Gun Control

[Visionseeker]

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

And when a poster acknowledges such limitations, calling them out is like shouting FIRE among the embers of a burnt-out theatre.

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.

Not quite. But by your logic registering a motor vehicle is a stupid pursuit.

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... )

Implementation costs (as ridiculous as they were) do not weigh into a utilitarian calculation of current effectiveness v. maintenance costs.

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.

Yes, those ever so intrusive moments where the government requires you to fill out a form and asks that you safely store dangerous items. Oh the humanity!!! Look, if you can't take 10 minutes to fill out a form and accept that your weapons need to be properly secured, you lack the maturity to handle something as dangerous as a can-opener, let alone a firearm.

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.

You've got it all wrong bro. The state imposes obligations. Whether these obligations take the form of involuntary fanancial contributions or constraints on individual or collective behaviour, such impositions become the varient cost of membership to the polity. The state doesn't impose cost, mans' social construct demands one. In a democracy, the nature and depth of that demand is expressed at the ballot box. The state is not the uninvited oppressor of men, for men invited it by creating it.

Gun control is a good example of this.

Right. So please give me an actuarial assessment of said costs.

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.

Perhaps. There are emotions on both sides of the spectrum that make it difficult to discuss the matter intelligently. I've never had a dog in the race myself, which is why I expect something more than talking points and slogans when discussing the issue.

The registry helps, but does it help enough?

Edited September 3, 2010 by Visionseeker

[eyeball]

The registry helps, but does it help enough?

The people who use it are probably in the best position to know that.

[Bortron]

I'm from a rural area and I enjoy hunting safely and responsibly; I see no need to register long guns. Ending the pointless gun registry is the only thing I like about the Harper government. Good job Conservatives and NDP, I'm glad you guys can get along on this one issue. I've been against the gun registry since I was a a kid. As for the RCMP, shouldn't you guys be trained to always assume there is a fire arm present when arriving at a private residence? I fail to see how knowing there is a gun present in a home will affect you strategy; if anything I'd say the registry would breed complacency.

[DrGreenthumb]

too funny

[Wild Bill]

too funny

How is it funny? I saw a man on a horse,obviously from a rural area, giving his reasoning as to why we need to ensure the gun registry is scrapped.

Someone had added some puerile, condescending giggles to the audio track. Big deal.

Where's the humour?

[charter.rights]

@William Ashley

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

Your problem in defense of scrapping the registry is that you just supported the reasons why it is necessary, by suggesting that long guns are not just a tool of hunting but a means of defense (and by its argument, offense). Police need to know there are weapons in any home, or accessible to any offender they might have contact with. That does not infringe on the accused rights to own and use those weapons but it alerts them to their presence. Our officers should be fully informed with all the information available when they are called to the scene of a crime or domestic complaint. The Registry provides that information.

[Argus]

Why the gun registry is so important...

The Cops Came and Took My Gun

Edited September 3, 2010 by Argus

[Wild Bill]

Just by coincidence, this was in my emailbox this morning"

"Doctors vs. Gun Owners

Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. Is

700,000.

( Accidental deaths caused by Physicians

Per year are

120,000.

© Accidental deaths per physician

is

0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of

Health and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.

Is

80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million)

( The number of accidental gun deaths

Per year, all age groups,

Is

1,500.

© The number of accidental deaths

Per gun owner

Is

.000188.

Statistics courtesy of FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately

9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,

BUT

Almost everyone has at least one doctor.

This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please alert your friends

To this

Alarming threat.

We must ban doctors

Before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Out of concern for the public at large,

I withheld the statistics on

Lawyers

For fear the shock would cause

People to panic and seek medical attention!"

[DrGreenthumb]

How is it funny? I saw a man on a horse,obviously from a rural area, giving his reasoning as to why we need to ensure the gun registry is scrapped.

Someone had added some puerile, condescending giggles to the audio track. Big deal.

Where's the humour?

It's funny because, he doesn't normally talk like that, so one has to wonder who he is trying to impress with his "wild west" act. I was waiting for a Deliverance style dueling banjo's and for him to tell "Woody" to "squeal like a pig", lol.

[eyeball]

Why the gun registry is so important...

The Cops Came and Took My Gun

No one ever said, look, you have to renew your licence; we'll give you two weeks, here's the paperwork you need; and in two weeks, if you don't have the licence we'll have to ask you for the gun.

They should have.

As I said above, I see nothing wrong with having controls on certain dangerous things, including police. I've long advocated the use of wearable cameras on police. These would allow for better evidence gathering and also provide a check against police abusing their authority.

Edited September 3, 2010 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

GUNS are not the problem - de-evolution and the systemic destruction of civility is the problem..we have degraded the population to the point where there is no right or wrong in the general population or within the boundry of what was once law based on good and evil and not on some status quo supporting policy.

[eyeball]

GUNS are not the problem - de-evolution and the systemic destruction of civility is the problem..we have degraded the population to the point where there is no right or wrong in the general population or within the boundry of what was once law based on good and evil and not on some status quo supporting policy.

I agree civility has been degraded but it is political partisans who have done that. I think the population still has a pretty good handle on what is right and wrong and good and evil despite what the partisans say.

[Smallc]

You know what's funny? Inky Mark has tirelessly crusaded against the registry....and is going to step down as MP 7 days before the vote to kill it. Now wouldn't that be funny if the registry survived because of him?

Edited September 3, 2010 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

It's funny because, he doesn't normally talk like that, so one has to wonder who he is trying to impress with his "wild west" act. I was waiting for a Deliverance style dueling banjo's and for him to tell "Woody" to "squeal like a pig", lol.

That's it???

[Keepitsimple]

People on both sides can quote all the statistics and spout moralities all they want.....the proof is in the pudding. Handguns are very restricted and there has been a handgun registry in place since 1934. With so many criminals running around with handguns, it's crystal clear that a REGISTRY DOES NOT WORK. If it hasn't worked for handguns, why would anyone think it work for long guns?

Edited September 3, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

@William Ashley

Your problem in defense of scrapping the registry is that you just supported the reasons why it is necessary, by suggesting that long guns are not just a tool of hunting but a means of defense (and by its argument, offense). Police need to know there are weapons in any home, or accessible to any offender they might have contact with.

Well, in a perfect world I suppose that would be nice. But the registry isn't going to do that. Most "offenders" the cops come in contact with who might actually use a weapon illegally simply buy it illegally and store it illegally.

Also, the registry is full of holes. It has the wrong serial numbers and types for many weapons, or none at all. Its ability to make changes based upon a weapon changing hands, is minimal, nor is it all that good at updating addresses - or names. At best the registry will tell a cop that there MIGHT be a long gun at the reside3nce, but he has to assume that regardless of what the registry says - so where's the benefit?

He going to walk right in, demand the old rifle, then relax once it's in his hands and get shot by the illegal 9mm hand gun the guy keeps in a drawer?

[scribblet]

That's it???

So it seems LOL I guess some folks will read anything or believe anything they want to believe.

[eyeball]

People on both sides can quote all the statistics and spout moralities all they want.....the proof is in the pudding. Handguns are very restricted and there has been a handgun registry in place since 1934. With so many criminals running around with handguns, it's crystal clear that a REGISTRY DOES NOT WORK. If it hasn't worked for handguns, why would anyone think it work for long guns?

Exactly. That's why we should implement real gun control.

As for why so many criminals feel the need to possess and use guns in the first place the proof is in that pudding too. It's also crystal clear what isn't working in that case but knowing that doesn't seem to make a whiff of difference either.

[DrGreenthumb]

People on both sides can quote all the statistics and spout moralities all they want.....the proof is in the pudding. Handguns are very restricted and there has been a handgun registry in place since 1934. With so many criminals running around with handguns, it's crystal clear that a REGISTRY DOES NOT WORK. If it hasn't worked for handguns, why would anyone think it work for long guns?

I'm smoking a 3 gram bowl of high potency marijuana in my double barrel bong while I type this one handed. It's Crystal clear that PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK We should scrap that drug war boondoggle immediately!!!!!

[capricorn]

I'm smoking a 3 gram bowl of high potency marijuana in my double barrel bong while I type this one handed.

Any idea of your word count?

[Alta4ever]

Alta I have never thought people in Toronto should be able to tell those who live in Newfoundland how to live. That is what this is, it is people in big cities (where hand guns are a problem) thinking all guns are the same. They don't care how this will harm the farmer or hunter, they don't know anyone who hunts for their food, they wont have to pay for it, they wont have to go to jail because the Long gun registry doesn't recognize the rural route, private road they live on so they don't care. I do. I live in a city but I shouldn't be allowed to tell those who don't how to live, just as they should not be allowed to tell me how to live.

Punked I am shocked, common ground between us has been found!

Edited September 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[segnosaur]

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

I already debunked many of the arguments made by Visionseeker back in post 116 of this thread. Yet he continues to repeat many of the same responses. If this is typical, perhaps the reason the supporters of the registry do a terrible job at pointing out its usefulness is because that usefulness is pretty, well, useless. (Especially if all he can do is repeat points that have been debunked.)

Nevertheless, weapons seizures in domestic assault cases have arguably reduced incidents of spousal murder and murder-suicides.

Ummmm... if there is spousal abuse, the police should already have the right to seize firearms. I'm sure the victim would be more than willing to provide a list of guns.

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.

Already pointed out that in such cases, it is not the registration of individual guns which was 'useful', it is the presence or absence of an acquisition permit (which, of course, would likely be removed if there was a 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.

As I've already pointed out... if a weapon is stolen, the owners will likely report the theft (including little details like the serial number of whatever firearms were taken.) There is little or no benefit to registering the guns prior to the theft.

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.

Well, you are right in that it may be a but much to say its 'useless'. But you can say that in many (perhaps almost all) cases where the gun registry has been used, alternative methods to accomplish the same goals exist.

For example, in your example where a registered gun helped crack a theft ring, the police might have gotten the same information by simply going to a database of crime details (rather than the gun registry). So, the registry was used, but wasn't essential/critical.

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.

Its already been pointed out to you that the police chiefs may not be representing the opinions of front line officers. Unscientific 'straw polls' have suggested that. (And there are plenty of reasons why the chiefs might claim effectiveness even when it is not.)

[segnosaur]

On having all gun owners keep their firearms in a central 'armoury'...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.

Never said it would eliminate it. I said it would 'detract' from their enjoyment.

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

...

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.

Irrelevant. I've pointed that pools can contribute to unnecessary deaths. Alternatives to pools exist (i.e. public pools). So why the double standards?

Or do you only consider a death as 'significant' if its committed as part of a rampaging murderer? "Sorry your kid drown in the pool. He would have been safe had he gone to the local YMCA, but his death is unimportant."

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...

Ummm... you're really splitting hairs here. You ARE calling for the elimination of at-home storage of firearms to make things safer.

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.

Ummm.... Cars are used as weapons.... 30 seconds of google found the following:

http://www.news.com.au/national/driver-sarah-ward-found-guilty-of-murdering-pedestrian-eli-westlake/story-e6frfkvr-1225846057476

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22481451/detail.html

This is in addition to the multitude of deaths caused by things like drunk driving (where they were not deliberate attempts to kill/injure). Many of those deaths could have been stopped if we eliminated private car ownership, or required people to store their cars at central controlled lots.

So once again, why the double standard?

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.

Ummmm... First of all, I pointed out that the issue is not necessarily one of violent deaths... its a case of avoidable deaths, ones that could have been prevented if people had to use public swimming pools rather than private pools.

Secondly, pools ARE used in many deaths, either suicides or murder.

http://drowningprevention.ilsf.org/node/19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmeet_Singh_Sodhi#Death

So, again, why the double standard?

[eyeball]

Never said it would eliminate it. I said it would 'detract' from their enjoyment.

Too bad so sad I guess, never said I gave a damn though.

Irrelevant. I've pointed that pools can contribute to unnecessary deaths. Alternatives to pools exist (i.e. public pools). So why the double standards?

There's no double standard here, just the irrelevant leap you're making that 100% of everything that is dangerous will now have to be controlled like it was a gun.

Ummm... you're really splitting hairs here. You ARE calling for the elimination of at-home storage of firearms to make things safer.

Which is clearly not the same as calling for their outright elimination. If you're trying to pin me down as having said we should eliminate guns outright you will fail. It's only correct to say I'd like to eliminate the enjoyment of storing guns at home, to make things safer.

Ummm.... Cars are used as weapons.... 30 seconds of google found the following:

http://www.news.com.au/national/driver-sarah-ward-found-guilty-of-murdering-pedestrian-eli-westlake/story-e6frfkvr-1225846057476

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22481451/detail.html

This is in addition to the multitude of deaths caused by things like drunk driving (where they were not deliberate attempts to kill/injure). Many of those deaths could have been stopped if we eliminated private car ownership, or required people to store their cars at central controlled lots.

