# Gun Registry: Ideology over Economic Responsibility



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

CBC News - Canada - Ottawa giving up millions in gun registry fees

*Ottawa giving up millions in gun registry fees*

Last Updated: Monday, October 5, 2009 | 10:49 PM ET 
_Alison Crawford, CBC News_

The Conservative government is relinquishing millions of dollars in gun registry and licensing fees at a time of record federal budget deficits.

Documents obtained by CBC News under access to information show the federal government's decision to waive fees for people licensing their firearms will cost more than $15 million this year alone. Should the fee waiver be extended for another three years, internal forecasts predict an additional $60 million in "projected lost revenue."

The Conservatives started granting amnesty to gun owners in 2006 — neither forcing new owners to register rifles and other long guns, nor collecting fees from those who already had. It also waived fees for licence renewals. The amnesty has been extended twice more since then.

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan didn't dispute the amounts cited in the documents, but he insisted no money is being lost.

"Federal budgets have committed funding to offset the cost of this waiver to the RCMP," he said in a statement emailed to the CBC.

The statement also said that statistics compiled by the Canadian Firearms Centre, "indicate that compliance with the requirement for Canadians to register as a firearms owner has increased throughout the extended waiver period."

A spokesperson for Van Loan, responding to requests for more detailed information, said that between 2006 and 2008, the renewal rate of possession-only licences increased to 65 per cent from 50 per cent.

Those numbers, however, appear to be at odds with statistics produced by public servants at the Department of Public Safety, which show a downward trend in licence renewals.

In February 2008, Lyndon Murdock, the director of firearms and operational policing policy at Public Safety, emailed his director general Mark Potter. The message said, "Data does not tell compelling story re: effectiveness of measures vis-a-vis promotion of compliance."

The department refused CBC's requests to speak with Murdock.

That's not the only discrepancy.

Scott McDougall, the director of strategic policy and planning at the Canadian Firearms Centre, also wrote an internal memo in February 2008 stating that 95,000 people had not renewed their firearms licences but still appeared to have guns in their possession.

Lot of confusion

Last week when CBC asked for more up-to-date information, the RCMP reported that 138,000 have let their possession-only licences expire. Of those, 70,000 are people who moved and never provided the centre with a new address. The Mounties say 1.9 million Canadians own guns.

Toronto Police chief Bill Blair said that among gun owners, there is "a great deal of confusion about a number of amnesties that have been announced by the federal government."

Blair, who also heads up the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, pointed to Project Safe City in Toronto, where officers physically show up to check in on known gun owners.

"We have been going to people's homes where we know that they were previously in possession of firearms that were registered that they failed to re-register and we're finding not only those weapons but additional weapons that people have acquired as well and failed to register," Blair said. "And so I think the amnesties have even caused some confusion among gun owners."

The Liberal Party's public safety critic Mark Holland agreed.

"If people are told that there is no consequence for not licensing their weapon, it's no surprise that they don't. And these facts bear that out. When they're told that there's no impact for them to ignore it, then they're going to ignore it."

As for the fee waivers, Blair said the lost revenue "just adds to the burden that Canadians are going to have to pay eventually to get this caught up when we restore the requirement that these weapons get properly registered. And we're very hopeful that that will take place."

Very nice solution

The University of Lethbridge political science professor Peter McCormick said that's unlikely to happen any time soon. By extending the amnesty year after year, he said, the Conservatives are deftly handling a hot-button issue.

McCormick said the strategy allows the government to pacify rural and western voters who oppose the registry as well as urban Canadians who support it.

"Elegant is too nice a word, but this is actually for the government a very nice solution," he said.

"You can keep saying to the westerners, we're amnestying, we're doing what we can. And everyone goes off saying, yeah, yeah and they're nodding their heads and they're happy. Not a bad package for the government."

The balancing act may cost millions, but the political payback is worth it, McCormick added.

"Amnestying fees is not the same thing as abolishing the registry. It's hard for the Opposition to get traction on it. And sure, it costs, what, $10, $15 million dollars a year in forgone revenue for the government, but we're talking $50 billion deficits these days. What's $15 million among friends? For the government, I think it's quite a bargain."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good on 'em.

It's time governments with no idea of Canada's long gun culture left hunters and farmers/ranchers shooting varmints or targets alone. :clap:

Now, if they could nail down gangs with handguns instead, there would be some positive results. But they can't. Illegal handgun smuggling from the US will never be stopped as long as America continues to sell guns to the public. And count on it, they will.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> Good on 'em.
> 
> It's time governments with no idea of Canada's long gun culture left hunters and farmers/ranchers shooting varmints or targets alone. :clap:
> 
> Now, if they could nail down gangs with handguns instead, there would be some positive results. But they can't. Illegal handgun smuggling from the US will never be stopped as long as America continues to sell guns to the public. And count on it, they will.


+1

It's time that the Government does something right and stop making criminals out of law abiding citizens. Perhaps they can make up the shortfall through the confiscation and auction of those assets that criminals and their families possess - like take away all of Conrad Black's houses as a part of his punishment for ripping off his employees and stealing pension funds for years on end...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> The Conservatives started granting amnesty to gun owners in 2006 — neither forcing new owners to register rifles and other long guns, nor collecting fees from those who already had. It also waived fees for licence renewals. The amnesty has been extended twice more since then.


Article is full of crap!

ALL NEW PURCHASES HAVE TO BE REGISTERED!!

My new rifle, purchased in May of this year, HAD to be registered. As far as renewal of licenses is concerned, my license is good for 10 frigging years 2001-2011 that's when the legislation came into effect (2001) and I payed my [email protected]#$% fees too. Those people that registered from day one, wont have to renew until 2011. 

Oh, and it's not the license fees that are waived, it's the registration fees for existing firearms held by those that have not registered.

Get it now, CBC, you dumb asses?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Good on 'em.
> 
> It's time governments with no idea of Canada's long gun culture left hunters and farmers/ranchers shooting varmints or targets alone. :clap:


I don't see an issue with paying a modest license fee to buy a gun. Guns are at least as dangerous as getting married, and I had to pay a license fee for that ...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Good on 'em.
> 
> It's time governments with no idea of Canada's long gun culture left hunters and farmers/ranchers shooting varmints or targets alone. :clap:
> 
> Now, if they could nail down gangs with handguns instead, there would be some positive results. But they can't. Illegal handgun smuggling from the US will never be stopped as long as America continues to sell guns to the public. And count on it, they will.


+1



chas_m said:


> I don't see an issue with paying a modest license fee to buy a gun. Guns are at least as dangerous as getting married, and I had to pay a license fee for that ...


Backyard pools kill more people than guns every year!


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

EvanPitts said:


> +1
> 
> Perhaps they can make up the shortfall through the confiscation and auction of those assets that criminals and their families possess - like take away all of Conrad Black's houses as a part of his punishment for ripping off his employees and stealing pension funds for years on end...


First, I'm opposed to guns, but I understand the need for them in rural areas. It's the hand guns that are problem .... so if you can't stop the guns at least license the bullets. 

Evan, I think you have it in for Conrad, maybe you should read the case law in his recent trial ... it may curb your enthusiasm.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

+1 to sinc, EP, rgray. I had thought it was a Alberta or prairie thing. Nice to see similar lines of thought from out east.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Rps said:


> First, I'm opposed to guns, but I understand the need for them in rural areas. It's the hand guns that are problem .... so if you can't stop the guns at least license the bullets.


First of all - we have always had a requirement to register guns, at least as far back as a century ago, as evidenced by the license that I have that was the registration for my great-grandfather's gun in 1911.

Half of the problem isn't with the registration or licensing of guns - but the Gun Registry Program, which wasted billions of dollars on crappy, Windoze based software, and the establishment of a giant and expensive bureaucracy to peddle it. It is the billions in wasted dollars, flushed down the toilet on now useless and almost impossible to maintain ancient Windoze systems, with constant requests to feed more cash into the beast because the whole infrastructure needs to be completely scrapped and repurchased every three years.

The other half of the problem is that the Gun Registry does nothing to curb crime. Criminals don't register their guns, nor are they likely to wield a musket in a bank robbery situation (muskets are actually entirely legal to cart around, as they are exempt from the registry!) Criminals do not obey the law, that is why they are criminals. Thus, the Gun Registry imposes massive fees and inconvenience upon those who are legitimate users of guns for legal purposes - while doing absolutely nothing to curb crime. Not to mention the fact that guns already had to be registered anyways, so the Gun Registry accomplishes nothing because we already had the requirement to register guns and have gun licenses, as well as the fact that none of this does anything to curb crime.

It is nothing more than big brotherism cum political graft and corruption...



> Evan, I think you have it in for Conrad, maybe you should read the case law in his recent trial ... it may curb your enthusiasm.


I could care less about his recent show trial. The fact stands that Conrad stole the hard earned cash from the pension plans of his employees - and deserves the death penalty for it, like all of the other corrupt scum that rapes employees of what is theirs.

All his show trial demonstrated is that one can steal more cash with a briefcase than by any other means. If things were proportional, and a criminal that robs a bank at gunpoint gets 2 years - then Conrad should be serving 2 years for every person he has chiselled and ripped off over the years - so he should be out in a few hundred thousand years, with good behaviour.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chasMac said:


> +1 to sinc, EP, rgray. I had thought it was a Alberta or prairie thing. Nice to see similar lines of thought from out east.


I don't think it matters where one lives, it's all about logic. Since we have had the gun registry, gun crimes have gone up, and there are still 940 organized crime gangs on the loose. The gun registry does nothing to prevent or encourage crime, only when we decide it is time that we establish a justice system and actually dole out punishments, will things change for the better.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> I don't think it matters where one lives, it's all about logic. Since we have had the gun registry, gun crimes have gone up, and there are still 940 organized crime gangs on the loose. The gun registry does nothing to prevent or encourage crime, only when we decide it is time that we establish a justice system and actually dole out punishments, will things change for the better.


If it is all about logic, why the resistance? Plus, you have to admit AB does have its share of gun enthusiasts. See many of those bumber stickers in Ontario with: "No gun control, no Kyoto, and no wheat board"?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chasMac said:


> If it is all about logic, why the resistance?


I do not know why the politicians resist logic, I guess it's in their blood. No one is saying that we should have unbrided gun use. The fact is that we already had requirements to register guns and have licenses for their legal use, as it has been established for over 100 years. What people are against is the big brotherism of a wasteful Gun Registry, with massive cost overruns, and fat profits being funneled into the pockets of political hacks, consultants, and the corrupt companies that sold the government overpriced but inferior equipment.



> Plus, you have to admit AB does have its share of gun enthusiasts. See many of those bumber stickers in Ontario with: "No gun control, no Kyoto, and no wheat board"?


I think people in Ontario are reasonable and have no problems with gun controls. What they don't want is the Government to spend $2 Billion every year in some farce of a program which accomplishes nothing, while watching criminals continue to reap large profits from their crimes and the very weak and inept justice system. Instead, we have a turd of a system that has zero benefits, that costs huge wads of money (more than twice that of the annual budget for the City of Hamilton), provides zero accomplishments, does nothing to curb crime, and simply allows politicians to point at an "accomplishment" while letting them off the hook for allowing crime to spiral out of control, and to dole out virtually no punishment for the few criminals that are actually caught.

Kyoto was the biggest waste of time, effort and money ever put forth; with the exception of the even bigger waste that Copenhagen is racking up. What we need is to take massive steps of curbing energy use, of reducing waste, and eliminating pollution and toxin - rather than talk about dumb Carbon Markets and the stupid goals of spewing out pollution as if there is no tomorrow. Both efforts fail large because they do nothing to reduce pollution, and accomplish nothing but be a sop to the Global Warming - Pump Waste Into The Ground crowd.

I can see us not having much problems with the Wheat Board, seeing that most of the fields around these parts are populated with Corn, Hay, Soy, and other non-wheat products. But I certainly understand the ax that farmers have to grind, since they end up making pennies and struggle to keep their farms going, while fat cats like Galen Weston feast on the vast profits all coated in gold plated caviar derived from that product. Not to mention the overpriced people at the Wheat Board, who are probably raking in at least a hundred and a half large per year, while shedding not one drop of sweat in doing so.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Victim’s mother angry after shooting - Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca



> The mother of an ATV driver who was shot early Sunday says the man accused of firing on her son should never have had his weapons returned to him.
> 
> Rhonda Dixon is the mother of Jeremy Shand, 28, who was peppered with No. 4 birdshot while he and a friend drove all-terrain vehicles near a Carleton Village, Shelburne County, home.
> 
> ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Chalk up another victory for the effectiveness of the Gun Registry... beejacon


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> They will spend a few tens of millions to have a high priced committee look into it for a few years. After that, nothing resolved, nothing changed, just make the system more complicated with more redtape to confuse the law abiding folks.


You would be lucky if such a commission only cost a few tens of millions. These days, a low end commission will spend $50 Million for something penny ante, while a real commission will be between $100-200 Million. In the end, no matter how much is paid out, it is all shredded when the recommendations fall on deaf ears, and the Government goes on to cause some other fiascos elsewhere...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Seems to me that a simple method of "gun control" would be this: misuse your guns, lose your guns. Either for a long period, or permanently, depending on the transgression.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Seems to me that a simple method of "gun control" would be this: misuse your guns, lose your guns. Either for a long period, or permanently, depending on the transgression.


That is one major cornerstone that has been entirely absent from the political discussion of the Gun Registry. The politicians seem to think that gun crimes will cease once licensing and registration is brought in. The other sad thing is that we already had the mandatory registry of guns in this country, for at least a century - so this was nothing more than a phoney scheme that was created to liberate money from the taxpayers, money that went into the pockets of "contractors" and "consultants", including that dude Chretien chummed around with that was part of the Gambino crime syndicate...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

chas_m said:


> Seems to me that a simple method of "gun control" would be this: misuse your guns, lose your guns. Either for a long period, or permanently, depending on the transgression.


Fair and eloquent solution Chas ... I would like to also add that guns should be like driving, you get a restricted use license, you get tested, you get a license, you have a base set of points, you loose your points you lose your guns .....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The Gun Registry is a great example of what is wrong with government and those who try to social engineer everything in our society.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Harper has to pander to his base.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The Gun Registry is a great example of what is wrong with government and those who try to social engineer everything in our society.


As a firearms owner I've gotten used to the regulations and general jumping through hoops bullsh!t, but what pisses me off to no end is the financial waste these boondoggles create for the tax payer. Specifically this Registry and more recently, Ontario's own E-Health boondoggle.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Harper has to pander to his base.


...and I guess you're pandering to all those who dislike Harper.

Most Canadians be they Liberal, Conservative or otherwise are smart enough to see that the Firearms registry is a useless joke costing the taxpayers billions for absolutely no benefit.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Rps said:


> Fair and eloquent solution Chas ... I would like to also add that guns should be like driving, you get a restricted use license, you get tested, you get a license, you have a base set of points, you loose your points you lose your guns .....


This seems so amazingly sensible to me that I'm assured I'll go to my grave never seeing it implemented.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

chas_m said:


> This seems so amazingly sensible to me that I'm assured I'll go to my grave never seeing it implemented.


Wrong! Owning firearms is not like driving. Misuse of firearms should be zero tolerance and not a point system. You screw up, you lose your privileges...full stop.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kps said:


> ...but what pisses me off to no end is the financial waste these boondoggles create for the tax payer. Specifically this Registry and more recently, Ontario's own E-Health boondoggle.


The gun registry is nothing compared to eHealth. eHealth has blown over a billion dollars in "waste". The whole program is a waste, and should be entirely scrapped, since it serves absolutely no purpose at all. At least the Gun Registry gives an illusion of doing something of use - even if it is pathetic...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kps said:


> Wrong! Owning firearms is not like driving. Misuse of firearms should be zero tolerance and not a point system. You screw up, you lose your privileges...full stop.


Same with driving - zero tolerance. Someone gets into a car and uses it as a weapon and clobbers someone else - it should be a permanent loss of the license. And if someone that has a suspended license ends up being caught driving, punishment should include the confiscation of property.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

kps said:


> Wrong! Owning firearms is not like driving. Misuse of firearms should be zero tolerance and not a point system. You screw up, you lose your privileges...full stop.


Actaully Kps guns are exactly like driving ... and there are many instances of misuse of firearms that do not entail firing one shot....such as having a loaded gun with out a safety on in a vehicle, not having trigger locks, not having a gun vault and so on....

Driving like gun ownership is perceived to be a right, and as such we place emotional attachments on them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a gun guy, but it seems to me that you give someone a temp license, test them, and monitor them for driving, why not guns?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

kps said:


> Wrong! Owning firearms is not like driving. Misuse of firearms should be zero tolerance and not a point system. You screw up, you lose your privileges...full stop.


I agree. And it isn't about punishing the guns (e.g. taking them away). People who break gun laws (i.e. the criminals) are the ones who should be punished under the law. For example, if you are driving through the city with an illegal handgun and get caught, then it should be an automatic ticket to jail. And this isn't a right wing idea. It actually came from one of our most left wing Senators.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> The Gun Registry is a great example of what is wrong with government and those who try to social engineer everything in our society.


No, it's more of example of the Government fleeing the real problem, and that is of weak "punishments" for criminal behaviour.

Of course, when the Commons unanimously agrees to make things a little less effete and fluffy - the drunks in the Senate end up preparing to drive that train way off the tracks, mostly because they are unelected bozos that are on the cash and booze for life program...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Rps said:


> Actaully Kps guns are exactly like driving ... and there are many instances of misuse of firearms that do not entail firing one shot....such as having a loaded gun with out a safety on in a vehicle, not having trigger locks, not having a gun vault and so on....
> 
> Driving like gun ownership is perceived to be a right, and as such we place emotional attachments on them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a gun guy, but it seems to me that you give someone a temp license, test them, and monitor them for driving, why not guns?


Clearly you're not a "gun guy", not that there's anything wrong with that. So let me explain how the current system works. Let's say you want to buy a shotgun or a hunting rifle. First you have to take and pass a Firearms safety course which takes 2 days. Once you have your documentation, you apply for a firearms license which would allow you to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm. The provincial firearms officer will run a background check on you for criminal convictions, firearms offenses, violent behaviour, spousal abuse and mental illness. If you check out clean, you will receive a license.

Once you possess such a license, you must abide by the Firearms Act with respect to transporting, storing and handling of your firearms. If you fail and get caught, you will face criminal charges under the Firearms Act and may get stiff fines, license revocation and seizure of your firearms. Depending on the severity, you may also receive jail time.

FYI, no firearm may be loaded (safety or no safety), even when hunting, you may load only when in the bush and ready. You may not have ammunition in any firearm while it's being transported or in camp or at home or anywhere. Even at the target range, you may load only when at "the firing line". 

The Firearms act is much stricter and less forgiving than the Highway Traffic Act and that's the way it should be. That is why I don't agree with your analogy that firearms ownership is equivalent to driving.

What I described relates to non-restricted firearms only, it's a whole different ball game when it comes to restricted firearms, such as hand guns. I'll leave it at this for now.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Not to put too fine a point on it kps, but what you've described is exactly what Chas and I have stated. The fact that the laws appear to be more stringent with guns does not eliminate the possibility that one would break a minor portion of that law, much like we do with driving .... I guess you never speed? What I do not have knowledge on is: at what constitutes a minor violation and how many can you have before your license is taken away. With driving I know exactly how many .... it is in the point system here in Ontario ... so I guess I'm really asking: should there be a point system for guns, and if so what is the magic number to have your license removed?

I'm not being combative or trying to debate ... I'm interested in getting an opinion from someone [ I think ] has a vested interest in this process. thanx rp


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I understand rps, no worries. What I'm saying is that when it comes to the Firearms Act there is no "minor violation". It depends on the criminal judge in court to determine what you get. Unsafe storage, no trigger lock, unsafe discharge, improper transportation, etc...it does not matter. You could lose your license for all of these. No license...no firearms. On top of this, you could be prohibited from regaining your license for however many years the judge deems appropriate. What it boils down to is the Canadian Justice system and how it's implemented at the provincial level. I'd imagine that in Alberta they may go easier on you than in Southern Ontario and more specifically in Toronto.

These are criminal offenses, dealt with in criminal court. Much different than minor moving violations dealt with by a Justice of the Peace enforcing the Highway Act. Realize also that certain driving offenses also fall under the criminal act and not the highway act.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Here's a little yankee stupidity to keep the fires burning here... 

Gun-toting soccer mom, husband shot dead - CNN.com



> Melanie Hain became an overnight celebrity and, to some, a steward of Second Amendment rights when she carried a Glock strapped to her belt to her daughter's soccer game September 11, 2008.
> 
> Days later, on September 20, her permit to carry a gun was revoked by Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo, who claimed that she showed poor judgment at the child's game. County Judge Robert Eby later reinstated the permit.
> 
> ...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Ironic perhaps, but this isn't anything more than a domestic violence story. We don't even know who shot who. My guess is it was the security guard husband over being taken off the law suit. Follow the money...it's usually all about the money.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Amnesty nets another 234 guns - Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> No, it's more of example of the Government fleeing the real problem, and that is of weak "punishments" for criminal behaviour.


That's not the real problem. Places with strict punishments don't have less crime.

The problem is the situations people end up in to feel they need to resort to crime. Prevent teenagers and young adults from committing crime in the first place, and you've solves a huge part of the problem.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Some perspective from Heather Mallick at the Globe & Mail today...

CBC News - Canada - Montreal Massacre reminds us why we need gun registry


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That perspective was well-intentioned but not well-reasoned.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I suggest that that those who actually believe in the gun registry should finance it via a voluntary contribution on top of their regular taxes. 

At $1 Billion+ with maybe 5 million taxpayers supporting it, that would be roughly $200 a head. Of course continued mismanagement could drive that figure a lot higher.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I really hate it when so called journalists write an over the top emotional plea of an article, yet have no clue about what they're writing about.

She's completely confused when it comes to the difference between a Firearms License and the Long Gun Registry. There is no questionnaire when you register a firearm. Only licensed individuals who passed the safety course and had a background check by the Chief Firearms Officer can purchase a firearm. The firearm is then immediately registered at point of sale before it can be removed from the dealer's premisses. It used to be done by calling the registry and both the dealer and purchaser had to talk to the agent at the other end. It has since been simplified using an online registration process.

Personally, all my firearms are registered and at this point I really don't give a rat's a** if the registry is scrapped or not.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

CBC News - Montreal - Gun control advocates fight 'misinformation'





> Twenty years after the École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, survivors, victims' families, police officers and others are fighting what they say is a campaign of misinformation about the federal long-gun registry.
> 
> The groups, which include people working on suicide prevention, appealed to the public to support the existing registry in a news conference in Montreal on Tuesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> CBC News - Montreal - Gun control advocates fight 'misinformation'


The registry's goin' down and rightly so.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Police: Don't kill long-gun registry*

More support for the "...call that Canadians mobilize to maintain the registry was joined by that of Yves Francoeur, president of the 4,000-member Montreal Police Fraternity, as well as that of Denis Coté, president of the Féderation des policiers et policières municipaux du Québec, which represents 3,500 officers across the province."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Wasting billions of our tax dollars on a failed experiment whose major achievement to date has been harassing innocent and law abiding hunters, ranchers and farmers deserves a swift death. :clap::clap:


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

kps said:


> I really hate it when so called journalists write an over the top emotional plea of an article, yet have no clue about what they're writing about.
> 
> She's completely confused when it comes to the difference between a Firearms License and the Long Gun Registry. There is no questionnaire when you register a firearm. Only licensed individuals who passed the safety course and had a background check by the Chief Firearms Officer can purchase a firearm. The firearm is then immediately registered at point of sale before it can be removed from the dealer's premisses. It used to be done by calling the registry and both the dealer and purchaser had to talk to the agent at the other end. It has since been simplified using an online registration process.
> 
> Personally, all my firearms are registered and at this point I really don't give a rat's a** if the registry is scrapped or not.


well i do. i hope it's scrapped. all of my weapons are registered, but during university years ago, they switched the program so you need a PAL now and if you let the old FAC expire, it resorted to a POL (possession only for those who don't know - PAL is possession and acquisition).

What a crock of crap b/c I have to RETAKE the test just to get my PAL which is a completely money grabbing BS ploy. I know how to handle firearms just fine. I could understand if someone is new and just taking the course, but experienced hunters should have it graduated imho.

Now i've heard that the POL is going to be scrapped and anyone like me, will be graduated into a PAL. Great, but I don't want to wait until 2013 for my current POL to expire.

Of course, that's all selfish and I'll admit that.

As for the registry itself, it's a completely waste in my opinion. I think I've said this before, but if you look at the weapons used in crime, it's rarely ever a non-restricted weapon like a long gun. In some domestic cases, it will be , but those are the people who would have them anyones b/c they've passed their hunting course etc... It's the restricted firearms which are the problem - machine guns, handguns etc... 

I also believe that gun crimes are on the rise, but it has nothing to do with law abiding citizens and everything to do with the criminals who will get their weapons by anything method possible.

it's a waste of tax dollars in my opinion. I can't wait for it to get scrapped.

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC, why do you hate our heroes in blue?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think it might be his 80 years in the newspaper business. Apparently it trumps the men in blue out on the streets putting their lives on the line I guess.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> SINC, why do you hate our heroes in blue?


Mark: That's quite a ludicrous statement and a very low form of argument.

I may as well ask you why you hate the people of Canada so much that you want to see their taxes raised, or that you hate doctors so much that you want to see them made employees of the state. Doesn't work.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CM/GT: For your information my father was a career cop and my uncle an RCMP.

Neither of them supported the long gun registry.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

always some nebulous reason why Sinc is right, and everyone else is wrong.

Well my 3rd cousins daddy's left nut was bigger, so I say vote green! Yeah!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> always some nebulous reason why Sinc is right, and everyone else is wrong.
> 
> Well my 3rd cousins daddy's left nut was bigger, so I say vote green! Yeah!


Well, SINC, by his own admission groovetube has a small testicle, so I would give some consideration to his opinion on this matter.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm sure we'll hear about it tout suite.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

No insult intended. I'm making a point - the statement I posted is pretty much exactly what was posed to those of us on the "left" who opposed the war in Iraq: "Why do you hate our troops". Guess my subtle humour is too... subtle.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> No insult intended. I'm making a point - the statement I posted is pretty much exactly what was posed to those of us on the "left" who opposed the war in Iraq: "Why do you hate our troops". Guess my subtle humour is too... subtle.


I think the gag needs wry audio delivery or facial expressions to pull it off properly.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> always some nebulous reason why Sinc is right, and everyone else is wrong.
> 
> Well my 3rd cousins daddy's left nut was bigger, so I say vote green! Yeah!


Will you ever get it GT?

I stated my reason for supporting the dissolution of the long gun registry along with the fact that I do not hate boys in blue. Family convinced me it was wrong back when it all started and I have stayed the course opposing it. That in no way is any reason or excuse that I am right or wrong. I think I'm right and you obviously think I'm wrong, but I don't insult you for holding your opinion like you do mine.

Instead of some type of intelligent response, we get your usual smart ass comments. Oh well, I guess if that's all you got, that's all you can give us.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

What next dismantle the the Registry of Motor Vehicles? After all cars don't kill people, people kill people.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> What next dismantle the the Registry of Motor Vehicles? After all cars don't kill people, people kill people.


Nope. It is far more likely some dope will start a registry for pocket knives to waste billions more tax dollars with yet another unneeded registration program. I mean look how many more people get stabbed than shot for heaven's sake.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Let's start a chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Walking. Far more deaths from drunk walking than drunk driving


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Let's start a chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Walking. Far more deaths from drunk walking than drunk driving


T'is all moot...the registry is bye bye, history, gonzo.

All that time and money I spent staying legal and registered wasted, all that taxpayer money wasted. Ten years of bullsh!t.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

BigDL said:


> What next dismantle the the Registry of Motor Vehicles? After all cars don't kill people, people kill people.


No dismantling of the RMV required.

Your diagnosis is correct: idiotic drivers kill people.

If you want to run on a political platform that consists solely on mandatory 5 year testing adhering to stringent standards with those passing getting their license back and their $1000 licensing fee refunded, while those failing can not retest for a 30 day period plus another thousand bucks, I'll vote for you. In spades.

Stupid drivers are a far greater threat than gun owners. 

Imagine how many more lives we would have saved if 2 billion dollars would have been spent on something like improving safety on our roads, actually addressing the issues which cause accidents (and I don't mean more cops sitting on the roadside with radar guns, which accomplishes nothing for public safety).

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

How a Chicago gun got to the scene of an Ottawa murder





> By examining databases, documents and court files, the National Post traced the gun to a Chicago gun dealer who was sentenced yesterday to 7½ years for smuggling more than 200 handguns into Canada.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Read another story about a Texan that used to smuggle guns into Canada. At first he used to hide them in door panels and all sorts of other hard to reach places. As time went by, he found our customs entry so easy that he would just put them in a grocery bag on the back seat.

I have to jump through hoops to be a legal firearms owner, others just go to the supermarket.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> How a Chicago gun got to the scene of an Ottawa murder


Now, tell me again how the long gun registry is vital and protects us from guns falling into criminal hands?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Police chiefs endorse long-gun registry*



> The head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says members have endorsed a national firearms strategy that includes the long-gun registry — a program the Conservative government is trying to scrap — at its annual meeting in Edmonton on Monday.





> Blair acknowledged "legitimate concerns" about the $1 billion initially spent on setting up the registry, which some police officers also want scrapped. But he said the registry now costs only about $4 million a year to operate.
> 
> "Its a little frustrating quite frankly, because there's a lot of ideology mixed up in this," Blair told CBC News.
> 
> ...




(CBC)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Hmmm 14 police officers have died at the muzzle of long guns. Obviously the registry has been an unquantifiable success.beejacon


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I've been licensed and registered for years....so at this point I really don't care whether they scrap it or not. 

As long as they don't come a knock'n to take them away, it's all good...besides, it'll be hunting season soon. Spent over $300 at Bass Pro today and I have a smile on my face.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Over 35 homicides in COTU this year (so far), most of them by gunfire. 

Interestingly enough, no word from Mayor Miller's office on which gun club any of the shooters belonged to...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nor likely any reference to just how many of those guns were illegally imported foreign made HAND guns. (Legally owned hand guns have been strictly controlled in Canada sine the 1930s and are very likely not the source of the guns used in the homicides.) Not many gang members carry around long guns either. They're a tad too "showy" for their liking.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Somebody's gonna get fired...*

Police chiefs to campaign for long-gun registry

Inside of the article, this little tidbit:



> Not all frontline officers agree with the registry. Randy Kuntz, an Edmonton police officer for 22 years, surveyed 2,600 officers on the issue, and found about 2,400 want to scrap the registry.
> 
> "With the boots-meets-the-pavement type of policeman who's going to be dealing with the public every day, overwhelmingly there's no support for this registry," he told CTV's Kevin Armstrong in Edmonton. "It hasn't saved anybody."


D'oh!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My thoughts exactly when I watched the interview on TV news last evening.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Related. And idiotic.*

Basic. Stupidity.

This is the complete article:



> PORT COLBORNE, Ont. - A Port Colborne, Ont., man whose home was attacked has ended up facing charges himself.
> 
> Niagara Regional Police say a man emerged from his home with a handgun and fired it after several Molotov cocktails were thrown at the home.
> 
> ...


Any SOB who is throwing Molotov's at my house is going to get everything I got. Chances are good I'm gonna jump in the 'Burb an' follow 'em for a distance, too.

Jes' sayin'...


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Over 35 homicides in COTU this year (so far), most of them by gunfire.
> 
> Interestingly enough, no word from Mayor Miller's office on which gun club any of the shooters belonged to...


...and I'm willing to bet the criminals who did the shooting did not register their stolen guns. Thus proving again the registry is of little to no value to honest gunowners.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I am going to reconsider my statement that the gun registry is totally useless.

A simple hack or perhaps a greased palm and organized crime can easily track down guns they want to steal with a lot less risk than is involved in bringing it across the border.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> I am going to reconsider my statement that the gun registry is totally useless.
> 
> A simple hack or perhaps a greased palm and organized crime can easily track down guns they want to steal with a lot less risk than is involved in bringing it across the border.


I think the crime lords should pay their fair share to support the registry!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Chiefs' Case For Long-Gun Registry Fails*

*Flimsy evidence substantiates front-line cops' vote to scrap it*



> Canada's police chiefs are conducting a full-court press to preserve the long-gun registry, the dismantling of which could begin with a vote in Parliament next month.
> 
> At their annual meeting here in Edmonton last Monday, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) insisted the registry was an invaluable police investigation tool and voted unanimously to recommend its preservation.
> 
> ...


More here:

Chiefs' case for long-gun registry fails


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Because of the long-gun registry, Chu explained, investigators were spared the chore of looking into the murder weapon's ownership and were able to prevent the .22 from falling into the wrong hands while Kirkpatrick was in custody, thus eliminating a potential threat to public safety.


Ouch! That is lame beyond belief!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

From the Edmonton Journal?

Wow am I ever shocked.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> From the Edmonton Journal?
> 
> Wow am I ever shocked.


And so you should be.

All those legally registered long guns (known to the cops thanks to the wonderful registry) that gang members are using to make record killing sprees on COTU streets. Isn't it nice to know the billions the Liberals spent developing this massive safety program is working so well?

Oh, wait. You say those gangs murdering people on your streets are using hand guns? Imagine that! Why would they import illegal handguns from the U.S. when they could simply break into a private residence and steal a long gun?

Could it possibly be that it's just a tad risky to try and carry a long gun under their gang issued long shorts?

Whichever way you cut it, that pesky long gun registry seems to come up just a bit short in terms of being even remotely useful doesn't it?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> And so you should be.
> 
> All those legally registered long guns (known to the cops thanks to the wonderful registry) that gang members are using to make record killing sprees on COTU streets. Isn't it nice to know the billions the Liberals spent developing this massive safety program is working so well?
> 
> ...


And we ALL know gun related crimes are only caused by gangs.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> And we ALL know gun related crimes are only caused by gangs.


Not at all, still there is no way that having a gun in a data base can or will in any way reduce gun crimes.

What will help is once someone is convicted of a *violent* crime, it stays on their record forever and they can no longer legally purchase or own a firearm.

