Canadian Gun Control Needs To Go Beyond the Border

[Hazcat]

By Dominique Millette

One third of all guns in the world are in the U.S. And half the guns used to commit crimes in Canada come from south of the border. So yes, this country needs and wants an International Arms Treaty. “Here in Canada we live next to a country with as many guns as people and those guns are killing Canadians. This is the main argument for an international agreement,” asserted Coalition for Gun Control president Wendy Cukier during an April 22 conference in Toronto.

The Coalition for Gun Control includes more than 300 policing, public safety and violence prevention organizations and was founded in the wake of the Montreal Massacre.

Whether in the Congo or in Canada, every one of the 200,000 civilian gun deaths which occur yearly in the world happens in a neighbourhood. That neighbourhood is connected not only to a community, but to the world at large. To what extent, how often and what can anyone do about it was the subject of the talk, sponsored by York University’s Centre for International and Security Studies.

Guest speakers were Cukier, also Associate Dean at the Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson; James Sheptycki, York University Professor of Criminology; Kenneth Epps, Senior Program Associate at Project Ploughshares and Detective Sergeant Rob Didanieli, of the Toronto Police Department’s Organized Crime Firearms Enforcement Unit.

“Guns tend to increase lethalization,” Cukier pointed out. As it happens, it’s a women’s issue: the percentage of women killed by partners in the past year was “55 % in U.S., 46 % in Brazil and 25 % in Canada”.

Firearms flow from unregulated areas to regulated areas. This is the case from gun-heavy South Africa to surrounding countries, as well as for the U.S. to Canada. Many guns may come from legal sources but are diverted into illegal use. Regulation addresses this problem by trying to plug the holes. The objectives of an international agreement are to lower the risk of misuse and diversion, as on the national level. The UN Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons seeks to ensure that states prevent illegal possession.

Since most guns in the world are in civilian hands, in non-conflict situations, the human rights aspect of gun control is that states which fail to adequately regulate firearms are failing to protect citizens from gun violence.

Though the impact of regulations is difficult to prove, Cukier asserts there is broad evidence. “The difference between Canadian and U.S. homicide rates (200 versus 10,000) is explained entirely by the difference in firearms,” she observes. Meanwhile, Canadian homicide rates without firearms are only slightly lower than the ones in the U.S.

In Ontario, according to the Advocacy Project, possession or access to firearms is the fifth leading risk factor for femicide. Murders of women with guns are down 60 % in last 15 years alone, which correlates with stricter controls.

Kenneth Epps of Project Ploughshares described the push for an International Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). “National controls vary and are inadequate”, he noted, adding there is a need for common global standards in the face of the impact of irresponsible arms transfers. An ATT would regulate not only civilian weapons but also conventional military matériel.

Negotiations have started in the U.N., and are mandated by U.N. Charter. They also have overwhelming support, from 153 out of 192 countries. In addition to inclusiveness, there is a need for high standards for authorizing transfers, and for effective implementation and transparency. Given the requirement of documentation, tracing and marking, the treaty must provide help for ill-equipped states. Negotiations will start July 2010 and a treaty conference will be held July 2012. The U.S. has indicated its support despite ferocious opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA) but has required that the conference be conducted by consensus. This raises the potential problem of problem of going to the lowest common denominator, observes Epps.

James Sheptycki described what he termed “pistolization” to describe the social phenomenon of the gun as an everyday item. Civilians own 650 million of the total 875 million combined civilian, law enforcement and military personnel weapons in the world; therefore, pistolization is a major concern. Non-conflict deaths due to firearms are high in many countries. They amount to 39,000-42,000 deaths per year in Brazil, where there are active, violent criminal networks. Meanwhile, the U.S. is the “only advanced industrial democracy in the world with a high rate of pistolization”.

Allowing civilians to bear arms can increase casualties immeasurably. The Virginia Tech shooting resulted in 32 deaths, while the one at Dawson College produced one death, with several wounded. Why the difference? Standing orders. In the U.S., police must worry about crossfire from self-defending civilians, so it takes longer to secure a perimeter. In Montreal, police were able to respond to gunfire immediately, notes Sheptycki.

Meanwhile, outside Canada, pistolization of local cultures affects peacekeepers’ security, development efforts and aid delivery, for example in the Congo. “More research is needed to integrate domestic and international levels of research on pistolization as a public policy issue,” asserted Sheptycki.

