Gun Control

[wulf42]

It will inconvenience a very few people for the benefit of the many.

Tell that to 8 Million legal gun owners in this Country,There are already strict laws in place against anyone caught carrying a prohibited weapon but that doesn't stop gangs from getting them....people say "stop the guns coming from the USA" well that would work about as well as stopping drugs coming from Columbia......lol there isn't enough money, resources or officers to deal with that. Guns are a fact of life in Canada and that is the way its going to stay.

Edited September 15, 2010 by wulf42

[yarg]

This country is screwed.

Edited September 15, 2010 by yarg

[waldo]

we should have told no nothing half wits like you to go fuck yourselves years ago... you people are idiots, you are afraid of your own shadows, you're pathetic and weak

What the fuck is wrong with your head

you are pathetic and a blight on this country, fuck you and your fucking city, it is people just like you that have made most of them dangerous places to live, you welcomed all off the worlds human trash with open arms, and now when they start shooting each other I have to make sacrifices, what scum you are.

uhhhh... are your guns registered? Just sayin.

[Topaz]

Well, it seems Harper's Parl.Sec. MP Pierre Poillevre, is having memory problems. He says he doesn't know Tony Bernardo, but four years ago, Harper's gov't appointed him to the National Firearms Advisory Group. Bernardo, may have connection the the US NRA. I could understand if the NRA would want to stop this registry going forward, for fear the US would try the same thing there.Anyway, it just more of Tory games. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/14/nra-gun-registry.html

[M.Dancer]

gangs don't normally kill civilians unless they get caught in a crossfire,

Thay do that almost as much as they don't..Jane Kreba comes to mind as well as a handful more young folk who happened to be in the way.

[Jack Weber]

Thay do that almost as much as they don't..Jane Kreba comes to mind as well as a handful more young folk who happened to be in the way.

The biker gangs are as bad as the Jamaican drug gangs,if not worse...

Perhaps we need something similar to the RICO Stautes like they have in the US where you go after the gangs on Racketeering then nail them on the Income Tax evasion and gun possession crimes???

Edited September 15, 2010 by Jack Weber

[eyeball]

But you CANNOT readily stop a person like Lepine who is determined to kill and does not care if he himself survives. Guys like him are a nightmare for security people including the Secret Service.

The biggest deterrent is the threat that you wioll get caught and you will go to jail forever. Lepine did not care about that, he knew he would be the last to die.

If he did not have a gun, he'd have found another one of the myriad ways to slaughter people.

Would these other ways have delivered the same bang for the buck though? Guns are clearly the weapons of choice used by homicidal/suicidal maniacs of the Lepine variety everywhere. I'm quite certain there are instances of the odd person using a knife or a car but they are so rare compared to guns, because they are not guns. A gun is just so much easier and certain, especially when it comes to using the final bullet, and there must be some cultural factor that accounts for why some people feel the need to go out in a blaze of gunfire and 'glory'.

As far as deterrents to going postal say with a knife, the thought of killing yourself with it at the end of your rampage would probably deter most people. A gun like I said is a lot more certain and it's quicker and quite likely a lot less painful than a knife. A car would provide even less certainty of a painless quick end.

I just don't buy this argument that every potential maniac is going to switch to other weapons. There will never be a way to eliminate every single one but I think we can count on preventing a lot more maniacal rampages with gun control than without it.

I don't think a simple registry will do damn thing to prevent people like Lepine. The guns will still be just as accessible to them as before. The registry changes nothing.

Edited September 15, 2010 by eyeball

[fellowtraveller]

how else is someone like Lapine going to slaughter large numbers of people quickly, a bomb would not be his choice because it's to impersonal people like that want to see the terror and carnage up close...a knife is slow and chances are bystanders will group together and take him down if the police don't take him out first...

but if we find the political will to do it the next step would be to remove semi-automatic assault type weapons...it's very difficult for mass killers to amass large kill numbers using weapons of low rate of fire before the police gun them down...I used to own firearms of various types, single or double shot shotguns is all you need for ducks, bolt action rifles is sufficient for other hunting needs...

