|
CBC posted:The federal long-gun registry moved a step closer to being abolished as MPs voted Wednesday in the House of Commons to scrap the controversial program. I was pretty surprised that C-391 passed 2nd reading. After so many years of letting the Conservatives beat them over the heads with this thing it seems that enough NDP and Liberal MPs have crossed over from the party line to make this happen. At this point it looks likely that it will be signed into law eventually. Weather you favour "gun-control" or not it's pretty hard to justify the cost/benefit of the Gun Registry. Also it means my grandpa is no longer a badass criminal.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 23:02 |
|
|
|
| # ? Nov 22, 2009 01:50 |
|
|
some lady posted:The mother of one of the slain Montreal students made a public appeal to the MPs this week, imploring them to preserve the gun registry. Ah yes, because using an emotion based argument to maintain gun control will bring your daughter back.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 23:09 |
|
|
quote:In an annual report from Canada's Firearms Commissioner prepared by the RCMP, police said they used the registry more than 2.5 million times in 2007. What's this? An opposing viewpoint could be made public so people can make up their minds in an informed manner? Of course not! I loathe the Conservatives more and more every day. I'm not even sure that the gun registry is efficient enough to be useful and worth the money but the fact that the Conservatives want to get rid of it so badly is reason enough to keep it.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 23:19 |
|
|
Verviticus posted:What's this? An opposing viewpoint could be made public so people can make up their minds in an informed manner? Of course not! I'm pretty sure Quebec is the only province that enforces the long gun registry. Alberta and the rest don't punish those who don't willing register their guns.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 23:42 |
|
|
All this really does is eliminate the possibility of being a paper criminal when you posses non-restricted firearms. Huge waste of money aside it made it much easier to sell firearms over the internet and be sure that you were selling to a legal gun owner. I don't really get that woman who's daughter was killed. That guy would not have been stopped by requiring him to register his gun anymore than he was stopped by the FAC system that was in place at the time.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 00:42 |
|
|
Verviticus posted:What's this? An opposing viewpoint could be made public so people can make up their minds in an informed manner? Of course not! You support wasting taxpayer money and harassing otherwise law abiding citizens? Are you sure you're not a Conservative?
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 01:12 |
|
|
What I never understood about the registry is why those in favor of it want it ? None of the arguments I heard make sense and I am in favor of gun control.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 01:15 |
|
|
XakEp posted:You support wasting taxpayer money and harassing otherwise law abiding citizens? Are you sure you're not a Conservative? You support the whole-sale slaughter of law abiding citizens by easy-to-purchase guns in the hands of crazed redneck or gangster freaks? Yeah, it's funny how a question can be framed to get the answer you want. The post you're responding to is talking about a report that the RCMP issued stating how often they've been able to rely on the gun registry in gun-related crimes. The Conservative in question isn't bothering to release the report to the public so that we can come to our own conclusion; instead, he's stating that the report just tells us that it wastes money and harasses law abiding citizens. Which may very well be a direct contradiction to the actual report; we can't know.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 01:40 |
|
|
Dantes posted:What I never understood about the registry is why those in favor of it want it ? None of the arguments I heard make sense and I am in favor of gun control. It doesn't make sense. It's Conservative cunts pandering to stupid voters with an argument best summed up as "hurr guns r bad".
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 01:41 |
|
|
Eyeball88 posted:You support the whole-sale slaughter of law abiding citizens by easy-to-purchase gun-toting freaks? Except we already know the registry has wasted BILLIONS of dollars, and makes otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. Releasing that report won't change the facts. Try again.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 01:41 |
|
|
XakEp posted:Except we already know the registry has wasted BILLIONS of dollars, and makes otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. Releasing that report won't change the facts. Try again. If that's the case, why is he silencing the report? If the RCMP thinks that it's generally helpful in stopping violent gun-related crimes (which are on the rise in cities like Vancouver,) why silence that?
