Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
wulf42

Gun Registry about to go bye bye!

Recommended Posts

I'm not so sure if the Registry is useless but it is clear it needed to be revamped. I as well would like to see more study/discussion on this. I don't see how talking about handguns adds to the discussions. I guess anything is possible but we should focus on things that are on the radar. Instead we are talking about what the Tories would do if they win a Majority. Majority????? This country might not see one any time soon.

I have asked for more discussion on registry. I want to hear what the police say and if we need to poll their numbers, all the better. I'd rather there be disclosure. I have called my MP to push for that type of hearing in the committee.

Handguns are on the registry. If the registry is useless as the Tories have claimed then it stands to reason that this would hold true for handguns as well.

I'd rather hear about where the parties stand on the issue rather than wait until after the next election if you take my meaning.

Edited by jdobbin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is a certain length of barrel that a weapon has to have in order to avoid the restricted designation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW someone mention sawed off shot guns earlier, I thought that those type of weapons would be banned/restricted to begin with.

You are correct. It has to do with barrel size as well as length of the weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories have said registration is ineffective. Period.

Are you saying it is effective for handguns? How so if the argument is that police should not trust or rely in it?

The tories have said the long gun registry was ineffective, but for some reason you feel the need to try to extend it to handguns, you are bitter liberal looking for any cheap talking point even if it is a stretch.

In other words throwing crap at the wall hoping just a little will stick.

Edited by Alta4ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tories have said the long gun registry was ineffective, but for some reason you feel the need to try to extend it to handguns, you are bitter liberal looking for any cheap talking point even if it is a stretch.

And you are someone who seems to personalize. Can't you just deal with the argument and not the person.

I realize you keep saying this was about the long gun registry but Van Loan and others didn't make that distinction when they said that registered gun don't protect police. They didn't. They said registration is ineffective.

If it is ineffective for one, why would it be effective for the other? What answer do you have?

In other words throwing crap at the wall hoping just a little will stick.

Think I'd rather know the answer to the important question of the registry's effectiveness overall but you want to shut down that debate.

I certainly don't want to hear about it after an election and then you telling me then how it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think my argument from the beginning has been that the Tories have argued that registration is ineffective.

They certainly won't remove it from handguns with a minority. However, if the argument is that registration is useless, surely that has to apply to handguns as well. Right?

I guess we are destined to go around in circles on this one. You make your assumptions, I'll make mine.

I just find it odd and conservative writers are wondering aloud as well. The Neil Reynolds article in the Globe and Mail was particularly pointed saying the Tories wanted to move many prisoners frown low to high security to super regional prisons with the money saved from cutting elsewhere.

Why is it odd that some conservatives question what other conservatives do? Don't liberals ever do that?

Don't think I argued that. I was pointing to changes the Tories have made that didn't require any debate but probably should have.

Governments do that on a daily basis. What does it have to do with this?

I also didn't argue that a majority for the Tories is more dangerous than any other party's majority. I am saying that they would do things they presently wouldn't tackle just as the the Liberals did when they had a majority.

Some of those things from both sides, you probably wouldn't like.

There always is.

I could go back and look but I faced a barrage of attacks saying it would be impossible for Harper to call an election.

No doubt you were but I don't believe I was one of them. I did hope Harper would stick to the principle however, ill advised as it was. Disappointing.

I don't believe the law would apply to a majority government either. In short, a government can make any excuse to call an election and not violate that law.

No it isn't violating the law, just abusing the public trust for its own ends. Majorities always have an excuse why the country "needs" an election. It is always bullshit.

As for the Constitution.... as soon as it is opened, expect everything and a bag of chips tossed in. It will be hatd to control the process even for something small.

Unfortunately true but we all have things we would like to see changed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we are destined to go around in circles on this one. You make your assumptions, I'll make mine.

Still think the question has to be asked if registration is ineffective, does it mean all gun registration. I'd like to know that before the next election.

People seem to not want to touch the subject.

Why is it odd that some conservatives question what other conservatives do? Don't liberals ever do that?

I said it was odd. I didn't say conservative writers thought so. What I said was some conservative writers are wondering aloud about if it meant money being diverted to regional max prisons. Until the article, I hadn't heard that. Reynolds didn't think it was a good idea. For either.

Governments do that on a daily basis. What does it have to do with this?

They do. And the public probably expects more.

As for what it has to do with this, I think that given the urban rural divide many say this represents, it was probably worth a discussion to find solutions to the problem.

All parties seems to beyond that.

No doubt you were but I don't believe I was one of them. I did hope Harper would stick to the principle however, ill advised as it was. Disappointing.

I've often wondered about the legislation on the back end as well. It fixes an election at four years but does it compel the Governor General to call one if the government doesn't want to go to an election? The federal court said Democracy Watch didn't have a case about calling and election. Does that hold true if the government holds out past the date while sticking to the Constitution?

Unfortunately true but we all have things we would like to see changed.

If things could get done one thing at a time. Mulroney's changes were ambitious and ultimately, there were a lot of unknowns about the outcome.

I don't see Senate changes on something like how many representatives a province gets happening without horsetrading on a host of other constitutional issues. I think there mere thought of the possible chaos it could cause is too much for many people to bare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that everyone on this forum personalizes....except Dobbin.

There, you are doing it again. It seems the best strategy is to avoid you altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I have already with the registry links I have put up.

No, I'm still waiting.

The Tories have said the registry is ineffective. They didn't say it was effective only for some weapons. They said it was ineffective as a whole.

Eight minutes before I first asked you to back up your accusation, you replied to another poster with: "Next target for you... the handgun registry? Another waste of money?" That would indicate that you know very well the government is talking about long guns. Quit being a troll.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm still waiting.

The sponsor of the bill say gun registration is ineffective.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2140623

A gunman held a number of hostages in the Workers' Compensation Board building in downtown Edmonton yesterday.

But Hoeppner said most incidents of violence prove the registry is ineffective.

"The registry doesn't stop people from committing crimes.

"It has just been a huge amount of money, time and energy," she said.

Surely she means all gun registration and if not, why not?

Eight minutes before I first asked you to back up your accusation, you replied to another poster with: "Next target for you... the handgun registry? Another waste of money?" That would indicate that you know very well the government is talking about long guns. Quit being a troll.

Quit acting as if the Tories only mean long gun registration is what is ineffective.

Or do you believe that handgun registration is effective? Why? How? Please explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will stall and perhaps die in the Senate.

The surprsing thing was that 12 NDP MPs voted for it.

It is not like Jack to allow anything but obedience.

He didn't have much choice, he can't whip his caucus on a private members bill. It's a free vote...cudos to the MP who brought it forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The handgun registry in Canada has been in effect for many years, that registry works perfectly well and is a good source of information to track the lineage of a handgun. A handgun has a much higher probablilty of being stolen for criminal purposes than a rifle does. I think the restrictions on handguns are too firm though, but that's a topic for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the proof that actually works?

If the state is so convinced that prohibition coupled with tougher sentencing is the key to stamping out something like drugs, how about simply prohibiting guns and applying the same rationale?

Exactly, so maybe every law abiding citizen should be trained and armed. That would reduce gun crime...but wait, there are law abiding loonies who might not be law abiding if they had a gun...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It generally doesn't act as a deterrent or at least has never been shown to do that.

Did you know that the maximum sentence for an assault committed with a weapon is life in prison? The laws are already on the books, if we started using the laws to their potential maybe there would be a deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing! there is plenty of gun control still...such as handguns you still

need a restricted license and to take a restricted weapons course and with

long guns you still need a PAL to buy one or a Pol to own one you already have,

just now you won t have to register them.

Yeah, the PAL is a good thing. An uneducated person with a gun is more dangerous than the criminal, it's lack of knowledge or respect for the weapon that causes accidents. Nobody has a problem with the education program and licensing. I personally feel that this training should go further, because at no point in the training are you required to fire the weapon and gain a respect for the potential of it. Proper handling of both a loaded and unloaded firearm should be part of the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories have been arguing that it is illegal handguns that are the problem and that the registry in general is wasteful.

Harper back in 2006 made this pledge instead.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051207/elxn_martin_handguns_051208/20051208?s_name=election2006

The gun control Harper wanted was punishment and policing on the streets and not the registry.

The one avenue that is rarely mentioned is Canada Post. Canada post inspects fewer than 1 in 100,000 packages sent in the mail and is by far the easiest way to get a handgun into Canada. I have a friend who did just that, he was on a trip to the US and bought a Colt .45 off the shelf, then he mailed it to himself...no questions asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...