As we recently discovered thanks to Graham James pardons are doled out like candy. Add to that; Possession of a firearm by a known violent criminal will keep them off the street for the hour or so that it takes someone to post bail. At worst a firearm conviction will usually net them a month in jail, suspended as often as not.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> And so you should be.
> 
> All those legally registered long guns (known to the cops thanks to the wonderful registry) that gang members are using to make record killing sprees on COTU streets. Isn't it nice to know the billions the Liberals spent developing this massive safety program is working so well?
> 
> ...


you could start by ramming that horse manure to the poor families of the innocent women murdered in cold blood in Montreal.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you could start by ramming that horse manure to the poor families of the innocent women murdered in cold blood in Montreal.


Yep the gun registry was indeed a knee jerk reaction to the Montreal Massacre. The government of the day wanted to appear to be doing something without actually doing anything except spend taxpayer dollars. Given those parameters the registry was highly successful. 

As pointed out in my previous post:


> There is no way that having a gun in a data base can or will in any way reduce gun crimes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> you could start by ramming that horse manure to the poor families of the innocent women murdered in cold blood in Montreal.


And you can just ram the attitude.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I think gun control is in the same political domain as abortion .... you are either for it or you are against it, with no seemingly middle ground. From my perspective, I don't like guns of any sort, but I do understand the need in rural areas. In cities, not so much, why, because they are not a defensive weapon. The real problem is social-economic. If we could find a way to identify potential criminals and prevent them from following that path we wouldn't need gun control.

However, that, too, is pie in the sky thinking, and likely as expensive as the registry. All we can do it make is oppressively difficult to obtain weapons and, more importantly the bullets, and we may have a chance. I think it may take away the impulse attackers, but there is nothing in this world will stop a criminal from his or her activity if they want to pursue it, registry or not. What is needed is a fair and justice punishment system when individuals are caught. Note the words fair and just. We need to ask ourselves what we want our justice system to do: punish or rehabilitate. If we don't do that, it doesn't matter what system, programme, policy, or what ever we bring in on guns .... nothing will ever change and someone will always do injury or worse just because they can.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Had the registry been in effect before the unfortunate deaths of innocent women in Montreal would have made absolutely no difference. The very same thing could happen tomorrow with the registry in place. The bottom line is that continuing to maintain it is simply throwing good money after bad. I defy anyone to prove that it could not happen again with the registry in place, and if it did, God forbid, how would the registry help? Anyone?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> And you can just ram the attitude.


Likewise.



eMacMan said:


> Yep the gun registry was indeed a knee jerk reaction to the Montreal Massacre. The government of the day wanted to appear to be doing something without actually doing anything except spend taxpayer dollars. Given those parameters the registry was highly successful.
> 
> As pointed out in my previous post:


I find it curious that we now go all ga ga over spending at least 16 billion, likely as much as 30 billion after costs are finally tallied up to go meet the Russians who have been coming close to our airspace for oh, years.

I suppose it depends on what horse you're backing.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Likewise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Course you could have just illustrated how a data bank will actually stop someone from using a gun. Oops, I guess you couldn't. Hence the irrelevant post.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it wasn't designed to -stop- someone from using a gun.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Evan, nice to see you back. And, for once we actually agree on something!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> Evan, nice to see you back. And, for once we actually agree on something!


??


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> it wasn't designed to -stop- someone from using a gun.


So then, suppose it happened again in the future in exactly the same manner. 

Can you please explain how the registry would prevent such an event or how it would help police catch a dead gunman? Just what was it designed to do gt?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps said:


> Evan, nice to see you back. And, for once we actually agree on something!


Double ????


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> So then, *suppose it happened again* in the future in exactly the same manner.
> 
> Can you please explain how the registry would prevent such an event or how it would help police catch a dead gunman? Just what was it designed to do gt?


It basically did happen again, just luckily this time only one death and 19 injured and you guessed it... it was with registered weapons... remember the Dawson College Shooting in 2006.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> it wasn't designed to -stop- someone from using a gun.


Bingo!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Bingo!


you, are a genius.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

this is a silly argument. The gun registry won't STOP anyone from committing a crime, but it will help police in investigations.

But that doesn't make it useless.

Fingerprinting doesn't STOP anything, but is vital to catching and convicting criminals. I'd hope that no one would consider scrapping it.

The country should be looking at this will a pragmatic approach and not silly left vs right talking points regurgitated over and over.

The registry DOES have a use (although perhaps limited). The simple fact that the police want it speaks to that point. The question we have to ask is it WORTH the cost of running the program.

We should put the 1 billion (or 2 billion....who knows the real cost) behind us. That money is spent and gone. You could argue that the initial cost is much too high (and I'd agree with you) but going forward we have to realize that THAT money is gone and doesn't magically appear in our coffers if we scrap the program.

What the Canadian public needs is an honest and unbiased breakdown of future cost to run the program, and then run that against estimated costs of police officers doing investigative work without the registry. If those numbers are comparable then the registry would be a worthwhile program to continue. If the cost of running the program far outweighs the cost of investigative manpower without it then it should be scrapped.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> this is a silly argument. The gun registry won't STOP anyone from committing a crime, but it will help police in investigations.
> 
> But that doesn't make it useless.
> 
> ...


forum posters are far, far smarter than police chiefs. Them police chiefs all must be liberal terrorist sympathizers. Or something.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> forum posters are far, far smarter than police chiefs. Them police chiefs all must be liberal terrorist sympathizers. Or something.


Tha'ts pretty weak, even for you. You have standards to maintain, man.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> this is a silly argument. The gun registry won't STOP anyone from committing a crime, but it will help police in investigations.
> 
> *But that doesn't make it useless.*
> 
> ...


But is it worth what it does? A Mac Mini is useful, but if it costs $3K it is too expensive relative to what it does.

A fair argument.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> But is it worth what it does? A Mac Mini is useful, but if it costs $3K it is too expensive relative to what it does.
> 
> A fair argument.


the money has -already- been spent. Is there an argument that the 2 billion was too much to create such a thing? Sure! But to completely waste the money -already- spent to create it, is truly, a little nuts no? But it seems that Harper and crew loves tossing our money around to suit themselves.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> the money has -already- been spent. Is there an argument that the 2 billion was too much to create such a thing? Sure! B*ut to completely waste the money -already- spent to create it, is truly, a little nuts no*? But it seems that Harper and crew loves tossing our money around to suit themselves.


Depends on whether or not the benefit is worth the cost going forward as i-rui stated.... Isn't this where all the G8/G20 spending opponents were coming from?.... Why should the logic suddenly break down here?

As I said i-rui's argument is reasonable... 

The Conservatives are trying to fulfil a campaign promise to their voter base... Politically this is completely rational, whether you agree with the promise is a different matter... 

It is on the record that if they formed a Government they would do this. For the Conservatives it is regrettable that they have only formed a minority Government otherwise this whole thread would be a mute point.

What is truly interesting is that to save his political hide Layton is not whipping (or at least so we are told thus far) his MPs to vote against the PMB.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> the money has -already- been spent. Is there an argument that the 2 billion was too much to create such a thing? Sure! But to completely waste the money -already- spent to create it, is truly, a little nuts no? But it seems that Harper and crew loves tossing our money around to suit themselves.


Rest assured that the whole mess, 30+% innacccurate though it may be, will have to be moved to Windozed 7 and somehow the feds will find a way to blow another $billion or so in the process. So cost truly is a consideration.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> The simple fact that the police want it speaks to that point.


But that's exactly the point. The police hierarchy wants it (I'm guessing for political gain) but the guys in the trenches know it doesn't do squat. From my post 73 in this thread:

Police chiefs to campaign for long-gun registry

And the subsequent quote:



> Not all frontline officers agree with the registry. Randy Kuntz, an Edmonton police officer for 22 years, surveyed 2,600 officers on the issue, and found about 2,400 want to scrap the registry.
> 
> "With the boots-meets-the-pavement type of policeman who's going to be dealing with the public every day, overwhelmingly there's no support for this registry," he told CTV's Kevin Armstrong in Edmonton. "It hasn't saved anybody."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Truthfully the only way the gun registry could possibly help solve a crime is if:

A gun crime is committed in a small community. A bullet from the gun is found in good enough shape to identify the make and model of the weapon. The weapon is so unusual that there is only one or two registered with in a 150km radius. AND the weapon used in the crime was registered.

Sort of like having an insurance policy that only pays out if you are killed by a one armed man on the fifth Friday of a month that does not have an R in its name.beejacon


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> But that's exactly the point. The police hierarchy wants it (I'm guessing for political gain) but the guys in the trenches know it doesn't do squat. From my post 73 in this thread:
> 
> Police chiefs to campaign for long-gun registry
> 
> And the subsequent quote:


out of curiosity, what exactly is the political gain of fighting for and keeping the registry for police chiefs?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> But that's exactly the point. The police hierarchy wants it (I'm guessing for political gain) but the guys in the trenches know it doesn't do squat.


I hardly doubt the police hierarchy would gain politically from siding AGAINST the harper government since the interests of the conservatives in general run parrallel to a "law & order" mentality.



FeXL said:


> And the subsequent quote:
> 
> Not all frontline officers agree with the registry. Randy Kuntz, an Edmonton police officer for 22 years, surveyed 2,600 officers on the issue, and found about 2,400 want to scrap the registry.
> 
> "With the boots-meets-the-pavement type of policeman who's going to be dealing with the public every day, overwhelmingly there's no support for this registry," he told CTV's Kevin Armstrong in Edmonton. "It hasn't saved anybody."


Not that I doubt that there are many police officers who feel that way, but i wouldn't for a second take some informal, unregulated poll by someone I never heard of as a clear indication of what all officers feel across the country.

The actual Canadian Police Association (which I'd consider a better gauge of what the rank & file officers feel over some dude in Edmonton) seems to support the registry as well.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> First, it points out that the vast majority of firearm-related deaths in Canada are the result of rifles and shotguns — not handguns.
> 
> For those of us in living in big cities like Toronto, that may seem counterintuitive. And it is true that handguns account for twice as many homicides as shotguns and rifles.
> 
> ...


Walkom: A gun-toting gun registry skeptic recants


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

WHHHHAAAAAT????

But I thought _someone_ said most crimes were committed with handguns???

you don't say...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> WHHHHAAAAAT????
> 
> But I thought _someone_ said most crimes were committed with handguns???
> 
> you don't say...


You didn't read the piece.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you mean the part where it said "First, it points out that the *vast majority of firearm-related deaths in Canada are the result of rifles and shotguns* — not handguns."...

or... the part where it said "First, it points out that the vast majority of firearm-related deaths in Canada are the result of rifles and shotguns — *not handguns.*"
?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You were referring to crimes in your previous post--not deaths.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

do all conservatives like to go around in circles?

how about this:
"And it is true that handguns account for twice as many homicides as shotguns and rifles."

so the half as many HOMICIDES in the city, is not worth considering. 

You can spin it any way you like, but the truth is long guns do account for a significant number of CRIMES. However the conservatives need to pander to their voter base, who keep parroting the 2 billion, ALREADY SPENT, (which will be wasted), and that somehow, registering your firearm is putting duck hunters in jail.

"Dougie".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Check out how many of those long gun "deaths" are actually "suicides". It is a large portion of those long gun deaths. The stats are skewed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

round and round she goes. Even after what I said.

Amazing.

Yet another... "Dougie".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> round and round she goes. Even after what I said.
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> Yet another... "Dougie".


Groove, you lose again. You need to read the pieces thoroughly before opening your yap.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

> Second, the gun reforms have worked. In 1996, before these reforms were instituted, 63 people were murdered with long guns in rural areas. By 2005, the number had dropped to 50.
> 
> In 1996, 23 people across Canada killed their spouses (mainly women) with long guns. By 2007, that number was only eight.


This proves nothing nor even indicates that the drop in these numbers has anything to do with the registry. For there to be proof there would need to be a direct corollary between the registry and the number of deaths. There isn't, it is only an assumption that there is a causal relationship. These numbers could have been exactly the same had there never been a registry.



> This was not simply the result of Canada becoming a nicer place. Between 1995 and 2006, the overall homicide rate stayed constant.


Even if there is a corollary, it then begs the question, "So what good is the registry?" The same number of people get killed anyway... they just get "offed" in different ways. Hmmm... $4 million bucks a year so a few less people get shot, instead they just get stabbed or clubbed or... fill in your weapon of choice.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Groove, you lose again. You need to read the pieces thoroughly before opening your yap.


I think you need to re read mr macfury.

I'm not sure where it supports the idea that there are no crimes committed with long guns.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Whether or not crimes are committed with long guns is not relevant. It would be relevant if the registry could actually prevent those crimes from being committed or was being used to solve such crimes. 

Since the police chiefs claim the majority of gun crimes involve long guns, obviously the registry is not preventing gun crimes. Since a large percentage of the long gun crimes were suicides it is clear that the registry can do nothing to solve those crimes. Given the pathetic examples cited by the police chiefs, it is crystal clear the registry has done nothing to solve non-suicidal gun crimes either.

These are hard times and the money being wasted here could and should be better spent. This is so clear that only Ignats and the Blockheads have failed to figure it out.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Whether or not crimes are committed with long guns is not relevant. It would be relevant if the registry could actually prevent those crimes from being committed or was being used to solve such crimes.
> 
> Since the police chiefs claim the majority of gun crimes involve long guns, obviously the registry is not preventing gun crimes. Since a large percentage of the long gun crimes were suicides it is clear that the registry can do nothing to solve those crimes. Given the pathetic examples cited by the police chiefs, it is crystal clear the registry has done nothing to solve non-suicidal gun crimes either.
> 
> These are hard times and the money being wasted here could and should be better spent. This is so clear that only Ignats and the Blockheads have failed to figure it out.


brilliant logic. It simply doesn't get better.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> brilliant logic. It simply doesn't get better.


In what way do you disagree? Use your own words and actually describe your thinking. No "LOL."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> In what way do you disagree? Use your own words and actually describe your thinking. No "LOL."


MF: You will have to excuse him. When gt doesn't get it, he just shoots from the lip.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

just don't call me late for dinner k guys?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

> Whether or not crimes are committed with long guns is not relevant. It would be relevant if the registry could actually prevent those crimes from being committed or was being used to solve such crimes.
> 
> Since the police chiefs claim the majority of gun crimes involve long guns, obviously the registry is not preventing gun crimes. Since a large percentage of the long gun crimes were suicides it is clear that the registry can do nothing to solve those crimes. Given the pathetic examples cited by the police chiefs, it is crystal clear the registry has done nothing to solve non-suicidal gun crimes either.
> 
> These are hard times and the money being wasted here could and should be better spent. This is so clear that only Ignats and the Blockheads have failed to figure it out.





groovetube said:


> brilliant logic. It simply doesn't get better.


Not being modest here but the logic is just so, so. After all it would be almost impossible to interpret the basic facts any differently. 

Still GT might feel that Ignats and the Blockheads are not the only ones so dense as to be unable to figure out that the registry is indeed worthless and should be scrapped.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Why We Created the Long-Gun Registry*



> In the wake of the 1989 Ecole polytechnique massacre, Kim Campbell tightened Canada's gun controls. We should recall her reasons before we decide to scrap the registry.





> In a month, the present government will consider a private member’s bill to abolish the long-gun registry in spite of the fact that crime with guns has declined in Canada and every police force from St. John’s to Victoria has endorsed its retention.


(TheMarkNews)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If it was Kim Campbell's idea, it definitely needs to be scrapped.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

sinc said:


> if it was kim campbell's idea, it definitely needs to be scrapped.


+ 1


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I guess this was just another example of the Government having people of the wrong caliber in this position.......


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

+2

Knee jerk reactions are almost always bad. 

Course Halliburtin et al might disagree as that's how the US got into Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Tories lose another key NDP vote in gun registry battle*



> The federal Conservatives have lost another key NDP vote in their bid to scrap the long-gun registry.
> 
> Sudbury MP Glenn Thibeault says he will no longer back the Tory private member's bill that has pitted urban voters and politicians against their rural counterparts.
> 
> He is making the announcement this morning in Sudbury, flanked by local and provincial police authorities, as well as hospital executives and union leaders.


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When it comes right down to it, the NDP can't shake its urban elitist core.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so, on one side it's "urban elitist". Would the next response be... "country bumpkin"?

Glad to see this stay intelligent at least.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> so, on one side it's "urban elitist". Would the next response be... "country bumpkin"?


Rural elitist. You have clearly given this no thought.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Rural elitist. You have clearly given this no thought.


Probably hard to think things through with a blown mind.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*The Danger of Scrapping the Long-Gun Registry*

(_Carol Allison-Burra, Vice President, Canadian Association of Police Board_)



> *TM: *And what about the charge that long guns are not used in violent crimes?
> 
> *CAB:* One of the things that we learned along the way is that of the 16 police officers who were shot between 1998 and early 2010, 14 were killed by a long gun, and that 15 per cent of homicides in Canada were committed with a long gun. I think the registry has helped gun owners become more responsible.
> 
> Some of the critics have said that the registry hasn't prevented long-gun crime. Well, of course it hasn't. It's not about being a panacea for all long-gun use, it's about harm and risk reduction. The fact that police can find out whether or not there is a gun registered at a household or on a particular street helps them in looking out for their own safety.


(TheMarkNews)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> The fact that police can find out whether or not there is a gun registered at a household or on a particular street helps them in looking out for their own safety


All houses potentially have weapons in them. The police would be fools to barge in on any home without considering that there were weapons inside.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> All houses potentially have weapons in them. The police would be fools to barge in on any home without considering that there were weapons inside.


Not to mention crossbows. They're unregistered weapons yet they could put an arrow completely through a persons body at 50 or 60 yards. I'm pretty sure police officers are trained to take proper precautions for weapons in any potentially dangerous situation. 
I also think they had the ability to know if a person had weapons before the registry when you had to have a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) in order to purchase any LEGAL firearm. The only thing the registry added was the ability to know what guns the person actually had. But Police have always had the ability to find out if an individual owned a legal gun.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> I also think they had the ability to know if a person had weapons before the registry when you had to have a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) in order to purchase any LEGAL firearm. The only thing the registry added was the ability to know what guns the person actually had. But Police have always had the ability to find out if an individual owned a legal gun.


Cop 1: Careful approaching that house.. there's a guy who owns legal firearms living there.
Cop 2: Not only a bazooka, and Browning 9x19mm Hi-Power... he also has a (GASP!) long gun!
Cop 1: And me a week from retirement!!!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

These kinds of articles continually blur the difference between licensing and the registry. Most cops as well as most firearms owners support current firearms licensing and acquisition laws but have little faith in the registry.

It is the current tougher licensing and acquisition laws that are reducing the use of long guns in domestic violence and suicide cases and not the registry. The registry is nothing but a database of firearms and their owners...period. It does nothing to prevent crime, domestic violence or suicide. Those rates have remained pretty steady since the introduction of the registry. What has gone down is the use of long guns in domestic assaults and suicides due to tougher licensing of owners.

Here's some numbers for you to chew on:
(click to make larger)


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> I also think they had the ability to know if a person had weapons before the registry when you had to have a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) in order to purchase any LEGAL firearm. The only thing the registry added was the ability to know what guns the person actually had. But Police have always had the ability to find out if an individual owned a legal gun.


so with the registry they'd know how many and what kind of guns someone has in their home? i would think that's useful information.

not sure if it's worth 4 mil a year, but i think people claiming the LGR is "useless" are off base.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Useless is a relative term. It's "useless" in everything else except for those with access to it in finding out how many firearms I own and what kind. That is it.

Considering there are something like an estimated 7million unregistered firearms in Canada, it's pretty useless. 

Those who have all their long-guns registered and in legal posession are not likely to be a threat to police or anyone else. Kind of leads into that "useless-ness" aspect of it once again.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

by that reasoning then any kind of gun licensing is "useless" since anyone who would go to the trouble of buying a firearm legally is of no threat to the public because they used a legal recourse to acquire it.

i don't buy that reasoning.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Okay, but the registry is NOT licensing, is it? Licensing and the registry are two different things. I'm not against licensing and being part of the registry for the past 10 years I don't even care anymore whether they scrap it or not....but it's still pretty "useless" in terms of what it's being portrayed as. Lot's of smoke and mirrors and appeals to emotions. The reality is different.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> by that reasoning then any kind of gun licensing is "useless" since anyone who would go to the trouble of buying a firearm legally is of no threat to the public because they used a legal recourse to acquire it.
> 
> i don't buy that reasoning.


+1

Nailed it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Okay, but the registry is NOT licensing, is it? Licensing and the registry are two different things. I'm not against licensing and being part of the registry for the past 10 years I don't even care anymore whether they scrap it or not....but it's still pretty "useless" in terms of what it's being portrayed as. Lot's of smoke and mirrors and appeals to emotions. The reality is different.


I would agree that the way it's being portrayed BY BOTH SIDES of the argument is deceiving.

The right is claiming it's absolutely useless (which is false - it does have a use) and the left is claiming it's an essential tool that's vital to their work (which is false - it's a tool that has a use, but isn't essential).

The only valid discussion we should be having is if the registry is worth the money being spent on it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> +1
> 
> Nailed it.


Didn't nail it at all. Apparently you're confusing licensing with the long gun registry.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Didn't nail it at all. Apparently you're confusing licensing with the long gun registry.


you missed the point made completely.

What's the point of licensing when criminals aren't going to bother with getting a licence for their weapons?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> The only valid discussion we should be having is if the registry is worth the money being spent on it.


...and what is being spent on it? Some say it'll cost (only) 4 million. Four million my ass!

Registration alone cost 22.3 million in 2008/2009 -- 13.3 million of which was salaries for 130 FTEs alone. The remaining 9 million were operating costs. That makes for an average of $102,000/year for every full time employee at Miramichi NB. Great gig if you can get it.

and if anyone thinks I'm making this up, this data is straight from the RCMP

Linky to the PDF: Proactive Disclosure - Evaluation Reports


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Harper initially supported long-gun registry*



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a vocal opponent of the long-gun registry who came to power on a promise to scrap it, originally voted in favour of the database as a member of the Reform Party, but switched sides in a final vote.
> 
> Sitting on the opposition benches as a Calgary MP, Harper twice voted for Bill C-68 — an expansive package on gun control.


(Montreal Gazette)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thank goodness he changed his mind.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *Harper initially supported long-gun registry*


Oh my god...Harper is a sheep in wolf's clothing!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I never have a problem with people changing their minds if it results in a batter outcome.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Baked-in wisdom!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I never have a problem with people changing their minds if it results in a batter outcome.


I agree.

but surley there must be a problem with the hypocrisy of the conservatives attacking many of the NDP MPs who have announced they'll be backing the registry after previously voting against it when their own leader flip flopped on the issue himself.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> I agree.
> 
> but surley there must be a problem with the hypocrisy of the conservatives attacking many of the NDP MPs who have announced they'll be backing the registry after previously voting against it when their own leader flip flopped on the issue himself.


Not really. Those NDPers represent ridings where the constituents oppose the registry. They're toeing the party line instead of serving their constituents.

With respect to Harper: Bill C-68 entailed a lot more than the registry. The registry was a small (albeit expensive) portion of the overall bill.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Not really. Those NDPers represent ridings where the constituents oppose the registry. They're toeing the party line instead of serving their constituents.


leaders should lead. i suspect most of the MPs know much more about the registry than most of their constituents. If the voters feel betrayed by them i'm sure they'll suffer the consequences in the next election.

(which is not to say i'm in favor of the registry and think it should stay - to be frank i don't know the true cost, or even how to crunch the numbers to see if it's worth it for the public. at some point we have to trust our elected officials to make those choices)



kps said:


> With respect to Harper: Bill C-68 entailed a lot more than the registry. The registry was a small (albeit expensive) portion of the overall bill.


so why did he vote against it in the final vote? If it was just a small portion of the overall bill he should have still voted for it in the final vote instead of flip flopping the third time to toe the party line.

the conservatives don't get to have it both ways. you can't criticize NDP politicians for doing the exact same thing Harper did 15 years ago. it's the definition of hypocrisy.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> the conservatives don't get to have it both ways. you can't criticize NDP politicians for doing the exact same thing Harper did 15 years ago. it's the definition of hypocrisy.


Also the definition of a politician.beejacon


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> leaders should lead. i suspect most of the MPs know much more about the registry than most of their constituents. If the voters feel betrayed by them i'm sure they'll suffer the consequences in the next election.
> 
> (which is not to say i'm in favor of the registry and think it should stay - to be frank i don't know the true cost, or even how to crunch the numbers to see if it's worth it for the public. at some point we have to trust our elected officials to make those choices)


I read (more like skimmed) the Auditor General's report on the costs of the Canadian Firearms Programme post C-68 and the information provided was so poor that they basically gave up after calling it the worst case of overruns they ever saw. LOL 

There are other partnerships involved, both public (other agencies/ministries) and private. The private sector partners involved are out of the auditor's purview, but costs are estimated at an additional 1B per year for all partners in the programme.



i-rui said:


> so why did he vote against it in the final vote? If it was just a small portion of the overall bill he should have still voted for it in the final vote instead of flip flopping the third time to toe the party line.
> 
> the conservatives don't get to have it both ways. you can't criticize NDP politicians for doing the exact same thing Harper did 15 years ago. it's the definition of hypocrisy.


I'd like to think that he voted based on his constituent's wishes once they were known to him. I don't know his true motivations 15 years ago, but in this particular case, I would stop short at calling him a hypocrite .


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

The only way the long gun registry is going to get serious is if they have a drive by.

I'm sure they've amassed enough enemies by now on the hill or is that the grassy knoll.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Lethal and Legal: Rifles and Cars*



> In my view, the registration of cars and the licensing of drivers constitute the perfect analogy for the registration and licensing of gun owners and users. Think about it. Both cars and guns are, in effect, dangerous weapons.
> 
> They can and do kill people, and not always intentionally. But we long ago accepted the fact that the state had a role to play in making sure that those who “use” cars, that is, drivers, must go through an education and training process and prove their abilities through a licensing procedure.
> 
> At the same time, owners of cars must duly register them with the government, providing the make, model, and serial number of their vehicles in order to obtain a license plate – a prerequisite for taking a car onto a road. Indeed, we believe it is important for law enforcement authorities to be able to track down stolen vehicles, or in the case of accidents or police chases, to be able to trace vehicles to owners via the license plate and registration information.


(TheMarkNews)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Let the knife registry begin!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I've hidden all my cutlery.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I've hidden all my cutlery.


I think they only want to register the long knives, SINC.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Is the fillet knife a long knife? The meat cleaver???


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Let the knife registry begin!


Ah, the Slippery Slope, one of my favourite logical fallacies.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah, so the pocket knife I have carried since childhood and cut nothing alive but an apple or tomato stem is OK then? That's a relief! Come to think of it the last long gun I sold hadn't been fired in 20 years and it's last victim was a beer can.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Come to think of it the last long gun I sold hadn't been fired in 20 years and it's last victim was a beer can.


I'm glad to hear that. I can think of no happy circumstances in which a gun would be necessary or desirable. Obviously, for a very small number of Canadians, they are unfortunately important tools, but anything the government does to get guns out of the hands of the general public is probably good for society.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Ah, so the pocket knife I have carried since childhood and cut nothing alive but an apple or tomato stem is OK then? That's a relief! Come to think of it the last long gun I sold hadn't been fired in 20 years and it's last victim was a beer can.


Never understood why any one would want to kill a beer can. I much preferred using bricks as targets. Though full shaken soda cans also exploded in a most satisfying manner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'm glad to hear that. I can think of no happy circumstances in which a gun would be necessary or desirable. Obviously, for a very small number of Canadians, they are unfortunately important tools, but anything the government does to get guns out of the hands of the general public is probably good for society.


Very good for authoritarian governments at any rate.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Very good for authoritarian governments at any rate.


While our current government clearly leans in that direction, anyone who thinks their gun collection protects them in any way from the authorities is a danger to themselves and the people around them.

What authoritarian governments fear is free access to information, communication, education, and alternate points of view. Guns contribute to none of these, which is why Conservatives like to keep people's attention focused on them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Never understood why any one would want to kill a beer can. I much preferred using bricks as targets. Though full shaken soda cans also exploded in a most satisfying manner.


That beer can was shaken, not stirred and exploded quite nicely.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> While our current government clearly leans in that direction, anyone who thinks their gun collection protects them in any way from the authorities is a danger to themselves and the people around them.
> 
> What authoritarian governments fear is free access to information, communication, education, and alternate points of view. Guns contribute to none of these, which is why Conservatives like to keep people's attention focused on them.



I'm sure you would have been horrified by the American Revolution. Nasty, nasty business that.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm sure you would have been horrified by the American Revolution.


Indeed, and I would be equally horrified at anyone naive enough to think that anything even remotely comparable could happen in a developed country today.

There is no conflict between recognizing the importance of technologies like personal firearms in history hundreds of years ago, and their irrelevance to the same issues today. Personal computers (or, more precisely, access to an un-regulated internet) are vastly more important to civil freedoms today than are personal firearms. If the gun-nuts in the U.S. and Canada had a clue about how modern society works, they'd be far more concerned about the erosion of net nutrality than things like the gun registry or other legal restrictions on firearms.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> That beer can was shaken, not stirred and exploded quite nicely.


Presumably American beer. Otherwise we are certainly talking sacrilege if not treason.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Indeed it was an Old Milwaukee, purchased during one of those prolonged beer strikes way back when.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Indeed, and I would be equally horrified at anyone naive enough to think that anything even remotely comparable could happen in a developed country today.
> 
> There is no conflict between recognizing the importance of technologies like personal firearms in history hundreds of years ago, and their irrelevance to the same issues today. Personal computers (or, more precisely, access to an un-regulated internet) are vastly more important to civil freedoms today than are personal firearms. If the gun-nuts in the U.S. and Canada had a clue about how modern society works, they'd be far more concerned about the erosion of net nutrality than things like the gun registry or other legal restrictions on firearms.


+1 Very well put.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Indeed, and I would be equally horrified at anyone naive enough to think that anything even remotely comparable could happen in a developed country today.
> 
> There is no conflict between recognizing the importance of technologies like personal firearms in history hundreds of years ago, and their irrelevance to the same issues today. Personal computers (or, more precisely, access to an un-regulated internet) are vastly more important to civil freedoms today than are personal firearms. If the gun-nuts in the U.S. and Canada had a clue about how modern society works, they'd be far more concerned about the erosion of net nutrality than things like the gun registry or other legal restrictions on firearms.


The internet could be shut down with a kill switch in under a day.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The internet could be shut down with a kill switch in under a day.


Link? As I understand it, the paranoid military types who designed the TCP/IP protocol inadvertently created something that works very well in terms of dealing with that sort of thing. Because the designers of ARPA net were thinking in terms of nuclear strikes, if a node on the net goes down, the net just routes around it. Now, if some government censors or shuts down a major backbone node, the same design features will simply route data around the 'dead' node.

I'm sure a concerted effort to knock out major hubs would negatively impact network traffic, but as far as I know, no one has a 'kill switch' that could shut down the internet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Link? As I understand it, the paranoid military types who designed the TCP/IP protocol inadvertently created something that works very well in terms of dealing with that sort of thing. Because the designers of ARPA net were thinking in terms of nuclear strikes, if a node on the net goes down, the net just routes around it. Now, if some government censors or shuts down a major backbone node, the same design features will simply route data around the 'dead' node.
> 
> I'm sure a concerted effort to knock out major hubs would negatively impact network traffic, but as far as I know, no one has a 'kill switch' that could shut down the internet.


Internet 'Kill Switch' Approved By Senate Homeland Security Committee



> The bill, sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, and Tom Carper, would give the president "emergency authority to shut down private sector or government networks in the event of a cyber attack capable of causing massive damage or loss of life." The original bill granted the president the authority to "indefinitely" shut down networks, but an amendment to the PCNAA, approved yesterday, mandates that the president "get Congressional approval after controlling a network for 120 days."


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Nature can shut down the internet - Solar flare to ‘paralyse Earth’ in 2013 | The Sun |News


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

an internet "kill switch"? Is this some kind of lunatic right wing gizmo shoot 'em up new toy?

I'm sure that also costs billions, and billions of dollars too.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Nature can (and inevitably will) certainly wipe out the internet, and anything else we've built, but the internet is international. I'm sure if the US shut down their network, it would cause a major disruption for the rest of the world, but it wouldn't "shut down the internet" so describing it as an "internet kill switch" is hyperbole.

Cheers

Edit to add: I do agree that this is the sort of thing that people who value their freedom should be worrying about. The ability of Homeland Security to monitor and control communications is far more worrisome than any legislation that might limit the access private citizens have to firearms.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

For those who thought a knife registry was simply absurd I present the following link from Don's SAP site: mybirdie.ca

Terry Pratchett creates a sword with meteorites | News.com.au

Interesting article about a recently knighted author who forged his own sword.

At the end of the article is this:



> ...also said he had thrown in "several pieces of meteorites — thunderbolt iron, you see — highly magical, you’ve got to chuck that stuff in whether you believe in it or not".
> 
> After days of hammering the metal into bars, he took it to a blacksmith, whom he helped to shape it into a blade, which was finished with silverwork.
> 
> ...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The private member's bill to dismantle the registry has been defeated 153 to 151.

Ah well, what's another billion to continue this boondoggle, because that is what it'll take to now register the "other" 6 million unregistered firearms believed to be in existence. :lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> The private member's bill to dismantle the registry has been defeated 153 to 151.
> 
> Ah well, what's another billion to continue this boondoggle, because that is what it'll take to now register the "other" 6 million unregistered firearms believed to be in existence. :lmao:


Let's see what this does does to the NDP's standing in the next poll...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

This made me laugh hard.

So now Harper is off being man on the world stage begging for 2 seats on the UN. I see it all over the news over and over.

Someone had pictures of who Harper was actually speaking to. 

Politics


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Let's see what this does does to the NDP's standing in the next poll...


I'd expect this to give them a small bump. People who oppose gun control wouldn't vote NDP anyway, and many, like me, who would consider voting NDP but generally find them ineffectual, will see this as evidence that they can actually accomplish something of value.

I'll still probably vote green, but this gives me something to think about.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'd expect this to give them a small bump. People who oppose gun control wouldn't vote NDP anyway, and many, like me, who would consider voting NDP but generally find them ineffectual, will see this as evidence that they can actually accomplish something of value.
> 
> I'll still probably vote green, but this gives me something to think about.


I believe that until the NDP can prove they have a basic understanding of Junior High math skills, most Canadians will not vote for them.

