Honey Harlotte

The worms are flowing from the can...

What to do with the Canadian firearms registry:

  • Keep it as is.

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • Improve/fix it.

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Don't know, don't care. I'm comfy on the fence.

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Cut the losses and scrap it!

    Votes: 20 76.9%

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .

P.B.

Senior Member
May 11, 2002
196
1
0
Seeing how there was recent discussion about this, time for a poll to kick things off!
 

Makhno

Recidivist
Nov 11, 2003
696
0
0
Beyond the Pale
This very interesting article makes some good points on the gun registry, particularly that while the Canadian Police Association supports the registry, the rank and file police officers don't. The article is from 1999 (note that even then the concern existed that the costs were out of control) but the points raised are still as valid today.
______________________________________

FIVE REASONS WHY POLICE OPPOSE GUN REGISTRATION
by Garry Breitkreuz, MP (Yorkton-Melville) June 28, 1999

Contrary to what the Liberal government and the media have been telling you for the last five years, the police do not support the mandatory registration of between 7 and 20 million legally owned rifles and shotguns. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports the government’s ill-conceived plan but not all Chiefs of Police support it, nor do the majority of police under their command. The Canadian Police Association (CPA) supports the government’s billion-dollar boondoggle but not the majority of police officers whose views they are supposed to represent.

Every poll ever taken of front-line police officers shows opposition ranges between 75% and 100%. For example, 100% of the 19 police chiefs in the Province of Saskatchewan are opposed to registry, 91% of the serving RCMP officers in Saskatchewan are opposed, as are 76% of the members of the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers.

The bad news for the government is that police opposition is growing. In the Spring 1999 issue of the Canadian Police Association Express (Issue 46), Bernie Eiswirth on behalf of the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers wrote: "Saskatchewan Police Association representatives had polled their members on the six points of the Canadian Police Association resolution about the Gun Bill. The members responded overwhelmingly against the gun registry. The Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers believes the money could more effectively be used in other areas of policing such as fighting organized crime, and human resources for all police services in the country." A number of newspapers have recently reported that pressure from the rank and file members has forced the CPA to reconsider their support for the gun registry at their annual general meeting to be held in August.

Here are the five key reasons why police opposition to the firearms registry is growing:

Costs exceed benefits and the costs of the registration scheme are out of control

Cuts and lack of police resources for real crime fighting initiatives
Information in the registry will be riddled with errors

Millions of guns won’t be registered in the system because of non-compliance

Alienating millions of honest citizens that the police rely on to help them do their job

1. Costs exceed benefits and the costs of the registration scheme are out of control

In 1995, Justice Minister Allan Rock told the House of Commons that the firearms registry would only cost $85 million over five years. An Access to Information Request reveals that at the end of March 1999, the government had spent $216 million dollars and the Department of Justice now admits they will spend between $50 and $60 million a year to operate the system. That’s more than a billion dollars by the year 2015. We won’t know the whole truth until the government gives us the 172 pages of documents they withheld citing "Cabinet Confidences" as the reason. While bureaucrats in the Department of Justice were misleading Canadians by telling them there were only about 200 bureaucrats working in the firearms registry, the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament was preparing a report which put the actual number at between six and eight hundred. That’s 600 to 800 paper-pushing bureaucrats taking hundreds of millions away from real police work that could actually improve public safety.

2. Cuts and lack of police resources for real crime fighting initiatives

Here are the headlines of a few news stories published in recent months:

Underfunding of RCMP imperils public
Fewer police per capita report says
Budget shortfall may force RCMP to cut organized-crime unit
Money for gun control, none for police
RCMP’s white-collar crime unit needs staff, cash
Systematic underfunding reduces local RCMP to critical level
Mounties hunt ways to get out of the red
Aging police computer nears breakdown: CPIC can’t meet demands
DNA data bank costs doubled
‘Force rusting out,’ says Alberta’s top Mountie
CSIS needs help to fight high-tech crime
Organized crime grows, but funds to fight it don’t
RCMP cuts make crime pay
Squabble over RCMP funding triggers anxiety
Police association ready to fight for more cops
RCMP Chief says lack of funds means Mob ‘on a roll’

