legal transfers must account for the majority of “hits”. Clearly, a hit on the Registry does not denote legitimate investigative use.
Myth #2: The registry provides police officers information on the presence of firearms when they respond to emergency calls.
Maybe. The Firearms Registry only provides a list of the legal guns, the very guns an officer is least likely to be harmed by. The truth is, very few legally owned guns are used in the commission of crimes. The latest report shows some 7% of firearm homicides were committed with registered firearms in the last 8 years. The elimination of the registry will only eliminate the useless lists of lawful guns. The fact an individual has a firearms licence will still be known to the police. They will know whether a legal firearm is at a particular location by virtue of the fact that an individual has a licence. The abolition of the long-gun registry doesn’t affect that. Even so, it is the illegal firearms that police are usually the most concerned about (93% in the last 8 years). No police officer would rely on the inaccurate registry data to dictate how they approach a domestic or emergency call. They would approach all calls with an appropriate measure of safety.
Myth #3: Firearms related deaths have been reduced due to the long gun registry.
Reduction in firearms deaths started in the mid 1970’s, well prior to the introduction of the registry in 2003 (StatsCan)and mirrors a proportionally greater reduction experienced in the United States, where firearms laws are being loosened. There is no evidence to link the reduction in deaths with the registry and it has far more to do with the aging demographic that anything else.
Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered . . . the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.
Myth #5: The registry protects women in violent domestic situations.
Registered long guns were used in (all) homicide only twice in 2003 (Public Security Ministry website), and a total of 9 times from 1997-2004 (Library of Parliament). The registry of 7,000,000 firearms did not prevent these deaths. Given the extraordinarily low rate of misuse of some 7,000,000 registered firearms, it is unreasonable to believe that maintaining a registry of long guns could have any effect on spousal homicide rates. Moreover, the vast majority of violent domestic assaults are preceded by a lengthy, police recorded history, effectively denying abusers a firearms license. This should address their access to legally acquired guns.
On an average day, women’s shelters referred 221 women and 112 children elsewhere due to lack of funding. Clearly, there are better uses for the money than registering duck guns.
Myth #6: The registry helps track stolen guns and forces firearms owners to be more responsible in storing their firearms. Over 50% of firearms used in crime are stolen from gun owners
Past Department of Justice studies found that among homicides where details were available, 84% of the firearms used in the commission of the crimes are unregistered and 74.9% are illegal guns smuggled into Canada, not the 50% some claim. Recently, Canada’s National Weapons Enforcement Support Team reported that 94% of crime guns were illegally imported into Canada. Vancouver Police report 97% of seized firearms are smuggled. Other government sources show between 9 and 16% of crime firearms originate in Canada. That figure is speculative as the vast majority of firearms used in crime are never recovered and most recovered guns cannot be identified as the serial numbers are removed.
Myth #7: The information on the registry database is secure and cannot be accessed by the criminal element.
There were 306 illegal breaches of the national police database documented between 1995 and 2003, 121 of which are still unsolved. Many police investigators have publicly voiced their concerns that the gun registry has been breached and become a “shopping list” for thieves.
Myth #8: The money has already been spent to set up the registry. It is foolish to dismantle it now.
The gun registry is by no means complete. Only 7 million of the 16.5 million guns that are in Canada (according to government import and export records) are registered. More than 300,000 owners of previously registered handguns still don’t have a firearms licence, more than 400,000 firearm licence holders still haven’t registered a gun and more than 300,000 owners of a registered handgun still have to re-register 548,254 handguns ( Canadian Firearms Registry). Based upon precedent, it will cost another billion dollars to complete the registry.
Myth #9: Rifles and shotguns are the weapon of choice for criminals and are the most used firearms in crime.
Where firearms were used in a violent crime, 71.2% involved handguns (but it is estimated that over 1/3 involve replicas or air guns), only 9% involved rifles or shotguns (of which 2.1% were registered) and 6.5% involved sawed off rifles or shotguns (already prohibited).
Myth #10: The tragic deaths of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, by the hand of a criminal with a rifle proves the need for the long gun registry.
