Gun Control

[segnosaur]

Ummm... wait a second, you never accepted the risk from guns... instead, you've proposed eliminating home storage as a way to try to reduce the risk of mass shootings. That's not "accepting the risk"... its proposing a major shift in gun laws.

Ummm...I said I accept there will always be tragic deaths and that we will probably always have incidents like the Montreal shootings. Like you I don't accept the idea the registry will do much if anything to prevent these incidents but I do think control will do a fair bit.

If you say that you want to change the rules to prevent various shootings, then pretty much by definition you're not accepting the risk.

I obviously have a little more faith than you, but what amazes me is where you find the faith it requires to let just about anyone have guns in their possession.

Where exactly am I exhibiting 'faith'? I'm already expecting there to be unfortunate tragic deaths. No need for 'faith' there.

While you may think its acceptable to grant those freedoms only, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Individuals who may want to collect guns (as a hobby) will think otherwise. (Not to mention the fact that any hunters will probably find the idea of having to go to a central armory very inconvenient, depending on when/where they hunt.)

Imagine how inconvenient it will be to go postal or domestic, as the case may be, with a gun.

Already admitted there's a risk with legalized firearms possession, so your 'example' is pretty meaningless. I've already explained that such risks are simply something we have to accept as a cost of having certain freedoms/luxaries/etc. in our lives.

So, what if I said "You can't store your cars at home.... but you can store your private car at a central government lot... You can still go for Sunday drives though." Would you find that acceptable?

Are you kidding? It's 2010, I'm amazed we don't have an automated system....

Annnnddd... there we go with the airy fairy magical pixie dust useless idea.

Really, do you expect to be taken seriously when your 'solution' is to propose something that's not possible with current technology?

And once again, I have to ask: Why the double standard? Why do you feel the deaths due to guns are so tragic, yet those deaths that can easily be prevented right now by banning private cars/swimming pools are irrelevant? (And please, answer it without returning to your magical pixie duest solution.)

Re: airplanes stored on private property...Actually, there is no double standard.

Oh I'm pretty sure there's one somewhere.

Maybe its with your magical pixie dust cars.

How about helicopters? You think anyone who felt like it could just use their back yard or roof as a landing and take-off pad?

If you were in an area where you were not in controlled air space (i.e. to prevent mid air collisions) and you were not in a position to cause noise concerns with neighbors then yes, you'd probably be able to use your roof/back yard as a landing pad.

[dlkenny]

Has anyone stopped to consider that the registration of firearms does not save lives? It cannot, it is simply a serial number with a name attached. Whether a shotgun has a registration number doesn't impact how that firearm is handled, stored, transported or used. The sole purpose of the registry is to find out where each gun is in Canada so that they can be seized at a later date. As Allan Rock says he doesn't want people in Canada to want or need a gun, in other words he doesn't want Canadians to have guns...the purpose is abolishment.

Case in point is the handgun registry. More people are killed in Canada by lightning each year than by legally owned handguns, yet the government's response to gang violence is to "ban handguns." Two points here, one...handguns are already effectively "banned," they are severely restricted and require permits and documentation to simply transport one to a shooting range. The second point is that by having these guns registered the government has complete control over the confiscation of these weapons, they know where each and every legally owned handgun is located and how it is stored. They could simply walk into our homes and sieze our property. The trouble of course is that it doesn't take even one gun off of the streets and won't save lives.

The long gun registry is no different. As of right now, a person must undergo licensing and background checks to legally acquire a gun. In addition, those guns have strict laws surrounding acceptable storage and transportation practices. The people who are taking the time to follow these laws are not using their weapons to kill people, they are not intimidating women, they are not "shooting up everything that moves". Hunters and farmers use their weapons to feed their families and protect livestock from predators, much like people plant gardens to feed their families and install security systems to protect from intruders.

One could argue that hunting is not necessary in today's society. To be sure it is not, however many hunters prefer wild game to domestic meats, in addition game meats are not laden with artificial growth hormones or injected with drugs to help them become "well marbled." Fatty meat is not natural and is a product of domestication. In any case, I divest.

The point of my rambling is that the long gun registry does not save lives, it cannot and will not. Contrary to what non gun owning citizens think, they do not register ballistics or anything that might help connect a gun to a crime, it is simply a serial number in a registry. The registry doesn't prevent a firearm from being used in a malicious way, it does not stop a person from committing a crime, and it doesn't help the police trace murder weapons. It also does not help police because it is not the gun they know about but the one they don't know about that poses the biggest threat. The registry is a billion dollar waste of money, it does nothing aside from build a database of locations and owners of weapons so that the guns can be seized at a later date, effectively disarming law abiding citizens and leaving people defenseless against those who do have guns.

