For or against long gun registry?

[Guest Derek L]

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.

And as I said, if they want to appear mainstream and garner the unwashed masses, they’ll need to be onside with “the powerful”, if they ever hope to gain the “powerful” money……..

[dre]

And as I said, if they want to appear mainstream and garner the unwashed masses, they’ll need to be onside with “the powerful”, if they ever hope to gain the “powerful” money……..

How are pro legalization groups supposed to be "onside" with industries that are directly aligned against them?

What exactly is it that you are suggesting they do?

[ron Young]

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.

From 1970 to 1996 37,399 individuals perished in Canada from firearms.

47,000 deaths annually attibuted to drug abuse.

Yes thats me. Seems pretty common sense stuff....IMHO..... I mean you offer it up like my ideas are bad but yet give nothing in the way of solutions yourself. Or even have the guts to say what is so bad about registering a gun. My whole argument is its a pretty simple task yet gun owners act like they are being made to offer up their first born or something.

I too see a trend developing.....no ideas or gumption yourself so you just pick apart everyone elses ideas in the feeble attempt to look intelligent.

[Guest Derek L]

From 1970 to 1996 37,399 individuals perished in Canada from firearms.

47,000 deaths annually attibuted to drug abuse.

So over the span of twenty six years just over ~37k people have died from firearms, or an average of ~1400 a year………1400 vs. 47000.

Obviously, with restrictions already placed on recreational drug use, we still manage to “lose” nearly a small cities population a year, but you’re worried about gun safety?

Now back to that ~1400 figure, of those, how many are committed with a legal firearm, by a licensed owner? 100? 200? 300 a year? For the sake of argument, let’s split that number in half and call it 700.... 700 vs 47000 What's your real concern with the private ownership of firearms? Do guns scare you?

Yes thats me. Seems pretty common sense stuff....IMHO..... I mean you offer it up like my ideas are bad but yet give nothing in the way of solutions yourself. Or even have the guts to say what is so bad about registering a gun. My whole argument is its a pretty simple task yet gun owners act like they are being made to offer up their first born or something.

My stance on the registry, and private ownership is pretty clear around these parts, sorry if you missed it…….Honestly though, why would I create a “solution” to a non-existing problem?

And as for my reasoning, again sorry if you’ve missed it in numerous previous other posts, my main bone of contention is two-fold….First it’s the principle. Why should my “hobby” be restricted to appease an unfounded fear of guns? The second, if those that want to restrict said “hobby”, don’t actually live in fear of firearms, then what’s their real reason behind placing restrictions on private firearms ownership?

For the registry itself, I don’t want a database of my personal possessions stored for a criminal element to potentially obtain and use as a catalogue. Also, based on the precedent of prior actions and comments, I don’t want a potential Government having a database of my possessions that they can use to arbitrarily use for confiscation.

I too see a trend developing.....no ideas or gumption yourself so you just pick apart everyone elses ideas in the feeble attempt to look intelligent.

Your position is based on a combination of unfounded fear, ignorance, faith in Government to take care of you and perhaps an authoritarian bent……..In my opinion, those viewpoints, all clearly lack intelligence.

[ron Young]

So over the span of twenty six years just over ~37k people have died from firearms, or an average of ~1400 a year………1400 vs. 47000.

Obviously, with restrictions already placed on recreational drug use, we still manage to “lose” nearly a small cities population a year, but you’re worried about gun safety?

Now back to that ~1400 figure, of those, how many are committed with a legal firearm, by a licensed owner? 100? 200? 300 a year? For the sake of argument, let’s split that number in half and call it 700.... 700 vs 47000 What's your real concern with the private ownership of firearms? Do guns scare you?

My stance on the registry, and private ownership is pretty clear around these parts, sorry if you missed it…….Honestly though, why would I create a “solution” to a non-existing problem?

And as for my reasoning, again sorry if you’ve missed it in numerous previous other posts, my main bone of contention is two-fold….First it’s the principle. Why should my “hobby” be restricted to appease an unfounded fear of guns? The second, if those that want to restrict said “hobby”, don’t actually live in fear of firearms, then what’s their real reason behind placing restrictions on private firearms ownership?

For the registry itself, I don’t want a database of my personal possessions stored for a criminal element to potentially obtain and use as a catalogue. Also, based on the precedent of prior actions and comments, I don’t want a potential Government having a database of my possessions that they can use to arbitrarily use for confiscation.

Your position is based on a combination of unfounded fear, ignorance, faith in Government to take care of you and perhaps an authoritarian bent……..In my opinion, those viewpoints, all clearly lack intelligence.

Oh so you are actually using the 2 numbers are part of your argument..I see. Well no I don't but I doubt that matters.

I'm not really worried about gun safety at all. As I don't own any. Neither am I scared of guns having had the occasion to fire a few weapons over the course of my 43 years I could almost say I actually enjoyed it somewhat. Maybe its the fact that I never shot at anything live....Anyway next.

Yes it is a hobby...much like snowmobiling, motorcycling, boating, fishing, hunting....all of which require various levels of govt red tape to do legally.....None of which have the distinction of being designed to do one thing and one thing only and thats kill....That is reserved for your precious guns......Putting restrictions on private firearms ownership is just a no brainer to me.

Grabbed this from the NRA website:

"Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries. In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire: 16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries. "

I guess admitting the obvious is just so uninformed and un intelligent.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh so you are actually using the 2 numbers are part of your argument..I see. Well no I don't but I doubt that matters.

Is there something wrong with the numbers you provided?

I'm not really worried about gun safety at all. As I don't own any. Neither am I scared of guns having had the occasion to fire a few weapons over the course of my 43 years I could almost say I actually enjoyed it somewhat. Maybe its the fact that I never shot at anything live....Anyway next.

Fair enough, with that established, then why should the be registered?

Yes it is a hobby...much like snowmobiling, motorcycling, boating, fishing, hunting....all of which require various levels of govt red tape to do legally.....None of which have the distinction of being designed to do one thing and one thing only and thats kill....That is reserved for your precious guns......Putting restrictions on private firearms ownership is just a no brainer to me.

As for being designed to “kill”, that’s ridiculous. Are you suggesting legal firearm owners in Canada are a potential hazard to society? The numbers (you provided) clearly don’t back that up, and Canadians as a whole have a far likely better chance of dying from recreational drug use, smoking and eating fast foods………

Do you think that once the LGR is gone in the next month or so, that suddenly your chances of being killed by a legal firearm, used by a licensed owner will increase?

Grabbed this from the NRA website:

"Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries. In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire: 16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries. "

I guess admitting the obvious is just so uninformed and un intelligent.

Are you suggesting Canada has a comparable crime rate with that of the United States?

Doing some basic fingers and toes math, the United States has a population roughly 9-9.5 times that of Canada………So if we divide that ~30k number of deaths by 9.3 we get about 3200 deaths a year by firearm in the United States, basing that figure on the same size population as Canada (~35 million)

So looking at our earlier numbers of Canada, ~1400 deaths a year from a population of 35 million, contrasted with the current proportional figure of the States of 3200 based on a population 35 million………Looking at it like that, you have just over twice the chance to die in the States from firearms than Canada………..

I wonder how many Americans die a year from recreational drugs?

Do you think once the LGR is gone, the deaths from firearms in Canada will more than double to reach comparable levels with that of the United States?

[Guest Derek L]

How are pro legalization groups supposed to be "onside" with industries that are directly aligned against them?

What exactly is it that you are suggesting they do?

Didn’t see your post till now………..To answer your question, quite simply, demonstrate how your interests could also be theirs……..IOW Money………During the early 20th century the early oil companies had such a fight against the established coal industry….Today they don’t directly compete against one an other……..

If I were leading the charge for the legalization crowd, and admittedly my background isn’t marketing but I digress, I would do the following:

1. If not completely, eliminate my cause from becoming a political wedge issue…….leave the fringe political pot parties to exactly that…….go “mainstream” and diversify……Find or if need be, manufacture political candidates that are sympathetic to your cause and have them join the three major political parties. Doing this, in concert with having your “followers” join the various parties as members…..

Admittedly this will be easier with the NDP versus the CPC, but it can be done……appeal to the Libertarian wing of the Tories………

You accomplish this, and it no longer becomes a political wedge issue………

2. Get the entertainment industry to “demystify” it’s use……….No longer have characters in movies smoking pot be labelled as the rebellious ones and/or a brunt of a stereotypical joke……..A movie character drinking a beer and until the last twenty years, smoking a cigarette was a non event………

Well doing this, find “respectable” mainstream spokespeople for your cause……loose Woody & Tommy Chong…….

3. Appeal to the “baby boomers” that used it in their teens……They vote and they have money…….Remember, most of them experimented with drugs and it didn’t kill them.

4. Demonstrate the potential profit margins to corporations………Use the Las Vegas analogy…..It was once run by the mob, but since corporations took over in the early 80s it has boomed……Also remember, you don’t need all the corporations, just a few big name ones onboard…….the rest will follow.

5. Find or create studies in respected medical journals that demonstrate how it’s a healthy alternative to pharmaceutical drugs……..Even if it’s not, lie…….i.e. I heard smoking pot helps to reduce arthritis and the chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease.

6. Appeal to hurting farmers in the “proverbial heartland” that are hurting, namely tobacco growers.

7. Release studies from respected Universities outlining how it will reduce organized crime and crime in general.

8. Stop talking about Amsterdam.

9.Lose the Pot leaf as symbolism

10. Start off small…….Go after Pot first, thus setting a precedent, then go after the rest.

[ron Young]

Is there something wrong with the numbers you provided?

Fair enough, with that established, then why should the be registered?

As for being designed to “kill”, that’s ridiculous. Are you suggesting legal firearm owners in Canada are a potential hazard to society? The numbers (you provided) clearly don’t back that up, and Canadians as a whole have a far likely better chance of dying from recreational drug use, smoking and eating fast foods………

Do you think that once the LGR is gone in the next month or so, that suddenly your chances of being killed by a legal firearm, used by a licensed owner will increase?

Are you suggesting Canada has a comparable crime rate with that of the United States?

Doing some basic fingers and toes math, the United States has a population roughly 9-9.5 times that of Canada………So if we divide that ~30k number of deaths by 9.3 we get about 3200 deaths a year by firearm in the United States, basing that figure on the same size population as Canada (~35 million)

So looking at our earlier numbers of Canada, ~1400 deaths a year from a population of 35 million, contrasted with the current proportional figure of the States of 3200 based on a population 35 million………Looking at it like that, you have just over twice the chance to die in the States from firearms than Canada………..

I wonder how many Americans die a year from recreational drugs?

Do you think once the LGR is gone, the deaths from firearms in Canada will more than double to reach comparable levels with that of the United States?

nope nothing wrong with the numbers. Just wondering why since they are 2 differant social issues unless we are strictly talking about gun violence involving drug abuse.

As stated earlier guns should be registered because by design they kill. Thats their purpose. Thats what they do. That is all I am suggesting nothing else.

Not at all but the cash we are flushing down the toilet is pretty hurtfull. Not too mention the added costs of destroying all of the information gathered over the life of the LGR. Against the advice of the chiefs of police in this country.

Yes the basic math seems to show you are twice as likely to die in the US from a gunshot than in Canada. My purpose was to demonstrate how lack of gun control leads to more deaths by gunshots it appears as though you have helped me with this. Thank you.

Look bottom line is I am not against gun ownership, shooting sports or even carrying concealed weapons. In an advanced society the people we hire to protect us should know where those weapons are. Thats my only argument. For the government of the day to decide that is not something they want then enact legislation to not just end it but end it for all time and destroy all data associated with it to me is absolutley assanine, irresponsible and speaks volumes about said government. Furthermore I still fail to see any valid reason not to register a weapon that has the potential to snuff out human life since we have already demonstrated the need to register, insure, license other less harmful but also potentially deadly things. It makes the gun owners look like little babies who are crying over some paperwork...It just looks juvinile to the rest of us.

[Guest Derek L]

nope nothing wrong with the numbers. Just wondering why since they are 2 differant social issues unless we are strictly talking about gun violence involving drug abuse.

As stated earlier guns should be registered because by design they kill. Thats their purpose. Thats what they do. That is all I am suggesting nothing else.

Sure they are two different social issues, my point was twofold. First we already have laws in place to “protect Canadians” against “drugs”……….How effective are they? If we banned private ownership of firearms, do you think firearms related murders would cease?

The second point, if we legalized “drugs”, would drug related deaths suddenly skyrocket? I tend to think not. How this ties into firearms is that once the LGR is gone, gun homicides aren’t going to skyrocket, and like the current laws on drugs, if we totally banned guns, the deaths by firearms won’t cease or drop drastically.

The reason? Gangsters on the streets of Toronto or Vancouver aren’t killing each other with registered deer rifles, duck guns or .22’s.

Not at all but the cash we are flushing down the toilet is pretty hurtfull. Not too mention the added costs of destroying all of the information gathered over the life of the LGR. Against the advice of the chiefs of police in this country.

So you would save it just because of the money spent?

As I said to other posters, if the police felt permanent wire taps and mandatory drug testing for all Canadians was a good idea and helped them “prevent” crimes would you go along?……..And as I’ve also stated, with the LGR being administered by the RCMP, do you really think the RCMP is going to say the program is useless?

Yes the basic math seems to show you are twice as likely to die in the US from a gunshot than in Canada. My purpose was to demonstrate how lack of gun control leads to more deaths by gunshots it appears as though you have helped me with this. Thank you.

Not to wade into US gun politics too deeply, but what percentage of deaths down are their committed with legally obtained firearms?

Look bottom line is I am not against gun ownership, shooting sports or even carrying concealed weapons. In an advanced society the people we hire to protect us should know where those weapons are. Thats my only argument. For the government of the day to decide that is not something they want then enact legislation to not just end it but end it for all time and destroy all data associated with it to me is absolutley assanine, irresponsible and speaks volumes about said government. Furthermore I still fail to see any valid reason not to register a weapon that has the potential to snuff out human life since we have already demonstrated the need to register, insure, license other less harmful but also potentially deadly things. It makes the gun owners look like little babies who are crying over some paperwork...It just looks juvinile to the rest of us.

So you’re now spinning this into a political fight? What about Liberal and NDP supporters that are opposed to the registry……….Perhaps that in of itself is telling………..

As for “sounding like babies”……….How do you think you sound to us? The difference, we won

[cybercoma]

You can't distinguish between "legally" and "illgally" obtained firearms. The proliferation of legally obtained firearms and more lax laws surrounding their ownership and possession actually drives down the black market price of guns. You can buy a handgun on the street in the US for anywhere from $200-500 bucks. In Canada it costs about $1000 more, due to their scarcity and the difficulty of obtaining one. More relaxed laws just increases access to firearms for the "criminals" as well as the legal owners. Stricter laws are an important tool in making it more difficult for guns to "disappear". More importantly, stricter laws, especially the registry, make it much less likely that someone is going to use their registered firearm in the home for a crime in a fit of anger. It also encourages personal responsibility with firearms. A gun owner that has registered his/her firearms is going to keep a closer eye on his/her guns, ensuring that they are stored properly and not easily stolen. What the registry does not do is "make criminals out of innocent people." It makes innocent people responsible for their deadly weapons. People can still own firearms, go target shooting, or hunt. All of these arguments against the registry are like saying you shouldn't have to register your car because pretty soon the government is going to take away all of our cars and we'll lose our mobility rights. It's just not true and the benefit to registering vehicles is that it's another hoop a criminal has to go through when using a vehicle at the scene of a crime. It doesn't eliminate crime, but only a moron would use their own car at a crime scene. If they do, it makes it that much easier to find the offender. Why we shouldn't do the same with firearms is beyond me.

[Tilter]

Good point!

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

Yeah--- that's an agenda that will sure fly.

[Tilter]

You can't distinguish between "legally" and "illgally" obtained firearms. The proliferation of legally obtained firearms and more lax laws surrounding their ownership and possession actually drives down the black market price of guns. You can buy a handgun on the street in the US for anywhere from $200-500 bucks. In Canada it costs about $1000 more, due to their scarcity and the difficulty of obtaining one. More relaxed laws just increases access to firearms for the "criminals" as well as the legal owners. Stricter laws are an important tool in making it more difficult for guns to "disappear". More importantly, stricter laws, especially the registry, make it much less likely that someone is going to use their registered firearm in the home for a crime in a fit of anger. It also encourages personal responsibility with firearms. A gun owner that has registered his/her firearms is going to keep a closer eye on his/her guns, ensuring that they are stored properly and not easily stolen. What the registry does not do is "make criminals out of innocent people." It makes innocent people responsible for their deadly weapons. People can still own firearms, go target shooting, or hunt. All of these arguments against the registry are like saying you shouldn't have to register your car because pretty soon the government is going to take away all of our cars and we'll lose our mobility rights. It's just not true and the benefit to registering vehicles is that it's another hoop a criminal has to go through when using a vehicle at the scene of a crime. It doesn't eliminate crime, but only a moron would use their own car at a crime scene. If they do, it makes it that much easier to find the offender. Why we shouldn't do the same with firearms is beyond me.

Did you take a college course in Baffelgab?

