Gun Control

[trex]

If we must register cars we can certainly register guns. For one thing if guns are at a crime scene are un-registered, it should be an additional crime that adds extra time to the sentencing. If ALL guns are registered in a database when they are first made by the manufacturer, that would help to identify the weapon used in murder investigations. Secondly, that all owners require mandatory safety training and to properly store guns and ammo in locked cabinets, with trigger locks in place. Third, a waiting period of several days before a new gun can be purchased, or even ammo, during which time their information is submitted to the police.

And just because criminals will always break laws doesn't mean those laws are irrelevant and therefor should be eliminated. No, quite the contrary. The intention is not just to identify which gun was used in a crime, but to make it hard to obtain guns, and reduce the number of guns in society. Just as with other constant battles in society, such as the war on drugs, Moles can be planted who are used during sting operations, people who will offer to sell guns illegally, a network of insiders to tip off police about gun sales. It's an on-going battle, but the guns must be criminalized first. A war on guns would be a progressive idea.

If guns are seen as a big deal and not just common items in everyday experience, the woman who was taking care of that kid might have reported him to police when he showed her his rifle just a few days before he went on his rampage. She just thought it was a little odd, but presumably since guns are not unusual in their violent permissive society she did nothing about it.

If guns were illegal, or difficult to obtain without proper training and licensing, crimes like this can be prevented.

Edited December 12, 2007 by trex

[myata]

Nonsense, when are you going understand that gun registration is not gun control?

You just keep droning the same thing. Day after day we hear about murders, including mass murders, committed with legally obtained guns by authorised licensed owners. And over and again, gun lobby will point their finger at bad bad criminals who won't obey the law so why worry? It's plain and obvious distraction. Too bad our current government is now involved in this game.

The point is, outside of special uses, like collection, sport, hunting, there's simply no reason for anybody to own a gun. Just as simple as that. Guns for special use should be tightly controlled. Guns for general use should not be available. It's not restricting anybody's freedom, because the only use a working gun can be put for, outside of those special ones, is to kill or injure. And in our land there's no freedom to kill or injure.

No, owning a gun is not a right. Owing a pit bull, in Ontario, is not a right, no matter how qualified an owner can be. Owing high explosives is not a right, even for a professional chemist. And gun ownership should be no different. Comply with regulations, or forfeit privilege.

[Wild Bill]

You just keep droning the same thing. Day after day we hear about murders, including mass murders, committed with legally obtained guns by authorised licensed owners. And over and again, gun lobby will point their finger at bad bad criminals who won't obey the law so why worry? It's plain and obvious distraction. Too bad our current government is now involved in this game.

The point is, outside of special uses, like collection, sport, hunting, there's simply no reason for anybody to own a gun. Just as simple as that. Guns for special use should be tightly controlled. Guns for general use should not be available. It's not restricting anybody's freedom, because the only use a working gun can be put for, outside of those special ones, is to kill or injure. And in our land there's no freedom to kill or injure.

No, owning a gun is not a right. Owing a pit bull, in Ontario, is not a right, no matter how qualified an owner can be. Owing high explosives is not a right, even for a professional chemist. And gun ownership should be no different. Comply with regulations, or forfeit privilege.

Sounds to me like YOU"RE the one repeating himself! The point has been made that gun control laws do nothing to affect illegal guns. You're droning on and on about the way things SHOULD work, ignoring how they DO work!

If wishes were horses, and if my granny had wheels she wouldn't bang her ass when she hopped. How's that for mixing metaphors?

We live in the real world. Only real world approaches work. You come across like some Nancy Reagan clone, saying we can stop drugs by "Just Say NO!"

[myata]

The point has been made that gun control laws do nothing to affect illegal guns.

Sorry, I probably haven't made my point clear enough, so here's one more time and slowly:

Registration and control of legal guns is intended to curb crimes committed with them, legal guns. By their legal owners, or those who happen to lay their hands on them. There must be another strategy to control guns originating from illegal sources. It's not one or the other. It's both. Really, easy: one and the other. Not "if one then not the other".

Did anybody else notice how with Harpers Conservatives one has to reduce logic to the level of junior kindergarted? Painfully and slowly explaining every single trivial step. Like e.g. that waiting on China to join Kyoto is really the same as no Kyoto. Obvious to everybody. Except Harpers Conservatives.

