For or against long gun registry?

cybercoma · January 9, 2012

I want people to register firearms and I'm not anti-gun. I think most people should be able to buy guns, go hunting, fire at targets, collects weapons, etc.

I also believe that the government and law-enforcement should be aware of who owns what firearms and that people who pose a serious risk to themselves and others should have their guns confiscated.

Edited January 9, 2012 by cybercoma

Tilter · 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.

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

To say that the gun is at fault when someone is killed is like saying that forks make people fat. It's the idiot behind the gun (or fork) that is at fault.

cybercoma · January 9, 2012

I don't understand the argument that there's no way of knowing if someone has a gun even if registry is required. That's very true. However, that's like saying cars shouldn't be registered because there's no way of knowing if someone is driving a registered car or not.

Mascotal · January 9, 2012

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

To say that the gun is at fault when someone is killed is like saying that forks make people fat. It's the idiot behind the gun (or fork) that is at fault.

I agree, So why not spend 2 billion to support gun clubs that teach firearm safety and conservation rather then a long gun registry that will not work. If people are idiots, let's change that. No problem.

prairiechickin · January 9, 2012

Not sure what I should take from this paragraph of your personal opinions and experiences.

OK, I'll boil it down a little more bluntly for you. Gun control in Canada was never an issue until that asshole went nuts in Montreal, and then there was an immediate knee-jerk reaction concerning guns in Canada. Then there was a great hue and cry for control, even though we'd had it all along. A certain segment of the population tried to seize the moment, and create a Master List of legal guns in Canada, or at least try to register them in anticipation of the next big massacre. That never happened, because it was a one off, but still they thought that was the first step to a disarmed population. Fifteen years later and still no second crazed gunman, and people started to wonder whether it was worth the money. Canadians realized that billions of dollars spent to register maybe half the weapons in Canada was a waste of money, and the legitimate gun owners that should have been onside in such an effort were pissed to the point that they will never again cooperate. Soon the registry will be dissolved via democratic means, and I dare you to ever try such a stunt again. Next time, we'll just hide our guns away, just like the thousands of illegal handguns in Toronto.

cybercoma · January 9, 2012

What are you even talking about? You mix facts with completely nonsensical opinions and illogical conclusions. The gun-registry had nothing to do with disarming everyone or making long-gun owners criminals. These are nothing more than idiotic political talking points that have no basis in reality. If you want to know the purpose of the registry, read the RCMP's report on it that I posted. At least then your opinion will be informed, rather than just making a bunch of crap up that you saw in your crystal ball. Oh and it's pretty tough to claim "knee-jerk" reaction when the registry legislation was passed 6 years after the massacre.

Edited January 9, 2012 by cybercoma

Mascotal · January 9, 2012

What are you even talking about? You mix facts with completely nonsensical opinions and illogical conclusions. The gun-registry had nothing to do with disarming everyone or making long-gun owners criminals. These are nothing more than idiotic political talking points that have no basis in reality. If you want to know the purpose of the registry, read the RCMP's report on it that I posted. At least then your opinion will be informed, rather than just making a bunch of crap up that you saw in your crystal ball. Oh and it's pretty tough to claim "knee-jerk" reaction when the registry legislation was passed 6 years after the massacre.

I think PC is spot on. In fact a lot of gun owners were made criminals when the law came into affect. My own father in law owned a gun all his life without a license. He tried to get a POL license but was too late making his application. (denied) They told him he would have to take a safety course and apply for a PAL license. He said he didn't want to buy another gun just keep the one he always had. They said,"take the course or give up your gun". He did neither.

cybercoma · January 9, 2012

That was his choice. He should have taken the safety course. You don't get to drive a car without showing that you can do so safely.

Mascotal · January 9, 2012

He was not a criminal before the law was made. Therefore the law made him a criminal.

Mascotal · January 9, 2012

If a person owns a registered gun, then that person dies. The gun is left in the estate. What is stopping someone from selling that gun as unregistered? If the cops ask about the gun years later, it could be said the last registered owner must have sold it and not transferred the weapon. The police would have nobody to arrest. The gun is in the wrong hands. It's once again proven the registry does not work.

prairiechickin · January 9, 2012

That was his choice. He should have taken the safety course. You don't get to drive a car without showing that you can do so safely.

