Gun Control

[Wilber]

Maybe. But if the violent crime isn't going up (as it isn't), why should we all of the sudden start putting more people into jails?

And, build more jails. And, hire more jail guards?

Especially if our current system costs less and provides much better results already? What about great majority of Europe (less prisons, less crime)?

If you check you will find that violent crime rates in the US have decreased as well. You will also find that while Canadian violent crime rates are still much lower, they have been rising in relation to the US. The trend is not positive.

As I said before, Canada's property crime rate is higher than the US or Europe so how do you know our current system costs less when you don't take into account anything but the cost to the state? The $730,000 in property that junkie steals every year, you pay for. You pay for it in higher insurance rates and higher prices for just about everything, not to mention the expense and stress borne by his victims. Most of our governments just think "goody, not coming out of our budget. These fools will believe anything".

[myata]

Can you have effective long gun control when 94% of those who use them in homicide don't register their long guns?

Lack of compliance is not an argument. It must have taken time for car drivers to come to terms with registering cars, and for the state to enforce registration. The real question is, that you always fail to answer clearly is this: "Does this country need a comprehensive gun control regime?". Yes or no?

Gun control isn't possible without accounting the guns which fall under control. Comprehensive gun control isn't possible if massively used kind of guns, related to large portion of crime, is excluded. And if it's necessary, as decided by majority through democratic process, compliance with the law must be enforced. Especially as we're talking about twenty bucks and filling a form. Hardly taking away a sacred right.

Millions of responsible owners already went along with registration, understanding the danger any gun carries in the wrong hands. It's the socially conservative crowd that really has problems with it - not because of fiscal prudency (proven); not because it'll help police in fighting crime (proven); but plain and simple as direct consequence of their ideology. They "believe" that the punishment is the solution to the crime problem. And they'll keep pressing it against all facts, numbers, and rational argumentation. As can be seen very obviously from reading this thread.

[Wild Bill]

Lack of compliance is not an argument. It must have taken time for car drivers to come to terms with registering cars, and for the state to enforce registration. The real question is, that you always fail to answer clearly is this: "Does this country need a comprehensive gun control regime?". Yes or no?

Gun control isn't possible without accounting the guns which fall under control. Comprehensive gun control isn't possible if massively used kind of guns, related to large portion of crime, is excluded. And if it's necessary, as decided by majority through democratic process, compliance with the law must be enforced. Especially as we're talking about twenty bucks and filling a form. Hardly taking away a sacred right.

Millions of responsible owners already went along with registration, understanding the danger any gun carries in the wrong hands. It's the socially conservative crowd that really has problems with it - not because of fiscal prudency (proven); not because it'll help police in fighting crime (proven); but plain and simple as direct consequence of their ideology. They "believe" that the punishment is the solution to the crime problem. And they'll keep pressing it against all facts, numbers, and rational argumentation. As can be seen very obviously from reading this thread.

I think you're totally misreading the reason for some disagreeing with you! You keep talking about the way the world SHOULD be instead of the way it is!

Most of us were against the Liberal gun registry not because we wanted total lawless freedom to put gun racks in our pickup truck back windows but because we saw it as a diversion from actually doing something effective! We felt cheated and betrayed!

It was obvious from the start that only law abiding citizens would register. We always DID have registration! This was just an extra layer and NOT the first and only level of registry ever introduced! When we read the bill when it first came out we were struck by not only the fact that it didn't add a single day's guaranteed jail time for someone using a gun illegally in a crime but the penalty for not registering was greater than the typical rap for holding up a variety store!

The only possible explanation was that the Liberals were either totally on another planet or they were just grabbing a cheap photo op in the wake of that nutbar Mark Lepine's killings at that school in Quebec.

And before you claim that the registry was just part of the solution and that tougher sentencing and such was to follow you should understand that few believe that! Bitter experience has shown over our lives that politicians always go for the facade, knowing that most voters never look any deeper. There was never any indication of any kind that the Liberals were going to follow up the registry with getting tough on actual illegal users of guns. More people likely believed in the Easter Bunny than the Liberals ever actually would do something "real".

