I got tired of one paper that I read misrepresenting the facts about the firearms registry, so I've filed a complaint with the Ontario Press Council. We'll see how far it gets.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to file a complaint against The Record, Kitchener, Ontario for again factually misrepresenting information to its editorial readers.

On May 18, 2006, I submitted a letter to editor of The Record with respect to what I believed was an error contained in their editorial about the federal gun registry. A copy of that letter follows this correspondence.

At that time, I expressed concern with a statement in the editorial "What is wrong with a government agency that has a list of people who own potentially dangerous weapons?"

As I pointed out at the time, the expressed statement of the government (and indeed confirmed in the recently tabled legislation) is that the Possession and Acquisition License program of the Firearms Act ie. the people registry, would continue, and that the legislation would simply do away with the long gun registry ie. the requirement of licenced gun owners to register their individual firearms with the government.

In making the statement that they did, The Record was suggesting to its readers that the government was intending to do away with a registry of gun owners, and not the true statement that it is doing away with a registry of inanimate objects. This is inaccurate and misleading.

My letter was never published by The Record, but I would hope that it was read by an editor, and this important factual distinction made.

However, in its editorial of June 22, 2006, The Record makes the statement "The registry is merely a list of the names of people who have guns..." Again, this is inaccurate and misleading. The registry is not "merely a list of the names of people", as I previously illustrated.

I believe The Record's continuing use of this inaccurate and misleading statement to be a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, and a clear violation of the first tenet of the Editorial Writer's Code:

"1. The editorial writer should present facts honestly and fully. It is dishonest to base an editorial on half-truth. The writer should never knowingly mislead the reader, misrepresent a situation, or place any person in a false light. No consequential errors should go uncorrected."

I would ask the Ontario Press Council to direct The Record to publish a correction of this information, and to be more factual in stating their opinions.

Respectfully,

Fischer


Letter to the Editor of May 18:

In your May 17 editorial, you state: "What is wrong with a government agency that has a list of PEOPLE who own potentially dangerous weapons?" (Emphasis mine)

In truth, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, Canada has had such a program since 1978, when the Firearms Acquisition Certificate program first came into effect. However, the Firearms Act of 1995 is an inanimate object registry, not a people registry. Don't mislead your readers into believing that the gun registry is something that it is not. It intrudes far beyond what is necessary for the fair and reasonable protection of society from law-abiding hunters and shooters.

What hunters and shooters object to is that, after jumping through all of the hoops in place to qualify for the (now) Possession and Acquisition Licence in order to prove to the government that you are an upstanding citizen and not a danger to the public by owning firearms, you then have to continuously go begging to that same government every time you wish to buy or sell a firearm and say "Mother, may I please have another."

The gun registry is a collosal waste of tax dollars with no demonstable benefit to public safety. I am proud that my government knows that I am of such impeccable character. I have no real concern that police know that I own firearms. But I shouldn't have to constantly ask the government for permission to engage in my safe, legal hobbies once I have proven my worth.

When the gun registry is dismantled, the Possession and Acquisition Licence program will remain in place. Hunters and anglers will still have to prove their worthiness and good character to own firearms. Informed citizens can take comfort in that, and see through the misinformation spouted in your editorial.

Fischer

Its a good idea to challenge these people. They are owned by Torstar. Its probably a deliberate misrepresentation.

I am told by someone who worked at the Toronto Star that the Record's outdoor writer, if they still have one, is not even allowed to use the word "gun." Its a firing offence.

I once used the British Press Council for a story I wrote in a British Magazine which was changed completely and I got an apology in print in a following issue of the Magazine.

Be interesting to see if it works in Canada. I suspect it will not as the standards for journalism are very low in Canada.

Canadian journalism has "standards" at all???!!
Try to read "The Winnipeg Sun" without projectile-vomiting!

tabloid newspapers aren't newspapers at all. They fill their pages with columnists and chase police cars and fire trucks for freebie handouts because its cheaper than digging up news.

Tabloid TV is the modern day equivalent of the freak show at the circus.