Are you pretending to be stupid? I hope so, the alternative is worse.

Fact: Lepine was determined to kill a lot of women and did not care if the died himself. If he did not have access to an automatic weapon, there are several ways he could do this? How about fly an aircraft into the school? Why not a bomb? How about hack a dozen or two to bits as is done quite often in China, right now?

People don't group together when they are being slaughtered, they try to escape then try to hide. He could have done the same thing with a pair of 12 guage pump shotguns holding five shells each. Put down the first 10 frisky ones and the rest can be killed at his leisure, hiding under desks. That is what happened at Columbine and elsewhere, most were killed with handguns at close range. The police don't get to the classroom for 10 to 30 minutes and do not just charge in anyway. In 15 minutes anybody could fire perhaps 100 shotgun shells reloading 10 times.

The US Secret Service knows the very most dangerous assassin is one that has no exit plan....anf that was Lepine. and that will be future Lepines too. Changing the utility of their weapon changes nothing in reality, it does change the perception of a few delusional folks.

[segnosaur]

So, what you're saying is that you don't actually care about total lives saved, only in lives saved when people "express rage". And you'd be quite happy with hundreds, if not thousands of people dying unnecessarily as long as those deaths are not from "rage". Is that an accurate assessment?

No, it's a completely retarded assessment.

Well, you see, here's the problem... time after time, you talk about firearms in terms of 'rage' and 'mass murder', suggesting those are things that must be dealt with. Yet when I bring up unnecessary deaths due to things like drunk driving/road rage/accidental drownings, you either A: ignore the issue, or B: propose lame solutions that are either impractical, implausible, or won't work.

Perhaps if you want to be seen as caring about all those other deaths, you'll suggest real solutions rather than magical technological solutions.

What I'm interested in doing is preventing mass murders involving guns because I think there is a lot we can do to prevent them.

And once again... there's a lot we can do to prevent other deaths right now (from cars and swimming pools), without waiting for some magical technological solution.

I'm also interested in doing what ever is feasible when it comes to saving lives elsewhere...

Its feasible now to outlaw the construction of outdoor pools, and/or to require all automobiles to be stored in "government parking lots".

...but I'm not calling for the outright prohibition of guns, cars or swimming pools despite whatever you think or think I should or am saying otherwise.

Ummm... I know you're not calling for the prohibition of guns. (I even tried to make it a point to use the word "possession" rather than "ownership"). However, you are calling them to be stored in 'government armories', something which would decrease the enjoyment and usefulness of firearms. (And when I pointed out that fact, your only response was "too bad, so sad".)

Yet when I suggest that if you are truly interested in cutting down unnecessary deaths the same rules be applied to cars and swimming pools, your response is to suggest infeasible technical solutions.

By the way what about the glaring problem in your argument, that stiffer sentencing will prevent a mass homicide by somone who plans on committing suicide? Do you intend to resuscitate the perp or something?

Ummmm... not sure what you're referring to here. I don't recall talking about "stiffer sentences preventing mass homicide".

I do remember talking about increased penalties for improperly storing guns and/or using them in crimes, but that involves more than just "mass homicide".

Except that it won't if an individual drinks while driving. Nor will it prevent people using a car in the commission of a premeditated crime when completely sober.

Not to mentioned the issue that it would probably take years to install breathalyzers on cars, while in the meantime hundreds if not thousands will die in the meantime.

The issue here is preventing mass murder with guns not booze. The issue is not about saving every single life that faces risk every single day in our world. It's a specific issue we're talking about - reducing the risk that guns pose.

The fact that you seem to have such a narrow focus does not mean that others share that same focus.

I do not feel that "swimming pool acquisition certificates" are necessary. But then, that's my point... I am being consistent. I recognize that both Guns and Swimming pools (as well as cars) are "safe enough" to allow private possession. You, on the other hand, are the one that is employing a double standard... ignoring the risk in one case but attempting to eliminate the risk in another.