So once again, why the double standard?

Again, there is no double standard. I've already said we should be automating our transportation systems. Given the huge death toll it's a wonder to me that no leader has made the automation of our roads and cars a priority. To me it should be no less an effort and for a far more practical reason, a challenge comparable to putting a man on the moon within a decade. I think the promise and vision of such a program would be almost guaranteed to get someone elected. The future savings from medical and insurance alone should be enough to bankroll this.

Ummmm... First of all, I pointed out that the issue is not necessarily one of violent deaths... its a case of avoidable deaths, ones that could have been prevented if people had to use public swimming pools rather than private pools.

Secondly, pools ARE used in many deaths, either suicides or murder.

http://drowningprevention.ilsf.org/node/19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmeet_Singh_Sodhi#Death

So, again, why the double standard?

Sorry but this is or was, an issue of preventing violent deaths from guns including long one's. The gun registry was a response to Marc Lepine's rampage and it was sold as a means to prevent these sorts of things from happening. The Liberals cynically pretended the registry would be an acceptable alternative to real controls and I detest the way they manipulated such an important issue as a means to get elected not to mention the *boondoggle of setting it up. That said, the outrage the Conservatives have likewise tried to harness and manipulate via this issue is just as phoney and speaks as little to Marc Lepine as the Liberal's policies. The various arguments Conservatives have used to avoid the original reason Canadians wanted gun control are nothing but strawmen. Their policies sure as hell won't do a damn thing to prevent another Marc Lepine not to mention the crime they've tried to associate with guns.

As for the fact the Conservatives have likewise turned the question of how to prevent more incidents like Marc Lepine's rampage into something entirely different, simply to get elected, speaks to the real double standard at work here. I think you are just as guilty by making the issue of trying to prevent very specific things like Marc Lepine's rampage into preventing all avoidable deaths.

* The infamous boondoggle as I've said by the way, should be viewed as a completely separate issue - an issue of accountability and transparency, something else I notice the Conservatives are just as utterly useless at delivering. No double standard there eh? No Sir-eee.

Edited September 8, 2010 by eyeball

[segnosaur]

Irrelevant. I've pointed that pools can contribute to unnecessary deaths. Alternatives to pools exist (i.e. public pools). So why the double standards?

There's no double standard here, just the irrelevant leap you're making that 100% of everything that is dangerous will now have to be controlled like it was a gun.

Actually, there is a double standard here, even if you don't want to recognize it.

The issue is not whether my examples (of eliminating residential swimming pools/storage of cars) is "making everything 100% safe"... it is why you think that private storage of guns is an issue which demands immediate action, whereas other items that also pose a danger to the public shouldn't likewise require immediate action.

Ummm... you're really splitting hairs here. You ARE calling for the elimination of at-home storage of firearms to make things safer.

Which is clearly not the same as calling for their outright elimination.

You're right, its not. And I never claimed that you were in favor of elimination.

But requiring all firearms to be kept at a central armory, while not 'eliminating' private gun ownership, is still something detrimental to people's enjoyment of firearms. Your only response to that in a previous post was to dismiss it with a sarcastic "too bad".

Ummm.... Cars are used as weapons....

This is in addition to the multitude of deaths caused by things like drunk driving (where they were not deliberate attempts to kill/injure). Many of those deaths could have been stopped if we eliminated private car ownership, or required people to store their cars at central controlled lots.

So once again, why the double standard?

Again, there is no double standard.

Yes there is, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

I've already said we should be automating our transportation systems.

Which of course is irrelevant. Even if we did attempt to automate transportation, it would take decades to accomplish. We can eliminate private ownership of cars now, and save all those lives between now and when we do create reliable automatic transportation. And to anyone who gets enjoyment out of having their own personal transportation we can say "too bad sucks to be you".

So, once again, why the double standard? Why must we tell firearm owners "too bad we don't care if you're unhappy but its safer if you don't have guns at home", but you don't want to tell pool owners and car owners "too bad, we don't care if you're unhappy but you don't need a personal car/swimming pool".

All of the rest of your post (regarding the political manipulations by various parties over gun issues) I won't bother responding to because they are not relevant to the question I am posting to you: Why do you feel one 'dangerous' object should be treated different than other similarly dangerous objects.

Edited September 8, 2010 by segnosaur