Gun Control in Canada

[Colpy]

Fuzzy Logic, you are starting to talk silly, you are promoting measures that ALREADY EXIST!

BTW, I am a qualified instructor for the government safety course, and part of my job is to teach newly hired guards firearms safety, self-defense law, and armed self defense.

I do know what I'm talking about.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

And yeah, a gun owner should be responsible for their guns. If they are stolen and used in a crime, the gun owner should be responsible for not having had them secured and/ or not immediately reporting their loss. And a gun owner whose gun kills a child accidentally should be charged with criminal negligence and manslaughter.

Typical lefty crap. Blame the victim of a theft for the crimes commited by others......although I agree weapons should be secured.
.

This is where the gun lobby and completely separate. If you have the right to own guns, you have the responsibility to ensure they aren't used in a crime IMO. I realize they can never be 100% safe from theft, but they should be damn close to that. Like you said, your guns are safely stored. If they weren't I don't see why you shouldn't be held accountable for their use.

 

[sanch]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

What is is about North Americans and guns? Countries like Britain have had guns and cannons for hundreds of years, before Canada and the US were even born, and we aren't as obsessed with guns as you are.

I've often wondered about this...

I think it has to do with social positions being more fixed in Europe. Guns or carrying them present an alternate form of mobility. The conveyance of this fantasy is more acute in North America mainly because the class structure does not limit one's social options in the same way it might in Europe.

I lived in a town in Mexico for a couple of years where the murder rate was sky high. It was there I learned that guns really do kill people. But guns were also central to many a man's identity. Beyond their ability to go to the US to earn money the men had no power. The gun was a huge social and power supplement. Men became more than themselves when they displayed their gun.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

What is is about North Americans and guns? Countries like Britain have had guns and cannons for hundreds of years, before Canada and the US were even born, and we aren't as obsessed with guns as you are.

I've often wondered about this...

I think it has to do with social positions being more fixed in Europe. Guns or carrying them present an alternate form of mobility. The conveyance of this fantasy is more acute in North America mainly because the class structure does not limit one's social options in the same way it might in Europe.

I lived in a town in Mexico for a couple of years where the murder rate was sky high. It was there I learned that guns really do kill people. But guns were also central to many a man's identity. Beyond their ability to go to the US to earn money the men had no power. The gun was a huge social and power supplement. Men became more than themselves when they displayed their gun.

Interesting.

Know anything about Mexican gun laws?

They are SEVERE! Does them a lot of good, doesn't it?

Mexico murder rate 9.9 per 100,000 with GUNS, 17.6 per 100,000 overall.

Three times that of the USA.

 

[sanch]

There is very little enforcement of gun laws in rural Mexico. Enforcement is key not whether the laws are on the books. That is true for many things in Mexico.

I do know that they body search before going into dances and that has reduced the murder rate in these locales.

 

[Colpy]

There is very little enforcement of gun laws in rural Mexico. Enforcement is key not whether the laws are on the books. That is true for many things in Mexico.

I do know that they body search before going into dances and that has reduced the murder rate in these locales.

Yeah, Mexican police aren't famous for their efficientcy, and Mexican young men are mucho macho.

 

[Machjo]

[quote="Wednesday's Child]
Before there were police....to protect you....you had that one "phallic symbol" (or more if you were lucky - plus a bunch of brothers and an accurate shooter grandma....)[/quote]

That goes without sayng. In the Old Testament, it says that if a person kills your brother, you ought to kill him. And that if you kill someone by accident, you ought to run to the nearest town to ask help from the elders of the town to hide you. The OT also prescribes stoning for adultery, disrespecting parents, theft, murder, etc. too. Lot's of rock throwing going on in those days. I bet people had a strong whipping arm, Would have been good for baseball.

Hmmm... so we've got one man running around trying to avenge his brotehr and another hiding behind the elders of another town. Now as much as we could laugh at this, I will actually defend the Old testament here. If I were living 3000 years ago, I'd probably adopt the Jewish faith too, and find its laws quite progressive overall. Consider likewise that there were no police or jails in those days, and courts were primitive. Science was too. So criminals and threats to society had to be eliminated in a much more efficient manner. Stoning is just that. As for adultery, again, in such a primitive society, they could not afford single mothers.

But that still doesn't mean that I'd like to reintroduce stoning anytime soon!

