CLC says: "Keep the Gun Registry! Disarm Domestic Violence!"

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
CLC says: "Keep the Gun Registry! Disarm Domestic Violence!"

Many postcard campaigns are in full swing leading up to the December 6 day of remembrance. One of them is [url=this">http://www.canadianlabour.ca/action-center/keep-gun-registry-disarm-dome... campaign[/url] sponsored by the Canadian Labour Congress:

Quote:

Send this postcard to the Prime Minister:

A gun in the home increases the risk of harm for women and children.

The law is working: gun-related spousal homicides are down 50%. Keep the gun registry.

Please visit the link to send your postcard and circulate widely among colleagues and friends!

Thank you.

 

remind remind's picture
Unionist

[url=Canadian">http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2009/09/c7349.htmlf][... Emergency Physicians opposed to repealing the Long-Gun Registry[/url]

Quote:
The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) is greatly concerned about the recent endorsement by the House of Commons of Bill C-391, which, if passed, would repeal the Long Gun Registry. As emergency physicians, we see the true horror of firearm injury and death and can attest to the fact that the long gun registry saves lives.

According to Statistics Canada, there were 818 firearm deaths in Canada in 2005. (1) 72.5% (593) of these firearm deaths were suicides. This amounts to one person every 15 hours. Over 80% of these suicide deaths were due to long guns.(2) Gun control saves lives. Since the gun control registry was introduced in 1995, firearm suicides have decreased by 35%.(2,3)

Those opposed to long gun registration claim that there is a lack of criminal activity involving long guns. This is not true. Of firearm-related homicides in 2008 in Canada, 34% were by rifles or shotguns, 61% by handguns and 17% by prohibited firearms.(4) Long guns were used in 72% of firearm-related spousal homicides. Between 1995 and 2004, there was a 36% decrease in the use of firearms in spousal homicides.(5)

Unionist

[url=MPs">http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Releases/prss1109.ywcacanada.pdf][... Playing Dangerous Politics with Women's Lives says YWCA Canada: Calls for Honouring the Montreal Massacre and Preserving the Gun Registry[/url]

Quote:
No greater impetus should be needed for the retention of gun control in Canada and the defeat of Bill C-391 than the looming shadow of the 20th anniversary of the 1989 murders of 14 women at L’École Polytechnique says YWCA Canada, the nation’s oldest and largest women’s multi-service organization.

“What is often lost in the complaints of gun owners against the registry is that on the evidence, gun control saves lives. 88% of Canadian women killed with guns are killed with a shotgun or rifle. Rifles and shotguns are the guns most often used in domestic violence and suicide,” says Paulette Senior, CEO of YWCA Canada.

Fidel

So 72% of firearm-related homicides involved long guns. How many of those long guns were illegal?

How can a gun registry far removed from the scene of the crime prevent someone from shooting another person? I think people are misled into thinking gun registry equates to stricter gun control. What you're really salivating after is a total gun ban.

The police themselves say what's needed is exactly what the NDP advocates, which is more policing, more money for counselling and social work, adequate funding for border patrols, more money for investigating the smuggling of illegal weapons into Canada from the US etc.  

Unionist

From Judy Rebick's rabble blog:

[url=Tell">http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/judes/2009/11/tell-ignatieff-layton-... Ignatieff, Layton you want their parties to vote against gutting the gun registry[/url]

 

yarg

Fidel wrote:

What you're really salivating after is a total gun ban.

 

Precisely, to Unionists credit, he comes as close to saying it as anyone, but you are right this is an argument founded on dishonesty.

