Quebec To Create Its Own Gun Registry

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry, but when people who don't or are unwilling to understand and accept the facts, facts which are easy to find, and still rant and rave in complete opposition to those facts, why should anyone provide them or their arguments with more respect than they deserve?. Believe what you wish, but if you think that a registry is somehow needed to stop us from becoming 'like them', you are wrong, you are ignorant. If you also believe that an AR15 is killing more people than o idk, just about everything else commonly used as a weapon, you are also wrong, that includes in mass murders, where far more can easily be linked to handguns. Again, none of that has anything to do with the original topic, and was only brought up as a deflection.

Btw, fully automatic weapons as you put it, are not common in the USA, machine guns are tightly regulated, i would agree though that they are not something people need to own, and almost no one does. The Ar15 variants that have been used in shootings are semi automatics, many hunting rifles perform in exactly the same way firing exactly the same ammunition. But this is just another of the 'assault rifle' myths, an Ar15 is not an assault rifle, no more than grandpa's Springfield was anyway, as i said in a previous post, it's fine to debate the need or desirability of any firearm in our society, but to argue a registry prevents their illicit use is silly.

What the hell do you think AR stands for. In the last 30 years in the US, shotguns were used in mass shootings one sixth of the time. Semi auto, either rifles of hand guns with at least 10 rounds in the clip or mag were the weapons of choice. Argus has already pointed out that having to reload a shotgun could case an end the rampage. Mass murderers may be crazy but they arent stupid.

[Derek 2.0]

What the hell do you think AR stands for.

ArmaLite Rifle model # 15

In the last 30 years in the US, shotguns were used in mass shootings one sixth of the time. Semi auto, either rifles of hand guns with at least 10 rounds in the clip or mag were the weapons of choice. Argus has already pointed out that having to reload a shotgun could case an end the rampage. Mass murderers may be crazy but they arent stupid.

Yet, per the FBI, more Americans are killed annually by clubs and hammers versus rifles of any type (including AR-15s)......and Americans are killed equally by both rifles (including AR-15s) and shotguns.

And of course, the shooter that killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard several years ago, a mass shooting on a military base to boot, utilized a Remington 870 pump action shotgun......likewise, 9 years ago, the Capital Hill mass shooting in Seattle saw the shooter use a Winchester 1300 pump action shotgun.....then there's these two, and their his and her's Browning Auto-5 shotguns:

Edited March 31, 2015 by Michael Hardner
Image Removed

[On Guard for Thee]

ArmaLite Rifle model # 15

Yet, per the FBI, more Americans are killed annually by clubs and hammers versus rifles of any type (including AR-15s)......and Americans are killed equally by both rifles (including AR-15s) and shotguns.

And of course, the shooter that killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard several years ago, a mass shooting on a military base to boot, utilized a Remington 870 pump action shotgun......likewise, 9 years ago, the Capital Hill mass shooting in Seattle saw the shooter use a Winchester 1300 pump action shotgun.....then there's these two, and their his and her's Browning Auto-5 shotguns:

What exactly is your point. Shotguns are not the weapon of choice my people bent on mass shootings. Not hard to see why. I really couldnt care less although restrictions on such weapons that are not likely needed for hunting, (lets face it, if you need a hundred rounds to knock down a deer maybe you should stay home) some of those school kids would still be alive. Edited March 31, 2015 by Michael Hardner
Image Removed

[Derek 2.0]

What exactly is your point. Shotguns are not the weapon of choice my people bent on mass shootings. Not hard to see why. I really couldnt care less although restrictions on such weapons that are not likely needed for hunting, (lets face it, if you need a hundred rounds to knock down a deer maybe you should stay home) some of those school kids would still be alive.

Yet, shotguns, per the FBI, kill annually as many people as rifles (including AR-15s)........are you disputing facts obtained from the FBI?

Likewise, AR-15s and its larger cousin the AR-10, are used by millions to hunt game every year lawfully.....

Continuing an over 100 year tradition of the use of semi-auto rifles and shotguns used in sport hunting.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Michael Hardner
Image Removed

[On Guard for Thee]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein

And Ive already discussed on here how easy such weapons can be obtained in the US, from personal experience.

Not all states of course.

Edited March 31, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Michael Hardner]

Please note that we ask you to not post images that aren't necessary for the discussion.

[hitops]

Well again according to US stats, that gun in the house for protection is more likely to be used in domestic violence, accidental shootings, or suicide. My point is I dot want to see us go down the US road with all this second amendment, Charlton Heston BS.

Not long guns though. The issue in the US is handguns. The other difference is the huge number of African Americans and the effect of African American culture. Again we have plenty of long guns at home in Canada, but not the same issues with firearms and domestic deaths.

Edited April 27, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

You are allowed to protect yourself. But unlike the states, you cant shoot a guy who is stealing your tv in Canada.

You can't shoot a guy who's trying to knife you either, without going to court and putting your life through the grinder. If somebody threatens your kids life with a knife and you shoot him....100% you will get arrested and tried.

Edited April 27, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

That too is a popular myth, up there with road raging CCW holders, for those citizens that actually lawfully carry, going through the entire process through local law enforcement to obtain a CCW permit are far less likely than regular citizens to commit crimes.......as for example the numbers show in gun friendly Texas

Your response here does not disprove that as a myth. While what you posted is true, that is irrelevant to the fact that dispute+alcohol+gun is the classic formula that explains the lions share of dun deaths in the US excluding suicide.

Yes, responsible people are responsible. Glad we covered that. That's not the problem though.

Edited April 27, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

That too is a popular myth, up there with road raging CCW holders, for those citizens that actually lawfully carry, going through the entire process through local law enforcement to obtain a CCW permit are far less likely than regular citizens to commit crimes.......as for example the numbers show in gun friendly Texas

Your response here does not disprove that as a myth. While what you posted is true, that irrelevant to the fact that dispute+alcohol+gun is the classic formula that explains the lions share of dun deaths in the US excluding suicide.

[poochy]

Your response here does not disprove that as a myth. While what you posted is true, that is irrelevant to the fact that dispute+alcohol+gun is the classic formula that explains the lions share of dun deaths in the US excluding suicide.

Yes, responsible people are responsible. Glad we covered that. That's not the problem though.

Depending upon where you look, say Canada, you can very easily make the case that the weapon available doesn't much matter under the circumstance that you describe, if fact, if you remove the known criminal element from the equation, the vast majority of other murders are committed with something other than a firearm, it's not even close.

Edited April 27, 2015 by poochy

[PIK]

On guard we are not going down that road. In America it is a right, in Canada it is a privilege.

[Derek 2.0]

Your response here does not disprove that as a myth. While what you posted is true, that is irrelevant to the fact that dispute+alcohol+gun is the classic formula that explains the lions share of dun deaths in the US excluding suicide.

Yes, responsible people are responsible. Glad we covered that. That's not the problem though.

And that of course was my point in the post you quoted......Like lawful Canadian gun owners, in the United States, legal CCW permit holders are namely responsible people.......A clear distinction between a responsible man or women with a CCW permit versus a "punk with a stolen gun" carried in the waistband, covered by a hoodie..........hence dispelling the myth that granting a legal allowance for responsible citizens to obtain a CCW permit will result in an increase in gun violence, as clearly this is not the case, both proven by the actual number of crimes committed by CCW permit holders versus the public average and/or the fact that well gun violence has been decreasing for decades within the United States, the number of lawful CCW holders has also increased........

Context is key........

[hitops]

Depending upon where you look, say Canada, you can very easily make the case that the weapon available doesn't much matter under the circumstance that you describe, if fact, if you remove the known criminal element from the equation, the vast majority of other murders are committed with something other than a firearm, it's not even close.

That's exactly the point. We have lots of long guns in the homes of Canadians, with very few gun-related homicides. Far more with other weapons. However in the US, the lions share are with handguns, both in and out of the home. When you are out and about in a bar or somebody else's house in Canada, getting drunk and fighting, you don't have a weapon with you. You have to be in your own home to access your rifle, which is more difficult to get from storage than the handgun from your side table.

A lot more people die from handguns than the easily accessible weapons Canadians have. Overall our murder rate is like 1/4 the US. Guns are better at killing people, that's why we give them to soldiers and not just knives or broken chairs + bad attitude on the battlefield.

Edited April 28, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

And that of course was my point in the post you quoted......Like lawful Canadian gun owners, in the United States, legal CCW permit holders are namely responsible people.......A clear distinction between a responsible man or women with a CCW permit versus a "punk with a stolen gun" carried in the waistband, covered by a hoodie..........hence dispelling the myth that granting a legal allowance for responsible citizens to obtain a CCW permit will result in an increase in gun violence, as clearly this is not the case, both proven by the actual number of crimes committed by CCW permit holders versus the public average and/or the fact that well gun violence has been decreasing for decades within the United States, the number of lawful CCW holders has also increased........

Context is key........

That logic does not follow. It does not follow that because CCW holders do not commit many crimes, that allowing CCW will not result in more gun crimes. The US amply proves that. There are many, many gun crimes in the US with concealed weapons that have nothing to do with CCW holders. The reason is the vast access and widespread availability of easily concealable, easily transportable firearms. CCW contributes to this, even if its legitimate users do not.

Gun crimes have not been falling in the US due to CCW laws. Gun crimes (and crimes in generally), have been falling in the entire developed world, regardless of gun laws. They remain far higher relative to the rest of the developed world, within the US. Furthermore within the US, those crimes have fallen in nearly every state, by almost the exact same percentage, regardless of that state's specific gun law. There is literally no evidence that CCW laws have had downward influence on gun crime, although they occurred at the same time. If you believe they did, you would have to explain why states with highly restrictive gun laws had equal crime reduction, why Canada had similar crime reduction, why Japan, Europe, etc had crime reduction, all during this period. Obviously CCW laws within only some states, within only one country, did not cause this.

The US has tons of gun crimes because it has tons of easily available handguns. These are the weapons used in most crimes according to the FBI. Despite CCW permit holders being safe, despite gun training etc. CCW laws, while not making CCW carriers dangerous, do result in far greater availability of weapons which are then, as a point of recorded fact by the FBI, used in crimes.

Ya but would't they just use other weapons? Ya maybe, but a lot less people get killed with other weapons, which is why plenty of people get stabbed, but far fewer (per capita) die, in Canada.

Your argument is like saying people should be able to plant land mines in their yard. Yes, they might be fully aware of them and safe around them. That is irrelevant to why that would be dangerous.

I support the idea that we should be able to have guns in our homes. I support the idea that if you shoot somebody in your home, you get the benefit of the doubt. I do not support the idea that we can all roam around town with handguns. The evidence from the US is clear - 4x as many people get murdered there, compared to here, per capita.

Edited April 28, 2015 by hitops

[Derek 2.0]

That logic does not follow. It does not follow that because CCW holders do not commit many crimes, that allowing CCW will not result in more gun crimes. The US amply proves that. There are many, many gun crimes in the US with concealed weapons that have nothing to do with CCW holders. The reason is the vast access and widespread availability of easily concealable, easily transportable firearms. CCW contributes to this, even if its legitimate users do not.

Clearly not for you.........quite the opposite, as the numbers provided demonstrate that CCW holders are not causing these crimes.........As to your reasoning, you're following the incorrect meme that more guns equals more crimes, which is flawed......a gun, and in this case a handgun, is not the cause of crime.

Gun crimes have not been falling in the US due to CCW laws.

I never suggested that to be the case, but that point refutes your claim in regards to "vast access and widespread availability" of handguns being key, as today there are far more handguns and CCW holders in American than was the case in the 1970s, which saw far greater rates of gun crime...........

The US has tons of gun crimes because it has tons of easily available handguns. These are the weapons used in most crimes according to the FBI. Despite CCW permit holders being safe, despite gun training etc. CCW laws, while not making CCW carriers dangerous, do result in far greater availability of weapons which are then, as a point of recorded fact by the FBI, used in crimes.

Explain why there were more gun crimes in the 1970s versus today.........there are far more handguns, handgun owners and concealed carry permits holders today then in the 1970s.......

Ya but would't they just use other weapons? Ya maybe, but a lot less people get killed with other weapons, which is why plenty of people get stabbed, but far fewer (per capita) die, in Canada.

Your argument is like saying people should be able to plant land mines in their yard. Yes, they might be fully aware of them and safe around them. That is irrelevant to why that would be dangerous.

Your logic is flawed as its predicated on gun numbers.........

I support the idea that we should be able to have guns in our homes. I support the idea that if you shoot somebody in your home, you get the benefit of the doubt. I do not support the idea that we can all roam around town with handguns. The evidence from the US is clear - 4x as many people get murdered there, compared to here, per capita.

Again, flawed logic that makes your point far from clear.........as already outlined, in the States, CCW holders are not the ones committing crimes, likewise, under current Canadian laws, legal handgun owners are not the ones committing crimes........

Furthermore, your ideas are contradictory..............In essence, you'd support an RPAL holder (like myself) using a firearm within my home if myself or my family was in mortal danger, likewise, by extension, you support my current lawful transportation of firearms from my home to a range (already Canadians are legally transporting handguns in their cars around town without incident), but you wouldn't support the use of firearms by lawful Canadians, if in mortal danger, in public, because you fear this would lead to an increase in (hand)gun crimes across Canada.......

That makes zero sense.

[hitops]

Clearly not for you.........quite the opposite, as the numbers provided demonstrate that CCW holders are not causing these crimes.........As to your reasoning, you're following the incorrect meme that more guns equals more crimes, which is flawed......a gun, and in this case a handgun, is not the cause of crime.

Yet the guns available to CCW owners, available only because of CCW laws, are in fact, used in most murders. They would not be available for those crimes, if they were not first brought into circulation by legitimate buyers.

I never suggested that to be the case, but that point refutes your claim in regards to "vast access and widespread availability" of handguns being key, as today there are far more handguns and CCW holders in American than was the case in the 1970s, which saw far greater rates of gun crime...........

Explain why there were more gun crimes in the 1970s versus today.........there are far more handguns, handgun owners and concealed carry permits holders today then in the 1970s.......

Nearly every country in the developed world had similar reductions over the same period. This points to something far larger than US gun laws as the mechanism to crime reduction. Despite the declines, the US stubbornly maintains a far, far larger murder rate than most others (similar proportional difference as 1970). The other thing the US has in far greater numbers than most others, is hundreds of millions of easily accessible, concealable, lethal weapons. It's not a quantum leap to reason that criminals will always be criminals, however when they assault people in a place where they have far easier access to more lethal weapons, more lethality will result. This is about as shocking as the fact where there is more ice, more people learn to skate.

Again, flawed logic that makes your point far from clear.........as already outlined, in the States, CCW holders are not the ones committing crimes, likewise, under current Canadian laws, legal handgun owners are not the ones committing crimes........

That proves the point. In Canada, legal gun owners are not committing crimes, and their guns (typically long guns) are not used in crimes. In the US, legal gun owners are not committing crimes, but their guns are being used in crimes. Why? Because in one case there is a mass supply of concealable weapons. Why? Because the are widely available for purchase and carry. Not the case in Canada, hence the difference. If law x means that some people can live uprightly with the law, yet the downstream results of the law are destructive, then it is a still a bad law. Again the landmine example is relevant.

Furthermore, your ideas are contradictory..............In essence, you'd support an RPAL holder (like myself) using a firearm within my home if myself or my family was in mortal danger, likewise, by extension, you support my current lawful transportation of firearms from my home to a range (already Canadians are legally transporting handguns in their cars around town without incident), but you wouldn't support the use of firearms by lawful Canadians, if in mortal danger, in public, because you fear this would lead to an increase in (hand)gun crimes across Canada.......

That makes zero sense.

That actually makes perfect sense, and again you prove my point. In Canada, laws about transport and use of firearms are restrictive, while still allowing use of firearms safely. In US, laws are different, and so are the results (4x greater murder rate vs Canada). In Canada if their is a situation escalate, it is simply much riskier (legally) and more difficult technically, to rapidly obtain and deploy your firearm (even if it is in your vehicle). Less use of things that kill people easily, means less people get killed.

Edited May 14, 2015 by hitops

[Derek 2.0]

Yet the guns available to CCW owners, available only because of CCW laws, are in fact, used in most murders. They would not be available for those crimes, if they were not first brought into circulation by legitimate buyers.

No, handguns are available because Americans have a 2nd Amendment right.........a right for all Americans regardless if a small portion are used in crimes by a minority of Americans.

Nearly every country in the developed world had similar reductions over the same period. This points to something far larger than US gun laws as the mechanism to crime reduction. Despite the declines, the US stubbornly maintains a far, far larger murder rate than most others (similar proportional difference as 1970). The other thing the US has in far greater numbers than most others, is hundreds of millions of easily accessible, concealable, lethal weapons. It's not a quantum leap to reason that criminals will always be criminals, however when they assault people in a place where they have far easier access to more lethal weapons, more lethality will result. This is about as shocking as the fact where there is more ice, more people learn to skate.

Explain Mexico......Mexico has 4-5 times the rate of gun homicides then the United States, yet far more stringent rules encompassing legal gun ownership, more stringent then Canada or most European countries.

That proves the point. In Canada, legal gun owners are not committing crimes, and their guns (typically long guns) are not used in crimes. In the US, legal gun owners are not committing crimes, but their guns are being used in crimes. Why? Because in one case there is a mass supply of concealable weapons. Why? Because the are widely available for purchase and carry. Not the case in Canada, hence the difference. If law x means that some people can live uprightly with the law, yet the downstream results of the law are destructive, then it is a still a bad law. Again the landmine example is relevant.

No it doesn't........the lawful ownership of firearms in Mexico is far more stringent then the United States, yet Mexico has 4-5 times the rate of gun crimes........inversely, in numerous European countries (Italy, Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, Germany etc) they allow their legal gun owners to carry concealed firearms for self protection, funny enough, each of the above nations is world renowned in the manufacture of handguns, but have crime rates equal to or less than Canada.......

So no, you do not have a point........

That actually makes perfect sense, and again you prove my point. In Canada, laws about transport and use of firearms are restrictive, while still allowing use of firearms safely. In US, laws are different, and so are the results (4x greater murder rate vs Canada). In Canada if their is a situation escalate, it is simply much riskier (legally) and more difficult technically, to rapidly obtain and deploy your firearm (even if it is in your vehicle). Less use of things that kill people easily, means less people get killed.

That is absurd......I lawfully own and transport handguns (lots of them), yet my (like most owners) attitude towards them wouldn't be swayed to violence if I was lawfully aloud to carry one on my hip versus a case beside me......inversely, as already proven to you, in the United States, despite "situations that escalate" and being able to rapidly obtainable and deploy a firearm, CCW holders are not the ones committing crimes when contrasted with the general public.....

Like I said, you don't have a point, fore if you did, the above European countries would share rates of gun crimes with that of the United States, and Mexico with strict gun laws, would have less gun crime than the United States, and perhaps even Canada............

Why doesn't your opinion align with the factual world?

[On Guard for Thee]

Hells bells, if you cant figure out why Mexico has a high gun crime rate even with their laws, then you must have never been there. Laws written in a book dont mean much when you can buy off the enforcers of those laws about as easily as you can buy an assault rifle in Florida.

[Derek 2.0]

Hells bells, if you cant figure out why Mexico has a high gun crime rate even with their laws, then you must have never been there. Laws written in a book dont mean much when you can buy off the enforcers of those laws about as easily as you can buy an assault rifle in Florida.

But the Americans have laws written in books against gun violence........are you suggesting, unlike current Canadian and European laws, both the Americans and Mexicans have trouble enforcing their various firearms laws? So it's an enforcement problem......so in a sense, if they can't enforce their current laws "written in a book", why add further laws that they won't be able to enforce?

[On Guard for Thee]

But the Americans have laws written in books against gun violence........are you suggesting, unlike current Canadian and European laws, both the Americans and Mexicans have trouble enforcing their various firearms laws? So it's an enforcement problem......so in a sense, if they can't enforce their current laws "written in a book", why add further laws that they won't be able to enforce?

Canada has laws and that can be ad are enforced. Have you ever tried to bribe a cop in TO or YVR.... You would likely end up in jail. In Mexico, not so much. The US just gets itself all screwed up with this second amendment junk and whackos like Heston.

[PIK]

So a former liberal senator had his house broke in and 26 rifles and 4 handguns were stolen. So I wonder if he guns were stored properly and will we hear anything about it. Todays paper. It is the senator that had the fight with his very young wife on a airplane or in the airport.

Edited May 15, 2015 by PIK

[Smallc]

Did he support the gun registry?

[hitops]

No, handguns are available because Americans have a 2nd Amendment right.........a right for all Americans regardless if a small portion are used in crimes by a minority of Americans.

Explain Mexico......Mexico has 4-5 times the rate of gun homicides then the United States, yet far more stringent rules encompassing legal gun ownership, more stringent then Canada or most European countries.

No it doesn't........the lawful ownership of firearms in Mexico is far more stringent then the United States, yet Mexico has 4-5 times the rate of gun crimes........inversely, in numerous European countries (Italy, Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, Germany etc) they allow their legal gun owners to carry concealed firearms for self protection, funny enough, each of the above nations is world renowned in the manufacture of handguns, but have crime rates equal to or less than Canada.......

So no, you do not have a point........

That is absurd......I lawfully own and transport handguns (lots of them), yet my (like most owners) attitude towards them wouldn't be swayed to violence if I was lawfully aloud to carry one on my hip versus a case beside me......inversely, as already proven to you, in the United States, despite "situations that escalate" and being able to rapidly obtainable and deploy a firearm, CCW holders are not the ones committing crimes when contrasted with the general public.....

Like I said, you don't have a point, fore if you did, the above European countries would share rates of gun crimes with that of the United States, and Mexico with strict gun laws, would have less gun crime than the United States, and perhaps even Canada............

Why doesn't your opinion align with the factual world?

The reason for a bad law is quite irrelevant to the badness of the law.

A few years back Chicago changed their laws allowing more CC. After half a year, they had a few fewer murders, and John Locke happily posted this on his blog. By the end of the year, they had significantly more murders than the previous years. Locke stopped mentioning Chicago.......

The fact that you can safely transport guns is quite irrelevant to the fact that so many cannot that the US murder rate resembles a developing country. Your argument is identical to the following: I can safely plant landmines in my front yard, and never have a problem, therefore everyone should be able to.

Mexico is the exception that proves the rule. The fact you are limited to referencing Mexico constantly, means you understand this. If your point was valid, you would be able to mention many examples, but you cannot. You are stuck with one of the most corrupt, barely developed countries in the western hemisphere which is effectively ruled by druglords. The fact that you are stuck with this example, should inform you about the strength of your argument. No doubt, it will not. It reminds me of people who argue for herbal cancer treatments, because 'they knew this one guy once...' The entirely of Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand stand in defiance of your point. In other words, everywhere that anyone would ever want to live in the modern world. You will of course, look away.

Edited May 15, 2015 by hitops

[dre]

Explain Mexico......Mexico has 4-5 times the rate of gun homicides then the United States, yet far more stringent rules encompassing legal gun ownership, more stringent then Canada or most European countries.

Ummmm... Mexico is a third world country in the midst of a civil war between huge drug cartells and government.

Pretty dumb example.