Long Gun Registry -Yes- No
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
That I have....and before you ask...in my lifetime I have fired at least 25000 round out of handguns and rifles and I have never accidently shot myself or other humans in the process...so your questions are irrelevant:roll:
Ron, there's a reason that scientific survey methods are sent out randomly. There's a huge selection bias in an online call for input. Those with an axe to grind are already out there looking for this stuff. The police who use this tool as just a tool and have no problems aren't cruising the internet forums ranting about it.
As to whether or not it's useless, there is some rather famous testimony going around right now in the media. Some family members were concerned about a suicidal family member who owned some guns. They wanted the guns removed. The police checked the registry and found 21 long guns registered in addition to the firearms the family members informed police of.
So, there's one actual example.
In the same vein, I wouldn't go to a pharmaceutical forum to get a representative view of the health professions views on treating suicidal patients.
Non?...If you have a tool that you don't feel is safe to use....one word for it is "Useless"!
The registry is a tool - How you use it and the information is up to the officer making the call.
And i have not shot anyoe and I have fired off a lot more rounds than that - Handguns to 50 Cals, and 1 time a M109 round - 155 cal - But Ii have hit my thumb with a hammer a few times -
It's called an analogy. An officer that relies on one tool is taking a grave risk. A mariner that relies on one tool is taking a grave risk.
A is to B as C is to D.
You misrepresented what the Officer told you.
Nope I didn't missinterpret ...he very specifically said that he would not rely on it for safety, and that the only consideration given to the registry was if he had orders to remove all guns from a residence.. if the registry said that there were five guns and he only found four he would ask more questuins and search till he found the missing one.
But apon going in he would go in with the same precautions either way.
So, DNA databases aren't valid tools?
Most Canadians don't have DNA in a databse.
Sure, or the gun could be there, as the registry says.
You could loan your car to someone who runs over a pedestrian and flees. If the cops get a license plate ID from an eye witness, they can follow the registry to your door. Then you can tell them where to find your asshole friend.
Not really. The gun registry isn't evidence that a crime was committed with a firearm, so why would it be admissible. It can lead to evidence, which is admissible.
Agreed. So stop setting up straw men where you make cops idiots. I have cops in my family, and they aren't idiots.
Ahh, so you don't think they're idiots, it's much worse your contempt.
The police didn't make the laws....they just enforce them, using the tools we give them.
A state that ignores the testimony of the experts in a field is not using evidence based decision making. They are using ideology based evidence ignoring.
Think about that.
Miss. My battleship is that way------------>
My turn. F9.
Your comparison of registry and DNA data has one fatal flaw.....
the DNA database are all criminals.
that you want to treat all gun owners the same as criminal deviants is quite revealing of the mindset of the anti-gunners.....
BTW....you CAN NOT call the registry with a serial number (as you would with a car) and identify the address and person to whom the gun is registered.
I'm not kidding. That is how big a mess it is. It is USELESS.
And I don't have contempt for police, I've worked with them a lot, and they have a tough job. But protecting the constitutional rights of the people is NOT high on their agenda.......it should be on the agenda of our Parliamentarians....and (for ONCE at least) I like to see the gov't come down on the side of Liberty.....
I think your battleship is turning turtle, my friend.
I'm to bed...up for a 12 hour shift in 5 1/2 hours......
I'm against the registry for a couple reasons:
- the information it provides/provided about the possibility of legally owned firearms being present is redundant with the use of the database for people obtaining FACs or whatever they call them now (I stopped hunting about 15 years ago and stopped borrowing Dad's rifle and shotgun then). To buy or even transport a firearm, you were (are?) legally required to get an FAC (which involved a background check of the applicant... a good thing IMO). Last I heard it was expanding to the point that you needed one to purchase ammunition (which in some ways makes more sense). Now we come down to an inpretation question: do cops responding need to know how many firearms and of what calibre may (or may not, as Colpy pointed out) be present or just that the address they are responding to has residents who own firearms? To my mind it goes back to the point that cops shouldn't let their guard down because of what a database says, regardless...
