Gun Registry - Gun Crime Measures

[M.Dancer]

You have to take an eye exam for a drivers license, and after a certain golden age, you need to prove your compentancy behind the wheel, but as long as you have no serious criminal offense, anyone of your disturbed personalities may legally acquire firearms.

As well as criminal background checks there should be psychiatric and psychological screenings to weed out the undesirables.

There is a huge jump from an eye test to psychiatric and psychological screenings. Who would be responsible for paying those costs?

The other tough thing about that requirement is what happens when the normal everyday joe snaps because of a serious life trauma. Should these tests be required yearly?

Good point...as far as who pays...Like many on th3 conservative side I believe the end user should pay.

I think licenses should be renewed...perhaps retesting should be scheduled...as to when I would bow to the advice of experts.

[watching&waiting]

The semi-automatic rifles come in every caliber you can think of. There are really very few bolt action rifles being made today and the jamming of a semi-automatic has been solved many years ago. You are more likely to have a catstophic backfire with a bolt action then you ever would with a semi auotmatic. The jams you hear about with altered guns is when a person decides to take an semi and turn it into a full auto. This is because it was never designed to be that way.

I have shot guns as semi auto matic and 30.06, 410. and 22 cals as well. All are the modern makes and hav e al,t he necessary safety locks and and trigger locks built in. Accidental firing of these weapons is almost impossible. Large Moose and Bear especially polar bears are rarely dropped with a single shot and if by chance you are near the animal when it is hit and charges you, there would be little time to recock and take aim at a vital spot and fire. The semi-automatic is needed to make this and other things safe. Also as mentions even varmint control, is again where the semi-auto is way superior to the bolt action and has valid uses. The maintenance on these weapons if done right makes them way more reliable then the bolt actions and as I have said already, even an abused semi-auto is less inclined to have harmful back fires that bolt actions have. I have had to unjam more 12 guage pump action shot guns then ever had to with semi-auto. and the pump action jamming is way more dangerous tom unjam then the semi as well.

So there are several reason why a semi auto are needed and used. I guess you could also do all the hunting witha bow and arrows, but that then has already been used to kill a spouse a few years back as well.

[Wilber]

You have to take an eye exam for a drivers license, and after a certain golden age, you need to prove your compentancy behind the wheel, but as long as you have no serious criminal offense, anyone of your disturbed personalities may legally acquire firearms.

As well as criminal background checks there should be psychiatric and psychological screenings to weed out the undesirables.

There is a huge jump from an eye test to psychiatric and psychological screenings. Who would be responsible for paying those costs?

The other tough thing about that requirement is what happens when the normal everyday joe snaps because of a serious life trauma. Should these tests be required yearly?

It would be more expensive but do we want a system that might have a chance of working or one like we have now. Window dressing.

[August1991]

Ahh urbanites. A nice semi-auto .22 is a great tool in getting rid of those pesky gophers (they kill horses with the holes they make). When I was younger, I used to help out on some friends farms doing this, they'd pay you a whopping $0.50 a gopher. Man oh man. Used to get like $10 for a few hours work. The other actions don't work nearly as well if you need to get a few shots off fast, like with gophers...

.... Gophers are the only valid semi-auto target.

Can I take that to mean we could render illegal all centerfire (large calibre) semi-automatic weapons?

This would leave hunters and farmers with single bolt rifles and semi-automatic rimfire (small calibre) with up to five rounds.

All other functioning weapons would be restricted to gun clubs unless they were collector items rendered non-functional.

This follows closely the Australian gun rules.

Gun crime = life in prision. The use of a firearm shows you had the intent to kill someone in my opinion, or were willing to escalate violence to that point. No tolerance should be allowed, carrying a loaded firearm should be an equivalent crime to murder.

I'd disagree strongly with that. A gunman might as well kill me and get rid of a witness if the penalty for gun ownership were the same as murder.

[August1991]

You have to take an eye exam for a drivers license, and after a certain golden age, you need to prove your compentancy behind the wheel, but as long as you have no serious criminal offense, anyone of your disturbed personalities may legally acquire firearms.

As well as criminal background checks there should be psychiatric and psychological screenings to weed out the undesirables.

There is a huge jump from an eye test to psychiatric and psychological screenings. Who would be responsible for paying those costs?

The other tough thing about that requirement is what happens when the normal everyday joe snaps because of a serious life trauma. Should these tests be required yearly?

Given his remarks after the Montreal shootings, Harper seems to wonder also how to keep guns out of the hands of pyschotics.