Rob Didanieli, Detective Sergeant with Organized Crime Enforcement at the Toronto Police Department, is in charge of the Arms analysis and investigation unit. Last year, 3,000 firearms were seized in Toronto alone. Many handguns are used in crime, since they are easier to conceal and use. Of these, 53 % were sourced to the U.S. and 47 % to Canada, where most were stolen from legitimate businesses.

Didanieli noted that gun running from the U.S. to Canada is a lucrative endeavour. A handgun easily available in Georgia for $300 can be sold on Canadian streets for five times that amount. Since this country is a source of high-grade meth and cannabis, drugs go down and guns come up. The large border is “impossible to police”, said Didanieli, with 300 million people going back and forth just last year.

http://womenmakenews.com/content/story/canadian-gun-control-needs-go-beyond-border

[crusader rabbit]

Remember the old joke about the optimist being thrown in a room full of horse-sh!t?  He immediately started digging stating, "With this much horse-sh!t, there's just gotta be a pony in here, someplace."

Well, there's no pony in the mess you just posted, Haz.  It's just sh!t.

With due consideration for Canadian sensibilities,
Crusader

[ericire12]

If there is a gun problem in Canada, and if all these guns are coming from the USA.... perhaps Canada just needs better trained and more compitent LEOs/Boarder Patrol. Seems like that might be the root cause of your problems, eh!

O Canada we stand on guard for thee.....

.... Except for the fact that we dont have a well armed militia, we have a puny little military, and we will certainly need the Big Bad US-of-A to come save our Canadian Bacons when the sh!t hits the Zamboni


I think our good old neighbors to the north might be suffering from brain freeze.

[Fatman]

Canada is actually starting to remove some of their gun control restrictions. Seems despite Cukier's assertations, Canadians are starting to understand what criminals do, as opposed to law abiding citizens.

And as for this?

Allowing civilians to bear arms can increase casualties immeasurably. The Virginia Tech shooting resulted in 32 deaths, while the one at Dawson College produced one death, with several wounded. Why the difference? Standing orders. In the U.S., police must worry about crossfire from self-defending civilians, so it takes longer to secure a perimeter. In Montreal, police were able to respond to gunfire immediately, notes Sheptycki.

BS! Policy is to go in immediately and take an active shooter out. the failure at VT was because the response time was delayed as a result of a Charlie Foxtrot of biblical proportions.


Active shooters article:
http://tiny.cc/j2k6e

Note the Tactical Defense Instructors say

The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.

In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.
 
The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.

Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.

They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.

As soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.

No kidding! Tons of (media ignored) evidence to back all this up.

[twyacht]

article:

Since most guns in the world are in civilian hands, in non-conflict situations, the human rights aspect of gun control is that states which fail to adequately regulate firearms are failing to protect citizens from gun violence.

Beating my head against the desk on that one.

An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

"How long would the Nazis have kept it up...if every Jew they came after had met them with a gun in his hand?"

"Gun Control - A theory espoused by some monumentally stupid people; who claim to believe, against all logic and common sense, that a violent predator who ignores the laws prohibiting them from robbing, raping, kidnapping, torturing and killing their fellow human beings will obey a law telling them that they cannot own a gun."
OldNoob

[Sponsor]

[philw]

they must be a little pissy  as Canada is getting rid of there long arm registration

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=11192

After nearly 20 years, Canada appears poised to end one of its boldest experiments in gun control - the required registration of long guns, or shotguns and hunting rifles.

Last November, a bill to abolish the Long-Gun Registry, enacted in 1995 and gradually phased in through 2003, passed a second reading in the Canadian House of Commons by a tally of 164 to 137. It faces a third and final reading in that chamber later this year; prospects are good for passage in the Canadian Senate.

The bill would delete from federal law the obligation to register so-called nonrestricted firearms, though licensing requirements for long-gun owners to buy or possess firearms and to buy ammunition would remain in place.

The legislation would also require all registration information collected to date to be destroyed.

About 7 million long guns have been registered, but as many as 8 million guns, according to various estimates, have not been in what many say is outright defiance. The Conservative government has also extended to May 16, 2011, an existing amnesty for rifle and shotgun owners facing charges for failing to register their firearms.

Opponents cite runaway costs, gun rights, and lack of effectiveness in pushing the repeal measure. The author of the legislation, MP Candice Hoeppner, says the registration requirement pays lip service to reducing crime without actually doing so.