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 01:46 |
|
|
XakEp posted:Except we already know the registry has wasted BILLIONS of dollars, and makes otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. Releasing that report won't change the facts. Try again. That's what it all comes down to I think. It's just not a good way to spend money. How many more cops can you pay with two billion dollars? How many extra boarder patrols and inspections can you put up to stop all those handguns from being smuggled in from the US and abroad? Also registration is one step towards confiscation (sorry I had to say it.)
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 01:49 |
|
|
Dantes posted:What I never understood about the registry is why those in favor of it want it ? None of the arguments I heard make sense and I am in favor of gun control. I'll venture guesses (I myself am undecided on the issue) 1. Ease of tracking gun crime, since a registered firearm could be traced back to its owner. (applicable when normally law-abiding citizens commit crimes of passion) 2. Separation of legitimate gun owners from people who obtained firearms illegally. (Then you make the assumption that illegal gun owners are more likely to use the gun for a crime, then you arrest these people just for having the gun, before they have a chance to) 3. Is a measure short of an all out gun ban, which would be opposed by hunters, farmers, and other gun owning groups, and would force these legitimate users into the same black market as the criminals.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 01:58 |
|
|
Deleted because I'm an idiot...
MrAmazing fucked around with this message at Nov 06, 2009 around 02:23 |
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:01 |
|
|
DangerousMonkey posted:That's what it all comes down to I think. It's just not a good way to spend money. How many more cops can you pay with two billion dollars? How many extra boarder patrols and inspections can you put up to stop all those handguns from being smuggled in from the US and abroad? I forget who said it, but one of the other times this has come up it was said that "The Canadian government will have more registered information on who owns cats and dogs than they will on who owns the ~7 million firearms across Canada." If you think that registration is one step towards confiscation (ignoring the fact that the gun registry is almost two decades old and hasn't resulted in confiscation yet,) what do you believe the alternative should be? Over the counter with no questions asked? Just flash your drivers license and carry away a gun? A lot of the government services run at a loss. How much money does the military bring in? Or the Postal services? Just because it's losing money, doesn't mean it isn't performing a valid function. To play Devil's Advocate and pulling numbers out of my rear end, if the gun registry prevents one murder for every 100 people it inconveniences, is it still a waste? Keep in mind that I don't particularly care about guns either way, I just haven't seen what the alternative should be. This may be because I don't follow the issue.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:01 |
|
|
MrAmazing posted:You're overreaching here, unless you can have a source. The RCMP have used the long gun registry lots of times, they've also used licence plate registries to search for ex-wives new partners. I have yet to find, despite looking, a single piece of evidence that the gun registry has prevented a murder or contributed to the conviction of a murder, who would not otherwise have been convicted. How on earth am I overreaching? The report in question just said that the RCMP was able to use the gun registry over 2.5 million times in the year 2007. All I said was "this is what the RCMP is saying right here in this quote, whether it's true or not is impossible for us to know because they're not releasing it to the public."
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:04 |
|
|
DangerousMonkey posted:That's what it all comes down to I think. It's just not a good way to spend money. How many more cops can you pay with two billion dollars? How many extra boarder patrols and inspections can you put up to stop all those handguns from being smuggled in from the US and abroad? Because I would think that making it hard to get a gun would do more than having armed men patrol the streets looking for other armed men. DangerousMonkey posted:Also registration is one step towards confiscation (sorry I had to say it.) Why do you need a gun? Are you planning a coup? I know I'm not, and quite frankly I would be glad if there were no guns on the streets because then I wouldn't have to hear stories about people shot blocks away from my house over drunken disputes.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:05 |
|
|
Mediochre posted:2. Separation of legitimate gun owners from people who obtained firearms illegally. (Then you make the assumption that illegal gun owners are more likely to use the gun for a crime, then you arrest these people just for having the gun, before they have a chance to) There's always been a separation between lawful gun owners (which I think you meant to say with "legitimate") and unlawful gun owners in that one group is lawful and the other isn't. A gun registry does not change this. Yeah they should really release that report, though I think it wouldn't make much of a difference as "gun registry was used by police x times..." isn't the same as "gun registry solved/prevented x number of crimes..."
