Gun Control

[White Doors]

Hear the gun loving folks talking. That's what it's all about (and as appears, with tacit approval from this government). Owning guns is actually, a right. All good folks should have one (or two; or 5.6 per househould). That'll keep bad folks with guns at bay. And the more bad folks tote their guns - the more, and better, guns should the good folks be getting.

Because, as we already figured out here, the good folks, they are, and will always be good, and therefore, should be let have as much ammunition as they can carry away. With no restriction or reservation. For the bad ones, we'll simply have to build x,00 more jails and hire y00,000 more police.

That'll get us less crime for sure. Oh wait, don't they already have it all, south of St Lawrence? Should check how they fare there, crime wise. Must have forgotten the notion of it, by now?...

Where do you get this non-sense that I do not have a right to my private property?

I have just as much right to own my guns as you have a right to own a dishwasher.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Where do you get this non-sense that I do not have a right to my private property?

I have just as much right to own my guns as you have a right to own a dishwasher.

Not anymore you don't. You have to apply for one. You have to love social engineering.

[White Doors]

Not anymore you don't. You have to apply for one. You have to love social engineering.

Dishwasher manufacturers have to meet CSA approvals and energuide stickers, but yes - I get your point.

Gradual loss of gun ownership priveledges should make any self-respecting Canadian angry.

[myata]

Why is it you have such a hate on for people who own guns and obey the law ..

Hate for people = requiring to register their guns? Are you deliberately trying to be ridiculous? It's working, you know.

[White Doors]

Hi

My name is Myata and I hate guns and people who own guns.

And that's all I really have to say.

thanks!!!

[Wilber]

Hate for people = requiring to register their guns? Are you deliberately trying to be ridiculous? It's working, you know.

Perhaps you should calm down and re read some of your stuff. Like a lot of kids who did some growing up in the country, I spent some time around guns but am not an avid gun person. I inherited an interesting old rifle from my father. I have never used it and have no ammunition but it keep thinking that some day I might clean it up, have it checked over by a smith and take it to a nearby range. I probably never will but I might. It is not stored in one piece so a thief would not have a working weapon if it was stolen and it is registered. It is mine, it has some sentimental value and I see no reason why I should have to give it up because of people like you.

[myata]

It is mine, it has some sentimental value and I see no reason why I should have to give it up because of people like you.

OK and now you're saying that registering your sentimental rifle i.e filling a form and payning a few bucks is somehow the same making you give it up (oh dear, I'm so sorry... ).

Seriously, though, this is the real problem with this government and people who'd support it no matter what. They aren't interested in reason; intelligent discussion; examination of facts of the matter. They want things their way. The way they were since the times forgotten. No matter how much the world has changed around them. No matter what.

[Wilber]

OK and now you're saying that registering your sentimental rifle i.e filling a form and payning a few bucks is somehow the same making you give it up (oh dear, I'm so sorry... ).

Seriously, though, this is the real problem with this government and people who'd support it no matter what. They aren't interested in reason; intelligent discussion; examination of facts of the matter. They want things their way. The way they were since the times forgotten. No matter how much the world has changed around them. No matter what.

I told you, it is registered. It is registered because it is the law, not because I think it serves much use. I have also said I don't have a real problem with the idea of registration in principal. My problem is with people who think it is a substitute for dealing with the real problems surrounding gun crime. That registration will somehow have an effect on the criminal use of firearms that justifies the resources expended on it.

I take it that intelligent discussion only applies to what agrees with your point of view.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Wilber

[myata]

So it appears that somehow we're talking more or less of the same thing. Because if you can recall, nobody here ever stated that gun registry is the magical solution to all crime woes. Then, continuing to ignore the reality, because we've already concluded that registry costs next to nothing to operate, as federal expenses go. And for that, we're getting comprehensive gun control regime, not to mention a number of very useful applications. Not to mention support by the country's leading professional police associations.

Of course, if you'd recall what was actually said about strategies to attack crime, those were said to go in at least three main directions: #1, comprehensive gun control, so that trivial crime doesn't turn into lethal crime; #2, going after criminal core, with comprehensive and efficient tools and laws; #3, addressing social roots of crime, to narrow as much as possible the breeding ground for the crime. So now we can look, where this government stands on crime, in real and practical terms, rather than scare off propaganda.

