Gun Registry - gutting

[slowpoke]

The cost overruns and the registration cost to the gun owners on this were ridiculous but I have no problem with the requirement that all firearms should be registered. The police agree with me because they've been using the registry thousands of times each day. When they show up at a given address, it is helpful for them to know if there are registered weapons inside, including rifles or shotguns. Yes there are still unregistered weapons in the hands of criminals but not all shootings are done by gangbangers with unregistered handguns. There have been plenty of police and civilians killed by rifles and shotguns too. I appreciate what the police are doing on my behalf, so if they want the registry, I say let them have it.

Many legally registered guns are eventually stolen. If a person is caught with one of these stolen weapons, the registration enables the police to trace it back to the time and place of the reported theft. If the stolen gun had been used in a serious crime, this could be useful information. I don't think the cost should be as high as it is so I'd welcome measures to make the registry as efficient as possible and I would even support a fee exemption for long guns in rural areas or predominantly farming communities. But I really can't understand this NRA inspired bullshit about the right to have lethal weapons with no personal accountability.

 

[Truncador]

Luckily in Canada we have the gun registry. It really cuts down on crime. That saved those 600 ( six hundred) police officers from having to round up approx 90 law abiding citizens this morning. Not to profile at all but I'll bet they were all farmers, accountants and dentists. Those guys are just crazy.

The recent police crackdown on gangs in Ontario is remarkable here. With the Liberals out of power, the authorities are no longer able to use gun control as a substitute for cracking down on crime; now they're forced to do so for real instead of pretending to by harassing law-abiding citizens.

 

[LancsLad]

IT is not NRA inspired bullshit. The number of crimes committed in Canada by normal people using firearms that have been registered is minscule compared to the threat posed by the unregistered weapons in the hands of the criminal thugs.

It is just limp dick liberal posturing and smoke screen to suggest otherwise.

As a test lets see from the mass arrests in TO how many where Canadian legal gun owners vs. All other types.
Pathetic whining liitle shits like TOV will spill their lattes over this kind of a statement but tough. Now we have a conservaative government that pledges to be tough on crime we'll see action. There is still the problem of all those bleeding heart liberal appointed judges but they will be managed in time.

 

[burlboy]

Dictators for Dummies

Step 1: Register all firearms in the country

Step 2: Seize all firearms in the country

Step 3: Seize power.

Step 4: Execute anybody that has a problem with step 3.

Step 5: Laugh at all the idiots who gave you the their guns.

Step 6: Be afraid of the guys who didn't give you their guns.

Step 7: Apply for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council

 

[red]

Step 1: Register all firearms in the country

Step 2: Seize all firearms in the country

Step 3: Seize power.

Step 4: Execute anybody that has a problem with step 3.

Step 5: Laugh at all the idiots who gave you the their guns.

Step 6: Be afraid of the guys who didn't give you their guns.

Step 7: Apply for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council

yes. very realistic. here let me help you with the jacket, the buckles are in the back

 

[slowpoke]

The recent police crackdown on gangs in Ontario is remarkable here. With the Liberals out of power, the authorities are no longer able to use gun control as a substitute for cracking down on crime; now they're forced to do so for real instead of pretending to by harassing law-abiding citizens.

Perhaps you'd care to explain the curious mechanism that somehow prevented the Toronto, Peel, York and OPP police forces from initiating this anti-gang crackdown several months ago while the Liberals were still in power. BTW, the police have acknowledged that this latest crackdown was patterned after the successes of the Sept 2005 Pathfinder and Impact raids which took place long before these latest proposals to change mandatory sentencing or to exclude long guns from the gun registry.

If you're suggesting that "the authorities" have been preventing the aforementioned police forces from investigating gang violence because they had decided that gun control was an adequate substitute for good police work, you'd better tell us who these mysterious authorities are and provide links to this sudden policy shift. The changes recently proposed for the gun registry will have zero impact on gang violence since most of these shootings involve handguns which are not being removed from the registry. Harper hasn't actually passed any changes to the criminal code or mandatory sentencing requirements. Nothing has changed. So WTF are you babbling about?

If anything it is this law that has empowered police forces to go after gangs:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bikergangs/antiganglaw.html

Bill C-95, passed in 1997, amended the Criminal Code (and other legislation) to acknowledge crimes committed "for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with" a criminal organization. Convictions carry a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of 14 years.

But then there's Section 11, which reads: "Every one who …participates in or substantially contributes to the activities of a criminal organization knowing that any or all of the members of the organization engage in or have, within the preceding five years, engaged in the commission of a series of indictable offences …of which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more …is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

In other words, the legislation makes it illegal to be a member of a motorcycle gang or other criminal organization.