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:07 |
|
|
Mediochre posted:I'll venture guesses (I myself am undecided on the issue) How often does this actually happen, and when it does, how often does the killer make any attempt to hide the crime and get rid of the weapon? quote:2. Separation of legitimate gun owners from people who obtained firearms illegally. (Then you make the assumption that illegal gun owners are more likely to use the gun for a crime, then you arrest these people just for having the gun, before they have a chance to) False premise; Police do not exist to prevent crime, and given that weapons are easily hidden in a place that police would not legally be able to search without probable cause, illegal possession doesn't seem like it would be a very commonly prosecuted offense on its own. quote:3. Is a measure short of an all out gun ban, which would be opposed by hunters, farmers, and other gun owning groups, and would force these legitimate users into the same black market as the criminals. If you admit the existence of a 'black market' that is used by criminals to purchase weapons at will, then how can you argue that a registry has any effect at all? Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law, so what good is a registry that does not contain the guns overwhelmingly more likely to be used in crimes, namely, guns that are illegally obtained? edit: Eyeball88 posted:A lot of the government services run at a loss. How much money does the military bring in? Or the Postal services? Just because it's losing money, doesn't mean it isn't performing a valid function. To play Devil's Advocate and pulling numbers out of my rear end, if the gun registry prevents one murder for every 100 people it inconveniences, is it still a waste? Gun control does not prevent crime. Period.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:07 |
|
|
fatman1683 posted:Gun control does not prevent crime. Period. Gun ownership doesn't either.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:10 |
|
|
E2M6 posted:Gun ownership doesn't either. Nobody said it did. In response to the "need" comment earlier, there are lots of things people don't "need" but are dangerous if misused. Needs (beyond the basics like food, shelter, etc...) are subjective.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:12 |
|
|
Eyeball88 posted:How on earth am I overreaching? The report in question just said that the RCMP was able to use the gun registry over 2.5 million times in the year 2007. All I said was "this is what the RCMP is saying right here in this quote, whether it's true or not is impossible for us to know because they're not releasing it to the public." So how many crimes have been solved by virtue of the registry's existence? I know here in the States, Maryland's ballistics database has solved precisely ZERO crimes.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:22 |
|
|
Eyeball88 posted:How on earth am I overreaching? The report in question just said that the RCMP was able to use the gun registry over 2.5 million times in the year 2007. All I said was "this is what the RCMP is saying right here in this quote, whether it's true or not is impossible for us to know because they're not releasing it to the public." Sorry, I should have read that more carefully and not attributed it to you. The report still seems ridiculous though, according to statscan at ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quot...080220b-eng.htm ) Canada had 8,100 victims of violent gun crime in 2006. Handguns, which are already restricted, compromised the firearm of choice for 2/3 of those crimes. I don't have numbers for 2007, but unless the number of violent gun crimes increased by an order of magnitude, the numbers provided by the RCMP are suspect. This is of course, assuming when the RCMP say they used the gun registry, they were using it for the purpose of reducing gun crime or solving gun crimes. If they were using it to look people up for other reasons, it's an entirely possible number. MrAmazing fucked around with this message at Nov 06, 2009 around 02:35 |
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:22 |
|
|
DangerousMonkey posted:Also registration is one step towards confiscation news flash, Canada does not, and hopefully never will, give its citizens the right to own firearms
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:32 |
|
|
E2M6 posted:Gun ownership doesn't either. Actually, it often does. http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime...nnesaw&state=GA http://www.mindspring.com/~robertcj...m#_Toc140051565
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:34 |
|
|