3. Information in the registry will be riddled with errors

The public was told by the government that the primary purpose of the firearms registry was to let police know which houses have firearms in them. But that only works if the system doesn’t have any errors. Every computer system in the world has errors except, we are told, the computers in the Canadian Firearms Registry. In response to an Access to Information Request, the RCMP said the Firearms Registry "has not done any studies or reports, or does not have any correspondence relating to error rates." I guess if you don’t do any studies on error rates you can deceive yourself into thinking that there are no errors in your system. A few weeks ago, the RCMP’s Registrar of Firearms told a staff meeting that they were experiencing virtually a 100% error rate. In a "secret" report prepared by the consulting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers for the Dept. of Justice, they estimated a 20% error rate. The Minister of Justice’s handpicked User Group on Firearms estimated a 50% error rate. If you were a police officer, would you rely on a computer system that was riddled with errors to tell you whether the house you were called to had guns in it or not? I don’t think so. Would it even be worth taking the time to look the information up on your computer before responding to the emergency call? Not very likely.

4. Millions of guns won’t be registered in the system because of non-compliance

The government states this costly new tool will benefit police by letting them know who has guns and who doesn’t. However, just as error rates make the registry unreliable, so does non-compliance. In 1997, the government hired the polling firm of Environics to do a survey titled, "Firearms Owners Intended Compliance with Gun Registration and Licencing." The survey revealed that only 58% of firearms owners planned to register all their guns. This represented a significant drop in compliance since 1995, when an even larger, more reliable survey reported that 76.7% of gun owners said they would register all their guns. If you were a police officer would you rely on a registration system that is projected to be missing records on millions of firearms? Once again, I don’t think so.

5. Alienating millions of honest citizens that police rely on to help them do their job

Finally, and most importantly, the government has made a serious mistake in targeting honest, responsible Canadians with their politically motivated gun registration bill. Duck hunters and target shooters never were and never will be part of the violent crime problem in Canada. The Commissioner of the RCMP even said so in a 1997 letter to the Department of Justice, "The RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08 per cent, involved firearms." In 1996, Statistics Canada reported in Canadian Crime Statistics that there were a total of 291,437 crimes of violence. Of this total, there were 121,291 violent incidents where weapons were involved but only 6,375, or just 2.2%, that involved firearms. Of the violent offences where firearms were involved, 74.9% involved handguns [almost all unregistered] and only 6.9% involved rifles and shotguns. Still the government ignores this evidence and plods ahead spending hundreds of millions to register 20 million rifles and shotguns which represent only 0.15% of the violent crime problem in Canada. So if hunters, farmers, collectors and sport shooters aren’t the problem, why criminalize and tax their remarkably safe and totally legitimate pastimes? What the government has done is turn 7 million law abiding firearm owners into potential criminal suspects. Consequently, this useless registry has undermined respect for the law and those dedicated officers who are required to enforce it. Out west, many are now referring to the RCMP as "Chretien Cops." This does not bode well for achieving our goals of fighting real crime and making our streets safer.

Police know who the real criminals are and they know how to catch them. Police desperately need more human resources and more effective crime fighting tools. Unfortunately, the Liberal’s bogus gun registry isn’t one of those tools. In fact, it’s depriving police of the resources they need to improve public safety and save lives in Canada. It should be scrapped immediately.
 

Makhno

Recidivist
Nov 11, 2003
696
0
0
Beyond the Pale
At the risk of overburdening the PERB reader, I'm submitting another article, this one from the Calgary Herald, December 17, 2003, which addresses some concerns about the registry. (This should get the ball rolling).

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

Shooting down the gun registry: Does Paul Martin have the nerve to scrap a flawed and misguided program?

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

If Prime Minister Paul Martin is a man of his word, we'd expect him to scrap the gun registry in the next few days or weeks. Why? Because he promised last week, at a $2.8-million Liberal fundraiser, that his new government must "have the will to shut down what doesn't work and the discipline to focus on what can." Even the Liberals now realize that the gun registry doesn't work, and no matter how many billions they spend on it that it will never hit the real target: criminals.

Since the Liberals have blown a billion implementing Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, homicides have increased, including domestic homicides, and suicides have increased. So much for saving lives as they promised it would. Daily police reports confirm the Liberals' firearms program hasn't done a thing to control the criminal use of firearms in our cities. Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino said it best earlier this year: "We haven't yet come across any situation where the gun registry would have enabled us to either prevent or solve any of these crimes."