"Canadian taxpayers have shelled out $2 billion and counting to hassle hunters, farmers and sport shooters with registration requirements, while receiving nothing in return in crime reduction or prevention," Hoeppner told a recent gathering of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH).

In an article written for London Free Press, Hoeppner called the registry a "massive" policy failure.

"It makes no sense to force law-abiding individuals with firearms licenses to register their long-guns," she wrote. "It makes no sense to believe the registry will prevent a gun crime from taking place."

And, Hoeppner stated, the $2 billion could have been better spent.

"This money could have gone toward front-line police officers, or for programs to help our at-risk kids," she wrote. " . . . In order to make our communities truly safer we need to retool our criminal justice system and focus on the real problems. We need to strengthen the Criminal Code with tough anticrime and anti-gang measures and make sure criminals serve the time they deserve."

Hoeppner has also taken on those who say repeal is a measure aimed against women, the principal victims of domestic violence. In fact, she says, Liberals have called her a "showpiece" and "little foot solder" and have on multiple occasions told her to sit down and shut up.

"They are telling women who are part of families that farm, hunt or sport shoot to also sit down and be quiet," she wrote. "They are telling women if they don't think as the Liberals do on these issues, they should be silent."

Support for the registry

While the odds favor repeal, opponents still have a variety of parliamentary tactics they can use to stall the bill, while outside Parliament a sizable coalition also supports keeping the registry in place.

Advocates say repealing the registry will deprive front line police, suicide prevention and domestic violence prevention workers of an essential tool.

"Opponents of gun control claim rifles and shotguns are not a problem in Canada," said Denis Côté, president of the Quebec municipal police federation. "They are wrong. Rifles and shotguns make up a substantial proportion of the guns recovered in crime in this country. They are the guns most often used to kill police officers, in domestic violence situations and in suicides, particularly those involving youths."

In addition, supporters say police use the gun registry approximately 11,000 times a day, and so-called long guns are especially a problem in suicides.

Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, said an American effort was behind the push to repeal the law.

"There is a well-funded, U.S. inspired campaign to misrepresent the facts," Cukier said. "Millions have been spent on targeted campaigns and strategies. Reports were withheld until after the registry vote. The opponents continue to invoke the costs of the registry, but the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) have stated clearly that dismantling the registration of rifles and shotguns will at most save $3 million a year, less than the cost of a complex murder investigation."

Organizations supporting the law include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Police Boards, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the YWCA Canada, the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health, le Barreau du Québec, la Fédération des femmes du Québec, the G-13 consortium of 13 national women's groups.

Arguments against

An equally vocal and perhaps politically stronger coalition has emerged against the registry, particularly the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters and a wide array of sport shooters groups.

What's more, there are multiple grassroots groups, including the aptly named Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association, which advocates peaceful, nonviolent but active civil disobedience.

Among other things, opponents allege, assertions that police search the registry 11,000 times a day is bogus because such things as routine traffic stops trigger automatic queries. Others have questioned the security of the system, which they say has been hacked, allowing unauthorized users to gain the personal information of gun owners, including their names and addresses.

Even worse than the security issue are the costs associated with the registry. An auditor general's report in 2002 found significant cost overruns over original government estimates.

In 1995, according to the audit, the government told Parliament the long-gun registry would involve a net cost of $2 million, with registration fees covering everything else. By May 2000, the government admitted, the costs had ballooned to at least $327 million.

By March 2005, the audit continued, the net cost was $946 million and, by the summer of 2006, costs had exceeded $1 billion. Parliament was misinformed about many of those costs, the auditor general concluded.

The price tag now stands at $2 billion.

What's more, according to the Public Safety Canada department, neither the costs incurred by provincial and territorial agencies in enforcing the legislation nor the costs carried by firearms owners and businesses to comply with the legislation have been calculated, and the agency cites two Library of Parliament studies estimating enforcement and compliance costs to run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Vic Toews, now the nation's Minister of Public Safety and a former member of Parliament, has long supported repeal because of the costs associated with a law he says does not work.

"While the majority of Canadians support cost-effective gun-control programs, they also agree that the 2 billion in taxpayer dollars spent since 1995 on the mismanaged Liberal gun registry has not kept guns out of the hands of criminals," he said in 2006.

At the same time the government was throwing away that money, he said, other law enforcement services continued to suffer from funding cutbacks and staffing shortages, particularly along the borders.

Impact on crime

But what about the impact on crime? According to the current government, it has not reduced the crime rate.