FYI

You can't distinguish between "legally" and "illgally" obtained firearms.

The cops can. Your argument loses a lot of steam when a period before LGR is compared to a period after in terms of long guns used in crime.

By the way, recently in Florida a nutcase drove about 300 miles before pulling into an RV park, shot 1 Canadian man & then used a knife on his son, his wife and then himself.

Could a knife registry have saved those last 3 people?

Could the first life have been saved if a gun registry had been effect in Florida or would the idiot have used the knife on the Quebecker killed?

Is he deader because he was killed with a gun?

Edited February 12, 2012 by Tilter

[Guest Derek L]

You can't distinguish between "legally" and "illgally" obtained firearms. The proliferation of legally obtained firearms and more lax laws surrounding their ownership and possession actually drives down the black market price of guns. You can buy a handgun on the street in the US for anywhere from $200-500 bucks. In Canada it costs about $1000 more, due to their scarcity and the difficulty of obtaining one.

Of course you can distinguish between to the two……..Fully automatic/select fire firearms (Like an AK-47, Tec-9, Mac-10, Uzi etc) can’t be bought legally in Canada. Full Stop. As for your pricing of illegal firearms street value, I have no idea where you’re getting your figures…….That number you’re pulling out of your arse………Local Police officers I use to shoot IPSC with have told me most handguns criminals obtain on the streets are Chinese or Eastern European knock-offs off popular Western handguns, usually going for +/- legal retail…….Only middle age, legal collectors, such as myself, pay thousands of dollars for firearms.

More relaxed laws just increases access to firearms for the "criminals" as well as the legal owners.

How? In Canada, you have to posses a PAL/RPAL licence, belong to gun club and have an ATT, coupled with required RCMP screening to posses/purchase legal firearms……..once the registry is gone, this won’t change.

Stricter laws are an important tool in making it more difficult for guns to "disappear". More importantly, stricter laws, especially the registry, make it much less likely that someone is going to use their registered firearm in the home for a crime in a fit of anger.

Bullshit……..If I, a legal owner, decided to shoot my wife, how would the register prevent that? Please don’t tell me ballistics……..

It also encourages personal responsibility with firearms. A gun owner that has registered his/her firearms is going to keep a closer eye on his/her guns, ensuring that they are stored properly and not easily stolen. What the registry does not do is "make criminals out of innocent people."

The Registry does no such thing……..Safe Storage laws do…….Again, laws that won’t be changing.

It makes innocent people responsible for their deadly weapons.

How?

All of these arguments against the registry are like saying you shouldn't have to register your car because pretty soon the government is going to take away all of our cars and we'll lose our mobility rights. It's just not true and the benefit to registering vehicles is that it's another hoop a criminal has to go through when using a vehicle at the scene of a crime. It doesn't eliminate crime, but only a moron would use their own car at a crime scene. If they do, it makes it that much easier to find the offender. Why we shouldn't do the same with firearms is beyond me.

Have politicians openly talked about banning private ownership of Cars in Canada? They sure have with firearms…….Have the Government unilaterally confiscated an entire make/model of car in Canada based on them looking dangerous? They have with firearms.

The precedent is already set by the Government giving credence to legal firearm owner’s concerns.

[olpfan1]

Criminals don't register guns. Guns that are used in crimes in Canada probably get smuggled into Canada from the States. Therefore I am against long gun registry as it makes no sense

[eyeball]

Criminals don't register guns. Guns that are used in crimes in Canada probably get smuggled into Canada from the States. Therefore I am against long gun registry as it makes no sense

You don't think it makes any sense to have measures that prevent the use of guns by people stricken with mental illness?

The original intent of the registry was to address the use of guns by insane people not criminals. How and why it got sidetracked into criminality is a crime, or should be.

[Shakeyhands]

Criminals don't register guns. Guns that are used in crimes in Canada probably get smuggled into Canada from the States. Therefore I am against long gun registry as it makes no sense

Criminals... hilarious. Lucky we can identify who is going be a criminal.

Like the last two RCMP shootings? Like the E'Cole Polytechnique shooting?

[olpfan1]

You don't think it makes any sense to have measures that prevent the use of guns by people stricken with mental illness?

The original intent of the registry was to address the use of guns by insane people not criminals. How and why it got sidetracked into criminality is a crime, or should be.

depends what type of mental illness

and no.. It does more harm than it does good

[eyeball]

depends what type of mental illness

There's lots of types but I'm mostly referring to those that strike after all the PALS and licences and such have been issued.

and no.. It does more harm than it does good

Care to elaborate? Are the numbers of victims to small compared to the infringement of gun-owner's freedoms or something?

