Gun Control

[Tilter]

pinko, on 13 July 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:

I used to camp in my younger days in areas frequented by bears and didn't have a firearm. I think a gun is a phallic symbol for many of you.

The fact of the matter is you don't need guns.

Who are you exactly to tell others what they do or don't need? If someone breaks into my apartment, do I then "need" a gun?

Your attempt to denigrate gun owners is quite infantile.

The last 2 people killed by bears in BC camped without guns.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Tilter

[guyser]

The last 2 people killed by bears in BC camped without guns.

Wanna bet a gun would not have mattered?

[pinko]

The last 2 people killed by bears in BC camped without guns.

So what?

[Guest Derek L]

I expect you to be honest when you describe my position. The method you are using is clearly dishonest.

How am I being dishonest? You state only the police need guns, gun ownership for many is nothing but a form of penis enlargement and that the current gun registry is effective, but yet we’re faced with a massive crime wave in cities involving (registered?) guns……So what is your position?

[Wild Bill]

Wanna bet a gun would not have mattered?

How do you know that? As for myself, I would prefer to make my own choices as to my defense. Either that, or have those who don't think guns are necessary pitch their tents between mine and the bears...

[dre]

Pinko, I almost hate to join the ganging up here, and you know I like you. But I really think you're wrong on this issue; and I think the majority of people wrong on this issue tend to be lefties. Perhaps that's not so clear in the bigger urban areas, I don't know.

I too think the home invasion theme approaches the non sequiter arena, because people hurt and killed in home invasions is a vanishingly small number.

My objection to this registry is based on a couple of things: first of all, it seems awfully expensive for somehting that has yielded no tangible results. (If there are tangible results, I think we'd hear about it from government and police by now.) More to the point, however, is that it goes after the wrong people.

I don't think I'm arguing from personal bias. I've never owned a gun, and am not interested in them. I've been hunting twice, and never fired a shot. But growing up in New Brunswick, i saw guns all the time. They're everywhere. An anti-imperialist, vegetarian We-are-the-world peace marcher is as likely to own a rifle as anyone else.

So they're de-mystified. They're not scary. Yes, an occasional fool ignores standard safety measures and someone gets killed. But it's no epidemic.

There is more of a gun violence problem in larger cities (I live in little Fredericton); I understand that. But how is the registry supposed to counter that particular issue?

My objection to this registry is based on a couple of things: first of all, it seems awfully expensive for somehting that has yielded no tangible results. (If there are tangible results, I think we'd hear about it from government and police by now.) More to the point, however, is that it goes after the wrong people.

It was too expensive, but now that its there its not that expensive to run.

More to the point, however, is that it goes after the wrong people.

It doesnt "go after" anyone. Its a database of information, thats meant to help keep track of objects that can inflict serious damages on other people, and objects that might be stolen and used in a crime or involved in the investigation of a crime. Its absolutely no different than the automobile registry.

There is more of a gun violence problem in larger cities (I live in little Fredericton); I understand that. But how is the registry supposed to counter that particular issue?

It provides an avenue of investigation, the same as automobile registration does, which may or may not prove usefull. When a car is stolen and used in a robbery the police can identify its legal owner by looking up its VIN number in the registration database from right inside their cruiser. They can then talk to its legal owner and potentially get valuable information... where was the car stolen from? When was it stolen? Did they see anything?

The exact same thing applies to firearms. If police know who the last legal owner was, they can talk to that person and get valuable information even if he WASNT the guy that commited a crime.

It just doesnt seem like a big deal to me. I registered my guns... it wasnt hard or expensive, and I didnt feel like anyone was "coming after me" anymore than I did when they asked me to register my cars and trucks.

If I was in charge I would personally take a much more aggresive approach to gun violence and heavily go after smugglers and illegal distributors, and implement buy-backs etc. But the registry istelf isnt a big deal except for the fact it cost WAY more than it needed to in the first place.

[dre]

How am I being dishonest? You state only the police need guns, gun ownership for many is nothing but a form of penis enlargement and that the current gun registry is effective, but yet we’re faced with a massive crime wave in cities involving (registered?) guns……So what is your position?

I know you didnt ask me, but my opinion is that registering my guns wasnt a big deal. I think Canadians should be able to own guns as long as they get some basic training and follow some basic rules, but I still think the registry can provide valuable information.

Its just one piece of the puzzle though. If you want to reduce gun crime, then you need study the data, find out why gun crimes happen, and how the guns used in crime are obtained, and really go after illegal distributors.

Why do the "gun criminals" exist, what do they do, and how are they funded? You might find that you can attack the problem upstream, by making their activities not profitable anymore.

[Smallc]

I know you didnt ask me, but my opinion is that registering my guns wasnt a big deal. I think Canadians should be able to own guns as long as they get some basic training and follow some basic rules, but I still think the registry can provide valuable information.

What kind of useful information can the registry actually provide?

[dre]

What kind of useful information can the registry actually provide?

The same kind of information the automobile registry provides. An additional avenue of investigation in some cases... or the information required to return a stolen gun/car to its owner.

[Smallc]

The same kind of information the automobile registry provides. An additional avenue of investigation in some cases... or the information required to return a stolen gun/car to its owner.

Unless of course the serial number has been removed, in which case it provides absolutely nothing. The registry was a giant waste of money that does as close to nothing as is possible without doing literally nothing.

[dre]

Unless of course the serial number has been removed, in which case it provides absolutely nothing. The registry was a giant waste of money that does as close to nothing as is possible without doing literally nothing.

Well its a database of information thats used thousands and thousands of times per year for all kinds of reasons. It wont by itself solve crimes obviously, just like the auto registry doesnt. Its just another piece of information, and the registry is pretty cheap to maintain now.

Do you go on rants about having to register your car as well? Or your private plane?

[Smallc]

Do you go on rants about having to register your car as well? Or your private plane?

I don't recall going on any rants. The gun registry simply doesn't do what it was said to do. Car registration is a different thing, with easily visible registration numbers used to identify vehicles. The gun registry isn't like that, and it's very hard to enforce or even use in any real, meaningful way.

[dre]

I don't recall going on any rants. The gun registry simply doesn't do what it was said to do. Car registration is a different thing, with easily visible registration numbers used to identify vehicles. The gun registry isn't like that, and it's very hard to enforce or even use in any real, meaningful way.

Its used thousands of times a day... apparently someone finds it usefull. And it doesnt seem that hard to enforce registration of new guns at least.

[Smallc]

Its used thousands of times a day... apparently someone finds it usefull.

It's automatically triggered witha CPIC search, from my understanding. If the system did something, I wouldn't be opposed.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Smallc

[dre]

It's automatically triggered witha CPIC search, from my understanding. If the system did something, I wouldn't be opposed.

The breakdown I read said that only some of the lookups are automatically triggered. And the system DOES do something. It collects information that links guns to their legal owners. I have no problem at all seeing a few ways that can be usefull, and now that the system is built its pretty cheap to collect it.

Id give it a few more years, and then do a real study into how its used before I cancelled the program.

[Guest Derek L]

I know you didnt ask me, but my opinion is that registering my guns wasnt a big deal. I think Canadians should be able to own guns as long as they get some basic training and follow some basic rules, but I still think the registry can provide valuable information.

Its just one piece of the puzzle though. If you want to reduce gun crime, then you need study the data, find out why gun crimes happen, and how the guns used in crime are obtained, and really go after illegal distributors.

Why do the "gun criminals" exist, what do they do, and how are they funded? You might find that you can attack the problem upstream, by making their activities not profitable anymore.

And for the most part, I don’t have a problem with registering my handguns…….that being said registering a 50 plus year old .22 or side-by-side, under the auspices of preventing crime seems like a terrible waste of time, money and an inconvenience…….If we use the car analogy (Which I think is a good one), if a handgun/black rifle is equal to a car (which I’ll agree), a single shot .22 (or some airguns) are the equivalent to a BMX bike……..

Also, my other beef, is with how they “classify” restricted vs prohibited firearms……..At times, I wonder if they pick the gun type from a hat or spin a wheel………that aspect, is a complete joke

Too go back to the car comparison, I’ve no complainants with the PAL/RPAL and the associated safety courses just like drivers licensing and course, it’s a good idea

[pinko]

How am I being dishonest? You state only the police need guns, gun ownership for many is nothing but a form of penis enlargement and that the current gun registry is effective, but yet we’re faced with a massive crime wave in cities involving (registered?) guns……So what is your position?

You certainly have a way of misrepresenting my position.

[pinko]

Pinko, I almost hate to join the ganging up here, and you know I like you. But I really think you're wrong on this issue; and I think the majority of people wrong on this issue tend to be lefties. Perhaps that's not so clear in the bigger urban areas, I don't know.

I too think the home invasion theme approaches the non sequiter arena, because people hurt and killed in home invasions is a vanishingly small number.

My objection to this registry is based on a couple of things: first of all, it seems awfully expensive for somehting that has yielded no tangible results. (If there are tangible results, I think we'd hear about it from government and police by now.) More to the point, however, is that it goes after the wrong people.

I don't think I'm arguing from personal bias. I've never owned a gun, and am not interested in them. I've been hunting twice, and never fired a shot. But growing up in New Brunswick, i saw guns all the time. They're everywhere. An anti-imperialist, vegetarian We-are-the-world peace marcher is as likely to own a rifle as anyone else.

So they're de-mystified. They're not scary. Yes, an occasional fool ignores standard safety measures and someone gets killed. But it's no epidemic.

There is more of a gun violence problem in larger cities (I live in little Fredericton); I understand that. But how is the registry supposed to counter that particular issue?

I appreciate the manner in which you have approached this issue and am prepared to admit that, the gun registry aside, hunting as a passtime and with the caveats you have described is fine with me. However I can't for the life of me understand why anyone with no criminal intent would object to registration and that includes long guns. Notwithstanding the startup cost of the registry the essential mechanism is in place and in my view it ought to remain so. Whether or not the registry has produced tangible results is a matter of opinion.

Gun violence in the larger cities is a symptom of a larger problem. Here in Winnipeg, within the last week there have been upward of seven shooting incidents not to mention several fire bombings. If and when weapons are found in such circumstances the registry may conceivably identify weapons that may not have otherwise been traceable. The registry in conjunction with other public policies are designed to mitigate some of the activities occurring on the street in order to provide a safer environment for the citizenry.

That you and I may differ on the need for a registry is a reflection of a split in public opinion which is born out by the polls.

Edited July 14, 2011 by pinko

[Oleg Bach]

Best line from this video, "...the key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself". Unfortunately Canada doesn't really respect this truth, governmentally or socially.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ufkwTM82e4&feature=related

Our problem is not self defense or gun control but human control. We have a whole culture blooming that is under privledged - has no real culture other than a contrived pop culture that they have embraced...These young people need to know that self control is gun control. I knew of a young woman who was underprivledged and in some silly liberal group therapy session-- Questioning her..I asked "Do they discuss or teach you about self control?" She replied that they were diswaded from talking about such things as self control..It looks like our liberal society teaches children to let their feelings out...I guess when they instilled this conditioning policy that they did not take into account the thousands of poor in the projects and on the reserves.....THAT those people when they let their feelings out made a sound and it was ---bang!

[pinko]

It was too expensive, but now that its there its not that expensive to run.

It doesnt "go after" anyone. Its a database of information, thats meant to help keep track of objects that can inflict serious damages on other people, and objects that might be stolen and used in a crime or involved in the investigation of a crime. Its absolutely no different than the automobile registry.

It provides an avenue of investigation, the same as automobile registration does, which may or may not prove usefull. When a car is stolen and used in a robbery the police can identify its legal owner by looking up its VIN number in the registration database from right inside their cruiser. They can then talk to its legal owner and potentially get valuable information... where was the car stolen from? When was it stolen? Did they see anything?

The exact same thing applies to firearms. If police know who the last legal owner was, they can talk to that person and get valuable information even if he WASNT the guy that commited a crime.

It just doesnt seem like a big deal to me. I registered my guns... it wasnt hard or expensive, and I didnt feel like anyone was "coming after me" anymore than I did when they asked me to register my cars and trucks.

If I was in charge I would personally take a much more aggresive approach to gun violence and heavily go after smugglers and illegal distributors, and implement buy-backs etc. But the registry istelf isnt a big deal except for the fact it cost WAY more than it needed to in the first place.

With regard to smuggling and illegal distribution what, in particular, did you have in mind to stem the flow of such weapons?

[bloodyminded]

It was too expensive, but now that its there its not that expensive to run.

It doesnt "go after" anyone. Its a database of information, thats meant to help keep track of objects that can inflict serious damages on other people, and objects that might be stolen and used in a crime or involved in the investigation of a crime. Its absolutely no different than the automobile registry.

It provides an avenue of investigation, the same as automobile registration does, which may or may not prove usefull. When a car is stolen and used in a robbery the police can identify its legal owner by looking up its VIN number in the registration database from right inside their cruiser. They can then talk to its legal owner and potentially get valuable information... where was the car stolen from? When was it stolen? Did they see anything?

The exact same thing applies to firearms. If police know who the last legal owner was, they can talk to that person and get valuable information even if he WASNT the guy that commited a crime.

It just doesnt seem like a big deal to me. I registered my guns... it wasnt hard or expensive, and I didnt feel like anyone was "coming after me" anymore than I did when they asked me to register my cars and trucks.

If I was in charge I would personally take a much more aggresive approach to gun violence and heavily go after smugglers and illegal distributors, and implement buy-backs etc. But the registry istelf isnt a big deal except for the fact it cost WAY more than it needed to in the first place.

OK, these are good points, so I'm inclined to defer to you, at least until I think the matter over a little more.

Edited July 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

If you are caught with an illegal fire arm - transporting - distributing or in common possession of them ..There should be no bail and a mandatory sentence of three years for the first offence. These laws already exist but are not inforced. For instance if it was 30 years ago and you were caught with a short barreled weapon (hand gun) NO way in hell were they going to let you walk out of the court room.

Because -It was understood that hand guns are specifically designed to kill human beings at short range..That if you were carrying a human killer - you were a potential killer who was considering murder for what ever reason - NOW - if some jerk is caught with a hand gun - even the second time - they have a show cause hearing after the arrest and RELEASE them! This smacks of either inept and foolish judgement of social deviant behavour by our judicary. It is just plain weird...They should have a real and stern judical inquiry on WHY - you release a person who has a tool that can be and probably will be used to kill a human being. It is akin to granting the release of a person who is wandering about in public with pipe bomb...same thing just the bang is of a more intense variety. The problem is our courts are crazy...or just plain evil or stupid.

[Oleg Bach]

As for BOB - this is NOT Israel or America - so don't attempt to pollute our nation with this garbage...maybe Bob can attack his own establishment here and abroad that can not appoint or elect a good and real judge... There is nothing wrong with the existance of guns or even the legal possession of them - but there is definitely something wrong with the human mind who sees the killing of another as the solution to a problem -- It seems that everyone is looking for the easy and lazy way out - If you have a percieved enemy - or attacker - just kill them...sorry BOB - time for true evolution to take place...This is not 4000 years ago - we have progressed ----Or have we?

[bloodyminded]

I appreciate the manner in which you have approached this issue and am prepared to admit that, the gun registry aside, hunting as a passtime and with the caveats you have described is fine with me. However I can't for the life of me understand why anyone with no criminal intent would object to registration and that includes long guns. Notwithstanding the startup cost of the registry the essential mechanism is in place and in my view it ought to remain so. Whether or not the registry has produced tangible results is a matter of opinion.

Fair enough. I haven't looked seriously into the matter, and as Dre pointed out, the results could be part of the investigative process, rather than a "smoking gun" moment (pun intended). So I admit I hadn't considered that too deeply.

Gun violence in the larger cities is a symptom of a larger problem. Here in Winnipeg, within the last week there have been upward of seven shooting incidents not to mention several fire bombings.

Yes, I watched this on the news not an hour ago.

If and when weapons are found in such circumstances the registry may conceivably identify weapons that may not have otherwise been traceable. The registry in conjunction with other public policies are designed to mitigate some of the activities occurring on the street in order to provide a safer environment for the citizenry.

OK, and to be fair, I don't have much use for the "Big Government trying to take your guns!" conspiracies that are both stated outright or, more often, implied.

That you and I may differ on the need for a registry is a reflection of a split in public opinion which is born out by the polls.

It's especially an issue, arguably, for the NDP, who have large numbers of supporters in both camps of this issue.

[Oleg Bach]

Those who worry about big government taking their guns away are lunitics and should not have guns. - You want a conspriacy - The CIA imports weapons into second rate nations in order to destablize them internally....what makes people think that the American government does not approve of allowing guns to cross the boarder into Canada - they do it too bannana republics - why not Canada?