[ASLplease]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It can never be complete. But half a record of guns is better than no record of guns.

The money has been spent, the horse has bolted and all that. A more constructive way for Harper to deal with it is fix it.

That won't happen because the registry has become an icon of Liberal boondoggles to the Tories.

Ideology has trumped public safety.

this is a good example of why we need to clarify what you are saying. half of what kind of record?a record of actual locations, or last known locations? and why is no record bad, when you can get the same results more acurately from the list of licenced persons?

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

See, the homicide/murder rate minor percentage by registered long guns belies the proactive police-work and enforcement that has happened since the registry was enacted.

Sure, legislatively, there were definite breaches of established gun-ownership privileges.

Some of the sentences given by the courts to Joe Bloggs gun owner for failing to register or not having an FAC were more severe than the judgements against convicted Toronto gang-bangers.

Very silly and Dr Calebs story is a common illustration of the ills of the registry.

That aside, the money has been spent.

I can tell you when a domestic call goes in on 911 and the chaps and chappesses in blue know there are registered firearms in the house, it’s a really good bit of info to get.

Most domestics are between people without criminal records.

Law abiding citizens that could lawfully own firearms.

Occurrences that end in arrest also incorporate weapons seizures if they are present.
Once everything is sorted the gun owner gets their weapons back, if they are not convicted of a criminal offence involving violence.

Its a power that Parliament granted the cops to stem the rising tide of domestic violence.

Something like this common set of circumstances would not be captured in the homicide rate. As in the chick was saved.

[bootlegga]

ASLplease ASLplease:

personally, i dont want a real time tracking system on legit gun because I think this whole premise of focussing on law abiding people is flawed. especially in a country like canada where we have millions of guns, uses, and owners, and a small rate of only 140 homicides per year.

We only have a small rate of 140 homicides per year? It's not small if you're one of those 140 people...

Of course the corollary to your statement is that a nation like the US with thousands of murders per year by your own definition SHOULD have a registry, simply because they have so many murders.

So, with that in mind, please tell me what your 'limit' on how many murders justifies a gun registry is. 250? 500? 1000? 10000?

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ASLplease ASLplease:

personally, i dont want a real time tracking system on legit gun because I think this whole premise of focussing on law abiding people is flawed. especially in a country like canada where we have millions of guns, uses, and owners, and a small rate of only 140 homicides per year.

We only have a small rate of 140 homicides per year? It's not small if you're one of those 140 people...

Of course the corollary to your statement is that a nation like the US with thousands of murders per year by your own definition SHOULD have a registry, simply because they have so many murders.

So, with that in mind, please tell me what your 'limit' on how many murders justifies a gun registry is. 250? 500? 1000? 10000?

I'd be all for a registry that stopped murders. But as we've discussed recently in another thread, you are more likely to be killed by a) someone you know and b) with any number of things like poison, drowning and knives before you are murdered with a gun.

Strawmen aside, of course.

[DrCaleb]

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm

[uwish]

it does lead to confiscation. When C-68 was enacted all .32 and .25 calibres become prohibited, many were turned it without compensation. Every time the firearms law changed in Canada, it added to the list of confiscations.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

ASLplease ASLplease:

personally, i dont want a real time tracking system on legit gun because I think this whole premise of focussing on law abiding people is flawed. especially in a country like canada where we have millions of guns, uses, and owners, and a small rate of only 140 homicides per year.

We only have a small rate of 140 homicides per year? It's not small if you're one of those 140 people...

Of course the corollary to your statement is that a nation like the US with thousands of murders per year by your own definition SHOULD have a registry, simply because they have so many murders.

So, with that in mind, please tell me what your 'limit' on how many murders justifies a gun registry is. 250? 500? 1000? 10000?

I'd be all for a registry that stopped murders. But as we've discussed recently in another thread, you are more likely to be killed by a) someone you know and b) with any number of things like poison, drowning and knives before you are murdered with a gun.

Strawmen aside, of course.

It's not a strawman.

ASL said that with 140 homicides per year we don't need it. One can imply that at some point then if murders rise to a certain level, that we do need it. I simply asked for him to clarify what is acceptable as a 'murder threshold' before a registry becomes a valid law enforcement tool.

I don't think anyone honestly thinks (aside from a few rabid left wingers) that the registry will prevent all murders. What it does do, at least according to Eyebrock's own experiences, is alert authorities to situations where a long gun might be present. To me, that is worth a paltry $4 million a year.

