RCMP CFP Evaluation – Part 6.7

~~~

Here it is – the long-awaited return of my critical analysis of the RCMP’s “Evaluation” of the Canadian Firearms Program!

The bafflegab was so strong in this section, it almost got the better of me, but I finally managed to beat it into submission.

As always, you can read along at:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pd-dp/eval/index-eng.htm

~~~

Recommendation 11:

That the CFP make better use of CFIS for investigative work and file management. Tracking and retention of historical CFIS information needs to be maintained electronically and better available to CFO’s and Firearm Officer Investigators.

Police and CFO’s require better sensitization to domestic/family violence in circumstances where those committing the act are also firearms owners. Recent Canadian research in one province has shown some possible national implications.[33] The study found that hunting rifles and shotguns are part of the cycle of abuse for many victims of family violence living in rural areas. The researchers learned that there is a very high tolerance level for firearm misuse in rural communities, compared to that in urban communities. Interviews with abused rural women, crisis workers, and police suggest that for some abused women, threats with hunting rifles was a part of the everyday life and that these firearms played a role in creating a climate of control and intimidation. This ranged from dealing with their partner’s frequent threats of suicide, damage to property, or threats to harm her, the children or the pets/farm animals if she should ever leave. Such intimidation increased women’s fears that something deadly could happen. The acceptance of firearms as a normal occurrence in domestic violence incidents often reduced the perceptions of firearms abuse and risks of lethality even among professionals. Several service providers who worked with victims noted that when a client (abused woman) said that there were firearms in the home (hunting rifle or shotgun), it did not cause alarm. Some police in the study (in particular regions) removed firearms in domestic cases, while several officers mentioned that they did not routinely search for and seize firearms in a domestic case. Authority exists in the Criminal Code for police to seize firearms from all alleged perpetrators of domestic violence. A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision may further put onus to police to consider firearms present, even if they are unused, as possible and probable threats to the victim’s safety, and hence fit for removal[34].

[33] Deborah Doherty, Ph.D. and Jennie Hornosty, Ph.D. “Exploring the Links: Firearms, Family Violence and Animal Abuse in Rural Communities.” 2008.

From the “Executive Summary” of  the “study”:

http://www.crvawc.ca/documents/Exploring the Links Firearms, Family Violence and Animal Abu.pdf

“The current study, which was funded by the Canada Firearms Centre,”

Hmmmmm…..

Follow the money:

http://www.unb.ca/fredericton/arts/departments/sociology/awards.html

Co-Principal Investigators Jennie Hornosty and Deborah Doherty received a research grant of $125 000 from the Canada Firearms Centre for their project: Exploring the Links Between Firearms, Family Violence and Animal Abuse in Rural Communities.

Nice work if you can get it…

Here are references to some of the “supporting material” for this study:

“Yet we know from our previous research[1] that the availability of firearms in rural homes is a perceived threat by abused rural women (see Doherty, Hornosty & McCallum, 1997; Hornosty & Doherty, 2004; Doherty & Hornosty, 2004; Hornosty & Doherty, 2003).”

[1] This previous research was conducted by the research team, Family Violence on the Farm and in Rural Communities. The team was comprised of academic researchers, community researchers, a farmwoman, RCMP, and social service providers. The published articles reflect the analysis of Drs Doherty and Hornosty. The “Rural Research Team” is a team of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre on Family Violence Research, established in 1994 to engage in participatory action research to end violence against women.

http://www.albertaspca.org/PDFs/Family Violence_ Firearms_Animal Abuse.pdf

Doherty, D. (2002). Making family violence law information available to people in rural areas: An inventory of promising practices. Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/fv_rural_e.pdf.

Doherty, D. (2006). Domestic homicide in New Brunswick: An overview of some contributing factors. Atlantis, 30 (3), 1-20. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.msvu.ca/atlantis/frame/volumes.htm.

Doherty, D., & Hornosty, J. (2004). Abuse in a rural and farm context. In M. L. Stirling, A. Cameron, N. Nason-Clark, B. Miedema (Eds), Understanding abuse: Partnering for change (pp. 55-81). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Doherty, D., J. Hornosty, & M. McCallum (1997). Barriers to the Use of Support Services by Family Violence Victims in Northumberland County. Family Violence on the Farm and in Rural Communities Research Team. Report submitted to the New Brunswick Department of the Solicitor General, Fredericton.

Isn’t there something a little incestuous about referencing yourself in your own studies?

Further on, we find some “interesting” statistics about firearms ownership and abuse:

With respect to firearms, we learned that:

25% of the women who answered this question had firearms in their household;

– Of these, 72% had long guns. 18%had both long guns and hand guns present;

– Nearly 40% said partners did not have a license to own firearms; 44% of firearms were not registered; 50% were not kept locked, and 11% indicated the guns were kept loaded;

– 66% of the women who indicated there were firearms in their home said knowing about the firearms made them more fearful for their safety and well-being;

– 70% said it had an affect on their decisions to tell others or seek help;

– Women were more likely to express concern for their safety when the firearms were not licensed, registered or locked;

– 83% of the women who knew the guns were loaded were fearful;

– The presence of firearms increased a woman’s fear when her partner used drugs and alcohol or was threatening suicide, or there were concerns that the partner would harm her, the children, family, or property.

From the methodology, we find the following:

The research partners in the study included all the transition houses in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, Victim Services in Prince Edward Island, the Chief Firearms Officers in both provinces, Victim Services of the Fredericton City Police and Codiac RCMP in New Brunswick, and the RCMP “J” Division.

And:

Quantitative Data – Survey Participants

The survey questionnaire contained two parts – A and B. Transition house staff and victim services personnel invited abused women to participate and administered the survey. Part A was demographic information such as woman’s age, the community of residence, her employment status, number of children, types of abuse experienced and relationship to the abuser.

Part B asked specific questions that participants answered about the presence and types of firearms, the presence of pets, whether the presence of firearms made her more fearful or made her more reluctant to seek help, and whether her partner had deliberately threatened to harm the pets or farm animals.

In total, we received 391 surveys; 283 women had answered Parts A and B, while 108 surveys contained information only for Part A.

A sample size of 283 abused women, all in abuse shelters, doesn’t strike me as being a terribly representative grouping to me…

From the “statistics” above, 25% of 283 = 71.  That puts all their other percentages into better perspective, doesn’t it?  Gun haters love using percentages, as it obscures the real numbers behind them – in other words, they try to mislead the reader…

Here is an interesting tid-bit from a news article about Dr. Doherty:

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/city/article/1104216

Domestic deaths have a number of common links

Published Tuesday June 22nd, 2010

St. John Telegraph-Journal

[…]

Of the 35 cases [since 1989] – 15 of which were murder-suicides – Doherty found that 25 of them were in small towns or rural New Brunswick communities. That compares to 0.9 per cent for Ontario domestic deaths.

Guns have been the weapon of choice. Nineteen of the women were shot, and all but one was with a long gun rifle. “I have a pretty good idea it relates to the fact that this is a hunting province, with more firearms in homes,” Doherty said.

Combined with alcohol, the risk factor increases. Seventy-five per cent of the perpetrators had a serious drug or alcohol problem. That compares to 42 per cent in Ontario.

An overwhelming factor was a history of violence, which Doherty defined as not just physical, but emotional or sexual as well. Ninety per cent of the cases appeared to have a history of violence – though it wasn’t clear in court documents, she said.

Relationships were described as turbulent, stormy with a lot of bickering. Often friends, family or crisis workers knew about the violence, but police were never involved, so reports didn’t make it to court, she said.

[…]

A little light figuring:

35 New Brunswick domestic homicides since 1989: 35 / 20 = 1.75/year

19 of those 35 women were shot to death.

There are some 78,123 [2008] licenced gun owners in New Brunswick, who own some 281,857 [2009] registered firearms; again, we are talking infinitesimal numbers of law-abiding gun owners who are some kind of “problem”.

19/35 * 100 = 55%

While quite high, this also means that almost half of all domestic homicides are committed with something other than a firearm…

So, it would seem to me that there would still be quite a number of domestic homicides even if there weren’t any guns available – addiction and violent behaviour are much more important factors than are guns.

Also, this is a standard anti-gun tacatic of “cherry picking” data: 1989 is 2 years *before* any kind of “strict gun control” laws were put in place (1991), and 6 years before the Firearms Act was passed in 1995.  1989 is, however, the year that Gamil Gharbi perpetrated the “Montreal Masscre”…

Again, from the “Executive Summary”:

Conclusion

The research findings help us to understand better the ways in which firearms may and do serve as instruments of control, intimidation and abuse in family violence situations. They show that the normalization of firearms in rural homes in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island has lead to the minimization of firearms misuse generally, including desensitization to firearms abuse in instances where women, children and pets/farm animals are the victims. The qualitative findings have complemented and enhanced the quantitative data. We not only know more about the prevalence of firearms in rural homes and their association with various aspects of family violence, we can now situate firearms misuse within the social and culture context that shapes experiences and responses, and as a result, we can offer insights into potential strategies for addressing it.

Decoding this bafflegab, it would seem that by “normalization of firearms”, they mean the day-to-day attitude towards firearms and their acceptance in the general populace,  Of course, to feminazis, there are no “acceptable” uses for guns – their only purpose is to cause harm to women and children..  They seek, therefore, to demonize guns and gun owners, primarily through this process of making mountains out of molehills…

In conclusion, we believe that the study makes a significant contribution to family violence research by demonstrating that cultural factors play a critical role in understanding the nature of, and response to, firearms victimization. The research and findings provide much needed information about the nature of family violence in rural communities and fill a gap in our understanding of how the presence and status of firearms influence women’s decision-making.