Appears that Harper really likes his electorate smug, dumb and agreable.

[guyser]

Actually it is a right, so is driving a car. I'm tired of people saying that such and such is a privilege not a right. If you meet the criteria to do something, you have a right to do it and it cannot be taken away from you without cause. Governments cannot grant privileges to its citizens, they can only restrict rights for the common good or for cause with the approval of its citizens. You could grant me the privilege of using your car. It is a privilege because you don't need a reason to refuse me the use of your car. The government has to have cause to not let me use my car or you your car. It is your right until you forfeit that right by your own actions.

Nothing wrong with it but not worth a thousand million dollars, particularly when bad people who own large numbers of working guns aren't going to register them.

I do not agree.

Owning a gun, or a car, is not a right. If I am wrong show me the statute that grants you that right.

Dont confuse us with Americans. Their government is restricted by the rights granted to them by the people.Thus the right to bare arms is ingrained in all americans and fought whenever the gov wants to further restrict that.

[noahbody]

Registration and control of legal guns is intended to curb crimes committed with them, legal guns.

That may be the intention, but it has about as much affect on crime as me eating a peach pie. Manitory sentencing and placing greater focus on those committing the crime (i.e. gang squads) will address the problem.

Did anybody else notice how with Harpers Conservatives one has to reduce logic to the level of junior kindergarted? Painfully and slowly explaining every single trivial step. Like e.g. that waiting on China to join Kyoto is really the same as no Kyoto. Obvious to everybody. Except Harpers Conservatives.

Yet you'd be in favour of spending billions on nothing. This is why they give you dull scissors.

[Wilber]

For the last time, the majority of gun crimes are committed with weapons that cannot even be registered under the law. They are already illegal. For those which are committed with registered weapons, the registry didn't stop them from killing anyone.

You want to spend billions to register weapons owned by honest people on the chance that that one of them could occasionally go nuts, so that we will have an official record of who they belonged to after they have killed someone, when people are shot on a daily basis with guns that are not and cannot be registered because they are already illegal for anyone to own.

I'm not against controlling access to guns. I'm not against mandatory training for those who would use them. The laws are already there. If we went even half way to enforcing the maximums under existing laws on a consistent basis, it would make anything accomplished by a registry pale in comparison.

Link

In principal, I'm not even against registration. Unlike you I am not willing to piss away billions on forming new bureaucracy's to look after new laws that will not be enforced with any more vigor than the ones we already have.

Yes I keep repeating it because it is true. You want to piss away billions on a point of principal. I say use it for something that actually accomplishes something.

A thousand million dollars. For what?

[Wilber]

I do not agree.

Owning a gun, or a car, is not a right. If I am wrong show me the statute that grants you that right.

Dont confuse us with Americans. Their government is restricted by the rights granted to them by the people.Thus the right to bare arms is ingrained in all americans and fought whenever the gov wants to further restrict that.

Ever heard of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? We have one to. It does not stipulate a right to bear arms, nor does it forbid it. I does not itemize rights to do individual things.

If you have a valid drivers license. If you own a legally licensed, registered and insured car that is in good mechanical condition, meets all applicable safety standards and drive it according to the rules of the road, the government cannot take your right to drive that car away without cause. It is your right to drive that car until you do something that causes you to forfeit that right. It is not a privilege. As long as you meet the conditions required by law, it is your right.

When you speak of governments granting privileges to it's citizens like they were its children, you tread on scary ground. That's what totalitarian regimes do.

[guyser]

Ever heard of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? We have one to. It does not stipulate a right to bear arms, nor does it forbid it. I does not itemize rights to do individual things.

The show us where it says you ahve a right to drive a car. I never said it grants the right to bare arms, I said that was the Bill of Rights (I think is said Constitution-sorry) that does ,not our charter.

If you have a valid drivers license. If you own a legally licensed, registered and insured car that is in good mechanical condition, meets all applicable safety standards and drive it according to the rules of the road, the government cannot take your right to drive that car away without cause. It is your right to drive that car until you do something that causes you to forfeit that right. It is not a privilege. As long as you meet the conditions required by law, it is your right.

