Harper Working on Scrapping the Gun Registry!

[myata]

It's all in the ideology, i.e the point of view. From Harper's, and gun lobby's viewpoint, there're good people (ie. eternally forever good) who turn whatever they touch, guns and bullets included, into pure gold, and the baddies (who are pretty much born into it, as a punishment for some future sins probably). The goodies should be entitled to fill their dwellings to the lid with handguns, semi auto guns submachine guns and any other kind of gun imaginably, to the benefit and glory of us all, while baddies should rot in jails which we should get busy building.

See, the amount of guns is irrelevant, as long as they are held firmly in good, righteous hands.

[Argus]

The only anecdotal evidence I have been able to find is that charges are usually 36 months but a year can be shaved off that because of the 2 for 1 problem of time served in remand.

I think it is a problem about how remand is credited on a sentence but don't know how it should be calculated on a sentence. My personal opinion is that time in remand should not be a 2 for 1 deal and that if you get a sentence of three years that remand time should be calculated at a 1 for 1 basis

I think you are mistaking what I said. The sentences given, in cases where people are charged, are generally accompanied by other charges, ie, the "real" charges. And when judges pass sentence they make all sentences concurrent. That is to say the following is issued for a guy who robs a bank, shoots at police, then is tackled, wrestled to the ground, fights briefly, and is cuffed.

3 years for armed robbery

2 years for assault with a deadly weapon (we do not charge people with attempted murder just for shooting at people)

1 year for assaulting police

1 year for possession of a restricted weapon.

You might think that works out to 7 years, but you'd be wrong. All sentences for the same action are served concurrently, therefore, the total to be served is just 3 years. The possession of a restricted weapon charge is basically a useless throw-in which adds nothing to the time the criminal will be required to serve.

If he spent a year in pre-trial custody, then he'll be credited as having already served 2 years.

Now, of course, normal parole eligibility kicks in. Criminals are eligible for parole starting at 1/6th of sentence served, and must be paroled, except in special circumstances, after having served 2/3rds of their sentence. He has already served 2/3rds of his sentence, so he walks out the door right after the trial is over.

Tell me again why he shouldn't be carrying a hand gun.

[Wild Bill]

No actually I care more about his kids when their father is irresponsible enough to leave a loaded gun around the house on the offchance that a coyote might drop by for dinner. There are other ways to 'scare' them off, that don't risk human life. Coyotes are timid animals and are afraid of almost anything. A few speakers along a fence line where you play taped loud noises. Hundreds and hundreds of ways without shooting them. If they become a real problem the Ministy of Natural resources will have them removed.

However, Harper cannot lose sight of the fact that the majority of Canadians want a gun registry. In fact 67% of Canadians want a gun registry. Seeing as how the latest poll shows Harper's approval rating at just 33%; I guess 67% of Canadians also don't want him.

And while we're on the subject, why would or should any Canadian own a handgun? Unless you're a police officer, they should be BANNED!

How do you know he's leaving his gun unattended? Isn't that an assumption on your part? My take on the story is that he wanted to keep a loaded gun handy while he was working around the farm, but not actually in his hands. What earthly good would it do to have the gun far away from him? That would be about as useless as having the ammunition far away when it was needed!

As for coyotes being timid, perhaps the coyotes you've known are different than the ones around here. I've seen them close up for years, not just in the rural areas of Stoney Creek and Hamilton but actually in the brownfields of the industrial areas, standing atop stacks of shipping skids while big transport trucks and towmotors jockey around beside them.

Timid? Give me a break! They are extremely intelligent and adaptable creatures, veritable Houdini's at getting access to anything they can eat. Taped loud noises? Hell, PT, those things around here didn't even scare birds off the fruit! You have GOTTA be a city girl!

Ministry of Natural Resources? Give me another break! They have a policy that if they capture a live animal it must be released within a kilometer of that spot. Coyotes will roam over a 10 km radius and think nothing of it! The Ministry is not solving the problem. They're just giving them a ride home!

