Gun Registry - back in the news (thread #2)

400 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

And a thank you to Unionist for the kind words.  If nothing else hopefully I am providing the forums with some entertainment value.

 

 

It's obvious you put a lot of thought and effort in to your post HA.

 

I myself try and stay away from stats because I find people simply dismiss stats that are not supportive of their argument.  A gun registry for 2 to 4 million dollars annually? That strikes me as quite the low ball, a million dollars doesn't go very far these days. Especialyl so when everyone tries to grab a piece of the pie if you know what I mean. 

I think Servium touched on a great question. Why would one assault rifle be restricted and the same one basically not restricted?  Gun control in Canada is a mess. It's important not to think that a firearm registry is a form of gun control.

Slumberjack

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
Slumberjack - is a registry really necessary to help ensure the safety of the public? 

We could ask the same of any public registry that currently exists and get a variety of opinion.  Most people would say yes to registering a vehicle before taking it out on the road because it helps to ensure public safety.  Public safety can also be enhanced by the general feeling within the public that they have been somehow made safer by this or that act of government, even if only by its paranoia reducing effect.

Slumberjack

Which on that count alone, before anything else, validates the social demand for gun control.

Sandy Dillon

Hurtin Albertan you seem very determined not to admit that in fact the long gun registry is just one part of the whole gun control program.

You (like many others) refer to the whole gun control program as the gun registry and as long as you do that you will remain very very uninformed.

Yes the whole program has cost a billion dollars. Adding the yearly costs for 18 years has the whole program at over a billion.

BUT just the long gun registry ((part))) of the program has NOT cost a billion.

Do you think the licensing was free,the hand gun registry was free, the set up costs were free?

You really need to try and be honest here!!

It did not cost a billion dollars JUST TO register long guns in the country!! That is a fact which you seem unable to admit to!! Just like the Conservative government!!

  

Sandy Dillon

More guns less crime?? This guy had lots of guns!!!

More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/olympic-oscar-pistorius-became-avid-collector-american-guns-145044537--oly.html

In Olympic year, Oscar Pistorius became avid collector of American guns, bought array of them

Hurtin Albertan

Pretty sure I have made myself crystal clear up to this point, apparantly not.

I hereby swear on my stack of Shotgun News magazines that I will do my level best to avoid the use of The B Word in reference to the gun registry.  I hope you will allow me to continue to use terms such as, but not limited to, "millions of dollars", "millions and millions of dollars", "multi-million dollar waste of money" and so forth.

I will also forego this opportunity to post colourful and ludicrous examples of other ways we as a country could mis-spend millions of dollars in misguided attempts to enhance public safety through do-nothing, feel good legislation.

I shall now slink back into the depths of the internet, leaving a trail of slime behind me, although I will promise to keep a cold lifeless eye on the subject as I am sure someone will post something to get me all riled up again at some point.

Paladin1

Sandy Dillon wrote:

More guns less crime?? This guy had lots of guns!!!

More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/olympic-oscar-pistorius-became-avid-collector-american-guns-145044537--oly.html

In Olympic year, Oscar Pistorius became avid collector of American guns, bought array of them

South African Oscar Pistorius  used his legally bought (and probably registered) firearms to murder his girlfriend who was sitting on the toilet, claiming he thought she was an intruder.

What does that have to do with Canadian firearms registration?

 

 

Unionist

Wow, what a thread. We now have three conscientious exponents of gun freedom and NRA/NFA talking points vs. one adversary, complete with straw persons parading around in the latest fashions. And all the recycled Harperite horse manure about the billions that the poor taxpayers spent to no avail. I'm off to buy another box of kleenex.

Maybe we do need a new thread to talk about real gun control, where Québec is heading, and how we can move beyond the foolishness of "the registry" as the focus of debate and ridicule of those who don't want to see guns in cities.

 

Sandy Dillon

OathofStone wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

More guns less crime?? This guy had lots of guns!!!

More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/olympic-oscar-pistorius-became-avid-collector-american-guns-145044537--oly.html

In Olympic year, Oscar Pistorius became avid collector of American guns, bought array of them

South African Oscar Pistorius  used his legally bought (and probably registered) firearms to murder his girlfriend who was sitting on the toilet, claiming he thought she was an intruder.

What does that have to do with Canadian firearms registration?

 

 

Aw my point was:::More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!

Paladin1

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Aw my point was:::More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!

And sometimes they are used to protect family members such as on December 19th, 2012 when a 14 year old boy in Phoenix shot and wounded 1 of 2 intruders while he was protecting his 8, 10 and 12 year old siblings.

http://www.federaljack.com/14-year-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder...

 

 

Exchanging anecdotal examples of home intrusion cases (from other countries no less) does very little to address the issues surrounding canadian Gun registry.

 

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
We now have three conscientious exponents of gun freedom and NRA/NFA talking points vs. one adversary, complete with straw persons parading around in the latest fashions. And all the recycled Harperite horse manure about the billions that the poor taxpayers spent to no avail. I'm off to buy another box of kleenex. 

It's a disturbing conversation indeed when I'm the reasonable one.

