Wild Bill Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Why are gun owners so afraid to register their weapons? Man, what planet have you been living on? Ork? This is OLD stuff! There was never a problem registering weapons. It's just that the gun registry did far more than that! Hunters had acquired FACs for generations, namely Firearms Certificates. They had to pass a safety course to get one. The Liberal gun registry also included firearms used by farmers to control wolves, bears, coyotes and the like. Farmers usually only grumbled over more paperwork but the new stiff fees rather pissed them off! Especially since they could see no benefit for themselves for the fees, only political points for Liberals in Quebec cities after Marc LePine. The Liberal gun registry also put a very low limit on the number of firearms one could own. It also charged the same fees for each gun. This wiped out gun collections! There was no compensation for the worth of antique firearms, either. Why would there be? The Liberal interest was never to be fair. It was simply a vote grab after that horrific school shooting. Meanwhile, the costs of the Liberal registry just grew and grew and grew, into BILLIONS of dollars! Worse yet, the actual data entry of the registry was months if not years behind! It was also quite screwed up and full of errors! Of course, it was very unlikely that any actual crook or nutbar ever registered his gun. That meant that although it was routine for any cop about to enter a place to check the gun registry to see if it said there was a weapon there the check was actually useless. It would only confirm if an honest owner had registered a weapon at that address. Since a crook or nutbar might have an unregistered weapon a cop had to treat the address as possibly having a weapon anyway. A stranger can walk into virtually any bar in southern Ontario and if he handles himself correctly can buy a pistol within a few hours. Who told me this? My own brother-in-law, a cop on the SWAT team! I consider him a credible source. So your question is one that has been asked of firearm owners many times before, to the point where they find it naive and aggravating! As for myself, I would have had at least a small amount of respect for the Liberal gun registry if it had of added even ONE DAY extra to the sentence for using an illegal firearm in the commission of a crime. It didn't! Don't believe me? Read the damn thing! Worse yet, initially the penalty for failing to register a firearm was much more onerous than what criminals typically receive for using such a gun to hold up a variety store! To me, that made it obvious as to the REAL purpose behind the Liberal gun registry! Legal gun owners are rarely a problem. When someone comes up with a registry structured to actually protect us from people who use guns in an unlawful manner then and ONLY then will I support it! Otherwise, I say to any politicians involved to shut up and stop bullshitting me that you are actually doing it to protect me and my family. Actions speak far louder than words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 They're not. And the right question to ask is - how does gun registration actually serve the public interest and justify its cost? It keeps the gun owners in check and provides the police with a data base to trace the bad guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Man, what planet have you been living on? Ork? This is OLD stuff! There was never a problem registering weapons. It's just that the gun registry did far more than that! Hunters had acquired FACs for generations, namely Firearms Certificates. They had to pass a safety course to get one. The Liberal gun registry also included firearms used by farmers to control wolves, bears, coyotes and the like. Farmers usually only grumbled over more paperwork but the new stiff fees rather pissed them off! Especially since they could see no benefit for themselves for the fees, only political points for Liberals in Quebec cities after Marc LePine. The Liberal gun registry also put a very low limit on the number of firearms one could own. It also charged the same fees for each gun. This wiped out gun collections! There was no compensation for the worth of antique firearms, either. Why would there be? The Liberal interest was never to be fair. It was simply a vote grab after that horrific school shooting. Meanwhile, the costs of the Liberal registry just grew and grew and grew, into BILLIONS of dollars! Worse yet, the actual data entry of the registry was months if not years behind! It was also quite screwed up and full of errors! Of course, it was very unlikely that any actual crook or nutbar ever registered his gun. That meant that although it was routine for any cop about to enter a place to check the gun registry to see if it said there was a weapon there the check was actually useless. It would only confirm if an honest owner had registered a weapon at that address. Since a crook or nutbar might have an unregistered weapon a cop had to treat the address as possibly having a weapon anyway. A stranger can walk into virtually any bar in southern Ontario and if he handles himself correctly can buy a pistol within a few hours. Who told me this? My own brother-in-law, a cop on the SWAT team! I consider him a credible source. So your question is one that has been asked of firearm owners many times before, to the point where they find it naive and aggravating! As for myself, I would have had at least a small amount of respect for the Liberal gun registry if it had of added even ONE DAY extra to the sentence for using an illegal firearm in the commission of a crime. It didn't! Don't believe me? Read the damn thing! Worse yet, initially the penalty for failing to register a firearm was much more onerous than what criminals typically receive for using such a gun to hold up a variety store! To me, that made it obvious as to the REAL purpose behind the Liberal gun registry! Legal gun owners are rarely a problem. When someone comes up with a registry structured to actually protect us from people who use guns in an unlawful manner then and ONLY then will I support it! Otherwise, I say to any politicians involved to shut up and stop bullshitting me that you are actually doing it to protect me and my family. Actions speak far louder than words. Your anger is showing. Tell me have you registered all your guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) IOW, if someone is coming through your front door and you are at the wide open back door, shooting the person will be your first mistake, since you have an easy exit. Really. So if the robbers approach Brink's truck the guards should run away. Edited July 12, 2011 by Saipan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 It keeps the gun owners in check and provides the police with a data base to trace the bad guys. How does it do that, exactly? You think the "bad guys" register their guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Tell me have you registered all your guns? Why? There's no need to register all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Quick question to Bob and to Guyser... do you folks own/use guns/have much comfort level with them? Comfort level is good,dont own one, had a small bb gun and thats it. But the premise I was getting at is if one is only using a gun for target practice, then having gun and ammo appart is not a problem. Perhaps I was projecting but why else would it be a concern to that poster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Criminal Code suggest that one does not have any duty to defend if one has an exit route . It's a Right, not duty. It should be duty of police but they fail 99% of the time for obvious reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Why? There's no need to register all. Take Saipan for instance. He hides his weapons and somehow moves guns back and forth acrosss the border. I doubt all his guns are registered. Edited July 12, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Imagine how much of a reduction we'd see in break-and-enter crimes if more Canadians armed themselves and defended their lives and property. How about none? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 But the premise I was getting at is if one is only using a gun for target practice, then having gun and ammo appart is not a problem. Given the statistics keeping car and gas apart makes more sense. Do you keep your car locked in a garage, with steering also locked and gas in separate location? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Really. So if the robbers approach Brink's truck the guards should run away. When you are ready to make a valid point , come on back. If still stuck on stupid, stay away. Brinks are not in their own home, nor are they private citizens but Federally licenced frie arm carriers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 This must be a chapter of some gun club. Do you have a gun bible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 It's a Right, not duty. LOL....sure sure. Please quote the statute or bow out, Very easy simple question, which by the way you will not be able to answer or show me nor anyone else in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Take Saipan for instance. He hides his weapons I don't have any weapons. Only firearms, sailboats, machines, scuba stuff........ Do you have knives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 It keeps the gun owners in check and provides the police with a data base to trace the bad guys. Why do gun owners have to be kept in check? How does it provide a 'bad guy' database? I don't think you know...because it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 It's a Right, not duty. It should be duty of police but they fail 99% of the time for obvious reason. You can't carry a police officer around with you in your pocket, that's why. And if you could, you'd have to lock him or her up in a closet, with the ammunition for his or her firearm in another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 This must be a chapter of some gun club. Do you have a gun bible? By my count, Saipan is the only gun owner who has said a word today. (Unless, Wild Bill? IIRC you have none, correct?) You and him seem to be opposite sides of the same coin... except he's done some research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Why? There's no need to register all. In fact there is no need to register any of them, either under federal or under some potential future provincial law. More accurately, the millions of currently unregistered guns will remain that way. By my count, Saipan is the only gun owner who has said a word todayHey, it is just like real life for gun registration, the reality does not match anybodys statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Maybe someone can explain this to me, when I read about gun control laws in Canada awhile back (which included official stuff such as reading the relevant Criminal Code sections), I read that guns DO need to be registered, which I figured was the product of licensing. What am I missing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Maybe someone can explain this to