Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 9  Next

I just heard on CBC that when the Liberals brought in the gun registry they made sure that it could be modified and changed by order in council, eliminating the need for any changes to go thru the House of Commons. This will make it easy for Harper to dismantle it by using orders in council, eliminating the need for him to get the support of a majority in the house of commons. Order in council#1 order the destruction of the records and destruction of any software capable of resurecting the records. #2 order the issue of pink slips to employees of the registry. #3order cutting off funding for the registry. #4 order the subleasing of all the offices used by the registry. Done.<br /> Harper said he doesn't want to be known as Mr Dithers . Now is the time for him to put his money where his mouth is. Failure to act quickly on these options will cost him the rural vote , without which he will quickly decline in the polls and will have no chance whatever of being re elected. Acting quickly will give those few who support the registry time to forget and lose interest before the next election, not that they would ever vote for him anyway. <br /> I want to thank all those in the registry for killing off the credibility of a gun registry as a viable option for many decades to come. Well done . We hunters owe you our gratitude.<br /> Hopefully , thanks to your efforts ,this issue will soon cease to exist in Canada.<br /> Brent

   

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139526651839&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home">Article in the Toronto Star on Feb 10, 2006</a><br /> <br /> "Stolen gun tied to Dec. 26 shooting<br /> Weapon taken from collector<br /> Gun entered Canada legally"<br /> <br /> "A 9mm handgun stolen from a southern Ontario gun collector was involved in the Boxing Day shooting that left 15-year-old Jane Creba dead and six others injured, the Toronto Star has learned."<br /> <br /> "The semi-automatic Ruger, bearing the serial number 30324243, had its innocuous beginning at the Sturm Ruger plant in Prescott, Ariz., in September 1991. After being stamped out and assembled at the factory, it was sent directly to a licensed gun dealer in Ontario in the fall of that year."<br /> <br /> <b>A handgun ban could have prevented this crime. End of argument.</b>

   

I am a firearms owner "all legal and all" And I still don't understand how you are going to ban the bad guys from getting firearms, and that's new question Nr. BAN EM ALL. I sure as hell should not have to pay the price because the legal system we have can't stop fucking breakins. This is part of that damned registry, when I purchase ammunition at whatever store I may shop at, I must write down my name, Firearms permit #,and last but not least "MY HOME ADDRESS!!!! Anyone interested in finding firearms just need to glance in the book that contains the above mentioned info because it's left on the counter unattended, Real Fucking Smart that registry. But alas I guess it's my fault if someone breaks into my home because I'm a registered firearms owner!!!

   

Not nearly the 'end of argument'. 'Could'? THATS what you think is the end of the argument? If that's the case then HAVING a handgun could have saved three people on friday's murder in Ontario. Neighbours heard, but were afraid to do anything. <br /> <br /> HAVING a weapon COULD stop every murdered spouse, girlfriend, rape victim, etc. So by your logic EVERYBODY should be armed all the time. That way violence COULD be stopped. In fact, if others in Toronto had guns perhaps THEY could have stopped it, the cops were nowhere near. That's possible too, it COULD have happened, but 'could' makes a pretty stupid argument.

   

There is no silver bullet to elliminate gun crime. The problem must be approached from different sides. Reducing the availability of weapons will help. Registering all legal weapons helps tracking down the history of a weapon used in crime and might get the police closer to the culprit. Is this really hard to understand?

   

Not hard at all. However, there is no known way to 'reduce the availability of weapons'. Marijuana use has skyrocketed though it's illegal and border crossings toughened up. And registering MAY lead police to the culprit, but as stated, the gun registry goes no further in doing that than the old FCC's did. So we all agree-gun registering is nice, but the gun registry isn't necessary.

   

OK... so if your son gets shut and the weapon is found, you have no interest in knowing where that weapon came from. Right?

   

[QUOTE BY= badsector] There is no silver bullet to elliminate gun crime. The problem must be approached from different sides. Reducing the availability of weapons will help. Registering all legal weapons helps tracking down the history of a weapon used in crime and might get the police closer to the culprit. Is this really hard to understand?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> You are right, there is no silver bullet.<br /> <br /> But here are the parts you don't seem to understand.<br /> <br /> 1) Every legal handgun has been registered at the time of purchase, since the 1930's.<br /> <br /> 2) Having a central repository of all this information has led to the largest criminal shopping list in history.<br /> <br /> <a href='http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=ac3a61de-dafb-4384-b95b-7e56a392112a'>Link</a><br /> <br /> 3) Making guns theft proof should be the priority for owners, and be a manditory part of the registry.<br /> <br /> Until then, it's a cash cow for someone. As Ed pointed out with Austraillian statistics, taking guns away from law abiding people only increases crime.

   

Dr. Caleb. If the gun registry was a mistake, they msut scrap it. I agree.<br /> <br /> My concern is the mentality that somehow we are safer if there is a loaded gun under every pillow. Experience shows the opposite, see US crime rate statistics. If a burgler come to you home and he knows you are unarmed, he robs you. If he knows you you are probably armed, he kills you then robs you. Reality backs me up on this. I am also worried about millions of would be vigilanties running around with guns. People are emotional and there are plenty of phychos running around. If someone punches your lights out, it's better than if he shoots you with an AK47. Arming stupid idiots is a recipe for disaster, as examples South of the border show it clearly.<br /> <br /> Another idea is that being armed is an insurance of independence. Well it's not. Crowd control today is done by the media. The media makes it possible to show the average citizen and alternative reality which may not have any truth. The combination of school curriculum and available information in the corporate owned mass media is a frightening combination. The most frightening to me is when ignorant, missled people arm themselves en masse.

