Long Gun Registry -Yes- No

[JLM]

From what I understand it costs approx 4 mil to run the registry -

How much did it was either Alberta or Manitoba spend trying to nail some Hells Angels only to have have case thrown out.

More than 4 mil.

And the drug war is more hopeless than Vietnam ever was, will be or would continue to be if they fought another 30 years.

Not if the judges would act on the imformation and proof the police have. Too many of these cases get derailed over stupid things like the police not having an adequate reason to arrest the perp. To me a smart cop with a hunch is a good reason to apprehend a pusher. Lawyers take their toll too, getting guys off on technicalities. A lawyer's role is to see the accused gets a fair trial - that is the basis of our justice system, not to be got off by going through a bunch of hoops. The cops are getting so frustrated and are over worked. There's cases of people who are charged with second degree murder getting it beaten down to something less and getting out of jail scott free being sentenced to time served. Our justice system is a sham. They should be able to deal adequately with what they have "on their plate" without the added burden of ridiculous gun registration - that hassels such people as trappers, farmers, ranchers etc.

 

[Omicron]

It is not registering that we object to so much as to how the bill was drafted

Well, I said I'd read the act, and so that's what I'm going to do, and I'll let you know what I think. Why can't things be like Switzerland where any male *not* in possession of his rifle is in violation of civic duty?

[...] the amount of money wasted and the rights given to bureaucrats/police to invade your home to see if you are obeying the letter of the law.

I hear some people say the feds are going to *sell* the gun registery, but when I search online there doesn't seem to be anything specific about that.

Is that just an example of information corrupted by gossip, or what? If you think too much information in the hands of government is dangerous, just wait until a corporation gets its proprietary hands on it.

Note that most of the rules on possession and storage were written by someone that has never been closer to a hunting rifle that a movie.

I hate people like that. I can't tell you how many times I've been freaked by amateurs swinging their new "toy" around. I felt like shooting them, but I figured it would be sending the wrong message. :disgust:

But seriously, I got my Belgian 22, *with scope*, when I was five, but dad wouldn't let me shoot it until I could show him that I knew how to take it apart, clean it, and put it back together, which means I didn't actually fire the thing until I was eight. Then I made pocket money for the bounty on coyote tails. At $15 each, that was a frikkin' *fortune* to kids in those days! You can't *imagine* the candy and toys and bikes $15 would buy back then! I had the biggest comic book collection in town! Mom used to pout that I had more pocket money than her, but dad said as long as I paid my tithe, it was mine to do as I please.

Then as a teen, I got invited to go shooting with classmates after school, and they freaked me out. They called it dickey-bird hunting, which means shoot anything that moves, i.e. Robins, house sparrows, ground squirrels (how many hours did I spend trying to explain they weren't gophers), cats or dogs without collars, etc., and my God they were careless. They didn't have a clue what they were holding, and their policy of shooting anything made me wanna vomit.

I told them to leave me alone and stay away if they were going to use their guns that way. That made me unpopular, and one day they pushed me into the lockers, so I snuck a bottle of nitric acid and a long-stem pyrex funnel out of the science class and worked the stem of the funnel into a Z over the flames of our gas stove, and manipulated that into the air vents of the lockers to pour nitric acid over their winter coats and books, which made their parents go ballistic, whereupon I got called on the carpet before the principal, but they couldn't prove anything, so the science teacher told me to stay after class and when nobody was looking he grabbed me by the neck and slammed my head into the desk several times, when *they* were the ones who didn't know how to use their weapons! Geez... there is no justice.

So, okay, I'm going to read the act, but in the mean time, I have a question. Personally I like the idea of a registery because I want it to be clear and official that those weapons are mine. Mine. Nobody else touch. And if they get stolen, I get them back.

So... *if* you were to imagine a need for a gun registery, *how* would *you* have it work?

Go ahead and tell me, because if I find a problem with the act, then I'm going to take it to a Senator, and he's going to ask me how it should work, so I want to hear what people think.

