Standing up for victims, except this once

A note from the office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Following the tabling of the Government’s proposed legislation to abolish the long gun registry, Sue O’Sullivan, Canada’s Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, today spoke out in support of the long-gun registry, urging the federal government to maintain the registry as a tool for preventing further victimization. “Our position on this matter is clear – Canada must do all it can to prevent further tragedies from happening, including using the tools we have to help keep communities safe, like the long-gun registry,” stated Ms. O’Sullivan.

According to 2002 RCMP data, long-guns are the most common type of firearm used in spousal homicides. Over the past decade, 71% of spousal homicides involved rifles and shotguns. “Though there are varying points of view, the majority of victims’ groups we have spoken with continue to support keeping long-gun registry,” explained Ms. O’Sullivan. “I have brought that voice forward to the Government by relaying those views directly to the Minister of Justice in our most recent meeting.”

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime helps victims to address their needs, promotes their interests and makes recommendations to the federal government on issues that negatively impact victims.




Browse

Standing up for victims, except this once

  1. Well we all know ducks are more important than women.

  2. Anyone know the percentage breakdown of ownership of rifles/shotguns vs. handguns?  It would be very useful to give the statistic some context.

    • There are 7137386 non restricted, 528323 restricted and 200285 prohibited firearms owned by 1886057 licensed Canadians.

  3. Our position on this matter is clear – Canada must do all it can to
    prevent further tragedies from happening, including using the tools we
    have to help keep communities safe, like the long-gun registry

    Isn’t the long-gun registry more of an investigative tool, as opposed to a preventative tool?  I’m not sure that I understand how the act of registering a firearm somehow prevents the owner of said firearm (or anyone else) from shooting someone with it. 

    If the crime was committed with a registered gun, and by the person who registered it, then I can certainly see how it might help us track down the criminal.  Even if the gun was recently stolen and used by someone other than the registered owner I can see how the registry might help us track down the criminal (if the gun was stolen from a house in Calgary, it’s more likely that the shooter has been to Calgary).  However, is there some way that I’m not thinking of in which the registry actually prevents people from being shot by registered guns?

  4. Another absolutely useless statistic.

    “71% of spousal homicides involved rifles and shotguns”, so? Was that number higher before the LGR? And if it’s not reducing total spousal homicides, then it’s just encouraging people to pick up a knife instead of a gun. I don’t see any benefit in that. And what are we going to do about the other 29%? They don’t count as victims because they weren’t shot?

  5. “71% of spousal homicides involved rifles and shotguns”, uh huh. Gee, you didn’t mention if these guns were registered or not though.??? Would it matter if they were? Do you think that any one of the potential abusers would have stopped and said “oh wait, this gun is registered.. I’d better not”. Give your head a shake.

    What people don’t understand is all te procedures in place to screen people from getting a Posession and Acquisition license are and will continue to be STILL IN EFFECT!!!

    The registry does not screen applicants. It does not keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. It never has, that’s why it’s useless. Go and fill out an application to get a “posession / aquistion license” and perhaps you will be better informed of which part of our gun control laws are applicable to keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

  6. The long gun registry is an investigative tool and will never protect someone from an attack. Anyone who thinks so is just anti-gun and probably into the feel good aspect of doing something, anything, to make themselves feel better. All firearms have their serial numbers and purchase transaction recorded at the time of purchase. That should be adequate for investigative purposes. The gun registry is an over reach designed to be a first step in diminishing the kinds of fire arms available to consumers. The left doesn’t want it scrapped because it makes the next step much more difficult to achieve. The eventual out come of course being a complete ban on all firearms like much of Europe has now. I would go one step further than the abolishing of the gun registry. I would add an amendment to the bill of rights enshrining gun ownership into the constitution much like the U.S. That way the left could never abolish gun ownership completely. Guns don’t kill people, people do. People are killed all the time with knives. Should we register knives? Ban knives? What about cars? People are killed by cars everyday. Should we ban cars? Of course not. We work with car owners and knife owners and the victims by punishing those who are negligent or malevolent. And gun owners should be held accountable for their actions as well, and they are. And that’s all that is needed in a free society. Taking the guns away from citizens only guarantees that the only ones who will have guns are the government and the bad guys. And let’s hope the government isn’t one of the bad guys then….

    • What about fully automatic weapons? Rocket launchers? Grenades? Mustard Gas?

      Is there any line you draw? And if so, what makes it at whatever point you draw it at?

      • So ironclad was right then… your objective is to demonize and criminalize gun ownership itself. Which our society has deemed not to be a crime.  I don’t remember the last time I saw mustard gas and grenades for sale in Canadian Tire. Pull your head out of… “the sand” (for lack of a better term).

        Guns are not illegal. The registry does not make it so, nor was it ever intended to.

        But that hasn’t stopped the police from harassing legitimate gun owners pulled over for a simple traffic violation from being publicly humiliated simply because “they could” have a gun in their trunk. It’s an abuse of police powers from mis-guided “do-good” officers trying to make criminals out of people who aren’t.

        So “what makes the line”? is our laws that determine what is and isn’t legal to own.

        Comparing guns to clearly illegal devices only exemplifies your ignorance of the situation. God help us all if you’re the type of person that consensus need be reached with.

        • Uh. What makes a grenade a clearly illegal device? The law.
          What would make a long-gun a clearly illegal device. The law.

          Please explain to me why one is more deserving of a law than another.

          • That’s a tautology, dear.

            You’ve pretty much forfeited the moral high ground on this one after strenuously arguing in favour of a mandatory national DNA database. Let it go.

    • The left doesn’t want it scrapped because it makes the next step much more difficult to achieve.

      I’m always surprised to discover my plans and motivations from far-right. Since you know so much about what the left’s master plan for world domination, perhaps you can explain it all to us? Or are you to busy stocking your compound and writing your manifesto?

  7. The 71% that keeps being bandied about recently is purposely misleading and straight out of Wendy Cukier’s playbook for victims’ groups. In fact for the period 1998-2007 firearms (all kinds) were used 28% of the time in spousal homicide against women. Of the 595 total female victims of spousal homicide 165 were shot, 180 were stabbed, 131 were strangled, 94 were beaten and 30 by other means such as poisoning, lethal injection etc. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2009000/t028-eng.htm

    71% of 165 shooting deaths is an average of 11.7/year committed with a rifle or shotgun. Further studies have indicated that this figure is realistic and what is more important is that of those 11.7 homicides only 2% are committed with a registered rifle or shotgun.

    Even more interesting is that in 2008 of the 38,000 instances of domestic violence in which serious injury or death occurred, a firearm was used only 40 times, 34 times against women and 6 times against men. That is statistically insignificant and certainly no reason to squander millions on a registry that has been proven to do nothing.

    I ask registry supporters this, if 72% of female spousal homicides are committed with weapons other than firearms, does it make them any less dead, or is being shot the only method worthy of your attention?

    It seems to me that our focus should be more on the causes of marital/spousal breakdown, women’s shelters and counselling rather than the tools used to abruptly and violently end a troubled relationship.

  8. I would have thought the Federal Ombudsperson (being PC, her name is Sue, after
    all) would have at least used data from when the registry went into
    effect (January 2003) to support her case.

Sign in to comment.