But putting the gun registry on hold or even scrapping it won't solve the whole problem. Nor will it even stop all the hemorrhaging of tax dollars into this money pit. The registry is only one component of the fatally flawed Firearms Act, and there are abundant examples of other problems with this failed legislation. This is why five provinces and three territories refuse to help the federal government implement and administer the firearms program and why eight provinces refuse to enforce the act. The only way to fix the Firearms Act is to repeal it and replace it with gun laws that are at least aimed at the right target -- criminals.

For example, Firearms Act regulations require every law-abiding owner of a firearm to report his or her change of address within 30 days or risk going to jail for up to two years. But the Firearms Act does not require the same of the 131,000 convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning firearms by courts. The government even admitted in Parliament that the Privacy Act protects the rights of these convicted criminals because they failed to include this provision in the Firearms Act. As a consequence, police only know where completely innocent gun owners live -- not the criminals.

The Firearms Act also permits the "inspection" of the homes of two million law-abiding firearms owners, but not the homes of the 131,000 convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning firearms. Consequently, the police can't check their homes to see if these prohibited gun owners have actually turned in all their guns or have acquired more guns illegally. This flaw in the Firearms Act is one of the reasons why Hells Angel leader Maurice "Mom" Boucher was able to have access to a registered 9 mm handgun and three legally owned shotguns in his home.

The Liberal government failed to fix these flaws when it rammed Firearms Act amendments through Parliament earlier this year. For some reason only known to Liberals, they still consider law-abiding gun owners more dangerous than violent criminals who are prohibited from owning guns.

As if we needed more proof that the Liberals' gun laws were off target, Statistics Canada's Homicide Report for 2002 reported that 2/3 of those persons accused of murder had a criminal record, and 73 per cent of those had a previous conviction for a violent offence including eight who had been previously convicted for murder.

Just think how much safer our cities would be and how many lives could have been saved if the billion-dollar Firearms Act allowed police to keep better tabs on known criminals since 1995 rather than trying to track two million completely innocent, government-licensed firearms owners.

Martin wrote most of the cheques for this firearms fiasco while he was finance minister. Now, he has put Anne McLellan back in charge of the mess she helped create while she was justice minister. They both have a lot of tracks to cover up. Unless they propose a complete rewrite of the Firearms Act, and unless they are able to get the complete support of all the provinces and the recreational firearms community for whatever they propose, and unless they make public the cost-benefit analysis they've been keeping secret all these years, their promises will fall far short of solving the problem they have created for themselves. And sadly, Canadian taxpayers will keep paying through the nose for nine years of Liberal incompetence and ineffective gun laws aimed at the wrong target.
 

Hit Man

Armed Member
Nov 18, 2003
222
0
0
Chillin' on the beach
Alex, points all well taken. You left out Castro and his murderous regime. He, too, confiscated all personally owned firearms and systematically murdered half the population of Cuba, and continues to do so. There is, however, a significant distinction between gun control, such as it was implemented in the instances you mentioned, and registration. I oppose registration, not because it costs too much, but rather because I don't trust any government to use it for the stated purpose of tracking firearms and helping LE. When the US founding fathers wrote our Constitution, many of the ammendments specifically addressed situations they had experienced in England. Our 2nd ammendment grants the right to keep and bear arms. Their intention was, I believe, to give more power to the citizenry than to the government and, at the time, firearms were power. IMHO, if they could see the mess we have now they might agree to some kind of a system of monitering how many, and what type of weapons we allow our citizens to have. After all, the real defination of "assault weapon" is any weapon that's pointed at you.
 

Makhno

Recidivist
Nov 11, 2003
696
0
0
Beyond the Pale
likesdeladies said:
Makhno, what are your views on the registry? - you're just providing reference material but not actually stating your personal views of the registry or even offering comment on your referenced material. For or against & why?
I am completely opposed to the registry, for all the reasons set out in the materials I posted earlier, but most particularly because:

1. It is inefficient.

At a cost of $1-2 billion dollars, the registry is a fiscal monster set loose on unsuspecting Canadian taxpayers without a leash. You may recall that when Allan Rock introduced the program he advised the Canadian taxpayer the net cost would be $2 million. We've come a long way baby.

2. It is ineffective.

The promoters of the registry bleated that Canada needs a gun-control scheme to keep guns from criminals and madmen. They failed to point out that Canadians have required police permission to possess a handgun since 1913. Mandatory handgun registration has been in place since 1934, and acquisition certificates have been required to obtain any firearm (rifles and shotguns included) since 1978. By the early 1990s, that licensing system required all applicants to divulge personal information about their private lives and provide the underwriting of two professionals who knew the individual. It entailed a mandatory delay of several months before the firearms-acquisition certificate was actually issued, and laid out tough stipulations concerning the secure storage of firearms and mandatory firearms training for new applicants.

So we already had gun control measures in place before we set out creating this billion-dollar black hole. Has the new registry actually made our cities any safer? The federal government has produced no evidence that the gun registry has had any positive effect on reducing criminal acts involving firearms. Federal statistics indicate the registry has had little public safety impact, and the number of homicides involving guns has not been affected in any demonstrable way. There appears to be no evidence that the firearms registry has either deterred or helped solve any homicides since its introduction. In Toronto, there were 60 homicides in Toronto in 2002. Of those 28 involved guns. The percentage of gun-related killings in Canada's biggest city has nearly doubled in the past four years, despite the registry. Handguns continue to be readily available on the streets and criminal haunts of our major cities. You can bet the criminals are NOT registering theirs.



The bottom line is really that registering the guns of law-abiding citizens does nothing to tackle the root causes of violent crime. More to the point, it diverts a huge amount of available resources away from meaningful investments in reducing crime and enhancing public safety over the longer term.
 
Last edited:

P.B.

Senior Member
May 11, 2002
196
1
0
Continued from the western separation thread

Here are some thoughts for you to ponder:
-We have millions of firearms owners in this country. Many have owned multiple firearms for decades without incident. They come from all different professions, race, and gender. They are our doctors, dentist, engineers, lawyers, technicians, programmers, small business owners, IT professionals, mechanics, etc… Your co-worker who sits beside you and works along side you, your friends, even family members maybe a firearm owner. Do they not deserve accountability for their hard earned dollars? Should they not be made to feel treated in an honest and fair manner?

-Should there not be independent scientific proof that registration will reduce violent crimes BEFORE we spent billions on the registry?

-Most firearm owners are not opposed to effective controls that would reduce violent crimes. They are opposed to being lied to and forced to comply with an ineffective and inefficient firearms registry.

-The class of restricted firearms, which handguns are classified under, have been required to be registered for decades. Yet, their use in illegal activity continues to rise. The government wants us to believe that registering non-restricted firearms will reduce their use in illegal activities. What is different between the two classes of firearms that will make registration work this time?

-UK, and Australia have forced registration on their citizens. Why do their violent crime rates continue to soar?

-Why would criminals attempt to register their illegal firearms?

-Hardcore repeat offenders do not believe they will be caught. What makes the registry a deterrent to them?

-Would someone who is willing to commit murder be concerned if the firearm they are about to use is registered?

-Peace officers have personally told me they would not use the firearms registry when going into a situation. It is assumed that there are weapons present. One false human data entry, one computer glitch, and they have misinformation. Unregistered illegal firearms and other weapons not classified as firearms will not show up in the registry. This could increase their response time, give them a false sense of security, and end up costing them their lives.

-The all too familiar “You register cars, why not your guns?” slogan is an ill-conceived obfuscation. There is NO comparison. You are NOT required to register cars. You can buy one, have it towed to a private residence and drive it into the ground without ever having it registered. You are only required to register it if you drive it on public roads. If you do not, it is not an indictable offence under the criminal code. Registration of cars is to recoup some costs of maintaining public roads. The federal government claims firearms registration is to improve our safety. Having a car registered has not stopped it from being used in illegal activities, so why would registering a firearm stop it from being used in illegal activities?

-While we are at it, why don’t we submit to registering every single possession we have? Using the same argument that we register cars?

-Carnage from automobiles have injured, maimed, and killed more people than all legal and illegal firearms in Canada. Why did the registration of automobiles not prevent the carnage?