I like Argus' solutions. Guns should be stored at gun clubs. There could be psychological tests but it would be the gun club that would administer them.

If I own a horse, I can't keep it in my garage downtown. I have to pay to keep it in a stable on a farm. I think the same should apply to guns.

----

On the blog Small Dead Animals, there is a legitimate question "Why do we need guns in this modern society?" to which Kate the Blogger offers a smarmy and silly reply (it turns on the meaning of the word "need"). Then the comments are endless and dominated by 2nd amendment gun nuts.

The gun nuts (and Kate) just don't get it. It is illegal for an individual to own RPGs but it is legal to own a coffee-maker. Where do we draw the line? Well, I have a strong feeling that we are about to draw the line closer to the coffee-makers and further away from the RPGs.

If Harper doesn't do it (and I think he will), then Prime Minister Rae or Prime Minister Dion will.

This seems to me a reasonable compromise (or a reasonable way to draw the line):

-abolish the gun registry

-make it illegal to own large calibre semi-automatic weapons

-allow farmers and hunters, subject to control, to own single bore and small-calibre semi-automatics

-all other legal weapons would be stored at gun clubs

-bolster penalties for violation of gun laws and in particular for crimes committed involving guns

[Charles Anthony]

.... Gophers are the only valid semi-auto target.

Can I take that to mean we could render illegal all centerfire (large calibre) semi-automatic weapons?

It would be wise to consider it the same as if abortion was made illegal: it will go dangerously underground but it will not disappear.

This would leave hunters and farmers with single bolt rifles and semi-automatic rimfire (small calibre) with up to five rounds.

If farmers CURRENTLY use anything more powerful than your proposed pellet-guns maybe they have good reason. I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

If farmers do NOT use large caliber weapons, a restriction is unnecessary.

Maybe we should spend time with farmers and ask them what they think before "shooting off" policy proposals.

No tolerance should be allowed, carrying a loaded firearm should be an equivalent crime to murder.

I'd disagree strongly with that. A gunman might as well kill me and get rid of a witness if the penalty for gun ownership were the same as murder.

So.... you DO know better. What gives?

Why stop there? You could extend the same logic to any increase in penalty for gun ownership.

If I own a horse, I can't keep it in my garage downtown. I have to pay to keep it in a stable on a farm. I think the same should apply to guns.

You keep your horse in a stable because it is more convenient for YOU to do so. That is the driver and you do not need extra-ordinary laws. Regardless of the law, you would still do that anyway. People who broke that law would be chased out of town or an "accidental" car accident would provide sufficient incentive. Why make unnecessary laws?

It is illegal for an individual to own RPGs but it is legal to own a coffee-maker. Where do we draw the line? Well, I have a strong feeling that we are about to draw the line closer to the coffee-makers and further away from the RPGs.

Non-gun-nuts either do not get it too or are in some bizarre denial.

Your reference to a rocket-grenade is silly because if somebody was hell-bent on being so ridiculously reckless nothing stops them from going to their hardware store. Then what?? A new law?

I will suggest drawing the line either at permitting anything or conversely, attacking the problem differently.

We should be looking at fighting, preventing and defending ourselves against crime, instead of chasing after dead people AFTER their crimes are committed. More police on the streets would be a start.

[geoffrey]

Ahh urbanites. A nice semi-auto .22 is a great tool in getting rid of those pesky gophers (they kill horses with the holes they make). When I was younger, I used to help out on some friends farms doing this, they'd pay you a whopping $0.50 a gopher. Man oh man. Used to get like $10 for a few hours work. The other actions don't work nearly as well if you need to get a few shots off fast, like with gophers...

.... Gophers are the only valid semi-auto target.

Can I take that to mean we could render illegal all centerfire (large calibre) semi-automatic weapons?

This would leave hunters and farmers with single bolt rifles and semi-automatic rimfire (small calibre) with up to five rounds.

All other functioning weapons would be restricted to gun clubs unless they were collector items rendered non-functional.

This follows closely the Australian gun rules.

Well, it would be hard to consider it unreasonable. But I still look at it this way. Guns are far less deadly then automobiles, more guns are in Canada then cars, yet more people die in car accidents. Removing guns might be a semi-practical solution, but the evidence doesn't really show it works. Take Britain for example, the gun ban comes and violence goes up. Why?

The main question I pose to liberal types is why are they against liberty to own reasonable firearms? They are so for the legalisation of drugs, yet want to ban others from enjoyment in a hobby of their own. Guns aren't dangerous until in the hands of an idiot, much like a car or crack cocaine (in the hands of anyone that would use it).

