cybercoma Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 I agree, although I have no personal stake in this, as I don't own, or want to own, any firearms. It is silly to think a registration system will have any effect on the crazies out there. It's just a pointless waste of money. The RCMP seems to think it's useful in ensuring that people who come into contact with the system for domestic violence or mental illness turn their guns in. They also find it useful because people who register their guns are less likely to use them in crimes. It takes half a second to register your guns. I don't see why so many people are against it. They say the state shouldn't be able to confiscate their guns, but I respectfully disagree. If you beat your partner, you should not have access to firearms in your home. If you're diagnosed with a serious mental illness, likewise. It won't eliminate the problem entirely, nothing will, but it makes it more difficult for high-risk individuals to get guns and it ensures that the state can protect those that are vulnerable when someone is determined to be high-risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mascotal Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) What if they said " We know you take a drink from time to time so you can't own a car because you might drive impaired? Does this seem fair? Do you see it as just being safe and in the best interest of the general public? How about if you took the time to get a driver license, buy insurance, put gas in the car, take a safe drivers course. Then one night you forgot to lock your car and some low life steals your car then kills somebody with it. So you call the police to report the theft and they come to your house to investigate. Next thing you know, you are being arrested because you failed lock your car. Who cares about the car, or the crime. At least you will be behind bars. This seems fair to you? Edited January 8, 2012 by Mascotal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 standard Harper Conservative move to, late Friday, announce the 7 new Senate appointments and have it conveniently buried in the weekend news cycle. Of course, of note within the new appointees: - Ottawa police Chief Vernon White => a prominent Canadian police-chief that came down against the gun registry... while the majority of all other police chiefs and association heads supported the gun registry - Jean-Guy Dagenais => a defeated Tory candidate in last year's federal election... a former Quebec provincial police officer, one prominently positioned as a former president of Quebec’s largest police union. Noted as a major flipper on the registry. While head of the police union, vocally advocated for the registry, to retain the registry. Underwent a miraculous re-awakening when running unsuccessfully for the Conservatives this past election... suddenly countering all his previous expressed views on the registry... suddenly coming down against the registry! Huh! Tory membership has it's privileges... Harper awarding the gun-registry faithful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 The RCMP seems to think it's useful in ensuring that people who come into contact with the system for domestic violence or mental illness turn their guns in. They also find it useful because people who register their guns are less likely to use them in crimes. It takes half a second to register your guns. I don't see why so many people are against it. They say the state shouldn't be able to confiscate their guns, but I respectfully disagree. If you beat your partner, you should not have access to firearms in your home. If you're diagnosed with a serious mental illness, likewise. It won't eliminate the problem entirely, nothing will, but it makes it more difficult for high-risk individuals to get guns and it ensures that the state can protect those that are vulnerable when someone is determined to be high-risk. This posts demonstrates your utter ignorance of this topic. It takes "half a second" to register your guns, eh? Have you ever registered one? Of course not, or you wouldn't say something this stupid. As for the rest of your post, all your hypothetical nonsense is covered by the Possession and Acquisition License. Your significant other has to sign off on your application, and being crazy won't cut it either. Your simple-minded and erroneous attitude is what pisses off gun owners, they are forced to endure a mountain of red tape to satisfy ignorant people like who who pass the whole thing off as 'no big deal'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 What if they said " We know you take a drink from time to time so you can't own a car because you might drive impaired? Does this seem fair? Do you see it as just being safe and in the best interest of the general public? How about if you took the time to get a driver license, buy insurance, put gas in the car, take a safe drivers course. Then one night you forgot to lock your car and some low life steals your car then kills somebody with it. So you call the police to report the theft and they come to your house to investigate. Next thing you know, you are being arrested because you failed lock your car. Who cares about the car, or the crime. At least you will be behind bars. This seems fair to you? They do that. If you're diagnosed with seizures or something that may impair your driving, they're able to ensure that you don't drive by revoking your license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 This posts demonstrates your utter ignorance of this topic. It takes "half a second" to register your guns, eh? Have you ever registered one? Of course not, or you wouldn't say something this stupid. As for the rest of your post, all your hypothetical nonsense is covered by the Possession and Acquisition License. Your significant other has to sign off on your application, and being crazy won't cut it either. Your simple-minded and erroneous attitude is what pisses off gun owners, they are forced to endure a mountain of red tape to satisfy ignorant people like who who pass the whole thing off as 'no big deal'. My ignorant, simple-minded, and erroneous attitude on the gun-registry? I'm pointing out what the RCMP report on the registry that I posted above has stated. As far as your characterization of my argument goes, the PAL can be revoked, but it has to be renewed on a 5-year cycle. What happens in the mean time? More to the point, just because you have your PAL that doesn't mean you actually have firearms in your possession and just because you have your PAL revoked doesn't mean you will get rid of your guns like you are supposed to. Moreover, the police would have no idea what guns you have possession in order to ensure they're removed from your because you haven't registered them. The firearms registry works in conjunction with the PAL. At least that's what the RCMP has said in their report and they've argued that it doesn't go far enough. Not agreeing with you isn't simple-minded and ignorant. That you think it is shows indeed how arrogant you are. Of course, with how often you're wrong on this forum, after flouting your alleged credentials repeatedly, that's hardly surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huh Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 My ignorant, simple-minded, and erroneous attitude on the gun-registry? I'm pointing out what the RCMP report on the registry that I posted above has stated. As far as your characterization of my argument goes, the PAL can be revoked, but it has to be renewed on a 5-year cycle. What happens in the mean time? More to the point, just because you have your PAL that doesn't mean you actually have firearms in your possession and just because you have your PAL revoked doesn't mean you will get rid of your guns like you are supposed to. Moreover, the police would have no idea what guns you have possession in order to ensure they're removed from your because you haven't registered them. The firearms registry works in conjunction with the PAL. At least that's what the RCMP has said in their report and they've argued that it doesn't go far enough. Not agreeing with you isn't simple-minded and ignorant. That you think it is shows indeed how arrogant you are. Of course, with how often you're wrong on this forum, after flouting your alleged credentials repeatedly, that's hardly surprising. I hope that yours and others concerns for people who might become ill and pose a danger will be extended to criminals and their illegal weapons, omg, imagine the damage they could do if they suddenly got depressed because of a divorce or something! Also, just because you have firearms registered doesn't mean they are in your possession, and just because you don't have firearms registered doesn't mean that you don't have them in your possession, aren't circular arguments fun! If you are reported or become somehow dangerous and known to police you can have your firearms taken from you and your pal revoked at any time, true story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 You might want to read this one over: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/violence-eng.htm Registration of all firearms will serve to enhance the accountability of firearm owners and thereby promote safer storage of firearms. Also, knowledge of who owns firearms will: facilitate the removal of firearms in situations in which the possessor is at risk of misuse; assist police in determining the type and number of firearms they may encounter when responding to an emergency call; and provide police with information on the number of guns known to be in the home when enforcing a prohibition order. Knowledge of who owns firearms can also facilitate efforts to inform firearm owners of their obligations under the legislation, including safe storage regulations. So, once again... it seems the RCMP find the registry useful and the report I posted earlier in the thread they found it effective for its purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mascotal Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 cybercoma They might revoke your license if your unable to drive safely, but they don't take away your private property and charge you as a criminal. People are assumed innocent until proven guilty. The Canadian constitution guarantees that with something called due process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 There is no right to own firearms in Canada. Peace and order take precedence over gun ownership. If you're found mentally ill or if the cops are showing up to your house frequently for disputes, then there's no reason they shouldn't take your guns away. Just as someone with seizures isn't found to be a criminal when they lose their driver's license, neither would someone ordered to turn in their guns. The registry ensures that when this order is given, the person turns in all of them. It forces firearm owners to be accountable too. It ensures that they are locking their guns up and not allowing others access to them or being careless about their security. The RCMP has outlined these reasons and more, insisting that the registry is a useful and effective piece of a larger gun-control package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 There is no right to own firearms in Canada. Peace and order take precedence over gun ownership. If you're found mentally ill or if the cops are showing up to your house frequently for disputes, then there's no reason they shouldn't