But it wasn't until February 2001 that the first convictions under Canada's anti-gang law were won.

 

[Truncador]

yes. very realistic. here let me help you with the jacket, the buckles are in the back

I agree that gun control should not be viewed in terms of some kind of apocalyptic threat. The reality is much more sordid and pathetic than that. Gun control is most fashionable among politicans in places like Canada and Brazil, i.e. small, weak States with characteristically corrupt, indifferent, impotent, and incompetent governments. To get right down business, such governments prefer to crackdown on the law-abiding because it's just easier, namely in that the law-abiding are a lot less likely to shoot back. Brazil is a really great example. The crime gangs of Sao Paolo etc. run full-blown private armies and openly style themselves as municipal governments, giving themselves such names as "First Command of Sao Paolo". The response of the truly wretched cowards who run the State there is to sponsor initiatives to ban the tiny handful of legally-owned handguns in the hands of the law-abiding citizenry. That this sort of smokescreen no longer appears to work in either Brazil or Canada is a hopeful sign that people everywhere aren't as gullible as they used to be, and won't tolerate government crooks and cowards picking their pockets without doing shit to protect them in return.

 

[Truncador]

So WTF are you babbling about?

You do recall that less than six months ago the Liberals were proposing to deal with the gang/crime problem in Ontario by banning legal handguns, don't you

 

[slowpoke]

IT is not NRA inspired bullshit. The number of crimes committed in Canada by normal people using firearms that have been registered is minscule compared to the threat posed by the unregistered weapons in the hands of the criminal thugs.

It is just limp dick liberal posturing and smoke screen to suggest otherwise.

As a test lets see from the mass arrests in TO how many where Canadian legal gun owners vs. All other types.
Pathetic whining liitle shits like TOV will spill their lattes over this kind of a statement but tough. Now we have a conservaative government that pledges to be tough on crime we'll see action. There is still the problem of all those bleeding heart liberal appointed judges but they will be managed in time.

I can't see how anyone in his right mind would suggest the gun registry would have even the slightest impact on the gang violence you've chosen as your sole criterion. These gang bangers aren't the target audience for the gun registry. The Liberals brought out the gun registry in response to requests from police organizations and the public. They never said it would be a deterrent for gang members or career criminals. If you want to claim otherwise, I suggest you provide a clear link where the Liberals made such a claim. It was intended to bring an increased level of responsibility and accountability to those who own legal firearms. If I own an unregistered shotgun or rifle, I can saw it down, rob a convenience store and then sell it to a mentally handicapped 15 year old, for example, without any clear trail back to me. If it is registered I will probably be more careful about storing it, selling it, using it and I'll be sure to report it stolen in the event of a burglary. The police will know I've got it so they will approach my house with greater caution if they are required to visit for any reason. The fact that the gun is registered to me MIGHT also discourage me from using it on other family members, friends, fellow employees and such. But that is all. It was never intended as the gun violence cure-all that the NRA, Harper and the mentally challenged are now claiming.

 

[red]

I agree that gun control should not be viewed in terms of some kind of apocalyptic threat. The reality is much more sordid and pathetic than that. Gun control is most fashionable among politicans in places like Canada and Brazil, i.e. small, weak States with characteristically corrupt, indifferent, impotent, and incompetent governments. To get right down business, such governments prefer to crackdown on the law-abiding because it's just easier, namely in that the law-abiding are a lot less likely to shoot back. Brazil is a really great example. The crime gangs of Sao Paolo etc. run full-blown private armies and openly style themselves as municipal governments, giving themselves such names as "First Command of Sao Paolo". The response of the truly wretched cowards who run the State there is to sponsor initiatives to ban the tiny handful of legally-owned handguns in the hands of the law-abiding citizenry. That this sort of smokescreen no longer appears to work in either Brazil or Canada is a hopeful sign that people everywhere aren't as gullible as they used to be, and won't tolerate government crooks and cowards picking their pockets without doing shit to protect them in return.

comparing brazil and canada? how about japan or england.

 

[slowpoke]

You do recall that less than six months ago the Liberals were proposing to deal with the gang/crime problem in Ontario by banning legal handguns, don't you

I will answer the question but I fail to see how asking me this does anything about explaining WTF you were babbling about back there. Is there an answer forthcoming or is this just your way of putting some time and distance between that question and yourself?

I recall that Martin proposed a near-total ban on handguns as part of his strategy to fight gun violence. He also tabled legislation to increase mandatory sentences and to include several more categories of crime involving firearms but Harper preferred to pull the plug on that session of parliament before those could become law. So far, Harper has killed more legislation aimed at combatting crime than he has actually introduced in the house.

