Canada set to repeal their long gun registry by week end!

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/19/althia-raj_n_1019693.html

"The Conservative government is finally scrapping the long-gun registry.

The Tories intend to introduce a bill to abolish the controversial program by the end of the week, The Huffington Post has learned.

The bill, entitled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act," is guaranteed to pass the Commons with the help of the Tories' healthy majority."

Probably wasn't worth the money to track all the law-abiding people for the sake of the criminals.

[beevul]

1. Get ready to put your noise cancelling hearing protection on...

The wailing and gnashing of teeth from somewhere to the north may begin soon...

[ileus]

2. Finally some good news for our Northern nieghbors.

[iverglas]

37. yeah, a far right-wing government with 40% of the popular vote

is imposing its agenda on us.

We deeply appreciate your solidarity.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Long overdue

[We_Have_A_Problem]

4. Only took them how long?

At least they learned eventually. You know there's going to be one very pissed off Canadian posting on here shortly...

[ileus]

5. Snork

Oh dear....feeling a wee bit assish eh? :)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. Yeah..

...just a bit. :) Weather is great here in Houston and I'm in a snarky playful mood today..

[SteveM]

16. "Snork?" Sounds like a deer busted you. nt

[ileus]

18. That's snort....snork is something else I just haven't figured out yet what.

It must be something Canadians do because they're the only one's I've seen post it besides me. (I picked it up from "them") :)

[SteveM]

23. Deer in SW Hillcountry (Tx) sound like farts. Hmm. Maybe they is. nt

[rl6214]

29. Urban dictionary

1. snork 85 up, 32 down
Verb: to drink something and have it come out your nose because you're laughing so hard.
I told her a funny joke while she was drinking a soda and she snorked. Then I killed her for wasting good soda, and licked it up off the ground.
buy snork mugs & shirtsby Kenthar Oct 30, 2003 share this add a video

2. snork 49 up, 21 down
to unintentionally snort loudly while laughing. Also used as an exclamation after someone snorks, to emphasize the fact and increase their embarrassment.
She laughed so hard she snorked.

[Glassunion]

6. Oh noes!!! Blood in the streets...

Murders over parking spaces...
Murder suicides galore...
Mass school shootings...
We just needed more time for it to be effective!!!

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!????

[ileus]

7. are you a progressive, democrat, Democrat or other?

I'd expect to hear this over at Survival Forums, but not from posters here at DU. So explain to me exactly what kind of thinking goes into this?

[Glassunion]

10. To answer your quesitons.

Yes and Deep.

[abogado]

11. Your sarcasmometer needs calibration...

:D

[Remmah2]

12. You talking about hockey or guns? nt

nt

[Glassunion]

20. My bad... I was thought we were talking curling.

That's a tough sport.

[burf]

25. The carnage will

only be surpassed by the infamous WKRP Turkey Drop!

[rl6214]

9. Yeah but if you talk to our local canadian anti-gun zealots

it is just the evil conservatives doing work that no one in canada wants. Every canadian wants total disarmament, eh!

[RC]

13. Just because someone is introducing a bill does not mean it will pass.

And contrary to some here, you cannot "Track" someone that has a registered long gun. The registering only comes into play when the gun is bought/sold. It is used used in criminal investigation of crimes. That is its purpose.

"The Canadian Federation of University Women (CFUW) urged parliamentarians last month to keep the registry, arguing most firearms-related deaths in Canada are caused by rifles and shotguns and that the guns are most often used in domestic violence.

The evidence is overwhelming. Gun control and the long gun registry in particular, are effective measures for promoting public safety and preventing violence against women. There is no evidence to suggest that weakening gun control will make women safer," Brenda Wallace, CFUW's national president said in a press release."


Hand guns are and still will be tightly regulated. Hand guns are not an issue in gun related deaths and crimes in Canada. A point that the "Arm everbody" sector in this country ignores. Long guns are used for hunting. Hand guns are designed and used to kill people.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. We'll talk again later in the week. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

15. How is it....

...that something which still has less than 1% compliance and has cost well over 10X original projections and has not stopped or solved a single crime is effective?

Does the word "effective" mean something different in Canada?

[Glassunion]

22. eh-fective

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

35. De-fective n/t

[SteveM]

17. BEHOLD! what you post:

"Hand guns are and still will be tightly regulated. Hand guns are not an issue in gun related deaths and crimes in Canada."

