The Great Gun Control Debate

[chrisf]

Correct.

It also won't affect what's currently classed as "non-restricted" "restricted" and "prohibited".

Some of those classifications are an entirely different barrel of insanity not directly related to this discussion.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Please clarify.

If the long gun registry gets canned people who have or want to buy restricted weapons (ie ar15) will still have to register them and be held accountable to the laws like only taking the weapon to and from a registered shooting range etc..

The long gun registry deals with non-restricted long guns?

There is no change to the restricted\ prohibited rules.

The long gun registry deals soley with non restricted long guns.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Correct.

It also won't affect what's currently classed as "non-restricted" "restricted" and "prohibited".

Some of those classifications are an entirely different barrel of insanity not directly related to this discussion.

The only thing non-restricted are the long guns not otherwise classed. Nothing else. So, in effect, non-restricted is exactly what C-19 affects and is exactly what this discussion is about.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Globe and Mail has two related stories:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/firing-back-at-harper-quebec-refuses-to-destroy-gun-registry-data/article2214412/

Firing back at Harper, Quebec refuses to destroy gun-registry data

RHÉAL SÉGUIN
Quebec City— Globe and Mail Update

Published Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2011

Quebec will defy the federal government’s orders to destroy information it has on firearm owners and is demanding Ottawa hand over the database on its residents in order to set-up its own gun registry.

Digging in its heels just one day after Stephen Harper’s Conservatives tabled legislation to end the long-gun registry, the province said it would be “inappropriate” for the federal government to destroy a database paid for in part by Quebec taxpayers.

More on link

... and ...​

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-homicide-rate-hits-44-year-low/article2214035/

Canada’s homicide rate hits 44-year low

TU THANH HA
Globe and Mail Update

Published Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2011

The homicide rate in Canada has fallen to its lowest annual level in 44 years, thanks to significant drops in British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba, Statistics Canada revealed Tuesday morning as it gave detailed numbers for 2010.

The national homicide rate is now 1.62 for every 100,000 population. It has been declining since it reached a peak in the mid-1970s.

...

The data was released the day after the federal government tabled legislation to scrap the long-gun registry and destroy its database.

Statistics Canada said firearms were involved in 32 per cent of slayings last year, slightly more than stabbings (31 per cent).

About two-thirds of homicides by firearms last year involved handguns while 23 per cent were committed with long guns, Statistics Canada said, with the rest involving sawed-off shotguns, automatic weapons and “firearm-like weapons.”

More on link

The Good Grey Globe opposes doing away with the long gun registry. Now who would have guessed?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Unless they release the data on attempted murders with this data then this is just more statistical kife,................more people survive because our knowledge of live-saving techniques are better.


Sorry for the swerve.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Quebec is just stomping it's spoiled feet. The registry belongs to the Feds. They can do what they want with it. Quebec is in no position to demand anything. If they try use information from the registry after it is deemed defunct, they will likely face a number of challenges, or charges, under different clauses of the Charter. Some that might be brought by the Feds.

The murder rate was steadily dropping before the registry came into effect. The registry cannot be shown, or proven, to have saved one single life. The murder rate and the registry are not mutual to each other, they are not even in the same universe.

 

[chrisf]

The only thing non-restricted are the long guns not otherwise classed. Nothing else. So, in effect, non-restricted is exactly what C-19 affects and is exactly what this discussion is about.

I think you misunderstood, I meant it will have no effect on what individual firearms are classified as, wanted to clarify for Grimaldus as he specified an "AR-15" which is physically a gun which is by definition "long" (With 20" barrelinstalled), but classified as a restricted firearm.

The specific classification of some models of firearms is the other barrel of insanity not related to this discussion.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

. The registry cannot be shown, or proven, to have saved one single life.

WHOA!....stop right there my Moderator friend.  We have a policy about posting facts and unless you have access to every Police file in Canada then this post should be retracted.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

WHOA!....stop right there my Moderator friend.  We have a policy about posting facts and unless you have access to every Police file in Canada then this post should be retracted.

Prove that it has then.

I am also not discussing this with my Mod hat on. Kindly take your stir spoon somewhere else.

 

[Redeye]

There's thousands upon thousands of legal firearms owner that are not ambivalent though and are totally opposed to your view.

Great.  I don't really care. It's a free country.

As for [program xxx] not having saved a life, I have to side with Bruce here. That is a nonsensical, and non-provable claim. As for licensing not having done so, yes, there are plenty of illegal guns floating around and they are a problem to be faced, but not everyone who might want one would necessarily have access to them. Licensing screens out some people who shouldn't have firearms and may well be sufficient to prevent many such people from having access to them. The argument is pointless though: firearms licensing, and gun control laws in some form, likely fairly rigid, are not going away. There are plenty of ways they can be made better, but get used to them in some form, because it is a simple reality that they aren't going away.

 

[chrisf]

Side note, has anyone actually read Bill C-19? Is the draft available?

I can find a C-19 on street racing, a C-19 on the competitions act, a C-19 on genocide, and a C-19 on the enviromental assesment act...

 

[chrisf]

Never mind, found it.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5193892

 

[ballz]

WHOA!....stop right there my Moderator friend.  We have a policy about posting facts and unless you have access to every Police file in Canada then this post should be retracted.

As for [program xxx] not having saved a life, I have to side with Bruce here. That is a nonsensical, and non-provable claim.

All he said was that it cannot be shown that the long-gun registry has saved a life. To date, he is entirely correct. Not one piece of evidence has ever surfaced that the LGR saved anybody. So unless someone puts something forward, then he's correct that "it cannot be shown."

You could easily say the same thing about the other side, "It cannot be shown that the LGR hasn't had an effect," but that would be nonsensical, as there is plenty of statistical data to show as evidence against that claim. I have an essay that the two of you can read if you think I'm not supporting anything I say with facts/data/stats. The only hole in it is that there was a limit on how many words I could write.

 

[ballz]

The murder rate was steadily dropping before the registry came into effect.

Well there was a small blip for a couple years after the LGR was introduced where homocide rates increased...

 

[aesop081]

Quebec is just stomping it's spoiled feet.

It amazes me that they don't have anything more important to worry about. Oh, wait......Things like, oh, the health care system !!

Emergency at the Hospital in Gatineau was at 250% capacity by 10am this morning with patients having been out in the halls on gurneys for over 48 hours.

Yeah, they have their priorities right.......

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It amazes me that they don't have anything more important to worry about. Oh, wait......Things like, oh, the health care system !!

Emergency at the Hospital in Gatineau was at 250% capacity by 10am this morning with patients having been out in the halls on gurneys for over 48 hours.

Yeah, they have their priorities right.......

I like the part where they said that they paid for it. I can't remember Quebec paying for anything.

 

[Redeye]

All he said was that it cannot be shown that the long-gun registry has saved a life. To date, he is entirely correct. Not one piece of evidence has ever surfaced that the LGR saved anybody. So unless someone puts something forward, then he's correct that "it cannot be shown."

You could easily say the same thing about the other side, "It cannot be shown that the LGR hasn't had an effect," but that would be nonsensical, as there is plenty of statistical data to show as evidence against that claim. I have an essay that the two of you can read if you think I'm not supporting anything I say with facts/data/stats. The only hole in it is that there was a limit on how many words I could write.

You're right - that was the point I was trying (and apparently didn't manage) to make - you can't show anything either way - nor can you really do that for much because there's no way to know what people would/wouldn't do. It's not unreasonable to suspect that there'd be some impact albeit difficult to quantify.

 

[ballz]

You're right - that was the point I was trying (and apparently didn't manage) to make - you can't show anything either way

Sorry, I didn't mean it as "you can say it both ways and it still works." I meant (and said) that would be nonsensical to say it the other way, because there is a mountain of evidence to say that the claim is wrong (because you said what RG said was "non-provable").

I disagree completely that his claim is nonsensical, or that it's non-provable, because there is one-sided evidence for the opposing claim.

EDIT:

It's not unreasonable to suspect that there'd be some impact albeit difficult to quantify.

I agree with this though. That said, I feel (and my thesis in that paper was) that the amount, if quantified, would be nominal.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Great.  I don't really care. It's a free country.

As for [program xxx] not having saved a life, I have to side with Bruce here. That is a nonsensical, and non-provable claim. As for licensing not having done so, yes, there are plenty of illegal guns floating around and they are a problem to be faced, but not everyone who might want one would necessarily have access to them. Licensing screens out some people who shouldn't have firearms and may well be sufficient to prevent many such people from having access to them. The argument is pointless though: firearms licensing, and gun control laws in some form, likely fairly rigid, are not going away. There are plenty of ways they can be made better, but get used to them in some form, because it is a simple reality that they aren't going away.

I never said that licensing did\did not save a life. I said the registry. That is a typical anti gun coalition blunder, equating the two. Liberals, NDP and police do it all the time in their PR releases. They are two separate parts of C-68 with two separate purposes. It's OK though because even lawyers have trouble navigating the double speak and blind alleys in the legislation put together by Allen Rock and the Liberals. The Liberals really don't understand it themselves.

You're right, which is why so many are allowed to have the view opposite yours, and while you don't care, thousands of others do. Just sayin' is all. I really don't care if you're ambivalent. Be whatever you want.

The argument is only pointless if you wish to roll over and accept anything that they want to force on you. People said it was pointless to wish the LGR would go away. Guess what. Lots of people lobbied hard and long, got listened to and made an impact. It matters not what excuse you try to put to it or why they succeeded, it's that they did. They didn't roll over and give up. It's not passed yet, but I believe it got Second Reading this afternoon (missed it on CPAC so I'm not sure). If so, it's fast tracked and has every indication of passing. So, really, people don't have to get used to things or accept them as they are, because in reality they just may go away or be changed. Not because you don't want them to, but because all those others with views opposite yours, do.

I have no need to get used to them. I had one of the first 100 FACs to be issued in Canada and I have been dealing with firearms law long before C-68 came into effect and, I've been knee deep in this for a long time.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

It amazes me that they don't have anything more important to worry about. Oh, wait......Things like, oh, the health care system !!

Emergency at the Hospital in Gatineau was at 250% capacity by 10am this morning with patients having been out in the halls on gurneys for over 48 hours.

Yeah, they have their priorities right.......

Priorities! They wouldn't know what a priority is if it bit them them on the derrière. How about corruption in the construction industry and connections to organized crime. Then there's a wild cat strike by the construction unions against proposed changes to how unions can hire workers and threats of violence against provincial ministers and allegations of intimidation and violence on the job site? And the Quebec government just sticks its head in the sand.

Mods: If this doesn't have its own thread may be we can start one?