[Keepitsimple]

Seems that the Long Gun Registry is not the bargain that the opposition claims - they say it only costr a couple of million to run on an annual basis and why throw the baby out with the bathwater now that we've already blown $2 billion. Well - a Globe Editorial now claims that an RCMP report has been misrepreseted and the annual cost is over $60 million a year......and of course, the opposition are calling for "improvements" to the sytem.....that means more software "upgrades" and that means a whole flock of consultants racing back to the trough - probably the same ones that soaked us for the $2 billion in the first place. Kill it....stamp on it...drive a stake through it's heart until it's dead, dead, dead.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-gun-registrys-price-was-not-as-advertised/article1717453/

Edited September 22, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[punked]

Seems that the Long Gun Registry is not the bargain that the opposition claims - they say it only costr a couple of million to run on an annual basis and why throw the baby out with the bathwater now that we've already blown $2 billion. Well - a Globe Editorial now claims that an RCMP report has been misrepreseted and the annual cost is over $60 million a year......and of course, the opposition are calling for "improvements" to the sytem.....that means more software "upgrades" and that means a whole flock of consultants racing back to the trough - probably the same ones that soaked us for the $2 billion in the first place. Kill it....stamp on it...drive a stake through it's heart until it's dead, dead, dead.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-gun-registrys-price-was-not-as-advertised/article1717453/

Wow that is to much. Hope this thing dies.

[Smallc]

Wow that is to much. Hope this thing dies.

So do I. Hopefully, this changes some minds in either the Liberal or NDP caucus.

[punked]

So do I. Hopefully, this changes some minds in either the Liberal or NDP caucus.

Steven Taylor just tweeted he herd some Liberals are telling people they wont show up tomorrow. He is most likely lying but it would make sense.

[Smallc]

Steven Taylor just tweeted he herd some Liberals are telling people they wont show up tomorrow. He is most likely lying but it would make sense.

He may not be lying. I wouldn't be surprised if some did stay home.

[waldo]

Steven Taylor just tweeted he herd some Liberals are telling people they wont show up tomorrow. He is most likely lying but it would make sense.

whaaa! Stephen Taylor... founder of the Blogging Suppositories... now there's a reputable source. A guy who's known for stirring the pot with unfounded rumours (like his claim last year that 3 prominent Liberals were involved in negotiations to cross over to the CONS).

[scribblet]

He may not be lying. I wouldn't be surprised if some did stay home.

Wouldn't surprise me either.

[regroup]

I don't think it matters much which way the vote goes. The CPC will make hay of it at the next election and the NDP will be the big losers either way. I expect they will be bigger losers if they vote to support the continuation of the Registry despite the wishes of their constituents.

[Molly]

A law minding person is one UNTIL they take that rifle and kill or hurt someone, then they are a criminal.Everyone that owns a gun can not say that they will never use it to kill someone, because being a human beings with many emotions that turn a good person into a killer.

What? How utterly, utterly specious! What bizarre, paranoid claptrap!

By that logic, a ball player is only a law-abiding sportsman until he bludgeons someone with a 32 oz. bat; a mechanic is only law abiding until he goes berserk and staples his neighbor to the fence, using a complete set of screw-drivers as stabbing instruments! The kindly old lady down the street is only a sweetie-pie until she begins lacing those chocolate chip cookies with rat poison.

Emotional human beings that they are, they could turn into vicious killers at the drop of a hat!

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Molly

[PIK]

Wayne Easter LIB from PEI is in a tight spot, big supporter of getting rid of it, I wonder if the storm out there is enough to keep him away. His lead in the last elections dropped big time ,he only won by under a 1000 votes.

[Topaz]

What? How utterly, utterly specious! What bizarre, paranoid claptrap!

By that logic, a ball player is only a law-abiding sportsman until he bludgeons someone with a 32 oz. bat; a mechanic is only law abiding until he goes berserk and staples his neighbor to the fence, using a complete set of screw-drivers as stabbing instruments! The kindly old lady down the street is only a sweetie-pie until she begins lacing those chocolate chip cookies with rat poison.

Emotional human beings that they are, they could turn into vicious killers at the drop of a hat!

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Molly, wasn't the guy who killed those two RCMP, a couple years ago, a normal law-biding citizen? I don't know if those guns were licensed or registered but it was long guns that kill them not hand guns.

[Topaz]

So the Tories are in control again. If its doesn't pass, they will start the way to an election by telling people who are against this to help them get rid of it by voting for them and getting the Tories a maority so they can. Well, we know how honest and trustworthy Harper's words is. He's the type of guy that would promise anything for the votes then once achieve HIS goal, turn around and put the registry into action.

[capricorn]

Wayne Easter LIB from PEI is in a tight spot, big supporter of getting rid of it, I wonder if the storm out there is enough to keep him away. His lead in the last elections dropped big time ,he only won by under a 1000 votes.

And Stoffer? He surely will feel the heat.

MP Peter Stoffer says former NDP leaders Alexa McDonough and Ed Broadbent called him to talk about the long-gun registry before he decided to change his vote.

---

"They did call me and offer me advice," Stoffer said Tuesday. "They basically said you should really consider what the leader is trying to do, which is find common ground. They both said that."

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1203220.html

I wonder who else the fab prior NDP leaders lobbied.

[segnosaur]

Seems that the Long Gun Registry is not the bargain that the opposition claims - they say it only costr a couple of million to run on an annual basis and why throw the baby out with the bathwater now that we've already blown $2 billion. Well - a Globe Editorial now claims that an RCMP report has been misrepreseted and the annual cost is over $60 million a year..

