Here is the RCMP’s official evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program
Hey, you know the RCMP report on the long gun registry that everyone’s been talking about? The one that was completed in February, but which was only circulated among MPs in the House a couple of weeks ago?
Well, for those of you want to read it, here it is, in PDF format, courtesy of truthsandmyths.ca. You can also find a copy on the Toronto Star website.
More to come on the gun registry shortly, as always. The bill will be debated in the House of Commons one week from today, and voted on a week from tomorrow. Meanwhile, the past forty-eight hours have been pretty eventful, and there’s no telling what will happen – or what shame will be revealed and denied – within the next forty-eight.
Posted in Save the Gun Registry
Sadly, that site’s 10 “myths” use some pretty spurious logic, weakening the case.
Yeah, that’s unfortunately been a consistent point of criticism since this issue came to public prominence. The report, thankfully, comes from a reputable party (finally, after being held back by a disreputable party).
I also don’t want to create the impression that I think the list as a whole is invalid, because it’s not; a good number of these points are correct, or at the very least far more accurate and relevant than the worries and outright distortions they’ve been compiled to refute. But the way in which it’s structured has left it open to criticism on some of the finer points for sure.
Mind you, an honest and informed debate on this issue is, of course, what’s required, and what Canadians deserve to be allowed to have.
I’m with Mike, of the ten “myths” on that site, many are obvious red herrings, and a few aren’t really rebutted at all.
This issue is frankly getting overblown. The vast majority of the public safety function in the Canadian Firearms Program occurs during the licencing phase, not registration. Licencing is (rightfully) arduous and thorough, to the point that registration is literally an afterthought in the process. The “myths” site practically acknowledges this by pushing it as easy, and done “over the phone” in “minutes”. Compare that with the three to six month ordeal that licencing constitutes.
I’m all for a safe and responsible national firearms program and for real, effective controls, but debate on this issue as it stands now is confused to the point where the registry itself is held up as the public safety function, when most of it is in fact licencing. All of that control and due process remains no matter what happens to the long-gun registry.
The shocking reality is that this debate is in fact distracting us from a few real problems within the licencing function that have vastly more pressing public safety dimensions. Those with genuine concern for society and safety should be choosing their battles far more wisely than this. Unfortunately, so very few of them know the first thing about our firearms program and are therefore unable to understand those ramifications.
JLK, the licensing phase is certainly important, but it doesn’t render the long-gun registry redundant. It’s a complementary aid when it comes to police intervention and investigation, and provides much more detail on the weapons side of things than the licensing side, which is focused more on gun owners as individuals.
There’s certainly a lot of confusion over many aspects of the the registry, the bill, and the debate. I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t been able to wrap my head around the ins and outs of all of it. I’m personally inclined to put the bulk of the blame for that confusion on the ruling party that sat on information that contradicted their argument, dismissed a credible professional who could rightly argue them down, and have told Canadians that they “don’t need another report to know” what it is they’re shoveling. But the prompt and vocal reaction to that has produced a fair bit of confusion on all sides concerning an issue that a lot of us weren’t even aware of six weeks ago.
Indeed, I believe the extent to which the issue appears to be getting overblown is the extent to which it’s about more than the gun registry itself. It was the nature of Supt. Cheliak’s dismissal that brought this debate into the public sphere; if not for the questions surrounding it, the gun registry wouldn’t nearly be such a hot button issue.
The reasons it is have as much to do with the the tactics the Conservatives have been using to press their case, on this issue and others, as they do with the registry itself. What we’re seeing here is a growing public rejection of the anti-democratic approach that Harper’s Conservatives have made their own. Not all Conservatives, I want to stress, but certainly the faction in power. Coming as all of this has on the heels of the census and veteran affairs debacles, among others, it’s serving as evidence of a pattern that people are starting to reject, or at least acknowledge, in greater numbers.
The four NDP MPs and counting who have so far declared that they will switch sides and vote against the bill next week have certainly pointed to these tactics as a reason for their decisions. Whether it’s a matter of personal principle or a sense of obligation to their constituents or both is difficult to say, but certainly it’s a factor.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Off to watch a film about Machete Maidens, with more on this to follow later.
You know, the tactics used to implement the long gun registry in the first place ignored a lot of experts, too. That’s not to say that the Conservative’s tactics are ok,or that it’s fair given the history.
It’s my belief that the conservative party is acting according to what they believe Canadians want. Why on earth would they do otherwise?
The unfortunate result of the NDP switchers is that the support base the Conservative party has among the rural areas of Canada is going to grow, not shrink.
I’m disappointed that the Liberals are using this tactic, would have been disappointed if the NDP went that route, as the end result is that this will become an election issue, and enough of one that the votes of impassioned rural voters will outweigh the apathetic or uninformed urban ones.
I don’t believe a Conservative majority is in the best interests of Canadians, so What I’m hoping for is that Glen Thibeault and his peers vote according to the desires and opinions of his constituents, not as a response to tactics.
With all due respect, Sean, I don’t at all think that the Conservative party is acting according to what they believe Canadians want. Not any substantial portion of Canadians, at least. To be honest, at first I thought you were trying to get a rise out of me with that one.
I think the way they operate is all about maintaining power and implementing the agenda of a rather small number of Canadians. When you hold a minority, you don’t have to care what even a slim majority of your citizens think; you only have to appease more voters than any of the other parties, and you don’t even have to really care what they think as long as you’re able to bully or scare them into subscribing to what you think.
No political party is perfect, and of course there are parties who have been less than on the level before. There are people who would take that as reason enough to go along with it, and I’m glad you’re not one of them.
Call me an optimist, but I don’t think that this is as much of an “urban versus rural” issue as it’s often made out to be, and in any case I don’t think it’s necessarily going to cost the opposition parties as many votes as you might think.
Indeed, if you look at this summer’s polling numbers, you can see that a lot of Canadians are growing disillusioned with the Conservatives; who’s to say that these MPs aren’t responding to the desires and opinions of their constituents by rejecting that sort of government?