Gun Control

[Wild Bill]

Sorry, I had the impression you'd still be voting for the Conservatives anyway's. My mistake.

No, I'm truly mystified how anyone who believes the state should not regulate and criminalize individual morality or behaviour could vote for anyone who would do the exact opposite. I guess I just assumed people would hold that to be far too fundamental a principle to breach. I mean, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for anyone who proposed to do that even if they promised to do something like, give B.C. control over the management of it's fisheries.

And I'm truly mystified by how you constantly try to redefine the issue being debated to justify a faux pas or simply being proven wrong!

First off, I likely will vote for the Tories next time, for lack of any better choice. So what? How does that mean that I or any other Tory voter totally agrees with some loopy caricature of typical Tory beliefs, AS DEFINED BY YOU???

I vote for a party for a NUMBER of issues, sorted according to my OWN priorities! It IS my vote, after all! Everyone should make up their own mind, not just vote because some self-appointed pundit claims he knows the truth about every party.

I'm truly mystified how someone could believe that one particular political party or philosophy stands for the state "regulating and criminalizing individual morality or behavior" and expect that his belief is actually a universal definition with which everyone else agrees!

IOW, just because YOU believe it doesn't mean anyone else does! Or believes it is happening to the same degree that YOU do!

Strip it all down and what you're really saying is "I'm mystified how anyone could believe differently than I do!"

I could say that I'm mystified how anyone could vote Liberal, considering past behavior has proven that party to be full of crooks who rip us off by stealing our taxes for their own use. That too would be just as loopy. My belief also would be simply my belief, not some universal definition.

If you're going to write your own dictionary Mr. Eyeball, perhaps you should first check out the word "arrogance" and see if your picture is there...

Edited September 2, 2010 by Wild Bill

[GostHacked]

We should cut our losses and scrap the registry. There is no real reason to continue dumping money into this pit. Legal respectable gun owners are not the ones going to be the problem. The overwhelming majority of the time it is going to be crimes involving illegally obtained guns. There is where the real problem lies. Criminals don't register guns and don't go through the legit channels to acquire a gun. So to have a registry across the board is useless in this fashion.

It is also useless because the government already knows what you have, because you went to take the course, got your firearms license, and the gun shop has a record of the sale and I would bet on it that the gun shop owner has his own 'registry'' type thing. He would note the sale to the person with the serial number of the rifle/gun.

All one needs to do is combine all the information from the gun shops, and bam, you got your registry. Easy, simple and cost effective because the information is laready there and you don't have to harass people to register their guns after the purchase.

So, yeah, let's cut our losses with it and scrap it.

Edited September 2, 2010 by GostHacked

[Wild Bill]

We should cut our losses and scrap the registry. There is no real reason to continue dumping money into this pit. Legal respectable gun owners are not the ones going to be the problem. The overwhelming majority of the time it is going to be crimes involving illegally obtained guns. There is where the real problem lies. Criminals don't register guns and don't go through the legit channels to acquire a gun. So to have a registry across the board is useless in this fashion.

It is also useless because the government already knows what you have, because you went to take the course, got your firearms license, and the gun shop has a record of the sale and I would bet on it that the gun shop owner has his own 'registry'' type thing. He would note the sale to the person with the serial number of the rifle/gun.

All one needs to do is combine all the information from the gun shops, and bam, you got your registry. Easy, simple and cost effective because the information is laready there and you don't have to harass people to register their guns after the purchase.

So, yeah, let's cut our losses with it and scrap it.

Excellent logic, GH! Sadly, most supporters of the Liberal gun registry don't seem to be logical!

There's a certain world view that seems to say "At least we're doing SOMETHING!" And "SOMETHING" is enough! People of this persuasion are comforted by a law being enacted. They never actually audit the law to make sure that it does what it's supposed to or that it gives good value for the money. It's enough that the law was passed.

These people are also the ones who will try to "childproof" the entire world to protect teenagers from the consequences of drinking and driving. They ban drugs because a small percentage of people abuse them. They seek to close casinos because a small percentage of people get addicted to gambling.

I don't know about you but I am getting very tired of being told I can't do something because SOMEONE ELSE has a problem!

Anyhow, these folks have a right to vote too and it is pointless to try to sway them with logic. They won't care about wasted tax dollars unless they themselves are feeling the pinch. They won't care about something being illegal if it's something they don't partake themselves.

