Need Help Proofreading An Essay

[Angus Cattle Shower]

Well, as my dialectical essay for history 30 is due tomorrow morning at nine and I'm nowhere near finishing it yet, I have a favour to ask of the people on Ranchers. Can you help proofread my essay? It's about the Canadian long gun registry and the liberal party's leaders actions before the third voting to pass or kill the bill. I don't want to start a poiltical debate, or anything like that, I just need to proof my essay.


The Canadian Long Gun Registry was first implemented in 1995 by the Cretien led, Liberal government. Gun owners did not need to register their guns until 2003, however it was started in 2001. Originally the registry was supposed to cost $2,000,000.00, but in the 2002 report by Sheila Fraser, the cost of the program had cost Canada's tax paying citizens greater then 2 billion dollars. The Liberal Government had no explination as to where all the money went, or how it cost that much. It left Canadians wondering as to if the Long Gun Registry was worth the billions of dollars that had been put into it, and if it actually worked. When a bill was put out to have the Canadian Long Gun Registry abolished, leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignattieff, told his Members of Parliament (MP's) did not at all want this to happen. For the first two voting sessions, he allowed them to vote freely and support the beliefs of their constituents. However, before the third voting he demanded that the members of the Liberal Party vote alongside him in keeping the registry in effect, or they would be punished. Are his actions towards the registry just or was he out of line putting the party morals before the beliefs of their constituents?
Many people believe that the Registry is a waste of not only Government funding, but also a waste of gun owners time. It was put into effect to help reduce crime, and the crime rate in Canada has gone down since it was implemented, but the crime rate has been steadily dropping since the 1970's, so it is difficult to say if the Registry is to thank, or if it is just a trend. To register a gun, you must already have your Firearm Safety Certificate (which you can get at 13 years of age), and you must apply for your P.A.L. This is your possession and acquisition license. It allows you to purchase, own, or transfer guns. You must have a criminal background check, and fill out a questionnaire, along with two refrences. Once you have sent in the questionnaire, the police will call you, and your witnesses and ask several more questions. Then, the police contact your spouse (if you have, or had one in the last two years). If they express any concerns, your application will be reviewed again and most likely thrown into the garbage. People in charge of the Registry do this to try and prevent domestic violence. However, many argue that a firearm is not the only weapon a madman could posess. Next thing you know, you might be registering your baseball bats and golf clubs too.
The gun registry was supposed to be abolished in September of 2010, but members of the opposition parties changed their votes during the third reading. When this happened, it raised some concerns. Were the MP's doing this only to side with their leader or were they voting to appeal best to their constituents? The leader of the Liberal party, Michael Ignattief, ordered the members of his party to vote along the lines of the party and their beliefs, to support the long gun registry. The MP from Yukon, Larry Bagnell was against the registry the first two times that the senate voted on it, but on the third time his vote was changed to match that of his party. The leader of the opposition told the MP's that if they voted to abolish the long gun registry they would be agreeing and supporting policies of the conservative party. The Liberal MP from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Keith Martin, said in an interview "If I was voted out because I supported the gun registry and supported the police, so be it. Given a choice between supporting the police and being voted out versus voting against the registry and staying in [office], I choose to support the police and lose my job."(The Globe and Mail, September 22,2010) Members of the New Democratic Party were allowed by Jack Layton to vote as their constituents wished, but he came up with a campaign to try and convince the MP's of areas in rural Canada that the Gun registry was worth saving. His argument was that police officers use the registry to check see if there are any registered guns in the residence if they are called to a domestic dispute. However, of the 2441 homocides in Canada since the registry was introduced in 2003, only 47 of them have been commited with registered long guns. This just goes to show that the registry is not working, and if a criminal wants a gun bad enough, he can illegally buy it. It is similar to buying drugs in a big city, just ask around and soon enough you will find what you're looking for.
Prime Minister Stephen Harpauer had a minority government at the time of the passing of the bill, and he needed to sway the NDP's votes to his side so the bill could be passed and the long gun registry would no longer be in service. His arguments for the bill were that all it did was punish hunters and farmers for having to register all their guns, just so they could go hunting or put a hurt/sick animal out of their misery. The initial start up cost for the registry was $2 billion dollars, and last year alone it cost Canadian taxpayers another four million to maintain. Is an ineffective registry worth four million dollars a year? People argue that it could save many lives because it makes guns harder for people to get ahold of, but it really doesn't. Most of the guns used in crimes aren't registered anyways, and if we wanted to spend four million dollars a year on keeping the public safe the money could be used to hire or train more police officers, buy more ammunition for the police officers to be trained with, or maybe even better defence technology for the officers on duty.
Ignattief threatened to punish the eight Liberal MP's that supported the abolishment of the registry on the first two votes unless they voted in line with the party. His stance on the issue is almost questioning his integrity. If he is ordering his party to vote with him in abolishing the bill, how is he allowing his MP's to represent their constituents? He isn't. The government of Canada was elected by the citizens of the country, so they could represent the country with their voices so all of the citizens could be heard. No one's voice is being heard over Mr. Ignattieff. How do we know that we could trust him to run our country? If he were to go to the extent of what he did here while he was in office, we could be dealing with a dictator for a Prime Minister.


That's all I've got thus far, I'll keep adding it as I finish more

Thanks, and God Bless,

Alex

 

[Kato]

Good essay there. All I can see is a couple of spelling errors, but it sure seems like you've done your research and know your subject. That's worth marks, for sure.




Cretien.. should be Chretien

the cost of the program had cost .... take out "the cost of the"

explination... explanation

wondering as to if ... take out "as to"

Ignattieff ... Ignatieff

Harpauer .. Harper (but I think I like your spelling better LOL)

I would change the ending now that Michael Ignatieff is no longer the leader of the Liberals. He got the boot.



Job well done.

 

[Martin Jr.]

at the end of the second paragraph: Posess - possess

 

[Faster horses]

Nicely done, Alex.
I found a few things besides what Kato caught:

greater than (not then)
why it cost that much (not how)

delete 'as to'

comma after just

references (you have misspelled it)

no comma after then

you have a sentence that needs 'will' or 'can' to be
a complete sentence. This is the sentence:
Then, the police contact your spouse


2nd paragraph:
delete 'supposed'

Hope this helps!

 

[Twister Frost]

Now, bear in mind that this is my correcting, and you have to go with the requirements of your teacher. Overall, I think this could be quite an essay! Hope the highlights come through or this will look like a mess to you--they didn't, sorry, hope you can muddle through it!

The Canadian Long Gun Registry was first implemented in 1995, by the Chrétien led, Liberal government. Gun owners did not need to register their guns until 2003; however, it (pronoun/antecedent agreement---what does "it" refer to? Use the noun here (the registry?), not the pronoun.) was started in 2001. Originally, the registry was to cost two million dollars, but in the 2002 report by Sheila Fraser, the cost of the program had cost Canada's tax paying citizens (wordy—program was more) more than two billion (I would italicize or bold for emphasis) dollars. The Liberal government had no explanation where the money went, or why the program had cost that much. It (same as above pronoun/antecedent agreement—The lack of answers) left Canadians wondering if the Long Gun Registry was worth the billions of dollars put into it and if it actually worked.
When a bill was (written/introduced) to have the Canadian Long Gun Registry abolished, the leader of the Liberal party, Michael Ignattieff, told his Members of Parliament (MP's) that he did not at all want this (pronoun usage—what is this? Abolishment?) to happen. For the first two voting sessions, he (Ignattieff) (weak pronoun reference—state the name) allowed them (members of the liberal party of Parliament)(same—who is them?) to vote freely and support the beliefs of their constituents. However, before the third voting, he (Ignattief) (same pronoun/antecedent agreement) demanded that the members of the Liberal party vote alongside (with—not beside) him in keeping the registry in effect, or they (the members) would be punished. Are his actions towards the registry just or was he out of line putting the party morals before the beliefs of their constituents?
Many people believe that the Registry is a waste of not only Government funding, but also of gun owners' time. It (The Registry) was put (weak verb-- enacted) to reduce crime, and the crime rate in Canada has gone down since it was implemented. (Run-on) However, the crime rate has been steadily dropping since the 1970s; thus, it is difficult to say if the Registry is to thank or if it is just a trend. To register a gun, you (no second person "you"—use third person--a gun owner) must already have a Firearm Safety Certificate, which can get (dead verb—there is always another action verb to use in its place--can be acquired) at 13 (0-99 written out in formal writing- thirteen) years of age, and he/she must apply for a P.A.L. , a possession and acquisition license. It (The PAL) allows a gun owner to purchase, own, or transfer guns. You (The gun owner---make sure you change the rest of them, unless your teacher okays you using second person) must complete a criminal background check and fill out a questionnaire, along with providing two references. Once you have sent in the questionnaire, the police will call you, and your witnesses (references??)and ask them several more questions. The police will then contact your spouse (if you have or had one in the last two years). If they (the spouse) expresses any concerns, the application will be reviewed again and most likely thrown into the garbage (rejected). People in charge of the Registry do this to try and prevent domestic violence. However, many argue that a firearm is not the only weapon a madman could posess. Next thing you know, you might be registering your baseball bats and golf clubs too. (I know what you are trying to say, but you need to formalize: The purpose of the Registry is to decrease domestic violence. Those against the registration of all guns counter argue that guns are not the only weapons used in domestic violence attacks. Eventually, the registration of baseball bats and golf clubs may be needed.)
The gun registry (why are you not capitalizing any more?) was supposed to be abolished in September 2010, but members of the opposition parties changed their votes during the third reading. When this (the vote change?) happened, it raised some concerns. Were the MP's doing this only to side with their leader or were they voting to appeal best (wording is off!) to their constituents? The leader of the Liberal party, Michael Ignattief, ordered the members of his party to vote along the lines of the party (along party lines) and their (its) (one party) beliefs, to support the long gun registry. The MP from Yukon, Larry Bagnell, was against the registry the first two times that the senate voted on it, but on the third time his vote was changed to match that of his party. The leader of the opposition told the MP's if they voted to abolish the long gun registry, they would be agreeing and supporting policies of the conservative party. The Liberal MP from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Keith Martin, stated in an interview, "If I was voted out because I supported the gun registry and supported the police, so be it. Given a choice between supporting the police and being voted out versus voting against the registry and staying in [office], I choose to support the police and lose my job."(The Globe and Mail, September 22,2010) (Do not know the type of citation you are using, but if The Globe and Mail is a newpaper, italicize) Members of the New Democratic Party were allowed by Jack Layton to vote as their constituents wished, but he Layton came up with a campaign to try and convince the MP's of areas in rural Canada that the Gun registry was worth saving. His (Layton's) argument was that police officers use the registry to check see if there are any registered guns in the residence if they are called to a domestic dispute. However, of the 2,441 homocides in Canada since the registry was introduced in 2003, only 47 (forty-seven) of them have been commited with registered long guns. This just goes to show that the registry is not working, and if a criminal wants a gun bad enough, he can illegally buy it. It is similar to buying drugs in a big city, just ask around and soon enough you will find what you're looking for. (Again, I understand what you are saying, formalize the analogy)
Prime Minister Stephen Harpauer had a minority government at the time of the passing of the bill, and he needed to sway the NDP's votes in order for the bill to be passed and the long gun registry would no longer be in service. His argument for the bill was that its sole purpose punished hunters and farmers for having to register all their guns, just so they could go hunting or put a hurt/sick animal out of their (its) misery. The initial start up cost for the registry was two billion dollars, and last year alone it cost Canadian taxpayers another four million to maintain. Is an ineffective registry worth four million dollars a year? People (Proponents) argue that it could save many lives because it makes guns harder for people to get (acquire), but it really doesn't (No contractions in formal writing--does not). Most of the guns used in crimes aren't (are not) registered, and if we (First person—is this a personal opinion writing? If yes, then okay) wanted to spend four million dollars a year on keeping the public safe, the money could be used to hire or train more police officers, buy more ammunition for the police officers to be trained, or maybe even better defense technology for the officers on duty.
Ignattief threatened to punish the eight Liberal MP's that who supported the abolishment of the registry on the first two votes, unless they voted in line with the party. His stance on the issue is almost questioning his integrity. If he is ordering his party to vote with him in abolishing the bill, how is he allowing his MP's to represent their constituents? He isn't (is not). The government of Canada was elected by the citizens of the country, so they could represent the country with their voices so all of the citizens could be heard (wording is off). No one's voice is being heard over Mr. Ignattieff's. How do we know that we could trust him to run our country? If he were to go to the extent of what he did here, while he was in office, we could be dealing with a dictator for a Prime Minister.

 

[sweetbasil]

The Canadian Long Gun Registry was first implemented in 1995 by the Cretien led, Liberal government. (Give a short background on the Canadian Gun Registry. Why was it implemented? What is the purpose of this law?) Gun owners did not need to register their guns until 2003, however it was started in 2001( What factors led to this decision?). Originally the registry was supposed to cost $2,000,000.00, but in the 2002 report by Sheila Fraser, the cost of the program had cost Canada's tax paying citizens greater then 2 billion dollars. The Liberal Government had no explination as to where all the money went, or how it cost that much. It left Canadians wondering as to if the Long Gun Registry was worth the billions of dollars that had been put into it(Can you find any statistics that can justify the investment in this law?), and if it actually worked. When a bill was put out to have the Canadian Long Gun Registry abolished (Why the need to abolish this law?), leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignattieff, told his Members of Parliament (MP's) did not at all want this to happen. For the first two voting sessions, he allowed them to vote freely and support the beliefs of their constituents. However, before the third voting he demanded that the members of the Liberal Party vote alongside him in keeping the registry in effect, or they would be punished(What kind of punishment? Give an example…). Are his actions towards the registry just or was he out of line putting the party morals before the beliefs of their constituents?
Many people believe that the Registry is a waste of not only Government funding, but also a waste of gun owners time. It was put into effect to help reduce crime, and the crime rate in Canada has gone down since it was implemented, but the crime rate has been steadily dropping since the 1970's, so it is difficult to say if the Registry is to thank, or if it is just a trend. To register a gun, you must already have your Firearm Safety Certificate (which you can get at 13 years of age), and you must apply for your P.A.L. This is your possession and acquisition license. It allows you to purchase, own, or transfer guns. You must have a criminal background check, and fill out a questionnaire, along with two refrences. Once you have sent in the questionnaire, the police will call you, and your witnesses and ask several more questions. Then, the police contact your spouse (if you have, or had one in the last two years). If they express any concerns, your application will be reviewed again and most likely thrown into the garbage. People in charge of the Registry do this to try and prevent domestic violence. However, many argue that a firearm is not the only weapon a madman could posess. Next thing you know, you might be registering your baseball bats and golf clubs too.
The gun registry was supposed to be abolished in September of 2010, but members of the opposition parties changed their votes during the third reading. When this happened, it raised some concerns. Were the MP's doing this only to side with their leader or were they voting to appeal best to their constituents? The leader of the Liberal party, Michael Ignattief, ordered the members of his party to vote along the lines of the party and their beliefs, to support the long gun registry. The MP from Yukon, Larry Bagnell was against the registry the first two times that the senate voted on it, but on the third time his vote was changed to match that of his party. The leader of the opposition told the MP's that if they voted to abolish the long gun registry they would be agreeing and supporting policies of the conservative party. The Liberal MP from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Keith Martin, said in an interview "If I was voted out because I supported the gun registry and supported the police, so be it. Given a choice between supporting the police and being voted out versus voting against the registry and staying in [office], I choose to support the police and lose my job."(The Globe and Mail, September 22,2010) Members of the New Democratic Party were allowed by Jack Layton to vote as their constituents wished, but he came up with a campaign to try and convince the MP's of areas in rural Canada that the Gun registry was worth saving. His argument was that police officers use the registry to check see if there are any registered guns in the residence if they are called to a domestic dispute. However, of the 2441 homocides in Canada since the registry was introduced in 2003, only 47 of them have been commited with registered long guns. This just goes to show that the registry is not working, and if a criminal wants a gun bad enough, he can illegally buy it(How can he/she illegally buy a gun?). It is similar to buying drugs in a big city (It can be similar, but not necessarily that accessible), just ask around and soon enough you will find what you're looking for(You need to get some facts to make your opinion stronger).
Prime Minister Stephen Harpauer had a minority government at the time of the passing of the bill, and he needed to sway the NDP's votes to his side so the bill could be passed and the long gun registry would no longer be in service. His arguments for the bill were that all it did was punish hunters and farmers for having to register all their guns(Are there any pro-gun organizations that have contributed to the PM's campaign that might be a reason for him to support this law?)(Which major groups/organizations are opposing this law?), just so they could go hunting or put a hurt/sick animal out of their misery. The initial start up cost for the registry was $2 billion dollars, and last year alone it cost Canadian taxpayers another four million to maintain. Is an ineffective registry worth four million dollars a year? People argue that it could save many lives because it makes guns harder for people to get ahold of, but it really doesn't. Most of the guns used in crimes aren't registered anyways, and if we wanted to spend four million dollars a year on keeping the public safe the money could be used to hire or train more police officers, buy more ammunition for the police officers to be trained with, or maybe even better defence technology for the officers on duty (You could focus on a city that has a high crime rate and find out the funding available to that city to make this point stronger). Ignattief threatened to punish the eight Liberal MP's that supported the abolishment of the registry on the first two votes unless they voted in line with the party. His stance on the issue is almost questioning his integrity. If he is ordering his party to vote with him in abolishing the bill, how is he allowing his MP's to represent their constituents? He isn't. The government of Canada was elected by the citizens of the country, so they could represent the country with their voices so all of the citizens could be heard. No one's voice is being heard over Mr. Ignattieff. How do we know that we could trust him to run our country? If he were to go to the extent of what he did here while he was in office, we could be dealing with a dictator for a Prime Minister.

I think your paper is good; but it needs a lot more details. If you can answer some of the questions above, it can be stronger and give a clear idea of what the Canadian Gun Registry does and the different events that have led to the disagreement among the political parties. You need to assume that the reader does not know anything about the CGR or the current events. Good luck with the rest of the essay.