So the opposition to THIS gun registry comes from a lack of respect and confidence in its true goals and attainability!

You're arguing for the need for SOME kind of gun control when we always had it! When people disagree because they feel that THIS effort at gun control was a VERY expensive waste of time and a diversion to avoid doing something truly effective you seem to confuse that with being against any form of control at all!

Sorry to jump on you but it's been very frustrating watching you dance all around an imaginary position from those who disagree with you.

[akhmel]

Lack of compliance is not an argument. It must have taken time for car drivers to come to terms with registering cars, and for the state to enforce registration. The real question is, that you always fail to answer clearly is this: "Does this country need a comprehensive gun control regime?". Yes or no?

The one before the registry was good enough.

Comprehensive gun control isn't possible if massively used kind of guns, related to large portion of crime, is excluded. And if it's necessary, as decided by majority through democratic process, compliance with the law must be enforced. Especially as we're talking about twenty bucks and filling a form. Hardly taking away a sacred right.

First, as far as what I'm hearing from gun owners, it isn't as simple as you think. And if is was, I still don't see how would a person who registers his weapon not be capable of shooting someone.

Millions of responsible owners already went along with registration, understanding the danger any gun carries in the wrong hands.

Aren't people obliged to register their guns? And even if a gun goes to the wrong hand, how does the gun registry make any difference?

You have two scenarios: one, no gun registry, a gun is stolen and used in a crime. The second, we have a gun registry, a gun is stolen and used in a crime. What is the difference? None, except that in the second scenario, if the guy didn't know the gun was stolen, he may go to jail for that crime. There is something in common however: the crime won't be prevented.

It's the socially conservative crowd that really has problems with it - not because of fiscal prudency (proven); not because it'll help police in fighting crime (proven);

Once again, homicides are increasing.

but plain and simple as direct consequence of their ideology. They "believe" that the punishment is the solution to the crime problem. And they'll keep pressing it against all facts, numbers, and rational argumentation. As can be seen very obviously from reading this thread.

Here is a possible solution. The majority of shootings are gang related. What are they mostly interested in? Drugs. Don't you think if we legalized it, there'd be less gangs and hence less shootings?

Edited December 21, 2007 by akhmel

[guyser]

Once again, homicides are increasing.

They are?????

2002 -582

2003 -549

2004 -624

2005 -663

2006 -605

Murder rates have been falling overall since the 1975

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_...st_29SEP04.aspx

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Gimbar...y/homicide.html

http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/NR/rdonlyr...nCanada2004.pdf

[jdobbin]

Here is a possible solution. The majority of shootings are gang related. What are they mostly interested in? Drugs. Don't you think if we legalized it, there'd be less gangs and hence less shootings?

One in six murders in Canada are gang related. By my reckoning that is a minority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Canada

One in six homicides in 2006 was gang related according to police reports.[32]About 75% of 2006 homicides in Canada had been caught by 2007.[32]

[akhmel]

They are?????

2002 -582

2003 -549

2004 -624

2005 -663

2006 -605

Murder rates have been falling overall since the 1975

In the past 5 years, they are.

Here

While overall violent crime is down, homicides are up: Link

[guyser]

In the past 5 years, they are.

Um....thats for 2005. 2006 rates are down and I dont think we are measuring by the year but the trend over time.

Your second link is Ottawa only. From 9 to 11 murders. Not much change there.

[akhmel]

Um....thats for 2005. 2006 rates are down and I dont think we are measuring by the year but the trend over time.

Um....no. You see, we're talking about the gun registry, which was passed in 1995. In 1995, 588 homicides vs 605 now.

I am not saying the gun registry is causing it to grow, it is just useless.

[guyser]

Um....no. You see, we're talking about the gun registry, which was passed in 1995. In 1995, 588 homicides vs 605 now.

I am not saying the gun registry is causing it to grow, it is just useless.

So , 588 murders vs 605 now. Have we remained the same population? No, have we more people in CDA now...yes.

But you are using info that is not correct. Your link says that.

This one...

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-0...-XIE2006006.pdf

scroll down to page three. Rate of homi is about 2 , now.. it is 1.9 or somthing close. It did dip heavily from I believe 97 to 03.