#1 - gun control - it's clear where Harper stands on it. When Toronto's mayor is calling for handgun ban, measures to stem the flow of guns across the border - he's not interested. Gun registry, a principal part of a comprehensive gun control regime, recommened by main police associations - they want to disband it. As other gun control measures, discussed in this thread.

This is 0 (on any scale), if not negative one. Why, I wonder, for a government that made busting crime their cornerstone priority? Maybe, because they don't believe in it? It doesn't fit into their ideology?

#2 - from what is most on the air from Harper's "tough on crime" agenda, it's mandatory sentensing. It's been blown out of all possible proportions, but what's the reality? Check here: CBC: mandatory sentensing reality check. There's already 29 mandatory offenses in this country, and the conservatives are talking about adding another few. Maybe a worthy idea but hardly a breakthrough one might think of from listening to all the drumming. Not to mention that there hasn't been any evidence anywhere that the existing regime has systematic problems (aka, "too lenient"). This is supposed to be given. Especially to those of us who are used to think with someone else's brain.

OK, but what about other, urgent needs? Such as maybe, reforming the national police force? Facilitating exchange of best practices and cooperation between provinces? Helping fund necessary upgrades of judicial system, including suffiecient funding / staffing? Showing leadership on the national level by developing crime fighting initiatives, like e.g. same border smuggling problem? Anybody heard of anything of the kind? Anywhere?

So, on the balance of things, I'll give it 2, OK 3 to be way over generous (out of five). So much for the "tough on crime".

And finally, from all what we can see, #3 is nowhere on the agenda. 0, null, empty.

Here. So much for the crime fighting agenda. Less than one out of five in action, but appears like tons (of hot air) more if judged by propaganda. Which (propaganda in place of action, not to mention the result) is quickly becoming a signature of this bunch.

[noahbody]

nobody here ever stated that gun registry is the magical solution to all crime woes.

It's not the magical solution to any crime woes.

Then, continuing to ignore the reality, because we've already concluded that registry costs next to nothing to operate, as federal expenses go.

By "we've already concluded" do you mean you've found someone else who thinks pissing away $25million per year is next to nothing.

And for that, we're getting comprehensive gun control regime, not to mention a number of very useful applications. Not to mention support by the country's leading professional police associations.

Some would prefer to control crime. And I'd think if it was a good idea, all police commissions would support it.

#1 - gun control - it's clear where Harper stands on it. When Toronto's mayor is calling for handgun ban, measures to stem the flow of guns across the border - he's not interested.

Why not put a sign at the border: "Please register the guns you're smuggling!"?

OK, but what about other, urgent needs? Such as maybe, reforming the national police force? Facilitating exchange of best practices and cooperation between provinces? Helping fund necessary upgrades of judicial system, including suffiecient funding / staffing?

Gee are you implying there would be better areas to invest $25 million per year?

[Wilber]

When Toronto's mayor is calling for handgun ban, measures to stem the flow of guns across the border - he's not interested.

Please tell me how a handgun ban stops the already illegal importation and ownership of weapons?

There's already 29 mandatory offenses in this country, and the conservatives are talking about adding another few.

Unfortunately, invariably plea bargained away by a justice system that refuses to deal with repeat and dangerous offenders.

[myata]

Ok, now we can conclude, from your own very informative responses, that your people position comes to this: "nothing can be done about the crime, so let's abandon all regulations and controls (because, according to the famous but nevertheless fallaciuos argument, criminals - and people are born criminals, or saints, right? - won't obey them anyways), hand out everybody a gun or two, and blow the rest of money on building jails and hiring a police officer for every dozen citizens, or armed militiamen, as in the times of old)? Back to the future - wild wild West. Welcome to the social conservatives' pipe dream...

[noahbody]

Ok, now we can conclude, from your own very informative responses, that your people position comes to this: "nothing can be done about the crime, so let's abandon all regulations and controls (because, according to the famous but nevertheless fallaciuos argument, criminals - and people are born criminals, or saints, right? - won't obey them anyways), hand out everybody a gun or two, and blow the rest of money on building jails and hiring a police officer for every dozen citizens, or armed militiamen, as in the times of old)? Back to the future - wild wild West. Welcome to the social conservatives' pipe dream...