67% of Canadians want a gun registry? That's pretty simplistic. Even though you gave no cite as evidence of that number, even if we accept it for the sake of argument that would be a misleading poll question. How can someone hold an intelligent opinion on that question without knowing what KIND of registry?

How about if the question said "Are you in favour of a gun registry that will cost a billion dollars, take guns out of the hands of responsible owners and leave them in the hands of gang members in Vancouver and Toronto? In addition, farmers will be treated exactly the same as citizens living at Jane and Finch."

Why don't you ask how many Canadians have stopped beating their wives?

Sounds to me like you just find guns scary so you will accpet anything that APPEARS to address the problem without actually having to think about what CAN work or is ACTUALLY working!

Me, I'm a utilitarian. I would like guns out of the hands of criminals and wingnuts too! I just can't be happy with BS instead of reality. That's why I have little respect for drug laws and the same for the gun registry.

Passing a law and spending a lot of money is NOT the same as actually doing something! My family is no safer. The only thing accomplished is that we all get taxed a little poorer.

Count me out of your 67%. I'd be better off with the I Ching.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

Hand guns have been controlled via registration since 1934. Criminals have little problem getting hand guns. Let's have unrestricted gun ownership. Why just remove control on some guns?

You're missing the point. The hand gun registration is somewhat different in that the hand gun is a restricted weapon and very hard to get a permit for in the first place. There are far, far, far fewer of them, and it's much, much easier to maintain a registry with little effort. I'm not sure what the stats are but just pulling a number out of my ass there are probably a hundred times as many long guns as hand guns in this country. That escalates the cost considerably. Further, most criminal offenses use hand guns anyway, for obvious reasons.

Now that's not to say that a long-gun registry could not possibly be of any value. I can see some value in it if it had been set up properly, recording the proper information about the weapons, the proper addresses and names of the owners, and with a proper procedure for changing ownership as those weapons are sold. That wasn't the case. The registry is a mess and unreliable. Furthermore, whatever good it might be - minimal, as far as I can see - is offset by the fact we spent billions on it when we could have spent it on actually doing something about the number of illegal hand guns in our society. We continue to spend money on this registry when we'd be better off spending it on more cops who would specifically target those who smuggle and sell hand guns.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Argus

[85RZ500]

(A) Anyone needing two guns should have to undergo psychiatric assessment and have a sign on their door that reads 'Enter at Your Own Risk."

(B)Registering guns and gang violence are two totally separate issues.

©We are putting the money into the criminals' hands and out of law enforcement's.

(D)Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

[A] That's a pathetic comment, but your're allowed to make it

BS, The Liberal morons said loudly that registration would be an asset in the fight against gang violence. Acoording to them the two issues are hand in glove

[C] By doing absoulutely nothing about illegal gun ownership, I guess we are helping the perps financially and the registration fiasco has wasted about $2Billion that could have been put into law enforcement

[D] Exactly, normal folks who are interested in guns do not kill people, criminals do.

Edited March 23, 2009 by 85RZ500

[jdobbin]

I think you are mistaking what I said. The sentences given, in cases where people are charged, are generally accompanied by other charges, ie, the "real" charges. And when judges pass sentence they make all sentences concurrent. That is to say the following is issued for a guy who robs a bank, shoots at police, then is tackled, wrestled to the ground, fights briefly, and is cuffed.

3 years for armed robbery

2 years for assault with a deadly weapon (we do not charge people with attempted murder just for shooting at people)

1 year for assaulting police

1 year for possession of a restricted weapon.

I think the police pile on the charges to ensure some of them stick. The judge then decides on the severity of the crime and the length of the sentence.

My understanding of how concurrent works in Canada versus consecutive is based on the past criminal record of the the accused.

Certain laws in Canada can only be served consecutively.