Excuse me I said prevent risk not eliminate it.

Well, excuse me, but technically I said you were "attempting to eliminate the risk".

Frankly, I think your complaint (about 'eliminate' vs 'prevent') is rather idiotic. Its splitting hairs, attempting to deflect the poor logic in your arguments by trying to shift focus on the fact that your arguments lack merit.

I also recognize that guns are safe enough to possess we simply disagree on how possession should be regulated and controlled.

Ummm... the term 'possession' has more than 1 meaning. While it can mean "ownership", it can also mean (according to the dictionary) "to have and hold as property (as distinct from ownership)". In fact, at no point have I claimed that you were against private ownership of firearms, and have pointed out in the past that we were dealing with private storage of firearms (see for example post #158).

Edited September 15, 2010 by segnosaur

[Sir Bandelot]

Was listening to the radio news today and they came on and said that the BC police chiefs and police union urge the government to support the long gun registry.

"I want to be perfectly clear here. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police supports the continuation of the firearms registry as a crucial component of both the public and police officer safety," said Pecknold. "The registry gives police officers across this country timely reliable information going into potentially deadly situations. Eliminating the registry will inevitably and needlessly endanger the lives of police and the communities they serve across Canada."

West Vancouver police Chief Peter Lepine said his officers use the long-gun registry an average of 18 times a day in preparing for domestic violence calls or when dealing with potentially dangerous offenders.

BC police officers use the registry 2700 times a day.

B.C. top cops voice support for long-gun registry

'nuff said

[wyly]

Are you pretending to be stupid? I hope so, the alternative is worse.

Fact: Lepine was determined to kill a lot of women and did not care if the died himself. If he did not have access to an automatic weapon, there are several ways he could do this? How about fly an aircraft into the school? Why not a bomb? How about hack a dozen or two to bits as is done quite often in China, right now?

People don't group together when they are being slaughtered, they try to escape then try to hide. He could have done the same thing with a pair of 12 guage pump shotguns holding five shells each. Put down the first 10 frisky ones and the rest can be killed at his leisure, hiding under desks. That is what happened at Columbine and elsewhere, most were killed with handguns at close range. The police don't get to the classroom for 10 to 30 minutes and do not just charge in anyway. In 15 minutes anybody could fire perhaps 100 shotgun shells reloading 10 times.

The US Secret Service knows the very most dangerous assassin is one that has no exit plan....anf that was Lepine. and that will be future Lepines too. Changing the utility of their weapon changes nothing in reality, it does change the perception of a few delusional folks.

when calling someone stupid you should make sure you know what your talking about first...

murders like these are personal, they're based on extreme rage where the killer wants see and feel the terror flying planes into buildings or bombs don't give that same satifaction, it's no different than a rape, sex isn't the ultimate goal it's the violence and domination that are the turn on...

Lepine hated women his objective was to terrorize them, it was personal with him unlike flying a plane into a building which is impersonal...

shotguns are very hard to conceal unless you cut off the barrels and once that's done they're useless at range and a cop with a pistol will take a killer out quite easily...lepine had 30 round clips which allowed a higher kill rate than a shotgun, a shotgun would have allowed for more to escape and survive...

next do your research before you post so you don't look so stupid...

[Jack Weber]

Was listening to the radio news today and they came on and said that the BC police chiefs and police union urge the government to support the long gun registry.

"I want to be perfectly clear here. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police supports the continuation of the firearms registry as a crucial component of both the public and police officer safety," said Pecknold. "The registry gives police officers across this country timely reliable information going into potentially deadly situations. Eliminating the registry will inevitably and needlessly endanger the lives of police and the communities they serve across Canada."

West Vancouver police Chief Peter Lepine said his officers use the long-gun registry an average of 18 times a day in preparing for domestic violence calls or when dealing with potentially dangerous offenders.

