Liberals and Gun Control

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The gun registry was and is a farce. It is too expensive and provides too little benefit to justify its existence. Having said that it is already here and now comes under the category of things to get rid of.

[jdobbin]

How much more analysis do you need than that?

One that actually measured the amount of use the police got out of it and the efficiency of that use.

Is that so much to ask for? I have not seen a study specific to the police.

[jdobbin]

Well, I guess it depends on your belief in 'studies'! As Molly has already pointed out, you can google up a study that will tell you whatever you wanted to know.

But not specific to police. If you have one, I'd like to see it.

This argument that we should make decisions based on the gut is a little hard to swallow.

[Hydraboss]

I think this whole "police want it" debate is hilarious. I work with about 11 ex-cops (RCMP, K Division, drug squad...and highway enforcement - including my boss, 23 years RCMP), and every time this conversation comes up (when it hits the news) they all agree on one thing:

When checking on a scene, they want to know one thing - are the people that are identified to be inside likely to have guns. They also agree that the registry does not accomplish this. A properly maintained criminal records system does. Previous charges (who cares about convictions) say a lot about an individual. During one conversation, one ex-member said he wished that all Conditional sentances and aquittals would show on their mobiles.

Now THAT would be useful for cops. Registries do nothing.

Someone made the statement that they should be regulating ammo sales. Now THAT makes sense (as I've said before). Bullets will still be smuggled into Canada, but if they were to properly track sales within our borders, at least they would have a reasonable idea who is an ACTIVE gun user. If someone starts buying rounds for a Glock, you may have a problem on your hands.

[Wild Bill]

But not specific to police. If you have one, I'd like to see it.

This argument that we should make decisions based on the gut is a little hard to swallow.

Forgive me jdobbin, but you really sound like a politician! Every issue demands more studies! Decisions are rarely ever made but a lot of money and time is spent on studies.

Politicians use large numbers of studies to make it look like they are actually doing something. Watch the girl in the sequins and fishnet stockings! Don't look at the magician's hand!

Also, were my words that vague? Where did I say that I go with my gut? I believe I wrote that I have been following the issue for years, with quotes from policians, media reports, info from family members that are police officers and so on.

Your call for another study implies that I have been ignoring the issue until the day when you suggested another study! As if I have done nothing so far!

As for a study specific to police, I sincerely doubt you'll ever get one. Who is going to pay for it? The current federal government obviously feels no need. The police leadership are NOT going to dip into their budget to poll their troops UNLESS they are going to get exactly the answer they want! I would think it obvious that they know what their troops would say. No matter what a gun registry report tells them, they have to treat every door as if there could be a gun behind it anyway. That's just common sense! A registry is useless for info about illegal firearms.

I submit that if the 'powers that be' truly believed that a poll of frontline police officers would support the Liberal designed gun registry they would have paid for one long ago. The fact that we have never seen one speaks for itself.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Wild Bill

[jdobbin]

I think this whole "police want it" debate is hilarious. I work with about 11 ex-cops (RCMP, K Division, drug squad...and highway enforcement - including my boss, 23 years RCMP), and every time this conversation comes up (when it hits the news) they all agree on one thing:

Someone made the statement that they should be regulating ammo sales. Now THAT makes sense (as I've said before). Bullets will still be smuggled into Canada, but if they were to properly track sales within our borders, at least they would have a reasonable idea who is an ACTIVE gun user. If someone starts buying rounds for a Glock, you may have a problem on your hands.

I'd like to hear what police actually want. Is that too much to ask for on this?

If they actually have a better idea, I think we should all be open to it as well.

[jdobbin]

Forgive me jdobbin, but you really sound like a politician! Every issue demands more studies! Decisions are rarely ever made but a lot of money and time is spent on studies.

And you see sound like someone tossing the rope over the branch and about to hoist someone up because you have no patience for a trial and you know as much as you need to know about a case.