-Our auditor general stated she couldn’t fully account for all the costs of the firearms registry due to the lack of expenditure tracking. What is the real cost overrun?

-The majority of assaults come from weapons other than firearms (clubs, knives, etc…). Why pour such excessive amounts of taxes in an unaccountable and ineffective way to try to solve a smaller portion of the problem?

-We already had an effective licensing system (FAC) for decades. Rather than improving on it, they scrapped it and spent hundreds of millions to redo it.

-Confiscation of previously legally owned firearms has already occurred in Canada!

-In Australia, after registration came confiscation. What could possibly be the government’s motive? Read Alexandria’s post. Very scary! Are we headed down that road?
 

P.B.

Senior Member
May 11, 2002
196
1
0
likesdeladies said:
Makhno, what are your views on the registry? - you're just providing reference material but not actually stating your personal views of the registry or even offering comment on your referenced material. For or against & why?

Of course it's not unexpected to read a former Alliance party member (now Conservative) challenging the Government - it's his job.

I've stated I'm in favor of the registry - why do some feel registering firearms is an affront to personal liberties? Yet we register dogs :confused:

I’d like to play more but must head off now – for now let’s continue to throw out reference material – I won’t bother to post the complete article; just a link to a PDF file – PB, call it “propaganda from the Coalition for Gun Control” --- you seem to like the propaganda tag.

Coalition for Gun Control - reference article
Very interesting that you have not yourself offered comments on your reference material. Or that you have not stated why you are for registration. Would it surprise you that there are Liberal MPs that also oppose the registry? As for the liberties issue, see Hit Man's post regarding USA's 2nd ammendment. One belief is that firearms can balance the power between government and it's people. Take the firearms away, unbalance the power and possibly your liberties.

Makhno said:
...We lose either way. We've created a monstrous sinkhole which will continue consuming tax dollars at a feverish pace for years to come, and will have minimal impact on keeping our streets safe.
From Makhno's post in the western separation thread, it seems very obvious he is against it.

I don't know why dogs require registration, but I don't believe it's an indictable offence under the criminal code to have one that is not registered. See my comments on registering cars in the post above.

The Coalition for Gun Control is a federally funded organization. Interestingly enough, the federal government has the same agenda, and they do not fund coalitions with opposing views like the Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition, or the National Firearms Association. The Coalition for Gun Control and the federal government have been repeating a similar message for decades, despite hard questions from other MPs and letters from private citizens. Instead, they choose not to address these concerns and ignore the issues. The opposing coalitions have given them independent data to show their message is inaccurate, yet they refuse to acknowldge it and continue with the same message. This is why I feel it is propaganda.
 

P.B.

Senior Member
May 11, 2002
196
1
0
Call for deeper discussion

I would like to hear from the proponents of the registry on how the registry will increase our safety, why it is not a waste of taxes, and I would like it to be their own independent thought. I have already read and heard the standard vague government and Coalition for Gun Control reasons why they are for it. I want to hear some deep thoughts, logical arguments, and indepth details on what makes it good. Is there any? Are some people more worried about what others will think if they oppose the registry (ie. peer pressure)? Is political correctness to be anti-gun a factor in opinions? Lets discuss!
 

P.B.

Senior Member
May 11, 2002
196
1
0
Hmm... it's been over 3 days, and no proponents want to discuss? It would seem the only response from proponents to rational discussion is to ignore it.
 

Makhno

Recidivist
Nov 11, 2003
696
0
0
Beyond the Pale
True enough. But there is one thing the people can say that the Liberals can't ignore. "GOOD BYE!!!!". :p :p :p
(The caveat is they have to say this at the polling booths during the upocoming election).
 

P.B.

Senior Member
May 11, 2002
196
1
0
As previously stated numerous times, I oppose having an ineffective and inefficient gun registry forced upon us in a way I feel is a blatant lie. I already stated I would not be opposed to proven effective and efficient controls that actually reduced violent crime. You seem to need everything spelled out to you letter for letter in black and white, and you don't seem to be able to read and understand others opinions. Although, you seem to have the ability to read their thoughts, as you often speak on their behalf.

likesdeladies said:
...Perb readers simply don’t know what case you’re trying to make.
I am not going to answer your questions simply because I feel I already have answered some of them, and they are being used to avoid discussion of previously stated opinions. In posting my previous call for discussion, I was hoping that you and other proponents would give thoughts as to why you support the registry. Unfortunately, it seems like I'm asking a slippery politician for comments they do not want to give, as the only answers I get are questions.