 

[taxslave]

AS I have stated before I am not opposed to registering , just the way it was implemented.
I know it is a bit late but I think I would start with the manufacturer. They put a serial # on every gun and it should be followed all the way to end user. Theoretically hand guns have been required to be registered since 1935 but I know of two that still are not. Most illegal ones come in from the US so a large part of the problem belongs to boarder security.
Make gun safety a high school course and mandatory.
See what Switzerland has because they seem to do quite well and I like the idea of everyone having a rifle and knowing how to use it responsibly.
Make the rules on possession and storage that are realistic. The current ones are not.
real penalties for using a gun in a crime. And I mean real crime like murder, robbery etc. Like in some states where if you are involved in a crime where a gun is used all the perps get the chair or a bullet.
No chicken**** stuff like grandad's private pot farm being busted and tacking on a bunch of gun related charges because he has a hunting rifle in the house.
Mandatory gun safety course before getting a license. I want this one for driving as well.
Remove the questions on the POL about divorce,bankruptcy etc. It is none of their business and a bureaucrat on the east coast is not qualified to make a judgement on that anyway.
Restrict access to the registry. If all the police forces can access it so can many criminals and it tells them where to go for a gun.
Chipped trigers would be nice but I don't think they could be retrofitted and in any case would destroy the value of antiques.
Have to think on it a while to come up with more.

 

[Bar Sinister]

AS I have stated before I am not opposed to registering , just the way it was implemented.
I know it is a bit late but I think I would start with the manufacturer. They put a serial # on every gun and it should be followed all the way to end user. Theoretically hand guns have been required to be registered since 1935 but I know of two that still are not. Most illegal ones come in from the US so a large part of the problem belongs to boarder security.
Make gun safety a high school course and mandatory.
See what Switzerland has because they seem to do quite well and I like the idea of everyone having a rifle and knowing how to use it responsibly.
Make the rules on possession and storage that are realistic. The current ones are not.
real penalties for using a gun in a crime. And I mean real crime like murder, robbery etc. Like in some states where if you are involved in a crime where a gun is used all the perps get the chair or a bullet.
No chicken**** stuff like grandad's private pot farm being busted and tacking on a bunch of gun related charges because he has a hunting rifle in the house.
Mandatory gun safety course before getting a license. I want this one for driving as well.
Remove the questions on the POL about divorce,bankruptcy etc. It is none of their business and a bureaucrat on the east coast is not qualified to make a judgement on that anyway.
Restrict access to the registry. If all the police forces can access it so can many criminals and it tells them where to go for a gun.
Chipped trigers would be nice but I don't think they could be retrofitted and in any case would destroy the value of antiques.
Have to think on it a while to come up with more.

All of those suggestions seem quite sound.

 

[In Between Man]

As long as its free I don't care, all my guns are legal. Kinda seems like a waste of money though...

 

[karrie]

As long as its free...Kinda seems like a waste of money though...

So, you should care yeah?

 

[In Between Man]

So, you should care yeah?

If I overly cared where my tax dollars went then yes. But government wastes lots of money and its not like if the gun registry was scrapped that I personally am going to notice it on my paycheck. They'll just waste it on something else stupid like pay raises for themselves.

 

[JLM]

If I overly cared where my tax dollars went then yes. But government wastes lots of money and its not like if the gun registry was scrapped that I personally am going to notice it on my paycheck. They'll just waste it on something else stupid like pay raises for themselves.

Ain't it the sad truth? :lol::lol:

 

[In Between Man]

Ain't it the sad truth? :lol::lol:

I would only get in an uproar if they did something really stupid. Like buying Harry Potter books and putting them schools to warp those precious, malleable minds.

 

[Praxius]

Just out of curiosity, why are people so opposed to registering whose weapons are whose?

Are they shy about it? Do they feel like it puts them in the same league as a sex offender?

To me, I liked the idea that it be made official and clear that those weapons are mine.

What in the world is so freaking people out about it?

