Gun Control

[Jack Weber]

The long-gun registry doesn't make urban environments safer. What would make urban environments safer is stricter border controls and long jail sentences for gun smugglers.

Yes...

And a willingness of the mebers of the communities that are hit hardest by this behaviour to actually tell the cops about who's got the guns...

[scribblet]

Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of independent verification for that? The reference given points to a National Firearms Association web site (not that I'm saying they are necessarily a deceptive organization; I'd just like an unbiased opinion.)

There are some valid reasons to oppose the gun registry. I just don't want any valid reasons to be lost amongst a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theories.

No, I don't have anything else, I don't imagine they would deliberately fabricate something like that so publicly.

The report will be released soon, but expect a lot of turd polishing, the Chiefs et al need to keep their money coming in.

Edited August 31, 2010 by scriblett

[Smallc]

I eagerly await the statistical evidence to back this one up.

Well, you can now read the RCMP report that says that the long gun registry is working.

[eyeball]

I wish the left had the balls to admit to the real problems instead of running down the responsible gun owner.

You've never seen anyone from the left pointing at prohibition and admitting that's where the vast majority of the real problems associated with guns is? Sheer spite is probably enough to justify even more gun-control.

I think the real problem is this however, the so-called big tent on the right that somehow has enough room for people who are thoroughly revolted at the thought of the state climbing all over people's backs and people who are also very enthusiastic about the state jumping all over them at the same time. There is something fundamentally perverted about this and I've yet to see a good accounting for the tolerance two such disparate positions have for each other under one roof. To be fair to the right though I think the center's chronic fear of being seen as soft on crime results in an even more retarded unchanging situation. The left has never been in a position to do much if anything about this but leave it up to the right and the center to slam it as the supporters of BIG STATE intrusion and bottomless, pointless money pits, like prohibition.

Meanwhile, a good 50 - 60% of police calls are to respond to domestic violence that's fuelled by the alcohol the state sells and up to half the prison population in this country is believed to have been born with foetal alcohol syndrome. We expect the same state that sells dope that actually causes people to become criminals by damaging their brains in the womb to crack down and get tough never mind serious, about crime? How? I just don't get that. The moral dissonance alone is enough to drive a person to use substances and feel like blowing something away.

What we also need is a registry for people that drink. If enough gun-happy boozers finally get pissed off at having the state all over their backs maybe we'll have the critical mass we need to get it off everyone's backs. Maybe then we can all start to think a little more rationally about things...maybe...I would have thought the butt-heads would have been enough to tip the balance but they seem to be way too tolerant of state intrusion to be of much use. I guess most smokers must be right-wingers or something.

What we really need is a Substance Use Act that's based on science and reason, instead of the dog's breakfast we use now to justify all the irrational Acts we currently have on the books. It's entirely possible this could result in a smaller government. Imagine that, a lefty actually proposing a smaller more efficient government.

Edited August 31, 2010 by eyeball

[scribblet]

Well, you can now read the RCMP report that says that the long gun registry is working.

Sure it is LOL what else would they say, they need to keep the buck rolling in

You do know that it's not the whole bill that would be repealed, it's only long gun registry part, the rest of it to do with licencing, checking backgrounds etc. etc. all remain.

http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLegislation/charterViolations.htm

The RCMP’s abandonment of an earlier long-gun registry is further evidence of the marginal utility the new registry. Beginning in the early 1970s, new firearms legislation required that every firearm sold by a dealer be registered to the FAC of the purchaser and a copy of this record be sent to the RCMP in Ottawa. By 1991, the year of the Montreal Massacre, this meant there should have been a registry of every long-gun sold by a dealer over the preceding 20 years—including the Ruger Mini-14 used in the École Polytechnique shootings. But, as recounted by a former Justice Department official when he requested these records, he discovered that “the RCMP had stopped accepting FAC records and had actually destroyed those it already had.” Why? “Because the police thought that it was useless and refused to waste their limited budgets maintaining it. They also wanted to ensure that their political masters could not resurrect it.”[1]13

[Wild Bill]

I think the real problem is this however, the so-called big tent on the right that somehow has enough room for people who are thoroughly revolted at the thought of the state climbing all over people's backs and people who are also very enthusiastic about the state jumping all over them at the same time. There is something fundamentally perverted about this and I've yet to see a good accounting for the tolerance two such disparate positions have for each other under one roof. To be fair to the right though I think the center's chronic fear of being seen as soft on crime results in an even more retarded unchanging situation. The left has never been in a position to do much if anything about this but leave it up to the right and the center to slam it as the supporters of BIG STATE intrusion and bottomless, pointless money pits, like prohibition.

Eyeball, I really think you've totally misread the feelings of those on the right. The reason they are against the Liberal gun registry is simply because they don't think it works or is worth all the money that was spent!

