Gun registration

[maplesyrup]

slavik44......no one likes waste but you are crying over spilt milk. The money is gone. Get over it!

[Argus]

The gun registry should not have cost that much money and probably wouldn't have if these gun lovers didn't protest and put up so many stumbling blocks to it.

Perhaps you could explain to me how gun owners are responsible for the screwups at the gun registry I noted earlier in this thread.

[Argus]

A couple of voters my ass. The vast majority of Canadians want gun control and the gun registry.

Most Canadians support gun control, myself included. Most thought registering guns wasn't a bad idea - until they saw the bill. Most no longer support the gun registry - except for those who apparently don't pay taxes and don't care how much money goes down the toilet.

I never hear any valid resons not to have these gun control and gun registry programs.

Yes, no doubt it's hard to hear when you put your fingers in your ears and scream "NYA NYAA NYAA NYAA NYAAA" while the adults are speaking.

[Argus]

So we shouldn't have a gun registry, and gun control, eh!

At Least 5 Dead, 2 Wounded In Nightclub Shooting

Right! 

Perhaps you can explain how a gun registry would have done a single thing to forestall this event, or, for that matter, ANY gun crime.

[Argus]

slavik44......no one likes waste but you are crying over spilt milk. The money is gone. Get over it!

And the $100 million the Liberals are about to add to the gun registry costs? What about that?

[Argus]

slavik44.... it is all smoke and mirrors isn't it with the gun advocates?

Obviously it takes a combination of police enforcement, gun control, gun registry, appropriate courtroom sentencing, and education. My preference would be for that nightclub incident not to have occurred.  If that is the kind of society you wish to live in by all means don't let me stop you. Have you ever done a comparison of gun crime incidents in the US compared to Canada?

If you did compare the US and Canada I doubt you would find a big difference _except_ for their inner city slums. Those slums are where most of the gun crime goes on, along with most of the drug dealing. Exclude the inner city slums and you won't find that much difference in murder rates or gun crime between the US and Canada.

Sadly, we are well on our way to building our own inner city slums through the importation of millions of third world illiterates who will spend their lives on welfare. We too now have drive by shootings and gang murders on a growing scale.

[maplesyrup]

You can't have it both ways. Either gun owners are going to pay for their firearm registrations or the program will cost more for the general taxpayer. A lot of the gun registry problems has been caused by the NRA. If they had kept their nose out of it the costs would be nowhere near as much.

Another sure way to increase violence in our society is to reduce taxes.

[Slavik44]

slavik44......no one likes waste but you are crying over spilt milk. The money is gone. Get over it!

I agree the money is gone, however you support the gun registry despite the money wasted and you have yet to answer my question, How would the gun registry have stopped this.

[maplesyrup]

Canada has a gun registry and it is used substantially by our police forces - that is good enough for me.

If the US would follow Canada's approach to dealing with violence, they would have less of it and that is the issue.

These knee-jerk reactions do nothing towards solving the problem.

To reduce violence it takes a lot of different processes working together, but lowering poverty is at the top, or near the top, of the list.

[Slavik44]

Canada has a gun registry and it is used substantially by our police forces - that is good enough for me.

If the US would follow Canada's approach to dealing with violence, they would have less of it and that is the issue.

please explain to me how the gun registry would have stopped the above nightclub incident, you implied it could prove it, in other words put up or shut up.

[Argus]

Canada has a gun registry and it is used substantially by our police forces - that is good enough for me.

"It's used by police and that's good enough for me. Duuhhh."

You don't know or care about the problems, you have no idea how it might work, or even if it works, but gee, it sounds good, right, and that's good enough. Duhhh. If you're too intellectually lazy to care more about an issue than that its name sounds good you shouldn't be trying to discuss it.

If the US would follow Canada's approach to dealing with violence, they would have less of it and that is the issue.

Our "approach" is weak laws and quick parole for violent offenders. How do you presume that would help them any? The US crime problem has its origins in inner city slums, which themselves originate in the masses of poor, uneducated blacks moving into the cities after slavery was abolished and finding no jobs.