Same applies to guns. Certainly I'd be all for guns in the context of anarchy. Heck, then I might have one too. When we're talking about Canada's first settlers, let's face it, their situation wasn't like today. The common widespread ownership of guns of that era is like the the laws of the Old Testament for its time (i.e. quite approapriate under the circumstances). But to have everyone own a gun today would be like reintroducing Mosaic law in a modern context. Ready for a weekly stoning, anyone?

It's nice to respect history, but that doesn't mean we ought to live in it.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

The British have got less chance of being murdered - and being shot - than almost every other country in the Western, industrialised world.

Murder (per 100,000)

South Africa 114.84
Brazil 22.98
US 5.61
Canada 4.1
France 4.07
Italy 3.75
Israel 3.43
Monaco 3.33
Germany 3.23
Switzerland 2.41
Korea 2.18
Finland 1.71
Britain 1.63


(2001 Interpol)

% Households with guns
US 41.0
Switzerland 27.0
Canada 26.0
Finland 23.2
France 22.6
Italy 16.0
Germany 8.9
Britain 4.0

Samizdata.net

B b but... ah quit it. Stop confusing us with facts! Our minds are already made up.

 

[Machjo]

I'll try to think like the NRA here.

Gun crime has decreased in Britain, not increased. And even tougher measures against the possession of guns are being brought out.

Ah pure coincidence. It was due to cultural changes that occurred at the same time that gun controls were toughened. There was no direct relationship at all between the drop in firearms possession and the drop in the crime rate.

According to the Home Office -


Gun crime
Gun-related crime kills, maims and intimidates, and is frequently linked to gang activity and the illegal drugs trade in the UK. We are committed to tackling gun crime to ensure the safety and security of all British citizens.

What does it know?

A snapshot of gun crime
Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in the UK is very low compared to most other nations – less than 0.5%* of all crime recorded by the police.

Nothing to do with lower gun ownership.

Facts & figures
In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:


16% reduction in the use of handguns

9% reduction in robberies involving firearms

6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offences

Pure coincidence. They were going through major cultural changes at the time.


What we’re doing about gun crime
Strengthening the law

Ah, if yo had not strengthened gun control, gun violence would have dropped even more than it had.

We have:

introduced a minimum five-year sentence for people convicted of possessing an illegal firearm

made it an offence to possess an air weapon or imitation firearm in public without legal authority or reasonable excuse

increased the age limit for possession of air rifles to 17

prohibited certain air weapons that are easily converted to fire live ammunition

So undemocratic. I'ts my democratic right to own a H&K MP5.



In June 2005 we announced the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. If the bill is passed it will:

target imitation firearms – by making it illegal to manufacture or sell

imitation firearms that could be mistaken for real firearms, strengthening sentences for carrying imitation firearms, and creating tougher

manufacturing standards so imitations can’t be converted to fire real ammunition

reduce illegal use of air weapons – by increasing the age limit for buying or firing air weapons without supervision

Just watch. This will reverse the cultural changes mentionned above and cause possession of illegal firearms to just skyrocket.

Targeting illegal firearm supplies

Ah, once the population is unarmed, a communist regime will rear its ugly head and the people will be defenceless. I think Jack Van Impe suggested something of the sort before. then everyone will have to wear the mark of the beast.

We’re cutting off the supply of firearms into the country by tightening security on import routes and international mail, and monitoring online firearm suppliers.

Ha! I knew it. Protectionism at its worse. Buch of fascist commie Jew anti-democratic gun-control freak protectionist anti-free-trader Islamo-fascists you!


We established the Connected programme to support local community groups in their fight against gun crime.

Remember, guns don't kill. People do!

We also held a highly successful gun amnesty in 2003 which resulted in the handing in of 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of ammunition.-----------------------------------------------

Ah, that had to do with the UK's brainwashing program. I usspect that the UK is the beast of Revelation.

What you can do about gun crime

Shoot the criminal. If they're heavily armed, no problem. Once others hear the gun fight, the whole town can join in!

Concerned about gun crime? Here’s what you can do:

if you see people using or carrying illegal firearms, report it immediately to the police, or to CrimeStoppers

Yeah right. by the time the cops come, it's too late. He must be killed immediately!

visit the Connected website to find out how you can get involved in community projects to fight gun crime

What? Is it a Freemen's website?

homeoffice.gov.uk

Oh! but isn't that the beast of Revelation?