It has nothing to do with being soft on crime! The registry is a registry and sentencing is something else.

They think the whole thing was loopy, plain and simple! To paraphrase the Bard, "A plan made by idiots, signifying nothing!"

[segnosaur]

Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of independent verification for that? The reference given points to a National Firearms Association web site (not that I'm saying they are necessarily a deceptive organization; I'd just like an unbiased opinion.)

No, I don't have anything else, I don't imagine they would deliberately fabricate something like that so publicly.

They may not have necessarily fabricated the story.

But, it could be possible that it was an idea that the Police Chiefs contemplated but already dismissed that the Firearms association picked up on. Or it could be a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of existing policy.

Like I said, I think there are valid reasons registry should be scrapped; I just don't want those opposed to the registry to have their voice lost in a bunch of conspiracy theories.

[eyeball]

Eyeball, I really think you've totally misread the feelings of those on the right. The reason they are against the Liberal gun registry is simply because they don't think it works or is worth all the money that was spent!

But you must think prohibition works and is worth all the money being sent on it. What else explains why you keep voting for it? In any case the annual cost of the registry is far less than a couple of million a year now. The 2 billion dollar boondoggle setting it up happened for a completely different reason, a lack of transparency and accountability in government, things that right-wingers have also proven to be just as useless at delivering as anyone. The boondoggle does not detract from the reasons for having registry in the least, a registry that apparently now works just fine.

It has nothing to do with being soft on crime! The registry is a registry and sentencing is something else.

The registry is routinely slammed by the right for it's intrusiveness and appeals to getting the registry off people's backs are common.

You want to shift the topic to sentencing? Okay. Start locking up people who do drugs not just those who produce or sell them. The right wing approach to prohibition is far beyond soft, it's stupid because it ignores the real cause of the drug problem, the demand for drugs and instead focuses only on the supply. Why not take a page from the War on Prostitution, they've reduced the focus on the prostitutes and are instead focusing on the Johns. I doubt this will work any better but at least cause and effect are now in their proper order.

Really cracking down and really getting tough probably means really jumping up and down on everyone's backs.

They think the whole thing was loopy, plain and simple! To paraphrase the Bard, "A plan made by idiots, signifying nothing!"

Compared to prohibition?

I'm afraid your account of why the right preaches a blue streak about getting off the people's backs while also jumping all over them at the same time falls completely flat on its face. I don't see how your account relates to this dichotomy at all.

[Sir Bandelot]

check this out - now the chiefs are going after law abiding citizens in retaliation for opposing the registry.

http://nfa.ca/operation-zero-tolerance

cont...

If true, it must be coming from higher up. Someone in power and with a political objective to eliminate the gun registry. Real cops certainly don't want it to go away.

[Wild Bill]

But you must think prohibition works and is worth all the money being sent on it. What else explains why you keep voting for it? In any case the annual cost of the registry is far less than a couple of million a year now. The 2 billion dollar boondoggle setting it up happened for a completely different reason, a lack of transparency and accountability in government, things that right-wingers have also proven to be just as useless at delivering as anyone. The boondoggle does not detract from the reasons for having registry in the least, a registry that apparently now works just fine.

The registry is routinely slammed by the right for it's intrusiveness and appeals to getting the registry off people's backs are common.

You want to shift the topic to sentencing? Okay. Start locking up people who do drugs not just those who produce or sell them. The right wing approach to prohibition is far beyond soft, it's stupid because it ignores the real cause of the drug problem, the demand for drugs and instead focuses only on the supply. Why not take a page from the War on Prostitution, they've reduced the focus on the prostitutes and are instead focusing on the Johns. I doubt this will work any better but at least cause and effect are now in their proper order.

Really cracking down and really getting tough probably means really jumping up and down on everyone's backs.

Compared to prohibition?

I'm afraid your account of why the right preaches a blue streak about getting off the people's backs while also jumping all over them at the same time falls completely flat on its face. I don't see how your account relates to this dichotomy at all.

Give me a break, eyeball! I'm the Libertarian guy, remember? Time after time I've come out AGAINST Prohibition-style laws!!!

If you're gonna prop me up and treat me like some "spokesman for the right" then I reserve the right to do the same to you, in a similar manner!

I frankly don't care what some right wing folks say or believe. I care only about what I believe and certainly not some caricature of my beliefs that someone like YOU happens to paint!

Are we actually talking here or are you just preaching with your posts to the thin air in general?

[segnosaur]

If true, it must be coming from higher up. Someone in power and with a political objective to eliminate the gun registry. Real cops certainly don't want it to go away.

Ummm... proof?

As I have stated, I do not have any knowledge of any survey of front line police officers about their opinions of the registry. Unless you have such a survey at hand, nobody can say with any certainty how the "real cops" feel about it.

