[ridenrain]

Can a bad deliver safety?
Would a ban make any difference to the use of illegal firearms?

The proof isn't in the politics.
The proof is in the getting it done.

[uwish]

and we alone have 10 years of C-68 which hasn't done a thing it was intended to do..namely lower gun crime and violence.

[Wada]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Can a bad deliver safety?
Would a ban make any difference to the use of illegal firearms?

The proof isn't in the politics.
The proof is in the getting it done.

Can a bad "what?" deliver safety? Law? Is the law "bad"? or is it not used well in conjunction with other law? I may be mistaken, but I thought that the Canadian Police Chiefs Assoc. wanted this legislation. Knowing who owns what guns is only part of the solution. Another part would be allowing the police to enter a premise on suspicion alone to check for guns, but I don't think they are allowed, at least without a warrant and that's a wee bit odd to my thinking, when a provincial Enviroment Inspector can enter any premise, anytime on suspision alone.

I'd would guess it is invaluable knowing that John Doe has a handgun if your a cop and you've just been summoned to Mr. Does home over a domestic violence situation.

It's a situation that is very difficult to deal with in any politically safe way. You may not mind the cops entering your home or business and searching through your personal stuff, the problem is most people do and without this ability on the cops part the legislation can NOT work in regards to "illegally owned" guns. The Conservatives may have done this much cheaper but we'll never know.

[uwish]

The problem is now the registry is so outdated since the amnesty that the police themselves have said they don't trust it.

Besides, what REAL advantage do they have? I could just as easily have a knife, sword or bat that is just as lethal and the police would still respond with the same appropriate level of force.

[sasquatch2]

$1:

the Canadian Police Chiefs Assoc.

Are desk bound bureaucrats...who are administrators and politicians.
uwish

$1:

The problem is now the registry is so outdated since the amnesty that the police themselves have said they don't trust it.

Nothing to do with "the amnesty".
The Police distrusted from the get go....only politcian/police chiefs endorsed it.
The registry only list LEGAL firearms, owned LEGALLY by LEGALLY licenced law abiding citizens. It cannot advise police about unregistered, illegal unknown firearms in the hands of criminals.
It's only utility is to facilitate the confiscation of legally registered, firearms from legally licenced owners.
Police are fully aware that with one exception in how many decades that legal firearms owned by legal owners are not a hazard. One cop I know says if they know there are legal firearms in a residence, they relax......

[fifeboy]

uwish uwish:

sandorski sandorski:

uwish uwish:

People are starting to run out of excuses after over 10 years of CCW permits in most of the US states. EVERY one of them has seen a marked reduction in not only murder rates BUT violent crime as a whole.

Hard to dispute those facts.

Same is true in other States without CCW. Demographics at work, not Guns.

If that were true, then the UK, NZ and AU would also be seeing this decrease, they aren't.

I don't know about the UK, but both Australia and New Zealand have had lowering murder rates from about 1999.

In the U.S. check my post at:



http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... &start=210

Page 11 I think

[fifeboy]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

$1:

the Canadian Police Chiefs Assoc.

Are desk bound bureaucrats...who are administrators and politicians.
uwish

$1:

The problem is now the registry is so outdated since the amnesty that the police themselves have said they don't trust it.

Nothing to do with "the amnesty".
The Police distrusted from the get go....only politcian/police chiefs endorsed it.
The registry only list LEGAL firearms, owned LEGALLY by LEGALLY licenced law abiding citizens. It cannot advise police about unregistered, illegal unknown firearms in the hands of criminals.
It's only utility is to facilitate the confiscation of legally registered, firearms from legally licenced owners.
Police are fully aware that with one exception in how many decades that legal firearms owned by legal owners are not a hazard. One cop I know says if they know there are legal firearms in a residence, they relax......

Oh, and squatch, check out Murray Whyte

http://www.thestar.com/article/238555

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/233533

it seems this guy believes in AGW so he must be a LIBRANO HOCKEY PUCK, eh!

[sandorski]

uwish uwish:

sandorski sandorski:

uwish uwish:

People are starting to run out of excuses after over 10 years of CCW permits in most of the US states. EVERY one of them has seen a marked reduction in not only murder rates BUT violent crime as a whole.

Hard to dispute those facts.

Same is true in other States without CCW. Demographics at work, not Guns.

If that were true, then the UK, NZ and AU would also be seeing this decrease, they aren't.

Look at the Real numbers. Handgun/Firearm Deaths in those Countries is already so low that changes are practically meaningless.

[uwish]

Of course the Anti-gun people's favorite quotes are "It is in place and it works, why remove it now?", or "Why ban the registry when Police use it 6500 times a day!" and also "Just ban guns as there is no need for them!"

Here are the methods to debunking it. I'll start with "It is in place and it works, why remove it now?"

You own a car that cost $20,000 and looks awesome from outside and you get great comments from everyone that passes by your driveway about how awesome it must be and how sleek and sporty it is. On the inside however, there are gaping holes in the floor where you have lost shoes and papers. The roof leaks at the sunroof edges, which causes all the occupants to get wet during a rain storm, and you have severe electrical problems that continually mix up switches and lights. The engine uses premium fuel and you can get up to 25kph downhill but it requires constant maintenance. While going to the shop for repairs, you can look up a part and the manuals have a dozen different versions of the same part you want, some of which can only be purchased with the proper permit. Of course you cannot fix it yourself and you must rely on mechanics to do the work. After a decade of ownership, you have a car which has cost you over $1,000,000 (One million dollars). Are you going to keep the car? I know the answer to that. That is the registry, and inefficient program that barely does what it supposed to and not what it was meant to do, and costs HUGE dollars. Why on earth would you continue to use it and not put your money into a better solution?


"Why ban the registry when Police use it 6,500 times a day"

Oh the numbers game..... So let us assume for a second that this number is true. So with 365 days a year that is roughly 2.5 million times a year. Wow. That is pretty close to the legally registered number of gun owners. So the police COULD be checking every gun owner at least once a year to see if they have changed their status/ownership of registered firearms. There currently are approximately one police officer for every 500 or so Canadians which equates to 60,000 police. Out of 60,000 police, does that mean that only 10% use the registry each day? There is one police officer for every 42 reported crimes in Canada which equals roughly 2.5 million crimes annually. Seems like a pretty poor showing of numbers, when you consider that the registry is hit at least once for every speeding ticket, reported accident, domestic dispute, B&E, mischief, etc..., let alone for violent crimes like rape and murder. Oh yes very effective for actually stopping the use of a firearms for illegal purposes.
How does it help them? A listing for the police to access concerning the fact a suspect has access to three hunting rifles, two shotguns and an old civil war pistol?. Even though that would only apply to those who legally registered their guns. How about the fact that a subject accessed who shows no firearms registered in their name may have one illegally? Should a cop approach a speeding motorist who is a licensed firearms owner any differently than a domestic dispute where the homeowner has no firearms according to the registry? I don't think so.


"Just ban them as there is no need for them!"

Look how effective bans are against non-law abiding people. Marijuana is illegal to grow/distribute unless you are one of the under a thousand people who are medicinally allowed to get it from the government, but how many of you have smoked it? It's illegal for youths to purchase alcohol and tobacco products, but how many people do you know who were drinking and smoking before the age of 18? OH. Making it illegal has always stopped people from breaking the law now hasn't it? It has been shown that in trends of homicides, the rates remain roughly the same, but it is the methods they use that vary. But then again, you bring up the matter of need. There is no NEED for you to own a cell phone as land lines are better and you cannot be distracted in your car while driving. There is no NEED for you to own a car as you can use public transit to get to work, or a train to visit relatives outside of your city/town. There is no NEED to own a television or radio as you can get the newspaper delivered to your door which has all the news you can stand. There is no NEED for rich, fattening foods or vices like alcohol, tobacco. There is no NEED for you to collect stamps, sports cards, autographs, vinyl albums, figurines, ad nausea.... It was never a matter of needing anything; it was always a matter of personal choice & circumstance. If someone chooses to own a car, computer, camera, firearm, lawnmower, Cuban cigar, telephone, kayak, lawn dart, stiletto heels, or whatever, it is their right as long as it is used responsibly. If someone chooses to use an item, ANY item, irresponsibly is when it affects us either directly or indirectly. Legislation against those who are responsible, in a vain attempt to curb those who are willingly irresponsible, is a very shallow and superficial action taken by those who will not, and cannot, look into the root causes and their solutions. Still don't agree? OK so new laws make it so that the only people who have guns are the military, the police and criminals. Oh and of course political bodyguards and armored car security. But of course now we have all those cute deer and bears and other wildlife dying off because of overfeeding and starvation. Then more incursions into urban areas from these hungry, and possibly diseased animals wi We lose literally 100's of millions in economy that was based on the hunting industry alone. Olympic teams would never represent Canada fully in Skeet/Trap or Biathlon due to having to train outside of Canada. 1/15th of ALL Canadians would want to be compensated for thier firearms as well. Current numbers put over seven million firearms registered in Canada, average resale of a used firearm, (using low figures), is $500 each. What's a minimum $3.5 billion to buy out all the firearms in Canada? Not a very effective or efficient use of tax payer money. $3,500,000,000 buys ALOT of increases to hospitals, police officers, prisons, taxes. Oh but why should we get any compensation, after all those who own guns are "evil" and "waiting to snap" if you believe the standard droll messages from Anti-Gun organizations like the Coalition for Gun Control? Ever wonder why they only ever say that Canada is a role model for gun control? They never mention that England has some of the harshest Gun Control Laws around and has effectively banned many classes and types of firearms from civilian hands. England now has some of the worst rates of gun violence in the world despite the utter removal of guns from its responsible populace. Other countries which had enacted similar laws and bans, are headed in the same direction, so obviously restricting the responsible firearms owner is ineffective to say the least.


Sick of references and logical statements yet? Let us talk numbers then...
From StatsCan 2003.
Total Deaths in Canada: 226,169
Nutritional deficiencies: 232
Assault: 447
Assault (Firearms): 138
Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV): 440
Intentional Self Harm: 3,765
Intentional Self Harm (Firearms): 618
Cancer: 65,990
Cancer (Breast): 5,097
Cancer (Skin): 748
Parkinson's: 1,679
Alzheimer's: 5,504
Heart Disease: 73,827
Pneumonia: 4,739
Land, Water, Air transport: 3,125
Non-transport accidents (Falls): 1,978
Non-transport accidents (Firearms): 27
Non-transport accidents (Drowning): 266
Non-transport accidents (Poisoning): 866

Wow... Firearms were the cause of 783 of 226,169 deaths in Canada in 2003. That is 0.35% of the total, suicide makes up 78.9% of that, and we know that those who commit suicide use any means possible. The anti-firearms advocates always spout "If it saves only one life it is worth the cost". Of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a questionable firearms registry, how many lives could have been saved in cases of pneumonia on simple antibiotics? Transport accidents prevented by higher numbers of highway police officers? Nutritional deficiencies? How is this even a cause of death in Canada?

In 2005, there were 658 homicides reported in Canada, 107 of which are gang-related. 222 of the homicides were victims of firearms. Of course we have all heard that the sources of half of the firearms used in crimes are stolen from legitimate owners, but this is according to manipulated statistics and hearsays and the actual numbers are far, far, less. Police estimate the 78 firearms recovered from these homicides are about 40% of the totals used, which equates to roughly 200 firearms used in 222 homicides. Of those 78 firearms only 23 were registered, that is around 11%. Thats a far cry from 50% that you keep hearing. The rate of homicides per firearm is virtually the same as it was in 1975 at 0.69 firearm homicides per 100,000 Canadians. Please show me how the registry has helped us control gun violence? Of the 658 homicides in Canada, 34% are from firearms, 30% were from stabbings, 22% were from physical assault, 7% from strangulation and suffocation, 2.6% is unknown and the remaining 4.4% include fire, shaken baby syndrome, poisoning, etc...
Two thirds (2/3) of adults accused and a third (1/3) of youth accused in homicides have a criminal record. Half of adult Homicide Victims and 1/4th of youth victims had a criminal record. According to these statistics, of 658 homicides, 375 were committed by adults with prior criminal records (205 of them violent offences), 24 of the homicides were committed by youths (under 18) with prior criminal records (13 of them violent offences).

Back in 1975 shootings accounted for roughly 42% of homicides, with stabbings a distant third (17%) behind beatings, which were the cause of 23% of all homicides. But wait a minute; that means that gun homicides are down as the cause of homicide by almost 10%? I bet you thought that it was going higher with all the media coverage. Unfortunately, the only thing that can compete with sex and scandal for headline news is death and devastation, which is the biggest indication of how poor society has adapted its values to the changing times. We as a nation were part of a grand crusade to rid the world of the terror known as the Nazi regime back over sixty years ago. While those that participated in that terrible loss of life were forever changed, all of them felt they were doing the right thing. Today we have youths desecrating historical memorials and soldiers who would rather desert and be in the headlines than actually do the job of a soldier. We have politicians who would rather look good for the world than to actually be beneficial to Canada, and we have Canadians who forget about the causes of society's ills and treat the only the outward symptoms, not the true cause beneath the surface.

Of course if you are an anti-firearm advocate, you either don't know, or don't care about any of this data or the pro-firearm argument. If you don't care you probably stopped reading as soon as you realized this was composed by a gun owner. If you didn't know, then I hope you have at least read the facts and I thank you for that. You can persecute the guilty as the majority of firearms owners will gladly stand behind you with full support; persecute the innocent and responsible and you will find that you are harming the very rights of the individuals you are trying to protect. If you want better gun control to prevent gun crimes, you need to do several things. Of those things, punishing the responsible firearms owners for the acts of the irresponsible ones and the listing of the personal property of every legally licensed firearm owner should be at the bottom of the list as it is a seriously wasteful use of resources and only harms those who are law-abiding.

[uwish]

On Dec. 6, 1989, a lunatic took a rifle into a Montreal school and brutally murdered 14 young women and wounded an additional 13. With the battle cry of "Never Again!" the government-of-the-day introduced Bill C-68, Canada's Firearms Act, and passed it into law in 1995. On Sept. 13, 2006, another lunatic took another rifle into another Montreal school, brutally murdered one young woman and wounded another 20 people.

Bill C-68 (the Firearms Act) could not stop Kimveer Gill on Sept. 13, 2006, anymore than it could have stopped Gamil Gharbi (aka Marc Lepine) on Dec. 6, 1989. Both Gharbi and Gill were vetted by the authorities of the day. Both were cleared by the government and "given permission" to purchase their firearms.

Neither the Firearms Acquisition Certificate questions asked of Gharbi nor the Possession and Acquisition License questions asked of Gill tipped off those guarding our public safety that these young men were deranged and dangerous. Those who continually cry for more "gun control" refuse to learn the fundamental truth these heinous crimes teach those of us with the ears to hear:

Society cannot legislate sanity.

There is nothing government can do to stop someone from going crazy and going on a murderous rampage. All we can do is stop them once they've already gone mad and started killing.

Who do we call when this happens?

Someone with the means and ability to stop the killer ... someone with a gun. In Canada it is "unthinkable" that we citizens are capable of defending ourselves when a madman starts shooting. Instead, panicked and terrified, we frantically dial 9-1-1 and pray to God we aren't dead by the time "someone with a gun" arrives to save us.

It would be so much simpler to cut out the middleman and the high death toll, don't you think?

What if the first student confronted by Gamil Gharbi and his rifle that awful December day, instead of cowering and dying, had pulled a concealed-carry handgun from her purse and shot him dead? Even if her actions were not in time to save her own life, 13 other young women would be alive today, celebrating her training and foresight each Dec. 6.

Instead, every year we allow the "grief industry" to tell us over and over how powerless we are. We allow the "victim culture" to grow. We allow ourselves to believe the lie that we cannot defend ourselves. What if one of the first young men confronted by Kimveer Gill had pulled his own concealed-carry pistol and shot Gill dead? Instead of mourning the death Anastasia De Souza and facing his own impotence, he could instead stand tall, knowing his training and foresight saved Anastasia's life.

When will Canadians comprehend the simple truth Israel learned back in the '70s when Muslim terrorists were murdering Israeli children in their schools: Gun-Free Zones only protect the killers – not their intended victims. Once Israel armed their teachers, attacks on schools stopped. Immediately.

One day we must face the truth: Licensing and registration of firearms does not work. On that day we must look for real-world solutions to this problem, instead of the politically expedient knee-jerk reactions that keep killing our young people.

After all, the goal is to save lives, isn't it?

[sasquatch2]

$1:

Same is true in other States without CCW. Demographics at work, not Guns.

No it isn't! You made that up!

$1:

Look at the Real numbers. Handgun/Firearm Deaths in those Countries is already so low that changes are practically meaningless.

Practically meaningless? Dream on! Britain's gun violence now exceeds New York's which with Chicago proves your first lie false. BTW New Zealand trashed the gun control thing when they trashed the rest of the leftist BS---including the welfare state.

[ridenrain]

I believe that the number one murder weapon in Canada for the last 3 years was the golf club. I can't find the right statistics but it sounds right.

This also wouldn't have stopped the 4 mounties from being killed nor would it scratch the nightly shootings in Vancouver and Toronto. The registry has done nothing but I believe that the manditory gun crime sentances will.

[sandorski]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

$1:

Same is true in other States without CCW. Demographics at work, not Guns.

No it isn't! You made that up!

$1:

Look at the Real numbers. Handgun/Firearm Deaths in those Countries is already so low that changes are practically meaningless.

Practically meaningless? Dream on! Britain's gun violence now exceeds New York's which with Chicago proves your first lie false. BTW New Zealand trashed the gun control thing when they trashed the rest of the leftist BS---including the welfare state.

Population
Britain--60.7 million
New York--8 million

[fifeboy]

uwish uwish:

Of course the Anti-gun people's favorite quotes are "It is in place and it works, why remove it now?", or "Why ban the registry when Police use it 6500 times a day!" and also "Just ban guns as there is no need for them!"



............OH MY GOD.........



gun crimes, you need to do several things. Of those things, punishing the responsible firearms owners for the acts of the irresponsible ones and the listing of the personal property of every legally licensed firearm owner should be at the bottom of the list as it is a seriously wasteful use of resources and only harms those who are law-abiding.

Did you forget your meds today?

[fifeboy]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

$1:

Same is true in other States without CCW. Demographics at work, not Guns.

No it isn't! You made that up!

I have posted this before:
According to Wikipedia, the following are "shall issue" states. Please tell me if I am wrong.
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter (per capita) (most recent) by state

District of Columbia: 0.354 per 1,000 people
#2 Puerto Rico: 0.196 per 1,000 people
#3 Louisiana: 0.099 per 1,000 people X
#4 Maryland: 0.099 per 1,000 people
#5 Nevada: 0.085 per 1,000 people X
#6 Alabama: 0.082 per 1,000 people
#7 Arizona: 0.075 per 1,000 people X
#8 South Carolina: 0.074 per 1,000 people X
#9 New Mexico: 0.074 per 1,000 people X
#10 Mississippi: 0.073 per 1,000 people X
#11 Tennessee: 0.072 per 1,000 people XX
#12 California: 0.069 per 1,000 people
#13 Missouri: 0.069 per 1,000 people X
#14 Arkansas: 0.067 per 1,000 people X
#15 North Carolina: 0.067 per 1,000 people X
#16 Texas: 0.062 per 1,000 people X
#17 Georgia: 0.062 per 1,000 people X
#18 Michigan: 0.061 per 1,000 people X
#19 Pennsylvania: 0.061 per 1,000 people X
#20 Virginia: 0.061 per 1,000 people X
#21 Illinois: 0.06 per 1,000 people
#22 Indiana: 0.057 per 1,000 people X
#23 Oklahoma: 0.053 per 1,000 people X
#24 Ohio: 0.051 per 1,000 people X
#25 Florida: 0.05 per 1,000 people XX
#26 New Jersey: 0.048 per 1,000 people
#27 Alaska: 0.048 per 1,000 people X
#28 Kentucky: 0.046 per 1,000 people XX
#29 New York: 0.045 per 1,000 people
#30 West Virginia: 0.044 per 1,000 people X
#31 Delaware: 0.044 per 1,000 people
#32 Colorado: 0.037 per 1,000 people X
#33 Kansas: 0.037 per 1,000 people X
#34 Wisconsin: 0.035 per 1,000 people
#35 Washington: 0.033 per 1,000 people X
#36 Rhode Island: 0.032 per 1,000 people
#37 Connecticut: 0.029 per 1,000 people
#38 Wyoming: 0.027 per 1,000 people XX
#39 Massachusetts: 0.027 per 1,000 people
#40 Nebraska: 0.025 per 1,000 people XX
#41 Idaho: 0.024 per 1,000 people
#42 Utah: 0.023 per 1,000 people XX
#43 South Dakota: 0.023 per 1,000 people X
#44 Oregon: 0.022 per 1,000 people X
#45 Minnesota: 0.022 per 1,000 people X
#46 Hawaii: 0.019 per 1,000 people
#47 Montana: 0.019 per 1,000 people X
#48 New Hampshire: 0.014 per 1,000 peopleX
#49 Maine: 0.014 per 1,000 people X
#50 Iowa: 0.013 per 1,000 people
#51 Vermont: 0.013 per 1,000 people
#52 North Dakota: 0.011 per 1,000 people X
The Concealed Carry states have an X by them. As you can see there is little advantage to allowing Concealed Carry