Bill to Kill Canadian Long-Gun Registry Up This Week

[TigerTank77]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10...ome-this-week/

So I'm interested to here what those of us who live North of the Border have to say about this.

In my opinion it seems like a massive and ineffective waste of tax payer money, as per usual with these registries.

[dr2005]

Unfortunately I'm not north of the border so not exactly who you were looking for (sorry ), but I must confess I'm puzzled by this. Registering a firearm and having a licence for it is surely the best way of ensuring legal gun ownership remains a possibility, so I would have thought you would be in favour of such initiatives. Granted, this one has been plagued by cost overruns, but the solution to that would be overhauling the scheme to make it more effective and efficient rather than scrapping it altogether. That argument seems to me to be on the same level as saying that because people drive while disqualified or without a licence, we might as well scrap the driving licence and driving tests because they're just a waste of money. It doesn't really make sense, and seems to be appealing to primal instinct rather than rational logic.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Unfortunately I'm not north of the border so not exactly who you were looking for (sorry ), but I must confess I'm puzzled by this. Registering a firearm and having a license for it is surely the best way of ensuring legal gun ownership remains a possibility, so I would have thought you would be in favor of such initiatives. Granted, this one has been plagued by cost overruns, but the solution to that would be overhauling the scheme to make it more effective and efficient rather than scrapping it altogether. That argument seems to me to be on the same level as saying that because people drive while disqualified or without a license, we might as well scrap the driving license and driving tests because they're just a waste of money. It doesn't really make sense, and seems to be appealing to primal instinct rather than rational logic.

I understand why someone might think a gun registry would be a good idea, but they are completely logical unsound. It is completely dependent on the honor system.

If someone is going to obtain a gun for the purpose of using it in a crime, they're not going to follow the rules register it first. It's as simple as that, and people just seem to ignore that fact.

If it was a system that actually worked the same way as a driving licsening system did, which it isn't, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But this is essentially just extortion. "Give us money every time your registration expires and we'll say you're a legal gun owner, or we take your guns and put you in jail for possession of a firearm if we catch you with the same guns that were legal beforehand." Which is a load of horseshit, and I dare anyone to prove otherwise.

It does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and it does nothing to stop crime. Gun control and crime rates have almost nothing to do with each other, and we need to stop pretending that they do.

Also, a Driver's registry and a gun registry aren't really close to being the same thing, as they have completely different application processes and are meant for different purposes.

[Ibanez]

We already have such strict gun control laws, and it all means nothing when half of all firearms in crimes are illegally smuggled from the US. Only 2% of homicides are used with registered long guns, and I'd love to see how many of those were stolen. It does make tracing a firearm easier for police, but it costs too much money and pisses too many people off. Besides, this is only for unrestricted firearms, you'll still have to register handguns.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Caliber

half of all firearms in crimes are illegally smuggled from the US.

Do you have a source for that? I remember for the longest time everyone was harping about how most guns in Mexico were smuggled in from the US and that turned out to be an elaborate myth perpetuated by the ATF.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I'm in Canada and I've never understood how the long-gun registry is meant to reduce crimes. A criminal isn't going to register a gun then use it on a person, it seems as though it was designed in such a way to please the uneducated people of society and those paranoid of guns. Depending where in Canada you are, the process can be a lot smoother.

However, I strongly disagree with the article in that it states abolishing the long-gun registry will illustrate the urban-rural divide in Canada. Many people in urban areas own guns, look at any ghetto area. Also, not all people in a rural area will own guns, although I suppose this depends exactly what is meant by rural. For example, at the tips of Northern Ontario, it's useless to have a gun registry because the towns are so difficult to access, the police need to travel for a while on road or access by plane or boat. These are towns with populations less than 500, some have a population of roughly 100 (i.e. Peawanuck in Kenora District, Ontario). I doubt such places would even be affected by the outcome of the long-gun registry.

Places that aren't that as far north and that I've been to, such as Marathon (according to Wikipedia, its population is approx. 3800), Thunder Bay, Timmins, Kenora, etc... involve lots of mining and hunting (especially Kenora for hunting). In more wilderness areas, it's expected a person will have a gun or their neighbour will particularly for animals. In the city, people may worry about a small raccoon but in more northern areas, if you worry about a raccoon, you'll be laughed at as there are bears, coyotes, wolves, moose, deer, etc... . Usually they aren't particularly aggressive but if you're near the baby and the mother is around, better run. Several times when I was with my family, we saw a baby bear then heard one hell of a loud roar and we bolted away. In these areas, the long-gun registry is useless for police officers to know whether someone has a gun because it's expected they will.

Overall, the registry is already fairly useless in urban and rural areas.

[Xujhan]

I'm impressed; Harper's actually doing something halfway sensible for a change. Too much to hope I suppose that this will be a continuing trend.

[Guile]

Ahh Gun Registry, about as smart as gun buy backs

A gun buy back is where the government pays people to give up their guns, it's designed to lower the number of people using violence for crime. Instead, all the poor law abiding citizens traded in their guns for short term capital, while the criminals used said guns on now defenseless people to get money.... +1 government idiocy.

[Ibanez]

Originally Posted by TigerTank

Do you have a source for that? I remember for the longest time everyone was harping about how most guns in Mexico were smuggled in from the US and that turned out to be an elaborate myth perpetuated by the ATF.

Probably just an estimate by police, 'cause the US sure does like to deny it.
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publi...s/2005/659.htm

Apparently it's drastically higher in Vancouver, though, so I'm sure it sounds right for an average.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/...116-2-eng.aspx

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I understand why someone might think a gun registry would be a good idea, but they are completely logical unsound. It is completely dependent on the honor system.

If someone is going to obtain a gun for the purpose of using it in a crime, they're not going to follow the rules register it first. It's as simple as that, and people just seem to ignore that fact.

If it was a system that actually worked the same way as a driving licsening system did, which it isn't, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But this is essentially just extortion. "Give us money every time your registration expires and we'll say you're a legal gun owner, or we take your guns and put you in jail for possession of a firearm if we catch you with the same guns that were legal beforehand." Which is a load of horseshit, and I dare anyone to prove otherwise.

I see your point. My argument was that rather than completely scrap any kind of registration process for guns - which, if anything, will make it easier for them to be used in crimes and thus exacerbates the problem - they should overhaul it so it is more like the licencing system used for drivers and cars. That would start from the minute the gun is manufactured, with a serial number on an integral part of the gun such as the chassis (possibly via microchip if need be), and then that number is registered in the owner's name when the gun is handed over. It's the same principle as when you buy a car and your name is entered as the owner of the vehicle on its documentation and on the database. It would also likely help police track stolen guns and return them to their rightful owners. Likewise, if you require people to have a licence before they can buy a gun then it means you have a better chance of tracking large purchases if they occur, or else can concentrate on targeting the unregulated dealers. That makes more sense to me than the system you describe or scrapping any kind of system, and would probably be more effective as well.

On a side note, the DVLA in this country requires you to pay for a new photocard ID every 10 years, so you're not the only ones getting stung in the pocket for the right to do something.