RE: The Gun Registry Must
I know a couple people who have gone through the process of getting handguns. It's not that hard at all.
I know a couple people who have gone through the process of getting handguns. It's not that hard at all.
The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
- Thread starter bluealberta
- Start date
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
I don't doubt that. I am interested in how things changed regarding getting a gun before the gun registry compared to now. What process was in place in, say, 1985 that is different from 2005. Frank may be able to tell us that.
Reverend Blair said:
I don't doubt that. I am interested in how things changed regarding getting a gun before the gun registry compared to now. What process was in place in, say, 1985 that is different from 2005. Frank may be able to tell us that.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
In 1981 or 1982 if you had to take a safety course to get an FAC. There was a further course if you wanted a pistol. I know that because I took the course for rifles and shotguns. I'm not sure when it came in, and it might have been because we'd never owned guns or weren't 18, but the restrictions are nothing new.
In 1981 or 1982 if you had to take a safety course to get an FAC. There was a further course if you wanted a pistol. I know that because I took the course for rifles and shotguns. I'm not sure when it came in, and it might have been because we'd never owned guns or weren't 18, but the restrictions are nothing new.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
I understand restrictions are nothing new, what I am interested in is what changes came into place that justified the gun registry and its $2billion cost that were not there before? I know the FAC guidelines were fairly strict prior to the new gun registry, so what changed? Anyone?
Reverend Blair said:
I understand restrictions are nothing new, what I am interested in is what changes came into place that justified the gun registry and its $2billion cost that were not there before? I know the FAC guidelines were fairly strict prior to the new gun registry, so what changed? Anyone?
RE: The Gun Registry Must
What changed? Lepine killed a bunch of innocent women and the Liberals needed to appear to be doing something. Nobody who knew anything about guns was making any reasonable suggestions, so we got the gun registry.
What changed? Lepine killed a bunch of innocent women and the Liberals needed to appear to be doing something. Nobody who knew anything about guns was making any reasonable suggestions, so we got the gun registry.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
:wink: :wink: I used to know people who had handguns. Wasn't hard at all ... but they weren't zactly registered.
Reverend Blair said:
:wink: :wink: I used to know people who had handguns. Wasn't hard at all ... but they weren't zactly registered.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
I am not talking about the political reasons, they are well documented. What changes in policy and procedure occured after the gun registry was implemented? How did it become harder to get a gun? What kind of background checks were done which were not being done before? What kind of restrictions were put on people that were not there before?
What I want to know is what procedures changed to justify the cost of the gun registry? That has always been the point about this legislation, is the cost vs the results.
Reverend Blair said:
I am not talking about the political reasons, they are well documented. What changes in policy and procedure occured after the gun registry was implemented? How did it become harder to get a gun? What kind of background checks were done which were not being done before? What kind of restrictions were put on people that were not there before?
What I want to know is what procedures changed to justify the cost of the gun registry? That has always been the point about this legislation, is the cost vs the results.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
Ahhh ... but now I'm old and boring and we sit around talking about our health rather than our hardware.
Ahhh ... but now I'm old and boring and we sit around talking about our health rather than our hardware.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
Well, gee, health gets really important for us old folks.
Cosmo said:Ahhh ... but now I'm old and boring and we sit around talking about our health rather than our hardware.
Well, gee, health gets really important for us old folks.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must
Truly. What used to be easy is now hard, and what used to be hard.........just kidding, but you get the idea. What this has to do with the gun registry beats me, but it is a diversion. I think. Now, where was I.............oh yea. Damn memory! :lol:
Cosmo said:
Truly. What used to be easy is now hard, and what used to be hard.........just kidding, but you get the idea. What this has to do with the gun registry beats me, but it is a diversion. I think. Now, where was I.............oh yea. Damn memory! :lol:
So you think the gun registry came into law in 1986?
There is no significant difference in what it takes to get a firearm. There are fairly strict storage requirements, most of which predate the gun registry by a few years. I believe they reduced the number of allowable shells in a magazine at some point, but let's face it...if you can't kill Bambi when using a high-powered rifle with a scope and two bullets, then you're too inept to be operating a gun anyway. At that point you're likely too inept to pull down your pants before you take a dump, actually.
The FAC regs remain about the same. Be sane, don't be criminal, don't shoot at the man in the moon. If you want a gun, you can have one. Store it properly. Transport it properly.
That makes it sound even sillier when the gun lobby complains about the registry. The regulations were already there. All you are being asked to do is register a deadly weapon in a less intrusive manner than you register your car.
Considering that guns are built to kill things and cars are designed to have other uses, the gun registry really isn't that bad. Personally, I'd prefer to the money put into searching every car, boat and moped entering from the US for illegal weapons, but they tell me that'd be a problem diplomatically.
Reverend Blair said:
No, I know when the gun registry went into effect, I used 1985 because it was well before the current gun registry.
Several times in your answer the point is made that the regulations have not really changed, the same procedures are in place. Given that, then why did $2billion have to be spent on something that did not change any of the process? Even if there was to be an improvement on the information collected, it would not have taken that much. The money could have been used for more policemen/women, equipment, (like better vests for the guys in Mayerthorpe, for example), etc. Two billion to basically keep the process the same, per your information, simply confirms that the gun registry is a waste of money.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
The votes are the big thing, which I've said time and again, but the Gun Registry does have a positive effect. Stolen firearms are now reported. Oddly enough, that didn't happen as much before. Police now know when going to a call whether there are guns in the residence. People who are being sought by the law for unrelated things can now be checked to see if they own guns.
