View Full Version : Canadian Parliament Votes To End Gun Registry
gryhpon
11-04-2009, 04:31 PM
canadian parliament has voted in favour of getting rid of the long gun registry. the bill must now go through the house of commons for review and amendment
this has been a topic of debate among my friends and I for a while and i will be interested in seeing what comes of this
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/vote-to-kill-gun-registry-passes/article1351328/
J. Robb
11-04-2009, 04:57 PM
I'm for a gun registry, but they were WAY overspending on it. Someone must have made a killing off the registry, and I'd love to find out who.
Today you could hire a few college students to set up a website that would handle most of the work.
gryhpon
11-04-2009, 07:38 PM
Today you could hire a few college students to set up a website that would handle most of the work.
oh of course but it wont happen
Sabrina_Fried
11-05-2009, 07:04 PM
By killing the gun registry, they can probably avoid publicising any audits that may have been done to ensure the money spent on it was being spent responsibly.
Sabrina
Ontir
11-05-2009, 07:08 PM
You realize this is just the prelude to the dreaded Canadian invasion that Louie Anderson's father warned us all about!
gryhpon
11-11-2009, 07:32 PM
By killing the gun registry, they can probably avoid publicising any audits that may have been done to ensure the money spent on it was being spent responsibly.
Sabrina
that is true
o1pickleboy
11-11-2009, 07:40 PM
You realize this is just the prelude to the dreaded Canadian invasion that Louie Anderson's father warned us all about!
I would think they would be more worried about armed Quebacian than their planned invasion.
I mean what is more important protecting yourself from evil armed French-Canadians or taking out the Baldwins
howyadoin
11-11-2009, 07:49 PM
I would think they would be more worried about armed Quebacian than their planned invasion.Keep in mind that the invasion involves gorgeous women with French accents, carrying poutine and maple syrup.
It'd also involve William Shatner.
Singing.
o1pickleboy
11-11-2009, 08:04 PM
Keep in mind that the invasion involves gorgeous women with French accents, carrying poutine and maple syrup.
I surrender.
It'd also involve William Shatner.
Singing.
shit it was a trap
Conn Seanery
11-11-2009, 10:37 PM
Keep in mind that the invasion involves gorgeous women with French accents, carrying poutine and maple syrup.
I'm stuck behind enemy lines, but DO NOT send a rescue team. I'll stay here and face the peril.
howyadoin
11-12-2009, 01:10 AM
I'm stuck behind enemy lines, but DO NOT send a rescue team. I'll stay here and face the peril.You're a brave soldier. We'll never forget you.
It'd also involve William Shatner.
Singing.
bastards
.
gryhpon
11-13-2009, 10:17 AM
ive been interested in this, since im studying for my firearms license
Gary_B
11-13-2009, 11:20 AM
ive been interested in this, since im studying for my firearms license
Will the existence of a gun registry make a difference in whether or not you get a firearms license?
Spidercmb
11-13-2009, 12:27 PM
It worries me that the government feels the need to have a list of every firearm owned by private citizens.
Could someone tell me the purpose of such a registry?
gryhpon
11-13-2009, 01:13 PM
Will the existence of a gun registry make a difference in whether or not you get a firearms license?
no, im just interested in this as a side effect
gryhpon
11-13-2009, 01:19 PM
double post
It worries me that the government feels the need to have a list of every firearm owned by private citizens.
Could someone tell me the purpose of such a registry?
It becomes rather useful when investigating crimes involving firearms, oddly enough.
Spidercmb
11-13-2009, 02:05 PM
It becomes rather useful when investigating crimes involving firearms, oddly enough.
How so? Thefts? Or do you mean forensic ballistics?
Anything involving firearms, obviously.
At the very least, it gives law enforcement agencies a strong lead on where to go to track ownership of a weapon.
Even if said weapon was stolen from the registered owner, it gives them a place to start that they otherwise would not.
Spidercmb
11-13-2009, 02:20 PM
Anything involving firearms, obviously.
