Bullets storage rule, shot down

[Guest Derek L]

Fault? What fault? I don't understand.

The NDP's position on the gun registry was perfectly clear during the election. They voted him in to power and he went against that. Pretty straight forward. Party policy is made at convention by the membership.

[cybercoma]

That's the reason he's not longer an NDP MP. I wouldn't call him crossing the floor as an independent something to fault.

[Guest Derek L]

That's the reason he's not longer an NDP MP. I wouldn't call him crossing the floor as an independent something to fault.

And what would be his motivation from running concurrent with the NDP’s policy? Did the NDP in their last convention decide that they’d institute a new Gun registry? The Liberals have since backed (snaked) away from this position. In this article from CBC it mentions that:

Bruce Hyer quits NDP caucus to sit as an Independent

Hyer said he is not giving up his NDP membership and says he'll vote with the party most of the time, but that NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's promise to bring back the long-gun registry if his party wins the next election and his intention to direct any votes on it, was also behind his decision.

He noted that supporting the controversial long-gun registry is the party's current position but it is not in the NDP platform, meaning it is not official party policy and that is another reason that votes on it should not be directed.

So who really decides the NDP’s platform, the Party membership or Tom Mulcair?

[Guest Manny]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-man-charged-with-manslaughter-after-shooting-death-of-toddler/article2422759/

A Quebec man facing a manslaughter charge in the shooting death of a two-year-old boy will remain behind bars until a bail hearing next week.

Nicolas Lacroix was formally charged Friday at the courthouse in Quebec City.

The boy, Nathan Lecours, died after being struck by a bullet from a handgun that discharged on Thursday night in a home in Levis, near Quebec City.

The 36-year-old man from Levis, Que., faces two charges: manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death.

Quebec provincial police say they won't provide any details about what happened inside the home. Earlier Friday, the police force had indicated one hypothesis they were looking into was that the incident was an unintentional act.

Local police reported receiving a 911 call from the home in Levis, just across the river from the provincial capital.

When they arrived they found the boy dead, and two adults, including the child's mother, in a state of shock.

Another senseless tragedy perpetrated by fools and their guns. Seems they were trying to protect themselves from a perceived threat. Instead of using the police, they brought a gun into the home. Now, a child is dead.

[Guest Derek L]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-man-charged-with-manslaughter-after-shooting-death-of-toddler/article2422759/

A Quebec man facing a manslaughter charge in the shooting death of a two-year-old boy will remain behind bars until a bail hearing next week.

Nicolas Lacroix was formally charged Friday at the courthouse in Quebec City.

The boy, Nathan Lecours, died after being struck by a bullet from a handgun that discharged on Thursday night in a home in Levis, near Quebec City.

The 36-year-old man from Levis, Que., faces two charges: manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death.

Quebec provincial police say they won't provide any details about what happened inside the home. Earlier Friday, the police force had indicated one hypothesis they were looking into was that the incident was an unintentional act.

Local police reported receiving a 911 call from the home in Levis, just across the river from the provincial capital.

When they arrived they found the boy dead, and two adults, including the child's mother, in a state of shock.

Another senseless tragedy perpetrated by fools and their guns. Seems they were trying to protect themselves from a perceived threat. Instead of using the police, they brought a gun into the home. Now, a child is dead.

And now the anti’s will use the death of a child to further their political cause? Since it was a handgun, and they’re still required to be registered, how did said registry prevent such tragedy?

[Guest Manny]

And now the anti’s will use the death of a child to further their political cause? Since it was a handgun, and they’re still required to be registered, how did said registry prevent such tragedy?

You don't get the purpose of the gun registry. This is not the kind of incident that the gun registry is for. Based on the info that police have released, this happened as a result of poor gun safety.

People have to be aware that guns are dangerous and they should be handled with respect. There should be strict safety protocols in place. People need to be properly trained to prevent these things from happening. But the CPC has made guns a political issue, it's part of their ideology that guns should be less regulated. THEY are the ones who made guns a political issue, and they won't listen to reasonable arguments about gun safety. The CPC behave exactly like the GOP does. They cooperate with the NRA in the United States. The NRA is involved in helping the CPC de-regulate gun laws in Canada.

