Harper Working on Scrapping the Gun Registry!

[noahbody]

"Thinking about specific ways that the government has dealt with guns in the past, do you favor or oppose each of the following? . . ."

=> "Requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government"

- favour: 79%

- oppose: 20%

wait a minute... wait a minute... maybe you guys had the right reference all along. We could be talking about that "stubborn resistance of the (20%) few" in the U.S., after all!

Keep in mind we're talking about the long gun registry, which the majority of Canadians oppose. A relevant poll question would be:

"Would you support spending over $2 Billion on a long gun registry if the result was that only 2% of the long guns used to commit crime were to be registered?"

Would you support this?

Edited April 4, 2009 by noahbody

[benny]

Keep in mind we're talking about the long gun registry, which the majority of Canadians oppose. A relevant poll question would be:

"Would you support spending over $2 Billion on a long gun registry if the result was that only 2% of the long guns used to commit crime were to be registered?"

Would you support this?

"Would you support a bill mandating the gun industry to maintain a registry of all the sales of their products?"

Would you support this?

[Wild Bill]

"Would you support a bill mandating the gun industry to maintain a registry of all the sales of their products?"

Would you support this?

OK, so the factory keeps records of its sales to gun distributors who keep records of their sales to gun shops, who keep records of their sales to private individuals.

Then those private individuals sell their gun(s). How do we force all of THEM to keep records? If we can't, then what's the practical use of all the other records along the chain?

While we're making wishes, I'd like a pony...

Edited April 4, 2009 by Wild Bill

[waldo]

"Would you support spending over $2 Billion on a gun registry if the result was that only 2% of the guns used to commit crime were to be registered?"

Would you support this?

hey brother... can ya spare a citation request on the "2%" reference

by the by - what's an acceptable cost and gun registration level that would have you support a gun registry? Or are you simply against the gun registry on principal?

[eyeball]

Keep in mind we're talking about the long gun registry, which the majority of Canadians oppose. A relevant poll question would be:

"Would you support spending over $2 Billion on a long gun registry if the result was that only 2% of the long guns used to commit crime were to be registered?"

Would you support this?

The majority of Canadians oppose registration but cops do - the majority of Canadians support legalizing marijuana but the cops don't.

See the pattern? Somehow this seems fitting in a country that is determined to become a police state no matter who is in power. Its almost like the police instinctively know we're destined to just defer to their wisdom no matter how stupid or mis-managed a policy may be.

I certainly wouldn't support doing that.

Edited April 5, 2009 by eyeball

[benny]

How do we force all of THEM to keep records?

By a bill mandating the gun industry to do background checks on the register. If the gun industry is too scared to do it itself, it can hire a specialized (independent) agency.

[Wild Bill]

By a bill mandating the gun industry to do background checks on the register. If the gun industry is too scared to do it itself, it can hire a specialized (independent) agency.

First off, it would be prohibitively expensive.

Second, it would never withstand a Charter of Rights challenge!

Yet again, what good would it do? I've talking about how once a gun is bought by a private citizen we have no effective way to ensure he keeps a record of whoever he might sell or give it to. You're suggesting we subject him to a background check. What good would that do? Are you trying to find out if he's likely to be conscientious about his paperwork? Would it guarantee he would always be in the future?

Again, while you're wishing and dreaming put me in for a pony.

[benny]

First off, it would be prohibitively expensive.

Second, it would never withstand a Charter of Rights challenge!

Yet again, what good would it do? I've talking about how once a gun is bought by a private citizen we have no effective way to ensure he keeps a record of whoever he might sell or give it to. You're suggesting we subject him to a background check. What good would that do? Are you trying to find out if he's likely to be conscientious about his paperwork? Would it guarantee he would always be in the future?

Again, while you're wishing and dreaming put me in for a pony.

Just think at guns like if they were cars: when you sell your car, you notice an agency of the identity of the new owner and when someone smokes in his car, he can be arrested if there is a baby inside.

[Wild Bill]

Just think at guns like if they were cars: when you sell your car, you notice an agency of the identity of the new owner and when someone smokes in his car, he can be arrested if there is a baby inside.

Ok, just for the purpose of argument, let's say that you're absolutely right!

Now, suppose a criminal doesn't want to register his gun. Or wants to buy one smuggled up from the States.

How will your methods prevent this? How will we even know? What can we possibly do about it?

I still think that you're talking wishes, not reality. We've had gun registration since maybe the 30's and only legal owners have ever bothered.

Worse yet, in Toronto criminals have either stolen gun lists from government offices or infiltrated or bribed government employees to get such lists, which tell you the names and addresses of every legal, registered gun owner in the city. Then they would steal them!

I'm just getting really tired of paying taxes for impractical and flawed systems.

