Gun Control

Jsan
#1
Interesting news story on ABC 20/20 tonight about how the Myth that gun control lowers crime really is a myth when the facts are investigated. I found the story interesting because the typical view of the media is that gun control works but the reality is that when you actually take the time, do the research and check the facts, it not only does not lower crime, crime increases. It's no myth that criminals will arm themselves regardless of what the laws are because criminals do not follow laws. Gun control only works at disarming law abiding citizens. You only have to take a look at the UK where gun crimes and now knife crimes are out of control to the point that the government wants to bring in knife control laws? Again, naively believing that criminals will obey the law?
Gun control empowers the criminal to the extent that he knows that when he enters your house, the odds are in his favor that you do not own a gun. This puts him in control and like was mentioned in the video, you can call the police but the chances are they will be coming to a crime scene by the time they arrive. I am not in favor of making Canada's gun laws any less strict, I do believe that licensing, training and extensive background checks like we currently have are thorough and a good idea however, I do believe that the long gun registry is NOT any sort of deterrent and that as the Conservatives have stated, that money could be put to better use by increasing police forces and really having a measurable impact on crime. Not the grandstanding, political impact that the Liberal and NDP seem to feel that keeping the long gun registry has. Heres the 20/20 link.

abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1 (external - login to view)
 
Liberalman
#2
Do you realize that most people that commit gun crimes are the ones that have Conservative beliefs?

Every gun should be registered long, short, zip, whatever it all should be registered.

This is another important tool that help police solve the crimes faster.

This in itself is a deterrent.

If you own a gun in Canada it has to be kept in a secure area of the home.

Handguns have to be kept in a gun safe.

The national gun registry is worth the investment because it takes criminals off the street which means the gun crime comes down.

The government should go one step further and charge gun makers that made the guns that were used in crime that killed people.

If the gun makers were made responsible for the deaths that their guns cause then they would be more motivated to keep better records of who bought their guns.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#3
Yes, I agree, why are guns that are obviously made to kill people allowed to be manufactured in the
first place. The whole thing is so hyppcritical.
Factories are making them to kill people, gun stores are selling them to kill people, then the killer
uses the gun to kill someone, and everyone is 'shocked', give me a break.
 
Blackleaf
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by JsanView Post

Gun control only works at disarming law abiding citizens. You only have to take a look at the UK where gun crimes and now knife crimes are out of control to the point that the government wants to bring in knife control laws?

Gun crime is DOWN by a whopping 16% in England and Wales. In London alone, it is down by 11.3%. Overall crime in London is down to its lowest point in eight years. According to a Home Office report:


Gun Crime Down in England & Wales - April 2007

ACCORDING to the latest figures from the Home Office there was a 16 per cent decrease in the number of firearms offences (these exclude airgun offences) in the year to December 2006 The annual total was down to 9,513. Serious and slight injuries were reduced by 12 per cent and 28 percent, respectively. Offences resulting in fatalities rose from 53 to 57.

Metropolitan Police have announced that gun-enabled crime in London is down by 11.3 per cent and Trident gun crime is down by 15 per cent. Overall crime is at an eight-year low (24dash.com, 19 April 2007).


'Gun-Minding' Offences and Other New Measures Introduced - April 2007

GETTING SOMEONE to hide a weapon, a gun or a knife, from the police has become an offence under measures brought forward by the Government. Adults who use children to hide guns could face up to 10 years in prison, those using other adults face up to four years in prison. A minimum five-year sentence will now apply to possession of a firearm with intent to injure, possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, possession of a firearm in a public place and trespassing in a building with a firearm (BBC, 6 April 2007).


http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/Crime
__________________________________

As for knife crime -

Quote:

According to official statistics the number of violent crimes involving knives in England and Wales has declined over the last ten years. Knife use has increased over the past 12 months, but the use of knives in mugging and robbery has significantly decreased from 1995's figures.

www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/ccjs...rime-2006.html (external - login to view)
Last edited by Blackleaf; May 5th, 2007 at 07:21 AM..
 
Colpy
Conservative
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

Do you realize that most people that commit gun crimes are the ones that have Conservative beliefs?