me, when I read about gun control laws in Canada awhile back (which included official stuff such as reading the relevant Criminal Code sections), I read that guns DO need to be registered, which I figured was the product of licensing. What am I missing here? A fair question. I too am not an enthusiast, but I sense something boneheaded about this whole mess. At any rate, I think the onus should be on those supporting the (newer) registry to explain why it's needed. All I've heard so far is that "the police support it." A big generalization, at best...but even if it were 100% true, that's not a strong argument in and of itself. Some police would no doubt embrace the banishing of such irritants as warrants and other restrictions on their power, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Imagine how much of a reduction we'd see in break-and-enter crimes if more Canadians armed themselves and defended their lives and property.How about none? Not true, in some US town it is illigal not to own and carry a fire arm, there crime rates are the lowest in the state and country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) I was actually a little surprised the Edmonton Police wanted to have a "knife" registry since knifings were an issue... leading to injuries and deaths. It was seen as "unfeasible". They wanted to register certain types of knives only. The difference between a federal registry, a provincial or municipal registry are that I would think they would be more enforced the lower down the totem you get. I think this has a history in the civilized west.. you know you need to check your weapons at the gate with the sheriff and collect them when you leave town type stuff. I think the registry is only able to be implemented at the point of sale. I'm a little surprised that the billions of dollars in setting up the registry (and only millions to run it each year) is being thrown out the window. Is it needed, no. But seat belts aren't needed either. Nor are helmets. Or police on the roads. They all do the same thing - reduce injuries and death. Just think preventing 3 serious injuries a year would equal the economic and medical cost of implementing the registry. I think the real problem is that it isn't automated. I do think it makes sense to check to see if guns are being sold legally.. that is making sure that the firearm is being sold to a licensed individual.. or someone not prohibited from possessing, such as via court order or medical order. I think that is the underlying benefit. Of course with corrupt government and institutions you might be depriving a good person from that gun, but I think it does serve a useful purpose. I should add though that the necessary detection technology now exists, and if people are required to tag and have their licensed with them detecting contraband firearms is now possible through wide field scanning technologies. Its not impossible for provincial, and municipal police to set up scanners to detect weapons entering the jurisdiction, not unlike the same process at the borders. Of course the technology isn't seemingly being fully implemented. Finding weapons not being tagged with the proper token or id holder is technologically possible now. That 5 million could of course be spent rolling out detection technologies. I think that that is a solution "over" a registry. While point of sale of "new" weapons could and should be implemented. Between the two it is a background way of protecting. (The search and seizure warrant issue is another issue though.) They do however scan and use metal detectors on people flying these days without a warrant. The UK is already pursuing this in part: http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/D079179/1 The same tech of course also has military usages not just civil defence. We are of course a decade away from flying robots using this stuff though. If it ain't "Canada" it will be "customs and border patrol" (DHS) doing it for us with its "joint jurisdiction of the "Canadian Border" (Canada being a US border between the US and Russia.) No need for warrants when it is legal espionage. Went from a 1 mile border to a 3 mile to a 10 mile to a 100 mile... and now "Canada" Either Canada does it for themselves or the US will do it for Canada. Edited July 12, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Maybe someone can explain this to me, when I read about gun control laws in Canada awhile back (which included official stuff such as reading the relevant Criminal Code sections), I read that guns DO need to be registered, which I figured was the product of licensing. What am I missing here? You are right that guns are legally supposed to be registered. The reality is that many are not and will not be because the owners have chosen to ignore the law. It is dead easy to buy ammo or new weapons through proxies and communally, common practice in some communities , known about by local law enforcement and.... ignored. I know a woman who buys ammo for at least 50 hunters in her community, all of whom own several weapons and zero are registered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Your anger is showing. Tell me have you registered all your guns? What kind of ad hominem diversion is that? Are you fishing to find out if my middle name is 'Bubba', in which case you can dismiss my entire argument because I must be a 'gun nut'? FYI, I do not nor have I ever owned a firearm of any kind. Now, how about addressing my points? So far you've given us diddleysquat! I suspect its because you have nothing logical to give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.