Tell it to Jane Creba.

[benny]

Ok, just for the purpose of argument, let's say that you're absolutely right!

Now, suppose a criminal doesn't want to register his gun. Or wants to buy one smuggled up from the States.

How will your methods prevent this? How will we even know? What can we possibly do about it?

In Pittsburgh, police officer Eric Kelly had completed his overnight shift when he heard the call for help. We also witness heroism in the wider population in the shape and form of borders Minutemen and vigilantes.

[noahbody]

hey brother... can ya spare a citation request on the "2%" reference

There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/200...1116-2-eng.aspx

by the by - what's an acceptable cost and gun registration level that would have you support a gun registry? Or are you simply against the gun registry on principal?

The maintenance cost of the long gun registry is $25 million/year. That works out to over $2 Million per homicide committed with a registered long gun ( based on the above stats from 2003-2006). That's a little much.

If it paid for itself, that would be acceptable to me.

[tango]

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/200...1116-2-eng.aspx

The maintenance cost of the long gun registry is $25 million/year. That works out to over $2 Million per homicide committed with a registered long gun ( based on the above stats from 2003-2006). That's a little much.

If it paid for itself, that would be acceptable to me.

Ah, so the more homicides committed by people with registered long guns, the cheaper it gets in your mind?

And when all of us lefties get long guns but don't shoot anybody ... does that make it cheaper by the dozen?

Edited April 6, 2009 by tango

[Wild Bill]

In Pittsburgh, police officer Eric Kelly had completed his overnight shift when he heard the call for help. We also witness heroism in the wider population in the shape and form of borders Minutemen and vigilantes.

And this would protect the Jane Creba's of Toronto how?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

[benny]

And this would protect the Jane Creba's of Toronto how?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

No murderers live without any social relations. Poplawski has a mother who knew everything.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

nope... those wingnuts have a new strategy via the Senate!

New federal bill would end long-gun registry

Some observers said the move is likely more strategic — the Conservatives can blame the Liberal-dominated Senate if the bill is voted down.

Michael Den Tandt, writing in the Toronto Sun, seems to agree with you that this had almost nothing to do with the long gun registry - it is just a politically strategic move:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnis...986186-sun.html

The gun registry was one of three cataclysmic mistakes made by the Liberals in their heyday. (The other two were the Human Resources Development Canada boondoggle, known as the billion-dollar boondoggle, and the Sponsorship Program).

......

Many Liberal MPs, mainly the ones from the country, now acknowledge this openly. And here's what the new Liberal leader said in a recent interview on CTV: "No sensible Canadian thinks the problem is the shotgun on the barn door. No sensible Canadian thinks the problem is the target shooter or the legitimate licensed gun owner. The problem is those handguns."

Hear, hear. If Ignatieff is to have any hope of reclaiming the broad middle -- which is the key to power in Canada, for both major parties -- he needs to ditch some of the Grits' most egregiously leftist baggage. And he must counter the impression that he is an elitist intellectual more comfortable in a salon than a saloon.

Driving a stake through the heart of the long-gun registry would do some of that for him.

At a Liberal fundraiser in Toronto on Wednesday night Ignatieff appeared to draw a line in the sand on the registry. But the reality is that he has ample wiggle room: He could say no to the bill in the House but yes to the one in the Senate, which is more narrow in scope. Or he could ask for face-saving modifications to either bill.

Either way Ignatieff must see that Harper's gun gambit is intended to further alienate him from rural and Western voters, while shoring up the shaky Conservative base.

Ignatieff's challenge is to find a way to allow the long-gun registry to die an ignominious death, which it absolutely should, while keeping his entire caucus behind him.

[benny]

Richard Poplawsky began his shootout with a AK 47 but, so it seems, he finished it with more common long-guns.

Edited April 6, 2009 by benny

[noahbody]

Ah, so the more homicides committed by people with registered long guns, the cheaper it gets in your mind?

Apparently, you can't read my posts or my mind very well.

And when all of us lefties get long guns but don't shoot anybody ... does that make it cheaper by the dozen?

No.

[wulf42]

You know a person could go into a mall with a Knife and probably kill more people than a person with a long rifle........a knife is quiet, before anyone figured out what you were doing you could have stabbed a dozen people....with a .30-30 lever action Winchester you have 5 shots which would be very loud alerting people farther away to run like hell away from the shots....and out of those 5 shots unless your a professional marksman you likely hit 2 or 3 then have to reload.....ever try to reload a rifle while under stress or excited? not all that easy....by this time the mall is getting cleared out...............now i can see it if you have an Ak-47 or an UZI ,Tech-9 or even a semi auto pistol a weapon designed to kill many people very quickly, after you empty a clip you simply flip another one taped to it around and enter and keep on shooting, these types of guns are completely banned now and rightfully so except to Gangs unfortunately..........but we are talking about guns designed for hunting and target shooting!