Every gun should be registered long, short, zip, whatever it all should be registered.

This is another important tool that help police solve the crimes faster.

This in itself is a deterrent.

If you own a gun in Canada it has to be kept in a secure area of the home.

Handguns have to be kept in a gun safe.

The national gun registry is worth the investment because it takes criminals off the street which means the gun crime comes down.

The government should go one step further and charge gun makers that made the guns that were used in crime that killed people.

If the gun makers were made responsible for the deaths that their guns cause then they would be more motivated to keep better records of who bought their guns.

First of all, what do you mean gun crimes are committed by people with conservative beliefs? That is the single dumbest statement I have seen on these forums.

If I hadn't looked at your handle, I'd have assumed this post was a joke. You know absolutely nothing about the issue.....that's obvious. Allow me to educate you.

The gun registry does not help solve crimes. If you call into the registry with a firearm's serial number, they CAN NOT tell you who that gun is registered to. That is because each firearms company uses there own serial number process, so numbers are repeated over and over and over again. In one case, it was found 19 Walther PPs were registered under the same number.......the patent number etched on the slide. So, for the registry to solve a crime, the criminal would have to use the firearm, leave it at the scene, along with it's registration certificate so the police could get the new FIN off that piece of paper, AND it would have to be a gun that was owned and registered by the criminal.

If you think that actually happens, well........

The handgun registry pre-1995 was so inaccurate it was not admissible as evidence in court. The NFA is already working on setting precedents so the new registry will be the same.......and believe me, from my experience with it, they will suceed.

Please explain now how the national gun registry takes criminals off the streets......this I'd love to hear.

Gun manufacturers produce a product meant to be used in a certain fashion..........if it is misused, how can they be responsible?
 
Jsan
#6
I'll tell you what, let's make a deal. You always hear from the media regarding the evils of guns etc, etc, and Liberals are very quick to jump on their soap box and demand that law abiding citizens give up their right to own firearms to give themselves a false sense of security. Face it, the reality is you will just get a false sense of security because as the statistics show, the criminal element of our society will still arm themselves because after all, you are their prey.
Here's my deal. I don't drink, I consider alcohol to be nothing more than a drug. I've been to enough bars in my college days to see the brawls fueled by alcohol, I've read the statistics of how almost half of all emergency room admissions are alcohol related, of how at least half of all vehicle deaths are alcohol related of all the spousal abuse, child abuse, and overall societal destruction that is caused by alcohol. The amount of health care money that is spent for alcohol related injuries is staggering. So, my proposal is I will be willing to give up my rights to firearm ownership in exchange for an outright ban on alcohol. Everyone knows that alcohol has caused way more death, injury and destruction in our society than guns yet you never hear the media talking about banning alcohol, you never hear politicians talking about alcohol etc. etc. Why? Because it is our societies drug of choice and they all use it and would not give it up regardless of how destructive it is. The Liberal argument is guns are only good for one thing, killing, we'll my argument is alcohol is only good for one thing, getting a buzz or downright hammered. BTW, spare me the lecture about how banning alcohol was tried 80 years ago and it didn't work etc. etc Different time, different place.

www.madd.ca/english/research/magnitudememo.html (external - login to view)
 
Jsan
#7
Britain is a classic case of the "knee jerk" type of reaction that happens by politicians as crime goes out of control. 10 years after the UK all but banned all gun ownership gun crime continues to be out of control. Why? Because banning guns does NOT stop gun crime because criminals will ALWAYS be able to purchase illegal guns. Britain is an island among itself yet illegal guns continue to flood into the country. Canada shares the longest undefended border with the US which has anywhere between 200 to 300 million firearms. Trying to stop illegal guns from flooding into this country is next to impossible when you have politicians who consider spending Billions of dollars tracking the considerably smaller amount of rifles owned by law abiding Canadians a good crime reducing initiative. Personally I have never had an issue with registering my rifles but I also understand that it has ZERO effect on crime and only wastes money that could be spent beefing up border security and increasing funding to police forces. It is impossible to get this point across to most non gun owners. Again, they get a false sense of security from the gun registry.
Remember, all guns in the UK were confiscated and it is illegal to not only own a gun, it is also illegal to own any ammunition. Basically the UK is a gunfree zone but only for law abiding citizens, the criminals as usual will always have guns regardless of laws and bans. Obviously the gun ban did not work like they had thought it would.