I have a Gun Safety Certificate obtained through a very rigorous course in 1968. The passing mark was 80% -- only four out of forty passed. I went on to pass military courses in target proficiency, then went on to shoot in the field for 30 years. Then I had to pay some dick-head who knew maybe 10% of what I knew about guns and shooting $200 to get yet another certificate. Ya, that's fair to gun owners.

Mascotal · January 9, 2012

I have a Gun Safety Certificate obtained through a very rigorous course in 1968. The passing mark was 80% -- only four out of forty passed. I went on to pass military courses in target proficiency, then went on to shoot in the field for 30 years. Then I had to pay some dick-head who knew maybe 10% of what I knew about guns and shooting $200 to get yet another certificate. Ya, that's fair to gun owners.

What you have done my friend is what I call gun control.

Myself. I had one rifle that I never used. When they brought in the registry, I decided to fight it the best way I could. So I renewed my license and started "cowboy action shooting" with my wife at my gun club. I now have four hand guns, four shotguns, and three rifles. I also started reloading my own ammunition and casting my own bullets. We shoot all the time and have met many new friends. I also make leather holsters by hand that are selling like hot cakes. I attend every meeting and volunteer as much as I can. You might say I'm grateful to the government of the day. We are having a blast.

Cowboy Action is a family sport that doesn't focus on competition. It's all about getting out, having fun with friends and shooting safe.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Mascotal

cybercoma · January 9, 2012

That's all very nice. Nobody is against that. I think everyone should be able to join gun clubs, hunt, or do any other legal thing they want with their guns. However, that doesn't change the fact that I want the police to have access to a database telling them who owns guns and how many they have. It also doesn't mean that I don't think people should be required to take a safety course, just as they do with motor vehicles, that tests them on proper storage and handling of those firearms. There is no mass confiscation of firearms, nor was that ever the intention of the program.

The only reasonable stance against the entire gun registry was the insane cost of setting up the program. That, however, isn't an arguement against the program as a whole, but a problem with the administration of it. Unless there was no way to curtail the costs of running the dataset, then there's no reason to end a program that the RCMP and association of chiefs of police both have found useful and effective. Moreover, frontline officers polled found it extremely useful when they were trained on how to use the database properly, although those who were not trained on it were less likely to use and less likely to find any value in it since they didn't use it. All of this information is in the RCMP's report that was sent to the MPs, which I posted in this thread already.

Mascotal · January 9, 2012

That's all very nice. Nobody is against that. I think everyone should be able to join gun clubs, hunt, or do any other legal thing they want with their guns. However, that doesn't change the fact that I want the police to have access to a database telling them who owns guns and how many they have. It also doesn't mean that I don't think people should be required to take a safety course, just as they do with motor vehicles, that tests them on proper storage and handling of those firearms. There is no mass confiscation of firearms, nor was that ever the intention of the program.

The only reasonable stance against the entire gun registry was the insane cost of setting up the program. That, however, isn't an arguement against the program as a whole, but a problem with the administration of it.

cybercoma, There are just too many holes in the registry. They cannot justify the cost for a system that doesn't work. Also, the way the law was pushed onto "law abiding citizens" means they lost support from the vary people that needed to back it. It was doomed from the very start.

It was also a careless way for the Liberal government to spend the tax money. The legal gun owners told them it would not work and they didn't care so they lost the respect of legal gun owners. They didn't want to listen. They were going to push it through parliament and not listen to what the voters had to say. That tells us they had another plan in the works. A total collection of all guns.

It's no wonder the Liberal party was crushed in the last election.

Now with that in mind. Quebec and Ontario want to try and save the registry for their own use. Remember the politicians who support it in the next election, and get them out. They cannot do it.

This was a federal program that used federal money so one or two provinces will not have a chance to save it. The information is also private and not for disclosure so it must be destroyed. Hell, even my doctor needs my permission to tell another doctor. Do you suppose the legal gun owners will say it's ok to share my information? Not that the information would mean anything. I could sell my guns or buy more guns and the registry would not know. Also, how would Ontario and Quebec keep unregistered guns out of the province? They will need to spend billions more to set up borders.

