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

Sandy Dillon wrote:

RE:: Serviam6 quote::Money and program accuracy is a big deal for it. It was supposed to cost under 2 million and it was over 2 billion.

In March of 2005 the Auditor General filed a report that stated up til that date the whole gun control program ( not just the registry) had cost 946 million.

SO THERE IS NO WAY JUST THE REGISTRY PART OF THE GUN CONTROL PROGRAM COST 2 BILLION.

That is not true!!

Yes it just cost 942 MILLION more than it should have. So just 1 billion not two

autoworker wrote:

The focus should be on illegal handguns.

Why would that be?

The Dawson shooter used a Beretta CX4 Storm semi-automatic carbine.

The Polytechnique shooter used a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle.

The Connecticut shooter used a Bushmaster .223-caliber semi-automatic assault-style rifle - and it is now being reported that this was the primary weapon:

NBC News wrote:

At a news briefing on Saturday, Chief Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, who led the team that autopsied the victims, said, “All the (injuries) … I know of were caused by the rifle.”

[url=http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/15/15935397-mom-of-suspecte...

All possession or private storage of firearms must be banned within a secure radius of any municipal area, appropriately discussed and defined. Collectors can collect elsewhere. "Sports" shooters can store their guns at the rural shooting range. And hunters can find somewhere to store their weapons before returning to cities. That way, anyone caught in possession of a firearm anywhere in a city can be charged, convicted, and sentenced without having to dig any deeper.

That doesn't solve the problem, but it's a fine and noble start.

Unionist wrote:

That doesn't solve the problem, but it's a fine and noble start.

I'm afraid that country has more wrong with it than just lax gun laws. And I can say for certain that there will be very many Americans who would never in their wildest dreams handover their guns aka "security blankets" to the feds simply because the USSA is in such a state of economic and social decline.

And we can bet that the crooks and banksters running the country into the ground would never dream of forcing the issue of gun control as long as Wall Street's looting of the treasury and enslaving future generations with the debt-based money system is allowed to continue unabated. Generally speaking everything is just peachy for Obama and his real constituents on Wall Street. Legislating gun control would be shooting themselves in the foot at this point.

Unionist wrote:

 

All possession or private storage of firearms must be banned within a secure radius of any municipal area.

 

So someone would need to drive 20 minutes out of their way to pick up their guns before they go on a killing spree?

Unionist wrote:

You're right! Fidel, but this series of threads is really about Canada.I only used the Connecticut example because of the "rifle vs. handgun" conversation.

Alright-alright, always on-topic as usual I see. My stance on the gun registry is that it was scrapped without real approval of Canadians to who it belonged. We paid for it, and the Harpers decided by themselves that Canadians and their expensive gun registry should be separated and parted forever and ever. As a gun owner and sport hunter since I was a teenager, I disagree with the pretenders to the throne in Ottawa, the Harper Government of Canada. It was not their gun registry to dispose of. I don't like decisions like that being made for me without widespread approval of fellow Canadians. It is a very wasteful de-allocation of resources by a very undemocratic and very wasteful government in phony-majority power. They want cleaning out of Ottawa but good.

Boom Boom wrote:

CTV's QP just had John Baird state that in 2011  in Canada there were slightly under 100,000 applications for gun permits, less than 600 were turned down.

A gun permit requires a one-day training course, a restricted gun permit requires a 2 day course.

Both require the applicant to pass a written test.

My 1 day course required a written and practical test.

The restricted portion of my test was just another 20 or so questions tacked on to the non-restricted test.

In order for a Canadian citizen to buy a restricted firearm (pistols and paramilitary rifles like AR15sie bushmaster) they must first show proof of belonging to a gun club that acomodates restricted firearms. 

Not all gun clubs are templated for the same type of bullets. For example the handgun club I belong to is not designed for rifles so if I bought a restricted assault rifle or whatever I still wouldn't be able to use it at my club.

It's illegal to use restricted firearms in Canada anywhere other than at a specifically designed and designated gun range. So it would be illegal for someone in Canada to hunt with a restricted weapon.

The rules behind what is considered restricted and non-restricted is very strange too.  I could post pictures of non-restricted military looking rifles and restricted military looking rifles and not many would be able to tell the difference. It seems like a lot decisions regarding the firearms clasification by the government is based on looks.

There was this whole kefuffle last week, BB, where some committee recommended loosening restrictions and Harper said no (for now, supposedly):

[url=http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/849666--harper-insists-he-won... insists he won’t relax prohibited weapon restrictions[/url]

Quote:

OTTAWA Prime Minister Stephen Harper has issued an unexpected rebuke to his government’s own firearms advisory committee, rejecting its recommendations and suggesting the group’s membership may need revisiting.

Documents obtained by the Coalition for Gun Control reveal the committee advising Public Safety Minister Vic Toews wants some prohibited weapons, including hand guns and assault rifles, reclassified to make them more easily available.

The 14-member group is also pushing to make firearm licences good for at least 10 years, rather than the current five — a measure opposed by police who say the five-year renewals are a chance to weed out unstable gun owners.

These people are sycophants and scum.

Boom Boom wrote:

I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a dscussion here somewhere about Vic Toews and the Conservatives wanting to loosen up the laws around gun control in Canada. After this weekend's tragedy in the USA, can they really be that bloody insensitive???

YES THEY CAN. It means money for their election rigging campaigns.

Unionist wrote:

There was this whole kefuffle last week, BB, where some committee recommended loosening restrictions and Harper said no (for now, supposedly):

 

Thanks - appreciated.

Unionist wrote:

Rabble column by Linda McQuaig:

[url=http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/12/growing-power-canadian-gun-lobby]The growing power of the Canadian gun lobby[/url]

Quote:

That same lobby is now insisting that it's heartless to talk about gun control at a time when we should be mourning and hugging our kids.

That quote may apply to some, but there is a lot of middle ground on both sides of that issue, and with respect to this tragedy. Reading that bold quote made me think of Vic Toews's "with us or with the terrorists/paedophiles" line of reasoning.

There are just as many people arguing that this is justification more guns, more Jesus, and suspicion of everything from black clothes to mental illness. And they're all absolutely sure that they are right, because after all, kids got killed, and how can you argue with that? So pointing a finger at the gun lobby for this tactic is a bit hypocritical.

As I have said a few times, I don't think it is just the zealots on the right who scuttled the gun registry.

Um... I read the story Unionist, before I posted. And seems to me it was primarily about assault rifles, not the gun registry in general. McQuaig said that while people have been focusing on the registry the question of prohibited weapons has not received the attention it deserves.

And regarding your second paragraph, I was refering to zealots. Not all people on the right and left. There are many people and organizations with many different takes on this issue. Not just yours and mine.

Because I'd say some form of gun control is a good thing, Unionist. And as for the split, there are also the questions of public safety and personal freedom, as well as crime and the need to have the tools to do one's job. All of these are issues which both cut across demographics, and polarize.

I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this, because I agree with you on the general question of gun control, though I disagree with you on some of the specific points.

More importantly though, my point wasn't about the gun control issue so much as people using this tragedy to buttress their absolute certainty about their positions, whether it be gun control or Jesus. In that sense, I see the bold quote as a bit hypocritical.

Argue whatever you want, Unionist. And use this tragedy as justification if you wish (though I find it very touchy, absurd, and I think it damages credibility more than it bolsters it).

But to call down others for doing exactly the same thing? That is nothing but hypocrisy.

(edit)

And since you ask, yes, I think making law based primarily on reacton to a tragedy rather than reasoned consideration is a sure way to fuck it up. I think that is part of the reason why our registry was needlessly killed.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Argue whatever you want, Unionist. And use this tragedy as justification if you wish (though I find it very touchy, absurd, and I think it damages credibility more than it bolsters it).

But to call down others for doing exactly the same thing? That is nothing but hypocrisy.

 

I'm not calling down anyone for "using this tragedy". I'm suggesting that not all points of view are equally valid. You're very confused and keep repeating "hypocrisy". What are you talking about??

I "use" the plight of the Afghan people to condemn foreign invasion and occupation. Someone else "uses" it to justify intervention to save the women and children. If I call down their propaganda, is that "hypocrisy"?

In any event, what I see happening is Canada, outside Québec, beating a retreat from the need for more severe gun control. It's reflected in Trudeau's pandering, in Boivin's new "let's control the owners" discourse, and in the comments of more than a few babblers who are progressive-minded and whose general views on almost everything I share. "Hug your children" can't erase the last massacre and can't prevent the next one.

This thread is not about the Connecticut massacre. McQuaig made a passing reference to it. I'm not using that massacre to prove or justify anything. I made my comments in the thread dedicated to that issue, especially in response to Michael Stewart's article, which seemed to be saying much of what you are (he said he didn't want to get in involved in some "circus" of debate over gun control and other issues).

As I said there, this is Canada. And Québec. We have similar problems, but we are not responsible for, nor able to change, the brutal reality that is that diseased and vicious society to the south of us. We should concentrate on the changes that can and must be made by us - here.

That's what this thread is about. I'm hoping Québec won't be content just to institute its own registry (though no other province appears to be interested), but that much more stringent measures will be debated. As for the rest of Canada, we should ensure that the NDP doesn't simply yield to apathy as it has on so many other issues (remember the Afghan detainees? No?).

rewording post

I went to the website linked by Linda McQuaig - wow, three pages of scary-looking high powered asault-type weapons available online from just one outfit (part of a chain of 42 stores across the country). That's just nuts. They also have a used fully automatic machine gun available, but you need to have a prohibited weapons license.