Nobody is saying nothing can be done about crime. People are saying the long gun registry does nothing about crime. The cost once again works out to over $2 million per homicide with a registered long gun. That's completely idiotic.

Prisons do have their place, especially for keeping gang members off of the street.

[eyeball]

My problem is with people who think it is a substitute for dealing with the real problems surrounding gun crime. That registration will somehow have an effect on the criminal use of firearms that justifies the resources expended on it.

My problem is with the non-solution gun advocates almost universally suggest for crime. More police, more laws, more prisons, more community-based snitch networks and more surveillance cameras. I'll pass thanks.

Most crime in our country could be eliminated in a single stroke (I heard an enforcement official cite 90% on a radio talk show recently) by ending the prohibition of drugs but most gun advocates won't have anything to do with that. Fair enough, I say we try to take everyone's guns away, not because I think this will stop criminals from using them but to force gun advocates to seriously start looking at and more importantly advocate alternatives. Ending prohibition should take an enormous amount of heat off the public perception that the proliferation of guns is responsible for violent crime. I don't actually believe guns cause crime but since so many people do I think exploiting that perception and going after gun owners in the hope it forces gun owners to go after prohibition is a worthwhile effort. The enemy of my enemy yadda yadda...

I never thought I'd be advocating using public fear and ignorance to engineer a better society but what the heck, it seems to be the way things get done these days.

[Wilber]

Ok, now we can conclude, from your own very informative responses, that your people position comes to this: "nothing can be done about the crime, so let's abandon all regulations and controls (because, according to the famous but nevertheless fallaciuos argument, criminals - and people are born criminals, or saints, right? - won't obey them anyways), hand out everybody a gun or two, and blow the rest of money on building jails and hiring a police officer for every dozen citizens, or armed militiamen, as in the times of old)? Back to the future - wild wild West. Welcome to the social conservatives' pipe dream...

Instead of all the inane ranting about scenarios that no one on this forum has advocated, why don't we just do what works. Regulations and controls without teeth are window dressing. They don't work. Regulations and controls which target the wrong people are even worse because they undermine respect for the law in general.

[myata]

Noahbody:

"...The cost once again works out to over $2 million per homicide with a registered long gun. That's completely idiotic. ..."

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers. And your math skills are already proven to be lacking, to say the least. And there're many things you, as a good Harper's follower, aren't saying such as, how long has the registry been in full operation and is it enough for any reliable statistics. Or what they did to diminish its efficiency, even before they pass (if ever) it in the parliament. And there things that you probably don't even understand, such as that there're other gun crimes than "homicides", as there're other uses of registration that do not directly involvle registered gun in a crime (as e.g. prevention; investigation; general benefits of comprehensive gun control, for the first time covering all kinds of guns).

I'm not interested in throwing hot air around. The facts, the costs, etc it's all here in this thread. If your interest is to drum after Harper's crowd "2 billion... 2 billion ... law abiding owner don't need ... don't have ... has the right .." that's your privilege. What I'm saying, and proving, is that Harper's policies won't lead to less crime. On the contrary, they'd lead to a climate of higher crime, and fear, that'd give them better chance of being elected, as they seem to be lacking everywhere a practical measurable result is involved, and excel in spreading smoke and drumming up propaganda.

Edited January 30, 2008 by myata

[noahbody]

Most crime in our country could be eliminated in a single stroke (I heard an enforcement official cite 90% on a radio talk show recently) by ending the prohibition of drugs but most gun advocates won't have anything to do with that.

We could also just make murder legal!

[Wilber]

I say we try to take everyone's guns away, not because I think this will stop criminals from using them but to force gun advocates to seriously start looking at and more importantly advocate alternatives. Ending prohibition should take an enormous amount of heat off the public perception that the proliferation of guns is responsible for violent crime. I don't actually believe guns cause crime but since so many people do I think exploiting that perception and going after gun owners in the hope it forces gun owners to go after prohibition is a worthwhile effort.

Why should it be up to gun owners? Why would they support the lifting of prohibitions on drugs? Do you think that they are stupid enough to believe that even if they were successfull a prohibition on firearms would also be lifted? Talk about abstract thinking. Why not prohibit I Pods or motor cycles in the same hope?