Sandy Dillon

OathofStone wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Aw my point was:::More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!

And sometimes they are used to protect family members such as on December 19th, 2012 when a 14 year old boy in Phoenix shot and wounded 1 of 2 intruders while he was protecting his 8, 10 and 12 year old siblings.

http://www.federaljack.com/14-year-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder...

 

 

Exchanging anecdotal examples of home intrusion cases (from other countries no less) does very little to address the issues surrounding canadian Gun registry.

 

You only deal with Canadian stats? Here are some Canadian stats for you!! Note how many people killed were a known to the shooter in relation to a stanger being involved.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/violence-eng.htm

In 1996, 49% of all solved firearm homicides involved acquaintances, 18% involved a spouse, 22% involved other relatives, and 11% were killed by strangers. [6]

In 1996, 34% (27) of all spousal homicide victims were killed by firearms.

11% were killed by strangers. 

And my point was:::More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!

Paladin1

Focus Sandy.

Canadian Firearms Registry.

Hurtin Albertan

How do you make the leap from "49% of all solved firearm homicides involved acquaintances, 18% involved a spouse, 22% involved other relatives, and 11% were killed by strangers" to "a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!"?????

If I leave my house full of guns, and an aquaintance of mine shoots me and kills me in a back alley, how does the presence of guns in my home enter into this sad and tragic situation, I just do not understand how you tie your source into your final point.

We have already ventured far off topic in this thread so I don`t see why we can`t go a-wandering one more time.

Unionist

Pathetic and offensive performance.

Sandy Dillon

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

How do you make the leap from "49% of all solved firearm homicides involved acquaintances, 18% involved a spouse, 22% involved other relatives, and 11% were killed by strangers" to "a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!"?????

If I leave my house full of guns, and an aquaintance of mine shoots me and kills me in a back alley, how does the presence of guns in my home enter into this sad and tragic situation, I just do not understand how you tie your source into your final point.

We have already ventured far off topic in this thread so I don`t see why we can`t go a-wandering one more time.

I did not leap to anything those are stats taken from the R.C.M.P. web site.

And my point was:::More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection ends up being used on a family member rather than on an intruder!!!

That has nothing to do with being shot in a back ally it's about being shot in your house by a family member where a gun was purchased for protection!!

Slumberjack

What compels people in this society to use any type of violence against one another?  It's certainly not the suggestive whispering of guns, knives, hammers and fists into people's ears that tells them violence is appropriate.  Violence, domination, hatred, fits of rage, etc, occurs to people because this is the example they're provided with, being the only way society as we know it and this rotten to the core economic system is able to sustain itself.  The business of exploiting human beings brought us guns.  There's no mystery in a hunk of steel or in how we arrived at where we are today.

Sandy Dillon

OathofStone wrote:

Focus Sandy.

Canadian Firearms Registry.

Just went over this thread there seems to be a lot of posts that don't directly deal with the gun registry!!!

You seem to be o.k. with those posts so why are you upset because I went slightly off topic?

Strange to say the least! One even admitted to going off topic:::

6079_Smith_W           #209 I do admire your work "Serviam6", but I think ""I was the one who first lured them off-topic"" with this gun law persecution story.I expect the payment from Control for this one will be coming to MY account

Sandy Dillon

Slumberjack wrote:

What compels people in this society to use any type of violence against one another?  It's certainly not the suggestive whispering of guns, knives, hammers and fists into people's ears that tells them violence is appropriate.  Violence, domination, hatred, fits of rage, etc, occurs to people because this is the example they're provided with, being the only way society as we know it and this rotten to the core economic system is able to sustain itself.  The business of exploiting human beings brought us guns.  There's no mystery in a hunk of steel or in how we arrived at where we are today.

Be careful Slumberjack the forum off topic police are out in full force right now!!Wink

Paladin1

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

 

We have already ventured far off topic in this thread so I don`t see why we can`t go a-wandering one more time.

Okay.

Sandy Dillon wrote:

That has nothing to do with being shot in a back ally it's about being shot in your house by a family member where a gun was purchased for protection!!

You are basing your argument off of the assumption that firearms in your 17 year old stats from 1996 were bought for self protection.  You're suggesting they were but you have no real idea why those firearms were bought.

Quote:
More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection

You have no facts to support this statement. You're just covering your ears and screaming the same thing over and over.

 

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Just went over this thread there seems to be a lot of posts that don't directly deal with the gun registry!!!

You seem to be o.k. with those posts so why are you upset because I went slightly off topic?

I was trying to get it back on topic.

Why do you seem to feel that anyone who does not agree with you is "upset"?

 

 

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

What compels people in this society to use any type of violence against one another?  It's certainly not the suggestive whispering of guns, knives, hammers and fists into people's ears that tells them violence is appropriate.  Violence, domination, hatred, fits of rage, etc, occurs to people because this is the example they're provided with, being the only way society as we know it and this rotten to the core economic system is able to sustain itself.  The business of exploiting human beings brought us guns.  There's no mystery in a hunk of steel or in how we arrived at where we are today.

This is very true and deserves to be repeated and understood.