The closest thing we have to a survey is a "straw poll" which shows over 90% of police consider the registry "worthless". (This may not be considered definitive proof because of the self-selecting nature of such polls. But it certainly indicates that support for the registry is not universal.)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/08/23/15116956.html

[Sir Bandelot]

Not going to bother finding polls about police opinions. Common sense dictates that poice want as much information about a house before they enter it as possible. Like, if there's known to be guns in the house. If I were a cop, would I want tools like gun registry information available to me, that may save my life before going in, or just want nothing at all? How does nothing at all benefit me more than having some information.

See, that's a little thing we call common sense.

But it certainly indicates that support for the registry is not universal.)

So what, show me anything that is.

There's nothing wrong with having to register guns. But there are powerful lobby groups who are bent on having an unregulated market, and they would see this effort and its inevitable benefit as a threat to their ideology.

[segnosaur]

Not going to bother finding polls about police opinions.

Well you should... because that's the way you actually find out if there's actually support for an issue.

Common sense dictates that poice want as much information about a house before they enter it as possible. Like, if there's known to be guns in the house.

Your definition of "common sense" may not be the same as what the average policeman sees as "common sense".

Police want information, but they want it to be accurate. They can and should expect that the registry will always be incomplete and as such they should assume that every time they enter a house there is the possibility they will be confronted with firearms.

Or do you really think the police will walk into a situation thinking "everything is fine" just because the gun registry told them so?

How does nothing at all benefit me more than having some information.

How about because the people whom he has to deal with (the legal gun owners) might respect him more if they don't view him as exerting unnecessary authority.

There's nothing wrong with having to register guns.

Except for the cost (which yes, is greatly reduced from before, but is certainly not non-zero).

And a destruction of good will between police and citizens as people see the cops/government "harrassing" law abiding citizens.

And the loss of privacy that may result if/when such searches are used by individuals who are not authorized.

[GostHacked]

Late to the thread sorry..

The hunters are the most dangerous ones with guns anyway, shooting any damn thing that moves, be it a cow or a human out for a walk. How many intelligent people actually hunt?

My dad used to hunt, recently sold all his guns because the laws were to much of a pain to actually own the guns. Hunters are not the dangerous ones, thugs on the streets with handguns and a chip on their shoulders are. And this is where we see the guns used illegally the most. Hunting accidents do happen, though.

My dad is a very safety conscious person. He was a safety rep where he worked. My dad may not the the smartest academically (might be your definition of a Bubba), but he knows how to be safe. His handling of firearms was no different. Because of him, I have a little fear in me when it comes to firearms. This kind of mentality will keep you safe. I respect the gun, because it does not respect anything.

It's all a bunch of brainless Bubbas who shouldn't be allowed to drive a vehicle much less carry a powerful gun around that can blow a person's head completely off. Take a look at this;

Some of them might be brainless in many things, but most hunters are not idiots when it comes to their firearm.

[ToadBrother]

Some of them might be brainless in many things, but most hunters are not idiots when it comes to their firearm.

Those that have experience with fire arms, and were taught about the dangers of them are probably the safest people around. I was taught from the earliest age to never point a gun at a man unless I intended to shoot him.

[Alta4ever]

There's nothing wrong with having to register guns. But there are powerful lobby groups who are bent on having an unregulated market, and they would see this effort and its inevitable benefit as a threat to their ideology.

Removing the registry doesn't make it an un-regulated market. You still need a license to buy a long gun and ammunition, it does not change the sale restrictions on the weapons.

[PIK]

You need a PAL to buy a gun to get the PAL you need to be checked out by the police ,all they have to do is check to see if a person has one or even if he has a hunting lic. You do not need a gun registry and I can't for the life of me understand people that say it works. It has done nothing , but cause another divide in this country,that is all the liberals have ever done in this country is divide people.

[William Ashley]

You need a PAL to buy a gun to get the PAL you need to be checked out by the police ,all they have to do is check to see if a person has one or even if he has a hunting lic. You do not need a gun registry and I can't for the life of me understand people that say it works. It has done nothing , but cause another divide in this country,that is all the liberals have ever done in this country is divide people.

But is PAL information accessable to local police forces, or only the RCMP?

Also does it say what type of weapon or weapons they have?

The type could be intelligence that might help to save an officers life in the event of going into a place of a person with a PAL but not actually knowing what or how many guns they own.

Personally I think all this hoopla is just encouraging more people to aquire weapons - this is why the Conservative Party of Canada likes it because gun owners tend to be more conservative. It brings up the whole personal security issue. Something the conservatives will probably be enhanced on, as they are all for inreasing the level of militancy in the country.

Also in the event of a court order requiring no guns etc.. for the person.. they would have them on file, and they would likely have to dispossess of them - or have them confiscated by the police, effective the order.

Edited August 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[segnosaur]

But is PAL information accessable to local police forces, or only the RCMP?

