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

400 posts / 0 new

Wed, 2012-12-19 23:27

6079_Smith_W

A possession and acquisition license already is 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, taxation, non-discrimination or anything else.

On the other side of the equation, I expect that for some no burden of proof would be sufficient to allow firearms use. There are certainly those who make that argument.

So I am not sure "we" have any solid consensus here.

Wed, 2012-12-19 23:34

#103

6079_Smith_W

No, it seems clear enough, and I understand what you are saying, even if we don't agree on all the points.

But I also don't agree that making them as hard to get as possible is necessarily the best strategy in the long run. There have been enough instances in which that has made the problem even worse.

Thu, 2012-12-20 16:03

#104

Unionist

[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+intention+losing+court+battle... won't back down on gun registry[/url]

Quote:

Stéphane Bergeron, Quebec’s public security minister, plans to introduce a bill next year to create a gun registry for Quebec.

“Quebec is the only jurisdiction in Canada where you still have to register long guns,” Bergeron said Wednesday at the end of a weekly meeting of the provincial cabinet. [...]

Jacques Duchesneau, a former Montreal police chief who now is the Coalition Avenir Québec MNA for Saint-Jérôme, recalled that he led the police investigation into the Montreal Massacre.

“The firearms registry is a very important working tool for the police, but above all a working tool that saves lives,” Duchesneau told the assembly.

Liberal MNA Robert Poëti, a former Sûreté du Québec spokesman, said his party also agrees Quebec should have a gun registry.

Thu, 2012-12-20 16:38

#105

Sandy Dillon

When Quebec re-instates the long gun registry for that province and they charge 5 bucks per year per long gun registration fee AND THAT registry becomes self supporting (no tax dollars needed) I THINK THE CRAP IS GOING TO HIT THE FAN (FEDERALLY) BIG TIME.

The feds will have egg on their faces AND THEY KNOW IT!!

#1. That is why they wanted all the data distroyed.

#2. That is why they will NEVER EVER tell us exactly how much they saved by scrapping just the long gun registry part of the whole gun control program!

AND THAT IS A FACT FOLKS.

Fri, 2012-12-21 01:36

#106

Brian White

Australia wanted to stop mass murder by young men and they succeeded. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20765259

"Australia introduced tough restrictions on weapons following the killing of 35 people in 1996 by gunman Martin Bryant.

The killings created a national outcry and within weeks, the government introduced a nationwide gun buy-back scheme which lead to 750,000 weapons being handed over." and" the USA loses 25 people a day to gun homocides and 45 people a day to gun suicides". An american woman is horrified today that I ask for banning of any kind of gun. (She wants women to have guns to prevent rape). (I would be happy enouth if only women had guns), after all it is almost always young guys from 15 to 35 who do the killing.

Fri, 2012-12-21 17:03

#107

Sandy Dillon

In all our identical mass shootings Montreal’s École Polytechnique,Dawson College and in a lot of American mass shootings this latest one in Newtown and Virginia tech!!!

None of these shooters to my knowledge had a crinimal record BEFORE they went on these shooting sprees!!!

So these people are one of you people who take great pride in calling ALL GUN OWNERS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, They are part of your gun toting culture!! They are your kind of people!!

GET IT? You need to clean up your own gun toting culture!!

You can start by demanding every single gun owner have a mental evaluation he or she passes they keep thier guns you fail you lose your guns and your right to own a gun!

GOOD START AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. Same for the N.R.A. these are a part of your gun cult these are not convicted criminals doing this mass killing!

Fri, 2012-12-21 17:24

#108

Serviam6

Sandy Dillon wrote:

You can start by demanding every single gun owner have a mental evaluation he or she passes they keep thier guns you fail you lose your guns and your right to own a gun!

GOOD START AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

But just demanding isn't enough.

There is already a shortage of doctors all over Canada, where do you intend to find all the doctors to evaluate the millions of gun owners in Canada?

Where do you intend to find the money to pay for the doctors?

There is already a long waiting list for people with mental ilness to get in and see doctors, what happens to them when their appointments are pushed back months?

