[ASLplease]

stats and studies are best when they have been put through the rigors of being published in a journal, such as a medical journal. anyone that has anything published can tell you how difficult it van be. it is not likely that such a study would be fundamentally flawed - like not having a control sample - but data sets can still be pretty crappy. thats why the conclusions coming from one study can contradict another.

the problem with an rcmp report is it is not a journal published report.I'll accept the report as a foundation for establishing their stance on an issue, but i'd be more hesitant to consider it scientically acurate

just my 2 cent

[ASLplease]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Maybe to you that number is zero, but rational thought dictates that at least one of the 974 Canadians killed by firearms (from 2004 - 2008) was higher than zero.

i agree that there is probably a few, but because its only a few, I'd suggest that the registry has not prevented any.

You would have to prove to me that - instead of a few - it was tens of thousands, then i might agree that it has prevented 'at least one'

[kenmore]

The Ontario Nurses Association backs the registration and have sent letter to harper stating that it is a health care issue. Which it is. The opponents of the registry should get on board with the reports that support it as they have weight and value. The torys have used this for political gain for some time and have never delt with it. Why? because they know it works and is affordable. Read the RCMP report on CBC.

[PluggyRug]

kenmore kenmore:

The Ontario Nurses Association backs the registration and have sent letter to harper stating that it is a health care issue. Which it is. The opponents of the registry should get on board with the reports that support it as they have weight and value. The torys have used this for political gain for some time and have never delt with it. Why? because they know it works and is affordable. Read the RCMP report on CBC.

The only thing it keeps healthy are the fat bureaucrats paychecks.

It's a charter issue, why don't the also-ran's see that.

It's weight is approx' 2lbs, it's value is approx' one box of printer paper.

[hurley_108]

uwish uwish:

The problem with your logic is there were 15 millions firearms pre c-68 and only 7 million registered. 8 million were not turned in for destruction so what about those 8 million unregistered firearms???

Hurley I don't know why you include stabbing in that number? was it just to inflate the total for effect? The actual number was 173 is 2004, and I believe I said INJURED OR KILLED NOT JUST KILLED by a vehicle. Go ahead look up the serious injury rate (not just 'injured') AND the death rate and tell me it's not orders of magnitude higher percentage than serious injury or death with a firearm.

And no, you still didn't answer my question, I never said violent criminals or legally insane people should own firearms. I was saying why do those who currently LEGALLY own firearms have to play be a different set of rules than anyone else? Why does C-68 violate the charter of rights? Why is my privacy not protected like anyone else?

Section 1: Rights Limited Only By Demonstrably Justifiable Reasonable Limits

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes that the rights and liberties guaranteed therein are not absolute but are subject to “reasonable limits.” In one of its most important Charter precedents, R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, the Supreme Court set out an operational definition of what criteria must be met for a government to “demonstrably justify” that a rights limitation is “reasonable.” The “Oakes test” requires a government to demonstrate that the impugned act:

1. serves an important public policy objective.
2. is rationally connected to that objective.
3. impairs the right in issue as little as possible (minimal impairment)
4. does more good than harm (proportionality).

In 1995 when C-68 was enacted, there was no demonstrable need for new restrictions on firearm owners. According to the Canadian Firearms Centre’s own data, in 1995, the rate of homicides per 100,000 people in Canada was 0.60, a 25 year low.

Likewise, the use of firearms in suicides was at a 24 year low in 1995. That data also shows the rate of 3.0 hospitalizations due to all firearms-related causes per 100,000 people was at an eight year low, as was the rate of 1.2 firearms accident hospitalizations per 100,000 people. (This second figure excludes hospitalizations due to intentional use of firearms, which are included in the first figure.)

This data suggests that levels of firearms-related accidents and deaths had been decreasing for a number of years prior to 1995, and thus there was no demonstrable need for a new policy of universal gun registration.

Section 7: Right To Liberty

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 7 of the Charter protects the essential rights of life, liberty and personal security, rights that are fundamental to all democratic societies. While these rights are subject to reasonable limitations under Section 1, Section 7 confers additional protection by ensuring that these rights cannot be taken away except “in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.

In Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, the Supreme Court interpreted this latter phrase to allow both procedural and substantive scrutiny of legislation. This means that for a law to meet the requirements of section 7, it must respect the principles of procedural fairness—both in the way that it is written and in the manner in which it is administered—while also being a fair law. The Firearms Act fails to meet either of these tests.

Section 7: Right To Procedural Fairness

The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the Section 7 right to liberty broadly. As Wilson J. stated in R. v. Morgentaler [1988] S.C.R. 30: “the right to liberty contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting their private lives.” Similarly, in the case of Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, La Forest J. stated: “the right to liberty enshrined in s. 7 of the Charter protects within its' ambit the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference.”

The Firearms Act violates this protected sphere of personal privacy. It forces Canadian firearm owners to become licenced and to register their firearms simply in order to own them. The state has legitimate reasons to regulate who purchases firearms (covered by the previous “Firearms Acquisition Certificate”) and who legally uses firearms (covered by mandatory firearm safety courses).

But the Firearms Act goes far beyond these legitimate objects of state regulation and strikes at the mere act of possessing a firearm inside one’s own home. This is done in the absence of any evidence of harm to others or threat of such harm—the primary justifications in a liberal democracy for the state to interfere with the personal liberty of its' citizens. The Firearms Act imposes an intrusive and stigmatizing regulatory regime on the lawful activity of merely possessing a firearm in the privacy of one’s own home. As noted by Justice Conrad of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the first constitutional challenge to C-68:

“... no evidence was presented to this Court to show that the mere possession of an ordinary firearm without a licence or registration certificate is a significant social problem, let alone one leading to an increase in firearm-related crime, suicide or accidents.”

C-68 thus violates the personal autonomy protected by Section 7 and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on liberty.

Section 8: Search and Seizure - Relating To Right To Privacy

Section 8 of the Charter protects the ancient common law right of citizens to not be subjected to unnecessarily intrusive state searches and seizures. While at first this right was designed to protect private property from the state, it has evolved to be primarily a protection of privacy.

While privacy is not explicitly protected in the Charter, it has been recognized as existing in the Charter through s. 8 since some of the earliest Charter cases. According to Hunter v. Southam Inc, Section 8 can be seen: “negatively as freedom from ''unreasonable'' search and seizure, or positively as an entitlement to a ''reasonable'' expectation of privacy”.

Similarly, in R. v. Plant [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, Sopinka J. said “The purpose of s. 8 is to protect against intrusion of the state on an individual's privacy.” Lastly, and perhaps most persuasively in refuting the argument that privacy is not in the Charter, in R. v. Sharpe [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, McLachlin C.J. stated: “Privacy, while not expressly protected by the Charter, is an important value underlying the s. 8 guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.” These cases demonstrate that privacy is fully protected by Section 8 of the Charter.

While Canadians have a right to protection only against ‘unreasonable’ intrusions upon their privacy, the provisions of the Firearms Act go beyond the bounds of reasonableness. The search and seizure powers granted by the Firearms Act are unconstitutionally broad. They authorize police to enter into private homes “at any reasonable time” and to search “any place where the inspector believes . . . there is a gun collection or a record [of a gun collection]” and “may open any container . . . examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it”; and “require any person to produce for examination or copying any records books of account or other documents.”38 Such sweeping search powers violate the prohibition against police “fishing expeditions” imposed by the courts’ interpretation of the section 8.

Section 102(2) of the Firearms Act specifically allows police to violate the privacy of Canadians by authorizing them to "inspect" without warrant the entire contents of an individuals' home computer system, even though it is physically impossible to hide firearms or their parts on a floppy drive or hard disk, and licenses and registrations are not issued in electronic format:

102(2) In carrying out an inspection of a place under subsection (1), an inspector may
(a) use or cause to be used any data processing system at the place to examine any data contained in or available to the system;
(b) reproduce any record or cause it to be reproduced from the data in the form of a print-out or other intelligible output and remove the print-out or other output for examination or copying; and

In R. v. Plant, McLachlin J observed:

Computers may and should be private places, where the information they contain is subject to the legal protection arising from a reasonable expectation of privacy. Computers may contain a wealth of personal information. Depending on its character, that information may be as private as any found in a dwelling house or hotel room.

These intrusions into the privacy of individuals are counter to a number of important Supreme Court precedents. In R. v. Dyment [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417, La Forest J. commented on the essential importance of privacy:

“It should also be noted that Section. 8 does not merely prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. As Pratte J.A. observed in Minister of National Revenue v. Kruger Inc., [1984] 2 F.C. 535 (C.A.), at p. 548, it goes further and guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

The foregoing approach is altogether fitting for a constitutional document enshrined at the time when, Westin tells us, society has come to realize that privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern state; see Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1970), pp. 349-50. Grounded in man's physical and moral autonomy, privacy is essential for the well-being of the individual.”

I could go on...but I think you get my drift..

No, you couldn't, that's why you plagiarized Ted Morton. Good night.

[uwish]

dodge...dodge...weave

point and match...

[ASLplease]

kenmore kenmore:

The Ontario Nurses Association backs the registration and have sent letter to harper stating that it is a health care issue. Which it is. The opponents of the registry should get on board with the reports that support it as they have weight and value. The torys have used this for political gain for some time and have never delt with it. Why? because they know it works and is affordable. Read the RCMP report on CBC.

i had a friend pull the published study that ona cited, ie the decrease in suicides for quebec men.

simply put, the data sucks. stats can data for the other 9 provinces suggests that their conclusions are indefensable

[FieryVulpine]

Sometime, somewhere I heard (from a source that I don't remember) that some consider the gun registry a mental health issue, in regards to the use of firearms in suicide. Y'know I wonder how the registry is going to prevent someone from taking their own life when there are countless ways of doing it other than swallowing a bullet. Speaking as some who has periodically struggled with depression, I don't see how the registry is going help those contemplating suicide other than take one option away. Sounds like just another case of attacking the symptom and not the disease to me.

Any thoughts?

[Gunnair]

ASLplease ASLplease:

ofcourse, the million or so legit gun owners still havent gone out and murder anyone so not of this fancy report impresses me.

with ownership comes responsibility, doesn't seem like anyone is talking about accountability for the criminal, just take away firearms from the alberta duck hunter and their plans are complete

Weren't you cheerleading the shooting of fleeing suspects a few months back? You know, one of those clearly illegal acts by a gun owner under the Criminal Code of Canada.

[ASLplease]

Gunnair Gunnair:

ASLplease ASLplease:

ofcourse, the million or so legit gun owners still havent gone out and murder anyone so not of this fancy report impresses me.

with ownership comes responsibility, doesn't seem like anyone is talking about accountability for the criminal, just take away firearms from the alberta duck hunter and their plans are complete

Weren't you cheerleading the shooting of fleeing suspects a few months back? You know, one of those clearly illegal acts by a gun owner under the Criminal Code of Canada.

no i wasnt. get your facts straight and stay on topic

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Maybe to you that number is zero, but rational thought dictates that at least one of the 974 Canadians killed by firearms

No, rational thought says if you can't find out how many registered firearms have been used in homicides, it may be because that number is zero. Wanting it to be non-zero does not make it so.

bootlegga bootlegga:

However, if you really want proof, here's some for you.

$1:

In 1996 there were 27 firearm-related spousal homicides compared to 16 in
2006 (Chart 4.3)

That isn't proof that those guns were registered, nor is it proof that if they had been registered those murders would have been prevented.

bootlegga bootlegga:

On a side note, it is good to see that firearms-related spousal homicides are on the decline.

Quite so. But that could just as easily be the result of a better economy, as opposed to the gun registry. Stress is a leading factor in spousal abuse. And as I've pointed out before, you are more likely to be murdered by someone you know in so many different ways, as opposed to being shot. (Statscan link on previous pages)

[ASLplease]

not that i want to help boollegga but i'veseen a 7% figure tossed around, ie 7% ofhomicides by regigistered firearms. thats not many.

registered long guns wouls even be less.

the likelihood that the registery has prevnted a homicide virtually none.

[Gunnair]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Gunnair Gunnair:

ASLplease ASLplease:

ofcourse, the million or so legit gun owners still havent gone out and murder anyone so not of this fancy report impresses me.

with ownership comes responsibility, doesn't seem like anyone is talking about accountability for the criminal, just take away firearms from the alberta duck hunter and their plans are complete

Weren't you cheerleading the shooting of fleeing suspects a few months back? You know, one of those clearly illegal acts by a gun owner under the Criminal Code of Canada.

no i wasnt. get your facts straight and stay on topic

Actually, you were, fucktard. You were all over shooting thieves.

[EyeBrock]

Here's an unregistered long gun I found in Hamilton last night.

[EyeBrock]

And these guys were bristling with long guns that none of us were aware of.

Right in the harbour!