OTH the current con crowd obviously has also forgotten the exorbitant price of instant gratification.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> *I'd expect this to give them a small bump. People who oppose gun control wouldn't vote NDP anyway*, and many, like me, who would consider voting NDP but generally find them ineffectual, will see this as evidence that they can actually accomplish something of value.
> 
> I'll still probably vote green, but this gives me something to think about.


You miss the point. There were 10 NDP members who initially voted in favour of scraping the registry all from rural ridings. The flip flop will not go over well. There are plenty of rural NDP supporters who oppose the registry. Also urban NDP supporters don't like the fact that Layton didn't whip his MPs and that the vote was so close. I can only assume you haven't kept up with the politics of this issue and how it breaks down demographically and regionally. 

For example here is an article from today by Chantal Hébert, one of this countries most astute political analysts:

Hébert: Why a fall election could work for Stephen Harper



> A recent Harris-Decima poll documented the damage. It showed a substantial slip in NDP support among female voters and in the big urban markets of Central Canada. In Ontario, the NDP was virtually tied with the Green Party; in gun-registry-sensitive Quebec, the New Democrats have fallen to last place, behind the Greens.
> 
> With numbers like that, Layton has cause to bend over backwards to avoid fighting an election while the registry episode is still fresh in voters’ minds—even if it requires swallowing a few Conservative poison pills to keep the current Parliament going.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> You miss the point. There were 10 NDP members who initially voted in favour of scraping the registry all from rural ridings. The flip flop will not go over well. There are plenty of rural NDP supporters who oppose the registry. Also urban NDP supporters don't like the fact that Layton didn't whip his MPs and that the vote was so close. I can only assume you haven't kept up with the politics of this issue and how it breaks down demographically and regionally.
> 
> For example here is an article from today by Chantal Hébert, one of this countries most astute political analysts:
> 
> Hébert: Why a fall election could work for Stephen Harper


Most city voters willingly accept the concept that the job of an MP is to vote according to the demands of his party or the PM. Rural voters believe the job of an MP is to represent the views of his regions voters to Parliament. The first concept is one version of corporate democracy and, as the name implies, corporations usually tell the parties what their views should be. The rural point of view is called representative democracy and is sadly MIA throughout the world.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Most city voters willingly accept the concept that the job of an MP is to vote according to the demands of his party or the PM. Rural voters believe the job of an MP is to represent the views of his regions voters to Parliament. The first concept is one version of corporate democracy and, as the name implies, corporations usually tell the parties what their views should be. The rural point of view is called representative democracy and is sadly MIA throughout the world.


Exactement! Bien sûr.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*If only there was a law...*

Thought Jack & Iggy fixed this the other day...

In COTU:



> A shooting in the city's northwest end left two men dead Wednesday night.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, long gun registry supporters can take a collective bow. The registry is working wonders at preventing shooting deaths.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yep, long gun registry supporters can take a collective bow. The registry is working wonders at preventing shooting deaths.


Good news. Everyone registered with the Long Gun Registry has been cleared!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Good news. Everyone registered with the Long Gun Registry has been cleared!


:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just how "long" were the guns used in these deaths? My bet is about eight inches.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it never ceases to amuse me watching conservatives shriek about banning prostitution and drugs, yet suddenly spending millions billions in enforcing bans don't work with guns.

funny that.
:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> it never ceases to amuse me watching conservatives shriek about banning prostitution and drugs, yet suddenly spending millions billions in enforcing bans don't work with guns.
> 
> funny that.
> :lmao:


And it never ceases to amaze me how any comment by anyone you disagree with is "shrieking". 

You've been looking at that avatar of yours far too long and it's stuck in your mind.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it isn't about disagreeing, it's about spotting the obvious hypocrisy.

Nice skate around it though.

"Bans only work on things I dislike."

Makes sense...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> it never ceases to amuse me watching conservatives shriek about banning prostitution and drugs, yet suddenly spending millions billions in enforcing bans don't work with guns.
> 
> funny that.
> :lmao:


Well, given the number of hookers in Toronto alone, a National Hooker Registry would probably top 10 billion...and given the number of pot smokers, the National Pot Smokers Registry would be pushed into the trillions.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*If only there was a law...*

Hey, the cops must have accessed the registry in order to find these underage perpetrators! I'm sure the firearm was legally registered to one of them.

School gunfire prompts 3 arrests

Once again, from COTU.

No word yet from Mayor Miller's office on which gun club they belong to...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL: I think you have to be 18 years old to be in the registry, so these boys get a free pass!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sadly, no mention of just how "long" the gun was. My bet is about eight inches though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> And it never ceases to amaze me how any comment by anyone you disagree with is "shrieking".


Well, SINC, let's face it, the steel-trap logical mind would naturally jump to the conclusion that if you disagree with the Long Gun Registry, you also naturally disagree with laws of all kind!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Sadly, no mention of just how "long" the gun was. My bet is about eight inches though.


Naw these were 5#!tfaced punks. Three inches tops!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*If only there was a law...*

Once (cough-twice) more, from the Center Of The Universe:

Linky.



> A 20-year-old man was found shot to death near a Parkdale primary school early Monday morning.


But wait! Maybe the cops can check the national knife registry!



> Officers are also trying to determine if the slaying was related to another shooting around 1 a.m., about three kilometres away on Ryerson Avenue in the Alexandra Park neighbourhood. In that incident, a man in his 20s is expected to live after being shot and cut with a knife.


More here.

So, Tranna, how's that gun registry working for you?

Has Mayor Miller informed you as to which gun club these fine, upstanding, law abiding, gun-registering citizens belong to? Should only be a matter of hours before arrests are executed, after accessing the national database. Right?

'Course, it coulda bin just some dumb farmer, out with his .22, plinking some gophers in the wee hours and missing his target. Nah, musta bin a illegal moose hunter with his trusty .308, a pickup truck an' a spotlight...

If yer not pi$$ed off yet, maybe you need to check for a pulse. Maybe some of the billions that's been frittered away on a useless long gun registry could have been better utilized by putting more law enforcement bodies on the pavement to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place. Maybe you've just got that cityfied, "Sucks to be you, glad it wasn't me, look the other way" attitude and life just goes on.

Or, for some, not...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*If only there was a law...*

Police are busy combing through the National Long Gun Registry for persons involved in this shooting in COTU.

No word from Mayor Miller's office as to which gun club the killers belonged to.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All that wasted time combing through the long gun registry when we should instead establish a short gun registry.

Oh, wait, we did that way back in the 1930s.

Do you suppose that *gasp* they used illegal, unregistered guns imported from the U.S.?

They wouldn't do that, would they?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> They wouldn't do that, would they?


Nope, that would be criminal!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

so we should just abolish all gun licensing because criminals don't use that either?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The hand gun registry and the stringent laws governing their use are among the toughest in the world and has worked successfully for eighty years. The long gun registry is an expensive waste of time and money that penalizes innocent long gun owners. The vast majority of murders on Canadian city streets happen with illegally imported hand guns from the U.S. and there is no way in hell we will ever stop it. Read the stories of the rash of killings in TO recently and it will bear out that fact.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

What I don't understand is why the PAL/FAC and all the firearms related registries were not amalgamated into one database. If you're legally entitled to purchase a firearm (long or short), just the act of buying that firearm should put that gun on your record automatically. It's those separate bureaucratic layers of permits and registration that don't even talk to one another that make things far too much of a pain in the butt for legitimate users and cause excessive costs.

It should be really simple: Scan my acquisition permit, scan the firearm, and it's done. One single database gets automatically updated.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Too simple, bsenka. Doesn't employ enough bureaucrats. The gubbmint has to do its part to provide full employment for the nation! No, we need complex and unwieldy systems, with plenty of redundant redundancy.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> The hand gun registry and the stringent laws governing their use are among the toughest in the world and has worked successfully for eighty years. The long gun registry is an expensive waste of time and money that penalizes innocent long gun owners. The vast majority of murders on Canadian city streets happen with illegally imported hand guns from the U.S. and there is no way in hell we will ever stop it. Read the stories of the rash of killings in TO recently and it will bear out that fact.


ok, but your whole point is criminals don't register their illegal guns, so if that's the reason the long gun registry is bad and doesn't work why doesn't your reasoning extend to all gun licensing?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> ok, but your whole point is criminals don't register their illegal guns, so if that's the reason the long gun registry is bad and doesn't work why doesn't your reasoning extend to all gun licensing?


Realistically it does. However for many rural residents there are very valid reasons to own and use long guns. Pistols are intended mainly for, but not limited to, use against other people. That is the difference. 

I truly doubt that registering handguns has prevented or helped solve a single murder or assault. If some one wants a handgun but does not qualify they will acquire it illegally and the license be ****ed. 

Even so I do support handgun licensing simply because it makes ordinary people really think twice about the need for owning one.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not to mention that hand guns can be easily concealed. Long guns not so much unless altered illegally by sawing off the barrel. Anyone walking into a public area with a long gun raises flags immediately. A pistol in a purse or pocket attracts no attention and gets a user close to the target with usually fatal results.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Even so I do support handgun licensing simply because it makes ordinary people really think twice about the need for owning one.


couldn't you say the same thing for the long gun registry?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> couldn't you say the same thing for the long gun registry?


Nope. I do support the idea that anyone purchasing a long gun through a dealer, has to prove that he has recently passed a firearms safety test and a hunter safety course. I even support a seven day delay between the purchase and the delivery of the firearm.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

so you're for all of that, but to have them register the long gun is going too far?

You see, i understand that there may be an issue with the cost of the program vs the benefit it offers our society. I get that. That's a valid argument.

But the argument that the LGR is useless because it didn't stop crimes committed with illegal hand guns is stupid. No law could stop those crimes. It's a separate issue. Gun licenses don't stop those crimes, yet we still have them.

And then to justify the need for a firearms license because it acts as a deterrent to people who may want a gun, but then to dismiss that the LGR could also act as an additional layer of deterrent is just selective reasoning and justification for your personal stance on the issue. You're not applying the same reasoning across the board.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Gun safety testing and hunter safety courses do not cost taxpayers $Billion$ for what is really only a database and completely ineffective in preventing or solving crimes.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> On Friday morning, after police received a call that a man had made death threats online, investigators traced the computer to a home in north-end Montreal. *They used the federal gun registry to determine the presence of weapons in the house.
> 
> “I know some people want to eliminate it, but the registry helped us,”* Sgt. Gagné said.





> Police began pounding on doors in the dark of night, alerting neighbours on the sleepy street in Montreal to avoid windows and take cover.
> 
> “Stay indoors,” they ordered Boris Pavlin, a home renovator, who’d been awoken by police just before 2 a.m.
> 
> Guns drawn, police had swarmed a neighbourhood in north-end Montreal to make an arrest, barely 24 hours after receiving a tip that someone had made death threats online against former teachers and classmates.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Not sure how the gun registry would have helped here.

The man made death threats. Registered or not the cops should and would assume he was lethally armed. 

The registry could have hurt had it shown he had a .22 rifle when he actually had a UZI or an AK47.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

> On Friday morning, after police received a call that a man had made death threats online, investigators traced the computer to a home in north-end Montreal. They used the federal gun registry to determine the presence of weapons in the house.
> 
> “I know some people want to eliminate it, but the registry helped us,” Sgt. Gagné said.


So, what's the thrust here? If there were no guns noted in the registry then there was absolutely no chance of guns being in the house?

Horsesh!t...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> So, what's the thrust here? If there were no guns noted in the registry then there was absolutely no chance of guns being in the house?
> 
> Horsesh!t...


Relax dere boys, eh? Registry is clean as a whistle!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Any cop who takes the data of the registry as absolute truth will be a dead cop. Illegal guns are an epidemic in this country and not a one of 'em are on the registry.

Did you notice the cop that stated the registry "helped" them is a supervisor who sent a front line cop in to do the real work and face the unknown? Good grief, how gullible can people be to think the registry serves any real purpose?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> Any cop who takes the data of the registry as absolute truth will be a dead cop.


what if instead of taking it as "absolute truth" they take it as valuable intel that they can base their response & tactics on?

the police can't universally go in securing a ten block perimeter with 2 swat teams every time they knock on someones door.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> what if instead of taking it as "absolute truth" they take it as valuable intel that they can base their response & tactics on?


Sure thing. Here is an example: 

Suicidal man is holed up in house. 
Concerned family call cops. 
Cops check registry and find no weapons in house. 
Cops send negotiator to the door. 
Suicidal man has recently obtained illegal handgun on black market. 
He opens door and shoots cop.

Now, tell me about the value of that registry.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what genius thinks for one second a cop will "send a negotiator to the front door" of a suicidal person and abandon any caution?

Is this for real???


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

just because the registry says there's no guns in the house doesn't mean the police will instantly neglect all of their protocol and and years of training.

it's a tool. it gives them a basic idea of possible firearms a person might have. it doesn't mean they go in to situations with their head up their ass if the registry comes back negative.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

How can anyone form a proper opinion on this incident when the article provides absolutely no further detail as to what was found, seized or otherwise discovered. What was the nature of the threats he was posting and who was threatened? 

This is the reason I pay no heed to much of what is reported in the media. The BS is staggering. Where are the pictures of the seized firearms? All they showed was a picture he used online, nowhere did it indicate those were in his possession. My guess is that image was found on the internet and not his.


I question the overzealousness of the cops too, but I'll leave that to their own devices.

From what I see, the registry didn't do anything except gave the SWAT team some adrenaline time. It didn't prevent anything, the guy hung himself by making public threats.

If the guy is a nut job....good riddance. Seize his firearms, revoke his license, bar him from ever owning a firearm again and punish him for the threats.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> what if instead of taking it as "absolute truth" they take it as valuable intel that they can base their response & tactics on?
> 
> the police can't universally go in securing a ten block perimeter with 2 swat teams every time they knock on someones door.


SWAT team deployments are overkill probably 80-90% of the time. I am sure those involved know this and view many deployments along the same lines as a fire drill. Those sending them out no doubt think along the lines of having to prove these teams are worth the dollars being sunk into them.

As to whether these teams are being used as a tool to intimidate the general public? Probably depends on the jurisdiction. If you are reading about them being deployed on a daily basis this probably is part of the equation.beejacon

In any event I seriously doubt that GR information has any impact on the deployment decision. A pacifist that keeps an UZI in his house is much less of a threat than a psychopathic killer armed with an axe or a chainsaw.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> In any event I seriously doubt that GR information has any impact on the deployment decision.


i disagree. it's obviously part of the equation when police deploy officers to a home. if the police didn't factor in that info then they wouldn't have backed the registry. (Tories are the biggest supporters of police power....best not to bite the hand that feeds).


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i disagree. it's obviously part of the equation when police deploy officers to a home. if the police didn't factor in that info then they wouldn't have backed the registry. (Tories are the biggest supporters of police power....best not to bite the hand that feeds).


The inaccuracies of the registry have been well documented over the past few years. Given that one of two things is just waiting to happen. 

Sooner or later SWAT teams will be deployed to a home that has no weapons whatsoever, but shows several threatening firearms in the registry. Nervous SWAT members annihilate an innocent family. 

Or SWAT is not deployed because no weapons are shown in the registry. Couple of unsuspecting cops blown away.

It's naive I suppose but one at least hopes that a SWAT deployment depends entirely on what is known of the individual being confronted. Having weapons in a household says absolutely nothing about how willing or unwilling an individual is to use the weapons in a manner dangerous to himself, others or the police. Similarly having no registered firearms has nothing to do with an individuals state of mind or his ability to steal or even create a deadly weapon.

I am sure that the cop seeing a live grenade tossed his way will in no way reassured that the tosser is not in the registry.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Firearm murders down in Canada: StatsCan*



> Homicide rates across Canada are stagnant and the number of them committed using firearms has dropped considerably, according to new figures that are raising questions about the Conservative government's tough-on-crime agenda.
> 
> The latest homicide study released Tuesday by Statistics Canada shows there were 179 firearm-related killings in 2009, 21 fewer than the previous year. Most of them involved handguns which are tightly controlled in Canada.


(VancouverSun)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> *Firearm murders down in Canada: StatsCan*
> 
> 
> 
> (VancouverSun)


You DID notice this didn't you? 



> Most of them involved handguns which are tightly controlled in Canada.


Now, just how many of those hand guns were legally registered in Canada? My bet is none.

Once again making the long gun registry useless.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Once again making the long gun registry useless.


Uh... I'm having a little trouble with your logic, SINC.

Let me see if I have it right

1) Long guns and hand guns are both lethal weapons.
2) We've recently started registering long guns
3) Gun crime is now reduced; and consists primarily of crimes committed with unregistered handguns.
---
4) therefore we should not register long guns.

It's step 4 I don't get. How does the fact that gun crime is down, and only the *very hard to police* handguns remain a major problem support the conclusion that we should undo the progress we've made regulating long guns?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> ... progress we've made regulating long guns?


What progress do you speak of? That long guns have successfully been registered? Or that by registering long guns gun crime has fallen? Something else?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

FeXL said:


> What progress do you speak of? That long guns have successfully been registered? Or that by registering long guns gun crime has fallen?


Certainly that gun crime has fallen is progress. Wether this was caused by increased registration or merely correlated with it is impossible to say because we can't do the control experiment.

But it doesn't make any sense to get rid of the registry now, given that we've already done the work and spent way more money on it than we should have. It's possible that it isn't really helping much, but it's more probable that it is helping, so if we got rid of it and crime went back up, we'd have to spend all that money all over again to re-establish it.

It's in place now, and it certainly isn't hurting anything, so leave it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Uh... I'm having a little trouble with your logic, SINC.
> 4) therefore we should not register long guns.
> 
> It's step 4 I don't get. How does the fact that gun crime is down, and only the *very hard to police* handguns remain a major problem support the conclusion that we should undo the progress we've made regulating long guns?


The logic behind step four is that it was never long guns that posed the threat so the money wasted on the registry program was of no value.

Spending that money to make illegal handguns harder to obtain would make some real sense and save many lives.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Spending that money to make illegal handguns harder to obtain would make some real sense and save many lives.


I completely agree. But that money has already been spent. What it seems to me you're arguing is that, having spent that money, we should now throw away that which it was spent on.

Unless you can go back in time, you can't get that money back. So let's keep the long gun registry, and move forward with a focus on restricting handguns.



> The logic behind step four is that it was never long guns that posed the threat so the money wasted on the registry program was of no value.


To support this contention, you'd have to be able to show that long guns have not been used in crimes. I'm not an expert in this field, but I strongly suspect that, historically, long guns *have* been used in crimes, and therefore that more stringent regulation of gun ownership is having a desirable effect on reducing this problem.

So while it's entirely possible (and I argue even probable) that the decision to spend that money on the long gun registry was *inefficient*, it was not *of no value*. Suboptimal sure, but still not worthless. Getting rid of the long gun registry would mean that the expense of creating it was *completely* wasted.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Getting rid of the long gun registry would mean that the expense of creating it was *completely* wasted.


Actually getting rid of the registry (or simply leaving it intact but not adding to it) would stop the waste and free up ongoing maintenance costs as funds to be redirected at reducing handgun smuggling from the U.S., a much better use of the tax dollars wasted on maintaining the registry.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and we all have seen how well Harper and crew have made good use of our tax dollars the last few years.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Certainly that gun crime has fallen is progress. Wether this was caused by increased registration or merely correlated with it is impossible to say because we can't do the control experiment.


Agreed. No way to associate the two, either way.

Let's arbitrarily scale this, do some math, shall we? I'd consider this a 0, neither a plus nor a minus.



bryanc said:


> But it doesn't make any sense to get rid of the registry now, given that we've already done the work and spent way more money on it than we should have.


So we should continue to fund a gov't program that can't justify its existence in any measurable fashion, aside from providing jobs? More good money after bad? Not.

Oh, sure, it's only costing taxpayers $4M/year. Again, not. There have been several easily searchable news reports recently that indicate $66M is a far more accurate figure. -1.



bryanc said:


> It's possible that it isn't really helping much, but it's more probable that it is helping, so if we got rid of it and crime went back up, we'd have to spend all that money all over again to re-establish it.
> 
> It's in place now, and it certainly isn't hurting anything, so leave it.


Possible & probable & if add up to SFA. Can you cite a single example of the long gun registry helping any law enforcement agency? I'm not talking about calling up and asking if there are any firearms registered at a particular address. Any law enforcement agent who goes into any situation assuming that there are no firearms present is a fool and a short lived one, at that. 

I'm talking about finding a perpetrator by tracing the S/N on a long gun to its owner. That was the sole raison d'être of the registry. Go ahead & search but you will not find a single instance. Ergo, the registry is not accomplishing what it was set out to do, therefore it's value is 0. Get rid of it and put the money into something constructive. Like hand gun control. -1.

With a single neutral, 2 negatives and zero positives, there is no way the long gun registry should remain extant.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

FeXL said:


> With a single neutral, 2 negatives and zero positives, there is no way the long gun registry should remain extant.


This analysis is not consistent with the information law enforcement analysts have used to conclude that the gun registry is valuable to them. As someone who is not an expert in the field, I will take the word of the law enforcement analysts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This analysis is not consistent with the information law enforcement analysts have used to conclude that the gun registry is valuable to them. As someone who is not an expert in the field, I will take the word of the law enforcement analysts.


Scuttling away, tail between legs.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> This analysis is not consistent with the information law enforcement analysts have used to conclude that the gun registry is valuable to them. As someone who is not an expert in the field, I will take the word of the law enforcement analysts.


Why is it that the guys driving desks all day, namely analysts and police chiefs, are the ones supporting the registry and the ones calling BS are the guys spending the day in the trenches?

I'll give you a hint. The analyst is trying to keep his job, justifying his position by churning out volumes of garbage he knows the chief wants to hear. Coincidently, so is the police chief, by appearing to cater to the squeaky wheel, the bleeding heart lefties.

The flatfoot in the trenches realizes the exact value of the registry and would love to see some of that wasted money invested on extra uniforms on the street.

Interesting dichotomy, no? So, who is right? I'll take the perspective of someone in the trenches any day over some pompous self-serving bureaucrat, thankyouverymuch.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

fexl said:


> why is it that the guys driving desks all day, namely analysts and police chiefs, are the ones supporting the registry and the ones calling bs are the guys spending the day in the trenches?
> 
> I'll give you a hint. The analyst is trying to keep his job, justifying his position by churning out volumes of garbage he knows the chief wants to hear. Coincidently, so is the police chief, by appearing to cater to the squeaky wheel, the bleeding heart lefties.
> 
> ...


^^^^ +1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

emacman said:


> ^^^^ +1


+1


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Scuttling away, tail between legs.


I guess the concept of "agree to disagree" is foreign to you. I'm willing to accept that the data necessary to settle this argument is not available to either of us without denigrating your position. Or are you arguing that you do have sufficient empirical data to settle this argument? If that is the case, I'm always open to being corrected.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Why is it that the guys driving desks all day, namely analysts and police chiefs, are the ones supporting the registry and the ones calling BS are the guys spending the day in the trenches?
> 
> I'll give you a hint. The analyst is trying to keep his job, justifying his position by churning out volumes of garbage he knows the chief wants to hear. Coincidently, so is the police chief, by appearing to cater to the squeaky wheel, the bleeding heart lefties.
> 
> ...


I'm sure there are some officers that don't support the LGR, but to paint it the way you do is 100% false.

The Canadian Police Association supports it, and that would be the best gauge to read how the MAJORITY of police generally feel about it.

Police Associations Campaign For Gun Registry - CityNews


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

How much say do you really think the "frontline" cops have in what the police chiefs (aka Canadian Police Association) endorse?

Once again. The police chiefs are trying to stay employed by working towards the loudest common denominator.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards all backed the LGR.

the Canadian Police Association is NOT the police chiefs. It's 55,000 members are from across the country and have various positions.

Canadian Police Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

With everything that has been published, the Boondoggle Bunch has as yet to site a single example where the long gun database has prevented a crime. They have not even managed to come up with a single example of the registry solving an otherwise unsolvable crime.

If the data base was as useful as claimed then clearly this thread would have at least a hundred different examples. Instead we have nada. Great return on more than $1,000,000,000.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^ +1

BUT then there are those who think the CPA position is that of front line cops.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> ^ +1
> 
> BUT then there are those who think the CPA position is that of front line cops.


so none of the 55,000 officers that make up the CPA are front line cops?



wow, that's a lot of police chiefs.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> ...then there are those who think the CPA position is that of front line cops.


I only know 3 front line cops personally, so my data is anecdotal at best. But I'll trust the stats and the professional analysts (who concur with the cops I know) rather than the RWPs (Right Wing Pundits) on this issue until some conflicting data emerges. 

Fundamentally, this is a tempest in a teapot; gun owners are understandably annoyed at the beurocratic intrusion into their hitherto untrammeled domain... Poor babies. They get no sympathy from me. If you want to play with guns, I think you should be burried in forms, and watched by authorities every minute you have access to a loaded gun. Don't like it? Give up hunting an take up photography.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

bryanc, let me guess ...you live in a city........


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> you live in a city....


If 50k counts as a city. I can thow a rock an hit wilderness. Before Fredericton I lived about 30 minutes outside of Edmonton. I knew lots of hunters then and even more now (indeed I'm supervising two graduate students who's research projects depend on their collection parasitic nematodes from moose brains that they have to get from hunters), but I stll view hunting as a barbaric activity that I'd like to see go extinct. 

Living in a rural environment has never required an affinity for firearms.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> With everything that has been published, the Boondoggle Bunch has as yet to site a single example where the long gun database has prevented a crime.


Look, you guys need to take a chill pill. I mean, really. The vast majority of the money wasted is lost - the annual operating cost (noted earlier in this thread) is relatively insignificant. The LGR does serve a purpose of informing police of the kinds of weapons they may potentially face when entering a home, and also serves as one of the many investigative tools that help to solve crimes once they have occurred (no idea how you got the "otherwise unsolveable" bit). Would you rather the cops have no idea where Long Guns used in crime may have come from?

This is much ado about something that has already happened. Continuing to use the LGR as a rallying crime against government waste is, frankly, a waste of time that should be put into other meaningful matters relating to crime in Canada.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Bryanc,

While we're using personal anecdotes, My Conservative MP is a cop. I'm trusting what she says. Specifically, that the support for the registry that the Chiefs are claiming to have is simply not there.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

bryanc I am not a hunter, nor do I like guns of any type, however my family lived in central Alberta ... horse and cattle country. There would be many a rancher who might disagree, since the wolves, rabid foxes, dogs, and what not seldom take "go away" for an answer. I think we both know that this is a city driven issue.... "Guns are bad and let's penalize those who have them"..... I believe the cost is a secondary issue. If we really looked at cost to raise rage let's talk helicopters, meeting room renovations, say, how about the war in Afghanistan...... Personally the gun registry doesn't bother me, the waste of money is a concern, but I'm sure those who are old enough to remember when driver's licenses came into force went through these same discussions.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I should add that I'm well aware of the fact that we've messed up the ecosystem enough that we can't just leave it alone and expect that everything will go back to how it was. We'd certainly need to equip wildlife managers with guns, and even if we could reintroduce predadators like wolves to areas where they've been extirpated, we'd likely have to manage populations for decades before a sustainable equilibrium was established.

But I really think that if you enjoy hunting... Not just going out into the wilderness and observing/stalking, but killing for fun, you should seek psychiatric help.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I should add that I'm well aware of the fact that we've messed up the ecosystem enough that we can't just leave it alone and expect that everything will go back to how it was. We'd certainly need to equip wildlife managers with guns, and even if we could reintroduce predadators like wolves to areas where they've been extirpated, we'd likely have to manage populations for decades before a sustainable equilibrium was established.
> 
> But I really think that if you enjoy hunting... Not just going out into the wilderness and observing/stalking, but killing for fun, you should seek psychiatric help.


Bryanc, I should preface this posting with the fact that I have never shot a gun at a living thing in my life. Reading the final section of your posting, the Lewis Black segment re hunting came to mind. Paix, mon ami.

YouTube - Hunting - Lewis Black


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

bryanc said:


> But I really think that if you enjoy hunting... Not just going out into the wilderness and observing/stalking, but killing for fun, you should seek psychiatric help.


I wouldn't go that far. I don't hunt, but i can understand the appeal, and i actually think that hunting/killing/eating an animal could help people forge a better understanding of the natural world.

Not saying it's for everyone, but indigenous cultures have built much of their traditions on the practice, and i wouldn't dismiss it as psychotic.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

cubamark said:


> look, you guys need to take a chill pill. I mean, really. The vast majority of the money wasted is lost - the annual operating cost (noted earlier in this thread) is relatively insignificant. The lgr does serve a purpose of informing police of the kinds of weapons they may potentially face when entering a home, and also serves as one of the many investigative tools that help to solve crimes once they have occurred (no idea how you got the "otherwise unsolveable" bit). Would you rather the cops have no idea where long guns used in crime may have come from?
> 
> This is much ado about something that has already happened. Continuing to use the lgr as a rallying crime against government waste is, frankly, a waste of time that should be put into other meaningful matters relating to crime in canada.


+1!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> ... rabid foxes...


Having lived in central Alberta myself for decades, and having raised (and raced) horses, ive never heard of rabid foxes bothering any one. But I agree this is an urban/rural issue. And th urbnites are right. Guns are not worth their cost to society. If we need to have more (armed) wildlife control officers to help out the ranchers (or more realistically, some birth-contol laden bait traps to keep populations undercontoll) so be it. The fact of the matter is that private citiezens rarely, if ever, have any need for firearms.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Well bryanc, for my two cents worth, I agree that private citizens rarely have need for fire arms. The question then becomes how do you control the exceptions .... which I think is the root of this thread don't you think.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

i-rui said:


> Not saying it's for everyone, but indigenous cultures have built much of their traditions on the practice, and i wouldn't dismiss it as psychotic.


Context matters. If you want to go hunting with a pointed stick, more power to ya.

I admire my ancestors who painted themselves blue and fought the Romans with rocks and tickery, but that dosent mean I feel any need to freeze my nads off in a ditch full of ice water to prove my masculinity today. Hunting had an important role in our cultural development, but we don't need it any more. People who insist on doing it today are atavisms at best.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> Well bryanc, for my two cents worth, I agree that private citizens rarely have need for fire arms. The question then becomes how do you control the exceptions .... which I think is the root of this thread don't you think.


Very strictly. But you're right that there will be exceptions.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Context matters. If you want to go hunting with a pointed stick, more power to ya.
> 
> I admire my ancestors who painted themselves blue and fought the Romans with rocks and tickery, but that dosent mean I feel any need to freeze my nads off in a ditch full of ice water to prove my masculinity today. Hunting had an important role in our cultural development, but we don't need it any more. People who insist on doing it today are atavisms at best.


I guess we can add fishing to that, rock climbing perhaps, after all who needs that...we in modern society sure don't.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, I guess when you're stuck in a lab all day for years, you begin to gasp like a fish. Real men still hunt, fish and live their lives well outside the lab experience. They even use long guns and rods and *gasp* light campfires. Damned if they don't teach their children the experience of the great outdoors.

Of course some choose to never experience anything like it, lock themselves in suburbia and shout about it. Sad really.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> I guess we can add fishing to that, rock climbing perhaps, after all who needs that...we in modern society sure don't.


Unless you screw up, rock climbing is not hurting anyone, nor robbing any wildlife of their lives or sources of food, so I don't see how that fits in. The same case can be made (albeit less compellingly) for catch-and-release fishing.

My objection is to killing for recreation...especially trophy hunting, but, given the biochemical fact that none of us needs to eat meat, much less wild meat which is part of an ecosystem from which we already take too much, it's pretty hard to justify hunting even if you're eating the creatures you're killing.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yeah, I guess when you're stuck in a lab all day for years, you begin to gasp like a fish. Real men still hunt, fish and live their lives well outside the lab experience. They even use long guns and rods and *gasp* light campfires. Damned if they don't teach their children the experience of the great outdoors.
> 
> Of course some choose to never experience anything like it, lock themselves in suburbia and shout about it. Sad really.


Or better still, those people who drive around in motorhomes complete with satellite TV, internet and all the creature comforts of home and call it camping.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Or better still, those people who drive around in motorhomes complete with satellite TV, internet and all the creature comforts of home and call it camping.


Or some just carp about anything that they think might get another's goat. Baaaaaah

My "camping" days are over. It's now touring in comfort.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Or some just carp about anything that they think might get another's goat. Baaaaaah


Glass houses SINC.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Glass houses SINC.


If your are so jealous, just blurt it out. No need to hide behind snide remarks. I've more than earned my time to enjoy the creature comforts. You keep on slogging away. You'll make it one day.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> If your are so jealous, just blurt it out. No need to hide behind snide remarks. I've more than earned my time to enjoy the creature comforts. You keep on slogging away. You'll make it one day.


It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has to do with the snide comments you make to others and the glass house which you reside.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> ...Poor babies. They get no sympathy from me. If you want to play with guns, I think you should be burried in forms, and watched by authorities every minute you have access to a loaded gun. Don't like it?* Give up hunting an take up photography.*


Do you eat meat?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Real men still hunt


Ah yes... The inevitable "Real Man" argument 

If you need to shoot defenseless wildlife to feel masculine, I pity your wife.



> Damned if they don't teach their children the experience of the great outdoors.
> 
> Of course some choose to never experience anything like it, lock themselves in suburbia and shout about it. Sad really.


I'd wager I've spent as much time in real wilderness as you have (car camping with your RV doesn't count... I mean *wilderness*... somewhere that requires hiking/kayaking for several days to get to... Somewhere where you're not at the top of the food chain). 

I don't live in suburbia *cough*stalbert*cough. And I'm a *biologist*... y'know... one of those weird scientists that study things like plants and animals... Things that are frequently found *outdoors*.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Do you eat meat?


Nope... Except as a guest at someone else's house... And oysters... I admit I have a weakness for oysters, but they have only a rudimentary CNS, they are low on the trophic pyramid, and they're farmed, so it's not as bad as other animal foods.

But this is a specious argument. Eating a given amount of sustainably farmed meat is less damaging to the environment than eating the same amount of wild meat.

I will concede that it's very tough to find sustainably farmed meat, which is the primary reason I don't eat meat (the others being to reduce unnecessary suffering and to improve my own heath).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm all up for gun ownership because I have no belief that wimps will inherit the earth. Civilization is at best a temporary state and I will protect myself, even if bryanc no longer cares to live in a world turned suddenly violent--or just waits until he's overcome.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm all up for gun ownership because I have no belief that wimps will inherit the earth. Civilization is at best a temporary state and I will protect myself, even if bryanc no longer cares to live in a world turned suddenly violent--or just waits until he's overcome.