fatman1683 posted:Gun control does not prevent crime. Period. Is this a well reported fact? If gun control helps identify criminals because of the gun they've used, would it be fair to say it prevented them from committing future crimes? This isn't really an issue near and dear to my heart so I don't know any better; it just seems that whenever it comes up, I'm supposed to understand that, at its face value the gun registry does nothing except waste money and harass innocent citizens.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:35 |
|
|
Eyeball88 posted:If you think that registration is one step towards confiscation (ignoring the fact that the gun registry is almost two decades old and hasn't resulted in confiscation yet,) what do you believe the alternative should be? Over the counter with no questions asked? Just flash your drivers license and carry away a gun? Yeah, the only two options are either having a gun registry or handing out guns to whomever. Funny coming from the poster who chided another for framing questions. Edit: Wow, upon further reading some of you people actually believe this is the case? That there is no middle ground between the two? ryanmfw fucked around with this message at Nov 06, 2009 around 02:37 |
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:35 |
|
|
fatman1683 posted:How often does this actually happen, and when it does, how often does the killer make any attempt to hide the crime and get rid of the weapon? Good question, which is part of the reason I'm undecided. Does it provide enough benefits to justify its costs? I can honestly say I'm not sure. fatman1683 posted:
I don't know about this one. Often police find things when they are searching for something else. Dope is easy to flush down the toilet when a raid comes, but a firearm isn't, for example. Vehicles get impounded and searched by police all the time, and they find drugs and guns in them. fatman1683 posted:If you admit the existence of a 'black market' that is used by criminals to purchase weapons at will, then how can you argue that a registry has any effect at all? Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law, so what good is a registry that does not contain the guns overwhelmingly more likely to be used in crimes, namely, guns that are illegally obtained? Black markets will form inevitably for items that are illegal or controlled. The point of the registry is to give lawful gun owners (thanks numlock) the legal ability to own weapons. How large the black market becomes is a problem of enforcement, not the registry. Mediochre fucked around with this message at Nov 06, 2009 around 02:44 |
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:38 |
|
|
fatman1683 posted:Actually, it often does. There's no evidence here that this would work on a larger scale; Kennesaw has a population of roughly 21,000, so it faces different problems than a city like Vancouver with a population closer to 610,000.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:41 |
|
|
ryanmfw posted:Yeah, the only two options are either having a gun registry or handing out guns to whomever. Funny coming from the poster who chided another for framing questions. I was responding to the hyperbole that registry is one step away from confiscation (after 20 years of this not being the case) with some hyperbole of my own. If you had actually bothered to read a little further, I did actually ask what alternatives were being offered, instead of just the Conservative talking point of "get rid of gun registry!"
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:44 |
|
|
Eyeball88 posted:Is this a well reported fact? Yes. edit: Here's the report I was looking for http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241 Eyeball88 posted:If gun control helps identify criminals because of the gun they've used, would it be fair to say it prevented them from committing future crimes? Loads of false premise here. How would having a registered weapon help identify a criminal? Do you think that someone who wants to commit premeditated murder is going to jump through the hoops of legally buying and registering a firearm so they can do it? The only probable scenario in which a registered gun is used in a crime is an accidental shooting or a crime of passion by an otherwise law-abiding citizen who is not likely to reoffend. Most of these people do not even try to hide their crimes, much less destroy evidence, so the gun registry accomplishes little. The most common use of any firearm registry anywhere is to identify weapons seized during raids or searches, and the only reliable information that can be attained from such registries is the identity of the lawful owner from whom the gun was probably stolen. And since that firearm is now evidence, it can't even be returned to its rightful owner. fatman1683 fucked around with this message at Nov 06, 2009 around 02:49 |
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:47 |
|
|
I mean, people are gonna commit crimes anyway, right? Why make it difficult for them?
