Long Gun Registry -Yes- No

[Tonington]

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.

He did, to whit:

Failure to register certain firearms
112. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), every person commits an offence who, not having previously committed an offence under this subsection or subsection 91(1) or 92(1) of the Criminal Code, possesses a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm without being the holder of a registration certificate for the firearm.

Punishment 115. Every person who commits an offence under section 112, 113 or 114 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

My emphasis added.

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

Maybe you can quote the actual code. The Firearms Act says nothing about an indictable offense for being in possession of an unregistered firearm.

False statements, altering documents, that is however a potentially indictable offense:

False statements to procure licences, etc.
106. (1) Every person commits an offence who, for the purpose of procuring a licence, registration certificate or authorization for that person or any other person, knowingly makes a statement orally or in writing that is false or misleading or knowingly fails to disclose any information that is relevant to the application for the licence, registration certificate or authorization.

False statements to procure customs confirmations
(2) Every person commits an offence who, for the purpose of procuring the confirmation by a customs officer of a document under this Act for that person or any other person, knowingly makes a statement orally or in writing that is false or misleading or knowingly fails to disclose any information that is relevant to the document.

Definition of “statement”
(3) In this section, “statement” means an assertion of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, whether material or not and whether admissible or not.

Tampering with licences, etc.
107. Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse the proof of which lies on the person, alters, defaces or falsifies

(a) a licence, registration certificate or authorization; or

(b) a confirmation by a customs officer of a document under this Act.

Unauthorized possession of ammunition
108. Every business commits an offence that possesses ammunition, unless the business holds a licence under which it may possess ammunition.

Punishment
109. Every person who commits an offence under section 106, 107 or 108, who contravenes subsection 29(1) or who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m) or the contravention of which has been made an offence under paragraph 117(o)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

You get zero out of eight attempts.

So you're at -2 then with the above :lol:

 

[L Gilbert]

Long Gun Registry - Yes - No

Personally, I don't give a damn.
Do I think it's a waste of a few millions a year (purportedly $4 million/year)? Yes, but the people WE elect waste money anyway, and what is spent on it now is a pittance compared to what other money the feds waste.
Why do I think it's a waste? Because we've made a mockery out of the registry by registering a lot of items that only look remotely like a firearm, screwing up the registrations by marking down false addresses, phone numbers, etc., and not registering all of our firearms.
Why did we do things like that? Because the dipshyte Gliberals implemented it as a dipshyte kneejerk reaction to pressure from dipshyte panic mongers and used dipshyte excuses for implementing it.
People are fooling themselves if the registry actually does anything or even most of what it was supposed to do.

I'm still looking for statistics, but

Canadian police services reported just over 8,100 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide, accounting for 2.4% of all victims of violence. Handguns made up nearly two-thirds of all firearms used.

Violent crimes were more often committed with other types of weapons than guns. Knives accounted for 6.2% of violent victimizations and clubs or other blunt instruments were used against 3.0% of victims.


Police-reported data showed that among young people, the use of guns in violent crime is increasing. The rate of youth aged 12 to 17 accused of a firearm-related offence has risen in three of the past four years, increasing 32% since 2002. The overall firearm-related crime rates for youth were driven primarily by robberies.
In 2006, 1,287 young people were accused of a violent offence in which a gun was used. They accounted for 2.8% of all youth accused of violence; in contrast, 1.8% of adults accused of a violent offence had used a firearm.


Generally, the highest rates of gun violence in 2006 were found in Canada's largest cities. Vancouver had the highest rate among all census metropolitan areas (CMAs), followed by Winnipeg and Toronto. Among youth, however, the rates of violence involving firearms were highest in Toronto and Saskatoon.
About three-quarters of the total number of violent victimizations involving guns in 2006 were robbery and assault. Although the incidence of attempted murder and homicide was much lower, about one-third of these offences were committed with a firearm.

Adults convicted of a violent gun crime were sentenced, on average, to just over four years in prison, double the typical sentence length of those convicted of the same violent offence where a firearm had not been used.

- stats on 2006 from StatsCan


Notice the parts I put in red? Specifically:

"Handguns made up nearly two-thirds of all firearms used." Handguns, not long guns.

"Violent crimes were more often committed with other types of weapons than guns." Weapons other than guns were used in most incidents.

"the highest rates of gun violence in 2006 were found in Canada's largest cities." Cities, not ranches, farms, etc. and by youths involved in assaults and robberies (two thirds of which were committed using weapons other than firearms), not domestic violence or anything else.

2.4% of all violent crime involved firearms in 2006.

So I don't care what police chiefs and politicians say, the numbers do not support the long gun registry's existence.

 

[petros]

So I don't care what police chiefs and politicians say, the numbers do not support the long gun registry's existence.

They do support profiling.....

 

[Colpy]

Of Course, the abandonment of the registry is only the first step in the right direction........

Canada's Firearms Act Violates Charter Rights & Freedoms

 

[Tonington]

This analysis is fundamentally flawed:

Thus Canada’s homicide rate, like robbery and all restricted weapons offences, has actually increased with increased firearms registration. These data all contradict the underlying assumption behind Bill C-68: that more stringent licensing and registration laws decreases firearms related crime.

Can you not see why? As an example, the more firefighters that show up to fight a fire, the costlier the damages caused by the fire.

