Son of Long Gun Registry Contd.
Comments
Agree with your position Loretta in respect to rural women, and their protection from long guns, which is why I believe the registery should stay in place.
But I am an absolute no go on renting guns from the government, it is almost the most stupidest thing I have heard in my life. The first one being, not letting people do recreational activities for their own safety sake. Talk about hyper parenting, this is hyper social living, and both are a no go IMV.
~
If women's deaths from long guns is decreasing, after the registry was in place, one would have to realize it has prevented deaths would they not agent666?
Anyhow, I probably should start a new thread on the registry vote, the political ramifications of the issue. That's what I find interesting.
I respect your views on private ownership, Farmpunk, and I'm not wedded to my proposal - I raise it for discussion from time to time as a way of sounding out what the opposition to gun control is really based on. Your arguments make sense to me. The ones that are based on fear of big government do not.
Having said that, can anyone offer any opinion on how Ignatieff - not reputed for courageous and principled leadership - is politically able to whip his caucus on 3rd reading (he didn't on 2nd reading), while Jack Layton is not? Any time you're interested, I'll tell you how this is playing in Québec.
"I don't feel threatened by gophers. Occasionally I feel threated by progressives who don't understand there are different traditions and cultures outside of the concrete jungle."
Zing!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/27/statscan-knifing-report.html
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2006000-eng.pdf
Note that, in domestic battery, when women are the batterers, they prefer to use weapons. Something to else bear in mind: soft body armour (the kind statists in Alberta, BC and Manitoba have banned the general public from wearing) won't stop a steak knife...
CGI Group Inc.--a huge multinational, which also owns Bell-Globemedia (Globe & Mail and CTV), used to donate to the Federal Liberal Party and 'sponsors' the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police--is the contractor providing software for data management and the like. This is NOT 'contracting out'. Pee-sac merely represents the people who process the forms and such. They do not want to have to find legitimate work as telemarketers (and explain things like $13.5M in 'travel expenses', in ONE YEAR), so are fighting to save the registry.
Here's a backgrounder on the harrasment of legal firearms owners:
http://www.thesportingclubsofniagara.com/present.htm
http://stevejanke.com/archives/248685.php
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/758486--fiorito-is-toronto-safer...
Meanwhile, our idiotic judiciary keeps kicking violent criminals loose, and our immigration and refugee system is bringing in members of violent gangs like MS-13 by the droves.
"I find it amusing everytime someone asserts that the registry never prevented a violent act since that can hardly be measured."
You hit the nail on the head. There HASN'T been a 'measurable' effect, since it doesn't work. Registered weapons have been used in homocides (e.g., Kimveer Gil's Beretta, which he illegally took, sans ATT, to the school, anyway), along with many more UNREGISTERED ones, wielded by UNLICENSED users. Even the old RCMP handgun registry (1935 onwards) had never been used to prevent, or solve a crime.
This was a porkbarrel IT project for the Liberal Party's corporate donors, and nothing more. If the Liberals were so concerned about preventing gun crime, at any cost, why did they disband the Ports Police? After all, ALL of the AK-47s, along with many handguns and shotguns, come from either the Middle East/Central Asia, or Norinco in China, smuggled on containers handled by organized crime-connected dockworkers. The Liberals were vehemently opposed to arming border guards, citing 'cost' reasons, even though the border guards have deserted their posts out of safety concerns over gun and drug smugglers. The Liberals also wanted to close two RCMP crime labs, for--you guessed it--'cost reasons', and cut funding for breast cancer research while keeping funding for the Firearms Centre at full throttle. [potentially libelous material removed by Maysie] Compared to the funds donated by Canadian shooting enthusiasts to groups like the Sports Shooters Association, there is serious corporate and government patronage behind gun control in Canada.
Agent666, you should probably change your screen name here if you want to be taken seriously.
An agent for the beast would not want gun control, now, would he? A little bio would be helpful.
When did you first sign up? Did he approach you, or did you volunteer? Is it a temporary postition or is it full time?
Is the nra or affiliated organizations involved?
I suggest Charlton as your new name.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2006000-eng.pdf
Note that, in domestic battery, when women are the batterers, they prefer to use weapons. Something to else bear in mind: soft body armour (the kind statists in Alberta, BC and Manitoba have banned the general public from wearing) won't stop a steak knife...
No one should be battering anyone and the registry is not only for men to register guns.
Here's a backgrounder on the harrasment of legal firearms owners:
http://www.thesportingclubsofniagara.com/present.htm
http://stevejanke.com/archives/248685.php
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/758486--fiorito-is-toronto-safer...
Meanwhile, our idiotic judiciary keeps kicking violent criminals loose, and our immigration and refugee system is bringing in members of violent gangs like MS-13 by the droves.
Credible sources, all.
"I find it amusing everytime someone asserts that the registry never prevented a violent act since that can hardly be measured."
You hit the nail on the head. There HASN'T been a 'measurable' effect, since it doesn't work. Registered weapons have been used in homocides (e.g., Kimveer Gil's Beretta, which he illegally took, sans ATT, to the school, anyway), along with many more UNREGISTERED ones, wielded by UNLICENSED users. Even the old RCMP handgun registry (1935 onwards) had never been used to prevent, or solve a crime.
The rates have gone done but to be able to quote a specific incident averted is difficult. Also, stolen weapons have been identified and returned to their rightful owners through the use of the registry.
This was a porkbarrel IT project for the Liberal Party's corporate donors, and nothing more. If the Liberals were so concerned about preventing gun crime, at any cost, why did they disband the Ports Police? After all, ALL of the AK-47s, along with many handguns and shotguns, come from either the Middle East/Central Asia, or Norinco in China, smuggled on containers handled by organized crime-connected dockworkers. The Liberals were vehemently opposed to arming border guards, citing 'cost' reasons, even though the border guards have deserted their posts out of safety concerns over gun and drug smugglers. The Liberals also wanted to close two RCMP crime labs, for--you guessed it--'cost reasons', and cut funding for breast cancer research while keeping funding for the Firearms Centre at full throttle. [potentially libelous material removed by Maysie]. Compared to the funds donated by Canadian shooting enthusiasts to groups like the Sports Shooters Association, there is serious corporate and government patronage behind gun control in Canada.
And the "get rid of the registry" crowd is totally free of lobbying, influence, corporate and government involvement? I notice you haven't addressed my comments about the NRA, either. P
RANGER wrote:
I think you did all the mangling pretty much on your own... you are a hoot!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReeferMadness wrote:
You can't properly match up the quotes and yet they let you use guns?
I'm so glad I don't live anywhere near you. Somebody should warn your neighbors.
RANGER wrote:
What gun's ???
Please continue the discussion in the non-sexist-titled open thread here.
A friend of mine has his facebook status as "can't figure out Leftists supporting gun control."
So is opposition to gun control the litmus test for determining who the real revolutionaries are and who are the squeamish liberals?
I'd wholeheartedly support a gun registry for a just Canada.
A friend of mine has his facebook status as "can't figure out Leftists supporting gun control."
So is opposition to gun control the litmus test for determining who the real revolutionaries are and who are the squeamish liberals?
Some people thought Hitler was a joker at the time, and that other European leaders would not take him seriously. And they didn't until it was too late.
These are strange times today. Countries have been bombed for humanitarian reasons as were the excuses used in the 1940's. The crises of capitalism produced two major world wars. My grandfather, a WW I veterran, thought it was too quiet and peaceful in Europe in the 1930's. Is it too quiet around the world again? Will today's fascists be satisfied with attacking defenceless countries one or two at a time in isolation while the rest of the world stands idly by? Or is it time for another war to end all wars?
A friend of mine has his facebook status as "can't figure out Leftists supporting gun control."
So is opposition to gun control the litmus test for determining who the real revolutionaries are and who are the squeamish liberals?
Some people thought Hitler was a joker at the time, and that other European leaders would not take him seriously. And they didn't until it was too late.
These are strange times today. Countries have been bombed for humanitarian reasons as were the excuses used in the 1940's. The crises of capitalism produced two major world wars. My grandfather, a WW I veterran, thought it was too quiet and peaceful in Europe in the 1930's. Is it too quiet around the world again? Will today's fascists be satisfied with attacking defenceless countries, one or two at a time in isolation from the rest? Or is it time for another war to end all wars?
Fidel, I really want to put you in the Hall of Fame again but I know you're a bit shy. Thank you for your contributions.
I guess he is a free market leftist. A blue leftist. National socalist? Pol pot was a leftist too. I guess there are brutish thugs on all the sides.
A friend of mine has his facebook status as "can't figure out Leftists supporting gun control."
So is opposition to gun control the litmus test for determining who the real revolutionaries are and who are the squeamish liberals?
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/11/17/ReturningFire/index.html is worth a read.