[maplesyrup]

You keep talking about the inner city slums as if they are not part of the US. What is that all about?

One of the major reasons we have violence is poverty, whether it is in Boston or Bagdad.

[Argus]

You keep talking about the inner city slums as if they are not part of the US. What is that all about?

One of the major reasons we have violence is poverty, whether it is in Boston or Bagdad.

Hmm. It's this way: There are two Americas. One America is the world you see on TV, the world of prosperous suburbs in which the vast majority of Americans live, especially White Americans. They =never= go near the inner cities, know no one who lives there, and even read little about them in their newspapers. For most of these Americans the inner cities might as well not exist. Their crime rates, including homocides, are simliar to ours. The inner cities, on the other hand, are - well, slums, and you've probably seen enough of them in movies to realize they're violent cesspools of drugs and gangs. These inner city slums throw off all statistics for the US so that you might presume that violence and gun crime there is far, far above our own. It is - but only in the inner cities. There are tons of guns in the suburbs, among the middle class, but aside from accidents they don't generate much notice - or crime. If you live in most parts of America the crime you experience is about on a par with what we have here in Canada.

[maplesyrup]

What kind of fallacy is this?

That is like saying we will talk about national traffic fatalities but exclude the ones that are caused by male drivers.

Put in gun control and a gun registry in the US and you will see the homicide rate drop.

[Pateris]

maplesyrup,

Could you explain how the gun registry in Canada actually reduces gun crime?

If the criminals don't register their illegally imported weapons, how does the registry do any good whatsoever?

[maplesyrup]

Ask the police!

Why do you think the police make use of it?

[Pateris]

maplesyrup,

I have. The RCMP and Calgary Police Service indicate the gun registry database is WRONG about 85% of the time. Also, the statistic about it being accessed 1500 times per day is a lie. The federal government includes in that number every access of ALL police databases... Not just the gun registry.

Tell me again - how does registring the guns of the law-abiding citizens reduce gun crime?

[shackwacky]

Debate on Gun Registry

And for many, the $1-billion price tag over the past decade still rankles. "One billion dollars would put thousands of police officers on the streets," says Sergeant Al Koenig, head of the Calgary Police Association. "You could buy 50 helicopters and give them to police services."

[Slavik44]

What kind of fallacy is this?

That is like saying we will talk about national traffic fatalities but exclude the ones that are caused by male drivers.

Put in gun control and a gun registry in the US and you will see  the homicide rate drop.

not at all maplesyrup, it makes perfect sense for extrapolation of the data. If we compare for instance gun crimes in mirrored areas between the U.S and canada and notice no statisticaly notable difference then it can be argued that the Canadian Gun Registry is not affective. Not I said Gun registry, this is not about Gun control this is about the canadian gun registry, please dont purposefully interchange the words, or perhaps the next tiem we talka bout the new democrats i will infer they are communists because socialism is used interchangably by Karl Marx even though it is evident they are two different things. Likewise Gun Control and the Canadian gun registry are two different things. Anyways if it can then be prooven (i don;t ahve any data infront of me) that Gun crimes in suburban Canada and suburban America are very close, then it doesn;t take a conservative to recognize the gun registry isn't working. So if we were going to advise the U.S on lowering gun crimes we should then focus on the one area that we outline dpreviously, Slums. So perhpas the best way for Canada to avoid homicides is to funnel two billion into Housing subsidies for the poor?

weach leads me to my conclusions:

1) The money has been spent

2) it was a wate of money better spent in other areas

3) there is a better way to control gun violence, then the useless gun registry

4) The gun registry, yes we have it, but if we could go back in time it should never have been implemented and the money spent elsewhere.

Which leads me to ask you why defend a useless thing, we have it we are stuck with it we all agrre but you actually support it.

Which then leads me to my next question, How woudl the gun registry have stopped the nightclub shootings? You claim the NRA uses smoke and mirrors but clearly you are fairly good at it yourself as you have made seven posts since I asked you that question and each tiem you have bi-passed answerign my question.

Furthermore you also have blatantly lied to the members of thsi forum to justify your position, you claimed the majority of voters support the gun registry

The vast majority of Canadians want gun control and the gun registry

correct?

well may I put it in familiar terms, what kind of fallacy is this?

In a February poll, Ipos-Reid found 52 per cent thought the gun registry should be scrapped, versus 43 per cent who thought it should be retained. That support was highest in the West and Atlantic regions.

So now that 43% beeing a vast majority right, would meen that an overwhelmingly high majority of Canadians wanted to go into Iraq correct? and an overwhelming majority of Canadians voted for stephen harper, right? and an overwhelming Majority of Canadians don't want same sex Marrage right? Oh and by the way an overwhelming majority of Canadians belive I am God

and considerign I am God defined as,

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God, Supreme Being]

Being perfect and all that Good stuff as God I decree that the Gun registry is a useless load of crap that does nothing to help the Canadian Population, and to support it is irrational.

[maplesyrup]

What kind of fallacy is this?

That is like saying we will talk about national traffic fatalities but exclude the ones that are caused by male drivers.

Put in gun control and a gun registry in the US and you will see  the homicide rate drop.

not at all maplesyrup, it makes perfect sense for extrapolation of the data. If we compare for instance gun crimes in mirrored areas between the U.S and canada and notice no statisticaly notable difference then it can be argued that the Canadian Gun Registry is not affective. Not I said Gun registry, this is not about Gun control this is about the canadian gun registry, please dont purposefully interchange the words, or perhaps the next tiem we talka bout the new democrats i will infer they are communists because socialism is used interchangably by Karl Marx even though it is evident they are two different things. Likewise Gun Control and the Canadian gun registry are two different things. Anyways if it can then be prooven (i don;t ahve any data infront of me) that Gun crimes in suburban Canada and suburban America are very close, then it doesn;t take a conservative to recognize the gun registry isn't working. So if we were going to advise the U.S on lowering gun crimes we should then focus on the one area that we outline dpreviously, Slums. So perhpas the best way for Canada to avoid homicides is to funnel two billion into Housing subsidies for the poor?

weach leads me to my conclusions:

1) The money has been spent

2) it was a wate of money better spent in other areas

3) there is a better way to control gun violence, then the useless gun registry

4) The gun registry, yes we have it, but if we could go back in time it should never have been implemented and the money spent elsewhere.

Which leads me to ask you why defend a useless thing, we have it we are stuck with it we all agrre but you actually support it.

Which then leads me to my next question, How woudl the gun registry have stopped the nightclub shootings? You claim the NRA uses smoke and mirrors but clearly you are fairly good at it yourself as you have made seven posts since I asked you that question and each tiem you have bi-passed answerign my question.

Furthermore you also have blatantly lied to the members of thsi forum to justify your position, you claimed the majority of voters support the gun registry

The vast majority of Canadians want gun control and the gun registry

correct?

well may I put it in familiar terms, what kind of fallacy is this?

In a February poll, Ipos-Reid found 52 per cent thought the gun registry should be scrapped, versus 43 per cent who thought it should be retained. That support was highest in the West and Atlantic regions.

So now that 43% beeing a vast majority right, would meen that an overwhelmingly high majority of Canadians wanted to go into Iraq correct? and an overwhelming majority of Canadians voted for stephen harper, right? and an overwhelming Majority of Canadians don't want same sex Marrage right? Oh and by the way an overwhelming majority of Canadians belive I am God

and considerign I am God defined as,

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God, Supreme Being]

Being perfect and all that Good stuff as God I decree that the Gun registry is a useless load of crap that does nothing to help the Canadian Population, and to support it is irrational.

slavik44....oh I see, communist innuendo now.

FUCK YOU!

[Slavik44]

What kind of fallacy is this?

That is like saying we will talk about national traffic fatalities but exclude the ones that are caused by male drivers.

Put in gun control and a gun registry in the US and you will see  the homicide rate drop.

not at all maplesyrup, it makes perfect sense for extrapolation of the data. If we compare for instance gun crimes in mirrored areas between the U.S and canada and notice no statisticaly notable difference then it can be argued that the Canadian Gun Registry is not affective. Not I said Gun registry, this is not about Gun control this is about the canadian gun registry, please dont purposefully interchange the words, or perhaps the next tiem we talka bout the new democrats i will infer they are communists because socialism is used interchangably by Karl Marx even though it is evident they are two different things. Likewise Gun Control and the Canadian gun registry are two different things. Anyways if it can then be prooven (i don;t ahve any data infront of me) that Gun crimes in suburban Canada and suburban America are very close, then it doesn;t take a conservative to recognize the gun registry isn't working. So if we were going to advise the U.S on lowering gun crimes we should then focus on the one area that we outline dpreviously, Slums. So perhpas the best way for Canada to avoid homicides is to funnel two billion into Housing subsidies for the poor?

weach leads me to my conclusions:

1) The money has been spent

2) it was a wate of money better spent in other areas

3) there is a better way to control gun violence, then the useless gun registry

4) The gun registry, yes we have it, but if we could go back in time it should never have been implemented and the money spent elsewhere.

Which leads me to ask you why defend a useless thing, we have it we are stuck with it we all agrre but you actually support it.

Which then leads me to my next question, How woudl the gun registry have stopped the nightclub shootings? You claim the NRA uses smoke and mirrors but clearly you are fairly good at it yourself as you have made seven posts since I asked you that question and each tiem you have bi-passed answerign my question.

Furthermore you also have blatantly lied to the members of thsi forum to justify your position, you claimed the majority of voters support the gun registry

The vast majority of Canadians want gun control and the gun registry

correct?

well may I put it in familiar terms, what kind of fallacy is this?

In a February poll, Ipos-Reid found 52 per cent thought the gun registry should be scrapped, versus 43 per cent who thought it should be retained. That support was highest in the West and Atlantic regions.

So now that 43% beeing a vast majority right, would meen that an overwhelmingly high majority of Canadians wanted to go into Iraq correct? and an overwhelming majority of Canadians voted for stephen harper, right? and an overwhelming Majority of Canadians don't want same sex Marrage right? Oh and by the way an overwhelming majority of Canadians belive I am God

and considerign I am God defined as,

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God, Supreme Being]

Being perfect and all that Good stuff as God I decree that the Gun registry is a useless load of crap that does nothing to help the Canadian Population, and to support it is irrational.

slavik44....oh I see, communist innuendo now.

FUCK YOU!

excuse me

[playfullfellow]

Gun registration has done absolutely nothing to lower gun crimes. All it has done is made criminals of countless numbers of people who do not wish to register their firearms. Criminals are not going to register their weapons no matter laws are in place, hence they are already criminals and don't really care about our laws anyways. As of yet, no one has been charged for not registering their weapons as far as I know. The system is full of flaws and a total waste of money. The main guns used by criminals are not long guns but guns that are already restricted under Canadian law. To own a handgun has meant mandatory registration for well over 30 years. This hasn't stopped the criminals from obtaining them and using them in crimes. Fully automatic weapons are illegal but yet the criminals still seem to be able to get them. There are restrictions on what modifications you may make to a firearm but this does not stop criminals from doing so. This whole legislation has been a waste of money and time no matter how you look at it. I would have prefered to see the money spent on additional police members and jails that can keep these criminals locked up for longer periods of time. Gun registration does absolutely nothing to deter criminals. What we need is a zero tolerance policy for anyone who uses a gun in a violent crime situation. Lock them up, throw away the key.

[maplesyrup]

Article

MPs also voted Thursday night not to take money out of the federal gun registry, as the Conservatives had wanted.

Liberal backbencher Roger Gallaway had introduced a motion to have $80-million in funding for the rest of this year's National Firearms Program budget hived off from a general estimates vote. But Mr. Gallaway backed down, leaving the Conservatives to introduce their own motion to oppose the registry.

The gun registry vote was not expected to threaten the minority Liberal government, because the Bloc Québécois had indicated it would side with the Liberals. But it could have placed pressure on rural Liberal MPs to break with government.

Mr. Gallaway's proposed motion raised some objections among MPs who were surprised by its timing, which coincided with the 15th anniversary of the attack at the École Polytechnique in Montreal that left 14 women dead. The incident was the impetus for the Chrétien government's gun-control legislation.

Anything we can do to prevent another incident like what happened 15 years ago at the U of Mtl I support.

And the parents of the people who were killed support it too, combined with the police, so that is good enough for me.

A lot of folks here have been listening to too many NRA cartoons.

[Greg]

slavik44....oh I see, communist innuendo now.

FUCK YOU!

Strike two Maplesyrup. Keep this up and you'll be banned from these forums.

Greg

Admin

[PocketRocket]

Gun Registry. Emotional topic.

Those who own guns, and handle them responsibly are either against it, or split on it.

Those who don't own any firearms are usually (not always) for it.

(Personally, I have no problem with it either way, except for one small thing which I'll get into a bit later)

But what both sides fail to consider in recent debates is the fact that gun owners have been legally obligated to have their firearms registered for decades. I remember back in 1980, it was being announced regularly on the news that if you owned an unregistered firearm, you had to have it registered "by november" or some such.

A couple years later, same scenario.

A few years after that, same again.

The only difference is that now the registry is accessible to police nation-wide.

But the fact remains that criminals will NOT register their firearms.

In fact, I own a couple unregistered firearms. (I do not call them "weapons" as a weapon is anything used with intent to harm another. I have no such intent)

The reason they are unregistered is simple. To register them, I need a FAC. (Firearms Acquisition Certificate)

Back around 1976, I took a hunter-safety training course. Passed it. Still have the certificate saying I passed.

If I had immediately gone out and got a hunting license, and renewed that license annually, I would automatically have an FAC.

But I do not hunt. I come from a family of hunters, but it never really struck my fancy.

So, here I am, qualified, trained in proper safety and handling, a regular hobby shooter engaging in target practise with friends.

After a death in the family, I inherited a couple rifles. They are heirlooms, and quite dear to me. They used to belong to my Dad.

But, when I went to get an FAC so that I could legally register the rifles, I was denied.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources refused to hold valid my Hunter Safety Training certificate, even thought they were the ones that issued it to me. They said it was too old, and that those cert's ore no longer valid.

What's up??? I paid good money to take that course.

Now they want me to pay almost $600.00, to take the same course again before they'll give me a FAC.

I asked why I could not simply take the final exam. Logically, if I can pass their test, I should be seen as being qualified.

They refused this proposal. To me, this is not acceptable.

The Gun Registry, in this regard, is being used to justify a money-grab by certain ministries and governmental departments, and I for one refuse to be bilked out of my hard-earned money, and have to pay for a course which I've already taken and passed.

So, my rifles will remain unregistered until they are willing to recognize the fact that I am trained, by their own program.

As another observation, I live in a typical, mid-sized Canadian city, about 80,000 population.

Even in a center this small, I know of at least 3 sources where I can acquire an unregistered handgun within about 2 days.

In fact, if I am willing to wait about 1 week, I could, for less than $1,000, get myself either an AK-47 or an M-16. Unregistered.

The registry is doing little, if anything, to stop the trade in unregistered, illegal firearms.

It's major benefit is being a "feel good" legislation that allows big-city liberal types to rest a bit more comfortably under the false knowledge that their streets are safer because the police "know" where all the guns are.

That being said, the last comment was NOT meant as a pot-shot against liberals, please do not mistake it as such.