Enjoy your fantasies Mad MaxFury. You can't shoot viruses, and that's what's comin' to get us.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Nope... *Except as a guest at someone else's house*... And oysters... I admit I have a weakness for oysters, but they have only a rudimentary CNS, they are low on the trophic pyramid, and they're farmed, so it's not as bad as other animal foods.
> *
> But this is a specious argument. Eating a given amount of sustainably farmed meat is less damaging to the environment than eating the same amount of wild meat.*
> 
> I will concede that it's very tough to find sustainably farmed meat, which is the primary reason I don't eat meat (the others being to reduce unnecessary suffering and to improve my own heath).


Oh so only when it is "polite" to do so... Is that my correct reading of your post?

Who is being specious now...?  Really? :lmao:

Are you a member of the human species....? who are predominately omnivores historically/by nature?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Who is being specious now...?  Really? :lmao:
> 
> Are you a member of the human species?


Yep, and as such I can't photosynthesis and therefore have to kill to live. I choose to kill things that can't suffer, and to minimize what I have to kill by consuming at the bottom of the trophic pyramid, rather than further up.

Can you suggest a better compromise?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Unless you screw up, rock climbing is not hurting anyone, nor robbing any wildlife of their lives or sources of food, so I don't see how that fits in. The same case can be made (albeit less compellingly) for catch-and-release fishing.
> 
> My objection is to killing for recreation...especially trophy hunting, but, given the biochemical fact that none of us needs to eat meat, much less wild meat which is part of an ecosystem from which we already take too much, it's pretty hard to justify hunting even if you're eating the creatures you're killing.


As I suspected, your argument is based solely on your personal aversion to eating meat and not on any real logical understanding of hunting.

Hunters as a group happen to contribute immensely to conservation, more so than your non hunting camper, ATV rider, rock climber, kayaker, etc. Organizations like Ducks Unlimited founded more than 70 years ago by a group of hunters have done incredible work around the world to protect wetlands and many water fowl species. Just google "hunting as conservation" and you'll get many good hits...including this one from National Geographic, Trophy Hunting Can Help African Conservation, Study Says


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Yep, and as such I can't photosynthesis and therefore have to kill to live. I choose to kill things that can't suffer, and to minimize what I have to kill by consuming at the bottom of the trophic pyramid, rather than further up.
> 
> Can you suggest a better compromise?


You conveniently avoided the first part of my post.... I understand... you need to defend yourself.... 

You have explicitly stated you make exceptions but avoided the issue, which is you have the* luxury* to make such choices... not everyone does. Are you suggesting that your choices are fundamentally morally superior to those who don't have the choices that you do due to your state of privilege?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Enjoy your fantasies Mad MaxFury. You can't shoot viruses, and that's what's comin' to get us.


Just as well the bryanc line should come to an end. Poor survival characteristics.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> You conveniently avoided the first part of my post.... I understand... you need to defend yourself....
> 
> You have explicitly stated you make exceptions but avoided the issue, which is you have the* luxury* to make such choices... not everyone does. Are you suggesting that your choices are fundamentally morally superior to those who don't have the choices that you do due to your state of privilege?


Sorry for the brevity, I'm typing on my iPad in bed, so I'm abbreviating as much as I can. 

No, I don't claim to be morally superior to someone who needs to hunt to live, but I do claim to be morally superior to someone who choses to hunt for fun.

Clear enough?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> As I suspected, your argument is based solely on your personal aversion to eating meat and not on any real logical understanding of hunting.


How did you get this?!? I was raised in Alberta on meat-and-potatoes (or perogies)... I love the taste of meat. But having studied biology and philosophy, I can't justify the unnecessary suffering, the damage to the environment, and the damage to my own body a meat-based diet causes.



> Hunters as a group happen to contribute immensely to conservation


Good for them. That's like saying we should give Microsoft a free pass regarding the anti-trust issues because Bill Gates contributes to charity. The fact that many hunters are great people doesn't justify hunting in any way.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Just as well the bryanc line should come to an end. Poor survival characteristics.


You're closer to the mark here than you might guess... Ive voluntarily limited my reproductive fitness to one child for fundamentally the same reasons I don't eat meat; I can't justify contributing to the biggest problem facing our species (and by extension a significant number of the other species on this planet), which is the growing population of humans.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Sorry for the brevity, I'm typing on my iPad in bed, so I'm abbreviating as much as I can.
> 
> No, I don't claim to be morally superior to someone who needs to hunt to live, but I do claim to be morally superior to someone who choses to hunt for fun.
> 
> Clear enough?


I would suggest to you that those who hunt for "fun" are in the minority. "Hunting" is a primordial instinct for many species.... As a pet owner I see it in my dogs every day, they don't need to hunt to eat but it is in their make up to hunt none the less. It may not not be necessary but it is intrinsic. As a scientist I would think you should understand that... Do you really think that we are so far removed from our "animal" cousins?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> How did you get this?!? I was raised in Alberta on meat-and-potatoes (or perogies)... I love the taste of meat. But having studied biology and philosophy, I can't justify the unnecessary suffering, the damage to the environment, and the damage to my own body a meat-based diet causes.


Well there you go then, those that hunt for meat eliminate environmental damage and needless suffering of production animals. Not to mention (again) contribute to conservation of both lands and the animals harvested.



bryanc said:


> Good for them. That's like saying we should give Microsoft a free pass regarding the anti-trust issues because Bill Gates contributes to charity. The fact that many hunters are great people doesn't justify hunting in any way.


Hunters aren't asking for a "free pass" or any other "pass". Facts are facts and hunting is justified on many levels.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> I would suggest to you that those who hunt for "fun" are in the minority. "Hunting" is a primordial instinct for many species.... As a pet owner I see it in my dogs every day, they don't need to hunt to eat but it is in their make up to hunt none the less. It may not not be necessary but it is intrinsic. As a scientist I would think you should understand that... Do you really think that we are so far removed from our "animal" cousins?


Nope. But in the same way that I wouldn't fault a dog for mounting an unwilling female but I would fault a young man for similarly behaving instinctually, I expect civilized human beings to master their instincts.

With understanding comes responsibility. Our ethics and morality are dependent on our rationality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Nope. But in the same way that I wouldn't fault a dog for mounting an unwilling female but I would fault a young man for similarly behaving instinctually, I expect civilized human beings to master their instincts.


I have nothing against hunting, but that's a good parry. I will let your line live a little longer.


----------



## atka (Nov 19, 2008)

I think the one question that everyone should ask themselves is what does this registry accomplish? How many crimes were committed with long guns vs handguns? I mean handguns have been restricted in this country for years and I don't think that has had any impact on the amount of crimes that have been committed with them. Also what about this giving the cops a false sense of security oh this house doesn't have any registered guns so lets not use any caution.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I guess our resident philosopher-biologist put away his ipad and went to bed.

Here's what Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources has to say about legal hunting:



> *Hunting and Wildlife Populations*
> 
> *Legal hunting does not endanger wildlife populations. In fact, it can play an important role in maintaining an abundant population within the carrying capacity of its habitat. *Those species that are hunted are managed sustainably. This management is based on sound science and long-term monitoring. The pressures on our wildlife populations today include habitat fragmentation and destruction, pollution, invasive species and unsustainable use.
> 
> ...


Source:Hunting in Ontario

Getting back on topic, here's a page of quotes from cops, including some high ranking cops (chiefs and association heads) on the registry. Compiled my MP Garry Breitkreuz:

CSSA: What Police Have Said About The Gun Registry


----------



## atka (Nov 19, 2008)

I'd have to agree with you kps I would like bryanc to answer question since he is a "biologist" not that that actually means anything since he never said he never actually said what kind of biologist he was. What is your solution to the lack of predators for wildlife found in populated areas. I mean I know the snow goose population has exploded so much it is destroying the tundra. 

As a side note what is your field of biology bryanc? Biologist doesn't really mean anything might as well say your a scientist.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

atka said:


> How many crimes were committed with long guns vs handguns?


Oh look! Someone who wants facts! Now there's a nice change.

I don't have a handy URL, but I'll bet a tour of Stats Canada (which BTW is a fantastic resource I don't think the natives appreciate nearly enough!) would produce the figures you're looking for.



> I mean handguns have been restricted in this country for years and I don't think that has had any impact on the amount of crimes that have been committed with them.


Hard to say. Gun crime has dropped overall in the time the registry has been in place, but how much of that (if any) is due to the registry? The RCMP report on the registry (which basically says "it works") would be some good reading for their "take" on how much of a role its played.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

atka said:


> What is your solution to the lack of predators for wildlife found in populated areas.


See my post earlier. The problem you're correctly pointing out is that the ecosystems are so far out of balance that they now require hunting pressure to keep populations in check. But that's not because hunting is 'natural', its because we wiped out all the predators. Basically, what you and KPS are saying is that hunting is a solution to a problem caused by hunting.

If hunting is to be used as the justification for why private citizens should be allowed to own and use firearms, then it needs to be shown that hunting by private citizens is valuable to society or is necessary for managing populations. I think its value to society is arguable at best, but it is certainly true that hunting is currently a central component of wildlife population management. My point is that this role for hunting is one artificially created by us, and it is not some sort of 'fact of nature.' If we wanted to phase out recreational hunting, that would be entirely feasible, and would necessarily increase the biodiversity and stability of the ecosystems thus managed.

We would have to re-introduce predators, and there would certainly have to be wildlife management officers who would certainly have to be armed, and who would probably have to cull herds and kill animals quite a lot initially, until a sustainable equilibrium could be re-established. However, once that equilibrium was established, the system should self-stabilize and require little, if any management by humans.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

atka said:


> As a side note what is your field of biology bryanc?


I've worked in marine biology, population ecology, biochemistry, molecular biology, developmental biology, and neurobiology. As a researcher I've specialized in developmental biology, but in addition to lots of coursework, I've done fieldwork, and I have helped out with a lot of ecology projects (most recently on the population biology and demographics of snow crabs, supervising a graduate student from DFO). The principles I'm basing these arguments on are very basic and fundamental principles of ecology and biochemistry/metabolism.

The two main concepts people need to get are firstly, that more complex food webs are generally more stable than simple food webs; so removing predator species and taking over the role of controlling prey species populations by hunting destabilizes an ecosystem. And secondly, energy transmission through trophic levels is very inefficient; eating 100 calories by consuming an animal that, in turn had been living by eating plants, generally represents taking 1000's of calories of energy out of the ecosystem. So the lower (closer to primary photosynthesizers) on the trophic pyramid you can get your food, the less impact you have on the ecosystem.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> S Basically, what you and KPS are saying is that hunting is a solution to a problem caused by hunting.
> 
> .


Wrong on both counts bryanc. 

That problem was created not by hunters but by massive encroachment by human development both urban and rural over a period of hundreds of years which continues today. During this past encroachment, predatory species were not so much hunted, but exterminated by farmers and others as vermin resulting in overpopulation of non-predatory species. The re-introduction of predators into areas inhabited by large human populations is clearly not an option. Hunting allows culling of the increased non-predatory species while raising funds for further projects. 

The fall hunting season is ideal as it reduces such populations allowing more to survive the winters and is far more humane than allowing the population to starve due to lack of food. The predatory populations are growing due to hunting bans of past causing large increases in those populations. There have been increases in incidents where predators such as wolves, coyotes and bears have come into close contact with humans. Consequently the bans have been lifted and controlled hunting of such species has been re-intoduced in some areas. The link I posted in my previous post can show you the details for Ontario.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Hunting apparently not so much. The Deer seem to have seemed to have figured out how not to be shot. The deer are doing by regulation of 400 meters. 

So it turns out it is the suburbanites and Urbanites that have the big game not the rural folks. So I guess the "townies" do have a say about the Long Gun Registry.

CBC News - New Brunswick - Deer gathering in urban areas: N.B. hunters



CBC News said:


> Deer hunters in New Brunswick say the animals are scarce in the deep woods and abundant around urban areas, where they can't be hunted.
> 
> Roland Michaud, the president of the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation, said he knows of four good hunters who spent two days in the woods in the northwestern part of the province without seeing a single deer.
> 
> ...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

^^^Perhaps they should open it up to bow hunters. Which they may if it becomes unmanageable.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> That problem was created not by hunters but by massive encroachment by human development both urban and rural over a period of hundreds of years which continues today.


That too. I should've been more clear; I was lumping ranchers shooting 'vermin' in with hunting, which is perhaps unfair, but it fits in with the paradigm of private citizens using guns to kill wildlife.

I wasn't really thinking about the role of habitat loss, which is obviously of huge importance to wildlife populations, but it doesn't seem to pertain to the argument about wether private citizens need guns.



> The re-introduction of predators into areas inhabited by large human populations is clearly not an option.


Depends what predators and prey species you're talking about. London is crawling with foxes. To control deer populations we need wolves and cougars. Why can't we reintroduce them? Because they might kill our sheep, calves, etc... but why do we keep sheep and cattle? To eat meat. So you see how the argument is circular.



> Hunting allows culling of the increased non-predatory species while raising funds for further projects.


That's a pragmatic view, and, realistically I agree that it's probably going to stick around. But my point is that this is not the only way of dealing with wildlife management, and if people gave up their guns and quit hunting, there would be other ways of dealing with it. You can't make the claim that hunting is in some way necessary; the ecosystem got along fine before guns. 



> far more humane than allowing the population to starve due to lack of food.


I agree that letting them starve is not humane. I'd recommend we deposit bait laced with contraceptives as a temporary solution to keeping the populations down until a predator/prey equilibrium can become established.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> That too. I should've been more clear; I was lumping ranchers shooting 'vermin' in with hunting, which is perhaps unfair, but it fits in with the paradigm of private citizens using guns to kill wildlife.


 I should agree also.



> I wasn't really thinking about the role of habitat loss, which is obviously of huge importance to wildlife populations, but it doesn't seem to pertain to the argument about wether private citizens need guns.


 I thought of the tree plantations in New Brunswick probably drove the deer closer to civilization in search of food.



> Depends what predators and prey species you're talking about. London is crawling with foxes. To control deer populations we need wolves and cougars. Why can't we reintroduce them? Because they might kill our sheep, calves, etc... but why do we keep sheep and cattle? To eat meat. So you see how the argument is circular.


 The coyote is a top predator in the Maritimes presently and they seemed to have picked up wolf genes on the trip east. These predators should control the deer, an introduced species as well.



> That's a pragmatic view, and, realistically I agree that it's probably going to stick around. But my point is that this is not the only way of dealing with wildlife management, and if people gave up their guns and quit hunting, there would be other ways of dealing with it. You can't make the claim that hunting is in some way necessary; the ecosystem got along fine before guns.
> 
> I agree that letting them starve is not humane. I'd recommend we deposit bait laced with contraceptives as a temporary solution to keeping the populations down until a predator/prey equilibrium can become established.


 Coyotes may solve the issue in the Maritimes at least.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Here are some numbers on firearms from Stats Canada, skewed as to homicides, but I'll try to get handgun and rifle numbers...


Homicides by method
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
homicides
All methods	663	606	594	611	610
Shooting	223	190	188	200	179
Stabbing	198	210	190	200	210
Beating	144	119	116	122	116
Strangulation	47	48	51	45	43
Fire (burns/suffocation)	10	12	4	7	12
Other methods1	26	14	19	20	28
Not known	15	13	26	17	22
Notes: 
Homicide includes Criminal Code offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
If multiple methods against one victim are used, only the leading method causing the death is counted. Thus, only one method is scored per victim.
1. Other methods include poisoning, exposure, shaken baby syndrome, deaths caused by vehicles and heart attacks.
Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 253-0002 and Homicide Survey, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
Last modified: 2010-10-26.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So essentially the table is slightly exaggerated toward shooting. What the chart seems to indicate is that Canadians are pretty good around guns and are increasingly less likely to use them, despite their availability.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Rps said:


> Here are some numbers on firearms from Stats Canada, skewed as to homicides, but I'll try to get handgun and rifle numbers...
> 
> 
> Homicides by method
> ...


Interesting that knives kill as many Canadians as guns. If one assumes that the long gun registry is indeed needed then the logical conclusion is that a $5-Billion long knife registry must also be created. 

I figure that $5-Billion is a fair estimate given that there must be at least 5 times as many long knives as long guns in the country.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Interesting that knives kill as many Canadians as guns.


So do cars and various other tools. The difference is that these other tools are not *designed* to kill, and have other useful purposes.

Guns are designed to kill, and have very little (if any) utility in society (our ongoing argument about the value of hunting notwithstanding).

We can certainly agree that the fact that people are killed in car accidents or murdered by knife-wielding psychopaths is tragic, but the value of cars and knives to society outweighs the risk of allowing citizens to own them.

The figures here show that guns are as costly to society as knives. But there are vastly more knives in society than there are guns. Furthermore, knives are tools that everyone needs. The relative value of guns is therefore *much* lower than knives, and it's hard to make the argument that their cost to society is worth their benefit.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...
> 
> The figures here show that guns are as costly to society as knives. But there are vastly more knives in society than there are guns. Furthermore, knives are tools that everyone needs. The relative value of guns is therefore *much* lower than knives, and it's hard to make the argument that their cost to society is worth their benefit.


You almost got it. In rural societies long guns are indeed a tool and their purpose is not to commit homicides. A number of people in my small community depend on hunting to provide them with meat over the winter. This is very much a way of life for many who live in rural communities.

Why not buy at the super market? If you want to be sure your meat is free from anti-biotics, GMO corn, pesticides and various additives, then you can't buy at the supermarket. Not to mention that this is anything but a wealthy community. Rural types do not spend $1000s on a hunting excursion. It's two or three days camping in the back of their pick-up. Preferably a single shot. An unpleasant day dressing and hauling. Then generally a trip to the butcher, although I know one fellow in his seventies who even does his own butchering. 

Hard work and modest savings but well worth it for those who were brought up that way. 

FWIW I have never turned down a free venison steak should a neighbour bring home more than he needs and you can be sure I never will.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Bryanc, your design argument is hollow, it is the intent not the design. What I haven't found is how many gun related crimes have been committed, such as robbery, injury, that sort of thing.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Hard work and modest savings but well worth it for those who were brought up that way.


Yes, that's exactly the way my wife was raised. Interestingly, she's the one who directed me to the evidence that eating meat is not only unnecessary, but actively harmful (as far as anyone has been able to demonstrate, the less meat you eat the healthier you will be, with no minimum threshold).

I would suggest those people who cannot afford to buy their meat at the grocery store, sell their rifles and buy tofu and beans. They'll be healthier and richer.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> Bryanc, your design argument is hollow, it is the intent not the design. What I haven't found is how many gun related crimes have been committed, such as robbery, injury, that sort of thing.


I didn't express it very well. It's not just the design, it's the utility of the tool. My point is that lots of tools can be used to kill people, but we tolerate their possession by private citizens because they're very useful, and are rarely used to kill people, so they do much more good than harm. Knives and cars are examples. Guns on the other hand, are not much use for anything except killing, and, despite the fact that they're relatively rare (most people don't own guns), they are used in about a third of the murders that occur.

Thus, unless you think the value that guns contribute (which is limited to hunting/wildlife control and target shooting), outweighs the cost of the murders and accidental deaths they cause, the cost of guns to society is not outweighed by their value.

This is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Even if you are an avid hunter and think hunting is a great way of enjoying the outdoors, it's ridiculous to make the claim that benefits of gun ownership by private citizens outweighs its cost.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Bryanc, I somewhat agree, but there still is supposition in your argument. What we don't know from the stats is how many deaths [ planned or accidental ], near death [ planned or accidental ] and other criminal acts are committed / effected by gun use ... we only know what is reported. Second, we don't know how many firearms there are in the country. Finally, there is no metric that I know of which tracks the "good" use of firearms. We would need these things to actually develop a value system and qualifying metric for a cost-benefit relationship. That said, we still arrive at the singular point: you 
[ and I ] are against firearm ownership for the general population, and thus all arguments will be prejudiced in that area.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I didn't express it very well. It's not just the design, it's the utility of the tool. My point is that lots of tools can be used to kill people, but we tolerate their possession by private citizens because they're very useful, and are rarely used to kill people, so they do much more good than harm. Knives and cars are examples. Guns on the other hand, are not much use for anything except killing, and, despite the fact that they're relatively rare (most people don't own guns), they are used in about a third of the murders that occur.
> 
> Thus, unless you think the value that guns contribute (which is limited to hunting/wildlife control and target shooting), outweighs the cost of the murders and accidental deaths they cause, the cost of guns to society is not outweighed by their value.
> 
> This is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Even if you are an avid hunter and think hunting is a great way of enjoying the outdoors, it's ridiculous to make the claim that benefits of gun ownership by private citizens outweighs its cost.


Ah now I understand: If you use a potentially deadly tool such as a butcher knife you do want the mandatory hassle of registering it in a Bureaucratic Boondoggle DataBase. However if it is a tool that you do not use or approve of, it is quite acceptable to you to foist that BBDB on those that do use the tool.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You know, every time I see mobs in the middle east and rebels by the thousands in Africa on TV firing AK-47s into the air, some of them 14-year-olds, I am thankful for the number of guns that exist in North America. One never knows if one day in the future they will show up here with ulterior motives.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Sinc, then the use of firearms would be defensive instead of offensive as they are now in a criminal setting.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> You know, every time I see mobs in the middle east and rebels by the thousands in Africa on TV firing AK-47s into the air, some of them 14-year-olds, I am thankful for the number of guns that exist in North America. One never knows if one day in the future they will show up here with ulterior motives.


While I can understand and appreciate your concern, I don't think that's a realistic fear. Furthermore, we'd be better off convincing the hungry, ill-educated, hopeless youth of the developing world that they can have all they want to eat, and buy iPods if they give up their guns and crazy mythologies. You'll do far better changing their behaviour with burgers than you will with bullets.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Ah now I understand: If you use a potentially deadly tool such as a butcher knife you do want the mandatory hassle of registering it in a Bureaucratic Boondoggle DataBase. However if it is a tool that you do not use or approve of, it is quite acceptable to you to foist that BBDB on those that do use the tool.


When I use tools that are dangerous to society, and which have little utility for most people, I expect to have to deal with government regulation. While I can't claim to enjoy it, I don't complain about the paperwork I need to go through to get radioisotopes or biohazardous chemicals for my research, and I don't have any problem with the government keeping a database of who buys and uses these sorts of things. But knives are to readily made by anyone who wants to make one, and of such general utility that there's no argument about regulating their ownership... it's just not practical, nor is it necessary.

So no, it has nothing to do with wether I use the tools. It has to do with their danger to society, their general utility and the practicalities of regulating them.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> When I use tools that are dangerous to society, and which have little utility for most people, I expect to have to deal with government regulation. While I can't claim to enjoy it, I don't complain about the paperwork I need to go through to get radioisotopes or biohazardous chemicals for my research, and I don't have any problem with the government keeping a database of who buys and uses these sorts of things. But knives are to readily made by anyone who wants to make one, and of such general utility that there's no argument about regulating their ownership... it's just not practical, nor is it necessary.
> 
> So no, it has nothing to do with wether I use the tools. It has to do with their danger to society, their general utility and the practicalities of regulating them.


Even by that argument long guns fail to meet the criteria. There are somewhere between 6 and 10 million long guns in Canada and between .25 and .5 million hand guns.

Best guess is that long guns make up at least 95% of Canadian firearms but account for roughly 50% of the fatalities. Even at ~100 long gun homicides a year, and assuming 7.5 million long guns that means over a 75 year period, 1/10 of 1% of long guns will be used in a homicide. Hardly worth a $Billion$. 

Beyond that it is quite easy to forecast that $Billion$ more will be required to update the data base. WHY??? Because without a certified ballistics test for each long gun the registry is indeed worthless. To even attempt to make the DB somewhat worthwhile, expensive tests will have to be run on each registered firearm. Microscope photos then need to be entered into the DB and comparison software to find a match will also have to be incorporated or developed. Even so some weapons such as shotguns and muskets can't be tested at all. All of this would also require completely rewriting the database. Given previous experience any guestimate under $10 Billion would prove to be, way too low.

The registry should indeed be scrapped.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Cost of long-gun registry a fraction of what Tories claim, report shows


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Cost of long-gun registry a fraction of what Tories claim, report shows


no no OM, it's gonna cost a million trillion dollars. The liberals got to you.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Perhaps it is related to this....

Experts say Tories 'extraordinarily successful' at fundraising on wedge issues, hope and fear


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Cost of long-gun registry a fraction of what Tories claim, report shows


Misses the obvious. In order for the long gun registry to serve any useful purpose it will have to be changed to include ballistic studies for bullets from each rifle registered. That will indeed amount to another $billion or so.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

They'll also have to take shoe imprints and a sample of the fur from their dog's arse to make the registry of any use too.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I posted a link to the RCMP's own disclosure of the costs and since they're the ones who implement it, it should be far more accurate than the crap in the media.

Link to the link

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/80703-gun-registry-ideology-over-economic-responsibility-6.html#post1008949


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Let me make it even easier...

Direct link to the report (2008-2009) I doubt costs went down.

Costs direct from the RCMP


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, Canada's so-called national newspaper is full of it once again. They must be taking cues from the CBC.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

um, not the globe and mail. Read the article:



> But in contrast to the tens of millions of dollars in savings estimated by the Conservative government, the 2009 analysis *for the RCMP by Peter Hall of the management consulting firm Pleiad Canada Inc*., found that scrapping the long-gun registry would save between $1,570,000 and $4,025,000 a year.
> 
> Those numbers were first made public in August when they were inserted toward the end of *a 70-page evaluation of firearms programs conducted by the RCMP*. Mr. Hall’s report, which was obtained by The Globe and Mail using Access to Information legislation, provides an explanation of how the savings were calculated.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

From the RCMP:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what is this a link war?

My point was, it isn't globe making this up. They're reporting something from -that- source. It remains to be seen how the numbers war turns out.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The RCMP has a vested interest in all this, including retention of the 'registry'. Not surprisingly that the consultant _THEY_ hired would present a report which no doubt will get them more RCMP consulting jobs. 

Furthermore, the RCMP has no business hiring consultants for something which is totally out of their purview. Their own disclosure contradicts this consultant's report, money well spent...eh?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

let me get this straight.

So the lot of you hold up the RCMPs numbers as fact, only to throw them under the bus the next turn calling them out as having a vested political interest in keeping the registry, after posting contradictory numbers.

The spinning in circles makes one's head, er, spin.

Of course no one has said a peep on the huge political interest the Harperites have in killing the registry. Those, poor duck hunters and all eh.

While we're at it, why bother spending money on firearm registration at all? Isn't that a waste of money too?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Well they'res dollars in them there wedge issues, for running Cons, in the next election.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> let me get this straight.
> 
> So the lot of you hold up the RCMPs numbers as fact, only to throw them under the bus the next turn calling them out as having a vested political interest in keeping the registry, after posting contradictory numbers.
> 
> ...


I don't see how anything got thrown under the bus. The numbers I posted are part of the RCMP's "proactive disclosure" programme and therefore should be accurate and verifiable. Clearly, just salaries and operating costs top 31 million, so those numbers contradict reports where the registry costs were reported to be 4mil/annum and they contradict this consultant's figures of 1-4 mil in savings if the registry was scrapped.
No mention was ever made of IT costs or part-time and contract labour.

...and don't be so naive to think that the RCMP is not a political entity as well as a law enforcement entity and they do have a vested interest in the whole Firearms Programme, not just the registry. It's all part and parcel.

Realistically Groove, I don't think we'll ever find out the real costs of this boondoggle...past, present or future. There are so many ways to misdirect costs in the government that it _ain't_ funny.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

More good news!



> Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that a re-elected Conservative Government will introduce legislation to scrap the long-gun registry once and for all, and establish a hunting and wildlife advisory panel to ensure that government decisions are based on sound science and balanced advice.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

> and establish a hunting and wildlife advisory panel to ensure that government decisions are based on sound science and balanced advice.


will this panel be anything like the PBO, where when they don't say what Harper wants them to say the conservatives will shrug off their findings as "meaningless"?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> More good news!


Harper does like to hand Iggy good bats to work with. Quebec here iggy comes!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> More good news!
> 
> "...Conservative Government will ... ensure that government decisions are based on sound science and balanced advice."


:lmao: The Harper Government, which has proved itself to be as anti-science and uninterested in using facts to guide it's decision as any administration in Canadian history says they want to use science to guide their firearm legislation, and you _believe_ them?!? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't believe them to be anti-science at all. That's your idea based on their rejection of the CO2 theories you support.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't believe them to be anti-science at all. That's your idea based on their rejection of the CO2 theories you support.


And their muzzling of fisheries scientists that have data that refute their fisheries policies, and their muzzling of forestry scientists... and their firing of atomic energy scientists, and their rejection of verifiable statistical data, etc. etc. etc.

Harper is an ideologue and his government has no interest in science or facts except when they happen to support their preconceived positions.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Not specifically related to Canada's (soon to be dead) Gun Registry, but I found this news from south of the border pretty (sadly) typical of the lengths to which the gun ideologues will go to "protect" their "rights":_

*NRA and Florida gag pediatricians: no more firearm safety advice for parents*



> An NRA-lobbied bill in Florida will prohibit doctors, especially pediatricians, from asking patients about their gun-safety. The bill is expected to be signed by Governor Rick Scott. Pediatricians routinely advise parents about seatbelts, bike helmets, etc, but this law will make it illegal for a doctor to offer advice on gun safety unless "it's directly relevant to the patient's care or the safety of others." Comparable legislation is under discussion in North Carolina and Alabama.


So, little Timmy finds his daddy's loaded Glock sitting on a coffee table, plays around and blows off a toe. At the ER, the doctor would be forbidden from saying, "Hey, y'know, you might wanna think about keeping that thing locked up somewhere out of reach."

*Stupidity.*

(BoingBoing)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> _Not specifically related to Canada's (soon to be dead) Gun Registry, but I found this news from south of the border pretty (sadly) typical of the lengths to which the gun ideologues will go to "protect" their "rights":_
> 
> *NRA and Florida gag pediatricians: no more firearm safety advice for parents*
> 
> ...


Well, even little Timmy, as a US citizen, has the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms and to take up these arms and join a militia --"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Live Free or Die".

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> _Not specifically related to Canada's (soon to be dead) Gun Registry, but I found this news from south of the border pretty (sadly) typical of the lengths to which the gun ideologues will go to "protect" their "rights":_


I've seen this sort of thing before. The doctors are being politicized by various parties to ask very pointed questions.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I don't think the doctors care either...one less chance of a malpractice suit due to an idiot parent's carelessness.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> I don't think the doctors care either...one less chance of a malpractice suit due to an idiot parent's carelessness.


No, this has nothing to do with medicine. It would be like going to the doctor for a cold, then being raked over the coals about whether you know how to use a child safety seat, whether your kids eat too much salt, etc.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eating too much salt, proper safety seat usage, a kid blowing his limb off with a glock (or worse).

Yeah I can see how they're related.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

It was a joke MF...if little Timmy blows his toe off because daddy left the loaded Glock on the coffee table, the parents could sue the doctor for not discussing safe gun storage with them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> It was a joke MF...if little Timmy blows his toe off because daddy left the loaded Glock on the coffee table, the parents could sue the doctor for not discussing safe gun storage with them.


I gotcha. I was responding to the news story itself. I should have quoted the first message.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

> typical of the lengths to which the gun ideologues will go to "protect" their "rights":


Noooo... it is only typical of the US context.

Sigh... we don't have the same gun laws as the US... not even close. I know CM indicated it's lack of relevance to our Canadian situation but if he really believed that why make a post on the story in a thread that is relative to a Canadian context on the gun registry?

I think the answer is spelled F U D.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

The security situation here in Mexico is abso-*****ing-lutely ridiculous and horrifying. Drugs flow north, and guns -easily purchased in the USA- flow south. It's a huge, huge problem.

So the USA has passed a law to "address" the situation:

*US seeks Mexico border gun sales details*



> Weapons dealers in the south-west US will be required to report large sales of some semi-automatic firearms to help stem the flow of weapons into Mexico.
> 
> Under a new US government rule, authorities must be contacted when more than two semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are purchased.
> 
> The weapons are reportedly sought after by drug-trafficking organisations operating inside Mexico.


As laws go, well, it's something... but there's 'way too much corruption on both sides of the border to ever stop this. And of course, there are folks like these, who I will never, ever understand:



> ...the National Rifle Association has vowed to sue the Obama administration over the new regulation.
> 
> "They don't have the statutory authority to do it, and we'll file a lawsuit as soon as the first letters are sent" demanding the sales information from dealers, the NRA's legislative director Chris Cox told Politico.
> 
> ...


(Full story: BBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I didn't bring up Fast and Furious because people are tired of me reporting Obama's screw-ups--this one is colossal. Giving guns to Mexican druglords so you can track them? What a cock-up!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That Mexican gun situation has nothing, absolutely zero to do with our gun registry and does not belong in this thread. Off topic or what?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I didn't bring up Fast and Furious because people are tired of me reporting Obama's screw-ups--this one is colossal. Giving guns to Mexican druglords so you can track them? What a cock-up!


Well, then I'll bring it up...

For those that do not know about "Fast & Furious"

Decent analysis on a Health Food site...not NRA, not some right wing nutter site...a health food site:

US government openly admits arming Mexican drug gangs with 30,000 firearms - but why?

Second link provides a more interesting analysis:

» Obama Administration Caught Running False Flag Against Second Amendment Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> That Mexican gun situation has nothing, absolutely zero to do with our gun registry and does not belong in this thread. Off topic or what?


Agreed, SINC. My bad for late-night, baby-related lack of sleep-affected brain. This should have gone into a new thread.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News*

This is from Fox News. If the mere mention of that offends you, better not click on the link. Interestingly, few others have a report on it. Go figger...



> Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.
> 
> Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."
> 
> ...


Funny that. Most perpetrators will leave you alone if they know there's a chance you'll actually defend yourself...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Funny that. Most perpetrators will leave you alone if they know there's a chance you'll actually defend yourself...