There are nearly 7 million registered long guns in Canada, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports. Yet, the public safety department adds, of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered.

In addition, the department cites the Vancouver Police Strategic Plan of 2004-08, which pegs illegal smuggling by organized crime as the principal source of firearms.

"Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime," the public safety department states.

The bottom line is, criminals don't register firearms, says OFAH executive director Mike Reader.

"Instead of creating a paper chase for the law-abiding, the system needs to be revamped to focus on law breakers who use illegal firearms, many of them smuggled into Canada from the U.S., to commit crimes in our communities," Reader said.

Of course, Second Amendment advocates are closely watching the Canadian fight, hoping a repeal of the registry in Canada will blunt fledgling gun registration movements not only in the United States but in the United Nations.

"If all goes well in the Canadian parliament, Dominion gun owners will be freed from 14 years of living under the crushing weight of a bureaucratic, scandal-ridden, wasteful, invasive, $2 billion, error-ridden and inarguably worthless long gun registry," NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre wrote in the March issue of American Hunter. "The registry has been proven a fraud in regard to promised minimal costs and significant impact on violent crime."

LaPierre quoted Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute in Colorado, as saying, "Repeal of the Canadian registry would be of tremendous global significance. Repeal would also shatter the claim by the Canadian gun prohibition lobby that gun control in Canada is an irreversible ratchet."

That's huge on the world stage, LaPierre wrote, "and made all the more significant as a backdrop in the pending debate on the United Nations' global gun ban."

[twyacht]

from article:

Even worse than the security issue are the costs associated with the registry. An auditor general's report in 2002 found significant cost overruns over original government estimates.

In 1995, according to the audit, the government told Parliament the long-gun registry would involve a net cost of $2 million, with registration fees covering everything else. By May 2000, the government admitted, the costs had ballooned to at least $327 million.

By March 2005, the audit continued, the net cost was $946 million and, by the summer of 2006, costs had exceeded $1 billion. Parliament was misinformed about many of those costs, the auditor general concluded.

The price tag now stands at $2 billion.

***

Gee, sure am glad the Kanucks got that worked out, seems like One Big Ass (Expensive) Mistake....cost overruns? cost projections that were way off?

Wonder where that happens also?

[JSC3ATLCSO]

I had some of the dispatchers from VT shooting at a conference a few years ago and they were trying to get the A.S. but he had gone in and chained the doors shut before he started shooting.

[Fatman]

I had some of the dispatchers from VT shooting at a conference a few years ago and they were trying to get the A.S. but he had gone in and chained the doors shut before he started shooting.

Yeah, he did. The last 5  minutes of his 9 minute rampage went on until 0951, the mistake was the failure of the first on the scene to break open the door at 0945. That gave Cho 5-6 more minutes. As below, once Cho heard the police coming, he ended the rampage as most do - killing himself. 

Timeline
9:50 a.m.: After arriving at Norris Hall, police took 5 minutes to assemble the proper team, clear the area and then break through the doors.  They used a shotgun to break through the chained entry doors. Investigators believe that the shotgun blast alerted the gunman to the arrival of the police. The police heard gunshots as they enter the building. They followed the sounds to the second floor.
9:51 a.m.: As the police reached the second floor, the gunshots stopped. Cho's shooting spree in Norris Hall lasted 9 minutes. Police officers discovered that after his second round of shooting the occupants of room 211 Norris, the gunman fatally shot himself in the temple.

From the 'active shooter' article outlining the new policies:

Seung Hui Cho shot 47 people, 30 fatally, in the university's Norris Hall in just 11 minutes.

That means every minute he killed more than three people and shot a total of four.

Once again, the gunman continued shooting until a four-officer team made entry and then he killed himself.
 
Law enforcement reviewed its tactics.

Based on the Virginia Tech data, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entry immediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter.

Every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die.

In other words, while it was once considered suicide for a lone officer to take on an active killer, it is now considered statistical homicide for him not to do so.

To be fair, the policy was enacted as a review of the VT ordeal, can't fault the police for following current policy. My reference to a major screw up was the failure to react to everything leading up to the actual mass shooting, including not locking down the campus after the 7 am murder.

[Mericet]

Firearms flow from unregulated areas to regulated areas. This is the case from gun-heavy South Africa to surrounding countries

This makes me wonder how much "research" the author did. The firearm industry in South Africa is quite heavily regulated, as is firearm ownership.