So what do Canadians use?

"most firearms-related deaths in Canada are caused by rifles and shotguns and that the guns are most often used in domestic violence." (Assuming CFUW is correct.)
_______________________

Why, that makes total sense! So prohibitionism must spread its lice-ridden wings and cover ever more territory! 'Reminds me of Dick Gregory's joke nearly half a century ago, I paraphrase:

"Officer! Officer! How dare you ask why black folks are alway cutting on each other! That's because you won't sell us no damn guns!"

R.C. Think "incremental." Or "gradualism." Or simply "step by step." Because we all know what the final goal for the gun-controller/prohibitionists is. Don't we?

[spin]

19. Hand guns are designed and often used as self defense weapons ...

when compared to rifles and shotguns they are far less lethal. If handguns were the best choice of a weapon to kill people armies would not carry rifles.

M1 carbine

***snip***

Limitations of weapons in the U.S. arsenal
M1 Garand and M1 Carbine

Prior to World War II, Army Ordnance received reports from various branches (infantry, armor, artillery, supply) that the full-size M1 Garand rifle was unsuitable as issued for an increasing number of soldiers with specialized training (mortar crews, machine gun crews, radiomen, tankers, artillerymen, forward observers, signals troops, engineers, headquarters staff etc.) who did not use the service rifle as a primary arm. During prewar and early war field exercises, it was noticed that these troops, when issued the rifle, often found their individual weapon too heavy and cumbersome. In addition to impeding the soldier's mobility, a slung rifle would frequently catch on brush, bang the helmet, or tilt it over the eyes. Many soldiers found the rifle slid off the shoulder unless slung diagonally across the back, where it prevented the wearing of standard field packs and haversacks. Alternate weapons such as the M1911 pistol and M1917 revolver, while undeniably convenient, were often insufficiently accurate or powerful, while the Thompson submachine gun, though reliable, was heavy and limited in both practical accuracy and penetration at typical combat ranges.<1>...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry a handgun for self defense. My object is not to kill an attacker who intends to serious injure or kill me, but to STOP his attack. In fact I realize that even if I place several shots from my .38+P S&W Model 642 snub nosed revolver square in the "kill zone" of an attacker there is an excellent chance that he will live. On the other hand if I shoot an attacker with one round in the same area with my 12 gauge shotgun using 00 buck or my Swedish Mauser rifle, chances are much higher that the attacker will die.

Obviously if I knew that when I left my house I would be attacked, I would grab my shotgun. (Actually in that situation, unless there was no other choice, I would simply stay home.) Unfortunately legal shotguns are hard to conceal and in Florida I have to carry concealed.

[krispos42]

31. Huh?

So most firearms-related deaths in Canada are caused by long guns used in domestic violence.


Okay, so then how is the long gun being on file at the local constabulary going to prevent them being used to murder a family?


"That's quite a crime scene in there, Jones. Wife, kids killed, then he committed suicide in the basement."

"What did he use to kill them, Smith?"

"Not sure yet, Jones?"

"Detective Jones! Detective Smith!"

"Yes, Constable Brown?"

"There was a shotgun registered to this address. A Mossberg."

"Ah! Detective Smith, that would explain the numerous holes in the chests of the wife and kids, and the missing top half of his head!"

"Detective Jones, I think we have the murder weapon!"

"Uh, detectives, I think that's the murder weapon there next to the man's body."

"Constable, having multiple independent lines of evidence and logic converging on the same assumption only strengthens the assumption. Come, Smith, let's figure out a motive. That pile of pictures of the wife sleeping with the neighbor would be a good place to start. Constable Brown, fetch us some coffee. Uncovering a motive could take a while."

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

49. oh dear, I guess I got it wrong

It wasn't YOU who said that vile shit, it was that person you were quoting:

"That pile of pictures of the wife sleeping with the neighbor would be a good place to start. Constable Brown, fetch us some coffee."

Well, you tell that person for me that they're a piece of worthless dung, will you?

[-..__...]

21. Don't forget to vote in the poll!!!

Quick Poll
Should the long-gun registry be abolished?

Yes 65.7%

No 34.3%


:evilgrin: :smoke:

[spin]

28. Thanks. I missed the poll ...

I joined the 66.14% that voted that the registry should be banned.

[iverglas]

36. are you Canadian?

For 10 years I've made a practice of NOT voting in "polls" at this website asking about US domestic policies. I always regarded that as the ethical thing to do.

Just thought I'd mention that.

[krispos42]

24. Another defeat for gun-lovers.

Oh, wait...

[Oneka]

26. That damn "lashback" n/t

[krispos42]

30. You'll have to speak up

I can't hear you over the deafening silence.

[iverglas]

44. rejoice, rejoice

Canada is in for four years of right-wing oppression.

Will you also be dancing in the streets when the other pet project of the politician behind the Big Lie about the firearms registry gets legs? You know, outlawing abortion ... and the back benches don't like that gay marriage stuff either, and a lot of their constituents would really like to see praying in the public schools, and boyoboy do they hate that universal healthcare stuff ...

I'll be watching for your self-congratulatory footwork every time one of the pillars of Canadian democracy and decency gets pulled down over the next four years.

[Logical]

27. Hopefully for all the fools wanting to make us register guns in the USA. I have no issue...

with the government knowing I bought a gun but the cost of registration is not worth it. And it helps not at all.

[iverglas]

32. isn't it wonderful???

An extreme right-wing government is behaving exactly as we would expect an extreme right-wing government to behave!

Every day, in every way.



http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=442956&mesg_id=443081

firearms homicides


There was a whole set of firearms legislation and regulations introduced during that period that would operate in this situation.

- licensing requirement for long arms possession
- safe/secure storage requirements
- registration requirement
- requirement that spouse sign off on licence application, and ability of spouse to report misconduct / fear and seek revocation of licence / removal of firearms

The total spousal homicide rate didn't drop anything like as sharply -- and of course part of the decline was driven by the sharp drop in firearms homicides:

homicides



I'd like to hear an explanation for the fact that the rate of firearms homicides of women by their intimate partners is today one quarter of what it was 30 years ago, due almost entirely to the decline in long arms homicides of women by their intimate partners -- when neither the overall homicide rate nor the spousal homicide rate has declined by anything near the same proportion.

Unless and until someone can demonstrate that the decline had nothing to do with the long arms registry (which includes the ability of police to remove firearms when a woman reports threats), then I'll call the Harper government's action exactly what it so plainly is.

Vile right-wing ideology-driven non-evidence-based crap. Oh, and too obviously misogynist crap to boot.

[gejohnston]

38. Don't know about why

and I'm skeptical of single reasons of anything. My questions is would it not make more sense for the parties to look at the good and bad parts of the law and simply amend it? It seems (in both countries) party and ideology seems to come before those they are representing and what works.

licensing requirement for long arms possession
I thought that is what an "unrestricted" PAL was for under the 1977 law.

safe/secure storage requirements
Is it clearly defined or kind of arbitrary? What I read of it (as a lay person and non-Canadian) it seems vague and arbitrary. If nothing else, "safe and legal" should be clearly defined.

registration requirement
I have yet to see the benefit other than tax revenue (like cars) and provide jobs (who work at the center/centre) According to this, the Auditor General did not see any evidence of value. I don't know the non-compliance rate, but I doubt it is anything near 99 percent.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7f744959-cd1a-4746-af84-53957b01a6a0

requirement that spouse sign off on licence application, and ability of spouse to report misconduct/fear and seek revocation of licence/removal of firearms
If the law had anything to do with what your post was about, it would be this provision. What prevented spouse/SO from reporting misconduct or fear of abuse before (or have the guns removed)? In such a case, why not suspend license (put the guns in temp storage) as part of bail. If convicted (it should be assault and battery spouse or not) revoke the license and send his happy ass to Kingston for a couple of years (or a mental health center for treatment, if he can be treated and rehabilitated.)

[iverglas]

41. what's your point?

me: licensing requirement for long arms possession
you: I thought that is what an "unrestricted" PAL was for under the 1977 law.

What's your point?

What I said was one point in the list that followed this:

There was a whole set of firearms legislation and regulations introduced during that period that would operate in this situation.

The period covered by the graph starts in 1980.

What are you saying, that a policy introduced in 1977 did not continue to have effects in the years after that? How would that be? The policy was in effect for all those years; in each year, if it had not been in effect, the situation might have been different.

Licensing and registration have cumulative effects. Each year, there are fewer people with firearms who don't have licences and fewer people with unregistered firearms.

me: safe/secure storage requirements
you: Is it clearly defined or kind of arbitrary? What I read of it (as a lay person and non-Canadian) it seems vague and arbitrary. If nothing else, "safe and legal" should be clearly defined.

What. E. Ver.

When the public knows that firearms and ammunition must be kept safely and securely stored, both to comply with the law and to comply with social standards, compliance increases and at least casual theft and other unauthorized access declines.

me: registration requirement
you: I have yet to see the benefit other than tax revenue (like cars) and provide jobs (who work at the center/centre) According to this, the Auditor General did not see any evidence of value. I don't know the non-compliance rate, but I doubt it is anything near 99 percent.

Bully for you.

Now explain to me why there are virtually NO straw purchases of firearms from retail dealers in Canada.

But if you choose to speak, say something true and meaningful. Where in that article did it say the AG "found no evidence of value"? You will want to be very careful that you know what you're talking about. You might want to actually read something other than a slanted news report in a Conservative Party mouthpiece newspaper.

[gejohnston]

42. simply asking for clarification of what it entailed

its not like I have a Canadian law library available to me.

You said licensing, it seemed like you were implying that part would be repealed. No, I am not saying any such thing. I was asking how registering unrestricted guns really matters compared to the other laws. In no way did I criticize the 1977 law or the earlier two laws. I did not say they were or were not worthwhile. I will say that being stricter on handguns and laxer on machine guns until then seems counter-intuitive, but I'm not knocking them.

As I read it (and what I gather) your safe storage laws would be unconstitutionally vague here. The standard seems to less to do with what is required and more to do with if someone manages to defeat it no matter how elaborate of a system the owner has. In our system "social standards" does not mean shit in court. That is unjust and would be struck down no matter who was on the bench. The question I asked was just that, to be at face value. Was my understanding of the law correct. No more, no less.

Were there straw purchases before? Not being Canadian, and not being RCMP detailed to inspect dealers' records, I honestly never thought about it and I have no fucking clue. Was that a problem before? Does the RCMP have statistics on this?

Where did I lie or said anything dishonest? I was simply asking questions as an outsider. I was not making any statements. What is your fucking problem with that? If that was not clear, then would it hurt to be less condescending and ask for clarification?
How would I know the slant from reading one article on a subject I searched for? If the AG report did indeed say that, would a Liberal or NDP slanted newspaper be honest enough to admit it? No fucking way and we both know that.

If you choose to reply, at least be reasonably polite.

[iverglas]

43. let's have that quote

Where did the AG say what you attributed to her?

[gejohnston]

45. actually it was

(most likely a partisan) claim of what the 2002 report said. Can't find the article again, I think it was canoe.ca

this is from Wikipedia.

The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.

It cites a canada.com article as a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

From what I read in CBC and Huff Po.ca most of the report was critical of cost over runs and inefficiencies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/09/sheila-fraser-the-auditor-general_n_871980.html?just_reloaded=1
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-gun-registry.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2002/12/03/auditor021203.html
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx

[iverglas]

47. a little learning is such a dangerous thing

most of the report was critical of cost over runs and inefficiencies.

All of which occurred BEFORE 2002. The cost overruns were associated with the INITIAL SET-UP of the registry, as carried out by a corrupt and bungling Liberal government.

That money has been spent. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the operation of the registry at present.

Here, try this.

http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2009/Ryan-Cukier-Thomlinson-Devereaux.pdf

It's an in-depth examination of how the meme ... oops, I mean lie ... invented by Garry Breitkreutz MP and spread far and wide by his lying Reform/Alliance/Conservative colleagues came to dominate the political discourse about the firearms registry.

Do you actually support that kind of thing? Allowing right-wing lies to determine public policy?

(26-page document; fair use/dealing reproduction)

V. THE “$2 BILLION BOONDOGGLE” AGENDA-SETTING FRAME

Before discussing the “$2 billion boondoggle” it is important to place this cost into context, not as a support of the Liberal party’s mismanagement of public funds, but instead to understand the importance of cost in this debate. The known costs of the registry from Sheila Fraser’s work have been outlined by others, but are listed here as follows:

1) 1995: Initial estimates of the cost were $119 million, but revenues generated by registration would mean costs to the taxpayer would be in the $2 million range.

2) December 3, 2002: Sheila Fraser’s first audit suggests the gun registry could cost $1 billion by 2005, with registration fees offsetting $140 million.

3) March 25, 2003: “Without an infusion of an additional $59 million the registry would not have enough money to make it to the end of the fiscal year” (Bottomley, 2004).

4) February 13, 2004: French CBC’s Zone Libre claims that the registry has cost $2
billion so far (citing Gary Breitkreuz).

5) May 18, 2006: Fraser’s latest report states:

The program’s total net cost to March 2005 was reported by the government as $946 million, a little under its earlier estimate of $1 billion. But operational problems remain. For example, there are still problems in the registration database – the Centre does not know how many of its records are incorrect or incomplete. As well, the information system it is developing is three years late, its costs have grown from the original budget of $32 million to $90 million, and it still is not operational. (39:1 Committee Evidence - PACP-4)

At this point, according to Fraser’s latest work, the Firearms Registry management costs issues have been corrected and the registry is costing about $80 million a year, with the cost trend decreasing. Despite these objective accounts and Fraser’s audit, a Winnipeg Sun article claims that the registry now has cost “$20 Billion,” but provides no cost breakdown for the claim (Joseph Quesnel, 2008, October 25).

That's at pages 15-16. The first few pages summarize the evolution of Breitkreutz's lie, from his fabrication of it to how it took on a life of its own.

Whatever. The registry could have cost five dollars or $50 billion to set up. That money isn't coming back (although we actually did hear a Conservative MP in the House last night say that destroying the long gun registry is going to save $2 billion ... a lie that some people are undoubtedly going to believe).

This is simply not an issue. Not an issue. The money has been spent, and the registry is not being eliminated, it is just being gutted. The registry that existed BEFORE the new one was set up (for restricted/prohibited weapons) cost $30 million a year to operate, in the dollars of the day. And that part of the registry is staying.

So this move is going to save $50 million a year? Like, $1.50 per Canadian resident per year?

And cost what? Unless somebody can actually tell us what eliminating the registry is going to cost (and no, the answer is not "zero"), I'd suggest they quit while they're ahead and stop spouting foolishness, myself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. So how do you explain the similar decline in US murder rates? The laws here got *laxer*...

...while the number of guns in private hands nearly tripled. You might also want to have a chat
with that gender traitor Caillin Langmann:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/fewer-gun-murders-statscan-reports-132680258.html

Caillin Langmann, a resident in McMaster University's Division of Emergency Medicine, conducted a study examining the effect that more than 30 years worth of gun control measures have had on the country's murder rates.

Langmann concluded the decline had little to do with firearms legislation and was more likely influenced by social factors, such as rising income levels and an aging population

Got "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"?

Harper and the Conservatives deserve to be thumped around the head and shoulders for many things- but they should be real things.

[iverglas]

40. how do you explain your choice to pretend I said something I didn't say?

Try reading my post.

It is not about the "decline in murder rates".

Rub the darkness out of your eyes just occasionally.

You never know what actual facts might get in.

But don't miss an opportunity to praise the right wing!

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. Oh I read what you said, I wanted to give you an out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not claim

Harper and the Conservatives chose to get rid of the long gun registry not because of the cost overruns, not because of the
widespread noncompliance, not because of the evidence from the United States that a firearms registry is not necessary
to bring about a decline in murder and violent crime rates, but for unstated and unsubstantiated reasons of misogyny.

Did your learn this from http://ConservativeConfidential.ca, or some Canadian Mark Felt (Deep Throat)? If so, where's the
evidence?

Really. I thought you were somehow different than the poster that thinks meat eating in primates was caused by patriarchal religion.
So much for that idea...

As for "praising the right wing"- Even assholes do the right thing on occasion. I doubt you'd like the US to abolish
the Environmental Protection Agency, end diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and repeal the
Americans With Disabilities Act because all three were brought about by Republicans...

[iverglas]

48. correct you if you're wrong?

I wouldn't sully my fingers responding to that ugly false shit.


Even assholes do the right thing on occasion.

Hey, you could always step up and provide a demonstration.