You might think that works out to 7 years, but you'd be wrong. All sentences for the same action are served concurrently, therefore, the total to be served is just 3 years. The possession of a restricted weapon charge is basically a useless throw-in which adds nothing to the time the criminal will be required to serve.

If he spent a year in pre-trial custody, then he'll be credited as having already served 2 years.

I realize the problem of 2 for 1 and know that criminals choose it over bail since they will serve less time doing remand.

Now, of course, normal parole eligibility kicks in. Criminals are eligible for parole starting at 1/6th of sentence served, and must be paroled, except in special circumstances, after having served 2/3rds of their sentence. He has already served 2/3rds of his sentence, so he walks out the door right after the trial is over.

Tell me again why he shouldn't be carrying a hand gun.

The 2 for 1 deal certainly needs to be addressed.

The Liberals have said so as recently as February in response to mandatory sentences.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...stop-gangs.aspx

But I have to say that Nicholson seems to be embellishing the impact of this bill if it passes. As long as accused get two-for-one credit for all time spent in jail awaiting trial, and as long as we have statutory release after two-thirds, a year long mandatory minimum could easily be reduced to a couple of months.

The Liberals passed consecutive life sentence legislation back in 1999 for murder.

I have no problem with tightening legislation for other crimes but there has to be recognition that the police and prosecutors might pile on charges and that a judge has to get the root of the crime and determine a fair punishment within certain parameters.

Edited March 23, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

The Liberals passed consecutive life sentence legislation back in 1999 for murder.

Well, not quite, my good doctor! They took the photo-op but failed to deliver!

http://www.albinaguarnieri.com/press/April_27_2007.html

In 1999 the Commons passed Albina Guarnieri's (Liberal MP) Bill to give judges the OPTION of consecutive sentences! However, the Liberal dominated Senate failed to pass it before the general election 16 MONTHS later!

So it died. Ms Guarnieri re-introduced her bill in April of 2007 but I found nothing to indicate that it ever passed or was enacted. Perhaps it was but I ran out of patience scrolling through google pages.

Just more smoke and mirrors, I'm afraid.

What else is new?

[Molly]

Progressive Tory, your post about the ease with which coyotes can be driven off is exactly the sort of comment that drives folks who are miles from being 'gun nuts', absolutely crazy.

Suffice to say, that's not how it is. Coyotes aren't timid; speakers would accomplish nothing ; MNR would not fix it... Canada (outside southern ontario) is just not so urbanized, so small-scale, so insulated from Mom Nature nor so nanny-state-ish as that. I'd even agree that for southern Ontario, the reasons to own a gun mostly don't go beyond: to play dangerously; and to make trouble.

Making rules to suit conditions that only hold within that tiny appendage-to-the-nation is ... utterly stupid.

When your calving pasture is the couple of hundred acres closest to the yard, and coyote numbers are so high that they are packing up and attacking the cows as they give birth, and the MNR has a staff of two people who, even if they were going to come out and shoot coyotes, have 3 or 4 dozen others spread over a thousand square miles, facing the same problems you have... believe me, you aren't going to set out hanging speakers throughout the hinterland-- and you aren't going to keep your ammunition locked up.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Molly

[sharkman]

Well, not quite, my good doctor! They took the photo-op but failed to deliver!

http://www.albinaguarnieri.com/press/April_27_2007.html

In 1999 the Commons passed Albina Guarnieri's (Liberal MP) Bill to give judges the OPTION of consecutive sentences! However, the Liberal dominated Senate failed to pass it before the general election 16 MONTHS later!

So it died. Ms Guarnieri re-introduced her bill in April of 2007 but I found nothing to indicate that it ever passed or was enacted. Perhaps it was but I ran out of patience scrolling through google pages.

Just more smoke and mirrors, I'm afraid.

What else is new?

Now don't confuse the issue by introducing actual facts. The doktor knows that the Liberal party is not capable of introducing bills for the photo-op only!