I won't ever support gun control, but the line you've drawn August is the method I'd claim would have the least effect on people's liberties as large calibre semi-auto's aren't exactly practical.

Gun crime = life in prision. The use of a firearm shows you had the intent to kill someone in my opinion, or were willing to escalate violence to that point. No tolerance should be allowed, carrying a loaded firearm should be an equivalent crime to murder.

I'd disagree strongly with that. A gunman might as well kill me and get rid of a witness if the penalty for gun ownership were the same as murder.

What do you mean?

[Black Dog]

Removing guns might be a semi-practical solution, but the evidence doesn't really show it works. Take Britain for example, the gun ban comes and violence goes up. Why?

According to the British Crime Survey, violent crime in England fell 43 per cent from 1995 to 2005. Do you have any statistics that specifically measure gun crime specificaly?

The main question I pose to liberal types is why are they against liberty to own reasonable firearms?

What's a "reasonable" firearm? Me, I'm not oppossed to gun ownership per se. But I believe anything so dangerous should be extremely restricted.

They are so for the legalisation of drugs, yet want to ban others from enjoyment in a hobby of their own. Guns aren't dangerous until in the hands of an idiot, much like a car or crack cocaine (in the hands of anyone that would use it).

Wait: how is crack cocaine dangerous to anyone but the user? If you're locked in a room with someone and can either give them a line of blow or a gun, which option would you say is the safer one for you.

[geoffrey]

Wait: how is crack cocaine dangerous to anyone but the user? If you're locked in a room with someone and can either give them a line of blow or a gun, which option would you say is the safer one for you.

Most gun related deaths are suicides and accidents. Same with cocaine. Either way, my point was clear.

[jbg]

According to the British Crime Survey, violent crime in England fell 43 per cent from 1995 to 2005. Do you have any statistics that specifically measure gun crime specificaly?

With no gun law changes, US crime fell by as much or more during that period, at least in New York City.

[watching&waiting]

This whole whining antigun people just do not get the point that it does not matter if guns were banned, because the criminal do not follow the law and that is just the plain facts of it. Mean while the people rights to hint and trap as a sport would be gone. The criminal would then see that they could go to any rural area and do what they want for how long they want and there would be little or no chance of then getting caught, and the people would have to rely on police that may be 30 miles or more away.

I personally would like to see the people in the city take a trip to Churchil MB at this time of year and do not forget to pet the fluffy white polar bears. At least that way they would have a new food supply. The fact is no goes out without a high caliber rifle, most likely semi auto. The same goes for all the northern territories and provinces. It is near the same until you het to the 50 degree lattitude for most other provinces. People that is more then half the land mass of Canada, and the whiners who are way further south who think their will is the only thing that counts do not know the first thing about this.

You cna not make different laws for different people because of where they live, because then you have a two tier system for laws. Since the laws must apply to all people and more then half your country need these rifles, then you have to make laws that make sense. The gun registry will not work and we have seen that already. So what is the one thing that has worked when you look at the stats? The states where it is legal to carry side arms for anybody that can pass a safety test, have the lowest rate of violent crime. I know the people do not like that but if you look at the USA, that is the proof right there. So what do you think of that. Yes I know that even if a wacko does go off it may be possible then for others to bring him down immediatey, but that even I have a hard time with, but the numbers say that it is true and the best way.

So is the way to better control of the public, is to allow the people to carry side arms?

[jbg]

This whole whining antigun people just do not get the point that it does not matter if guns were banned, because the criminal do not follow the law and that is just the plain facts of it.

You mean Olsen and Pickton don't follow gun laws scrupulously. I'm sure Bernardo and Homulka did as well.

I personally would like to see the people in the city take a trip to Churchil MB at this time of year and do not forget to pet the fluffy white polar bears. At least that way they would have a new food supply.

Ah, sounds so cute.

[Black Dog]

Most gun related deaths are suicides and accidents. Same with cocaine. Either way, my point was clear.

What? That guns are more dangerous than illegal drugs? I don't think that was your piont, but.... that's what we get.

With no gun law changes, US crime fell by as much or more during that period, at least in New York City.

So then gun laws don't have an adverse affect on the overall crime rate, which is what geoffery was implying. Now, what about gun crimes?

[jbg]

So then gun laws don't have an adverse affect on the overall crime rate, which is what geoffery was implying. Now, what about gun crimes?

