For or against long gun registry?

[Guest Derek L]

There is a pretty thorough process in order to possess and purchase firearms already.

I still support the registry though because:

1 - In cases of domestic abuse, assault against another member of the general pub or mental issue investigations, the police know there are firearms registered to the person and they can be confiscated while the process plays out and a decision can be made by the courts as to return them or not.

2 - I'm not a crazy person who thinks that the Russians are going to invade and look up what is our equivalent to the ATF Form 4473.

3 - I also think it does no harm, and any extra tool that we can have that forces responsibility on gun owners is good.

So when it’s gone, will you want to eventually see it come back?

[Shakeyhands]

So when it’s gone, will you want to eventually see it come back?

Nope, Why spend the money twice?

[Guest Derek L]

Nope, Why spend the money twice?

Fair enough, Would you be apposed to your home Province setting up it’s own registry?

[Shakeyhands]

Fair enough, Would you be apposed to your home Province setting up it’s own registry?

Yes, because again... we've already paid (through the nose) for it. I think scrapping it is a stupid idea.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, because again... we've already paid (through the nose) for it. I think scrapping it is a stupid idea.

And fair enough again, so it’s reasonable to assume your support for the LGR is tepid at best……..You don’t want to see it go, but when it does, you don’t want to bring it back due to the expense…..So your suggestion that the LGR:

1 - In cases of domestic abuse, assault against another member of the general pub or mental issue investigations, the police know there are firearms registered to the person and they can be confiscated while the process plays out and a decision can be made by the courts as to return them or not.

2 - I'm not a crazy person who thinks that the Russians are going to invade and look up what is our equivalent to the ATF Form 4473.

3 - I also think it does no harm, and any extra tool that we can have that forces responsibility on gun owners is good.

Isn’t that important……..The RCMP says the LGR is useful……..Would one really expect a program administered by the RCMP to be deemed a waste by them also?

[Shakeyhands]

And fair enough again, so it’s reasonable to assume your support for the LGR is tepid at best……..You don’t want to see it go, but when it does, you don’t want to bring it back due to the expense…..So your suggestion that the LGR:

Isn’t that important……..The RCMP says the LGR is useful……..Would one really expect a program administered by the RCMP to be deemed a waste by them also?

My support for rebuilding the LGR is non-existent. My support for the existing LGR is tempered, by cost and usefulness, the first point I made is one that I believe is used by the police, though to be honest i am not sure it is. If that is what we are using it for, and to give the EXTRA EXTRA bit of protection and foresight to the police as they execute their duties... great. The creation was a bit of boondoggle and it cost us too much.

Why destroy it now that it is here? I bought a new shotgun just before Christmas and the LGR portion of the purchase took 2 mins max. Whats the big deal?

Why is there such reluctance to registering lg's? Unless you are living in the Red Dawn dream, there is really no reason not to. And how anyone thinks it makes hunters/farmers/collectors out to be criminals is beyond me, just register the damn things. If you aren't doing anything wrong who the hell cares?

Edited February 6, 2012 by Shakeyhands

[Guest Derek L]

My support for rebuilding the LGR is non-existent. My support for the existing LGR is tempered, by cost and usefulness, the first point I made is one that I believe is used by the police, though to be honest i am not sure it is. If that is what we are using it for, and to give the EXTRA EXTRA bit of protection and foresight to the police as they execute their duties... great. The creation was a bit of boondoggle and it cost us too much.

But that has been one of the tent poles in favour of the LGR………But it stands to reason, those that would harm the police, likely won’t register their firearms.

Why destroy it now that it is here? I bought a new shotgun just before Christmas and the LGR portion of the purchase took 2 mins max. Whats the big deal?

Why is there such reluctance to registering lg's? Unless you are living in the Red Dawn dream, there is really no reason not to. And how anyone thinks it makes hunters/farmers/collectors out to be criminals is beyond me, just register the damn things. If you aren't doing anything wrong who the hell cares?

It’s about the principle namely for many………..If the Government deems us fit enough for a licence, that should be good enough……..And yes, many also have varying degrees of concern, not of Russians, but our own Government confiscating our firearms……..They’ve clearly demonstrated that ability….They can’t take what they don’t know exists.

I think the position of many is that since the LGR is useless in helping law enforcement “stay safe from criminals”, what is it’s real purpose?

For the record, I too don’t fear Russians, but I certainly do fear ignorant politicians, Crown prosecutors (Did you hear the once from the recent defence trial stating the defendant’s .38 revolver ejected spent casings?) and Zombies………Blood-----sucking------Zombies.