They won't even care if a law does nothing to address the problem for which it was created! Look at the folks in Quebec! After the Marc LePine massacre they overwhelmingly supported the creation of the Liberal gun registry. Yet that registry simply added costs and paperwork to law-abiding gun owners. It never added ONE DAY of sentencing for some monkeyshines illegally using a gun to hold up a variety store!

Yet where is the highest support AGAINST longer sentences? You guessed it! In Quebec!

If the goal was truly to deter illegal use of firearms, then that has to be the ultimate example of people thinking illogically!

I've come to think that we are born thinking logically or we are not. Perhaps schooling could also be a factor but lately it doesn't seem to be an effective one. We've ended up with percentages either way and it seems pointless to try logical argument with someone who leads with their heart and not with their head.

If the political numbers and the power is there then I say just scrap it and move on. Trying to convince those who supported that particular bureaucratic ball of loopiness with logic is just a waste of time.

[GostHacked]

Thank you Wild Bill. I try to think as logical as I can. Unfortunately others think I am just crazy.

[Argus]

My take is if you are against gun control, you should be against substance control. And vice versa. Yet most people seems to favor one, but not the other.

I'm in favour of gun control. I'm not in favour of the registry because it does nothing to control guns - and costs a great deal of money to not do it.

[Argus]

Why would the police chiefs and the RCMP say its worth having if it wasn't?

My agency brought in a new HR system about seven years ago. All the staff hate it. The managers I know all hate it. The HR staff hate it. The only people who speak glowingly of it are the seniormost managers. The Auditor General had a look at it and found that not only was it not shortening the time for competitions it was lengthening it, that HR hadn't even tracked how much it was costing (it's HUGELY expensive) and that no one seemed to understand what the end game results were supposed to be.

Nevertheless, senior management is utterly committed to it. At least publicly.

Just because the senior bureaucrats who call themselves cops are in favour of something that doesn't mean the people who know what's what are.

[Argus]

No kidding. If the CPC keeps taking Canada in the direction we're going we may have to take it back by force.

What exactly have the done that you would think such hyperbole wouldn't sound ludicrous? I think you're fuming not over anything in particular they've done, but merely because they exist.

And btw, most of the guns in this country are owned by CPC supporters.

[Argus]

This is the single most dishonest argument people pull-out in arguing that the registry should be junked: "Show me proof of the crimes it has prevented!!!"

Well answer me this, where are the credible statistics for individual acts of prevented crime housed?

i think it's more a matter of no one being able to figure out how, logically, this registry can possibly prevent crimes. And the supporters not being able to come up with anything.

Anyone who has any familiarity with reports which have been commisioned specifically to support something, btw, would look at the RCMP report and shake their head at just how threadbare and desperate were the arguments.

How much crime is prevented by the registry is difficult to ascertain. But the reality is that it does serve an important intervention tool in violent domestic situations

How?

,

has helped to crack burglary networks

when?

and has enabled snitch networking by getting suspects in possession of stolen weapons to offer bigger fish in the hopes of mitigating their own misfortune.

That has always been the case. And you don't need a registry to tell you when a gun has been stolen.

Anecdotally, I can offer you the following:

Some years ago, a woman in Perth Ont. was murdered by her estranged husband in a murder suicide involving a shotgun. The husband's weapons had been seized months before as a result of charges for domestic assault and uttering threats. The gun used in the murder was provided by a friend whom the murderer convinced was to be used for a hunting trip.

So the registry served no useful purpose.

5 years ago I was at a social function where I happened to learn that the man I was conversing with was a hunter from Perth. I asked him what he would do if a friend asked to borrow one of his guns and he said (roughly paraphrasing) "Happens all the time. I tell them that I'll give the OPP a call first and if they're OK with it, I'm OK with it." In other words, if the OPP hasn't seized his friend's registered guns, he's a legal gun owner and can borrow the weapon. I asked him if he ever faced an objection to his approach and he said that one guy told him "never mind, I'll ask someone else." He called the OPP anyways and the guy was arrested for violating a weapons prohibition order.

I'm confused. You're saying this man you were conversing with, aware of his obligations under the firearms act, did not loan his weapon to another individual - which is prohibited unless that individual had a firearms licence. What has that got to do with the gun registry? You are aware, I'm sure, that the registry has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can or can't loan your guns out to people, right?

The registry prevents and helps solve crime

.

How?

[GostHacked]

Just because the senior bureaucrats who call themselves cops are in favour of something that doesn't mean the people who know what's what are.

I see this often within the I.T. world. The techs are against a certain system because they know it won't work. And when it does, it will not fulfill the expectations of the seniors. We have some new systems being implemented and centralization of many apps. Most of the techs are against it, but have no choice but to support the shittiness of it all because the higher ups signed off on it without having a real clue and not giving a rats ass as to why the techs do not want it.

Short version : It's always someone who does not know about the process/system is the one making the decisions for the guys who have to support it. The majority of us said it won't work, deaf ears. Money/time/manpower pissed out the door.

[DrGreenthumb]

I don't support the long-gun registry. It always seems funny to me though hearing all the Conservatives use all the same arguments to argue against it that are the same reasons why we should end prohibition. How can these right wingers argue that cannabis is so dangerous as to require mandaTORY prison sentences, but gun are so safe that they don't even require registration? How many cops (or Canadians in general) have been kkilled by guns(long or short), compared to the number that have been beaten to death with the stem of a cannabis plant?

Gun registry- expensive uneffective

prohibition-more expensive, and counter productive

As long as the right insists on blocking my right to posssess cannabis, I would almost vote for the continuation of the registry just out of spite.

[GostHacked]

Good points Dr Greenthumb. But the way some of my pals roll some CANONS, could they be considered weapons of mass destruction?

I'd rather look down the barrel of a well rolled spliff than a gun, no matter what end of it I am on.

[eyeball]

And I'm truly mystified by how you constantly try to redefine the issue being debated to justify a faux pas or simply being proven wrong!

Why did you drag sentencing into the debate if not to redefine the issue? Speaking of faux pas, are you suggesting you'll oppose prohibition while also supporting heavier sentences for people who defy it?

First off, I likely will vote for the Tories next time, for lack of any better choice. So what? How does that mean that I or any other Tory voter totally agrees with some loopy caricature of typical Tory beliefs, AS DEFINED BY YOU???

I vote for a party for a NUMBER of issues, sorted according to my OWN priorities! It IS my vote, after all! Everyone should make up their own mind, not just vote because some self-appointed pundit claims he knows the truth about every party.

So something like saving a few percentage points off your GST is more important to you than the state broadening the criminal code and spending $9 billion on new prisons?

I'm truly mystified how someone could believe that one particular political party or philosophy stands for the state "regulating and criminalizing individual morality or behavior" and expect that his belief is actually a universal definition with which everyone else agrees!

It is not just my own personal belief that the state shouldn't regulate individual morality or behaviour, it's a belief that's been clearly articulated by a majority of Canadians, for years now.

IOW, just because YOU believe it doesn't mean anyone else does! Or believes it is happening to the same degree that YOU do!

Strip it all down and what you're really saying is "I'm mystified how anyone could believe differently than I do!"

No it isn't, I'm really mystified that so many people can hold such a fundamental belief and then vote against it. Is it simply because it's other people civil liberties that are at stake and not their own?

I could say that I'm mystified how anyone could vote Liberal, considering past behavior has proven that party to be full of crooks who rip us off by stealing our taxes for their own use. That too would be just as loopy. My belief also would be simply my belief, not some universal definition.

We're not talking about past action in the case of the CPC here. In spite of the clear message that Canadians have sent that they do not want the state to regulate individual morality or behaviour the CPC is just as clearly signalling they're going to anyway.

If you're going to write your own dictionary Mr. Eyeball, perhaps you should first check out the word "arrogance" and see if your picture is there...

I haven't redefined anything any more than you have.

Edited September 2, 2010 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

Do we really need another thread on this? What was wrong with the others could you not have posted in one of them?

Probably not! As we all understand there is nothing wrong with tools and toys whether they be a fun car or a gun -- cars do not kill people - self centred all absorbed idiots kill people - It's about behaviour - we do not train our young about things that generate good behaviour - we just have a bunch of creepy pop culture executives who run commericals about "respect" - where you see a bunch of ball players looking at you through the TV screen like they are going to beat the shit out of you - and this INTIMIDATION - is being refered to as respect --when in fact it is plain old institutionalized hooliganizm.

As long as we have hooligans in politics - sports - the judicary . and other prime spots we will have bad behaviour and violence ---BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ROLE MODELS ANYMORE - just hooligangs who we place in positions of honour where there is no honour emulating from the so called leaders and heros...human beings should be registered as dangerous and socially destructive - rather than register a fire arm - register a political - a banker - a corporate head - a judge - ANYONE WHO SHOWS A HINT OF BEING A DANGER TO SOCIETY...

