The Great Gun Control Debate

[technofixit]

Actually firearms licensing and the registry are separate.  Firearms licensing ensures that a person wishing to legally purchase a firearm meets government mandated firearms safe handling standards, and also ensures through personal references and a police backgound check that the applicant is no threat to society.  All the registry does is record the owner of a particular firearm, and certain details on that firearm.  If the firearm legally changes hands, than the ownership data for that firearm is updated in the registry.  The Liberals spoofed alot of people into believing that licensing and registration are the same thing, and they aren't.  A billion dollar plus list of lawfully purchased goods owned by law abiding citizens  is a criminal expenditure of tax dollars ( my opinion anyway ).

 

[QV]

The licensing requirements and the registry do indeed go hand in hand:  The registry ensures that the gun is going to a licenced person.  If we didn't have to register our guns then I could go and buy one with my licence and then sell it to some crook the next day. 

 

[adaminc]

As far as I know the Expropriation Act in Canada lets the Govt take private property forcefully, but they do have you give you market value for it.

An example would be forcing someone to sell their land to the govt for expansion of a highway. (e.g. Highway 407 expansion)

 

[Dissident]

The licensing requirements and the registry do indeed go hand in hand:  The registry ensures that the gun is going to a licenced person.  If we didn't have to register our guns then I could go and buy one with my licence and then sell it to some crook the next day. 

So "The Registry" is going to step in and stop someone from selling his firearms to a criminal? This is what you seem to be saying.

No, I'm not that dense. I am sure that what you mean is that the registry will somehow render people accountable when someone is found with an illegally purchased firearm someone else bought legaly.

#1: It is already illegal to sell firearms to someone without a license, registry or no registry.
#2: All the markings can removed from any piece of machinery, including guns, to muddle any paper trail.

In other words, the registry took 2 Billion dollars away from public funding, which could have gone to many other program whom could have had DIRECT and TANGIBLE results on peoples quality of life or reduction in crimes. Instead, we spent it on creating a useless tracking system that can be rendered useless with with a $30 dremel tool.

And thats without me going into details on how the gun registry was grossly mismanaged, as I am sure it has been covered at least once in this thread already.

 

[Inch]

The registry goes hand in hand with licencing.  Licencing/registry requirements means there are controls on who can buy a gun and who can own a gun and how that gun is transferred from one person to the next.  If there wasn't any of this then any person could walk into a gun store and buy a rifle.  Anyone meaning people with violent criminal records or people threatening to kill their spouse.  Of course there is always going to be the back alley deals, but lets not make it easy for them.   

There has to be some checks and balances to a safer society.  Arn't you glad that a violent offender or a person that has recently threatened to kill their spouse can't just walk in and buy a gun?

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/RCMP-ATIStolenGunsRegistered-2003-09-11.pdf

Here's something for you that a nice gentleman named Dennis Young received through the access to information act. I would like to point out the very last line... If this registry keeps such good track of sales from one person to the next and keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, how do you explain why 4,438 firearms were re-registered to new owners after they were reported stolen by the previous owners? How is that even possible?

Say for example someone breaks into my house, steals one of my guns and then sells it to you. You turn around and register that gun, as was done 4,438 times already, without being charged with possession of stolen property, ie my stolen property.

Doesn't that strike you as a pretty dumb thing to do? But that's the case with this registry, it does absolutely nothing to prevent that kind of thing. Not to mention that it's only by serial number, make and model, yet if it's a 1911A1 it's entered as a Colt. Even though it may be a Springfield, Remington Rand or an Ithaca manufactured 1911A1, they're still Colts according to the Registry.

As Dissident stated, it's already illegal to sell a firearm to an unlicensed buyer, period. So the registry doesn't mean squat, hell, even in your example of selling it to a crook, while you're already breaking the law by selling to an unlicensed buyer, all you have to do is report it lost or stolen and it's wiped from your record. How stupid is that?

 

[2 Cdo]

The registry goes hand in hand with licencing.  Licencing/registry requirements means there are controls on who can buy a gun and who can own a gun and how that gun is transferred from one person to the next.  If there wasn't any of this then any person could walk into a gun store and buy a rifle.  Anyone meaning people with violent criminal records or people threatening to kill their spouse.  Of course there is always going to be the back alley deals, but lets not make it easy for them.   

There has to be some checks and balances to a safer society.  Arn't you glad that a violent offender or a person that has recently threatened to kill their spouse can't just walk in and buy a gun?

The problems with your argument is that you ignore the fact that in any city in Canada, anyone with the money can find someone who will sell them an unregistered, illegal firearm. Your checks and balances rely on the idea that there is no illegal gun trade in Canada. As for "back alley deals", the gun registry has zero effect on these transactions.

 

[Scott]

You guys really need to learn to debate around here... just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll. 

I thought I remembered you, turns out I was right. You were asked questions because you were pretty vague in asking yours and you blew a gasket. Then began the trolling and whining.

It starts here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28664/post-352940.html#msg352940

I won't give the Coles Notes version, it's rather sad anyway.

When something is explained to you I highly suggest you just suck it up and take it, not come back with yet another argument as you did in the linked thread thread. Hell, you were given advice by more than one pretty respectable members but you continued to spout - just like your buddy Sig Guy. If you want to debate then debate, you've been told what that entails here and I suggest you follow the advice or end up with the same banner your buddy has. I let it go last time (See? We Mods do that sometimes) but won't this time.

Scott
Army.ca Staff

 

[Fishbone Jones]

When you say  I take it you mean the seizure of firearms?  What confiscation of private property are you talking about?

No, I mean any property. Your a MP, and you don't know that?  : That seems to be a problem with many LEO's

 

[Rowshambow]

As stated before, I do not support CCW, and I agree with most of you saying that the gun registry is a bad thing, what 2 bil wasted, I think that money could have been spent on better border and leo assets! Can I ask a question, (I don't know the ins and outs of this) what is wrong with the current laws regarding pistols (which most of you want to carry around all the time)? I mean if you have to get awoke to have an inspection at 03:30 then really all that's hurt is your pride.  Also when we do training for missions ROE's always talk about collateral damage, how much collateral damage do you think would be done if someone was carrying around a gun and they were being threatened, I know when I was using my gun in an actual threat (even with all my training) my testosterone was through the roof, and was very anxious! now imagine a man or woman on the street that has done a "federally regulated" course, and the fact that they are about to be harmed! I know I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that area, esp if they started shooting! God help if you stumbled upon someone getting raped, and you went over to help the person, you could be perceived as a threat by the rapee, and also end up with a few bullets!
I know our laws are not perfect, and I also know how easy it is to get illegal weapons, and that bad people will not follow the rules, I just don't see how arming everyone else is going to help the matter, if anything it will make it easier for criminals to get guns (stolen or other) and with everyone shooting at the criminals, the criminals will be shooting back!

Also the problem with Stats is that each group can find Stats to counter act each other,  it all just depends on what side of the fence you fall on whether you want to believe them or not!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As stated before, I do not support CCW, and I agree with most of you saying that the gun registry is a bad thing, what 2 bil wasted, I think that money could have been spent on better border and leo assets! Can I ask a question, (I don't know the ins and outs of this) what is wrong with the current laws regarding pistols (which most of you want to carry around all the time)? I mean if you have to get awoke to have an inspection at 03:30 then really all that's hurt is your pride.   Also when we do training for missions ROE's always talk about collateral damage, how much collateral damage do you think would be done if someone was carrying around a gun and they were being threatened, I know when I was using my gun in an actual threat (even with all my training) my testosterone was through the roof, and was very anxious! now imagine a man or woman on the street that has done a "federally regulated" course, and the fact that they are about to be harmed! I know I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that area, esp if they started shooting! God help if you stumbled upon someone getting raped, and you went over to help the person, you could be perceived as a threat by the rapee, and also end up with a few bullets!
I know our laws are not perfect, and I also know how easy it is to get illegal weapons, and that bad people will not follow the rules, I just don't see how arming everyone else is going to help the matter, if anything it will make it easier for criminals to get guns (stolen or other) and with everyone shooting at the criminals, the criminals will be shooting back!

Also the problem with Stats is that each group can find Stats to counter act each other,  it all just depends on what side of the fence you fall on whether you want to believe them or not!

If you have a 'no knock' inspection, and they find a loaded firearm, restricted or not, you will be charged with unsafe storage, and lose all your firearms and privileges. Far from just hurt pride.

This speaks to what the true definition of what 'gun control' is................................That being the capability to place all your shots exactly where you want them.

In most cases where a person with CCW is set upon, simply producing the firearm in a professional way and acting in a loud vocal manner ends the altercation. ("STOP, STOP, I AM ARMED, MOVE AWAY!" while you move yourself to an advantageous position.)

No one is advocating placing a firearm in everyone's pocket. Only those that wish to, and that are properly trained, educated and tested, in order to do so.

If you were to find yourself witness to the rape, as you stated. Do you stand idly by, dialing your cell, for fear of repercussions from the perp? Or do you attempt to help the victim? If the former, I can't help you or speak to your conscience. If the latter, the perp would take you much more seriously if he looked up into a gun barrel. You don't have to shoot them, just make them stop and vacate. Your intention is not to dispense justice, but to stop the illegal act. It's more effective with a firearm, than the camera on your cell phone.

 

[QV]

I will ignore the personal attacks by Scott and recceguy (let it go gents :)

So the consensus is that there are laws and regulations in place to try and control distribution of firearms but bad guys can still acquire them in some fashion and therefore the laws and regs don't work and seem to be more of a hinderance on the average law abiding citizen.  As a result we should abandon the laws.  That is the jist I get from many of your posts.  

If that is the case then lets compare this to drunk driving.  There are laws in place prohibiting it, as a result police can do random sobriety checks on drivers to check to make sure they are not impaired.  Obviously this inconveniences the average driver and bad people will drink and drive regardless of the law - so should be just abolish that law as well?  No we shouldn't because people need to be held accountable for their wrongs.  

Rowshambow makes pretty good points in his post.  Frankly if anyone here thinks that they need to walk around their property carrying a pistol because they feel that they could lose their life at any moment OR thinks it is necessary to CCW out in public for fear of that chance attack - those people need to suck back and re-evaluate why they have this fear.  I am very glad to live in a society where not just anyone can walk around carrying a gun.  

 

[QV]

The problems with your argument is that you ignore the fact that in any city in Canada, anyone with the money can find someone who will sell them an unregistered, illegal firearm. Your checks and balances rely on the idea that there is no illegal gun trade in Canada. As for "back alley deals", the gun registry has zero effect on these transactions.

Since I did mention "back alley deals" it is obvious I wasn't ignoring that criminals can still buy guns on the street. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I will ignore the personal attacks by Scott and recceguy (let it go gents :)

Wasn't personal. You are an MP. You didn't seem to know, no sweat, many don't. Now you do. There are plenty of cases where hunters and target shooters have been arrested and charged, subsequently found not guilty, because the LEO wasn't versed in the applicable firearms laws. It's simply one of the things that we try to alleviate by educating as many people as possible.

Rowshambow makes pretty good points in his post.  Frankly if anyone here thinks that they need to walk around their property carrying a pistol because they feel that they could lose their life at any moment OR thinks it is necessary to CCW out in public for fear of that chance attack - those people need to suck back and re-evaluate why they have this fear.  I am very glad to live in a society where not just anyone can walk around carrying a gun.  

That will be great comfort to the many, many people that are raped, mugged, victims of domestic violence, set upon by gang members, robbed, etc every day in this beautiful utopion 'safe' society of your's. Until you can issue everyone a 24/7 bodyguard, no one is truly safe, and then not even then.

 

[QV]

If you have a 'no knock' inspection, and they find a loaded firearm, restricted or not, you will be charged with unsafe storage, and lose all your firearms and privileges. Far from just hurt pride.

So why not safely store your firearms?  Having a "knock and ask permission" inspection would obviously tip off the offenders to temporarily store their guns properly until the inspector leaves.  What good is that?

This speaks to what the true definition of what 'gun control' is................................That being the capability to place all your shots exactly where you want them.

Many non-LEO or non-military people do not have what it takes deal with a deadly force encounter effectively without a boat load of training.  There is a reason police are trained extensively in use of force encounters.

 

[QV]

Wasn't personal. You are an MP. You didn't seem to know, no sweat, many don't.

For your info MPs don't enforce the Expropriation Act like many many other Acts not normally enforced by police. 

There are plenty of cases where hunters and target shooters have been arrested and charged, subsequently found not guilty, because the LEO wasn't versed in the applicable firearms laws.

If a case makes it to trial, a lawyer called the Crown Counsel would likely have reviewed it first.  If there was a major procedural error or an error in law the case would likely not go to trial.  LEOs are sometimes required to make decisions in a few seconds or a few minutes that will be questioned and critiqued by many for years - some judges will rule in favour only for an appeal court to over turn that decision - then the Supreme Court makes a 5/4 ruling on the matter.  Those are "learned" judges with all the time in the world to make a decision and even they can't agree.   

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So why not safely store your firearms?  Having a "knock and ask permission" inspection would obviously tip off the offenders to temporarily store their guns properly until the inspector leaves.  What good is that?

If someone intent on evil, kicks in my door at 0 dark thirty, why have I not the right to meet him when he reaches the top of the stairs, with a shotgun? If my family and I have nowhere to run to, we are at the mercy of the intruder(s).

Tell me what other law abiding citizen is subject to warrantless search and seizure of their property? Why should they be allowed a no knock warrantless inspection without indication or suspicion of wrong doing? That is against the Constitution for everyone except firearms owners. The liberals abrogated our legal and established rights with the current Firearms Act that Allan Rock shoved forward.

Many non-LEO or non-military people do not have what it takes deal with a deadly force encounter effectively without a boat load of training.  There is a reason police are trained extensively in use of force encounters.

You obviously, or intentionally, keep missing the point where all the proponents here of CCW keep stating that everyone should be properly trained and tested, in order to carry.

 

[QV]

You obviously, or intentionally, keep missing the point where all the proponents here of CCW keep stating that everyone should be properly trained and tested, in order to carry.

You want CCW in order to prevent harm to your self and family, or to come to the aid of someone else.  You obviously, or intentionally, don't understand the level of training and re-training required to properly apply the appropriate level of force in any given circumstance.  That is why the police carry more then just a gun, such as pepper spray and baton and if they are lucky a CED. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

For your info MPs don't enforce the Expropriation Act like many many other Acts not normally enforced by police. 

If the government passes a law 'Everyone turn in your pistols or go jail', we are not compensated and our property has been seized with no recompense? This is not just for land. A private member's bill has already been tabled in government, because right now, the government has the power to seize whatever it wishes without regard to the rightful owner.

If a case makes it to trial, a lawyer called the Crown Counsel would likely have reviewed it first.  If there was a major procedural error or an error in law the case would likely not go to trial.  LEOs are sometimes required to make decisions in a few seconds or a few minutes that will be questioned and critiqued by many for years - some judges will rule in favour only for an appeal court to over turn that decision - then the Supreme Court makes a 5/4 ruling on the matter.  Those are "learned" judges with all the time in the world to make a decision and even they can't agree. 

Ah, yes. The same 'learned group' that just said customs can't search without a warrant and squashed the drug charges of the trucker carrying 50 keys of cocaine into BC. The court system is rife with the revolving door criminal, that the system refuses to put away. Instead of taking my firearms, why don't they concentrate on putting criminals that use illegal ones in jail for more than a weekend? The court system is a sham. You can't use that as a crutch for your debate, it's too weak.

You want CCW in order to prevent harm to your self and family, or to come to the aid of someone else.  You obviously, or intentionally, don't understand the level of training and re-training required to properly apply the appropriate level of force in any given circumstance.  That is why the police carry more then just a gun, such as pepper spray and baton and if they are lucky a CED. 

I more than understand it. It's also NOT for you to judge or deny, how much or what type of training I'm willing to do.

 

[QV]

Ah, yes. The same 'learned group' that just said customs can't search without a warrant and squashed the drug charges of the trucker carrying 50 keys of cocaine into BC

I guess you missed my sarcasm on the "learned judges" part. 

Instead of taking my firearms, why don't they concentrate on putting criminals that use illegal ones in jail for more than a weekend? The court system is a sham. You can't use that as a crutch for your debate, it's too weak.

I used that as a counter to this statement:   

There are plenty of cases where hunters and target shooters have been arrested and charged, subsequently found not guilty, because the LEO wasn't versed in the applicable firearms laws.

When in many cases it is NOT the LEO who isn't versed it is the judge making a stupid decision that even other judges don't agree with.  If you re-read my post you will see that I am not using that as a crutch for my debate.

I more than understand it.

So what are your credentials?  You more then understand the lawful application of use of force procedures?

It's also NOT for you to judge or deny, how much or what type of training I'm willing to do.

Fair enough.  Some people it seems will go to the ends of the world to be able to carry around a pistol. 



Edited cause I messed up the quotes

 

[2 Cdo]

Since I did mention "back alley deals" it is obvious I wasn't ignoring that criminals can still buy guns on the street. 

So your entire argument then is to punish the "many" for the sins of a "few". Sounds like the Liberal party of Canada