Dissemination of the findings will be a critical component of the success of this study.

Of course they do – it’s their bloody study!  Self-important and self-righteous misandrists…

It seems to me that they are intent on manufacturing a problem where one doesn’t actually exist.  Where have we seen that before?

Police protocols could be further developed to set out what happens in instances when firearms are involved in a domestic incidence, and to set out when it would be prudent to seize firearms if there is no record of firearms, no firearms visible, or no mention of firearms in the complaint or during the police presence at the residence. Moreover, the role of spouses/partners during the firearms application process was not well understood, and could be improved[35]. RCMP policy requires updating to reflect recent changes in knowledge about the issue of domestic violence and legislative changes[36]. Under the Firearms Act, the CFO has the authority to review the license and if the situation permits further follow-up, can choose to interview the licensee and/or revoke the license.

OK, let’s set the record straight right off the bat: your average, honest, gun owning citizen is in no way in favour of violence of any kind, spousal or otherwise.  Threatening or intimidating someone with a gun, or any other object – or none at all – is not just wrong, it is a crime.  Of course, if someone threatens another with a gun, then all guns belonging to that person should be taken away, and that person charged accordingly.

The problem is that the “criminal justice” system does not take these kinds of crimes seriously enough.  Part of the problem, as is evidenced by some of these studies, is that those being threatened are not reporting these crimes to the police, sometimes not until it’s too late.

It’s fallacious and just plain useless to focus attention on inanimate objects, when it is the behaviour of individual people that is the real problem.

[35] Doherty et al. 2008, Doherty et al. demonstrated that instead of relying on abused women to report concerns during the application process, it was suggested that when the Firearms Office had cause to investigate an applicant or licensee, that they use this opportunity to ask the partner a series of questions about direct and indirect firearm’s victimization, destruction of property, concerns about suicide and threats to harm pets (which was another finding of the study). This type of important information could also be obtained during an investigation that was triggered for other reasons. Also, the study showed that participants in the study reported that they were generally unaware that there was a toll-free number to report firearms abuse to the Canada Firearms Centre

[36] The RCMP has local policing jurisdiction in thousands of rural and remote communities across Canada, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec. The RCMP touches on this in the Operations Manual 2.4. “Violence in Relationships. Section 2.2.7: if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it is not in the interests of public safety, including the safety of the individual, determine whether he/she has legal access to firearms or other weapons. If applicable, seize firearms…”

Really, this amounts to nothing more than a “fishing expedition” not to mention a “witch hunt” against gun owners and their guns.  An article by the Family Rights Examiner reported on a US study that found that “Ninety percent of domestic violence education programs lack accuracy”; in the article the author makes these comments:

If you’re wondering how we got here, it has to do with a radical ideology, the lack of oversight, and the creation of myths, hoaxes and lies.  Have you ever read that 95% of domestic violence victims are women?  How about, “Domestic violence is the number one reason women go to the emergency room”?  Do you think that more domestic violence occurs on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year?  None of these statements are true.

Just imagine the distortions that must abound when it comes to firearms information coming from such anti-male and anti-gun organizations that make up the vast majority of the “spousal violence” industry!

  • Management Supports Recommendation (Yes or No)

Management supports the recommendation.

  • Current Status

In September 2009 the CFP undertook an Information Management (IM) project whose scope includes a review of all IM practices (operational / administrative) with the goal of introducing consistency and best practices on a national level. An updated Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), as well as a Records Disposition Authority (RDA) through Library & Archives Canada (records retention) are deliverables of the project. The project is targeted to be completed by August 2011.

  • Responsible

    OSSD

    • Planned Action
      • To explore the feasibility for Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS) to be recognized and accepted by the RCMP’s IM Branch as a formalized IM repository for operational investigative actions undertaken by CFP. The implementation of policy, process and support tools that address deficiencies promotes consistency in practice and adheres to the framework (legal, policy) that governs the Program.

    Diary Date: August 31, 2010

    So, the RCMP is touting this initiative based on a “report” that was written by a feminist (read: anti-male, anti-gun), working for an anti-male organization, for – and paid for – an anti-gun organization, which references her own work extensively…what’s wrong with this picture?

    19 female spouses shot to death, over the course of 20 years – that’s almost one per year – long before any kind of “gun control” laws were in place, is not sufficient reason to further restrict our rights.



    1. 1 World Spinner

      RCMP CFP Evaluation – Part 6.7 « A Cry In The Wilderness…

      Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……






    <span>%d</span> bloggers like this: