Oh, groan. One day into the election and the Liberals wheel out their first highly divisive wedge issue — gun control! Speaking at an event at Dawson College, Stéphane Dion announced that if elected, he would move quickly to take military assault weapons off Canadian streets. “A new Liberal government will make our cities, our communities, and our schools safer by getting military assault weapons off our streets,” he said. Just in case you may have forgotten, Dawson College was the site of a violent shooting rampage in 2006 in which one victim was killed and 19 others were seriously injured, an incident that vividly rekindled memories of the appalling École Polytechnique massacre sixteen years previous to that.
While it’s hard to take much serious issue with banning the firearms which are the ostensible target of such a proposal — machine guns, semi-automatic rifles, and other such so-called “military assault weapons” — Dion’s vowed crack-down is most likely to be taken by “conservatives” as simply being a dog whistle for more vastly more wide-ranging and intrusive gun control measures, thereby setting the stage for… (ta da!) what promises to be the usual rancorous, overheated, utterly futile confrontation between different factions of our society that seem to divide passionately along this controversial political fault line for various (often self-contradictory) reasons.
Gilles Duceppe has already set out a marker on the issue, somewhat ludicrously claiming that the Conservatives “are fighting for the free circulation of firearms” and perhaps that radical position may have informed the more temperate “me too” thinking of the Liberals in making today’s announcement, but there’s a risk involved here in that it raises another specter of the Liberals’ past — the monumentally flawed implementation of the long-gun registry, a well-intentioned “Trudeauvian” (to borrow the NP’s expression) program of dubious merit that, despite all of its many shortcomings and bureaucratic failings, the Conservative government hasn’t been able to summon enough gumption or integrity to actually terminate.
It’s hard to terminate a bureaucratic program as large as the gun registry. Especially if you don’t have a majority.
That’s a rather lame, but conveniently self-serving excuse.
Gun-control is a wedge-issue in Quebec though – the problem is that it is also a wedge-issue (in another way …) in Western Canada.
It’s a wedge issue across the board. Whether you look at Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, or the more general rural-urban split, this is divisive in many different ways.
I do not think there is anything wrong with raising gun control. It actually sets a pretty clear dividing line between CPC and LPC supporters.
My brother is in the first camp. The whole reason he supports Harper is because he (my brother) does not want gun control. He is not alone in that type of thinking – at least not around these here parts… My brother is also very upset Harper has not yet dismantled the registry, but he assumes it is coming with a majority government.
That’s what makes it so hopelessly banal. Is this the best Dion can do?
Hopelessly banal… Nicely put!
I give it a big, gigantic YAWN. Although, I realize the rabid partisans on this issue will simply love flailing around about it.
Gayle:
Yes, scrapping it is part of the agenda. It’s a bad programme to begin with as it does not address the real nature of gun-crimes; but nevertheless is part of the CPC code-speak.
Dion had blown it again – he has solidified Harper’s rural base for him.
It’s the economy, stupid!
ATY — There’s two sides to that argument. He’s either galvanized Harper’s rural base, or the Liberals’ urban base.
I take a diffferent view from RT.
Where this policy is unpopular, the Liberals weren’t going to win seats anyhow.. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to bring this up as a wedge issue in the urban centres and the East in general to remind Canadians how ideologically opposed the Harperites are to gun control. This was a coroner recommended thing in his report on how to prevent future Dawson Colleges from happening. Dion is merely endorsing the report and promising to implement it if elected.
I can hardly wait to hear Public Safety Minister Stock Day’s take on it.
What Scott said. I doubt there was much chance Harper’s rural base would vote for Dion anyway.
As for the registry, I know the majority of police officers support it. I have personal knowledge of cases where the police used it to solve crimes, and they certainly use it before they approach a house to execute search warrants, for obvious reasons.
I want the police to know who has guns. I know that it does nothing to find illegal guns, but it does provide some comfort. I also think people forget that part of the gun legislation introduced by the LPC includes the authority for the police to seize guns lawfully obtained if they have reason to believe the person owning those guns is dangerous. This involves a court application, and evidence to support the conlusion of dangerousness, but it is a very useful tool and one the police would be reluctant to lose.
Scott — I think I alluded to the urban/rural divide in my comment above. I’m cognizant of the upside of this position, but as for being “perfectly legitimate”… not so much. As someone with profoundly minimal interest in the issue as a general rule, it strikes me as crass and exploitative. And don’t get me going on that coroner’s report, because according to his standards, anyone having a couple of drinks a day is suffering from a “mental illness” (Hello, fellow lunatics!) and should therefore be precluded from obtaining a gun license. Even though, in the same story that you’re probably also referencing, it’s noted that “Gill was drinking whisky the day of the Dawson shooting, but was not intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.” It’s monumental bullshit like this that makes me sympathize with our “conservative” friends sometimes.
Not quite the winning formula there Scott.
Ignore the ridings you don’t have and simply defend the constituencies you do have?
I believe most people call that “defence”. Which is perfectly fine . . . just not usually on the first day of the campaign.
Cheers, (and smiles to Ti-Guy!)
lance
It is crass and exploitive.
Unfortunately, Dion will not win by pretending to be otherwise.
I recall Harper standing at the site Jane Creba was killed, using it to great effect during the last campaign.
It is what it is.
The merit of the Registry is not the issue here; Dion needs votes in the 905 Belt and Western Canada in light of the strength of the BQ in Quebec.
This does not serve that end. The coming economic ( and in Ontaro, the current …) shitmess does meet that end.
All I want is a Minority for someone here; read that as: I do not want a Majority for anyone.
Dion may yet hand a slight majority to Harper.
Well, I think in a month or so, we will all look back and point to this as the point when the Liberals started losing.
Why?
Not because of ‘gun control’ as a wedge issue – most voters are urban in Canada so it may actually appeal to them. No because it is highly and utterly predictable.
Every election in the past 10 to 15 years, somehow, the Liberals trot out ‘gun control’ as an issue. They try to take advantage of some incident or tragedy. They try to scare voters with it.
In short, they act just like the Conservatives do with their “tough on crime” nonsense. In an era with steadily dropping crime rates, including violent crime and gun crime, it makes no sense to pander for votes using mis-information and fear.
I do not support gun control, but I can understand the need to “do something” about gun crime in urban settings, but be creative – perhaps something like no ban on owning guns but stiff sentences for using them to commit a crime. I don’t know.
But this response is going to be taken, as RT has said, as a dog whistle. Its not new, its not exciting and its clearly divisive.
It screams that the Liberals have no new ideas.
If this trend continues Harper won’t have to do anything….
and smiles to Ti-Guy!
How dare you?
It is hard for me to see why any private citizen in Canada needs to own automatic weapons; however, after the hash the Liberals made of the Gun Registry, I want no part in any gun control measure they design.
Cheers,
Russ
I would not be too concerned any of this is going to get much media play. Apparently the media is far more interested in Dion’s hearing problems.
“banning the firearms which are the ostensible target of such a proposal — machine guns, semi-automatic rifles, and other such so-called “military assault weapons”
Aren’t these already banned? This like Dion saying that he will make murder or arson illegal if he were elected.
Corporate Power speaks (this includes the CBC – so take that MSM-obsessives!) …
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/08/greens-debates.html
Blargh. I am trying to find the comment (not on this site) that was fuming about getting three of the Con’s 10% fliers today, one of which claimed they would be “scrapping” the registry. I can’t confirm that as yet but I will return if I find more on that.
Pingback: Day 1 or is it 2? and it’s gun control? at Bene Diction Blogs On
PSA — Keep digging. That would be a delicious “gotcha!” if it proves to be the case.
G. McRae:
The existing ban doesn’t cover automatic weapons with the ammunition clip behind the trigger. (from a quick gander, it appears the existing bans are a bit of a patch-work with all kinds of exceptions), Which are usually short barrelled people killers that are easily concealed. Normal rifles and shotguns used for hunting are still legal and are covered under the (horrid) long gun registry.
So this is a loop-hole closure kind of proposal, rather than a brand-new ban.
And here we get into the geeky gun-centric minutiae that bores (no pun intended) most people to death.
Aren’t these already banned? This like Dion saying that he will make murder or arson illegal if he were elected.
They use restricted , prohibited and non-restricted to classify firearms in Canada . Most of the weapons Dion wants banned already are .
Here ya go.
Catelli ,
All automatic weapons are prohibited .
Definitions .
Just an FYI – butterfly knives and brass knuckles are also “prohibited weapons”.
Have been for years… quite irrelevant to this discussion, although such are the tangents that arise from these lines of inquiry.
This whole 905 GTA thing gets me. I am not in the GTA and my area code is 905. I live in rural Ontario.
I’m shocked, I tell ya….as I’ve said before, Sun Media has taken over our little local newspaper. The editorial did a true ripping against Harper and his vote buying, spending habits….I was shocked.
Also, same day – a guy who does a column once a week went into the whole campaigning on fear and a scathing article about Harper’s 10 percenters – well done. If I can pull it up, I will, but I noticed on their site you can’t pull up letters to the editor.
Shocked – a “rural” paper owned by the Sun is attacking the conservatives.
I think there is a method to the Liberals’ madness.
The reason why the Gun Registry is still with us is not because of the minority government situation. It is because it is still very popular in Quebec. That is the reason Mr. Dion made this announcement in Quebec.
The registry was always there as the issue to be defeated on for the Conservatives but they never did anything about it because they would have lost Quebec by doing so.
So, the Liberals accomplish several things by making this announcement.
1. He puts forward a policy that will appeal to his base early in the campaign. It makes them happy but it is early enough in the campaign that it will have a minimal impact on the final outcome. Stephen Harper used the same technique in 2006 when he announced his intentions of hold an SSM vote.
2. Gun control is an issue that is popular in Quebec, urban and suburban Canada and amongst women. If he can convince a plurality of these folks to vote Liberal he wins.
3. He puts the Conservatives on the spot. They will have to respond to satisfy their base which will leave them open to accusations of being soft on gun control, particularly in Quebec.
The first couple of days in an election campaign are always slow and the Parties have to find something to fill them until they make their big announcements towards the end of the first week. The choice of this policy plank at this time is not a bad idea.
I tried to be nice with my comments above . Cough ….what part of guns have been controlled in Canada since the 1930′s don’t you fucking morons understand .
Whether we will or nill, guns are always going to be an element of human existence.
I try to follow the nuances of arguments for or against, but as an American, I’m always left with this: Guns are an iron-clad guarantee — of food, and of protection. Two very basics.
It all comes down to personal responsibility.
We know, as someone who owns a gun, that the use of same is extremely serious. We know what legal risks we incur — but more importantly, we know what personal risks incur. You press the trigger, and you are changing your life. You will pay consequences — even if you were defending yourself. There are HUGE consequences.
Therefore, the use of a gun is the use of last resort. It is when your life is threatened. And, as such, you ought to have legal protection — so long as you can prove imminent harm.
It is my belief that one should not have protections against imminent harm taken away, legally. Fortunately, cases where you must prove it are rare. But they must be protected. An individual must have a “last resort,” if you will, to keep himself and his family safe.
I think we can arrive at such a compromise. We will, eventually.
In the meantime, it’s being used egregiously as a wedge issue, and that frustrates me.
Obviously, Bill D. cat is the only person on this thread that knows ANYTHING about Canadian firearms law. The rest of you, including Dion, should educate yourselves before you spout off.
Gayle makes me laugh…
“As for the registry, I know the majority of police officers support it. I have personal knowledge of cases where the police used it to solve crimes, and they certainly use it before they approach a house to execute search warrants, for obvious reasons.”
Really Gayle? I know and shoot with probably 35 police officers and by and large they think it is useless. Police chiefs like it, but really they are just politicians.