It is interesting that you consider independent thoughts and serious questions as statistics and reference material. It is also ironic that statistics and reference material is all you have offered, especially when I have already asked you to give your thoughts on why you support the registry. I do not need any help to clarify my stance or opinions. The only thing I want is your thoughts and reasons why you support the registry, and not reference material or regurgitation of quotes from the Coalition for Gun Control or the Canadian Firearms Center.


likesdeladies said:
PB – it’s clear you and Makhno are against the registry --- what’s not clear is why. You’re both all ‘over the map’ – throwing out any statistic or reference material that presumes to make your case. Perb readers simply don’t know what case you’re trying to make --- let me help you out a bit – if you structure and clearly define your personal views, without drawing down on stats & reference points, perhaps you’ll get some response. You and Makhno talk about obfuscated comment --- simply, if you answer the following points, without spinning one against the other, we might begin to realize where you’re coming from:

• Liberties – are you against the registry because you feel it’s an affront to your personal liberty or are you against it in principle?
• Gun Control – do you feel the Canadian Government will use the registry to limit your ability to purchase guns or even take away your guns or are you against the registry in principle?
• Safety – do you feel owning guns currently makes you safer and does that safety extend beyond your home, say to your vehicle or your own day-to-day activities --- do you currently carry your guns when you go beyond your personal home?
• Cost – your concerns about the overall cost to setup and maintain the registry are understood. Is there a cost level at which you would be willing to support the registry or are you against it in principle?
• Effectiveness – accepting that it’s difficult to gauge preventive measures, if the registry could be shown to be effective, would you support it or are you against it in principle?
 
Last edited:

P.B.

Senior Member
May 11, 2002
196
1
0
likesdeladies said:
ROTFLMAO - simple questions PB, just simple questions --- your opportunity to clarify your personal feelings and clearly state your position on why you oppose the registry --- without the need to draw back on statistics and reference material. Truly, you shouldn't be afraid to answer them.
I have already clarified my position numerous times. And as stated before, I have already answered some of your questions in my previous posts. The other questions are not relevant to the effectiveness of the registry. I'm not afraid to answer your questions. I don't feel the need to repeatedly answer your questions while you offer no thoughts in return.

Yet again, you avoid the call for discussion. You still refuse to give any of your thoughts on why you support the registry, while you repeatedly demand answers to your questions. Since I originally called for your thoughts, I am still waiting for them before we can discuss. Go ahead, make a statement. Instead of probing for information, give your personal thoughts.

FOURTH call for your independent thougts supporting the registry. Here are some of the points I previously made in this thread:
-There is no independent proof that registration will reduce violent crimes. We should of had it BEFORE we wasted billions on the registry.

-The class of restricted firearms, including handguns, have been required to be registered for decades. Their use in illegal activity continues to rise. This is proof that registration does not work.

-Peace officers have personally told me they would not use the firearms registry when going into a situation. It is assumed that there are weapons present. One false human data entry, one computer glitch, and they have misinformation. Unregistered illegal firearms and other weapons not classified as firearms will not show up in the registry. This could increase their response time, give them a false sense of security, and end up costing them their lives.
 

Makhno

Recidivist
Nov 11, 2003
696
0
0
Beyond the Pale
I thought I had spelled out the reasons I oppose the gun registry in my previous posts in this thread and I do not intend to repeat myself.

Some recent tragic incidents in Alberta illustrate the ineffectiveness of the gun registry in preventing violent crime.

On Saturday, Feb 28, an RCMP officer was shot and killed in Spruce Grove. The shooter had a history of mental illness. He had been hospitalized for mental problems, and was also convicted of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose in October 2002. In 1983, he was charged with unsafe storage of a firearm.

On Friday, Feb 27, in Sundre an estranged husband shot and killed his wife's suitor, seriously wounded his wife and then killed himself.

In both cases, the RCMP had seized guns from the shooters before the incidents. In both cases they were obviously able to obtain firearms again, with tragic results.

