Long Gun Registry -Yes- No

[Colpy]

http://tunes.digitalock.com/gok.mp3 <-- weaponized teens against immigrants and cops tune

What's better... to say "Please forgive my Friday evening state of mind", or "I apologize for my Friday evening state of mind", or is it more logical to switch to American and say, "Piss off if you don't like it"? (Notice how my grammar, punctuation and spelling is correct.)

This is sensitive to explain, but... Vancouver south and east Asian gangs who used to make a policy of raving and ranting about how they could make a weapon out of anything switched to illegal American handguns after some issues with, uh, homegrown Hells Angels...

ANYWAY!... let's not talk about that... let's talk about the will and spirit of Scottish; the dominant non-French speaking whites in Canada: http://tunes.digitalock.com/comeyeallfrefrance.mp3 <-- click to play Geordie (Scottish Celtic-cousin) tune

Anytime you have a group of males between the ages of 17 and 22 engaged in an unplanned shooting confrontation which involves several handguns.........you have a gun control regime that is an abject failure.

Are they? Here are crime stats from the US showing murder weapons.

Murder Victims, by Weapons Used — Infoplease.com

It looks like in the USA guns win hands down at 68%. Of course none of those guns might be long guns.

In Canada knives win out as the main murder weapon in domestic violence, however, that may be due to the fact that fewer Canadians have access to firearms. Of course, the overall murder rate in Canada is lower than the US. That may be due to the fact that it is simply harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun or it may be that fewer Canadians attempt to kill one another.

(my emphasis)

BINGO!

Murder is a product of culture.....

Here is the proof. 68% of American murders are done with guns. The American murder rate in 2008 was 5.4 per 100,000.

32% of US murders are done without guns. Do the math.....that gives the USA a NON-GUN murder rate of 1.8 per 100,000.

In 2008 the Canadian murder rate was ......(wait for it)..........1.8 per 100,000.

The Americans kill as many people WITHOUT the use of guns as Canadians kill with all weapons, including guns.

American culture is simply more violent........guns have little to do with it.

As well, go to the thread "gun control is completely Useless" and read the beginning arguments....a comparison of some of the most heavily armed states in the usa (in the NW) and the Canadian provinces just across the border....

The Canadian murder rate in that area is MUCH higher.

Guns do not cause murder.

Gun control is a waste of time, energy, money, and is a misdirection of focus.

 

[TenPenny]

If you're wandering around the streets with a machete, you could be considered to be carrying a concealed weapon, which would be an offense.

As far as prohibiting knives, note this:

[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]Canada’s Criminal Code, Part III - Firearms and Other Weapons
[/FONT][/FONT]

, outlines the following statutes and

regulations:
​

​

[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]90. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries a weapon, a prohibited device or[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]any prohibited ammunition concealed, unless the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry it[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]concealed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]117.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing anything[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed.[/FONT]
[/FONT]http://www.theatreontario.org
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic](2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm,[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Italic]in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
​

 

[Tonington]

Gun control is a waste of time, energy, money, and is a misdirection of focus.

That's ridiculous. I bet if you think long and hard you'll be able to come up with a scenario where a gun merchant shouldn't sell the gun to the customer.

 

[JLM]

That's ridiculous. I bet if you think long and hard you'll be able to come up with a scenario where a gun merchant shouldn't sell the gun to the customer.

And that's where it should be left, it's a merchant's onus to take responsibility for his sales.

 

[petros]

I hope you realize the best people to manipulate gun crimes are the police.

If they really wanted they could ignore guns and let a few slaughter happen to scare the **** out of you to approve the long gun registry.

Hell I'd even wager on it.

 

[taxslave]

And that's where it should be left, it's a merchant's onus to take responsibility for his sales.

No, because of our strange legal system where no one is responsible for their own actions the merchant would get sued/charged if a gun he sold was used in a crime. You or I, who are law abiding taxpayers(unwilling perhaps) could go and buy a gun, later sell it to someone that uses it to commit a crime and probably both you and the merchant would be charged. Or it could be stolen from your house with the same result.
Real punishment for crime would go along way. Like permanently removing murders from society. That way there would be no danger of do gooder judges allowing repeat offenders.