BC police officers use the registry 2700 times a day.

B.C. top cops voice support for long-gun registry

'nuff said

Odd that the Con's are on the side of the paranoid libertarians and NOT the police this time?

[M.Dancer]

Odd that the Con's are on the side of the paranoid libertarians and NOT the police this time?

I'm on the side of gun control and the registry isn't gun control. Had they tweeked the FAC instead of pouring money down the drain to fund the bugger, it would be less odious.

[capricorn]

Odd that the Con's are on the side of the paranoid libertarians and NOT the police this time?

You think it's a one off?

Just because the Conservatives have a law and order agenda doesn't mean they have to suck up to the police Chiefs and associations.

[wyly]

Odd that the Con's are on the side of the paranoid libertarians and NOT the police this time?

my cop friend always told me the situations he feared most were domestic disputes...sanity goes right out the window as rage and raw emotion make for a extremely volatile situation ...

[capricorn]

sanity goes right out the window as rage and raw emotion make for a extremely volatile situation ...

When drugs and/or booze is involved, the danger is thousandfold.

[Jack Weber]

I'm on the side of gun control and the registry isn't gun control. Had they tweeked the FAC instead of pouring money down the drain to fund the bugger, it would be less odious.

I agree that it really does'nt get at the root of the problem of illegal handguns,but I don't get the problem with actually having to register rifles???

I mean,so what?

[Jack Weber]

You think it's a one off?

Just because the Conservatives have a law and order agenda doesn't mean they have to suck up to the police Chiefs and associations.

Ah...So it could be construed as an anti-union thing???

Well,that's right up the neo-liberal Friedmanite's alley then!!!

The fact of the matter is that the Con's almost always side with the cops on any law and order issue,except this one because it's red meat for the kooky right wing base....

[Sir Bandelot]

Ah...So it could be construed as an anti-union thing???

Well,that's right up the neo-liberal Friedmanite's alley then!!!

The fact of the matter is that the Con's almost always side with the cops on any law and order issue,except this one because it's red meat for the kooky right wing base....

The article states the union is also in support of it.

I am in favour of real gun control too. Don't know if this is the real deal or not. But since it's a tool that primarily the cops would use, not me, I'll listen to them first. How does that not make sense?

Edited September 16, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[segnosaur]

Was listening to the radio news today and they came on and said that the BC police chiefs and police union urge the government to support the long gun registry.

Ummm.... the issues brought up in that particular news item have been dealt with many times before. Why exactly do you keep rehashing things that have been dealt with, without bringing anything really new to the table? Do you think that just by repeating information that opponents of the registry will magically be convinced otherwise?

If you want to be convincing, why don't you actually try bringing in actual convincing evidence? Like, for example, some actual random survey of rank and file police officers?

"The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police supports the continuation of the firearms registry as a crucial component of both the public and police officer safety," said Pecknold.

As has been pointed out before:

- The fact that either unions or "Chiefs of police" support the registry does not mean that the rank and file do

- The results of a "straw poll" have been posted in this thread that suggest that most front-line officers are actually opposed to the registry

- A number of reasons why the chiefs might support an ineffective registry have already been posted in this thread.

"The registry gives police officers across this country timely reliable information going into potentially deadly situations."

It has already been pointed out that:

- A police officer must treat all situations as potentially deadly. Relying on a registry that is incomplete will at best be useless (since officers should expect at least the possibility of unregistered firearms). At worse, it will actually put them at greater danger, if the registry gives them a false sense of security

- Even if there is an advantage, pretty much the same benefit would be provided by giving access to a database of acquisition certificates (without the need to register individual firearms).

BC police officers use the registry 2700 times a day.

As has been pointed out, the number of time the registry has been accessed is likely an inflated statistic, since the registry is checked for routine matters, even if there is no reason to expect firearms are involved.

[segnosaur]

The article states the union is also in support of it.

