Goat Boy© Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 No. Both my brother and my father (and most of the people in my community and most people I know) have PALs. They can't buy restricted or prohibited weapons. A few people I know can, but not many. OK. Every single person I shoot with elected to pay the extra $20 for restricted, even with no intention of ever using it. It is not a different test. You check an extra box on the form, and write a cheque for $80 instead of $60. The actual written element of the test covers general firearms safety, things like ACT, PROVE, etc. Nothing to do with the difference between restricted/non-restricted. The element of adding restricted, if you have an instructor that cares; He will explain to you what the regulations are, what denotes a restricted weapon, how to transport, ATT, storage, secure barriers, etc. If he cares, many do not, and they just send the extra money. There is no difference, you pay $20 more. Quote
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Ahem.... If one wishes to acquire restricted firearms (handguns) they must ALSO pass the Canadian RESTRICTED Firearms Safety Course tests. http://www.ittacanada.com/pal/ Quote
Goat Boy© Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Ahem....http://www.ittacanada.com/pal/ So you are contesting something that I actually went out and did, and experienced against something that you looked up on the intra-web? I don't even know what to say. Quote
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 When it conflicts with what you say, yes. Quote
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 This one does too: http://www.firearmstraining.ca/licences.htm Quote
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 And the RCMP. Page 2, at the bottom: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-fo...dfs/921-eng.pdf Quote
Goat Boy© Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 And the RCMP.Page 2, at the bottom: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-fo...dfs/921-eng.pdf Ok, lets explain this with the scientific method. -You've asked a question. -You've done some research. -You've constructed a hypothesis. -It is now time to conduct an experiment. I would suggest you go out and actually try doing this, it's only $80, why not. You might be surprised with what you find out. Quote
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Except that I believe the RCMP more than you. Did you take the test before 1999? If you did, that explains the discrepancy. Quote
Wilber Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 If the Tories really believe the registry is useless, they should ask the police in a poll or at the very least put it to a study. Hard to say their push to end it is anything but ideological until that measure is taken. Why didn't the government poll them or put it to a study before they spent over a billion dollars on it? Wait a minute, couldn't have been anything ideological could it? Why does it have to be partisan? Can't one just feel it doesn't give good value for the money spent? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jdobbin Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Why didn't the government poll them or put it to a study before they spent over a billion dollars on it? Wait a minute, couldn't have been anything ideological could it? Why does it have to be partisan? Can't one just feel it doesn't give good value for the money spent? No. I didn't believe the registry was the best way to do this when it was set up and said so. However, I'll be darned if I am going to see it end without a thorough look at how effective it is now. I won't let one bad decision be followed by another. Quote
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Agreed. I don't necessarily like the registry either, but the police chiefs seem to, and I'll defer to them now that it exists. Quote
Wilber Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 No.I didn't believe the registry was the best way to do this when it was set up and said so. However, I'll be darned if I am going to see it end without a thorough look at how effective it is now. I won't let one bad decision be followed by another. And what would that cost? I'm in a quandary here. Letting bad decisions stand is a good thing? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Agreed. I don't necessarily like the registry either, but the police chiefs seem to, and I'll defer to them now that it exists. Question. If a registered weapon is stolen, how do you track it? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 You don't track it until you find it again. Then you can link it back to the earlier crime assuming you can identify it. Quote
jdobbin Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 And what would that cost? I'm in a quandary here. Letting bad decisions stand is a good thing? The cost of maintaining the present system runs about $20 million or so last I heard. You'd have to ascertain if that is money well spent which simply cancelling the program will not tell you. Quote
Wilber Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 You don't track it until you find it again. Then you can link it back to the earlier crime assuming you can identify it. Makes no sense to me. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 If you can link it to the earlier crime, you now have a trail to follow if it was, for example, used in an unsolved murder. Quote
Molly Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Pfft! It was a mess from the getgo, harrassment rather than reasonable limitation, effective control, or even an accurate list-- and even now that it's 'up and running', provides virtually no useful information. Even if it only costs $20,000,000 a year to continue, that's money that could be better spent. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Who's Doing What? Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Well right now police are using old registries to find guns that are not up to date in their paperwork. These are guns that, have either been passed down as an inheritance, or as part of an estate, or for some other reason are just sitting in the house forgotten. They have already collected over 400 guns. Now these are 400+ guns that cannot be stolen by theives, or sold by say a teenager or other family member with a drug/gambling habit, and used for crime. Not much of a stretch to imagine little Johnny selling his Grandpa's Colt .45, which has been sitting in a box in the attic/basement for 5 years, to his dealer for a bag of drugs. Stuff like that happens all the time. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
waldo Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Pfft! It was a mess from the getgo, harrassment rather than reasonable limitation, effective control, or even an accurate list-- and even now that it's 'up and running', provides virtually no useful information. Even if it only costs $20,000,000 a year to continue, that's money that could be better spent. and yet the police upper echelon view it as an indispensable asset - go figure. What continually gets forgotten and/or ignored is that the significant resistance to the registry contributed massively to the initial cost and continues to contribute to any operational deficiencies it may have... what, because registration is akin to "harassment"? Quote
jdobbin Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Even if it only costs $20,000,000 a year to continue, that's money that could be better spent. But you would at least want to check first before just cutting it, right? Quote
Smallc Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Pfft! It was a mess from the getgo, harrassment rather than reasonable limitation, How is registration harassment? Quote
noahbody Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 The cost of maintaining the present system runs about $20 million or so last I heard. I've never read anything less than a promise of $25 million. May 20, 2004 The Liberal government, just days before an expected election call, eliminates fees for registering and transferring firearms. Ottawa will also limit its spending on the gun registry to $25 million a year, spending which has averaged $33 million a year and reached as high as $48 million http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol/Or maybe that was a cap on reporting costs: Fraser told a news conference, in reference to the 2004 decision that hid nearly $22 million in overspending by the Canadian Firearms Centre that year alone. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStoriesYou'd have to ascertain if that is money well spent which simply cancelling the program will not tell you. Even at $25 million, it's spending over $2 million per registered long gun homicide to do nothing more than keep statistics. If you can't ascertain that it's not money well spent, you shouldn't be in Ottawa. It frightens me that people can't grasp that. Quote
noahbody Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 and yet the police upper echelon view it as an indispensable asset - go figure. What continually gets forgotten and/or ignored is that the significant resistance to the registry contributed massively to the initial cost and continues to contribute to any operational deficiencies it may have... what, because registration is akin to "harassment"? You'll have to explain that one and provide a citation. Quote
jdobbin Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 I've never read anything less than a promise of $25 million. That was the cap. The last Auditor Report had the figure at $20 million and it was estimated that it would slide to about $10 to $15 million a year thereafter. Even at $25 million, it's spending over $2 million per registered long gun homicide to do nothing more than keep statistics. If you can't ascertain that it's not money well spent, you shouldn't be in Ottawa. It frightens me that people can't grasp that. It frightens me that people would cancel it to see that people would cancel the program without fully analyzing whether it is a very useful tool for the police. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.