[jbg]

"Why does this government want to repeal the Gun licensing registry? Because it is "tough on crime?" How is that helpful? It sounds like more American-style ideas coming from our current government, who show in so many ways now their intentions to make Canada's laws the same as in the United States?"

Does every post have to be leavened with a dash of HateAmerica?

[Wilber]

So , 588 murders vs 605 now. Have we remained the same population? No, have we more people in CDA now...yes.

But you are using info that is not correct. Your link says that.

This one...

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-0...-XIE2006006.pdf

scroll down to page three. Rate of homi is about 2 , now.. it is 1.9 or somthing close. It did dip heavily from I believe 97 to 03.

As the subject is the gun registry and gun control I would have thought this statement had the most relevance.

There were 222 victims killed by a firearm in 2005, 49 more than the previous year. This is the third consecutive annual increase in firearm homicides. Handguns accounted for about 6 in 10 firearms homicides.

[WestViking]

I have to ask, :What gun registry"? Handguns have been registered in Canada since 1934. The system works fine.

The gun registry under discussion has never been developed past the theory stage despite massive spending. What data there is in the registry is unreliable and thus useless. Requiring millions of Canadians to register rifles and shotguns has no effect whatever on criminals who prefer handguns and automatic weapons which cannot be legally purchased in Canada. The gun registry focuses on law abiding citizens and ignores criminals. I can see Canadian chapters of the Hell's Angels lining up to take firearms safety training and acquire licenses for their armament.

If we want to stop criminal shooting, we had best put some criminals in prison. That cuts down on their activity. We can and are introducing criminal laws that make the unlawful use of a firearm result in a longer prison sentence than the same crime without a firearm. We do not need an expensive gun registry to deal with criminals.

[jbg]

If we want to stop criminal shooting, we had best put some criminals in prison. That cuts down on their activity. We can and are introducing criminal laws that make the unlawful use of a firearm result in a longer prison sentence than the same crime without a firearm. We do not need an expensive gun registry to deal with criminals.

Gee, I thought most bodega robbers walk down the street with long hunting rifles on full display.

[myata]

In the past 5 years, they are.

Here

While overall violent crime is down, homicides are up: Link

This information is about crimes in Ottawa. Even then I fail to see the alleged increase.

There's just too many people here on this thread, all as one from gun loving crown, coming up with absurd illogical unsubstantiated wrong or plain misleading claims. These, for efficiency of time management, will from now on be ignored. Only arguments in good faith based to confirmed factual information will be replied to.

[myata]

I think you're totally misreading the reason for some disagreeing with you! You keep talking about the way the world SHOULD be instead of the way it is!

Maybe it you, in general social consservative sense, who fail to see that the world has changed around you?

Great majority of Canadians now live in cities. There's no need to keep that grandpa's gun in the closet to take it out to shoot chipmunks once in a while.

Then, violent crime is consistently going down. There's no need to jump up and down around the place crying about sky falling and forthcoming gun apocalypse.

What is there, is very specific problems that require specific targeted measures. Combined with general strengthening of the gun control regime. Shouting up, locking more people in jails won't result in less crime. Again - look south. In 200 years of their super tough justice combined with free gun ownership, they'd be a marvel of the world - no, of known Universe. Or maybe SHOULD have been, if the world were to be the way social conservatives see it, instead of the way it is? Correct?

[Wilber]

Then, violent crime is consistently going down. There's no need to jump up and down around the place crying about sky falling and forthcoming gun apocalypse.

What is there, is very specific problems that require specific targeted measures. Combined with general strengthening of the gun control regime. Shouting up, locking more people in jails won't result in less crime. Again - look south. In 200 years of their super tough justice combined with free gun ownership, they'd be a marvel of the world - no, of known Universe. Or maybe SHOULD have been, if the world were to be the way social conservatives see it, instead of the way it is? Correct?

Some types of violent crime are down, some are the same and some are up. Overall they are down but homicides are up.

Statistics Canada July 21/05

Canada's crime rate, based on data reported by police services, fell a marginal 1% last year. While the total violent crime rate declined, the national homicide rate increased 12%.