In December 2003, a shooter fired 32 shots out of his Edmonton apartment, injuring two neighbours, before police found him dead of a self-inflicted gunshot. Neighbours said he was depressed and reclusive with suspected brain damage from an unspecified accident. He had three registered firearms.

These incidents illustrate that the federal gun registry will not prevent crime, but will inconvenience responsible gun owners and cost all taxpayers a fortune.

We need better gun control, not an ineffective registry foisted upon us by the spendthrift Liberals. Obviously not enough is being done to keep guns from those with mental illness. All available resources are being sucked into the black hole known as the gun registry to the detriment of preventing those that shouldn’t have guns from getting them. A lack of background checks and face-to-face interviews with firearm applicants makes the safety net too weak to properly screen those who perhaps should not have guns. A firearm licence application only requires a person to indicate whether they have been treated for a mental illness within the previous five years. Obviously, it is too easy to lie and simply check the “No” box. There's really nothing there to catch mental illness. They are investigated for mental illness only if they admit they have been treated for one. No interviews, no medical checks. Sign here and …Johnny got his gun.

Applicants also have to check a box to indicate they don't have a history of violence. Sure, that will catch a lot of determined criminals. Duh.
 

Makhno

Recidivist
Nov 11, 2003
696
0
0
Beyond the Pale
Majority Want to See Gun Registry Scrapped

According to an Ipsos-Reid poll released February 1, a majority of Canadians (52%) agree that Paul Martin should get rid of Canada’s Federal gun registry, with 37% strongly agreeing and 15% somewhat agreeing. Four in ten (43%) disagree with the suggestion that the Federal gun registry should be scrapped, one in seven (16%) somewhat disagreeing and three in ten (30%) strongly agreeing.


Interestingly, support for the elimination of the Federal gun registry is highest in British Columbia (64%). Next highest are Saskatchewan/Manitoba (64%), and Atlantic Canada (61%). Close to six in ten Albertans (57%) believe Paul Martin should get rid the Federal gun registry, while under half of Quebecois (48%) and Ontarians (45%) would like to see it dismantled.

As of today, our PERB poll stands at 79.31% in favour of scrapping the black hole, so we're somewhat ahead of the national average on this.
 

P.B.

Senior Member
May 11, 2002
196
1
0
Thanks for your support HiFi.

Makhno, you clearly stated your reasons for opposing the registry the first, and everytime, thereafter. Thanks for articulating your thoughts.

It still troubles me that there are people out there that refuse to discuss the reasons they support the registry. Or the people who, after a long discussion, understand the reasons I oppose the registry, but still say they support it. Their only given reasons are they're scared of guns, or they don't like them and they should be banned. I've explained to them my belief that banning them won't get rid of them. It seems like they believe firearms are the root of all evil and there are no other possibilities, or they prefer to make firearms a scapegoat for societies problems. Parhaps there are no rational reasons to support the registry, just emotional ones?
 

Makhno

Recidivist
Nov 11, 2003
696
0
0
Beyond the Pale
The gun registry: A billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness

Some more "reference material". I came across this Rex Murphy rant on the topic which points out what should be the obvious in his own inimitable way.
__________________________________________

The gun registry: A billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness

Jan. 7, 2004

For the second time in less than a year, parts of Toronto resemble a bad gangster movie.

Almost every weekend for the last while, one or more people are shot. Some are injured, others killed at clubs, at dances, on the street. There's usually a crowd present when the fireworks start, but there's hardly ever a witness with the guts to come forward afterwards. Vancouver is not as ripe with gun killings or injuries as Toronto, but there was one killing in Vancouver recently even more disgusting than some of the ones here. The young woman killed by a handgun was trying to help some poor character who was being set upon and kicked by a bunch of thugs. She got shot and killed in the downtown district of Gastown. It seems particularly miserable that the only person with spirit and conscience to interfere with a beating, a genuine good Samaritan, gets shot and killed, killed essentially for being a decent human being.

If this level of murderous thuggery were present in any other country but Canada, I suppose the public attitude would have to be one of despair and helplessness, but Canada, our dear Canada has had for a number of years now one of the most thorough and certainly one of the most expensive gun registry programs since the very invention of gun powder. And if we are to oblige the logic that went into setting up a system of registering firearms with the cost only slightly less than the missile defence program, it has to be that when a gun goes off criminally in this country, all the police have to do is tap the nearest computer keyboard, pick up the handcuffs on their way out, and nab the felon.

