The fact that the registry does no such thing is quite irrelevant to the politics.
Support for or against the registry is a political test case based on perception and fears. Without recognizing this reality arguments about effectiveness, for example, are simply wasted effort.
29 comments:
Supporters of the registry are their own worst advocates. When you polarize and pit women's groups and the overhanded veneer of the police chiefs of Canada adding weight to the argument--it creates the perception that the left is using the force of the law to confiscate Dad's rifle.
Alan Rock admitted in 1994 that the gun registry was the first step towards confiscation.
"Supporters of the registry are their own worst advocates."
Funny, the exact same could be said about opponents.
"When you polarize and pit women's groups and the overhanded veneer of the police chiefs of Canada adding weight to the argument--it creates the perception that the left is using the force of the law to confiscate Dad's rifle."
The same argument could also be used, along with the lack of any empirical data, to argue that the right is using confusion and lying to confuse the issue of the gun registry.
"Alan Rock admitted in 1994 that the gun registry was the first step towards confiscation."
Please provide a link of Alan Rock saying that or it's complete bollocks.
Toronto's "safe city" program was just such an example of the registry being used to locate and confiscate legitimate property from law abiding citizens. No charges were laid but police forced citizens to surrender their property with no compensation. Those folks were made criminals by the bureaucracy and I can guarantee they won't be voting Liberal in the net election.
"Toronto's "safe city" program was just such an example of the registry being used to locate and confiscate legitimate property from law abiding citizens. No charges were laid but police forced citizens to surrender their property with no compensation. "
Do you have any link to provide Ridenrain? You always provide what on the surface seems like an argument but it never contains any factual data or proof. Yes you mention stories, but you present them in an anecdotal fashion. You also seem to present yourself as an expert on Canadians as well.
"Those folks were made criminals by the bureaucracy and I can guarantee they won't be voting Liberal in the net election."
How do you know this? Do these people even exist? You havent provided any link or proof to back up your anecdote.
Still bollocks until you provide proof Ridenrain.
"PROOF is what people will base their decision on, and you simply have none."
-Fred From BC
I believe this is the quote attributed to Alan Rock which is taken to mean he supported confiscation.
“I came to Ottawa in November with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers”
Anon beat me with the quote.
Here's a good personal perspective of the "safe city program" Classic example of the police going after law abiding gun owners instead of actual criminals.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/757440--fiorito-the-cops-came-and-took-my-gun
Oh the old 1994 Macleans quote. Well considering the context in which it was made has been so severely twisted and this is the same talking point Wilson is using I dont really buy it.
See without the context Alan Rock could have been talking about anything.
It would have been more convincing if Wilson hadnt made the same unconvincing argument several days ago. Which was the same talking point that Patrick Ross was bandying about before that... The problem is all you are trying to do is sabotage the other side's credibility without providing a rational response. It's still not convincing.
Um Ridofbrain, that article is more an anecdote rather than a compelling argument. It's more based in opinion.
Do you think we should declare war on bedbugs as the title of his earlier article states? Do you base your own opinions on opinion rather than fact?
Try providing proof Ridofbrain instead of anecdote.
"PROOF is what people will base their decision on, and you simply have none."
Fred From BC
Sorry but he clearly said he didn't believe civilians should own guns. If you have proof he changed his mind.. but keep in mind that context is subjective.
Paul Martin also made election promises of banning handguns, I guess that was a matter of context too?
Net fact is the long arms confiscated by police under the registry did nothing to improve safety. All they did was to prove the true purpose of the registry is confiscation.
Regardless of what he said Ridofbrain it isnt proof. One person's anectdote; regardless of what they say doesn't constitute proof.
If Paul Martin promised banning handguns good on him. What exactly do you need a handgun for? Duck hunting? Maybe scaring the wolves away from your flock? Or just so you can pretend you're Magnum PI to look important?
"Net fact is the long arms confiscated by police under the registry did nothing to improve safety. All they did was to prove the true purpose of the registry is confiscation."
What on earth is a "net fact" Ridofbrain? You havent provided any facts. All you have did is twist anecdote and opinion to suit your opinion; albeit poorly
"PROOF is what people will base their decision on, and you simply have none."
Fred From BC
Riderain, the Allan Rock quote, even if taken at face value without any surrounding context, doesn't prove what you say it proves at all. All it suggests might be Allan Rock's personal feelings about guns. Nowhere does it state that the LGR is the first step toward confiscating guns.
I read that "The cops came and took my gun" article Riddenoff linked to, and the hypocrisy and lack of insight of its author and those who share his outrage when they spread this type of story are stunning:
they object to 'armed men' (the cops) heavy handed tactics coming to seize 'the innocent law-abiding citizen's property,' when, um: the only reason they're there is that the people showed they're _not_ law-abiding citizens when they failed to keep up their gun license even though they are still armed, which may have been a deliberate act of defiance, so they might represent a danger to the public.
Of course, none of this would have mattered if the Liberals were competent. They blew it.
I know a few people who tried to legally register their rifles but because of screw ups there cheques were never cashed.
The gun registry is in shambles. It is incomplete and has no teeth.The proper solution is for the supporters to admit they bungled the file and to scrap it.I suppose enough people will sleep better at night knowing that it is still there should it survive but it would be a hollow victory. It is a farce.
This is strictly about politics.
The last comment looks like it was relying on 7 year old information. The LGR itself -- the actual database of rifles & shotguns -- only started registering in 2001, & all the existing ones were supposed to be reg'd by 2003. But there were problems in the actual computer program (some say there was deliberate sabotage in the code), and lots of incompleteness & errors in the forms the owners filled out, & then lots of " as that was actually input. So, yeah, it was all pretty buggy in the first few years. It's not easy to build a new database from scratch with 2 million names and 7 million plus items of interest in it. But that doesn't mean it should be thrown out now after all those growing pains... any more than, say, the Americans should abandon the F-35 Fighter Jets program simply because its R&D has been buggy & tripled its projected costs... it shouldn't be decided on the basis of sunk costs, but its current & projected utility.
re: Alan Rock saying that when he first came to Ottawa he thought... etc. as being a strong harbinger of things to come:
well, when the Reformers first came to Ottawa, they thought they were going to make things more open, accountable, transparent, & fiscally conservative... and look how that's turned out!
At this rate, by that reasoning, we should expect that if the Libs get back they'll be arming us all will fully automatic weapons... for free!
Don't worry. We've long learned not to take Liberals at their word. They need a couple runs and a poll or two to finally get to what they meant to say.
Sorry you didn't like that "The cops came and took my gun" story. Viewpoints from another perspective must be so difficult for you to understand. It's unfortunate that there are no gun owners, sportsmen or hunters in the Liberal party.
ha ha Ridofbrain talking about taking people at their word is hilarious. Here's an individual who never cites proof, thinks anecdotes are the truth, believes putting the word fact in a paragraph makes it true and twists quotes so far out of context that they dont actually prove his point.
You make such generalizations about members of the Liberal party but I would counter your unfounded point. Id argue that there are hunters, farmers and sportsmen in the Liberal party but unlike you Ridofbrain, they choose to find out for themselves and make their own decisions.
So why do you support the party of sheep Ridofbrain? And what is your problem with freedom that you have to use fables, anecdotes and generalizations to make your point yet you fail to make it repeatedly.
"PROOF is what people will base their decision on, and you simply have none."
-Fred From BC
Its not registering long guns that has most people frustrated, its that its yet another useless govt level of beauracracy that will cost millions and never solve a damn thing. At the time, did the Liberals bring in tougher penalty's for weapon crimes? Did they blockade the Seaway at Cornwall where a large majority of guns are smuggled by Natives? Did they grant special powers for police and the RCMP to raid well known warehouses and gangs that sell them? Nope, and, thats the frustrating part. The Liberals do what has cost them power over the past 4 years, and, probably another 4 years, they targeted a group that had nothing to do with the Montreal murders, farmers and hunters. billg
Uh okay Billg what do you propose? Obviously doing nothing or the throw the baby out with the bathwater solution isnt going to work.
Whether you like it or not if you want to stop these "blockades of the Seaway" you are going to get bureaucracy; it comes with organization. Unless you're suggesting a bunch of citizens get their guns and lynch the offender. I believed that could be termed beauracracy...
I don't think people actually understand the difference between licensing and registration, and how each one relates to public safety.
What does the registry do that licensing can't from a public safety standpoint?
the LGR gives police quick, real-time access to the actual no. of (cop- & bystander- killable) long guns & shotguns registered to someone they're responding to: so they can know whether to call in the ERT ('SWAT') team if they're known to have a big cache of weapons, or the min. no. of guns to seize if they're suicidal (which can soon turn to suicidal/homicidal). Knowing they have a license just tells them they probably have _a_ gun, not hw many or of what type.
I don't think (that means I am 100% sure) a swat team is called in based on the number of guns someone owns. Knowing if someone has a rifle of a certain type helps police how exactly?
Police tactics don't change when going into a home with firearms. So again, what does the registry do that licensing does not, from a public safety standpoint?
You're only "100% sure" because you steadfastly refuse to, um, take stock of anthing that anyone tells you differently.
http://cowboysforsocialresponsibility.blogspot.com/2010/08/even-in-rural-canada-police-use-long.html
Generally when Paul S says he's 100% sure and doesnt provide any citation I find this applies.
"PROOF is what people will base their decision on, and you simply have none."
Fred From BC
I bet Fred regrets that nugget
The police do not depend of the registry to see what guns are at a location. They assume guns are present all the time. That was a nice feel good story which does not happen in real life.
The guns that are registered in the system have no address tagged to them, therefore police can not use it as a source of locational information. They get that from licensing. Anyone can legally store their long guns at whatever address they want. You also make the mistake of assuming that the information in the registry is complete, it is not. It is thought to only contain about half of all long guns actually in the country. (import/export records as well as info from old FAC system).
I can list pages and pages of "proof" to back up my points, but would that change your opinion or even make you take a second look at the gun registry and its use?
"The police do not depend of the registry to see what guns are at a location. They assume guns are present all the time. That was a nice feel good story which does not happen in real life."
Unless you cite some proof this is just more windbag Paul Bullshit.
"I can list pages and pages of "proof" to back up my points, but would that change your opinion or even make you take a second look at the gun registry and its use?"
Yes, provide links of proof. This is just a lame ass cop out from a troll who cannot put together an argument without opinion and conjecture as its mortar. So yes Paul try to prove yourself without citing opinion pieces, strawman polls and conjecture. That means empirical proof that is as free of bias as possible. This also means not citing resources made by lobby groups where nothing is measureable or the numbers have been skewed so badly that an opposite argument could be made just as easily.
Hmm. I just dont think you can do it. You've never proved yourself in the past and often rely on such a lame cop out.
"PROOF is what people will base their decision on, and you simply have none."
Fred From BC
Blah, blah, blah.
You asked for a policing application where the LGR supercedes the licensing registry alone: determining when they should send in the ERT, and knowing how many & what types of guns to seize when intervening in a suicidal call.
On the former, you countered, "100% sure that doesn't happen." I gave 2 real e.g.'s where it did.
You countered that those somehow weren't "real" e.g.'s, and "They assume guns are present all the time."
I counter: they were real; and, sure, but, clearly, the police don't and shouldn't (because they couldn't afford to & it would upset the populace too much) assume there are _lots_ of high-powered rifles which warrant calling in the ERT on every call, do they.
Then you blow some smoke & say its not complete etc.
Well, it doesn't have to be, to still be of some use. Sure, it just matches the ownership of the guns to the owners, not to their actual location (there are no GPS chips), but so what, that's better than nothing. Since these _are_ licensed & screened gun owners we're talking about who've been trained on the storage & transfer laws, it's more likely than not that all their guns are at their location, not scattered or loaned out willy nilly. So knowing that suicidal chap had x guns of y types makes it easier to know how many to look for when the wife calls the police in to say he's threatening to kill himself. And it provides a good indication of when there's a big enough cache to warrant calling in the ERT.
So where did the last post go with links?
Post a Comment