Meanwhile, found this:

From Newtown to Afghanistan: Connecting the dots of a violent society

excerpt:   If you create lethal weapons and spread them widely among the populace, you should not be surprised when they discharge and kill people.

excerpt:  We need to start connecting the dots and realizing that the violence we mete out to the world will come back to haunt us a thousand-fold.

Boom Boom wrote:

I went to the website linked by Linda McQuaig - wow, three pages of scary-looking high powered asault-type weapons available online from just one outfit (part of a chain of 42 stores across the country). That's just nuts. T

I'm curious to see that, could you pass along the link please?

Boom Boom wrote:

I've seen posts over the years from [s]Americans[/s] (and Canadians) boasting of upwards of 50 high powered guns in their homes with easy access and no trigger locks, and sometimes in full view when you walk into the house.

Highly illegal in Canada and should be reported when someone brags/boasts about that.

As a registered firearm owner I can have the police enter my house without a warrant to inspect that my guns are properly locked up and ammunition is locked away (and kept seperate).

Boom Boom wrote:

Presumably each of those households in Switzerland has been trained in the use of their weapon, and keeps it under lock and key, and the ammo as well. I've seen posts over the years from Americans (and Canadians) boasting of upwards of 50 high powered guns in their homes with easy access and no trigger locks, and sometimes in full view when you walk into the house.

Which speaks to the different cultures found in both countries. I would include Canada almost in switzerland except for the fact, due to the various forms of media (TV movies etc) our culture blends a little too much with that of the US

This is an eye opener!  Swiss Army Life

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.

Thanks Boom Boom. That was an interesting article, caught a few things that raised my eyebrow though.

Here's a question that I am trying to understand because for the life of me I can't seem to understand the perspective a lot of people seem to have.  Assault rifles are bad and seem to be the big thing everyone is talking about.

What then is the big difference between the semi-automatic AR15 Bushmaster   assault rifle

http://www.cabelas.com/semiautomatic-bushmaster-firearms-15-rifles-4.shtml (used in the recent murders last week)  and semi-automatic hunting rifles?

Lets say one of the following-

Browning BAR ShortTrac in .308- http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=002B&ci...

Benelli R1- http://www.benelliusa.com/rifles/benelli-r1-rifle.php

Remmington Autoloading Model 750™ Woodsmaster http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/a...

1 is a poster child assault rifle (bushmaster, which is actually just a brand name) and the other 3 are hunting rifles.

All 4 of those rifles are semi-automatic so every squeeze of the trigger fires a shot.

The hunting rifles  use not only the same light bullet that the assault rifle uses but also heavier bullets that weight up to 3 or 4 times as much meaning they hit a lot harder.  Hunting rifles will have 2 to 3 times the rangeof an assault rifle.  The bullets more common to hunting rifles will also have more penitration power meaning it can travel through objects people are hiding behind easier for example.

The only difference I can see is a marginal rate of fire. A semiautomatic hunting rifle will usually have a magazine of no more than 5 bullets. Assault rifles can accept 20 and 30 bullets at once, though, changing a magazine in a hunting rifle might take all of 2 or 3 seconds.

Adding "military-grade" to the name of something SOUNDS scary but it doesn't change anything really about the gun.  Actually military-grade weapons probably means that the weapons were made by the lowest bidder.

Why are assault rifles more dangerous than more powerful longer range harder hitting hunting rifles?

I don't have an assault rifle nor would I ever buy one I'm just interested in some of the misconceptions people have in Canada about firearms.

I used to have a tiny collection of Winchester hunting rifles in the 1980s, which I disposed of long ago. Single action bolt, lever action, and a semi-auto. None of them had a magazine larger than 5 cartridges.

Assault-looking rifles I think owe their popularity to the readily accessibility of large magazine rounds, and that some people - gun nuts - think they look "cool".  All this is speculation on my part, though. I doubt they're as accurate as genuine hunting rifles.

Sadly not true. Switzerland is behind the united states, canada and even finland. And the vast majority of the handgun deaths are suicides, if you were looking at violence done to others, its near the bottom behind Israel, India, canada, greece, even luxembourg!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_...

Have you read the application for a posession and acquisition license, Unionist?

A license already is (like a driver's license) a privilege not a right, and the application includes a series of questions (some as invasive and insulting as they are absurd) that concern that onus you are talking about. I expect many here would scream bloody murder if they were asked of any demographic other than people who use firearms.

Thing is, law doesn't mean a damned thing without the means and the will to enforce it. It's no different with firearms than it is with booze, drugs, or anything else.

Hey Winston, I put (most of) my demands on the table. If you give me the rest, I'll withdraw that one.

See, I believe that the problems with guns (which include accidents, by the way - so much for "guns don't kill people, people kill people") can be largely solved by making them as difficult to find as possible.

As for human beings who shoots guns - that's a far greater problem. Its solution is inseparable from the violence and anti-human essence of the culture and the society as a whole. That problem needs to be addressed independently of the issue of guns.