The same could be said for a car salesman. He sells a car, buyer gets drunk and kills someone and rust pimp gets charged.

 

[Colpy]

That's ridiculous. I bet if you think long and hard you'll be able to come up with a scenario where a gun merchant shouldn't sell the gun to the customer.

Absolutely!

But I bet the customer could get the weapon underground anyway.....

I was not always the nice, cleancut, gentle dude you know and love today......, but I have always been known as a "gun guy".

The list of underground weapons that have been offered for sale to me over the years would scare you to death. It includes two full automatics, from different people at different times.......a 9mm Sterling SMG and a USAF issue select fire 5.56 mm REAL assault rifle. Dozens of handguns. Give me 24 hours and I could still come up with a CHOICE of handguns for you, none of which have ever been registered in Canada. I wouldn't do it, but I COULD.

So gun control is a waste of time.

Now, I am, as a responsible citizen, willing to compromise. I have little problem with graduated licensing, from licenses for simple hunting long guns, to licenses for concealed carry of handguns.......it is a simple, effective solution. Get caught with a gun of a type or in a place where you are not licensed for its possession....go to jail.

Simple and effective.

ANYTHING more than that is simply harassment of legitimate gun owners.

 

[Tonington]

Now, I am, as a responsible citizen, willing to compromise. I have little problem with graduated licensing, from licenses for simple hunting long guns, to licenses for concealed carry of handguns.......it is a simple, effective solution. Get caught with a gun of a type or in a place where you are not licensed for its possession....go to jail.

Simple and effective.

Yeah, but this falls into the trap that you and others brought out in this thread:

it won't prevent violent gun crimes.

And to boot, it would still be a gun registry. You need to have a license number with your license, and that means a database of all licensees.

 

[JLM]

Like permanently removing murders from society. That way there would be no danger of do gooder judges allowing repeat offenders.[/B]

The same could be said for a car salesman. He sells a car, buyer gets drunk and kills someone and rust pimp gets charged.

Your usual good sense spills on to another pet peave of mine. That would be "permanently removing those involved in the drug trade from society" If that were to happen it wouldn't be long before this nonsense on rifles became a moot issue, or at the very least be greatly reduced. :smile:

 

[Niflmir]

A lot of misinformation here:

1. You can't get ten years in prison for failing to register your car.

2. You don't get a criminal record for failing to register your car.

3. The fact you have registered a number of cars does not give the police the right to search your home.

4. If your registered car is stolen by a thief, you don't get charged with unsafe storage.

5. No registered class of vehicles has ever been seized without compensation.

6. The registration of cars is not an attempt at control of the population, but simply a revenue-generating device.

7. The right to own cars has never been considered one of the basic rights of man by any serious political philosopher.

8. And lastly .....most importantly......YOU DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER YOUR CAR! Cars only have to be registered if they are to be driven on public roads.

1. Nor a gun. See section 115, for a summary conviction you can get a maximum of a fine of $5000 and/or a maximum of six months in prison. Probably you get a fine.

2. Well you get a summary conviction. It is automatically pardoned after 3 years. It is arguable whether this is really a "criminal record". You do however get the same sort of record for driving an unregistered vehicle, and since you only need to register to drive, the analogy holds.

3. Neither does owning guns, read section 104, they still need your permission or a warrant.

4. This one is preposterous. Yes, it is an offense to improperly store your gun, but having your gun stolen is not prima facie evidence of this despite what the knee jerking news reporters might try to tell us.

5. In fact thousands of cars are seized and auctioned all the time.

6. Regulation is by definition control. Tin hat much?

7. Actually the right to ownership of objects in general is a much discussed and debated philosophical topic. So yes, the right to own cars has been considered (by proxy) on philosophical grounds.

8. Analogously, you don't have to register your gun if you don't want to live in Canada, since it will never get into the privacy of your home without having first passed through a public place.


So apparently that analogy isn't too simple for you. Of course, when you don't know any of the facts, its easy to get confused. But I'll grant that maybe you are sick of that analogy, so try another:

All people in Canada are registered.

You cannot even live in Canada without permission, let alone live with a gun. Don't think that is an invasion of privacy, don't think that can be used for nefarious purpose? Just recall what happened to the Japanese people during the second world war.

Registering your rifle or shotgun is a lark in comparison. All people are tracked by the government, and very few people would argue that it isn't worth it. The long gun registry is a useful tool, and at worst a mosquito bite nuisance to our privacy.

 

[Colpy]

Yeah, but this falls into the trap that you and others brought out in this thread:

it won't prevent violent gun crimes.

And to boot, it would still be a gun registry. You need to have a license number with your license, and that means a database of all licensees.

Obviously, and actually a more effective system of identification of people and residences with legal weapons....just so much simpler, without all the disgruntled, angry, outraged people.......without the destruction of businesses, the consistent stupidity coming out of the registry bureaucracy, without the constant harassment, the hours waiting on phones for people that often have NO idea what they are talking about.........a system that would be self-supporting, perhaps even a revenue generator.......

In short, a system that would circumvent all the concerns of the shooters in Canada.......

A lot of misinformation here:



1. Nor a gun. See section 115, for a summary conviction you can get a maximum of a fine of $5000 and/or a maximum of six months in prison. Probably you get a fine.

2. Well you get a summary conviction. It is automatically pardoned after 3 years. It is arguable whether this is really a "criminal record". You do however get the same sort of record for driving an unregistered vehicle, and since you only need to register to drive, the analogy holds.

3. Neither does owning guns, read section 104, they still need your permission or a warrant.

4. This one is preposterous. Yes, it is an offense to improperly store your gun, but having your gun stolen is not prima facie evidence of this despite what the knee jerking news reporters might try to tell us.

5. In fact thousands of cars are seized and auctioned all the time.

6. Regulation is by definition control. Tin hat much?

7. Actually the right to ownership of objects in general is a much discussed and debated philosophical topic. So yes, the right to own cars has been considered (by proxy) on philosophical grounds.

8. Analogously, you don't have to register your gun if you don't want to live in Canada, since it will never get into the privacy of your home without having first passed through a public place.


So apparently that analogy isn't too simple for you. Of course, when you don't know any of the facts, its easy to get confused. But I'll grant that maybe you are sick of that analogy, so try another:

All people in Canada are registered.

You cannot even live in Canada without permission, let alone live with a gun. Don't think that is an invasion of privacy, don't think that can be used for nefarious purpose? Just recall what happened to the Japanese people during the second world war.

Registering your rifle or shotgun is a lark in comparison. All people are tracked by the government, and very few people would argue that it isn't worth it. The long gun registry is a useful tool, and at worst a mosquito bite nuisance to our privacy.

Baloney.

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.

2. IF you get a summary conviction, not at all assured. See number one.

3.

102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds.......... there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may
(a) open any container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;

(b) examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it;

(c) conduct any tests or analyses or take any measurements; and

(d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

Sure as hell sounds like unwarranted search to me. As well, refuse, and the judge is REQUIRED to issue a warrant......sort of defeats the purpose, and destroys the entire foundation of our right to be free from unreasonable search

4. un-huh. I never said it was, but the onus is on YOU to prove the weapon was safely stored.....a little difficult once it is stolen......

5. Yes, cars are seized and auctioned....FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES. I love how anti-gunners like to treat us as if the very fact of owning a gun was a criminal offense.:roll: Many thousands of weapons in Canada were purchased perfectly legally, then seized WITHOUT COMPENSATION becqause the gov't arbitrarily decided we shouldn't be allowed to have them. That is outrageous, and is NOT done with any other item in our society.

6. The first act of a tyranny is to seize all the peoples' weapons. (see number 5)
I suppose William Blackstone, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson et al all wore tinfoil hats as well, eh? That is an insult to myself, to some of the greatest minds of western political philosophy, and top a common law RIGHT a thousand years old.