My father's concern and many other people's concerns was not because of the above..... it had more to do with the cost of registering your firearms which came out of your own pocket, in that for some people, based on the amount of firearms they had, they simply couldn't afford the cost, so they either had to get rid of their firearms, or simply not register them.... and considering the uselessness of the whole system, many don't see the logical justification for spending their own money to register themselves (when they already had to pay for the firearm, the ammo, training, their license, hunting license, etc. etc.) to a system that doesn't exactly prove it's worthwhile and isn't a simple money grab...... nor is there any evidence it prevents crimes.

It'd be like your local transit system in your city making you pay an extra fee to get on the bus based around the shoes you're wearing...... claiming that if you don't have a certain level of tred on the bottom of your shoes, you're more at risk of slipping and they need to cover the possible liabilities of you somehow possibly falling.

It's an empty and stupid excuse to gain a bit of money at your expense, based around skewed and exaggerated statistics revolving around an imaginary scenario that's quite unlikely.

 

[Tonington]

Not if the judges would act on the imformation and proof the police have.

There's always someone else to take the place of a jailed drug dealer. It's a hopeless war to fight because:

A) It doesn't prevent the crime, particularly ironic considering many claim the gun registry can't prevent crime.
B) It doesn't actually make the illegal drug industry any less profitable. America has way tougher laws, and their drug problem is still, a huge problem.
C) Law enforcement has the lions share of resources in the drug war. Law enforcement doesn't have the tool kit to address the root causes. It's burning money to put so much resources in enforcing laws which can't prevent the crime in the first place.

But, just because the war is hopeless, doesn't mean we should stop arresting criminals. Somehow those favouring the abolition of the gun registry can't see that just because the gun registry isn't the end-all and be-all, doesn't mean the principle should be scrapped. The police do use it, so obviously it is worth their time to check it, even if it doesn't yield results. Just like checking the DNA databases won't guarantee a hit.

 

[Colpy]

I agree. The problem is handguns. I have relatives in Wyoming, the most red-state in the Union, and *they* say handguns creep them out, even though they're armed to the teeth every other way.

Still, I liked the registery because I have a deep and personal attachment to mine, and I want to be able to get them back if they're stolen.

No, the problem is vicious criminals.

Funny you should bring up Wyoming.

It has the highest rate of gun ownership in the United States.
Almost 60% of the people of Wyoming own guns.
Gun Ownership by State (washingtonpost.com)

It rates in the lowest category on the Brady system for gun control. (No registration, no licensing, no restrictions on handguns, long guns, semi-auto military-type weapons or magazine size.)
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

So, it is a blood-soaked battleground, where one can hardly walk down the street without tripping over a body, right?

Well, actually, that is what you believe if you swallow the garbage fed you by those that would disarm you.........

In reality......

In the five years between 2003 and 2008, Wyoming had an average murder rate of 2.3 per 100,000.
Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

In the five years between 2003 and 2008, Canada had an average murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000.
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/Legal12b-eng.htm

Very close to the same........a state with essentually no gun control........and a country with some of the strictest laws on earth.

Should we not err on the side of Liberty?

 

[JLM]

There's always someone else to take the place of a jailed drug dealer. It's a hopeless war to fight because:

A) It doesn't prevent the crime, particularly ironic considering many claim the gun registry can't prevent crime.
B) It doesn't actually make the illegal drug industry any less profitable. America has way tougher laws, and their drug problem is still, a huge problem.
C) Law enforcement has the lions share of resources in the drug war. Law enforcement doesn't have the tool kit to address the root causes. It's burning money to put so much resources in enforcing laws which can't prevent the crime in the first place.

/QUOTE]

I disagree. Of course nothing is going to change as long as the same "solutions" are being used over and over. The fact is drugs are killing people in a number of ways, including victims who have never used a drug. Like any enterprise, when the profits are taken out of it, the operation ceases. Obviously the perpetrators think the risk of 2 - 4 years in prison is well worth the risk. I'm not particularly in favour of punishing the users, but I think it is time we started thinking seriously about doing so. Look at Singapore, they don't have a drug problem. Anyone there who gets caught, doesn't get caught twice.

Wyoming isn't a very good example to use for violence with guns- if you look at your Atlas you will notice Wyoming is a very huge state and if you check the population you will soon realize that the distance between citizens is greater than the range of any gun. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[taxslave]

The gun problem and the drug problem are only intertwined because our governments stupidly treat drug addiction as a criminal matter when it is in fact a medical problem. Treating it as such would be far cheaper and would by default reduce most of the gun violence.
JQ public with a hunting rifle is not a problem and we should not be squandering billions of dollars making him into a criminal by creating a bunch of largely unenforceable laws about how he must store and transport his rifle. Hanging anyone using a gun to commit a crime would be a lot cheaper and more productive as well as eliminating the chance of repeat offenders.

 

[Omicron]

So, it is a blood-soaked battleground, where one can hardly walk down the street without tripping over a body, right?

Nope. As a matter of fact, I think it's one of the safest states. I *never* feel threatened when there.

In the five years between 2003 and 2008, Wyoming had an average murder rate of 2.3 per 100,000.

In the five years between 2003 and 2008, Canada had an average murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000.

Yeah, and when there is a murder, the *whole state* gets upset about it.

They think states like California and New York are wacko loony-bins. The only other state they think has it half-right is Montana, although they're so-so about Idaho; it's just they think it's kind'a boring.

The gun problem and the drug problem are only intertwined because our governments stupidly treat drug addiction as a criminal matter when it is in fact a medical problem. Treating it as such would be far cheaper and would by default reduce most of the gun violence.

Portugal quietly decriminalized all form a drug addiction - even the hard stuff like heroin - and set up maintenance centers where you can go in to get your daily fix if that's your monkey.

They did it for one reason and one reason only; taxpayer expense. They're the poorest nation in the EU, and they needed to find ways to cut costs, and they saw they could save megabucks on enforcement by decriminalizing drug addiction.

They did it quietly because Uncle Sam would have had a fit if the idea started getting traction stateside.

 

[JLM]

Nope. As a matter of fact, I think it's one of the safest states. I *never* feel threatened when I'm there.
Yeah, and when there is a murder, the *whole state* gets upset about it.

They think states like California and New York are wacko loony-bins. The only other state they think has it half-right is Montana, although they're so-so about Idaho; it's just they think it's kind'a boring.

I think there is a big difference between a murder in Calif. or N.Y. and a "murder" in Wyoming or Montana- the victim in the first instance is probably very innocent whereas in the latter he/she was probably guilty of rustling, poaching or stealing a guy's truck. :lol:

 

[taxslave]

I think there is a big difference between a murder in Calif. or N.Y. and a "murder" in Wyoming or Montana- the victim in the first instance is probably very innocent whereas in the latter he/she was probably guilty of rustling, poaching or stealing a guy's truck. :lol:

Or his dog.

 

[Omicron]

I think there is a big difference between a murder in Calif. or N.Y. and a "murder" in Wyoming or Montana- the victim in the first instance is probably very innocent whereas in the latter he/she was probably guilty of rustling, poaching or stealing a guy's truck. :lol:

Yeah. When there's a murder, the whole state wants to know the whole story with all the details, and everyone will have an opinion about it.

I like the place. The only issue I have with it is that it's where Dick Cheney's from. Pthhh...

 

[JLM]

Yeah. When there's a murder, the whole state wants to know the whole story with all the details, and everyone will have an opinion about it.

I like the place. The only issue I have with it is that it's where Dick Cheney's from. Pthhh...

Yeah, I'm surprised he's not a better hunter. Anyhow, every place has A$$holes. :lol::lol:

 

[Tonington]

I disagree. Of course nothing is going to change as long as the same "solutions" are being used over and over. The fact is drugs are killing people in a number of ways, including victims who have never used a drug.

Strict penalties, do not prevent drug use. Because narcotics is big money, and it's underground. Criminals trade in drugs, and as long as this kind of commerce is forced underground, there will be stray bullets. The US has a death penalty, gives out life sentences and it doesn't stop drug dealers from doing what they do, because the rewards for selling in an unregulated market are huge.

Like any enterprise, when the profits are taken out of it, the operation ceases.

There will be huge profits as long as drugs are criminalized.

That's the last I'll speak of drug laws though, unless you start a new thread.