The registry’s monumental failure to prevent the tragic deaths of these police officers underscores the folly of registering the firearms of the law abiding. The criminal who committed these crimes was in illegal possession of firearm, despite the presence of the registry. These events prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the ineffective uselessness of the long gun registry in protecting our society.
The “9,500 hits” figure for the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) is misleading per the Public Security Ministry’s website of May 17 2006 (Ques 18). Whenever police officers access the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for any reason, such as for a simple address check, an automatic hit is generated with CFRO whether the information is desired or not. This is the case, for example, with the Toronto Police Service (5,000 officers), the Vancouver Police (1,400 officers), Ottawa Police Service (1,050 officers) and the BC RCMP (5,000 officers). Additionally, every legal purchase of a firearm generates three administrative hits to the registry; for the buyer, for the seller and for the firearm. These changes to the computer records are conducted by police agencies and are counted in the totals. Given the seven million firearms registered in the system, legal transfers must account for the majority of “hits”. Clearly, a hit on the Registry does not denote legitimate investigative use.
Myth #2: The registry provides police officers information on the presence of firearms when they respond to emergency calls.
Maybe. The Firearms Registry only provides a list of the legal guns, the very guns an officer is least likely to be harmed by. The truth is, very few legally owned guns are used in the commission of crimes. The latest report shows some 7% of firearm homicides were committed with registered firearms in the last 8 years. The elimination of the registry will only eliminate the useless lists of lawful guns. The fact an individual has a firearms licence will still be known to the police. They will know whether a legal firearm is at a particular location by virtue of the fact that an individual has a licence. The abolition of the long-gun registry doesn’t affect that. Even so, it is the illegal firearms that police are usually the most concerned about (93% in the last 8 years). No police officer would rely on the inaccurate registry data to dictate how they approach a domestic or emergency call. They would approach all calls with an appropriate measure of safety.
Myth #3: Firearms related deaths have been reduced due to the long gun registry.
Reduction in firearms deaths started in the mid 1970’s, well prior to the introduction of the registry in 2003 (StatsCan)and mirrors a proportionally greater reduction experienced in the United States, where firearms laws are being loosened. There is no evidence to link the reduction in deaths with the registry and it has far more to do with the aging demographic that anything else.
Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered . . . the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.
Myth #5: The registry protects women in violent domestic situations.
Registered long guns were used in (all) homicide only twice in 2003 (Public Security Ministry website), and a total of 9 times from 1997-2004 (Library of Parliament). The registry of 7,000,000 firearms did not prevent these deaths. Given the extraordinarily low rate of misuse of some 7,000,000 registered firearms, it is unreasonable to believe that maintaining a registry of long guns could have any effect on spousal homicide rates. Moreover, the vast majority of violent domestic assaults are preceded by a lengthy, police recorded history, effectively denying abusers a firearms license. This should address their access to legally acquired guns.
On an average day, women’s shelters referred 221 women and 112 children elsewhere due to lack of funding. Clearly, there are better uses for the money than registering duck guns.
Myth #6: The registry helps track stolen guns and forces firearms owners to be more responsible in storing their firearms. Over 50% of firearms used in crime are stolen from gun owners
Past Department of Justice studies found that among homicides where details were available, 84% of the firearms used in the commission of the crimes are unregistered and 74.9% are illegal guns smuggled into Canada, not the 50% some claim. Recently, Canada’s National Weapons Enforcement Support Team reported that 94% of crime guns were illegally imported into Canada. Vancouver Police report 97% of seized firearms are smuggled. Other government sources show between 9 and 16% of crime firearms originate in Canada. That figure is speculative as the vast majority of firearms used in crime are never recovered and most recovered guns cannot be identified as the serial numbers are removed.
Myth #7: The information on the registry database is secure and cannot be accessed by the criminal element.
There were 306 illegal breaches of the national police database documented between 1995 and 2003, 121 of which are still unsolved. Many police investigators have publicly voiced their concerns that the gun registry has been breached and become a “shopping list” for thieves.
Myth #8: The money has already been spent to set up the registry. It is foolish to dismantle it now.