I would only add this:

Until society rids itself of environmentally destructive motorized vehicles for individual use, we should wear seat belts.

Until misogyny and subjugation of women is erased (and until we transform society so that police, if they exist at all, truly serve the people), we should ensure women should have ready access to police and shelters.

Until we revolutionize human relations so that individual and collective and state violence are but distant memories, we should get all guns out of all cities and all homes.

All the above opinions of mine (some of them shared widely, none of them popular when first introduced, all of them attacked by the U.S.-style proponents of "liberty") come under the heading of "risk management". If we can't yet eliminate the problem, we alleviate it. In the case of guns, the path is clear. Only prejudice and über-powerful lobbies stand in the way. And their mouthpieces. See above.

 

Sandy Dillon

Unionist wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

What compels people in this society to use any type of violence against one another?  It's certainly not the suggestive whispering of guns, knives, hammers and fists into people's ears that tells them violence is appropriate.  Violence, domination, hatred, fits of rage, etc, occurs to people because this is the example they're provided with, being the only way society as we know it and this rotten to the core economic system is able to sustain itself.  The business of exploiting human beings brought us guns.  There's no mystery in a hunk of steel or in how we arrived at where we are today.

I'm not for banning all guns but I do believe that stricter gun control laws will bring us closer to the point you are striving for. We will never eliminate all gun crime but we can cut it down. The only way """some""" gun toters will accept any gun laws at all is if we can prove a gun control progran has cut ALL crime and they know THAT isn't going to happen.

There are 1.9 million licenced gun owners in Canada. That is 1.9 out of a population of over 30 million A VERY small minority. Funny how so few ranting people can get gun laws changed eh?

Never in Canadian history has so few spread so much BS about an issue!  

 

Sandy Dillon

RE::

Quote:

More often than some folks like to admit a gun in the home for the purpose of protection

 

You have no facts to support this statement. You're just covering your ears and screaming the same thing over and over.

I posted my source I noticed you do not!!!

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/violence-eng.htm

In 1996, 49% of all solved firearm homicides involved acquaintances, 18% involved a spouse, 22% involved other relatives, and 11% were killed by strangers. [6]

In 1996, 34% (27) of all spousal homicide victims were killed by firearms.

So OathofStone where are your sources?  

 

Paladin1

Sandy Dillon wrote:

 

There are 1.9 million licenced gun owners in Canada. That is 1.9 out of a population of over 30 million A VERY small minority. Funny how so few ranting people can get gun laws changed eh?

Never in Canadian history has so few spread so much BS about an issue!  

 

How open minded and unbiased of you Sandy.

 

Sandy Dillon wrote:

So OathofStone where are your sources?  

 

 

I can't read the minds of Canadians 17 years ago about why they purchased firearms like you can Sandy, you got me there.

Sandy Dillon

OathofStone wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

 

There are 1.9 million licenced gun owners in Canada. That is 1.9 out of a population of over 30 million A VERY small minority. Funny how so few ranting people can get gun laws changed eh?

Never in Canadian history has so few spread so much BS about an issue!  

 

How open minded and unbiased of you Sandy.

 

Sandy Dillon wrote:

So OathofStone where are your sources?  

 

 

I can't read the minds of Canadians 17 years ago about why they purchased firearms like you can Sandy, you got me there.

Not into facts much are ya?

Time to ignore I guess!

Paladin1

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Time to ignore I guess!

You're going to ignore my posts? Darn okay.

 

Slumberjack wrote:

What compels people in this society to use any type of violence against one another?  It's certainly not the suggestive whispering of guns, knives, hammers and fists into people's ears that tells them violence is appropriate.  Violence, domination, hatred, fits of rage, etc, occurs to people because this is the example they're provided with, being the only way society as we know it and this rotten to the core economic system is able to sustain itself.  The business of exploiting human beings brought us guns.  There's no mystery in a hunk of steel or in how we arrived at where we are today.

I would like to throw out some observations and ideas, especially toward your first question.  I would say a mix between inoculation and exposure.

In my opinion violent videogames inoculate todays generation against violence. That is, playing a "game" where you drive around running people over doing drive by shootings then paying a woman for sexonly to beat her up and take the money back becomes entertainment and fun not shocking violence. There are examples of various shootings where "first time shooters" (someone who has never handeled a gun before) shoots better than veteran police officers.  The argument is a police officer might shoot their pistol once a year for yearly qualification. A teenager might never jave shot a gun before but they've spent thousands of hours infront of a simulator.

I think the same thing can be said about our violent movies.  I can't explain why other countries with the same types of violent movies may have significantly less violence. maybe something with how our culture is.  I feel we live in a mimic-society. You can't watch a video on youtube without some type of product placement, usually there are tons. People see that the jailguard in Lady Gaga's telephone video is on Plenty of Fish and the website gets more hits.  Sunglasses are another big one I find.

What does that have to do with firearms?  Bushmaster assault rifles. There have been some good posts about how assault rifles don't make that effective weapons compared to other types.

(Servium a point on something you mentioned, 5.56mm bullets commonly found in NATO assault rifles wasn't actually designed specifically to wound. That was a characteristic that was discovered afterwards).