I would really like to hear about your personal knowledge of the registry being a crime solving tool. I call BS. It wasn’t designed to solve or prevent crimes…it was designed to one-up Kim Campbell…no more, no less.
And as for using the data in the registry as a security blanket for police, I defy you to find ONE rank and file officer that would trust his life to the registry’s flawed database, but then you couldn’t because said officer is probably already dead due to being an idiot.
The firearms issue is more divisive than you think…a study was done in, I believe, 1993 to determine how many firearms were in Canada and the number was pegged at between 14 and 19 million. The Liberals were claiming 98% compliance with the registry containing about 7.2 million firearms. Who was lying? Where did 7 to 12 million firearms go?
Nope, excuse the pun, but Dion has shot himself in the foot by bringing up this issue. You would think he would have learned from Paul Martin’s handgun escapade.
Oh Jim, do we really have to have this discussion again? We have had this exact same argument before.
I know you shoot with a bunch of cops. I also know that when police across the country were surveyed, the majority supported the registry. Now, maybe the guys you shoot with don’t like it, but they apparently do not reflect the majority of their colleagues.
As for my personal knowledge – call it what you like. I realize that type of anecdotal evidence is not particularly persuasive, but nevertheless it is true. Maybe you should ask your cop friends if they ever refer to the registry in the course of their investigations.
Aside from the fact they somehow spent a billion plus dollars on a glorified spreadsheet (Thats like fifty Chinook helicopters for the Army), I actually don’t have a problem with it. I have a restricted PAL. Big woop.
…It would be nice to be able to shoot some of the things the Americans get to play with though. Even with five round magazines.
RT, it frustrates me that no one answers the substantive arguments I put forth for gun ownership.
It’s as if they gloss over the personal magnitude of being faced with someone threatening their life.
What would YOU do? Wouldn’t you want every avenue available to save your life?
That is ALL most gun owners care about.
What I’m seeing is this:
A mugger threatens you? Cave. Give him your wallet. Hell, bend over and let him drive.
Versus me :
Over my F@##$ dead body. I would rather DIE than let you get over me.
*************
And here is where I think humanity has parted ways with itself.
It used to be all about surfing. Now, it’s all about avoiding risk.
Bah.
What would YOU do? Wouldn’t you want every avenue available to save your life?
Every avenue? Barb wire on the picket fence. Land mines on the lawn? White phosphorus. If I had a nuclear bomb, no one would mess with me.
At this point, it’s all about fear. Too afraid to own one? Too afraid to walk down the street without one?
A mugger threatens you? Cave. Give him your wallet. Hell, bend over and let him drive.
No, I’ve been dying to use my self-defense training. (I have a cousin who beat the crap out of two guys who jumped her one night.)
Ah, but what if he had a gun… well, I’m not sure owning a gun would help in this situation. Even if you manage to draw it (I’ll presume you wouldn’t be swinging it around… not many muggers dumb enough to rob an armed person), what would prevent him from shooting back? Well, maybe mutually assured destruction might cause him to back down. Let’s keep those fingers crossed.
Tossing this in the discussion on gun control. It’s an interesting article dealing with gun control in the Middle East. It sort of reminiscent of the Wild West — when society breaks down, people feel as though they have to protect themselves, but this makes them feel more at danger than less.
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=26162
“Each of the studies confirmed that a majority of participants felt there were too many guns in their societies, and that this lessened their security,” noted the study, which represented the first public opinion poll on the effect of the preponderance of light arms on local communities.
“Although most participants wanted tougher gun laws, however, they also revealed a mistrust or lack of confidence in their respective governments. The need for personal security where rule of law had broken down was found to be a main motivation behind private gun ownership.
“Fear of instability was another factor, the study found. “Most people appear not to want to possess arms, but feel they are forced to by existing circumstances, or feel they should continue to keep them, just in case conflict flares up,” the study noted.”
Going to throw this study in as well that shows that burglaries don’t go down with increased gun ownership (since guns are valuable, they become a lure).
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8926.html
Now, I’m not against gun ownership. Go ahead. Let’s not go crazy with it.