www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2016190,00.html (external - login to view)

www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2015829,00.html (external - login to view)

www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2061735,00.html (external - login to view)

www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2015705,00.html (external - login to view)

www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2015692,00.html (external - login to view)

www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2018852,00.html (external - login to view)
 
snfu73
#8
All I can say is that I am a firm believer in gun control. Personally, I don't get why so many gun owners were so pissed off about the gun registery. Seems to me it was a good idea...AND it was helpful to the so called "legitimate" gun owners out there. Guns are stolen all the time. With the registry, it can help link a gun to a specific owner. If a gun is found on someone and the police are able to determine that the gun they have is not theirs, they can be charged, you most likely will have the person who stole your gun in the first place discovered, and the gun could theoretically be returned to the rightful owner, who, theoretically will use it in a lawful way. Seems like it helps the gun owner as well as society. It helps make sure that those who have bought the gun legally, stay with the gun legally. But...nooooo.....gun owners have to complain. Heaven forbid...a registry. Then folks complain about the money spent...without thinking that it is money that goes right back into the economy in the form of wages and new jobs, contracts, etc...which is GOOD...money circulating is good. It wasn't a billion dollars that just disappeared into thin air. It was money that went back into the economy, and was retaxed...that is not a bad thing. Plus, like I have mentioned before, cars are heavily regulated...yet gun owners feel their guns should not be? These are instruments created specifically...the kill...that is the whole point of them. I don't think any gun owner created a gun thinking "Boy, I bet this will blow a can off of a fence post beautifully!".
 
Jsan
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73View Post

All I can say is that I am a firm believer in gun control. Personally, I don't get why so many gun owners were so pissed off about the gun registery. Seems to me it was a good idea...AND it was helpful to the so called "legitimate" gun owners out there. Guns are stolen all the time. With the registry, it can help link a gun to a specific owner. If a gun is found on someone and the police are able to determine that the gun they have is not theirs, they can be charged, you most likely will have the person who stole your gun in the first place discovered, and the gun could theoretically be returned to the rightful owner, who, theoretically will use it in a lawful way. Seems like it helps the gun owner as well as society. It helps make sure that those who have bought the gun legally, stay with the gun legally. But...nooooo.....gun owners have to complain. Heaven forbid...a registry. Then folks complain about the money spent...without thinking that it is money that goes right back into the economy in the form of wages and new jobs, contracts, etc...which is GOOD...money circulating is good. It wasn't a billion dollars that just disappeared into thin air. It was money that went back into the economy, and was retaxed...that is not a bad thing. Plus, like I have mentioned before, cars are heavily regulated...yet gun owners feel their guns should not be? These are instruments created specifically...the kill...that is the whole point of them. I don't think any gun owner created a gun...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post

I really think you are missing the point. I am not opposed to the gun registry. I am opposed to the misconception that all of the money being spent to operate it has any impact on crime. Is it important to know that a 60 year old farmer in Saskatchewan owns a shotgun? Every firearms owner in this country has to have a firearms permit until the day they get rid of their last gun. So isn't this enough information for the government to keep track of who has firearms?
Your argument for keeping money circulating in the economy does not make anymore sense than the Pentagon purchasing 100 dollar hammers because after all the red tape a 10 dollar hammer becomes 10x as expensive. How about taking that money and increasing the amount of border guards, how about increasing the amount of inspectors at shipping ports and installing more sophisticated monitoring equipment? Don't you think this would have more impact on curtailing the real problem which is illegal weapons from flooding across the border while at the same time helping employ people and cutting crime?
 
Pangloss
#10
Liberalman:

Now here I was, all prepared to once again agree with you, and you write this:

Do you realize that most people that commit gun crimes are the ones that have Conservative beliefs?

and then this:

The national gun registry is worth the investment because it takes criminals off the street which means the gun crime comes down.

The rest of your post is quite sensible. Even the gun crooks=conservative thing might make sense, if there were any serious research to back it up, which I highly doubt there is.