 

Unionist

Last March, when gun-control wannabe abolitionist MP Garry Breitkreuz was pushing his private member's bill C-301, women leaders across Canada wrote to Michael Ignatieff demanding that he hold the line and defeat this bill. Obviously, when C-391 rolled around, Iggy showed his true colours. The [url=letter">http://www.cfuw.org/issues/gun-control/gun-control-c-301-march-2009.aspx... and list of signatories[/url] are worth recalling:

Quote:

Friday, March 6, 2009

Mr. Michael Ignatieff, M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

Re: Do not dismantle gun control. Defeat Bill C-301 on April 1, 2009

Dear Sir,

The signatories to this letter are deeply concerned about Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz's Private Member Bill C-301, which will relax controls on restricted and prohibited guns (including handguns, assault weapons and machine guns) as well as eliminate the registration of rifles and shotguns. Please ensure your party defeats this proposed legislation at second reading on April 1, 2009.

You have stated your commitment to ending violence against women. Our gun law is not only a monument to those who were killed on December 6, 1989 at l'École Polytechnique, but is recognized worldwide as an effective tool for reducing gun violence targeting women. Commitment to ending violence against women requires more than wearing a white ribbon on December 6th. As the 20th anniversary of the Montreal massacre approaches, it would be a travesty if the party you lead helps dismantle the gun law we all worked so hard to pass.

Our laws have made Canada safer.

  • In 1991, more than 1400 Canadians were killed with guns. Now it is fewer than 800.
  • The 2007 rate of murders with rifles and shotguns has dropped by more than 78% from 1991.
  • Murders of women with guns have plummeted from 85 in 1991 to 32 in 2004 (the numbers of murders without guns have not dropped as significantly).
  • Suicide rates, particularly among youth, have also declined.

Policing, public health and victims' organizations across Canada - including those from Polytechnique and Dawson College - support sensible gun control. On behalf of millions of women in Canada, so do we. As the Alberta Court of Appeal noted, gun control is a women's issue: women represent a small percentage of Canada's 2 million gun owners. But they account for a high percentage of the victims of gun violence.

Mandatory screening, licensing and renewal for all firearm owners as well as registration of all firearms are important measures for protecting the safety of women. Renewable licenses reduce the risk that individuals with a history of domestic violence will have access to firearms. Registration ensures that the police can take preventative action. The proposed law extends the licensing period for 10 years for all gun owners (including those who own handguns and assault weapons), reducing the opportunities for review and ensuring that information is up to date. Canada's licensing system, with spousal renewal, is essential for the safety of women. Do not help undermine it and jeopardize our safety and the safety of our children.

Continued from page 1

Rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often used to kill women and children in domestic violence. Access to a firearm is the fifth leading predictor of female homicide in domestic violence. The proposed law also eliminates the requirement to register rifles and shotguns. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of registration as a means of enforcing the licensing provisions of the law. If a licensed owner can buy as many guns as they want without having their name associated with the guns through the registry, there is little to prevent them from giving those guns to individuals without licenses. Information about the guns individuals owns is essential to enforcing prohibition orders and supporting preventative action by Canada's police agencies; they currently use the registry 9400 times per day. There are many powerful semi-automatic firearms currently classified as unrestricted firearms, including the Ruger Mini-14 used at Polytechnique. Repeatedly, inquests into the murders of women and children recommended the licensing of gun owners and registration of guns to prevent further tragedies.

There is no place for military and tactical weapons in the hands of civilians. Almost 400,000 Canadians signed a petition calling for a ban on these weapons and most countries in the world prohibit civilian possession of fully automatic and semi automatic weapons. The shooting at Dawson college taught us a bitter lesson - that the lists of prohibited firearms have not been updated since the law passed in 1995. We want more control on these weapons, not less. Bill C-301 relaxes controls allowing fully automatic weapons to be taken to shooting ranges.

Canadian women continue to support overwhelmingly the licensing of gun owners and registration of all firearms. Polls have shown that while half of gun owners opposed the law, 77% of people living with a gun owner supported it. Women are rightly concerned about access to rifles and shotguns in cases of domestic violence and suicide:

  • 88% of Canadian women killed with guns are killed with a shotgun or rifle, the very guns that opponents of the law say are not the cause of gun violence;
  • Access to guns is the fifth highest of 18 risk factors in spousal homicides;
  • 50% of family homicides end in the suicide of the murderer, indicating that the key to protecting women and children is thorough screening in licensing and licence renewals for gun owners;
  • When guns are used there are more likely to be multiple victims, often children;
  • Although opposition to gun control is stronger where rates of gun ownership are higher (particularly in rural and western communities), women and children are particularly at risk from guns in the home in these areas.