Exactly. Allowing concealed guns means any potential victim might fire back.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Crime in Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Like other major industrial cities in the US, Chicago had a major rise in violent crime starting in the late 1960s. *Like most major American cities, Chicago has also experienced a decline in overall crime since the early 1990s*.[4] Murders in the city peaked first in 1974, with 970 murders when the city's population was over three million (resulting in a murder rate of around 29 per 100,000), and again in 1992, with 943 murders when the city had fewer than three million people, resulting in a murder rate of 34 per 100,000.* Following 1992, the murder count slowly decreased to 641 by 1999.* That year it still had the most murders of any big city in the U.S.[5]


I don't think the drop is because they allowed guns. You seem to forget that America is a very different place.

I'll take our numbers over theirs any day of the year thank you very much. And while conservatives everywhere howl about the cost of the gun registry and it's ineffectiveness, they sure do clpa their hands with glee to spend many more times that in another deal to make our streets safe known to be ineffective.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> This is from Fox News. If the mere mention of that offends you, better not click on the link. Interestingly, few others have a report on it. Go figger...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that. Most perpetrators will leave you alone if they know there's a chance you'll actually defend yourself...


Again what exactly does this have to do with the thread... U.S. context...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> Again what exactly does this have to do with the thread... U.S. context...


Many who endorse the registry use the very same arguments:

"If you remove the registry, the whole country will descend into a lawless, gun-toting anarchy."

Or some such nonsense...

I believe the information is very pertinent to this discussion.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Many who endorse the registry use the very same arguments:
> 
> "If you remove the registry, the whole country will descend into a lawless, gun-toting anarchy."
> 
> ...


Not really it is a different jurisdiction replete with it's own individual legislation... How are Sweden's gun laws relevant to ours? I know what you are trying to say but it would be much more helpful/pertinent to stick to Canada.... since that is what basic premise of the thread is... the way I see it anyway.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

light some fireworks I agree with seacreature.

and fexl, I don't think anyone suggests that the registry stops people from illegally owning firearms. It was my understanding it merely let law enforcement know where and who owns most of them here. It was by no means a complete solution.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> light some fireworks I agree with seacreature.
> 
> and fexl, I don't think anyone suggests that the registry stops people from illegally owning firearms. It was my understanding it merely let law enforcement know where and who owns most of them here. It was by no means a complete solution.


So a gun registry can lead to two different types of tragedy. Cops called to a specific address. Previous resident was a registered gunowner, current occupant is not. Assuming they are facing firepower cops do the SWAT bit and an innocent man is badly injured or dies.

Other scenario resident has not registered his guns, Cops believe registry rhetoric, are not sufficiently paranoid and Cop dies.

Truthfully the long gun registry by design, cannot and has not done anything to reduce crime.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

two things. Since we had a registry for years, provide ONE example where such a tragedy occurred.

Second, give the cops some credit, they're smart people. They won't assume anything. Any light headed individual knows there are also illegal guns not in the registry, are you suggesting cops don't... know this? Really?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ...
> Second, give the cops some credit, they're smart people. They won't assume anything. ...


Tell that to the guy in Vancouver who the Cops beat the crap out of, thinking he was a wife beater. Turns out they had the wrong address.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Tell that to the guy in Vancouver who the Cops beat the crap out of, thinking he was a wife beater. Turns out they had the wrong address.


This relates to the gun registry how?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> This relates to the gun registry how?


:lmao:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> two things. Since we had a registry for years, provide ONE example where such a tragedy occurred.
> 
> Second, give the cops some credit, they're smart people. They won't assume anything. Any light headed individual knows there are also illegal guns not in the registry, are you suggesting cops don't... know this? Really?





eMacMan said:


> Tell that to the guy in Vancouver who the Cops beat the crap out of, thinking he was a wife beater. Turns out they had the wrong address.





bryanc said:


> This relates to the gun registry how?


Since GT honestly believes the gun registry is safe as we can count on the intelligence and diligence of the Cops it does indeed relate. A more direct example of police failings in these two critical areas would of course be the slaying of the 4 Mayorthorpe Mounties. They were well aware of both firepower they faced and the extreme anti-cop attitude of the man whose property they were occupying.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sorry but you're really grasping here, and putting words in my mouth to try and save whatever is left of your point.

And I'm not sure how no gun registry would have changed the outcome of that case and I suspect neither are you.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Sorry but you're really grasping here, and putting words in my mouth to try and save whatever is left of your point.
> 
> And I'm not sure how no gun registry would have changed the outcome of that case and I suspect neither are you.


Duh. The gun registry was in effect. The paranoid and extremely-aggressive nature of James Roszko was well known to the Mounties. 

Point is; a gun registry is not some magic bullet that will make things easier for the Police nor was it ever intended to reduce crime. It was an expensive smoke and mirror response to an unfortunate incident. An incident that was repeated at Dawson College a few years later with registered firearms. 

There is no substitute for good training and good judgement. Sadly we have seen far too many instances in the past few years where neither good training or good judgement were in evidence. 

To be fair: We have also seen how different the outcome can be when handled with some degree of intelligence. Most recently in Sparwood, BC.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Duh. The gun registry was in effect. The paranoid and extremely-aggressive nature of James Roszko was well known to the Mounties.
> 
> Point is; a gun registry is not some magic bullet that will make things easier for the Police nor was it ever intended to reduce crime. It was an expensive smoke and mirror response to an unfortunate incident. An incident that was repeated at Dawson College a few years later with registered firearms.
> 
> ...


it isn't clear then why you even brought up the incident. What you have there is certainly, "duh". Of course.

As I have pointed out, we're now seeing more smoke and mirrors with an even more expensive crime agenda that also, not solve crime or make our streets safer.

But that's ok.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Nananana, nananana, hey, hey, goood bye!!!

Bill to scrap long-gun registry expected Tuesday | Canada | News | London Free Press

...and I can't drink due to the chemo drugs. LOL


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

This. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll have a drink for you, kps!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'll have a drink for you, kps!


Have two....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> ^
> 
> This. :clap:


are you clapping your hands that they will waste likely ten times what was wasted on the gun registry on proven failed crime agendas?

I suspect not.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> are you clapping your hands that they will waste likely ten times what was wasted on the gun registry on proven failed crime agendas?
> 
> I suspect not.


Not all all gt, just applauding the correction of a money wasting wrong against legal gun owners left over from the Liberals.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Good news is that the database is to be destroyed as well. Despite that, I am sure that even as we speak covert back-ups are being created and squirreled away...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Good news is that the database is to be destroyed as well. Despite that, I am sure that even as we speak covert back-ups are being created and squirreled away...


Good news indeed, but inconsequential....within weeks that database will be useless anyway. All new transactions for non-restricted firearms will quickly degrade the accuracy and the content of the saved database as they no longer need to be recorded.

I'm thinking of having a "registration certificate" burning party...LOL


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There will be thousands of farmers, hunters and ranchers in the west bringing their long guns out of their hiding places in a return to normal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

interesting squabble taking place.
Firing back at Harper, Quebec refuses to destroy gun-registry data - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> There will be thousands of farmers, hunters and ranchers in the west bringing their long guns out of their hiding places in a return to normal.


That's of no concern to the "progressives" of Toronna, SINC. The nation revolves around their delicate sensibilities.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well since the overwhelming majority lives in the city(ies) suck it up buttercup.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> interesting squabble taking place.
> Firing back at Harper, Quebec refuses to destroy gun-registry data - The Globe and Mail


Dumb ass clueless morons. The information in the current registry as it existed for the last 10 or so years was already corrupt and inaccurate for the most part. Why?

Because it is estimated that there are over 6 million non-restricted long guns in this country which were never registered in the first place on top of the 7 million registered non-restricted long guns.

The day after bill c-19 passes, which it will, the information in the registry will be useless and so will any backup or copy.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> well since the overwhelming majority lives in the city(ies) suck it up buttercup.


You'd be surprised how many firearms owners live in the cities <cough><cough>...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> You'd be surprised how many firearms owners live in the cities <cough><cough>...


Interesting that, despite their overhwelming numbers, the city folk have to suck up the dismantling of the registry. Take that, kps!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Interesting that, despite their overhwelming numbers, the city folk have to suck up the dismantling of the registry. Take that, kps!


I'm prepared and awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I can only see one possible use for retaining those databases.

Should the pipeline of illegally imported firearms suffer some sort of major disruption, the gang types could use that data base to help track down certain firearms they want to steal.

OTH they are more likely interested in automatic handguns so even there it fails.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> I can only see one possible use for retaining those databases.
> 
> Should the pipeline of illegally imported firearms suffer some sort of major disruption, the gang types could use that data base to help track down certain firearms they want to steal.
> 
> OTH they are more likely interested in automatic handguns so even there it fails.


A couple of things:

The registry also incorporates the restricted and prohibited portion along with the non-restricted portion. It is only the non-restricted portion being scrapped and destroyed. Having said that, the registry has already been hacked on numerous occasions so any enterprising gangstas can get a shopping list of exactly what they want.

Next thing is that more illegal guns are stollen from police stations and lockups than from anywhere else. That you don't hear from the pro registry police chiefs do you? You don't hear that from those antis who think that only cops and the millitary should have firearms....and you'd be amazed how much disappears from the millitary supply depots.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

it's about time! put the money towards something useful like continuing to registering restricted firearms or to the border agency to hire more agents and provide better technology for stopping the weapons doing the real damage like handguns and machine guns from getting into Canada in the 1st place. 

I registered every weapon I have during the amnesty period when they started this so it's ridiculous to think it's a money maker. So many ppl I know didn't register a single weapon and any who did, like me, will just have the registration roll another 10 years. wait, that's not going to happen now! 

I hope they make the right changes to the firearms acquisition license as well. I had one, didn't hunt for 4 years during university and the old FAC expired. They gave me a possession only and said I needed to take the course again = wtf?!?!? So I can carry, USE a weapon and buy ammo, but I can't 'buy' a rifle/shotgun until I prove I can handle one? ummm...... can anyone say moneygrab!? tptptptp

I've heard rumours that the POLs will be grandfathered into PALs (Possession and acquisition). I sure hope so. I don't need any new firearms, but will in a few years so I've refused to re-take the day course thus far


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

keebler27 said:


> it's about time! put the money towards something useful like continuing to registering restricted firearms or to the border agency to hire more agents and provide better technology for stopping the weapons doing the real damage like handguns and machine guns from getting into Canada in the 1st place.
> 
> I registered every weapon I have during the amnesty period when they started this so it's ridiculous to think it's a money maker. So many ppl I know didn't register a single weapon and any who did, like me, will just have the registration roll another 10 years. wait, that's not going to happen now!
> 
> ...


Not sure about POLs becoming PALs. Download the course material and challenge the non-restricted exam. Shouldn't cost you more than $40 and if you want, I'll give you the name of the examiner who will do your Turkey license at the same time (I think) additional fee of coarse.

EDIT: One more thing, since you're a POL holder the upgrade to a PAL will cost you $0 with the CFC..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> I'm prepared and awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse...


I'm still waiting for all the yap from Harper etc. to start fixing gun crime. He did get on a soap box after Jane Creba was shot back in 06 yelling about it. 5 years later, nada.

"We're gonna", seems about the best they got.

"We're gonna" what... spend billions and billions on failed policies?

:clap:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I'm still waiting for all the yap from Harper etc. to start fixing gun crime. He did get on a soap box after Jane Creba was shot back in 06 yelling about it. 5 years later, nada.
> 
> "We're gonna", seems about the best they got.
> 
> "We're gonna" what... spend billions and billions on failed policies?


By failed policies are you referring to US styled mandatory sentencing for crimes with a firearm ? Well, heck Groove, you gotta start somewhere...

Problem with firearms laws not being implemented in a court of law is that the first thing the liberal justice system does is bargain them away in a plea if you're a nasty criminal involved in a serious crime or gang activity.

Now OTOH, if you're a law abiding firearms owner and you forget to put a trigger lock on your restricted during legal transport, they'll throw the book at you...all for a "paper" crime. No plea bargains here...it's off with his head.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> By failed policies are you referring to US styled mandatory sentencing for crimes with a firearm ? Well, heck Groove, you gotta start somewhere...
> 
> Problem with firearms laws not being implemented in a court of law is that the first thing the liberal justice system does is bargain them away in a plea if you're a nasty criminal involved in a serious crime or gang activity.
> 
> Now OTOH, if you're a law abiding firearms owner and you forget to put a trigger lock on your restricted during legal transport, they'll throw the book at you...all for a "paper" crime. No plea bargains here...it's off with his head.


I'm sorry but we don't have, "a liberal justice system". It's a system, for better or for worse, that has been influenced by both parties. But the conservatives favourite way out is simply blame the liberals. The problem is, this is an excuse for the conservatives because their methods won't work either. No better than the liberals.

We gotta start somewhere? With clearly failed policies? Great. That's our starting point?

And we have a brainless conservative mayor looking to pull cops off the streets here in Toronto. I'm sorry but I simply don't buy that the conservatives have any solutions whatsoever either.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry but we don't have, "a liberal justice system". It's a system, for better or for worse, that has been influenced by both parties. But the conservatives favourite way out is simply blame the liberals. The problem is, this is an excuse for the conservatives because their methods won't work either. No better than the liberals.
> 
> We gotta start somewhere? With clearly failed policies? Great. That's our starting point?
> 
> And we have a brainless conservative mayor looking to pull cops off the streets here in Toronto. I'm sorry but I simply don't buy that the conservatives have any solutions whatsoever either.


Ummmm, by liberal I wasn't referring to a political party, hence the lower case L. 

and yes the justice system leans to the left...by a lot.

The "starting point" was somewhat tongue in cheek. lol


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Ummmm, by liberal I wasn't referring to a political party, hence the lower case L.
> 
> and yes the justice system leans to the left...by a lot.
> 
> The "starting point" was somewhat tongue in cheek. lol


I don't know. I think there are a lot of examples of our justice system not being so 'liberal'. There are problems, sure, but I'm not sure why (actually I do know why...) problems are necessarily 'liberal' in nature. We're going to start seeing "conservative problems" rear their ugly heads soon enough. 

People will still continue to be be murdered, robbed. We'll just have spent and wasted way more tax dollars. The money on the gun registry will look like a minor blip in the end.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The money the gun registry cost was staggering, but it was not as bad as the way the legislation penalized innocent and law abiding responsible long gun owners. That is the main reason it is being abolished, to free those long gun owners from the draconian and unnecessary limits placed upon them.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(Bruce Mackinnon / Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> (Bruce Mackinnon / Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


Yes!


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

kps said:


> Not sure about POLs becoming PALs. Download the course material and challenge the non-restricted exam. Shouldn't cost you more than $40 and if you want, I'll give you the name of the examiner who will do your Turkey license at the same time (I think) additional fee of coarse.
> 
> EDIT: One more thing, since you're a POL holder the upgrade to a PAL will cost you $0 with the CFC..


thanks. I may challenge it, but then again, if we don't need to register transferred firearms, i'll just buy what i need privately and be done 

ie. I want to get a .22 or a 410/.22 over under for bird hunting and my buddy has 7 or 8 so i may just buy it from him.

i think you have register new firearm purchases, but transferring privately between 2 parties, we won't have to (I think).

I don't need to worry about it now though. Deer season is week after next so that's on my mind right now (just came back from shooting my first moose - meat for the freezer!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> (Bruce Mackinnon / Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


:clap:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Ironic that in the cartoon, Toews is portrayed holding a restricted firearm which will continue to be registered, tightly controlled and whose registrations will not be removed or scrapped from the registry.

Cartoonist would have done better if Toews held a smoking over/under duck gun...LOL


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Congrats on the moose Keebler! I have a bow only doe tag which I can't use due to my current health issues, but next year it'll be another story. I should get my moose tag which I didn't get this year and perhaps I'll get another doe tag.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> (Bruce Mackinnon / Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


It is funny. Albeit not accurate "technically", but... when one looks at it differently it is ironic but not in the way that the left would interpret it....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Long-gun registry: Destroying records sets a 'terrible precedent,' Canadian archivists say*



> The Conservative government’s decision to destroy records from the soon-to-be defunct long-gun registry sets “a terrible precedent” for the retention of historically important documents, says an organization representing Canadian archivists.
> 
> The Conservatives are continuing to stick by the provisions that would require the commissioner of firearms to destroy the database, as part of legislation that ends the registration of most rifles and shotguns.
> 
> ...


(National Post)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sorry--privacy is more important than some archivist salivating over knowing who owned a long gun.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Sorry--privacy is more important than some archivist salivating over knowing who owned a long gun.


So should we throw away other records as well? Marriage records? Car licences? Medical records? Why should gun ownership be kept a secret?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

freedom baby!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So should we throw away other records as well? Marriage records? Car licences? Medical records?


Yes.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *Long-gun registry: Destroying records sets a 'terrible precedent,' Canadian archivists say*
> 
> 
> 
> (National Post)


The accuracy of the non-restricted registry has been suspect for years.... 5 min after it's officially defunct, it'll be unrecognizable in terms of its accuracy from the previous minute. :lmao:

There is very little if nothing of value contained in the registry at this point. The important information lies in the licensing portion of the firearms programme which is unaffected and continues as before.

There are an estimated 7million unregistered non-restricted firearms in this country...compared to the 6 million registered non-restricted firearms. 

*Restricted firearms such as ARs and handguns along with prohibited firearms continue to be registered, tightly controlled and remain in the registry.*

This of course has absolutely no bearing on all the illegal firearms possessed by the dope growers and dealers, native smugglers, intercity drug dealers, organized crime and other criminals...who naturally don't give a crap about licenses and registries.

Y'all can now continue to criminalize and vilify the 1.9 million law abiding Canadian firearms owners who as far as I know haven't killed anyone today even though they're armed to the teeth with _dangerous weapons_ and need to be reined in by having their duck guns registered.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> The accuracy of the non-restricted registry has been suspect for years.... 5 min after it's officially defunct, it'll be unrecognizable in terms of its accuracy from the previous minute.


It may well turn out that this information is of no value. However, it is fairly easy to imagine how it could be of some value, and even of great value (especially as a historical data set). If it is destroyed, it will certainly be of no value. Given that the taxpayer spent billions collecting the information, I cannot see any rational reason to destroy it.

As is typical of the Harper government, this is motivated purely by ideological hatred of data.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes.


Well, at least you're consistent. And I agree that we should stop keeping marriage records (but not that we should through away existing ones), and that the privacy of medical records should be carefully guarded. It is merely a question of what information about us do we allow our government to keep.

I would argue that citizens who purchase tools designed to kill should not object to records of those tools being kept by the authorities. Private citizens do not need guns and keeping them is a privilege, not a right. It is not unreasonable that the privilege come at the cost of keeping documentation.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> It may well turn out that this information is of no value. However, it is fairly easy to imagine how it could be of some value, and even of great value (especially as a historical data set). If it is destroyed, it will certainly be of no value. Given that the taxpayer spent billions collecting the information, I cannot see any rational reason to destroy it.
> 
> As is typical of the Harper government, this is motivated purely by ideological hatred of data.


How is this inaccurate "historical data set" of any value? How many more millions or billions of the taxpayer's money should we continue to spend accessing this redundant data?

We have a licensing system which allows an individual to obtain and use what we have determined to be NON-RESTRICTED firearms, Firearms deemed suitable for sporting, hunting and/or food gathering (sustenance) type activities. 

The Conservatives are not destroying anything...*the records are the registry.*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I agree that we should stop keeping marriage records (but not that we should through away existing ones), .


...as an amateur genealogist, I have to ask... _*why?*_


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> ...as an amateur genealogist, I have to ask... _*why?*_


Check out the marriage thread.

BTW, I'm not proposing we dispose of birth records... I just don't think the value of having personal relationships documented outweighs the loss of privacy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> How is this inaccurate "historical data set" of any value?


Ask any historian how the records kept by the society can shed light on the values and beliefs of that society. The accuracy is almost irrelevant.

Furthermore, if it turns out, 10 years from now, that there was information in the LGR that could've been useful but it was destroyed, how will we have been served.

Given that the conservatives are going to ram through their agenda to scrap the registry, I don't see any point in arguing over wether that's a good idea or not. It's a given that they're going to stop requiring gun owners to register their firearms. What I object to is the idea of destroying the data we've got (which was obtained at great expense). Why not just archive it?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It doesn't matter now, Scrapping the gun registry just means that the cops will be coming in
"Guns Blazing" for any domestic dispute now, Just because they won't have any pre - knowledge of guns on the premises.

Thank you Harper, You just made the law enforcement game tougher.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Ask any historian how the records kept by the society can shed light on the values and beliefs of that society. The accuracy is almost irrelevant.
> 
> Furthermore, if it turns out, 10 years from now, that there was information in the LGR that could've been useful but it was destroyed, how will we have been served.
> 
> Given that the conservatives are going to ram through their agenda to scrap the registry, I don't see any point in arguing over wether that's a good idea or not. It's a given that they're going to stop requiring gun owners to register their firearms. What I object to is the idea of destroying the data we've got (which was obtained at great expense). Why not just archive it?


Ummm, now let's see who's fault it was that the data was obtained at such great expense and why is it now your major arguing point for keeping it? The data collection itself also continued to cost, the data wasn't static. 

However, even with that, I don't foresee the data permanently disappearing although the inaccuracy will continue to increase exponentially along with the difficulty in accessing the redundant aspect of the data. The non-restricted portion will no doubt be archived with the rest of the registry as I think separating and filtering the data for destruction would inadvertently create another huge cost issue and a boondoggle of the Conservative making.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Lawrence said:


> It doesn't matter now, Scrapping the gun registry just means that the cops will be coming in
> "Guns Blazing" for any domestic dispute now, Just because they won't have any pre - knowledge of guns on the premises.
> 
> Thank you Harper, You just made the law enforcement game tougher.


Ha, Ha , Ha The cops have always gone in like that...

Don't be silly, cops have never an idea what's in the house or not, nor what the situation is really like. How many domestic disputes out of all investigated involve firearms? Eh? Go ahead find the answer to that. You're talking like it's an altogether common occurrence. Would it be the case in your home?, your neighbours?, the guy across the street?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

kps said:


> Ha, Ha , Ha The cops have always gone in like that...
> 
> Don't be silly, cops have never an idea what's in the house or not, nor what the situation is really like. How many domestic disputes out of all investigated involve firearms? Eh? Go ahead find the answer to that. You're talking like it's an altogether common occurrence. Would it be the case in your home?, your neighbours?, the guy across the street?


Doesn't matter, Rural communities will be even tougher to police now,
Believe me, I know, I'm not just an urban cowboy, I'm also a country boy.

Without prior knowledge of what guns are on the property,
The cops will be going in blind now and will be just like clay pigeons.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Lawrence said:


> Doesn't matter, Rural communities will be even tougher to police now,
> Believe me, I know, I'm not just an urban cowboy, I'm also a country boy.
> 
> Without prior knowledge of what guns are on the property,
> The cops will be going in blind now and will be just like clay pigeons.


You don't know what you're talking about. Cops go in assuming the worst, if they don't, they're stupid or forgot their training. Do you think when they investigate a domestic at some illegal...unregistered gun infested area they consult the registry? 

Does the registry tell you the firearms are on the property and which ones? With 7 million unregistered long guns in this country (mostly in those rural areas you speak of) it tells you diddly squat. How does the registry help there? Didn't hear or read about huge number of domestic disputes where there were shootouts...did you? As a matter of fact I don't think I read about any. LOL

Let me tell you another thing, legal firearms owners are, shall we say, by their very nature, more law abiding than the average individual.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Lawrence said:


> Doesn't matter, Rural communities will be even tougher to police now,
> Believe me, I know, I'm not just an urban cowboy, I'm also a country boy.
> 
> Without prior knowledge of what guns are on the property,
> The cops will be going in blind now and will be just like clay pigeons.


Uh given that over half of the long guns were never registered and a sizeable portion of registered ones had faulty data, also given that the real criminal operations probably are carrying fully automatic weapons again with no registration; that argument makes zero sense. 

The cops will have to proceed like they have been all along. Hopefully showing a bit more sanity and better training, than was the case in Mayerthorpe, AB or Williams Lake, BC.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, Dave has no idea. I personally know of hundreds of long guns that have been where they are for years before the registry was instituted and remain there, unregistered to this day. Anyone who believes the data to be in any way useful to police is a dreamer. Partial information is more dangerous than none at all with just as many unregistered guns as registered out there in rural Canada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Any police officer who would be dumb enough to check the long gun registry so he could "clear" a home and enter it without precaution is probably already deceased.

"Look out--he's carrying an _unregistered_ gun!"


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Uh given that over half of the long guns were never registered and a sizeable portion of registered ones had faulty data, also given that the real criminal operations probably are carrying fully automatic weapons again with no registration; that argument makes zero sense.
> 
> The cops will have to proceed like they have been all along. Hopefully showing a bit more sanity and better training, than was the case in Mayerthorpe, AB or Williams Lake, BC.


Yup, and let's not forget that Roszco used unlicensed (to him) and unregistered firearms in the Mayerthorpe tragedy. I'd really like to hear how the registry which has been in existence 5 years at that point could have prevented the death of those mounties?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I don't really care, At least someone tried,
Now they can cover their asses by saying just that, They tried.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> Yup, and let's not forget that Roszco used unlicensed (to him) and unregistered firearms in the Mayerthorpe tragedy. I'd really like to hear how the registry which has been in existence 5 years at that point could have prevented the death of those mounties?


True, but if the Mounties in Mayerthorpe were unaware of how well armed Roszco was, it is entirely their own fault. The mans attitudes were very well known locally, not to mention all the complaints that the Mounties basically ignored. Actually I am quite sure they were very well aware of the danger he presented or there would not have been four of them staked out there.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

YouTube excerpt from todays proceedings on C19. Friedman put it so succinctly with respect to the law.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.







If you want to watch the full 2hr proceeding see it here:

C19 proceedings


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Somewhat unrelated.

Here's a local paper's photo of an event where our local CFB sent over some of the boys to visit a group of Cubs, Scouts and Girl Guides. The presence of the boys in full fatigues along with their weaponry has upset a number of parents.

I'm not gun squeamish as our family owns 2 long guns, properly stored and registered. We support the gun registry and proper care of guns. We're resigned to the fact that once the CONS got a majority the program was a goner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Those parents need to get to a grip.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Those parents need to get to a grip.


I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't be very comfortable with elementary schools hosting strippers, despite the fact that pretty girls getting naked is not necessarily something I disapprove of. But sex and violence are both very powerful drivers of human behaviour, and they both stimulate a short circuit in the brains of young males that seems to make them incapable of critical thinking.

As a pacifist and someone who would never consider joining the military, even I find these powerful weapons fascinating and I'd certainly consider an opportunity to fire them. I can't imagine a 12-year-old boy being any less fixated by the power they represent.

So putting that kind of weaponry on display for children is simply a way to fill their young minds with fantasies that will facilitate recruiting them a few years later. It's a cheap trick, but it works.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't be very comfortable with elementary schools hosting strippers, despite the fact that pretty girls getting naked is not necessarily something I disapprove of. But sex and violence are both very powerful drivers of human behaviour, and they both stimulate a short circuit in the brains of young males that seems to make them incapable of critical thinking.
> 
> As a pacifist and someone who would never consider joining the military, even I find these powerful weapons fascinating and I'd certainly consider an opportunity to fire them. I can't imagine a 12-year-old boy being any less fixated by the power they represent.
> 
> *So putting that kind of weaponry on display for children is simply a way to fill their young minds with fantasies* that will facilitate recruiting them a few years later. It's a cheap trick, but it works.


I think there are already maybe 1000 or more video games that already take care of that. Your argument and fear is weak and unfounded by comparison.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I think there are already maybe 1000 or more video games that already take care of that. Your argument and fear is weak and unfounded by comparison.


Agreed. And some parents still need to get a grip.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> I think there are already maybe 1000 or more video games that already take care of that.


And hence the ratings system for those games. I'm pretty confident that parents would object if elementary schools were letting kids play Call of Duty or whatever in school. 

What parents choose to expose their kids to in their homes is their business. In schools, community standards prevail.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> What parents choose to expose their kids to in their homes is their business. In schools, community standards prevail.


A few parents complained. Community standards prevailed and the chillun saw a gun. 

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! 


bryanc...are you OK...have you fainted?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> .


MF, your 'macho' trolling makes me chuckle. Usually the sign of someone compensating for something....


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Nice to know that Hoplophobia is alive and well in this country.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Manitoba girl, 4 apparently shot and injured by five-year-old brother*



> DELORAINE, Man. - Police in Manitoba say a four-year-old girl has been shot, apparently after her five-year-old brother got a hold of a firearm.
> 
> Police say the shooting occurred on Saturday in a home in the Rural Municipality of Whitewater, south of Brandon.
> 
> ...


(Winnipeg Free Press

The CBC has more details:



> ...the incident began when his son found his .22-calibre rifle in their home. He said the children's mother had been moving the firearm for safe storage when she stopped to change another child's diaper.
> 
> With the mother's back turned to her son, the boy picked up the gun and fired at a closed wooden door. The boy's sister was on the other side of the door...


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

Your point?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Parent chastised after child drives car - Timmins Daily Press - Ontario, CA



> A mother was given a warning Thursday morning after leaving her two young children inside a vehicle with the engine running.
> 
> A six-year-old child had climbed into the front seat of the minivan and managed to reach the brake, which put the vehicle into drive.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Bellingham boy shoots mom's attacker in face with BB gun | KING5.com Seattle


> A 10-year-old boy with a BB gun saved his mother’s life after she was attacked by a man renting a room at their home Tuesday.
> 
> Bellingham Police say they were called to the home in the Roosevelt neighborhood around 7 a.m.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

EvanPitts said:


> ... the Gun Registry does nothing to curb crime. Criminals don't register their guns....Criminals do not obey the law, that is why they are criminals. Thus, the Gun Registry imposes massive fees and inconvenience upon those who are legitimate users of guns for legal purposes - while doing absolutely nothing to curb crime. .....


IIt is clear from this line of reasoning that driver licensing must be abolished. Hardened criminals do not care if they have a driver's licence when they exceed the speed limit, rob banks, or fail to stop for a stop sign, not necessarily in that order.


Honest god-fearing corporations that do nothing except create jobs, donate to worthy charities, and pay taxes to the fullest extent possible are obviously harmed by laws requiring them to incorporate, report their income, pay minimum wages, etc etc. Let us abolish all laws on corporations asap!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You had to go back over two years to find something to be sarcastic about in this thread?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I was going to point out as well, that wow am I ever made to feel like a criminal every time I have to update, or register my vehicle. And the constant payments for stickers for the registered vehicle!! All that even though I am licensed to drive, I paid a good fee to take driving lessons, and studied pretty hard to pass my driver's test, so many of my friends were failed at least twice before passing.

Isn't it amazing how we regulate the hell out a motor vehicle, yet, the howls of complaints is deafening when similar rules are applied to weapons actually designed to kill?

Perhaps it's time to abolish registering vehicles.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> You had to go back over two years to find something to be sarcastic about in this thread?


I thought suddenly that Evan Pitts had returned! Shame it was just a really ancient quote.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *Manitoba girl, 4 apparently shot and injured by five-year-old brother*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't understand ...wasn't the registry supposed to prevent this? Good point about its failure CM, I definitely agree that it's a good thing the Harper government got rid of it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I was going to point out as well, that wow am I ever made to feel like a criminal every time I have to update, or register my vehicle. And the constant payments for stickers for the registered vehicle!! All that even though I am licensed to drive, I paid a good fee to take driving lessons, and studied pretty hard to pass my driver's test, so many of my friends were failed at least twice before passing.
> 
> Isn't it amazing how we regulate the hell out a motor vehicle, yet, the howls of complaints is deafening when similar rules are applied to weapons actually designed to kill?
> 
> Perhaps it's time to abolish registering vehicles.


Difference is Groove, and it's a big one, is that if you don't register your automobile, you do not face a criminal conviction, confiscation of ALL your vehicles and possibly a 10 year prison sentence for a simple paper "crime". If you speed you get a speeding ticket but if you accidentally leave your .22 loaded you'd face a criminal charge punishable by 5 years...and that's if you didn't discharge the firearm. Now if you discharge it, you might be lucky enough not to be sent to Gitmo.{)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Excellent point kps, not to mention that cars kill many more people than guns in this country.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Difference is Groove, and it's a big one, is that if you don't register your automobile, you do not face a criminal conviction, confiscation of ALL your vehicles and possibly a 10 year prison sentence for a simple paper "crime". If you speed you get a speeding ticket but if you accidentally leave your .22 loaded you'd face a criminal charge punishable by 5 years...and that's if you didn't discharge the firearm. Now if you discharge it, you might be lucky enough not to be sent to Gitmo.{)


Sure, that's a big difference. But, now I have to say I can't profess to know a lot about the subject, but why ditch the registration thing, why not change the penalties? Assuming of course such a registry is useful, though since we have to register our vehicles, I couldn't imagine why we shouldn't register our firearms the same way. Unless such a registry already exists?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The registry for hand guns has been in effect since the mid 1930s and toughened many times over the years. The long gun registry was a knee jerk reaction to a couple of unfortunate incidents and enacted so the government of the day was 'seen to be doing something' about gun violence. 

The fact remains that far less than 1% of the long guns in the country were ever used in the commission of a crime, before or AFTER the registry was established. All it effectively did was prescribe criminal records and penalties for the vast majority of responsible long gun owners who make mistakes in paperwork. It is also estimated that over six million long guns remain unregistered in the country. I doubt that makes the anti-gun zealots very happy, but it is likely close to the truth.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

whats the percentage of handguns used in the commission of crime? (I'm asking because I don't know.)

I understand the point about criminal convictions in regards to not properly registering long guns. But see my post further in regards to what I'm suggesting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I can't answer that question, but maybe KPS can ring in. I would be willing to bet though, that 99% of the hand guns used in the commission of a crime are unregistered, illegally imported guns from the U.S., sadly, something we can never stop.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> whats the percentage of handguns used in the commission of crime? (I'm asking because I don't know.)
> 
> I understand the point about criminal convictions in regards to not properly registering long guns. But see my post further in regards to what I'm suggesting.


Not sure what you're asking there. 

First and foremost, criminals do not use registered firearms and if you read this thread you'll also see that registration does not prevent the use of such firearms, does not reduce crime in any way shape or form and does not save lives in any way shape or form because only law abiding citizens register their firearms and those are the least likely to be a threat to police and others. 

Licensing OTOH has done more to educate law abiding firearms owners and possibly reduced accidental discharges and suicides with firearms. That is not to say it reduced suicides, just suicides with guns. Studies indicate that a suicidal person will use the most convenient way to do it, so if a gun is not available then another method will be used.