The gun registry is by no means complete. Only 7 million of the 16.5 million guns that are in Canada (according to government import and export records) are registered. More than 300,000 owners of previously registered handguns still don’t have a firearms licence, more than 400,000 firearm licence holders still haven’t registered a gun and more than 300,000 owners of a registered handgun still have to re-register 548,254 handguns ( Canadian Firearms Registry). Based upon precedent, it will cost another billion dollars to complete the registry.
Myth #9: Rifles and shotguns are the weapon of choice for criminals and are the most used firearms in crime.
Where firearms were used in a violent crime, 71.2% involved handguns (but it is estimated that over 1/3 involve replicas or air guns), only 9% involved rifles or shotguns (of which 2.1% were registered) and 6.5% involved sawed off rifles or shotguns (already prohibited).
Myth #10: The tragic deaths of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, by the hand of a criminal with a rifle proves the need for the long gun registry.
The registry’s monumental failure to prevent the tragic deaths of these police officers underscores the folly of registering the firearms of the law abiding. The criminal who committed these crimes was in illegal possession of firearm, despite the presence of the registry. These events prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the ineffective uselessness of the long gun registry in protecting our society.
At Last
At last there is movement on Parliament Hill, Yorkton Melville MP Gary Breitkreuz has introduce a Private Members Bill to end the multi billion dollar waste of money Known as the Long Gun Registry. Apart from ending the registry for rifles and shotguns it has some other cost saving measures that will streamline things without sacfrificing public safety. I see the move a step in the right direction, I will not be dancing a jig until all of the Firearms Act is repealed. There is no need nor call for these draconian measures introduced by the Chretien government. Law abiding citizens were not ever the problem. However they were made scapegoats. It was Kim the Pink who first brought in a stiffening of then current laws. But he illconcieved measures were quickly turned into political hay by the Liberal Party of Canada. There new law that they planned would make Ms Campbell look weak and worthless. it was to cost a "few million dollars" 2 billion in counting and the liberals governments making some of the costs "Cabinet Secrets" we the tax payers will or may never know the true cost of this pie in the sky idea known as the Firearms Act. All this money spent with the registry not helping to solve nor prevent a single crime. Indeed no in fact it has encouraged criminals enboldened them to commit crimes in broad day light. Car jackings home invasions being the new crimes that are in "vogue". Why one might ask? The short answer is, The Liberal Government gave every street thug a guarantee that we are disarmed and defenceless.
From a Tactical stand point if you are going to commit a crime are you going to pick a target that is able to fend you off or are you going to pick "soft target" that is easy pickins? The law as it is written makes our streets and homes one big Gun Free Zone. The storage regulations take care of your home since you can not keep a firearm loaded at the ready. The law has done two things it has told every theif and thug that you and your family cannot counter an attack effectively. Even if the perps are only armed with baseball bats numbers counter strength. On the streets they now no that no one is armed since concealed carry is non existent in Canada becuase the law allowing it requires an Authorization to Carry permit (ATC). The second thing the law has done is create a thriving black market on the streets. In Ontario there is a requirement that when a firearms owner buys ammunition the strore must keep record of that. with you name and address and type of firearm and its type of ammunition. No law is on the books about the security of these records..The Government has provided the criminals of our Province with an up to date catalogue. This of Course is always done in the name of "Public Safety" do you feel safer now knowing that the bad guys have the ability to find guns?
From a Tactical stand point if you are going to commit a crime are you going to pick a target that is able to fend you off or are you going to pick "soft target" that is easy pickins? The law as it is written makes our streets and homes one big Gun Free Zone. The storage regulations take care of your home since you can not keep a firearm loaded at the ready. The law has done two things it has told every theif and thug that you and your family cannot counter an attack effectively. Even if the perps are only armed with baseball bats numbers counter strength. On the streets they now no that no one is armed since concealed carry is non existent in Canada becuase the law allowing it requires an Authorization to Carry permit (ATC). The second thing the law has done is create a thriving black market on the streets. In Ontario there is a requirement that when a firearms owner buys ammunition the strore must keep record of that. with you name and address and type of firearm and its type of ammunition. No law is on the books about the security of these records..The Government has provided the criminals of our Province with an up to date catalogue. This of Course is always done in the name of "Public Safety" do you feel safer now knowing that the bad guys have the ability to find guns?