To add these gems, posted in an earlier thread:

"I came to Ottawa ... with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." — Liberal minister of justice Allan Rock, 1994.

2. "C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada. "— Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs, 1996.

3. "Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world."— Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, 1998.

4. "Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy at a gun control conference, Oslo, Norway, 1998.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Derek L

[Shakeyhands]

But that has been one of the tent poles in favour of the LGR………But it stands to reason, those that would harm the police, likely won’t register their firearms.

Your assume that all criminals are born that way or that a legal gun owner wouldn't commit a crime? That's a big assumption.

It’s about the principle namely for many………..If the Government deems us fit enough for a licence, that should be good enough……..And yes, many also have varying degrees of concern, not of Russians, but our own Government confiscating our firearms……..They’ve clearly demonstrated that ability….They can’t take what they don’t know exists.

Well that would be you becoming a criminal, wouldn't it?

I think the position of many is that since the LGR is useless in helping law enforcement “stay safe from criminals”, what is it’s real purpose?

I don't see it that way at all, they've said it was a useful tool and I even laid out a couple reasons why it was a good idea too.

For the record, I too don’t fear Russians, but I certainly do fear ignorant politicians, Crown prosecutors (Did you hear the once from the recent defence trial stating the defendant’s .38 revolver ejected spent casings?) and Zombies………Blood-----sucking------Zombies.

Ok.

To add these gems, posted in an earlier thread:

"I came to Ottawa ... with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." — Liberal minister of justice Allan Rock, 1994.

Retired.

2. "C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada. "— Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs, 1996.

Retired.

3. "Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world."— Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, 1998.

Retired.

4. "Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy at a gun control conference, Oslo, Norway, 1998.[/b]

Still retired.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Shakeyhands

[Guest Derek L]

Your assume that all criminals are born that way or that a legal gun owner wouldn't commit a crime? That's a big assumption.

You’re correct, I don’t assume guilt…kind of a Charter thing.

Well that would be you becoming a criminal, wouldn't it?

I suppose, But if Government passed a law ordering the extermination of red heads, I’d likely oppose that too.

I don't see it that way at all, they've said it was a useful tool and I even laid out a couple reasons why it was a good idea too.

I’m sure permanent wire taps and mandatory drug testing would also be useful.

As for the Liberal member quotes, that clearly demonstrated their position and reason for the LGR……Hence many gun owners opposition……Private Gun ownership makes it a little harder for a government to implement social engineering experiments that the populace might one day oppose.

[Shakeyhands]

I suppose, But if Government passed a law ordering the extermination of red heads, I’d likely oppose that too.

ok, I now know we're never going to agree on anything..........

unless that's a loose "likely"?

[Guest Derek L]

ok, I now know we're never going to agree on anything..........

unless that's a loose "likely"?

Probably not........Well perhaps not "killed", how about a ginger registry?

Still waiting For the 2 ton elephant in the room to drop………

Edited February 8, 2012 by Derek L

[Shakeyhands]

Still waiting For the 2 ton elephant in the room to drop………

Not enough details to comment, after all... they could be criminals doing the shooting!

[Tilter]

There is a pretty thorough process in order to possess and purchase firearms already.

I still support the registry though because:

1 - In cases of domestic abuse, assault against another member of the general pub or mental issue investigations, the police know there are firearms registered to the person and they can be confiscated while the process plays out and a decision can be made by the courts as to return them or not.

2 - I'm not a crazy person who thinks that the Russians are going to invade and look up what is our equivalent to the ATF Form 4473.

3 - I also think it does no harm, and any extra tool that we can have that forces responsibility on gun owners is good.

In cases of domestic abuse, assault against another member of the general pub or mental issue investigations, the police know there are firearms registered to the person and they can be confiscated while the process plays out and a decision can be made by the courts as to return them or not.

And in these same homes all knives, hammers, saws & pillows & maybe even the chisels and icepicks should be licensed to prevent their use in a crime.

[ron Young]

And in these same homes all knives, hammers, saws & pillows & maybe even the chisels and icepicks should be licensed to prevent their use in a crime.

This old argument always makes me laugh. Yes all of those things can be used as weapons. So can a bowl of chicken soup. We get it. However out of them all only one thing is made with one purpose in mind. Can you pick it out? The likelyhood of you refusing to point out the obvious allows me to do it for you...Guns...Yes I know its probably a pain in the ass...But to make such a crying stink over something that amounts to be a pain in the ass for gun owners certainly says something about said owners. At least that is my humble opinion. The need to register something that has been purpose built to kill is just a no brainer to me.

[guyser]

However out of them all only one thing is made with one purpose in mind. Can you pick it out?

Definitely the icepick and chisel.

[Guest Derek L]

This old argument always makes me laugh. Yes all of those things can be used as weapons. So can a bowl of chicken soup. We get it. However out of them all only one thing is made with one purpose in mind. Can you pick it out? The likelyhood of you refusing to point out the obvious allows me to do it for you...Guns...Yes I know its probably a pain in the ass...But to make such a crying stink over something that amounts to be a pain in the ass for gun owners certainly says something about said owners. At least that is my humble opinion. The need to register something that has been purpose built to kill is just a no brainer to me.

How many Canadians die a year from firearms? How many Canadians die a year from some sort of substance abuse/recreational drug use?

Also, of those deaths related to firearms, how many are from legally obtained ones, from a licensed owner?

Though not related, aren’t you the same guy that said, if PM, you’d abolish political parties and the Senate, all the well, wanting to send our military overseas to “help people” and “kill bad guys”, all for the right reasons of course……

Then you cast a wide judgement on all gun owners………..I see a trend developing here.

[cybercoma]

How many Canadians die a year from firearms? How many Canadians die a year from some sort of substance abuse/recreational drug use?

Also, of those deaths related to firearms, how many are from legally obtained ones, from a licensed owner?

Good point!

Maybe the sale, possession, importation, and production of firearms should be illegal.

[Guest Derek L]

Good point!

Maybe the sale, possession, importation, and production of firearms should be illegal.

Or the inverse approach taken………..Recreational drugs should be legal for adults…….Prohibition of alcohol never worked for the Americans………….

Do you think if we legalised Marijuana, Heroin, Cocaine etc tomorrow, the numbers of deaths related to usage of said drugs would drastically increase? I don't.

I think it was Eyeball that made the point first, perhaps if we legalised “drugs”, the instances of murders committed with illegal or stolen firearms might decrease.

As my favourite Rickyism goes: Get two birds stoned at once

[eyeball]

Or the inverse approach taken………..Recreational drugs should be legal for adults…….Prohibition of alcohol never worked for the Americans………….

Do you think if we legalised Marijuana, Heroin, Cocaine etc tomorrow, the numbers of deaths related to usage of said drugs would drastically increase? I don't.

You don't think the recent spate of deaths associated with Ecstasy use could have been prevented if the drug was produced in a licensed facility with proper quality controls not to mention the right ingredients?

I think it was Eyeball that made the point first, perhaps if we legalised “drugs”, the instances of murders committed with illegal or stolen firearms might decrease.

I said that people in the drug industry wouldn't have to resort to violence and use guns to solve their disagreements with one another. But then, if we didn't have these people occasionally blasting away at one another certain politicians would be bereft of the perennially galvanizing issue of crime to campaign on. What on Earth would they do then?

As my favourite Rickyism goes: Get two birds stoned at once

Exactly.

[Guest Derek L]

You don't think the recent spate of deaths associated with Ecstasy use could have been prevented if the drug was produced in a licensed facility with proper quality controls not to mention the right ingredients?

Certainly……Perhaps the same could be said about Heroin users on the lower East Side here (Vancouver)

I said that people in the drug industry wouldn't have to resort to violence and use guns to solve their disagreements with one another. But then, if we didn't have these people occasionally blasting away at one another certain politicians would be bereft of the perennially galvanizing issue of crime to campaign on. What on Earth would they do then?

There’s many other issues, both real and manufactured……..They could campaign on the reduction of crime their policies created.

Exactly.

Joking aside, my only reservations on legalising “drug use” are the following:

1. Doesn’t increase wait times at the border.

2. Police have a similar technology to check for impaired drivers

3. I don’t have to pay for it.

The first two could simply be solved with technology, as for the third, I’d be open to examining if we’d actually save money as taxpayers by making the damn stuff legal…….Less policing, court costs, incarceration and medical treatment would all show potential for the overall bottom line, and if proven to save money, I’d rather subsidize the stuff than pay all the other associated costs…..

I’m near 50, I don’t use the stuff (Obviously tried pot as a teen in the 70s) today, and probably one of the few CPC members that favour at least looking at the potential of saving some real money here, to say nothing on allowing adults to do as they please.

I think though, the true legalization crowd, like the “Occupiers”, seriously need to reshape their message and cut out all the tin-foil hat BS if they ever want to resonate with the average voter and in fact effect change……….

If a few million gun owners can get behind a party to implement change to their given cause, I fail to see why the millions of Canadians that use recreational drugs can’t do the same………It comes down to how you packet the message.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Derek L

[dre]

Do you think if we legalised Marijuana, Heroin, Cocaine etc tomorrow, the numbers of deaths related to usage of said drugs would drastically increase? I don't.

Nope youre right. If you legalised all of those, the use of hard drugs would go way down, and drug related deaths would go way down as well. Not to mention all kinds of other crimes would go down as well.

The only place thats really tried this is Portugal... heres what happened.

rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040

When youre government wants to fight a "war on _____" the first thing you should do is tell them go f__k themselves.

If a few million gun owners can get behind a party to implement change to their given cause, I fail to see why the millions of Canadians that use recreational drugs can’t do the same………It comes down to how you packet the message.

No so simple! Prohibition is a gigantic industry, and a great increase increase the size of government and its security apparatus. Heres just a few of the groups that youll be up against...

Trial Lawyers on both sides.

Pharmy companies.

Coffee companies.

Agricultural industry.

Alchohol companies.

Tobacco companies.

Prison workers, builders, and administrators.

Organized criminals.

Social conservatives.

US Government.

Thats a big, powerful, and well connected group. Thats why we are still criminalizing.

Edited February 11, 2012 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

Nope youre right. If you legalised all of those, the use of hard drugs would go way down, and drug related deaths would go way down as well. Not to mention all kinds of other crimes would go down as well.

The only place thats really tried this is Portugal... heres what happened.

Well if the data’s there………Kinda backs up mine, along with many other’s hunches.

When youre government wants to fight a "war on _____" the first thing you should do is tell them go f__k themselves.

Hence my position on gun control………..When a group say we need more “____ control”, I translate that as people control……..When people become comfortable with the Government wiping their ass nose, Government no longer works for us, but we for them.

No so simple! Prohibition is a gigantic industry, and a great increase increase the size of government and its security apparatus. Heres just a few of the groups that youll be up against...

Trial Lawyers on both sides.

Pharmy companies.

Coffee companies.

Agricultural industry.

Alchohol companies.

Tobacco companies.

Prison workers, builders, and administrators.

Organized criminals.

Social conservatives.

US Government.

Thats a big, powerful, and well connected group. Thats why we are still criminalizing.

Like I’ve said, I’ve no real dog in that race, but as a non bias outsider, whom tends to land on side with the ever popular Defence/Oil/Banking/Gun etc industries, as I’ve said, it’s all about message control…….When you’re preaching to the already converted, you’re wasting your own time and breath………Just as when you appear to be out in the fringes of mainstream society, you will without a doubt alienate yourself and cause.

[dre]

Well if the datas there………Kinda backs up mine, along with many others hunches.

Hence my position on gun control………..When a group say we need more ____ control, I translate that as people control……..When people become comfortable with the Government wiping their ass nose, Government no longer works for us, but we for them.

Like Ive said, Ive no real dog in that race, but as a non bias outsider, whom tends to land on side with the ever popular Defence/Oil/Banking/Gun etc industries, as Ive said, its all about message control…….When youre preaching to the already converted, youre wasting your own time and breath………Just as when you appear to be out in the fringes of mainstream society, you will without a doubt alienate yourself and cause.

You have the same dog in the race that I do. They take money from us (lots of it) and spends it on a policy that increase crime rates, increases medical expenses, increases drug usage, and permanently grows the cost and size of government.

Im not so sure the message is the problem. Canadians regularly poll in favor of legalization or decriminalizating. Its not a matter of convincing people, the problem is theres huge, powerful, and well organized special interests with real deep pockets that simply will not tolerate it.

Edited February 11, 2012 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

You have the same dog in the race that I do. They take money from us (lots of it) and spends it on a policy that increase crime rates, increases medical expenses, increases drug usage, and permanently grows the cost and size of government.

Im not so sure the message is the problem. Canadians regularly poll in favor of legalization or decriminalizating. Its not a matter of convincing people, the problem is theres huge, powerful, and well organized special interests with real deep pockets that simply will not tolerate it.

Your post right there is the attitude that will make your’s a losing cause………responses like “they”, “deep pockets”, “powerful” etc turns people off and sounds like the tag line of a Michael Moore movie……

Setting your position up as a wedge issue, when you’re still in underdog status, is a losing proposition……..

[dre]

Your post right there is the attitude that will make your’s a losing cause………responses like “they”, “deep pockets”, “powerful” etc turns people off and sounds like the tag line of a Michael Moore movie……

Setting your position up as a wedge issue, when you’re still in underdog status, is a losing proposition……..

Its not really a "cause" of mine. Im just explaining to you exactly why its stayed illegal - Prohibition is a gigantic industry and a substantial (though parasitic) sector of the economy. Reality is still reality regardless of "my attitude" or crap about Michael Moore.