Lastly, do not confuse licensing with registration and as SINC has already indicated, restricted firearms and prohibited firearms will remain registered and continue to be registered. Owners will continue to be licensed, licensing is not affected, a license is required to buy ammunition, and licensed owners continue with the requirement to register any handguns or rifles classified as "restricted" provided you are endorsed on your license to posses such firearms. There is no provision for any new prohibited firearms, only those which were grandfathered in 1998 to their licensed owners under the old system. That means they can not be imported into the country (legally that is) and put into the legal system.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps, see my earlier reply to you not the one to sinc.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Sure, that's a big difference. But, now I have to say I can't profess to know a lot about the subject, but why ditch the registration thing, why not change the penalties? Assuming of course such a registry is useful, though since we have to register our vehicles, I couldn't imagine why we shouldn't register our firearms the same way. Unless such a registry already exists?


Is this what you want answers to?

Firearms...Federal law (Ministry of Justice) and Federal Firearms Act 
Automobiles....provincial highway act mostly non criminal (fines and demerit points), provincial criminal laws if applicable (DUI, dangerous, etc)

If using the car analogy will make you understand, then:The long gun registry is as accurate as the utility trailer registry in Ontario...in other words a complete disaster. Think of cars as handguns and cargo, boat and utility trailers as a farmer's .22 varmint gun. 

Restricted firearms such as handguns and some rifles remain registered to licensed and authorized users. Non-restricted firearms must still be possessed by licensed and authorized users, but no longer need to be registered. Just like your bicycle, but when you break the HWY traffic act, you may be charged and demerit points taken off your license upon conviction.

However, the Firearms act is much, much stricter and all charges are criminal. Possessing a duck gun without a license will land you in criminal court looking at some serious jail time.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Is this what you want answers to?
> 
> Firearms...Federal law (Ministry of Justice) and Federal Firearms Act
> Automobiles....provincial highway act mostly non criminal (fines and demerit points), provincial criminal laws if applicable (DUI, dangerous, etc)
> ...


So, question the long gun registry only covered .22 'varmint rifles?

(Wasn't it a .22 'varmint' rifle that was used to murder 14 women in Montreal?)

Now I can't debate the effective of said registry, but why bother register any gun if you feel registering a weapon that was used to commit on of the worst mass shootings in Canadian history?

(focus on the first part of the question rather than the second part, which I'm sure one or two will... )

Alos, in regards to the car analogy, a car isn't designed to kill, a gun IS. There is no other use, for a long gun.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> So, question the long gun registry only covered .22 'varmint rifles?
> 
> (Wasn't it a .22 'varmint' rifle that was used to murder 14 women in Montreal?)
> 
> ...


The long gun registry covered all long guns. Big game rifles, small game rifles, shotguns etc, not just varmint guns as .22 calibres are often referred to. Anything but a hand gun was included. The point is just because one disturbed person used one long gun to commit a horrible act does not equate to punishing upwards of 10 million plus responsible gun owners with criminal records for improper registration.

As for 'killing' there are many uses for a long gun that do not involve killing so that statement is a bit of a stretch. There are target shooting clubs, trap shooting clubs and the like that do not involve killing of any kind. Even the Olympics has the ski and shoot competition that involves no killing. Guns are designed to hit an intended target. Gun owners make the decision as to what target the gun will shoot at and if any killing will be involved. The vast majority of long guns are used to hunt and target shoot. As I mentioned earlier 99% of them are never pointed at or used to do harm to a person.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> The long gun registry covered all long guns. Big game rifles, small game rifles, shotguns etc, not just varmint guns as .22 calibres are often referred to. Anything but a hand gun was included. The point is just because one disturbed person used one long gun to commit a horrible act does not equate to punishing upwards of 10 million plus responsible gun owners with criminal records for improper registration.
> 
> As for 'killing' there are many uses for a long gun that do not involve killing so that statement is a bit of a stretch. There are target shooting clubs, trap shooting clubs and the like that do not involve killing of any kind. Even the Olympics has the ski and shoot competition that involves no killing. Guns are designed to hit an intended target. Gun owners make the decision as to what target the gun will shoot at and if any killing will be involved. The vast majority of long guns are used to hunt and target shoot. As I mentioned earlier 99% of them are never pointed at or used to do harm to a person.


thanks for clarifying what long guns were covered.

But the rest, I've already heard, and didn't address the main questions I asked.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> So, question the long gun registry only covered .22 'varmint rifles?
> 
> (Wasn't it a .22 'varmint' rifle that was used to murder 14 women in Montreal?)
> 
> ...


Where to begin...where...where...where.

Lets start with a bit of history since you brought it up. have a look at the list below:


In 1984 Quebec Assembly shooting.

In 1989 Marc Lepine walked into École Polytechnique with a gun and shot and killed 14 female engineering students.

In 1992, Concordia professor Valery Fabrikant shot and killed four of his colleagues.

In 2006, Kimveer Gill shot and killed himself and 19-year-old Anastasia De Sousa at Dawson College. 19 others were wounded and/or injured.

Is it guns that's the problem or is there something wrong in Quebec, Perhaps we need to fix Quebec and not develop Hoplophobia over rare tragedies.

...and speaking of rare tragedies...they never make for good laws. C68 brought in as a result of Lepin's rampage was a law brought in as a result of a rare tragedy. Punishing millions and making criminals out of hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens overnight. Making long time gun owners such as myself go and get relicensed and forced to register non-restricted firearms under penalty of criminal law.

How would the registry of long guns prevent any of these? 

Did licensing and the registry prevent Kimvee Gill? Not in the least. Kimveer Gill was a vampire/goth, perhaps we need to revoke the gun licenses of all known goths and seize all their guns? Perhaps force them them to register as such. Having a goth registry should solve that issue..._.if it saves just one life it'll be worth it._ <--srcasm

Isn't that the line spewed all the time when one group wants to take something they don't like away from another group? Anti gun Hoplophobes and women's groups love dancing on the graves of the victims of Lepine and Gill, their agenda is clear.

I don't like anologies because this isn't that simple, but let me address yours:



> Alos, in regards to the car analogy, a car isn't designed to kill, a gun IS. There is no other use, for a long gun


Right, a car is not designed to "kill", but cars kill more people than guns every day. I haven't heard of any of the 2 million legal gun owners kill anyone today , or yesterday, or the previous day...I've owned both handguns and long guns for over 30 years and I haven't killed anyone...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

let me try to rephrase a little.

Now, assuming such a registry is useful, and it seems police chiefs are adamant that they are.(though the same police chiefs are against decriminalizing small amounts of pot so I would understand if you took their beliefs with a grain of salt...)

Why waste over a billion of OUR money, by forbidding provinces who want to retain such a database, since their tax payers paid for it and wish to retain it? (Quebec)

Why bother registering handguns, if such a registry isn't useful and simply wasteful spending?

I found this article that prints out some interesting numbers, all based on stats can. Yes I realize it's on the CBC, but feel free to disprove the stats from stats can.
Scrapping the long-gun registry: some relevant numbers - Canada - CBC News


Let me focus in on a few items:



> Since the introduction of stricter gun laws in 1991, there has been a 65 per cent reduction in homicides by long guns, Statistics Canada data shows. The reduction in homicides involving any type of firearm was 37 per cent.


So strict gun control, actually works despite the beliefs to the contrary.



> *From 1995, when the firearms registry became law, to 2010, there was a 41 per cent reduction in homicides by long guns.*


What about this stat? I'm interested in knowing about this stat. I know the 1% figure was thrown about, but actually in terms of real victim numbers, since 2003 that was 47 murdered people by long guns. A 41% reduction means a lot more people murdered or is there a certain number of people murdered where we say, well, that's within acceptable limits.



> Gun registry information is used by police across Canada more than 17,000 times per day.


No one has really addressed this. If I missed it, let me know. Why are the police accessing it 17,000 times a day?

Now, here's some stats I'm a little puzzled about. From stats can too.


> Rifles or shotguns: 23% (36% in 1999)
> Handguns: 64%
> Prohibited firearms: 12%
> Change, as of 2010, in the number of homicides involving long guns since the introduction of stricter gun laws in 1991: - 65%
> ...


23%? Why the discrepancy in numbers put out by the Harper government?


here's a full quote of the article:


> Since the introduction of stricter gun laws in 1991, there has been a 65 per cent reduction in homicides by long guns, Statistics Canada data shows. The reduction in homicides involving any type of firearm was 37 per cent.
> 
> Statistics Canada released a report on Oct. 26, 2011, on homicides in Canada in 2010. That year, there were 170 shooting homicides, about 32 per cent of all homicides. The total homicide rate fell to its lowest level since 1966 (1.62 per 100,000 population).
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

looks we both replied at the same time. Maybe I'll have more time later to read this more.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I've already addressed most of it, including the whole suicide issue in previous posts.

*For the last frigging time: Please do not confuse LICENSING with the registry of non restricted firearms which is nothing more than a database of records.*

Now I'll address specifics:



> Why waste over a billion of OUR money, by forbidding provinces who want to retain such a database, since their tax payers paid for it and wish to retain it? (Quebec)


*Because those records are the registry*! Besides, I'm not a resident of Quebec and they have no business knowing my business or have my record. Also look at their history in my previous post. They need to look elsewhere to solve their problems.



> Why bother registering handguns, if such a registry isn't useful and simply wasteful spending?


I agree, why indeed. If you're licensed and endorsed for handguns what difference does it make.



> Gun registry information is used by police across Canada more than 17,000 times per day.
> No one has really addressed this. If I missed it, let me know. Why are the police accessing it 17,000 times a day?


LOL. All automated hits by the system each time a cop runs your name or plate number etc. a hit is registered at the CFC. Also includes dealer and private transfers and other clerical transactions at the CFC.

As for the rest...as I said earlier, don't confuse licensing with the useless database record.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't that I am confusing it, but I'll chalk it up to the confusion of forum posts. I'll have to wait til later to get back.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm guessing we're all clear on this then...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> I'm guessing we're all clear on this then...


kps, my old granny got her door shot up bad by a long gun. How do you explain this?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> kps, my old granny got her door shot up bad by a long gun. How do you explain this?


The registry failed your Granny or the gun became sentient.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

*Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...*


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Good for Hayer and Rafferty, a couple of dippers with guts...but would they have them if Jack was still around?



> The federal long-gun registry is dead and MP Bruce Hyer says he’s glad he didn’t give in to party pressure and vote to save it.
> 
> Labeled a maverick by the national media, the Thunder Bay-Superior North NDP MP on Wednesday voted with the ruling Conservatives to kill the registry, long detested in rural ridings and Northern Ontario communities where hunting is a way of life.
> 
> ...



Hyer, Rafferty vote against gun registry - Tbnewswatch.com


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

Rest in pieces Long-Gun Registry. 

Every so often, even the government does something right. It almost gives one hope....


----------



## FightingShibas (Oct 8, 2011)

Mythtaken said:


> Rest in pieces Long-Gun Registry.
> 
> Every so often, even the government does something right. It almost gives one hope....


Its not dead yet, still needs to get passed by the senate and signed off by the GG. Hopefully its just a formality though. I'm hoping that by the summer time it should be all done.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

FightingShibas said:


> Its not dead yet, still needs to get passed by the senate and signed off by the GG. Hopefully its just a formality though. I'm hoping that by the summer time it should be all done.


I have a bad feeling about the senate. It's a majority government so they should be able to force it through, but the bad feeling comes with knowing that ex-Ottawa Chief of Police was recently appointed to the senate (I believe). I wonder if he'll get into the mix or influence people.

As a taxpayer, I'm glad this is (hopefully) truly over. It's time to put that wasted money towards some good. I once read that the money spent could have put an MRI unit in every Canadian hospital.

As a responsible firearm owner, please let the proper authorities leave us law abiding citizens alone and focus the efforts (money and manpower) on stopping or reducing the influx of illegal handguns, which are responsible for most of the gun related violence. I think the restricted firearm registry for pistols etc... is warranted and it works. Keep it at that and leave us hunters and range shooters, alone.

But overall, I was more angry as the taxpayer. Such a waste. Perhaps a good intention, but poorly implemented in all aspects.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A great day for law-abiding Canadian long gun owners. :clap:


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Aurora's Arsenal, Explained: Feds Can't Track Stockpiled Guns*



> If you want to kill large numbers of people, you should seriously consider buying a handgun or assault rifle. As the movie-theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado demonstrated, chances are federal law enforcement and homeland security and counterterrorism agents won’t see you amassing an arsenal of assault rifles, handguns and ammunition.
> 
> Longtime law enforcement and intelligence veterans say that the feds simply don’t have ways of spotting stockpiles of firearms. It stands in contrast to their successful post-9/11 efforts at stopping the spread of bomb precursors like chemical fertilizer.





> one of the most useful tools for killing people is effectively excluded from the attention of federal agents who have received sweeping powers over the last decade to prevent mass-casualty events





> the FBI and affiliated law enforcement agencies have spent countless hours convincing manufacturers, distributors and retailers to alert the authorities when suspicious or anomalously large purchases of chemical fertilizer or other potential explosives occur. “You would know a lot more about people who buy chemical fertilizer than people who buy firearms,”





> This may help explain why the primary mode of mass murder in the United States in the post-9/11 world remains a single shooter using an assault weapon or handgun





> I love the Second Amendment as much as the next guy, but it would be nice if law enforcement had some inkling of a guy sitting on a mountaintop of guns.”


(Wired)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is mindless twaddle. The person would just buy their weapons from a range of suppliers--or do as most criminals do, which is buy them illegally. Living in Mexico, of course, you have seen that Eric Holder and President Obama exported guns across the border before losing track of them--and of course, these same Feds are going to protect citizens in exchange for their Second Amendment rights. 



> I love the Second Amendment as much as the next guy, but it would be nice if law enforcement had some inkling of a guy sitting on a mountaintop of guns.”


Bet he _doesn't_ love those rights as much as the next guy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Why a U.S. gun issue is posted in a Canadian registry thread is beyond me. The subjects are completely unrelated.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Why a U.S. gun issue is posted in a Canadian registry thread is beyond me. The subjects are completely unrelated.


Because some people think that we are one and the same country SINC...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

That strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous, guys. Reading the article, I found it interesting that some in the U.S. were saying that the lack of a firearms registry was a roadblock to law enforcement having another tool to prevent potential mass killings.

I _know_ you can see the conceptual link here. I think y'all doth protest too much...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't think they're really interested in that CM. thx for the article post all the same.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> That strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous, guys. Reading the article, I found it interesting that some in the U.S. were saying that the lack of a firearms registry was a roadblock to law enforcement having another tool to prevent potential mass killings.
> 
> I _know_ you can see the conceptual link here. I think y'all doth protest too much...


You do know that we still have a registry for hand guns, restricted and prohibited weapons which would have been covered in the case in the US, it is you who is being somewhat disingenuous, if not then just ill informed.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> That strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous, guys. Reading the article, I found it interesting that some in the U.S. were saying that the lack of a firearms registry was a roadblock to law enforcement having another tool to prevent potential mass killings.
> 
> I _know_ you can see the conceptual link here. I think y'all doth protest too much...


The issues are very much different in Canada CM.

First, we still have a restricted and prohibited registry, that part didn't go away. The rifle and handgun used in Aurora would be classified restricted in Canada and hard to obtain legally.

Two, all Canadian firearms owners have to take courses and be licensed in a multi tier system ie Non-Restricted, Restricted, Prohibited (12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7)
The Non-Restricted registry is gone, but the licensing didn't go away. Also, in Canada there can no longer be any prohibited status, once these "grandfathered" individuals pass, that's it, those firearms are gone from the system and will likely be destroyed.

Three, in order to be licensed, one has to undergo a police background check, a criminal history check, a former spouse/gf check, mental health history check, etc.

Four, large capacity magazines are prohibited in Canada. Limited to 5rds in all semi automatic rifles.

There's more....of course, but I'll leave it at this.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Sigh.  The _point_ is that a broad registry of firearms is a useful tool for law enforcement - whether they be assault rifles, handguns or simple long guns, even with U.S. / Canada contextual differences applied.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Sigh. The _point_ is that a broad registry of firearms is a useful tool for law enforcement - whether they be assault rifles, handguns or simple long guns, even with U.S. / Canada contextual differences applied.


Sigh. The _point_ has not been made with your post.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> Sigh. The _point_ is that a broad registry of firearms is a useful tool for law enforcement - whether they be assault rifles, handguns or simple long guns, even with U.S. / Canada contextual differences applied.


Sigh. The point is that we already have a registry for the weapons used in the massacre so your point is moot. Try shooting over 60 people with a long gun having to stop and reload after every shot (or every 5)...  Please get real.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Sigh. The _point_ is that a broad registry of firearms is a useful tool for law enforcement - whether they be assault rifles, handguns or simple long guns, even with U.S. / Canada contextual differences applied.


You're back-pedalling.

You want something else to chew on? How about this...

Considering that Colorado has Concealed Weapons Permits, no one shot back because the movie theatre declared itself a "Gun Free Zone" so the* law abiding citizens* who might have been armed left their firearms at home or in their cars.

How to stop a massacre:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Sigh. The _point_ is that a broad registry of firearms is a useful tool for law enforcement - whether they be assault rifles, handguns or simple long guns, even with U.S. / Canada contextual differences applied.


Indeed, so useful in Canada that it was dumped.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> You want something else to chew on? How about this...
> 
> Considering that Colorado has Concealed Weapons Permits, no one shot back because the movie theatre declared itself a "Gun Free Zone" so the* law abiding citizens* who might have been armed left their firearms at home or in their cars.


lol

ya, that would have ended great. a dark theatre, filled with tear gas and smoke, mass confusion, and instead of just one shooter (decked out in body armour) you want to add a number of other people throughout the theatre with guns. 

my guess is the tragedy would've been much much worse if the audience was packing heat in the theatre.

in fact, weren't the injuries at the scarborough BBQ because everyone was caught in the crossfire? only 2 people supposedly had guns.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> ya, that would have ended great. a dark theatre, filled with tear gas and smoke, mass confusion, and instead of just one shooter (decked out in body armour) you want to add a number of other people throughout the theatre with guns.
> 
> ...


The shooter would have gone to another theatre where guns are prohibited.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> You're back-pedalling.
> 
> You want something else to chew on? How about this...
> 
> ...


Beautiful!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> ya, that would have ended great. a dark theatre, filled with tear gas and smoke, mass confusion, and instead of just one shooter (decked out in body armour) you want to add a number of other people throughout the theatre with guns.
> 
> ...


What do you expect from idiot gangbangers who are untrained and don't care? Big difference when that professional hitman did his thing in Little Italy, wouldn't you say?

Also, to have a CCW permit in the US you have to have training, so don't be so quick to dismiss the theatre goers.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> You're back-pedalling.
> 
> You want something else to chew on? How about this...
> 
> ...


:lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> What do you expect from idiot gangbangers who are untrained and don't care? Big difference when that professional hitman did his thing in Little Italy, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Also, to have a CCW permit in the US you have to have training, so don't be so quick to dismiss the theatre goers.


Even -with- training, I doubt trying to shoot someone in full body armour in a dark theatre jammed full of people with tear gas isn't going to be without problems.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Even -with- training, I doubt trying to shoot someone in full body armour in a dark theatre jammed full of people with tear gas isn't going to be without problems.


You'll get no argument from me on that. This was waaaay, waaay out there, more than anyone has ever seen before. 

Just saying there's a difference between untrained gangbangers shooting indiscriminately with no control (as seen in Scarborough and the Eaton Centre) and trained civilians or even the good old mafia hitman.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> How to stop a massacre:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


just wanted to add - as amusing as this video is, the burglars gun was actually non-functioning & not loaded. The situation could've been pretty tragic is they were armed and able to shoot back.

also, if the senior citizen happened to wound an innocent bystander does he get charged? is he criminally or civilly responsible for his actions in response to the crime?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> just wanted to add - as amusing as this video is, the burglars gun was actually non-functioning & not loaded. The situation could've been pretty tragic is they were armed and able to shoot back.
> 
> also, if the senior citizen happened to wound an innocent bystander does he get charged? is he criminally or civilly responsible for his actions in response to the crime?


By the time you think such questions over--you are dead.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> By the time you think such questions over--you are dead.


is that the tag-line from Death Wish 6?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> just wanted to add - as amusing as this video is, the burglars gun was actually non-functioning & not loaded. The situation could've been pretty tragic is they were armed and able to shoot back.
> 
> also, if the senior citizen happened to wound an innocent bystander does he get charged? is he criminally or civilly responsible for his actions in response to the crime?


Any time you present your firearm you are responsible for your actions...that's where the training comes in...

If any one is stupid enough to attempt a robbery with an empty gun or a fake gun, deserves all they get.

We do have criminal laws which address the pointing of a firearm even if not loaded and that includes just brandishing the firearm or waving it around.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> just wanted to add - as amusing as this video is,* the burglars gun was actually non-functioning & not loaded. The situation could've been pretty tragic is they were armed and able to shoot back.*
> 
> also, *if the senior citizen happened to wound an innocent bystander does he get charged? is he criminally or civilly responsible for his actions in response to the crime?*


The fact that the guns were unloaded is irrelevant... no one knew that, it wasn't some sort of game of "chicken" "Guess if I have a loaded gun or I am going to kill you". The victims of this robbery attempt would have all thought their guns were loaded and functioning... why would they possibly think otherwise?. 

If the perps got shot and killed it wouldn't be tragic in the least, it would have been the price they paid for victimizing others.

Quite obviously the answer to this hypothetical is yes the senior would have been subject to both criminal and civil law.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> If any one is stupid enough to attempt a robbery with an empty gun or a fake gun, deserves all they get.


sure, but thats not the point i was making.



screature said:


> The fact that the guns were unloaded is irrelevant... .


of course it's relevant. if the robbers were armed with loaded guns they may not have run away and instead fired their guns. innocent people could have been injured or killed.

my point being that in this particular incident the CCW law worked out for the best. but one can not simply apply this incident universally.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> sure, but thats not the point i was making.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not relevant to the actions of the senior or if he were a better shot and had wounded or killed them... why do you seemingly want to demonize those who protect themselves and others rather than the actual criminals?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> It's not relevant to the actions of the senior


but it could be very relevant to the criminal holding the gun. if it's loaded they may just return fire instead of running. that was the point.



screature said:


> why do you seemingly want to demonize those who protect themselves and others rather than the actual criminals?


i haven't demonized anyone, and i have no idea how anyone could draw that conclusion from my posts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> but it could be very relevant to the criminal holding the gun. if it's loaded they may just return fire instead of running. that was the point.


Imagining that the gunmen might show some moral judgement in not injuring ANYONE whom they are holding up and robbing is not a premise that I will waste much time on. Any gunman intending to return fire will do so if the police arrive as well. So your premise is what? Don't call police or resist in any way--these might be principled brigands and we don't want the situation to get out of hand?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> but it could be very relevant to the criminal holding the gun. if it's loaded they may just return fire instead of running. that was the point.
> 
> 
> 
> i haven't demonized anyone, and i have no idea how anyone could draw that conclusion from my posts.


I wouldn't expect your post to really go over very well. Now it's been converted to you saying no one should resist.

Everyone wants to play cops and robbers these days.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Lot of Monday morning quarterbacking. 

What if, what if, what if....

We live with uncertainty every day...what if you get hit by a bus, lightning, a falling tree?

Gramps was using a .380 fairly weak round...don't know if he hit the culprits or not. Plus I don't know the full story so can't say much whether the guns were functioning, empty or what.



i-rui said:


> my point being that in this particular incident the CCW law worked out for the best. but one can not simply apply this incident universally.


Tough call and I myself am uncertain, but I'm against any bans of firearms and ammunition by provinces and municipalities based simply on emotion and political opportunism. How is it working out for Chicago and New York? Even DC rescinded their ban.

Getting back to CM's comment about "universal" gun registries...how exactly would a firearms registry prevent the Aurora tragedy? How?

As many of you know, I own firearms, and some are in the restricted category...how would the registry prevent me from using these firearms for nefarious purposes. It wouldn't.

All of the people I've met over the years in my journey through the Canadian firearms community are decent, law abiding citizens. Many are current and former military or law enforcement, many others just enjoy the sport. We don't need idiots telling us to get another hobby when said idiots are clueless to the reality of guns and gun ownership.
Perhaps we need to ban golf because of it's impact on the environment and migratory bird movements.

Even this contributor to the lefty NOW magazine get's it. 



> With Monday night’s brazen shootout in east Scarborough, we can expect the chorus at City Hall to waste more time debating stricter gun penalties. This is an obvious way to go, but it won’t mean anything to the majority of young guns who don’t weigh the consequences when they decide to start packing.
> Council needs to attack the general culture and ideology that infect teens in areas where violence and intimidation are idolized instead of condemned.
> I grew up and frequented Scarborough’s Tuxedo Court, Mornelle Court and Galloway, among others, and unfortunately have subscribed to this culture, too. I remember walking my high school hallways or streets like Morningside, Ellesmere, Lawrence, Eglinton and Kennedy and being ready for confrontation with young thugs hoping to impress their peers. Sometimes they wanted money, other times just to make an example of you. It’s like high school bullying only the stakes are higher.
> There are only a few options when you’re in this situation, and I’ve tried them all. Keep your head down, though this just tags you as easy prey for humiliation. Report them to the principal or police. (Never a real option. Whatever authorities you bring down would be lucky to find someone to reprimand, and if they did, I’d be the bitch who talked and the target for more harassment.)
> ...


ARTICLE HERE

Do any of you think that if there's a handgun ban that all the problems will magically disappear?

Read this article from 11 years ago. Do you think this supply method has not been improved upon 11 years later?



> http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoNews/ts.ts-08-30-0006.html
> 
> Thursday, August 30, 2001
> 
> ...


More from 9 years ago:



> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003
> 
> This story is no longer available - Washington Times
> 
> ...


How is this source for a little reality check:

The Secret Online Weapons Store That’ll Sell Anyone Anything

We don't have a gun problem, we have a gang problem. These lone nutbars such as the Aurora shooter are extremely rare and not worth worrying about. Better odds of geting hit by lightning than by a nutbar like Holmes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Lot of Monday morning quarterbacking.
> 
> What if, what if, what if....
> 
> ...


You're right, the NOW commenter does get it.

Kneejerk reactions like imposing stiffer penalties (cons) and banning ammo (lefty) isn't really going to solve things really. But it makes for good politics and supporters on either side clap their hands and go to bed thinking they're right!


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

i-rui said:


> just wanted to add - as amusing as this video is, the burglars gun was actually non-functioning & not loaded. The situation could've been pretty tragic is they were armed and able to shoot back.
> 
> also, if the senior citizen happened to wound an innocent bystander does he get charged? is he criminally or civilly responsible for his actions in response to the crime?


Then the Video Title would be "How to cause a massacre"


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths*



> What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.
> 
> Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.


(The Atlantic)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Once again, Japan has nothing to do with the Canadian LONG GUN registry. Perhaps a new relevant thread is in order for your international 'any type of' gun registration penchant is in order?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths*
> 
> 
> 
> (The Atlantic)


this doesn't count CM!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *(The Atlantic)*


*

Better titled: Why guns are not used in a subservient culture built on the notion of shame. Next?*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

a) as the thread's OP, I don't think it's outside my prerogative to take it on a tangent, especially since:
b) the Canadian Long Gun Registry is now a dead issue, and 
c) I'm a holistic kinda guy. Multidisciplinary, even. So I enjoy bringing broader perspectives to the table than narrowly-delineated discussions.

If y'all don't like it, you're free to not post in this thread...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Multidisciplinary, even.


Undisciplined?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Undisciplined?


That comment says quite a bit about your way of viewing the world, MF.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> That comment says quite a bit about your way of viewing the world, MF.


Yes, it does.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

In a country that banned guns even one death by firearm should be too much...no?

Strange that there should be as many as 22 in one year.

We discussed this earlier either here or in another thread, but comparing a homogeneous society with a much different cultural ethos and which was shut to all foreign influences till the late 19th century to a thriving multicultural society of immigrants with varied cultural influences is ludicrous at best.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> ...is ludicrous at best.


And off-topic (multidisciplinary) in the long gun registry thread.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> a) as the thread's OP, I don't think it's outside my prerogative to take it on a tangent, especially since:
> b) the Canadian Long Gun Registry is now a dead issue, and
> c) I'm a holistic kinda guy. Multidisciplinary, even. So I enjoy bringing broader perspectives to the table than narrowly-delineated discussions.
> 
> If y'all don't like it, you're free to not post in this thread...


I think perhaps you're confusing people.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Ahhh, the land of the rising sun...When the Japanese do carnage, they do it well.

MASS STABBINGS japan - Google Search


Here's another country where firearms are banned...where there's a will, there's a way.

MASS STABBINGS China - Google Search


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Japanese system is also based on giving over extraordinary powers to the police--who can search your home on almost any excuse. The lefty gun control crowd would flip out under that system.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Ahhh, the land of the rising sun...When the Japanese do carnage, they do it well.
> 
> MASS STABBINGS japan - Google Search
> 
> ...


your point?

i'm pretty sure people still get stabbed in the U.S.

I rather have the crazies armed with knives than guns.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Japanese system is also based on giving over extraordinary powers to the police--who can search your home on almost any excuse. The lefty gun control crowd would flip out under that system.


On top of a slew of other sociological and even psychological behaviours and memes. 

Gun control is not about guns, it's about people control...always has been.



> "I came to Ottawa ... with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." — Liberal minister of justice Allan Rock, 1994.
> 
> "C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada. "— Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs, 1996.
> 
> ...


Understand this:



> “There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government.”


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> your point?
> 
> i'm pretty sure people still get stabbed in the U.S.
> 
> I rather have the crazies armed with knives than guns.


There seems to be more mass stabbings in Japan than mass shootings in the US. That's the point. Perhaps the Japanese need a knife registry and all their troubles will go away.:lmao:


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> There seems to be more mass stabbings in Japan than mass shootings in the US. That's the point.


you might want to look into that. the google search link you posted references crimes committed in 2001 & 2008.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

not the Japan that attacked the US and waged a brutal horrible war with hundreds of thousands of deaths, woundings, tortures, not to mention that it took the building of the first atomic bomb and dropping it on them (twice) to stop them.

That Japan?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

groovetube said:


> not the Japan that attacked the US and waged a brutal horrible war with hundreds of thousands of deaths, woundings, tortures, not to mention that it took the building of the first atomic bomb and dropping it on them (twice) to stop them.
> 
> That Japan?


They're all Zen now.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

John Clay said:


> They're all Zen now.


riiight.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

kps said:


> There seems to be more mass stabbings in Japan than mass shootings in the US. That's the point. Perhaps the Japanese need a knife registry and all their troubles will go away.:lmao:


Yeah but even considering the stabbings, there are less murders in Japan than the USA or Canada. In fact, Japan is the lowest except for Iceland and Monaco.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Maybe you guys should make a comparison to the UK. They seem to have some strict gun control laws and a lower murder rate.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Maybe you guys should make a comparison to the UK. They seem to have some strict gun control laws and a lower murder rate.


Yeah, sure, the UK....ask them how the handgun ban is working out for them. LOL

Nice fresh article from today:
28 gun crimes committed in UK every day - Telegraph

We should learn from their mistakes and not duplicate them here.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

kps said:


> Yeah, sure, the UK....ask them how the handgun ban is working out for them. LOL
> 
> Nice fresh article from today:
> 28 gun crimes committed in UK every day - Telegraph
> ...


+1.

Our gun control laws are already strict enough, and in some cases too strict. What we need are for the police to go after the illegal gun owners, leaving the legal owners alone.

We can't base our laws around the one-offs and wackos. We have to base it on the endemic issues, like gangs and drugs.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Yeah, sure, the UK....ask them how the handgun ban is working out for them. LOL
> 
> Nice fresh article from today:
> 28 gun crimes committed in UK every day - Telegraph
> ...


the article is actually from jan 2008, but out of curiosity what are the "mistakes" you feel the UK is making regarding gun control?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> the article is actually from jan 2008, but out of curiosity what are the "mistakes" you feel the UK is making regarding gun control?


The UK mistakes have already been made. Despite a 1997 handgun ban their gun crime has doubled by 2009. It clearly indicates the ineffectiveness of such bans as it empowers the criminals who do not obey such bans while criminilizing the law abiding who do. 

UK's Olympic shooters must train outside the country in order to compete in the upcoming London games. As a matter of fact, I believe that the shooting events are also being held outside of the UK. What a bunch of wankers. 

Reminds me of the Liberals banning all .32 calibre handguns in bill C68 without realizing that is the pistols used in the Olympic competitions. At least they gave the shooters an exemption.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Despite a 1997 handgun ban their gun crime has doubled by 2009. It clearly indicates the ineffectiveness of such bans as it empowers the criminals who do not obey such bans while criminilizing the law abiding who do.


 How does it criminalize the law abiding who do obey the ban?

Also, and more importantly, we cannot know what would have happened if this ban had not been passed; maybe gun crime would have tripled or quadrupled. So the only thing we can say for sure is that the ban was not a perfect solution, but I doubt anyone thought it would be.

It seems intuitively obvious that the fewer guns present in a society, the less gun violence will occur, and the data is consistent with that. It is also intuitively obvious that as long as criminals are able to obtain guns, gun violence will not be eliminated. However, making guns more difficult to obtain, and being able to arrest someone for *having* a gun, rather than waiting for them to use it seems a very sensible strategy.

Obviously some exceptions will always be necessary for police, military, wildlife control officers, etc. But within the urban context, there is no reason for average citizens to be in possession of anti-personelle weapons. Unless, of course, you buy the NRA's argument that having everyone armed is the only way to eliminate gun violence 

nra-version-of-gun-safety


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Obviously some exceptions will always be necessary for police, military, wildlife control officers, etc. But within the urban context, there is no reason for average citizens to be in possession of anti-personelle weapons. Unless, of course, you buy the NRA's argument that having everyone armed is the only way to eliminate gun violence


There is a valid argument to this. If the populace is armed, then a criminal would know that they have a fair shot at getting killed while trying to do the crime. If they want to do the crime, they'll need to be prepared to pay the price.

I would support having trained civilians carrying concealed weapons, similar to many states that require proof of proficiency before issuing a concealed carry permit.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> How does it criminalize the law abiding who do obey the ban?


Read on Bry...



bryanc said:


> Also, and more importantly, we cannot know what would have happened if this ban had not been passed; maybe gun crime would have tripled or quadrupled. So the only thing we can say for sure is that the ban was not a perfect solution, but I doubt anyone thought it would be.