NRA involved in Canadian gun registry debate

The National Rifle Association, a powerful lobbying group in the United States that advocates fewer gun controls, has been actively involved in trying to abolish Canada's long-gun registry for more than a decade, CBC News has learned.

Documents and correspondence obtained by the CBC show the NRA has provided logistical and tactical support to organizations such as the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CILA), established in 1998 to lobby Ottawa to shut down the registry.

The NRA provides the Canadian gun lobby group with "tremendous amounts of logistical support," and while the NRA's constitution prevents them from providing money, "they freely give us anything else," Tony Bernardo, an Ontario gun advocate and CILA's executive director, said in Canadian Firearms Digest in July 2001.

In 2006, former NRA president Sandra Froman was the featured keynote speaker at the CSSA annual meeting in Toronto. Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz co-hosted the town hall meeting for the event.

Earlier this year, Breitkreuz also found himself in hot water when a news release from his office called the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police a "cult" and "politically motivated" for supporting the long-gun registry.

Breitkreuz sent out emails to 12 NDP MPs, asking them to support the Conservatives in scrapping the long-gun registry.

[Guest Derek L]

You don't get the purpose of the gun registry. This is not the kind of incident that the gun registry is for. Based on the info that police have released, this happened as a result of poor gun safety.

People have to be aware that guns are dangerous and they should be handled with respect. There should be strict safety protocols in place. People need to be properly trained to prevent these things from happening. But the CPC has made guns a political issue, it's part of their ideology that guns should be less regulated. THEY are the ones who made guns a political issue, and they won't listen to reasonable arguments about gun safety. The CPC behave exactly like the GOP does. They cooperate with the NRA in the United States. The NRA is involved in helping the CPC de-regulate gun laws in Canada.

NRA involved in Canadian gun registry debate

The National Rifle Association, a powerful lobbying group in the United States that advocates fewer gun controls, has been actively involved in trying to abolish Canada's long-gun registry for more than a decade, CBC News has learned.

Documents and correspondence obtained by the CBC show the NRA has provided logistical and tactical support to organizations such as the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CILA), established in 1998 to lobby Ottawa to shut down the registry.

The NRA provides the Canadian gun lobby group with "tremendous amounts of logistical support," and while the NRA's constitution prevents them from providing money, "they freely give us anything else," Tony Bernardo, an Ontario gun advocate and CILA's executive director, said in Canadian Firearms Digest in July 2001.

In 2006, former NRA president Sandra Froman was the featured keynote speaker at the CSSA annual meeting in Toronto. Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz co-hosted the town hall meeting for the event.

Earlier this year, Breitkreuz also found himself in hot water when a news release from his office called the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police a "cult" and "politically motivated" for supporting the long-gun registry.

Breitkreuz sent out emails to 12 NDP MPs, asking them to support the Conservatives in scrapping the long-gun registry.

The CPC made guns a political issue? Who brought in the registry?

As for your overall strawman/point, I refer back to recreational drug usage:

8 Alberta deaths linked to ecstasy-like drug

An eighth death in southern Alberta has been linked to an ecstasy-like drug.

In all cases the victim thinks they are taking ecstasy — methylenedioxymethamphetamine, known as MDMA — but the drug actually contains high levels of paramethoxymethamphetamine (PMMA), a notoriously toxic amphetamine that is often called “Dr. Death.”

And

In B.C., 18 people have died after taking the drug in the last six months. Of those deaths, five have been linked to PMMA.

So clearly drugs (illegal) are the greater danger to Canadian teens/children then guns(legal) ……..I’ve got a household full of guns and two teens and fear more for their safety over a recreational drug or alcohol related incidents, and/or in combination with a motor vehicles……..And with all that being said, I’m still in favour of decriminalizing recreational drug use for adults………Will drug related deaths still occur regardless of their legal status? You bet, but their use and associated risks are a personal choice…………

Would firearms related accidents still occur with tighter or more lax restrictions, sure they would, and like drugs, they’re a personal choice to have within the home………

As for further politicizing it (and the NRA), face it, you guys have lost and if/when the NDP is Government, any proposed future registration and/or gun control measures will have a fraction of the compliance levels as the last LGR……..And there’s not a darn thing Government can do about it.

