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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandy Dillon wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

What does that have to do with Canadian firearms registration?

OathofStone wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

What does that have to do with Canadian firearms registration?

 

 

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

Unionist wrote:

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

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

Focus Sandy.

Canadian Firearms Registry.

Pathetic and offensive performance.

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

Slumberjack wrote:

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

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

Slumberjack wrote:

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

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

I would only add this:

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

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

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

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

RE::

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So OathofStone where are your sources?  

OathofStone wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

 

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

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

 

How open minded and unbiased of you Sandy.

 

Sandy Dillon wrote:

So OathofStone where are your sources?  

 

 

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

Not into facts much are ya?

Time to ignore I guess!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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

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

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

OathofStone wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update:  Quebec can't preserve part of firearms registry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Since you brought it up....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for me to way in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NorthReport wrote:

;;

What does the above mean?

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

Unionist wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

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

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

I would only add this:

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

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

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

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