You ignore the fact that 60% of gun related homicides are caused by handguns. Guns where ownership is already either tightly controlled or prohibited in Canada. The great majority of that 60% were illegally obtained yet you say there is no need to put the people who possess them in jail. You somehow think those guns can be controlled without dealing severely with the people who use them, even thought the authorities have no control over how those guns got into the country and were distributed. You have no idea how many of the other gun related homicides involved prohibited long guns, how many involved long guns that were registered and how many were not. Irrelevant really because registered or not, all those guns were still used to kill people.

If as you say, there is no need to get excited and over react by putting people in jail because violent crime rates are going down, why can't the same be said for not needing a gun registry? Most people here who are critical of the registry are taking the position that legislated gun control can only work if you take a tough stand with those who would possess prohibited weapons because there is no practical way to prevent them from obtaining them. You seem to believe that another toothless law administered by another level of bureaucracy will do the trick. You live in a dreamland.

[Oleg Bach]

Some types of violent crime are down, some are the same and some are up. Overall they are down but homicides are up.

Statistics Canada July 21/05

You ignore the fact that 60% of gun related homicides are caused by handguns. Guns where ownership is already either tightly controlled or prohibited in Canada. The great majority of that 60% were illegally obtained yet you say there is no need to put the people who possess them in jail. You somehow think those guns can be controlled without dealing severely with the people who use them, even thought the authorities have no control over how those guns got into the country and were distributed. You have no idea how many of the other gun related homicides involved prohibited long guns, how many involved long guns that were registered and how many were not. Irrelevant really because registered or not, all those guns were still used to kill people.

If as you say, there is no need to get excited and over react by putting people in jail because violent crime rates are going down, why can't the same be said for not needing a gun registry? Most people here who are critical of the registry are taking the position that legislated gun control can only work if you take a tough stand with those who would possess prohibited weapons because there is no practical way to prevent them from obtaining them. You seem to believe that another toothless law administered by another level of bureaucracy will do the trick. You live in a dreamland.

Who in England and who in Canada imported what they thought was cheap labour from Jamica - a labour force they thought was going to further enrich the rich - England miscalculated as did our greed old white Canadians who lobbied for immigration and assumed that they would be a compliant bunch - look at Europe - at England - and here in Canada - you did not get the cheap labour and submissive slave you had envisioned - as a black grandmother said to me 25 years ago -"my grand sons will become your worst nighmare" - a gun totting angry powerful and agile black youth trained by grandma to spit on our faces - for the sins we committed against them - now they are spitting bullets - what did you expect? For these young men to work for 6 bucks an hour sorting out fish heads - while lawyers raped and pillaged and sucked the blood out the the public purse supposedly on behalf of black gang bangers - the whites brought this gun violence upon themselves - the immigration policy was not one rooted in Christian love or benevolence...You get what you pay for - our buisness elite are now finding that the average immigrant is finally figuring out that they old bay street gang are not their friends - nor is the court - nor are social policies truely kind - they are unkind - expect to see more of a back lash in the future - policy must be driven by benevolence - if not all you get in the long run is violence.

[Wilber]

Who in England and who in Canada imported what they thought was cheap labour from Jamica - a labour force they thought was going to further enrich the rich - England miscalculated as did our greed old white Canadians who lobbied for immigration and assumed that they would be a compliant bunch - look at Europe - at England - and here in Canada - you did not get the cheap labour and submissive slave you had envisioned - as a black grandmother said to me 25 years ago -"my grand sons will become your worst nighmare" - a gun totting angry powerful and agile black youth trained by grandma to spit on our faces - for the sins we committed against them - now they are spitting bullets - what did you expect? For these young men to work for 6 bucks an hour sorting out fish heads - while lawyers raped and pillaged and sucked the blood out the the public purse supposedly on behalf of black gang bangers - the whites brought this gun violence upon themselves - the immigration policy was not one rooted in Christian love or benevolence...You get what you pay for - our buisness elite are now finding that the average immigrant is finally figuring out that they old bay street gang are not their friends - nor is the court - nor are social policies truely kind - they are unkind - expect to see more of a back lash in the future - policy must be driven by benevolence - if not all you get in the long run is violence.

