"Canadian Government Getting Rid Of Gun Registry" or "What The Fuck, Canada?"

[Seil]

The Canadian Firearms Registry is part of the Canadian Firearms Program. It requires the registration of all guns in Canada. It was introduced by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and implemented by successive Justice Ministers Allan Rock and Anne McLellan. It requires all usable firearms in Canada to be registered. This was an effort to reduce crime by making every gun traceable. The annual operating cost of the program is reported to be $4 million.[1][2][3][4]
Any person wishing to obtain a firearm must first acquire a Possession and Acquisition Licence or PAL.[5] The PAL carries a fee of $60 for non-restricted, $80 for restricted, and is renewable every five years. Expiry dates are set on the holder's birthday following the fifth anniversary of the initial issue of the licence.

Police are saying people registering their guns is a pretty good system, and is helping to cut down on crimes. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/08/25/long-gun-registry-report-rcmp.html)

But they have to defend it because the Canadian government wants to get rid of it. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/06/long-gun-debate.html)

Three national police associations came together for the first time on Parliament Hill Thursday to defend the long-gun registry.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards are in Ottawa to present a united front against the Conservative government's bill to scrap the registry.

"This should not be about us versus them. Or rural versus urban, or even police versus politicians," said Charles Momy, who is the president of the Canadian Police Association, which represents rank-and-file officers.

"The firearms registry represents a valuable tool in assisting police in doing their job. It is a valuable tool, which has significant preventative and investigative value in keeping our communities safe."

The groups say perceptions about the registry are dated and full of misconceptions. They say while it got off to a bad start years ago, it now costs taxpayers just $4 million a year.

The Conservatives countered with their own news conference in Ottawa with retired members of a Winnipeg SWAT team.

Jack Tinsley is a former officer who described a recent example of an officer who was shot.

"He was shot in the line of duty by a drug dealer who had no firearms licence with a shotgun that was not registered. The long-gun registry provided nothing to prevent this tragedy."

The Conservatives argue that police are actually divided on the issue and that those within the forces who oppose the registry are being muzzled.

Victim's group protests

A victim's group protested on the lawn of Parliament Hill, lighting candles and reading the names of the women killed in the Montreal Massacre at École Polytechnique in 1989.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff joined them.

"We can't understand how a law and order party doesn't get that and doesn't stand with the police on this," Ignatieff said.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson countered: "When people look at our criminal law legislation, I think people are quite pleased we're standing up for victims and law-abiding Canadians."

Opposition MPs are not united on the issue, as the bill has already passed second reading in the House of Commons, with the help of eight Liberal MPs and 12 NDP MPs.

Ignatieff has promised to lessen the penalties for not registering a gun and will drop the registration fee if his MPs defeat the bill.

Seriously, Canada? We have Vancouver - know far and wide as Canada's Hat Crime Capital, (http://www.theprovince.com/news/Vancouver+Canada+hate+crime+capital+says+Stats/3155257/story.html) we're getting new people in by the boatloads, some of whom have suspected connections to terrorist groups, and you want to get rid of a registry used, on average, over a thousand times a day by various law enforcement agencies in Canada? Is incredibly helpful to stop gun-related crimes?

What the fuck, Canada?

[Osterbaum]

The Conservatives countered with their own news conference in Ottawa with retired members of a Winnipeg SWAT team.

Jack Tinsley is a former officer who described a recent example of an officer who was shot.

"He was shot in the line of duty by a drug dealer who had no firearms licence with a shotgun that was not registered. The long-gun registry provided nothing to prevent this tragedy."
They really countered with "This one time, a police officer got killed by a criminal with an unregistered gun. Obviosly the gun registry is useless."

e: I mean, I don't know all the facts on this issue and I'm not "picking a side" this very instant, but that seems like a pretty weak argument to me.

[Seil]

I think it's just the "long gun registry," but 'm not sure.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

We have Vancouver - know far and wide as Canada's Hat Crime Capital, (http://www.theprovince.com/news/Vancouver+Canada+hate+crime+capital+says+Stats/3155257/story.html)


You have no idea how disappointed I was when I found out this wasn't what you actually meant.

[Darth SS]

Like I said in the MMA thread, I get the feeling that this country always has to take the long way around in order to accomplish anything. In this case, it will be establish a registry, get rid of it for being expensive, abolish it, then remember how much it sucked when we didn't have it.