Edited April 6, 2009 by wulf42

[benny]

"Bill C-301 is proposing to allow licensed owners to buy as many guns as they want without having their name associated to them. While there would be little to prevent owners from giving those guns to individuals without licenses, it would also be nearly impossible to take preventive measures to remove guns when risks are known and to enforce prohibition orders."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed...1330/story.html

[HistoryBuff44]

Until there is a sure way to prevent people from brining handguns into the country the concept of the registry and what they hope to prevent by creating it won't work. I'm not a policeman or criminologist but im pretty sure people who want to kill someone arent going to register their weapons.

it really is that simple.

[tango]

Until there is a sure way to prevent people from brining handguns into the country the concept of the registry and what they hope to prevent by creating it won't work. I'm not a policeman or criminologist but im pretty sure people who want to kill someone arent going to register their weapons.

it really is that simple.

Apparently a lot of people who claim they won't kill anybody with their weapons nonetheless are unwilling to register theirs either. Why is that?

[GostHacked]

Yes it does....keep reading

It does matter simply because it is a law on the books and can be used as a basis for a charge or series of charges , and the more, the more likely something sticks.

The same is used when some people get busted for pot. It gets tacked on, thus ensuring that at least one of the charges stick.

Scrap it , it never worked.However I doubt think they will.

You have just applauded it and discarded it in the same post. Criminals do not get their guns through legal means. How about a charge of being in posession of an unlicenced/unregistered firearm??? Would that not be easier??

[benny]

Bottom line: The more frustrated honest gun owners are, the more they will feel incentives to keep their eyes opened on criminals and potential killers.

[Wild Bill]

Apparently a lot of people who claim they won't kill anybody with their weapons nonetheless are unwilling to register theirs either. Why is that?

I should think that would be obvious. The crime problem is virtually entirely to do with handguns. Yet the Liberal gun registry was for rifles.

Few city folk are rifle owners. There are some who use them for hunting but obviously they head out of the city to practice their sport. The registry cost them money - in some cases a LOT of money! It was poorly run and cost them time and aggravation. Meanwhile, it was being spun in the media to imply that the rifle owners were the problem, in effect laying a guilt trip on them that was resented.

To farmers and rural citizens a rifle is not a weapon so much as a tool, to control varmints that cost you money and BIG varmints that can threaten you or your children! The registry to these citizens looked like a tax grab and aggravation to appease city folks who would likely support ridiculously lenient sentences with those criminals and wingnuts who were the real problem. Worse yet, as I said before they virtually all used handguns anyway.

There have always been some kind of registrations. Fire Arms Certificates must go back to the 30's!

Your question is poorly worded. Perhaps you should be asking why so many were against THIS gun registry!

There is a naive tendency with us Canadians to think that the name is all we need. A politician announces a new law or program and we never question if it makes sense and we never go back later and audit it to see if it actually did any good.

It's like the old joke about Liberal solutions - "It doesn't have to work, as long as we can say we've got one!"

[benny]

I should think that would be obvious. The crime problem is virtually entirely to do with handguns. Yet the Liberal gun registry was for rifles.

Few city folk are rifle owners. There are some who use them for hunting but obviously they head out of the city to practice their sport. The registry cost them money - in some cases a LOT of money! It was poorly run and cost them time and aggravation. Meanwhile, it was being spun in the media to imply that the rifle owners were the problem, in effect laying a guilt trip on them that was resented.

To farmers and rural citizens a rifle is not a weapon so much as a tool, to control varmints that cost you money and BIG varmints that can threaten you or your children! The registry to these citizens looked like a tax grab and aggravation to appease city folks who would likely support ridiculously lenient sentences with those criminals and wingnuts who were the real problem. Worse yet, as I said before they virtually all used handguns anyway.

There have always been some kind of registrations. Fire Arms Certificates must go back to the 30's!

Your question is poorly worded. Perhaps you should be asking why so many were against THIS gun registry!

There is a naive tendency with us Canadians to think that the name is all we need. A politician announces a new law or program and we never question if it makes sense and we never go back later and audit it to see if it actually did any good.

It's like the old joke about Liberal solutions - "It doesn't have to work, as long as we can say we've got one!"

Societies will come out victorious on crimes only when they will put more pressures on those that are more likely to ever cross the paths of (would-be) criminals than on those that are not. Rifles owners have more chances to cross on their paths (in isolated fields, in practice clubs, etc.) handguns smugglers and potential killers than a non-gun owners.

Edited April 9, 2009 by benny