[2Cdo]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2010/09/03/15241436.html

{snip}

If it saves even one life, it's worth it, right?

That was beautiful man. People just have no idea what dealing with the Gun Registry is really like. It's an idealistic notion they have, but the cold reality is far different.

I don't own a gun, I don't need a gun, I don't want a gun. I couldnt' care less how onerous it is on the owners of these DEADLY WEAPONS to obtain and continue legal ownership of them.

A car's intended purpose is transportation. A gun's intended purpose is to kill.

So because you have no interest in hunting or target shooting you give not a care to the mindless bureaucracy those who are interested have to deal with. I can't wait until the government sets their sights on something you do enjoy and subjects it to the same ridiculous standards.

[2Cdo]

If we are talking tools for killing, when is the knife registry starting? Knives were originally KILLING tools by primitive man.

We know that most, if not all, homes have some knives but we don't know what types sizes, numbers etc.

After all, if it saves even one life.

[uwish]

that is a very liberal attitude, ban something THEY don't like. It's easy to throw stones and have an opinion yet he has never dealt with the CFO or the bureaucratic nightmare that is the Firearms Act.

[2Cdo]

uwish uwish:

that is a very liberal attitude, ban something THEY don't like. It's easy to throw stones and have an opinion yet he has never dealt with the CFO or the bureaucratic nightmare that is the Firearms Act.

Banning is something the political left has no issues with.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

uwish uwish:

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2010/09/03/15241436.html


In an article about the long-gun registry, Other area MPs, how they'll vote and why (Aug. 31), London-Fanshawe MP Irene Mathyssen suggests the gun registry makes sense because we register cars. She clearly does not understand how the regulation of firearms in Canada works.

If cars were regulated like firearms, the following would be true:

* All classic sports cars, subcompact cars or cars capable of operating in excess of 120 km/h would be prohibited. Cars that look like they are capable of exceeding 120 km/h would also be prohibited by adding them to the list of prohibited vehicles. Persons owning such cars prior to the enactment of the "Automobile Act" would be allowed to keep them. But they would not be allowed to drive them on roads. They would require a "special authority to drive" to take them to a provincially certified track to drive. The government, by virtue of a legislative screw-up, would never be permitted to grant the special authority.

* All coupes, by virtue of being two-doors, would be banned from driving on roads and would be restricted to use of provincially regulated tracks. To take your two-door car to the track would require an authorization to transport to the track. You would have to take a designated route to the track. If you deviate from the route, you could face serious criminal charges.

* If you own a car, you would have to store it in a locked garage. If you do not own a locked garage, you would have to drain the fuel tank after arriving home, and lock the doors. You would have to store the gasoline separately from the car, and in a safe manner. You would also have to follow this regimen if you parked at the mall or at work. Failure to adhere to this could result in serious criminal charges.

* Failing to get a sticker every year on time would result in serious criminal charges (instead of a fine or a suspended ticket).

* Any infraction of the Highway Traffic Act would be a serious criminal offence.

* To get your license you would, in addition to passing a safe-driving course and exams, provide three references who would vouch for your ability to drive. You would have to get approval from all your sexual partners who have stayed in your home, as well as any former employers.

* Upon receiving your license, you will be allowed to purchase a car, but not on a Sunday, and sales between individuals, as opposed to businesses, cannot occur on the weekend.

* If you do not receive your license renewal on time, police will show up at your door to demand that you turn over your car for destruction. You could also face serious criminal charges.

* If you argue with your spouse, or are going through a divorce, and your spouse makes any claim of criminal action, police will seize your car and destroy it.

* If you are convicted of any criminal offence -- even putting a penny on a railroad track (Section 456) or having a poker night (Section 201) -- your car would be seized and destroyed.

* If you violate any of the regulations listed above or committed any criminal offence, you would have all your cars seized and destroyed, and you would be prohibited from owning a car for 10 years.