 

[fuzzylogix]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

Fuzzy Logic, you are starting to talk silly, you are promoting measures that ALREADY EXIST!

BTW, I am a qualified instructor for the government safety course, and part of my job is to teach newly hired guards firearms safety, self-defense law, and armed self defense.

I do know what I'm talking about.

Yes, I am sure you do. And your desire to be the big security guy with the power of weapons is coming through loud and clear. Big Big Ego Need. Why, with all your knowledge of the power of guns, are you so against gun control?

Without registering guns, how can a government be able to ensure that people who have guns have at least taken the firearms courses, and that the wrong people dont have guns, and that people dont have the wrong kind of guns. How do you ensure that Uncle Colpy doesnt pass his gun collection onto his 25 year old nephew who he is unware is seeing a psychiatrist for psychotic depression???????

Why then is it SO difficult to just have the people with guns register them with the government? Why arent you prepared to have your gun possession reviewed? Why are you SO against this? HAVE you registered ALL of your guns?

The answers you have given so far are that it is your right to have guns, that you don't have time to traipse down to the office to do it, that car accidents kill more people. NONE of these reasons have ANY validity, and for someone who apparently is SO aware of the dangers of guns, one wonders just WHAT your problem is.

And as far as I am aware, there is NO legal requirement at this time for doctors to notify the government if they have a patient that should not possess guns. Because there is no ability of the government to know if that person DOES possess guns. A doctor is forced to break medical confidentiality if a person is unfit to drive a car. But time and time again we see individuals with psychiatric backgrounds getting hold of guns and doing serious damage to themselves and others. You quoted earlier that most of the gun deaths were suicides,as if this excuses society from responsibility for these deaths. NO NO NO Society has a responsibility to prevent suicides, and it certainly has the responsibility to prevent a 25 year old with a history of depression from collecting guns and then shooting up people.

The problem is that people like you view gun control as CONTROL OVER YOU. Yes, it IS control over you. Just as Big Daddy controls how much money you make, where you can live, if you can drive, if you are raising your kids right, etc etc. Welcome to Society where society has the right to protect itself with whatever measures it deems necessary.

So explain to me AGAIN, why you should be exempt from having to fit in with society. Why You are special and should be allowed whatever guns you want without society intervening?????? Why should society just take your word for it that you know what you are doing?

 

[sanch]

The problem is that people like you view gun control as CONTROL OVER YOU. Yes, it IS control over you. Just as Big Daddy controls how much money you make, where you can live, if you can drive, if you are raising your kids right, etc etc. Welcome to Society where society has the right to protect itself with whatever measures it deems necessary.

So explain to me AGAIN, why you should be exempt from having to fit in with society. Why You are special and should be allowed whatever guns you want without society intervening?????? Why should society just take your word for it that you know what you are doing?

This does seem to be the main issue. Various ethic groups are being asked to surrender or moderate some of their customs and beliefs so that they are more congruent with society at large. Sikhs and their daggers are one example. Should gun owners, who I expect represent a small minority in Canada, be allowed to continue to engage in behavior that might impact adversely on the whole country? Why should they enjoy a privilege not being offered to other groups?

I have seen no argument here as to how gun ownership benefits Canada as a country. There is this historical premise that “an armed population is the absolute cornerstone of a free society.” This justification is part of another time period and there are other mechanisms in place to ensure government is held accountable. And it would be hard to convince anyone of intelligence that the best way to build democracies in Somalia, Sudan or Afghanistan is to make sure the population is well armed.

 

[I think not]

And it would be hard to convince anyone of intelligence that the best way to build democracies in Somalia, Sudan or Afghanistan is to make sure the population is well armed.

However, it wouldn't be so hard in North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia now would it?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

The problem is that people like you view gun control as CONTROL OVER YOU. Yes, it IS control over you. Just as Big Daddy controls how much money you make, where you can live, if you can drive, if you are raising your kids right, etc etc. Welcome to Society where society has the right to protect itself with whatever measures it deems necessary.

So explain to me AGAIN, why you should be exempt from having to fit in with society. Why You are special and should be allowed whatever guns you want without society intervening?????? Why should society just take your word for it that you know what you are doing?

Does (should) society have the responsibility of protecting your person? If so, society has failed miserably. Criminals choose the time, place and method of a criminal act. Society has no foreknowledge of this act, hence no way of preventing it.