You have earned the priviledge to drive. If it were a right it would not be subject to all which you post.

When you speak of governments granting privileges to it's citizens like they were its children, you tread on scary ground. That's what totalitarian regimes do.

I dont speak of that. If I am not mistaken, it was you. What I am saying is that the US is where the people grant the rights to the govt , and the govt cannot restrict those rights. By the way, nowhere in the Bill of Rights is it enumerated that driving is a priviledge. Same as here.

[myata]

For the last time, the majority of gun crimes are committed with weapons that cannot even be registered under the law.

Those would be like (let me guess): Montreal shooting; Dawson shooting; Mountie shooting; and many family murder-suicides, like at least two in my fresh memory in Ottawa this year, both with multiple victims. Right? Gimme a break. Isn't it obvious, plain and simple bs? Avoidance tactics. So very well familiar. We won't do this till somebody does that. That is, till pigs fly.

Harpers Conservative don't want gun control. They'll never say it in the open. They'll use laughable excuses and strawmen instead. While ignoring the advice of the very people who are charged with figthing the crime. That's the real reason.

(And one more time, billion dollars is bad. Bad implementation of a good and necessary policy. Implementation should be improved. The policy should stay. Hope it's clear enough, now).

[Wilber]

Those would be like (let me guess): Montreal shooting; Dawson shooting; Mountie shooting; and many family murder-suicides, like at least two in my fresh memory in Ottawa this year, both with multiple victims. Right? Gimme a break. Isn't it obvious, plain and simple bs? Avoidance tactics. So very well familiar. We won't do this till somebody does that. That is, till pigs fly.

No, I am talking about all the gang, club and robbery related shootings that happen on a regular basis. The night before last the Vancouver police shot and killed a drunk driver who was changing a tire and opened up on them with a handgun when they stopped to check on him. Last I heard they still don't know why or at least aren't saying.

The gun registry did nothing to prevent the shootings you point to, nor could it. We do have gun control. Read the laws in the link. Merely registering a gun does nothing if you are not prepared to enforce the laws that are already in place. It is little but show and an expensive one at that.

[noahbody]

Harpers Conservative don't want gun control. They'll never say it in the open. They'll use laughable excuses and strawmen instead. While ignoring the advice of the very people who are charged with figthing the crime. That's the real reason.

Harper's Conservatives don't like spending money on non-solutions like the gun registry. Saying they don't believe in gun control is silly as they're the party that introduced legislation for mandatory sentences for gun crimes. Are you under the impression they want to get rid of registration for hand guns?

Canada is not the US. We do have tough restrictions when it comes to firearms. What this government want to achieve is control by accountability.

As a FYI, the Dawson College guns were registered. The Mayerthorpe gun had been illegal for four decades.

[blueblood]

The thing I don't agree with the gun control thing, that kind of a program belongs in the cities, not to be implemented nationally, out in the country we don't have gun problems, why should we pay for what goes on in the cities and turn people into criminals for not registering? It has been mentioned to death the crimes are commited with unregistered firearms. There are also crimes commited with registered firearms. I don't see how registering firearms would stop people from killing each other, if someone wants to get a gun badly enough to shoot someone, they'll pull it off. If somebody snaps, they snap.

Trying to prevent a pre-meditated crime is impossible. If people want control, control the people selling the damn things. Personally I don't think guns should be sold/possessed in cities, there is absolutely no need for them there. A person buys a gun to shoot something, a country person has a rifle for shooting bears, coyotes, varmints, deer, elk for the reason of getting rid of pests that prey on livestock, and for a discount on meat products at winter time. Last time I checked there are no wild animals roaming around cities that are threats or can save you some money compared to going to the grocery store. A city person buying a gun for protection just flat out scares me.

It's really frustrating living in our area of the country and having our privilege taken away and having done nothing wrong.

[AngusThermopyle]

Owing a pit bull, in Ontario, is not a right,

Oh hell, don't tell me you think the Pit Bull ban was a good thing as well!

