One more time Gun Registry

[eyeball]

The crime rate might or might not be decreasing. We don't actually know.

Even Statistics Canada carefully uses the term "police-reported crime" to distinguish what people report to police from what is actually going on. In a few months they will come out with the results of the 2009 Victimization survey. The last one, in 2004 presented quite a different result than that obtained from police-reported statistics.

I know I'm probably going to be very careful before I report a crime to the police given what happened to poor Mr Dziekanski. I do not want something like that on my conscience thank you.

[Argus]

The same category that Right-wing gun-nuts insist the government continue to waste billions of dollars trying to stamp out.

Marijuana is not going to be made legal. Get over it. It doesn't matter that most people - including me - think it would be a good idea overall. The real reason it won't happen, despite mouth noises from some politicians, is that the Americans won't have it. If we legalize it the border points, which have already slowed to the point where it's had an awful affect on tourism, will become practically impassible, and all manner of trade will be affected.

[Argus]

Trying to keep US guns out of Canada is as futile as Americans trying to keep Canadian pot out of the US.

You might not keep them out but you can make it very expensive to get them. What we need are strike teams to concentrate on anyone trying to sell a hand gun illegally. Hey, you can't make money if you don't have your name out there, right? You can't make much money selling guns unless a lot of people know you're available. These people can be found. Why aren't they? Because the courts do not take selling guns seriously. Therefore the police do not make going after these people a priority. When was the last time you read of a gun who sold a 9mm handgun to a punk go to jail for five or ten years?

And that's what it would take. We need severe penalties for such people, and then a real, sustained crackdown on them. That would drive most of them into something safer, and what was left would charge a very high premium for their services.

We also need a harsh crackdown on those caught using them. There are laws in place but again, the courts have invariably refused to make use of such laws. We need mandatory minimums for anyone caught using a firearm in the commission of an offense, five or ten years - no parole - in addition to whatever punishment they get for the actual offense. Then those punk ass gang bangers will think twice about popping their guns off outside the Eaton Centre. We need mandatory minimums for anyone caught with an illegal gun. Then they'll think twice about even owning one, much less walking around with one.

All this registration business is so much BS.

[eyeball]

Marijuana is not going to be made legal. Get over it. It doesn't matter that most people - including me - think it would be a good idea overall. The real reason it won't happen, despite mouth noises from some politicians, is that the Americans won't have it. If we legalize it the border points, which have already slowed to the point where it's had an awful affect on tourism, will become practically impassible, and all manner of trade will be affected.

Yeah like more guns coming north. In any case, there's places in the U.S. where pot is even more legal than it is in Canada.

Oh well as long as prohibition remains in place it will be that much easier for people to call for more gun controls, so you might as well get over that.

[Argus]

I know I'm probably going to be very careful before I report a crime to the police given what happened to poor Mr Dziekanski. I do not want something like that on my conscience thank you.

Most people who don't report crime are motivated more by the fear of a long, complex, frustrating bureaucratic mess accompanied by a feeling that the cops will probably not do much, and that even if they do somehow catch someone they won't get much in the way of punishment anyway. As I've said before, I know a number of people who have been victimized by crime, for everything from burglary, assault and robbery to rape, and none of them reported it to police because they thought that would serve no purpose.

[eyeball]

We also need a harsh crackdown on those caught using them. There are laws in place but again, the courts have invariably refused to make use of such laws. We need mandatory minimums for anyone caught using a firearm in the commission of an offense, five or ten years - no parole - in addition to whatever punishment they get for the actual offense.

What about the punk-ass hunters that are shooting up my neighborhood with their long-guns?

Edited April 23, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Can't tell for sure though, are we? To understand irony, one should be able to at least see both sides of the story as well as facts behind it. If we're stuck in our ironset ideological mindset we'd only be able to craw the same old "tough justice .. crack" no matter what's going on out the windon.

Yes we do need to see both sides. What amuses me is your belief that ideology plays no part in your opinions.

[myata]

Yes we do need to see both sides. What amuses me is your belief that ideology plays no part in your opinions.

Maybe it does, but hardly on this particular issue. Common sense tells me that a gun, whose sole purpose is to kill, is a dangerous instrument by nature that needs the same kind of controls we apply to other, well, dangerous instruments. The facts tell me that places with loose guns are also the ones with higher violent gun crime rates.