Someones mental state is not a constant, it can change over time. How often do you suggest gun owners undergo a mental evaluation? Every 10 years, every 5, every year? Every time people undergo this evaluation it will be millions of dollars.

Good ideas aren't enough to sway the government, we need practical solutions. This solution is not practical. We do not have the money for it and what money WOULD be spent on it would be taken away from others who need it more significantly (if you pit the number of Canadians who commit mass murder against Canadians who suffer from mental illness)

Fri, 2012-12-21 18:59

#109

6079_Smith_W

Sandy Dillon wrote:

So these people are one of you people who take great pride in calling ALL GUN OWNERS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, They are part of your gun toting culture!! They are your kind of people!!

GET IT? You need to clean up your own gun toting culture!!

I think we should start by purging some of the other dangerous cults of people who might snap at any time hiding beneath calm exteriors - like those who drink beverages out of glass bottles and people who insist on using metal kitchen knives.

But I'll be sure to pass the advice on to my good friends in the NRA

(there.... I broke down and made the joke)

Sat, 2012-12-22 06:51

#110

Sandy Dillon

Something I heard yesterday. Apparently at Columbine there was an armed guard on duty and another showed up soon after the shooting started THE report states neither could stop the shooting.

SO MUCH FOR THE N.R.A.'s idea eh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:

The second officer was Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket. When he heard a dispatch of a woman injured at the high school, he responded. He, too, fired at Harris but didn't stop him.

Sat, 2012-12-22 06:54

#111

Sandy Dillon

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

So these people are one of you people who take great pride in calling ALL GUN OWNERS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, They are part of your gun toting culture!! They are your kind of people!!

GET IT? You need to clean up your own gun toting culture!!

I think we should start by purging some of the other dangerous cults of people who might snap at any time hiding beneath calm exteriors - like those who drink beverages out of glass bottles and people who insist on using metal kitchen knives.

But I'll be sure to pass the advice on to my good friends in the NRA

(there.... I broke down and made the joke)

Kids getting killed by a nut case using an assault rifle is nothing to joke about. get some help!

Sat, 2012-12-22 06:57

#112

Sandy Dillon

Serviam6 wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

You can start by demanding every single gun owner have a mental evaluation he or she passes they keep thier guns you fail you lose your guns and your right to own a gun!

GOOD START AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

But just demanding isn't enough.

There is already a shortage of doctors all over Canada, where do you intend to find all the doctors to evaluate the millions of gun owners in Canada?

Where do you intend to find the money to pay for the doctors?

There is already a long waiting list for people with mental ilness to get in and see doctors, what happens to them when their appointments are pushed back months?

Someones mental state is not a constant, it can change over time. How often do you suggest gun owners undergo a mental evaluation? Every 10 years, every 5, every year? Every time people undergo this evaluation it will be millions of dollars.

Good ideas aren't enough to sway the government, we need practical solutions. This solution is not practical. We do not have the money for it and what money WOULD be spent on it would be taken away from others who need it more significantly (if you pit the number of Canadians who commit mass murder against Canadians who suffer from mental illness)

I have a solution for you JUST use the money you saved by getting the long gun registry scrapped. HOWS THAT?

Sat, 2012-12-22 09:17

#113

6079_Smith_W

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Kids getting killed by a nut case using an assault rifle is nothing to joke about. get some help!

Well see that's the problem with the implication that this is all "your" gun-toting culture's fault and responsibility to fix up. And that all gun owners are the same kind of people as mass murderers and violent criminals. There are far more violent crimes in Canada committed with knives, but we don't question the sanity, morals and politics of someone who might happen to have one in the kitchen.

By that same logic those knife attackers and murderers are "our" people. Does that say anything significant about us? Or is it just a slur?

It's not the registration aspect of this that I question; I support registration. But the implication that this can be fixed by watching all gun owners like hawks and demanding they prove thieir sanity, that this is all their collective fault, and the notion that there is something inherently suspect about owning a firearm is absolute nonsense. It won't solve the problem, and frankly, I think it is part of the problem, and one reason why the registry was struck down.

Sat, 2012-12-22 09:29

#114

6079_Smith_W

New pic on facebook today:

And this.... the trained cops accidentally shot all nine bystanders at the Empire State Building shooting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-...