At the very least, it gives law enforcement agencies a strong lead on where to go to track ownership of a weapon.
Even if said weapon was stolen from the registered owner, it gives them a place to start that they otherwise would not.
Interesting.
Do you see any downside to a national gun registry?
howyadoin
11-13-2009, 02:25 PM
Interesting.
Do you see any downside to a national gun registry?Well, it can be a thorny issue when people who were raised to worship guns get involved...
Spidercmb
11-13-2009, 02:31 PM
Well, it can be a thorny issue when people who were raised to worship guns get involved...
Interesting. Who are these people who were "raised to worship guns"?
howyadoin
11-13-2009, 02:39 PM
Interesting. Who are these people who were "raised to worship guns"?Obviously not Canadians or Australians.
Dreadstar
11-13-2009, 02:42 PM
Anything involving firearms, obviously.
At the very least, it gives law enforcement agencies a strong lead on where to go to track ownership of a weapon.
Even if said weapon was stolen from the registered owner, it gives them a place to start that they otherwise would not.
Registering a weapon by serial number is one thing.
Registering a weapon by ballistics is another thing altogether. There are 1.7 million *registered* firearms in Canada. That interpolates to at least 4 million firearms in toto. If we assume that half of those guns are not registrable via ballistics (shotguns), that leaves you with 2 million guns that require ballistics registration. At a cost of $50 in overhead (hours, equipment, key-entry, etc.) that's $100 million dollars right off the bat. But don't worry, it won't be a quickly spent $100M.
If you have 100 people working 5 days a week 8 hours a day, and each registration takes an hour, it'll take two years to get it done, so you'll only have to spring for $50 Million a year.
*shrugs* I see little to no problem with that scenario.
Spidercmb
11-13-2009, 02:47 PM
Obviously not Canadians or Australians.
Obviously. It seems to me that the world would be a better place if people had less fear of guns and more respect.
Guarded by police, woman slain (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/12/Guarded-by-police-woman-slain/UPI-56821258073017/)
If this woman had respected the gun as a tool, she might be alive today. Sometimes, a gun is the right tool for the job.
Isn't it interesting that some would characterize as "worship" the respecting of a gun as a tool?
Spidercmb
11-13-2009, 02:51 PM
Registering a weapon by serial number is one thing.
Registering a weapon by ballistics is another thing altogether. There are 1.7 million *registered* firearms in Canada. That interpolates to at least 4 million firearms in toto. If we assume that half of those guns are not registrable via ballistics (shotguns), that leaves you with 2 million guns that require ballistics registration. At a cost of $50 in overhead (hours, equipment, key-entry, etc.) that's $100 million dollars right off the bat. But don't worry, it won't be a quickly spent $100M.
If you have 100 people working 5 days a week 8 hours a day, and each registration takes an hour, it'll take two years to get it done, so you'll only have to spring for $50 Million a year.
Not to mention that tool marks change over the years. Months of use could change the tool marks to the point that forensics ballistics would be useless.
So if you aren't registering for forensic ballistics (which is pointless for many reasons), the registry seems almost useless. What gun owner wouldn't report his / her gun missing or stolen? If they did that, they could supply the serial number. I'm not sure that I see the need for a registry and it seems like the Canadian people are starting the realize that a national gun registry is a tool of control, not protection.
howyadoin
11-13-2009, 02:54 PM
Obviously. It seems to me that the world would be a better place if people had less fear of guns and more respect.
Guarded by police, woman slain (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/12/Guarded-by-police-woman-slain/UPI-56821258073017/)
If this woman had respected the gun as a tool, she might be alive today. Sometimes, a gun is the right tool for the job.
Isn't it interesting that some would characterize as "worship" the respecting of a gun as a tool?I'm not against gun ownership, actually.
But it's nice to see that you've replaced "strawman" with "interesting" as your favourite word.
Dreadstar
11-13-2009, 02:56 PM
*shrugs* I see little to no problem with that scenario.
Of course not. But that's because it's simplified beyond simple. Now imagine trying to herd 2 million owners through the process in two years. Imagine the lead-up implementation. Imagine the tripled bureaucracy necessary to update the database as the ownership fluctuates.