Once again, like the registry, it does nothing to solve any problem, merely allows government and its sycophantic ninnies to intrude even more in our lives. Did you know the jerk off crowd are now turning to other breeds of dogs to replace Pitties? They are, net result of ban, nil. Just no more damn fine dogs allowed, the problem still exists, the bad owners. Shit, lets figure out some registry to solve that one too!

Same thing with the expensive farce known as the registry,how many illegal firearms has the registry removed, come on, don't all shout out at once.? How many gun crimes has it prevented? As I said, don't all shout out at once.

[guyser]

The thing I don't agree with the gun control thing, that kind of a program belongs in the cities, not to be implemented nationally, out in the country we don't have gun problems, why should we pay for what goes on in the cities and turn people into criminals for not registering?

You really want to advocate having a law for city people and one for the country folk?How far are you willing to take it?

Was Mayerthorpe small enough for you?

A person buys a gun to shoot something, a country person has a rifle for shooting bears, coyotes, varmints, deer, elk for the reason of getting rid of pests that prey on livestock, and for a discount on meat products at winter time. Last time I checked there are no wild animals roaming around cities that are threats or can save you some money compared to going to the grocery store. A city person buying a gun for protection just flat out scares me.

It's really frustrating living in our area of the country and having our privilege taken away and having done nothing wrong.

And that is the same for the law abiding gun owner in the city. He too wants to get a deer or moose to supplement his families meat bill over the winter.

The cityslicker shares your pain. He too is frustrated.

[myata]

The gun registry did nothing to prevent the shootings you point to, nor could it. We do have gun control. Read the laws in the link. Merely registering a gun does nothing if you are not prepared to enforce the laws that are already in place. It is little but show and an expensive one at that.

But of course it could. And it will, eventually, when warning checks and alarms are implemented. If somebody in a city buys a powerful semi for sport, every year or so, it a cause for concern. The risk is too much, no matter how much one may love the stuff or admire craftsmanship, etc. I agree there may be very legitimate need to have a few guns in the countryside, but again, houses get broken into, and wrong people may stumble on them at a wrong time. There's no problem with paying a few bucks to have it registered. Particularly for law abiding safe owners. A shame that it had to cost way over the budget, but governments do it all the time. If Harper made it run more efficiently and for less, he'd have my full support. As is, he's trying to sneak in softening gun control. As usual, without telling anybody.

And how much good are the mandatory sentences going to do us? I mean it sounds very right at first and without thinking, as pretty much everything this government says, but has anybody actually seen the stats? I mean, how many gun crimes, are now, at this time and with current laws, get inadequate sentences? Not to mention that without taking the guns away, off the street, no sentencing will do anything. For a proof, just look south of the border. Five times murder rate, many times prison population and supertough sentencing. Really, what is the purpose, goal of this "tough on crime" campaign? Actually reducing the crime, especially violent crime? When how come that some obscure law expert from Fraser gets more earful from this government than police chiefs? The very people who actually will fight the crime, day after day?

Or is it to fan out the scare, while dismantling the tools that could eventually ensure that there's less guns out in the public? So that we'll have more reasons to be scared? To call for tougher and tougher laws? To run to social conservatives for salvation?

[AngusThermopyle]

Really, what is the purpose, goal of this "tough on crime" campaign?

I'm probably wrong, but it sounds almost like you believe a better course of action would be a campaign to get softer on crime.

[blueblood]

You really want to advocate having a law for city people and one for the country folk?How far are you willing to take it?

I'd advocate it not on a federal level, but as say a city by-law, I seriously don't think it should have been a federal law, due to the regional opposition towards it, in my opinion a federal law should be passed that takes all regions of the country into account, not just southern Ontario, Montreal, and Vancouver. That would be in my opinion more than fair. City boys get their gun laws, we get left alone. The city cops can still enforce the city by-laws and nail offenders. A good comparison of what I think would be appropriate as far as that is concerned was the smoking by-laws a few years ago, all the towns and cities passed them, the feds didn't.

Was Mayerthorpe small enough for you?

Would you be able to come up with more instances in the country? You guys had Dawson college, and for other instances, just call up an episode of to serve and protect. It's not a big problem out here compared to over there. If we had that same level of violence out here, I'd agree with you.

And that is the same for the law abiding gun owner in the city. He too wants to get a deer or moose to supplement his families meat bill over the winter.