 

[Papi Chulo]

Once again the Tories have found another way to annoy the people of Ontario who clearly want gun control. They keep this up and Clement and Flatery will lose in the next election.

YOu should rephrase that as it is not the people of ontario that want the registry. It is the people in Toronto that want it. Rural / northern ontario, along with most of the rest of canada do not want it. Funny thing is that this is the same picture that was painted in the results of the last election. If rural / northern ontario are happy with harper and he can win a few more seats in the east, que or in the west, he can have a majority government without winning a seat in a major centre in ontario!

 

[LancsLad]

I can't see how anyone in his right mind would suggest the gun registry would have even the slightest impact on the gang violence you've chosen as your sole criterion. These gang bangers aren't the target audience for the gun registry. The Liberals brought out the gun registry in response to requests from police organizations and the public. They never said it would be a deterrent for gang members or career criminals. If you want to claim otherwise, I suggest you provide a clear link where the Liberals made such a claim. It was intended to bring an increased level of responsibility and accountability to those who own legal firearms. If I own an unregistered shotgun or rifle, I can saw it down, rob a convenience store and then sell it to a mentally handicapped 15 year old, for example, without any clear trail back to me. If it is registered I will probably be more careful about storing it, selling it, using it and I'll be sure to report it stolen in the event of a burglary. The police will know I've got it so they will approach my house with greater caution if they are required to visit for any reason. The fact that the gun is registered to me MIGHT also discourage me from using it on other family members, friends, fellow employees and such. But that is all. It was never intended as the gun violence cure-all that the NRA, Harper and the mentally challenged are now claiming.

BLah, Blah Blah More liberal drivel.

 

[Truncador]

Is there an answer forthcoming or is this just your way of putting some time and distance between that question and yourself?

To reiterate (with a little more precision than before), if the Liberals had their way, it is likely that the government would right now be investing time, money, and public resources into taking away legal handguns from sportsmen- and thus letting the bad guys run wild at least a little bit more for doing it. This much is true by definition in a world of limited resources, where decision-makers have to choose between allocating law-enforcement resources to invading the property rights of the law-abiding (gun control, as Canadians have learned the hard way, is neither free nor self-implementing) or to laying down the law on gangsters and psychopaths. It would be true even if unintended- but there would have been nothing unintended about it. In the past, the Liberals have been completely forthright about their preference for controlling citizens instead of punishing criminals.

Paul Martin faithfully towed this very old party line when he attempted to pin the blame for the gun battles that Toronto's drug distributors fight in shopping malls on target shooters and other putative right-wing subversives (when even gun-rights foes had to admit that most of these crimes are committed with weapons obtained wholly outside lawful channels). His effort to modernize the old act by incorporating some promises to get tough with a real criminal or two rang a bit hollow in light of the logically inescapable reality that when Parliament and the cops spend all their time trying to decide who is or isn't an Olympic target shooter and compiling confiscation lists, they aren't arresting the Crips in the meanwhile...

 

[slowpoke]

To reiterate (with a little more precision than before), if the Liberals had their way, it is likely that the government would right now be investing time, money, and public resources into taking away legal handguns from sportsmen- and thus letting the bad guys run wild at least a little bit more for doing it. This much is true by definition in a world of limited resources, where decision-makers have to choose between allocating law-enforcement resources to invading the property rights of the law-abiding (gun control, as Canadians have learned the hard way, is neither free nor self-implementing) or to laying down the law on gangsters and psychopaths. It would be true even if unintended- but there would have been nothing unintended about it. In the past, the Liberals have been completely forthright about their preference for controlling citizens instead of punishing criminals.

Paul Martin faithfully towed this very old party line when he attempted to pin the blame for the gun battles that Toronto's drug distributors fight in shopping malls on target shooters and other putative right-wing subversives (when even gun-rights foes had to admit that most of these crimes are committed with weapons obtained wholly outside lawful channels). His effort to modernize the old act by incorporating some promises to get tough with a real criminal or two rang a bit hollow in light of the logically inescapable reality that when Parliament and the cops spend all their time trying to decide who is or isn't an Olympic target shooter and compiling confiscation lists, they aren't arresting the Crips in the meanwhile...

How about more facts from the real world and a little less NRA inspired hysteria:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/04/guns-stolen060204.html

Large private gun collection stolen
Last Updated Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:08:52 EST
CBC News
Police are investigating the theft of 40 handguns from the home of an Ontario man, who is not sure exactly when the break-in occurred.

Ken Foster, 67, told police the guns disappeared sometime over the past 12 days from his house in Oshawa, east of Toronto.

He discovered they were gone on Friday when he came home from hospital, where he'd spent the past six weeks being treated for a stroke.

The firearms, many from the Second World War era and all in working condition, were legally bought, registered and properly stored in a locked steel cabinet, Foster said.

The back door of his house had been kicked in and both the gun and ammunition cabinets looted.

The incident is believed to be the biggest known theft of handguns in recent Ontario history.

Charges against the homeowner are not expected, Durham regional police said in a statement.

 

[LancsLad]

How about more facts from the real world and a little less NRA inspired hysteria:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/04/guns-stolen060204.html

Large private gun collection stolen
Last Updated Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:08:52 EST
CBC News
Police are investigating the theft of 40 handguns from the home of an Ontario man, who is not sure exactly when the break-in occurred.

Ken Foster, 67, told police the guns disappeared sometime over the past 12 days from his house in Oshawa, east of Toronto.

He discovered they were gone on Friday when he came home from hospital, where he'd spent the past six weeks being treated for a stroke.

The firearms, many from the Second World War era and all in working condition, were legally bought, registered and properly stored in a locked steel cabinet, Foster said.

The back door of his house had been kicked in and both the gun and ammunition cabinets looted.

The incident is believed to be the biggest known theft of handguns in recent Ontario history.

Charges against the homeowner are not expected, Durham regional police said in a statement.

You're right , it was some poor old guys fault that his guns were stolen. Well better lock us all up then.
Those law abiding criminals better make sure they register the new owners names or 3000 civil servants won't have anything to do.

 

[burlboy]

yes. very realistic. here let me help you with the jacket, the buckles are in the back

Don't you want to try to take my gun away first. Read the instructions man

 

[slowpoke]

You're right , it was some poor old guys fault that his guns were stolen. Well better lock us all up then.
Those law abiding criminals better make sure they register the new owners names or 3000 civil servants won't have anything to do.

It is unfortunate that his right to own a shitload of handguns has to be curtailed in order to prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands. It is also unfortunate that we can't allow private individuals to collect rocket launchers, WMD, biohazardous materials, toxic waste, land mines etc. At some point the rights of the individual have to take a back seat to the safety concerns of society. Too bad, so sad. Half of the handguns used in crimes here in Toronto are stolen in exactly the same way that his were. All it takes is a simple B&E with punks looking for anything they can sell and you've got more handguns on the street. BTW, burglary was just as big a problem during Mulroney's term as it was for the Liberals after him. And, believe it or not, Harper hasn't even proposed tougher sentences or mandatory sentences for simple B&E. You're so busy blathering on about how gun crime is all the Liberals fault that you haven't even stopped to think about where half those fucking handguns come from. Simple B&E.

It shouldn't require 3000 civil servants to run a registry. Your hero Harper should be able to have an affordable but effective registry humming along in no time. But he can't do it because he was too busy blathering on about how he'd dismantle the gun registry during the election. Now he's painted himself into a corner and he has to do something to save face. So he takes out the long guns but keeps the registry. Better than nothing I suppose but not as good as what we had - especially now that all the start up costs are already paid for......

 

[Truncador]

One looks forward to a Conservative majority in the future going beyond the all-too-modest first step of dismantling the long-gun registry, the most hated and useless project in Canadian legal history, and restoring the indubitable right of Canadians to arm for the defense of themselves and the State. Given how stringent the current handgun licensing system is, there is no sound reason why those who jump through all the regulatory hoops should be denied the right to carry their handguns on their persons in public- which right has been restored in the more enlightened and progressive jurisdictions of the USA for quite some time now, with proven crime-reducing results.

 

[Primetime21]

After all of the talking from the left and the right, I cannot see how the gun registry stops gun crime. First off, there are so many illegal guns coming into Canada,(see the recent gang bust in toronto) that any criminal that wants a gun can get a gun. How is nowing how many guns a person has in their possession going to stop crime? The only benefit i see from this program is that the police will know before hand if a house they are entering have any guns and to act accordingly. We all know that criminals aren't going to register their weapons, so how does registering all the legally bought guns supposedly reduce crime. The only thing the registry has done is made it easier for criminals to know which houses have guns because all ammo purchased has to be documented. So now some kid that works at Wal-Mart who wants to make some extra money can let his criminal buddies know the addresses of all the people who have purchased ammo and they go and rob those houses. I am all against guns, but if someone can actually come up with a logical reason why this registry will reduce gun crime I will gladly change my stance on this issue. This is an open invitation to any of the liberals on this board.