Long Gun Registry in Canada Worked Extremely Well

[mikeb302000]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/fewer-gun-murders-statscan-reports-132680258.html">The Winnepeg Free Press reports on what all reasonable folks already knew.

Advocates for gun control could only shrug with resignation Wednesday as Statistics Canada reported fewer murders with rifles and shotguns -- one day after Ottawa issued a death warrant for the controversial long-gun registry.

The agency's annual study of homicide rates found the number of murders committed using firearms slid seven per cent from 2009 to 2010, continuing a downward trend that's been taking place over the past three decades. Shootings still accounted for most of the country's slayings at 32 per cent, but the number of murders committed with rifles or shotguns had tumbled to one-fifth of what they were 30 years ago.

In spite of the opinion of Police Chiefs and leading gun control groups in Canada, the Conservative government has succeeded in destroying the long-gun registry. Even as mis-managed as it was fiscally, the positive results were undeniable.

"The evidence has been quite clear, and in fact compelling, that stronger controls on firearms generally have impact on public safety," she said. "We've seen murders with rifles and shotguns in particular plummet as we strengthen controls over those."

Rifles and shotguns, once blamed for the majority of firearm-related homicides and most commonly used in domestic violence cases, have been the weapons most tightly regulated under the registry, she added.

In order to accomplish this sleight-of-hand legislation, they used an argument we're very familiar with in the States.

"We don't want laws that target law-abiding citizens, hunters and sports shooters. We want laws that focus on the criminal and those who use firearms illegally," Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said Tuesday in announcing the bill to abolish it.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/solution.html">Many times we've covered this. Gun control laws aimed at the law-abiding are necessary to help them hang onto their guns. I've outlined them here, and I defy anyone to say these initiatives would not significantly cut down on gun flow to criminals. Registration is just one part of it.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[petronius]

1. I'm not seeing in the article where the long-gun registry is shown to

have contributed meaningfully to the declining homicide rates. :shrug: In fact, the last paragraphs suggest there is some dispute over whether recent legislation has played a significant role at all in the decline:

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.

[SteveM]

2. Yes. At wasting billions. nt

[gravity556]

5. So, can anyone name a single crime PREVENTED by a gun registry?

No? Imagine that, feel good, useless beaurocracy that has no beneficial effect whatsoever....

[SteveM]

8. No, but I see a big specimen of proper hockey...

"a downward trend that's been taking place over the past three decades. Shootings still accounted for most of the country's slayings at 32 per cent, but the number of murders committed with rifles or shotguns had tumbled to one-fifth of what they were 30 years ago."

Ummm, maybe riding the wave and thinking you caused it?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[petronius]

9. That would be difficult to show, but I'd be equally curious to hear of a reasonable

number of solved crimes. For example, a news report saying something like "After consulting the state firearms registry, police were able to quickly apprehend the assailant and his abettors." I don't recall ever seeing anything like that...

[iverglas]

40. why?

but I'd be equally curious to hear of a reasonable number of solved crimes.

Who set you up as the arbiter of the value of the firearms registry?

Did somebody tell you that the purpose of it was to solve crimes, and that this was the criterion by which it should be evaluated, or did you just make that up for yourself?

Either way, you need to do some of that thinking stuff.

Or what the fuck, you could just stop pretending not to remember everything I've written about the registry over the last decade.

[TPaine7]

46. "Who set you up as the arbiter of the value of the firearms registry?"

That's rich coming from the person who would have helped "the entire US" out of the "box" of this Second Amendment "thing" and who presumes to advise people in other countries on their personal political decisions:

31. I figure DC should have hired me

Hell, I would have done it for free.

I just see this second-amendment thing as a box that the entire US can't get itself out of. All anybody seems to see is the view inside the box, not what's on the outside of it. Of course, that's political thought in the US in a nutshell ...

And of course I also think that individuals keeping and bearing arms being essential to the security of a free state kinda went out with hoop skirts -- and somebody might actually figure that out some day, so it might be wise to look outside that box for a source of the rights one might like to assert, and the sort of restrictions on the exercise of them that are permissible.

Discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=186346&mesg_id=186686

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep-18-08 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #145
147. ask your own self


{quoting TPaine7}Ask yourself, which entity is more important--the Democratic Party or the United States of America? Which date is earlier, 25 August 2008 or 15 December 1791?

Ask yourself, which is more important--the party platform or the Constitution of United States of America? {/quoting TPaine7}

... blah blah blah



Ask yourself why you don't go find a party that agrees with you.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=186346&mesg_id=186573

If I were the type to advise someone in another country on her personal political decisions, I might advise you to adjust Canadian gun policy to your liking before venturing out to other countries. You know, to conserve energy.

[petronius]

49. I think "why?" should be obvious. The topic of the thread is that a particular firearms

registry worked extremely well. In my opinion, the most relevant indicators of the success of a registry would be crimes prevented or crimes solved, with meaningful attribution to the registry. So, I'm curious to see those data in the context of this thread.

And, of course, a declining crime rate by itself isn't that data; there should also be a clear explanation of the mechanism showing that the registry is at least partly responsible for the the positive outcome...

[iverglas]

52. "in your opinion"

In my opinion, the most relevant indicators of the success of a registry would be crimes prevented or crimes solved, with meaningful attribution to the registry.

And were you assigned to ascribe a purpose to the Canadian firearms registry from which criteria could be derived for evaluating it?

I hadn't thought so.

Just because you and the rest don't seem to be getting it: that was not the sole or even most significant purpose of the registry.

Just as the purpose of the stringent rules introduced in the UK a few years ago was not to "prevent crimes". No matter how much the gun militant brigade flings that meme around.