[olpfan1]

There's lots of types but I'm mostly referring to those that strike after all the PALS and licences and such have been issued.

Care to elaborate? Are the numbers of victims to small compared to the infringement of gun-owner's freedoms or something?

You're welcome to disagree, its just my personal opinion which isnt supported by facts.. it could be but I didnt do any research

This isn't an issue that I feel strongly as you about

[Guest Derek L]

Criminals... hilarious. Lucky we can identify who is going be a criminal.

Like the last two RCMP shootings? Like the E'Cole Polytechnique shooting?

And how would those events been prevented by the Government having the serial numbers of those guns on file?

[Guest Derek L]

There's lots of types but I'm mostly referring to those that strike after all the PALS and licences and such have been issued.

As we’ve danced around this issue numerous times, and have looked at the numbers of deaths associated with “legal firearms” and “licensed owners”, of which are minimal when compared to other preventable deaths within Canada, as I asked above, how will the Government having the serial numbers of said gun prevent further deaths with legal firearms………We both already know the answer….it won’t…….Of which you’ll suggest further restrictions etc……….Instead of repeating ourselves, I’ll ask you this:

Do you feel deaths associated with legal firearms will increase once the registry is gone in the next few months?

[Shakeyhands]

And how would those events been prevented by the Government having the serial numbers of those guns on file?

A valid question, I'm not positive to be honest and it's not going to work in every case.

In the latest case, the Registry I'm sure played a part as from what I understand they were there to confiscate the guns because of an earlier domestic abuse issue. Bad luck on the RCMP's part, but it sounds like they were doing the correct thing.

Of course we still don't have all the details on this one.

I may have spoken out of school on the Mayerthorpe shooting, I would have thought they knew that Roszko may have had weapons.

[eyeball]

As we’ve danced around this issue numerous times, and have looked at the numbers of deaths associated with “legal firearms” and “licensed owners”, of which are minimal when compared to other preventable deaths within Canada, as I asked above, how will the Government having the serial numbers of said gun prevent further deaths with legal firearms………We both already know the answer….it won’t…….Of which you’ll suggest further restrictions etc……….

No, I'll suggest actual gun controls, not restrictions and certainly not more paperwork.

Instead of repeating ourselves, I’ll ask you this:

Do you feel deaths associated with legal firearms will increase once the registry is gone in the next few months?

No I think they'll increase because of the epidemic of age-onset dementia that medical experts know is coming for one thing. I think this will be exacerbated by the unwillingness and reluctance of people to accept it when mental illness strikes them - due to the stigma that remains stubbornly associated with mental illness - a situation that IMO has probably worsened during and maybe even because of the acrimonious registry debate.

Edited February 13, 2012 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

A valid question, I'm not positive to be honest and it's not going to work in every case.

In the latest case, the Registry I'm sure played a part as from what I understand they were there to confiscate the guns because of an earlier domestic abuse issue. Bad luck on the RCMP's part, but it sounds like they were doing the correct thing.

Of course we still don't have all the details on this one.

I may have spoken out of school on the Mayerthorpe shooting, I would have thought they knew that Roszko may have had weapons.

As we initially brought up the recent RCMP shooting, I still do not want to totally drag this event into the political mud, but they were exercising a search warrant for a .45ACP…….This obviously would not fall under the purview of the LGR, and it’s unfortunate that two police officers were shot, but in this instance, with prior knowledge of a restricted firearm on the premises, something obviously failed these officers…..

In this situation, like the Mayerthorpe tragedy, police officers were shot/killed and in both these instances, the LGR would not have prevented the crimes committed……..What failed the RCMP, in both cases, was a lack of training and/or procedure……

[Guest Derek L]

No, I'll suggest actual gun controls, not restrictions and certainly not more paperwork.

No I think they'll increase because of the epidemic of age-onset dementia that medical experts know is coming for one thing. I think this will be exacerbated by the unwillingness and reluctance of people to accept it when mental illness strikes them - due to the stigma that remains stubbornly associated with mental illness - a situation that IMO has probably worsened during and maybe even because of the acrimonious registry debate.

Your opinion is noted…….When to you expect the coming deluge of deaths associated with the LGR demise? 3 months after? 3 years? 30 years?