7. See number 6.

8. Idiotic. Unworthy of a serious reply. I am Canadian. I live in Canada. What the HELL do you think we are talking about??? The Bahamas???

You get zero out of eight attempts.

 

[Omicron]

Your usual good sense spills on to another pet peave of mine. That would be "permanently removing those involved in the drug trade from society" If that were to happen it wouldn't be long before this nonsense on rifles became a moot issue, or at the very least be greatly reduced. :smile:

I suspect that part of the reason Harper's going on a prison-building binge is because he too thinks that one can lock up every drug-dealer, as if they're an identifiable species with a finite number.

But that's not how it works. In so long as there are people with no employable skills or people living in a society with more workers than jobs, if the opportunity to make money as a dealer or a mule exists, they're *going* to take it if they need the money.

The only way you could possibly leave them no excuse to become a drug-peddler would be if you could guarantee them some form of social security that would negate the economic imperative, which means give them enough money to rent a livable place and buy three squares a day.

The weird thing is, it costs more than $120,000 per year to incarcerate each prisoner, which means in fact it would be cheaper to just give a dealer $60K per year with some sort of proviso like if they get caught dealing dope then they get tossed in the can for life. (Of course, there's simply no way that the Canadian "work ethic" would ever allow for something like that... sometimes "ethics" are expensive )

But even if it's not because the person is unemployable, and even if it's not because there's more workers than jobs, there's *still* situations where people will be drawn into it because of the huge potential profits.

I knew a guy who signed up to do the grunt-work of maintaining the crop in a grow-op for the simple reason that he didn't think he had enough to retire properly, and he figured that if he could get a cut from just *one* harvest then that would be enough to round-out his retirement (they got busted, because he couldn't stop telling everyone with excitement what he was doing for his retirement).

Then there was the time I had a very good salesman working for me. Then one day he didn't show up, and nobody saw him for ten days, whereupon he marched in and announced he was quitting, and that was the last I saw of him, but I heard later that it was all about he having learned that he'd contracted HIV (he wasn't a needle user, so I have pretty good idea how it probably happened... he always did seem to have a talent for landing clients from that part of town... I wondered if sticking his butt in the air was how he closed some of the deals... but I digress... and yes I know that's politically incorrect... I apologize to all those offended :roll

ANYWAY... next I hear of him, he's been busted at the border muleing a large load of pot into the US. The story turned out to be that the ten days nobody saw him, he was on a cocaine binge processing the news that he was HIV+, and during that time he figured he had maybe only two years to live, and there were many things he still wanted to do, and there was no way he was going to make enough in a short period of time to do everything from what I was paying, so he decided to become a pot-mule in order to pay for his Ben Gazzara Run-For-Your-Life adventures.

He would *not* have considered it had there not been such huge potential profits in it.

People should take a closer look at what Portugal's done. They decriminalized being an addict, and they cut out the middle-man by setting up maintenance centers where addicts can go for their daily hit. They did it purely for economic reasons because as the poorest nation in the EU it was costing them too much to pay for the enforcement and incarceration, and it *way* cut down on the incidents of robbery and muggings. It's just a safer place now.

In Vancouver's case, something like that would be significant, because Vancouver has both the highest per-capita rate of heroin addiction of any city on the *continent*, *and* it has the highest B&E rate in Canada. We just pay those Afghan poppy growers for their crop, ship it to Montreal (the centre of Canada's chemicals sector), et voila. (By the way, did you know they figure it costs about $1.2 billion per year to fly around Afghanistan burning poppy crops, but it would only cost $900M to buy their entire annual harvest, which means it would be cheaper and a lot less troublesome to simply buy their crops and then either burn it or use it?)

And since we're on the subject, there's a darn good reason to legalize pot. It's because, although pot used to have the reputation of being the most harmless drug, less harmful by far than alcohol, that's not true anymore.

Specifically, what's starting to happen is that BC bud is getting so strong that it's triggering schizophrenia in some people. Strains that are 36% THC are just too potent for some people's brains. Studies are showing that the safe thresh-hold is something around 25%. If it were legalized and sold through the liquor outlets, it could be graded and sold at controlled doses not exceeding 25%.

The *only* problem is there's no fast and accurate way to tell if someone is too stoned to drive or operate heavy equipment like there is with the breathalyzer test for alcohol. If there were something equivalent to a breathalyzer test for pot, then there's just no reason not to legalize and control it, and I know more than a few cops who wish people who want to party would get stoned and not drunk. Stoned guys are much less prone to violence than even strait-headed gents, not to mention drunks. Ask any cop if he'd rather deal with a party of stoners or a party of drunks.

As for crystal and crack and cocaine... I'm not sure what one should do about those ones. I hate them, I hate people *on* them, and I've seen *nothing* but economic catastrophe happen to anyone who gets too close to them. Grrr. But I've heard that those who are natural addicts for that kind of stuff have unusually low levels of norepinephrine, so maybe the Swiss pharmacists have a medicine for that.

Anyway, I think handguns are what we don't need because they're only used for shooting other humans, and if people really want to go mano-a-mano they've still got their stupid knives, which at least you can choose to run from, which is not possible with bullets, and I like the idea of a registry if it be used to nail down who's weapons are who's so they can be recovered if stolen, but the more I read of it, the more I'm thinking that the act as it stands was badly written.

Long guns have never been much of a problem in north America (they *were* in Europe in the 1600's, which is why the European governments started disarming their populations in the 1700's, telling people that if they wanted to fight they had to use a sword, and that disarmament policy as implemented in England spilled over into the colonies, where it was stupidly applied to disarming people who hunted for a living, leading to the constitutional amendment of there being a right to bear arms; it wasn't to fight, it was to eat) and if *anything* the trouble has been with booze and not long-guns.

Did you know that during the few years that BC had a prohibition, that something like seven out the nine provincial jails got shut down for lack of use, yet people then were at least as armed as they are today.

 

[Machjo]

Isn't the poll a little biased? I can't vote on any option. I don't know if I support it, but it certainly has nothing to do with laziness. I have looked a little into it at least but am still undecided. To be undecided does not in itself prove laziness. A person can know everything about a topic and still be undecided, just as a person can choose a side because his best friend is on that side and nothing more.

Just for the record, I do lean towards eliminating the registry, though I can see the arguments in favour of it too.

 

[wulfie68]

But that's not how it works. In so long as there are people with no employable skills or people living in a society with more workers than jobs, if the opportunity to make money as a dealer or a mule exists, they're *going* to take it if they need the money.

The only way you could possibly leave them no excuse to become a drug-peddler would be if you could guarantee them some form of social security that would negate the economic imperative, which means give them enough money to rent a livable place and buy three squares a day...

I know this is following a tangent (because drug trafficking has pretty much nothing to do with legal firearms ownership) But I have to ask: Omicron, in your world, where does personal responsibility and accountability fit? You don't seem to think that any onus rests on an individual to take initiative to improve their position. If you don't have a job, there are still options: relocatation, job training, etc. and in many cases our gov't will assist individuals with genuine need. Instead you seem to advocate copping out and instead of trying to contribute to society, to indulge in behaviour detrimental to it; to feed off it like a parasite.

 

[Omicron]

I know this is following a tangent (because drug trafficking has pretty much nothing to do with legal firearms ownership) But I have to ask: Omicron, in your world, where does personal responsibility and accountability fit? You don't seem to think that any onus rests on an individual to take initiative to improve their position. If you don't have a job, there are still options: relocatation, job training, etc. and in many cases our gov't will assist individuals with genuine need. Instead you seem to advocate copping out and instead of trying to contribute to society, to indulge in behaviour detrimental to it; to feed off it like a parasite.

I know where you're coming from, and all I can say is that when I lived in Alberta, exactly what you describe is all a person had to do to find work. There was *never* a problem finding well-payed work if I was willing to retrain, move, etc.

It wasn't until I moved to BC that I saw for the first time where there could be such a thing as people who were chronically unemployable, and a situation where there really were more people than there were jobs.