You are, of course, making the rather questionable assumption that the desires of "the union" always reflect the opinions of the membership. That is not always the case. (Unions best reflect the opinions of those most active within the organization. Its quite possible that a significant number of union members oppose the registry, but do not care to be involved in the union, due to either time constraints, or personal beliefs.)

I am in favour of real gun control too. Don't know if this is the real deal or not. But since it's a tool that primarily the cops would use, not me, I'll listen to them first. How does that not make sense?

Because at this point, you're not actually listening to actual police officers. So far, you're only listening to:

- The chiefs of police, who may have political reasons for supporting the registry regardless of its effectiveness

- The unions, who may only be expressing the opinions of a subset of members (ignoring those who do not get involved in union activities)

[segnosaur]

my cop friend always told me the situations he feared most were domestic disputes...sanity goes right out the window as rage and raw emotion make for a extremely volatile situation ...

Just out of curiosity, did you ever ask your cop friend whether he trusts the registry with his life? The assumption by supporters of the registry seem to believe it "warns police of danger", but dose your police friend still go in to any domestic dispute situation (heck, any situation) with the assumption that there could be violence (even gun violence) even if the registry says "all clear"?

And if your cop friend still prepares for potential gun violence (even if the registry says "all clear"), then just what is the great value in it?

[DrGreenthumb]

but if we find the political will to do it the next step would be to remove semi-automatic assault type weapons...it's very difficult for mass killers to amass large kill numbers using weapons of low rate of fire before the police gun them down...I used to own firearms of various types, single or double shot shotguns is all you need for ducks, bolt action rifles is sufficient for other hunting needs...

That kind of thinking is EXACTLY why we in rural Canada will NEVER support the gun registry. It is just the first step in firearm confiscation. There will always be people like you, who once they know what guns we have, will keep narrowing the definition of an allowed firearm. Semi automatic rifles? Nope no need for those, tommorrow it will be magnums, or high calibre rifles. Then a 12 guage will be enough, no need for that 10 guage your grandpa willed to you. I hope some Liberals break ranks and don't show for the vote, and enough NDP MP's vote to take down the registry. I've owned a semi-auto since I was about 10 and guess what, it has never killed anyone. It has worked well as a tool to help me kill rats, coyotes and skunks tho.

Edited September 16, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[Molly]

In a way, that's a thing folks should say more often, Greenthumb. No one mentions it, and when they do, they usually face ridicule.

That is exactly why so very many guns went underground, and why so many of them have stayed underground, in spite of amnesties. When people know so little about guns/gun laws, yet are so clearly hostile to them, they are not bound by fact nor influenced by reason, so across-the-board confiscation is the obvious endpoint.

No amount of yielding or compliance could ever be 'enough'.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Molly

[eyeball]

That kind of thinking is EXACTLY why we in rural Canada will NEVER support the gun registry. It is just the first step in firearm confiscation. There will always be people like you, who once they know what guns we have, will keep narrowing the definition of an allowed firearm. Semi automatic rifles? Nope no need for those, tommorrow it will be magnums, or high calibre rifles. Then a 12 guage will be enough, no need for that 10 guage your grandpa willed to you. I hope some Liberals break ranks and don't show for the vote, and enough NDP MP's vote to take down the registry. I've owned a semi-auto since I was about 10 and guess what, it has never killed anyone. It has worked well as a tool to help me kill rats, coyotes and skunks tho.

What do you suggest we do to prevent more Marc Lepines from using guns? I've heard the argument from many a gun advocate that nothing at all can be done to prevent this but I haven't heard a single politician argue that this is why we shouldn't try to prevent them. If the inconvenience and burden of gun control is so onerous and invasive that society feels it can afford the occasional Lepine then why can't the politicians just say so? We obviously accept a lot more death and injury from other dangerous activities like swimming and driving, why not the few that guns cause?

Preventing another Marc Lepine was the original reason for the registry, now that seems to be the farthest thing from it, why is that?