When compared against lots of other government programs, it is so small a sum that it is essentially insignificant in terms of the federal budget. Compare it to the $20 billion or so we spend on national defence...or the billions it spends on health care transfer payments, etc.

[ASLplease]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ASLplease ASLplease:

personally, i dont want a real time tracking system on legit gun because I think this whole premise of focussing on law abiding people is flawed. especially in a country like canada where we have millions of guns, uses, and owners, and a small rate of only 140 homicides per year.

We only have a small rate of 140 homicides per year? It's not small if you're one of those 140 people...

Of course the corollary to your statement is that a nation like the US with thousands of murders per year by your own definition SHOULD have a registry, simply because they have so many murders.

So, with that in mind, please tell me what your 'limit' on how many murders justifies a gun registry is. 250? 500? 1000? 10000?

Now you are talking ridiculous. If you are not interested in have an intelligent conversation then please do not talk to me.

I never once wrote that a higher death rate would justify a gun registry. I think gun registries are useless for preventing deaths.

Nevertheless, you asked me a question, so Yes! Yes, 140 homicides per year is a small rate.

Dont believe me? then convert it to a x per 100000 of population, and compare it a statistic like accidentally drownings of children in the province of Manatoba in residential pools ( I'll give you a hint, it up around 70 per 100,000 ). Do we have a problem with the legal use of residential swimming pools? my goodness, anyone can go to walmart and buy a residential swimming pool.

what if you express the death in terms of parts per million? Did you know that the successful limit for mercury content in tuna is 500 parts per million? sorry about comparing murders to mercury, but I tried to find 2 things that we both dont want even a little bit in our lives. Would you agree?

[ASLplease]

bootlegga bootlegga:

..... What it does do, at least according to Eyebrock's own experiences, is alert authorities to situations where a long gun might be present.

yes, and I've already pointed out that a database of licensed persons delivers that answer with more safety and accuracy in mind for the police officer.

What you want to do is spend 4 million a year on a redundant system that is inferior to the database of licensees that we have.

And, either by ignorance or outright denial, you fail to acknowledge that the registry was never designed to track the locations of firearms. Your kind of thinking will get a police officer shot eventually.

[ASLplease]

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's not a strawman.

you misrepresented my argument. yes it is a strawman.

[ASLplease]

hey strawman, think of it this way: In Canada, you are 5 times more likely to commit suicide by firearm than to get murdered by a firearm. I'm like most Canadians, there aint a chance in hell that I'm going to commit suicide.

[bootlegga]

Holy fuck ASL, make up your mind.

One minute you're neg repping me for a supposed joke (to which I responded in kind of course ), the next you're telling me don't talk to you, and then finally you post not one, but FOUR different responses to me.

All this from the guy who got pissy when I told him in another thread that he has no fucking clue how the internet works. Thanks for proving my point yet again!

So what is it? Should I draft responses to this mish mash of crap you've posted or are you going to tell me to shut up again?

Tell you what, don't answer that. I'll make it easy for you, I'll just start ignoring your dumbass 'contributions' here and let you know when you've stepped over the line by sending some neg rep your way, okay?

Cheers!

[ASLplease]

more strawman tactics snuck into that one, do you even realize what you are saying?

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

So, with that in mind, please tell me what your 'limit' on how many murders justifies a gun registry is. 250? 500? 1000? 10000?

I'd be all for a registry that stopped murders. But as we've discussed recently in another thread, you are more likely to be killed by a) someone you know and b) with any number of things like poison, drowning and knives before you are murdered with a gun.

Strawmen aside, of course.

It's not a strawman.

ASL said that with 140 homicides per year we don't need it. One can imply that at some point then if murders rise to a certain level, that we do need it. I simply asked for him to clarify what is acceptable as a 'murder threshold' before a registry becomes a valid law enforcement tool.

Technically, no, its not a 'strawman' it a 'non-sequitr' argument to equate the need for a registry and justify it's cost against lives - lives that are the result of mostly crimes of passion and can not be prevented by having a gun, knife, poison and blunt instrument registry. No amount of money could have prevented many of those murders (see: Stats Can data), therefore the argument of how much money should be spent preventing each lost life "does not follow". Two billion dollars has not prevented one single crime of passion.

Although ASL seems to be a strawman himself.

[ASLplease]

LOL nice jab at the end. I know where your loyalties lay.