Let us be clear: the stakes could not be higher for Canadian women. Ending violence against women requires more than talk. It requires action. We urge you to lead your party to reduce violence and suicide in our families and our communities, by defeating Bill C-301 on April 1.

Signatories listed on attached page.

Continued from page 2

Signing in opposition to Bill C301:

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

National Council of Women of Canada
Karen Dempsey
President

YWCA of Canada
Paulette Senior
CEO

Canadian Federation of University Women
Susan Russell
Executive Director

Michele Landsberg
Writer

PROVINCIAL / COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

Jan Reimer
Provincial Co-ordinator
Alberta Council of Women's Shelters
Edmonton, AB

Hélène Cornellier
Coordonnatrice du plan d'action et des communications
AFEAS (Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale)
Montreal, QC

Sadeqa Siddiqui
Coordonnatrice
Centre Comm. des Femmes Sud-Asiatique
Montréal, QC

Réjean Parent
President
Centrale syndicats du Québec
Montréal, QC

Viviane Doré-Nadeau
ConcertAction Femmes Estrie
Sherbrooke, QC

Sylvie Haviernick
Founder
Fond. du 6 décembre contre la violence
Montréal, QC

Marylaine Léger
Director
Pleins Pouvoirs KIDPOWER Montreal
Montréal QC

Leslie Tutty
RESOLVE
Calgary, AB

Judy Rebick
CAW-Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy
Ryerson University
Toronto, ON

Yvette Houle
Executive Director
Dr. Margaret Savage Crisis Centre
Cold Lake, AB

Leanne Wruck
Acting Director
U. of Alberta Sexual Assault Centre
Edmonton, Alberta

Marilou McPhedran
Principal, Global College
University of Winnipeg

Heather McGregor
CEO
YWCA Toronto
Toronto, ON

Loretta

If people want to keep this registry, I'd recommend they make their feelings known, as individuals, to their respective MPs, not just from within umbrella groups. You can be sure the Cons are trying to mobilize their supporters on this issue.

Unionist

Dennis Gruending (former NDP MP for Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar) has an [url=excellent">http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/2009/11/04/long-gun-registry... and thoughtful post[/url] on the subject:

Quote:
I was a candidate in four federal elections in mixed urban-rural constituencies in Saskatchewan and the gun registry featured in every one of those campaigns. In 1997, I was a candidate in Saskatoon-Humboldt, the area where I was born and raised. One day I was campaigning in a small town that was clearly suffering from the rural economic crisis. The rail line had been removed and the two tall grain elevators at the head of Main Street were being dismantled.  The town’s business buildings were shabby and much of the housing stock was run down. I came upon a man who was backing his truck out of a driveway. He recognized me and said that he knew my sister. “I haven’t got much time,” he said. “I just want to know one thing. What is your position on gun control?” I asked him if that issue was more important to him in an election than the fact that his town had lost its rail line and its grain elevator. “You bet it is,” he said. I lost that election by 221 votes to the Reform Party candidate.

Read on to hear his attempt to explain how a hotbed of agrarian radicalism could have morphed into this kind of illogic.

 

Unionist

[url=http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2165881]... C-391 will prolong random acts of violence against women[/url]

Statement signed by Nicole Pietsch, coordinator of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, and JoAnne Brooks, of the Women's Sexual Assault Centre of Renfrew County.

Quote:
The OCRCC acknowledges the financial cost of the registry. We feel that addressing violence against women is indeed a financial investment, however one worth taking.

 

Fidel

[url=http://www.canadianlabour.ca/national/news/postcard-campaign-targets-vio... on the CLC's postcard campaign[/url]

Quote:
Byers says the CLC and its affiliate unions have distributed thousands of postcards and have asked people to return them to Prime Minister Stephen Harper between November 16th and December 6th. The cards urge him to keep the gun registry, and also contain messages asking that Canada improve the lives of women by: improving the funding of shelters for women and children; investing in new social housing; setting a national standard for welfare rates; providing equal pay for work of equal value; and improving services, including a nationally-funded child care program, better public pensions and access to Employment Insurance.

Byers says, "Rather than promoting women's equality, the federal government is severely limiting women's capacity to organize, advocate and lobby. They won't support women's equality in the workplace and have limited women's rights to challenge discrimination before the courts. We will not accept an erosion of our hard-won equality rights and we will not be silenced by a socially conservative government agenda."

79 confidence votes from the effective private property party coalition Liberals and one divine intervention by the GG later...

Unionist

Thanks for highlighting the postcard campaign, Fidel.

From the CAW website:

[url=http://petition.web.net/caw/node/15]Day 7 - Pensions: A Long Safe Life[/url]

Quote:

Day 7: (Pensions: A Long Safe Life)


Age is no protection against violence. And many older women live in poverty. They need improved public pensions to achieve financial independence and security.

Twenty years is too long.

Government attention to violence against women is long overdue. A law and order agenda is not the answer. Women need economic and social security to be safe at home, at work and in our communities. We need support for women's services and equality.

Now is the time for action.

Lord Palmerston

Unionist wrote:
Read on to hear his attempt to explain how a hotbed of agrarian radicalism could have morphed into this kind of illogic.

A very telling example of this is the Saskatchewan riding of Yorkton-Melville.  It used to be an NDP stronghold.  Now it's represented by Garry Breitkreuz, who is the most outspoken MP in terms of opposing gun control, and it's one of the safest Tory seats in the country.

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Read on to hear his attempt to explain how a hotbed of agrarian radicalism could have morphed into this kind of illogic.

A very telling example of this is the Saskatchewan riding of Yorkton-Melville.  It used to be an NDP stronghold.

Oh that just means it's destined to become an NDP seat again once the SaskaTories or Steve Harpers pull a Grant Devine or Brian Mulroney of things. Mark my words, they won't be able to help themselves in the end.

Pittsky

It's important that we distinguish the difference between gun licensing and the gun registry.  Gun licensing is incredibly important as it screens, tests and educates every potential gun owner.  The registry simply lays a piece of paper beside a gun that has already been legally purchased by a qualified individual.  Dropping the registry does not make it any easier for a person to buy a gun, nor does it prevent a mad man from using the gun to maim or kill. 

 

Rhetoric and emotions aside, Lets look at the numbers.  Firearm related deaths have been in steady decline since the 1970's.  The data in the Canadian Mortality Database, demonstrates it was the introduction of Bill C-17 in 1991 that had an immediate and dramatic effect on further reducing gun deaths.  Bill C-17 made screening of firearms owners mandatory.  I don't know anybody who wants to eliminate screening. It is the single most important aspect of gun control.

 

 

 

 

After 1995, when gun registration became compulsory, the death rate for firearms-related injuries continued to go down.  But the rate at which it dropped actually slowed.  The numbers show beyond any reasonable doubt that the gun registry did not contribute to the decline in firearm deaths in any way, shape or form in this country.  To say otherwise is simply ignoring the facts.

 

It should also be noted that in Canada about four-fifths of all firearms-related deaths are suicides.

Fidel

Pittsky there have been lots of emotional outbursts concerning gun registry for sure. Thanks for the information. Facts are good.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

That's an interesting graph, and I don't really have a horse in this race (although I do side with the long-gun registry from instinct and principle) but it looks like the graph suggests that from 1979 to 1991, firearm deaths stayed at about 10/100 000, and have gone consistently down since 1991. While I agree that the graph does not prove that the registry had an immediate effect, it also does not discount that the registry may have contributed to the continued decline in firearm deaths.

Pittsky

Fidel wrote:

Pittsky there have been lots of emotional outbursts concerning gun registry for sure. Thanks for the information. Facts are good.

 

Thank you.  I am brand new here and was a bit worried about wading into this.  I guess my position is I believe in effective gun control, not more gun control.

 

Pittsky

Catchfire wrote:

That's an interesting graph, and I don't really have a horse in this race (although I do side with the long-gun registry from instinct and principle) but it looks like the graph suggests that from 1979 to 1991, firearm deaths stayed at about 10/100 000, and have gone consistently down since 1991. While I agree that the graph does not prove that the registry had an immediate effect, it also does not discount that the registry may have contributed to the continued decline in firearm deaths.

 

Perhaps.  Who knows either way though right?  I feel that based on the data, I would like to have seen the billion plus dollars the registry cost put into hospitals, police departments, shelters etc.  Money put into these areas would show immediate concrete results.  We could have had an MRI in almost every major hospital in the country.  Instead, we are left to scratch our collective heads and say "maybe it helped, maybe it didn't".

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Well, the billion dollar price tag was a  bit of a disaster, to be sure. But it's money spent. If you want to improve public saftey wrt firearms, isn't this exactly how you develop policy? Develop a program based on the input of police, health care workers, and citizens? Why would we remove it after it's already in place? Based on testimony from these groups now, it appears that it is doing something--whether it justifies the original 10-figure price tag is up for debate, but to remove it now would be incredibly wasteful.

And, for the record, I would avoid such phrasing as "beyond any reasonable doubt" when showing a single graph from which we could draw a variety of conclusions.

Pittsky

Catchfire wrote:

Well, the billion dollar price tag was a  bit of a disaster, to be sure. But it's money spent. If you want to improve public saftey wrt firearms, isn't this exactly how you develop policy? Develop a program based on the input of police, health care workers, and citizens? Why would we remove it after it's already in place? Based on testimony from these groups now, it appears that it is doing something--whether it justifies the original 10-figure price tag is up for debate, but to remove it now would be incredibly wasteful.

And, for the record, I would avoid such phrasing as "beyond any reasonable doubt" when showing a single graph from which we could draw a variety of conclusions.

 

 

The registry is in place, sure.  Can you show me any convictions it is responsible for?  This has been a standing challenge to all police chiefs who support the registry. To date not one conviction can be credited to the billion dollar registry.  That is a terrible & expensive track record. 

 

Crown prosecutors will not enter the registry data in court because the data it in is so garbled.  A recent FOI request showed the registry has error rates between 70% and 90%. 

 

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/ErrorRate-FirearmsRegistrationSystem.pdf

 

This money should be diverted now to better causes.

Pittsky

The data is complete.  There are movements in the 90 - 95 period.  Look closer.  I could provide actual numbers if you insist.

 

Brian White wrote:

I am looking at your graph and I cannot see any  jumps and dips on the period from 1990 to 95.  so it would appear to me that the data from 92.93,94 was ignored.  Did the government collect NO   gun deaths info in that period?  

And if they did report deaths in those years why are they not included?

   If I am correct,  the sharp dip shown from 90 to 95  is probably a misrepresentation and the sharp  dip actually occured when registration took place.

I found some figures for 1992 and I think they support what I said.   The total for 92 should show  the line going relatively high to that point and then the steep drop starting. 

Brian

Pittsky wrote:

It's important that we distinguish the difference between gun licensing and the gun registry.  Gun licensing is incredibly important as it screens, tests and educates every potential gun owner.  The registry simply lays a piece of paper beside a gun that has already been legally purchased by a qualified individual.  Dropping the registry does not make it any easier for a person to buy a gun, nor does it prevent a mad man from using the gun to maim or kill.

 

Rhetoric and emotions aside, Lets look at the numbers.  Firearm related deaths have been in steady decline since the 1970's.  The data in the Canadian Mortality Database, demonstrates it was the introduction of Bill C-17 in 1991 that had an immediate and dramatic effect on further reducing gun deaths.  Bill C-17 made screening of firearms owners mandatory.  I don't know anybody who wants to eliminate screening. It is the single most important aspect of gun control.