Go read something if you have to. Or keep spouting nonsense.

Here. To save you some googling ("firearms registry" polytechnique):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/03/montreal-police-chief-gun-registry.html

Do your searching at google.ca and once you have results select "Pages from Canada" on the left. (Hell, just think, if everybody here did that when they want information about Canadian issues, they might actually find something worth reading instead of the bilge they do find on US gun militant sites and the like.)

[TPaine7]

64. If preventing crime isn't the point, and the "gun militant brigade" is totally off base

why does the source you cited talk about preventing crime?

In a rare political statement issued from his office, Yvan Delorme cited a specific case where the registry may have helped Montreal officers prevent another gun rampage.

...

Delorme stressed that the registry was inspired by the Polytechnique massacre — and he said all the money spent to create the registry would be completely wasted if it were eliminated.

YOUR source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/03/montreal-police-chief-gun-registry.html

Aren't shooting rampages liiegal in Canada?! Wouldn't preventing ramages therefore be preventing crime? So since people who aren't rabidly anti-gun are off base, why does the souce you cited talk so much about rampages? Could it be that the Montreal police chief agrees with the "gun militant brigade" and disagrees with a certain irrational anti-gun lunatic, at least on this point?

[iverglas]

65. if TPaine7 is a man ...

You know how the rest goes, Aristotle.

[TPaine7]

73. Hmmm...

Let's see.

The famous logical statement goes like this:

All men are mortal.
Aristotle is a man.
Aristotle is mortal.

Or, per your suggestion

All men are mortal.
TPaine7 is a man.
TPaine7 is mortal.

Agreed so far.

Let's apply that logic to the subject at hand:

All gun rampages against innocent civilians are crimes.
The Canadian gun registry was designed to prevent gun rampages against innocent civilians.
The Canadian gun registry was designed to prevent crimes.

The "gun militant brigade", the Montreal police chief and TPaine7 all agree. And you do as well, don't you? That is, after all, the point you were making in post 52, right?

So we are all agreed—the Canadian gun registry was designed to prevent crimes. (Not all crimes—surely no one expected the gun registry to stop embezzlement, speeding or Ponzi schemes—but at least some violent gun crimes.)

Wow! We all agree that the Canadian gun registry was primarily intended to prevent crimes. That's rare unanimity in this place.

[mikeb302000]

66. the real benefit of a registry is this.

The gun owner will not sell or give his gun away to an unfit person. He knows it's registered to him and wouldn't chance it. This cuts down on gun flow to the criminal and dangerous folks, and that cuts down on crime.

"Show me one example where it prevented a crime," is a bullshit argument by those who know if you use a little common sense, you lose to the reasonableness of gun control.

[petronius]

69. That point does not appear, as far as I recall, in the original article

Although it certainly sounds reasonable, perhaps you can link to some evidence suggesting that the Canadian long-gun registry actually achieved this 'prevention of transfers' benefit? That would certainly bolster your statement that is was very effective.

I am unconvinced that 'preventing crime' is a "bullshit argument" - rather, it seems that the suggestion you're making is that registration is supposed to reduce crimes. Evidence of success is rather important, IMO...

[PavePusher]

71. So, you can't provide the evidence.....

Whodathunkit....

[gravity556]

74. And here's where you fail.

the real benefit of a registry is this.
Posted by mikeb302000
The gun owner will not sell or give his gun away to an unfit person. He knows it's registered to him and wouldn't chance it. This cuts down on gun flow to the criminal and dangerous folks, and that cuts down on crime.

"Show me one example where it prevented a crime," is a bullshit argument by those who know if you use a little common sense, you lose to the reasonableness of gun control.

I would never sell one of my firearms to someone who looked hinky. Of course, you'd promptly scream profiling and demand that private sales of firearms be like the EEOC, then you'd complain when someone, in fear of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the idiots who would support such a measure, was induced to sell to someone who did set off the hinky alarm.

Here's the problem with your inane insistence that you know what you're talking about, even though I doubt you'd be familiar with 27CFR even if someone beat you into unconciousness with a copy. Also, federal registries are illegal in the US, though some states do have them. I remember shortly after the Brady bill went into effect, the BATFools stepped on their collective dicks in a public fashion. Not quite as embarassing as them supplying guns to drug cartels and trying to spin that into more gun control and then trying to cover it up-which, were it not so disgusting an abuse of their authority, would be absolutely, side splittingly, holy shit, I think I peed a little, funny. Though it may become even better if Mexico demands extradition of every individual responsible to stand trial in Mexican court and do their time in Mexican prison, particularly since they violated Mexico's sovereignty, but I digress.

You accuse every gun owner of being a "secret criminal", which is projecting, I think, http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/10/mikeb302000_lying_criminal.html">based on some research I've done recently.

Since by federal law, I don't have access to the NICS system, I cannot do a background check, meaning that I rely on my gut. And a bill of sale, including the buyer's name, address, DL number, date, and a line that includes the phrase: I am not a prohibited possessor of firearms, followed by the buyer's signature.

If they're reluctant to sign and give up the info, no sale. If they get out of the car looking like a thug, no sale-they don't even get to see the gun. If the buyer seems legit, but has a carload of passengers that fit my mental image of someone who has no business with a gun, no sale. If I talk to a guy but his girlfriend shows up instead, no sale. No AZ ID? No sale. MS13 or other gang tattoos, not only no sale, but I inform the police of the individual's name, plate and email contact info. Same thing if they try to show me a matricula consular card while sporting Sonora Mexico plates/and/or a giant virgin mary or santa muerte sticker in the back window of the truck. So I don't get your insistence that gun owners are rushing to sell guns to the cartels. And the shops that were involved in the goatfuck were cooerced by the F-Troop to sell to known straw purchasers. In fact, one store owner (the first one villified as ATF started trying to cover their own sorry asses by throwing the FFL that they used to try and blame it all on those evil gun owners.)

Oh, and the previous crank stomp the ATF inflicted on themselves was when it was found out that they were compiling NICS checks into a makeshift registration database, even though they were required by FEDERAL FUCKING LAW to destroy said data within 24 hours. Of course, the ATF just goes to show, on an even grander scale, that shitbag criminals ignore whatever law happens to be inconveniencing them. Which is why gun owners carry such a deep distrust of the ATF and their supporters. Criminals with badges are among the lowest of the low, and usefull idiots who support them are barely a notch above.

And you don't even know it, yet, anyhow, but you've already outed yourself as someone who really only wants to disarm the law abiding, and as someone who knows that logic and reason will stop your silly agenda cold....

"Show me one example where it prevented a crime," is a bullshit argument Why is that a bullshit argument? Seems rather valid to me. Show us how having a registry saves lives?

[mistertrickster]

76. Makes sense to me--good point. nt

[iverglas]

36. a lie can travel halfway around the world

while the truth is tying its shoelaces -- your own Mark Twain


Don't you find it depressing to be seen in public giving a lift to the lie fabricated by a right-wing piece of shit scumball politician?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[jeepnstein]

4. Too bad so sad. For you.

Now you have to blog about Canada and the United States. The U.N. is going to have to pay overtime for that one.

[ileus]

6. So now you live in Canada?

[Remmah2]

14. I suspect one planet beyond Saturn. nt

nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Nice use of the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Too bad the article disputes it it.

as noted in post #1

[gejohnston]

10. re:

on what all reasonable folks already knew.

Strychnine or arsenic in that well?

In spite of the opinion of Police Chiefs and leading gun control groups in Canada, the Conservative government has succeeded in destroying the long-gun registry. Even as mis-managed as it was fiscally, the positive results were undeniable.

Police chiefs are by definition authoritarian and lean rightward. US police chiefs would like to do away with Miranda and exclusionary rule. What gun control groups think have no more and no less credibility than what National Firearms Association thinks. Mismanaged is an understatement. As far as positive result, the Auditor General released a report showing no evidence the registry had anything to do with the crime drop. Fact is, their crime drop has been mirroring ours. the post WW2 rise and now the drop is much like ours. Ergo post hoc propter hoc? You betcha Mike.

In order to accomplish this sleight-of-hand legislation, they used an argument we're very familiar with in the States.

what sleight-of-hand is that? What is this "we" shit? It is still a valid argument.

"The evidence has been quite clear, and in fact compelling, that stronger controls on firearms generally have impact on public safety," she said. "We've seen murders with rifles and shotguns in particular plummet as we strengthen controls over those."

I don't know about compelling, certainly simplistic.

I've outlined them here, and I defy anyone to say these initiatives would not significantly cut down on gun flow to criminals. Registration is just one part of it.

see above

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry#cite_note-15
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/10/the-registrys-value/

[Katya Mullethov]

16. Depends on where you drill the hole

""Strychnine or arsenic in that well?""
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/arsenictainted-water-from-unicef-wells-is-poisoning-half-of-bangladesh-1196091.html

[Glassunion]

11. I am defying you... Again... For the 3rd time...

"I defy anyone to say these initiatives would not significantly cut down on gun flow to criminals"

Your solution is vague and leaves noting but questions. Therefore it is not a solution.

My biggest problems with gun control legislation is that it not only infringes on the 2nd Amendment, but 9 out of 10 times(IMO) it specifically infringes on other civil rights based solely on the fact that one wishes to be a gun owner. This IMO is not how a progressive democracy should work. One who wishes to exercise one civil right, should not be left with a decision to sacrifice their other rights to meet that end. I'm sick and tired of folks confusing what they call "Necessary Evils" with something that is actually "Good". It is evil, end of story.

From your website... Your stated GOAL:

Extremely strict gun control laws enforced nationally which would disqualify about half the present gun owners. Since that half, although legal under today's rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including gun flow into the criminal world, the results would be tremendous.

Let's break this down...

"Extremely strict gun control laws enforced nationally which would disqualify about half the present gun owners."

Kinda vague there for one thing. For another thing, you have absolutely ZERO research or facts to back up your claim that 1/2 of the 80 million gun owners in this country would be disqualified. You are basically making a statement that 1/4 of all adult(18+) Americans are criminals, who should be denied a civil right. This statement alone begs the question: "How do you feel about the 4th Amendment?"

"Since that half, although legal under today's rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including gun flow into the criminal world, the results would be tremendous.

You CANNOT back up this claim whatsoever with any real research or facts. It does not exist outside of your own opinion. Please do explain, in detail; your claim on how 40 million Americans are personally responsible for gun flow into the hands of criminals. I would love to hear it.

The problem with your goal is that it is vague, and not based in fact.

From your website... Your stated SOLUTION:

1. licensing of gun owners, requiring criminal and mental health background checks.
2. registration of all guns bought.
3. no transfers without the recipient being a licensed gun owner and submitting to another background check - every time.

Safe storage laws, magazine capacity limitations and waiting periods may be eventually added, but the big three above will solve most of our problems.

1. When you buy a gun in today's day and age from an FFL, you have a background check run. Your mental history is also checked. I have no issue with this. However, licensing a gun owner will have no effect on crime rates. This has been shown true time and again in states that require it.

2. Registration will have zero effect on crime as well. This also has shown to be true time and again in states that require it. I have put the call out there many times on this very board for any person to give me one example of where registration of firearms in states that require it has in fact reduced crime. So far I have yet to receive even one response. I have also asked for an example for where the registration of a firearm in states that require it, was the primary evidence leading to the capture and prosecution of an individual who committed a crime. I have yet to receive an answer.

3. Personally I think that ALL transfers should be performed along with a background check. Licensing would have no bearing on the legality, nor the safety of the public in the transfer.

You say that these 3 things will "solve most of our problems", however you failed to give any evidence to back up the statement.

Personally, we could save more lives and/or improve more lives by ending certain strict gun control programs. I'll use NY state as an example.
- Particular gun control measure(Ballistic Fingerprinting) in NY state has saved 0 lives and has solved 0 crimes in 10 years.
- They could have taken the same money and fed 2,469 people 3 wholesome, balanced and healthy meals a day, every single day for 10 years. That works out to over 27 million meals served.

My questions are simple...
How many people have been saved by gun registration in NY state? How many people could have been housed and/or fed instead?
How many people have been saved by owner licensing in NY state? How many people could have been housed and/or fed instead?

[spin]

12. The rate of firearm homicide has dropped in the United States and we don't have ...

gun registration.

What does that prove?

[Remmah2]

13. High capacity magazines have worked well in the US for preventing elephant attacks.

Ever since high capacity magazines have been around there has not been one single case of an elephant attack. Therefore we can all agree that high capacity magazines are needed to continue fending off elephants.

[Glassunion]

27. +1

[RSillsbee]

78. Wrong

I seem to remember an elephant attack at the Ohio zoo last year. Therefore, normal capacity magazines are obviously an utter failure at preventing elephant attacks

Edit because DU is too cheap to just get an I button

[Atypical Liberal]

15. Correlation does not equal causation.

Firearm deaths from long arms probably would have declined even without a registry, just as they have been doing in the United States.

Registration does nothing to prevent crimes. Having a list of who owns what firearms does not prevent anyone from committing a crime with their firearms.

Moreover, the few people who complied with such registration are law-abiding people. Criminals certainly will not bother with registering firearms.

So what Canada no doubt is discovering is that the people they have spent 2 billion dollars to track hardly ever commit crimes. Which begs the question, why bother tracking these people?

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is exactly right - you would be far, far better off spending your 2 billion dollars on efforts that focus directly on criminals.

Anyway this issue is pretty much all over but the crying. The long gun registry is going to be repealed, and there will be no blood in the streets, and Canadian tax payers will save some money.

[krispos42]

38. A picture is worth a thousand words

We need to import more lemons.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[We_Have_A_Problem]

18. So because they did away with something...

...that cost way more than it should and was providing no actual benefit, they have become less civilized?

I don't think you quite know what you're talking about. You also don't seem to realize that the "wild west" only existed in Hollywood. In real life, it was actually quite peaceful.

[one-eyed fat man]

19. You sure can twist it can't you?

I supposed Mexico is the gun nutz Heaven?

Mexico's gun laws are far stricter. No one may own any gun made or possess ammunition in a "military" caliber. But so you can unwind on the weekends with a little armless weed you pump their economy full of your drug money.

Thirty thousand dead Mexicans paid for by potheads.

[RC]

21. With all those laws, who pays attention to them with all those guns available?

Which came first, the guns or the lawlessness? I'm thinking that without all those guns, things would be a lot more peaceful down there.

The point is Canada does not have much of a problem with guns -- Yet. Rescind the laws and that will change.
What is it with the worship of guns as the solution to anything? It reminds me of MAD during the Cold War. Same mind set. The exact same mind set.

[gejohnston]

22. History is often a good guide

To answer your question, lawlessness, organized crime paid for by your local bong owner and coke head.

The point is Canada does not have much of a problem with guns -- Yet. Rescind the laws and that will change.

No it won't. They did not have the problem before any of the laws. The 1934 handgun registry and licensing was about fear of immigrants, not crime. The all gun registry during WW2 (repealed in 1947) was about fear of subversion.
Did the 1953 machine gun registry cut machine gun crimes? Still needed a license for a pistol but not for a machine gun.

Until 1977 (all guns needed licencing and banned further ownership of machine guns. Registration of some long guns in the "restricted" category)
Canada did have stricter federal laws on handguns, but much laxer on machine guns until 1977. Your province may vary. The 1977 was a reaction to terrorist attacks by Quebec separatists. The latest one, the one at issue, is a feel good law because of a school shooting.

Were people shooting each other with Thompsons and STENs over parking spaces before 1953 or 1977? No.
Different culture, different history. Gun laws had nothing to do with it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

23. Are you seriously asking the question?

Which came first? The guns or the lawlessness?


That would be funny if it weren't so damned sad.

Criminals predate firearms by thousands of years.

No, if you rescind the law, nothing is going to change in Canada. Canada has always been a relatively law-abiding nation. You REALLY think a registry which had ~1% compliance is somehow the only thing keeping criminals from committing crimes? Seriously?

[Glassunion]

26. Lawlessness came first. ****Warning. Quite Graphic****

Been around since man first climbed out of the trees.

Prisons which are gun free zones are not immune to deadly violence. Drugs are the motivation for killings. Guns are but one of the many tools. These cartels are doing just fine with grenades, rocket launchers and even chainsaws and knives.

If guns evaporated tomorrow, Mexico would still be under siege and controlled by the very same drug lords. They have numbers and they have strength working for them.

These fuckheads are fueled by American and Canadian drug users. There is money to be made in the illegal drug trade. These fuckheads are willing to kill for that money, and will stop at nothing to get it. Eliminating guns would be impossible for one thing and would do zero good for another.

Under that blanket was a simple warning to the police. It was the head of one of their officers.


This lady's(her head is on the concrete ball to the left) only crime was to post bad shit on the internet about drug traffickers. So they drug her out of her house, tortured then killed her.


These were bloggers who talked shit about one of the cartels.


Nothing to see here either.


Or here in front of a school. Those are not 5 heads in that crate.


This is what happens when you work for the wrong people.


I'm going to assume all 35 of them died of natural causes.


I'm going to make the assumption that you don't want the authorities disarmed, just everyone else....

Here is an honored hero police officer. She is shown here in an old news story after being injured in a fire fight with drug cartel members. Today she is a Zeta Cartel boss. In charge of decapitating and murdering folks for a few extra American bucks.


Here are 2 women. Hard to imagine, but there are indeed two women pictured below. 14 police officers were arrested over this. These two women were being detained by the police. Their crime was that they were nieces of the state Social Development Secretary.


Folks who want to get rid of tools used in murder never seem to want to address the motivation behind it, just the method. The motivation is too hard and messy to confront.

[Katya Mullethov]

30. Be fair

Some of that was caused in part by the flood of Finnish fillet knifes fueling border fracases .

[gejohnston]

31. even harder to confront

when they are fueling it with every snort and toke.

[iverglas]

41. heh, kinda of funny you should mention

Folks who want to get rid of tools used in murder never seem to want to address the motivation behind it, just the method. The motivation is too hard and messy to confront.

All the motivation in the world and what, two bucks? will get you a cup of coffee.

I'm, like, really motivated to fly to Paris for the weekend. Expect your postcard now.

You can convict someone of a crime without proof of motive ... but you can't convict someone of a crime without some kind of evidence that they did it.

And people can't do things if they don't have the MEANS to do them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity

And NOBODY has the means to terrorize an entire population without firearms. Nobody.

(Anybody who wants to say "Rwanda" here had better take a deep breath and think twice.)

[PavePusher]

47. Not just Rwanda.

You're ignoring all of human history pre-firearm.

But then dishonesty is your only stock-in-trade.

"And NOBODY has the means to terrorize an entire population without firearms. Nobody."

That may be the stupidest thing I've seen on D.U..... since the last time you were hanging out in here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

[Glassunion]

50. Do you honestly believe that?

We are not talking about a whimsical trip to Paris. We are talking about money and the lengths that people will go to get it.

We are talking about so much money(over 50 billion a year in the US alone) that people are willing to kill for it. But not only kill, but to kidnap and torture as well as intentionally leaving the bodies where they will be found by the public to terrorize them.

We are talking about so much money that 100's of thousands of soldiers have gone AWOL to work for the cartels. Thousands of police officers have abandoned their jobs to work for the cartels. Hundreds(maybe thousands) of public officials have been corrupted and work for the cartels. Not to mention the thousands of citizens that also work for the cartels.

It is not so much the guns that give them the means, it is the money. The money pays for everything. It is the money that that pays to smuggle machine guns, RPGs, hand grenades and other ordinances from Russia, China and South America. It is the money that controls the police. It is the money that controls the public officials. It is the money that controls the military. Someone will always have a price to do horrible things. If I can't pay you off, I'll threaten your family.

There are many public officials that cannot be bought. So they kidnap their teenage daughter, torture her, kill her then cut her up into small pieces. Then they leave a note to remind the public official who is in charge.


There is not one single gun law that will stop any of this from happening. The technology exists, and it cannot be undone. Drugs are illegal, it is illegal for these cartels to posses guns, it is illegal to smuggle any of this across any of the borders from the southern tip of South America to the northern border of Canada. Yet it continues and as long as there is money to be made it will go on. There is no gun law that can be enacted that will stop any of this. There is no easing of gun laws that will perpetuate this. If there is money to be made, it will happen. Period.

This money comes from anyone who uses illegal drugs. That $40 that the American or Canadian spent on a little pot is more directly attributed to the death of thousands of people every year than any Canadian or US Gun owner. The vast majority of gun crimes in the US, Canada and Mexico are directly linked to the drug trade.

But this little fact is too inconvenient to face for most American and Canadians. They either don't want to legalize the drugs or they just want to go on smoking their pot, snorting their coke or shooting their heroin. Both groups have one thing in common. They are selfish and cannot think of anything outside of their little view of the world. It's all about me me me... They don't care that they are paying a 14 year old to torture and behead people. They don't care that they are paying the police to torture and dismember two women. They don't care that they are paying off their own military, police and government officials. They just don't care, so they shift the blame.

"And NOBODY has the means to terrorize an entire population without firearms. Nobody." I disagree.

[one-eyed fat man]

33. You still smoking that stuff?

It is all about market share. They are fighting over your money, they are using guns because they have the money to buy them. They have so much stinking money they can corrupt almost anyone. They build submarines, they have tunnels under the border equipped with carts on tracks. They have the kind of cash that tin pot African dictators have.

Narcocorridos, or drug ballads are popular folk music. Glorifying the life of traffickers in song — telling stories of drug lords, arrests, shootouts, daring operations and betrayals. The lawlessness is glorified; it is what little kids aspire to be.

Canada didn't have much of gun problem, ever. You could buy machine guns, legally, no special paperwork or anything in Canada 40 years after the National Firearms Act controlled them here. Take London and New York, for example. The murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries -- and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.

In 1911 New York passed the Sullivan Law requiring people to have a permit to buy a handgun. London had no such law for decades and up through the 1950's carrying a concealed pistol in London was a minor fine, less than a traffic offense.

Mexico was lawless and violent 100 years ago; it is lawless and violent now. The only thing that has changed is now the lawless have millions upon millions of dope-smoker dollars to buy the latest military hardware the Chinese, North Koreans, or anyone else has for sale.

