Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

With an hour and a fifteen minutes to go

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:30pm - 0 Comments

Messrs Ignatieff and Layton are promising that all of their respective sides will be in attendance for the vote on C-391 that is now expected to take place at about 5:45pm. Independent MP Andre Arthur stood before QP and informed the House that he remained opposed to the long-gun registry. Liberal MP Scott Simms, who had been the subject of some speculation this morning, is expected to vote against C-391. Postmedia’s Janice Tibbetts has the NDP’s Niki Ashton still in favour of C-391.

If all that holds true, the committee report to be voted on tonight will be approved by a count of 153-151, thus defeating Bill C-391 and preserving the long-gun registry.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Anon

    Please see Susan Delacourt re. Scott SImms and his vote this evening, http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2010/09/scott-s….

  • Emily

    Well I'm a goin' over to the Long Branch fer a drink while Matt takes on the bad guys out in the street.

    Doc

    • Emily

      Yup, knew I wouldn't be needed. Hope the undertaker's sober.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Somebody wake me when the shooting starts.

    • LynnTO

      Ditto. Suspense makes me sleepy.

  • Holly Stick

    Some body tell the dimwits Colby Cosh and Chris Selley to read this, since they don't seem to understand that trying to prevent more suicides is a good idea:

    "…In 2006, 774 Canadians were killed by the use of firearms. Despite the media's focus on crime, 76% of these firearm-related deaths were caused by suicide.[1] This equates to one firearm suicide every 15 hours in Canada. Fortunately, firearm suicides have decreased significantly since the Firearms Act was implemented. A leading international scientific journal, Injury Prevention, features a study that demonstrated a significant decline in firearm suicide rates among men in Québec that was associated with the implementation of the Firearms Act (Bill C-17). [2] In addition to showing a decline in firearm suicides, this study demonstrated that the reduction did not result in people substituting other suicide methods. This is strong scientific evidence that supports the retention of the registry…"
    http://www.caep.ca/item.asp?it=0080D0D66671492DA3…

    • Holly Stick

      Not to mention prevent some domestic murders, but rightwing men don't seem to care about that:
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/long…

    • Mike R

      The Firearms Act is a complicated statute with a complex series of regulations attached. The long gun registry provisions are, in context, a small part of that overall legislative scheme. No one has seriously suggested abolishing the other provisions of the Act, or the registry of handguns. It would be very hard for the study you quote to separate the effects of the registry from all the other responsible (and non-controversial) firearms safety provisions. I am sure the introduction of the firearms safety provisions by Kim Campbell's justice department did have a positive effect on lowering suicide rates. The evidence does not support a conclusion that the registry itself had that effect.

      • Holly Stick

        It's difficult to prove, say, that if police had not removed the guns from a mentally ill man's home, he would have murdered his wife. But we know that women are murdered with long guns:

        "…She said 88 per cent of Canadian women who are killed with guns are shot with long guns.

        “Access to guns is the fifth highest of 18 risk factors in spousal homicides,” she said…"

        Which is good enough unless you can prove that the women who were murdered with shotguns or rifles would all have been murdered even if the guns had not been available.

        It's hypothetical both ways, but only one way may help to prevent murders.

        • Mike R

          But the registry has little if anything to do with access to firearms. The FAC requirement and other restrictions on the availablity of firearms certainly has an effect on suicides, but there is no evidence the registry itself has such an effect. If there was evidence that the police are particularly good at recognizing suicide risks, more so than the families of those at risk, and are likely to be able to seize registered weapons that they would not know about in the absence of a registry, then there might be some support for it. The same goes for domestic violence cases. If a spouse is at risk, and the police protect her by seizing weapons owned by her husband, does the registry actually add anything? If she is at risk and has sufficient time to bring the police into the picture, isn't she capable of telling them how may weapons her spouse has? And isn't that information likely to be more accurate than a registry?

          • Holly Stick

            Not if she does not know about them, like here:

            "…Police received a call from family members requesting attendance at the family residence to take the father's firearms away, as he was very depressed and despondent. Before the officers left with a quantity of long guns, they queried CFRO and determined there were 21 more firearms registered to the father, that no family members were aware of. The officers remained on site until they obtained a search warrant, proceeded with the search, and found the additional 21 firearms hidden in various parts of the house, along with 45,000 rounds of ammunition. .."
            http://www.truthsandmyths.ca/how-the-firearms-reg…

      • ajb

        Surely the burden of proof goes the other way — those who wish to eliminate the long gun registry need to offer compelling evidence that its elimination will not have the effect of endangering lives.

        • Mike R

          No. That's like saying we should all have to provide fingerprints and DNA samples to the police, and ask permission before going out doors, and it should be up to those who object to prove that elimination of such steps would not have the effect of endangering lives. The government is spending millions of dollars (no matter whose figures you believe) on a program. If it cannot justify it on any ground other than inchoate fear, it should not continue – the money can be spent better elsewhere – such as in suicide prevention, spousal abuse, or mental health programs – where there is a likelihood there will be an effect.

          • ajb

            No, it's like saying that if someone came along saying they wanted to abolish the collection and storage of fingerprint data, they'd have to show that that didn't harm crime prevention.
            My point is that whenever you want to change the status quo, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your proposed change does no significant harm.

          • Mike R

            But surely a reasonable approach, more reasonable than relying on either the registry or a family member's memory, would be to get the search warrant in the first place, and conduct a diligent search, which would reveal both registered and non-registered weapons?

          • Mike R

            Sorry, that was a reply to Holly Stick's post.

          • Jenn_

            Well, I don't know about that. How do you know you've found a thing if you don't know what you are looking for? When do you stop looking for a thing when you don't know if it exists? To take Holly's example, let's say they didn't have the registry to tell them there were an additional 21 guns. Let's say they got the search warrant and found 18 guns. Let's say the last three guns are kept on the boat in the marina a few blocks away. The search warrant wouldn't cover the boat, and the police wouldn't know they had more guns to account for. But the depressed guy would know, and would go down to the boat and shoot himself–or first bring the gun back to the house to shoot the family, and THEN shoot himself.

          • Mike R

            How do you know all the firearms someone has have been registered? The vast majority of guns used in criminal offences are unregistered and, in fact, prohibited. The registry doesn't affect them or their users at all. Nor would the registry advise police in your example. Would they really cease looking once they found all registered weapons and not search any further? It seems you are looking for a bureaucratic way to guarantee safety – and that is an illusion.

            Anyway, it seem gun owners will have to put up with what is, after all, a relatively minor annoyance, and a relatively minor wast of government money, for another couple of years at least. At which time I expect we'll hear the same arguments again from both sides.

          • Jenn_

            It is nice to end on complete agreement, and I completely agree with your last paragraph.

          • John_Edgar

            I have to disagree with this, every program should be kept only if it is worthwhile.

          • Holly Stick

            And it's not worthwhile preserving women's lives? Preventing some suicides?

  • mike

    is there anywhere to watch the vote on the net or tv

  • Mike R

    Well, generally I agree with the proposition that what it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change – but when a program has always been of suspect utility, as has the registry, it doesn't seem sensible to treat it as sacrosanct. If there are no good reasons for its retention, other than the primary reason it was created – which is symbolism, then there is no justification for continuing to spend even a few million dollars a year on it.

    • Holly Stick

      "…If there are no good reasons for its retention,…" It's not a good reason that it may save some lives?

  • Mike R

    How speculative does it have to be in order to justify the expenditure of several million dollars a year? As I've said, the Firearms Act has a lot of provisions that restrict access to and use of firearms. No one is suggesting getting rid of those provisions. The registry itself was brought in largely as a PR measure and has, it would seem, symbolic value only. If the proponents of the registry can't provide empirical data that demonstrates it is worth its cost – the money should be spent elsewhere on programs that have demonstrated value – such as mental health intiatives.

  • LynnTO

    And the Yeas have it. The registry is safe…for now.

Previous

Next

From Macleans