As for a study specific to police, I sincerely doubt you'll ever get one. Who is going to pay for it? The current federal government obviously feels no need. The police leadership are NOT going to dip into their budget to poll their troops UNLESS they are going to get exactly the answer they want! I would think it obvious that they know what their troops would say. No matter what a gun registry report tells them, they have to treat every door as if there could be a gun behind it anyway. That's just common sense! A registry is useless for info about illegal firearms.

I think the federal government should pay for it since it is a federal registry.

I submit that if the 'powers that be' truly believed that a poll of frontline police officers would support the Liberal designed gun registry they would have paid for one long ago. The fact that we have never seen one speaks for itself.

I submit that the federal government believed they had support to kill the registry, they would.

We just have this netherworld right now until we get a majority either way.

A proper examination of this could set support one way or the other for action. Right now we don't have action.

[ToadBrother]

It doesn't take a a pack of researchers combing gun-nut propaganda to report that Canadian-sourced long-guns (much less legally-owned, Canadian-sourced long guns) play a paltry role in crime, and that introduction of the registry had no discernable effect on it. Nor does it take that pack of researchers to tell you that it has been a stunningly expensive exercize, for individuals as well as govenment, even if it did accomplish its presumed goals (which it does not).

Why would, say, biker gangs, triads or any of the other criminal element want to use a long gun? You can't conceal them, and if you don't care about concealment, there are far more effective guns out there.

Nothing demonstrated the Liberals' incapacity to understand rural Canada more than the gun registry. This equating your average Albertan farmer or guy living in Hundred Mile House within spitting distance of grizzlies with some nutjob with an assault rifle shooting a bunch of women in Montreal was without a doubt the most offensive thing that Chretien's government ever did.

I can tell you this. When I was a kid and I went camping with my grandparents up in northern BC back in the mid-70s, my grandfather had his shotgun and his 30-03 in the camper with the ammo right next to it, because only a complete moron would camp in some of those beautiful areas without the capacity to dispatch a dangerous animal.

[ToadBrother]

Owning a weapon isn't a right guaranteed by anything. It doesn't violate any civil liberties whatsover. Hunting rifles that people need is one thing, but in the end if you need it, you'll go through hell for it. Our government is there to protect us and we shouldn't expect anything less. If making people "go through the wringer" persuades one less person to buy a gun which could be stolen to commit a crime, I really have no problem with it.

Please show the statistics on the number of long gun-related crimes.

My main question is why do people need guns?

Because some of us don't live in major urban centers, and a rifle or a shotgun can be a damned handy thing.

What use is a handgun other than it looks nifty in a cabinet and you like to shoot it at a piece of paper?

A hand gun and a long gun are two different critters. Besides, the criminals seem to have no problem getting them.

Even a hunting rifle? Do most people NEED a hunting rifle? No, not really.

Some of us do. Some of us aren't navel gazing urbanites who tremble in fear at the thought of a gun. Some of us were raised with them, know them, and use them as a tool.

So, then why is it such a shock that the government is trying to regulate products that most of which are solely intended to kill other people?

I've never killed anybody.

It doesn't really strike me as an argument that has to be made. The government regulates most other things which could harm human beings, this clearly shouldn't be any different.

I have a hammer. I could bash someone's brains in tomorrow. Perhaps we should have a hammer registry.

I don't know where you're from Molly, but at my university campus last year some guy who was running through (from the cops) dropped a hunting rifle in front of one of the residences because he and his buddies had just robbed Cartier. Why should I or my friends who still go to that school have to put up with that because Jim Bob and Skeeter in Northern Alberta don't like to "be put through the wringer."

And out comes the insults and anecdotal evidence

If the gun registry helps along with an outright ban, so be it.

An outright ban on what? Do you think criminals are going to be in any way inconvenienced by this?

[nicky10013]

Please show the statistics on the number of long gun-related crimes.

Because some of us don't live in major urban centers, and a rifle or a shotgun can be a damned handy thing.

A hand gun and a long gun are two different critters. Besides, the criminals seem to have no problem getting them.

Some of us do. Some of us aren't navel gazing urbanites who tremble in fear at the thought of a gun. Some of us were raised with them, know them, and use them as a tool.

I've never killed anybody.

I have a hammer. I could bash someone's brains in tomorrow. Perhaps we should have a hammer registry.

And out comes the insults and anecdotal evidence

An outright ban on what? Do you think criminals are going to be in any way inconvenienced by this?

Skeeter and Jim Bob are legitimate names. Whether you think it's an insult is up to you. As for the rest of your post, it shows why firearms are totally unnecessary. If they're damned handy, they're not necessary. If they are necessary or next to necessary, then you can go through hell to get it. As for the hammer example, we both know its ridiculous. You could argue that about a fork. Guns have one purpose and that is to kill. End of story.

Will a ban inconvenience criminals? Considering around 40% of criminals steal their weapons from legal gun owning Canadians, then yes, the outright ban of firearms will make it significantly more difficult to get firearms. In Toronto the past few years, homicides caused by guns were in the majority and there were hundreds of shootings. Just because I experienced one doesn't make it "anecdotal evidence."

You can also make fun of "navel gazing urbanites" but 89% of the Canadian population lives in a large town or city; most of which suffer from gang violence and gun crime. Just because you may be a law abiding gun owner doesn't make you special. If taking your gun away (if you even have a gun, I guess it's a bit presumptious to assume) under an outright ban saves just 1 life, then its worth it.

No one here has the right to put a price on life. If the gun registry works and if there are statistics to show it helps, then keep it. Good law enforcement tools are hard to come by. If it doesn't work, then scrap it. It seems to me reading through here that no one really has the information to make a decision either way. People may support it because the police like it and others may dislike it simply due to the fact that their party threw it under the bus as a boondoggle and as we all know, monkey see monkey do.

[M.Dancer]

If they're damned handy, they're not necessary. If they are necessary or next to necessary, then you can go through hell to get it.

There is no logic to these statements.

Winter boots are handy, and in the winter, they are necessary. Given that they are necessary I need get them, but instead of going through hell, I go to the Shoe Company.

Rifles are handy. Sometimes they are even necessary. There can be no disputing these self evident facts.

And virtually all were with handguns, a restricted weapon and something the long rifle registry has nothing to do with

If the gun registry works and if there are statistics to show it helps, then keep it.

If something works, but has no real use, and costs 10 times more than planned, does it work well?

[wulf42]

Skeeter and Jim Bob are legitimate names. Whether you think it's an insult is up to you. As for the rest of your post, it shows why firearms are totally unnecessary. If they're damned handy, they're not necessary. If they are necessary or next to necessary, then you can go through hell to get it. As for the hammer example, we both know its ridiculous. You could argue that about a fork. Guns have one purpose and that is to kill. End of story.

Will a ban inconvenience criminals? Considering around 40% of criminals steal their weapons from legal gun owning Canadians, then yes, the outright ban of firearms will make it significantly more difficult to get firearms. In Toronto the past few years, homicides caused by guns were in the majority and there were hundreds of shootings. Just because I experienced one doesn't make it "anecdotal evidence."

You can also make fun of "navel gazing urbanites" but 89% of the Canadian population lives in a large town or city; most of which suffer from gang violence and gun crime. Just because you may be a law abiding gun owner doesn't make you special. If taking your gun away (if you even have a gun, I guess it's a bit presumptious to assume) under an outright ban saves just 1 life, then its worth it.

No one here has the right to put a price on life. If the gun registry works and if there are statistics to show it helps, then keep it. Good law enforcement tools are hard to come by. If it doesn't work, then scrap it. It seems to me reading through here that no one really has the information to make a decision either way. People may support it because the police like it and others may dislike it simply due to the fact that their party threw it under the bus as a boondoggle and as we all know, monkey see monkey do.

No offense but tell the Gangs they don t need guns.........lol !

if the Government banned guns tomorrow a black market would flourish

even more than it does now..........the guns used in killings in Canada are

prohibited now!! but yet the criminals still have them.......if a politician

tried to take honest hunters and target shooters guns away..that politician

would be looking for a new career!!!

[nicky10013]

There is no logic to these statements.

Winter boots are handy, and in the winter, they are necessary. Given that they are necessary I need get them, but instead of going through hell, I go to the Shoe Company.

Rifles are handy. Sometimes they are even necessary. There can be no disputing these self evident facts.

If something works, but has no real use, and costs 10 times more than planned, does it work well?

You can't dispute the "facts," just in what context they're being used. There's a differnece. Boots aren't manufactured specifcally to be weapons. There's a gigantic difference. Boots in society don't raise the chances of being killed. In the end, if someone really went off the deep end, you could kill someone with your bare feet. Guns do. The purpose of firearms isn't to keep people warm, they're designed to cause harm to human beings. This is another "hammer" example which only ads spin and no merit to the argument at hand.

As for your last post, thats what needs to be figured out. No one really has a clue. No real statistics have come out. Until they do this will just be a partisan issue.

[nicky10013]

No offense but tell the Gangs they don t need guns.........lol !

if the Government banned guns tomorrow a black market would flourish

even more than it does now..........the guns used in killings in Canada are

prohibited now!! but yet the criminals still have them.......if a politician

tried to take honest hunters and target shooters guns away..that politician

would be looking for a new career!!!

In the US yes. In Canada? I somehow doubt it. No government is going to come down due to more gun control. Indeed, I would imagine a government that publicly goes soft on guns stands a better chance of losing than an opponent who supports anti-gun measures.

[M.Dancer]

There's a differnece. Boots aren't manufactured specifcally to be weapons.

I was using boots to illustrate the illogic of your statement. Never the less, all firearms aren't manufactured specifically to be weapons. In fact, only a small percentage of firearms available to Canadians are manufactured specifically to be weapons.

As for your last post, thats what needs to be figured out. No one really has a clue. No real statistics have come out. Until they do this will just be a partisan issue.

Until we have a clue, there is little justification for wasting the money.

[nicky10013]

I was using boots to illustrate the illogic of your statement. Never the less, all firearms aren't manufactured specifically to be weapons. In fact, only a small percentage of firearms available to Canadians are manufactured specifically to be weapons.

Until we have a clue, there is little justification for wasting the money.

There's no justifiable reason for killing it either. If the cops want it, give it to them until we have the statistics to prove otherwise. To kill it because you THINK it won't have any results is assinine. That's just justification for anyone not to do anything. No one has a clue about anything until they do it.

As for my statement, it wasn't illogical. The only thing illogical is to assume that guns aren't weapons. They were first designed to kill people. Sure people have found uses for them afterwards, but they're still designed to kill people. Boots weren't originally designed to keep people's feet warm, there still continues to be a HUGE difference. If people truly need firearms then they shouldn't mind going through background checks and licensing to own them due to the fact that they need them. As for the rest, it's just a bunch of people getting pissed off because they can't legally use their rifle the day they get it. People take it for granted that these things are used criminally in cities where a vast majority of people live. Just because they have no reason to use these weapons criminally doesn't mean others don't as well. As I mentioned before, it should be about safety first. Who cares gets inconvenienced if it helps people stay safe. If there's something illogical about that, I guess I'll never understand.

Edited September 24, 2009 by nicky10013

[noahbody]

If the gun registry works and if there are statistics to show it helps, then keep it. Good law enforcement tools are hard to come by. If it doesn't work, then scrap it. It seems to me reading through here that no one really has the information to make a decision either way.

Registered long guns only account for 2% of homicides in Canada. That's approximately 12 per year. These people are dead, so it didn't help them. Police can't rely on it either, because the information is unreliable. They must assume a gun could be present at all times. If not, the registry is endangering their lives.

Put the money towards getting and keeping gang members off the street or buy some MRIs.

[Molly]

[/i]6762']

Considering around 40% of criminals steal their weapons from legal gun owning Canadians, then yes, the outright ban of firearms will make it significantly more difficult to get firearms.

You'd best provide a source for that number, because it is wildly out of whack with any stats I've seen-- from nearly double to about 12 X. But of that, how many were long guns?

In Toronto the past few years, homicides caused by guns were in the majority and there were hundreds of shootings. Just because I experienced one doesn't make it "anecdotal evidence."

And how many involved long guns? Was it as high as 1 or 2%? And what effect did the registry have on that number?

You can also make fun of "navel gazing urbanites" but 89% of the Canadian population lives in a large town or city; most of which suffer from gang violence and gun crime.

Which involves how many long guns? And does the registry address that issue in any manner?

[nicky10013]

You'd best provide a source for that number, because it is wildly out of whack with any stats I've seen-- from nearly double to about 12 X. But of that, how many were long guns?

And how many involved long guns? Was it as high as 1 or 2%? And what effect did the registry have on that number?

Which involves how many long guns? And does the registry address that issue in any manner?

I read the stat somewhere upwards in the thread. Not exact numbers. Let me guess, "it's the Americans fault." We need to take responsibility. Even if it is only 10-20% of guns are stolen out of Canadians homes and used in crime, that's already far too many guns on the streets. Just because the statistic may not be accurate doesn't mean the point behind the statistic isn't true.

You're also getting caught up on the long gun factor. admittedly a little vauge, I've been mostly been talking about blanket gun control. As I've said before, if it makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns by seriously upping regulations, other than convenience (because as I've mentioned, I don't care) what arguments are there against it?

[wulf42]

In the US yes. In Canada? I somehow doubt it. No government is going to come down due to more gun control. Indeed, I would imagine a government that publicly goes soft on guns stands a better chance of losing than an opponent who supports anti-gun measures.

Afraid not.........guns are on the rise in Canada!! and these guns are already banned!!

the Liberals simply don t understand their silly gun policies have completely failed...disarm

the public while criminal's arm to the teeth with guns that are already illegal!!! Hunter's are not the problem

the Libs created their silly laws to thump their chests and make them feel good while scaming honest

Canadians out of the ir money while Gangs laugh!!! When the Conservatives get their Majority

gun registry....sccccccccccrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaappppppppp! and good riddance! Guns are in abundance in Canada

and always will be..........the Liberals really need to leave politics to the Conservatives!

they have a better grasp on reality.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...ab-5278fc908c8a

Edited September 24, 2009 by wulf42

[nicky10013]

Afraid not.........guns are on the rise in Canada!! and these guns are already banned!!

the Liberals simply don t understand their silly gun policies have completely failed...disarm

the public while criminal arm to the teeth with guns that are already illegal!!! Hunter's are not the problems

the Libs created their silly laws to thump their chests and make them feel good while scaming honest

Canadians out of the ir money while Gangs laugh!!! When the Conservatives get their Majority

gun registry....sccccccccccrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaappppppppp! and good riddance! Guns are in abundance in Canada

and always will be..........the Liberals really need to leave politics to the Conservatives!

they have a better grasp on reality.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...ab-5278fc908c8a

Is there any chance of you posting with proper gammar?

As for the rest? I don't think controlling guns is silly. You can up control at the border and take them away. No, hunters aren't the problem but they can be stolen which is the problem.

Also, the very notion that Canadians should arm themselves for protection is frightening. Police are there for a reason.

Also, if you mean a better grasp on reality goes to the Conservatives, then I don't want to know what reality you're living in.

[wulf42]

Also, the very notion that Canadians should arm themselves for protection is frightening. Police are there for a reason.

Also, if you mean a better grasp on reality goes to the Conservatives, then I don't want to know what reality you're living in.

You mean the police show up after the fact to pick up the pieces long after the criminals

are gone?...as far as the conservatives being a reality? this is the new reality! Harper

is going to win the Majority next election, the Libs are finished.Then Canada can get back

on track.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Conserva...5036/story.html

Edited September 24, 2009 by wulf42

[ToadBrother]

Skeeter and Jim Bob are legitimate names.

If all you've ever watched is Dukes of Hazzard. How many people named "Skeeter" or "Jim Bob" do you know?

Whether you think it's an insult is up to you. As for the rest of your post, it shows why firearms are totally unnecessary. If they're damned handy, they're not necessary.

They are necessary. Pretty much anyone who raises livestock needs them. People who live in rural areas, particular very far from even smaller urban centres need them.

If they are necessary or next to necessary, then you can go through hell to get it. As for the hammer example, we both know its ridiculous. You could argue that about a fork. Guns have one purpose and that is to kill. End of story.

Long guns are generally used to dispatch animals.

Will a ban inconvenience criminals? Considering around 40% of criminals steal their weapons from legal gun owning Canadians, then yes, the outright ban of firearms will make it significantly more difficult to get firearms.

That's a rather high number. You would, of course, have a citation for that, right?

In Toronto the past few years, homicides caused by guns were in the majority and there were hundreds of shootings. Just because I experienced one doesn't make it "anecdotal evidence."

And how many of those were long guns?

You can also make fun of "navel gazing urbanites" but 89% of the Canadian population lives in a large town or city; most of which suffer from gang violence and gun crime.

Mainly using heavily controlled or outright banned guns. Depriving a cattle rancher of his rifles isn't going to make you one bit safer.

Just because you may be a law abiding gun owner doesn't make you special. If taking your gun away (if you even have a gun, I guess it's a bit presumptious to assume) under an outright ban saves just 1 life, then its worth it.

By that logic, taking away everyone's cars or Big Macs is justifiable, because, after all, one life was saved.

No one here has the right to put a price on life. If the gun registry works and if there are statistics to show it helps, then keep it.

Perhaps you would be good enough to provide the statistics that lumping in long guns with other weapons actually does work, we can talk.

Good law enforcement tools are hard to come by.

Apparently not. We have this fast legal edifice called the Criminal Code. Cops have lots of tools.

If it doesn't work, then scrap it. It seems to me reading through here that no one really has the information to make a decision either way. People may support it because the police like it and others may dislike it simply due to the fact that their party threw it under the bus as a boondoggle and as we all know, monkey see monkey do.

I don't like it because it singles out rural Canada for a problem that is distinctly urban.

[Wild Bill]

As for the rest? I don't think controlling guns is silly. You can up control at the border and take them away. No, hunters aren't the problem but they can be stolen which is the problem.

More control at the border? Yeah, that's worked well with dope and everything else!

Where do we find these magic wands needed to make your solutions possible?

[Molly]

I read the stat somewhere upwards in the thread. Not exact numbers. Let me guess, "it's the Americans fault."

There are few things more annoying than having someone guess at what you might say, so that they may then argue with their own fantasy.

It is, however, completely true that the US is the source for most guns used in criminal activities. Largely, that's because handguns are startlingly accessible there, and handguns are the tool of choice.... not long guns.

We need to take responsibility. Even if it is only 10-20% of guns are stolen out of Canadians homes and used in crime, that's already far too many guns on the streets. Just because the statistic may not be accurate doesn't mean the point behind the statistic isn't true.

It might actually be well less than that, in urban areas. The numbers I've seen suggest that it is a higher number in rural areas than in urban ones, and that long guns are more often a factor in rural crime too, so overall numbers are padded by events that largely don't happen in urban settings.

The statistic is relevant because it means that the money spent was badly mis-aimed. Turning the chicken-coop into Fort Knox is not helpful in preventing the coyotes from eating the sheep.

You're also getting caught up on the long gun factor. admittedly a little vauge, I've been mostly been talking about blanket gun control. As I've said before, if it makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns by seriously upping regulations, other than convenience (because as I've mentioned, I don't care) what arguments are there against it?

Caught up in it? It's the entire issue!!!!