[Guest Manny]

If we're going to play partisan here, I would say that prohibition is yet another part of CPC ideology that leads to unnecessary death. It's because of prohibition, lack of regulations and the black market that those people died of drug poisoning.

But if we're going to be reasonable, then we could talk about taking measured precautions. If something provides a margin of safety, and it's only slightly inconvenient then it's reasonable to do it. Because it saves lives.

You keep invoking the gun registry, but that's not what this thread is even about. In response to your question, it doesn't mater who brought it in. The gun registry was not implemented for political purposes.

On the other hand, the NRA is all about ideology. They won't listen to reasonable arguments, and it appears that neither does the CPC. But the CPC does appear to listen to the NRA.

[Guest Derek L]

Talk of gun control is great for business, Unfortunately I’ll be waiting months for my new, backordered Ruger Mini-14/30s since Ruger can’t keep up with demand………. Edited May 5, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

If we're going to play partisan here, I would say that prohibition is yet another part of CPC ideology that leads to unnecessary death. It's because of prohibition, lack of regulations and the black market that those people died of drug poisoning.

But if we're going to be reasonable, then we could talk about taking measured precautions. If something provides a margin of safety, and it's only slightly inconvenient then it's reasonable to do it. Because it saves lives.

You keep invoking the gun registry, but that's not what this thread is even about. In response to your question, it doesn't mater who brought it in. The gun registry was not implemented for political purposes.

On the other hand, the NRA is all about ideology. They won't listen to reasonable arguments, and it appears that neither does the CPC. But the CPC does appear to listen to the NRA.

Private firearms ownership, like recreational drug use, is something that Government can’t feasibly control, and is quite obviously a demonstration of Government overstep on the personal rights of the individual and a clear waste of taxpayers money. Both are wedge issues, leveraged by differing political ideologies to offer false comfort to their ignorant “base”………….“Reefer addicts” are no more dangerous then private gun owners to society in general………You leave my guns alone and I won’t come after your dope. Simple really.

[cybercoma]

On the other hand, the NRA is all about ideology. They won't listen to reasonable arguments, and it appears that neither does the CPC. But the CPC does appear to listen to the NRA.

You're talking to someone that financially supports the NRA. Forget having a reasonable conversation about this.

[Guest Manny]

You're talking to someone that financially supports the NRA. Forget having a reasonable conversation about this.

Understood. I don't seek to persuade him. Just want to help Canadians become aware of what we've gotten ourselves into.

[huh]

Understood. I don't seek to persuade him. Just want to help Canadians become aware of what we've gotten ourselves into.

So, if i could say prove that o, swimming pools are by far more dangerous than firearms, would that change your mind about firearms or would you decide to register pools?

No, you would have to be reasonable and intelligent to begin with, and if that was the case you wouldn't believe the things you do about firearms. Self assured in your own ignorance, so pathetic, but then the world is full of stupid people.

[huh]

You're talking to someone that financially supports the NRA. Forget having a reasonable conversation about this.

You really shouldn't throw stones in that glass house you live in.

[Guest Manny]

So, if i could say prove that o, swimming pools are by far more dangerous than firearms, would that change your mind about firearms or would you decide to register pools?

No, you would have to be reasonable and intelligent to begin with, and if that was the case you wouldn't believe the things you do about firearms. Self assured in your own ignorance, so pathetic, but then the world is full of stupid people.

I see no reason to be insulted. That's out of line but if that's all you have, what would a reasonable person say? Pools have fences. Would you dismantle the fences, for the sake of some ill-perceived threat to you liberty? No, of course not. Not if you're reasonable. When the time comes to use the pool, you simply open the gate. When you are finished, you close the gate. No liberty lost there.

[bleeding heart]

So, if i could say prove that o, swimming pools are by far more dangerous than firearms, would that change your mind about firearms or would you decide to register pools?