My point is that restricting guns does not reduce the crime rate. I still think that crime might be reduced if criminals had to worry that law-abiding citizens had guns.

[jdobbin]

My point is that restricting guns does not reduce the crime rate. I still think that crime might be reduced if criminals had to worry that law-abiding citizens had guns.

Is there any proof that countries that have less restrictive gun laws have less crime?

[geoffrey]

My point is that restricting guns does not reduce the crime rate. I still think that crime might be reduced if criminals had to worry that law-abiding citizens had guns.

Is there any proof that countries that have less restrictive gun laws have less crime?

There would be some strong corelation doesn't equal causation issues with that one.

[jbg]

Is there any proof that countries that have less restrictive gun laws have less crime?

As a very great leader of a very great democracy once said: "A proof is a proof. What kind of proof ? It's a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it is proven." (coloring and bolding deleted).

[jdobbin]

deleted.

[jbg]

Deleted.

[jdobbin]

To the contrary. The proof is the proof.

It has been proven that fewer guns leads to fewer gun crimes.

[jdobbin]

There would be some strong corelation doesn't equal causation issues with that one.

How about countries with less restrictive gun laws having less gun crimes?

[geoffrey]

There would be some strong corelation doesn't equal causation issues with that one.

How about countries with less restrictive gun laws having less gun crimes?

Switzerland. Very liberal gun ownership laws, as in free to own not big-L Liberal. And every reference to crime in Switzerland refers to it as almost non-existant.

From the British Embassy website (http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1085326316242):

There is a generally low rate of serious crime in Switzerland compared with other European countries.

Great comparison, similar part of the world, Switizerland very liberal gun owners, rest of Europe very anti-gun, and the Swiss have a lower rate of crime. I still apply my previous statement that corelation doesn't equal caustion in this case either.

But you asked, and I provided.

[August1991]

If I were moderator, I would warn/ban both jbg and jdobbin for the coloured, recopied nonsense above.

This whole whining antigun people just do not get the point that it does not matter if guns were banned, because the criminal do not follow the law and that is just the plain facts of it.

W&W, that's true. Criminals don't follow the law and thieves steal. We put thieves in jail, and there are still more thieves.

Does that mean we should not have police? (What's the point of having police? Criminals do not the follow the law anyway, as you note.)

W&W, you forget that even criminals follow the law if the severity of punishment is sufficient and the certainty of punishment is sufficient. Changing sentences for gun usage, and enforcing those sentences, might reduce violence among gangs in Toronto. I'm not certain that this lunatic/psychopath at Dawson College was a criminal, or these changes would affect him.

I don't like the idea of psychological tests. They don't work. Instead, I think we should restrict otherwise who can get weapons.

Restrict? Yes.

I do not want to live in a society where any individual is free to own an RPG or a tactical nuclear weapon. It is obvious to me that no individual should be free to impose great cost on others. In a world of 6 billion, should we allow one person to stop the rest of us? In a meeting, does one person have the right to speak and make the rest of us waste hours of our lives listening? In a society, does one person have the right to own a gun?

----

I think all guns in cities should be kept in gun clubs. In rural areas, people should apply to have single bolt rifles or small calibre semi-automatic rifles.

We should abolish the federal gun registry. The federal government should not be involved in listing every gun in the country. That's costly and the money could be put to better use. A $2 billion registry to save "one life" means far more deaths elsewhere. How many lives could be saved if our hospitals had $2 billion? We have to choose where to spend our money.

The gun registry is a waste of money.

[Hicksey]

To the contrary. The proof is the proof.

It has been proven that fewer guns leads to fewer gun crimes.

That's misleading. As you insist less legal guns would translate to less legal firearms being used in crime. However, as it stands the percentage of crimes that are committed with properly registered weapons is negligible compared to those committed with illegal/unregistered weapons. The gun registry only places further restrictions on people who already handled, stored and used their weapons legally, and it does essentially nothing to address gun crime.

[jdobbin]

Switzerland. Very liberal gun ownership laws, as in free to own not big-L Liberal. And every reference to crime in Switzerland refers to it as almost non-existant.

From the British Embassy website (http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1085326316242):

There is a generally low rate of serious crime in Switzerland compared with other European countries.

Great comparison, similar part of the world, Switizerland very liberal gun owners, rest of Europe very anti-gun, and the Swiss have a lower rate of crime. I still apply my previous statement that corelation doesn't equal caustion in this case either.

But you asked, and I provided.

Under what conditions can the Swiss own guns?