Looks like all of us north and south of the border are having to fight for our rights as far as our legislators and media outlets are concerned. To my knowledge, we don't have an organization like your "Press Council." We do write letters to the editors of our newspapers when they either mislead, or blatantly lie about things in both editorials and news reporting. Very seldom, if ever, do we get a correction printed.

Some of our states have adopted something along the lines of what you Canadians have, that is, an ID card that says you are an okay good guy, and can buy a gun. In Illinois it is an FOID, Firearms Owner ID card. Fortunately, I live in a "gun friendly" state and don't have to brook the nonsense at the state level.

Let's all keep fighting the fight, and keep our sport alive, and pass it on to the younger generation(s).

John

I got a call from the editorial page editor wanting to discuss my complaint.

He started off by saying that they get so many letters and they can only print a few and blah, blah, blah... I told him that I didn't have a problem that they didn't print my letter, just that they continued to make the same factual error, despite the fact that he admitted having read my letter.

He tried to suggest that "a list of the names of people who have guns" could reasonably be interpreted to mean "a registry of guns and the people who own them". While he did concede that he understood the point I was trying to make, he still maintained that their statement wasn't factually incorrect.

I pointed out to him that the term in the common lexicon was "gun registry", not "gun owner's registry".

He's apparently trying to get in touch with the CFC to get information on exactly how the registry is run, but has offered me an opportunity to have my opinion printed in a prominent place on the editorial page.

So, I revamped my letter and have re-submitted it. It remains to be seen whether they will be more accurate in the future.

My new letter:

In your May 17, 2006 editorial, you stated: "What is wrong with a government agency that has a list of people who own potentially dangerous weapons?"

Then, in your editorial of June 22, 2006 you make the statement "The registry is merely a list of the names of people who have guns..."

Both of these statements are inaccurate and misleading. The Canadian Firearms Registry is not "merely a list of the names of people who have guns" but rather, a list of the guns that belong to people who have already proven to the government that they are qualified to have guns, which is a very important distinction.

In truth, there is nothing wrong with having a registry of people who have guns. Since 1978, gun owners across Canada have had to qualify for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate in order to purchase firearms. The Firearms Act of 1995 went further and required that anyone who owns a firearm had to have a licence to continue to possess the firearms they already owned, or a further level of licencing which determined what types of firearms they could also buy. However, the Firearms Act goes even further and includes the stated aim to register every individual gun belonging to a licenced gun owner in Canada. In doing this, it intrudes far beyond what is necessary for the fair and reasonable protection of society from law-abiding hunters and shooters.

What hunters and shooters object to is that, after jumping through all of the hoops in place to qualify for the (now) Possession and Acquisition Licence in order to prove to the government that you are an upstanding citizen and not a danger to the public by owning firearms, you then have to continuously go begging to that same government every time you wish to buy or sell a firearm and say "Mother, may I please have another."

Why is this necessary? If you are legally qualified, and deemed of sufficient good character on the basis of highly intrusive background checks to own firearms, why does the government feel the need to then know every firearm you have? Whether you own one, five, ten or more firearms does not change the fact that you have already proven to the government that you are morally and legally competent to own firearms, and so that should be it. Isn't the money being wasted on an inaccurate and unreliable gun registry better spent on ensuring that only those who are of good character have guns, and prosecuting those who instead use guns to commit crimes?

The gun registry is a collosal waste of tax dollars with no demonstable benefit to public safety. I am proud that my government knows that I am of such impeccable character. I have no real concern that police know that I own firearms. But I shouldn't have to constantly ask the government for permission to engage in my safe, legal hobbies once I have proven my worth.

When the gun registry is dismantled, the Possession and Acquisition Licence program will remain in place. Hunters and shooters will still have to prove their worthiness and good character to own firearms. Firearms safety training and storage requirements will continue.

If The Record wishes to argue that "a registry of guns people own" should continue then it has that right. But it should not mislead its readers by suggesting that the government intends to do away with "a registry of people who own guns". Your readership should know and be aware of this important difference.

Fischer

Well done!