[segnosaur]

I'm no expert in these matters, unlike many hear who clame to be experts in all subjest.

You don't need to be an 'expert'. But in a complex issue like this, there are differences amongst those that are experts. I do have to wonder though, if all you seem to do is parrot various statements issued by the police chiefs/RCMP, why exactly do you bother to post on this issue? After all, I've posted some reasons (both logical and evidence-based) about why the registry is a bad idea, and you've never addressed any of those points. (Frankly, I'd love to bring them up with actual police officers/police chiefs, but since they don't post here, you are kind of their proxy.)

I just want our cops to have the best tools available for them to feel safe and good.

Already pointed out how any officer should expect that unsafe situations can occur at any time, and that putting absolute faith in the gun registry would be a mistake.

Why don't you try addressing that argument, rather than parroting more press releases from the RCMP/chiefs of police?

Now it seems to me, as indicated in the article I posted that the RCMP are in support of the registry, and it has helped them before so I think it should countinue.

And I've posted the results from a 'straw poll' that indicates that most front line police officers consider the registry of no value. Why don't you address that point?

If it's too expensive, that's another problem and it should be fixed.

It doesn't matter how 'efficient' a particular program is, if the end result of the program is worthless.

As an analogy, the government can build a very good road. It can be the best designed road, built at the lowest cost. But if the road doesn't go anywhere where people are going to drive, then that money was not well spent (even if there was no 'waste' during the building of the road.)

On the other hand if money is what we want to save, pretty sure we can find lots of things that are a huge waste of Canadian tax dollers, and provide far less benefit that said gin registrey

I'm sure there are plenty of other useless programs that can be cut that cost more money. But the fact that there are some huge wastes of money doesn't mean that we should be happy to waste smaller sums. After all, murder is one of the worst crimes out there; however, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect robberies to be dealt with too.

Deal with the gun registry on its own merits (or lack of them). If its not worth it, suggest it should be cut (rather than say its not worth it but there are worse things out there so we won't bother cutting it.)

[segnosaur]

Mentally unstable people would not be able to acquire a license to purchase guns in the first place.

Mental instability can strike anyone any time, sometimes even after they've acquired a license to purchase guns.

But even if we dropped the registry, the fact that the firearms license would still exist in that person's name would give the police justifiable cause to search for firearms in their possession. (i.e. there is limited need to pre-register the firearms.)

I actually hope the gun registry is scrapped and replaced with proper gun control. I'd rather see the vast majority of guns being stored in registered armoury's until needed i.e. for hunting season or target shooting (at a registered range).

I see...

Does that idea extend to anything that can be considered "dangerous"?

What about outdoor swimming pools (where people can drown)... should we ban those? Granted, people find them 'fun', but anyone wanting to go swimming can use a public pool. What about cars (where thousands of people die every year from accidents). Should we force people to use 'safer' public transit? Should all cars be kept in a special 'registered' lot, only to be signed out until needed (and we can check them for intoxication, etc.)?

[segnosaur]

This is the single most dishonest argument people pull-out in arguing that the registry should be junked: "Show me proof of the crimes it has prevented!!!"

Well answer me this, where are the credible statistics for individual acts of prevented crime housed?

Answer: nowhere. Because they simply don't exist.

If they did, they would record every instance where a friend prevented a friend from driving drunk; or incidents where a bank robber was thwarted in his aims by the presence of a squad car outside the bank he was casing; or the drugging and sexual assault that was thwarted because a woman brought her drink with her to the bathroom - preventing her aspiring assailant from spiking her drink.

You're right, you can't necessarily keep statistics on "prevented crime". But the difference between the gun registry and the examples you gave is that the examples you give actually make sense. In other words, there's a logical reason taking a drink to the bathroom prevents it from being spiked... the drink is physically isolated. The problem with the registry is that most of the benefit is already covered by A: the need for an acquisition license, B: the need for proper safety training, and C: other laws (such as those that resolve around safely securing weapons).

How much crime is prevented by the registry is difficult to ascertain. But the reality is that it does serve an important intervention tool in violent domestic situations

As has been pointed out before, any officer going into a potentially dangerous domestic situation will probably always expect the worst, even if the gun registry says "all clear". And whatever benefit is gained, a similar benefit will result in knowing about the existence of an acquisition license.

...has helped to crack burglary networks and has enabled snitch networking by getting suspects in possession of stolen weapons to offer bigger fish in the hopes of mitigating their own misfortune.

People will still probably snitch because:

- Robbery suspects probably won't have acquisition licenses, so even if there's no central registry for a particular firearm, it will still be illegal for them to have any gun

- If/when a gun is reported stolen, most owners will probably be willing to provide whatever information needed to identify which guns are theirs

- Others have pointed out that those selling firearms record the guns that they sell. So, anyone with firearms should be able to identify the seller. A thief obvously wouldn't be able to do that

Anecdotally, I can offer you the following:

...

5 years ago I was at a social function where I happened to learn that the man I was conversing with was a hunter from Perth. I asked him what he would do if a friend asked to borrow one of his guns and he said (roughly paraphrasing) "Happens all the time. I tell them that I'll give the OPP a call first and if they're OK with it, I'm OK with it."...I asked him if he ever faced an objection to his approach and he said that one guy told him "never mind, I'll ask someone else." He called the OPP anyways and the guy was arrested for violating a weapons prohibition order.

Ummmm.. how does the gun registry help there?

I agree its a good thing to check before lending weapons; however, if there is a weapons prohibition order, then simply calling the OPP would have revealed that (and I assume any acquisition license would have been revoked). There would be no need to register each and every firearm to reveal that fact.

[segnosaur]

Why would the police chiefs and the RCMP say its worth having if it wasn't?

I can think of several reasons:

- Pride (i.e. hate to admit that a registry previously supported is somehow 'worthless')

- Politics (i.e. either looks like you're "doing something" to the public, especially those in big cities, or to gain influence with the previous Liberal government who originally brought in the registry.)

- No significant "harm" to them or their budgets (i.e. funding comes from the federal government, so they don't have to see existing, more effective programs cut to affect them)

- Don't want to jeprodize "useful" parts of the program (for example, having a central database of acquisition licenses may actually have some benefit) by criticizing the "useless" parts of the program, in case everything gets cut

- They do indeed think that it "helps" (although it only does so in such a tiny minority of cases, but they have to hide the fact.)

Whether it is one of those, several of those, or something else entirely I don't know, but I feel all are possibly valid reasons.

[eyeball]

But even if we dropped the registry, the fact that the firearms license would still exist in that person's name would give the police justifiable cause to search for firearms in their possession. (i.e. there is limited need to pre-register the firearms.)

A public armoury would do a lot more to deter the ability of people who lose it to reach for a shotgun and go postal. As for them using a knife or baseball bat instead of a gun, I bet most people could out-run these before out-running a bullet.

I see...

Does that idea extend to anything that can be considered "dangerous"?

No, I'd pretty much restrict it's use to things like guns.

What about outdoor swimming pools (where people can drown)... should we ban those? Granted, people find them 'fun', but anyone wanting to go swimming can use a public pool.

No, that would be silly.

What about cars (where thousands of people die every year from accidents). Should we force people to use 'safer' public transit? Should all cars be kept in a special 'registered' lot, only to be signed out until needed (and we can check them for intoxication, etc.)?

I'm appalled that we haven't made any moves whatsoever to even try to develop automated driving systems. I've been looking forward to the day when I can have a cold beer or unwind with a toke as my car delivers me home from work after a hard day's work.

Good grief, it's 2010 folks.

Edited September 2, 2010 by eyeball

[segnosaur]

But even if we dropped the registry, the fact that the firearms license would still exist in that person's name would give the police justifiable cause to search for firearms in their possession. (i.e. there is limited need to pre-register the firearms.)

A public armoury would do a lot more to deter the ability of people who lose it to reach for a shotgun and go postal.

It would also detract from the enjoyment many people get from owning and using guns (the majority of which are not used in any crimes).

There are many risks in the world. Yes, firearms are a problem. Why are they being singled out?

Does that idea extend to anything that can be considered "dangerous"?

No, I'd pretty much restrict it's use to things like guns.

Why the double standard?

What about outdoor swimming pools (where people can drown)... should we ban those? Granted, people find them 'fun', but anyone wanting to go swimming can use a public pool.

No, that would be silly.

But why? Pools are dangerous. We could cut down the danger by eliminating private pools.

So, why the double standard? Why must 99% of the responsible gun owners have their enjoyment limited yet pool owners be unaffected?

What about cars (where thousands of people die every year from accidents). Should we force people to use 'safer' public transit? Should all cars be kept in a special 'registered' lot, only to be signed out until needed (and we can check them for intoxication, etc.)?