"Number one reason for revoking firearms licenses -- 75 per cent of them? "Court-ordered prohibition or probation." Yes, 1,366 revocations last year alone were because a court ordered someone not to possess firearms -- gee, maybe they had a criminal problem."!!!
And
"Or look at Firearms Interest Police reports, which checks if a licence holder has been the subject of a police incident report by checking the registry. That only happened 102,841 times last year, including over 12,000 in B.C. alone.
Perhaps the information in the Commissioner's report is why Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan didn't want to release it to Parliament until two days after the vote".
So it would seem that criminals are applying for gun licences. and the gun registry helps prevent them get them.
Who would have thought? So, if the registry goes, criminals will have an easier time getting guns.
They will be able to use legal long guns to kill us. I guess that is fine. Personal freedom, man. F*** public safety.
Seems to be the conservative attitude and the attitude of their left wing brothers in arms too.
Mr. Tieleman, well done!
"They will be able to use legal long guns to kill us. I guess that is fine. Personal freedom, man. F*** public safety."
Yea, those 2 percenters, those are the ones you really need to watch out for. When will you start advocating a knife registry, and how much will it cost?
Knives kill far more people than the long guns you are so terribly afraid of, so use your 'logic', explain to me why getting stabbed to death is more noble than being shot by a shotgun or rifle.
On average two percent of firearm homicides are committed with a registered long gun, thats 1/2 of 1 percent of total homicides, in 2003 21.8 percent of all homicides were committed with knives, 21.8 vs 0.5 percent, so how about it, a knife registry and 3 layers of bubble wrap for all?
Or maybe some common sense. In 2003 knives were used 12 times as often as firearms in assaults against a spouse, overall its 0.1 percent for firearms what is 2 percent of 0.1 percent...you do the math.
So what of it? are you interested in helping people? are you afraid of knives? if not why not, they are obviously used more than registered firearms, those scary right wing macho death machines that account for one half of one percent of all homicides in this country.
This whole thing is ridiculous, but we who are against the registry aren't the ones prompting this pathetic argument, one thats so easily won, over and over again, alas, some peoples logic is impervious to common sense, or basic math it seems.
If Canadians register ALL our firearms should we members of the shooting community be allowed automatic weapons, machinepistols, machineguns and all other weapons currently considered prohibited?
That's a great question, PF. What do you think?
I suppose a registry could be useful for this, in theory, but I think it's been demonstrated that just knowing someone has a gun, even an illegal one, doesn't mean jack shit.
Here's a fascinating report of a man with three separate court orders to not own a gun, two of them so-called "lifetime bans". Before you click on the link, try to guess what he was caught with?
The handgun registry has been around for about 80 years, and this is how effective it's become at helping keep illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals. Perhaps the long gun registry might one day allow us to impotently issue similar "voluntary" lifetime bans for rifles! When someone is murdered with a long gun we could say "Well he was SUPPOSED to not own guns! We trusted him, and this is what we get? Corpses?? Let's give him another gun ban!!"
Your much qouted 2% is a conservative statistic. I have a question.
Have you regestered all your guns or are you participating in a civil disobedience campaign?
If you are refusing to co-operate with the law, you and other conservative hudlums are just making a self-fulfilling statement.
And another question. Where the hell are you getting your numbers from? Because the numbers say that soemthing like 1/3 of murder deaths are family members of the shooter. Your 2% number pretends that the 98% are illegal guns, doesn't it?
Thats not illegal guns all the time, though, is it? So if it is often licenced guns, what the hell is the use of licencing?
That will be the next campaign for the gun lovers, perhaps. Lets get rid of licencing cos it is no effing good.
Lots are licenced guns where the murdering B*****D refused to register the gun.
And if he had been forced to register? Maybe someone could have cross referenced his hatred before it caused death.
You guys twist and turn like snakes. Grab a worthless statistic and run with it. Till someon pries it out of your dead hands.
"They will be able to use legal long guns to kill us. I guess that is fine. Personal freedom, man. F*** public safety."
Yea, those 2 percenters, those are the ones you really need to watch out for. When will you start advocating a knife registry, and how much will it cost?
Knives kill far more people than the long guns you are so terribly afraid of, so use your 'logic', explain to me why getting stabbed to death is more noble than being shot by a shotgun or rifle.
On average two percent of firearm homicides are committed with a registered long gun, thats 1/2 of 1 percent of total homicides, in 2003 21.8 percent of all homicides were committed with knives, 21.8 vs 0.5 percent, so how about it, a knife registry and 3 layers of bubble wrap for all?
Or maybe some common sense. In 2003 knives were used 12 times as often as firearms in assaults against a spouse, overall its 0.1 percent for firearms what is 2 percent of 0.1 percent...you do the math.
So what of it? are you interested in helping people? are you afraid of knives? if not why not, they are obviously used more than registered firearms, those scary right wing macho death machines that account for one half of one percent of all homicides in this country.
This whole thing is ridiculous, but we who are against the registry aren't the ones prompting this pathetic argument, one thats so easily won, over and over again, alas, some peoples logic is impervious to common sense, or basic math it seems.
I guess he is a free market leftist. A blue leftist. National socalist? Pol pot was a leftist too. I guess there are brutish thugs on all the sides.
The US and China supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They propped-up the biggest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler. And the doctor and the madman bombed Cambodia and VietNam to smithereens. Kissinger should have been in jail years ago.
You want gun control? Start a website devoted to arming the left. Education on weapons, how to purchase, how to navigate the regulations, etc.
You'd have gun control faster than Flaherty at a blind man kicking contest.
You'd have gun control faster than Flaherty at a blind man kicking contest.
This is a hall of fame post. Well said.
Your much qouted 2% is a conservative statistic. I have a question.
Have you regestered all your guns or are you participating in a civil disobedience campaign?
If you are refusing to co-operate with the law, you and other conservative hudlums are just making a self-fulfilling statement.
And another question. Where the hell are you getting your numbers from? Because the numbers say that soemthing like 1/3 of murder deaths are family members of the shooter. Your 2% number pretends that the 98% are illegal guns, doesn't it?
Thats not illegal guns all the time, though, is it? So if it is often licenced guns, what the hell is the use of licencing?
That will be the next campaign for the gun lovers, perhaps. Lets get rid of licencing cos it is no effing good.
Lots are licenced guns where the murdering B*****D refused to register the gun.
And if he had been forced to register? Maybe someone could have cross referenced his hatred before it caused death.
You guys twist and turn like snakes. Grab a worthless statistic and run with it. Till someon pries it out of your dead hands.
Your ignorance is becoming annoying, and yet you continue to prove my point for me. For the record and i have stated this before, yes, i am fully registered.
The statistic, that only 2 percent of firearms homicides are committed with registered firearms is perfectly accurate and valid. Firstly, it proves that the vast majority of people that have registered arent killing anyone. From my quick math, in 2003 it seems about 3.75 percent of homicides were committed with an unregistered rifle or shotgun.
So there you have it, the registry works! only 3.75 percent of homicides were committed with unregistered shotguns and rifles, 2 percent with registered shotguns and rifles, im sure those 20 or so people and thier families can take solace in the fact that a useless government agency and a piece of paper that 20 murderers who used long guns may or may not have had, did absolutely nothing to prevent someone from killing someone else. It also appears that someone who refused to register is only slightly more likely to kill someone who did, so the vast majority of people who refused to register are also not murderers.
Imagine that, a piece of paper that didn't prevent a murder.
I note that you refused to even acknowledge what i wrote about the hypocrisy of a gun registry when knives are just as deadly and more often used against a spouse by a factor of 12, but you're not really interested in the truth, helping women and all that other stuff, you are just afraid. Its becoming clear that you will say anything to forward your crusade, and your insults are pathetic, but amusing. You want the numbers? Its called google, or you could check the other posts.
Your ignorance is becoming annoying, and yet you continue to prove my point for me. For the record and i have stated this before, yes, i am fully registered.
The statistic, that only 2 percent of firearms homicides are committed with registered firearms is perfectly accurate and valid. Firstly, it proves that the vast majority of people that have registered arent killing anyone. From my quick math, in 2003 it seems about 3.75 percent of homicides were committed with an unregistered rifle or shotgun.
What is your point? How do the 2 statistics (from God knows where prove it?)
You are saying that 98% of firearms homocides are committed with unregistered firearms. But my question is how many of that 98% (as you have total faith in the Holy statistic) were licenced?
It is kinda evasive to ignore the question.
Perhaps someone on the pro gun control side could give a counter view? (I do not believe that long gun crime is all committed with unlicenced guns).
It is dangerous to allow that stupid statistic to go to the public unchallenged. It was invented by the Conservative misinformation department to dumb down the conversation.
