[Unsound]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Unsound Unsound:

Gunnair Gunnair:

If any of these offences are one time offenders by average joe going through a divorce, getting retardedly drunk, or being an idiot, their registered weapons will show up and the police will then know that going to a domestic with average joe losing his shit on his wife and posessing a houseful of shotguns will give the cops the knoweldge beforehand that there will be other factors to consider.

The problem with this theory, as explained to me by actual cops, is that no matter what the registery tells them about the person or house they're going to, they have to treat every call as though there could be weapons involved.

Maybe the cops you spoke to forgot to tell you that at a domestic when they know there’s guns in the house, the weapons are seized if there are allegations of violence. They would have never known this prior to the LGR. That’s hundreds of thousands of weapons seized over the past decade that couldn’t be used in further domestic violence.

The police don't search the house for guns when they arrest suspects for domestic assault as they have no power.

Knowing that there are registered firearms in the house means that those weapons are out of circulation until a court hears the case. Everybody is a little bit safer when a gun owner who beat their spouse doesn’t have access to a firearm.

Almost missed this. You're right, they did not mention that. That's almost the only thing i've heard that makes me think the registery [i]might[i] be useful.Still, hardly seems worth it. Also, I wonder, can they search the house if one of the residents(say an abused wife) says that there are weapons?

The other thing is, to me this is less about the registery itself, than it is about the symbolism. It's yet another issue that's important to rural and western canadians that just gets ignored in Ottawa.

[Yogi]

Unsound Unsound:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

[

'ANYONE'S life is worth this...!

The problem I have with the LGR is, as I pointed out earlier in this thread as well as another on the same subject, all this information is already available with the FAC registry which came into effect on January 01, 1979.. The feds just needed to update the system and make it available to police agencies, and could have been done for a fraction of the cost of the LGR as well,there would have been no backlash!

[Lemmy]

Yogi Yogi:

[The problem I have with the LGR is, as I pointed out earlier in this thread as well as another on the same subject, all this information is already available with the FAC registry which came into effect on January 01, 1979.. The feds just needed to update the system and make it available to police agencies, and could have been done for a fraction of the cost of the LGR as well,there would have been no backlash!

Yeah, but so what? "Could haves" and "would haves" are worth exactly shit. The registry exists. It's paid for. We can't get that money back (unless we can sell it to the CIA or North Korea...). The creation of the LGR was a colossal fuck up in every way. But so was the building of SkyDome Rogers Centre. That doesn't mean we should just implode Rogers Centre, does it? Fucking demolish it because it was white elephant? Of course not.

[EyeBrock]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Yogi Yogi:

[The problem I have with the LGR is, as I pointed out earlier in this thread as well as another on the same subject, all this information is already available with the FAC registry which came into effect on January 01, 1979.. The feds just needed to update the system and make it available to police agencies, and could have been done for a fraction of the cost of the LGR as well,there would have been no backlash!

Yeah, but so what? "Could haves" and "would haves" are worth exactly shit. The registry exists. It's paid for. We can't get that money back (unless we can sell it to the CIA or North Korea...). The creation of the LGR was a colossal fuck up in every way. But so was the building of SkyDome Rogers Centre. That doesn't mean we should just implode Rogers Centre, does it? Fucking demolish it because it was white elephant? Of course not.

And that's the point people are missing Lemmy.

[Public_Domain]

I'd like to mention that I'm in favour of imploding the Rogers Centre.

[Yogi]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Yogi Yogi:

[The problem I have with the LGR is, as I pointed out earlier in this thread as well as another on the same subject, all this information is already available with the FAC registry which came into effect on January 01, 1979.. The feds just needed to update the system and make it available to police agencies, and could have been done for a fraction of the cost of the LGR as well,there would have been no backlash!

Yeah, but so what? "Could haves" and "would haves" are worth exactly shit. The registry exists. It's paid for. We can't get that money back (unless we can sell it to the CIA or North Korea...). The creation of the LGR was a colossal fuck up in every way. But so was the building of SkyDome Rogers Centre. That doesn't mean we should just implode Rogers Centre, does it? Fucking demolish it because it was white elephant? Of course not.

And that's the point people are missing Lemmy.

No. 'This no one' is not missing the point! Only one registry, properly managed is required. 'The other' is, as you say Lemmy, 'a white elephant' which requires 'a colossal amount of food' for nothing in return, and should be done away with!

[RUEZ]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And that's the point people are missing Lemmy.

I don't think anyone misses that point, I think they bring up the cost to rub it into the Liberals face. I don't like the registry because it's useless. Criminals don't register guns and people that have registered them have them. Hence a registered gun will still shoot someone as well as an unregistered one. The registry doesn't make Canada safer.

[EyeBrock]

RUEZ RUEZ:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And that's the point people are missing Lemmy.

I don't think anyone misses that point, I think they bring up the cost to rub it into the Liberals face. I don't like the registry because it's useless. Criminals don't register guns and people that have registered them have them. Hence a registered gun will still shoot someone as well as an unregistered one. The registry doesn't make Canada safer.

Well, I disagree with you and I've had to work with LGR since it's inception.

[RUEZ]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well, I disagree with you and I've had to work with LGR since it's inception.

I guess that is allowed.

[EyeBrock]

RUEZ RUEZ:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well, I disagree with you and I've had to work with LGR since it's inception.

I guess that is allowed.

Hopefully!

[Scape]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Scape Scape:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

You can't stop the lone idiot gunman with a database.

What you can do is make sure weapons that are legally owned by somebody who has been charged with a violent offence can't get their guns until the courts say so. That's not a bad thing.


Asl, Sure, illegal guns are out there but there are way more registered guns used to kill wives and cops than illegal guns.

That's a good point. Criminals don't plan on being criminals after all. There is always the argument that a criminal can always get a gun but that doesn't take into account someone who is law abiding and then breaks the law.

you have failed to establish that this is a good point unless the outcome supports your assertion. at the end of the day, our actual rates collected by stats can shows us the outcome, with no change in outcome, there is no accounting for the things that matter.

Do you know the rate of recidivism vis a vis unregistered gun owners to those whom are registered? Of course not as Stats Canada has yet to even compile such data. Now, given that a registered owner will be by defacto NOT allowed access to their guns until their criminal issues have been summarily dealt with and the unregistered person will have access, then the onus is then on the 'responsible' unregistered gun owner, that has committed a crime, to step forward and announce that he has unregistered guns after he has committed a crime. I suspect the incidents of that happening are next to nill don't you?

[Lemmy]

Scape Scape:

Do you know the rate of recidivism vis a vis unregistered gun owners to those whom are registered? Of course not as Stats Canada has yet to even compile such data. Now, given that a registered owner will be by defacto NOT allowed access to their guns until their criminal issues have been summarily dealt with and the unregistered person will have access, then the onus is then on the 'responsible' unregistered gun owner, that has committed a crime, to step forward and announce that he has unregistered guns after he has committed a crime. I suspect the incidents of that happening are next to nill don't you?

By that same logic, since it is a crime to possess unregistered guns, those who are in possession of said unregistered guns have already committed a crime and are, likewise, honour-bound to step forward and announce that they have committed a crime.

[djakeydd]

Harper had no intention of the long gun registry getting scrapped. It was just another scabby, crass display of his penchant for scewing over the socalled grass root rural crowd that has supported him. The bill was never properly presented or debated in parliament and harper knew it wouldnt pass, just pure politics.

[RUEZ]

djakeydd djakeydd:

Harper had no intention of the long gun registry getting scrapped. It was just another scabby, crass display of his penchant for scewing over the socalled grass root rural crowd that has supported him. The bill was never properly presented or debated in parliament and harper knew it wouldnt pass, just pure politics.

[ShepherdsDog]

djakeydd sane people