For or against long gun registry?

[PIK]

And how many times have the news reported of people using cars to take people out, registry did not work there did it. But this is over and done with, the left needs to man up and admit it was a dumb policy and move on.

[eyeball]

And how many times have the news reported of people using cars to take people out...

There was that recent shooting in Alberta where the shooter used his truck to stop his targets at which point he used his guns.

Had there been a system in place that could track guns that are suddenly removed from a secure storage without proper notification authorities might have had a chance to save some lives. I think the shooting in Alberta in particular could have been prevented if there had been a requirement for two people to unlock whatever it was the guns were stored in.

But this is over and done with, the left needs to man up and admit it was a dumb policy and move on.

Some of us are. Now that the stupid and worthless registry is finally out of the way it's time to move on to real gun control.

[jbg]

You know as well as I do that cars are already registered. Your so witty and sneaky

If you want to get into the "Cars are registered so why not firearms" conversation then you go first.

No, I was suggesting that the ride itself be subject to registry and permit, in addition to the car.

[NWRS]

There was that recent shooting in Alberta where the shooter used his truck to stop his targets at which point he used his guns.

Had there been a system in place that could track guns that are suddenly removed from a secure storage without proper notification authorities might have had a chance to save some lives. I think the shooting in Alberta in particular could have been prevented if there had been a requirement for two people to unlock whatever it was the guns were stored in.

Some of us are. Now that the stupid and worthless registry is finally out of the way it's time to move on to real gun control.

You have a better chance of being struck by lighting that killed with a firearm, so your opinion is basically worthless, you don't listen to reason.

If you want to save lives (we know you don't, social engineering isn't about saving lives) what do you suggest we do about the 70 percent of homicides that aren't gun related? It seems people will find a way to kill each other without firearms, as they do right now in greater numbers.

As I said before, clearly all murders are committed by people, some with tools, some of those with guns, seeing as licensed firearms owners are safer than the average non gun owner perhaps it's the rest of you that need to be tracked.

Better yet, lets have more lightning awareness education, that would prevent more injuries and deaths than caused by licensed gun owners.

Are knives next for safe storage? More Canadians are a victim of violent crime with a knife and in recent years more homicides have been committed with a knife, tell us how you plan to prevent that, should i have to check out my knife from safe storage before dinner? Or are those deaths OK because they usually come one at a time?

Just give it up already

[PIK]

There was that recent shooting in Alberta where the shooter used his truck to stop his targets at which point he used his guns.

Had there been a system in place that could track guns that are suddenly removed from a secure storage without proper notification authorities might have had a chance to save some lives. I think the shooting in Alberta in particular could have been prevented if there had been a requirement for two people to unlock whatever it was the guns were stored in.

Some of us are. Now that the stupid and worthless registry is finally out of the way it's time to move on to real gun control.

Now you are being stupid.

[eyeball]

You have a better chance of being struck by lighting that killed with a firearm

You stand a better chance of being killed either way than by a terrorist but that hasn't prevented public safety measures that address the latter at a cost that would make even the most cost-unconscious gun registrar blush.

social engineering isn't about saving lives

What are you talking about, governing is quite often about preventing death and injury. Why do think things like cars and skill saws keep getting safer?

[eyeball]

Now you are being stupid.

Now you're being insulting, so bugger off.

Edited December 30, 2011 by eyeball

[prairiechickin]

You stand a better chance of being killed either way than by a terrorist but that hasn't prevented public safety measures that address the latter at a cost that would make even the most cost-unconscious gun registrar blush.

What are you talking about, governing is quite often about preventing death and injury. Why do think things like cars and skill saws keep getting safer?

So, you're best argument for wasting billions more on useless gun control is that we're already wasting billions fighting terrorism? That's very convincing.

Here's some quick wiki-facts for you. In 2007 in Canada there were 594 murders, roughly one-third (198) were stabbings, one-third (188) were shootings. Of those 188 shootings, two-thirds involved handguns. Handguns are heavily restricted in this country, but nevertheless account for the majority of deaths. So, Mr. Lock-Up-Their-Guns, how do you account for this discrepancy? Its simple, the vast majority of those handguns were never registered, they were smuggled in from the States and used by gangs or wanna-be gangsters. So you can make all the rules you want, the burden of your protective fantasies falls on the law-abiding gun owners, since the criminals don't follow the rules.

And if its all about saving lives, I've heard estimates that between 25,000 and 30,000 people die each year in Canadian hospitals due to medical errors by doctors and nurses. Compared to the 200 that die from gunshots each year, where do you suppose the bigger bang for our buck would be, harrassing gun owners or employing more rigorous standards in hospitals? But more stringent controls in hospitals costs real money, and then we have to go after those in the white coats, and that's not as satisfying as trying to bring the badass rednecks to heel, is it?

[NWRS]

You stand a better chance of being killed either way than by a terrorist but that hasn't prevented public safety measures that address the latter at a cost that would make even the most cost-unconscious gun registrar blush.

Well, that's irrelevant.

What are you talking about, governing is quite often about preventing death and injury. Why do think things like cars and skill saws keep getting safer?

How is the government going to makes knives safer, or fists, or rope, or any of the other 'weapons' used to kill people in about 70 percent of the homicides each year, your goal is to save lives right?

How about we consider that before we punish the tiny portion of legal gun owners who commit murders, and yea it is tiny, of all firearms used in murders registered long guns made up about 2 percent. You can be sure that most of the handguns weren't legal, and keeping them out of the hands of those who are overwhelmingly law abiding (statistically more likely than you to be so) isn't going to change that.

So you can bleat all you like about this issue, you are wrong on the facts, choose to play the social engineering card if you wish, it is immoral, but that's progressiveness i suppose.

A car is only needs to be safer when you hit something you shouldn't have, after which the state may choose to punish you, or you might get sued. You want to presume that someone with a firearm license is a murderer waiting to happen when in fact they are less likely to be violent than you are. There is a difference. Far more people are killed by the outright misuse of a car by a licensed driver than by a licensed firearms owner. I suppose we need gps tracking on all cars with auto shutdowns for speeding and breathalyzer interlocks on every car, some kind of system that detects when you're distracted or tired and reports you, or maybe just a giant impound lot where you will have to check it out when you want to use it. Do you want to save lives or not?

So, do we need a central chef knife storage now, more people stabbed to death last year than shot, more violence committed with a knife, most shootings not committed with legal guns..so, which is it, do you want to save lives or play games? O, nvm, i see you over there in the sand box.

[eyeball]

Well, that's irrelevant.

Well, you're the one that irrelevantly started pointing at other ways to be killed...and you just don't know when to stop it seems.

How is the government going to makes knives safer, or fists, or rope, or any of the other 'weapons' used to kill people in about 70 percent of the homicides each year, your goal is to save lives right?

At least a few more lives, by preventing death and injury that comes from guns from falling into the hands of people who are mentally ill and unstable.

How about we consider that before we punish the tiny portion of legal gun owners who commit murders, and yea it is tiny, of all firearms used in murders registered long guns made up about 2 percent. You can be sure that most of the handguns weren't legal, and keeping them out of the hands of those who are overwhelmingly law abiding (statistically more likely than you to be so) isn't going to change that.

First of all, since when did responsibility equate to punishment and what did illegal handguns ever have to do with the event that triggered the impetus for the gun registry?

So you can bleat all you like about this issue, you are wrong on the facts, choose to play the social engineering card if you wish, it is immoral, but that's progressiveness i suppose.

Actually it was you that played it first and your assertion that social engineering is immoral suggests an abject misunderstanding of the term never mind the point of almost all governance. How far do you think we'd progress without governance? How would you make or build or construct a society, with a seamstress or a geologist or something?

A car is only needs to be safer when you hit something you shouldn't have, after which the state may choose to punish you, or you might get sued. You want to presume that someone with a firearm license is a murderer waiting to happen when in fact they are less likely to be violent than you are. There is a difference. Far more people are killed by the outright misuse of a car by a licensed driver than by a licensed firearms owner. I suppose we need gps tracking on all cars with auto shutdowns for speeding and breathalyzer interlocks on every car, some kind of system that detects when you're distracted or tired and reports you, or maybe just a giant impound lot where you will have to check it out when you want to use it. Do you want to save lives or not?

The numbers of people injured and killed in cars would be several times what it is today if the same attitude you bring to improving gun safety had been applied to cars. Point being, there is a never-ending effort to make cars safer - a rare event in the case of guns.

I have no doubt we will see gps and breathalyzers in cars and finally we'll even see fully automated transportation systems where you'll merely need you to tell the car where to take you as crack a cold one and kick back and relax. We could probably do this now but then we'd have to allow for 50 years or so of pissing and moaning from the pry-my-dead-cold-fingers-from-my-steering-wheel-crowd wouldn't we?

So, do we need a central chef knife storage now, more people stabbed to death last year than shot, more violence committed with a knife, most shootings not committed with legal guns..so, which is it, do you want to save lives or play games?

I want to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the mentally ill not point at other things and say what about them. Just out of curiosity, assume you were in a position where you had no choice but to come up with ways and means to do what I've said. What would you suggest?

In my industry the government told participants to engineer a solution for monitoring and accountability or stop fishing. Don't tell me state monitoring using gps and even cameras to achieve a very specific goal without it constituting an invasion of my privacy isn't possible. Interestingly enough this monitoring wouldn't prevent me from illegally blasting away at sea-lions or killer-whales if I was so inclined.

O, nvm, i see you over there in the sand box.

?

Edited December 31, 2011 by eyeball

[eyeball]

So, you're best argument for wasting billions more on useless gun control is that we're already wasting billions fighting terrorism? That's very convincing.

GPS chips are less than 5$ a pop and trigger-locks are about 7$. It costs fishermen about $8000 to outfit their boats for state monitoring and anywhere from $500 to $1200 a trip for the service.

Cry me a river.

Here's some quick wiki-facts for you. In 2007 in Canada there were 594 murders, roughly one-third (198) were stabbings, one-third (188) were shootings. Of those 188 shootings, two-thirds involved handguns. Handguns are heavily restricted in this country, but nevertheless account for the majority of deaths. So, Mr. Lock-Up-Their-Guns, how do you account for this discrepancy?

The war on drugs - one of the biggest wastes of money, time and resources on the planet.

Its simple, the vast majority of those handguns were never registered, they were smuggled in from the States and used by gangs or wanna-be gangsters. So you can make all the rules you want, the burden of your protective fantasies falls on the law-abiding gun owners, since the criminals don't follow the rules.

And this has exactly what to do with preventing the Marc Lepines of the world? Recall that he was mentally ill, not a criminal.

And if its all about saving lives, I've heard estimates that between 25,000 and 30,000 people die each year in Canadian hospitals due to medical errors by doctors and nurses. Compared to the 200 that die from gunshots each year, where do you suppose the bigger bang for our buck would be, harrassing gun owners or employing more rigorous standards in hospitals?

Whose buck? I expect you gun-owners to pay the cost of your own oversight and accountability. If you thought I expected the state to pay for any of this you're sadly mistaken.

But more stringent controls in hospitals costs real money, and then we have to go after those in the white coats, and that's not as satisfying as trying to bring the badass rednecks to heel, is it?

Are you suggesting that no one is making any effort whatsoever to improve hospital safety? Do you have any evidence of hospital users or authorities throwing up their hands and pointing at all the death and injury from...fill-in-the-blank-here?

[CPCFTW]

The numbers of people injured and killed in cars would be several times what it is today if the same attitude you bring to improving gun safety had been applied to cars. Point being, there is a never-ending effort to make cars safer - a rare event in the case of guns.

I have no doubt we will see gps and breathalyzers in cars and finally we'll even see fully automated transportation systems where you'll merely need you to tell the car where to take you as crack a cold one and kick back and relax. We could probably do this now but then we'd have to allow for 50 years or so of pissing and moaning from the pry-my-dead-cold-fingers-from-my-steering-wheel-crowd wouldn't we?

Wow you must watch too many movies or smoke too much...

Yes we'd have millions of fully automated transportation systems if it weren't for the "pry-my-dead-cold-fingers-from-my-steering-wheel-crowd".

[eyeball]

Wow you must watch too many movies or smoke too much...

You must have your head up your ass.

Driverless car

In August 2011, a humanly controlled Google driverless car was involved in the project's first crash near Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA. Google has stated that the car was being driven manually at the time of the accident.

Yes we'd have millions of fully automated transportation systems if it weren't for the "pry-my-dead-cold-fingers-from-my-steering-wheel-crowd".

No, what I said is that fully automated transportation systems will have to overcome at least a generation of resistance from the pry-my-dead-cold-fingers-from-my-steering-wheel-crowd. That said Nevada has apparently approved the use of driverless cars and car manufacturers are gearing up to produce them.

It's only a matter of time until some jurisdiction mandates their use.

Edited December 31, 2011 by eyeball

[NWRS]

You must have your head up your ass.

Driverless car

No, what I said is that fully automated transportation systems will have to overcome at least a generation of resistance from the pry-my-dead-cold-fingers-from-my-steering-wheel-crowd. That said Nevada has apparently approved the use of driverless cars and car manufacturers are gearing up to produce them.

It's only a matter of time until some jurisdiction mandates their use.

Is there no limit or aspect of your life that you want controlled?

Are by chance a big fan of the society depicted in logans Run?

[eyeball]

Is there no limit or aspect of your life that you want controlled?

Of course I want to have limits on how much the state can intrude into my life. Now please pay particular attention to this next sentence. That's why gun owners should be the one's most responsible for designing the best way to prove their guns are safely secured.

All I've been doing is throwing out ideas on how to do that. If you have any of your own I'd like to hear them.

Are by chance a big fan of the society depicted in logans Run?

Of course I'm not.

Do you have a fear of black helicopters? Do you think it's safe for people who are to own guns?

[NWRS]

Of course I want to have limits on how much the state can intrude into my life. Now please pay particular attention to this next sentence. That's why gun owners should be the one's most responsible for designing the best way to prove their guns are safely secured.

We have this thing called licensing, and if you bother to look at the numbers with a small amount of honesty you would see that it mostly works, it is one of the many reasons why the registry wasn't needed.

All I've been doing is throwing out ideas on how to do that. If you have any of your own I'd like to hear them.

Of course I'm not.

Do you have a fear of black helicopters? Do you think it's safe for people who are to own guns?

That is as usual an exaggeration, most often attributed to people who only believe they have a right to self defense, which in Canada is exceedingly difficult to do with the current safe storage laws regardless of what firearms you own. Even if you can access them in time to defend yourself the very threat of using a firearm in self defense, even in your own home against an intruder, can get you in hot water, which is nothing short of ridiculous. Frankly it is attitudes like yours that bring us to such ridiculous situations whereby if you defend your family in your own home you basically need to ask the intruder what type of violence he plans to use against you before you can respond, lest you are too hard on the poor guy.. Granted these situations are rare, but not nonexistent and there are recent examples of exactly what I mention above.

Anyway, that's another argument, and of course there are some nutters out there, but the fact remains that legally licensed firearms owners are not in general violent individuals in need of more control, even if they are 'preparing' for a disaster or what not that is likely never to occur. You can't prove otherwise, and no amount of new law will discourage the use of illegal firearms by criminals, you may have noticed, we already have laws against murder, people still do it.

Seventy percent of the time with something other than a firearm.

[eyeball]

We have this thing called licensing, and if you bother to look at the numbers with a small amount of honesty you would see that it mostly works, it is one of the many reasons why the registry wasn't needed.

You'll get no argument with me on the uselessness of the registry. It was the wrong tool for the wrong job. Unfortunately licencing won't do squat either to prevent more Marc Lepines or incidents like the recent shootings in Alberta.

That is as usual an exaggeration, most often attributed to people who only believe they have a right to self defense, which in Canada is exceedingly difficult to do with the current safe storage laws regardless of what firearms you own.

So is the fear of electronic monitoring, most of which can be attributed to fiction like Logan's Run.

Even if you can access them in time to defend yourself the very threat of using a firearm in self defense, even in your own home against an intruder, can get you in hot water, which is nothing short of ridiculous. Frankly it is attitudes like yours that bring us to such ridiculous situations whereby if you defend your family in your own home you basically need to ask the intruder what type of violence he plans to use against you before you can respond, lest you are too hard on the poor guy.. Granted these situations are rare, but not nonexistent and there are recent examples of exactly what I mention above. Anyway, that's another argument, and of course there are some nutters out there, but the fact remains that legally licensed firearms owners are not in general violent individuals in need of more control,

So you're saying that legally licensed firearm owners are immune to mental illness and dementia?

even if they are 'preparing' for a disaster or what not that is likely never to occur. You can't prove otherwise, and no amount of new law will discourage the use of illegal firearms by criminals, you may have noticed, we already have laws against murder, people still do it.

Why do you insist on deflecting the debate about how to prevent the use of guns by the mentally ill to one about the use of guns by criminals? Murder is a crime that is distinguished from other forms of killing by the state...wait for it...of the killer's mind. Go figure.

When a diagnosed insane person kills someone, they are not criminals, they are sick. That's not just my opinion it's a legal fact. Normally, people who are sick, are treated, not punished.

Seventy percent of the time with something other than a firearm.

Trying to prevent 30% is better than nothing. When someone like Marc Lepine goes on a rampage they do so with a licensed gun almost 100% of the time.

I have to say one of the things that really fuels my persistence with this issue is the way opponents of gun control constantly conflate mental illness with criminality. I'm convinced the costs of controlling guns is peanuts compared to the financial and human cost of the damaging disservice this conflation does. The lack of any effort from politicians to not set this grotesque misperception straight is shameful, disingenuous and probably even intentional in some cases. Like you say, there really are some nutters out there.

[Alberta_Ford]

This is my only suggestion to better solve your dilemma of improving ill people from legally owning firearms. Similar approach to one our military uses for sniper selection. You get profiled by your personality and have to fit certain criteria to be selected not only to do the job but be trusted with the skill set being taught. I can't think of a way that this would efficiently approve people for a gun license in a timely manner and I will leave that up to someone else to figure out. I personally would hate to see it come to that and think our current system would be better. Even more so I think we should not need a license at all and let accidents happen and people be punished. let life play out because having experiences good or bad allow you to appreciate what and who you have in life. Also I think people need to die each year just for population controls sake. In a world that is to controlled and has safety precautions for everything would not be worth living because people need to make choices for individuality, personal growth etc. Next thing you know were just a bunch of communists. But thats my personal opinion which I decided to share and is not the topic of discussion. Eyeball asks for a suggestion and I gave one that could work to serve his purpose but don't think is necessary and explained why. If someone wants to debate my personal opinion on why I don't agree with the license you will not get a response. Any reasoning of mine has been explained and will not be explained any further.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Alberta_Ford

[prairiechickin]

GPS chips are less than 5$ a pop and trigger-locks are about 7$. It costs fishermen about $8000 to outfit their boats for state monitoring and anywhere from $500 to $1200 a trip for the service. Cry me a river.

I expect you gun-owners to pay the cost of your own oversight and accountability. If you thought I expected the state to pay for any of this you're sadly mistaken.

In the twists and turns or your remarkably flexible logic, this is where the rubber hits the road. You really do believe that I should pay the costs of your neurosis regarding guns. I already have trigger locks on my guns, I had them long before there was a law about it because they are just a good idea. Sure, the GPS is $5, but as you say yourself, the cost is on the monitoring side. And you do realize the difference beween a commercial fishing boat and filling the freezer, right? You neglected to mention how much profit each trip made. You kill for money, I kill to eat, big difference.

I've really enjoyed reading your posts on this topic because, as you can probably tell, I'm as passionate as you about gun control. I had My Hunter's Safety Certificate by the time I was 12, four years before I owned my first gun. This was a coarse designed and administered by the Saskatchews Wildlife Federation, and I lucked out because my science teacher was a member and talked the school I attended into running two classes in Hunter Safety. This was no quickey one day everybody passes seminar, it ran daily classes for two weeks and there was a pretty serious exam at the end. You had to score 80% to pass -- a reasonable standard considering we were talking about deadly weapons -- only four out of 70 made it, me, my sister (who's never owned a gun, she's just smart), my best friend Fogarty, and somebody else I don't remember. I had no idea I would be a hunter, it was just one of those things I did because it was interesting.