Bushmaster assault rifles become synonymous with mass shootings so either consciously or subconsciously they become the weapon of choice.  "Bushmaster Assault rifles" become a catch phrase with the media (which flushes out the topic). Deranged shooters are attracted to the anamosity of the rifle, not it's effectiveness. 

jerrym

The Cons extreme pro gun stance could lead to problems for them in the polls according to the following article in December. It has suppressed any attempt to regulate gun shows in Canada. 

"The gun lobby that Stephen Harper nurtured keeps coming back to bite.

Two weeks ago, the prime minister was forced to overrule a scheme hatched up by his Conservative government’s hand-picked firearms advisory committee that would have legalized a host of banned assault rifles and handguns. Now, thanks in part to that same committee, the federal government has quietly axed any attempt to regulate gun shows. Ottawa’s decision to repeal regulations at gun shows comes as the U.S. government — in the wake of the Newtown elementary school massacre — contemplates stiffer rules for its gun shows.

The 1998 regulations had never been put into force, in part because the now-defunct long gun registry — which set up a paper trail for the buyers and sellers of rifles — made them moot. But with the registry dismantled, the gun show regulations suddenly became relevant. Then they were killed. Ontario Chief Firearms Officer Chris Wyatt told The Canadian Press that gun shows are now in danger of becoming centres for the sale of illegal and stolen firearms — as they are in the U.S. ...

For Harper, all of this is dangerous political territory. His Conservatives successfully used gun control as a weapon against the Liberals. But in doing so, they helped to build up the credibility of ardent gun lobbyists previously dismissed as kooks. In 1978, few politicians paid much attention to Canada’s National Firearms Association, for instance, when it came out against restrictions on assault weapons. Modelled on America’s National Rifle Association, the NFA argued then that such restrictions were only the first step in a calculated plot to disarm the Canadian public. Even Conservatives chuckled at that. ...

A party that wanted to govern, [Harper] liked to say, couldn’t waste its time on marginal groups. What Harper soon discovered, however, was that opposition to the long-gun registry was anything but marginal — in the West, in the North, in rural Ontario, even in the Maritimes. Gun lobbies supported his Conservatives. His Conservatives, in turn, pandered to the gun lobbies. But in that pandering, they forgot that Canada is not the U.S. Canadians may object to registering their hunting rifles.

But that doesn’t mean they think they have a God-given right to pack their basements with Uzis. The gun lobbies who advise government, however, do think that. 'The price of our freedom is unceasing vigilance,' declared one recent editorial in the NFA’s official magazine. It warned that 'fifth-columnists' inside the federal bureaucracy — in alliance with the United Nations — were plotting to keep alive the Liberals’ insidious 'social engineering experiment.' "

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/12/21/prime_minister_stephen_har...

I think that the NDP has to do a better job of explaining how the Cons close ties to the gun lobby are making this a less safe country to live in if it is going to make the gun issue bite Harper in the long term.

 

 

 

 

jerrym

A March 9th article shows how the gun lobby now totally dominates the Con government to such an extent that the Cons are now trying to weaken a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that is being negotiated.  

"Gun-control advocates and opposition parties want to know why the Harper government has consistently included a prominent firearms advocate in Canadian delegations at international arms-control talks in recent years. They believe Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) president Steve Torino’s presence alongside Canadian diplomats is tied to what they say are Canadian efforts to weaken a new Arms Trade Treaty being negotiated at the United Nations. Torino, whose organization represents 15,000 gun owners across the country, also co-chaired a government-appointed advisory panel that recommended making it easier to obtain and own handguns and assault rifles in Canada last year — a recommendation Prime Minister Stephen Harper publicly rejected.

The gun-control advocates, who favour a tougher international arms treaty, can attend arms-trade talks as observers, and usually do alongside many other firearms advocacy organizations. But unlike Torino, they have not been included in any official delegation since 2009.

'When Canada goes to the negotiating table, it’s doing it exclusively from the perspective of Canadian firearms owners,' said Kenneth Epps of arms-control group Project Ploughshares. Epps believes that is why Canadian diplomats have been instructed by the Harper government to “play a low-key, minimal role” at arms treaty talks, as revealed in documents obtained by Postmedia News, and why their main objective is to safeguard Canadian gun owners’ rights. This included proposing sporting and hunting weapons be excluded from the arms treaty in 2011 — a proposal that was publicly scorned by such countries as Australia, Brazil, Mexico and Nigeria and ultimately defeated. ...

CSSA spokesman Tony Bernardo said Torino, whose expenses are covered by taxpayers when he serves as a member of Canada’s delegation, participates as an “accredited expert,” and that he does not represent the firearms association or Canadian gun lobby (of course not!).

A CSSA newsletter to members stated in November that 'Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, CSSA President Steve Torino (who serves on Canada’s UN delegation) and the rest of the Conservative caucus have our backs as they alone hold back the crushing tide of UN intervention.'

Epps said prior to 2006, gun-control groups and firearms advocates were both invited to sit on Canadian delegations, which helped provide balanced advice to the government as it formulated its position. Documents obtained by the CBC last year showed Foreign Affairs officials recommended against including Torino on the Canadian delegation to the June 2011 round of Arms Trade Treaty negotiations. A briefing note for a separate arms-control conference last year and obtained by Postmedia News shows he was added “on the instructions” of Baird’s office. ...

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar accused the Harper government Friday of letting the gun lobby dictate Canada’s position at global arms negotiations. 'It is a funny way of actually supporting the negotiations when first the Conservatives instruct our diplomats to drag their feet on the treaty, then they appoint Steve Torino to be the only civil society representative on Canada’s delegation. This is the same person who recommended removing restrictions on hand guns and assault rifles in Canada.' he said in the House of Commons. ...

Diplomats from around the world will gather in New York from March 18-28 in an effort to finalize the Arms Trade Treaty, which would establish common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, and likely establish a reporting framework as well. While Canada will send a delegation, the government would not say Friday whether Torino would be a member."

http://www.canada.com/news/control+groups+opposition+question+inclusion+...

The Cons are so under the control of the gun lobby that they are working as hard as they can to prevent other countries from reducing the arms trade. 

 

jerrym

Pardon me if I bring up articles or points that have already been discussed but I am new to this discussion, although not to Babble. However, in trying to look through the previous 376 messages or at least to the ones close to the dates that I will quote I did not see any reference to a number of issues that tie into the gun control debate. 

In December, Harper's Conservative government quietly shelved the rules on "serial numbers for guns that would have helped keep Canada in compliance with its international conventions on arms smuggling", having already told the gun lobby about this decision a month earlier.

"The decision came through an order-in-council — a cabinet decree — that was not formally announced by the Harper government but has been posted among dozens of other orders on the Privy Council Office website. A single paragraph on the website states the long-delayed regulations, which were scheduled to come into force on Dec. 1, 'are being deferred.' ... 

Earlier this fall the government posted the rule changes in the Canada Gazette, signalling it was finally going to make good on gun-marking regulations that were first announced in 2004. Some gun enthusiasts objected to the regulations because they said they would increase costs for manufacturers, who would pass the increase on to gun buyers. The government noted in October that the repeal of the long-gun registry has created a gap in Canada's international obligations with regard to two protocols on arms smuggling. The Gazette notice said ensuring most firearms in Canada had unique serial numbers would "meet some of the specifications" of those international protocols.

Regulating unique serial numbers on weapons — which most reputable gun makers already do routinely — helps national governments track the smuggling of black market arms. But the Canadian government's stated reasons for marking weapons went further. A backgrounder in the Canada Gazette said the "rationale" for the new rules was to aid police investigations.

"The proposal would establish basic marking requirements to facilitate the identification of firearms and to contribute to public safety, by facilitating law enforcement investigations when the markings can be linked to information on the last legal owner of the firearm," said the Public Safety document. The Conservatives have also introduced legislation to make sure gun dealers are not required to keep records identifying buyers of non-restricted weapons. ...

The Conservatives have also introduced legislation to make sure gun dealers are not required to keep records identifying buyers of non-restricted weapons.

Toews' spokeswoman said ... 'Our government intends to defer the UN marking regulations for one year to consult on the best solution for law-abiding Canadian gun owners,' ... Gun lobbyists were also privately informed last month that all the gun registry data, apart from court-protected data in Quebec, had been fully destroyed. It was a landmark moment in the almost two-decade debate over the long gun registry but it was not accompanied by a public news release from the Conservative government."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/05/pol-cp-gun-markings-ser...

 

To me this shows that the Cons are going far beyond eliminating the gun registry, to catering to all the desires of the gun lobby (read gun manufacturers) and making it difficult to trace weapons after a crime has been committed so that that gun manufacturers and retailers cannot be identified as part of the problem. In other words, they are becoming a complete clone of the Republican party on this issue. While appearing to be tough on gun crime by legislating stiffer sentences for those who commit a crime with a gun, they are making it more difficult to catch the shooter and impossible to trace the crime back to the gun seller or manufacturer.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I think Québec should hire an auditor to calculate and prove the exact costs for setting up the registry. It should also calculate the costs Québec residents have paid towards the destroyed federal registry. It should determine the difference between the cost to set up a Québec registry with federal cooperation and the data and without. All of these figures ought to become evidence in a lawsuit against the federal government for damages and a political campaign to recover the money. The federal government has not right to vandalize the property of the people of Canada in this way. Policing and law enforcement is a shared jurisdiction Québec had every right to the benefits that its people paid in to.

We all have heard that the federal registry's setup was wasteful-- that it cost more than it should have to set up. We also know that the ongoing costs were quite modest. To destroy the data in order to use the massive cost to set up what already exists as a deterrent to stop a provincial government from pursuing a policy it has a right to do is a massive intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

As for the decision of Québec to pursue this registry there are several possible responses. It is not up to those outside Québec to decide what is good policy or priorities. I find the the potential safety benefits quite compelling if done properly. It seems to me to be a good idea to have some kind of registry although it should be handled better given the federal experience. I think it is possible that the Québec design may end up being an improvement and provide a template for others if it is set up and managed properly. There were a number of problems with the federal registry creating some grievances for gun owners, I assume Québec will consult and avoid as many of those as possible.

I trust that knowing the benefits that Québec will build the registry to allow other provinces to contribute and with some cost sharing join in a single registry. There are benefits given the lack of policed borders between provinces to have such cooperation which is why I would have preferred this be done at the federal level. Still if Québec does a good job of controlling costs it could offer a future federal government the program in exchange for compensation.

Finally, it  wouldn't be the first time Québec will lead in policy. Good for them.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Finally, it  wouldn't be the first time Québec will lead in policy. Good for them.

There's little point leading if no one will follow. The federal NDP (starting with Layton) makes righteous noises about gun control, but in the crunch, does nothing. The provincial NDP governments wouldn't institute any controls if you threatened them with a firearm. As for Québec, it's just fighting a rearguard action. The registry was the Liberal government's poor compromise (but at least they did something). What we need is not just gun records. We need to move on and institute gun control. That may happen in Québec one of these days, but as long as the rest of Canada keeps whimpering about how much the registry costs (an issue which has never even been mentioned here), there is no chance anything more effective will happen.

Québec can't lead and doesn't want to lead the rest of the country. The NDP certainly can't and doesn't want to lead - and they were the only hope. Just look at the so-called progressive opinions that inhabit this place. And that's the best we have.

 

Paladin1

Jerrym there is a lot of money when it comes to the firearms industry. I don't think Canada needs to be involved in the gun exporting business and it's pretty obvious Harper is just looking for financial and politicial support through companies like Dimaco.

I think the biggest and most important thing about gun control (including the firearms registry) is how can it make Canada a safer place. How can it reduce gun related violence and crime and how it can save lives.  It's too bad politicans can't put politics aside and approach gun control in partnership with other political patries.  I would like to see a big crack down on illegal weapons in Canada and more emphasis on stopping illegal firearms from coming across the border to the south.

jerrym

OathofStone wrote:

Jerrym there is a lot of money when it comes to the firearms industry. I don't think Canada needs to be involved in the gun exporting business and it's pretty obvious Harper is just looking for financial and politicial support through companies like Dimaco.

I think the biggest and most important thing about gun control (including the firearms registry) is how can it make Canada a safer place. How can it reduce gun related violence and crime and how it can save lives.  It's too bad politicans can't put politics aside and approach gun control in partnership with other political patries.  I would like to see a big crack down on illegal weapons in Canada and more emphasis on stopping illegal firearms from coming across the border to the south.

 

I agree with you. Hopefully the NDP in the next few weeks will keep the focus on the upcoming March 18-28 United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that will be negotiated in New York in order to show that Harper is not simply concerned about the long guns of hunters as he alleges to the public (although the registry is important for controlling that). He is going well beyond that in doing the bidding of the gun manufacturers and retailers in opening Canada up to become another United States when it comes to gun trafficking and gun violence. The Cons are contributing to worldwide gun violence by trying to weaken the Arms Trade Treaty. They are also reducing the safety of Canadians by shelving the Canadian rules on serial numbers for guns that would have helped keep Canada in compliance with its international conventions on arms smuggling, and by introducing legislation that ensures gun dealers are not required to keep records identifying buyers of non-restricted weapons.

 

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Just look at the so-called progressive opinions that inhabit this place. And that's the best we have.

I don't agree with everything you say but I think you're a very smart poster with interesting ideas.

This comment makes you sound elitist though.

Paladin1

I try to stay away from Liberal vs Con vs NDP myself. In my opinion none of the governments really care about stopping gun violence. They care about votes.

 

Someone mentioned we register everything else why not guns. I totally agree. Guns have evolved from being only designed to kill but that's still their major function. To kill stuff.  Guns need to be registered and people who buy them held acountable for where they are, how they are stored and who they sell them to.

One of the major reasons behind firearm owners dislike of registering their guns [my opinion] is the fear that after registering firearms the government can arbitrarily decide a certain type of firearm is now illegal, go to someones address and demand they turn the weapon over or face punishment.  Think I want to turn my rifle in to the government so they can export it and make money off me? No way.

I'm shocked by what you're saying about rules on serial numbers. 

 

Paladin1

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2013/04/06/gatineau-day-care-...

 

I'm sorry for the loss of life but at the same time I'm so very glad none of the children were hurt.

Hurtin Albertan

Update:  Quebec can't preserve part of firearms registry

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+preserve+part+firearms+registry+appeals+cou%20rt/8586972/story.html

"The Quebec Court of Appeal has overturned a ruling that would have allowed the province to keep its federal long-gun registry records.

Quebec’s highest court announced its ruling on Thursday morning. The provincial records, once part of a nationwide database, were destined to be destroyed when the Conservatives scrapped the registry last year. But Quebec went to court to try and preserve them, stating that it wished to use the provincial data to set up its own firearms registry. A Quebec Superior Court judge ruled in the province’s favour, leading the federal government to appeal the matter.

Five Appeal Court judges signed Thursday’s decision overturning the Superior Court ruling.

The fight over Quebec’s records may not be over yet, however. The provincial government could potentially appeal this latest decision — this time to the Supreme Court of Canada."

From discussion on another here-to-remain-unnamed-internet-discussion-forum, since it weas a unanimous decision by the Appeal Court there is apparantly no automatic right to an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada, Quebec will have to come up with a convincing argument to get the higher court to hear an appeal.  Or so say the internet experts on another forum.

I did predict this somewhere in this thread, basically whoever lost this decision would appeal it and nothing would be settled one way or the other just yet. 

Paladin1

I'm not a fan of the gun registry but I'm disapointed that Quebec will not be able to retain their own collected information.

Did someone mention that Quebecers almost unamously wanted to keep the records?  If Quebec firearms owners wanted their information kept in the registry then the Government should have let them.

 

Canadian gun laws still need a lot of work, there's some really silly loop holes and a lot of laws based on popularity and not common sense.

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/28/pol-pmo-guns-alberta.ht... back flood victims' guns, Harper's office tells RCMP[/url]

Quote:

The Canadian Shooting Sports Association doesn't agree and says the RCMP had "breached and sullied their contract with the public to serve and protect."

"This act of aggression is further proof that the RCMP have a not-so-hidden agenda to take guns away from responsible gun owners," Tony Bernardo, head of the group, said in a release.

Bernardo said the RCMP overstepped its mandate and he's happy Harper's office has got involved in the matter.

"We are advised that the Prime Minister's Office will examine whether the rights of Canadians have been ignored by the police. I am confident that the federal government will deal swiftly with those who have portrayed Canada as a police state in the eyes of the of the world."

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The RCMP finds improperly stored guns and the PMO needs to get involved to protect Canada's reputation. The right of Canadians to not follow existing gun regulations is under threat. What a joke.

Hurtin Albertan

Since you brought it up....

Safe storage of non-restricted firearms can be met by 1 of 4 ways:  you can put a trigger lock on the trigger guard (Can`t shoot if you can`t pull the trigger); you can put a cable lock through tha action (which, if done properly, should prevent the firearm from chambering a round); you can remove the bolt; or you can do as I and many other gun owners do and lock them up in a "cabinet, container or room that is difficult to break into".

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm

If your gun safe or "cabinet, container or room" is in the basement, and you are facing an oncoming flood, I do not think it unreasonable for the owners to move their valuables (guns or otherwise) out of the basement and up to a higher spot in the home that might escape the flood waters.

But if you are in the habit of keeping your guns locked up in a gun safe, cabinet, container etc etc etc then I really doubt you would also own enough trigger locks or cable locks to properly secure them all if you are going to store them elsewhere before you evacuate from the flood or other natural disasters, although in other natural disasters you may be better off leaving them locked up in the gun safe.  You probably also won`t own enough gun cases to lock them all up in, and for certain you will not have the time to relocate a good gun safe up from the basement to a higher spot in the home.

I suppose you could always remove the bolts from them all once you have moved them to higher ground, but this is easier said than done with some firearms.  I can remove the bolts from some of my firearms in a matter of seconds, with others it is a somewhat complicated and time consuming process.  If, say, you happen to own 10 or 20 or 100 firearms then in a time critical situation such as a state of local emergency being declared, and a mandatory evacuation ordered, you might not have the time to fiddle about removing all the bolts, and as I said before, you probably don`t own 10 or 20 or 100 trigger locks if they are usually locked up in a gun safe, cabinet, container, etc etc etc. 

At this point about the only thing you can do is hide them under the bed, or in a closet, or otherwise tuck them away out of sight but in a stressful disaster scenario where you are leaving your home perhaps for the last time I think it understandable if you focus your limited time on saving your valuable keepsakes such as photo albums, other irreplaceable mementos, etc etc rather than engaging in a game of "Ìf I was a looter or an RCMP officer where is the last place I`d look for a hidden gun".

Now, I am of the belief that your average police officer barely knows which end of a gun is the dangerous one, and is lucky to recognize a gun 2 times out of 3 on a good day.  So some time in the future I might find myself in a High River-esque situation where I have done everything correctly, removed the bolts from my guns before evacuating, only to find that some overzealous police officer with an incomplete understanding of the safe storage requirements has gone ahead and confiscated all of my legally stored firearms out of some sense of public safety.

On other internet discussion forums there are mysterious second and third hand accounts of how guns that were cable locked onto a gun rack had the cable locks cut and the guns taken away by police, or how guns put away in gun cases in the closet were taken out, opened up and the guns taken away, but at this point they are very dubious stories and the exact state of the guns has not been clearly articulated.

Perhaps the guns cable locked onto the gun rack did not have the cable lock correctly placed through the action, or perhaps the guns in the gun cases weren`t locked at all.

Or perhaps at least 1 senior officer in the RCMP has a dislike for guns and lies awake at night worrying about them being unsafely stored in a town almost devoid of any civilian presence, and issued orders for them all to be seized in the dubious interest of public safety.

abnormal

Didn't want to start a new thread on this but, as one of the commenters says 'the genie is out of the bottle'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/u-of-t-teams-diy-handgun-tests-the-potential-of-3-d-printing/article12943852/

 

 

 

RooStates

Time for me to way in.

Our right and freedoms can be superseded when something in the interest of the public outweighs the rights of the individual.  This is written into the charter of rights and freedoms.  It was right for the RCMP in Alberta to remove weapons that were not secured when they conducted the searchs in High River.

Now here is the other kicker -- even if the weapon that was seized was illegal -- it must be returned.  The only way of keeping the weapon would be to offer more than the fair value of the weapon to the person who was living in the house that the weapon was taken from.  More than fair value is like 3 times (yes that is right for a $1000 weapon -- $3000 will be paid out).

As for the long-gun registry, I do not beleive in it.  I believe that all guns need to be registered whether they are tiny teeny ones or long guns.  Use of this registry needs to be restricted and any accesses to individual information would need to be logged.  Failure would result in losing job.  Plus any access is to be available to any owner seeking access(es) information.  The agency requesting access, the date and the reason need to be made available.  A coded employee number also can be provided so that the access is tracked.

It is vital information for the police when conducting a visit/raid to be aware of weapons registered to that location for the safety.

For me, a gun has 4 purposes: to protect livestock, to use in sports, to use in hunting game and to protect people from wildlife.  Unfortunately since weapons usage has not followed these 4 purposes, it is important to have the registry.

The other issue is that our society has evolved past the need to have guns in large city centers.  The need to protect livestock is not needed and wildlife protection can be delivered by the police / animal control.

Paladin1

RooStates wrote:

Our right and freedoms can be superseded when something in the interest of the public outweighs the rights of the individual.  This is written into the charter of rights and freedoms.  It was right for the RCMP in Alberta to remove weapons that were not secured when they conducted the searchs in High River.

That depends on your defenition of secured.

The thing is the RCMP ALSO removed legally ownd firearms that were considered by Canadian law to be legally secured. The RCMP ignored the Canadian Firearms act regarding safe storage of firearms and removed firearms on a whim, that they felt like they should remove. Not what the law required them to remove. Ironically the firearms that the RCMP chose to leave were less secure-after kicking the home owners door in. 

They then tried to bullshit people as to their reasoning-firearms are expensive and we just wanted to secure peoples valuables for them. The RCMP failed to do their homework and failed to give their officers appropriate guidelines. Instead of owning up to their [possibly goo natured] mistake they compounded the problem with their shitty PR department and their typical obscure explinations.

 

 

 

Quote:

It is vital information for the police when conducting a visit/raid to be aware of weapons registered to that location for the safety.

True however this can also lure police services in to a false sence of security when registered firearms don't show up.  Any house can have firearms.

Quote:

For me, a gun has 4 purposes: to protect livestock, to use in sports, to use in hunting game and to protect people from wildlife.  Unfortunately since weapons usage has not followed these 4 purposes, it is important to have the registry.

People don't use firearms for sport and hunting anymore?  Two weeks ago my fathers friend asked him if I still had a long range rifle as he was having a problem with coyotes and wolves on his property.

 

Quote:
The other issue is that our society has evolved past the need to have guns in large city centers.  The need to protect livestock is not needed and wildlife protection can be delivered by the police / animal control.

People who need to protect livestock and themselves from wildlife, in my experience, completely disagree with you on this.

RCMP I've spoken with about this also felt that if someone lives half an hour or an hour away from police (as many do in remote areas) then you might as well be 1000 kimometers away.

Sandy Dillon

NorthReport wrote:

;;

What does the above mean?

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Hey Sandy, I think NR was just filling in the first post with a blank space and writing the comment in the second. The thread will only appead on the front page and other pages once comments have been posted, so using a techinique like placing ";;" in the first post is potentially a way to make the new thread more visible.

Not to speak for NR, but I don't think there is any further reason behind the double semi-colons...

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Plus ordinary proles can't edit the first post so many shifty babblers use such a strategy to get around our attempts to control them.

Unionist
Unionist

Unionist wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

What compels people in this society to use any type of violence against one another?  It's certainly not the suggestive whispering of guns, knives, hammers and fists into people's ears that tells them violence is appropriate.  Violence, domination, hatred, fits of rage, etc, occurs to people because this is the example they're provided with, being the only way society as we know it and this rotten to the core economic system is able to sustain itself.  The business of exploiting human beings brought us guns.  There's no mystery in a hunk of steel or in how we arrived at where we are today.

This is very true and deserves to be repeated and understood.

I would only add this:

Until society rids itself of environmentally destructive motorized vehicles for individual use, we should wear seat belts.

Until misogyny and subjugation of women is erased (and until we transform society so that police, if they exist at all, truly serve the people), we should ensure women should have ready access to police and shelters.

Until we revolutionize human relations so that individual and collective and state violence are but distant memories, we should get all guns out of all cities and all homes.

All the above opinions of mine (some of them shared widely, none of them popular when first introduced, all of them attacked by the U.S.-style proponents of "liberty") come under the heading of "risk management". If we can't yet eliminate the problem, we alleviate it. In the case of guns, the path is clear. Only prejudice and über-powerful lobbies stand in the way. And their mouthpieces. See above.

 

Pages