[krogothwolf]

You have no idea how disappointed I was when I found out this wasn't what you actually meant.

I know, I was disappointed too :(

The only thing I can see is that, considering most gun crime is actually committed with unregistered firearms in Calgary I never really saw a huge point in this.

[Darth SS]

Krogo, can you imagine how many guns would be floating around the Northeast if there wasn't a requirement for background checks or other aquisition control devices? Seriously, if there was no way for the police to check who has a gun in Forest Lawn, how many more guns would there be?

If you buy a gun with an intent to commit a crime, you're not going to buy a gun that the government is fully aware you own. Instead you have to go the theoretically harder route to get an illegal gun. It's just another layer to deter people.

[krogothwolf]

With how many Illegal guns get confiscated yearly by cops it just seems like a lot of money put into a system that is hardly hampering the seedy element that want the guns. The people who are going to commit crime with a gun are going to do it with or without the registry you have seen how many Drive by shootings Calgary is getting and how much firearms is getting confiscated by the police right? People wanting guns will be able to get them regardless of a registry or not.

Hell, Gun's are being stolen from stores that sell them by inside employee's as well. So yeah, I again can't see how this Billion dollar program was actually worth while. Sorry to me the Gun Registry is a failure. It costs a lot and doesn't really overly deter those wanting guns in the long run.

[Magus]

All you need to do now is get rid of your communist health care system and welcome to America, bitches!

EDIT: BTW I can't really go against you hear Krogo but I just wanted to get some tips on how you could inflate 4 million dollars to a billion dollars there in that last post, that was freakin' smooth right there man. "The annual operating cost of the program is reported to be $4 million." changed into a billion, damn skillful man.

[Nikose Tyris]

On the one hand: Registering weapons can help when a weapon is stolen, for tracking where it came from, the source, and for the crimes commited with registered weapons.

On the other hand, I know more then a few people who thought the registry was bullshit, and didn't bother to register their rifles.


If you want to look at it from the "if even one life was saved or one more killer was caught" viewpoint, then the registry definitely had a use.

And since that's my viewpoint, yeah.

[Hanuman]

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/1106/lzom.jpg

Zombie in favor of gun registry. Less gun more brains. If registry away, zombie go vegan. GRAINS!!! GRRAAAAINNNS!!!

[krogothwolf]

The Cost annual opperating cost turned into 4 million, getting the program up and running in its piss poor method went from an estimated cost of 114 Million with 117 million in fees coming in from it, to 1 Billion with only 140 million in fees coming in from it. So the Gun Registry was a billion dollar bondongle in the hands of our government. Annual Operating costs don't reflect the initial setup costs that it required to get this thing running.

[Darth SS]

Annual Operating costs don't reflect the initial setup cost that it required to get this thing running.

But that money is gone. This isn't a Wal-Mart where you can trade back one lightly used gun registry as long as you have the receipt, nor is this an RPG where any shopkeeper will gladly buy anything you have to sell. That money has been spent, it has crossed the balance sheet, it is gone. Shutting it down now isn't going to make it magically spring back into the coffers.

Also, I think it's downright amazing how the largest opposition to this is centralized in BC and Alberta. Meanwhile Ontario and Quebec are the largest proponents while Saskatchewan, the province with probably the most farmers per capita that this supposedly screws over, is just like "Meh, whatev."

[krogothwolf]

Doesn't matter if the money is gone, it still makes it a billion dollar screw up because they had no idea what they're doing, and still have no idea what they're doing. And the billion dollars still reflect in the overall costs. If you have a project and it runs over costs, they don't just miraculous start at 0 when the projects done. They start in the hole and have to work their way out. The Government is in the hole in a gun registry that doesn't overly help in controlling guns for the ones who need to be controlled.

Criminals are going to find ways to get guns. Law Abiding citizens can get guns and then snap eventually and still have the gun. All it does is help the cops go "Yes this house defiantly has a gun." for the jobs that don't involve the seedy elements.

[Darth SS]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/bruce-anderson/police-put-tory-credibility-on-the-firing-line/article1685099/?cid=art-rail-bureaublog

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/emergency-room-doctors-urge-mps-to-keep-long-gun-registry/article1685001/


I dunno man, when I hear the police access the registry 10 000 times a day, and emergency room doctors want it to stay, I find it very hard to argue with them.

"But bad men have guns so it doesn't work," doesn't seem to be a sufficient counter argument.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Criminals are going to find ways to get guns.

Man I hate this argument so much. Criminals aren't some kind of subhuman superclass, dedicated to commiting every crime known to man.
Have you ever downloaded shit from the internet? Have you ever speed in your car?
Guess what- you're a criminal. Do you suddenely feel a compulsion to go out and not only commit crimes but plan for them and prepare for them in great detail.
The ridiculous majority of crime is not done by career criminals and even people who are career criminals are generally poor, uneducated, unresourced and spend a lot of time in jail- not the type of people to both smuggle guns to them and keep them secret for long times.
To fit what you're saying, a criminal would both have to be a career criminal and reasonably resourced- some kind of gang criminal which are such outliers they are not really worth considering.

[krogothwolf]

You may hate the argument but it's the truth. If the person wants a gun he'll figure out a way to get one, same way if drug addicts want drugs they'll get it.

Sorry Darth SS, because it cost a billion dollars to get it up and running, the Gun registry will be a failure in my eyes, especially since gang violence involving firearms has risen so much lately.

[Nikose Tyris]

I hate, hate, HATE saying this, but I agree with Smarty, Krogo. If the person wants a gun, he'll go for the easiest route, which is probably to steal one from someone licensed- which lets people trace it to the source, figure out it was that particular stolen gun, and give additional leads towards finding the motherfucker.

You're arguing to just not be wrong. A drug addict who wants drugs will go the easiest way to get them, even going to a guy they know will sell them out to cover his own ass or following a known pattern making him easy to catch. Same with drug PEDDLERS, who are the bigger criminals- they'll sell in the same area because that's where the clientelle are.

If that gun registry stopped even one violent crime - which, since we lack time travel and incredible divinatory powers, we can't prove either way - It was a success. Since there's no way to prove one way or another, I'm going to assume it did discourage someone who inherited a gun from their grandfather from shooting that asshole who keeps his stereo too loud all night long, and is therefore a success.

Please counter that scenario, please, rather then how the drug cartel will sell anyone with enough money a gun, as that's less 'gun registry' and more "Man our border patrols suck with all this smuggling". The same arguements there can be made about Absynthe and frankly, I'll buy those smuggled goods.

[BitVyper]

Registration sticks in my craw a bit. Yeah no, it probably has a positive effect on gun crime, but eeeh, we were already not exactly known for gun crime here. However...


If that gun registry stopped even one violent crime - which, since we lack time travel and incredible divinatory powers, we can't prove either way - It was a success. Since there's no way to prove one way or another, I'm going to assume it did discourage someone who inherited a gun from their grandfather from shooting that asshole who keeps his stereo too loud all night long, and is therefore a success.

I disagree with this mentality. "If it saves even one life" can be used to justify just about whatever ridiculous security measures you want. Plus if we allow what ifs, I can turn around and say that it might have ended lives by discouraging people from having guns for self defense, emboldening people who did intend to use guns for crime. And it doesn't really take the other side's views into account either, like threatening a non-religious person with hell to convert them. If I think the possibility of increased gun crime is an acceptable sacrifice to not infringe on the public's privacy and freedom to own firearms, then the math of lives saved vs lives endangered isn't going to be a very moving argument to me on the rational level. It only really works as an emotional appeal and a way to make the opposition look like they don't care about human life.

Anyway, if I recall correctly, the initial registry laws allowed for some pretty dumb stuff, like warrantless police searches. I'm not sure if that was ever changed, but if it wasn't, then I'd say it definitely needs to be if it isn't repealed.

Personally, there are things I like and dislike about the idea of an armed public, but I'm not a gun owner, so it's really just academic for me.

[krogothwolf]

How exactly did gun registry prevent the person from getting the gun then Nik? It didn't in your scenario. He still managed to go out and find the gun. So he stole it from someone who had it Registered, that doesn't make the gun instantly findable. It's not like they have a Chip in the gun that allows them to follow it where it goes to track the guy down. So now the person has a gun in his possession illegally and can use it to kill someone. Now, because it's not his and if they don't find it on his persons the court would have to convince the jury in our retarded court system, that without a shadow of a doubt that this person was the one who used the stolen gun to kill someone. How exactly did the Gun registry prevent all that?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/05/27/calgary-blinded-brazil-student-plead-guilty-neto.html

The gun registry did not prevent this from happening. At all. A repeat offender who still managed to get his hands on a gun even when prohibited. Managing to blind an innocent person because he shot at someone during a disagreement.

