“Windy Wendy” Cukier, ever the complainer, didn’t waste a second in getting her sniveling complaints out to the media in the wake of Ontario Superior Court of Justice Judge D. M. Brown’s decision to kill The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic lawsuit to keep the long gun registry data.
“This decision is a setback but we will continue to fight for sensible controls on rifles and shotguns. Information about who owns what guns is essential to reducing the diversion of guns to illegal markets and the registry data has been shown to be useful in solving crimes.
Destroying the data that has already been collected on 7.1 million guns makes no sense whatsoever, and is simply punitive. Quebec stood up to the gun lobby and, as a result, is still able to trace firearms.
Outside of Quebec, rifles and shotguns are now completely untraceable. These guns are those most often used in domestic violence and when police officers are shot on duty. They also account for a significant proportion of the firearms recovered in crime. “
As Dr. Mike Ackermann said,
“If they truly wanted ‘sensible’ laws, we would be on their side.
You’d think they would have figured this out by now.”
Very well said, Dr. Ackermann!
All of the arguments put forth by Windy Wendy have been proven to be, at best, disingenuous. There are other words for it, such as propaganda, I suppose, but even someone as misguided as Ms. Cukier is entitled to her opinion.
It’s just a shame that she’s unwilling to open her mind up to the simple fact that criminals don’t register firearms. As a result, her methods simply will never ever do what she says they will: prevent crime.
The only people who register firearms are law-abiding people. What’s the point in tracking the people who are NOT the problem? You’ll have to ask Windy Wendy as it makes no sense to me.
That said, the Minister of Public Safety had a very short rebuttal to the whining out of Cukier’s Corner.
(September 21, 2012) Today, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the motion from the Barbara Schlifer Legal Clinic which sought to stop our government from destroying the data contained in the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. Justice Brown described the arguments put forward against our legislation as “weak” (paragraph 167).
We were very pleased that the Ontario Superior Court has ruled in favour of law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters. This is an absolute victory for the rule of law.
The will of Parliament and Canadians has been clear. We do not want any form of a wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.
The NDP has consistently said that if given the chance they would try and use this data to target law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters.Our Conservative Government will always stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
While the Conservative Government has a long way to go in defending the rights of Canada’s law-abiding firearm owners, such as removing sections 91 and 92 from the Criminal Code of Canada, it’s nice to see him putting some of our money where his mouth is.
it is good to see some common sense coming out of a judge and another public official !! its such a rarity, however.
… as funny as that seems.
as for the chick thats cukier than a 3 headed horse, she is a left-brain thinker that has no regard for facts.
facts get scrambled inside the heads of types like her. 2 plus 2 is only 4 on certain days, other days its 11, -3.5, or any other number that randomly pops into her hollow head.
this is why i believe that one of the greatest errors of all time in the united states, was equal sufferage, as it gave millions of these types of cukier chicks the right to vote even though they do not have any regard for reality, and not only that they dont process the facts correctly, but that they have no interest in even getting the facts before they form their opinions, yet they still want to have a say…
this cannot but go in a BAD direction for our societies as a whole.
and before you sane women go crazy on me here, there are some right-brain thinking women and some left-brain thinking men, but the averages are in mens favor on that point.
have a good one !!
Christopher di Armani says
Common sense from judges appears to be, thankfully, on the rise here in Canada.
That said, to be specific about this decision, the judge did not toss out the entire case. He merely tossed out the “emergency injunction” the women’s shelter was trying to get that would have prevented the RCMP from destroying the gun registry data. So there is nothing stopping the RCMP from destroying the data now.
Given the RCMP’s continued foot-dragging on deleting all this data, however, I suspect they will not destroy a single gun registration record until after the decision is rendered in the actual lawsuit. Not even when ordered to by the Minister of Public Safety, their boss.
I long for the days when the police did their jobs instead of playing politics.
Darryl from Edmonton says
To think this woman votes Liberal and Liberals are wanting to let more and more terrorists (and I DO mean terrorists) into this country. Thus soon she will be stoned to death by their own means with these nut jobs that are hell bent on stopping every point of life we now know.
But then again I may be spouting the Black helicopters and tinfoil hats mantra and thinking with a closed mind… Either that or I am 100% correct only time will tell.
Almost a decade after the firearms registry was introduced, it has failed to win the trust of the public or the police. The legislation remains controversial among government officials, the police, the general public, and of course firearms owners themselves. Perhaps the public fails to understand the logic that banning a particular type of firearm will protect public safety.
The 1995 Canadian legislation prohibited small-calibre handguns as a crime-prevention measure. Interestingly, Australia has done exactly the opposite—banning large-calibre handguns—for allegedly the same reason. How can such divergent bans be justified by the same argument? No strong empirical justification can be found for banning either type of handgun.