Man, if you didn't go overboard, you'd be so much more credible.

Pangloss
 
Phil B
#11
Just a minor point but guns are not banned in Britain.

Automatic weapons and handguns are banned, but shotguns and rifles are not - However to obtain a license for either of these a "need" has to be presented ie. pest control or membership of a shooting club etc.
 
Vicious
#12
As with most Liberal policies it's not about solving the problem it's about appearing to care about the problem. Announcing how much they wish to spend on the problem.

The easiest solution to the gun problem is to make using a gun in any offense punishable by 25 years with no parole, no plea bargain. You print the name and picture of everyone convicted. Making laws won't solve the problem. Enforcing the laws and punishing those who break the law to the fullest will solve the problem.

Law abiding citizens who own a gun shouldn't have to pay for the actions of criminals.
 
snfu73
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by ViciousView Post

As with most Liberal policies it's not about solving the problem it's about appearing to care about the problem. Announcing how much they wish to spend on the problem.

The easiest solution to the gun problem is to make using a gun in any offense punishable by 25 years with no parole, no plea bargain. You print the name and picture of everyone convicted. Making laws won't solve the problem. Enforcing the laws and punishing those who break the law to the fullest will solve the problem.

Law abiding citizens who own a gun shouldn't have to pay for the actions of criminals.

says the man named VICIOUS!!!!??? That's a law abiding gun owners name if I ever saw one. Yes...give that guy named VICIOUS a gun...we ALL will feel safe...you bet.

I think so called 'liberal" policies are more about being proactive, then having dead bodies...and THEN acting. I like the idea of a problem being tackled before people end up dead.
 
Tim Hamilton
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

Do you realize that most people that commit gun crimes are the ones that have Conservative beliefs?

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I would love to see a source for this, but I suspect I never will since it's completely fabricated nonsense.
 
Tim Hamilton
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73View Post

says the man named VICIOUS!!!!??? That's a law abiding gun owners name if I ever saw one. Yes...give that guy named VICIOUS a gun...we ALL will feel safe...you bet.

I think so called 'liberal" policies are more about being proactive, then having dead bodies...and THEN acting. I like the idea of a problem being tackled before people end up dead.

Except that it DOESN'T "tackle" any problem. Just because something is being done doesn't mean it's accomplishing anything, and this is definitely true for gun control.

There is no correlation whatsoever between rates of gun ownership and gun crime. The correlation has always been between POVERTY and gun crime.
 
snfu73
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Tim HamiltonView Post

Except that it DOESN'T "tackle" any problem. Just because something is being done doesn't mean it's accomplishing anything, and this is definitely true for gun control.

There is no correlation whatsoever between rates of gun ownership and gun crime. The correlation has always been between POVERTY and gun crime.

Ohhh...and the conservative government is REALLY helping the poverty issue...as the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow. Conservative governments are notorious for NOT helping the poor....so, essentially, once again, they are doing the wrong thing.

Anyway, I have discussed before why I feel the gun registry is a good thing for society and gun owners alike...I can't remember if it is in this thread or not...I shall track that down. Oh...it is....a few threads up.

Anyway, how exactly is the conservative government tackling the problem...and how is it helping as far as you see it? I ask this not as a snarky question....but to find some information that can shed light on the conversation.
 
snfu73
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by JsanView Post

I really think you are missing the point. I am not opposed to the gun registry. I am opposed to the misconception that all of the money being spent to operate it has any impact on crime. Is it important to know that a 60 year old farmer in Saskatchewan owns a shotgun? Every firearms owner in this country has to have a firearms permit until the day they get rid of their last gun. So isn't this enough information for the government to keep track of who has firearms?
Your argument for keeping money circulating in the economy does not make anymore sense than the Pentagon purchasing 100 dollar hammers because after all the red tape a 10 dollar hammer becomes 10x as expensive. How about taking that money and increasing the amount of border guards, how about increasing the amount of inspectors at shipping ports and installing more sophisticated monitoring equipment? Don't you think this would have more impact on curtailing the real problem which is illegal weapons from flooding across the border while at the same time helping employ people and cutting crime?

I'm not saying you don't make a good point on the money issue....my point on that was more that what is happening isn't the horror story of money being completely wasted that it sometimes is made out to be. The money does recirculate. Would the money be more useful being put into the areas you stated? Yes is the simple answer. However, to completely write off what the previous government has done with gun control issues, and particularily the money spent, to me, is not exactly fair.

At this juncture I do want to point out that I am not a huge liberal party supporter...however, if choosing between the evils of the conservative party as I see them, and the liberal party, I would choose the liberal party anytime.

I still believe that the gun registry was a useful tool that made sense in the long run. Perfect? No. The absolute positive final say in solving gun crime issues? No. But it did adress some issues which I think are important. It helps to differentiate much easier between so called legitimate gun ownership and illegal gun ownership. To me, it works in favour of those who have registered the gun...in terms of keeping those weapons from getting into the wrong hands...or if they do, making it easier to prosecute those who get those guns in illegal ways. There are still other issues that do need attention, as you have stated, and that is the illegal flow of guns into the country, which is very difficult, given our massive, sometimes very porous borders. There is no easy solution for that either. It is a complex problem. I feel the gun registry at least addressed some issues in terms of guns in our society.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73View Post

I still believe that the gun registry was a useful tool that made sense in the long run. Perfect? No. The absolute positive final say in solving gun crime issues? No. But it did adress some issues which I think are important. It helps to differentiate much easier between so called legitimate gun ownership and illegal gun ownership. To me, it works in favour of those who have registered the gun...in terms of keeping those weapons from getting into the wrong hands...or if they do, making it easier to prosecute those who get those guns in illegal ways. There are still other issues that do need attention, as you have stated, and that is the illegal flow of guns into the country, which is very difficult, given our massive, sometimes very porous borders. There is no easy solution for that either. It is a complex problem. I feel the gun registry at least addressed some issues in terms of guns in our society.

Two billion dollars. For a program the Liberal government claimed would cost 10 million. That's one hell of a lot of "recirculating" of my money just to harass me. And that is the point. The registry achieves nothing more than the harassment of people who would own firearms for legitimate purposes. Licensing provides a method of separating those who are legitimate from tose who are not.

For the registry is a complete waste of time and money, absolutely a mess in its administration, inaccurate, frustrating to deal with, useless. Nobody wants no gun control, but this attempt classify guns as "good" or "bad" and then to create lists of them under their classification is just silly......in fact impossible to do right.

The solution is simple. Licensing. Found with a gun? Got a license? Yes? OK. No? Go to jail. Simple, and cost-effective.
 
snfu73
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Two billion dollars. For a program the Liberal government claimed would cost 10 million. That's one hell of a lot of "recirculating" of my money just to harass me. And that is the point. The registry achieves nothing more than the harassment of people who would own firearms for legitimate purposes. Licensing provides a method of separating those who are legitimate from tose who are not.

For the registry is a complete waste of time and money, absolutely a mess in its administration, inaccurate, frustrating to deal with, useless. Nobody wants no gun control, but this attempt classify guns as "good" or "bad" and then to create lists of them under their classification is just silly......in fact impossible to do right.

The solution is simple. Licensing. Found with a gun? Got a license? Yes? OK. No? Go to jail. Simple, and cost-effective.

So...you have a license....you are found with a gun...everything is cool...but what if it is someone elses gun? Say it is your gun that has been stolen from your house? And so, no one with a license commits a crime with a gun? The gun registry makes sure that the person who bought the gun has the gun, and if anyone else has the gun...there is another way that a non legit gun owner can be busted, furthering the chances of being persecuted. Furthermore, cops liked the registry because it gave them a little more information when they would go out to, say, a domestic dispute call...they can check the database and see if there is a gun registered to that address, or to the person who is involved or what have you.

I don't see it as just harrasment. I see it as a good idea. It came to a larger cost than expected, BUT it created jobs in the job starved maritimes, it needed contracts for everything from paper to administrative related duties, etc...in other words...it helped people, it gave jobs, it provided incomes that were then again taxed, AND, although not the end all and be all, it was more useful than the pro gun crowd likes to admit. I think even if it saved the life of a pro gun owners own mother, they would still complain about it.
 