   

[QUOTE BY= badsector]If a burgler come to you home and he knows you are unarmed, he robs you. If he knows you you are probably armed, he kills you then robs you. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Ahhhh! There you have the crux of this whole thing!!<br /> <br /> Robbery is usually not a violent crime. The robber will take pains to avoid human and animal contact in order to sucessfully accomplish their goal undetected. <br /> <br /> If a robber is desperate enough to enter a home he knows is occupied, and probabally armed, then he is indeed desperate. Fix why this person is desperate enough to risk his own life to take the life of another for a probable low payoff, and the crime will never ocurr.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= badsector]<br /> The most frightening to me is when ignorant, missled people arm themselves en masse.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I agree. As the axiom goes, 'in any sufficiently large crowd, most are idiots.'<br />

   

The number of home invasions committed while the occupants are home has skyrocketed since gun control has reduced the number of guns in the home.Such invasions were almost unheard of before gun control or in parts of the world where the occupants are likely to have a gun.<br /> Brent

   

Can you footnote the above statement please so we can verify it? <br /> <br /> I find it odd that since we are talking about a criminal element that news about the gun registry has made such people suddenly decide that a) since there is now a gun registry, b) some people no doubt don't like a gun registry, so c) therefore there will be fewer people with guns at home so I can rob them when they are around!<br /> <br /> That sounds fishy to me. Most robberies are in urban areas, where a burglar simply has no idea who has a gun. Canadian's have NEVER been big handgun owners. Most robberies occur during the day when the occupants aren't home. Who wants to deal with people when you can just walk in when they aren't around? To think that such people suddenly think 'well, nobody was home before, I might as well risk getting caught, getting charged for a bigger felony, and maybe getting stabbed' because I know they probably didn't keep their gun since it had to be registered'. Go walk around an average neighbourhood in the daytime, it's like a desert town most places, now go in the evening, there are people everywhere. Criminals aren't idiots. <br /> <br />

   

Badsector believes firearms enthusiasts are all idiots who are missled, however I am absolutely sure that it's those who chose to buy the bullshit they are fed by the bureaucrats and politicians telling them of the value of long gun registry that are missled.The long gun registry was a way to get Canadians to buy legislation again or "control over"hanguns, and auto loading long guns" which was a poor attempt to placate the population. Those that saw a need to spend $2BILLION needlessly are the segment of our society I refer to as mushrooms. I say this because it appears to me that they prefer to be kept in the dark, and fed BULLSHIT by the politicians,and bureaucrats The BALLS to call me a missled idiot. I am a liscenced, fully trained with all the legal papers, and knowledge it takes to purchase and use retricted firearms. I hope the word resticted is picked up here for the mushrooms so they know my handguns have been retricted since 1937, Regards Frenchy

   

[QUOTE by badsector]</b> My concern is the mentality that somehow we are safer if there is a loaded gun under every pillow. Experience shows the opposite, see US crime rate statistics.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> According to <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_05.html">the 2004 FBI crime statistics</a> (the latest available), the USAmerican state/commonwealth/district with the greatest homicide rate is the District of Columbia, with 35.8 (per 100,000 inhabitants). The states of Maine, New Hampshire, and North Dakota tie for least with 1.4.<br /> <br /> By comparison, according to the 2004 Statistics Canada crime statistics (the latest available, in four parts: <a href="http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal04a.htm">NL/PE/NS/NB</a>, <a href="http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal04b.htm">QC/ON/MB/SK</a>, <a href="http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal04c.htm">AB/BC/YT</a>, <a href="http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal04d.htm">NT/NU</a>), the Canadian province/territory with the greatest homicide rate is the Yukon with 22.4, and the least is Prince Edward Island with a perfect 0.<br /> <br /> The District of Columbia has banned the purchase, sale, transfer, and possession of handguns by civilians since 1977; only handguns registered by licenced owners before 1977 were grandfathered in.<br /> <br /> In contrast, Vermont (where I live), which probably has the most gun-friendly laws in the States (e.g. concealed carry is legal without requiring a permit/licence), had a 2004 homicide rate of 2.6, which translates to 16 homicides. The weapons used in those crimes were handguns (3), knives or other cutting instruments (7), and other non-gun/non-knife weapons (6), which makes the 2004 handgun homicide rate here 0.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. 0.5 is certainly worse than Prince Edward Island’s 0, but I’d guess that it’s lower than one might have expected for a jurisdiction with “NRA-approved” gun laws.

   

[QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan]... the Canadian province/territory with the greatest homicide rate is the Yukon with 22.4, and the least is Prince Edward Island with a perfect 0.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Good stuff, but the stats for the Yukon are somewhat skewed. The population (2005) of the Yukon is only 31,000 people, so 1 murder there is automatically 3.2 in 100,000. 22.4 murders per 100,000 means 7 murders total.<br /> <br /> But very informative indeed!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 9  Next