I started fishing shortly after that, and that led to hunting which led to guns, and in the '70s that was pretty easy. There were no rules about guns other than handguns, I bought my first .22 off my neighbor. I was babysitting her kids when I came across this rusty piece of junk in the basement. I was trustworthy enough to watch her kids, so she sold me the gun for $10. Point is, because of that course I'd taken three years earlier I knew what I had and how to deal with it, I cleaned it up, sighted it in, and started shooting. Not long after that my friends started hunting deer with their dad's, and I borrowed my Dad's 30-30 and away I went. Not long after that federal legislation was passed requiring all gun owners register and I thought that was a good idea too. So did all my friends. We all filled in the forms, did the criminal background checks, and took the Hunters Safety Course and got our Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FACs). We paid for all of it and never complained. It was the grown-up version of the Hunter's Safety Certificate, and I was proud to have one. I was trained to handle my weapons, and I had the paperwork to prove it.

Then came the long-gun registry, and all the ensuing madness. You and your kind have turned me from a responsible well-trained advocate of gun control to a semi-paranoid semi-criminal kind of guy. In a couple of months the Conservatives are going to end that ongoing stupidity, but the backlash will go on for long after that. More important than the billions wasted on the long gun registry was the goodwill of Canadian gun owners. I've been tracking the arguments of people like you since this started, and you are a combination of paranoia, social control, and too much American television. You can pass all the laws you want and build all the gun storage lockers you want, but you will never again have my cooperation. Shove your GPS chip up your ass.

[jbg]

Are knives next for safe storage? More Canadians are a victim of violent crime with a knife and in recent years more homicides have been committed with a knife, tell us how you plan to prevent that, should i have to check out my knife from safe storage before dinner? Or are those deaths OK because they usually come one at a time?

Just give it up already

How about a hammer registry, and safe storage?

[jbg]

You stand a better chance of being killed either way than by a terrorist but that hasn't prevented public safety measures that address the latter at a cost that would make even the most cost-unconscious gun registrar blush.

The problem with your view is that terrorists seek to disrupt normal societal and governmental functions. It is because of certain of the public safety measures (and I don't mean the security theater that goes on in airports and city buildings) that the chance of being a terror victim is so slim.

[cybercoma]

I think people need to die each year just for population controls sake.

This is actually a myth. Birth rates decline in industrialized nations. We actually require immigration to support ourselves. Otherwise the shrinking population would be detrimental to our economies. Malthus was wrong. The population isn't doubling at the rate he believed it would. Edited January 1, 2012 by cybercoma

[jbg]

Also I think people need to die each year just for population controls sake.

But Chretien said that if Kyoto didn't pass people would start dieing in 2031. Maybe now that Kyoto's repealed no one will die until 2031.

[eyeball]

In the twists and turns or your remarkably flexible logic, this is where the rubber hits the road. You really do believe that I should pay the costs of your neurosis regarding guns.

No, I believe gun owners should pay the cost of securing their guns. I think the state should provide some initial funding to help set up a system but once it's in place, you should be on your own. There should be enough gun owners to keep the cost per owner down. As I said above you guys should be the one's responsible for designing the system which could help keep costs down too.

You and your kind have turned me from a responsible well-trained advocate of gun control to a semi-paranoid semi-criminal kind of guy.

If you want to know who insists on making the issue of mental illness into an issue about criminality go look in the mirror.

I didn't see a single thing you wrote that addresses how to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who lose their minds. Not one.

[eyeball]

This is my only suggestion to better solve your dilemma of improving ill people from legally owning firearms. Similar approach to one our military uses for sniper selection. You get profiled by your personality and have to fit certain criteria to be selected not only to do the job but be trusted with the skill set being taught. I can't think of a way that this would efficiently approve people for a gun license in a timely manner and I will leave that up to someone else to figure out. I personally would hate to see it come to that and think our current system would be better. Even more so I think we should not need a license at all and let accidents happen and people be punished.

Profiling won't prevent a sudden mental illness any more than a FAC or a hunting licence.

Punish the mentally ill...did your Mom spank you for getting chicken-pox or catching a cold by any chance?