If a person is armed, he/she can protect themsevles, if they aren't they may be seriously injured or killed. What has society done?

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

Machjo

Go back and read the BBC piece I posted from 2001. Handgun crime in Brirtain WENT UP 40% in the first two years after the complete ban. It continued to rise after that, and is NOT offset by a 16% drop in one year.

If you think restrictions on AIR GUNS and REPLICAS are really, really important as a solution to gun crime, well....................what can I say?

AND if you look closely at Blackleaf's chart, you will see it shows there is LITTLE correlation between gun ownership and murder. Look at Switzerland and Finland.

Fuzzylogic wrote

Yes, I am sure you do. And your desire to be the big security guy with the power of weapons is coming through loud and clear. Big Big Ego Need.

Now, I wish you guys would attempt to dazzle me with the brilliance of your logic......instead of trying to anger me with the shear volume of your bullshit.

Why, with all your knowledge of the power of guns, are you so against gun control?

I'm not against gun control. I am against the current overly restrictive, incredibly expensive, essentially useless regime.

Without registering guns, how can a government be able to ensure that people who have guns have at least taken the firearms courses, and that the wrong people dont have guns, and that people dont have the wrong kind of guns. How do you ensure that Uncle Colpy doesnt pass his gun collection onto his 25 year old nephew who he is unware is seeing a psychiatrist for psychotic depression???????

I don't have a problem with licensing. The entire system should revolve around the license. It should be like a driver's licence, graduated for the type of weapon who are qualified to own. There should be safe handling courses available for each level. It should require a CPIC check for the lowest license, and CPIC plus a background check (paid for by the licensee) for higher classes. ALL registration should be dropped, except for an accessible listing of stolen weapons. Then it is simple........a man has a gun and a proper license.....no problem. A man has a gun and no license, go to jail, go directly to jail........

Why then is it SO difficult to just have the people with guns register them with the government? Why arent you prepared to have your gun possession reviewed? Why are you SO against this? HAVE you registered ALL of your guns?

Because every time we have registered a new class of weapons, the government has turned around and seized them. This has happened twice in the last 15 years.
Because the bloody system is such a complete mess that it is USELESS! The old handgun system was so full of holes that it was NOT ADMISIBLE in court as evidence, and this one is no better. Their computers still don't work correctly.
It was supposed to cost 2 million dollars, and has cost well over 1 BILLION heading rapidly towards 2 Billion, at a rate of about 125 million per YEAR!!!
And they still need to fix/replace that $250 million computer system.......
The Auditor-General IDed the biggest reason costs are way out of whack......THE ANT-GUN ATTITUDE OF THE SYSTEM'S ADMINISTRATORS
And on and on. As for the last question, none of your business.

The answers you have given so far are that it is your right to have guns, that you don't have time to traipse down to the office to do it, that car accidents kill more people. NONE of these reasons have ANY validity, and for someone who apparently is SO aware of the dangers of guns, one wonders just WHAT your problem is.

Guns are a low-risk factor in society. As I told you at the first of this thread, I know hundreds of people with guns, in 30 years of traveling in the "gun crowd" there has not been a SINGLE shooting, either accidental or purposely, among those legitimate gun owners. No woundings, no deaths. So, yes, I AM aware of the dangers of guns, and they are no where near extensive enough to justify the witch-hunt of Canadian gun owners that has gone on in this country for the last 15 years.

And as far as I am aware, there is NO legal requirement at this time for doctors to notify the government if they have a patient that should not possess guns. Because there is no ability of the government to know if that person DOES possess guns. A doctor is forced to break medical confidentiality if a person is unfit to drive a car.

If anyone owns guns legally in Canada, he has a license, EXACTLY THE SAME AS ANYONE DRIVING A CAR>>>>>I don't have a problem with licensing....

But time and time again we see individuals with psychiatric backgrounds getting hold of guns and doing serious damage to themselves and others. You quoted earlier that most of the gun deaths were suicides,as if this excuses society from responsibility for these deaths. NO NO NO Society has a responsibility to prevent suicides, and it certainly has the responsibility to prevent a 25 year old with a history of depression from collecting guns and then shooting up people.

So I take it you are strongly against the "right to die" movement?

The problem is that people like you view gun control as CONTROL OVER YOU. Yes, it IS control over you. Just as Big Daddy controls how much money you make, where you can live, if you can drive, if you are raising your kids right, etc etc. Welcome to Society where society has the right to protect itself with whatever measures it deems necessary.