You *might* actually get it all done in say, 10 or 15 years at an expense that puts he original figure to shame.
Besides, if I had a weapon registered to ballistics and I was intent on committing a crime with it or if I had stolen one that was registered, I'd alter the ballistics of it. All it takes is a tool harder than the inside of a gun barrel and some patience.
Spidercmb
11-13-2009, 02:59 PM
I'm not against gun ownership, actually.
But it's nice to see that you've replaced "strawman" with "interesting" as your favourite word.
Do you know what a national gun registry is used for?
It's not for fighting crime, forensic ballistics aren't reliable over even a few months of regular use.
It's not for returning them to the owners, if the gun(s) were stolen, the owner would contact the police and give the serial numbers of their gun(s).
The purpose is to take the guns from the people. It happened in the US with Katrina.
New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html)
New Orleans Mayor Admits Illegal Gun Confiscation (http://www.infowars.com/new-orleans-mayor-admits-illegal-gun-confiscation/)
Dreadstar
11-13-2009, 03:02 PM
Do you know what a national gun registry is used for?
It's not for fighting crime, forensic ballistics aren't reliable over even a few months of regular use.
Actually, I don't think ballistics is any part of the registry process in either Canada or the U.S.
I might be wrong, though. But if it's not, then all that registry *can* do is trace the chain of ownership once it's been found.
Spidercmb
11-13-2009, 03:03 PM
Actually, I don't think ballistics is any part of the registry process in either Canada or the U.S.
I might be wrong, though. But if it's not, then all that registry *can* do is trace the chain of ownership once it's been found.
Exactly, which is why a responsible owner would keep a record of his gun's serial numbers. If it's stolen, then it can be reported and returned.
howyadoin
11-13-2009, 03:04 PM
The purpose is to take the guns from the people.And... ?
.
Iangould
11-13-2009, 03:07 PM
Oh good another gun control thread.
They always end well.
Yes, because not knowing who could possibly own a gun found (for example) at a crime scene won't help law enforcement in the least.
Times like this, I wish we hadn't deleted that rolling eyes smilie.
Spidercmb
11-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Yes, because not knowing who could possibly own a gun found (for example) at a crime scene won't help law enforcement in the least.
Times like this, I wish we hadn't deleted that rolling eyes smilie.
I'm sure that would be helpful, but I have to wonder how often someone would use their own registered gun to commit a crime and then leave it behind. If it were a stolen gun, the own would report it. I think you are only going to catch the bottom of the barrel stupidest criminals with a gun registry.
howyadoin
11-13-2009, 03:22 PM
Times like this, I wish we hadn't deleted that rolling eyes smilie.Cronin would just ban you for it anyway. He's like that.
Dreadstar
11-13-2009, 03:34 PM
Oh good another gun control thread.
They always end well.
You're right. And proven immediately.
I'm sure that would be helpful, but I have to wonder how often someone would use their own registered gun to commit a crime and then leave it behind. If it were a stolen gun, the own would report it. I think you are only going to catch the bottom of the barrel stupidest criminals with a gun registry.
You're not acknowledging several factors:
A general registration scheme greatly reduces the number of weapons usable by criminals and makes them generally harder to use in a crime. At the very least, it'd make gun related crime harder and that is a very good thing.
A lot of criminals are stupid, if they weren't then they wouldn't be committing crimes.
A lot of crimes occur without planning or in the heat of a moment (especially domestic cases).
Even if this only goes to help catch the stupidest criminals, it's a pretty good start and only helps society. If, for example, it only costs $50 million to do ... that's nothing in a national budget for a scheme which actually gets results.
America's fascination with the 2nd Amendment is one that generally fascinates the rest of the world, in a general bewildering sort of way. Guns, except in certain specific circumstances (military, law enforcement, etc), are not a good thing. Giving any person the ability to end the life of another with just the squeeze of a trigger is asking for a huge amount of trouble ... but that would explain why the USA has some of the highest gun related crime stats in the civilised world.
Dreadstar
11-13-2009, 03:55 PM
You're not acknowledging several factors:
A general registration scheme greatly reduces the number of weapons usable by criminals and makes them generally harder to use in a crime. At the very least, it'd make gun related crime harder and that is a very good thing.
I don't believe I follow that logic. Why is the number greatly reduced? Why does it make gun crime harder? I'm seeing some leaps in logic here that I'm not getting.
Guns, except in certain specific circumstances (military, law enforcement, etc), are not a good thing.
They aren't a bad thing. They're just a *thing*.
Giving any person the ability to end the life of another with just the squeeze of a trigger is asking for a huge amount of trouble ... but that would explain why the USA has some of the highest gun related crime stats in the civilised world.
You do realize that Canada has about as many guns as the U.S. does and a far lesser statistic in the "gun related crime" area, don't you? It's a social problem not a gun problem.
I don't believe I follow that logic. Why is the number greatly reduced? Why does it make gun crime harder? I'm seeing some leaps in logic here that I'm not getting.
If a gun is registered, then it's relatively easy to follow ownership/possession of it. No one would want to use a registered gun in any sort of planned crime, so extra and more complicated steps would need to be taken to obtain one - thus effectively reducing the number of guns in criminal endeavours.
They aren't a bad thing. They're just a *thing*.
I would disagree there or at least modify the statement.
If most circumstances, guns in the hands of private citizens are a bad thing. There are plenty of ways to defend yourself and/or home without the need to resort to firearms.
You do realize that Canada has about as many guns as the U.S. does and a far lesser statistic in the "gun related crime" area, don't you? It's a social problem not a gun problem.
Yes and leaving firearms so freely available in a nation which has so many social problems is a really daft idea. Sometimes it helps a lot to attack symptoms as well as the cause of a problem.
Iangould
11-13-2009, 05:07 PM
You do realize that Canada has about as many guns as the U.S. does and a far lesser statistic in the "gun related crime" area, don't you? It's a social problem not a gun problem.
Or maybe it's a "gun regulation" thing.
Question: what are the relative proportions of handguns and long arms in the two countries?
Paradox
11-13-2009, 09:50 PM
Matt should know the rhetoric by now:
Times like this, I wish we hadn't deleted that rolling eyes smilie.
When rolling eye smileys are outlawed, only outlaws will have rolling eye smileys. http://forum.morphzone.net/images/smilies/Eye_rolling_smiley.gif
When rolling eye smileys are outlawed, only outlaws will have rolling eye smileys. http://forum.morphzone.net/images/smilies/Eye_rolling_smiley.gif
That's it! You're banned!
Paradox
11-13-2009, 10:56 PM
You can have my rolling eye smiley when you peel my cold dead linking ability from around it!
http://forum.morphzone.net/images/smilies/Eye_rolling_smiley.gifhttp://forum.morphzone.net/images/smilies/Eye_rolling_smiley.gifhttp://forum.morphzone.net/images/smilies/Eye_rolling_smiley.gif
Subotai
11-13-2009, 11:29 PM
The cops say it'll help fight crime. I agree. Harper's pandering to his crowd, and Igyy lacks the stones to do the right thing, unfortunately.
Gary_B
11-13-2009, 11:42 PM
Or maybe it's a "gun regulation" thing.
Question: what are the relative proportions of handguns and long arms in the two countries?
I would guess that there is a higher proportion of handguns relative to long arms south of the border. Canada has required that handguns be registered since the 30's. I have read numerous articles that suggest handguns have become fairly easy for criminals to obtain in Canada due to the porosity of the Canada/US border. In other words, gun violence in Canada is just another aspect of our culture that is heavily influenced by our huge southern neighbour.
howyadoin
11-13-2009, 11:43 PM
Canada has required that handguns be registered since the 30's.Wow, they're taking a loooonnng time to confiscate our guns.
Paradox
11-13-2009, 11:52 PM
They're lulling you into a false sense of security! The slippery sloped bastards!
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.