So we're right back to something you hate to hear, Blue. The Liberals were able to push this legislation through because the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives are poor politicians. They knew something was going to come in because the public pressure was immense. Instead of offering real alternatives and trying to influence the Liberals, they tried to keep the things the same or even loosen existing regulations. They had Chuck Heston come up here and talk to people about our rights under the US constitution, which made a lot of Canadians very angry and produced a backlash against the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives.
The costs you keep freaking out about are partly due to idiots plugging up the system by registering soldering guns and toasters too. When those reports hit the news, there was even more of a backlash against the Gun people.
Having to register firearms is not a big deal. If I would have written the legislation, there would be no pistols unless you were a cop and you'd be using single-shot rifles. I'd be generous and still allow two shots from a shotgun. You would have to register your guns and having an illegal weapon would get you ten years. Cars would be checked at the border and confiscated if there were guns in them.
I'm pretty moderate when it comes to guns. A lot of people would just ban them outright. You should quit complaining about something that you can't change, consider how ineffective the people you've chosen to represent you are, and count yourself lucky that the Liberals were only after the appearance of doing something....they could have been a lot tougher.
The votes are the big thing, which I've said time and again, but the Gun Registry does have a positive effect. Stolen firearms are now reported. Oddly enough, that didn't happen as much before. Police now know when going to a call whether there are guns in the residence. People who are being sought by the law for unrelated things can now be checked to see if they own guns.
So we're right back to something you hate to hear, Blue. The Liberals were able to push this legislation through because the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives are poor politicians. They knew something was going to come in because the public pressure was immense. Instead of offering real alternatives and trying to influence the Liberals, they tried to keep the things the same or even loosen existing regulations. They had Chuck Heston come up here and talk to people about our rights under the US constitution, which made a lot of Canadians very angry and produced a backlash against the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives.
The costs you keep freaking out about are partly due to idiots plugging up the system by registering soldering guns and toasters too. When those reports hit the news, there was even more of a backlash against the Gun people.
Having to register firearms is not a big deal. If I would have written the legislation, there would be no pistols unless you were a cop and you'd be using single-shot rifles. I'd be generous and still allow two shots from a shotgun. You would have to register your guns and having an illegal weapon would get you ten years. Cars would be checked at the border and confiscated if there were guns in them.
I'm pretty moderate when it comes to guns. A lot of people would just ban them outright. You should quit complaining about something that you can't change, consider how ineffective the people you've chosen to represent you are, and count yourself lucky that the Liberals were only after the appearance of doing something....they could have been a lot tougher.
Re: RE: The Gun Registry Must be Deregistered!!
cosmo, good post.
The Gun Registry is the main impeteus behind my support for the further decentralization of Canada. Some whacko in Montreal goes off the deep end and because of the kneejerk reaction in Central Canada suddenly a 70-year-old farmer in northern Alberta has to register his .22 he's used to pop off gophers for the last 40 years.
Makes no sense but it says volumes about 'distant' government trying to micro manage the lives of folks thousands of kilometers away. What makes sense in urban Toronto doesn't always make sense in rural Saskatchewan or the Yukon. No brainer, however, where the 'majority' comes from to make the policy.
Alberta is moving towards Quebec's level of exercise of provincial powers and hopefully, even within our province, municipalities and counties will be given more decision making powers. I like power closer to the people. The Gun Registry, and even more so the inability of the Feds to get rid of it after proven insane, epitomizes the inefficiency of Big government.
cosmo, good post.
The Gun Registry is the main impeteus behind my support for the further decentralization of Canada. Some whacko in Montreal goes off the deep end and because of the kneejerk reaction in Central Canada suddenly a 70-year-old farmer in northern Alberta has to register his .22 he's used to pop off gophers for the last 40 years.
Makes no sense but it says volumes about 'distant' government trying to micro manage the lives of folks thousands of kilometers away. What makes sense in urban Toronto doesn't always make sense in rural Saskatchewan or the Yukon. No brainer, however, where the 'majority' comes from to make the policy.
Alberta is moving towards Quebec's level of exercise of provincial powers and hopefully, even within our province, municipalities and counties will be given more decision making powers. I like power closer to the people. The Gun Registry, and even more so the inability of the Feds to get rid of it after proven insane, epitomizes the inefficiency of Big government.
RE: The Gun Registry Must
This isn't an east/west issue, Stratochief. It is an urban/rural issue. City people understand guns from crime reports. Most have never fired a gun, even fewer hunt.
This isn't an east/west issue, Stratochief. It is an urban/rural issue. City people understand guns from crime reports. Most have never fired a gun, even fewer hunt.
Most folks I know have rifles. I do. My MLA does. None of us have registered our weapons. As several elected MPs and MLAs in Western Canada have stated publically 'come and charge me'.
This is very much an East-West issue. If the West (including urban Calgary/Edmonton/Regina etc. MPs) had the majority in the house of Parliament then the insanity of the registry would have been scrapped long ago.
This is very much an East-West issue. If the West (including urban Calgary/Edmonton/Regina etc. MPs) had the majority in the house of Parliament then the insanity of the registry would have been scrapped long ago.
That's because the registered owner will get charged if a the gun is found by police, or a crime is committed with it if they haven't reported it stolen. This is a positive effect? More paperwork?
Nonsense. They only know that if they happen to be going to the house of a lawabiding citizen, which is where they're least likely to call. For most houses they have to go to, they don't have a clue if there are guns there or not.
No, they can only be checked to see if they have registered guns, and again, those whom the police seek are least likely to bother registering their weapons.
No, it's a government beaurocracy. Civil servants may be dumb enough to register a few staple guns, but theres no way that would cause a billion dollar overrun on a 2 million dollar project.