We need a strong statement to gut the 2% BS. Reefer gutted it correctly but we need to put it in context with the voting public. We need a counter statistic, even one just as meaningless, and we need to showcase murders with long guns that have happened recently.
2% is a red herring but it needs a witty and powerful and emotive populist response. It will go into conservative folklore as a brilliant trick to scam people otherwise.
"guns do not kill people, people kill people, but you got to admit, a gun helps" is so clear. You knife your old lady, and it gets so messy and she screams too long and that makes you have second thoughts but shoot her and she is dead double quick. Just a little clean up.
Where is that response? Even if some of it is disturbing comedy, it is ok.
People had better come up with it real quick.
I am sure there are a few wives who survived gun attacks from spouses who had facial wounds and are horribly disfigured.
Any of them want to be part of the campaign to keep gun control?
The point the pro-gun camp is arguing is that if I am going to commit a crime with a firearm, being registered will not matter. I will use the firearm regardless. If I am going to break the law and use a gun in a crime I'm not going to care either way.
The issue with the gun registry isn't the act of registering firearms but rather the government deciding certain guns are illegal and using the gun registry to come into their homes and take their guns.
Certain firearms get banned for having a military type action or looking "evil" basically.
I have a bolt action hunting rifle which uses a military type action. It doesn't make it deadlier it's a simply design used in service rifles (in my case from ww1) Even your average hunter couldn't tell a military type action from a regular action.
Some gun control measures are feel good attempts to make people feel safer. Take handgun magazines for example. Your average 9mm semi-automatic pistol holds 15 rounds. A gun control measure in Canada is to limit [legally] magazines to 10 rounds. This apparently makes it safer. Except;
I can easily buy illegal 15 round magazines
I can modify my 10 round magazine to hold 15 rounds.
I can buy more magazines and have 15 - 10 round magazines instead of 10 15 round magazines. To a non shoter having 10 rounds instead of 15 it may sound safer. Anyone who spends tie shooting knows the difference is negligible. It takes less than 2 seconds to change a magazine and no that's not going to give police a chance to *get the bad guy in between magazine changes* It's a feel good attempt.
"guns do not kill people, people kill people, but you got to admit, a gun helps" is so clear. You knife your old lady, and it gets so messy and she screams too long and that makes you have second thoughts but shoot her and she is dead double quick. Just a little clean up.
I've seen knife wounds and firearm wounds and I can tell you from experience this analogy is wrong. Assaults with firearms are not just a little clean up.
People also scream and cry and plea and beg when their shot too. Both types of attacks are violent messy and traumatic.
Guns DO make it easier to hurt/kill people yes. I would rather spend this money on keeping violent criminals in jail or rehabilitating them. Because if they can't use a gun their just gonna use a knife sword ice pick or crossbow.
Speedlimits stop honest people from speeding they don't stop people from going over the speed limit if they choose to.
The first person to post about gun registry used an example of themselves choosing to break the law and speed [apparently by a considerable amount]. The threat of fines, jailtime or possible death to themselves or others was not enough of a factor to stop them. The same can be said for someone choosing to do violence.
Maybe so but we haven't thrown out a requirement to either register vehicles or demand that drivers are licensed.
But when you register your car, it's mostly for purposes of ownership and insurance. It's not so the government can decide that nobody should be allowed to have a Subaru Outback, and then go confiscating Subaru Outbacks without compensation.
And really, when we justify the long gun registry on the grounds that we register automobiles, it gives worlds of credibility to the otherwise facetious suggestion that we should have to register all of our knives. Really, if we register cars and guns, why not knives? Sure, we can cut vegetables with them and slice bread with them, but evidently we also use them to murder each other.
Maybe so but we haven't thrown out a requirement to either register vehicles or demand that drivers are licensed.
You can't win, Loretta, but I appreciate your valiant efforts. There are too many different (and equally fraudulent) explanations as to why the gun registry was instituted:
1. To annoy people by making them fill out stupid forms.
2. To enrich friends with crazy big contracts.
3. To confiscate people's guns without compensation, just because.
4. To prepare to disarm the whole population in preparation for the installation of Nazi-style fascism.
5. To criminalize law-abiding folk, just because.
6. To pander to the simpering city slickers and humiliate country folk.
7. To prepare for having lists of everything people own, also of Jews, Catholics, and heterosexuals.
8. Because the registry can't stop crime and the Liberals don't care - only the gun people care.
9. Why should we listen to women's groups on this issue? Just because they're women??
10. For no good reason that any normal person can possibly understand.
So, try nailing all that jelly to the floor.
And you can add this to the list of reasons many Canadians don't want to play ball with our autocratic governments. It's sometimes said that the reason we can't tax big corporations and the rich is because they will only move their money offshore anyway. The lame excuse bots tell us that money can be wired out of the country at near speed of light. It is futile to try and tax capital, they say, because technology makes it possible for the rich and powerful to evade paying taxes they owe according to the law. And so we have few alternatives but to make honest crooks of all of them by lowering corporate taxes and lowering taxes for the superrich.
But this doesn't seem to be the case when our crooked federal governments decide it necessary to invade the privacy of working class slobs. Never mind that there are far more of us than the few hundred oligarchs in Canada, or the handful few supranational corporations they've sold our environment and other valuable Canadian assets to. Technology can be used to work for the feds when it comes to invading our privacy. And there are people who demand that they do just that. The people will police themselves always.
Maybe so but we haven't thrown out a requirement to either register vehicles or demand that drivers are licensed.
Am I missing a joke?
Drivers have to be licenced and vehicles need to be registered to someone and insured.
If I get caught driving a car that is not registered to an owner and I don't have a driver's licence my purse is going to hurt.
Why not get rid of guns all together?
It's scary how my nephews embrace violence and guns at such a young age.
Maybe so but we haven't thrown out a requirement to either register vehicles or demand that drivers are licensed.
Am I missing a joke?
Drivers have to be licenced and vehicles need to be registered to someone and insured.
What's next, a federal fishing rod registry? Before the Libranos' gun registry that made criminals of previously law abiding citizens, hunters and tourist operators etc already had to run through a checklist of paperwork to have on-hand in case they were stopped and hassled by the provincial paramilitaries. The kids can't even do a little squeegee'ing on street corners without cops putting a stop to junior enterprise in our Northern Panama these days. One old line party down and one to go.
There are still lots of law-abiding citizens with guns -- they're the ones with licenses who have registered their guns. Oh, and those poor tourist/hunter/fisher operators -- what a shame that they would be forced to comply with a bunch of useless laws anyway.
They have to make a living anyway they can in most northern parts of our Northern Puerto Rico. There really is another Canada outside the major cities crowded along the Can-Am border where people live on top of one another. We may not be where the two old line parties' first-past-the-ghost votes are, but we are Canadians, too.
The feds can rubberstamp torture of ordinary people all they want to. And we'll be ready for the bastards.
I live in a rural area -- I am quite familiar with how people make their living out here. I want rules and regulations, other-wise we're all about the wild, wild, west. (Licensing and registration of gun-owners and their weapons is rubberstamping torture?)
This is hysteria...of the male variety. One big temper tantrum.
If it was a good gun registry, then the Libranos' can stick it sideways. A good thing can't hurt.
If it was a good gun registry, then the Libranos' can stick it sideways. A good thing can't hurt.
Any idea what he is talking about? Libranos???? lib, ndp somehow mashed together?with o from bloq? (To join all the partys agianst this together as one), or is it some form of esparanto?
One excellent way to get rid of this particular objection would be either for hte government to modify the policy, or for some kind of rational reason for this to be provided that might transform it from blatantly stupid to reasonable and defensible. It really shouldn't shock anyone that a policy that allows the government to declare legal property suddenly illegal for the purposes of confiscating it, without any compensation, might not be warmly received.
Can anyone suggest any reasonable reason why the government would feel they can just take property from you that was perfectly legal yesterday, and feel no need to compensate you for it? Anyone??
One excellent way to get rid of this particular objection would be either for hte government to modify the policy, or for some kind of rational reason for this to be provided that might transform it from blatantly stupid to reasonable and defensible. It really shouldn't shock anyone that a policy that allows the government to declare legal property suddenly illegal for the purposes of confiscating it, without any compensation, might not be warmly received.
Can anyone suggest any reasonable reason why the government would feel they can just take property from you that was perfectly legal yesterday, and feel no need to compensate you for it? Anyone??
Because they are the Government and don't always follow the rules they lay down?
There have already been cases where Canadians [With no criminal records] have registered certain types of firearms and had those confiscated by the Government because the guns were deemed illegal or banned for whatever reason of their choosing.
The government takes vehicles, houses, and all sorts of property, all the time.....
....agree Loretta, we have guns, and they have been registered from the very beginning, without so much as a waste of tax payer's dollars in an immature temper tantrum manner.
In fact, the registry has kept a very whacked individual from getting access to guns, as no one will sell to him as they would be culpable. No registry and they would not be...
Can anyone suggest any reasonable reason why the government would feel they can just take property from you that was perfectly legal yesterday, and feel no need to compensate you for it? Anyone??
Are you saying they're doing this unlawfully? If not, please cite which law allows confiscation without compensation of legally-acquired property. I'd like to review it for myself.
I take it your problem is the failure to compensate?
And I have all the information I need to avoid that. If I don't want to lose my house, I shouldn't use it for a grow op. If I don't want to lose my vehicle, I should remember not to break the law with it.
Heck, if the government wants to tell me, today, that I'm not allowed to own a ShootMaster 3000 shotgun, on penalty of having it confiscated, then I still have all the info I need to avoid that. I certainly won't go purchase a ShootMaster 3000 if I know it's illegal and will be confiscated.
But if I go buy a legal weapon, I guess it would be my assumption that it's a legal weapon. I wouldn't expect the government to say, tomorrow, "Oh, uh, well, we're just fickle that way and we can't make up our minds, but today we feel it's illegal and so now you have to give it to us for free".
All the government has to do to totally eliminate this objection to the Registry is to do what they should have done in the first place and reimburse gun owners for any weapons that they decide without warning they need to confiscate. Is that really so hard?
All the government has to do to totally eliminate this objection to the Registry is to do what they should have done in the first place and reimburse gun owners for any weapons that they decide without warning they need to confiscate. Is that really so hard?
We cross-posted. Have you got some reference for this (confiscation without compensation)? Do you have any stats on this?
Anyway, I listed approximately 691 other so-called "objections" to the registry. What would be the point of totally eliminating this objection? What about the right of each individual to wage armed struggle against a dictatorial government?
The government takes vehicles, houses, and all sorts of property, all the time.....
....agree Loretta, we have guns, and they have been registered from the very beginning, without so much as a waste of tax payer's dollars in an immature temper tantrum manner.
In fact, the registry has kept a very whacked individual from getting access to guns, as no one will sell to him as they would be culpable. No registry and they would not be...
How would you feel if the police came to your house and said Sir/Ma'am we are taking your car and keeping it. It's been decided that people with your kind of car are too likely to speed and get in an accident so we are taking it. This will make the roads a safer place. [Does it stop you from speeding with a truck or van? No]
Firearm owners are not afraid of having their firearms registered they are afraid of loosing them because someone makes a decision based on a false idea of safty.
Vehicles houses and other objects get confiscated all the time without reimbursment. But why?
Because people perform illegal activities or fail to make payments on the items.
You don't loose your house or car for following the rules and minding your own buisness.
I have neither, but it's come up so often, and never been rebutted with "that's simply not true" that I've been going with the working assumption that gun owners are telling the truth on this one. And that said, I don't know why I'd need statistics in order to say it's stupid. I'm not claiming it happens on a daily basis, I'm claiming that it doesn't make sense.
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step".
Remember when the law changed to require seatbelts? And all the cars made before 1970 or so (without seatbelts) were confiscated by the government without compensation? It was like when the law said that houses had to have certain electrical features like ground-fault plugs in washrooms, and those older homes that lacked them were confiscated without compensation.
Nobody had a problem with it at the time.
Doesn't everyone remember??
How would you feel if the government told you your vehicle was worth too much and you had to sell it?
But the law did change in 1995 with bill C-17, and deaths by firearms in Canada began declining. There is no statistical evidence that the Libranos' gun registry to make criminals of law abiding gun owners contributed to any further decline in a noticable way.
I have neither, but it's come up so often, and never been rebutted with "that's simply not true" that I've been going with the working assumption that gun owners are telling the truth on this one. And that said, I don't know why I'd need statistics in order to say it's stupid. I'm not claiming it happens on a daily basis, I'm claiming that it doesn't make sense.
The reason I ask is that previous owners of many types of firearms which were prohibited in 1995 were "grandparented" - they could continue to own them. A worker I knew had an AK-47 (don't ask) and was able to keep it. So please tell me what these confiscations without compensation were all about? Were they maybe some rugged individuals who couldn't be bothered to fill out the fascist forms??
Actually, I remember quite clearly when LSD was added to the Criminal Code prohibitions. Lawful one day, banned the next. Not sure how many compensation claims were paid... Personally, I wasn't even grandparented. Do you think I should have turned in my stash and been compensated by the taxpayer?
Anyway, you're worked up about people's property being absconded with, so kindly tell me what you've heard about that.
Yes. Absolutely. You bought a legal product in good faith. Why should the government get to own it for free just by criminalizing it?
Mostly that the Registry would enable that. What have you heard? That gun owners would be compensated? Or that firearm won't be confiscated if they're currently legal?
Yes. Absolutely. You bought a legal product in good faith. Why should the government get to own it for free just by criminalizing it?
They shouldn't get to own it. Hopefully they would discard it. If I found out they were selling or using it, I'd put in a claim.
Snert - the registry has been in place for 15 years. I'm no legal expert, but my understanding at the time was that law-abiding owners of many newly-prohibited weapons were allowed to retain those weapons - even replace them under some conditions. So instead of asking me questions, why don't you give me a single example of what you're complaining about (if you have any)?
I'm not certain exactly how the Registry interlocks with the Firearms Act, however I did run across examples of newly-prohibited weapons being confiscated without compensation. Mind you, I didn't save the link. ;)
But if it cannot happen, no problem. That's all I need to hear, and all gun owners should need to hear. Just "don't worry, it will never happen".
If the government can't or won't say that then whether guns have or have not been confiscated already, I don't think gun owners' concerns are irrelevant. And as I noted, then the gun owners would have one fewer complaint and one fewer talking point. Unless one WANTS the guns confiscated without compensation, that would seem to me to be a genuine win-win.
How could they legally discard it without owning it??
I stick by what I said. You should have been compensated, or given a reasonable way to make up your loss. If you buy, say, a motorcycle today, you shouldn't face the complete loss of it and its value tomorrow. The government can do better than that.
I'm not certain exactly how the Registry interlocks with the Firearms Act, however I did run across examples of newly-prohibited weapons being confiscated without compensation. Mind you, I didn't save the link. ;)
But if it cannot happen, no problem. That's all I need to hear, and all gun owners should need to hear. Just "don't worry, it will never happen".
I don't want to belabour the point, other than to say that this is one of many examples of colossal mythology surrounding this issue - part of a giant temper tantrum (as Loretta I think aptly described it) whose proponents sound so violent in screaming against the legislation that they almost prove their opponents' point.
It's an irrelevant non-issue, unless anyone has actually had a gun confiscated without compensation in the past decade and who has been following all the regulations. I'll wait for our experts to give me an example.
So who's for creating a federal database of corporate tax evaders who owe the federal government tens of billions of dollars in "deferred" and unpaid taxes they legally owe our elected stooges?
Should the Canadian government seize their valuable assets and bank accounts for being delinquent on taxes? Would any one of us ordinary working class slobs go to prison for tax evasion?
Or should the feds simply remain impotent when it comes to hassling their rich friends to pay up?
Continuing from this thread.
A few things that really have me curious about the 'left' and gun control (licensing, registration):
*Supporting a grossly-overbudget porkbarrel program for a huge transnational corporation (CGI Group Inc.), while funding for things like breast cancer research were cut.
*Supporting something (licensing, registration) that was also introduced in post-WW I Britain as means to prevent left-wing armed insurrections.
*Supporting something (licensing, registration, firearms bans) introduced by Hitler, in a bid to consolidate power and liquidate Jews and Gypsies.
*Supporting something (licensing, registration) introduced in Apartheit-era South Africa, and kept in place by the increasingly paranoid and authoritarian ANC government.
*Supporting legislation that makes it legal for a private security guard to carry a handgun while guarding a bag of twenties for an ATM, but forbidding a woman to even carry a can of Mace for self defense against muggers, rapists, murderers and stalkers.
*Supporting warrantless search and siezure (provisions of the Firearms Act).
*Supporting legislation that is bitterly opposed by First Nations groups, as well as legislation that was crafted in response to fears of Oka-style native insurrections (contrary to the bill of goods you've been sold, the Gamil Gharbi/l'Ecole Polytechnique shootings were NOT the real reason for C-68).
Firearms licensing and registration/confiscation is part-and-parcel of authoritarianism, and has been in evidence in societies from Hitler's Germany to Pol Pot's Cambodia.
Godwin.
Every time I start relenting about firearms, I read another rant by some gun-worshipper. Thanks for my fix.
A few things that really have me curious about the 'left' and gun control (licensing, registration):
*Supporting a grossly-overbudget porkbarrel program for a huge transnational corporation (CGI Group Inc.), while funding for things like breast cancer research were cut.
As if that was our choice.
*Supporting something (licensing, registration) that was also introduced in post-WW I Britain as means to prevent left-wing armed insurrections.
I'll bet women didn't like guns and shooting there, either.
*Supporting something (licensing, registration, firearms bans) introduced by Hitler, in a bid to consolidate power and liquidate Jews and Gypsies.
Licensing of vehicles is supported by right-wing governments, too, and those vehicles have been misused upon many occasions.
*Supporting something (licensing, registration) introduced in Apartheit-era South Africa, and kept in place by the increasingly paranoid and authoritarian ANC government.
These arguments point out commonalities among many governments - road building, subway systems, trains, etc, have all been used for dark purposes.
*Supporting legislation that makes it legal for a private security guard to carry a handgun while guarding a bag of twenties for an ATM, but forbidding a woman to even carry a can of Mace for self defense against muggers, rapists, murderers and stalkers.
Let's discuss the merits of each aspect of the regulations we have and improve things, with a view to safety. I'm not so sure I like the idea of private security guards having guns, for example.
*Supporting warrantless search and siezure (provisions of the Firearms Act).
Warrantless is in the eye of the beholder.
*Supporting legislation that is bitterly opposed by First Nations groups, as well as legislation that was crafted in response to fears of Oka-style native insurrections (contrary to the bill of goods you've been sold, the Gamil Gharbi/l'Ecole Polytechnique shootings were NOT the real reason for C-68).
That's nice -- I am allowed to disagree with First Nations groups, which are not necessarily representing the viewpoints of First Nations women.
Firearms licensing and registration/confiscation is part-and-parcel of authoritarianism, and has been in evidence in societies from Hitler's Germany to Pol Pot's Cambodia.
Authoritarianism is certainly encroaching however libertarianism isn't the solution.
"I'm not so sure I like the idea of private security guards having guns, for example."
Group 4 Securicor (the guys in those purplish uniforms and trucks) have operations in many countries, including the UK. In Britain, however, they aren't allowed to carry guns. The result is that cash-in-transit robberies of their crews in Britain exceed all other countries COMBINED. That's right--even places like Iraq and Mexico. The situation is so bad that they even discontinued having the containers of money handcuffed to guards, since Yardies and all the other ARMED thugs had taken to sawing guards' hands off. Killings and kidnappings of armoured car crews are frequent in Britain, but exceedingly rare in Canada. Ask the unionized crews of G4S, Brinks and other armoured car companies what they think about your idea of disarming them.
Trappers, geologists, and other civilians in the back country also get ATCs, to carry handguns for defense against wildcats and the like--pepper spray really doesn't work. And, like I mentioned, there are about a dozen ATC Type 3s issued annually in Ontario alone. These allow one to carry a CONCEALED handgun for self-defense, if one can prove that the cops can't protect you...or you have well-connected friends, like Jean Charest. When I was in university, I knew a young woman who did a radio show right before mine, leaving around 3 AM on foot. She was dumb enough to carry a can of Mace. I say "dumb enough", because she could've faced a five-year jail term for carrying a Prohibited Weapon. The Criminal Code prefers women to submit to muggers, rapists and murderers, rather than defend themselves.
An armed population the ultimate check on state power. This idea didn't originate with the U.S. Second Amendment, either. Pre-Civil War America actually imposed strict gun control on the slave population, and the NRA (founded by Union veterans) fought against this. Ignoring the Nazi's gun control laws enabled the Jewish Ghetto to fight back long enough for some of its residents to flee. The Bosnian Muslims, effete urban professionals mostly, were able to fight and stall the Serbs genocide when they finally got ahold of weapons (mostly smuggled in by the Saudis, who ignored the Arms Embargo). And the Zapatistas ignored Mexico's very strict gun laws, by arming themselves against the Mexican Army's brutal Hispanicization. Maybe you should tell Holocaust survivors, Bosnian Muslims and Quechua Indians that "libertarianism isn't the solution" to genocide.
You also DO have a choice re. awarding porkbarrel billion plus contracts to huge companies who once donated large sums of money to political parties, and essentially hired Canada's Chiefs of Police as paid lobbyists: don't support the Gun Registry.
And there are no paid lobbyists from the NRA involved in this debate?
ETA: Mace has nothing to do with the Firearms Act so that's not germane to this discussion.
If only our homegrown gun-worshippers would flee, I might also encourage civil disobedience.
My bad about lumping Mace with the Firearms Act. Here's the text from the Criminal Code:
PART 3 PROHIBITED WEAPONS
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 1 1. Any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge therefrom of (a) tear gas, Mace or other gas, or (b) any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/SOR-98-462/FullText.html
BTW, this is the form you need to complete for an ATC permit in Canada:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/num-nom/680-eng.htm
Here's the section re. ATCs for self defense (Firearms Act):
PART 1 CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS RESTRICTED FIREARMS OR PROHIBITED HANDGUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT
Protection of Life 2.
For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where (a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals; (b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and (c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.
Lawful Profession or Occupation 3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where (a) the individual’s principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity; (b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or (c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-98-207/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_1-gb:...
There are a lot of loopholes--and usually a lot of conections to have--before Provincial authorities will issue an ATC for concealed carry.They are often issued to judges, former police comissioners, former PMs and the like.
It says something unfortunate about our legal system that a non-lethal weapon like Mace, or OC spray is illegal for self defense...even though criminals simply don't bother with the law and use them--along with firearms--to rob, rape and murder. Muggers, rapists and murderers then get gentle treatment from our unelected judiciary. Alberta, BC and Manitoba have gone one better, and baned PASSIVE self-defense: armoured cars and body armour (including stab-resistant vests) are illegal, unless you have a 'legitimate' purpose...like guarding malls from tween girls shoplifting lipstick.
Here's some interesting links:
http://www.lizmichael.com/hatewome.htm
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/11/03/woman-shoots-rapist-who-came-ba...
Authoritarianism and gun control go together. Cuba, North Korea, Burma, the DRC and PRC are prime examples. Though China produces guns galore for export (Norinco shotguns, and AK-47 and Sig pistol knockoffs are preferred by gangsters worldwide), even .22 AIR GUNS are prohibited for its own citizens to purchase. As the Kosovar Albanians learned the hard way, unarmed civil disobedience doesn't work. If the "homegrown gun worshippers" (presumably Jews) flee, you can see how far unarmed civil disobedience gets you.
Authoritarianism and no gun control go together too with the US being the prime example but there are others.
If only our homegrown gun-worshippers would flee, I might also encourage civil disobedience.
So you wanna recreate what the Nazi's did in the Jewish Ghetto?
Real classy Unionist.
You think you can provoke me with sick posts like that? Our people have survived far worse.
Thank you for participating in this discussion, SparkyOne. I love you. I wish you peace. May you never have to be baited and provoked by some low-life recalling to you the murder of your family and loved ones. May your life be long and prosperous.
If only our homegrown gun-worshippers would flee, I might also encourage civil disobedience.
So you wanna recreate what the Nazi's did in the Jewish Ghetto?
Real classy Unionist.
Sheesh. Where do I start? I guess with this: Agent666, I suppose equating gun control with Nazi Germany isn't against babble policy but it's certainly not very tasteful, or made in good faith. Perhaps sticking with less incendiary examples might further more constructive discussion. I mean, what's wrong with ol' King George?
And SparkyOne, your comment about Unionist and the Jewish Ghetto takes Agent666's borderline comment and pushes it into verboten territory. You accuse babblers of advocating Fascist politics again and you'll be taking an insta-break.
I'm sorry Unionist, I took your comment the wrong way. I went too far.
I need practice on my purposefully taking peoples posts out of context yet not breaking the rules. (Which is common) i should work on my baiting too. It's a tricky line to find let alone not cross.
Still that's no excuse. I'll do my best not to cross the line again Catchfire thank you.
Loretta,
The U.S. is many unfortunate things, but 'authoritarian' isn't one of them. You can't equate the political situation in the U.S. with, say, Burma. The Internet is actually freer than Australia, and the newspapers aren't censored in the way they are in Singapore. Libel laws are weaker than Canada and they don't have those 'Speak Nothing Un-PC' HRCs in the U.S. Michael Parenti and Noam Chomsky haven't been dragged away by the secret police: they wouldn't last a day in Cuba. Actually, the more 'free' states, like Vermont and Alaska, have the least gun control (you don't need permits to carry concealed guns in those states). Chicago has an outright ban on civilian ownership of guns (and purchase of spray paint--really), but is run by Richard M[obster] Daley.
The reason that the Nazis, commies, juntas, absolute monarchs and Duvalier-style despots imposed gun control is that an unarmed population can't fight back. Britain imposed firearms licensing in 1920, in order to prevent what the government feared was an armed insurrection by anarchists. The same goes for countries like Mexico, where the Hispanic-ruled PRI tried to cut off the native population from arming itself against Mexican army and police brutality. Notice that the Zapatistas don't do passive resistance, or peaceful protests...
They have gun control in Ireland too. Even at its most violent, the "troubles" never compared to Washington DC in total percentage of people murdered.
Of the guns that both sides had, and that were sneeked into Ireland, most were bought and paid for by people in USA and Canada. O, yeah, and the guy in north Africa.
Who exactly do you want to fight back against?
I see the most likely Junta here as Stephens boys if they are refused their next peroge.
Last time they attempted coalition, Stephen called it a coup. Thats grounds to call in the army, isn't it?
Canada is a very shakey place right now.
Harper is already wearing the jackboots. He likes them and Most canadians do not seem worried.
Harpers right wing nutbar supporters would love to increase their firepower.
And that does not just go for the generals.
"...the "troubles" never compared to Washington DC in total percentage of people murdered."
Since 1976, handguns have been absolutely illegal for citizens to own in DC, and 'long guns' are highly regulated (Canada-style 'safe storage' and so forth) and registered. DC vs Heller quashed that law, under the Second Amendment. This case was initiated by a security guard who argued his rights were being violated, since he was allowed to carry a gun on the job, but wasn't alowwed to have one in his home, to protect himself, his family and property. Chicago, the fiefdom of ultra-corrupt mob mayor Richard M. Daley, also bans civilians from owning handguns (and buying spray paint--really), and Illinois has a Canada-style licensing system. New York City has had almost identical laws to Canada (licensing, registration, 'Authorization To Transport'), since 1911. Actually, there are suspicions that, in NY's mob-ridden past, gun control was brought in to make life easier for highwaymen. NYC also has the added twist of a ban on pellet and BB guns, to the consternation of those overrun with rats and pigeons.
Northern Ireland actually has less restrictive gun laws than DC. It's a completely different regime than Great Britain. People can actually get CCW permits from the police, and all Police are armed. Something to think about, in the context of the Cumbria shooting (done with an illegal, repeating shotgun), where UNARMED police encountered the shooter on several occaisions, yet were unable to stop him.
Even if you close down all of the legal guns & ammo factories, people can still make weapons and ammunition. Have you ever heard of the Sten gun? This is one backyard machinist's weapon, along with the AK-47. Tens of thousands of AK-47 and even RPG-7 knockoffs every year are made by illiterate people on dirt floors in Waziristan. Many of these end up in Canada and the U.S., as well as Mexico. The same goes for ammunition, as brass, bullets, nitrocellulose and lead styphnate are cranked out in mud huts by these people without difficulty. Anybody with a cursory knowledge of machining, who passed highschool stoichiometry, can crank out firearms and ammunition to their heart's content. And if you're too lazy to do this, you can buy the very good quality AK-47, Ithaca shotgun, Sig and CZ pistol clones and ammo smuggled into Europe and North America from the PRC's Norinco. Like banning drugs, banning and tightly regulating guns won't make them go away.
I lived in the Republic of Ireland where guns are heavily regulated and nearly all the cops are unarmed, I guess Washington DC was a bad example. How about Baltimore, Just a few doors down? How does that compare to the island of Ireland (about 5 and a half million people on the island).
I bet Baltimore beat ireland every year since records began in the death by gun (of any kind) sport.
What is your explanation for the mind blowing gun fatalities there? And you solution? Tanks for the cops? Full metal jacket for all civilians?
Sounds like an arms race of fear to me. They have cops and robbers movies because they go hand in hand. If you legalize Mary jane, wouldn't you get rid of 1/4 or more of the drug trade? Would that eliminate 1/4 of the profits of drugs too?
And then, whats the point of being a robber? And if you are not a robber, whats the point in having the the first generation in the population of guns.
Guns go in generations. first generation is the robber generation, then the cops get theirs, then there are lots of bystanders getting knocked off so the 3rd generation in the bang bang game is the general public.
And if you ever flew off the handle, you would know that guns are not always such a good idea.
By the way, how do the school shoot up statistics compare in England and USA? Who is winning that little contest? And the solution?
Arm the kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2kZKI7pSHs
Brian White,
Why is violent crime in Vermont (no gun laws whatsoever, except for a ban on bringing them into schools) lower than NYC, Chicago and DC? Maryland has very similar gun regulations to Canada (registry, licensing, ban on AK-47s), PLUS a database of test-fired rounds (to, theoretically, match guns to fired rounds). Actually, Vermont is an interesting model: they were the first state to legalize gay marriage, have strict environmental regulations, and a ban on billboards and skyscrapers. Something to think about...
Also, why were school shootings unknown in North America, until the '60s-'70s? Machine guns were legal for civilians to purchase, there were no licensing or 'safe storage' laws, kids could buy .22LRs to shoot gophers (and many little boys had their own .22s, including repeaters)--yet no school shootings. Why? This is an important sociological question that should be looked at.
Well, it aint guy"s like me, it ain't women. So all thats left is paranoid guys who are scared of everybody and hate any kind of regulation.
The acronym I use is GLU Guess what it means?
(Thats only half joking). But maybe its tougher to buy nicotine now and that set them off? Do YOU smoke or have you recently given up?
Maybe while they are having the standoff after the school shooting,
(just before the shooter puts the gun in his mouth),
the shooter would have time for a questionaire? Hey, they have tried everything else!
If nobody wants to diliver it in person, it could be over the telephone? Happens to me all the bluddy time.
Really there are millions of different possible reasons. Maybe there is more vibration in society now and nuts come loose more often.
Maybe it is because in the usa, ordinary people can do nothing politically to make a difference anymore?
Its all lobby groups now (like the nra), are you affiliated? And smooth messages like "guns don't kill people, bullets kill people".
So maybe if the bullet manufacturers had to pay into a giant fund for the funerals and hospital stays and permenant injury disability claims BEFORE they make the bullets, they would stop manufacturing them?
You are probably wondering why I am going into the perverse answers?
It's because the question deserves it.
"So maybe if the bullet manufacturers had to pay into a giant fund for the funerals and hospital stays and permenant injury disability claims BEFORE they make the bullets, they would stop manufacturing them?"
Again, if you shut down all LEGAL firearms and ammunition manufacturers, the contraband ones will just fill in, in their stead. China bans their subjects from owning anything more powerfull than .117 pellet guns, yet sells the world's paramilitaries and gangsters shotguns, AK-47 copies and pistols (Norinco). Waziristani armouries supply the Taliban and other scumbags with a steady supply of anything up to RPGs. Would you like to hit these nice people up for your Funeral and Disability Fund?
It's the same situation with recreational drugs. When legal amphetamine sales were banned, the meth dealers took over. And you would be better off trying to go after drug dealers, for all the misery they've caused. This doesn't just concern the idiots who got hooked on, or ODed on, the drugs in the first place, but people victimized through the whole chain of manufacture, transport, sale and turf wars. I'm constantly amazed at the paradox of people who'll scrutinize a bag of coffee, to make sure it's 'fair-trade' and 'organic', yet buy marijuana--laced with pesticides and God-knows what else--from gang-connected dealers. The friend of a neighbor who was amazed at the 'amazing pot' ended up with the effects of PCP intoxication. Your purchases of pot, ecstasy, or any other recreational drugs end up funding those shootouts--you know, the kind that killed Jane Creba, or blinded that Brazillian student in Calgary. If you really want to 'do something' about Jane & Finch, or Fresh Off the Boat vs FOB-Killers type gun violence, you can start by boycotting illegal drugs and tipping off the police.
Almost everybody I know uses mary jane. Half of them secretly. Its a fact of life in society. People think I am nutty because i never tried it. Old fogies need to get over themselves, get on any bus with some schoolkids (14 years old and up), listen and realize that the war on drugs is totally lost.
Gun ownership advocates commonly use the "Hitler took away guns" line, but it is a myth:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/harcourt_fordham.pdf
A zip (homemeade) gun incident, in 'handgun-free' Britain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/wales/south_west_wales/10297231.stm
BTW, the 1938 "Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons", if the title doesn't make this clear, banned Jews from acquiring, or posessing firearms and ammunition.
Yeah, well I think Jews - and everyone else - should not be allowed to own firearms.
Government monopoly on ownership - short-term rental for approved use (hunting, sports) only. Anyone caught with a firearm without the right paperwork should have to answer searching questions. Exceptions for FN, who enjoy hereditary sovereign rights.
Yeah, that's right. The evil government.
If we need guns to resist the government, then gun control laws will be the very least of our problems. And they won't pose any obstacle either, when the time comes.
"Exceptions for FN, who enjoy hereditary sovereign rights." Excuse me--with GUNS? Firearms weren't here 'til those evil settlers--who learned how to make them from China--brought them here. 'traditional' shouldn't entail more than TRADITIONAL weapons, not .308s and other things. There was the case of a band in BC that was cited for using ten million candle power lamps to blind deer, before shooting them. 'Traditional' practices were claimed, to justify this. And why are you supporting different rights, according to race? Racially-differentiated laws have no place in Canada. There are millions of legal gun owners in this country that would laugh at your proposal to ban the private ownership of guns. Maybe, you should consider a move to the PRC, North Korea, Cuba, or other 'progressive' countries that have a government monopoly on firearms. And here's an idea: take a trip to Jane & Finch and ask those nice lads in the baggy trousers some "searching questions" about the illegal firearms they're carrying.
Both North Shore MPs are suporting the repeal of the gun registry here while the police forces want it to remain. I see an opportunity to carve a dent into the appeal of these right wing NRA supportin' nutbars in this relatively environmentally-counscious urban area.
Yeah, because everyone knows that intelligently progressive environmentally conscious people would never be so moronic as to own a firearm.
That's just the kind of guy I am.
Like affirmative action programs?
They won't be laughing after my law is enacted, so they might as well get it out of their system now.
I'll head for Cuba. Can I stop by and visit you in Arizona after my legislation is proclaimed? I figger that's where you'll feel most at home.
Anyway, get your explanations ready as to why you need to own a gun (which I would ban) rather than just use one (which in my view is perfectly legitimate). Showing off to your neighbours? Re-selling them to the guys in baggy trousers? Some phallic kinda thing? Or just can't face the laughter of the "millions" of owners when they find out you're a mere renter?
ETA: By the way, the good news is that after private ownership is banned, the firearms registry in its entirety will become redundant. The only remaining registry will be of who rented what and when it's due back.
So it would seem that criminals are applying for gun licences. and the gun registry helps prevent them get them.
Who would have thought? So, if the registry goes, criminals will have an easier time getting guns.
First, criminals don't have any problem getting guns now. According to Juristat, approximately 70% of all firearms used in homicides are unregistered and the person accused of homicide unlicensed. Although it's hard to imagine a criminal wanting to apply for a POL or PAL so he can use a firearm in the commission of a crime but anything's possible. It's more likely that the licensing process is weeding out people that have a criminal record, which is different. Being convicted of drunk driving nets a person a criminal record but should that preclude him or her from being licensed to own a firearm or from registering a firearm automatically?
Second, having a license to own a firearm and registering that firearm are separate things. One can have a license but not own a firearm, for example (licensing is about education, training as well as legal qualifications). My understanding is that current proposals to end the long-gun registry would have no affect on licensing requirements, which have been compulsory long before the registry was created. Moreover, licensing requirements would still weed out the crazy and criminal from legally owning firearms. (whether firearm registration should be unlinked from licensing is another question entirely).
Unionist, again may I remind you that those Jane & Finch gangstas, Fresh Off the Boat/FOB-Killers, Indian Posse, Hells Angels, African Mafia, Chinese Triads and sundry will ignore this great new law of yours that you somehow are going to have passed. Like illicit drugs, guns are still simple for criminals to manufacture and acquire.
And, if you go to Cuba, you best not criticize the government, as you enjoy doing here. Otherwise, you'll end up in a slimy, roach-ridden cell...or worse. The Cuban 'justice' system makes Guantanamo Bay look like a spa. This is why Cuban refugees flee to Florida in droves, even while dumb Canadian commies make their pilgrimages and prop of that despotic regime with their tourist dollars.
What is wrong with registering firearms again?
The reasons seem to have escaped me.
Unionist, again may I remind you that those Jane & Finch gangstas, Fresh Off the Boat/FOB-Killers, Indian Posse, Hells Angels, African Mafia, Chinese Triads and sundry will ignore this great new law of yours that you somehow are going to have passed.
So you need to own a gun to defend yourself against them? There's something I'm missing here.
It's hard to kill other folks with marijuana. I'll focus my efforts on ensuring that anyone who possesses an illicit gun gets locked up until they understand they've done wrong. At least you have to admit one thing: gun ownership is not physically addictive. And since I would still allow people to use guns, what would be the incentive to own one? Other than the penis thing of course...
Now you're getting awfully confused. You're allowed to hate and ridicule Cuba, but you'll have to open an appropriate thread for that. Right now, we're talking about the need to limit the improper use of firearms, which kill and maim people in Canada through design and accident. Hating "communism" is a separate debate, isn't it?
Unionist,
My point about gangbangers is that you aren't going to take away their guns--PERIOD. As for protecting oneself from them, the best thing to do would be throw the lot in jail. For example, Jane Creba's killer was out on bail. However our unelected judiciary doesn't care.
There are three ways pot kills. First of all, it's a carcinogen (surprise! pot smoke isn't good for your lungs) and can trigger deadly arrhythmias in some people. Secondly, there are frequent adulterants. The friend of a neighbor ended up in the hospital, after the joint he smoked ended up laced with PCP. (His big freak-out/crisis also happened with the neighbors' kid in their house.) Finally, unless you grow your own weed, your MJ purchases fund gangs...and their guns. The bullets that blinded that Brazilian student in Calgary were bought thanks to the Fresh Off the Boat and FOB-Killers Marijuana Sales to Stupid People fund. By absolutely boycotting illegal drugs (or growing your own, if you really can't live without it), you are doing more to prevent gang gun violence than all the ineffectual gun laws in the Criminal Code. Until drugs are legalized (and I believe they should be), you shouldn't buy them.
You can also help by reporting incidents to the police, and not buying into the "don't be a rat" gangsta crap. At a community hall in Calgary, there was another incident this week of a shooting at a party, where NOBODY wanted to talk to the police. By not cooperating with these investigations, people are keeping these killers on the streets. Jailing, or deporting one gangbanger WILL save lives...not harassing senior citizens who didn't renew their PALs.
As for the dumb phallic argument: Massad Ayoob (a famous cop and firearms instructor) posed the question "what man would want a 1 7/8" penis?" (i.e., the length of a 'prohibited' snubbie revolver). And, whether it's left-wing (communism), or right-wing (fascism), authoritarianism is authoritarianism--something that includes disarming citizens.
Unionist... how about slightly modifying your proposal, everyone can own guns, but nobody can be in possession of them. Essentially, they are still property, but required by law to be in storage with the government (locked up tight in a police station or "equivalent"). They could be "signed out" if someone is going hunting, or granted "day parole" if someone is going to a practice range, but otherwise they live behind bars (pretty much the equivalent of your renting them out, but without all this whining about being denied ownership).
While I am not going to presume to speak for any First Nation, I somehow suspect they might find the local band council office to be a workable "equivalent" (or not... as you say, they have hereditary sovereign rights, but hopefully this would be something they could get behind, FN input on this would be valuable).
The only flaw I see with this plan (and frankly, it applies to yours too) are the complaints from certain (non-FN) individuals living in rural areas who might feel threatened by the gophers unless they have their firearms on hand to defend themselves against the local rodents... [Given the media reports, it seems that hikers and such are much more likely to be attacked by the local wildlife than farmers and ranchers, but it is usually the farmers and ranchers who push the argument - either way, it should be examined]
"First, criminals don't have any problem getting guns now. According to Juristat, approximately 70% of all firearms used in homicides are unregistered and the person accused of homicide unlicensed".
Criminals DO have problems getting guns. And Criminals DO have problems using them.
RCMP is one of their major problems. Surely you know this?
Your solution is to have 100% of guns used in homocides unregistered. Thats kinda nutty, isn't it?
Some guy gets pissed off at his wife and "can I borrow your gun?", "Sure man, its not registered or licensed, so be sure to give it back". "Ok, well you wouldn't be planning on licensing it or registering soon, would you?" "Nope, I just have it because I worry about my pee pee size, I do not actually use it"
"You mean the gun?" "Yes"
"Perfect!, I will just buy those bullets too"
If you make crime easy, crime levels increase.
At least there is a way to trace the 30% now. Do you ever watch the cop shows or America's most wanted?
I worry about pot smokers and cigarette smokers too. However the pot smokers seem to get a lot more satisfaction and relaxation from their smoke than the ciggy smokers do. So why not just let them grow their own like they do in other places? Many of the reasons there are so many illegal guns are drug trade related. Like I said, travel on a bus, listen to the kids and know that the war on drugs is lost. Mary Jane may not be part of your culture but it is a part of almost everybody elses.
If Mary, Jane and Joe can grow their own, and buy it at pharmasave when they run out, there is much reduced illegal trade, extra taxes collected and fewer guns. Mary, Jane and Joe would feel a lot safer because they do not have to buy from some creep on the street corner or driving a muscle car and I would too.
Unionist... how about slightly modifying your proposal, everyone can own guns, but nobody can be in possession of them.
My "plan" - which was a lot more elaborate when I posted it here a few years ago - included a ban on possession within some radius of urban areas (defined appropriately), except for shooting ranges which had some restrictions I can't recall; time limits on rental, varying with intended use and geography; etc.
I agree with your point in essence, but I still think ownership must be banned. It's a cultural and psychological thing. People must come to view firearms as certain other social property is viewed. Buying, selling, import, export must be seen as not just criminal, but impossible (because there is no ownership to transfer). Any firearm which is not state property is destroyed when found, and whoever possesses it faces a harsh penalty simply for possessing it.
I don't see why this is inconsistent with long-term rental for shooting gophers - though I would caution some individuals that the right to bear arms could lead to a demand to arm bears.
Kewl, I was just trying to cut down on the whining. And I like the within radius of an urban centre thing... if the rural weenies think they are getting an exemption, they are less likely to whine.
Regulated to death... no thanks......
From here (emphasis mine):
The spousal homicide rate against women in Canada is 5 times higher than that against men and the weapon of choice for males who commit intimate partner homicide are rifles and shotguns (long-guns) with over 88% of all intimate partner homicides against women being completed with a long gun (Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians [CAEP], 2009).
"Criminals DO have problems getting guns. And Criminals DO have problems using them."
Where did you hear THAT from? Britain is an excellent example, along with Jamaica. Both are island nations with very strict gun laws. Britain bans private ownership of handguns altogether, along with repeating long guns (pump and lever guns, semiauto rifles). Individuals must pass rigorous background checks (including letting the police have access to your medical-psychological records) and prove a 'genuine need' (e.g., pest control). Yet Britain and Jamaica have escalating gun problems with gangs, like the Yardies and those crazy supporters of the aptly-named Christopher Coke. And this is not just handguns and sawed-off shotguns, but exotic, utterly-illegal weapons, like Mac machine pistols. Here, police complain that they are finding more and more petty gangbangers carrying; this was extremely rare, 30 years ago, when our gun laws were much more liberal.
Cop shows are bunk. A case in point are all of the CSI-type (e.g., Miami) procedurals, where they find a positive match on a registered firearm, belonging to some goombah who whacked somebody. Outside of Illinois, New York and California (the latter two being the homes of most network screenwriters), there are no firearms registries. And ballistics matching has been debunked as junk forensics--'experts' can't agree on matches, profiles of surfaces are easilly altered and--for obvious reasons--this doesn't work with shotguns. And, of course, CRIMINALS DON'T REGISTER THEIR WEAPONS! The fact that anyone buys this fluff really proves that TV rots your brain.
You say they should impose a "harsh penalty" for the illegal posession of firearms. In case you haven't noticed, this already exists. If you let your PAL lapse, fail to register your 'restricted' weapon, or get an Authorization To Transport (a permission slip, from the Provincial Chief Firearms Officer, allowing you to take your gun to the shooting range), don't obey 'safe storage' laws, or carry a gun without an ATC, you're looking at serious jail time. If you have a firearms license, the police/CFO are allowed to make warrantless 'inspections' of your firearms, to see if they're stored safely, etc. This is something people have found out the hard way, in Toronto and elsewhere, because they forgot to mail in their PAL renewal forms on time, or didn't double-lock their handguns. However, our idiotic judiciary doesn't impose the same standards on actual criminals with long records, like Marlon Davidson...
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/779306--toronto-officers-c...
...and the young thugs who killed Jane Creba. Maybe you should start demanding that our brain-dead, unelected judges start actually imposing real jail time for trigger-happy gangsters, rather than thinking yourself clever for making up laws that already exist, for the judiciary to ignore.
Another thing would be better screening and rejection of immigrants and visitors with criminal records, like the associates of Mr Coke who somehow got let into Canada. Human garbage like Freddy Villanueva, Jackie Tran and Lee Christopher Monrose should never have been allowed to set foot here, in the first place. We've also allowed seriously dangerous gangs like MS-13 into Canada, where they're now found in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. And, yes, MS-13 LOVE guns.
Instead of attacking the "rural weenies" who grow your food, or your non-gangsta neighbor who goes hunting, why aren't you people advocating for things like judges actually imposing maximum sentences for gang-related offenses, or tightened screening of visa and immigration/refugee applicants? And, really, STOP BUYING ILLEGAL DRUGS! Unless you have a medical condition that requires THC treatment, you don't need the stuff. Funny how people who claim firearms owners 'don't need guns' vigorously defend a recreational frivolity like pot. Unless you grow your own weed (or cook your own ecstasy, etc.), you are financially supporting violent criminals. Sure, push for complete legalization of drugs--I'm not a pot smoker, but I'll support you in your efforts--but boycott pot and other illicit drugs until then.
Loretta--knives are the tools used in the majority of spousal homicides. Are you saying we should license and register them, too? Registration of long guns has not prevented a single spousal homocide. If the gun registry is abolished, the only people who will suffer are the shareholders of CGI Group Inc. and Honeywell (porkbarrel contractors), and PSAC ('pee-sack', representing those employed in this pointless make-work project).
I'd like to put in an order for a total gun ban for the military. That should include guns with barrels ranging anywhere from the pea shooter to the Jeez that's a big barrel on that boat, tank or whatever.
When that happens, I'll gladly handover my 80 rifles for melting down into farm equipment. And they can whine all they want, but they'll have ta pry the ugly stick and zebco from my cold, dead hands.
I don't feel threatened by gophers. Occasionally I feel threated by progressives who don't understand there are different traditions and cultures outside of the concrete jungle.
What dd you think of allowing use but not ownership, Farmpunk? With long-term possession allowed in rural areas (because no one ought to be hunting or shooting at rodents in a city)? Serious question.
Yep, I know this, and is why the registery should stay, as the rates have been dropping since implimentation.
Having state owned guns is just bizarre, and I absolutely refuse to buy into a view of the world where people are regulated (see forced) into sitting in their houses doing sfa, except for what the "state" wants.
And frankly I agree with farmpunk's assessment.
You've brought that up before, Unionist. It goes counter to the way things currently operate in Canada, where possession of tools of various sorts are considered personal property. IE, I'd rather have full ownership of a gun rather than renting\leasing it from a gov agency, which would probably be administered by a private third party operation. I own the guns, I'm responsible for them.
Do you want to rent a computer or own it?
I've bought and paid for my firearms, and I pay annual fees to the gov to use the guns for hunting purposes. I'm following the rules that have been established. Activists are welcome to try and change current firearm ownership rules currently in place but they won't have my support, for what that's worth.
Clearly a portion of the population feels uncomfortable with people owning and using firearms. I can understand that - they are weapons, after all. But for the left\progressive set beating on this particular issue simply hands the opposition ammo.
There are limits on ownership. Guns are tracked. The registry still exists, and forms of firearm tracking have always existed. There are laws and legitimate ownership is allowed. I happen to take advantage of this by owning and using firearms. People who disagree with this can get bent.
Anyhow, I probably should start a new thread on the registry vote, the political ramifications of the issue. That's what I find interesting.
This is something people have found out the hard way, in Toronto and elsewhere, because they forgot to mail in their PAL renewal forms on time, or didn't double-lock their handguns.
Can you provide a number of examples, please? I'm inclined to think that those who have had signiciant action taken against them for these violations probably have other issues going on which, of course, they aren't saying anything about when they "go public" about the actions of police.
Instead of attacking the "rural weenies" who grow your food...]
Who's attacking them? I just want to know that someone has an idea of who's got guns, how many and that their spouse knows about it.
Loretta--knives are the tools used in the majority of spousal homicides. Are you saying we should license and register them, too? Registration of long guns has not prevented a single spousal homocide. If the gun registry is abolished, the only people who will suffer are the shareholders of CGI Group Inc. and Honeywell (porkbarrel contractors), and PSAC ('pee-sack', representing those employed in this pointless make-work project).
A source please...also knives have to be used at close proximity. When people are deciding to solve their problems with violence, often they`ve tried to solve them by alcohol and, when under that influence, will grab whatever weapon happens to be closest, which also includes guns as well as knives. However, when people decide to control their partners with violence, that often involves guns. I find it amusing everytime someone asserts that the registry never prevented a violent act since that can hardly be measured.
Believe me, I am no fan of contracting out either however, I have no problem with PSAC members doing this work. I certainly object to weapons manufacturers, including our own, and gun-based businesses making money off people who shouldn`t be allowed anywhere near a gun. Also, I resent the NRA-type (and no doubt backed by the NRA, directly or indirectly) lobby and misinformation campaign that could very well result in protections for women, including and especially, rural women, being stripped away.