Sat, 2012-12-22 11:30

#115

Serviam6

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Serviam6 wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

You can start by demanding every single gun owner have a mental evaluation he or she passes they keep thier guns you fail you lose your guns and your right to own a gun!

GOOD START AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

But just demanding isn't enough.

There is already a shortage of doctors all over Canada, where do you intend to find all the doctors to evaluate the millions of gun owners in Canada?

Where do you intend to find the money to pay for the doctors?

There is already a long waiting list for people with mental ilness to get in and see doctors, what happens to them when their appointments are pushed back months?

Someones mental state is not a constant, it can change over time. How often do you suggest gun owners undergo a mental evaluation? Every 10 years, every 5, every year? Every time people undergo this evaluation it will be millions of dollars.

Good ideas aren't enough to sway the government, we need practical solutions. This solution is not practical. We do not have the money for it and what money WOULD be spent on it would be taken away from others who need it more significantly (if you pit the number of Canadians who commit mass murder against Canadians who suffer from mental illness)

I have a solution for you JUST use the money you saved by getting the long gun registry scrapped. HOWS THAT?

That is a flawless idea. We could probably employ the same people who ran the gun registry in organizing and running this new national psych evaluation too, what could go wrong?

Sat, 2012-12-22 21:58

#116

Sean in Ottawa

So imagine this-- Teachers being presured to bring weapons-- what about ones who are suffering form mental illness? Those who don't even know they are?

So are we to expect a suicide of a teacher by gun in front of a class on a bad day? Or worse kids killed by teachers?

I bet a lot of teachers won't want this either. (I only say a lot of becuase we are talking about the US with their gun religion)

Sat, 2012-12-22 22:08

#117

6079_Smith_W

@ Sean

It's absolutely completely out to lunch (except perhaps in one of those counties where they have already passed legislation forcing EVERYONE to carry guns). I think it is pretty clear from the general reacton that the NRA fucked up on this one.

Good, I say.

Sat, 2012-12-22 22:42

#118

Boom Boom

PR experts agree: The NRA press conference was a disaster

Sat, 2012-12-22 22:59

#119

Serviam6

The NRA should have STFU.

I think it was dateline that did a show on students with concealed weapons. They gave some students pistols with some kind of paint ball bullets and sent them to class and told them they would be calle dout of class later in the day but everyone had to wear eye protection just because they were armed. Sure enough pretend shooters would come into the large university type classroom and start shooting people with their own paint bullets. It went exactly how you expected where the armed students didn't pull their guns out, COULDN'T get their guns out, missed the shooters.

A huge problem with the NRA in the US is how deep they have their hands in politics and the races for president. You tell the NRA to piss off and come election time that's a lot of votes you loose.

Sat, 2012-12-22 23:05

#120

6079_Smith_W

Though this is not the first time the NRA (and LaPierre) have been here. George HW Bush's 1995 resignation letter from the NRA has been making the rounds today:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/george-h-w-bush-resigned-lifetime-n...

And I cross-posted with you Serviam6. From the Dec 19 New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/the-nra-protection-racket.html...

Sun, 2012-12-23 06:21

#121

Sandy Dillon

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Kids getting killed by a nut case using an assault rifle is nothing to joke about. get some help!

Well see that's the problem with the implication that this is all "your" gun-toting culture's fault and responsibility to fix up. And that all gun owners are the same kind of people as mass murderers and violent criminals. There are far more violent crimes in Canada committed with knives, but we don't question the sanity, morals and politics of someone who might happen to have one in the kitchen.

By that same logic those knife attackers and murderers are "our" people. Does that say anything significant about us? Or is it just a slur?

It's not the registration aspect of this that I question; I support registration. But the implication that this can be fixed by watching all gun owners like hawks and demanding they prove thieir sanity, that this is all their collective fault, and the notion that there is something inherently suspect about owning a firearm is absolute nonsense. It won't solve the problem, and frankly, I think it is part of the problem, and one reason why the registry was struck down.

Recently there have been two attacks on school children one with a knife one with an assault rifle SO HERE is your question IN WHICH ATTACK WERE THERE KIDS KILLED?