- as others have pointed out, the registry creates criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens who think it was a politicized pile of BS, particularly rural Canadians who live in locales where a hunting rifle is a necessary tool. And yes my relatives are included in this... I probably would be too if I owned any guns but I alway used Dad's for hunting.
- I'll concede the cost isn't as great now that its been established but there is still a cost to update and maintain it, as well (as Colpy and others have pointed out) the accuracy of the data contained within it is highly suspect
I'm not opposed to some gun control measures: I think we were close to getting it right with the whole FAC system, with its background checks, etc. Conversely, the long gun registry was a redundant piece of crap from Day One, brought to us by an idiot whose idea of solving a problem is lip service and a simplistic approach to a different issue. The Registry was created after Marc Lepine killed those girls at L'Ecole Polytechnique, but it hasn't stopped other disturbed young people from packing guns and using them in educational institutions... like Alan Rockhead promised all his braindead supporters in Toronto that it would...
- the information it provides/provided about the possibility of legally owned firearms being present is redundant with the use of the database for people obtaining FACs or whatever they call them now (I stopped hunting about 15 years ago and stopped borrowing Dad's rifle and shotgun then). To buy or even transport a firearm, you were (are?) legally required to get an FAC (which involved a background check of the applicant... a good thing IMO). Last I heard it was expanding to the point that you needed one to purchase ammunition (which in some ways makes more sense). Now we come down to an inpretation question: do cops responding need to know how many firearms and of what calibre may (or may not, as Colpy pointed out) be present or just that the address they are responding to has residents who own firearms? To my mind it goes back to the point that cops shouldn't let their guard down because of what a database says, regardless...
- as others have pointed out, the registry creates criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens who think it was a politicized pile of BS, particularly rural Canadians who live in locales where a hunting rifle is a necessary tool. And yes my relatives are included in this... I probably would be too if I owned any guns but I alway used Dad's for hunting.
- I'll concede the cost isn't as great now that its been established but there is still a cost to update and maintain it, as well (as Colpy and others have pointed out) the accuracy of the data contained within it is highly suspect
I'm not opposed to some gun control measures: I think we were close to getting it right with the whole FAC system, with its background checks, etc. Conversely, the long gun registry was a redundant piece of crap from Day One, brought to us by an idiot whose idea of solving a problem is lip service and a simplistic approach to a different issue. The Registry was created after Marc Lepine killed those girls at L'Ecole Polytechnique, but it hasn't stopped other disturbed young people from packing guns and using them in educational institutions... like Alan Rockhead promised all his braindead supporters in Toronto that it would...
Huh? I wasn't already. Geezus muther ****ing momma of Crist you've got to be kidding.
- the information it provides/provided about the possibility of legally owned firearms being present is redundant with the use of the database for people obtaining FACs
Huh? I wasn't already. Geezus muther ****ing momma of Crist you've got to be kidding.
- the information it provides/provided about the possibility of legally owned firearms being present is redundant with the use of the database for people obtaining FACs
Huh? I wasn't already. Geezus muther ****ing momma of Crist you've got to be kidding.
- the information it provides/provided about the possibility of legally owned firearms being present is redundant with the use of the database for people obtaining FACs
This is such a sad thing about how you people want a good government before you started thinking of a way to use them for business and not for civilization.
Alright, let's see it. An RCMP corruptible.
Last edited:
rotest: Ditch it. It was a useless, knee jerk, politically motivated, piece of garbage when instigated. Allan Numbnuts thought it was his catapult into 24 Sussex. Thank Christ that didn't happen.Now some Con has put forward a private members bill aimed at cancelling it. Good idea, but we all know what happens to private members bills most of the time. The minority con govt. could fall on this, so Harpo is smart enough to pad things so Iggy and Jacko can be mollified and allow his highness to continue spending our tax dollars. More fake lakes, etc.
