Gun Registry - Gun Crime Measures

[August1991]

In the wake of the tragedy at the school in Montreal, I have heard several remarks about the gun registry. Yves Pratte has an editorial about this in La Presse - calling for the federal government to continue the registry.

Layton, like the mayor of Toronto, has complained about illegal guns:

NDP Leader Jack Layton offered his own prescription, saying the Dawson shooting “is another tragic reminder of why the federal government needs a more effective strategy to control the trade in illegal firearms.”

The three guns used in Wednesday’s rampage were legally registered.

Toronto Star

This lunatic bought these guns legally and registered them. I don't know much about guns so I don't know whether such guns should be restricted or not. Illegal trade in guns is a problem, but it's not the entire problem.

But I figure the government could spend $1 billion in a better way than to create an incomplete computer list. If I'm opposed to the gun registry, I'm not following any principle. To me, this is simply a question of getting the best protection possible for the money available. (I have no patience for arguments that guns should be freely owned - US 2nd amendment style. Should any individual be free to own RPGs? Nuclear weapons? Then why bother stopping Iran? Where do we draw the line?)

I was impressed by Harper's willingness to confront this tragedy with original comments rather than spout platitudes of commiseration:

Harper called the shootings “a shocking and appalling tragedy.” But he said such incidents are difficult to predict or understand.

“You know you really ask yourself how do you explain somebody who wants to end their life and wants to end it by killing other people, other people they don’t know just for the sake of killing them? It’s impossible to explain and comprehend.

“And I have no explanation for it and, in a sense, let’s hope none of us ever gets to the stage where we can understand it.”

Harper did not seem inclined to try to crack down on websites and computer games that glorify killing and which the Dawson shooter, Kimveer Gill, apparently enjoyed.

“We as a society have trouble squaring our outrage at some of the images we see, some of the messages that are communicated to people — young people, in particular — with our belief in freedom and our desire to avoid censorship,” he said.

“Whether there’s something we can do to control it, I can’t tell you that, but I can tell you that nothing excuses what the killer did yesterday.”

In the last election campaign, one of the five priorities of the Conservatives was crime. The shooting of a young girl in Toronto during the campaign became an issue.

More severe penalties for crimes involving guns, as the Conservatives propose, would have had no deterrent effect in this case in Montreal.

Security in schools is a provincial responsibility but the criminal code and regulation of gun ownership is federal. The Tories should rethink their crime initiatives, and then get the message out.

[jbg]

“You know you really ask yourself how do you explain somebody who wants to end their life and wants to end it by killing other people, other people they don’t know just for the sake of killing them? It’s impossible to explain and comprehend.

“And I have no explanation for it and, in a sense, let’s hope none of us ever gets to the stage where we can understand it.”

Harper did not seem inclined to try to crack down on websites and computer games that glorify killing and which the Dawson shooter, Kimveer Gill, apparently enjoyed.

“We as a society have trouble squaring our outrage at some of the images we see, some of the messages that are communicated to people — young people, in particular — with our belief in freedom and our desire to avoid censorship,” he said.

“Whether there’s something we can do to control it, I can’t tell you that, but I can tell you that nothing excuses what the killer did yesterday.”

I too find Harper's candor and overall style refreshing after Chretien and Martin.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The tragedy at Dawson College is very, very sad.

As the guns he used were legally obtained it appears that there won't be much political traction for people trying to use it for political gain.

[gc1765]

The tragedy at Dawson College is very, very sad.

As the guns he used were legally obtained it appears that there won't be much political traction for people trying to use it for political gain.

Politicians always try to use whatever they can for political gain, no matter how tasteless.

I'm willing to bet all parties will make at least one partisan comment.

[August1991]

Charest and Harper are at odds on this:

Harper said it wasn't the time to discuss government policies.

"I will say simply that the legislation we have in force today didn't prevent the incident," he said.

"We'll try to find more effective legislation in the future."

But Quebec Premier Jean Charest insisted that the shooting reinforces the need for a national gun registry to keep track of weapons and their owners.

"We all recognize that even though there may be registries and controls, that there will always be individuals in our society who are deeply sick in some instances and we can't predict what they'll do," he said.

"But if the registry could save a few lives because it's there …then I think it's worth keeping."

CBC

Quite apart from the fact that these guns were legally bought and registered, $1 billion is better spent, for example, building four lane highways and reducing car accidents than on a pointless list of guns. More lives would be saved.

We need to control better legal and illegal guns - spending money on an incomplete computer list and wasting people's time filling out forms doesn't accomplish that.

Our efforts should go elsewhere.

----

It appears that the particular semi-automatic gun used by this guy is legal in Canada. Can someone explain to me why? I can understand why hunters would want to have long guns - but should such weapons as this be legal?

[Charles Anthony]

I can not help but think that most of the gun registry cost was "friends" of the government skimming off the top and pocketting the change a la AdScam game. A billion dollars is outrageously incredible. Only a government can do that and only a fool could accept it from their government. The registry is a shameful abomination.

But I figure the government could spend $1 billion in a better way than to create an incomplete computer list. If I'm opposed to the gun registry, I'm not following any principle. To me, this is simply a question of getting the best protection possible for the money available.

Here is an idea: hire more police officers.

Making generous assumptions: $100,000 annual salary and a 40year career, the billion dollars could fund about 250 more officers for the whole country. It does not sound like a lot but I think it is better than nothing -- nothing which is what we get from the gun-registry game. To contrast the two scenarios even further, the cost of gun registry is on going.

(I have no patience for arguments that guns should be freely owned - US 2nd amendment style. Should any individual be free to own RPGs? Nuclear weapons? Then why bother stopping Iran? Where do we draw the line?)

Drawing a line is easy: just choose one of the extremes.

[Wilber]

It appears that the particular semi-automatic gun used by this guy is legal in Canada. Can someone explain to me why? I can understand why hunters would want to have long guns - but should such weapons as this be legal?

It is my understanding that this particular gun is a restricted weapon requiring the same permit and background checks as a hand gun. How did this loony get one?

[Led Boots]

How typically Canadian of us to think that a piece of paper will somehow stop (or slow) the senseless gun crimes that are becoming more and more prevalent in our society.

While criminals are allowed to walk our streets due to the liberalization of our justice system we Canadians hold on to the illusion that playing the game of rock, paper, bullet will somehow make us safer.

Paper does not stop bullets nor does it stop criminals from plying the tools of their illicit trade.

Although nothing could have stopped Gill from ending his life the way he did (this has more to do with the human psyche than it does gun laws and legislation) I believe zero tolerance for those caught with illegal weapons would be a better alternative towards reducing gun violence in Canada.

3 year minimums for first offence (being caught with an illegal gun), 10 years for a second offence and life for a third...and you do the time!

[M.Dancer]

Think the long gun registry is fatally flawed.

You have to take an eye exam for a drivers license, and after a certain golden age, you need to prove your compentancy behind the wheel, but as long as you have no serious criminal offense, anyone of your disturbed personalities may legally acquire firearms.

As well as criminal background checks there should be psychiatric and psychological screenings to weed out the undesirables.

[geoffrey]

The gun registry doesn't prevent crime. This proves it. Scrap it, and spend that $1b on giving police real tools to deal with crime. $1b is alot of money to cash strapped police services, I'm sure we'd see a noticable difference immediately.

[Argus]

In the wake of the tragedy at the school in Montreal, I have heard several remarks about the gun registry. Yves Pratte has an editorial about this in La Presse - calling for the federal government to continue the registry.

Yes, Charest has already promised to lead a parade to Ottawa, complete with police, crime victims, etc., among much weeping and wailing to save the mighty gun registry - which, uh, didn't do a damned bit of good in this case but, hey, he wants to look like he's actually doing something.

Except, he really doesn't want to do anything.

The long gun registry is a placebo, it's a pacifier for people who complained about gun crimes. The federal liberals didn't want to actually do anything, so they kicked out the long gun registry as a soother to dumb people - ie, most Liberal voters. Now Charest is using it for the same purpose.

In the last election campaign, one of the five priorities of the Conservatives was crime. The shooting of a young girl in Toronto during the campaign became an issue.

Unfortunately, the Liberals, NDP and BQ have all made it abundantly clear they will not tolerate the government getting tough on criminals.

More severe penalties for crimes involving guns, as the Conservatives propose, would have had no deterrent effect in this case in Montreal.

That's true. However, I don't think more severe penalties is necessarily the way to go anyway. We have laws which allow for severe pentalties, but hand-wringing bleeding heart liberal judges who have refused to give out severe punishments for ANY reason. They're also extremely hostile towards crowns which lay charges which have mandatory minimums, and so most gun crimes which have mandatory minimums are rarely prosecuted. The solution is to get rid of most of the Liberal appointed judges who stand in the way of just sentences. And that will take quite some time.

You should get five years for smuggling or selling a restricted weapon. Instead you'll get a fine. That's why the cops don't bother.

[geoffrey]

You should get five years for smuggling or selling a restricted weapon. Instead you'll get a fine. That's why the cops don't bother.

Great point. How about the gangsters in my city that are caught carrying loaded handguns and get to "serve their sentances in the community." What the hell is the point?

Get caught with a loaded handgun = life in prision.

End of gang violence within a couple months.

[Wilber]

This gun was registered so what does it have to do with the gun registry other than point out that in this case registering a gun did nothing to prevent a crime?

[Ricki Bobbi]

You have to take an eye exam for a drivers license, and after a certain golden age, you need to prove your compentancy behind the wheel, but as long as you have no serious criminal offense, anyone of your disturbed personalities may legally acquire firearms.

As well as criminal background checks there should be psychiatric and psychological screenings to weed out the undesirables.

There is a huge jump from an eye test to psychiatric and psychological screenings. Who would be responsible for paying those costs?

The other tough thing about that requirement is what happens when the normal everyday joe snaps because of a serious life trauma. Should these tests be required yearly?

[August1991]

More severe penalties for crimes involving guns, as the Conservatives propose, would have had no deterrent effect in this case in Montreal.

That's true. However, I don't think more severe penalties is necessarily the way to go anyway. We have laws which allow for severe pentalties, but hand-wringing bleeding heart liberal judges who have refused to give out severe punishments for ANY reason. They're also extremely hostile towards crowns which lay charges which have mandatory minimums, and so most gun crimes which have mandatory minimums are rarely prosecuted. The solution is to get rid of most of the Liberal appointed judges who stand in the way of just sentences. And that will take quite some time.

That's a simplistic response Argus - blame the judges. The Conservatives are suggesting that we double penalties for crimes involving guns. That's a good start.

In another thread, you suggested that all guns be kept locked at gun clubs except for hunting rifles in rural areas. Is that feasible?

[Argus]

More severe penalties for crimes involving guns, as the Conservatives propose, would have had no deterrent effect in this case in Montreal.

That's true. However, I don't think more severe penalties is necessarily the way to go anyway. We have laws which allow for severe pentalties, but hand-wringing bleeding heart liberal judges who have refused to give out severe punishments for ANY reason. They're also extremely hostile towards crowns which lay charges which have mandatory minimums, and so most gun crimes which have mandatory minimums are rarely prosecuted. The solution is to get rid of most of the Liberal appointed judges who stand in the way of just sentences. And that will take quite some time.

That's a simplistic response Argus - blame the judges. The Conservatives are suggesting that we double penalties for crimes involving guns. That's a good start.

I suggest you have a look at some of our existing laws on firearms and the range of sentences - including those with mandatory minimums. I'm sure you read the papers often. I'm sure you see the sentencing for armed robbery, for drive-by shootings, for drug shootings. You don't see these sentences being imposed. Why not? They're already law. Is it the judges - as I've heard - who detest them - or is it that Crown's aren't laying those charges? Whatever it is the answer would seem to be enforcing existing laws as opposed to new ones.

In another thread, you suggested that all guns be kept locked at gun clubs except for hunting rifles in rural areas. Is that feasible?

Of course. Mind you, I don't know what the costs would be. How many weapons would, as an example, the Ottawa Police need to store? I have no idea how many of them there actually are in Ottawa. It would not surprise me if there were as many as a hundred thousand, or even several times that. How much space is needed to store several hundred thousand firearms? Whatever. You buy yourself a warehouse, put very tight security on it, some cops in it, and then everyone stops by on their way out of town to go hunting.

How many guys and how often during hunting season? That I don't know. Seems to me, it's doable, though.

[jdobbin]

I suggest you have a look at some of our existing laws on firearms and the range of sentences - including those with mandatory minimums. I'm sure you read the papers often. I'm sure you see the sentencing for armed robbery, for drive-by shootings, for drug shootings. You don't see these sentences being imposed. Why not? They're already law. Is it the judges - as I've heard - who detest them - or is it that Crown's aren't laying those charges? Whatever it is the answer would seem to be enforcing existing laws as opposed to new ones.

I think the Globe and Mail reported last week that Harper has filled very few judical apointments since coming to power. There are a lot of vacancies now. I guess he could put his mark on things if he chose to. I wonder why he has left it so long.

[August1991]

You don't see these sentences being imposed. Why not? They're already law. Is it the judges - as I've heard - who detest them - or is it that Crown's aren't laying those charges? Whatever it is the answer would seem to be enforcing existing laws as opposed to new ones.

It might be Crown Prosecutors simply because of the pressure to keep prison populations down or maybe they use gun possession as a bargaining chip. Dunno.

Mind you, I don't know what the costs would be. How many weapons would, as an example, the Ottawa Police need to store? I have no idea how many of them there actually are in Ottawa.

I was thinking less of the warehousing cost and more the practicality of gun club members getting their guns. I dunno.

----

I found this interesting - it concerns the Australian reponse to a terrible mass killing in Tasmania in 1996 using illegal guns:

For Prime Minister John Howard, who stated that he 'hated guns', it provided an ideal opportunity to introduce sweeping firearms legislation reform, which had already been drafted at a series of Police Minister's meetings from 1990 onwards. Due to the structure of the Australian Constitution, it was not possible for Federal gun legislation to be introduced, thereby requiring each Australian State and Territory to be convinced of the need for tougher laws.

Wikipedia

John Howard is Harper's mentor and hero. I'm also intrigued that states have jurisdiction over gun control as in the US.

To deal with legal guns, I think we should go through gun clubs - this would include collectors. To deal with illegal guns, we must impose severe additional penalties for crimes committed with guns. To deal with hunters and farmers, we should restrict the kind of weapon they can keep at home.

Crime was one of the Tories five priorities. During the election, Harper specifically referred to gun crime. This is an issue, like the environment, for which the Tories would have tremendous credibility if they approach them properly. They are also issues in federal jurisdiction, and some voters decide their vote on such issues.

[watching&waiting]

I am in favour of gun ownership and yes I have rifles and yes they are all semi-automatic. I like these as yes when hunting or shooting lets say coyotes, they allow me to get more then one of the pack per attempt. Also they would also be preferred in large game hunting as well, as the quicker you can kill the less suffering the animal has. I have said elsewhere that the majority of Canada is wilderness and in areas like the north, to go out without a gun, you are being very reckless as many animals in our north see man as a food source. Out west guns are used for hunting and varmint control of all types. it would be very hard for Canada to ban rifles, and yes it will sometimes be that these can make it into the hands of some crazy people. Better that then suicide bombers, but remember these guys were suicide killers, so that is not that far a step to go and the casualties would be way higher. So are we going to let a few crazies rule our good sense, or are we going to see that these are the oddities, and not let them rule our sensibilities

[August1991]

I am in favour of gun ownership and yes I have rifles and yes they are all semi-automatic. I like these as yes when hunting or shooting lets say coyotes, they allow me to get more then one of the pack per attempt.

Do you need a semi-automatic? In Australia, a country with much wilderness and wild animals, they are banned.

I think we should consider banning all semi-automatic rifles outside of gun clubs.

[Argus]

To deal with legal guns, I think we should go through gun clubs - this would include collectors.

I think if you've got a gun for the purpose of target shooting the guns should be kept locked at the club. I'm not in favour of collections unless the weapons have been rendered unusable.

To deal with illegal guns, we must impose severe additional penalties for crimes committed with guns.

I don't have a problem with this, but I think our real target should be rigidly enforced and pursued crimes against smuggling and selling weapons illegally.

To deal with hunters and farmers, we should restrict the kind of weapon they can keep at home.

In urban areas, certainly.

Crime was one of the Tories five priorities. During the election, Harper specifically referred to gun crime. This is an issue, like the environment, for which the Tories would have tremendous credibility if they approach them properly. They are also issues in federal jurisdiction, and some voters decide their vote on such issues.

I recognize that what he can accomplish is tempered by the fact all three opposition parties are left wing - and thus violently opposed to tough sentences for criminals, but even so I don't think his govenrment has done enough yet to crack down on crime.

[Argus]

I am in favour of gun ownership and yes I have rifles and yes they are all semi-automatic. I like these as yes when hunting or shooting lets say coyotes, they allow me to get more then one of the pack per attempt.

Do you need a semi-automatic? In Australia, a country with much wilderness and wild animals, they are banned.

I think we should consider banning all semi-automatic rifles outside of gun clubs.

You want all rifles to be bolt action?

[watching&waiting]

I am in favour of gun ownership and yes I have rifles and yes they are all semi-automatic. I like these as yes when hunting or shooting lets say coyotes, they allow me to get more then one of the pack per attempt.

Do you need a semi-automatic? In Australia, a country with much wilderness and wild animals, they are banned.

I think we should consider banning all semi-automatic rifles outside of gun clubs.

As I said yes there are uses for these rifles to be semi-automatic. It is also a safety factor when hunting large game and also in ones ability to clean oil and maintain the rifles. The semi auomatics have a much safter safty lock mechanism, and ammunition is better stores in clips for the purpose of easy and correct loading. The back fires of yesterday where the shooter risked harm, were all due to the bolt actions on the rifles. The fact that 99% of all rifes manufactured are semi automatic, and the bolt actions are for the history books. Can you imagine a inuit hunter being surprised by a polar bear that usually need more then one shot to kill having to recock the bolt as the bear advances on him. No, there are many more lives saved by semi automatic action then have been killed because of them. I will agree the ful automatic is not needed by anyone but our armed forces.

[August1991]

You want all rifles to be bolt action?

I'm wading into a topic I know little about but I haven't seen a suitable argument why hunters need a semi-automatic weapon.

I think our real target should be rigidly enforced and pursued crimes against smuggling and selling weapons illegally.

Agreed. But the objective ultimately should be to discourage people from using guns when committing a crime. If gangs have to fight, let them throw knives at each other.

I agree too that judges must sentence.

I recognize that what he can accomplish is tempered by the fact all three opposition parties are left wing - and thus violently opposed to tough sentences for criminals, but even so I don't think his govenrment has done enough yet to crack down on crime.

My point is that gun control and the environment are tailored-made issues for Harper. Coming from Alberta, and with rural support, he has tremendous credibility when he proposes policies about guns and CO2 emissions. Successful politicians play against stereotype; this one's a no-brainer.

As I said yes there are uses for these rifles to be semi-automatic. It is also a safety factor when hunting large game and also in ones ability to clean oil and maintain the rifles. The semi auomatics have a much safter safty lock mechanism, and ammunition is better stores in clips for the purpose of easy and correct loading.

In Australia, semi-automatic rimfire guns are allowed (up to five rounds) but not semi-automatic centrefire. If I understand properly, rimfire means that the calibre is smaller.

Here's my point: I think Harper wants a majority and this is one way to get it. He is going to propose strict new gun legislation and it won't just concern illegal guns. Certain types of guns now legal will be made illegal. IOW, Harper is going to pull a John Howard.

[geoffrey]

You want all rifles to be bolt action?

I'm wading into a topic I know little about but I haven't seen a suitable argument why hunters need a semi-automatic weapon.

Ahh urbanites. A nice semi-auto .22 is a great tool in getting rid of those pesky gophers (they kill horses with the holes they make). When I was younger, I used to help out on some friends farms doing this, they'd pay you a whopping $0.50 a gopher. Man oh man. Used to get like $10 for a few hours work. The other actions don't work nearly as well if you need to get a few shots off fast, like with gophers...

Agreed. But the objective ultimately should be to discourage people from using guns when committing a crime. If gangs have to fight, let them throw knives at each other.

I agree too that judges must sentence.

Gun crime = life in prision. The use of a firearm shows you had the intent to kill someone in my opinion, or were willing to escalate violence to that point. No tolerance should be allowed, carrying a loaded firearm should be an equivalent crime to murder.

As I said yes there are uses for these rifles to be semi-automatic. It is also a safety factor when hunting large game and also in ones ability to clean oil and maintain the rifles.

Semi-auto's are much more likely to jam, and if your hunting bear, I wouldn't be using a semi-auto because they simply don't come in quality round sizes with enough stopping power.... and the last thing you want is a jam. Bear gun at close range? .45-70 lever. Long range, .303 British. Anything else won't attack you.

Gophers are the only valid semi-auto target. Cleaning and maintaining such rifles is much more difficult.

The semi auomatics have a much safter safty lock mechanism, and ammunition is better stores in clips for the purpose of easy and correct loading.

It's pretty hard to incorrectly load a bolt action, unless your so incompetent you shouldn't be shooting anything. Semi-auto's have only one safety, a lever action generally has 3, a bolt could have 3 as well. What are you talking about?

In Australia, semi-automatic rimfire guns are allowed (up to five rounds) but not semi-automatic centrefire. If I understand properly, rimfire means that the calibre is smaller.

Rimfire generally only comes up to .22cal. That's pretty small, only effective against gophers... that being said, it can still kill. I would support such a law I think. 5 rounds is the max in Canada as well by the way, rim or centrefire. And a semi-automatic rifle is not a restricted weapon.

Here's my point: I think Harper wants a majority and this is one way to get it. He is going to propose strict new gun legislation and it won't just concern illegal guns. Certain types of guns now legal will be made illegal. IOW, Harper is going to pull a John Howard.

I don't think so. How much can he anger his Western base before he pulls a Mulroney?