Every time there was a serious accident or a hit and run, grandstanding and shamelessly uninformed politicians would demonize car owners as dangerous, wife-abusing rednecks who cannot be trusted, and call for a total car ban.

If it saves even one life, it's worth it, right?

Have fun riding your bike to go hunting

I'll play the game as well. Anyone caught in physical possession of a firearm whilst impaired or around open alcohol will be subject to a minimum $1000 fine, a potential minimum of 6 months in jail, a licence suspension and must have a machine to blow in everytime they want to use their firearm once their licence suspension is lifted. Multiple offenses would result in a permanent suspension whether anyone was injured or not.

[2Cdo]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'll play the game as well. Anyone caught in physical possession of a firearm whilst impaired or around open alcohol will be subject to a minimum $1000 fine, a potential minimum of 6 months in jail, a licence suspension and must have a machine to blow in everytime they want to use their firearm once their licence suspension is lifted. Multiple offenses would result in a permanent suspension whether anyone was injured or not.

In our society today I can almost guarantee that the punishment for using a weapon while impaired would be much harsher. With a loss of your PAL for much longer than the present one year for impaired driving. You would probably have the guilty weapon seized and destroyed by law enforcement, if not ALL your weapons.

[DrCaleb]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2010/09/03/15241436.html

{snip}

If it saves even one life, it's worth it, right?

That was beautiful man. People just have no idea what dealing with the Gun Registry is really like. It's an idealistic notion they have, but the cold reality is far different.

I don't own a gun, I don't need a gun, I don't want a gun. I couldn't' care less how onerous it is on the owners of these DEADLY WEAPONS to obtain and continue legal ownership of them.

A car's intended purpose is transportation. A gun's intended purpose is to kill.

Non-Sequitr aside, a gun is an inanimate object and has no intention. A person consumed by anger committing a crime of passion won't consider whether a gun is registered before using it in the commission of a crime. If a gun is not handy, they will rip the leg off a chair and beat someone to death with it, if consumed by enough anger.

You don't intend on ever owning a gun, but you don't seem the type of person to wish hardship and a breach of constitutional rights on others because of something you are unconcerned with. Especially since the number of registered guns used in homicides seems to be historically - zero.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

A person consumed by anger committing a crime of passion won't consider whether a gun is registered before using it in the commission of a crime. If a gun is not handy, they will rip the leg off a chair and beat someone to death with it, if consumed by enough anger.

You don't intend on ever owning a gun, but you don't seem the type of person to wish hardship and a breach of constitutional rights on others because of something you are unconcerned with. Especially since the number of registered guns used in homicides seems to be historically - zero.

Crimes of passion occur all the time, and I find it very hard to believe that not one person in Canada has been murdered with a registered weapon since the registry was started.

I believe the report mentioned this;

$1:

72% in spousal homicides involved longguns
77% of law officers killed by longguns

How many of those used registered weapons I couldn't fin out, but it looks like it's higher than ZERO.

While the vast majority of Canadians who own registered weapons have not committed crimes of passion with their weapons, some still do. I feel that by alerting police that one (or both) of the occupants in a house with a domestic disturbance own firearms is a good thing, and at $4 million (or even the $12 million uwish presented), I think it's worth it.

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

How many of those used registered weapons I couldn't fin out, but it looks like it's higher than ZERO.

While the vast majority of Canadians who own registered weapons have not committed crimes of passion with their weapons, some still do. I feel that by alerting police that one (or both) of the occupants in a house with a domestic disturbance own firearms is a good thing, and at $4 million (or even the $12 million uwish presented), I think it's worth it.

That's called 'appeal from authority'. Until you can find those numbers, the number of registered weapons used to kill people is *zero*. You cannot assign a number based on your opinion, nor can you make up statistics based on that opinion.

I do not think the charter rights violations of any Canadian are worth any amount of money. And they are certainly worth lives. Do we not ask soldiers to die fighting for those charter rights all the time? (see, I can use emotion as a bad debate tactic too!)

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'll play the game as well. Anyone caught in physical possession of a firearm whilst impaired or around open alcohol will be subject to a minimum $1000 fine, a potential minimum of 6 months in jail, a licence suspension and must have a machine to blow in everytime they want to use their firearm once their licence suspension is lifted. Multiple offenses would result in a permanent suspension whether anyone was injured or not.

If Canada really enforced this law you'd be defenseless as a good 90% of your entire military would be in jail.

[hurley_108]

uwish uwish:

u didn't answer my question, you tried to appeal to the emotions as you have pointed out in other threads. Since I am not a criminal, I still am a commissioned officer in HM Canadian Armed Forces, I ask you again does the Charter of Rights apply to all or not?

The auditor general has not only expressed concern over the cost of the registry, but the highly PRIVATE NATURE of the questions of the application form.

Answer to your question: no, not everyone has the right to own a gun. Violent criminals should not have the right to own a gun. The insane should not have the right to own a gun. Those whom we reasonably suspect would use a gun offensively should they purchase one should not have the right to own a gun.

$1:

You may hide behind the fact that 'a cars main purpose is transportation' all you want, it doesn't change the fact the 1000X more ppl are injured or killed by car every year than ALL weapons combined in Canada (not just firearms, which is a VERY small percentage).

In 2004, there were 378 shooting and stabbing homicides in Canada. In 2004, there were 2875 vehicle related deaths in Canada. That's 7.6 times, not 1000 times. Not even close. And firearm homicides are roughly 7/8 to equal to stabbings, as you'll see. Thats a very large percentage.

$1:

and an argument that a gun is just meant to kill ? so your saying ppl don't have the right to defend themselves? So what if it kills? go tell a cop he shouldn't have his firearm, he will tell you too goto hell.

Strawman. Not biting.

[hurley_108]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

So because you have no interest in hunting or target shooting you give not a care to the mindless bureaucracy those who are interested have to deal with. I can't wait until the government sets their sights on something you do enjoy and subjects it to the same ridiculous standards.

I geocache. The federal government decided to ban geocaching in the national parks a few years ago. I fully agreed with that ban, despite the protestations of other 'cachers. Just because I couldn't 'cache in the parks didn't mean I couldn't in the vast majority of the province and country that aren't covered by parks. The relented a while after and allowed limited sorts of 'caches with restrictions on what sorts of 'caches they could be, and still banned trading items. I don't mind. The parks are more important than my hobby.

I'm not saying geocaching is a good analog for guns, but there was an impingement by the government on a hobby of mine, and I supported it.

Links:

http://www.geocaching.com
http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/geocache/index.aspx

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

How many of those used registered weapons I couldn't fin out, but it looks like it's higher than ZERO.

While the vast majority of Canadians who own registered weapons have not committed crimes of passion with their weapons, some still do. I feel that by alerting police that one (or both) of the occupants in a house with a domestic disturbance own firearms is a good thing, and at $4 million (or even the $12 million uwish presented), I think it's worth it.

That's called 'appeal from authority'. Until you can find those numbers, the number of registered weapons used to kill people is *zero*. You cannot assign a number based on your opinion, nor can you make up statistics based on that opinion.

I do not think the charter rights violations of any Canadian are worth any amount of money. And they are certainly worth lives. Do we not ask soldiers to die fighting for those charter rights all the time? (see, I can use emotion as a bad debate tactic too!)

Maybe to you that number is zero, but rational thought dictates that at least one of the 974 Canadians killed by firearms (from 2004 - 2008) was higher than zero.

I'm not basing on opinion or even emotion, I simply find it hard to believe that every single Canadian killed by a firearm in a five year period was due to illegal weapons - which is a major factor anti-gun registry proponents cite all to often. To that, I would reply that the onus is on YOUR side to prove that they were all killed by unregistered weapons.

However, if you really want proof, here's some for you.

$1:

In 1996 there were 27 firearm-related spousal homicides compared to 16 in
2006 (Chart 4.3)

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/8 ... 00-eng.pdf

Given that all firearms were supposed to have been registered by 2006, it is logical to assume that registered firearms are a factor in homicides.

Here some more sobering reading on the issue of firearms and spousal homicides.

http://www.iansa-women.org/node/242

On a side note, it is good to see that firearms-related spousal homicides are on the decline.

[uwish]

The problem with your logic is there were 15 millions firearms pre c-68 and only 7 million registered. 8 million were not turned in for destruction so what about those 8 million unregistered firearms???

Hurley I don't know why you include stabbing in that number? was it just to inflate the total for effect? The actual number was 173 is 2004, and I believe I said INJURED OR KILLED NOT JUST KILLED by a vehicle. Go ahead look up the serious injury rate (not just 'injured') AND the death rate and tell me it's not orders of magnitude higher percentage than serious injury or death with a firearm.

And no, you still didn't answer my question, I never said violent criminals or legally insane people should own firearms. I was saying why do those who currently LEGALLY own firearms have to play be a different set of rules than anyone else? Why does C-68 violate the charter of rights? Why is my privacy not protected like anyone else?

Section 1: Rights Limited Only By Demonstrably Justifiable Reasonable Limits

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes that the rights and liberties guaranteed therein are not absolute but are subject to “reasonable limits.” In one of its most important Charter precedents, R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, the Supreme Court set out an operational definition of what criteria must be met for a government to “demonstrably justify” that a rights limitation is “reasonable.” The “Oakes test” requires a government to demonstrate that the impugned act:

1. serves an important public policy objective.
2. is rationally connected to that objective.
3. impairs the right in issue as little as possible (minimal impairment)
4. does more good than harm (proportionality).

In 1995 when C-68 was enacted, there was no demonstrable need for new restrictions on firearm owners. According to the Canadian Firearms Centre’s own data, in 1995, the rate of homicides per 100,000 people in Canada was 0.60, a 25 year low.

Likewise, the use of firearms in suicides was at a 24 year low in 1995. That data also shows the rate of 3.0 hospitalizations due to all firearms-related causes per 100,000 people was at an eight year low, as was the rate of 1.2 firearms accident hospitalizations per 100,000 people. (This second figure excludes hospitalizations due to intentional use of firearms, which are included in the first figure.)

This data suggests that levels of firearms-related accidents and deaths had been decreasing for a number of years prior to 1995, and thus there was no demonstrable need for a new policy of universal gun registration.

Section 7: Right To Liberty

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 7 of the Charter protects the essential rights of life, liberty and personal security, rights that are fundamental to all democratic societies. While these rights are subject to reasonable limitations under Section 1, Section 7 confers additional protection by ensuring that these rights cannot be taken away except “in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.

In Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, the Supreme Court interpreted this latter phrase to allow both procedural and substantive scrutiny of legislation. This means that for a law to meet the requirements of section 7, it must respect the principles of procedural fairness—both in the way that it is written and in the manner in which it is administered—while also being a fair law. The Firearms Act fails to meet either of these tests.

Section 7: Right To Procedural Fairness

The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the Section 7 right to liberty broadly. As Wilson J. stated in R. v. Morgentaler [1988] S.C.R. 30: “the right to liberty contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting their private lives.” Similarly, in the case of Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, La Forest J. stated: “the right to liberty enshrined in s. 7 of the Charter protects within its' ambit the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference.”

The Firearms Act violates this protected sphere of personal privacy. It forces Canadian firearm owners to become licenced and to register their firearms simply in order to own them. The state has legitimate reasons to regulate who purchases firearms (covered by the previous “Firearms Acquisition Certificate”) and who legally uses firearms (covered by mandatory firearm safety courses).

But the Firearms Act goes far beyond these legitimate objects of state regulation and strikes at the mere act of possessing a firearm inside one’s own home. This is done in the absence of any evidence of harm to others or threat of such harm—the primary justifications in a liberal democracy for the state to interfere with the personal liberty of its' citizens. The Firearms Act imposes an intrusive and stigmatizing regulatory regime on the lawful activity of merely possessing a firearm in the privacy of one’s own home. As noted by Justice Conrad of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the first constitutional challenge to C-68:

“... no evidence was presented to this Court to show that the mere possession of an ordinary firearm without a licence or registration certificate is a significant social problem, let alone one leading to an increase in firearm-related crime, suicide or accidents.”

C-68 thus violates the personal autonomy protected by Section 7 and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on liberty.

Section 8: Search and Seizure - Relating To Right To Privacy

Section 8 of the Charter protects the ancient common law right of citizens to not be subjected to unnecessarily intrusive state searches and seizures. While at first this right was designed to protect private property from the state, it has evolved to be primarily a protection of privacy.

While privacy is not explicitly protected in the Charter, it has been recognized as existing in the Charter through s. 8 since some of the earliest Charter cases. According to Hunter v. Southam Inc, Section 8 can be seen: “negatively as freedom from ''unreasonable'' search and seizure, or positively as an entitlement to a ''reasonable'' expectation of privacy”.

Similarly, in R. v. Plant [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, Sopinka J. said “The purpose of s. 8 is to protect against intrusion of the state on an individual's privacy.” Lastly, and perhaps most persuasively in refuting the argument that privacy is not in the Charter, in R. v. Sharpe [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, McLachlin C.J. stated: “Privacy, while not expressly protected by the Charter, is an important value underlying the s. 8 guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.” These cases demonstrate that privacy is fully protected by Section 8 of the Charter.

While Canadians have a right to protection only against ‘unreasonable’ intrusions upon their privacy, the provisions of the Firearms Act go beyond the bounds of reasonableness. The search and seizure powers granted by the Firearms Act are unconstitutionally broad. They authorize police to enter into private homes “at any reasonable time” and to search “any place where the inspector believes . . . there is a gun collection or a record [of a gun collection]” and “may open any container . . . examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it”; and “require any person to produce for examination or copying any records books of account or other documents.”38 Such sweeping search powers violate the prohibition against police “fishing expeditions” imposed by the courts’ interpretation of the section 8.

Section 102(2) of the Firearms Act specifically allows police to violate the privacy of Canadians by authorizing them to "inspect" without warrant the entire contents of an individuals' home computer system, even though it is physically impossible to hide firearms or their parts on a floppy drive or hard disk, and licenses and registrations are not issued in electronic format:

102(2) In carrying out an inspection of a place under subsection (1), an inspector may
(a) use or cause to be used any data processing system at the place to examine any data contained in or available to the system;
(b) reproduce any record or cause it to be reproduced from the data in the form of a print-out or other intelligible output and remove the print-out or other output for examination or copying; and

In R. v. Plant, McLachlin J observed:

Computers may and should be private places, where the information they contain is subject to the legal protection arising from a reasonable expectation of privacy. Computers may contain a wealth of personal information. Depending on its character, that information may be as private as any found in a dwelling house or hotel room.

These intrusions into the privacy of individuals are counter to a number of important Supreme Court precedents. In R. v. Dyment [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417, La Forest J. commented on the essential importance of privacy:

“It should also be noted that Section. 8 does not merely prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. As Pratte J.A. observed in Minister of National Revenue v. Kruger Inc., [1984] 2 F.C. 535 (C.A.), at p. 548, it goes further and guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

The foregoing approach is altogether fitting for a constitutional document enshrined at the time when, Westin tells us, society has come to realize that privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern state; see Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1970), pp. 349-50. Grounded in man's physical and moral autonomy, privacy is essential for the well-being of the individual.”

I could go on...but I think you get my drift..

[kenmore]

wildrosegirl wildrosegirl:

One has to keep in mind that stats can be manipulated to say whatever a party wants them to say.

In order to truly have an opinion on the matter, you'd have to be a firearm owner. That's the only way to thoroughly understand exactly how the registry affects different owners.

The stats are from the RCMP files.. doubt they are false? if the are we are in shit