[gejohnston]

20. don't know much about

the gun laws of either country do you? Scraping the long gun registry is of little consequence. It is not like the are repealing the 1977 law and the 1953 law (dumping licensing for all guns in the former and the machine gun registry in the latter.)

Mexico? They have the strictest gun laws in North America.

Oh yeah, the "wild west" never was.

[gravity556]

24. Yes, Mexico's

draconian (sensible to the anti-rights/pro-criminal safety crowd here in the states) gun laws are sure keeping the population safe from criminals with guns. Unfortunately for the average Jose down south of the border, having a gun for self defense is just not a possibility. Of course, when the Zetas are stealing guns from the Mexican army (only fools think they're all coming from US gun shows) and recieving them from other narco-terrorist organizations in south America, a single shot shotgun isn't much help.

I think as more and more people wake up to the fact that the government is incapable of protecting them from criminals, support for gun control will continue to decline, with the exception of the utopian fools whose heads are so far up their collective asses, they need glass bellybuttons to keep from walking into walls. And as more and more criminals realize that folks are tired of being victimized and are starting to fight back with lethal force as police forces continue to shrink, I think that the crime problem will begin to resolve itself. Of course, shining beacons of the stupidity of "sensible gun laws", like Chicago and DC for example, will continue to have problems with roving packs of feral youths.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein

[PavePusher]

29. Mexico, with their very strict gun laws?

Yeah, how's that working out, again?

[gravity556]

34. The OP doesn't know the difference between

NFA and 922.R. He is completely ignorant of gun laws, and has admitted to wishing to see firearms banned wholesale. He knows that gun laws don't effect criminals (after all, he was an illegal gun owner by his own admission), but doesn't care. The reason he doesn't care is because he wants to make sure that law abiding citizens are wholly at the mercy of his criminal compatriots.

And if Canada's registry was such a valuable and efficient tool, why again are they discontinuing it? Could it be that crooks don't register guns? Could it be that a large cross section of Canadian gun owners refused to comply? Could it be the metric fuckton of money spent on it to no good effect? How many starving kids could have been fed by the UN with those funds, mikey? Granted it wouldn't be too many, what with the UN needing to keep useless suits employed, blogging about subjects they know nothing about, but it would still have been more usefully spent further bloating the UN.

[iverglas]

42. what is wrong with your brain?

And if Canada's registry was such a valuable and efficient tool, why again are they discontinuing it?

So I will tell you, AGAIN.

Because they are right-wing pieces of shit, running a majority government with less than 40% of the popular vote. Over 60% of Canadians who voted, voted against them.

Did you forget that somehow?

Could it be that a large cross section of Canadian gun owners refused to comply?

Nope.

Could it be the metric fuckton of money spent on it to no good effect?

Nope.

Could it be that they are liars and they lie and lie and lie and lie, and invented themselves an issue out of a tissue of lies over several years of lying, and now they are rewarding the people who shared their lie: the right-wing assholes who have been trying to destroy the firearms registry since its inception?

Yep.


How many starving kids could have been fed by the UN with those funds, mikey?

And you, sitting there in the place that is not just allowing children to starve, but kills children wholesale, think you do not look just plain sick saying that?

How many federal government programs of yours can you name that operate for, oh, under a billion a year? (We'll take an inflated estimate of the annual operating costs of the registry and multiple it by 9, the population ratio.)

The fucking thing costs under $100 million a year.

You want to know what this filthy right-wing government is going to spend on overpriced unneeded military aircraft your government is selling it, and maintenance, over the next few years?

Well, the Globe and Mail says $30 BILLION.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/fighter-jet-price-tag-will-approach-30-billion-budget-watchdog-warns/article1936449/

How many babies could that feed, Jack?

Better it should go into the pockets of your military materiel barons, I guess, neighbour.

[Marengo]

48. Physical presence in a place equates full support for it's policies?

"And you, sitting there in the place that is not just allowing children to starve, but kills children wholesale, think you do not look just plain sick saying that?"

Well, does it?

"The fucking thing costs under $100 million a year."

That sum can feed many children as well

[iverglas]

51. no, stupid finger-pointing by uninformed outsiders

makes said outsiders look ignorant and malignant.

[PavePusher]

58. You clearly don't understand....

We have problems here at home... so we shouldn't point out problems anywhere else.

There's probably something about small geological samples and optically transparent domiciles that could be said, but we'll leave it as a given.

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

61. another one for the bookmarks file

There's probably something about small geological samples and optically transparent domiciles that could be said.

Uh, yeah. It could be said to pretty much all of your friends and neighbours in this thread.

Not that I really said:

We have problems here at home... so we shouldn't point out problems anywhere else.

What I did say might have been more along the lines of microscopic irritants and large wooden objects in ocular organs.


Never mind anything else I said in the post in question, of course.

That big fat ugly right-wing elephant in the room ... quick! look over here! starving children! ... that the big fat ugly right-wing elephant in the room is of course doing everything possible to avoid doing anything about ...

[gravity556]

72. But, iverglas, it looks as though Canada's duly elected representatives are doing what their

constituency wants them to do. And why are you always so openly hostile? You know that carrying all of that rage and hate for people who dare not to agree with your proclamations is going to give you a heart attack or stroke.

So you're saying that the statistics that show that it's basically a useless money pit are all lies lie lies? Are you saying that statistics can be spun to show whatever the presenter wants them to show? Doesn't the cognitive dissonance make your head hurt?

Could it be that they are liars and they lie and lie and lie and lie, and invented themselves an issue out of a tissue of lies over several years of lying, and now they are rewarding the people who shared their lie: the right-wing assholes who have been trying to destroy the firearms registry since its inception?


You mean people who probably told your government that a registry is incapable of preventing crime? Yeah, there are probably some pretty entertaining "I told you so!"s going on up there.

And really, this is just spittle flecked hate and loathing and rage....
And you, sitting there in the place that is not just allowing children to starve, but kills children wholesale, think you do not look just plain sick saying that?

How many federal government programs of yours can you name that operate for, oh, under a billion a year? (We'll take an inflated estimate of the annual operating costs of the registry and multiple it by 9, the population ratio.)

Now that "killing children wholesale" bit of nasstiness is pretty well over the fucking line. No wonder you're so anti-rights and anti-gun-if you could just disarm everyone who you consider "unworthy", you'd probably not lose a wink of sleep forcing everyone to adhere to your ideals at the barrel of your gun. Hateful people always want control.

As to the cost of government programs, well, after 11 years of spend happy senators and congress critters, and a couple of multi-trillion stimulus packages, I'd be disinclined to wager that the white house donut and fresh flower budget was under a 100 million a year. And I'd definitely like to get the government to quit spending money like it's theirs, but that's beyond my control.

Also, just wondering, but if more than half of Canada voted for the other party, how did the folks you hate so vehemently come to power? Do you count votes differently with the metric system? Because down here, whoever ends up with the most electoral college votes is presidente, but I think the senate and house are direct vote.

So how *did* those folks end up in office?

And I forgot to mention it before, but you had best come up with some fucking documentation on your accusation that the US murders kids wholesale. Particularly since you seem to insinuate that I condone such sick imaginings.

As to the fighters your country is purchasing and the cost vs "how many babies could that feed, jack", I would think thats a query best put to your own government.

My personal take is that if you can't afford to feed a kid, (no job, no prospects of a job, on government assistance for a lifetime without ever having contributed to the tax base) you should probably buy the pint of vodka rather than the half gallon and spend the difference on condoms and Plan-B. Having a child with the intent of making society pay for it entirely should not be an option. But I'm pretty pro-responsible population growth.

[iverglas]

80. if you're that ignorant, you should go to school all over again

Not that they would likely teach you what you need to know:

Also, just wondering, but if more than half of Canada voted for the other party, how did the folks you hate so vehemently come to power? Do you count votes differently with the metric system? Because down here, whoever ends up with the most electoral college votes is presidente, but I think the senate and house are direct vote.

Surely, though, you are aware that most countries in the world do not operate with a two-party stranglehold on the seats in their legislatures.


Now that "killing children wholesale" bit of nasstiness is pretty well over the fucking line. No wonder you're so anti-rights and anti-gun-if you could just disarm everyone who you consider "unworthy", you'd probably not lose a wink of sleep forcing everyone to adhere to your ideals at the barrel of your gun. Hateful people always want control.

Hey, that is so totally incoherent that all I can say is: touched a nerve, did I?

Yeah, killing children wholesale. Something one would be hard pressed to name a decade when the US wasn't busy doing it. You've noticed that embargo/invasion/occupation of Iraq thing, maybe? Did they teach you about Vietnam in school? Can you name a few other countries in the world? Stick a pin in a globe, if you can find one, and you'll likely hit somewhere relevant.


My personal take is that if you can't afford to feed a kid, (no job, no prospects of a job, on government assistance for a lifetime without ever having contributed to the tax base) you should probably buy the pint of vodka rather than the half gallon and spend the difference on condoms and Plan-B. Having a child with the intent of making society pay for it entirely should not be an option. But I'm pretty pro-responsible population growth.

Here, you seem to have wandered off to another planet ...

[ileus]

81. Excellent post....

[Iktomiwicasa]

25. Another mikey...

...drive by. Unrecced.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Full of shit as usual. No correlation/causation between the ALREADY trending decline in gun violence

and the registry.

Ours is trending down too. No registry. Hmm.

[iverglas]

37. is yours trending down like this?

Nobody seems to have an explanation for it.





What is the explanation?

Why have long arm homicides of spouses (almost entirely women, of course) decline to 1/4 the rate of 30 years ago (obviously driving the decline in spousal homicides overall), when no other type of homicide has declined at anything resembling that rate?

Any suggestions as to what factors are in play here -- and why the long arms registry would not be ONE of them?

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Wow, Canada has a wildly inverse type of weapon used metric.

In the US, long guns only constitute about 4% of all murders. Handguns are far and away the most used here.

As for your question, likely the only driver is pickup and storage or confiscation of firearms from people who have a restraining order of some type levied against them.

A nice thing, but there are other ways to accomplish the same goal, without what is expressly illegal in the US. (registration.)

[iverglas]

53. and why do you think that is?

Very obviously, it's because handguns are not readily accessible by members of the public.

That has been the case for a long time. The rules that apply to long arms -- requiring a licence for purchase, and later for purchase of ammunition, and registration -- are much more recent. There are far more long arms still in unregulated circulation than there are handguns. And they are a lot easier to steal, since people who legally possess handguns are more likely to abide by storage regulations, the registration of their firearms being a very major factor (incentive) in that regard.


As for your question, likely the only driver is pickup and storage or confiscation of firearms from people who have a restraining order of some type levied against them.

And that would be possible because ... their firearms are registered?

I wouldn't say that's the only driver by any means. There are undoubtedly numerous factors; one might be more widely available shelters and other services for women at risk (although long arm homicides of women are a dispropotionately rural phenomenon, and services are still sadly lacking in rural areas).

I'd also think that simply declining possession of long arms plays a role. The people I worked with in a small town in eastern Ontario 30 years ago all hunted. (That was where my consort of the day had lost his 13-year-old son to suicide with the father's hunting rifle.) I doubt that many of their children do today.


A nice thing, but there are other ways to accomplish the same goal, without what is expressly illegal in the US. (registration.)

Huh, I understood there were registration schemes for some firearms in some parts of the US.

But in any event, it is NOT illegal in Canada, the scheme has been expressly approved by the Supreme Court of Canada (on division-of-powers grounds; it has never been challenged on Charter grounds).

So what's all the brouhaha from the foreigners here all about then?

But I would certainly not say that the combined set of Canadian firearms policies and regulations -- and they do work as a set -- has not played a role.

[PavePusher]

45. No-one has yet been able to cite any evidence linking registration to the decline.

Good luck with that.

[iverglas]

54. I'll bet you also say

that there is no evidence that human activity leads to global warming ...


This link is now dead; I have cited this page in the past here.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

From a criminologist testifying in the constitutional challenge to the Firearms Act some years ago.

As I said one time I cited it here:

What proof might you have that laws against homicide reduce the number of homicides committed? Let alone that the death penalty does ...

[PavePusher]

57. Do you hire help to move those goal posts...

or are you fit enought to carry them around by yourself?

[iverglas]

60. goalposts ... that's a football thing, right?

Did you not remember to wear your helmet?

No idea what you're on about here, chum. One concussion too many, I suspect.

[DanTex]

59. That's an important point.

Gun control is actually one area where there is quite of bit of evidence, more so than for most public policy questions. In this instance, you have not only all of the studies linking higher gun availability generally to homicide, gun violence, etc., but also some specific evidence that this very registry is working (e.g. the decline in long-gun homicides). And then there are the opinions of police who have hands-on experience of how the registry is used, and so on.

Killias's point is right on: it is silly to insist on the kind of "proof" you can get from, say, a repeatable and well controlled chemistry experiment before taking action, because if that were your standard, then no policy would qualify.

For example, someone in this thread earlier suggested that the money spent on the gun registry might be better spend feeding children. Of course, there is no "proof" that spending money feeding children actually reduces child hunger and malnutrition. The same right-wingers that deny all the evidence on global warming and gun control would surely argue that feeding children would probably cause obesity, or produce a culture of dependence and entitlement, or that it's "anti-freedom" to take my tax dollars and use them to buy food for hungry children...

[PavePusher]

62. Again... please demonstrate the actual link between firearm registry and reducing crime.

We're still... waiting...

[DanTex]

63. Please demonstrate a non-superficial level of reading comprehension...

I get that the pro-gunner mindset is at odds with any sort of nuance or intellectual sophistication, which in your case manifests itself as the inability to either read or write anything with more than one sentence in it. But I have faith that if you try really hard, you too might be able to participate in that wonderful process known as rational thought.

Don't be afraid! It gets easier the more you practice!

[PavePusher]

70. Sooo-o-o-o....

Canada has a gun registry. Crime has been falling in Canada. Therefore gun registries reduce crime.

Did I get that right? Because that's all you have presented....

[Glassunion]

55. Corn... It's the corn!!!

Red Line = Rate per million spouces
Blue Line = Corn Supply(BillBu)

The more corn that is produced, the less crime there is.


GROW MORE CORN!!! IT WILL SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS!!!!

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[rl6214]

44. You've outlined.......what? All I see is a blind link to your blog

You want us to read what you've outlined, post it, not a link.

Again you want to direct laws at the law-abiding...stoopid. Direct the laws at the law breakers.

Registration? Were your guns registered? Oh wait, you were an illegal gun owner. Are you like one of the inmates interviewed that says they got their guns by stealing them?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

67. Mutually exclusive

Mutually exclusive (adj) contradictory, mutually exclusive (unable for both to exist or be true at the same time)

Posted by mikeb302000 in Guns
Fri Sep 09th 2011, 05:38 AM>

"Several times I've been challenged by the pro-gun crowd to name one gun control law that I do not support. These are the same guys who accuse me of wanting to ban all guns in civilian hands and other nonsense like that."

Which will you have, Sparky?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459438&mesg_id=459472

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mistertrickster]

75. As a gun owner, I kind of like the idea of a national registry . . .

That way, if any or all my guns get stolen, I might have a better chance of getting them back . . .

Or proving ownership for insurance claims if destroyed by fire.

[TPaine7]

77. You can prove ownership for theft or fire without a national gun registry...

people prove ownership and make claims for things that aren't part of a national registry every day.

[one-eyed fat man]

82. You need to get out more

The ATF has argued in court the the NFA registry was never intended to return stolen items to their rightful owners.

How long does something have to be stolen? Before the original owner loses his title?

One of the things that Brady and VPC are pushing for cops to DESTROY all guns that come into their possession for whatever reason, after they are no longer needed for legal proceedings.

Yes, that is precisely what they don't want you to catch. Your stolen gun is recovered, and once the police no longer need it for evidence, it is to be destroyed.

It is not to be returned to you, despite you being an innocent victim of a theft.

This precise logic was used to put a rare machine gun into the museum at West Point. A 1914 Maxim stolen from an American Legion Post was recovered and held for decades by the Raritan, New Jersey PD before being turned over to the Army.

When the owner of the gun sued for the return of his stolen property, the ATF testified that the NFA Registry was NEVER INTENDED to be used to reunite stolen property with its rightful owners. The Federal judge ruled despite having a valid registration for the machine gun, the owner had no standing to sue.

Wheaton V. Caldera

Nice "catch-22" with registration. If states are being urged to pass laws so all police recovered guns are to be destroyed and not returned what is the point in registration?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. re: "...Worked Extremely Well."

In the opinion of some at least.

But opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.