And what do we have on the other side? Irrelevant references to government's inherent incapacity to get things right first time around, and pumped up appeals to "tougher justice" no matter what we see in the reality around us.

So where is the ideology? Where is common sense and rational approach to matters? And where is the irrational, ideology driven bs aimed at little else but scaring people up, distracting their attention from real and practical ways of approaching the problem, and perhaps getting themselves reelected in the wake of that scarewave?

[Wilber]

Maybe it does, but hardly on this particular issue. Common sense tells me that a gun, whose sole purpose is to kill, is a dangerous instrument by nature that needs the same kind of controls we apply to other, well, dangerous instruments. The facts tell me that places with loose guns are also the ones with higher violent gun crime rates.

And what do we have on the other side? Irrelevant references to government's inherent incapacity to get things right first time around, and pumped up appeals to "tougher justice" no matter what we see in the reality around us.

So where is the ideology? Where is common sense and rational approach to matters? And where is the irrational, ideology driven bs aimed at little else but scaring people up, distracting their attention from real and practical ways of approaching the problem, and perhaps getting themselves reelected in the wake of that scarewave?

The ideology comes with insisting on continuing with something that has shown to have little value based primarily on your own personal opinion of firearms.

All the gun owners on this forum say they have registered their weapons and have little objection to registration in principle, just its usefulness. I would say, if anything, that is based less on ideology than your views.

[M.Dancer]

The facts tell me that places with loose guns are also the ones with higher violent gun crime rates.

Like Switzerland, Norway Finland and Sweden.......

[Handsome Rob]

Maybe it does, but hardly on this particular issue.

Absolutely it does. Plainly evidenced by the many non-firearms owners that want the registry nuked.

Common sense tells me that a gun, whose sole purpose is to kill, is a dangerous instrument by nature that needs the same kind of controls we apply to other, well, dangerous instruments.

Right, the sole purpose of a knife is to cut and stab, and the dangerous instrument that it is, kills many times more people than guns do every year. Shall we make records for all of them as well?

The facts tell me that places with loose guns are also the ones with higher violent gun crime rates.

And the registry does absolutely nothing to prevent this.

The auditor general's report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. "The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms," the report said.

On January 3, 2003, Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino said in a news release: "We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."

And what do we have on the other side? Irrelevant references to government's inherent incapacity to get things right first time around, and pumped up appeals to "tougher justice" no matter what we see in the reality around us.

So where is the ideology? Where is common sense and rational approach to matters? And where is the irrational, ideology driven bs aimed at little else but scaring people up, distracting their attention from real and practical ways of approaching the problem, and perhaps getting themselves reelected in the wake of that scarewave?

It's the idea of not having the government piss away our hard earned money on frivolous nonsense. It doesn't by any means apply to the registry alone, and other programs flushing money down the toilet isn't justification for the registry to do the same.

The correlation between economic & social well being and violent crime is pretty clear. But we try to fix the results of the problem rather than the problem itself.

[myata]

Like Switzerland, Norway Finland and Sweden.......

"Firearms can only be obtained with an acquisition license, which can be applied for at the local police for a fee. A separate license is required for each individual firearm. A number of firearms a person can own is not limited any way. With the primary licensee's consent, parallel licenses to his firearms can be granted to other persons. According to law, the firearms must be stored in a locked space or otherwise locked, or with vital parts removed and separated. Even then the weapon or any of its separated parts must not be easily stolen. If an especially dangerous firearm or more than 5 pistols, revolvers or self-loading rifles or other-type firearms are being stored, they must be stored in a certified gun safe or in a secure space inspected and approved by the local police authority."

[Wikipedia: Gun politics in Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland)

(The example chosen randomly from the posted list.)

[myata]

Absolutely it does. Plainly evidenced by the many non-firearms owners that want the registry nuked.

Logic may have little to do with wanting something "nuked". Ideology of the anti-registry crowd is showing in the quality of arguments it's presenting (either irrelevant or misleading).

Right, the sole purpose of a knife is to cut and stab, and the dangerous instrument that it is, kills many times more people than guns do every year. Shall we make records for all of them as well?

Without opening an all-new gun control discussion here (which we have every six months or so, check the archives), firearms are much more dangerous in the public environment (as multiple episodes of mass shooting show us - i.e. those of us who care to notice), so we can start with getting them under control first. This is not to say that those knives (as well as other instruments) designed solely as a weapon shouldn't require some limitation of access as well as added responsibiliy by the owner.

And the registry does absolutely nothing to prevent this.

The result of registration will be long term, in establishing a comprehensive regime of tracking for all firearms, and it'd be folly to expect immediate results (especially with the current government doing everything possible to compromise it). Without registration or licensing of individual gun comprehensive gun control simply isn't possible and that's the position the Consertaves are driving at. The next step may be, "let's dismantle gun control altogether and focus on criminals instead".

And I highly doubt the factual correctness of Fantino's statement, I've no data on Toronto, but over that same period there's been several episodes of "common" violence with firearms here in Ottawa, not to mention the shooting in Montreal.

It's the idea of not having the government piss away our hard earned money on frivolous nonsense. It doesn't by any means apply to the registry alone, and other programs flushing money down the toilet isn't justification for the registry to do the same.

Registry is there for the purpose though, namely to ensure comprehensive gun control. Would we rather "piss" our money, in much higher volumes btw, on building and maintaining prisons?

The correlation between economic & social well being and violent crime is pretty clear. But we try to fix the results of the problem rather than the problem itself.

I never said that the registry is some kind of a silver bullet solution to gun crime problem. It can only be addressed by a comprehensive set of policies where each component is important and plays its role: police work to dismantle guns, stop flow of illegal guns, reduce common and spousal violence; social development of communities; and comprehensive gun control.

[Handsome Rob]

Without opening an all-new gun control discussion here (which we have every six months or so, check the archives), firearms are much more dangerous in the public environment (as multiple episodes of mass shooting show us - i.e. those of us who care to notice), so we can start with getting them under control first. This is not to say that those knives (as well as other instruments) designed solely as a weapon shouldn't require some limitation of access as well as added responsibiliy by the owner.

I see. So a mass shooting of 20 people is somehow more significant than 100 fatal stabbings?

I can't wait for that knife registry, what a wonderful police state you're advocating.

The result of registration will be long term, in establishing a comprehensive regime of tracking for all firearms, and it'd be folly to expect immediate results (especially with the current government doing everything possible to compromise it). Without registration or licensing of individual gun comprehensive gun control simply isn't possible and that's the position the Consertaves are driving at. The next step may be, "let's dismantle gun control altogether and focus on criminals instead".

La la land? Criminal doesn't fear punishment of committing assault with a weapon, but they're supposed to fear punishment for failing to register their weapons? Or are you suggesting we're going to be any more successful at stopping smuggled guns as we are at stopping smuggled drugs?

And I highly doubt the factual correctness of Fantino's statement, I've no data on Toronto, but over that same period there's been several episodes of "common" violence with firearms here in Ottawa, not to mention the shooting in Montreal.

Right, doesn't agree with you, therefore it's wrong.

Registry is there for the purpose though, namely to ensure comprehensive gun control. Would we rather "piss" our money, in much higher volumes btw, on building and maintaining prisons?

Absolutely not. I'd like to see the poor fed, and housed, the education mess cleaned up, and the mental health care system cleaned up. With the monies allocated to the registry thus far, actions like this could have accomplished 10-fold more.

I never said that the registry is some kind of a silver bullet solution to gun crime problem. It can only be addressed by a comprehensive set of policies where each component is important and plays its role: police work to dismantle guns, stop flow of illegal guns, reduce common and spousal violence; social development of communities; and comprehensive gun control.

Continuing this debate is pointless, you're not open to reality. Said logic sounds great in the classroom, but doesn't function outside.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Handsome Rob

[myata]

I see. So a mass shooting of 20 people is somehow more significant than 100 fatal stabbings?

I can't wait for that knife registry, what a wonderful police state you're advocating.

Can you point to such instance (hundred of stabbings in one incident)? Thought so. There's any number of cases where an armed crackpot killed or wounded 20 people or more in a single incident of mass shooting.

La la land? Criminal doesn't fear punishment of committing assault with a weapon, but they're supposed to fear punishment for failing to register their weapons? Or are you suggesting we're going to be any more successful at stopping smuggled guns as we are at stopping smuggled drugs?

No, there's (or there should be, at least) a separate solution to each part of the problem. The registry does not do all things, it serves comprehensive tracking of all firearms and has no other claims. And without tracking of all guns no meaningful gun control is possible.

Right, doesn't agree with you, therefore it's wrong.

No, just does not agree with the facts that are available to everybody (who cares to notice).

Absolutely not. I'd like to see the poor fed, and housed, the education mess cleaned up, and the mental health care system cleaned up. With the monies allocated to the registry thus far, actions like this could have accomplished 10-fold more.

You simply can't get over it, but the sad reality is that those moneys are gone, just like the monies buried in the countless earlier episodes of government's incapacity. All that can be saved now is 25 million annually (yes the correct number can be found, only takes better looking) - plus of course the plan to torpedo comprehensive gun control in this country.

Continuing this debate is pointless, you're not open to reality. Said logic sounds great in the classroom, but doesn't function outside.

Yes I know, but not for the lack of better argument though?

[yarg]

Can you point to such instance (hundred of stabbings in one incident)? Thought so. There's any number of cases where an armed crackpot killed or wounded 20 people or more in a single incident of mass shooting.

No, there's (or there should be, at least) a separate solution to each part of the problem. The registry does not do all things, it serves comprehensive tracking of all firearms and has no other claims. And without tracking of all guns no meaningful gun control is possible.

No, just does not agree with the facts that are available to everybody (who cares to notice).

You simply can't get over it, but the sad reality is that those moneys are gone, just like the monies buried in the countless earlier episodes of government's incapacity. All that can be saved now is 25 million annually (yes the correct number can be found, only takes better looking) - plus of course the plan to torpedo comprehensive gun control in this country.

Yes I know, but not for the lack of better argument though?

So if more people were killed at one time with other items then it would be more significant, ahh, so the actual number of lives lost doesn't really matter to you. Thanks for making clear your motivations.

I must say, it is amusing when you speak of facts, you wouldn't know a fact if it stabbed you in the chest, which btw is much more likely to happen than being shot with a registered long gun, and that is a FACT.

Do you even know what facts are? Hint, they aren't feelings.

[fellowtraveller]

Michael Ignatieff plans to whip his caucus to vote against a controversial Conservative bill to abolish the long-gun registry. MPs who do not vote with him will be punished.

Their punishment will be that they are obliged to remain in the Liberal caucus.

[Handsome Rob]

Yes I know, but not for the lack of better argument though?

You really had to throw this in, didn't you.

Can you point to such instance (hundred of stabbings in one incident)? Thought so. There's any number of cases where an armed crackpot killed or wounded 20 people or more in a single incident of mass shooting.

Wasn't the point. It would appear that the individual deaths are insignificant to your agenda, where as the mass murders generate far more publicity.

No, there's (or there should be, at least) a separate solution to each part of the problem. The registry does not do all things, it serves comprehensive tracking of all firearms and has no other claims. And without tracking of all guns no meaningful gun control is possible.

Less than 5% of gun crime is committed with registered long guns. Gun crime represents circa 2.5% of violent crime in the country. Those figures have been stagnant for 15 years, please provide any evidence that the registry is doing anything to prevent gun crime in this country.

No, just does not agree with the facts that are available to everybody (who cares to notice).

It agree's exactly.

You simply can't get over it, but the sad reality is that those moneys are gone, just like the monies buried in the countless earlier episodes of government's incapacity. All that can be saved now is 25 million annually (yes the correct number can be found, only takes better looking)

Why do you keep putting this in my mouth? I'm for not nickel and diming the budget to death, 10 & 20 million dollars at a time. Justification of feel-good legislation like this is exactly what's causing the ever expanding bureaucracy and deficits. Money gone is money gone, let's stop wasting it in the future.

[myata]

Wasn't the point. It would appear that the individual deaths are insignificant to your agenda, where as the mass murders generate far more publicity.

Exactly because they are "significant" it makes all the sense to keep on with practical work on tracking all guns (and on that basis, developing mechanisms to prevent them from falling into wrong hands) as opposed to fuming on the account of what's impossible or not feasible.

Less than 5% of gun crime is committed with registered long guns. Gun crime represents circa 2.5% of violent crime in the country. Those figures have been stagnant for 15 years, please provide any evidence that the registry is doing anything to prevent gun crime in this country.

I'm not going to comment on unreferenced, or selectively posted data. We have earlier established the actual rates of violent crime committed with long guns.