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:50 |
|
|
fatman1683 posted:How would having a registered weapon help identify a criminal? Do you think that someone who wants to commit premeditated murder is going to jump through the hoops of legally buying and registering a firearm so they can do it? I don't know; I'm still referring to the supposed report that the RCMP used the gun registry over 2.5 million times in the year 2007. I have to assume that out of 2.5 million times being used, it must have helped identify a criminal. Maybe I'm wrong on this, I mostly waded into the conversation because they were blocking the aforementioned report from being made public. It might actually go to show that the RCMP doesn't feel the gun registry is worth the money either (certain officers have publicly stated as much.) edit: fixed the floating [/quote] Eyeball88 fucked around with this message at Nov 06, 2009 around 03:01 |
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:52 |
|
|
^^^ Notice it doesn't actually say how or to what end they used the registry, it just says they used it. I think that qualification is important if we're to examine the actual effectiveness of the project as a whole. Just because they used it 2.5 million times doesn't mean that information was of any use to them, or that it was the only available source for that information.Eyeball88 posted:There's no evidence here that this would work on a larger scale; Kennesaw has a population of roughly 21,000, so it faces different problems than a city like Vancouver with a population closer to 610,000. http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime...hicago&state=IL http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime...ington&state=DC http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime...ouston&state=TX http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime...+Vegas&state=NV E2M6 posted:I mean, people are gonna commit crimes anyway, right? Why make it difficult for them? What about a registry makes anything difficult for criminals? They just do what they've always done, buy guns illegally. The only impact this has is on people who obey the law, i.e. not criminals. fatman1683 fucked around with this message at Nov 06, 2009 around 03:01 |
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 02:56 |
|
|
fatman1683 posted:^^^ Notice it doesn't actually say how or to what end they used the registry, it just says they used it. I think that qualification is important if we're to examine the actual effectiveness of the project as a whole. Just because they used it 2.5 million times doesn't mean that information was of any use to them, or that it was the only available source for that information. Again, this is kind of the whole point of where the argument started; we can't know what the report says, because the Conservatives don't want to make it public.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 03:03 |
|
|
E2M6 posted:I mean, people are gonna commit crimes anyway, right? Why make it difficult for them? Canada's excellent social programs and gun licensing probably does more to cut down on violence than registration ever will. For what it's worth, a fraction of the gun crimes committed in the US ( we're talking about 1/4th, or smaller ) are committed with long arms. The vast, vast, vast amount of gun crime is associated with the drug trade, with lends itself towards concealable arms ( handguns ). We're talking billions of dollars sunk into a system to kinda-sorta track the guns that aren't even close to common use in gun crimes. Couldn't that money be put to better use anywhere else?
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 03:07 |
|
|
So, uh, how many people used a long gun to commit a crime, other than those who committed a crime of passion (which, by definition, is something that a registered gun owner could do)? I'm far from against all gun control, but I don't think there's ever been a very legitimate argument for the mandatory registration of rifles, which are next-to-useless in committing crimes compared to pistols (which are required to be registered, and have not been affected in any way by the long-gun registry). Licensing a person to own guns, and enforcing penalties for possessing (any) firearms without that license, makes far more sense.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 03:24 |
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:For what it's worth, a fraction of the gun crimes committed in the US ( we're talking about 1/4th, or smaller ) are committed with long arms. Wasn't it a lot smaller, like single digit percentage small? Edit: that's what I remember anyway, Google isn't being helpful. Numlock fucked around with this message at Nov 06, 2009 around 03:31 |
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 03:27 |
|
|
Numlock posted:Wasn't it a lot smaller, like single digit percentage small? It's on the US Department of Justice website. Most of the long arms used are shotguns, the common 12 gauge ( which are everywhere ), and even those came in at around 500 from what I recall. Even most of those are cut down, or converted into 'cruiser' shotguns to reduce their size. The rest were a random assortment of lever action, bolt action, and semi-auto hunting rifles and a smattering of 'assault weapons'. Even taking the money from the long arm registry and focusing it solely into additional social programs and public works would probably have more effect on overall gun violence and gun crime. Hell, use it to focus more on handguns since they're the problem.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 03:49 |
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:Even taking the money from the long arm registry and focusing it solely into additional social programs and public works would probably have more effect on overall gun violence and gun crime. Fixed. Guns of any type are not the problem. Guns do not cause crime. Poverty causes crime.
|
| # ? Nov 06, 2009 04:09 |
|
Rate Thread:
