No vote scheduled on Tory bill to kill gun registry

[jdobbin]

Has the registry changed since 2006? Have gangs started to register their long guns?

Just wondering if there was anything current to add. This Monday, police supporters of the registry were very vocal. I haven't seen any new opposition from police though.

Gangs who do have long guns might have stolen them from someone who did register them. The police have indicated it then easy to return stolen property or to charge gun owners with not reporting stolen property.

There are police on both sides of the issue.

And if the Tories are certain of their police, they will make this a confidence motion now.

It's a very deceptive statement. Police officers are not making direct requests to the registry. It's just automatically checked. A more relevant question would be "how many times is it relied upon?" If the answer is above zero, then it's endangering officers lives.

The perhaps the Tories will assess if it is useless rather than saying it is useless and trying to kill it.

There are several reasons. None of which change the fact that the registry isn't targeted, reliable or cost-effective.

Maybe the Tories will show evidence of that rather than just say it.

With the current cost you could offer twenty-five rewards of $1 million. Which do you feel would be more effective?

Perhaps you might ask the police that.

I'd love to debate a police spokesman on this.

You might but it seems Tories aren't.

Let Harper make it a confidence motion this week and let the debate begin.

[jdobbin]

Correction... Some police organizations say that its useful. And we don't even know if that usefullness includes an ability to list individual firearms, or just the ability to do a query into having a FAC.

Why don't the Tories ask all police organizations what they think about it and why.

Well, if you want I can post references giving the cost of running similar-sized databases.

The fact is, hardware is cheap. Its the meat-ware that costs money. In the case of the registry, it includes people to process the forms, people to perform ad campaigns, etc.

It would have been good if the government had asked you or other experts how to set up a database.

My concern all along was that it was going to more expensive than they said would be.

Having said that, I don't know if the argument for ending that database should be taken so cavalierly.

Perhaps they realize that, with the nature of human beings, there will ALWAYS be problems with the registry.

The Liberals almost stood on their head with the registry, with cuts (or even eliminating) the registration fees, advertising campaigns, and amnesties, and they were never able to get better than 75% compliance. Apart from actually sending police into people's homes to count the guns themselves, how exactly do you think they could actually get 100% compliance?

Time is a factor. Enforcement is also a factor. I'm sure that some people might still try to go with unregistered weapons. Some of those people might not have an FAC either.

I believe compliance would grow with better management and when people see the benefits of it. For the gun owner that might be to recover stolen property because it was registered.

Ummmm... just wondering... why exactly do you think the onus should be on the Conservatives to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the registry? The registry has never been proven to be effective either. In a situation where you have 2 options without any significant evidence either way, why should YOUR little assumption be given a higher priority?

Well, let's make it a confidence motion today and let's see what Canadians think.

I've already admitted the conservatives are inconsistent in the idea of applying the concept of "freedom". Are you prepared to do the same and admit the Liberals (as well as the NDP/Bloc) also seek to limit freedoms, just differnet ones than the conservatives?

I don't deny it. I accept it.

Ummm... go back and look at the thread. I wasn't discussing what the police thought of the registry. I was referring to the comment you made that because many gun owners themselves were complying, then there was nothing wrong with the law.

(The exact phrase I was referring to was: Given the fear of violence people seem willing to submit to licensing and registration as long as it is convenient and cost effective.)

Then the goal should be convenience and cost effectiveness, right? Hopefully, the database is better at doing both.

I really have no idea why the tories are doing what they're doing.

Maybe they want to score points against the senate. Maybe they believe the registry is a bad idea and want to eliminate it, but realize they'd never get the votes in the house of commons to do so, and brought it into the senate in order to try to shift public opinion (and thus possibly the house of commons). Any opinions are just idle speculation.

I guess the proof is in the pudding. If the Tories are serious, they will call a vote. If they are really serious, they will make it a confidence vote and go to an election over it.

[Molly]

I don't know if this is what Alta4ever was talking about in his reference to warrantless searches, but it is one part of C68 that I find particularly troubling.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...ams=A1SEC821620

[myata]

Finally, something intelligible from the Liberal side:

"On Wednesday night in Toronto, Ignatieff signalled unequivocally for the first time that his caucus would vote against two Conservative bills to do away with the gun registry."

