Long Gun Registry -Yes- No

Long Gun Registry - For - Against - To Lazy to care

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
ironsides said:
I think we agree about the registration of long guns, but long guns are not usually involved in serious crimes.

" drug addiction is a medical problem that we made into a criminal problem" No drug addiction is a criminal problem that we made into a medical problem to appease the left wingers. Doctor prescribes drugs, perfectly fine. A person abuses the prescription or become recreationally dependent that is criminal and should be treated as such. We should have a Zero tolerance for recreational use of drugs. I don't care if we fill up our prisons or have to build new ones, it is still cheaper than treating and fighting the drug abuse we now have. (selling/buying/pushing etc.) Just look what is happening in Mexico now.
Click to expand...

Labels are just that- Labels, and which one you use doesn't solve the problem. I think the drug user has to bear some of the responsibility, although I'm not much in favour of incarcerating them- to start with anyway. I think there should be some deterrent against making bad decisions. As for the pusher/importer, he is definitely a criminal problem and I have no problem spending $thousands a year to keep him locked up- it's money well spent- how many customers does the average pusher/importer serve directly and indirectly? How many people is each one at least partly responsible for getting addicted? I suggest that for every life sentence imposed, one or more potential traffickers will be sidelined, so the payoff may be two, three or four for the price on one. How much does one addict cost society over the course of a lifetime? I'm guess $1/4 million would be conservative. I think we should seriously consider dealing with the matter the way they do in Singapore. :lol::lol: They don't offend twice. :lol:
 
Goober

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
JLM said:
Labels are just that- Labels, and which one you use doesn't solve the problem. I think the drug user has to bear some of the responsibility, although I'm not much in favour of incarcerating them- to start with anyway. I think there should be some deterrent against making bad decisions. As for the pusher/importer, he is definitely a criminal problem and I have no problem spending $thousands a year to keep him locked up- it's money well spent- how many customers does the average pusher/importer serve directly and indirectly? How many people is each one at least partly responsible for getting addicted? I suggest that for every life sentence imposed, one or more potential traffickers will be sidelined, so the payoff may be two, three or four for the price on one. How much does one addict cost society over the course of a lifetime? I'm guess $1/4 million would be conservative. I think we should seriously consider dealing with the matter the way they do in Singapore. :lol::lol: They don't offend twice. :lol:
Click to expand...

1 addict, cotracting AIDS, medical cost is estimated at 1/4 of a million alone - add in Hep C, hoeles - other illnesses and it runs into the millions -
 
Niflmir

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Colpy said:
1. Failure to register can be charged as either an indictable or a summary offense. As an indictable offense, the maximum term is 5 years for a non-restricted item, 10 years for a restricted item. Look it up.
Click to expand...

So people are talking about long guns and you are talking about hand guns? You really are confused. I believe you are talking about section 91 of the criminal code? Then there is no remaining doubt to your confusion because that section only applies if you don't have a license and you have failed to register the particular gun. Or are you so confused that I need to explain the difference between "and" and "or"? If you have a license, this section doesn't apply: failure to register is a summary conviction.
91. (1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm without being the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) a registration certificate for the firearm.
Click to expand...

When a normal person reads, "Subject to section 104" they would probably go and read section 104, especially when someone has just told them to read that very section. What about
104. (1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except
(a) on reasonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is being carried on in the dwelling-house; and
(b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant.
Click to expand...
makes you believe they can search your house without a warrant or permission? Just further evidence you are confused.

As I said, having your gun stolen is not prima facie evidence. It would take legislation to make it so and that legislation does not exist. So no, the onus is not on you. The only place in the whole firearms act that reverses the onus is on proving a firearm is registered.

You flat out don't know what you are talking about.

You really need to stop with the delusional ravings. I find myself thinking that you get all of your information from Rex Murphy's hyperbole and random anecdotes from people as poorly informed as yourself. Unlike you, most serious philosophers would not consider the need to register a deed an affront to owning a house, a much more important right; likewise for the more dubious ``right'' to own a gun. This is what distinguishes you from one of these philosophers: the fact that they can distinguish a civil obligation for ownership from a prohibition against ownership.