So you would add a prohibition in the hope that it would remove another prohibition. It would do nothing because the majority of marijuana produced in Canada is for export, some of it in exchange for restricted weapons and drugs such as cocaine. It is exported to a country which is not about to prohibit guns and unlikely to remove the prohibition of pot or any other drugs in the foreseeable future. As long as the penalties for drug crimes in Canada are so light in comparison to other countries we will continue to be a major producer and exporter of numerous drugs. That's just reality.

[noahbody]

Noahbody:

"...The cost once again works out to over $2 million per homicide with a registered long gun. That's completely idiotic. ..."

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers.

Cost of running registry from 2003-2006 (not including overruns) = $100 Million

Number of homicides with registered long guns from 2003-2006 = 48

$100M/48 = $2.08M

What I'm saying, and proving, is that Harper's policies won't lead to less crime.

Mandatory minimums keep gang members, who are likely to re-offend, off the street. All parties campaigned on mandatory minimums for a reason.

[myata]

Cost of running registry from 2003-2006 (not including overruns) = $100 Million

Number of homicides with registered long guns from 2003-2006 = 48

$100M/48 = $2.08M

And that comes from? Let me guess... Harper's propamation site? Which was supposed to be government of Canada information...

Then, how does Harper's government activities to date, such as e.g. amnesty for non compliers, help to improve its efficiency? I see. First do everything possible to kick it down. Then, oh wonder, it's down!! What ingenuity!

One could only wish this brilliant strategy'd work in the way of practical results too. Such as: 1) reduction in the actual crime numbers, consistently year on year; or 2) reduction in the actual emissions of green house gases; or 3) completing critical projects on time and without compromizing public safety; etc. Any prospects of that happening, any time soon?

Mandatory minimums keep gang members, who are likely to re-offend, off the street. All parties campaigned on mandatory minimums for a reason.

Read above. There're already 29 offences with mandatory minimum sentences, and guess what - Harper's got nothing to do with it. Unless maybe you want to make all sentensing mandatory? Any more, "ideas"??

[eyeball]

Why should it be up to gun owners?

You're the one's stuck with the reality that increasing numbers of people believe that guns cause crime.

As for drugs being smuggled into the US, they can always close their border. Personally I'm holding out the hope that the winds of change we're hearing so much about in the US are real. If Barak Obama becomes president it'll be caused by the growing awareness that just about everything the government in that country has been doing is dead wrong.

I think a black president will be rapidly called upon to address the huge disparity between the number of black people in America's prisons versus the number of white people in prison. This will likely cause a complete reassement of America's beliefs and policies regarding crime and drugs.

You guys better wake up and smell the coffee, you stand to lose your guns and the enjoyment of watching governments stomp on the backs of people you don't particularily like. What makes you happier, a warm gun or feeling smug?

[eyeball]

We could also just make murder legal!

There's a useful suggestion. Is it any wonder the words guns and nuts go so well together?

[Ergonomic]

I started to read this thread, but I sort of got lost in the arguments .

Maybe what we need is a sort of Marc Emery case up here but substitute guns for pot.

Look where all the guns are coming from!

[eyeball]

I started to read this thread, but I sort of got lost in the arguments .

Maybe what we need is a sort of Marc Emery case up here but substitute guns for pot.

Look where all the guns are coming from!

I like the idea of also going after gun and bullet manufacturers for their product safety liability, or lack thereof.

[noahbody]

And that comes from? Let me guess... Harper's propamation site? Which was supposed to be government of Canada information...

It comes from my ability to interpret statistics. Since you're ranting about Harper now, I assume you'd rather not debate whether spending over $2M per homicide is wise

One could only wish this brilliant strategy'd work in the way of practical results too. Such as: 1) reduction in the actual crime numbers, consistently year on year; or 2) reduction in the actual emissions of green house gases;

Yes I'm sure you think Kyoto, without the participation of the problem emitters, was an effective solution.

Read above. There're already 29 offences with mandatory minimum sentences, and guess what - Harper's got nothing to do with it. Unless maybe you want to make all sentensing mandatory? Any more, "ideas"??

I just would like to focus on the growing problem of gang violence, so some poor sap, maybe you, doesn't get hit with a stray bullet. Though you're begining to change my mind.

Edited January 30, 2008 by noahbody