take your guns away. Just as someone with seizures isn't found to be a criminal when they lose their driver's license, neither would someone ordered to turn in their guns. The registry ensures that when this order is given, the person turns in all of them. It forces firearm owners to be accountable too. It ensures that they are locking their guns up and not allowing others access to them or being careless about their security. The RCMP has outlined these reasons and more, insisting that the registry is a useful and effective piece of a larger gun-control package. There is no 'right' to own computers in Canada either, but I think the average Canadian would be pretty uncomfortable if there was a government ministry dedicated to evesdropping on their daily use, and if any rules were broken, the cops would come, guns drawn, to kick in your door and seize your property. I'm not against keeping guns out of the hands of crazy and violent people, and in principle I really have no problem with registering my guns. The problem started when the entire system was imposed by well-meaning (if somewhat hysterical) people in reaction to the Montreal Massacre. If Canadians wanted a complete legal gun registry, most gun owners I know would have been happy to comply provided they had assurances that they would not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, and quid pro quo, we would like a constitutional guarantee to own weapons. But that never happened, because Alan Rock and the Liberal Machine thought they had enough votes in Central Canada to impose this system without the consent of gun owners. You see law and order, I saw step one in eliminating gun ownership in Canada. That's why this issue refused to go away, we never accepted being bullied around, and the Conservatives were more than happy to oblige us. I'd never voted Conservative in my life until this issue, and I've been voting Conservative ever since. And judging by the opinions expressed here and on other chat boards, I think the average Canadian, whether they own guns or not, has come to see what a sham this has all been. Its only you and a few others who still think law-abiding gun owners need to be closely scrutinized. And here's the sad part. Canada could have had a gun registry with the cooperation of the legal gun owners, but not now. I think I speak for most of us when I say you will not get a second bite at the apple, at least not in my lifetime. The registry will be repealed, billions will have been wasted, and we'll go back to the same system we had in 1994. This clumsy attempt to target gun owners has us all a little paranoid, and it would be a brave and stupid politician that tried this stunt again in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huh Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 There is no right to own firearms in Canada. Peace and order take precedence over gun ownership. If you're found mentally ill or if the cops are showing up to your house frequently for disputes, then there's no reason they shouldn't take your guns away. Just as someone with seizures isn't found to be a criminal when they lose their driver's license, neither would someone ordered to turn in their guns. The registry ensures that when this order is given, the person turns in all of them. It forces firearm owners to be accountable too. It ensures that they are locking their guns up and not allowing others access to them or being careless about their security. The RCMP has outlined these reasons and more, insisting that the registry is a useful and effective piece of a larger gun-control package. First you have to prove that gun ownership is a threat to peace and order, you will not be able to do so, sure, you can parrot the coalition for gun controls talking points, or some other such thing, but actual proof you will not find. Again, you can not seize something which has not been registered, a registry or lack thereof does not ensure the police will get all your guns, nor can it prevent you from obtaining others. Not to mention that in this risk managed society we live in the types of incidents you're referring to are so rare as to be statistically insignificant, just what percentage of firearms murders are as of a result of firearms owners becoming mentally ill? Numbers matter and if you don't have them your arguments don't. Also, how does a piece of paper ensure that gun owners lock up their guns? A registration certificate really can't do that so i assume you mean the penalties in law associated with registering, funny thing though, those laws concerning locking up your guns are not part of the registry legislation. The penalty for not ensuring the security of a unregistered firearm is no different than a registered firearm, so to the gun owner who is concerned about complying with those laws the registry is moot. Just how many gun owners do you think were letting just anyone free access to their firearms before the registry or before safe storage laws...it's a silly thought. If you are letting just anyone just take your guns and do whatever with them you probably aren't the average gun owner, and most likely a criminal. Storage laws are more designed to prevent accidents in the home and reduce theft, but again, not a part of the registry. The RCMP lobby can whine all they like, the fact is real RCMP and other front line officers, by a great majority, don't think the registry is useful. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/17/pol-gun-registry-committee.html Of course in that story a chief is quoted as saying that you can't accept their opinions just part of the time, well, this is from the same organization that didn't want the charter of rights and freedoms, so maybe not everything the RCMP or chiefs of police have to say should be taken as gospel. All this talk by so many people who know nothing about the issue over what amounts to a few percent of all homicides every year, mind boggling. If firearms need to be so tightly controlled why is it OK for alcohol to be consumed anywhere by people who might have access to a car when so many people are killed or injured by drunk drivers? Not illegal cars or booze, perfectly legal, the amount of people killed with legal guns pales in comparison but there is no constant outcry, no calls for prohibition. Personally i find this fixation on firearms difficult to understand, it can't be about saving lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 The problem started when the entire system was imposed by well-meaning (if somewhat hysterical) people in reaction to the Montreal Massacre... ...You see law and order, I saw step one in eliminating gun ownership in Canada. The people reacting to the Montreal Massacre saw that guns and mental illness are a really really bad mix. Gun owners who saw what you did are paranoid and that's what's causing all the problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 If firearms need to be so tightly controlled why is it OK for alcohol to be consumed anywhere by people who might have access to a car when so many people are killed or injured by drunk drivers? It's not okay to do this, and besides there are teams of people, safety boards and car manufacturers who are constantly trying to make cars safer. Aside from one gun manufacturer trying to develop a smart-gun the entire gun community seems dedicated to rolling back any attempts to make guns safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 .... Aside from one gun manufacturer trying to develop a smart-gun the entire gun community seems dedicated to rolling back any attempts to make guns safer. That's funny...."gun community"....using that word with guns in any context seems antithetical. Like saying "nuclear weapons community". At any rate, the history of firearms is full of advances for "safety". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 the history of firearms is full of advances for "safety". Maybe from the user's point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Maybe from the user's point of view. No, not just users. For instance, a Browning M1911A1 .45 ACP pistol has the following safety features: - grip safety - sear disconnect - slide stop - half cock position - manual safety This is safer for users and anyone within range of the weapon, reducing accidental discharge. The design of the cartridge round is itself a remarkable advancement in safety and reliability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 No, not just users. For instance, a Browning M1911A1 .45 ACP pistol has the following safety features: - grip safety - sear disconnect - slide stop - half cock position - manual safety This is safer for users and anyone within range of the weapon, reducing accidental discharge. The design of the cartridge round is itself a remarkable advancement in safety and reliability. Safety of the users and their homies, as opposed to who they're shooting it out with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Safety of the users and their homies, as opposed to who they're shooting it out with. No....removal of the loaded magazine from a M1911 and clearing the chamber renders the pistol inherently safe. Millions of firearms in Canada are safer because of many design features and user actions. Yours is the typical emotional spasm devoid of fact and consideration for what the product is designed to do...very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mascotal Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) cybercoma There is no right to own a car either. Therefore, keeping in step with your line of reason. If someone sees your car parked at a pub and your inside having a beer. It would be reasonable to call the police and have them revoke your license and tow your car to an impound yard. This is what seems reasonable to you? It’s only what’s best for the general public. Right? Oh, and since you no longer have a drivers license you cannot get your car back. Remember, a car is also a deadly weapon in the wrong hands. Edited January 9, 2012 by Mascotal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mascotal Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) I think I speak for most of us when I say you will not get a second bite at the apple, at least not in my lifetime. The registry will be repealed, billions will have been wasted, and we'll go back to the same system we had in 1994. This clumsy attempt to target gun owners has us all a little paranoid, and it would be a brave and stupid politician that tried this stunt again in the near future. You said a mouthful PC. I totally agree Edited January 9, 2012 by Mascotal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 There is no 'right' to own computers in Canada either, but I think the average Canadian would be pretty uncomfortable if there was a government ministry dedicated to evesdropping on their daily use, and if any rules were broken, the cops would come, guns drawn, to kick in your door and seize your property. I'm not against keeping guns out of the hands of crazy and violent people, and in principle I really have no problem with registering my guns.No they wouldn't. The cops do just that when someone is downloading child pornography and guess what... most Canadians support it. The problem started when the entire system was imposed by well-meaning (if somewhat hysterical) people in reaction to the Montreal Massacre. If Canadians wanted a complete legal gun registry, most gun owners I know would have been happy to comply provided they had assurances that they would not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, and quid pro quo, we would like a constitutional guarantee to own weapons. But that never happened, because Alan Rock and the Liberal Machine thought they had enough votes in Central Canada to impose this system without the consent of gun owners. You see law and order, I saw step one in eliminating gun ownership in Canada. That's why this issue refused to go away, we never accepted being bullied around, and the Conservatives were more than happy to oblige us. I'd never voted Conservative in my life until this issue, and I've been voting Conservative ever since. And judging by the opinions expressed here and on other chat boards, I think the average Canadian, whether they own guns or not, has come to see what a sham this has all been. Its only you and a few others who still think law-abiding gun owners need to be closely scrutinized. And here's the sad part. Canada could have had a gun registry with the cooperation of the legal gun owners, but not now. I think I speak for most of us when I say you will not get a second bite at the apple, at least not in my lifetime. The registry will be repealed, billions will have been wasted, and we'll go back to the same system we had in 1994. This clumsy attempt to target gun owners has us all a little paranoid, and it would be a brave and stupid politician that tried this stunt again in the near future. Not sure what I should take from this paragraph of your personal opinions and experiences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 First you have to prove that gun ownership is a threat to peace and order, you will not be able to do so, sure, you can parrot the coalition for gun controls talking points, or some other such thing, but actual proof you will not find. Again, you can not seize something which has not been registered, a registry or lack thereof does not ensure the police will get all your guns, nor can it prevent you from obtaining others. Not to mention that in this risk managed society we live in the types of incidents you're referring to are so rare as to be statistically insignificant, just what percentage of firearms murders are as of a result of firearms owners becoming mentally ill? Numbers matter and if you don't have them your arguments don't.Of course the registry isn't going to end all gun crime. No one is arguing that.And, I really don't feel like digging up the statistics again. Read the report from the RCMP. All of your answers are in there, including the fact that the vast majority of gun crimes in Canada are between suicide and domestic violence cases. Also, how does a piece of paper ensure that gun owners lock up their guns? A registration certificate really can't do that so i assume you mean the penalties in law associated with registering, funny thing though, those laws concerning locking up your guns are not part of the registry legislation.It has nothing to do with penalties. If the government knew exactly what guns you had because you're required to register them, you're going to be a lot more careful about making sure they're locked up. If someone steals your guns and commits a crime, those guns are in your name, so it's going to come back on you to answer for why your gun was used in a crime. It doesn't force people to lock up their guns, but it makes them accountable for them.The RCMP lobby can whine all they like, the fact is real RCMP and other front line officers, by a great majority, don't think the registry is useful.This completely false. The RCMP has released a report on the usefulness and effectiveness of the gun-registry as a plank in the gun-control system in Canada. So, I guess I can chalk you up as another poster that just spreads lies and BS. If you want to argue that the registry is a waste of money and useless that's one thing, but using lies to support your position isn't very effective.All this talk by so many people who know nothing about the issue over what amounts to a few percent of all homicides every year, mind boggling. I've been talking about the RCMP reports that I posted links to. Again, if you think the RCMP knows nothing about gun control, then you're clueless.If firearms need to be so tightly controlled why is it OK for alcohol to be consumed anywhere by people who might have access to a car when so many people are killed or injured by drunk drivers? Not illegal cars or booze, perfectly legal, the amount of people killed with legal guns pales in comparison but there is no constant outcry, no calls for prohibition. Saying something else is bad doesn't actually prove your point. It's just an argument that maybe alcohol should be illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 cybercoma There is no right to own a car either. Therefore, keeping in step with your line of reason. If someone sees your car parked at a pub and your inside having a beer. It would be reasonable to call the police and have them revoke your license and tow your car to an impound yard. This is what seems reasonable to you? It’s only what’s best for the general public. Right? Oh, and since you no longer have a drivers license you cannot get your car back. Remember, a car is also a deadly weapon in the wrong hands. I've already given the driving example. Making up some fictitious position that I don't hold only makes you look like an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mascotal Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 The anti-gun people are the ones who want everyone to register guns, just like cars. You don't get to use "some fictitious position" for a one sided opinion. It really does make you an idiot, not just look like one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.