If I were to argue that more firefighters cause more damage, I'm sure people would be able to make meaningful cases for why that simple statement is wrong. Correlation is not causation.

It's entirely likely that societal changes unrelated to firearms registration have been drivers of crime rates. Further, there is no reference case to compare against, so one can't actually say that the gun controls did not decrease the rate of increase.

 

[L Gilbert]

They do support profiling.....

Sure. The profile is that violence involving firearms is quite minimal, and that most of the incidents involving firearms are caused by young people using handguns during assaults and robberies in cities, not by ranchers, farmers, etc. using long guns in rural areas during the normal course of their daily life.

This analysis is fundamentally flawed:



Can you not see why? As an example, the more firefighters that show up to fight a fire, the costlier the damages caused by the fire.

If I were to argue that more firefighters cause more damage, I'm sure people would be able to make meaningful cases for why that simple statement is wrong. Correlation is not causation.

It's entirely likely that societal changes unrelated to firearms registration have been drivers of crime rates. Further, there is no reference case to compare against, so one can't actually say that the gun controls did not decrease the rate of increase.

Yes, that the increase is incidental but because it is incidental does not mean that the data supports more restrictions either.

 

[Colpy]

Tonington:

I may have been wr wr wrong on the sentencing....I was sure of my ground, and even googled for legal sites to confirm....but when I went back to give the reference, the legal firm was in........Australia.

Boy, do I have a red face!

More on this as it develops.

I'm still ahead, though...

 

[Tonington]

Yes, that the increase is incidental but because it is incidental does not mean that the data supports more restrictions either.

Absolutely. I think the restrictions that are in place now are enough, though I'm sure with input from other groups it could be made better.

Tearing it all down to build something new doesn't seem consistent with the message of some that this has been a giant waste of resources.

For some reason though there is no viable middle ground voice, or at least the media is doing their best to ignore it.

 

[L Gilbert]

Absolutely. I think the restrictions that are in place now are enough, though I'm sure with input from other groups it could be made better.

Tearing it all down to build something new doesn't seem consistent with the message of some that this has been a giant waste of resources.

For some reason though there is no viable middle ground voice, or at least the media is doing their best to ignore it.

Actually, as the long gun registry focuses on long guns, it is a waste of resources considering the large majority of gun crime is committed using handguns (probably illegal). If you have a toothache, it's a bit silly to go get medication for chronic heartburn.

 

[Tonington]

Yeah, I get that. That's kind of what I meant by they don't need more restrictions, they just need to make them work better.

We still don't even have the full report that the RCMP conducted on the effectiveness. Most of what is out there is partisan and very subjective. Of course the RCMP report will have it's own slant as well, but at least it will have an analysis of the numbers involved.

 

[DaSleeper]

What I find interesting from the left is that if crime increases with more gun restrictions for honest individuals....it's due to changes in society .......
But if crime should happen to decrease...then.. the regulations are working....You can't win either way:banghead:

 

[Tonington]

What I find interesting from the left is that if crime increases with more gun restrictions for honest individuals....it's due to changes in society .......

The left, should I assume you're talking about me? All I said is that the analysis that researcher performed did not take into account changing social dynamics. We're hardly the same society that Canada was in 1919.

But if crime should happen to decrease...then.. the regulations are working....You can't win either way:banghead:

If crime happens to decrease, conservatives say they are talking about unreported crime, can't win either way. :banghead:

 

[DaSleeper]

 

[Tonington]

Does this mean you don't want to play, you're taking your ball home? :lol:

 

[DaSleeper]

Does this mean you don't want to play, you're taking your ball home? :lol:

Nope.....Just meaning that it's a nice game beeing played on both sides..When I start taking forums too seriously....I'l give it up:lol:

 

[taxslave]

:lol: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.


Thats because we know from watching the news that everything east of Hope is a frozen wasteland for much of the year when the flies are not out.:lol:

 

[Tonington]

Whole lotta truthiness!

:lol: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.


Thats because we know from watching the news that everything east of Hope is a frozen wasteland for much of the year when the flies are not out.:lol:

Is this in the right thread TS?

 

[Spade]

The long-gun registry costs $3.6 million dollars a year - barely 11 cents a Canadian! And if the RCMP and chiefs of police are correct, that is a small price to pay for a useful tool in their arsenal (no pun intended)!

 

[taxslave]

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:

Except for the fact that drug addiction is a medical problem that we made into a criminal problem. There are quite likely more people addicted to prescription drugs than illegal ones. Just because their drug of choice is legal we don't hear much about it. So that would mean that doctors that prescribe mood altering drugs and the manufactures that make them are just legal pushers.
The fact that some drugs are more legal than others is what involves the criminal element. Remember what happened with prohibition in the US. That is how the Kennedy family and many more fine upstanding families got their fortunes.
Mixing up guns with drug problems is simply sidelining the real issue in that criminals, no matter what their activity will not register their guns willingly. The guns are only involved because of the money. Take away the money and crime will automatically drop.
This is part of the reason governments have got into gambling in a big way. At one time it was illegal to buy Irish sweepstakes tickets in Canada and many religious people thought that bingo was a sin. Now the government has figured out that they can get a huge voluntary tax simply by taking over what organized crime used to run.

 

[ironsides]

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.