You just don't get it! WE NEED to control guns because (now listen up) a gun is the most effective (personal) killing tool ever invented by mankind! HINT that is why when we go to war we arm our troops with mainly assualt rifles !!

Sun, 2012-12-23 06:31

#122

Sandy Dillon

THE REGISTRY DIDN'T WORK???

So now if your rifle gets stolen it will be gone for good HINT no way to trace it back to you NO WAY for the cops to return your stolen rifle to you!

JUST ONE ASPECT OF THE REGISTRY PEOPLE (GUN TOTERS) love to ignore!

Must be nice to be that rich the high cost of a stolen rifle doesn't affect you. I guess the insurance company could come good for it IF YOU could prove you had the rifle. SEEMS to me a lot of law abiding gun owners don't want anybody to know they have a rifle so insurance companys might be on that list to.

OH NO OFFICER KEEP THE RIFLE I HAD STOLEN I DON'T WANT IT BACK!!!

REAL BRIGHT!!

Sun, 2012-12-23 06:45

#123

Sandy Dillon

Like I tried to explain to the gun owners here. These people that snap are your kind of people they go shoot at the same ranges you go to they hunt in the same areas some of you hunt in THEY ARE ONE OF YOU.

To my knowledge not one of these school shooters had a previous crinimal record THEY WERE ALL according to you gun owners law abiding citizens.

YOU PEOPLE need to be paying closer attention to your gun toting crowd AND REPORT anybody that you have concerns about.

LIKE HELP CLEAN UP YOUR OWN BACKYARD SO TO SPEAK.

Maybe your scared of another guy that has a gun too is that why you wouldn't think of turning in one of your fellow law abiding citizens??

If you don't want the government policing your guns maybe you should start policing your own gun culture.

So far you haven't been doing a very good job of it HENCE the need for gun laws.

EXAMPLE: This kid that went nutty and killed all those kids his mother (owner of the assault rifle he used) use to take him to the shooting range. A lot of kids that knew him when he was in school noticed he had problems SEEMS no other shooters at the rifle range noticed and if they did they turned a blind eye!! AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED.

Sun, 2012-12-23 07:46

#124

Sandy Dillon

The pro gun types love to talk about Switzerland as being a role model for the more guns scenerio less gun homicides.

WHAT THEY don't talk about is the strict gun control laws. GET THIS THEY EVEN REGISTER THE AMMO IN Switzerland !!!

Here are some of the other gun control laws they have on the books:

In Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms,44 incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns'45

Regulation of Automatic Assault Weapons
In Switzerland, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited

Sun, 2012-12-23 07:55

#125

Sandy Dillon

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6766770_switzerland-gun-safety.html

Firearm Features

While serving in the militia, males are supplied with fully automatic firearms. When service in the militia is completed, males are given the option of keeping their firearm but need to have the fully-automatic function on their rifle removed.

Ammunition Control

Ammunition possessed by militia members for their firearms at home must be kept sealed and is strictly accounted for by the government. Ammunition for privately held firearms is also registered. Unregistered ammunition is sold at government subsidized shooting ranges although it is required by law that all bullets must be used at the shooting range before leaving.

Documenting the Transfer of Firearms

Individuals who sell their firearms to other private individuals need to document the sale through a private contract between both individuals. Documentation of the contract needs to be kept for 10 years after the sale.

In Canada rifle owners do not have to do anything like this BECAUSE NOW (since scrapping the long gun registry) they can sell their long guns to anybody they please NO GD QUESTIONS ASKED!!

LIKE HELLO!!!

Sun, 2012-12-23 10:33

#126

6079_Smith_W

@ Sandy Dillon

Riiight....

Because everyone who owns a firearm is a sport hunter and we all spend our time hanging out at rifle ranges with all the bullied students, disgruntled people and others who are on the edge of violent breakdowns (because obviously they are all hanging out there too).

Sorry, but that's not actually how it is.