I would get annoyed that those who were employable wouldn't consider relocating to Alberta, so fair enough there - but those in the Lower Mainland and on the Island have a deeply ingrained issue with frozen winters. They can handle living under a waterfall all winter, but for some reason below-zero temperatures gives them the willies and they go a bit kookoo about it, which means they've basically penned themselves into a small corner of the nation, while the rest of the country feels free to move from Edmonton to Toronto to Montreal to Halifax to Saint Johns and back again to Calgary with nary a qualm, so in the case of being in a situation where there's more workers than jobs is a very regionally specific phenomena, and I'm not sure what one should do about it.

But, there was also the issue of chronic unemployable. Alberta had the highest rate of post-secondary attendance, and right next was BC with the lowest rate of post-secondary attendance in the nation. They'd be frustrated that they couldn't get a job they were qualified for while employers were advertising to foreigners because they couldn't find anyone within the country, and when I'd suggest they get an education they'd get a bit squirrely, which seemed strange enough, but then on occasion I'd have discussions and/or debates with them, and they *really* didn't have a clue what it meant to think with the logical part of their brain. I call them Lotus Heads, and they are absolute puppets of their emotional whims, and they don't just reject the idea of being logical... they haven't got a clue what others are talking bout when one says "think logically"... and again, I'm not sure what to do about that, but it appears to be a very regionally specific thing.

The consequence is that in this region, as penned in as they've made their little sub-culture, for many of them the only conceivable option is to get into dope-peddling to the rest who figured they had no future so they became heroin addicts to kill the pain of their miserable lives, and which they pay for with idiotic amounts of B&E.

I don't know what else they could do other than decriminalize the addicts, set up maintenance centers available to them for their daily fix, and then for the dope-peddlers put out of work... I dunno... create job camps where they get paid to build a pyramid or something, which would still be cheaper than what it costs to incarcerate them.

 

[lone wolf]

Off topic ... but when did addiction become a crime?

 

[Kathie Bondar]

I know where you're coming from, and all I can say is that when I lived in Alberta, exactly what you describe is all a person had to do to find work. There was *never* a problem finding well-payed work if I was willing to retrain, move, etc.

It wasn't until I moved to BC that I saw for the first time where there could be such a thing as people who were chronically unemployable, and a situation where there really were more people than there were jobs.

I would get annoyed that those who were employable wouldn't consider relocating to Alberta, so fair enough there - but those in the Lower Mainland and on the Island have a deeply ingrained issue with frozen winters. They can handle living under a waterfall all winter, but for some reason below-zero temperatures gives them the willies and they go a bit kookoo about it, which means they've basically penned themselves into a small corner of the nation, while the rest of the country feels free to move from Edmonton to Toronto to Montreal to Halifax to Saint Johns and back again to Calgary with nary a qualm, so in the case of being in a situation where there's more workers than jobs is a very regionally specific phenomena, and I'm not sure what one should do about it.

But, there was also the issue of chronic unemployable. Alberta had the highest rate of post-secondary attendance, and right next was BC with the lowest rate of post-secondary attendance in the nation. They'd be frustrated that they couldn't get a job they were qualified for while employers were advertising to foreigners because they couldn't find anyone within the country, and when I'd suggest they get an education they'd get a bit squirrely, which seemed strange enough, but then on occasion I'd have discussions and/or debates with them, and they *really* didn't have a clue what it meant to think with the logical part of their brain. I call them Lotus Heads, and they are absolute puppets of their emotional whims, and they don't just reject the idea of being logical... they haven't got a clue what others are talking bout when one says "think logically"... and again, I'm not sure what to do about that, but it appears to be a very regionally specific thing.

The consequence is that in this region, as penned in as they've made their little sub-culture, for many of them the only conceivable option is to get into dope-peddling to the rest who figured they had no future so they became heroin addicts to kill the pain of their miserable lives, and which they pay for with idiotic amounts of B&E.

I don't know what else they could do other than decriminalize the addicts, set up maintenance centers available to them for their daily fix, and then for the dope-peddlers put out of work... I dunno... create job camps where they get paid to build a pyramid or something, which would still be cheaper than what it costs to incarcerate them.

I am against catering to the addicts, to the pushers and traficers. We have laws and our governments should enforce them. Too many of our agencies have been infiltrated by some wealthy, well groomed, well spoken individuals, generous political campaign contributors, chuch goer respectable family men, who could not care less about the victims, about school kids who are seduced at a young impressionable age to the habit. I have vitnessed both sides. It is ugly.

 

[Omicron]

Off topic ... but when did addiction become a crime?

It's not... I was just using it as a catchier catch-all phrase to refer to users.

I am against catering to the addicts, to the pushers and traficers. We have laws and our governments should enforce them. Too many of our agencies have been infiltrated by some wealthy, well groomed, well spoken individuals, generous political campaign contributors, chuch goer respectable family men, who could not care less about the victims, about school kids who are seduced at a young impressionable age to the habit. I have vitnessed both sides. It is ugly.

Well, ultimatly, isn't the only way to cut the whole business off at the knees is to somehow educate the kids and make it so life is good enough that nobody feels anything special about getting high?

 

[CDNBear]

I suspect that part of the reason Harper's going on a prison-building binge is because he too thinks that one can lock up every drug-dealer, as if they're an identifiable species with a finite number.

Or to eliminate the over crowding in our prison system?

But that's not how it works. In so long as there are people with no employable skills or people living in a society with more workers than jobs, if the opportunity to make money as a dealer or a mule exists, they're *going* to take it if they need the money.

Why do we have a migrant worker program, if there are more people then jobe?

The only way you could possibly leave them no excuse to become a drug-peddler would be if you could guarantee them some form of social security that would negate the economic imperative, which means give them enough money to rent a livable place and buy three squares a day.

Or a free education system so they can be educated out of poverty.

The weird thing is, it costs more than $120,000 per year to incarcerate each prisoner, which means in fact it would be cheaper to just give a dealer $60K per year with some sort of proviso like if they get caught dealing dope then they get tossed in the can for life. (Of course, there's simply no way that the Canadian "work ethic" would ever allow for something like that... sometimes "ethics" are expensive )

WOW, just wow...

But even if it's not because the person is unemployable, and even if it's not because there's more workers than jobs, there's *still* situations where people will be drawn into it because of the huge potential profits.

We call that greed.

I knew a guy who signed up to do the grunt-work of maintaining the crop in a grow-op for the simple reason that he didn't think he had enough to retire properly, and he figured that if he could get a cut from just *one* harvest then that would be enough to round-out his retirement (they got busted, because he couldn't stop telling everyone with excitement what he was doing for his retirement).

You know some stupid people.

Then there was the time I had a very good salesman working for me. Then one day he didn't show up, and nobody saw him for ten days, whereupon he marched in and announced he was quitting, and that was the last I saw of him, but I heard later that it was all about he having learned that he'd contracted HIV (he wasn't a needle user, so I have pretty good idea how it probably happened... he always did seem to have a talent for landing clients from that part of town... I wondered if sticking his butt in the air was how he closed some of the deals... but I digress... and yes I know that's politically incorrect... I apologize to all those offended :roll

I'm not offend, I'm amused at the candor and the new glimpse into what you are.

...Snipped because it was way off topic and out in left field...

Anyway, I think handguns are what we don't need because they're only used for shooting other humans, and if people really want to go mano-a-mano they've still got their stupid knives, which at least you can choose to run from, which is not possible with bullets, and I like the idea of a registry if it be used to nail down who's weapons are who's so they can be recovered if stolen, but the more I read of it, the more I'm thinking that the act as it stands was badly written.

My Grandfather carried a Colt Peacemaker, to put down animals that hadn't died in his traps.

it wasn't to fight, it was to eat

Wanna bet?

Did you know that during the few years that BC had a prohibition, that something like seven out the nine provincial jails got shut down for lack of use, yet people then were at least as armed as they are today.

Care to show some proof?

 

[ironsides]

Long guns should not be registered period. There is no reason why anone should know you have a rifle or shotgun. Vermont has the right idea, (buy what ever you want) just do not break any laws with them or the book is thrown at you.