I'm for not nickel and diming the budget to death, 10 & 20 million dollars at a time. Justification of feel-good legislation like this is exactly what's causing the ever expanding bureaucracy and deficits. Money gone is money gone, let's stop wasting it in the future.

But the registry does serve a real and very practical purpose: to ensure that there's a comprehensive gun control regime in the country, where every gun is licensed and tracked. The way things are done here, very few of such projects on the national scale were flawlessly successful right from the start. Compare it with e.g. our MP's traveling budget.

[Wilber]

Exactly because they are "significant" it makes all the sense to keep on with practical work on tracking all guns (and on that basis, developing mechanisms to prevent them from falling into wrong hands) as opposed to fuming on the account of what's impossible or not feasible.

I'm not going to comment on unreferenced, or selectively posted data. We have earlier established the actual rates of violent crime committed with long guns.

But the registry does serve a real and very practical purpose: to ensure that there's a comprehensive gun control regime in the country, where every gun is licensed and tracked. The way things are done here, very few of such projects on the national scale were flawlessly successful right from the start. Compare it with e.g. our MP's traveling budget.

You cannot track all guns, just registered guns. You cannot control all guns, just registered guns. The fact that they are registered means they are owned by the most honest and responsible group of gun owners. The ones least likely to be a problem. When will that sink in?

[yarg]

Exactly because they are "significant" it makes all the sense to keep on with practical work on tracking all guns (and on that basis, developing mechanisms to prevent them from falling into wrong hands) as opposed to fuming on the account of what's impossible or not feasible.

I'm not going to comment on unreferenced, or selectively posted data. We have earlier established the actual rates of violent crime committed with long guns.

But the registry does serve a real and very practical purpose: to ensure that there's a comprehensive gun control regime in the country, where every gun is licensed and tracked. The way things are done here, very few of such projects on the national scale were flawlessly successful right from the start. Compare it with e.g. our MP's traveling budget.

Quite right any murder is significant, it just so happens the chances of being killed with a registered long gun is statistically much less significant than say the chance of being stabbed to death. So seeing as any murder is equally bad as another why then do we not treat the weapons in the same fashion? We obviously need to spend billions, many times the amount spent on the gun registry, in order to treat equally and proportionately all weapons used in homicides.

The data speaks for itself, you won't comment on it because it doesn't suit your agenda, clearly the truth is not something you care for, You don't like the numbers? Go find some official government stats that prove differently, anything less is wasting our time. It seems facts don't matter to some, then again we knew that already, the very existence of the registry proves that.

[eyeball]

You cannot track all guns, just registered guns. You cannot control all guns, just registered guns. The fact that they are registered means they are owned by the most honest and responsible group of gun owners. The ones least likely to be a problem. When will that sink in?

Years and years ago. When will it sink in that the only way to control the illegal ones is to legalize the drug trade and seal our southern border?

[Pliny]

Years and years ago. When will it sink in that the only way to control the illegal ones is to legalize the drug trade and seal our southern border?

It certainly doesn't sound like it has sunk in yet that the least likely to commit crimes are the honest registrants.

Criminals are criminals, they will act like criminals. If it isn't drugs they are involved in it will be something else. Legalizing the drug trade and sealing the borders doesn't change their frame of mind and will not deter them from acquiring the guns they want. Do you expect them to go, "Aw..gee!" and become honest citizens? That isn't likely to happen.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Pliny

[eyeball]

It certainly doesn't sound like it has sunk in yet that the least likely to commit crimes are the honest registrants.

Criminals are criminals, they will act like criminals. If it isn't drugs they are involved in it will be something else. Legalizing the drug trade and sealing the borders doesn't change their frame of mind and will not deter them from acquiring the guns they want. Do you expect them to go, "Aw..gee!" and become honest citizens? That isn't likely to happen.

Why is that such an unreasonable expectation? Selling drugs is the easiest crime to commit. Robbing banks and stealing things is more dangerous and takes real effort and can be more capital intensive. As these costs and risks go up a regular job probably looks a lot better.

Criminals are also human, and as such will probably act like humans.

[Muddy]

What about the punk-ass hunters that are shooting up my neighborhood with their long-guns?

May I suggest that these are not hunters. But punks with unregistered long guns.If they were shooting up my neighbourhood I am pretty sure the swat team would be there pretty darn quick!