I'm appalled that we haven't made any moves whatsoever to even try to develop automated driving systems.

I think some work has been done (but its in the very early stages). Of course, I think that even if we had automated driving systems, people would still prefer being "in control".

But you still haven't answered the question... given today's available technology, do you think we should either eliminate private cars, or force drivers to store them in a registered parking lot? And if not, why the double standard?

Swimming Pools, Cars, and Guns are similar... they provide enjoyment/pleasure for the vast majority of people, or they somehow bring some enhancement to our lives. In each case there are alternatives (public pools, public transit, and 'armories') which would reduce those pleasures but make us safer. Why are you singling out guns as the only potential danger that must be eliminated?

[William Ashley]

What exactly have the done that you would think such hyperbole wouldn't sound ludicrous? I think you're fuming not over anything in particular they've done, but merely because they exist.

And btw, most of the guns in this country are owned by CPC supporters.

And how do you know this?"

Is there some cross listed database

the gun registry

party card holder registry

employed we arn't aware of?

[William Ashley]

A public armoury would do a lot more to deter the ability of people who lose it to reach for a shotgun and go postal.

They exist. But what you are purporting is to have everyone who owns a gun to keep it at a gun club. While this would work in premise - people have guns for various reasons.

There is nothing wrong with someone blowing someone elses head off in self defence

The problem here is justification in insuring "the good guys" are the ones who blow off the heads of the "bad guys".

That is all about what licensing is about. It gives cops who otherwise may be leatherheads a chance to exercise caution with how they deal with someone who may have a gun. OR on the opposite side in the case of an emergency they may respond more seriously to a situation such as domestic or unknown 911 caller etc.. at a location.

Often police can get shot for going onto peoples property uninivited. Sometimes this can involve grow ops other times it can be related to other situations that police try to deal with. Police who are responding to a firearms situation may take extra precaution about vesting or having a contigency plan in case of emergency, they may opt to have their gun ready instead of locked etc.. Some police forces employ gun locks that have keys to open up the gun. If you know the person you are going to be interacting with may have a gun you may better prepare yourself for a standoff etc..

As for them using a knife or baseball bat instead of a gun, I bet most people could out-run these before out-running a bullet.

This is possible. There are still lethal options that arn't illegal able to be employed by someone who really wants to.

The limitaiton of lethality of the general population is basically a end all, people may not like that but it is basically their way or the cellway. Is this right? People who arn't seen as threats meet basic criteria for public safety purposes can have guns. If they are so concerned with having guns able to take out organized groups of criminals, armed gangs etc.. perhaps taking a governmental route would be a more adequette response. Do I think it should be that way. No. But due to the issue of the armed gangs existing if the safegaurds wern't there - would you rather have legalized armed gangs, or gangs that couldn't operate unrestricted. I'm all for private militias but even private militias should be regulated, offered supplimentary supports, and monitored to insure abuse of position doesn't occur. The government can very easily be taken out, and the size of the government isn't adequettely sized, nor economically viable to deal with all situations - it is actually a cost savings to empower local populations - and more can be done. But regulation isn't there. People can still have illegal weapons it is just that those weapons should only be used or need to be used in emergency situations - those that the government cannot act to protect the public. The whole issue of corrupt and evil government is always there, but you arn't going to win that one with a corrupt and evil government. You want a gun, get one, but if you do be prepared to use it. Thing is though, do you need a gun?

Do you want an armed public or a defensless one? An armed public = higher chance of violence, higher chance of injuries and health system dollars, multi million dollar operations for each shooting etc.. The costs can add up.

I think militias and new structure to reserve forces is a way people an still be trained in civil and self defence - then they can apply for firearms licensing. But those records... are public records, that is the main issue. You can't keep those registries safe. it is about public safety not national security, or personal self defence. If someone else has a gun you may be dead - the key here is not saying but criminals have guns - the key here is approaching why you can't get a gun if all you need to do is apply and register. What is the problem here? What is the real problem. If the police forces pay for the registry out of their operating budgets, what is the issue?

I say give peoples guns, if they misuse them, then maybe that will lead to less need for prison budgets and more for funeral costs. Police don't want that reality though, even though they ought to be prepared - police don't like having more risk than forces in Afghanistan. Some may, but I can guess most don't. Them confronting criminals is one thing, but people who are empowered to kill may have a higher chance of taking justice in their own hands --- IF THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY.

So this whole thing.

I don't see an issue with registration from a domestic standpoint - I think it is good - the cost involved on people is a problem thouugh - if it is free... who cares, it may take a few hours in a day and seeing if you can smile when you speak to police while registering instead of looking at your feet when they ask you what you'd like to use it for. Stoping yourself from saying, I got recently divorced...

the police need outreaches though for this stuff... so that people don't need to come to them. eg. call a cop to come to your house and register your gun or inform them of the need to soon register..

I think though that gun retail points should do this.. and really if it is just part of buying the gun.. giving your pal # and showing ID maybe a photo to be sent to the RCMP at the time of purcahse via the internet or fax - what is the problem here.

Its just part of the purchase.. in a time of crisis the same registry can be used to find those people who may be able to assist in a crisis situation.

The bullseye situation is just part of that.. but I support registries, I support militias, and I support a hastle free registry situation.

I'm not purporting blowing peoples heads off who step on your lawn, I am saying that in the very rare chance of someone trying to abduct or do harm that you have the chance for self defence.

Is it needed. No. Cops are an extension of the public - people ought to have the same capacities to deal with critical issues as cops. We don't need police states we need people capable of policing their own safety.

There is nothing wrong with the registry though. It isn't an endall and it won't gather up all weapons. But technologies will enhance the effectiveness by means such as scanning of vehicles and people with new technologies that are now capable, as well as IDs able to be read at distances via RFID -- if you have both a gun and no registry the ability to detect this will dramatically increase over the next decade.

While search without warrant may be unjustified for police it may not be for national security purposes.

Take a look at airport scanning for instance. This is only the begining of breach of security of person via non warranted searches without reasonable grounds. Canadians rights are already being stripped, and there is nothing to stop a not withstanding clause to create a system that can scan by xray or other EM technologies capable of scanning through building materials such as houses to search for firearm hits and determining if they are registered. Think Google maps... scanning a city with photographs or EMing into houses can be done in the same amount of time and computer analyzed. No registry positive material composition hit.... well then. Criminal or terrorist? National security issue public safety threat? What? Knock on the door asking if they own a firearm?

BTW Cops get pals and register their guns to, don't they?

The big thing here is - governments on their way out, probably don't want to empower governments on their way in who don't have the same views as them.

Edited September 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[Visionseeker]

i think it's more a matter of no one being able to figure out how, logically, this registry can possibly prevent crimes. And the supporters not being able to come up with anything.

Indeed, supporters of the registry do a terrible job in selling it's usefulness.

Anyone who has any familiarity with reports which have been commisioned specifically to support something, btw, would look at the RCMP report and shake their head at just how threadbare and desperate were the arguments.

I haven't read the report, but the media coverage focus on stated conclusions instead of highlighting compelling arguments lends support to your argument. Nevertheless, weapons seizures in domestic assault cases have arguably reduced incidents of spousal murder and murder-suicides. The events in Perth some 15 years ago prompted at least one gun owner to check with the police before loaning a weapon to anyone (i.e. enquiring as to their status to handle weapons) which actually resulted in a guy getting arrested for violating his weapon prohibition order.

Recently a roadside stop in MRC lead to the discovery of a weapon stolen during a burglary months before. The recovery of that single registered weapon was the first domino which lead to the cracking of a burglary-network suspected in hundreds of area break-ins and the recovery of over $10,000 in property. The initial bust then produced leads that lead to police through-out the region making a number of arrests for posession of stolen weapons, the discovery of a drug network, a grow-op, card skimming devices and counterfeit credit cards. I learned all this from the burglary victim: a former neighbour and retired OPP officer with a collection of 14 long guns all properly stored. All but one of the weapons were recovered.

...you don't need a registry to tell you when a gun has been stolen.

True, but you need one to quickly determine whether a discovered weapon is with its rightful owner.

So the registry served no useful purpose.

Uh, no. Anyone who suggests it serves no useful purpose tends to lose this argument in my opinion. The relative effectiveness of the registry is certainly open for debate. But simple proclamations of its "uselessness" are both arrogant and demonstrably false.

I'm confused. You're saying this man you were conversing with, aware of his obligations under the firearms act, did not loan his weapon to another individual - which is prohibited unless that individual had a firearms licence. What has that got to do with the gun registry? You are aware, I'm sure, that the registry has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can or can't loan your guns out to people, right?

The point was that after the event years earlier, he refused to take it for granted that someone he's known as a gun owner still has a licence. The lesson he drew from the events was that the registry might well have saved two lives if not for the careless act of another gun owner.