No, you would have to be reasonable and intelligent to begin with, and if that was the case you wouldn't believe the things you do about firearms. Self assured in your own ignorance, so pathetic, but then the world is full of stupid people.

Manny isn't saying that no one should have firearms. He's advocating for safety, and he's decrying people who are stupid with their weapons.

Not exactly a radical stance.

[Guest Derek L]

I see no reason to be insulted. That's out of line but if that's all you have, what would a reasonable person say? Pools have fences. Would you dismantle the fences, for the sake of some ill-perceived threat to you liberty? No, of course not. Not if you're reasonable. When the time comes to use the pool, you simply open the gate. When you are finished, you close the gate. No liberty lost there.

To clarify, then you’re alright with current safe storage laws and accept that even with such laws, tragic accidents can & will occur? As I’ve stated numerous time in the various gun related threads, I’ve zero problem with the current storage laws (Or PAL/RPAL licensing) of both firearms and ammo. Why reinvent the wheel?

[cybercoma]

So, if i could say prove that o, swimming pools are by far more dangerous than firearms, would that change your mind about firearms or would you decide to register pools?

1) When someone owns a swimming pool, it's obvious. You can usually see it from the road. The same can't be said for firearms.

2) There are many regulations around pools to ensure the safety of children and others, including getting the proper permits to build it to ensure those safety regulations are met. Kind of like the government tried to do with firearms (making people register them to ensure safety precautions are met and followed).

[Guest Derek L]

1) When someone owns a swimming pool, it's obvious. You can usually see it from the road. The same can't be said for firearms.

2) There are many regulations around pools to ensure the safety of children and others, including getting the proper permits to build it to ensure those safety regulations are met. Kind of like the government tried to do with firearms (making people register them to ensure safety precautions are met and followed).

And how did the LGR do that?

[cybercoma]

You've been arguing all this time against the Long-Gun Registry and you have no idea how it was used?

[Guest Derek L]

You've been arguing all this time against the Long-Gun Registry and you have no idea how it was used?

I’d be much obliged if you care to explain how my registered hand guns are considered safe, but my unregistered rifles and shotguns are a potential plight on society.

[huh]

1) When someone owns a swimming pool, it's obvious. You can usually see it from the road. The same can't be said for firearms.

2) There are many regulations around pools to ensure the safety of children and others, including getting the proper permits to build it to ensure those safety regulations are met. Kind of like the government tried to do with firearms (making people register them to ensure safety precautions are met and followed).

So somehow because the pool is visible its ok that it kills far, far more people in accidents that firearms do? There are many regulations concerning the safe handling and storage of firearms, independent of the registry, for some people that isn't enough, they make bad decisions, people can and on occasion do get hurt. Then again the exact same thing can be said about pools, however it seems that since many more people are hurt accidentally around pools, and we clearly care about saving the people and not just the object of their demise (that was sarcasm btw, we know you don't actually care about the people) perhaps a pool registry or an outright banning of pools is in order. If it only saves one life..its bound to save many more than that, and many more than any firearms regulation could.

There are plenty of articles on the internet, like this one, http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/ to reinforce the point. Its only a 100 fold difference, in Canada its probably even higher.

So i am left with a few possibilities, you and those with the same beliefs are either incredibly stupid, or you for some reason hate people with pools and want them and their children to be killed, or you're so indoctrinated into whatever bullshit ideology you have come to believe in that reality is just a sideshow for you, leading us back to the first option.

SO why don't you crusaders focus your 'efforts' where they might have a greater impact, on the many subjects where more people could be helped, senseless deaths prevented, hey, here's an idea, drive to a random bar once a week and offer to drive someone home, you will probably do a lot more good then the registry ever did. But again it is clear that you and the rest don't give a shit about people, you care about guns, they are a symbol of something that you don't like, and we all know if the left doesn't like something it must be eradicated, people of tolerance who are only tolerant of their own beliefs.

It's deaths you care about right? Won't you something help the swimming public? Only you can prevent back yard drownings! Nah you're busy focusing on 1/1ooth of the deaths because you have a hard-on for guns.