[jdobbin]

Well, not quite, my good doctor! They took the photo-op but failed to deliver!

You are right. I forgot about the Senate. I cant remember how far along it was in the Senate before the election hit.

That is twice now that it didn't make it all the way through because it didn't make this last time as well.

It wasn't blocked as far as I can tell. It just takes Private Member's bills that long to wind their way through the system.

The one way it would move faster if the government took over the bill and neither the Liberals or Tories have done that even though there seems a consensus to pass it.

[Molly]

And Myata... when you are done speaking about ideology, good and evil, 'handguns semi auto guns and submachine guns', perhaps we can get back to the subject at hand-- utilitarian long guns, that can neither be easily hidden, nor shoot many rounds in quick succession.

I'd propose that the long gun registry: a) doesn't address the issues it's intended to address; doesn't achieve it's (not very useful but) actual internal goals- that of having a reasonably comprehensive listing and tracking of the long guns in existence; c) is unnecessarily expensive and ponderous, both in it's beaurocracy, and for those who own those guns.

Isn't that just about the purist definition of a program that should be either massively revamped, or scrapped completely? that it doesn't do what you want it to do; doesn't do what it says it's doing; costs too much, and red-tapes the heck out of folks?

Seriously.

[normanchateau]

Now that's not to say that a long-gun registry could not possibly be of any value. I can see some value in it if it had been set up properly, recording the proper information about the weapons, the proper addresses and names of the owners, and with a proper procedure for changing ownership as those weapons are sold. That wasn't the case. The registry is a mess and unreliable. Furthermore, whatever good it might be - minimal, as far as I can see - is offset by the fact we spent billions on it when we could have spent it on actually doing something about the number of illegal hand guns in our society. We continue to spend money on this registry when we'd be better off spending it on more cops who would specifically target those who smuggle and sell hand guns.

I would agree that spending the money to obtain more cops to target illegal hand guns would be wiser but I've yet to hear that it's an either/or situation with respect to the long gun registry.

Incidentally, similar logic could be applied to marijuana legalization, i.e., the money spent enforcing marijuana criminalization and the billions lost in potential government revenues by not selling marijuana in the manner of alcohol could instead be spent on hiring more police officers to target illegal hand guns and violent crime.

[noahbody]

you quoted the question... but didn't answer it.

Why would that prominent and recognized association of Police Chiefs come out, so consistently - year after year - as an expressed advocate for the gun registry? What does that association of Police Chiefs know... or not know... that you, noahbody... that you, MontyBurns... that you, wulf42... know - or don't know?

You can read their letter to Harper on their website.

Our Association supports the licensing of all gun owners and regular renewal of

licences to ensure that the information about gun owners is accurate and up-to-

date. We are proud of Canada’s international reputation as a country with

effective gun control legislation, and strenuously oppose any weakening of

Canada’s current firearms control regime.

https://www.cacp.ca/media/news/download/692...erheadfinal.pdf

Now why would they support it? Firstly, they don't pay for it. Secondly, they're trying to meet an unrealistic objective; not solve a problem. The reality is all gun owners, especially those who plan to use them unlawfully, aren't going to register their guns and that area of our gun control laws isn't targeted or effective. It's a little like MADD thinking that if you raise the drinking age, underaged kids won't drink, when they always have.

Edited March 23, 2009 by noahbody

[Progressive Tory]

...stop making life difficult for Canadians who'd be perfectly happy to buy government-controlled marijuana.

... and pay the tax.

[Progressive Tory]

BUT our crazed feminists and hetro-gay liberals all believe that -

As a crazed feminist I have no idea what a 'hetro-gay Liberal' is.

Other than that most of what you just said is pure bunk. Guns in Canada are not for self-defense. We are told by gun owners that they are for 'sport' and getting rid of rascally varmints. Fine.

Register them, take a course on safety and keep your ammo stored away from the gun. Can't see what's wrong with that.