In a free society, a concept I hope you understand, the government is commited to using as little law as possible, and the onus to prove the value of each restriction on my freedom lies with the government. IMHO they have failed MISERABLY to show any justification for the CURRENT registration/restriction regime, to say nothing of any
additional control.

So explain to me AGAIN, why you should be exempt from having to fit in with society. Why You are special and should be allowed whatever guns you want without society intervening?????? Why should society just take your word for it that you know what you are doing?

So, when did I say I, or anyone else, should be exempt from reasonable gun control? I didn't.

 

[Colpy]

And it would be hard to convince anyone of intelligence that the best way to build democracies in Somalia, Sudan or Afghanistan is to make sure the population is well armed.

However, it wouldn't be so hard in North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia now would it?

Having an armed society may NOT guarantee democracy, but nobody can screw you with impunity.............did you forget how the Afghans made the mighty Russians pay? At first with only World War One era SMLE No 3 .303 British rifles. Which, BTW< were often MADE FROM SCRATCH (!!!!!!!) in little huts with out power by skilled Pakistani gun makers.

The Janjaweed of Darfur would disappear rapidly were the villagers armed......the reason they can ride into a village on camel and kill 200,000 people is because those people are NOT armed!

 

[fuzzylogix]

Holy sh*t. You are so rabid about fighting this it is unbelievable.

What is the problem with listing your guns? Yeah, maybe we should be deciding to take away certain ones that have no useful function other than allowing massive rapid death of civilians. Just as we remove cars from the road if they dont pass basic safety tests and are considered to be too much of a risk.

But of all your ranting, the one I find MOST disturbing is your question about whether I am against the "right to die" movement as it applies to suicide.

You obviously are completely out of your knowledge base here. Suicide victims are generally victims who dont wish to die but who see no other possible alternative to correcting their life. They are either mentally ill which is no different in medical terms to someone suffering from cancer, or they have a situation in their life that they find they are unable to manage. In most cases, these people can be helped if they are recognized early, and if helped, their suicidal ideation disappears. Because that is what it is - an ideation.

You are so full of it to suggest that trying to prevent a suicide is not respecting their "right to die". Cripes.

Maybe if that is the way you feel, we should quickly remove your guns, lest you "kindly" pass them to depressed people to help them with their "right to die"

The rest of your post just further corrobates your rabid determination to protect your need to have power and prevent the government finding out and confisgating your arsenal of inappropriate weapons.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

Fuzzylogic wrote

What is the problem with listing your guns?

Once again, from above:
Because every time we have registered a new class of weapons, the government has turned around and seized them. This has happened twice in the last 15 years.
Because the bloody system is such a complete mess that it is USELESS! The old handgun system was so full of holes that it was NOT ADMISIBLE in court as evidence, and this one is no better. Their computers still don't work correctly.
It was supposed to cost 2 million dollars, and has cost well over 1 BILLION heading rapidly towards 2 Billion, at a rate of about 125 million per YEAR!!!
And they still need to fix/replace that $250 million computer system.......
The Auditor-General IDed the biggest reason costs are way out of whack......THE ANT-GUN ATTITUDE OF THE SYSTEM'S ADMINISTRATORS

But of all your ranting, the one I find MOST disturbing is your question about whether I am against the "right to die" movement as it applies to suicide.

You obviously are completely out of your knowledge base here. Suicide victims are generally victims who dont wish to die but who see no other possible alternative to correcting their life. They are either mentally ill which is no different in medical terms to someone suffering from cancer, or they have a situation in their life that they find they are unable to manage. In most cases, these people can be helped if they are recognized early, and if helped, their suicidal ideation disappears. Because that is what it is - an ideation.

You are so full of it to suggest that trying to prevent a suicide is not respecting their "right to die". Cripes.

I DID NOT in any way suggest any such thing...................I simply asked if you were against it. I find most people who jump on this gun control bandwagon because somebody might commit suicide are the same type of person who jump on the "right to die" PC bandwagon. I find that amazingly hypocritical, and was asking YOUR opinion, not expressing mine.

The rest of your post just further corrobates your rabid determination to protect your need to have power and prevent the government finding out and confisgating your arsenal of inappropriate weapons.

GEEZ, you found me out!

