The conservative holy grail will soon be gone!

[eyeball]

These current and the extension of those you propose are nothing but a false sense of security for the segment of the public that is afraid of legal firearms………If I went bonkers, and decided to “do in” myself and my family or to “make the voices stop by unloading in a shopping mall”, trigger locks, a safe and a requirement to have authorization to transport is likely not going to stop nor slow me down…………

Requiring the storage of your weapons at a public armory should reduce your ability to do so on a sudden whim. GPS locks on your triggers which unlock upon the arrival of a gun within the pre-programmed co-ordinates of a target range or hunting area you're licensed for would add another layer of control as well as tell police where your guns are at all times.

As I’ve said, if there is evidence to suggest that legal gun owners are a plight on society, I’d suggest a more extensive licensing process than storage, registration and transportation regulations.

What if the public decides it wants to go the route of real gun control regardless of what the evidence says?

[Guest Derek L]

Requiring the storage of your weapons at a public armory should reduce your ability to do so on a sudden whim. GPS locks on your triggers which unlock upon the arrival of a gun within the pre-programmed co-ordinates of a target range or hunting area you're licensed for would add another layer of control as well as tell police where your guns are at all times.

That sounds expensive and a further intrusion on people’s rights……….for very little gain, if any………What you purpose is a very slippery slope………You’re presuming guilt on people that don’t have any allegations of violence, mental illness or criminal intent lodged against them, that have already went through extensive background checks to obtain a licence.

I assume you’d be opposed to a government that presumed guilt against any given part of our society, based on race, color, creed and sexual orientation. Why is this case different?

Is it because you don’t feel comfortable with a certain segment of society based on your unfounded prejudice?

What if the public decides it wants to go the route of real gun control regardless of what the evidence says?

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

If that fails......It is a sure sign that society, as we know it today, has broken down……….Something tells me, in the unlikely event that that occurs, those that are opposed to private ownership of firearms, won’t be dictating to those that embrace private ownership.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Derek L

[noahbody]

Requiring the storage of your weapons at a public armory should reduce your ability to do so on a sudden whim.

There are on average 12 homicides per year with registered long guns. So far, over a billion dollars has been spent on a problem that doesn't exist. Now you think we should build armories? And aren't you against spending money on prisons to keep people who use guns off the streets?

[eyeball]

That sounds expensive and a further intrusion on people’s rights……….for very little gain, if any………What you purpose is a very slippery slope………You’re presuming guilt on people that don’t have any allegations of violence, mental illness or criminal intent lodged against them, that have already went through extensive background checks to obtain a licence.

I'm proposing preventative measures that seem quite in line compared to the lengths, cost and intrusion of other public safety measures in place or being proposed these days.

I never once said people shouldn't be allowed to own or use guns, I'm only saying that guns can be better controlled if we're serious about preventing rampage shootings by insane people. We all know that a gun registry is about as useless as the fear of longer prison sentence is to a person with diminished mental capacity. Real physical control of guns is the only way of reducing the chances of this happening. I realize no system will be %100 foolproof but I do believe we can reduce a big percentage of the danger.

I assume you’d be opposed to a government that presumed guilt against any given part of our society, based on race, color, creed and sexual orientation. Why is this case different?

Is it because you don’t feel comfortable with a certain segment of society based on your unfounded prejudice?

It's because guns are different, they're designed to kill things like people and they're damned efficient at doing so a short period of time. They're also just too damned handy. The fact 1 in 4 people will suffer a mental illness not to mention we'll have 3 million cases of dementia to deal with in the next 15 years or so in a country of 17 million guns is also a little un-nerving. Guilt, presumed or otherwise, has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am strictly interested in preventing preventable deaths and injury.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

If that fails......It is a sure sign that society, as we know it today, has broken down……….Something tells me, in the unlikely event that that occurs, those that are opposed to private ownership of firearms, won’t be dictating to those that embrace private ownership.

I have never once ever opposed the private ownership of guns I just want far better controls placed on the ability of an owner to use them inappropriately.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm proposing preventative measures that seem quite in line compared to the lengths, cost and intrusion of other public safety measures in place or being proposed these days.

But if someone was to propose preventative measures against Muslims, that included inspections of ones residence without a warrant or the denial of the right not to self-incriminate, you’d be ok with that?

I never once said people shouldn't be allowed to own or use guns, I'm only saying that guns can be better controlled if we're serious about preventing rampage shootings by insane people. We all know that a gun registry is about as useless as the fear of longer prison sentence is to a person with diminished mental capacity. Real physical control of guns is the only way of reducing the chances of this happening. I realize no system will be %100 foolproof but I do believe we can reduce a big percentage of the danger.

What/who killed those people at École Polytechnique? The Ruger Mini-14 or Marc Lépine?

I’d assume never give someone like Marc a gun licence……..you’d be fine with that, just as long as there were “controls” on his legal firearms?

What if the guy, after being turned down for a licence, just went and bought a TEC-9 off some guy out of the back of a van?

It's because guns are different, they're designed to kill things like people and they're damned efficient at doing so a short period of time. They're also just too damned handy. The fact 1 in 4 people will suffer a mental illness not to mention we'll have 3 million cases of dementia to deal with in the next 15 years or so in a country of 17 million guns is also a little un-nerving. Guilt, presumed or otherwise, has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am strictly interested in preventing preventable deaths and injury.

So you’re assuming those with mental illness will possibly harm themselves or others with firearms? Why give them a licence? If this portion of Canadians, could potentially hurt or kill someone, why not just lock them up before they get the chance?

I have never once ever opposed the private ownership of guns I just want far better controls placed on the ability of an owner to use them inappropriately.

What makes you trust a 24 year old RCMP member with a gun? Or a 18 year old soldier?

[eyeball]

There are on average 12 homicides per year with registered long guns. So far, over a billion dollars has been spent on a problem that doesn't exist.

Not one person has ever died from pot yet look at the billions we're spending to prevent people from getting their hands on it.

The billion you're talking about was misspent by a political party because it was so afraid of being seen as soft on crime that it couldn't think straight. Now another political party is poised to spend billions in it's desperation to appear as hard as it can on crime that it's thinking is just as screwy.

In the meantime what the hell did the criminal use of a gun ever have to do with the insane use of one?

Now you think we should build armories?

Not at all, I think gun owners should build them. I don't own a gun so why should I have to bear any of the costs of controlling them. I have to shell out thousands of dollars a year for my own oversight as a fisherman so I expect gun owner to bear the costs of their own accountability themselves.

And aren't you against spending money on prisons to keep people who use guns off the streets?

Absolutely. I'd eliminate some %90 of the criminal use of guns by legalizing the things these people are shooting each other over.

[eyeball]

But if someone was to propose preventative measures against Muslims, that included inspections of ones residence without a warrant or the denial of the right not to self-incriminate, you’d be ok with that?

Of course not.

What/who killed those people at École Polytechnique? The Ruger Mini-14 or Marc Lépine?

Both.

I’d assume never give someone like Marc a gun licence……..you’d be fine with that, just as long as there were “controls” on his legal firearms?

Your question is a little garbled but no I wouldn't be fine if an assessment judged him to be unfit no matter how controlled his gun was.

What if the guy, after being turned down for a licence, just went and bought a TEC-9 off some guy out of the back of a van?

I think I acknowledged that no system is %100 foolproof.

So you’re assuming those with mental illness will possibly harm themselves or others with firearms?

I'm assuming some will. As for how many and what does this mean in terms of threat versus the cost effectiveness of preventative measures...all I can say is despite its flaws virtually every cop in the land seems to agree the registry even as flawed as it is, was better than nothing. I bet they'd be even happier with some of the measures I've proposed.

Why give them a licence? If this portion of Canadians, could potentially hurt or kill someone, why not just lock them up before they get the chance?

You don't seem to understand much about the nature of mental illness and especially how it can strike anyone right out of the blue do you? Mental illness is inevitable and so will the use of firearms by some people who are stricken with it. This can be reduced, maybe greatly by better controls on the guns.

What makes you trust a 24 year old RCMP member with a gun? Or a 18 year old soldier?

Annual medical check-ups including psyche assessments.

Edited October 31, 2011 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

Both.

Could the Ruger have killed them alone? I have near the exact same gun, I have had it for nearly twenty years, and it hasn’t killed a sole.

Your question is a little garbled but no I wouldn't be fine if an assessment judged him to be unfit no matter how controlled his gun was.

So if a person is deemed fit, there should be no problem right?

I think I acknowledged that no system is %100 foolproof.

The argument isn’t if it is “foolproof or not”, but whether it’s needed……….Again, how many people were killed with legal firearms last year, by the registered owner?

I'm assuming some will. As for how many and what does this mean in terms of threat versus the cost effectiveness of preventative measures...all I can say is despite its flaws virtually every cop in the land seems to agree the registry even as flawed as it is, was better than nothing. I bet they'd be even happier with some of the measures I've proposed.

Virtually every cop? Really? Do you have a cite? What makes you trust a police officer with a firearm?

You don't seem to understand much about the nature of mental illness and especially how it can strike anyone right out of the blue do you? Mental illness is inevitable and so will the use of firearms by some people stricken with it. This can be reduced, maybe greatly.

How many mentally ill people, with a PAL/RPAL, and a registered firearm, killed or hurt someone last year?

Annual medical check-ups including psyche assessments.

I would concede something like a check-up that you describe (Perhaps every five years), added to a lengthy firearms safety course akin to Military/RCMP basic weapons training on the condition, that after passing this testing regime, and compiling with the medical check-up every 5 years, there would be zero registration, acquisition, storage and transportation laws associated with firearms ownership.......

[eyeball]

Could the Ruger have killed them alone? I have near the exact same gun, I have had it for nearly twenty years, and it hasn’t killed a sole.

I'm not surprised given sole live on the bottom of the ocean.

I suspect you haven't snapped because you don't suffer from delusion, chances are 1 in 4 you will at some point, then what?

So if a person is deemed fit, there should be no problem right?

Mental fitness can change between check-ups.

The argument isn’t if it is “foolproof or not”, but whether it’s needed……….Again, how many people were killed with legal firearms last year, by the registered owner?

More than were killed with illegal or restricted guns I suspect.

Virtually every cop? Really? Do you have a cite? What makes you trust a police officer with a firearm?

Hope mostly.

How many mentally ill people, with a PAL/RPAL, and a registered firearm, killed or hurt someone last year?

I don't know but I'll bet a portion of them did. The point is that both numbers would be reduced if the availability of guns was reduced, which explains the armories.

I would concede something like a check-up that you describe (Perhaps every five years), added to a lengthy firearms safety course akin to Military/RCMP basic weapons training on the condition, that after passing this testing regime, and compiling with the medical check-up every 5 years, there would be zero registration, acquisition, storage and transportation laws associated with firearms ownership.......

Nope, I want the guns locked up in secure locations when they're not being used. I'll grant there are legitimate reasons why some people need to possess guns all the time but equipping these guns with GPS locators that sound alarms if they're removed from pre-programmed areas and locations without authorization should suffice to help reduce their inappropriate use.

Edited October 31, 2011 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not surprised given sole live on the bottom of the ocean.

I suspect you haven't snapped because you don't suffer from delusion, chances are 1 in 4 you will at some point, then what?

So you’re suggesting that ~25% of gun owners are or will become mentally ill? Couldn’t this also apply to Teachers? Doctors? Bus Drivers? Shouldn’t we put restrictions on them also?

If as you say, ~25% of Canadians will become mentally ill, shouldn’t we be watching to whom we give drivers licenses, let alone PAL/RPALs?

(And really, you going to start nit-picking spelling/Grammar?)

Mental fitness can change between check-ups.

So you’re suggesting that 25% of Canadians are a “ticking time bomb”? Or are they only dangerous to the public at large (or themselves) if they have access to firearms?

Again, to clarify, you’re suggesting, right now, there are close to a million mentally ill gun owners in Canada?

If so, how many deaths to they cause a year?

More than were killed with illegal or restricted guns I suspect.

What makes you suspect that? A hunch?

I don't know but I'll bet a portion of them did. The point is that both numbers would be reduced if the availability of guns was reduced, which explains the armories.

The rate of murders/violent crime in Canada have been steadily declining since the 70s……….I suppose we should define a “portion”……….554 Canadians were murdered last year…….170 with firearms………How many of these firearms related deaths were by a legal gun? And, how many of deaths were prevented by firearms registration?

Nope, I want the guns locked up in secure locations when they're not being used. I'll grant there are legitimate reasons why some people need to possess guns all the time but equipping these guns with GPS locators that sound alarms if they're removed from pre-programmed areas and locations without authorization should suffice to help reduce their inappropriate use.

Why not put “GPS locaters” on the criminal’s guns first?

Or better yet, “GPS locaters” on everybody’s personal vehicles that will inform the police if they’re speeding……Or microphones/cameras inside to see if they‘re talking on a cell/texting or putting on make-up or sipping on a coffee…And well we‘re at it, breathalysers tied to each cars ignition to reduce the amount of deaths/injures associated with drunk driving…..If ~550-600 (and we still don’t know how many with legal guns) Canadians are murdered every year, compared to the ~2500-3000 that die in Car accidents, I’d think tighter controls on drivers to be the more pressing issue.

[Guest Derek L]

One more thing to add..........The cause of 37000 deaths a year in Canada, or nearly 100 Canadians a day and it’s estimated to be the cause of death of nearly one million Canadians over the next twenty years………Smoking…….........Second hand smoke kills nearly ~6300 Canadians a year......10 times more then what are murdered and 37 times more then murdered with firearms........My link

Why aren’t we banning smoking…….Shouldn’t we have to register a carton/pack? They’re way more lethal than a firearm……..and you only need to be 18/19 to purchase these “weapons”……….

Edited October 31, 2011 by Derek L

[Bonam]

Yes, in fact, all cigarettes should have built in GPS locators and anyone that transports a cigarette outside of a controlled smoking area should be immediately tracked down and punished severely.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, in fact, all cigarettes should have built in GPS locators and anyone that transports a cigarette outside of a controlled smoking area should be immediately tracked down and punished severely.

Indeed, call the area, flavor country..... another thing I've figured out, .45ACP costs about 45 cents a shot, the Belmont Mild I'm enjoying with my morning coffee, about 52 cents per.......

[GostHacked]

I bear no responsibility for your misinterpreting of what I have written!

My intent for this thread was about the "perception" that Canadians will have "about" the gun registry "after" it is gone.

If you had thought that I was supporting,advocating for or attempting to re-initialize this piece of legislation than you have failed to properly coherently attempt to read/recognize what I have actually written or was trying to convey!

Your attempt to try and discredit me because you do not like my opinion is typical of those who fail to obtain anything "concrete" to promote their argument!

In other words your wasting my time!

WWWTT

Just to make things clear

Provide the link then we will debate.

I debate with facts not your opinion!

Thank you!

WWWTT

You are also wasting time by responding to my posts. But, please continue.

You were trying to say with your OP that violence will escalate because the gun registry is getting scrapped, then you did an about face and accuse other of equating scrapping the registry with an increase in violence.

The gun registry has bein the crown jewel centre piece of the conservative rally cry since the days of Preston.And soon it will be gone (forever?).

The final nail in the conservatives coffin will be the next highschool/public shooting.

God forbid such a tragic event from ever occuring in Canada!

Any such tragic event ever occuring in Canada will put such a tremendous burden and responsibility on their shoulders I believe in my opinion will cause a tremendous backlash at the polls for years to come!

Countered with this ..

Ok where did I say the gun registry will prevent shooting sprees?

The argument was about many if not most shooting sprees,where innocent people die are commited by people who do not have any prior violent criminal convictions!

Why does half of my freekin comment have to be about explaining stuff you don't even bother to read man!Why!!

WWWTT

So is this about the gun registry , or people with murderous intent?

You thank someone else for pointing out your obvious disconnect in your own argument, and you say I am wasting YOUR time?? Riiiiiiight.

Edited October 31, 2011 by GostHacked

[WWWTT]

You are also wasting time by responding to my posts. But, please continue.

Actually of everything you have written this would make the most sence!

At some point in time,somewhere and somehow I must have really struck a nerve with you for you to have collected all these quotes,string them together and try to make some kind of nonesense rambling jibbereish opinion filled argument.

Nice try GostHack

The rest of your comment is all about how "you" misinterpreted what I had written.

Good Luck!

WWWTT

[GostHacked]

Actually of everything you have written this would make the most sence!

At some point in time,somewhere and somehow I must have really struck a nerve with you for you to have collected all these quotes,string them together and try to make some kind of nonesense rambling jibbereish opinion filled argument.

Nice try GostHack

The rest of your comment is all about how "you" misinterpreted what I had written.

Good Luck!

WWWTT

I had some spare time to waste.

[eyeball]

So you’re suggesting that ~25% of gun owners are or will become mentally ill?

No, mental health experts are suggesting 20 - 25% of all people will. The WHO says 25% and the Public Health Agency of Canada says 20%. It stands to reason many of these will be gun owners.

If as you say, ~25% of Canadians will become mentally ill, shouldn’t we be watching to whom we give drivers licenses, let alone PAL/RPALs?

Yes this needs to be on our radar too.

(And really, you going to start nit-picking spelling/Grammar?)

I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. Sorry, it won't happen again.

So you’re suggesting that 25% of Canadians are a “ticking time bomb”? Or are they only dangerous to the public at large (or themselves) if they have access to firearms?

I'm suggesting the potential for danger increases when mentally ill or unstable people have access to guns. Marc Lepine certainly demonstrated that.

Again, to clarify, you’re suggesting, right now, there are close to a million mentally ill gun owners in Canada?

If so, how many deaths to they cause a year?

I'm not suggesting there are a million mentally ill gun owners at the moment, just that there will be many of them who will be over time.

What makes you suspect that? A hunch?

There are just no where near as many criminals with weapons as there are ordinary people with guns.

There is also an epidemic of dementia coming at us.

Incidence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in Canada:

2008 - 103,700 new cases per year (1 every 5 minutes)

2038 - 257,800 new cases per year (1 every 2 minutes)

Source

This source suggests A high prevalence of firearm prevalence in households with demented family members was revealed (60.4%). This is US data but it's probably relevant to us in Canada.

This story cites that a quarter of people ages 65 and older own guns, according to the National Firearms Survey of 2004.

The rate of murders/violent crime in Canada have been steadily declining since the 70s……….I suppose we should define a “portion”……….554 Canadians were murdered last year…….170 with firearms………How many of these firearms related deaths were by a legal gun? And, how many of deaths were prevented by firearms registration?

The impetus for the registry was to prevent death by firearms at the hands of the mentally ill not criminals.

Why not put “GPS locaters” on the criminal’s guns first?

Again, what do criminal's guns have to do with the guns of the mentally ill?

Or better yet, “GPS locaters” on everybody’s personal vehicles that will inform the police if they’re speeding……Or microphones/cameras inside to see if they‘re talking on a cell/texting or putting on make-up or sipping on a coffee…And well we‘re at it, breathalysers tied to each cars ignition to reduce the amount of deaths/injures associated with drunk driving…..If ~550-600 (and we still don’t know how many with legal guns) Canadians are murdered every year, compared to the ~2500-3000 that die in Car accidents, I’d think tighter controls on drivers to be the more pressing issue.

I'd rather automate our driving so people can do all these without risk or any need to monitor everyone. Everyone should have a Google car.

Edited October 31, 2011 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

No, mental health experts are suggesting 20 - 25% of all people will. The WHO says 25% and the Public Health Agency of Canada says 20%. It stands to reason many of these will be gun owners.

Yes this needs to be on our radar too.

I'm suggesting the potential for danger increases when mentally ill or unstable people have access to guns. Marc Lepine certainly demonstrated that.

I'm not suggesting there are a million mentally ill gun owners at the moment, just that there will be many of them who will be over time.

There are just no where near as many criminals with weapons as there are ordinary people with guns.

There is also an epidemic of dementia coming at us.