Tim Hamilton
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73View Post

Ohhh...and the conservative government is REALLY helping the poverty issue...as the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow.

What is your point? This has nothing to do with gun control, the gun registry, or any of the other issues that have been raised in regards to this subject. Try sticking to the topic and not rambling on about completely irrelevant issues.

Quote:

Anyway, I have discussed before why I feel the gun registry is a good thing for society and gun owners alike...I can't remember if it is in this thread or not...I shall track that down. Oh...it is....a few threads up.

And all the arguments you have put forth have been easily refuted and proven wrong, yet you still cling to your ridiculous notions and refuse to accept the facts because you don't want to hear them.
 
Tim Hamilton
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73View Post

I don't see it as just harrasment. I see it as a good idea. It came to a larger cost than expected, BUT it created jobs in the job starved maritimes, it needed contracts for everything from paper to administrative related duties, etc...in other words...it helped people, it gave jobs, it provided incomes that were then again taxed, AND, although not the end all and be all, it was more useful than the pro gun crowd likes to admit.

So your argument in favor of the registry now is that it is a make-work project? Are you completely delusional? You could justify just about any government program conceivable on the basis that it costs money. Let's create a bureau of phone quality checkers; they can roam the country making sure everyone has a phone of high quality. It won't accomplish a damn thing, but hey, it'll create work that doesn't need to be done so it must be a great idea!

The idea that this type of spending is beneficial is hilariously ignorant. I would suggest you take some basic economics courses to see why taxing people to give tax money to people so you can tax them again accomplishes nothing.

Creating jobs is only significant because they create wealth. When the wealth created by a job isn't actually created but shuffled over from someone else, you have ZERO economic gain and an economic LOSS associated with the overhead required to facilitate the shuffling.

The money spent on that registry could have been spent on healthcare, education or any number of things that would have created jobs AND provided a benefit to the community. The registry created jobs but provided no benefit at all. It was a complete waste of money that accomplished nothing.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73View Post

So...you have a license....you are found with a gun...everything is cool...but what if it is someone elses gun? Say it is your gun that has been stolen from your house? And so, no one with a license commits a crime with a gun? The gun registry makes sure that the person who bought the gun has the gun, and if anyone else has the gun...there is another way that a non legit gun owner can be busted, furthering the chances of being persecuted. Furthermore, cops liked the registry because it gave them a little more information when they would go out to, say, a domestic dispute call...they can check the database and see if there is a gun registered to that address, or to the person who is involved or what have you.

I don't see it as just harrasment. I see it as a good idea. It came to a larger cost than expected, BUT it created jobs in the job starved maritimes, it needed contracts for everything from paper to administrative related duties, etc...in other words...it helped people, it gave jobs, it provided incomes that were then again taxed, AND, although not the end all and be all, it was more useful than the pro gun crowd likes to admit. I think even if it saved the life of a pro gun owners own mother, they would still complain about it.

Unfortunately, what you say is simply not true. First of all, at least 10%, and perhaps as many as 25% of the firearms held by decent people in this country have NOT been registered. That is why there is a continuing amnesty, and why they are still registering guns no questions asked. Compliance by gun owners has simply not been at a level that would make the system effective, on the doubtful assumption that making the system effective is even possible........see below.

Secondly, you assume, as do most of the uninformed, that an officer can call up the registry and enter a serial number, which will tell him who owns that firearm.

NOPE!

As I explained earlier, this is simply not possible. Too many incompetents in the bureaucracy, too many firearms with the same serial number, too many mistakes in the registry, and the computers simply won't do it. Waste of time.

I live in New Brunswick. Tell you what, if you want to do a make-work project, I have a large back yard. Why don't you just hire 100 folks to dig a ditch, and 100 more to come along behind and fill it in, and leave me the phuck alone otherwise.

GEEZUS!

My patience is tested when it come to wasting my money on useless list-making, and the support of a law that is unconstitutional in a number of ways............and through which people can be jailed for years for not maintaining the proper paper-work. Talk about a police state!

Under the Firearms Act:

Search warrants are DIRECTED to be issued when there is no evidence of any crime even having been committed. So much for the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

You can get two years in jail for failing to aid an officer searching your home, including answering all his questions. So much for the right to remain silent.

You must prove you have licenses and registrations for your firearms. So much for the right to be assumed innocent.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING?
Last edited by Colpy; May 6th, 2007 at 06:13 PM..
 
snfu73
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Tim HamiltonView Post

What is your point? This has nothing to do with gun control, the gun registry, or any of the other issues that have been raised in regards to this subject. Try sticking to the topic and not rambling on about completely irrelevant issues.



And all the arguments you have put forth have been easily refuted and proven wrong, yet you still cling to your ridiculous notions and refuse to accept the facts because you don't want to hear them.

Okay....recap....YOU stated that the problem is POVERTY...not guns and whatever. So, I refuted what you said by saying essentially, that, okay, if that is the issue, than what is current government doing to help that. From what I am seeing, it is creating a gap between the rich and the poor...more people are becoming poorer...therefore the issue becomes exasberated. I felt that what I said was perfectly on topic and direct response to your statement.
 
snfu73
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Unfortunately, what you say is simply not true. First of all, at least 10%, and perhaps as many as 25% of the firearms held by decent people in this country have NOT been registered. That is why there is a continuing amnesty, and why they are still registering guns no questions asked. Compliance by gun owners has simply not been at a level that would make the system effective, on the doubtful assumption that making the system effective is even possible........see below.

Secondly, you assume, as do most of the uninformed, that an officer can call up the registry and enter a serial number, which will tell him who owns that firearm.

NOPE!

As I explained earlier, this is simply not possible. Too many incompetents in the bureaucracy, too many firearms with the same serial number, too many mistakes in the registry, and the computers simply won't do it. Waste of time.

I live in New Brunswick. Tell you what, if you want to do a make-work project, I have a large back yard. Why don't you just hire 100 folks to dig a ditch, and 100 more to come along behind and fill it in, and leave me the phuck alone otherwise.

GEEZUS!

My patience is tested when it come to wasting my money on useless list-making, and the support of a law that is unconstitutional in a number of ways............and through which people can be jailed for years for not maintaining the proper paper-work. Talk about a police state!

Under the Firearms Act:

Search warrants are DIRECTED to be issued when there is no evidence of any crime even having been committed. So much for the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

You can get two years in jail for failing to aid an officer searching your home, including answering all his questions. So much for the right to remain silent.

You must prove you have licenses and registrations for your firearms. So much for the right to be assumed innocent.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING?

My patience is equally tried by waste of money...but I see that it continues to happen. The liberals had something with the idea of decriminalizing reasonable amount of pot. This would have saved PLENTY of resources and money that could have been used for a variety of things. But, then Harper came in and wiped out that plan. To me...waste of money and time.

Okay...now...this is again meant as an honest question to you...how can two guns have the same serial number? I ask, again, out of genuinly not knowing and wanting to learn.

Do I know what I am defending? I am no expert, I will defenitly grant you that. I am merely another guy in these forums with viewpoints and opinions...who has looked at various sources...but definitly not all there is out there. I think this is an interesting discussion, and in interesting topic...one that has seen it's fair share of debate over time. This is a good way to learn about an issue...you have opposing views to me, and I appreciate that...and can learn from what you state. You are in hold of facts that I might not have...that's the way one learns.

Anyway, I remember back when the conservatives were talking about scrapping the whole gun registry deal. I do remember that one of the arguements put forth by police representatives was the concept of being able to get more information on what guns might be associated with which people through the gun registry. If I am wrong, I am wrong. I will try to look up and see if I can find a reference to that somewhere.

Now...if I get this straight, it also sounds like what you are telling me is that gun owners themselves have done everything to thwart the gun registry? I hear that people do not like it, that they think it is a waste of time, etc...but is it really? Did folks give it the chance it deserved? I don't believe so...and in such case, probably helped to drive up the costs. Just speculation of course....an idea to think about.

I dunno...I just want to jump into any car I want and drive whenever and whereever at any speed...but, the damn government keeps harrasing me! What fascist pigs! I'm responsible. It's everyone ELSE that is irresponsible...why should I pay for their irresponsibility. I want to own a nuclear bomb...but again, the damn government keeps harrassing me. I want if for legit purposes...so, what's the problem? I wish they would get off of MY back? Get the guys who would use their nuclear bombs for bad...leave ME alone! I'm a responsible nuclear weapon owning Canadian! I'm tired of this police state that we live in!