I collect antique linen and sometimes need to buy Oxalic acid (salts of lemon) to remove rust stains. When I buy it at the drugstore I have to sign for it and show ID, because it's a poison and COULD KILL SOMEONE. When I have it in the house I treat it like an atomic bomb, because it COULD KILL SOMEONE.

Treat your guns like the weapons that they are. You might not do a drive by but your kids could do an OOPS! I didn't know it was loaded.

[Progressive Tory]

It's not the guns....it's the bullets!

It's not the guns or the bullets but the morons who want to keep them in or near the stupid guns.

[Progressive Tory]

Progressive Tory, your post about the ease with which coyotes can be driven off is exactly the sort of comment that drives folks who are miles from being 'gun nuts', absolutely crazy.

and you aren't going to keep your ammunition locked up.

I admit I've never had to drive off a coyote, and will still cringe thinking about anyone having a loaded gun in the house.

However, what does that have to do with registering that gun? Being forced to take a gun safety course? The majority of Canadians who do own guns, do not have a coyote problem, and if they do and want to keep their gun loaded and fire into the night air, that's their choice.

However, it doesn't let them off the hook if they accidentally shoot their neighbour. They still MUST register that gun.

[Wild Bill]

However, it doesn't let them off the hook if they accidentally shoot their neighbour. They still MUST register that gun.

But that's not why so many of us want to scrap THIS gun registry! We simply didn't want to spend 1 BILLION dollars on a registry that doesn't work!

We already had long gun registration. You needed a Firearms Certificate and a hunter's safety course. So what are you complaining about?

Sounds to me like you bought the Liberal BS hook, line and sinker! Every time they were criticized for wasting an incredible amount of money on a program they had introduced as 'only going to cost a few million' they defended themselves by shouting that those criticizing them wanted a free-for-all of unregistered guns!

But that's true of just about every Liberal program.

"It doesn't have to work. It's enough to say we've got one!"

PT, they spent all that money yet never added 1 DAY to any mandatory sentence for USING a gun illegally! How on earth can anybody with half a brain cell be expected to believe that their gun registry was a good idea that would make us more safe? Or that was their goal?

Edited March 23, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Molly]

LOL Exactly! What does it have to do with registering long guns?

But you are the one who took us on that tangent.

The registry is what I object to, for its cost, its ineffectiveness, and its harrassment factor.

I know I have not, but has anyone AT ALL objected to safety course requirements for gun owners? My kids took gun/hunter safety classes as part of their grade 7 health program! I took a gun safety class as an adult, but do not now nor have I ever owned a gun! That only makes sense when they/we lived in a place where guns might be present and/or in use, or where circumstances may well demand that you use one.

[Progressive Tory]

I'd propose that the long gun registry: a) doesn't address the issues it's intended to address; doesn't achieve it's (not very useful but) actual internal goals- that of having a reasonably comprehensive listing and tracking of the long guns in existence; c) is unnecessarily expensive and ponderous, both in it's beaurocracy, and for those who own those guns.

The problem here really, is that we live in a Democratic country and with 67% of Canadians living in that Democratic country who want all guns to be registered, darned if they don't have a say.

Do you think people can't be killed with rifles, sawed off or otherwise? Do you know how many people are killed or commit suicide with shotguns?

From a Washington State study where they don't have to take a course but are advising doctors to discuss gun safety: "rural areas have a higher percentage of gun deaths from shotguns and rifles, and a higher percentage of gun deaths from suicides and accidents."