I live in one of the best hunting spots in the country and I don't see city boys, lots of Americans, but no Canadian city boys. I don't think Canadian city boys really hunt. Part of that registry is to help out with stolen guns, the guy living in the city has a lot more chance of his gun getting stolen and being used in a crime, and again if guns were being stolen in the country and used in a crime I'd agree with you.

The cityslicker shares your pain. He too is frustrated

How unfortunate.

Edited December 13, 2007 by blueblood

[noahbody]

But of course it could. And it will, eventually, when warning checks and alarms are implemented. If somebody in a city buys a powerful semi for sport, every year or so, it a cause for concern.

So how are checks and alarms going to stop shootings? Are you going to hire officers to tail law abiding citizens 24hours a day?

As usual, without telling anybody.

He campaigned on it.

And how much good are the mandatory sentences going to do us?

It will fix our revolving door justice system that keeps putting gang members back onto the streets to the frustration of police gang units.

[myata]

So how are checks and alarms going to stop shootings? Are you going to hire officers to tail law abiding citizens 24hours a day?

No, it can be done much easier, thanks to the registry. Each time somebody registers a gun, maybe of a particular powerful type, computer checks how many of the same they already have in their name. And when it's one too many, police is alarmed.

He campaigned on it.

He camplaigned on it, and got a minority. It means that to make any change to existing law, or a policy based on existing law, he should pass a vote in the parliament.

It will fix our revolving door justice system that keeps putting gang members back onto the streets to the frustration of police gang units.

One hears that phrase a lot, but "something said thousand times" is not necessarily the truth. I'm still waiting for somebody to support it by something factual. Again, how many of serious gun crimes get less than adequate sentencing now under the current law?

[Wilber]

And how much good are the mandatory sentences going to do us? I mean it sounds very right at first and without thinking, as pretty much everything this government says, but has anybody actually seen the stats? I mean, how many gun crimes, are now, at this time and with current laws, get inadequate sentences? Not to mention that without taking the guns away, off the street, no sentencing will do anything. For a proof, just look south of the border. Five times murder rate, many times prison population and supertough sentencing. Really, what is the purpose, goal of this "tough on crime" campaign? Actually reducing the crime, especially violent crime? When how come that some obscure law expert from Fraser gets more earful from this government than police chiefs? The very people who actually will fight the crime, day after day?

Or is it to fan out the scare, while dismantling the tools that could eventually ensure that there's less guns out in the public? So that we'll have more reasons to be scared? To call for tougher and tougher laws? To run to social conservatives for salvation?

No, it can be done much easier, thanks to the registry. Each time somebody registers a gun, maybe of a particular powerful type, computer checks how many of the same they already have in their name. And when it's one too many, police is alarmed.

And what are the police going to do about it? The gun was legally bought an registered. They can't harass people for obeying the law. Besides, they are too busy sticking fingers in the dike trying to compensate for a legal system that won't enforce existing laws and a bunch of boneheads who think that passing even more laws will somehow save them the expense of having to put criminals who carry guns where they can't harm the public.

For crying out loud, if you aren't willing to deal with the bad people who carry illegal weapons to do bad things, how the hell do you think registering the guns of law abiding citizens is going to accomplish anything? I get upset when a government blows a ton of money on something questionable and you won't spend anything to get the people who carry restricted weapons off the street. You can't get the guns off the street. For the most part they are illegal weapons smuggled into the country. You have to get the people who would use them off the street. Send them the message that carrying a gun isn't worth the trouble.

The police need the existing laws to have teeth, not a bunch feel good weenies bringing in ever more layers of bureaucracy to oversee new laws that they have no more intention of enforcing than the ones which already exist.

When is that going to sink in?

What would your wonderful gun registry have done to stop this guy when the rest of the system failed at every turn?

James Roszko

I give up.

[myata]

And what are the police going to do about it? The gun was legally bought an registered. They can't harass people for obeying the law.

For starters, they'll know. Then perhaps a license should limit the number of guns one can own.