 

[sanch]

And it would be hard to convince anyone of intelligence that the best way to build democracies in Somalia, Sudan or Afghanistan is to make sure the population is well armed.

However, it wouldn't be so hard in North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia now would it?

There are two lines of thinking. The Idea of a People’s Army as in China or the Viet Cong and then the South Vietnamese using villagers was to fight and not necessarily protect or even promote democratically elected organizations. The premise was very different back then.

The new premise for a new world order is the program of nation building being pushed by Bush and Blair. The argument being pushed on this site is that an armed citizenry is essential for a strong democracy. Armed citizens are incompatible with the nation building project. In the current instance there is a broad effort to promote fledging governments that are stable enough to protect their citizenry. This program would include establishing a police and military force. The first country would be Afghanistan, followed possibly by Somalia and Sudan. Armed citizens only complicate and undermine nation building. Look at what happen in Iraq.

Having an armed society may NOT guarantee democracy, but nobody can screw you with impunity.............did you forget how the Afghans made the mighty Russians pay? At first with only World War One era SMLE No 3 .303 British rifles. Which, BTW< were often MADE FROM SCRATCH (!!!!!!!) in little huts with out power by skilled Pakistani gun makers.

The US took Afghanistan in a few weeks and compared to the Soviet period the population is fairly subdued. This was bin Laden's message to Mullah Omar. We will make the Americans pay like we did the Soviets. It didn't work.

The Janjaweed of Darfur would disappear rapidly were the villagers armed......the reason they can ride into a village on camel and kill 200,000 people is because those people are NOT armed!

My undertstanding is that many of the men have been conscripted by militias which leaves mostly the elderly, women and children in the camps. Arming what few men there are might be a good idea here but it may also prompt genocide in villagers where there is opposition.

 

[Zzarchov]

ok, logic time.


Seeing as how in living memory the Canadian government has done such things as forced people of "inferior genetic make-up" to forcibley sterilized so they can't procreate (up until the 70's), interred people in concentration camps (40s) and re-education camps (30s),

Why is it the government SHOULD be trusted?

And what is the logic here that you get to decide whether or not someone is entitled to defend themselves?

I hate to break it to you, but in an increasingly urbanized society, the ills of an urban society are not magically absent from Canada.

You look at britain with is gun controls as a beacon, are you familiar with britains yob culture? How many people are killed by roving gangs? How most people in affected areas cannot leave their homes for fear of being beaten to death?

You can make all the penis jokes you want (because you feel insecure about your own?) but the simple fact remains.

Their is no reason a citizen of sound mind and body with no criminal record should not own a gun should he wish. It is on his/her consent as a citizen that laws have moral authority and I see no reason other than the fact you don't think your fellow man should be allowed to run their own lives without the overbearing control of those "who know better".

Perhaps tests to ensure voters think "the correct way" before they can vote?

If you want gun control then I would only settle for TOTAL gun control, no guns for Police or Hunters or even the military (many countries don't have militaries). Im sure you'd feel safe then.


Side note: You really think you can stop an inflow of illegal guns by looking for them? What if they just hide them inside those bricks of heroin we can't stop?

Hell, in most of the world a simple machine shop like many people have in their garages can manufacture machine guns and mortars. You'll just have gun labs operating beside your drug labs.

 

[sanch]

Once again, from above:
Because every time we have registered a new class of weapons, the government has turned around and seized them. This has happened twice in the last 15 years.
Because the bloody system is such a complete mess that it is USELESS! The old handgun system was so full of holes that it was NOT ADMISIBLE in court as evidence, and this one is no better. Their computers still don't work correctly.
It was supposed to cost 2 million dollars, and has cost well over 1 BILLION heading rapidly towards 2 Billion, at a rate of about 125 million per YEAR!!!
And they still need to fix/replace that $250 million computer system.......
The Auditor-General IDed the biggest reason costs are way out of whack......THE ANT-GUN ATTITUDE OF THE SYSTEM'S ADMINISTRATORS

You are listing many very egregious errors. This is an abuse of democracy.

If the protection for us all in these cases of abuse is an armed citizenry when do you begin to ride? Is there a rallying method where the armed population can rise as one, pack their bacon and spur their steeds in the direction of Ottawa?

It seems to me that our armed protectors are sitting at home or in pubs watching the mess unravel in Ottawa with the rest of us.