I feel that gun owners should be licensed (which they are), the guns should be registered (just like cars are), and that gun owners must have insurance ( so that anyone accidently harmed by a legit gun can get compensation).

Anyway...what IS a legit reason to have a gun? Why all the concern? How do you feel your life would be negatively impacted if you DIDN'T have a gun...or couldn't have a gun? Why are you fighting so hard over these objects? Why this issue and not others? Why are you not complaining about..I dunno...whatever...something else? Why is this such a thorn in so many peoples sides? And it really is...sometimes it seems like a obsessiveness on the part of the pro gun crowd over their weapons (and that is what they are...they are designed to kill)? Where does this come from? Why is it so?
 
snfu73
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Tim HamiltonView Post

What is your point? This has nothing to do with gun control, the gun registry, or any of the other issues that have been raised in regards to this subject. Try sticking to the topic and not rambling on about completely irrelevant issues.



And all the arguments you have put forth have been easily refuted and proven wrong, yet you still cling to your ridiculous notions and refuse to accept the facts because you don't want to hear them.

To the second part...this IS a conversation...is it not? I don't believe all of my ideas or arguements have been refuted, however, if you wish to compile it all into an essay and prove to me that every argument that I put forth on this issue HAS been refuted, completely, 100 percent, then I will read it. In the meantime, I will continue with this conversation...one that I find interesting...and one that I am learning a great deal from...which is, to me, the whole point of a conversation like this.
 
folcar
#26
Gun control only works against law abiding citizens and that is a fact, as any carreer criminal is never going to register his weapons. It is also effective in letting the criminal know if he is taking part in home invasions or car jacking type crimes that most of the public he is victimizing is unarmed. The gun registry has only been effective in one area, a whole bunch of un-elected beaurocrats have got filthy stinking rich off something that should have never been passed into legislation.
 
s243a
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by folcarView Post

Gun control only works against law abiding citizens.

Most criminals are law abiding at one point in their life. It is a tough argument to prove. Can we really estimate the number of people that have guns that might use them to shoot someone while committing a crime. Anyway, I am probably in the minority but I really don't care about gun control. It is just a tradeoff between liberty and freedom. I'm not convinced one way or the other.
 
folcar
#28
I for one am not crazy about gun control, any true blooded criminal will never abide by it, and enforcing it as we have seen is an expensive and wastefull proposition that has proven fruitless so far.
 
s243a
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by folcarView Post

I for one am not crazy about gun control, any true blooded criminal will never abide by it, and enforcing it as we have seen is an expensive and wastefull proposition that has proven fruitless so far.

I don't buy the expensive argument. It is just a database why does it need to be that expensive?
 
snfu73
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by folcarView Post

I for one am not crazy about gun control, any true blooded criminal will never abide by it, and enforcing it as we have seen is an expensive and wastefull proposition that has proven fruitless so far.

Well...then that is..okay...that is kinda how the system works. If you don't comply, the law is against you, and therefore...you are prosecuted. So, not only are you prosecuted for the crime, you will have the additional issue of a gun that has been unregistered, or not legit being used in the crime, or if not used in the crime per say, being...I dunno...something. Anyway, the point is, the person has an extra charge to face.

What is a true blooded criminal anyway? I still go back to what I think is an important point, although I know colpy doesn't agree, that it further helps to differenciate between those who are so called legit gun owners and those who are not so legit. If you are abiding by the law and registering your gun, etc...you are differentiating yourself from someone who is doing illegal activities. If someone is not registering their weapon because, say, they want to do harm with it, or want to do some bad stuff with it, the chances of that weapon being removed from that persons possession increase before the person does harm for it...no? I mean, this is the way I am interpreting things. It seems very logical to me.
 

Similar Threads

3
who is in control
by Carmoral | Oct 13th, 2006
1
Klein out of COntrol
by Jersay | Mar 2nd, 2006
0
Gun control.
by American Voice | Jun 5th, 2004
no new posts