This source suggests A high prevalence of firearm prevalence in households with demented family members was revealed (60.4%). This is US data but it's probably relevant to us in Canada.

This story cites that a quarter of people ages 65 and older own guns, according to the National Firearms Survey of 2004.

The impetus for the registry was to prevent death by firearms at the hands of the mentally ill not criminals.

I don’t discount that some people will develop mental illnesses, namely dementia/Alzheimer's (truly horrible diseases) but we’ve been dealing with these health issues for decades and private citizens have owned firearms for decades…….Has their been a spike in armed elderly, confused people killing other Canadians?

How many elderly people are dieing from smoking related causes? Wouldn’t it be better to focus on curtailing tobacco usage?

Again……. Less than 200 Canadians died from firearms last year……37000 died from smoking, including ~6300 non-smokers from second-hand smoke.

Which is truly the epidemic?

Would you have us ban smoking?

I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. Sorry, it won't happen again.

Fair enough…..I suppose the internet isn’t always the best medium to convey humour

[eyeball]

I don’t discount that some people will develop mental illnesses, namely dementia/Alzheimer's (truly horrible diseases) but we’ve been dealing with these health issues for decades and private citizens have owned firearms for decades…….Has their been a spike in armed elderly, confused people killing other Canadians?

I don't know, but I'm pretty certain there's going to be a spike in the number of armed demented people. Have you forgotten again what this was all about?

How many elderly people are dieing from smoking related causes? Wouldn’t it be better to focus on curtailing tobacco usage?

Again……. Less than 200 Canadians died from firearms last year……37000 died from smoking, including ~6300 non-smokers from second-hand smoke.

Which is truly the epidemic?

Would you have us ban smoking?

What does banning smoking have to do with anything? Remember when I said I only wanted to control guns and not the right to own them?

[eyeball]

I don’t discount that some people will develop mental illnesses, namely dementia/Alzheimer's (truly horrible diseases) but we’ve been dealing with these health issues for decades and private citizens have owned firearms for decades…

The conclusion of the study I linked to above suggests otherwise.

This study suggests that many family members living in households in which there are demented patients do not take appropriate action to remove or unload firearms in their households, regardless of the severity of dementia, behavioral disturbance, or depression. These findings suggest that clinicians need to ask families specifically about the presence of firearms and advocate for their removal.

This study is already 13 years old and the number of demented people is growing by 1 every 5 minutes.

I'm not aware of any policy initiatives to specifically address the issue of dementia and gun use are you? We both agree the registry was or would have been useless. Am I to conclude from the governments emphasis on focusing on the criminal use of guns that mentally ill people who shoots others will just be regarded as a bad guy with a few issues and thrown in jail with everyone else? I guess this would be in keeping with the dismal attitudes and regard Canadians usually have towards insane people.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't know, but I'm pretty certain there's going to be a spike in the number of armed demented people. Have you forgotten again what this was all about?

I can't find my slippers and I don't like the looks of those teenagers

What were we talking about?

What does banning smoking have to do with anything? Remember when I said I only wanted to control guns and not the right to own them?

I certainly do, under the auspices of saving lives……..Do you really not see the correlation?

[eyeball]

I can't find my slippers and I don't like the looks of those teenagers

What were we talking about?

I certainly do, under the auspices of saving lives……..Do you really not see the correlation?

Not when I keep seeing subjects like control and insanity being changed to banning and crime. The correlations seem more like hallucinations.

[Guest Derek L]

Not when I keep seeing subjects like control and insanity being changed to banning and crime. The correlations seem more like hallucinations.

Ok, let’s forgot all our prior posts………….What is your desired, end result, of any restrictions or safeguards (whatever you want to call them) placed on private firearms and their owners?

[eyeball]

Ok, let’s forgot all our prior posts………….What is your desired, end result, of any restrictions or safeguards (whatever you want to call them) placed on private firearms and their owners?

Above all else, restrictions and safeguards should be based on evidence and facts that are supplied and applied by experts, not politicians.

[Guest Derek L]

Above all else, restrictions and safeguards should be based on evidence and facts that are supplied and applied by experts, not politicians.

For the purpose of?