Pretty simplistic way of looking at it. Yup, Canada is a great country, now matter how badly you f#*% up it is always someone else's fault. Out this way it is just as, if not more likely to be guys driving Mercs, Beemers and $175,000 armoured SUV's the local cops call war wagons. They seized a couple of the latter the other day. The court said they had to give one of them back but at least the owner won't be able to register and insure it.

Our local police force wishes they could seize one from a local gangster so their own ERT can use it. The cops can't afford that kind of stuff on their budget. Only crooks can.

To expensive to put them in jail just for having the odd semi automatic hand gun, sawed off shotgun or automatic rifle in their vehicle however.

[Pliny]

The gun registry has been a great money laundering scheme. Better than just saying, "Oh -a billion dollars I don't know where it went hyuk-hyuk."

[White Doors]

The answer to this question is right there, in the stats: countries with higher incarceration rates are almost always the same with higher rates of murder and violent crime.

The cost of keeping more people in jail comes in a bundle with higher crime rates. Just what our neighbours south have and apparently what our crime tough government wants to see here.

Oh, I see.. So if we give longer setences to convicted criminals you are saying that the crime rate will go up?

Why don't we let everyone out of Jail then because by that logic of we did, there would be no crime at all..

Edited December 24, 2007 by White Doors

[jbg]

Oh, I see.. So if we give longer setences to convicted criminals you are saying that the crime rate will go up?

Why don't we let everyone out of Jail then because by that logic of we did, there would be no crime at all..

No. The logic is that if we repeal all crime laws no one will be criminals.

[myata]

No. The logic is that if we repeal all crime laws no one will be criminals.

No. The logic is right before you, in the numbers: US has 6-7 times higher prison population, per capita, than the rest of the developed world. They have super tough justice Harper can only dream of. And they also have 4-5 times higher violent crime rate.

Go ahead, find the logic, prove in any logical way why we should be going their way. Of course, you can always ignore fact and numbers, the reality. Just believe. And take the Harpers way: beef up the fear, in the hope that scared people will be more likely to swallow your recepies. Without bothering to find whether they have any foundation in reality.

Isn't it interesting how the social conservatives are so quick to borrow the methods and recepies of their proclaimed worst nemeses? Like drumming up the fear.. Avoiding public discussion, like open fire.. Manipulating and confusing information in whatever way possible... This discussions is a fine example of either and all. Hopefully a good demonstration of what social conservative ideology is all about. And why it's not the direction a strong modern democratic society should be following.

[bush_cheney2004]

No. The logic is right before you, in the numbers: US has 6-7 times higher prison population, per capita, than the rest of the developed world. They have super tough justice Harper can only dream of. And they also have 4-5 times higher violent crime rate....

Yes...."they" do, but why does Canada have a much higher incarceration rate that many other "democratic" nations as well?

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/guideo...ur/sec7_e.shtml

[Wilber]

No. The logic is right before you, in the numbers: US has 6-7 times higher prison population, per capita, than the rest of the developed world. They have super tough justice Harper can only dream of. And they also have 4-5 times higher violent crime rate.

Go ahead, find the logic, prove in any logical way why we should be going their way. Of course, you can always ignore fact and numbers, the reality. Just believe. And take the Harpers way: beef up the fear, in the hope that scared people will be more likely to swallow your recepies. Without bothering to find whether they have any foundation in reality.

Isn't it interesting how the social conservatives are so quick to borrow the methods and recepies of their proclaimed worst nemeses? Like drumming up the fear.. Avoiding public discussion, like open fire.. Manipulating and confusing information in whatever way possible... This discussions is a fine example of either and all. Hopefully a good demonstration of what social conservative ideology is all about. And why it's not the direction a strong modern democratic society should be following.

The US is your nemesis. You can't carry on a discussion without bringing them into it. Talk about drumming up fear. 80% of your arguments are nothing more than a diatribe against Harper. Try discussing the problem of why we now have so many illegal weapons being used on the street and what we can and should do about it.