If the gun crime rates quadrupled, then it's not the gun that's the issue or problem, it's crime itself. Fix the causes of crime and you fix the problem of gun crime, don't punish sports men and women. It's like blaming spoons for causing death due to obesity.



bryanc said:


> It seems intuitively obvious that the fewer guns present in a society, the less gun violence will occur, and the data is consistent with that. It is also intuitively obvious that as long as criminals are able to obtain guns, gun violence will not be eliminated. However, making guns more difficult to obtain, and being able to arrest someone for *having* a gun, rather than waiting for them to use it seems a very sensible strategy.


I don't know what "data" you're referencing but it's clearly not correct. I think you're just wishing upon a star. All I need to do to debunk your wild premiss is to point you to countries like Israel and Switzerland. 

I've been a license firearms owner for close to 40 years, how much longer are you going to wait for me to shoot someone? I haven't killed anyone, my guns didn't either. So here's where the criminalization of law abiding firearms owners comes in. D you fear I might lose it and go on a rampage? Hmmm, are you projecting your own personal fears onto others? I guess you don't trust yourself to own firearms.

Also, didn't I show already that in a society absent of guns does not prevent mass murder, violence or attacks? 



bryanc said:


> Obviously some exceptions will always be necessary for police, military, wildlife control officers, etc. But within the urban context, there is no reason for average citizens to be in possession of anti-personelle weapons. Unless, of course, you buy the NRA's argument that having everyone armed is the only way to eliminate gun violence.


"Anti-personelle weapons"...yeah, let me get out my claymores and RPGs. 

Urban/Rural...are you making a distinction? Because I live in the city, does that mean I can't be a target shooter? What happened to the concept of liberty? I guess you do not subscribe to that concept either. Your hoplophobia is astounding, I should take you to the range with me some day.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

John Clay said:


> There is a valid argument to this. If the populace is armed, then a criminal would know that they have a fair shot at getting killed while trying to do the crime. If they want to do the crime, they'll need to be prepared to pay the price.
> 
> I would support having trained civilians carrying concealed weapons, similar to many states that require proof of proficiency before issuing a concealed carry permit.


One only has to look to Israel to see how foolish some of these argument are.

A day at the beach:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

John Clay said:


> There is a valid argument to this. If the populace is armed, then a criminal would know that they have a fair shot at getting killed while trying to do the crime. If they want to do the crime, they'll need to be prepared to pay the price.
> 
> I would support having trained civilians carrying concealed weapons, similar to many states that require proof of proficiency before issuing a concealed carry permit.


This seems to be working spectacularly in the US.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> This seems to be working spectacularly in the US.



Wonder if 'Batman' would have gone to Arizona...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

groovetube said:


> This seems to be working spectacularly in the US.


It's certainly not hurting. A cursory glance on Google can't find me any incidents of a legal, qualified CCW permit-holder causing more damage than the bad guy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> If the gun crime rates quadrupled, then it's not the gun that's the issue or problem, it's crime itself. Fix the causes of crime and you fix the problem of gun crime


In a perfect world, this would make sense. But the fact that we cannot wave a magic wand and fix every problem in society means we have to consider more pragmatic solutions. Given that sociopaths and depressed/disturbed individuals will always exist, and given that guns dramatically exacerbate the havoc a single individual can wreck upon society without contributing by significantly benefiting society, the cost-benefit analysis clearly argues that guns are not worth their cost to society.



> All I need to do to debunk your wild premiss is to point you to countries like Israel and Switzerland.


Outliers do not refute a statistically significant relationship.


> I've been a license firearms owner for close to 40 years, how much longer are you going to wait for me to shoot someone?


I know people who smoke who have not died of cancer; does that prove that smoking does not cause cancer? Anecdotes are not data.


> Also, didn't I show already that in a society absent of guns does not prevent mass murder, violence or attacks?


No one is arguing that guns are the only cause of violence; they're just a highly convenient tool for exacerbating violence.


> "Anti-personelle weapons"...yeah, let me get out my claymores and RPGs.


What would you call a Smith & Wesson AR-15 rifles, or Glock .40 caliber hand guns? Are these commonly used for hunting?



> What happened to the concept of liberty?


The concept of liberty became compromised the moment people started living together as groups. You sacrifice liberty when you become a member of society. Of course, it's not simply black & white; different societies grant their members different freedoms, and these freedoms are always in flux. Historically, we've granted adult citizens the freedom to own firearms, and this is demonstrably becoming increasingly problematic. As a society, we need to examine what we gain by allowing citizens to own anti-personelle weapons, and what it costs us; I contend it costs us far more than we gain, and thus, this freedom should be eliminated (in exchange for the value of knowing that it is far less likely that my fellow citizens are in possession of military grade firepower, and the value of knowing that the police can arrest anyone in possession of these weapons without needing to wait for them to shoot someone).



> Your hoplophobia is astounding


Not at all astounding, given the monotonous regularity with which innocent people are shot.



> I should take you to the range with me some day.


What for? I've been to several shooting ranges and I'm already a very good shot.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

John Clay said:


> It's certainly not hurting. A cursory glance on Google can't find me any incidents of a legal, qualified CCW permit-holder causing more damage than the bad guy.


Um... I don't know about permits, but the guns used in the latest theatre massacre were purchased legally.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> IGiven that sociopaths and depressed/disturbed individuals will always exist, and given that guns dramatically exacerbate the havoc a single individual can wreck upon society without contributing by significantly benefiting society, the cost-benefit analysis clearly argues that guns are not worth their cost to society.


It does not clearly argue this at all. It merely conforms to your personal set of values.




bryanc said:


> The concept of liberty became compromised the moment people started living together as groups. You sacrifice liberty when you become a member of society. Of course, it's not simply black & white; different societies grant their members different freedoms, and these freedoms are always in flux. Historically, we've granted adult citizens the freedom to own firearms, and this is demonstrably becoming increasingly problematic.


This is a frightening attitude. Individual freedom is an advanced state of being. Your ideas seem to glorify tribalism, a more primitive form of society.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> The UK mistakes have already been made. Despite a 1997 handgun ban their gun crime has doubled by 2009.* It clearly indicates the ineffectiveness of such bans as it empowers the criminals who do not obey such bans while criminilizing the law abiding who do*.


i don't think it clearly indicates anything TBH. While i would agree that a handgun ban probably won't lower gun crimes *dramatically* (as long as they're out there criminals can get them), logically i can't help but think it does have a (at minimal) small effect simply because you're reducing the amount of guns that can potentially be out there.

I'm guessing the UK'c gun crime rate has gone up because of the proliferation of eastern european underworld moving into western europe, and has absolutely zero to do with a handgun ban.




John Clay said:


> +1.
> Our gun control laws are already strict enough, and in some cases too strict..


i do agree that Canada for the most part has got it's gun control laws right. I disagree that it's too strict in any way. Obviously because of recent events the discussion in this thread has shifted to American gun laws.



John Clay said:


> There is a valid argument to this. If the populace is armed, then a criminal would know that they have a fair shot at getting killed while trying to do the crime. If they want to do the crime, they'll need to be prepared to pay the price.


I think it might discourage some criminals, but not the vast majority of them. And of course there's always the problem of a gun owner shooting an unintended target (such as the Nova Scotia man who tragically shot his own son during a B&E.) But i do still support a homeowner having the right to have a gun in his home. Outside in a public space with a CCW law? Hell no.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.










+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It does not clearly argue this at all. It merely conforms to your personal set of values.


Where is the flaw in the logic?

1) Guns exacerbate the damage that can be done by an individual.
2) Guns contribute little (if anything) to society.
3) Disturbed individuals exist.
1+3> Disturbed individuals can do more damage: therefore the cost to society is significant.
2> the benefit to society is insignificant.

Therefore the costs of guns outweigh the benefits. QED.



> This is a frightening attitude. Individual freedom is an advanced state of being.


This is merely _your_ personal set of values.

I agree that, ceteris paribus, freedom is preferable, but we all must sacrifice some freedoms in order to live in any society. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Guns are a no brainer... they contribute little and cost much. Cars contribute greatly and cost much, so how we regulate the use of cars is complex. Yo-yos contribute little and cost little, so we don't worry about regulating them. Musical instruments contribute much and cost little, so we don't worry about regulating them either.



> Your ideas seem to glorify tribalism, a more primitive form of society.


Societies _are_ extended tribes. That individuals have to sacrifice certain freedoms in order for society to function is beyond doubt. What distinguishes one society from another (or defines how a society evolves and matures) is what freedoms are sacrificed and under what circumstances.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Carrying Guns Everywhere Won't Protect Us - It's time for a ban on semiautomatic weapons*



> unless you want to keep your weapon "closer than I kept my weapon in Iraq," he contends. You’ll “need a gun at soccer practice, at church, at Batman movies. That’s the only logical choice. And civilian life will feel almost like being in Iraq,” he writes. But even then, it may not make a difference: Jensen wonders whether even he, “a trained rifleman,” would have been able to take Holmes down through tear gas in a chaotic, confusing situation, without hurting anyone else. “Constantly carrying weapons is harder than it sounds,” and it is not the answer, Jensen concludes. Rather, it’s time to ban semiautomatic weapons.


(New York Times via Newser)


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> In a perfect world, this would make sense. But the fact that we cannot wave a magic wand and fix every problem in society means we have to consider more pragmatic solutions. Given that sociopaths and depressed/disturbed individuals will always exist, and given that guns dramatically exacerbate the havoc a single individual can wreck upon society without contributing by significantly benefiting society, the cost-benefit analysis clearly argues that guns are not worth their cost to society.


Banning firearms will never prevent anyone from wreaking havoc. As for the rest, it's just your opinion. Society gains nothing, the effort, energy and money should clearly be directed at solving the underlying problems and root causes.



bryanc said:


> I know people who smoke who have not died of cancer; does that prove that smoking does not cause cancer? Anecdotes are not data.


As a licensed firearms owner I'm not an anecdote...I'm part of the statistical data. 



bryanc said:


> What would you call a Smith & Wesson AR-15 rifles, or Glock .40 caliber hand guns? Are these commonly used for hunting?


Yes, where allowed. Here in Canada we are not allowed to hunt with handguns or restricted rifles. Hunting is also provincially regulated and most provinces have banned handgun hunting many years ago. Many other countries allow handgun hunting and hunting with modern firearms such as the S&W.

That S&W operates the same as this Browning BAR. Except that the S&W is scary looking? Once again, it's the whole hoplophob syndrome.



bryanc said:


> The concept of liberty became compromised the moment people started living together as groups. You sacrifice liberty when you become a member of society. Of course, it's not simply black & white; different societies grant their members different freedoms, and these freedoms are always in flux. Historically, we've granted adult citizens the freedom to own firearms, and this is demonstrably becoming increasingly problematic. As a society, we need to examine what we gain by allowing citizens to own anti-personelle weapons, and what it costs us; I contend it costs us far more than we gain, and thus, this freedom should be eliminated (in exchange for the value of knowing that it is far less likely that my fellow citizens are in possession of military grade firepower, and the value of knowing that the police can arrest anyone in possession of these weapons without needing to wait for them to shoot someone).


I'm almost speechless. As a society, maybe we should examine where we failed those that use violence and perpetuate crime instead of banning inanimate objects in the faint hope that it'll somehow make everything hunky-dory and peachy-keen.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Banning firearms will never prevent anyone from wreaking havoc.


No one is saying it will prevent violence; just reduce it. A maniac with a pointed stick or a baseball bat is capable of killing people. But a suicidally depressed teenager with a baseball bat is not likely to do as much damage to themselves or others as the same suicidally depressed teenager with a semi automatic hand gun.



> I'm part of the statistical data.


Which clearly shows that gun violence correlates with gun ownership (duh).



> As a society, maybe we should examine where we failed those that use violence and perpetuate crime


I'm absolutely in favour of better support for the mentally ill and all of that sort of stuff. It simply has nothing to do with the discussion of why we need to allow normal citizens to own guns that have no utility apart from shooting people.



> instead of banning inanimate objects in the faint hope that it'll somehow make everything hunky-dory and peachy-keen.


One more time, with feeling: _*NO ONE IS SAYING BANNING GUNS WILL SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS*_. It will simply make one particularly tragic type of problem somewhat less severe.

But if you really think that "responsible gun owners" are perfectly safe, why shouldn't we allow responsible law abiding citizens to own RPGs, or small artillery pieces? What about people who want to do target shooting with rail guns? Or feel that their homes would be better protected if they could put land mines in their yard?

We all intuitively recognize that there's a line between allowing people to have dangerous things and allowing everyone to have ridiculously dangerous things that serve no important purpose. Guns, especially automatic rifles and hand guns, are unnecessarily dangerous and have no legitimate value for the average citizen.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> i don't think it clearly indicates anything TBH. While i would agree that a handgun ban probably won't lower gun crimes *dramatically* (as long as they're out there criminals can get them), logically i can't help but think it does have a (at minimal) small effect simply because you're reducing the amount of guns that can potentially be out there.


The only guns it reduced were the legal guns, the illegal guns are still there and presumably growing in numbers. Come on, did prohibition work? do drug bans work? Prohibition gave us organized crime syndicates and the failed war on drugs more of the same and much, much more.



i-rui said:


> I'm guessing the UK'c gun crime rate has gone up because of the proliferation of eastern european underworld moving into western europe, and has absolutely zero to do with a handgun ban.


I think you guess wrong. They have similar issues over there with Jamaican, African, Asian and other gangs as we have here. 






i-rui said:


> But i do still support a homeowner having the right to have a gun in his home. Outside in a public space with a CCW law? Hell no.


I'm pleasantly surprised to read you say that.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> do drug bans work? Prohibition gave us organized crime syndicates and the failed war on drugs more of the same and much, much more.


This is a good argument. You can reasonably argue that a ban on guns would fail to reduce the number of guns in society, and therefore fail to work because it is too difficult to enforce. This is entirely different than arguing that we shouldn't *want* to ban guns.

But the drug analogy doesn't really apply. People use drugs on themselves, not on others. So the only reason the demand for guns would drive the emergence of an underground economy would be if the demand were strong. You're arguing that legitimate citizens want guns for hunting and target shooting; do you really think a lot of sportsmen would deal with underground criminals in order to get their gun fix? Why not just take up wildlife photography?

At any rate, I do agree that an outright ban on all guns is probably not practical in the short term, but we could start with a complete ban on hand guns and then crack down on the illegal guns by virtue of the fact that anyone who had one would be illegal by definition. That would be a good start.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> No one is saying it will prevent violence; just reduce it. A maniac with a pointed stick or a baseball bat is capable of killing people. But a suicidally depressed teenager with a baseball bat is not likely to do as much damage to themselves or others as the same suicidally depressed teenager with a semi automatic hand gun.


That's like saying if we ban alcohol, we'll prevent drunk driving.

How often do these mass murder sprees by depressed teenagers occur? 

Suicidal individuals if determined will kill themselves whether a gun is available or not.




bryanc said:


> Which clearly shows that gun violence correlates with gun ownership (duh).


LOL, does nothing of the sort. As I said earlier, I'm a gun owner and I haven't used it in a violent way and neither did the millions of other gun owners in Canada....and even in the gun saturated US of A. Again, you're criminalizing us for no other reason than that we own firearms.





bryanc said:


> I'm absolutely in favour of better support for the mentally ill and all of that sort of stuff. It simply has nothing to do with the discussion of why we need to allow normal citizens to own guns that have no utility apart from shooting people.
> 
> 
> > Once again all you're doing is projecting your own fears upon others and an inanimate object.
> ...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> But the drug analogy doesn't really apply. People use drugs on themselves, not on others. So the only reason the demand for guns would drive the emergence of an underground economy would be if the demand were strong. You're arguing that legitimate citizens want guns for hunting and target shooting; do you really think a lot of sportsmen would deal with underground criminals in order to get their gun fix? Why not just take up wildlife photography?


I do photography already.

We discussed this already in the "rodeo" thread a while ago where I showed you how hunters contribute to conservation and actually protect wildlife.

But getting back to the drugs. You do realize that most of the* illegal gun trade *is due to the *illegal drug trade *and that most of the gun violence is perpetrated by drug cartels, drug gangs and drug dealers. You knew this...correct? Many people don't like to think about this because they like to indulge a little on the weekend.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> ..unless you want to keep your weapon "closer than I kept my weapon in Iraq," he contends. You’ll “need a gun at soccer practice, at church, at Batman movies. That’s the only logical choice. And civilian life will feel almost like being in Iraq,” he writes. But even then, it may not make a difference: Jensen wonders whether even he, “a trained rifleman,” would have been able to take Holmes down through tear gas in a chaotic, confusing situation, without hurting anyone else. “Constantly carrying weapons is harder than it sounds,” and it is not the answer, Jensen concludes. Rather, it’s time to ban semiautomatic weapons.


No. It will only take uncertainty on the part of criminals that someone might have a gun--not a universally-armed, miltary-trained populace.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Societies _are_ extended tribes. That individuals have to sacrifice certain freedoms in order for society to function is beyond doubt. What distinguishes one society from another (or defines how a society evolves and matures) is what freedoms are sacrificed and under what circumstances.


The march of civilization, until recently, has been the march toward individual liberty. A swing to tribalism is the hallmark of the progressive crew.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Where is the flaw in the logic?
> 
> 1) Guns exacerbate the damage that can be done by an individual.
> 2) Guns contribute little (if anything) to society.
> ...


1) 19 of 89 drowning deaths in Ontario last year occurred in privately owned pools.
2) Private pools provide little (if anything) to society that public pools do not.

Therefore private pools should be banned, because their costs outweigh their benefits.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Macfury said:


> 1) 19 of 89 drowning deaths in Ontario last year occurred in privately owned pools.
> 2) Private pools provide little (if anything) to society that public pools do not.
> 
> Therefore private pools should be banned, because their costs outweigh their benefits.


:clap:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> 1) 19 of 89 drowning deaths in Ontario last year occurred in privately owned pools.
> 2) Private pools provide little (if anything) to society that public pools do not.
> 
> Therefore private pools should be banned, because their costs outweigh their benefits.


Very good. You're getting it. Now, let's look at the numbers. 89 accidental deaths from swimming pools, vs 1,385 people shot (plus another 1200 or so committing suicide) per year (according to the RCMP data in the first google hit... which is from 1996, so it may be significantly different now. So roughly 100 deaths per year from pools, vs roughly 2400 deaths per year from guns. Now what do pools contribute? Fitness (how many people didn't die each year because they were keeping fit by swimming?), relaxation, cooling off in the summer, etc... What do guns contribute? They're fun to shoot. They help people kill animals. And they help power-starved adolescents feel less inadequate.

You do the math.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Here is another take. My Granddad insisted Mom learn to hunt both small and large game before she got her drivers license. She managed to kill a rabbit but the gun misfired when she tried to shoot a deer. She thought the whole exercise a disaster but Granddad was delighted. His thinking was that cars are far deadlier than guns, so if Mom learned to handle firearms safely, she would hopefully have a greater respect for the possibly deadly consequences of driving a car.

Interestingly cars today continue to harvest far more people than guns, yet none of the firearm control types is suggesting banning the automobile.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Very good. You're getting it. Now, let's look at the numbers. 89 accidental deaths from swimming pools, vs 1,385 people shot (plus another 1200 or so committing suicide) per year (according to the RCMP data in the first google hit... which is from 1996, so it may be significantly different now. So roughly 100 deaths per year from pools, vs roughly 2400 deaths per year from guns. Now what do pools contribute? Fitness (how many people didn't die each year because they were keeping fit by swimming?), relaxation, cooling off in the summer, etc... What do guns contribute? They're fun to shoot. They help people kill animals. And they help power-starved adolescents feel less inadequate.
> 
> You do the math.


These private pools add nothing that public pools do not already offer. And they kill people. Ban them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Here is another take. My Granddad insisted Mom learn to hunt both small and large game before she got her drivers license. She managed to kill a rabbit but the gun misfired when she tried to shoot a deer. She thought the whole exercise a disaster but Granddad was delighted. His thinking was that cars are far deadlier than guns, so if Mom learned to handle firearms safely, she would hopefully have a greater respect for the possibly deadly consequences of driving a car.
> 
> Interestingly cars today continue to harvest far more people than guns, yet none of the firearm control types is suggesting banning the automobile.


Excellent post eMacMan...



> There are about 160,000 road accidents in Canada every year. According to the Transportation Safety Board approximately 2800 to 2900 people are killed on Canadian roads each year


Canada Road Traffic Crash Car Accidents.

So let's ban cars because they also cause air pollution...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

While most still call them car accidents, that term is incorrect in 99% of car crash cases. Accidents are when a tie rod end fails or a blowout causes loss of control or the like. Most are driver error caused collisions, not accidents. Making an unsafe left turn or running a red light or driving at excessive speed resulting in a collision is no accident.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm a little perplexed that many of you seem to be having such difficulty with the idea of a cost-benefit analysis.

Certainly cars and swimming pools kill people. But A) they are designed to fulfil useful purposes (hand guns, in particular, are designed specifically to kill people), and B) they succeed at serving many useful purposes. As long as their utility outweighs their cost, we will keep using them.

My argument is that the utility of guns (hand guns in particular) does not out weigh their cost.

If you want to argue that the utility of cars or swimming pools does not outweigh their respective costs to society, that's may be an interesting discussion (and you may have a case with respect to cars, but until a better solution is available, I don't think so), but it has nothing to do with the discussion of banning hand guns.

Is that clear now?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> *I'm a little perplexed that many of you seem to be having such difficulty with the idea of a cost-benefit analysis.
> *
> Certainly cars and swimming pools kill people. But A) they are designed to fulfil useful purposes (hand guns, in particular, are designed specifically to kill people), and B) they succeed at serving many useful purposes. As long as their utility outweighs their cost, we will keep using them.
> 
> ...


We quite get the concept bryanc, your continued condescension however is more than a little irksome.

The point that we are making is that YOU are the one setting the criteria by which the analysis should be made and some of us don't agree with those criteria or the order of their priority. For some the criteria that is most important should be freedom. Your "social contract" delimits those freedoms more severely than others here agree with and places a priority on what is in the best interest of "society" (an abstract construct in the first place). 

So please understand that while you place a very high value on your on ethos not all of us do and if we disagree with your manner of argumentation it isn't because we don't get it or understand it it is because we fundamentally disagree with some of the criteria you place as a priority and the order you place them in.

Is that clear now?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> The point that we are making is that YOU are the one setting the criteria by which the analysis should be made and some of us don't agree with those criteria or the order of their priority.


Good. I'm happy to have that discussion, and I may even become convinced I'm wrong, but arguing that banning cars or swimming pools is comparable to banning hand guns, or that people who support gun control think that getting rid of guns will solve all of society's problems is a waste of time; these are all straw men.



> For some the criteria that is most important should be freedom.


Okay. Why?

And if freedom is so important, why shouldn't people be free to have fully automatic weapons, or RPGs, land mines, or small thermonuclear devices? Obviously, I'm being hyperbolic here, but my point is that we all apparently agree that there's a limit to the kinds of weapons citizens should be allowed to own, so we're just disagreeing about where that line should be.

If you're okay with private ownership of hand guns, what is the cost-benefit argument that supports the line being on the other side of these explicitly anti-personele weapons?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> If you're okay with private ownership of hand guns, what is the cost-benefit argument that supports the line being on the other side of these explicitly anti-personele weapons?


There are all kinds of cost benefits to gun ownership. Even hand guns. Police use them to provide protection for the greater society they serve. Armed forces use them to defend the country, or a foreign country we have been called to assist. Forest and parks officials use them for protection in parks and even for compassionate needs when dispatching a wounded or injured animal. Border guards use them to defend the border itself when necessary. Hunters use them for taking a legal limit of big game or fowl for their tables. Target shooters use them to derive pleasure from skills developed. The Olympics, both summer and winter, use them for competition at target skills among countries. Farmers use them to rid their property of varmints and save the lives of countless livestock.

We would be a far less safe society without guns.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No one is "free" in a governed society - you are kvetching about where the line is drawn. The only "free" person is someone on an uncharted desert island as there is no requirement for rules of behaviour ( even if armed engagement rules).

People are not allowed by Canadian law to store certain chemicals or engage in other behaviours that are detrimental to the public weal. These lines drawn on restrictions of individual behaviour by the legislative bodies and under the Charter.

You are trying to assert individual "rights" over collective safety - rights in fact are granted by society and the Charter. Like the crap about the long form census the loss of the gun registry is pure unadulterated political posturing to keep the right wing voters happy regardless of the opinion of others including the police chiefs of Canada...and it reeks 

The question about public safety has been clearly answered by looking at the statistics from Japan where gun ownership is almost non-existent. The long gun registry was a reasonable compromise for those who feel the requirement for one in rural areas versus the safety of law officers.
Switzerland required all male home owners to keep a rifle and be trained.

The outcomes led to the ammunition being removed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> No one is "free" in a governed society - you are kvetching about where the line is drawn.


MacDoc, with all due respect, free people grant government a degree of control over their lives--they can also take it back. You seem to have it reversed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Good. I'm happy to have that discussion, and I may even become convinced I'm wrong, but arguing that banning cars or swimming pools is comparable to banning hand guns, or that people who support gun control think that getting rid of guns will solve all of society's problems is a waste of time; these are all straw men.


Society's (for lack of a better word) problems are made up of individual problems and going to the extreme's of outright banning things to prevent these problems is a very slippery slope... where do you draw the line? Banning cigarettes would save hundreds of thousands more lives than banning guns. You might argue that the smoker is only hurting themselves but that would be a false argument because the associated costs to the public health care system mean that less dollars are available to solve other medical problems... that is why these other arguments have been brought to bear. 

Where do you draw the line and who decides?



bryanc said:


> Okay. Why?
> 
> And if freedom is so important, why shouldn't people be free to have fully automatic weapons, or RPGs, land mines, or small thermonuclear devices? Obviously, I'm being hyperbolic here, but my point is that we all apparently agree that there's a limit to the kinds of weapons citizens should be allowed to own, so we're just disagreeing about where that line should be.
> 
> If you're okay with private ownership of hand guns, what is the cost-benefit argument that supports the line being on the other side of these explicitly anti-personele weapons?


Well if I have to answer that question in the 21st century then we are so far from being of like mind that any answer I may provide to you would not meet with your ethos. You may as well ask why is shelter a priority.

Individual freedom is fundamental to modern society. It is what makes our lives worth living. The ability to choose the life we want to make for ourselves, who want to associate with, what we don't want, etc, etc, etc.

Countless wars have been fought for it, as Patrick Henry said in 1775, "Give me liberty or give me death."

Yes you are being hyperbolic so I won't address that portion of your post.

Freedom is the principle criteria guiding what many if not most people want from their governments. Now obviously we have to have some limits to our freedom most fundamentally our freedom should not limit the freedom and rights of others, so if they come at cross purposes/interests then conflict resolution comes into play and if the problem is wide spread enough then we create laws and regulations to oversee those conflicts at an institutional level.

So as far as your cost-benefit argument the cost of depriving the personal liberty of someone owning a hand gun for target shooting (a pastime they may very much enjoy) is very much higher than banning hand guns outright as it would not solve the "societal" problems of violent crime and murder. 

If you were to look at the number of hand guns in existence and owned and used responsibly compared to the number actually used in the perpetration of violent crime and murder I am quite confident that the number owned lawfully and used responsibly i.e. not for killing people far outweighs those used for such illegal purposes. So what you are suggesting is that the penalty for the crimes of the few should be to punish the many by depriving them of their liberty to lawfully own and use a hand gun for their personal pleasure, i.e. target shooting.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, with all due respect, free people grant government a degree of control over their lives--they can also take it back. You seem to have it reversed.


+1 The Arab spring anyone...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> While most still call them car accidents, that term is incorrect in 99% of car crash cases. Accidents are when a tie rod end fails or a blowout causes loss of control or the like. Most are driver error caused collisions, not accidents. Making an unsafe left turn or running a red light or driving at excessive speed resulting in a collision is no accident.


Does illustrate my Granddad's point that autos are indeed very deadly weapons. 

Roughly 350 people will die in Alberta as a result of auto crashes this year. Firearm related homicides for all of Canada in 2009 were less than 200. 

If the goal is taking deadly weapons out of the hands of the general population then clearly a ban on autos has to take priority over a ban on firearms.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah the Canadian version of the NRA rant.
Get over it - it's not the 18th century.

To answer the slippery slope nonsense, yes additional restrictions based on new information or technology occurs over time and indeed balancing the rights of individuals against undue government interference is an ongoing debate the DRM debate for instance.

That said.

There is NO rational defense of ownership of handguns in a modern society other than pure ideology. It's an archaic and dangerous mindset that thinks there is. Even Switzerland acknowledged the risk with long guns by banning the ammunition storage.
Guns are a weapon of impulse and taking away the opportunity for accident, impulsive regrettable behaviour ( domestic violence ) far outweighs satisfying some firearm fetish.

By all means own a rifle if you wish and register it - that's hardly this horrid restriction of freedom.* You must do the same with cars and dogs.*
As mentioned killing the registry is pure political pandering......to the archaic crowd.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> There is NO rational defense of ownership of handguns in a modern society other than pure ideology.


A well-armed populace ensures that the government in power can be forcibly excised if it becomes a dictatorship. It also places force within the hands of people when their law enforcement officials betray them with lacklustre service. This is the most rational basis for gun rights.

However, if your personal ideology places fear of guns over guarantees against loss of personal freedom, this will be meaningless to you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Ah the Canadian version of the NRA rant.
> Get over it - it's not the 18th century.
> 
> To answer the slippery slope nonsense, yes additional restrictions based on new information or technology occurs over time and indeed balancing the rights of individuals against undue government interference is an ongoing debate the DRM debate for instance.
> ...


Hey MacDoc stuff your pejoratives. Are you completely incapable of entering into a dialogue without deriding and insulting those with whom you are communicating? 

It seems your "modern" temperament doesn't include being polite... are you ever anything other than angry and filed with derision? It must take up a lot of energy that could be much better spent one would think.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> There are all kinds of cost benefits to gun ownership.


Yes, and I'm arguing that a rational examination of those costs & benefits place hand guns way off wrong end of that spectrum.


> Police use them to provide protection for the greater society they serve. Armed forces use them to defend the country, or a foreign country we have been called to assist.


These are not private citizens. I'm arguing that the costs of allowing private citizens to have hand guns is far too great to justify the benefits (of which I see few).


> Forest and parks officials use them for protection in parks and even for compassionate needs when dispatching a wounded or injured animal.


Not private citizens; and these officials usually use rifles, not hand guns.


> Border guards use them to defend the border itself when necessary.


Not private citizens.


> Hunters use them for taking a legal limit of big game or fowl for their tables.


Not hand guns.


> Target shooters use them to derive pleasure from skills developed.


Okay... you've got one here. So the question is could this value be achieved without allowing citizens to own antipersonnel weapons? How would using paint-ball or air-soft guns make target shooting less challenging or pleasurable? I guess if you get off on the power of weilding lethal weapons, it might be less fun; but if you're power tripping on your big guns, you probably shouldn't be allowed to have them 


> The Olympics, both summer and winter, use them for competition at target skills among countries.


Not hand guns.


> Farmers use them to rid their property of varmints and save the lives of countless livestock.


Not hand guns.


> We would be a far less safe society without guns.


How would the removal of hand guns from private citizens make us less safe?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Society's (for lack of a better word) problems are made up of individual problems and going to the extreme's of outright banning things to prevent these problems is a very slippery slope... where do you draw the line?


It is indeed a difficult problem. That's what makes it interesting to discuss. And what seems a reasonable compromise (with respect to where to draw the line) at one point in time will be a completely unreasonable solution a few decades later. My point is that the line we're currently using with respect to private gun ownership is way out of sync with the modern world.


> Banning cigarettes would save hundreds of thousands more lives than banning guns.


Well, it would if it could actually work. Unfortunately, it's far too easy for people to grow their own, and it's far too difficult to legislate what people do with their own bodies. I'm afraid that drugs are a completely different type of problem than weapons.



> Where do you draw the line and who decides?


Well, we (as a society) decide, clearly. As to where to draw the line, I'm glad that at least we agree that this is the question; obviously a line has to be drawn and there is no fundamental freedom of citizens to own any type of weapon they like. So I'm arguing that we should draw the line at hand guns... no one needs them and there are no good uses for them that aren't adequately served by other tools.



> You may as well ask why is shelter a priority.


Without shelter, one would die. Yet the vast majority of Canadians are perfectly content without owning hand guns. How are these even remotely similar?



> Individual freedom is fundamental to modern society.


Individual freedom *within socially agreed upon limits* is fundamental to modern society.

So far, the best argument *for* hand guns has been "some people like target shooting" and the fact that these explicitly antipersonnel weapons are also frequently used in violent crime against innocent bystanders is the price we have to pay for the freedom of a small number of people who like target shooting. Why not ask the target shooters to use paintball guns?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Does illustrate my Granddad's point that autos are indeed very deadly weapons.


Cars _can be used as_ deadly weapons... so can hammers, but they are explicitly designed for a different purpose. Hand guns are explicitly designed for killing people. The only legitimate purpose for which hand guns can be used is target shooting, which can be more than adequately served with other tools. The legitimate purposes of cars and hammers cannot be adequately served by other tools. Hence, no one is arguing that cars or hammers should be removed from society at large, but hand guns should be.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Hand guns are explicitly designed for killing people.


Or to injure a person. Or to provide the _potential_ threat of injuring or killing a person.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> A well-armed populace ensures that the government in power can be forcibly excised if it becomes a dictatorship.


Rubbish. Gun ownership (especially hand gun ownership) in no way protects people from having their rights trampled by politicians conniving with banksters, corporate interests, or more traditional criminals. It's not the 1700s. Canadian's should be concerned about the opacity and malevolence of their government, but having a gun isn't going to help anything; get out and vote the buggers out of office... shooting people is only going justify a military reaction and even the most lightly equipped military force has nothing to fear from a few civilians with hand guns.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Hey MacDoc stuff your pejoratives. Are you completely incapable of entering into a dialogue without deriding and insulting those with whom you are communicating?


What was insulting in the post you quoted; it seems a very reasonable and rational statement of his position, and there's nothing personal about any of it. You're the one being insulting.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Rubbish. Gun ownership (especially hand gun ownership) in no way protects people from having their rights trampled by politicians conniving with banksters, corporate interests, or more traditional criminals. It's not the 1700s. Canadian's should be concerned about the opacity and malevolence of their government, but having a gun isn't going to help anything; get out and vote the buggers out of office... shooting people is only going justify a military reaction and even the most lightly equipped military force has nothing to fear from a few civilians with hand guns.


This fear you express is only because you of the timidity inherent in your worldview. Look at the recent Arab Spring uprisings, all powered by firearms.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> What was insulting in the post you quoted; it seems a very reasonable and rational statement of his position, and there's nothing personal about any of it. You're the one being insulting.


I've gotten tired of this too.

Anyway, the whole idea that private citizen ownership of handguns as a deterrent to violent crime is total nonsense. I agree. But all one has to do is look south of the border.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This fear you express is only because you of the timidity inherent in your worldview.


Who is timid; he who feels he needs to wield the threat of lethal force to face the big scary world, or he who tries to build a society in which such threats are unnecessary?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Who is timid; he who feels he needs to wield the threat of lethal force to face the big scary world, or he who tries to build a society in which such threats are unnecessary?


It isn't an either/or, but given only two options, I would say that the timid one is the latter: "he who tries to build a society in which such threats are unnecessary." I believe such positions are unrealistic and driven by fear.

My optimum answer: "He who fears to wield the threat of lethal force against the threat of totalitarianism."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> My optimum answer: "He who fears to wield the threat of lethal force against the threat of totalitarianism."


Okay, that's fair I guess. I think you're naive if you believe guns are in any way relevant to protecting the freedoms of Canadians. Our freedoms, prosperity, and quality of life are being quietly sold and privatized to benefit a few plutocrats who's astronomical wealth allows them to manipulate the socio/economic/political system effectively. This is a war of laws and capital, not bullets and bombs. Unfortunately, our current government is working for the enemy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Okay, that's fair I guess. I think you're naive if you believe guns are in any way relevant to protecting the freedoms of Canadians. Our freedoms, prosperity, and quality of life are being quietly sold and privatized to benefit a few plutocrats who's astronomical wealth allows them to manipulate the socio/economic/political system effectively. This is a war of laws and capital, not bullets and bombs. Unfortunately, our current government is working for the enemy.


I agree here. This current crop of concerns is not a call to arms--it's definitely a call to voter action. I'm talking about something far worse than policies which are reversible.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I agree here. This current crop of concerns is not a call to arms--it's definitely a call to voter action. I'm talking about something far worse than policies which are reversible.


Indeed. My point is that if it ever got so bad that citizens would be justified in taking up arms against a violently oppressive government (such as is the situation in Syria), hand guns would be of such comically limited value as to be irrelevant. In such a situation the rebels are inevitably supplied with military-grade arms by politically opposed agencies elsewhere.

Hand guns are not going to help you when your government is bombing your locations into rubble using predator drones; so anyone thinking that the Glock they've got under their pillow keeps them protected from The Man is delusional.

Appart from target shooting, the only use for hand guns I can imagine is protecting yourself/home/family from violent criminals (I'm surprised this didn't come up as justification earlier). This is actually something I could see myself doing, but only if the law-enforcement situation in Canada deteriorated to the point where home invasions were more likely than gun accidents or gun+depressed-teenager tragedies. At this point, the statistics say you're far more likely to kill yourself accidentally with your own gun than you are to successfully defend yourself with it.

Hence, we're far better off to try to reduce the number of hand guns in our society, and to provide the police with laws that allow them to arrest anyone for simply having such a weapon, rather than having to wait for them to use it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> What was insulting in the post you quoted; it seems a very reasonable and rational statement of his position, and there's nothing personal about any of it. You're the one being insulting.


I asked a question there was no insult...look at your own posts if you are so sensitive... ...

He posted:



MacDoc said:


> A*h the Canadian version of the NRA rant.*
> Get over it - it's not the 18th century.
> 
> To answer the* slippery slope nonsense*, yes additional restrictions based on new information or technology occurs over time and indeed balancing the rights of individuals against undue government interference is an ongoing debate the DRM debate for instance.
> ...


Completely pejorative, combative and insulting to those with whom he disagrees...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Completely pejorative, combative and insulting to those with whom he disagrees...


The term "archaic" is entirely appropriate with regard to the position that private possession of hand guns is either necessary or desirable. Handguns may have been of some legitimate value to the denizens of the wild west in the 1800's... now, not so much. If one objects to having their archaic values described as such, they might do well to take not of the fact that it's the 21st century, not the 19th.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> The term "archaic" is entirely appropriate with regard to the position that private possession of hand guns is either *necessary* or *desirable*. Handguns may have been of some legitimate value to the denizens of the wild west in the 1800's... now, not so much. If one objects to having their archaic values described as such, they might do well to take not of the fact that it's the 21st century, not the 19th.


Your post more than proves my point and in fact only further adds to it...

It is not necessary... for many completely lawful and responsible people it is desirable... 

That is the fact that you and MacDoc seem to have trouble getting your heads around becuase of... well... let's say your personal proclivities/ideology which are/is of utmost importance to you, even if they/it deprive others of their freedom, due to what I would argue comes from a sense of ethical/moral superiority and thus why you feel the need to dictate to others what they should or should not be able to do/own in a safe and responsible manner.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> That is the fact that you and MacDoc seem to have trouble getting your heads around becuase of... well... let's say your personal proclivities/ideology which are/is of utmost importance to you, even if they/it deprive others of their freedom, due to what I would argue comes from a sense of ethical/moral superiority and thus why you feel the need to dictate to others what they should or should not be able to do/own


I was not aware that I had any power to dictate anything to anyone. I thought this is/was a discussion; I'm laying out my position as clearly as I can, and I hope and expect people who disagree to explain why. Your assertion that I'm being dictatorial out of some sort of sense of elitism is completely unfounded and, I would add, rather insulting.

As we have already agreed society demands well all relinquish some freedoms, and I do see that as a cost. The question is does the benefit justify the cost. You say no, I say probably (I can't say "yes" for certain, because we haven't tried it, so we don't really know what the costs or benefits would be).

I have explained as clearly as I can why I think the social costs of handgun ownership outweigh the benefits. The only rational arguments I have seen presented for the contrary are:

1) SINC's point about the benefits of target shooting
2) Your arguments about personal freedom
3) My own point about the potential value of handguns in certain edge-cases of self defence.

I have refuted point 1 by saying that target shooting does not require ownership of lethal handguns; any of a number of less dangerous tools could be employed by target-shooting enthusiasts. I have responded to 2 by saying that we give up some freedom by being members of a society, and that the costs of permitting private citizens to own handguns outweighs the value of this particular freedom (I infer from your comments that this is the primary point where we disagree, but I have yet to see any argument from you or anyone else as to why the freedom to own handguns is so important, but freedom to own fully automatic assault rifles is not). And I have addressed point 3 by saying that, fortunately, the sorts of scenarios in which having a handgun in the house is of any utility are so vanishingly rare that they are far outweighed by the risks associated with having a handgun in the house.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there should be no need to tell anyone to 'stuff' anything.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> SINC said:
> 
> 
> > The Olympics, both summer and winter, use them for competition at target skills among countries.
> ...


Ummmm, wrong...even the girls do it.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, the uninformed strike again. And some hunters have been known to carry and use hand guns. Self protection in a tent from a bear comes to mind. One does not easily wield a rifle under attack in the middle of the night.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it'd be quite a handgun to take out a bear.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep, the uninformed strike again. And some hunters have been known to carry and use hand guns. Self protection in a tent from a bear comes to mind. One does not easily wield a rifle under attack in the middle of the night.


I must have mentioned it about a half dozen times already in this thread alone, I really don't understand why it doesn't sink in his head. Only a few posts above I discussed how UK Olympic shooter's have to train outside the country due to the handgun ban. 

Unfortunately, SINC, what you mention is no longer allowed. You need an ATC (Authorization to Carry) which is nearly impossible to get for mere mortals. Even trappers working a registered trap line have to take a separate course to get an ATC to work their line. Some scientists (hear that bryanc?) and naturalists, conservation workers may be issued an ATC in Polar bear country, but again, most just carry a short barrelled 12g a w/ slugs. Lot less hassle.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Ummmm, wrong...even the girls do it.


Okay, I didn't know that hand guns were used in the olympics. Any reason they need to be lethal weapons for target shooting? Is it too easy to hit a target with a paint ball?

As for scientists working with polar bears; I know several. None of them use hand guns. They'll usually cary a rifle with them, but none I know have ever had to use one. Nevertheless, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of wildlife control officers carrying guns (even hand guns). I just don't see why private citizens need them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> okay, i didn't know that hand guns were used in the olympics. Any reason they need to be lethal weapons for target shooting? Is it too easy to hit a target with a paint ball?
> 
> As for scientists working with polar bears; i know several. None of them use hand guns. They'll usually cary a rifle with them, but none i know have ever had to use one. Nevertheless,* i'm perfectly happy with the idea of wildlife control officers carrying guns (even hand guns). I just don't see why private citizens need them.*


+1


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Unfortunately, SINC, what you mention is no longer allowed. You need an ATC (Authorization to Carry) which is nearly impossible to get for mere mortals. Even trappers working a registered trap line have to take a separate course to get an ATC to work their line. Some scientists (hear that bryanc?) and naturalists, conservation workers may be issued an ATC in Polar bear country, but again, most just carry a short barrelled 12g a w/ slugs. Lot less hassle.


I was thinking in broader terms kps, as in 20 minutes south of the border in wilderness areas used by U.S. hunters in the west where grizzlies roam. The social benefit of guns is not entirely restricted to Canada.

As for bryanc, he will never change his ideals of what HE believes society should be like i.e.: gunless for the most part. What he misses is that the vast majority in North America outside Canada live by the gun and forever will. With the U.S. next door, it's as good as its ever going to get here in Canada right now.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> What he misses is that the vast majority in North America outside Canada live by the gun and forever will. With the U.S. next door, it's as good as its ever going to get here in Canada right now.


Well, by "it's as good as its ever going to get" it seems you're implying that reduced gun ownership is desirable, so it seems I'm making some progress.

What proportion of Americans, let alone Canadians do you think own guns? Is that a "vast majority"? Is that proportion increasing or decreasing?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Okay, I didn't know that hand guns were used in the olympics. Any reason they need to be lethal weapons for target shooting? Is it too easy to hit a target with a paint ball?


Well, shooting a paintball would significantly change the physics of everything... that would be a major change for all participants in the sport.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Well, by "it's as good as its ever going to get" it seems you're implying that reduced gun ownership is desirable, so it seems I'm making some progress.
> 
> What proportion of Americans, let alone Canadians do you think own guns? Is that a "vast majority"? Is that proportion increasing or decreasing?


Guns per capita. (Not exactly the question you were asking, but some starting data.)

Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USA is number 1 with 88.8 guns per 100 people.
Canada is number 13 with 30.8 per 100 people.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

As for how many people own guns, a quick look uncovers the difficulty in coming to a reliable number for that data, and it is believed that gun ownership is underreported. However:

In Canada, best estimates are at least 26% of Canadian households own at least one firearm, although this number varies considerably by province. Primary reason is hunting.
2. Firearms Ownership in Canada - Firearms, Accidental Deaths, Suicides and Violent Crime: An Updated Review of the Literature with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> USA is number 1 with 88.8 guns per 100 people.
> Canada is number 13 with 30.8 per 100 people.


I'd like to see this data expressed as "what proportion of citizens own one or more handguns"; I suspect the number is fairly low (especially in Canada) but I appreciate that's difficult data to get.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'd like to see this data expressed as "what proportion of citizens own one or more handguns"; I suspect the number is fairly low (especially in Canada) but I appreciate that's difficult data to get.


According to the DoJ, about 26% of Canadians (3 million) have some sort of firearm. They don't have it broken down by type, but I'm sure an Access to Information request would yield something.

2. Firearms Ownership in Canada - Firearms, Accidental Deaths, Suicides and Violent Crime: An Updated Review of the Literature with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I'd like to see this data expressed as "*what proportion of citizens own one or more handguns*"; I suspect the number is fairly low (especially in Canada) but I appreciate that's difficult data to get.


The data is old but is included in the link Sonal posted:



> Available estimates for Canada indicate that private individuals collectively own approximately 7 million firearms (Gabor, 1997:3) and, of these, about 1.2 million are restricted firearms (RCMP, 1997). Surveys consistently indicate that Canadians typically own more long guns than other types of firearms. The 1996 ICVS found that 95 percent of households that owned firearms possessed at least one long gun, while *fewer than 12 percent claimed to own a handgun *(Block, 1998: 3-4). Again, the author noted some regional variations with respect to the type of firearm respondents claimed to own. In all regions except Quebec, more households were likely to possess a rifle than a shotgun (Block: 1998: 7). At 16 percent, more respondents in British Columbia reported owning handguns than elsewhere in Canada; persons in Quebec reported the least at six percent (Block, 1998: 9).


So if you do the math based on what is also said in the link Sonal provided:



> * In total, it is estimated that about 3 million civilians in Canada own firearms.*


3M x .12 = 360,000 people own hand guns in Canada. This is of course very crude because the data is old and undoubtedly incomplete.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> This is of course very crude because the data is old and undoubtedly incomplete.


Yes, I agree. We can make approximate guesses, but it's very hard to get a precise number. But "vast majority" doesn't seem to fit the data.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Yes, I agree. We can make approximate guesses, but it's very hard to get a precise number. But *"vast majority" *doesn't seem to fit the data.


What vast majority would you be referring to?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> the *vast majority* in North America outside Canada live by the gun and forever will.


[my bold]

Admittedly, SINC specified 'outside Canada', but even in the US, I don't think it's fair to say that the vast majority live by the gun. And this is certainly not the case in Canada, nor do I believe that we are heading in that direction. If anything, it seems that gun ownership is in decline (which, IMHO, is a good thing).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> [my bold]
> 
> Admittedly, SINC specified 'outside Canada', but even in the US, I don't think it's fair to say that the vast majority live by the gun. And this is certainly not the case in Canada, nor do I believe that we are heading in that direction. If anything, it seems that gun ownership is in decline (which, IMHO, is a good thing).


Ok I see what you are referring to....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If anything, it seems that gun ownership is in decline (which, IMHO, is a good thing).


If it is, then what is the added benefit of banning something that is already naturally in decline? If we project handgun ownership to fall to half in 25 years, for example, would it make sense (cost/benefit) to devote public resources to ban them?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The number of deaths in Canada by hand gun compared to the number of lawful owners and users even using the old rudimentary numbers provided by Sonal make it fairly clear to me that even using bryanc's cost-benefit analysis does not warrant banning handguns. 

With on average 1,300 firearms deaths per years in Canada and the vast majority being considered suicide on average 80% that means that the average number of homicides by guns is 145.

There is no indication in the stats as to how many of these were by hand gun but even if they were all by hand gun that means there are over 300,000 lawful hand gun owners to 145 criminals, thus criminal use of hand guns constitutes just 0.04833% of those who own/posses hand guns.

Clearly those who own hand guns enjoy them in one manner or another thereby deriving some benefit by having them. So if bryanc was to have his way he would deprive 99.952% of lawful hand gun owners the freedom to own and use their gun responsibly for the actions of just 0.0483% of users/owners.

Not exactly good public policy IMO.

Firearms, Accidental Deaths, Suicides and Violent Crime: An Updated Review of the Literature with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation



> 3.2 Firearm Deaths in Canada
> 
> Over the past 25 years, there have been an average of 1,300 firearms deaths per year. Of the 1,125 firearm deaths in 1995, about 80.1 percent or 911 were classified as suicides; there were 145 homicides, representing 12.4 percent; and 49 unintentional deaths, for 4.3 percent of the total (Hung, 1997). These percentages have remained relatively stable over the past decade.
> 
> In 1995, there was a lower rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 population than there had been in the previous 25 years. In 1970, the rate per 100,000 population was 5.2. It increased to a peak of 7.2 in 1977, and declined steadily to a rate of 3.8 in 1995 (Hung, 1997).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> The number of deaths in Canada by hand gun compared to the number of lawful owners and users even using the old rudimentary numbers provided by Sonal make it fairly clear to me that even using bryanc's cost-benefit analysis does not warrant banning handguns.
> 
> With on average 1,300 firearms deaths per years in Canada and the vast majority being considered suicide on average 80% that means that the average number of homicides by guns is 145.
> 
> There is no indication in the Stats as to how many of these were by hand gun but even if they were all by hand gun that means they are over 300,000 lawful hand gun owners to 145 criminals, thus criminal use of hand guns constitutes just 0.04833% of those who own/posses hand guns.


There is also no indication where the handguns involved in homicide were acquired. Are these legally registered handguns, domestic handguns or imported handguns? Assuming a handgun ban would be 100% effective is unreasonable.

There is also a question as to whether the banning of registered handguns might lead to homicides that would not have occurred for fear of reprisal by handgun.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Not quite sure where the 1300 number came from. When I can find Firearm homicide numbers for a given year they seem to fall between 125 and 200. Accidental deaths are maybe 1/6 of that number. While including suicides will spectacularly increase that number closer to 1000, that is hardly relevant as someone who wants to commit suicide will find a way, and I doubt that even a total ban on Firearms would reduce the total number of suicides at all significantly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> *Not quite sure where the 1300 number came from. When I can find Firearm homicide numbers for a given year they seem to fall between 125 and 200. Accidental deaths are maybe 1/6 of that number. While including suicides will spectacularly increase that number closer to 1000, that is hardly relevant as someone who wants to commit suicide will find a way, and I doubt that even a total ban on Firearms would reduce the total number of suicides at all significantly.*


eMacMan you didn't read the post correctly. Read it again and I provided the link to the source, it is the Department of Justice of Canada.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> eMacMan you didn't read the post correctly. Read it again and I provided the link to the source, it is the Department of Justice of Canada.


Numbers do indeed include suicides, with Homicides being closer to the 200/year range I had found. 

I still maintain suicides are not relevant to a discussion on banning firearms as someone that determined to end their life will find a way, with or without firearms.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes. Japan's suicide rate is twice that of Canada's.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Numbers do indeed include suicides, with Homicides being closer to the 200/year range I had found.
> 
> *I still maintain suicides are not relevant to a discussion on banning firearms as someone that determined to end their life will find a way, with or without firearms.*


That's why I left suicides out of the equation eMacMan and didn't talk about them in my post for exactly that reason... However, the numbers on the Justice site indicate deaths by firearms and separate out those by suicide and homicide, they are the stats and should be complete.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Okay, you've made some good points.

I don't think suicides are completely irrelevant to the handgun issue, because the ready availability of a convenient and effective tool for suicide is likely to be a factor in at least some cases that could otherwise have been prevented. But I agree that a determined suicide is not going to be deterred by the lack of a handgun.

As for the other arguments, I think our core disagreement is where the cost-benefit analysis comes down. We all agree that there are costs; I consider them significant (as, I would suspect, do the victims of gun violence), but it appears several of you do not. We all agree there are benefits; I consider them insignificant, but it appears that several of you think otherwise.

Hopefully, the current trends in society will make this argument moot in a few decades.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Okay, you've made some good points.
> 
> I don't think suicides are completely irrelevant to the handgun issue, because the ready availability of a convenient and effective tool for suicide is likely to be a factor in at least some cases that could otherwise have been prevented. But I agree that a determined suicide is not going to be deterred by the lack of a handgun.
> 
> ...


Any death is significant but there is no way of knowing whether a given crime wouldn't have taken place without a gun and instead being perpetrated all the same with another weapon.

And I agree we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Okay, you've made some good points.
> 
> I don't think suicides are completely irrelevant to the handgun issue, because the ready availability of a convenient and effective tool for suicide is likely to be a factor in at least some cases that could otherwise have been prevented. But I agree that a determined suicide is not going to be deterred by the lack of a handgun.
> ....


Some attempted suicides can be considered an attempt to grab attention or a call for help. However using a gun clearly is not, as the result will either be fatal or in rare cases leave the perpetrator mangled for life. Anyone that determined to end their life will easily find some other method if a gun is not available.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Anyone that determined to end their life will easily find some other method if a gun is not available.


I agree; someone who is chronically depressed and determined to take their own life will do so regardless of wether handguns are available. What the availability of a handgun does is facilitate acting on an impulsive or drug-induced depression that might otherwise be a treatable problem.


----------



## riviera (Feb 7, 2013)

There is a big push on by rival drug gangs happening in the Okanagan Valley....This turf war has resulted in a lot of murders and home invasions in this area. I was astounded at hearing that a lot of seniors in this area are sensitive to this, and some of the boomers are talking about carrying. One guy at the bar table told me that he was so afraid that he had one in his car and one on his person at all times. He lives in a rural area that is consistent with a lot of grow op busts.
Pretty disgusting situation when a vet lives in a remote area and feels the necessity to carry in an environment where it should be a neighbourhood of people who normally take care of each other.
Sad situation. I also note that some ******** in this area (who by nature are pretty paranoid) are being more vigilant as to who is in their neck of the woods.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Don't go down Copperhead Road.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's better to cut taxes so you can't afford more trained armed police officers to protect, so you have to rely on untrained (for the most part) nervous residents to walk around with guns.

What could possibly go wrong.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Gun Registry Used By Police In Montreal Standoff*

_The federal gun registry may be dead in the rest of Canada but it was put to use this week during a high-profile standoff in Montreal.

Police carried 180 guns and 40 bayonets out of a residence on a quiet tree-lined street after the occupant was brought down by rubber bullets early Wednesday, ending the incident that had gone on almost a full day.

Montreal police have confirmed they consulted the registry during the standoff to learn about their suspect but wouldn't elaborate on whether it played a role in the outcome.

"It's among the procedures that we always do for interventions where firearms could be (present),"_​
(HuffPo)


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Gun Registry Used By Police In Montreal Standoff*
> 
> _The federal gun registry may be dead in the rest of Canada but it was put to use this week during a high-profile standoff in Montreal.
> 
> ...


Did they take his kitchen knives, too?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

These academics in their 70's with a nice collection gets rubber bullets while an 18 yr old gets 9 40cal. bullets plus a taser (probably postmortem ). And "meh" to the Quebec registry. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Whaddya wanna bet all 180 guns weren't registered?



> "Before we do anything else, we must be sure to know who we're dealing with."


And the gun registry contains this kind of psychological info?

And, duh, the guy was already waving a gun around. Accessing the registry was going to add what to this information?



> Latour would not comment in-depth on the force's use of the registry.


For fear of looking like a fool?

Any law enforcement officer who approaches a suspect, suspect's place of residence, crime scene, etc., & doesn't automatically assume that there are weapons present is in for a very short career...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> ...
> 
> Any law enforcement officer who approaches a suspect, suspect's place of residence, crime scene, etc., & doesn't automatically assume that there are weapons present is in for a very short career...


Especially when he is waving a gun around.

The only possible use of the gun registry in this case was to give the officers a list to check off as they were seizing weapons. Given the registries well documented inaccuracy I would be willing to bet that the officers tearing apart guys home depended more on a thorough search than on the list from the registry.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Back in the city. thought I'd share...

CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION / CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

TEAM CSSA E-NEWS - August 6, 2013


** Please share this E-news with your friends **



CSSA COMMENTARY: GUN SEIZURE STORY PRETENDS GUN REGISTRY EFFECTIVE

Too many media agencies are akin to dogs with a bone to protect when they cover firearms events.

They fight hard to keep that bone – aka the gun registry – with little consideration for the facts. They won't let go, and then snap at anyone who tries to take it away. The media over-estimate their own strength, believing they can somehow bring the registry back to life.

Witness the police confiscation of some 180 guns and 40 bayonets from the home of a 72-year-old man after a 20-hour standoff in Montreal. The elderly man allegedly waved a handgun at some utility employees, who called police. When they arrived, Quebec provincial police say they consulted the registry. Even though the police were convinced he was armed, they claim the registry was consulted. The Canadian Press did more than go along for the ride – it created a story about the registry's usefulness. CP seems to believe the old saw that if they print something often enough, it will become the truth.

The Canadian Press is a repeat anti-gun offender. It tried to transform this unfortunate event into a triumph for the Quebec portion of the registry. The story lead opened thusly: "The federal gun registry may be dead in the rest of Canada but it was put to use this week during a high-profile standoff in Montreal." CP hopes readers will infer that the registry can be useful to police when dealing with an individual who witnesses have already said is armed.

Public Safety Canada is quoted as suggesting there's no need to worry because gun owners still need to have a valid firearms licence, like that's the panacea to keep Canadians safe. Licences can't keep front line police officers alive because bad guys don't have licences. A paper chase is just that.

The Canadian Press news story took centre stage in the theatre of the absurd when it further opined: "When the 20th anniversary of the Ecole polytechnique (sic) massacre was marked in 2009, then-Montreal police chief Yvan Delorme called the registry "essential" and said it had helped police seize weapons from a man who made threats in the aftermath of the 2006 shootings at Montreal's Dawson College." But, the Dawson shooting occurred after the firearms registry was up and running. Delorme must have sneezed at that media conference. His faulty logic must have been contagious and some reporters caught the bug.

How do we know that The Canadian Press torqued the story of a confused senior citizen into a firearms registry triumph? Because his story contained this sentence that could only have been written if the reporter asked about the registry's role in the take-down that ended with rubber bullets: "Montreal police have confirmed they consulted the registry during the standoff to learn about their suspect but wouldn't elaborate on whether it played a role in the outcome." It smacks of the old tabloid reporter's trick of asking a suspect when he stopped beating his wife.

Many Canadian news agencies are careful to adhere to the basic tenets of responsible journalism, and the reporters who refuse usually end up standing pink and naked in public. We see you.


-------------

IN THE NEWS RECENTLY:

GUN REGISTRY A BOON FOR POLICE? The federal gun registry may be dead in the rest of Canada but it was put to use this week during a high-profile standoff in Montreal.

Police carried 180 guns and 40 bayonets out of a residence on a quiet tree-lined street after the occupant was brought down by rubber bullets early Wednesday, ending the incident that had gone on almost a full day. Montreal police have confirmed they consulted the registry during the standoff to learn about their suspect but wouldn't elaborate on whether it played a role in the outcome. "It's among the procedures that we always do for interventions where firearms could be (present)," said Sgt. Jean Bruno Latour, noting that the suspect had allegedly brandished a gun at workers on his property and that was the initial tipoff. "Before we do anything else, we must be sure to know who we're dealing with."

The long-gun registry was scrapped in the rest of Canada last year but remains operational in Quebec following a series of legal injunctions safeguarding the Quebec data and ordering it be maintained while a federal-provincial battle plays out in court. "While the registration of non-restricted firearms from Quebec is being maintained, the Quebec portion of the long-gun registry is available to police," said Jean Paul Duval, a spokesman for Public Safety Canada, in an email. "Firearms owners are still required to hold a valid firearms licence to purchase and possess firearms and to register restricted and prohibited firearms, such as handguns. The RCMP Canadian Firearms Program keeps records of firearms licences."

In addition to the controversial registry, and the RCMP program, police had another tool at their disposal. Quebec provincial police also provide information through their database on gun licences in the province. Latour would not comment in-depth on the force's use of the registry. However, police in Montreal and other parts of Canada have been vocal supporters of it in the past. When the 20th anniversary of the Ecole polytechnique massacre was marked in 2009, then-Montreal police chief Yvan Delorme called the registry "essential" and said it had helped police seize weapons from a man who made threats in the aftermath of the 2006 shootings at Montreal's Dawson College...

The long-gun registry has deep roots in Quebec, where there has traditionally been strong support for gun control. Calls for the registry emerged in the wake of the Ecole polytechnique massacre in 1989 where 14 women were slain in a rampage by a gunman at the Universite de Montreal's engineering school. Many of the advocates for the registry were survivors of the mass shooting or relatives of the victims. The bill to end the federal registry received royal assent in April 2012, fulfilling a longstanding pRomise by the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Quebec government has fought back, launching a court challenge.

Opponents of the registry called it wasteful and irrelevant in stopping crime. Its supporters, however, including some police organizations, described it as a valuable tool in law-enforcement's arsenal. And Quebec has argued that it needs the data to support its own gun database -- making it the only province with plans to create a replacement registry. The province has argued it would cost too much to start the registry anew. (CTV - By Nelson Wyatt, The Canadian Press -- August 1, 2013)

-------

CND 1800 Monthly Match Invitation

Saturday, August 17, 2013, 10 a.m. with a pre-fire date on Friday August 16, 10 a.m. for range officers and those who cannot attend on the Saturday. Shooters wanting to participate on the Friday must pre-register, no walk-ons. Pre-registration for Saturday is recommended to ensure the relay of your choice.

Location: The Waterloo County Revolver Association is located at 2278 Snyder’s Road East, Wilmot Township, Ontario. Visit our website: Home Page for more driving directions.

Event: 900 Rimfire fired as per NRA Rule #3.4, 900 Centerfire fired as per NRA Rule #3.3.

Membership: Participant must show proof of recreational shooting insurance (CSSA/CFI/SFC, etc).

Rules: The match will be run in accordance with NRA Conventional Pistol Rules (January 2013).

Range: The match will be conducted on our 16 position outdoor 50 yard range (facing north) using NRA approved B-6 and B-8 targets/centers. Competitors are responsible for policing their brass and moving their shooting table at the completion of the 50 yard Slow Fire stages to the 25 yard firing line for the Timed and Rapid stages. Targets will be fixed (non-turning). START and STOP will be administered by audio electronics. Provisions have been made in the event of rain.

Register: Walk-on registration will be until 9:45. Pre-registration is suggested (16 per day)

Inquiries: Ed at (519)-699-0009 or e-mail [email protected]

-------

GUN SHOW This Sunday, August 11th to be held at "Orangeville Fairgrounds" 7:30 am to 1:00 pm. North on HWY # 10 to Orangeville then just 3 km north of the junction of HWY #10 & HWY #9 & turn right (east) on Hockley Valley Rd, just a short distance & watch for Gun Show & Fairgrounds sign on the right. Guests $5.00 ladies & accompanied children under 16 free. 230 tables so lots to see, Buy, Sell & Trade. Plenty of free parking and there's a good snack bar available. Other upcoming shows can be seen at www.ontariogunshows.com For more information please call 905-679-8812

-------

ANTI-GUN PSYCHIATRIST'S LETTER TO EDITOR IN THE NATIONAL POST...

Re: Mourners Remember Sammy Yatim, August 1. It's always easy to be an armchair quarterback, uut here's what you really need to know about the police slaying of Sammy Yatim: 13 seconds, nine shots. The police rarely fire their semiautomatic weapons because of just how non-specifically deadly these types of handguns are. It's time there was a serious debate about semiautomatics being banned for use by the police and the public. Anytime a mentally ill person, or a homegrown terrorist, gets their hands on one of these weapons, all of society quakes. We can either start to inconvenience handgun collectors and target shooters, or continue to imperil everyone else. Semiautomatic rifles are no better, and real farmers and hunters should distance themselves from Stephen Harper's soft spot for people-hunting devices. (By Ron Charach, Toronto -- National Post -- August 1, 2013)

...AND THE REBUTTALS THAT SINK THE SHRINK:

Letter-writer Ron Charach takes a 17-year-old's funeral as an opportunity to bang his tiresome "deadly semi-automatic" drum. Once again he focuses on the inanimate object and thereby obscures the real lessons. Police carry handguns to save life, but in this case a young life was lost. Under the stress of an armed confrontation, even a simple gesture may have seemed threatening to the officer. Prior to being issued a duty pistol, proper training and regular practice should ensure that officer are competent enough to get ahead of the situation, and confident enough in their abilities to not take the shot. Only then can one properly assess and contain the threat. (By Robert S. Sciuk, Oshawa, Ont.)

I think rather than taking this opportunity to go on a veiled anti-gun rant, we should be asking why the police were not equipped and trained in the use of non-lethal alternatives. If such an alternative had been deployed, the outcomes may have been very different. (Ted Ferg, Pickering, Ont.)

Letter-writer Ron Charach writes, "here's what you really need to know about the police slaying of Sammy Yatim: 13 seconds, nine shots." The real issue, however, is not how fast the constable could empty his magazine, but whether he should have done so at all. As we know, he had time to stop and think for several seconds after the first three shots, before he continued firing. It was, therefore not a characteristic of his weapon that led to the discharge of six more shots, but a conscious decision. If anything, this story shows that guns don't kill people, people do. (Simon Brooks, Lunenburg, N.S.)

-------

U.S. MEDIA ALSO RIFE WITH BIAS AND DECEIT: Predictably lost in the aftermath of the George Zimmerman trial is the fact that in 2010 the homicide rate for 10-24 year olds in America has reached a 30-year low, according to statistics released in May by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This has occurred even while the numbers of firearms continues to climb over that time period, dramatically so since President Barack Obama's election.

Maybe the statistic wasn't so much lost as it was ignored because it does not further the mainstream media or the current Administration's push for greater gun control.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation recently gave credit to USA Today, a national news source that did publish the results. But such good news remains unreported by most of, if not all, the major television and cable networks.

After all, drama apparently attracts viewers and sells papers just as it divides the country on the issues that the media chooses to make the most important stories. Meanwhile positive statistics are often swept under the rug. Read more at Media outlets choose to ignore important statistics (Freemont Tribune -- July 19, 2013)


------

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

The CSSA is the voice of the sport shooter and firearms enthusiast in Canada. Our national membership supports and promotes Canada's firearms heritage, traditional target shooting competition, modern action shooting sports, hunting, and archery. We support and sponsor competitions and youth programs that promote these Canadian heritage activities. 



To join or donate to the CSSA, visit: CSSA: Membership 

------
To subscribe to the CSSA-CILA E-NEWS, send email to: [email protected] or visit CSSA-CILA-E-News Info Page.
To unsubscribe send email to: [email protected]
To change your address or manage your subscription options, visit: CSSA-CILA-E-News list: member options login page
-------
CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION / CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
116 Galaxy Blvd, Etobicoke ON M9W 4Y6
Phone 416-679-9959, Fax: 416-679-9910
Toll Free: 1-888-873-4339 
E-Mail: [email protected] 
Website CSSA Canadian Shooting Sports Assoc. (target shooting, shotgun, rifle, pistol, biathlon, free pistol, cowboy shooting, SASS, IPSC, PPC, IPDA, full-bore rifle, gun ban, gun control, handgun ban, C68, gun registry, confiscation, gun rights, self defens


----------