Tempest in a pisspot, folks. It stays; it only costs 2 mill. a year now to run it............:roll: er so they say. It goes..........so wot.!!!
Any cop who answers a domestic and is off guard because the "registry" says there ain't no guns at this address.................:-(..........well, RIP. Cops just ain't that dumb. They always assume the worst, and most of the time, their assumptions are correct.
I don't see anything wrong with a long gun registry.
'It makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens'. That's a foolish argument. If people choose to disobey a law, that's a decision to not be a law-abiding citizen.
People register and license cars, boats, snowmobiles, pets, etc etc.
What's the big deal, just because it's something called a gun? It's because people are paranoid. That's the only reason. People are scared that the government will decide to seize their guns. The cure for that is to elect more people who think the way you do, then the government won't do things you don't like.
Sure, the registry cost too much to set up, that's beside the point. There's nothing wrong with a long gun registry, and there's also nothing wrong with people owning long guns.
'It makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens'. That's a foolish argument. If people choose to disobey a law, that's a decision to not be a law-abiding citizen.
People register and license cars, boats, snowmobiles, pets, etc etc.
What's the big deal, just because it's something called a gun? It's because people are paranoid. That's the only reason. People are scared that the government will decide to seize their guns. The cure for that is to elect more people who think the way you do, then the government won't do things you don't like.
Sure, the registry cost too much to set up, that's beside the point. There's nothing wrong with a long gun registry, and there's also nothing wrong with people owning long guns.
I'll do you one better, I've actually talked to Constables...
The common opinion?
They like it. It gives them a heads up, when going to a call.
But that isn't what's being touted as the big win, nor what the sales pitch of the registry was, now is it?
Your argument is a little flawed. I doubt like Hell if the Government is going to seize our guns- that just doesn't make any sense. But back to your argument, the guns that are in the "wrong" hands just aren't likely to get registered. Vehicles are a little different, they change hands a lot more often than guns do. They also have to be identified for benign purposes. With the gun registry you are hasseling 98% of the population for no valid reason. So once you start with guns what's the next step? Knives? machetes? baseball bats? Where is it going to end? :smile:
You are absolutely correct sir.
Ya, but I hate the Conservative parties other policies. I'd have to swallow a lot of shyte to vote for them, just to rid us of this waste of money.
You see paranoia, I see people cognizant of the fact that it's a slippery slope.
You make a valid point here TenPenny.
But there aren't 20+ million people riding their guns on major highways and thoroughfares.
I think the bottom line here is, it is criminals we really want to identify and register. As for guns vs. vehicles, every vehicle has the potential for involvement, directly or indirectly with crime/legal infractions, whereas the vast majority of long guns (in the hands of law abiding people) and properly secured don't. Guns are only one weapon used by the criminal element.
No, it should be scrapped.
Just because a couple of police chiefs said they support it, doesn't make the decision absolute, as just last night on the news (I believe it was Global) they interviewed other police officers who weren't afraid to speak their minds, who claimed that the long gun registry is useless and doesn't save police officer's lives, since regardless if they know a person owns firearms or not, in any unknown situation, they're supposed to expect anything, including firearms being involved that may or may not be registered, so the long gun registry is moot.
My father who collects a number of WWII items, and was in the militia who primarily trained other soldiers on how to properly operate firearms, had to toss a number of firearms he had in his collection and tossed away a few of his hunting rifles because of this registry. He hated it from the start, knew it wouldn't serve any useful purpose, and was just a typical tax grab..... and when it all started, based on his explanations, I agreed with his point of view.
I'm a supporter for regulated gun control in this country, in that I believe nobody should be allowed to own or operate a firearm without proper training, background checks and certifications proving that know how to properly operate firearms...... but this long gun registry is a pile of crap, a total waste of time and whether or not someone's firearm is register, it won't make a difference if they wish to commit a crime using their firearm..... people will still be at risk and people will still die if shot by that firearm.
For once, this is something the Conservatives have right and is something I support.