Mascotal · January 9, 2012

As for the police. They have there job to do and nobody has a problem with that. However they also have an agenda to collect and hold as much power as they can and use that power to control the general population. Since information is a powerful tool it’s pretty clear why they want to retain any information from the long gun registry they can. Does it mean the registry is effective? No, but they will say it is to get their way. It also doesn’t mean the police are above the law and entitled to retain the information at the expense of tax payers . They are subject to the same laws throughout Canada.

I would like to know where the police are going to set up radar traps. Do you suppose they will share that information?

Edited January 9, 2012 by Mascotal

cybercoma · January 9, 2012

The RCMP addressed the "holes" in the registry in their report. They found that gun-owners were confused about their responsibilities, due to the political squabbles in Ottawa. In other words, the CPC mislead the public before they took office and indeed after they took office, by telling people they were scrapping the registry. Their bill has not yet passed. Therefore, people must still legally register their firearms. I don't think many are aware of this. That sort of confusion has been going on for many years.

Mascotal · January 9, 2012

In a news release issued Sunday, Conservative spokesman Fred DeLorey said, “Canadians gave us a strong mandate to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry, and the Harper Government is doing exactly that.”

The Conservative Party of Canada is launching the nationwide radio ad campaign Monday to promote its promise to abolish the long-gun registry.

In the 30-second radio ad, a man and woman are heard talking over the noise of clanking cutlery. The man is heard saying, "Hunters and farmers wont be treated as criminals anymore."

To which the woman replies, "Don't forget the billions that were wasted on creating and maintaining the registry, money that could be put to better use like on the economy or actually fighting crime."

Source CBC News

The police have an opinion. That's nice.

Mascotal · January 10, 2012

So, you don't think the police have any agenda to collect all firearms huh?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/06/rcmp-to-seize-more-scary-looking-guns-before-registry-dies/

Yeah Boy. That's one scary looking gun. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt8jkGkmx68

Edited January 10, 2012 by Mascotal

cybercoma · January 10, 2012

“Remember, once (the) gun registry is eliminated, the RCMP will lose their ability to identify, target and harass law-abiding owners of non-restricted firearms,” he said. “They only took notice of (the AP80) when the gun registry is in its death throes.”

Not only is the gun not "non-restricted", but it's now a prohibited firearm. That's not law-abiding.

The party of law-and-order my ass. Respect the police in one breath then have utter contempt for them in another.

cybercoma · January 10, 2012

It's funny too that the only article in circulation right no is the one written by Jeff Davis from Postmedia. Every single newspaper carrying this item at the moment has the exact same article in print.

Regardless of the firing mechanism and the .22 cal rounds, the gun is an AK-47 replica.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt8jkGkmx68

In fact, according to the written law about the AK-47, the Mitchell AK-22 is prohibited and I believe that gun is almost identical to teh AP 80. So it looks like the RCMP is right and the gun was just classified incorrectly.

Edited January 10, 2012 by cybercoma

Mascotal · January 10, 2012

FACT The gun is not an AK-47. It's a 22 cal. varmint rifle.

Your saying if it walks like a duck, then it's a duck. So am I. If the police goose step like Nazis, then that is who they are.

cybercoma · January 10, 2012

I'm not saying anything. What other people on the internet say about the gun is that it's an AK 47 replica. If you go through the YouTube videos and the blogs, people call it a 22 version of the AK. According to our laws any variants of the AK are prohibited. So, as the RCMP stated, it was classified incorrectly. You can't possibly expect an officer or anyone else at a distance to know whether the gun in that video is an actual AK or a replica. Whether it's a varmint rifle or not is irrelevant.

bush_cheney2004 · January 10, 2012

I'm not saying anything.

So what else is new?

Mascotal · January 10, 2012

So these people who had non-restricted rifles and owned them legally, are now suppose to give up their private property without compensation? Sounds to me like it would only be a matter of time before the police found a problem with each and every gun in Canada that is registered.