More on the Gun Registration Issue

[mikeb302000]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1081621--more-voices-on-gun-registry">The Star.com published a piece in support of abolishing the Canadian Long Gun Registry, too bad they can't tell the truth.

Wendy Cukier and the CGC are grasping at straws in a desperate measure to retain any or all of the long gun registry. These are public scare tactics filled with half truths and flat out lies.

Wendy seams to be under the impression that the only thing stopping an otherwise law-abiding gun owner from going on a shooting rampage is a little piece of paper. Sick people are sick, and require treatment. I’m sure $2 billion could have been better spent on mental health issues rather than harassing law-abiding citizens.

Did you catch that? Pretending that gun control folks actually believe gun registration will prevent people from going off the deep end by using such sarcastic language as this, is absolutely mendacious.

Wendy seams to be under the impression that the only thing stopping an otherwise law-abiding gun owner from going on a shooting rampage is a little piece of paper.

Nobody thinks that. But, well aware of that fact, gun-rights extremists both north and south of the border say stuff like this and make serious arguments against it as if we actually believe it and have said it. We done and we haven't.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/09/way-gun-registration-works.html">The benefits of gun registration have been clearly defined. They have nothing to do with preventing people from going on shooting rampages. They have everything to do with preventing guns from flowing into the criminal world. They will help the so-called law abiding gun owners to hold onto their guns and stop allowing them to reach criminal hands.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/cbs-news-canada-reports-on-interesting.html">And guess what, it's been proven to work.

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

[petronius]

1. "Proven to work." Can you provide some details, to support that statement?

:shrug:

[mikeb302000]

15. you've got to click on the link, man. nt

[jmg257]

2. You are right, that guy is a jerk!11 He shouldn't get to express

an opinion at online sites where he gives an impression, or pretends and/or exaggerates about something that is not true.

Shit, next thing - he'll be running his own blog!

[iverglas]

12. did somebody say that?

I don't think so. In fact I know nobody said it. Least of all the OP.

Or maybe that guy should get to express an opinion in a letter to the editor and nobody should get to express an opinion about it ...

[jmg257]

25. You are right. It was an attempt at sarcastic humour, even to the point of drawing correlations

between Mike the LTTE guy and Mike the OP.

Not very condusive to 'civil discourse', I admit. (But I also admit to thinking Mikeb isn't here so much for the civil discourse aspects either). I did try to be better in his newest post.

Anyway, like most of us I think, I do get frustrated at having to pick through & research perceived exaggerations and pretenses on both sides when discussing 'agendas', as it is hard to know what is true and what isn't. It happens so often, but not much we can do about it, and everyone should indeed get to express their opinions.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. so sayeth Mike Varley ofTrenton. Not entitled to voice his opinion

whether you agree or not.

:shrug:

[iverglas]

13. who said that? please -- who said that?

Who said that he or anyone else is not entitled to voice his opinion?

You are pretty clearly saying that the OP said this. Do you have a quote?

The OP is right. It's really too bad that people who choose to voice their opinions can't be honest, and that Mike Varley of Trenton person was not.

Civil discourse. In such short supply.

Honesty is the sine qua non of civil discourse.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. If you click on the link provided by Mike you will see.

I am trying to be as civil as civil as possible.

Have a wonderful day.

[iverglas]

22. there are three links provided in that post

and I have no idea what you are talking about.

Why don't you just answer the question?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. I only click on his first link in any of his posts.

[iverglas]

26. will you please quote

whatever text it is, from wherever it is, on which you base the claim that he has said that the letter-writer is not entitled to voice his opinion?

Thank you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. -

Wendy Cukier and the CGC are grasping at straws in a desperate measure to retain any or all of the long gun registry. These are public scare tactics filled with half truths and flat out lies.

Wendy seams to be under the impression that the only thing stopping an otherwise law-abiding gun owner from going on a shooting rampage is a little piece of paper. Sick people are sick, and require treatment. I’m sure $2 billion could have been better spent on mental health issues rather than harassing law-abiding citizens.

Mike Varley, Trenton

[iverglas]

28. ooookay, that's just weird

You have quoted what Mike Varley said. I know what Mike Varley said.

What you said was:

so sayeth Mike Varley ofTrenton. Not entitled to voice his opinion
whether you agree or not.

Now, that doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense, but I interpreted it as you saying that poster mikeb302000 had said something that you represented as mikeb302000 saying "Mike Varley is not entited to voice his opinion".

If it didn't mean that, I don't know what it meant.

So showing me what Mike Varley said doesn't back up the claim that mikeb302000 said/meant something that you represented as saying/meaning that Mike Varley is not entitled to voice his opinion.

Oh hell, maybe you meant to say

"Entitled to voice his opinion whether you agree or not".

That would make sense, even though it would be irrelevant, since mikeb302000 had not said otherwise, and your comment could be construed as an attempt to make it look as if he had.

[gejohnston]

4. letters to the editor?

you are complaining about letters to the editor? God Mike.............................

[iverglas]

11. exactly

They do not reflect the opinion of The Star.

What they reflect is the well-orchestrated mind-numbingly disingenuous chanting of the memes of the far right gun militants that inhabit bits of Canada and get their lines from farther south.

The link to "Article" goes nowhere. It seems that it should likely go to this article

Tories move closer to killing gun registry
November 02, 2009

that I can't locate, and the letters are in response to that article.


Here we are:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/719623--tories-move-closer-to-killing-gun-registry

A search for articles about the firearms registry certainly does not disclose an anti-registry slant on the part of The Star.

http://www.thestar.com/searchresults?AssetType=article&stype=genSearch&q=firearms%20registry&r=all:1

[aikoaiko]

5. Sorry, those last few links go to a site I'm unwilling to visit.

Perhaps you could provide links to the original sources.

[iverglas]

17. who cares?

[aikoaiko]

20. I do.

:hi:

:rofl:

[spin]

6. I might post my opinion if you didn't use blind links to support your argument. (n/t)

[iverglas]

18. who cares?

[ileus]

7. The star.com piece is pretty good...

[iverglas]

14. too bad it isn't a Star piece

It's a selection of letters to the editor. The Star tends to collect them and publish them in bunches. This was a bunch of screeds from the well-organized if dishonest far right wing.

Glad you liked them.

[iverglas]

16. cont'd

I just did some idle googling of some of the names. Inveterate letters to the editor writers. I like tihs one:

http://www.lfpress.com/comment/letters/home.html?p=46776&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=&s_topic=&s_letter_type=Letter%20to%20Editor&s_topic=&s_letter_status=Active&s=letters

Gun control

Toronto Guns, London's Fear

Who is this Anthony Doob that Dale Carruthers refers to in his column "Toronto Guns, London's Fear"? He sounds like he's deliberately fearmongering with blanket statements like "The presence of guns in the community (is) by definition dangerous". What is a guy like that doing teaching at a university? Is he one of the people teaching police and law students that kicking down the doors of anyone with a gun should be legal? Is he a Chretien-era dinosaur put in place by the Alan Rock style liberals at U of T?

The quotes attributed to him are absurd, perverse and they make me want to throw up. Enough with the anti-gun neurotics already.

Posted By: Doug Benn, Orangeville
Posted On: October 22, 2011

Who is Anthony Doob ... well, imagine how seriously you'd take somebody posting in this forum who said "who is this Dave Kleck" ...

There's one doorknob in this crowd, and it ain't Anthony Doob. What he's doing teaching at a university is pretty much what people with Ph.D.s and published books and things like that do. People without them write letters to the editor vilifying "liberals".


Mike Varley, he's an original one.

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1446771&archive=true

Gangsters don't follow any gun bans
By
Posted 2 years ago

I am tired of hearing mindless, unfactual information posted in regards to firearms in this country. Legal firearms owners have been under fire across the country for the illegal actions of gangsters and drug dealers.

If all sports were judged on illegal actions of others, then baseball and golf would have been banned a long time ago.

The answer to the growing illegal firearms in our country is not a ban. A ban only punishes those who obey the law. Gangsters haven't followed any laws yet, why should they start with this one?

If someone feels so strongly that Canada should be free of guns, then I encourage you to post a sign on your front door stating "Gun Free Home". The criminals will surely leave you alone then right?

Mike Varley Trenton

Ooooh, what a wit. Dishonest and stupid, but hey, original.


Jennifer Dadson, she's a prolific one; a recent sample:

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/index.html?subject=Jennifer+Dadson&type=Person


Yes, Virginia, there's astroturf in the Canadian league too.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Guess we shouldn't have fucked up the implementation in California

and the NFA, giving gun owners reason to not want to risk you fucking it up again.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[gejohnston]

10. so called law abiding?

They will help the so-called law abiding gun owners to hold onto their guns and stop allowing them to reach criminal hands.

When you say "so-called law abiding gun owners" it sounds like you are saying that all gun owners are criminals. There are many DU members and Democrats that are gun owners. Broad brushed attacks such as that are against the rules.

[iverglas]

19. Mike ...

Re your link "And guess what, it's been proven to work".

There's no such thing as "CBS News Canada". The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the public broadcaster) is what the link goes to.

Seriously, I have got to agree. You have a source for your statement. Put the link to the bleeding source in your post at this site.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/08/25/long-gun-registry-report-rcmp.html

An RCMP evaluation report of Canada's long-gun registry concludes that the program is cost effective, efficient and an important tool for law enforcement, CBC News has learned.

The findings of the report, conducted with the help of outside auditors and completed six months ago, have been in the hands of the government since February, but have not yet been released.

One section of the report states: "The program, as a whole, is an important tool for law enforcement. It also serves to increase accountability of firearm owners for their firearms."

The report found that the cost of the program is in the range of $1.1 million to $3.6 million per year and that the Canadian Firearms Program is operating efficiently.

... The full report contains over 40 pages of analysis of the effectiveness of the firearms registry, in both urban and rural areas. The RCMP would only confirm that the report is still being translated and could not give a firm date for its release. ...

An important point is that the Conservative government managed to suppress the report for a long time. I'm not sure whether it has ever been released. ... Okay, this seems to be it.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/index-eng.htm

Here's an interesting aspect of the program:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/pg6-2-eng.htm

Continuous-eligibility screening is one of the most innovative features of the CFP. Rather than just doing background checks at the time of licensing and renewal (as was done under previous legislation), the CFRS is dynamic and continuously updated as new information comes to the attention of the police and courts concerning the behaviour of licence holders.

All current holders of firearms licences, POL (Possession Only) and PAL (Possession and Acquisition of further firearms), are recorded in the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS). CFIS automatically checks with the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) every day to determine whether a licence holder has been the subject of an incident report in CPIC.

All matches generate a report entitled Firearms Interest Police (FIP) that is automatically forwarded to the CFO <Chief Firearms Officer> in the relevant province for follow-up. Some of these reports require no further action, but others may lead to review of the individual’s licence and may result in its revocation.

Continuous-eligibility screening reduces the likelihood that an individual who has shown they are a risk to public safety will be permitted to retain possession of firearms.

Think about it, eh?

Not much point in having the old NICS check at the point of sale, and then no way of knowing whether the person who bought the gun subsequently develops a delusional psychosis or is convicted of spousal assault ... and still has the gun ...

[Remmah2]

24. Moron Gun Registration Issues nt

nt

[Atypical Liberal]

29. I'm glad we agree that it doesn't stop owners from committing crimes.

The benefits of gun registration have been clearly defined. They have nothing to do with preventing people from going on shooting rampages. They have everything to do with preventing guns from flowing into the criminal world. They will help the so-called law abiding gun owners to hold onto their guns and stop allowing them to reach criminal hands.

Well, I'm glad we agree that registration doesn't do anything to prevent lawful owners from committing crimes.

So the question is, do I want to submit to registration to stop criminals from buying guns.

No, I don't.

I'm all for stopping criminals from buying guns, by using methods that affect criminals but not law-abiding people.