Not sure if that's a fair question.

In the past, it may have been that the local police didn't have access to PAL (or FAC) information, but they probably do now, since that access would probably be part of the current gun registry system (and provided with any information on individual weapons.)

Its probably quite possible to remove the gun registry, yet still maintain a system that allows easy access to PAL information. That way, should an officer do a search, they could tell if a registered gun owner lives at a particular address (and thus likely has guns), without the cost/obtrusiveness of registering each individual firearm.

The type could be intelligence that might help to save an officers life in the event of going into a place of a person with a PAL but not actually knowing what or how many guns they own.

The assumption of course is that an officer will trust the information provided by any gun registry system. I rather suspect officers are trained to expect the worst (meaning unregistered firearms) in all situations, regardless of what the gun registry says.

[YEGmann]

The RCMP reports on the gun control are available now.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/08/rcmps-report-on-the-long-gun-registry-sent-to-mps.html

There is no statistics inside that proves the registry is useful. There is no single fact demonstrarting that the registry prevented a crime or saved a life.

The reports show the registry keeps some hundred people busy with associated paperwork.

Sidenote: didn't CBC told us before that the Harper's plan is to release the report after the vote?

Edited August 31, 2010 by YEGmann

[dre]

The hunters are the most dangerous ones with guns anyway, shooting any damn thing that moves, be it a cow or a human out for a walk. How many intelligent people actually hunt?

I dunno who said that but its pretty silly. Sheesh.

[Sir Bandelot]

If true, it must be coming from higher up. Someone in power and with a political objective to eliminate the gun registry. Real cops certainly don't want it to go away.

Political meddling triggered gun confusion: report

OTTAWA - The Conservative government's decision to introduce amnesty provisions for long-gun owners has "contributed to confusion" over firearms control in Canada, says an internal RCMP evaluation that strongly backs universal registration.

Employees of Canada's firearms program told evaluators that licensing compliance "has been affected by political messages," says the report, officially released Tuesday by the Mounties after being leaked Monday.

In March the Conservatives extended an amnesty that effectively gives owners of unregistered, non-restricted firearms including many rifles and shotguns more time to sign them up, and no incentive to do so.

Overall, the long-awaited evaluation found the federal gun registry is a useful tool for police.

The report concludes the registry prepares officers for potentially violent situations, helps them trace recovered weapons and assists in seizure of weapons from the mentally unstable.

Wow, I must be a genius

Edited September 1, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[segnosaur]

Political meddling triggered gun confusion: report

...

The report concludes the registry prepares officers for potentially violent situations...

I've already pointed out that officers should expect that every situation may turn violent, even if the gun registry suggests that there are no firearms present.

Not to mention the fact that they could get the same effect if they just kept a list of people with possession licenses (something that was already required) without having to register each and every firearm.

...helps them trace recovered weapons...[/i]

If the weapon that was stolen was valuable, the owner would have issued a police report for the theft. If the owner didn't care enough to report it stolen, then the ability to trace it is pretty pointless.

...and assists in seizure of weapons from the mentally unstable.[/i]

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

[Argus]

Not going to bother finding polls about police opinions. Common sense dictates that poice want as much information about a house before they enter it as possible.

Perhaps so. They might like to know if anyone who drinks lives there. They might like to know if anyone who takes martial arts or any other kind of self-defense courses lives there. They might like to know if someone who is ex-military lives there, or an ex con, or if there are very large, strong people living there. But I don't see the usefulness of all of that as being paramount, and certainly not in the case of a registry which is massively flawed and unreliable to begin with. It says there's a gun in there? Well, that means... there might be a gun in there, or maybe not, or maybe there's two, or five, or maybe not. The registry is so flawed it has no real value. And any cop who relies on it before going into a house has no business being a cop.

There's nothing wrong with having to register guns. But there are powerful lobby groups who are bent on having an unregulated market, and they would see this effort and its inevitable benefit as a threat to their ideology.

The Left always like to insinuate some vast conspiracy among corporate interests to thwart their well-intentioned nonsense, but in reality it's normally just that most of the ideas which come out of the Left, and most of their cherished concepts, are so much dog drool.

[Argus]

Political meddling triggered gun confusion: report

OTTAWA - The Conservative government's decision to introduce amnesty provisions for long-gun owners has "contributed to confusion" over firearms control in Canada, says an internal RCMP evaluation that strongly backs universal registration.

The registry was already massively confused and massively screwed up. It was poorly designed. The information is not properly set up, and it wasn't designed properly for updates. The information is incomplete and unreliable and only a moron would rely on it.

Overall, the long-awaited evaluation found the federal gun registry is a useful tool for police.

They just couldn't actually point out how or why or when.

National Post

Wow, I must be a genius

I'd definitely put you into the same mental class as those fine, upstanding mounties who tazered Robert Dzeikanski.