 

 

 

 

After 1995, when gun registration became compulsory, the death rate for firearms-related injuries continued to go down.  But the rate at which it dropped actually slowed.  The numbers show beyond any reasonable doubt that the gun registry did not contribute to the decline in firearm deaths in any way, shape or form in this country.  To say otherwise is simply ignoring the facts.

 

It should also be noted that in Canada about four-fifths of all firearms-related deaths are suicides.

Unionist

I would appreciate if you keep your debate out of this thread and forum. You are welcome to open a thread in National News to continue the other thread.

Pittsky

Unionist wrote:

I would appreciate if you keep your debate out of this thread and forum. You are welcome to open a thread in National News to continue the other thread.

 

Sorry, my bad.

yarg

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/091028/dq091028a-eng.htm

 

 

"There were 200 homicides committed with a firearm in 2008, 12 more than in 2007. The rate of homicides committed with a firearm has increased 24% since 2002.

There were 146 female homicide victims, 17 fewer than in 2007. Women accounted for 24% of homicide victims in 2008, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected."

Interesting, homicide by firearms on the rise since 2002, not shown on the above chart, and at the same time fewer women have been victims, so it seems the number of firearms homicides and the murder of women aren't that tightly connected. Maybe that decline has little to do with gun registration seeing as the overall rate of firearm homicide is rising.

From the chart on that page you can clearly see the homicide rate falling since the early 70's, oddly enough shortly after the registry came in the homicide rate started trending upwards, im not suggesting the registry is at fault, but it certainly doesn't seem to be helping does it.

All the more interesting is the stat that about 22% of homicides were gang related in 2008, other multiyear avergaes have show that only 2%  of homicides are comitted with registered weapons, makes sense to focus all this effort on that 2%, to some.

 

 

Brian White

I am looking at your graph and I cannot see any  jumps and dips on the period from 1990 to 95.  so it would appear to me that the data from 92.93,94 was ignored.  Did the government collect NO   gun deaths info in that period?

And if they did report deaths in those years why are they not included?

   If I am correct,  the sharp dip shown from 90 to 95  is probably a misrepresentation and the sharp  dip actually occured when registration took place.

I found some figures for 1992 and I think they support what I said.   The total for 92 should show  the line going relatively high to that point and then the steep drop starting. I have checked some more.

 The rates for murders with firearms  per hundred thousand people in Canada were HIGHER in 1991 AND 1992 than they were in 1990! so the graph is incorrect for that period!

Brian

Pittsky wrote:

It's important that we distinguish the difference between gun licensing and the gun registry.

yarg

Unionist wrote:

Many postcard campaigns are in full swing leading up to the December 6 day of remembrance. One of them is [url=this">http://www.canadianlabour.ca/action-center/keep-gun-registry-disarm-dome... campaign[/url] sponsored by the Canadian Labour Congress:

Quote:

Send this postcard to the Prime Minister:

A gun in the home increases the risk of harm for women and children.

The law is working: gun-related spousal homicides are down 50%. Keep the gun registry.

Please visit the link to send your postcard and circulate widely among colleagues and friends!

Thank you.

 

So you start a thread about a mail in campaign which insinustes that the registry is responsible for a 50 percent decline in spousal homicides, which is absolutely untrue, then you try to stifle debate, no doubt under the guise of support for women.

Not terribly surprising. I would think that supporting women with the truth, and helping where it will do the most good would be most important, but no, thats not what you're playing at. 

Brian White

Not sure if you want me gone too.

 Anyway, the graph is crap. It uses the wrong data!

It is about death by gun NOT murder by gun.  So changes in suicide rates among men are hiding what is happening to the murder rate.

If you plot death of female by gun (which is nearly all murder) the real story starts to show. The murder rate did not show a big drop until after 1996.

Anyway, before I go, I will edit my previous post to remove the graph.

 If you want the real picture, look at the females part of his graph.  Thats the only part of it that is relevent.

Brian