Canadian Gun Control

In Alberta where only 51% want the gun registry: A new research document released by the Canadian Firearms Centre shows that Alberta’s average annual rate of firearm death (5.8 per 100,000) is well above the Canadian average (4.3 per 100,000).(Kwing Hung. Firearms Statistics (Jurisdictional Tables).March 2000) Rifles and shotguns figure prominently in firearm-related death, suicide and accidents, especially in rural areas In Alberta, rifles and shotguns figure prominently in domestic violence

Legally acquired rifles and shotguns are also the weapons of choice in cases of domestic homicide. On average, 40% of women killed by their husbands are shot;

My aunt was killed by her husband with a rifle. He didn't hunt and they lived in town. We're not telling you you can't have a gun. You just have to register it and prove that you have taken a course on gun safety. I don't see a problem with that. You have to take a driver's test and register your car.

[Molly]

PT, I lived in rural Saskatchewan, on the borders between farmland and true ranchland...

We used to have a copy of newspaper clipping picture of the long-time cook at the church camp my kids attended- holding the cougar that came into her kitchen, and the gun she offed it with.

There were so many angles of the law broken to end up with that picture, but I, for one, figure that the good outcome speaks for itself.

[Oleg Bach]

Damn right! It's about time too!! this nonsense has gone on long enough......gun control is an absolute failure the Gang violense is proof of this, billions of dollars were sunk into this all for nothing ! Its time to stop harassing innocent and law abiding gun owning citizens and start changing the laws to make stiffer penalities against Gang members including bringing back the death penality for this garbage....this country is full of weed smoking sissy liberals..and their time has come and gone......its time politicians go after and truly punish the people who are really causing all the gun violence..GANGS! and stop making life difficult for hunters and target shooters.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Not just that...It seems to me like some sort of agenda..when political and social engineers get going on the grand plans of reform - some believe that no person should be un-compliant...The baring of arms shows potential resistance from populations that may not want to become part of the great grey socialist common good. For sure there are people who want a totally submissive population - no guns - no "angry" males - no free thinkers and all must be politically correct. The vigor that they went at when first implimentation of the gun registry smelled of something else from the begining - oppression and crimminalization of everyone. I suppose that males and females that are capable of taking care of themselves on the streets if attacked will be registered and banned eventually.

[Molly]

First off-- I challenge that 67%. Easily half of it, however derived, is without doubt, an uninformed, knee-jerk "I know nothing of guns but I don't like them." response.

A LOT more nuance is in order- like ways of having the same, or better, more accurate information available at a small portion of the cost. Like separating this particular law from what it replaced, and actually looking at what was changed. The arguments in favor of it are generally arguments in favor of what went before (unbeknownst to the one doing the arguing), and don't even touch on the actual registry.

Secondly... the notion that gun deaths are more common where guns are present, is hardly news. --Vehicular deaths are more common where there are vehicles present; drug deaths are more common where drugs are present; avalanche deaths are more common where there are avalanches. -- Registration or not, in some places, they will be present.

I sympathize with the death of your aunt-- but consider: would it have been prevented by this legislation?

I, without knowing the exact circumstances, seriously doubt it. If you can show me how it might have, fair enough... but ... well... show me.

[Molly]

Legally acquired rifles and shotguns are also the weapons of choice in cases of domestic homicide. On average, 40% of women killed by their husbands are shot; [/i]

I find it troubling that this would be brought up in defense of this registration scheme-- because there's nothing in registration that would change that statistic.

I'd like to call it a red herring, but it's not. It's the real objective of what should be, but is not being addressed.

The existence of this particular law, and the partisan flags hung to it, obstructs the creation of something much, much more effective.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Molly

[Alta4ever]

Legally acquired rifles and shotguns are also the weapons of choice in cases of domestic homicide. On average, 40% of women killed by their husbands are shot; [/i]

My aunt was killed by her husband with a rifle. He didn't hunt and they lived in town. We're not telling you you can't have a gun. You just have to register it and prove that you have taken a course on gun safety. I don't see a problem with that. You have to take a driver's test and register your car.

How does taking a course on gun safety reduce domestic homicide.

Does one really need a course to know that you keep weapons and amunition seperate, and in a place that is not accesible to children? You do not point a weapon at anyone, and you do not keep them loaded. You can not legislate common sense.