I know it will stagger everyone to hear this, but it doesn't quite work like that. Whether it's a rash of gun killings or just a single gun murder, our platinum priced gun registry with its billion-dollar cost overrun is not just ordinarily useless in cases of this kind, it is perfectly useless. It is useless without qualification. It does nothing. This may surprise a few anti-gun philosophers, but the knowledge that a farmer has a 12-gauge in Saskatchewan or a hunter has a .30-30 in Newfoundland is infinitely irrelevant. It is sublimely without purpose or point for a gang shooting in downtown Toronto or the butchery of a good Samaritan in the Gastown of Vancouver. You know why, of course. The very people who shoot other people as a hobby, a pastime, or a career are, wait for it, the very people who don't give a flying fig about registering their wretched handguns in the first place. People who shoot people do not join line-ups to tell police where they stole, smuggled, or bought their guns in the first place.

So now Paul Martin, staring down a billion dollars worth of ludicrously expensive wishful thinking, is about to look into the gun registry. If he doesn't scrap it all together, admit it was nothing more than wasteful piety from its very conception, and close it down, we will know he's only playing with the issue. It is a waste, he knows it's a waste, and a politically correct waste to boot. It's a billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness. Let's see him act on that knowledge.

For "The National," I'm Rex Murphy.
 

P.B.

Senior Member
May 11, 2002
196
1
0
You really are just too predictable. I knew you would avoid posting your thoughts yet again. What's the best you can do since I originally called for your thoughts? Nothing but the same questions to probe for information. You can't even come up with one single line to express your own thoughts in over 8 days and 4 postings! I get the feeling the cows will have been home a long time before you will ever post your own thoughts on this topic.

likesdeladies said:
LOL - that's it --- that's the best you guys can do? Too easy. Sorry, have to run to church --- may have more time for some serious posting on this subject in the next couple of days.

Makhno - you are consistent --- it's always been about cost and effectiveness in your posts. Too bad your political bias outweighs it's significance. The number of times you've negatively commented on the Liberals shines through (seems to me you also like to quote from members of the opposition Alliance/Conservative party). Care to play the theoretical --- say we don't have a registry today - nothing to associate with the Liberals, nothing to associate to start up and operational costs over 7+ years --- care to answer 2 of the questions I proposed - the ones that align directly to your consistent concerns of cost and effectiveness:

- is there a cost level at which you would be willing to support the registry or are you against it in principle?
- if the registry could be shown to be effective, would you support it or are you against it in principle?
 

Makhno

Recidivist
Nov 11, 2003
696
0
0
Beyond the Pale
likesdeladies said:
Makhno - you are consistent --- it's always been about cost and effectiveness in your posts. Too bad your political bias outweighs it's significance. The number of times you've negatively commented on the Liberals shines through (seems to me you also like to quote from members of the opposition Alliance/Conservative party).
LDL:

I don't get it. What are you trying to suggest with the above quote?

Now, let me try to address the two questions you keep raising:

"- is there a cost level at which you would be willing to support the registry or are you against it in principle?"
"- if the registry could be shown to be effective, would you support it or are you against it in principle?"

If the registry was effective in reducing the loss of life and property resulting from violent crime I would be the first to support it. At what cost level? The money already spent would be well worth it in my opinion.

Now, lets return to reality and exit the "if" world. (If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bus).

The registry is NOT effective. Full stop. Nobody has been able to show that it has had any impact whatsoever on the incidence of violent crime. At its level of ineffectiveness, even the $2 million dollars the registry was initially supposed to cost was poorly spent, much less the $2 billion we are told it is now approaching. To add insult to injury, it inconveniences the lives of thousands of law abiding gun owners, does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs and psychotics (much less criminals), and violates the treaty rights of our First Nations. What's to support?

Its quite simple. The registry is a montrous bureauratic boondoggle, a fetid stillborn moribund mutation, a misguided and ineffectual fiscal furnace, foisted on us by an out-of-touch, decadent and profligate government supported by the phlegmatic, sycophantic and pusillanimous coterie called the Liberal caucus.

Get it?
 
Vancouver Escorts