This has been called the “Goldilocks approach” to firearm legislation: some guns are too big, and some guns are too small, and none are “just right.” This arbitrary approach to firearms legislation violates common sense.
The firearms registry does appear to have one clearly demonstrable effect: a large number of formerly law-abiding firearm owners have declined to cooperate with the new licensing or registration. It is difficult to assess accurately the percentage of firearms owners who are participating, but between 900,000 and 2.5 million hunters and target shooters have failed to obtain a licence or register a firearm.
Despite its limitations, or possibly because of them, the legislation appears to have contributed in an unknown degree to the decline in the number of people who own firearms and who hunt. The decline in the number of firearm owners has exacerbated the problems caused by the declining numbers of hunters. This decline in hunters has reduced provincial revenues, increased human-wildlife conflict, and has harmed conservation efforts.
The collateral damage from the gun legislation is rarely considered, yet, paradoxically, such consequences may be more readily determined than are changes in criminal violence or suicide.
2 Billion dollars, down the drain, I have asked for one single name that this
law has saved, not one single name, nothing…
someobdy has to be accountable for this, a civil lawsuit against Wendy Cukier?? at least get back the $350,000.00 the Liberals gave her to lobby
Wendy just walked away from all of this, not a care in the world while us taxpayers had to pay. something is terribly wrong .
sarah smiles says
I think that guns should be freely available, and that all those who carry guns should be a free and legal target of all those who carry guns, and those who have other weapons or rocks or who drive cars. Put guns in the hands of whoever wants them, so we have a good target for the rest of us. It will be a delicious carnage.
Bill Gibbons says
The problem with guns bans and restrictions is, they don’t work. When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Criminals, by definition, have placed themselves outside of the law and therefore feel no compulsion or desire to obey the law. Britain banned all hand guns and rifles over .22 calibre in 1996, yet gun crime had increased by 91% less than a decade later, with over 234 shootings in London alone. Handguns are smuggled in from Europe and can be purchased n any street in London if you know the right person. There will always be a supply of guns available in Britain from the continent, no matter how much you try to stop the flow. And the criminals will always have access to them. There is an estimated four million illegal guns circulating the UK, from 9mm pistols to AK 47 assault rifles and Ingram Model 10 machine guns.
The horrific slaughter of innocent school children and six of their teachers in Newtown, Connecticut, only highlights stupidity of useless “gun free zones.” Such places end up becoming shooting galleries for criminals and crazies, who know full well that everyone at these locations will be unarmed and thus completely defenceless.
In June 2010, Derrick Bird, a taxi driver drove around in Cumbria for 35 miles and shot 23 people before taking his own life. Britain’s unarmed police could stop him. By the time an armed police unit had assembled in a far away city, had been issued their weapons, went through their briefings and awaited multiple levels of authorization before they could even move, twelve people were dead, including Bird by his own hand. Absolute madness.
When pushed to tighten Britain’s already paranoid gun laws, prime minister David Cameron stated, “you cannot legislate against a switch being flicked inside someone’s head.”
But Derrick Bird could have been stopped a lot sooner had the local police, or even some local citizens, had access to firearms and were able to shoot back. Their little cans of CS spray and aluminium batons were no match for Bird’s .22 rifle and 12 gauge shotgun. All they could do was to scoot people out of the way and yell at others to “take cover.”
So much for the only unarmed police service in the European Union.
Go to YouTube and listen to the 911 calls made by terrified women in the USA. They were home alone when people were trying to break into their homes. It matters not whether the offenders were estranged spouses, ex-boyfriends, burglars, or just some sicko looking for a rape victim. Locked windows and doors did not stop them, barking dogs did not stop them, loud burglar alarms did not stop them, and the police were too far away to get their in time to stop them. All of those women are alive today because they had access to a gun in the house and were able to either hold their would-be attackers at bay until the police arrived, or had put a bullet in them when they attempted to continue with their attack, even at the point of a gun.
We should NOT be afraid of the criminals. They should be afraid of US.
Gun laws affect only those of us who obey the law. As for the criminals and the crazies, they just don’t care, nor will any amount of legislation stop them from continuing to shoot up places where large numbers of innocent people are gathered.
According to some sources, Wendy Cuckier actually possesses a carry permit for a concealed handgun. Political favoritism knows no bounds when it comes to the hypocracy of the left.
Robert Sciuk says
The Coalition seems entirely unconcerned about actual violence, and is entirely about punishing inanimate objects and those who choose to use them responsibly.
I agree with Dr. Mike … were they to instead address real problems, then the responsible firearm community would be happy to support rational gun laws, but that does not appear to the case, and from the looks of it, will never be so.