From the looks if it, that $60million/year is for the entire Canadian firearms program, and probably includes the cost of handgun registration and acquisition licenses. Even if we scrap the long gun registry, I doubt we'd get rid of all gun control (e.g. we'd still probably keep acquisition licenses), and as such we wouldn't save the entire $60 million annual cost.

There are, however, other reasons to be suspicious of the $4 million claim...

- If you look at the cost of the firearms program, it seems to fluctuate wildly (sometimes rising or falling by over $10 per year).

- In one page of the report, it suggests that the RCMP were planning "system upgrades" for the 2009/10 fiscal year (i.e. a fiscal year not covered in the report).

Those factors to me seem to suggest that the $4million cost might just be a low point (selected to make them "look good".)

Edited September 22, 2010 by segnosaur

[eyeball]

Farmers and hunters don't rob becker stores. Most guns used in crime are revolvers that are smuggled in to canada from the states, and the weapon people like to use to kill in canada is a knife, not a gun but a knife, this is a poor piece of legislation.

Most guns used when people go postal are legally owned and registered guns. I agree the registry is a useless piece of legislation. So is the alternative, stiffer sentencing, which won't do a damn thing do deter a killer who intends to kill himself.

Remember, the registry was created in the wake of Marc Lepine's rampage, not Jane Creba's death.

[PIK]

Most guns used when people go postal are legally owned and registered guns. I agree the registry is a useless piece of legislation. So is the alternative, stiffer sentencing, which won't do a damn thing do deter a killer who intends to kill himself.

Remember, the registry was created in the wake of Marc Lepine's rampage, not Jane Creba's death.

Wrong the reg was created before lepine, the libs just used those poor dead women to push it thru.Mental illness which is overlooked in this country was the problem, not the gun. This man was bent oon killing and if every gun was reg, it still would have happened.

[scribblet]

There's a good piece here which says it better than I can.

And the beat goes on.

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2767975

It was unconscionable, but he still did it. Gunman Marc Lepine picked up an application for a firearms-acquisition certificate (FAC) in August 1989. He received his permit in mid-October, bought a semi-automatic rifle in November, and went on his rampage in early December.

So Lepine's weapon purchase was already known to police through their issuance of an FAC permit to him but, even if the registry had existed, and Lepine had complied, it would not have stopped his homicidal attack from happening.

The registry, in fact, has not saved a single life.

Killing it off today is a must.

[wyly]

"The registry, in fact, has not saved a single life."

it never occured to you that there would be no way to verify that? do you have list or has anyone compiled a list of every Police response in the country that involved the registry and how it effected the police response?

it's like saying the isolation of SARS patients was a waste of time because there were limited deaths and no epidemic? would it not make sense the point of the isolation was to prevent an epidemic and more deaths? and it worked...but by your logic it didn't work because people didn't die!...what a bizarre thought process...

[Argus]

Molly, wasn't the guy who killed those two RCMP, a couple years ago, a normal law-biding citizen? I don't know if those guns were licensed or registered but it was long guns that kill them not hand guns.

And yet, despite the registry, the cops are still dead.

[segnosaur]

"The registry, in fact, has not saved a single life."

it never occured to you that there would be no way to verify that? do you have list or has anyone compiled a list of every Police response in the country that involved the registry and how it effected the police response?

it's like saying the isolation of SARS patients was a waste of time because there were limited deaths and no epidemic? would it not make sense the point of the isolation was to prevent an epidemic and more deaths? and it worked...but by your logic it didn't work because people didn't die!...what a bizarre thought process...

The difference between actions to stop SARS and the gun registry is that we can figure out a mechanism for how quarantines can save lives.... isolating patients prevents viral transmission.

With the gun registry, its not as easy to figure out how it might actually save lives. By itself it does not prevent criminals from obtaining guns (the acquisition license does that), nor does it stop people from illegally obtaining guns. It also does nothing to prevent the misuse of firearms once they've been obtained (legally or illegally). Supporters of the registry like to claim it provides a warning of potential threats for police officers entering dangerous situations, but it ignores the fact that officers should already expect the possibility of violence regardless of what the firearm registry says.

[Molly]

Molly, wasn't the guy who killed those two RCMP, a couple years ago, a normal law-biding citizen? I don't know if those guns were licensed or registered but it was long guns that kill them not hand guns.

Which incident? Mayerthorpe? Roszko had a history of violent and sexual offenses, was under investigation for a collection of drug and property crimes, and was legally prohibitted from owning a firearm of any kind. No, not exactly your run-of-the-mill, normal law-abiding citizen. Definitely not your average duck hunter.

The fact is that owning/possessing a gun does not cause criminal violence, and only barely adds to enabling it. (Any number of other things can be used to create such mayhem/ lack of ownership and/ or failure to write down registration numbers do not preclude possession.)

[M.Dancer]

Molly, wasn't the guy who killed those two RCMP, a couple years ago, a normal law-biding citizen? I don't know if those guns were licensed or registered but it was long guns that kill them not hand guns.

To you he might have been normal...

Most normal people would call him a criminal freak.

[Smallc]

So the registry lives....for now.