I feel the gun registry failed mainly because it cost way to much to implement AND our justice system is full of holes. I feel the money and time could have been spent better if it went to fixing up our justice system and helping educate these people so they don't resort to that crap.

[Nikose Tyris]

How exactly did gun registry prevent the person from getting the gun then Nik? It didn't in your scenario. He still managed to go out and find the gun. So he stole it from someone who had it Registered, that doesn't make the gun instantly findable.

No, but it does show that-

A) He had been in the area that the gun was stolen

and

B) He had thought about the crime and had time to consider his actions, reducing the likelyhood of pulling the 'crime of passion' bullshit.

For instance, stealing the gun from a cabin in Huntsville, finding the discarded weapon on the crime scene in Toronto says "Okay, so the guy had to have been in Huntsville."

Jinkies, a clue!

It's not like they have a Chip in the gun that allows them to follow it where it goes to track the guy down.

You are quite right; they don't have a chip in the gun. They have the serial numbers on the weapon registered, with which they can look up and go "Oh, hey, it was stolen in Hunstville, That gives us a direction to start in, and narrows it from 2 million people to 200,000. That'll help with that haystack."

So now the person has a gun in his possession illegally and can use it to kill someone. Now, because it's not his and if they don't find it on his persons the court would have to convince the jury in our retarded court system, that without a shadow of a doubt that this person was the one who used the stolen gun to kill someone. How exactly did the Gun registry prevent all that?

It prevented the guy from buying a gun using a fake name at any number of hock shops, ditching the weapon at the crime scene, and disappearing into a city of 2 million suspects, for starters.

And if you missed it, we moved from 'preventing' to 'capturing the guilty' in this scenario. If you want to discuss stopping crime, that's theoretical numbers again. Talk to Smarty for super divinatory powers for peering into the future where you did battle with the time clones and came back to make sure the gun registry happened.



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/05/27/calgary-blinded-brazil-student-plead-guilty-neto.html

The gun registry did not prevent this from happening. At all. A repeat offender who still managed to get his hands on a gun even when prohibited. Managing to blind an innocent person because he shot at someone during a disagreement.

And here's a link to the people who didn't have shit happen thanks to it-

wait fuck, time travel correcting itself, shit. Pretend there's a few dozen links here to futurecrimes that didn't happen, okay?

Fuck, I hate arguing the theoretical benefits of shit. >.< It's like arguing why having Free Canadian Health Care prevents more death from happening then if we didn't have it.


I feel the gun registry failed mainly because it cost way to much to implement AND our justice system is full of holes. I feel the money and time could have been spent better if it went to fixing up our justice system and helping educate these people so they don't resort to that crap.

that's an issue with how money works and our Justice system, not with the ideal behind the registry itself. Money and Time won't fix our Justice System, that shit's almost irrevocably broken, and if you want to travel down that path, I have a whole fuckin' list of failures, starting with our health care system from province-to-province.



Edit: and that's my self-imposed 3 post limit on Discussion topics. From here on in it'll just be back and forth with the same arguements between Krogo and I, since I'm irrevocably set in this position, and he seems confident in his own. I'll back out and leave the topic to go in whichever direction it goes.

[Magus]

As a compromise, they should let you register long guns for free. Needing a license for a rifle is pretty crazy, Canadians. Crazy.

They probably take the money to pay for the program, though. I understand it took money to get off the ground Krogo but maybe it's balanced now? It takes initial funding to get any program off the ground, it doesn't necessarily have to be a program that pays for itself. Police departments rarely pay for themselves, fire departments rarely pay for themselves, etc. If it's a public program used by law enforcement then expecting it to not cost anything seems unrealistic. It's not even like how police departments can give out more traffic tickets in an attempt to help their budget, the only thing they could do here is fine people for not registering their guns.

If you're against long-gun registration it kind of makes sense but if you don't think registering hand guns helps solve crimes (I'm assuming those are the 80 dollar "restricted" guns), it certainly does.

Canadian gangs smuggling in guns sounds like the butt of a good joke, though, Smarty, har har har.