If it hadn't been reported I would not have believed it!
In case anyone is not up to speed about Britain and some of the silliness that has transpired over the past few years since the Labour party has been running the show. The below article kinda sums it up nicely. England a once proud and sensible place has taken a turn for the silly. Prince Harry had to undergo sensitivity training for comments he made while he was on active duty in Afghanistan. On a more serious note a shop keeper and his friend fended off an armed robber. The shop keeper ended up charged with assault. To his discredit instead of defending himself in court he plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid prison time. The Crown and the Judge agreeing painted him as being no different than the hooligan that tried to rob him. Stuff like this is stupifyingly amazing. It appears that defending your property is now a crime in England. One wonders what has gotten into the water supply there.... I would be laughing if this were a Monty Python sketch but sadly it's not. More is the pity our Great Nation of Canada is not all that far behind them.
England in the Words of Monty Python "THIS HAS BECOME SILLY"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1135179/Armed-police-arrest-man-playfully-pointing-toy-ray-gun-baby.html
Armed police arrest man for 'playfully pointing toy ray-gun at baby'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:20 PM on 03rd February 2009
Police scrambled eight patrol cars filled with armed officers after a man in his 50s pointed a toy ray-gun at a baby and said 'Pow, Pow'.
The man, who has not yet been named, was arrested earlier today after he approached the baby and its mother with a 'silver ray-gun' which lights up and makes a buzzing noise when the trigger is pulled.
Onlookers in Hove, East Sussex, were astonished when the police cars sped to the scene to apprehend the man.Alison Edmonds, 23, said that she saw the man - who is not believed to be related to the baby and mother - approach the pram holding the toy gun, before jokingly saying 'Pow, pow' while pressing the trigger repeatedly.
The mother of the child then called police, who sent an armed response team to find and arrest the man, who was waiting for a bus less than a few hundred yards away.
Miss Edwards said: 'It was unbelievable. All he did was try to make the child laugh, but the mum decided to call the police and obviously told them a man with a gun had threatened her and her baby.
'What happened next was truly astonishing. I've never seen anything like it. These eight cars screamed to a halt and surrounded the poor man at the bus stop.
'They were fully kitted out with machine guns, rifles and everything.
'The man didn't know what was happening. All he was trying to do was make the baby crack a smile.'
Police seized the man's toy ray-gun and arrested him on suspicion of possessing an imitation firearm in a public place.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
When Seconds Count
abc News has released an investigative report on "active shooters" or mass murder(ers)
The Freedom Pages own Mr Kilroi has produced a video based on theirs. While I am a Canadian and though you can count on one hand the number of mass killings we have had, Gharbi still being the worst so far. The United States has had more than their share, this has given them the unique ability to study them. They have come up with some shocking news. Gun Free Zones actually might invite spree killers. But was is even more shocking they found that the "active shooter" self destructs when confronted by anyone who is armed. Thus ending their spree and limiting their damage.
The Freedom Pages own Mr Kilroi has produced a video based on theirs. While I am a Canadian and though you can count on one hand the number of mass killings we have had, Gharbi still being the worst so far. The United States has had more than their share, this has given them the unique ability to study them. They have come up with some shocking news. Gun Free Zones actually might invite spree killers. But was is even more shocking they found that the "active shooter" self destructs when confronted by anyone who is armed. Thus ending their spree and limiting their damage.
Monday, February 2, 2009
B.C. Green Party: "Imagine Canadian Cities Without Guns
PUBLICATION: The Province
DATE: 2009.01.30
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: A8
COLUMN: Jon Ferry
ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Damian Kettlewell, deputy leader of the B.C. Green Party, has started an urban anti-firearms campaign. ;
BYLINE: Jon Ferry
SOURCE: The Province
Restricting guns won't work; I don't see how limits will make public safer
As my mother always said, be sure to eat your greens. And I must say I haven't always agreed with her. In fact, most greens I've met have always seemed a little hard to digest. They're the kind of folks who believe cow farts help cause climate change. They also appear bent on turning Vancouver into a gun-free city, as well as a nuclear-free one.
Gun-free city? Yes, that's the plan of B.C. Green Party deputy leader Damian Kettlewell, 37, who tells me he hates guns, hates what they stand for and doesn't understand why people need them, especially in a modern, urban, cosmopolitan city like Vancouver. "Like how does it make a community better?" Kettlewell asks. "I understand that the police need guns and the army needs guns -- but citizens, why do they need guns?"
Well, to go target-shooting, hunting or to defend their property was my immediate thought. But then I don't hate guns, even though my brother-in-law killed himself with one. I don't hate them any more than I hate butcher knives. I just hate the sickos who use them in a bad way.
Now, I should explain here that Kettlewell, a Kits Point resident running in the new Vancouver-False Creek riding in the May provincial election, is not talking of an outright Vancouver city firearms ban.
Hunters could own guns. They'd just have to store them at a gun club and sign them out when they wanted to use them, with a plan of their intended activities -- as in "I'm going to Prince George to go hunting."
Kettlewell, a Burnaby pub operator, started his anti-firearms campaign on Facebook ("Imagine Canadian Cities Without Guns") two weeks ago. He ramped it up Wednesday on CKNW's Christy Clark Show.
So far, he says, the response has been overwhelmingly positive -- from people like my own boss, Province editor-in-chief Wayne Moriarty, who also doesn't see why anybody in an urban setting needs a gun.
Why is Kettlewell suggesting this now? Well, he believes that, if a no-guns-at-home law had been in place last year, his buddy Ben Banky, gunned down tragically at a company Christmas party, might still be alive today. And I sympathize with him for his terrible loss.
But as retired Simon Fraser University professor and firearms expert Gary Mauser points out, storing a number of weapons in one location is risky in its own right. "Gun clubs, because of noise regulations, have to be away from other houses, so they're a perfectly vulnerable target," he says. "Having a large set of guns being available for theft strikes me as a very impractical idea. It wouldn't help public safety."
Mauser, in fact, thinks the greens are paranoid about guns, as are many urban Canadians. Most rural folks grew up with firearms and are comfortable with them. I agree with him. Sure, allowing people to have guns on their own property can be dangerous. But so can letting them have cars, motorcycles, horses . . . and cows. Should we also ban them?
jferry@theprovince.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can imagine Canadian cities without guns, In fact the day that happens is the day I become an agoraphobic living in a bunker. The streets will not be safe to walk anytime of day. Every thug an n'rr do well will have the Governments guarantee we are all disarmed and defenceless. What I can't imagine is the Canada that would enact and enable such legislation. What I can't imagine is that "WE THE PEOPLE" would swallow such baloney that removing guns from law abiding citizens is a good idea. That it would make the streets safe. Some things in life are just truism, like it or not it is just the way humans are wired. The words "An armed society is a polite society" happens to fall into that category. Bullies come in different shapes sizes and guises. They all bank on the fact that they can intimidate or cajole people with no worries because it comes down to this "What are you going to do about it?". Consider the proposition that if we all carried arms we would all be equal. It would not matter if we were experts in martial arts or near sighted grannies WE WOULD NOT BE VICTIMS of the strong.
I also take issue with people and organizations that keep peddling this idea. Not one of them has said "We are willing to put our money where our mouths are, and indemnify ourselves and guarantee the publics' safety." No of course not why would they? They can't see past their agenda. The belief that only Police and the Military need guns is a cop out after all if the "People" are disarmed why do the police need guns? AHHH..is it to protect us from the thugs and n'rr do wells that did not give up their guns? Which exposes the flaw of their plan, the truth is Canadian Cities will never be gun free. These people would only make the streets safe for criminals.
The founder of this face book page is a PUB owner. He sells slow death in a glass every day. if someone where looking to take his livelihood away viz an "Alcohol Free" Canada he would be leading the pack to stop this.
DATE: 2009.01.30
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: A8
COLUMN: Jon Ferry
ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Damian Kettlewell, deputy leader of the B.C. Green Party, has started an urban anti-firearms campaign. ;
BYLINE: Jon Ferry
SOURCE: The Province
Restricting guns won't work; I don't see how limits will make public safer
As my mother always said, be sure to eat your greens. And I must say I haven't always agreed with her. In fact, most greens I've met have always seemed a little hard to digest. They're the kind of folks who believe cow farts help cause climate change. They also appear bent on turning Vancouver into a gun-free city, as well as a nuclear-free one.
Gun-free city? Yes, that's the plan of B.C. Green Party deputy leader Damian Kettlewell, 37, who tells me he hates guns, hates what they stand for and doesn't understand why people need them, especially in a modern, urban, cosmopolitan city like Vancouver. "Like how does it make a community better?" Kettlewell asks. "I understand that the police need guns and the army needs guns -- but citizens, why do they need guns?"
Well, to go target-shooting, hunting or to defend their property was my immediate thought. But then I don't hate guns, even though my brother-in-law killed himself with one. I don't hate them any more than I hate butcher knives. I just hate the sickos who use them in a bad way.
Now, I should explain here that Kettlewell, a Kits Point resident running in the new Vancouver-False Creek riding in the May provincial election, is not talking of an outright Vancouver city firearms ban.
Hunters could own guns. They'd just have to store them at a gun club and sign them out when they wanted to use them, with a plan of their intended activities -- as in "I'm going to Prince George to go hunting."
Kettlewell, a Burnaby pub operator, started his anti-firearms campaign on Facebook ("Imagine Canadian Cities Without Guns") two weeks ago. He ramped it up Wednesday on CKNW's Christy Clark Show.
So far, he says, the response has been overwhelmingly positive -- from people like my own boss, Province editor-in-chief Wayne Moriarty, who also doesn't see why anybody in an urban setting needs a gun.
Why is Kettlewell suggesting this now? Well, he believes that, if a no-guns-at-home law had been in place last year, his buddy Ben Banky, gunned down tragically at a company Christmas party, might still be alive today. And I sympathize with him for his terrible loss.
But as retired Simon Fraser University professor and firearms expert Gary Mauser points out, storing a number of weapons in one location is risky in its own right. "Gun clubs, because of noise regulations, have to be away from other houses, so they're a perfectly vulnerable target," he says. "Having a large set of guns being available for theft strikes me as a very impractical idea. It wouldn't help public safety."
Mauser, in fact, thinks the greens are paranoid about guns, as are many urban Canadians. Most rural folks grew up with firearms and are comfortable with them. I agree with him. Sure, allowing people to have guns on their own property can be dangerous. But so can letting them have cars, motorcycles, horses . . . and cows. Should we also ban them?
jferry@theprovince.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can imagine Canadian cities without guns, In fact the day that happens is the day I become an agoraphobic living in a bunker. The streets will not be safe to walk anytime of day. Every thug an n'rr do well will have the Governments guarantee we are all disarmed and defenceless. What I can't imagine is the Canada that would enact and enable such legislation. What I can't imagine is that "WE THE PEOPLE" would swallow such baloney that removing guns from law abiding citizens is a good idea. That it would make the streets safe. Some things in life are just truism, like it or not it is just the way humans are wired. The words "An armed society is a polite society" happens to fall into that category. Bullies come in different shapes sizes and guises. They all bank on the fact that they can intimidate or cajole people with no worries because it comes down to this "What are you going to do about it?". Consider the proposition that if we all carried arms we would all be equal. It would not matter if we were experts in martial arts or near sighted grannies WE WOULD NOT BE VICTIMS of the strong.
I also take issue with people and organizations that keep peddling this idea. Not one of them has said "We are willing to put our money where our mouths are, and indemnify ourselves and guarantee the publics' safety." No of course not why would they? They can't see past their agenda. The belief that only Police and the Military need guns is a cop out after all if the "People" are disarmed why do the police need guns? AHHH..is it to protect us from the thugs and n'rr do wells that did not give up their guns? Which exposes the flaw of their plan, the truth is Canadian Cities will never be gun free. These people would only make the streets safe for criminals.
The founder of this face book page is a PUB owner. He sells slow death in a glass every day. if someone where looking to take his livelihood away viz an "Alcohol Free" Canada he would be leading the pack to stop this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)