Better yet, live your life and keep your busy body nose to your own business.

[Guest Manny]

One important difference is, deaths that occur in swimming pools, occur by accident. Accidents happen and are impossible to completely eliminate. Still, safeguards can be put in place and people properly informed to minimize accidents. As stated, that will never completely eliminate them however. And the same goes with guns, yes there will always be accidents involving guns. Careless use of guns, or a lackadaisical attitude towards them, or the idea that we need guns to protect ourselves (as in the case with the toddler who was killed) must be heavily discouraged, and that is done by proper training and enforcement of certain laws. Part of avoiding accidents includes proper storage of weapons, trigger locks, and in my view storage of ammunition. It should be illegal to have a loaded gun laying around in the home, in my opinion. Loaded guns should only be allowed on the target range, or when out hunting.

Second thing is, a question of intent. When I go swimming, I know there are risks. I am willing to take and assume those risks, freely of my own volition. If I die it's because I willingly assumed that risk and lost the gamble.

If someone takes out a gun and goes on a shooting spree, and kills other people, they took away their liberty. They purposely did it. The people who are killed, didn't assume any risk, such as a soldier or a police officer has to face in the line of duty. That is why the death of people by guns is more horrific.

[Guest Derek L]

One important difference is, deaths that occur in swimming pools, occur by accident. Accidents happen and are impossible to completely eliminate. Still, safeguards can be put in place and people properly informed to minimize accidents. As stated, that will never completely eliminate them however. And the same goes with guns, yes there will always be accidents involving guns. Careless use of guns, or a lackadaisical attitude towards them, or the idea that we need guns to protect ourselves (as in the case with the toddler who was killed) must be heavily discouraged, and that is done by proper training and enforcement of certain laws. Part of avoiding accidents includes proper storage of weapons, trigger locks, and in my view storage of ammunition. It should be illegal to have a loaded gun laying around in the home, in my opinion. Loaded guns should only be allowed on the target range, or when out hunting.

As to the case of self defence, I suggest you follow the current ongoing trial of one Ian Thomson. This Gentlemen was at home when late at night several persons started fire bombing his home, then Mr Thomson loaded a revolver and confronted the attackers by firing off several warning shots which caused the attackers to bugger off. Mr Thomson was subsequently charged with numerous crimes, of which the Crown has now dropped most, except those pertaining to safe storage.

Normally, when the Crown is fighting an uphill battle such is this they will either drop the charges completely or try to drag out the proceedings so long so as to bankrupt the individual…..In this case they’re trying to do the later, but unexpectedly for the Crown, is the public outcry and the resulting waves of donations (I’ve since donated $1500 and will likely increase it) to help fund his legal defence.

The Crown has since doubled down and is bringing in the Ontario CFO to try and prove that Mr Thomson, a retired military and police pistol instructor, was unable to get from his safe a gun, load it, then rush downstairs and confront his attackers in under a ~minute. Good luck with that.

If/when Mr Thomson wins his case, the precedent will be set for both personal protection with a firearm and the ensuing storage of said firearm and ammo. This case is one to follow, and I’d be very surprised if the Crown doesn’t either drop or stay the charges. Here’s hoping they don’t though.

Second thing is, a question of intent. When I go swimming, I know there are risks. I am willing to take and assume those risks, freely of my own volition. If I die it's because I willingly assumed that risk and lost the gamble.

If someone takes out a gun and goes on a shooting spree, and kills other people, they took away their liberty. They purposely did it. The people who are killed, didn't assume any risk, such as a soldier or a police officer has to face in the line of duty. That is why the death of people by guns is more horrific.

How do our current storage laws prevent that?

[Guest Manny]

How do our current storage laws prevent that?

They could prevent that in a number of ways. One by reducing the probability that someone will lose their cool and kill someone else in the "heat of passion". Another by preventing weapons and ammo from being easily stolen. Or if they are stolen, they would be traceable through identification in a registry. those are just some examples. I'm sure a creative thinking person can come up with more.