My knowledge of the registry's effectiveness is as lacking as the next guys. Sure I know of an episode here or there where it has helped law enforcement, but then again these could be unrepresentative of the whole or, worse still, there could be wider factors that render the registry a net impediment for law enforcement. The problem is that there simply hasn't been a serious debate about its effectiveness.

The chiefs of police in this country have publicly stated that the registry is useful, they want it retained, and will campaign in favour of its retention. I guess we'll have to see whether police PR units across the country begin to pour story after story of the registry's good uses in the days leading up to the vote in the House. Even so, such a campaign would'nt constitute debate but simply propaganda vs propaganda.

[August1991]

My agency brought in a new HR system about seven years ago. All the staff hate it. The managers I know all hate it. The HR staff hate it. The only people who speak glowingly of it are the seniormost managers. The Auditor General had a look at it and found that not only was it not shortening the time for competitions it was lengthening it, that HR hadn't even tracked how much it was costing (it's HUGELY expensive) and that no one seemed to understand what the end game results were supposed to be.

Nevertheless, senior management is utterly committed to it. At least publicly.

Just because the senior bureaucrats who call themselves cops are in favour of something that doesn't mean the people who know what's what are.

Been there, saw that, done that.

And Argus, municipal police chiefs answer to municipal politicians, or provincial ministers. Who signs off on the money? (In Ontario and Quebec, neither Charest nor McGuinty need gun control problems on their plate.)

The RCMP is different. In this, I thank Trudeau for creating CSIS. And that raises a question: what does the CSIS head think of the long gun registry?

[August1991]

Recently a roadside stop in MRC lead to the discovery of a weapon stolen during a burglary months before. The recovery of that single registered weapon was the first domino which lead to the cracking of a burglary-network suspected in hundreds of area break-ins and the recovery of over $10,000 in property....

VS, as a poster here once said, anecdote is not the plural of data.

By your logic, the government should register every knife in Canada and then, when a registered knife is used in a crime and the "knife-registry" used to find the criminal, you would claim that the "knife-registry" is worthwhile.

For one success, you ignore the costs. And in all these articles/debates, I have only seen the supposed $1 billion or $2 billion cost to the taxpayer of the "gun registry". (Computer systems, civil servants, offices, forms, bureaucracy... )

I have never seen the private cost for people to figure out the form and complete it. How much does it cost to ensure guns are stored safely? I have no idea. I have never owned a gun and I have no idea how much it costs to store one legally.

----

When the State assumes a cost, it is not the same as when citizens assume a cost. When a government adopts a policy, it imposes costs on private citizens that do not appear on the government's budget - unless they are explicit taxes.

Gun control is a good example of this.

----

In my mind, above all, the gun control/registry is an example of why we in Canada must compromise. Urban Canadians view this question differently from rural Canadians. Surely we can find a civilized, workable compromise.

Edited September 3, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

It would also detract from the enjoyment many people get from owning and using guns (the majority of which are not used in any crimes).

It wouldn't eliminate it.

There are many risks in the world. Yes, firearms are a problem. Why are they being singled out?

Why the double standard?

But why? Pools are dangerous. We could cut down the danger by eliminating private pools.

So, why the double standard? Why must 99% of the responsible gun owners have their enjoyment limited yet pool owners be unaffected?

Because pools cannot be used to go postal.

I think some work has been done (but its in the very early stages). Of course, I think that even if we had automated driving systems, people would still prefer being "in control".

It's not hard to imagine entrepreneurs or wealthy people maintaining private roads for recreational driving purposes if the public decides it's roads are to be restricted to automated use only.

But you still haven't answered the question... given today's available technology, do you think we should either eliminate private cars, or force drivers to store them in a registered parking lot? And if not, why the double standard?

Swimming Pools, Cars, and Guns are similar... they provide enjoyment/pleasure for the vast majority of people, or they somehow bring some enhancement to our lives. In each case there are alternatives (public pools, public transit, and 'armories') which would reduce those pleasures but make us safer. Why are you singling out guns as the only potential danger that must be eliminated?

I didn't say eliminate, I said control and they are certainly not the only dangerous things that have controls applied to them.

If people take to using cars as weapons they can be fitted with the means for police to stop them by remote control. I admit I'm at a loss for words as to what we do if people start violently using swimming pools to settle their differences.

Edited September 3, 2010 by eyeball