Sun, 2012-12-23 10:57

#127

Boom Boom

"Talking about gun violence without talking about the guns is like talking about lung cancer without talking about cigarettes" - Chuck Schumer

Sun, 2012-12-23 11:00

#128

Serviam6

Sandy Dillon wrote:

You just don't get it! WE NEED to control guns because (now listen up) a gun is the most effective (personal) killing tool ever invented by mankind! HINT that is why when we go to war we arm our troops with mainly assualt rifles !!

Knowing this isn;t just about school shootings, criminals use firearms in their activities. Sometimes legally purchased firearms, often black market and illegal firearms. Do you have a plan to stop illegal firearms?

Sandy Dillon wrote:

THE REGISTRY DIDN'T WORK???

So now if your rifle gets stolen it will be gone for good HINT no way to trace it back to you NO WAY for the cops to return your stolen rifle to you!

JUST ONE ASPECT OF THE REGISTRY PEOPLE (GUN TOTERS) love to ignore!

One of the points of contention with gun owners opposing the registry is the worry (fear?) that as in times past, the government will decide that all model 3 blue rifles are now illegal. This means if you registered your model 3 blue rifle the police will call you (come to your door) and say you are in possession of an illegal weapon, you must turn it in to be destroyed. The government MAY offer some sort of monitary compensation for the weapon to be destroyed, but do you think it's likely? I don't.

On top of that. Years ago in Toronto the poilce had a gun amnesty. If you had firearms that you didn't want you could turn your firearms into the police and the police will DESTROY them. (you can trust the police right?)

"This is all a part of a project to KEEP GUNS OFF THE STREET and KEEP OUR STREETS SAFER" (thats a noble thing right?)

Not in this case.

It was discovered that the Toronto police took the firearms that Canadian gun owners turned in to be destroyed (to keep the streets safe) and ended up SELLING THEM back to firearm owners at a police auction. This was to help the police get money in order for them to, surprise, better protect the citizens.

Are you LOLing yet?

Quote:
So now if your rifle gets stolen it will be gone for good HINT no way to trace it back to you NO WAY for the cops to return your stolen rifle to you!

Quote:
Must be nice to be that rich the high cost of a stolen rifle doesn't affect you. I guess the insurance company could come good for it IF YOU could prove you had the rifle. SEEMS to me a lot of law abiding gun owners don't want anybody to know they have a rifle so insurance companys might be on that list to.

OH NO OFFICER KEEP THE RIFLE I HAD STOLEN I DON'T WANT IT BACK!!!

REAL BRIGHT!!

You're overlooking something. If I have a firearm stolen I can (and should) choose to report it to the police. I tell them that my model 3 green rifle was stolen along with whatever else. I give the police the description of my rifle AND my rifles serial number.

Now the police have my name, a description AND the serial number of the rifle. They put it in the system and if a rifle with that serial number pops up PRESTO, it belongs to me. It's not that hard.

There is a big chance, as anyone who has registered firearms in the past can attest to, the information about my firearms in the national gun registry could be wrong. Tell me how exactly are the police going to trace a model 3 green rifle BACK to me when the national gun registry has my incorrect name, a wrong description of the gun and an incorrect serial number? They put it in their computer and it comes up that there is no Mr so and so at this address that doesn't exist.

What happens to my expensive firearm then? Are the police going to spend years trying to track me down and solve the puzzle of who the rifle belongs to? Call every Mr Smith (smythe?) in the phone book until they find me? Or are they going to just destroy the gun, OR sell it at a police auction?

If my firearms get stolen i would rather deal directly with the police than a 2 million (ha, just kidding 1 billion dollar) system that doesn't work and is full of inaccurcies.

Sun, 2012-12-23 11:33

#129

Serviam6

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Sandy Dillon

Riiight....

Because everyone who owns a firearm is a sport hunter and we all spend our time hanging out at rifle ranges with all the bullied students, disgruntled people and others who are on the edge of violent breakdowns (because obviously they are all hanging out there too).

Sorry, but that's not actually how it is.

I'm getting a feeling that ship has sailed. All gun owners are a psyche evaluation away from snapping. Just like any parent with a bath tub should be viewed with suspicion.

Sun, 2012-12-23 17:39

#130

Sandy Dillon

Serviam6 wrote:

If my firearms get stolen i would rather deal directly with the police than a 2 million (ha, just kidding 1 billion dollar) system that doesn't work and is full of inaccurcies.

First fact if the registry was inacurate part of that blame should lie on your shoulders for giving the wrong info! Number 2 it did not cost a billion dollars just to register long guns in this country WHY IN FUCK DO YOU INSIST ON LYING ABOUT THAT FACT!!

In 2005 the auditor general tabled a report stating that up to that date the gun control program had cost 946 million.

THAT IS TOTAL COST FOR THE WHOLE PROGRAM NOT JUST THE LONG GUN REGISTRY!!

That cost included start-up cost ( buying computers and computer programs to store the data) the licensing of gun owners, background checks, salaries of the people who worked at the firearms center. safety courses for new gun owners the hand gun registry and the long gun registry!! That was also a 10 year total cost.

GET IT? NOW STOP GD LYING ABOUT IT! YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED NO NEED TO LIE ANYMORE!! Or do you want the government to do away with all gun controls?

Funny how some Conservative loving sheep are o.k. with costing the gun control program over it's life span but they are not o.k. with costing the F-35 over it's projected life time cost!!

WHY IS THAT?

Sun, 2012-12-23 19:23

#131

Serviam6

Sandy Dillon wrote:

First fact if the registry was inacurate part of that blame should lie on your shoulders for giving the wrong info!

Sorry Sandy, all the information I gave was accurate. My fathers too. Also my cousins, uncles and, I'm just guessing here, many many other Canadians.

Nice try trying to blame me for the government fucking up it's record keeping though.

Also I think you should check your keyboard because your CAPS key seems to be getting stuck here and there.

Quote:
Funny how some Conservative loving sheep are o.k. with costing the gun control program over it's life span but they are not o.k. with costing the F-35 over it's projected life time cost!!

WHY IS THAT?

Conservitives, sheep F35s and guncontrol??

Are you trying to say the cannons on the F35 should be phorhibited or just restricted to us gun toting types?

Mon, 2012-12-24 05:45

#132

Sandy Dillon

[quote=Serviam6]

Sorry Sandy, all the information I gave was accurate. My fathers too. Also my cousins, uncles and, I'm just guessing here, many many other Canadians.

Nice try trying to blame me for the government fucking up it's record keeping though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why don't you explain how they screwed up your info???

Notice you never addressed your lying about the cost of the long gun registry!

So why don't you explain why you keep lying about the costs OF JUST THE LONG GUN REGISTRY?

Would you also lie about the Firearms center screwing up your info? Well if ya lie about the costs WHY NOT THAT TOO?

Mon, 2012-12-24 10:13

#133

Serviam6

Sandy Dillon wrote:

So why don't you explain how they screwed up your info???

Well Sandy you're starting to scare me a little bit but I'll still try and answer..

How did they screw it up? It's rather simple you see. I gave my name, address and different firearm make, models calibers and serial numbers to the government. They put the information into their computers and made fancy little cards and mailed them back to me. When the cards came back to me they had various mistakes. My name was spelt wrong on some, on others the make and model of the gun was wrong, on others the serial numbers were wrong.

I could be lying though right? I could have gave the wrong information on purpose because I thought fucking with the government about my thousands of dollars worth of guns was a smart idea.

Quote:

Notice you never addressed your lying about the cost of the long gun registry!

Oops, it's not 1 billion, it's only 950 million. I rounded up because 1 billion is a lot closer to 950 million than 950 million is to 2 million.

Quote:

So why don't you explain why you keep lying about the costs OF JUST THE LONG GUN REGISTRY?

For all intensive purposes it's 1 billion. Buy the time it was canceled it was probably OVER 1 billion anyways.

Quote:

Would you also lie about the Firearms center screwing up your info? Well if ya lie about the costs WHY NOT THAT TOO?

[s]I'm not the only Canadian who's information was fucked up by the registry people[/s] WHEN AM I GETTING MY F35 CANNON SANDY?

Mon, 2012-12-24 12:20

#134

Boom Boom

On CNN right now: "The Republican party is not jumping aboard the NRA plan". applause

Mon, 2012-12-24 16:52

#135

Sandy Dillon

Latest news 2 firemen shot answering a call to a fire.

Now let me guess what the gun nuts at the N.R.A. will have to say about a solution to this shooting!

An armed guard on every fire truck? Well going by their response to the shool shooting I'd say that is a good guess!!

Mon, 2012-12-24 16:57

#136

Sandy Dillon

Once more for you know who's sake:::

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 LONG GUN REGISTRY PART OF THE GUN CONTROL PROGRAM COST 2 BILLION.

That is not true!! NOT EVEN CLOSE!!

Mon, 2012-12-24 17:04

#137

Sandy Dillon

Boom Boom wrote:

On CNN right now: "The Republican party is not jumping aboard the NRA plan".

About time!

Mon, 2012-12-24 17:16

#138

Sandy Dillon

The last time I'm going to explain this::::::

In March of 2005 the auditor general tabled a report on the cost of the ""WHOLE"" gun control program. Up until that date she said the """WHOLE""" gun control program had cost 946 million. THAT FIGURE INCLUDED :: the 10 years it had been in force,the licensing of gun owners,the handgun registry, the long gun registry, safety courses for new gun owners ,background checks for new gun owners PLUS start-up cost which included buying computers and computer programs to store the data plus the salaries of the people who worked at the firearm center. NOT JUST THE LONG GUN REGISTRY.

NO GD WAY DID IT COST OR HAD IT EVER COST A BILLION DOLLARS JUST TO REGISTER LONG GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY.

THAT IS A TOTAL BAREFACED LIE!

Mon, 2012-12-24 17:18

#139

Bacchus

All that is part of the long gun registry. Sorry Sandy but using caps and sounding like an insane person really doesnt change that. And repeating that serviam is just lying since he already accepted the 946million basically 1 billion dollar correction

Mon, 2012-12-24 17:55

#140

Sandy Dillon

Bacchus wrote:

All that is part of the long gun registry. Sorry Sandy but using caps and sounding like an insane person really doesnt change that. And repeating that serviam is just lying since he already accepted the 946million basically 1 billion dollar correction

No it is not my friend the long gun registry is part of the whole gun control program you have it backwards!!

Mon, 2012-12-24 18:19

#141

Bacchus

Yes but its a program that came into force with the long gun registry so really its all one and the same. Different terms for the same thing. Why argue about semantics? The Liberals fucked it up and caused it to be a bloated mess or they knew it would be a lot more money and lied about it to get it done to begin with. Either way, it was crap.

Personally I would prefer a simple registry with a one time low fee so no one can complain

Tue, 2012-12-25 09:33

#142

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Sandy Dillon wrote:

The last time I'm going to explain this::::::

In March of 2005 the auditor general tabled a report on the cost of the ""WHOLE"" gun control program. Up until that date she said the """WHOLE""" gun control program had cost 946 million. THAT FIGURE INCLUDED :: the 10 years it had been in force,the licensing of gun owners,the handgun registry, the long gun registry, safety courses for new gun owners ,background checks for new gun owners PLUS start-up cost which included buying computers and computer programs to store the data plus the salaries of the people who worked at the firearm center. NOT JUST THE LONG GUN REGISTRY.

NO GD WAY DID IT COST OR HAD IT EVER COST A BILLION DOLLARS JUST TO REGISTER LONG GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY.

THAT IS A TOTAL BAREFACED LIE!

Sandy Dillion your contributions to the thread are extensive and interesting, but the "colourful language" of accusing your fellow babblers of constant lying is not constructive and does not have a place on babble and have already received a separate warning. If you continue to post on this thread, please do not use aggressive or accusatory language to fellow babblers.

Tue, 2012-12-25 11:56

#143

Rikardo

A regretful confession: I was naivly taken in by (gun control organizers) Heidi R and Wendy C's UTOPIAN logic in the confusion after the polytechnique shooting. I may have given as much as $100 to their dream (I had a certificate from them). I and everyone has paid a lot in our taxes of course. FAILURE is the right word and I was glad to hear J. Trudeau use it. I remember calling about my Dad'S old 22 to be told I had to take a course on gun handling.

Tue, 2012-12-25 12:50

#144

6079_Smith_W

Rikardo, I don't think there is anyone posting here who doesn't support gun control in principle. But it is a long stretch from that to equating people who own guns with psychopaths, and the inplication that ownership is inherently suspect.

That, in my mind, was the biggest mistake the Liberals made when they introduced it - that, and putting a minister in charge who said openly that he felt the only people who should have firearms are police and the military. We don't hesitate to mention ulterior political motives when they are directed at us from the right. How would you expect a room full of rural residents to react, knowing who Jean Chretien entrusted that portfolio to? What answer would you give to them when they sais the real plan was to take all their guns away?

Does it matter whether that was a real plan or not? To me the idea the PM didn't think about the grief and humiliation that would result (or perhaps he did) is even more significant.

I think that gulf of understanding, and the fact that the Liberals poisoned the well by going way beyond the idea of public safety is the main reason the registry has been struck down, and one of the greatest barriers to a reasonable law.

Tue, 2012-12-25 14:25

#145

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rikardo, I don't think there is anyone posting here who doesn't support gun control in principle.

Of all the tripe posted in the last few days, that one really makes the meal.

Tue, 2012-12-25 14:58

#146

6079_Smith_W

Okay Unionist, whom do you suspect of not supporting any form of gun control? Because I don't think Rikardo's satirical comment applies to anyone's position.

Tue, 2012-12-25 15:07

#147

Unionist

Every single individual here who has not agitated for any specific new restrictions on firearms. Everyone here who contnues to demonize the registry after it is gone. Everyone here who repeats the gun lobby's lies that the problem of gun violence lies with flawed individuals. Everyone here who repeats stories about how harmful knives are.

Those are the ones who do not support gun control in principle.

Tue, 2012-12-25 15:33

#148

6079_Smith_W

Oh for heaven sakes U. You read the slur that prompted my comment about knives, and I should think I said clearly enough that it was to point out how absurd the argument was that mass murderers are somehow "my" people any more than they are yours or anyone else's here.

Do you honestly think that refusing to look at the flaws in the implementation of this system is going to serve the interest of public safety? How well has that worked out so far?

How well do you think that head-in-the-sand approach would work with respect to ANY law or policy?

I think I have said enough times that I support a firearms registry, and that I opposed the cancellation of this one, even though I felt it was deeply flawed in a number of ways, and in need of reform.

If you are determined to set me in opposition based on a ridiculous set of terms (including echoing your own position, it would seem) then that is your business, not mine.

Tue, 2012-12-25 15:48

#149

Unionist

That's bizarre, Winston, I honestly didn't have you in mind at all for the reasons you mentioned.

I would, however, care to hear what immediate and urgent legislative measures you think are required in Canada.

Tue, 2012-12-25 16:01

#150

Serviam6

Unionist wrote:
lies that the problem of gun violence lies with flawed individuals.

We should blame law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals and deranged individuals, not the people who commit firearm violence themselves.

It's not the 'flawed individuals' fault, it's us.

Excuse me while I go blame Honda Prelude owners for driving the car in which a drunk driver killed my mom in.

Later we can discuss your use of the word demonize eh?

Tue, 2012-12-25 16:08

#151

6079_Smith_W

Well if you are taking about Serviam6, we don't agree on every point, but he has raised a number of valid and important issues - like accuracy - which critics of the registry will likely not ignore, even if some (not all) supporters have. And I'd say he probably has a better understanding of how the registry actually works than many of the rest of us.

On urgent measures, I think I just said Unionist. I don't think the registry should have been scrapped, and I think if Quebec wants to set up its own registry it is no concern to Ottawa.

On the other side of things, I don't think Harper should have brought in mandatory minimums, including those for use of firearms.

But again, I'm not sure where you are trying to go with a request for my "urgent legislative measures". We both know that not much is going to happen on the federal level anytime soon. I think the approach that is more needed right now is not one of "urgency" at all, but rather a backing away from the high rhetoric. I think the middle road that was being proposed by the NDP around the time of the fall 2010 vote might have actually produced some results, if things had played out differently.

(edit)

ah.... cross posted with you Serviam6

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

Pages