Perhaps it should have a time limit, renewable (as with cars). And if someone fails to pass the test, the license is revoked and guns removed. All these solutions which would redunce the number of guns out there with time and persistence, would be very simple to implement having guns registered, but next to impossible without registration. What do they really want? To have less guns out in the public? Or have as many guns as we can possibly swallow, then supertough on crime committed with them? The second model does not work, see above. More guns means more crime, no matter how tough sentencing is. And if that's what they (Harper's Conservatives) want, they should tell us very clearly. Not hiding it in obscure decisions and changes of policy nobody supposed to notice.

For crying out loud, if you aren't willing to deal with the bad people who carry illegal weapons to do bad things,

I didn't say that. But I did say that guns with legitimate use should be tightly controlled. Sorry you didn't notice. Illegal guns (unregistered where legally required, or those that cannot be legally owned) should fall under another policy. Not necessarily heavy prison terms. A heavy fine will do. Double on the next offence.

One more time, it's not one or the other. It's both. If the ultimate goal is to reduce gun crime, rather than pump out fear, that is.

and you won't spend anything to get the people who carry restricted weapons off the street. You can't get the guns off the street.

Where did you get that information? One routinely hears "charged with illegal possession of guns" on the news. That makes you state that police isn't doing their job?

The police need the existing laws to have teeth, not a bunch feel good weenies bringing in ever more layers of bureaucracy to oversee new laws that they have no more intention of enforcing than the ones which already exist.

Same old adage droned by Harpers crowd to fan out fear. Is it actually substantiated by any facts (third time asking)?

What would your wonderful gun registry have done to stop this guy when the rest of the system failed at every turn?

Gun registry is not a miracle solution for the crime problem. There isn't any, not even supertough justice. It's one of the tools that with time and adequate use will help police keep gun crime under control.

I give up.

I'm not surprised. It's tough to argue for safety and lax gun policy at the same time. Harper's "Tough on crime" will almost certainly result in more prisons. But will it give us safer communities?

[guyser]

I'd advocate it not on a federal level, but as say a city by-law, I seriously don't think it should have been a federal law, due to the regional opposition towards it, in my opinion a federal law should be passed that takes all regions of the country into account, not just southern Ontario, Montreal, and Vancouver. That would be in my opinion more than fair. City boys get their gun laws, we get left alone. The city cops can still enforce the city by-laws and nail offenders.

A fine is okay with you? Thats what a by law would do. Federal law is the only way to go. It is all the way or no way.

Would you be able to come up with more instances in the country? You guys had Dawson college, and for other instances, just call up an episode of to serve and protect. It's not a big problem out here compared to over there. If we had that same level of violence out here, I'd agree with you.

I have no idea where "out here" is so I really cannot comment specifically.

But if you live in Alta BC or Sask, then you are in fact correct that you dont have the same level of violence

Its worse.

Murder, how about double pushing triple in Alta and Sask, but not BC.

I live in one of the best hunting spots in the country and I don't see city boys, lots of Americans, but no Canadian city boys. I don't think Canadian city boys really hunt.

They do I assure you. I drive up to my cottage every weekend and see the hunters heading north. They are quite easy to spot. Even easier when they come home, the antlers sticking out of the cab is a dead giveaway.

Part of that registry is to help out with stolen guns, the guy living in the city has a lot more chance of his gun getting stolen and being used in a crime, and again if guns were being stolen in the country and used in a crime I'd agree with you.

How unfortunate.

I imagine less people own guns in the city than in the country.Therefore more guns would be stolen in the country would you not think?

And you pass off the fact that other hunters, those who happen to live in the city, with a "How unfortunate"?

So in other words, everyone else should be subject, just not you ? No brotherhood for hunters no matter where they live?

[noahbody]

One hears that phrase a lot, but "something said thousand times" is not necessarily the truth. I'm still waiting for somebody to support it by something factual. Again, how many of serious gun crimes get less than adequate sentencing now under the current law?

Mrs. Brown was the head of a gang with 10 members. She sent two armed lads to deal some coke. They get busted and get sent to prison, where they both meet new boyfriends. How many gamg members are still on the street?

[noahbody]

For starters, they'll know. Then perhaps a license should limit the number of guns one can own.

Perhaps it should have a time limit, renewable (as with cars). And if someone fails to pass the test, the license is revoked and guns removed.

There is a test. It's called committing a crime.