But I suppose when you don't know the law, it is easy to get confused.
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Niflmir said:
But I suppose when you don't know the law, it is easy to get confused.
Click to expand...
Or abused.

The law is whatever the court determines, and your recourse is lengthy, costly and oft not presented until the future. Where it has already been used to affect your life in a frustrating and negative way.

Section 109 was recently cited when I posted surety for a family friend. I fully accepted and understood my rifles, and my crossbow would have to be removed from my home (As he will be staying in my home as part of his bail). The Court went one step further and ordered the removal of my bows, under section 109.

Compound bows are not subject to section 109, but the Court made the order anyways.

I fully appreciate the fact that this is anecdotal, but this is not the first time I mentioned it online. Nor do I care whether or not you accept my word for it. I know how the Courts work, and that is all that matters.

The law, and the Courts, don't always mesh.
 
Stretch

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
what business is it of a government to know what firearms you have?

here in Australia, we first had gun registration, then we had port arthur, then we had disarmament and then, because hand guns werent included, we had a massacre in a university here with a handgun, so then they too were banned......its just a coincedence, nothing to worry about, I'm sure.......

but before all that, barry unsworth, the then premier of NSW when asked about gun control in Australia, by a reporter for the sydney morning herald replied "we'll never have gun control till we have a massacre in Tasmania somewhere" that comment was made a full 18 months prior to the port arthur massacre in tasmania. HOW'S THAT FOR A COINCEDENCE!!!
 
Bar Sinister

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
The CBC news reported tonight that recent stats show long guns as killing for Canadains than handguns. That is not good news for those who want to end the registry.
 
Stretch

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
See: Gun Control
Mass murder in Australia: Tavistock's Martin Bryant by Allen Douglas and Michael J. Sharp
THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE CONSPIRACY by Joe Vialls
Quotes
The key to understanding the massacre is thus that it contained at its heart a "double-cross" mechanism enabling it to eliminate a substantial part of the personnel who had actually been involved in planning it. It is certainly hard not to believe that Anthony Nightingale was involved in the plot: as soon as the shooting started, he leapt up from his seat to cry out, "No, no, not here!" Clearly, Nightingale knew, or thought he knew, where the massacre was supposed to take place. Yet the gunman fired on regardless.
The best answer, therefore, to the question of why no survivors have come forward is that many, if not most, were intelligence operatives. Those who knew about the massacre were expecting to be able to observe it from a safe distance. Those at the highest levels of the plot had in mind a quite different development: the massacre would lead to the elimination of most of the people who knew anything about it. This was easily done—only a handful needed to know that the carnage would really take place inside the café—and would ensure that afterwards there were very few left who actually knew what had happened and so there could be few leaks. The survivors, having been tricked in this way, would have been left in an extremely awkward position. They could hardly have gone public with what they knew, for to do so would oblige them to admit that they had been involved in a plot to murder the tourists on the Isle of the Dead.
If my theory is correct, there is a silver lining to the horrendous dark cloud that was the Port Arthur Massacre. At least some of the dead had themselves been party to a conspiracy to murder dozens of innocent people. Maybe there is some justice in their becoming victims of their own planning. The Port Arthur Massacre-- Was Martin Bryant Framed? by Carl Wernerhoff
External links
Ned Wood, "The Port Arthur Massacre 10 Years On: The Secrecy Continues." "Roland Browne, then co-chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC), who, with astonishing accuracy, predicted the Port Arthur Massacre when he stated, 'We are going to see a mass shooting in Tasmania...unless we get national gun control laws.'- (ACA ,with Ray Martin, March 1996)
The Sun Herald reported May 5 1996 that ex-Premier of NSW, Barry Unsworth made this prediction in 1987 - 'Before Uniform Gun Laws become possible in all States there will have to be a massacre in Tasmania.' Can politicians and people for gun control really see into the future?"