The Star, Apr.3

Though long in coming, I appload the principled position of Mr Ignatieff and Liberal caucus (by whatever means and deliberations he managed to attain it). With NDP and Bloc on board, any real possibility of passing this bill is dead, but of course, Harper is free to perform whatever antics he could surmise, as seems to be his main talent.

Once he and his bunch are out, the government actually seriously intersted in addressing crime issues will be able to get on with the job of improving the efficiency, and enforcing compliance.

[Alta4ever]

Once he and his bunch are out, the government actually seriously intersted in addressing crime issues will be able to get on with the job of improving the efficiency, and enforcing compliance.

Justice became a farce under the liberals when they were last in power, I am sure they will continue to erode it away. nothing like putting the criminals rights ahead of the victim. Liberal justice coddle the criminal, let the victim fend for themselves.

[Smallc]

Nothing like putting the criminals rights ahead of the victim.

Liberals recognize that all people have rights....suspects or not. People would your view point would seem to prefer that suspects be treated as guilty and that people who when defending themselves use force that is beyond reasonable go unpunished. Your definition of justice doesn't seem very just at all.

[Alta4ever]

Liberals recognize that all people have rights....suspects or not. People would your view point would seem to prefer that suspects be treated as guilty and that people who when defending themselves use force that is beyond reasonable go unpunished. Your definition of justice doesn't seem very just at all.

I didn't say suspects, I said criminals, legally convicted, had I ment suspects I would have said suspects. Quit tring to twist what is being said.

[Martin Chriton]

Which one kills more people in Canada per year Dave? Thats right its a car! Are you going to require a registry on knives how about hunting bows, all of these are intended as a weapon why no the out rage. How about the person who receives marshal arts training? People who are willing to give up freedom for the illusion of safety are pathetic.

You can stab someone with a pen too. We should have a pen registry.

Had we had that the last time someone was stabbed with a pen we would've been able to solve that crime. 1 crime solved w/ pen registry vs 1 crime solved w/ long gun registry. With those data points I don't see how any can argue against it.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Martin Chriton

[Smallc]

I didn't say suspects, I said criminals, legally convicted, had I ment suspects I would have said suspects. Quit tring to twist what is being said.

It is my experience that many conservatives treat suspects like criminals. Criminals though, also have rights. You can't oh...say...hit with a car and shoot at someone for stealing your ATV.

[myata]

I'm not at all opposed to the notion of a meaningful sanction as a deterrent of crime and have posted to that extent. It's just that it is one of many strategies that should be used together, persistently and in comprehensive manner, starting from addressing the root causes of crime, to comprehensive strategies to deal with young offenders, to competent and efficient policing, etc., and yes, gun control is one very essential piece of the puzzle. And yeah, to be meaningful and efficient, the array of sanctions should include far more options than jail time, which could and should be applied much earlier in the cycle.

Social conservative ideas - give everybody as many guns as they can carry, and then throw everybody who'd use them to jail - are just so far away from comprehending that crime is a complex social phenomenon that can't be treated on the spot, and it's no surprise that outside of socially conservative core they don't have popular support, no do they produce any practical results, - other than exorbitant costs of jails, trials, extra policing, etc, that would by far - orders and orders of magnitude - outrun the cost of registry.

[Alta4ever]

It is my experience that many conservatives treat suspects like criminals. Criminals though, also have rights. You can't oh...say...hit with a car and shoot at someone for stealing your ATV.

You are allowed to defend your property, it is entrenched in our common law. had the person not been stealing a quad he would not have ben driven off the road and shot at. When it takes the police 45 mintues to an hour and a half to show up you have the right ot subdue them and make a citizens arrest.

[Alta4ever]

Social conservative ideas - give everybody as many guns as they can carry, and then throw everybody who'd use them to jail - are just so far away from comprehending that crime is a complex social phenomenon that can't be treated on the spot, and it's no surprise that outside of socially conservative core they don't have popular support, no do they produce any practical results, - other than exorbitant costs of jails, trials, extra policing, etc, that would by far - orders and orders of magnitude - outrun the cost of registry.

If they had to crack rocks and dig ditches daily instead of steak dinners, gym time and TV. Maybe we would feel that justice had been done.

A convicted criminal has the right to a roof, meals and water. Now that they have those how are they going to repay their debt to society for transgressing against it.

[Smallc]

You are allowed to defend your property, it is entrenched in our common law.

Well, the RCMP doesn't seem to agree that what he did was allowed. As I said, criminals have rights too....especially when they're only suspects. You are allowed to defend yourself and your property within reasonable limits. What he did wasn't deemed to be reasonable by the RCMP...and if it is proven true, he should pay for it...just as the other person should pay for the theft.

[Alta4ever]

Well, the RCMP doesn't seem to agree that what he did was allowed. As I said, criminals have rights too....especially when they're only suspects. You are allowed to defend yourself and your property within reasonable limits. What he did wasn't deemed to be reasonable by the RCMP...and if it is proven true, he should pay for it...just as the other person should pay for the theft.

We will wait and see how the lawyers run it out.

[eyeball]

If they had to crack rocks and dig ditches daily instead of steak dinners, gym time and TV. Maybe we would feel that justice had been done.

Perhaps in the case of the Conrad Blacks of the world but not someone like a 14 year old kid who's given life without any chance of parole.

A convicted criminal has the right to a roof, meals and water. Now that they have those how are they going to repay their debt to society for transgressing against it.

That would depend on how much credit they're given for any transgressions that were committed against them. In some cases enough mitigating factors may exist that actually require society repay them.

[Borg]

The argument is that guns are not the only thing that is licenced and regulated by the government.

The song and dance is what you are doing.

No, the argument more - much more - it is about what is required to get the registration - and THEN it is about the registration.

Best look again my fine feathered friend.

Do you believe you should have to ask permission to buy that car?

If you have a vehicle do you believe you should be forced to allow police to enter your house to see it - at their convenience?

Even if you have nothing to hide?

Borg

Edited April 24, 2009 by Borg

[jdobbin]

No, the argument more - much more - it is about what is required to get the registration - and THEN it is about the registration.

Best look again my fine feathered friend.

If a lawful person has an FAC and registered weapons, what exactly is the trouble?

If you have a vehicle do you believe you should be forced to allow police to enter your house to see it?

Even if you have nothing to hide?

Police can do a check of my plates even if I have nothing to hide. They can look in the windows and if they see or smell evidence, they can do a random check. I can be stopped if there is believed to be any defect in my vehicle. I can be randomly checked at any time for almost any reason so long as I have a vehicle.

[Smallc]

We will wait and see how the lawyers run it out.

That's right we will, and I'll respect the decision of the judge....you might.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Smallc

[noahbody]

You can stab someone with a pen too. We should have a pen registry.

A candlestick registry would make the game of Clue a lot easier.

[Alta4ever]

That would depend on how much credit they're given for any transgressions that were committed against them. In some cases enough mitigating factors may exist that actually require society repay them.

Society owes everyone nothing.

[eyeball]

Society owes everyone nothing.

Country then.

[myata]

A convicted criminal has the right to a roof, meals and water. Now that they have those how are they going to repay their debt to society for transgressing against it.

Really, we've got to be so harsh and unforgiving to any transgressions of the law, or only selected ones? Isn't it so very funny, how one could advocate strict obeyance (and harsh sanctions) in one sentence, and then call to ignore and deliberately break the law they don't happen to like?

That attitude too is btw very characteristic for social conservatives: everybody has to obey their laws, but not necessarily themselves (because they're answering only to call from the above maybe?). Compare Harpers well documented frolicks with laws (Kyoto, gun registry, "fixed" election date).

[Smallc]

A convicted criminal has the right to a roof, meals and water.

So if the person that went after the person who stole from him is found guilty, will you agree that he was wrong and the above is all that he deserves?

[Alta4ever]

Country then.

The country owes you or I or anybody nothing.

It is you sense that people owe you something that makes me sick. No one owes you charity, the government does not owe you services, or living a living. If you want these thing you work for them do not expect me or anybody else to give them to you.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Alta4ever

[Alta4ever]

So if the person that went after the person who stole from him is found guilty, will you agree that he was wrong and the above is all that he deserves?

yep