We asked a newly registered C.A.G.E. member who is a member of the Canadian Shooting Sports association and currently active in lobbying for our ancient right to keep arms in our defense, to explain to us why he disagrees with gun control and particularly with the views of the police forces.
His reply is the side of the story you will not read too often, if at all, in the mainstream media since gun control is an emotionally loaded issue and the media do not want to ruffle any feathers. You will however read it right here complete and unedited:
‘’It is a question of credibility. The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs is a lobby group in the guise of a professional association like the society of automotive engineers. With the resignation of CAPC's ethics adviser over their sponsorship practises it then begs the question just how honest are they? Since one of the generous sponsors of their annual meeting was the CGI group the company responsible for selling the computers and software to the CFC would suggest that their considered opinion of the Registry was bought and paid for by their benefactors the CGI group. Two things suggest that this is the case, First is the statement on record by Chief Julian Fantino when he was still the Chief of the Toronto Police Service "The registry has neither prevented not solved a single crime". Then his ringing endorsement of the use of Tasers. I should mention that TASER International was also a major contributor to the annual conference. Now as a member of CAPC he is part of the endorsement of the registry. Why the about face? Indeed they have used their position in society to the benefit of their corporate sponsors.
The Police Association is a Union, again it is not a professional development association in the classical sense of the word either. They would not be the first Union to cross the line into the political arena. I suspect and I say suspect only because proof remains to be seen, that there is some political bone waiting for them in the wings. What they seem to forget is that they are "Our employees" the fact that they are armed is a privilege granted to them by the public. In mother England the police are not armed and have not been armed for 178 years. They make the claim that the registry is used 9400 times per day, well as it turns out the way in which the system is set up that every time a police officer makes a routine traffic stop and the drivers licence is ran through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) it also registers a hit on the registry.
The CFRO computers get "hit" 9,413 time a day on average.
Where this figure falls apart is in the breakdown of these "hits" as follows:
Individual Name: 6440
Certificate#: 19 <-- This is the ONLY one that relates to an acutual FIREARMS INQUIRYTelephone# :15
Certificate# = Firearm
This is from the Canadian Firearms Centres own figures. So there is at the least a deliberate misrepresentation of numbers, at worse just a bald face lie.
Which brings me to the next claim that they use the registry to know if a firearm is present at the scene of a call. This is only true if the firearms are registered. Since the gangbangers and other n'rr do wells do not register their firearms how is the registry so indispensable? It would only work where the firearms are registered. Secondly since the bill does not do away with the licencing requirement it is still possible to ascertain that a firearm might be present. This renders the argument moot. I have also read that the concern of the Police Association is the safety of their members. But that is the reason that we allow them to openly carry a firearm and access to other arms as well. Are they suggesting that if they get a negative on a firearm they proceed without caution?
Finally on this point I have to ask what did they do before the registry? Indeed we only need look south of the border where there is not a universal registry and in some states not even the requirement to get a licence, life goes on their. Contrary to what is seen in the news and Hollywood the streets are not running with blood.
The weapon of Choice? This is another little phrase that gets trotted out but when you look at the numbers, in fact guns barely make it over a quarter of the homicides. In all of Canada there were 594 homicides, this includes all methods. 188 shootings, 190 stabbings 116 beatings, 50 strangulations, 4 burnings/suffocations, 19 other methods, 27 not known, in 2007. 188 people shot sounds like a great deal but when you compare the total of the other categories 406 in total 188 isn't even half of the others. Putting it into perspective 406 people out of 594 were murdered without guns. This also tags their argument as silly because if you follow their logic the flip side of that coin is that it is okay to be murdered as long as it is not with a gun. It also assumes that had their not been a gun present another method would not have been used. Logically if someone is angered to the point of wanting someone dead do you honestly think not having a gun changes that? four hundred and six murders say otherwise.
I almost left out one of the most pernicious statement made by Chief Chabot of the Sûreté du Québec also president of CAPC? "All guns are potentially dangerous, all gun owners need to be licensed, all guns need to be registered, and gun owners need to be accountable for their firearms.". There are three ways to analyze this statement, if you follow the obvious logic he uses, then it could be said that everyone is a potential criminal therefore we should lock everybody up. We live in a society governed by the rule of law, the fundamental principle of that is the presumption of innocence until proved beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise. Again a statement designed to cultivate fear rather than reason. The second manner is the underlying bigotry that Mr Chabot possesses swap "gun owner" and "gun" for Jew, blacks, foreigners or any other ethnicity to read," All ____ are potentially dangerous, All ______ should be licenced and registered. All of a sudden the statement becomes less acceptable, less palatable to ordinary Canadians. Lastly Chief Chabot makes a very telling statement of himself he in fact is projecting his own fear of self onto guns and gun owners. Maybe he is the one who should in fact be disarmed? Firearms are inanimate objects they posses no will of their own and cannot influence human thought, they are after all just junks of metal, wood, and or plastic. They have no arms, legs nor consciousness. Are both the CAPC and CPA suggesting they do?
On a final note it is often said that we register cars, boats and children, This of course is true up to a point, There is not a law compelling anyone to do so. We do not have to register any of these. We do however have to register cars if we wish to drive on public roads, or want your boat recovered should it be stolen. We register our children if we wish to partake of the social benefits our society affords to us. A couple living in the boonies can deliver a child and never once have the local authorities come busting through their door with a warrant for their arrest and seizure of their offspring. (The Romani and donkuburs come to mind not that they don't have their scrapes with authorities). When you get a parking ticket or a ticket for a moving violation they do not automatically suspend your licence and seize all your cars and vehicles. Nor do you face criminal prosecution for a speeding ticket. We can also own as many and of different types able to travel at speeds well beyond the speed limits of most of our highways. Rarely is someone charged criminally when they have an accident even if someone dies in the crash. So no, we are not comparing things equally when make this observation. Oddly enough driving your car is not a right, where as keeping arms is.’’