http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/port_arthur.htm​
Port Arthur Massacre
There is reason to think the Port Arthur massacre was planned as early 1987 when, after a specially called Premier's meeting in Hobart in December 1987, the New South Wales Labour Premier, Mr. Barry Unsworth stated, "there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania"
On Sunday, 28 April 1996, at a sleepy little tourist location known as Port Arthur, something went down that will long live in memory of Australia's collective psyche. An unknown professional combat shooter opened fire in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania. In less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single shots to the head, fired from the right hip of the fast-moving shooter.
The awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, who was held in illegal strict solitary confinement for more than 120 days, until he was "ready" to plead guilty. There was no trial. Within a matter of weeks legislation was passed to removed semi-automatic weapons from the Australian population and a gun buy-back proceeded. It is now illegal to own any semi-automatic gun in Australia.
The Port Arthur Massacre has come to be known in conspiracy circles as a "psyop". The definition of a psyop is a psychological operation or an event designed to drum up public support for some piece of legislation that would be otherwise be unpopular and probably be defeated.
It is one of the signs of a propaganda campaign when the media continuously plays up scenes that are designed to appeal to gut level instincts to soften people up for the solution to be offered.
The media were totally oriented around sensationalising the distress and trauma, played the scenes over and over, always cutting to updates on any developments and in effect the public were bombarded continuously day in and day out for weeks over the issue. At the same time a long list of facts or discrepancies were overlooked. Any calls for a royal commission fell on deaf ears, the media were later instructed not to talk about the subject anymore and the files have been closed for 30 years.
The Port Arthur massacre occurred on 28 April there was legislation prepared by mid May with plans for a national buyback of automatic and semi-automatic rifles.
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/port_arthur.htm
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Harper spends millions on security and a fake lake, for a meeting that affects the lives of 100's of millions. "He's sinister, a Nazi, from the dark side, evil".

Chretien loses billions on a registry that tells a small group who owns guns. "So what, they're saints".

Hey, I think I'm getting this math now.
 
TenPenny

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
I would expect that many of the killings done by long guns would happen whether they were registered or not; domestic violence incidents is likely high on that list. Husband and wife get into fight, guns come out, etc etc.

People don't take long guns into downtown Toronto for drive by shootings, or drug deals.
From that point of view, I can't see that the registry would actually change the statistics.
 
W

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
Liberalman said:
Most of the murders are committed by long guns in Canada
Click to expand...

OK Someone still has issues with reading comprehension. Most FIREARMS deaths are caused by longarms, but the vast majority (79% per the RCMP report) of those deaths are SUICIDES. In the actual hierarchy of weapons used in violent crime and homicides) firearms are in 6th or 7th place, behind things like knives, blunt objects, etc. (look it up on StatsCan if you don't believe me) and the RCMP's report is a little intellectually dishonest in the way it doesn't address this fact.

Its also interesting to me that according to the RCMP's report the registry is still costing well more than the 2-6 million dollars a year being tossed around, and closer to 60 million per year in budgeted and forecasted spending. Thats not a big number in the government but it could still be used elsewhere to more effect...
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Bar Sinister said:
The CBC news reported tonight that recent stats show long guns as killing for Canadains than handguns. That is not good news for those who want to end the registry.
Click to expand...


That figures.

They are, of course, misleading you.

Two thirds of homicides in this country are commited with handguns, registered and increasingly controled since 1934.

The difference is all in suicide.

Now, I gotta say, I seriously resent the implication that my freedom should be restricted because some bunch of morons put a loaded shotgun in their mouth and try to pull the trigger twice.

Has anybody EVER heard of personal responsibility?

And BTW, if you think gun control has lowered suicide rates, I refer you to the following graph....

http://www.google.ca/search?q=Histo...ine_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CFEQ5wIwCg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom