Tired of Knee-Jerk Reactions

[maplesyrup]

Canada's gun control is on target

Who else is tired of these constant knee-jerk reactions to events in Canada?

Canadians need to take the time to thoroughly research issues so that appropriate measures are taken to solve problems in our society. Gun control is a good example.

[kimmy]

Well, I guess I will take on the role of devil's advocate.

* the Liberals say that the registry costs are now capped at $25 million. But haven't they promised all along that they were going to control costs on this? Can we believe them this time?

* Clayton Ruby says that "900 affidavits based on registry information that supported criminal prosecutions were filed in Canada last year."

This doesn't mean that the registry resulted in 900 convictions. He doesn't really offer any explanation of how the information from the registry was used or how valuable it was. He just hopes that we'll be impressed by the figure of 900.

At the supposed cap cost of $25 million per year, and 900 affidavits, that works out to over $27,000 per affidavit! Those better be some damned good affidavits at that price

* He offers the statistic that there were 1367 firearms deaths in 1989 and only 842 in 2001, hoping to link the firearms registry to the drop in deaths to the firearms registry. He is being misleading.

For a real look at firearms deaths, I offer charts from the government's own firearms site!

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/othe...ath/default.asp

First of all, we notice that firearms deaths declined sharply from 1992 to 1995, before the registry even came into effect! If Clayton Ruby wants to be honest, why doesn't he compare statistics between 1994 and 2001? Only because the figures don't support his point!

Second of all, I will point out that the large majority of firearms deaths in Canada are suicides and accidents. The # of deaths due to violent crime has been fairly steady at 200 per year since 1970! Suggesting that stronger firearms registration has reduced violent crime is not supported by fact.

The # of accidents has also stayed fairly stable since 1980. Even a glance at the graph shows that the main variable is the # of suicides in any given year. We know that many suicides are related to financial matters. I would offer the suggestion that the # of suicides in a given year will have more to do with the unemployment rate for that year than anything to do with firearms legislation.

I think trying to argue that the registry will have any effect on suicides and accidents is pretty ludicrous. And the # of homicides linked to firearms has clearly not changed that much in over 30 years. So what Clayton Ruby is trying to sell is clearly not supported by the facts, although he is trying to present figures to suggest otherwise.

* in response to concerns about the availability of illegal firearms smuggled from the United States, Ruby offers only a bunch of talk about international agreement on the value of gun control. That is well and good, but what about the availability of illegal firearms sumggled from the United States?

I actually have no objection to the idea that firearms should be registered. If automobiles should be registered, so should firearms. There is no reason not to. However, I am very concerned that Canadians are not getting good value for the money that is being spent on the registry. I also object to someone like Mr Ruby presenting an article loaded with misleading statistics to try to support an opinion that seems poorly supported by facts.

-kimmy :angry:

[maplesyrup]

I think everyone, even the proponents of gun control, are concerned about the exoribant costs. But that is a red herring, designed to discredit the legislation, and really nothing to do with the issue of the advantages of having good gun control in Canada.

If one were honest, instead of all these sidebar issues, meant to distract, one would discuss the reasons gun contol legislation was implemented in Canada.

Does anyone remember the slaughter of women at the University of Montreal?

Mark Lepine

[kimmy]

Typical, when somebody challenges your view with any substance, you avoid their argument and post something completely out of left field to try and support your cause.

Yes, I remember the Montreal Massacre, even though I was very young at the time.

Marc Lepine used a hunting rifle, a Remington .223 semi-automatic (not an "automatic gun" as your article claims). He legally purchased the rifle in Canada. He had no criminal record. Is there any reason to think that the current firearms registry could have done anything to prevent the tragedy in Montreal? I don't see any reason to assume it would have prevented him from acquiring the gun he used. Unless you can provide me a reason to think otherwise, I suggest that *you* are the one using red herrings to distract from the real argument.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Victims Point of View

No Right to Guns in Canada

Myths and Facts about Gun Control

A few informative articles that I found to fill in this page because of a duplicate posting.

[maplesyrup]

The fact that police forces across the country are using the gun registry every day is sufficient evidence for me to assume that the gun control legislation is functioning well in Canadian society.

A good analogy is the metric system. Painful, creating anger at first, but eventually the pain and anger goes away, and it ceases to be an issue.

[I miss Reagan]

ONE BILLION DOLLARS! on a program that was supposed to cost 2 million. A program that forces farmers to pay money to register their tools. Somehow it is supposed to stop crime? I guess the criminals are lining up to register their guns. Companies and governments around the world as an example of what not to do.

[maplesyrup]

Do you pay to register your vehicle?

What are initially legal firearms often become illegal.

I rest my case.

[I miss Reagan]

Do you pay to register your kitchen knives?

[I miss Reagan]

What are initially legal firearms often become illegal.

Where'd you come up with that little stat? Bowling for Columbine?

[maplesyrup]

Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are excellent movies, I'll grant you that. I can't wait for Sicko.

Concerning legal weapons becoming illegal - ask any policeman and he will explain it to you.

[I miss Reagan]

Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are excellent movies, I'll grant you that. I can't wait for Sicko.

Very factual right?

[Big Blue Machine]

If I had a gun, I wouldn't register it.

[playfullfellow]

Registering your weapons is just like anything else in this country, some will do it some won't. Registering your vehicle is mandatory but a lot of people don't. The main reason you register your vehicle is so you have license plates to indentify you when you do something wrong. Registering your weapons is mainly for the purpose of the police to check to see if a residence has any registered weapons there. If there is, how do you think the police respond to even minor offence calls? They show up in force, thinking the worst will happen. So people are labeled a possible danger even before the police arrive.

Mandatory registration is going to do nothing to alleviate the crimes caused by guns. A criminal is NOT going to register his/her gun. In all reality, how many guns that were used in a crime were actually non-prohibited weapons? I have no problem with people having to get permits to buy or own a gun. All people wanting to do so should take a mandatory course. Most gun owners have no problem with this course but they do not believe gun registration will lessen crime in any way, which is what it is supposed to do.

As I have stated before, this money could be better spent on more policing and we could our laws against violent criminals.

[Big Blue Machine]

Ya, but a car is more important than a gun.

[Cartman]

Registering your weapons is mainly for the purpose of the police to check to see if a residence has any registered weapons there. If there is, how do you think the police respond to even minor offence calls? They show up in force, thinking the worst will happen. So people are labeled a possible danger even before the police arrive.

Hate to put you on the spot PFF, but is this opinion or are you referring to a specific case?

I have never been able to understand the negative reaction to gun control (not owning one myself). Seems like a reasonable idea to me.

[I miss Reagan]

I personally don't like guns. I don't trust other people with them. But we had enough gun control before we started this insane registry wasting a billion dollars. Why force farmers and duck hunters to register rifles or shotguns? Hand guns I understand because other than target practice they're designed to kill people.

We should look at the swiss for gun control. There is a gun in every home in Switzerland. So why don't they have the same problems with guns that the US has? Perhaps it is a function of our culture of TV and movies that teaches people to solve their problems with violence. Perhaps we need regulate movies and video games rather than guns.

[playfullfellow]

Hate to put you on the spot PFF, but is this opinion or are you referring to a specific case?

I know of 2 specific cases, once the police showed up at a friends house to question his 16 year old kid about a traffic violation he and a friend were involved in. The police had checked the gun registry, 2 guns were registered at the home. 4 police cars showed up, 8 officers and the first question they asked was where the guns were kept. This was for a minor traffic offence that the kid may have been a witness to. Needless to say, the kid was scared crapless and has developed somewhat of a dislike towards the police.

The second involved an older person who was involved in a dispute with another person. Nothing violent, no threats were made but the one person lodged a complaint with the police. The police also did a gun registry check and my friend has 3 guns registered, all used for hunting. 3 cars, 6 officers showed up just to question him. Needless to say, he was irked at the whole situation and is pretty disappointed with the whole system now and wishes he had never registered his guns.

[playfullfellow]

I like your way of thinking IMR. The problem is not with the guns themselves but rather the person who is on the business end of a gun. It also boils down to a total lack of repsect for what this gun can do to another human. We will always have whacko's who turn a gun on another to kill them. This is also a lack of respect for human life. These people will take a human life no matter whether they have a gun, knife or 2x4.

As for accidental accidents with a gun, a lot more people get hurt or killed on stairs, ladders, bathtubs, etc. every year. As for any idiot that keeps a loaded gun in the house where kids have access to them should be put away. We already had lots of proper gun storage rules in place before the registration laws that severly penalized people for being dummies.

I understand a lot of people dislike guns but as with any tool, properly used they are safe. We have to emphasize much more on teaching people who wish to own a gun the proper use of a gun. We also need to teach our kids proper repsect for human life.

[Argus]

I think everyone, even the proponents of gun control, are concerned about the exoribant costs. But that is a red herring, designed to discredit the legislation, and really nothing to do with the issue of the advantages of having good gun control in Canada.

I think just to start you should be aware of the fact that the gun registry has NOTHING to do with gun control. Ok? People who seem to know nothing about the laws use the term gun control and gun registration interchangeably when one has nothing to do with the other.

There have been gun control laws in Canada for a long time, and they have become much stronger over the years. in order to legally purchase a firearm you have to make the proper applications, with witnesses and be checked out by the authorities. THAT is gun control. And it has nothing whatever to do with the gun registry.

The gun registry is for use by those who already have guns, who have already been approved to have and own guns, so the government knows who owns what guns (long guns only).

If one were honest, instead of all these sidebar issues, meant to distract, one would discuss the reasons gun contol legislation was implemented in Canada.

Does anyone remember the slaughter of women at the University of Montreal?

Ahh, I see, lacking a coherant argument you resort to emotionalism. Use emotion and one needs no logic or facts. It's a shoddy way to discuss an issue.

[Argus]

The fact that police forces across the country are using the gun registry every day is sufficient evidence for me to assume that the gun control legislation is functioning  well in Canadian society.

For some misbegotten, idiotic reason, probably a friend on city council, there is a stop sign on a main street near where I live. It is at a cross street which has virtually no traffic. It doesn, however, have a church. Every rush hour traffice moves moothly up until about a mile from this stop sign, then there is a long, long line of cars crawling along as, one by one, they all obediently stop at the sign, then take off. Now by your way of thinking, the fact all those cars stop before moving on is evidence the stop sign is doing its job.

The incredible waste of time, of energy, the pollution of bumper to bumper cars, for nothing, for an empty side street, seems unimportant. Right?

[Argus]

Canada's gun control is on target

Who else is tired of these constant knee-jerk reactions to events in Canada?

Canadians need to take the time to thoroughly research issues so that appropriate measures are taken to solve problems in our society. Gun control is a good example.

There are no facts of value in Ruby's column. He is a lawyer, and that means his job is to mislead people. He attempts to mislead people in his column, but not very well. The fact is that the registry does nothing to deter crime, or suicide, or accidents. So linking it with them is pointless. Gun control, remember, is not gun registration.

The gun registry was never designed to control crime, or lessen suicides, or help the police. It was designed as a cheap (ha!) and easy placebo that the Liberals could point to in order to show they were cracking down on gun crime, or at least, doing something to address the concerns about gun crime expressed by voters. To actually DO something about crime was considered too difficult. So they started up a nonsense registry, with no idea how much it would cost, and have since clung to it desperately as a motherhood issue, though its only value is political.

There is probably some practical value in a long gun registry, if done properly. But that utility is not great, and certainly not nearly enough to justify the $1-$2 billion spent on the registry thus far. And, as I said, that value is only if the registry actually works. This one is so flawed it is almost completely unreliable.