00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Kingkavvvv just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Canadian Gun Control

8,653 Views | 106 Replies

Canadian Gun Control 2011-03-20 15:29:22


Canadian society is a little crazy; our gun control legislation designed to protect canadians from crime is a mess of red tape; and has been shown effectively to be useless in stopping crime. In fact, the decline of violence since the early 70's in canadian society can be more attributed to the trends than anything else.

Fact: Most firearm related deaths in Canada are accidental

Fact: The second most related account of firearm deaths in Canada is suicide

Fact: only 1 in 20 guns smuggled through the border are caught by the border gaurd.

Fact: Most guns used in crime are not legally possessed, and smuggled in from the United States.

Here are the main provisions in the gun control act meant to keep Canadians safe:

-Magazines pinned to 5 rounds

-Pistols with barrels shorter then 4 inches are illegal or "prohibited weapons"

-AR-15's, short barrelled rifles and Pistols are restricted weapons which require an ATT to transport; and you can only transport it from the range and back to your house. Restricted weapons can only be shot legally at a range.

-If you use a Firearm in defense of your own life, even in your own house; You can, and some instances will be charged with agravated murder with a firearm.

-All firearms are to be registered

-The RCMP can choose to make firearms restricted, or prohibited based on policy

-A license must be obtained to register a firearm to you

- When ever the Liberals are in power and Amnesty is not declareed; you can be charged even if you are trying to register your previously not registered firearm.

- You can be charged with unlawful firearm ownership if your license expires even by one day

The laws were created so arbitrarily, just for cheap votes. You know what? I agree with Licensing, its a damn good way of making sure we don't condone just selling guns to anyone. Problem is, most murderers get their guns illegally from the States. What can we do? Ammend the current laws is all.

Heres a study against the long gun registry: Bill C-391 - Countering Ten Misleading Claims
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a bstract_id=1599705

Does Newgrounds find this insane?

Canadian Gun Control

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-03-20 15:46:28


A large portion of guns used by criminals were in fact at one point legally owned. Without serial numbers being registered there is no way to trace where a gun came from. So if your guns are stolen how do you get them back if they are recovered?

Cars are registered, marriages are registered, births are registered, certain types of radios are registered, why not firearms. It is a useful tool for law enforcement. While the police chiefs have misrepresented the way it is beneficial, it none-the-less serves an important purpose.

Many people who own firearms are responsible owners, but many who are even responsible gun owners are at times careless. they dont lock up one of their guns after hunting because they are going to clean it tomorrow, transport it with rounds in it, or leave it behind the door to shoot critters, even when no one is home. When these guns are stolen, and then later recovered, how do you track them back to their owners without a paper trail?


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-03-20 16:06:01


At 3/20/11 03:29 PM, NHT123 wrote: Canadian society is a little crazy; our gun control legislation designed to protect canadians from crime is a mess of red tape; and has been shown effectively to be useless in stopping crime. In fact, the decline of violence since the early 70's in canadian society can be more attributed to the trends than anything else.

Fact: Most firearm related deaths in Canada are accidental

How does this help your argument? If anything, it could be used to show that lax regulation on personal gun ownership is not strict enough. If that many people don't know how to handle firearms and, then wouldn't the government want to keep track of where every gun is going and who has it? This "fact" could easily be used to impose mandatory gun training for anyone buying a new firearm.

Fact: The second most related account of firearm deaths in Canada is suicide

Again, how does this help your argument? What is stopping the government from saying "holy crap, all these suicides! We should ban gun sales to anyone with any mental health problems!"

Fact: only 1 in 20 guns smuggled through the border are caught by the border gaurd.

Fact: Most guns used in crime are not legally possessed, and smuggled in from the United States.

You throw all these "facts" without anything to back it up. How many guns were legally shipped from the US but were later stolen from citizens or gun shops?

Here are the main provisions in the gun control act meant to keep Canadians safe:

-Magazines pinned to 5 rounds

You should be absolutely certain before ever pulling the trigger at anything - especially if it is an intruder. If you can't hit him in 5 rounds he's either already long gone and you've blasted a bunch of holes in your walls or you've managed to kill a neighbor or family member in the process.

How is this not a reasonable limitation? How is this delving into the area of "crazy"?

-Pistols with barrels shorter then 4 inches are illegal or "prohibited weapons"

This is physics at play, really - shorter barrel = less accuracy. Now we're back to missing the intruder and holes in your walls.

-AR-15's, short barrelled rifles and Pistols are restricted weapons which require an ATT to transport; and you can only transport it from the range and back to your house. Restricted weapons can only be shot legally at a range.

Unless you are mounting a war effort, there is no feasible use for some of those guns beyond collecting or firing at the range. It seems like a no brainer to me that the law will restrict use to firing ranges rather then letting you go hog wild with high powered weapons in the woods.

If I recall from my hunter education course (which was required if you wanted to get a hunting license as a teenager in the state I grew up in), a bullet from a .22 could travel over a 2km. It wont be accurate, but imagine a higher powered bullet being fired hap haphazardly during hunting season.

-If you use a Firearm in defense of your own life, even in your own house; You can, and some instances will be charged with agravated murder with a firearm.

It depends on the law of where you live. Even in the United States in some places they have a requirement that you try to escape before using deadly force (like shooting an attacker). I mere threat of violence is not enough to justify killing a person. Your self defense must be proportional to the threat you face - if an attacker is just pushing you or punching you, it does not mean you can kill him in almost any jurisdiction. Even if you are in imminent life-threatening danger - and in some places you have to try to get away.

For example - many people think that you can shoot any aggressor if they are on your property and being violent - but in some places you would effectively have to be backed against the wall before you can use deadly force - you would have to try to close the door and keep the guy away.

-All firearms are to be registered

This goes to the fears of smuggled guns or stolen guns - if your gun is registered and you keep track of it - you would know right then if it is stolen. It also goes towards making sure people are educated. The registration process may have you get lectured by whoever is handing out registrations about how important it is to keep your weapons safe.

-The RCMP can choose to make firearms restricted, or prohibited based on policy

This does appear to be a little off the wall in my opinion. The police agency really shouldn't have free reign over what it deems appropriate or not. It makes it difficult for citizens to make sure they are legal.

-A license must be obtained to register a firearm to you

I imagine this is to educate and make sure that you are actually fit to register firearms.

- When ever the Liberals are in power and Amnesty is not declareed; you can be charged even if you are trying to register your previously not registered firearm.

- You can be charged with unlawful firearm ownership if your license expires even by one day

You can be charged for driving with an expired license even if it is expired by one day.

The laws were created so arbitrarily, just for cheap votes. You know what? I agree with Licensing, its a damn good way of making sure we don't condone just selling guns to anyone. Problem is, most murderers get their guns illegally from the States. What can we do? Ammend the current laws is all.

What kind of amendments would you propose? Out of all of the things you've mentioned the only one that I could see as problematic is the RCMP being able to make policy on their own rather than deferring to the legislative bodies. And that doesn't exactly the problem about smuggled guns.

I think you are focusing on the wrong set of laws. Maybe you should look at smuggling laws and violent crime laws. As you have said above, if most gun incidents are accidents and suicides, how do these licensing and registration laws not address the problem? You say the problem is smuggling but the first facts you tell us are about how accidents are leading causes of injury. This makes no logical sense to your argument. Most accidents aren't with an illegal smuggled gun - it is by somebody who has legally purchased a firearm and does not properly maintain, uses it in a dangerous fashion or leaves it loaded and in reach of others.


¥ ♡ ¥ BBS, Review and Chat Mod - PM for help or to snitch! ¥ ♡ ¥

¥ ♡ ¥ Sig pic by Pingu ¥ ♡ ¥

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-03-20 20:05:53


At 3/20/11 03:46 PM, JoS wrote: A large portion of guns used by criminals were in fact at one point legally owned. Without serial numbers being registered there is no way to trace where a gun came from. So if your guns are stolen how do you get them back if they are recovered?

Thats not true, like I said, look at the study I quoted you. Most guns used in crimes are smuggled illegally into Canada. Not alot of crimes are used from Legal guns, also unfoutunately it is not hard to remove a serial number; and sadly the registration does not provide the police enough info to find the weapons.


Cars are registered, marriages are registered, births are registered, certain types of radios are registered, why not firearms. It is a useful tool for law enforcement. While the police chiefs have misrepresented the way it is beneficial, it none-the-less serves an important purpose.

Its 2 billion dollars, costs hundreds of millions a year that could be used for; I dunno healthcare? Thats a substantial ammount especially when it hasn't been shown to be used effectively once. Police will tell you that they must ALWAYS go to a call with the belief that there is a firearm.


Many people who own firearms are responsible owners, but many who are even responsible gun owners are at times careless. they dont lock up one of their guns after hunting because they are going to clean it tomorrow, transport it with rounds in it, or leave it behind the door to shoot critters, even when no one is home. When these guns are stolen, and then later recovered, how do you track them back to their owners without a paper trail?

When a gun is stolen and used in a crime it is kept as evidence and then destroyed with out compensation to the owner. Check the firearms act if you don't believe me. Someone can report their firearm stolen and give the serial numbers if they want without having to register it. All guns have serial numbers regardless.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-03-20 20:20:07


How does this help your argument? If anything, it could be used to show that lax regulation on personal gun ownership is not strict enough. If that many people don't know how to handle firearms and, then wouldn't the government want to keep track of where every gun is going and who has it? This "fact" could easily be used to impose mandatory gun training for anyone buying a new firearm.

How? The ammount of deaths is so insignificant compared to accidental deaths as a whole; especially when you take into account the ammount of firearm owners, with the ammount of firearms they have. There are just under 2 million registered firearm owners, and only 500 accidental deaths. Pretty good, especially when you look at the ratio of cars to people.

Again, how does this help your argument? What is stopping the government from saying "holy crap, all these suicides! We should ban gun sales to anyone with any mental health problems!"

Thats a strawman, I am not arguing against stopping people with mental health problems buying firearms.


Fact: only 1 in 20 guns smuggled through the border are caught by the border gaurd.

Fact: Most guns used in crime are not legally possessed, and smuggled in from the United States.
You throw all these "facts" without anything to back it up. How many guns were legally shipped from the US but were later stolen from citizens or gun shops?

Actually I gave you a study, and a link to it; which has peer reveiwed facts backed up by credible sources. Theft from gun stores us uncommon.


Here are the main provisions in the gun control act meant to keep Canadians safe:

-Magazines pinned to 5 rounds
You should be absolutely certain before ever pulling the trigger at anything - especially if it is an intruder. If you can't hit him in 5 rounds he's either already long gone and you've blasted a bunch of holes in your walls or you've managed to kill a neighbor or family member in the process.

When I am shooting on my own at targets, it is annoying as fuck to have to reload every 5 rounds. Thats like putting a 100 MPH limit on a sports car.


How is this not a reasonable limitation? How is this delving into the area of "crazy"?

-Pistols with barrels shorter then 4 inches are illegal or "prohibited weapons"
This is physics at play, really - shorter barrel = less accuracy. Now we're back to missing the intruder and holes in your walls.

Once again not the point; If I want a walther PPK to go to the range and shoot, why is that not legitimate? Thats an argument against banning that! Especially if it is less lethal like you pointed out.


-AR-15's, short barrelled rifles and Pistols are restricted weapons which require an ATT to transport; and you can only transport it from the range and back to your house. Restricted weapons can only be shot legally at a range.
Unless you are mounting a war effort, there is no feasible use for some of those guns beyond collecting or firing at the range. It seems like a no brainer to me that the law will restrict use to firing ranges rather then letting you go hog wild with high powered weapons in the woods.

If I want to go shooting in the bush; with 7.65 mm rounds (a minimum hunting round) The AR is no more lethal then any other semi automatic. Thats saying there is no use for semi automatics period.

If I recall from my hunter education course (which was required if you wanted to get a hunting license as a teenager in the state I grew up in), a bullet from a .22 could travel over a 2km. It wont be accurate, but imagine a higher powered bullet being fired hap haphazardly during hunting season.

Would not be any different then from a bolt action rifle; which are typically much more powerful then AR 15s. In fact .223 which is a common calibre for the platform is too small to hunt with. Thats why I would want a 7.65 which is available and perfect for hunting.


-If you use a Firearm in defense of your own life, even in your own house; You can, and some instances will be charged with agravated murder with a firearm.
It depends on the law of where you live. Even in the United States in some places they have a requirement that you try to escape before using deadly force (like shooting an attacker). I mere threat of violence is not enough to justify killing a person. Your self defense must be proportional to the threat you face - if an attacker is just pushing you or punching you, it does not mean you can kill him in almost any jurisdiction. Even if you are in imminent life-threatening danger - and in some places you have to try to get away.

We need not common law protection; but it to be recognized as a right to self defense. That way we can charge for people who over use force, but protect the people who use legitimate force.


For example - many people think that you can shoot any aggressor if they are on your property and being violent - but in some places you would effectively have to be backed against the wall before you can use deadly force - you would have to try to close the door and keep the guy away.

-All firearms are to be registered
This goes to the fears of smuggled guns or stolen guns - if your gun is registered and you keep track of it - you would know right then if it is stolen. It also goes towards making sure people are educated. The registration process may have you get lectured by whoever is handing out registrations about how important it is to keep your weapons safe.

If I lose my firearm, thats the equivilent of just telling my serial number which would be on my receipt anyhow.

-The RCMP can choose to make firearms restricted, or prohibited based on policy
This does appear to be a little off the wall in my opinion. The police agency really shouldn't have free reign over what it deems appropriate or not. It makes it difficult for citizens to make sure they are legal.

I thought it was a little commisonair esc myself, thanks for the concessioon :)


-A license must be obtained to register a firearm to you
I imagine this is to educate and make sure that you are actually fit to register firearms.

I actually agree with the licensing


- When ever the Liberals are in power and Amnesty is not declareed; you can be charged even if you are trying to register your previously not registered firearm.

- You can be charged with unlawful firearm ownership if your license expires even by one day
You can be charged for driving with an expired license even if it is expired by one day.

Not going to jail for being in ownership of a car; just if you drive it. Should it not be the same way with guns?


The laws were created so arbitrarily, just for cheap votes. You know what? I agree with Licensing, its a damn good way of making sure we don't condone just selling guns to anyone. Problem is, most murderers get their guns illegally from the States. What can we do? Ammend the current laws is all.

What kind of amendments would you propose? Out of all of the things you've mentioned the only one that I could see as problematic is the RCMP being able to make policy on their own rather than deferring to the legislative bodies. And that doesn't exactly the problem about smuggled guns.

You can see where I disagree


I think you are focusing on the wrong set of laws. Maybe you should look at smuggling laws and violent crime laws. As you have said above, if most gun incidents are accidents and suicides, how do these licensing and registration laws not address the problem? You say the problem is smuggling but the first facts you tell us are about how accidents are leading causes of injury. This makes no logical sense to your argument. Most accidents aren't with an illegal smuggled gun - it is by somebody who has legally purchased a firearm and does not properly maintain, uses it in a dangerous fashion or leaves it loaded and in reach of others.

Accidents are innate to anything with a flair of danger. Thats just my point. Read the study I had, its worth i

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-03-21 20:07:59


At 3/20/11 08:05 PM, NHT123 wrote: Thats not true, like I said, look at the study I quoted you. Most guns used in crimes are smuggled illegally into Canada. Not alot of crimes are used from Legal guns, also unfoutunately it is not hard to remove a serial number; and sadly the registration does not provide the police enough info to find the weapons.

Your study only makes reference to the long-gun registry and does not address the restricted firearms that are also registered. Additionally your paper is written by psychologist, Dr Gary Mauser. His area of study is marketing and is a member of the National Firearms Association, a fact he leaves out of his CV.


Its 2 billion dollars, costs hundreds of millions a year that could be used for; I dunno healthcare? Thats a substantial ammount especially when it hasn't been shown to be used effectively once. Police will tell you that they must ALWAYS go to a call with the belief that there is a firearm.

According to Dr Mauser, it costs $20 million a year, that is a far cry from hundreds of millions a year. Police will also tell you its good to know that there definitely are firearms in a house.

When a gun is stolen and used in a crime it is kept as evidence and then destroyed with out compensation to the owner. Check the firearms act if you don't believe me. Someone can report their firearm stolen and give the serial numbers if they want without having to register it. All guns have serial numbers regardless.

Please tell me what section of the Firearms Act you are referring to. Under the Criminal Code Sec 117(b) if a firearm is disposed of and it is found there were no grounds to not return it to the owner the owner must be compensated the value of the firearm. Also might I refer you to section 490(9) of the criminal code, which details the process of disposing of any seized items, including guns. It has to be returned to the lawful owner unless a Justice or judge orders it destroyed. Even if it is stolen a seized from the person who stole it, Section 490 clearly states it still must be returned to the lawful owner or a judge must order it destroyed.

And additionally not all firearms have serial numbers on them. They were not required until about 1968 and it is quite common for people to have guns without serial numbers. In this case they are given a FIN (Firearms Identification Number) which is affixed to the firearm for identification.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-03-22 02:51:03


Your study only makes reference to the long-gun registry and does not address the restricted firearms that are also registered. Additionally your paper is written by psychologist, Dr Gary Mauser. His area of study is marketing and is a member of the National Firearms Association, a fact he leaves out of his CV.

I'd like to point out a double standard, because I am sure if I had a quote from a psychology professer who was part of the coalition for gun control you indeed would agree as well. Look at the numbers for actual gun related crimes; it doesn't matter his area of study. My whole argument is the archaic nature of our firearm laws; self defense is a human right, do you not agree?


Its 2 billion dollars, costs hundreds of millions a year that could be used for; I dunno healthcare? Thats a substantial ammount especially when it hasn't been shown to be used effectively once. Police will tell you that they must ALWAYS go to a call with the belief that there is a firearm.
According to Dr Mauser, it costs $20 million a year, that is a far cry from hundreds of millions a year. Police will also tell you its good to know that there definitely are firearms in a house.

You have to look at the soaring costs; its already cost 2 billion, you did catch that red herring; but how would you spend 20 million a year? On something useful? The police will tell you that they must ALWAYS respond to call as if there is a firearm in the house.

When a gun is stolen and used in a crime it is kept as evidence and then destroyed with out compensation to the owner. Check the firearms act if you don't believe me. Someone can report their firearm stolen and give the serial numbers if they want without having to register it. All guns have serial numbers regardless.
Please tell me what section of the Firearms Act you are referring to. Under the Criminal Code Sec 117(b) if a firearm is disposed of and it is found there were no grounds to not return it to the owner the owner must be compensated the value of the firearm. Also might I refer you to section 490(9) of the criminal code, which details the process of disposing of any seized items, including guns. It has to be returned to the lawful owner unless a Justice or judge orders it destroyed. Even if it is stolen a seized from the person who stole it, Section 490 clearly states it still must be returned to the lawful owner or a judge must order it destroyed.

Please show me where you have to be compensated for it; i'd also like to point out another fallacy. How do you not know this is not a common practice? Unfourtunately the only way to show if it is a common practice to destroy said firearms would be to check the court cases of when this has happened.


And additionally not all firearms have serial numbers on them. They were not required until about 1968 and it is quite common for people to have guns without serial numbers. In this case they are given a FIN (Firearms Identification Number) which is affixed to the firearm for identification.

If they do not have serial numbers; (like my buddies cooie 22) then how in the hell are you going to identify it in the first place? You are mistaken, for instance my freind registered it, as part as cumpulsery. The only identification he has for it is his registration, there is no FIN number attached. I don't think you understand how easily a determined criminal can file these things off, but a serial number is your best bet of getting it returned. Why do you need to register it for that? That point is moot, if the criminal could legally own it; he'd use his own weapon. Most likely he would not have a license to begin with, or be legally able to have one, so why on earth would he?

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-03-22 22:29:30


At 3/22/11 02:51 AM, NHT123 wrote: I'd like to point out a double standard, because I am sure if I had a quote from a psychology professer who was part of the coalition for gun control you indeed would agree as well. Look at the numbers for actual gun related crimes; it doesn't matter his area of study. My whole argument is the archaic nature of our firearm laws; self defense is a human right, do you not agree?

I am merely pointing out the bias in his perspective and that why does he leave his association off his CV. It is the same as when a researcher tries to hide their relationship with tobacco companies, or oil, or whatever they are studying.

According to Dr Mauser, it costs $20 million a year, that is a far cry from hundreds of millions a year. Police will also tell you its good to know that there definitely are firearms in a house.
You have to look at the soaring costs; its already cost 2 billion, you did catch that red herring; but how would you spend 20 million a year? On something useful? The police will tell you that they must ALWAYS respond to call as if there is a firearm in the house.

This is $2 billion over 15 years. And according to a law enforcement survey, 74% of police officers found the CFRO beneficial during major operations and 69% said it influenced how they responded to calls. Now unless you are a police officer or have been through police academy, what do you base your assumption on?


Please show me where you have to be compensated for it; i'd also like to point out another fallacy. How do you not know this is not a common practice? Unfourtunately the only way to show if it is a common practice to destroy said firearms would be to check the court cases of when this has happened.

117. Where the competent authority that makes a prohibition order or that would have had jurisdiction to make the order is, on application for an order under this section, satisfied that a person, other than the person against whom a prohibition order was or will be made, (a) is the owner of any thing that is or may be forfeited to Her Majesty under subsection 115(1) and is lawfully entitled to possess it, and (b) in the case of a prohibition order under subsection 109(1) or 110(1), had no reasonable grounds to believe that the thing would or might be used in the commission of the offence in respect of which the prohibition order was made, the competent authority shall order that the thing be returned to the owner or the proceeds of any sale of the thing be paid to that owner or, if the thing was destroyed, that an amount equal to the value of the thing be paid to the owner.

And you are being very lazy here. You are saying my point cannot be proven because we would have to check every court case to see if police just destroy the guns. I have shown you the law where it states that unless the judge orders it destroyed the police must return it. It is now up to you to either back up your statement or withdraw it.


If they do not have serial numbers; (like my buddies cooie 22) then how in the hell are you going to identify it in the first place? You are mistaken, for instance my freind registered it, as part as cumpulsery. The only identification he has for it is his registration, there is no FIN number attached.

I would check again with your buddy, because to be registered a firearm has to have a unique identifier, either a serial number or a FIN attached to the receiver. The receiver is the portion of a gun that is considered to be the firearm.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-03-22 22:30:11



Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-03 06:30:59


Main problem with registering guns is that career criminals never do so. The registered guns are from law-abiding individuals. The ones who don't use their guns to commit crimes. And, unlike registering a motor vehicle, you don't have to worry about the cops knocking on your door to come claim your car. That's happened with guns, far too often to count; in America.

I knew an elderly gentleman who purchased an SKS. He owned it for several years, never commited a crime with it. It was properly registered. One day, he got that knock on the door. Turns out, the gun-control laws in his state changed. (And not for the better.) His SKS surplus rifle was now declared to be an "assault weapon." Law-enforcement used the registration rolls of gun owners to see who owned SKS rifles. It was extremely easy for them to confiscate the rifles from their legal owners, without any monetary compensation by the way.

The amount of crime that was reduced? Zero. Why? All the guns that were declared to be illegal were in the hands of responsible, decent, law-abiding gun owners. All of whom never used their rifles to commit a single crime in all the years that the weapons were legal to own. All the weapons in the hands of career criminals? . . . Well, since none of those were registered; the police couldn't simply look up wich violent criminals owned the guys, and then go knocking on THEIR doors.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-03 11:48:49


At 4/3/11 06:30 AM, Monocrom wrote: The amount of crime that was reduced? Zero. Why? All the guns that were declared to be illegal were in the hands of responsible, decent, law-abiding gun owners. All of whom never used their rifles to commit a single crime in all the years that the weapons were legal to own. All the weapons in the hands of career criminals? . . . Well, since none of those were registered; the police couldn't simply look up wich violent criminals owned the guys, and then go knocking on THEIR doors.

This statement is based on the clearly erroneous assumption that people never use legally obtained weapons to commit crimes.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-03 14:00:12


It is a fallacy that registered guns are never used in crimes. Many cases they actually are. Not all homicides are gang bangers, many are fits of passion with registered guns. Not just career criminals commit domestic assaults, not just career criminals snap.

In Canada those who owned certain weapons that are now prohibited before the law changed are grandfathered in, meaning they are still legally allowed to own them. So your reference to the old lady with an SKS rifle does not apply to Canadian law.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-04 01:52:54


At 4/3/11 02:00 PM, JoS wrote: It is a fallacy that registered guns are never used in crimes. Many cases they actually are. Not all homicides are gang bangers, many are fits of passion with registered guns. Not just career criminals commit domestic assaults, not just career criminals snap.

Yea, but in cases of passion, registered guns never help. If a dude murders his wife and the police find him covered in her blood, that's what matters...not the registry. Most people who snap don't have the foresight to cover their tracks. These steps do little...if anything to prevent crimes of passion.


In Canada those who owned certain weapons that are now prohibited before the law changed are grandfathered in, meaning they are still legally allowed to own them. So your reference to the old lady with an SKS rifle does not apply to Canadian law.

Which, in and of itself, means the law is foolish. If these weapons are a danger, they need to be removed. If there is a grandfather clause...the law sucks.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-04 03:18:53


At 4/3/11 11:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/3/11 06:30 AM, Monocrom wrote: The amount of crime that was reduced? Zero. Why? All the guns that were declared to be illegal were in the hands of responsible, decent, law-abiding gun owners. All of whom never used their rifles to commit a single crime in all the years that the weapons were legal to own. All the weapons in the hands of career criminals? . . . Well, since none of those were registered; the police couldn't simply look up wich violent criminals owned the guys, and then go knocking on THEIR doors.
This statement is based on the clearly erroneous assumption that people never use legally obtained weapons to commit crimes.

Erroneous because you say so? Clearly you missed the point about mentality being the main driving force. The guns confiscated in the above example were indeed taken from gun owners who had clean criminal records. THEIR guns were indeed never used to commit a single crime.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-04 03:30:09


At 4/3/11 02:00 PM, JoS wrote: It is a fallacy that registered guns are never used in crimes. Many cases they actually are. Not all homicides are gang bangers, many are fits of passion with registered guns. Not just career criminals commit domestic assaults, not just career criminals snap.

You're forgetting that a fit of passion is just that. Do you honestly believe that a spouse who experiences that type of rage is going to stop or instantly calm down if there isn't a gun in the house? Or, are they more likely to grab something else if filled with murderous rage? Not a house in America or Canada that doesn't have (at minimum) 1 or 2 good, long, stout, kitchen knives. No guns won't stop a person truly in a rage over catching the love of their life messing around.

It is a ridiculous myth that guns by themselves influence behavior, or make a situation worse just by being around. I've heard everything from "Crime of Passion," to "If everyone is armed and a person drops a tray onto a fast-food floor, then someone's going to start shooting!" My personal favorite is the one about reducing suicides among police officers who get depressed . . . "If they didn't have a gun, they wouldn't commit suicide after a bad day." Wonder how that works. Disarm police officers at the end of their shift? What about guys they locked away who are out now, and want revenge?

If gun owners in America were trigger-happy, border-line unstable, wackos; the 2nd Amendment would have gotten repealed long ago.

Also, I realize my other post had nothing to do with Canada. It was an example of why there is a HUGE difference regarding registration of cars vs. registration of firearms.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-04 13:21:17


Here is another example of when a gun registry is useful. A law abiding gun owner who registers his guns becomes depressed and threatens to kill himself. Men statistically are most likely to use a gun to kill themself. Police know exactly how many guns he has so they can seize them for safekeeping.

And like I said before the registry can help trace a recovered stolen gun. To think without a registry people will keep track of serial numbers is ridiculous. My friend told me about a case where police were investigating a bunch of break ins at expensive cottages and 17 large LCD TVs were stolen, and only 4 the owners had their serial numbers, and most of them got it from the store after the fact.

I was thinking about this the other day, is most people;s aversion to the registry really based on the fact they don't want to be bothered with having to register the guns, or the cost, rather than the privacy arguments? Cars are registered, voters are registered, land is registered, snowmobiles are registered and no one seems to have a problem with this, so why do people have problems with guns being registered?


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-04 14:04:26


At 4/4/11 01:21 PM, JoS wrote: Cars are registered, voters are registered, land is registered, snowmobiles are registered and no one seems to have a problem with this, so why do people have problems with guns being registered?

;;;
I have a real fucking problem with car registration !
My problem isn't with registering it, my problem is in 2 years I got to register it again, in 2 years again, & again & again WHY ? ? ?
I haven't moved.
My address & the vehicle is the same, they don't give me a new license plate so why do I have to spend $195.00 to register my truck again ? It is already registered ,So what is actually happening is it is an UNFAIR TAX.
Now if I moved or sold the vehicle, I can see being charged a fee for all the paperwork etc. But to have nothing change & still be charged to 'register' a registered car is an unfair tax.
Same thing with guns.
I jump through all the stupidity to finally be allowed to posses my own guns, & they change the rules & I have to go through the whole fucked up money grabbing process again.
With the present system, after you are legal, every couple of years they make you come in & re-register all your guns ???
WHY ?
What am I registering an already registered gun for ? It makes no sense, unless you realise it is another form of taxation.

In Canada ,in Nova Scotia where I live we are seeing a steady increase of gun crime especially hand gun crime, we have very few places that sell hand guns, we have had no places that sell handguns in this area robbed in years, yet illegal handguns are a growing problem.
None of the criminals caught yet, have been caught with a registered gun.
IF they are out with nonregistered guns, exactly how is registering guns helping that ?
How is reregistering the same gun owned legally by the same gun owner helping ?
It isn't & you would have to have the IQ of a raw peanut to see a logical answer that it is helping.

I have no problem with having a process in place to register firearms. I never did when I was carrying a FAC (firearms acquisition certificate) & I have no problem with registering my firearms except, I will have to pay to register them over & over & over. Plus when (not if when) the governemtn takes away some more of our rights & freedoms, they will make a gun illegal & you have to turn it over & no matter what rule you quote, saying the pigs will... NO ONE GETS REIMBURSED FOR IT ...NO ONE .

When I register my land , I do not have to re register again & again & again , the same should be true for everything else you register. You've gone through the process & that's it. If you sell it, let the new owner reregister it & pay a fee.
That makes sense, but you can't make money ripping people off once in a while you need to stick it to them every year or 2 & then you've got an ever increasing revenue stream...& that is my & many other Canadians problem with the gun registry.
It doesn't work.
It penalizes responsible gun owners.
It is outrageously expensive at over 2 Billion dollars & climbing in a country with less than 40 million people & most rural people have not registered their guns.
Plus they're not likely to because we are taxed nearly to death now, anyone with half a brain knows better than to volunter to pay yet another tax !
Workers here pay 20% or more in taxes off of their paycheck before you get it.
Then with what you receive everything you buy has a 15% tax on it, the so called H.S.T..
unless its gas & that has a Federal 23 cents a liter (92cents a gallon) & a Provincial 12 to 15 cent tax on it per liter (another 58 cents a gallon approx) & then when you buy the gas you get a 15% HST added to the total...including the tax es mentioned so you are paying tax on a tax being taxed again !

Every Canaidain I know uses the barter system. when they can.
Eveyone I know does what we call , 'under the table' or 'off the books' work. I want a load of gravel & I pay cahs, no tax. I need a truck to haul firewood or gravel & top soil hame, pay cahs no tax.
The governemtn here is launching ads campaigns to try to stop this , they are auditing peole more & more in an attempt to catch people & they continue to increase so called "registration fees" AKA TAX, & people even the most law abiding are shopping at so called farmers markets, road side stands, pick up trucks selling fish, meat, produce , pies, clothes you name it.
I live here, I am looking at where I can live when I get ready to retire, it sure as fuck won't be here...I cannot afford the taxes & I make between 27.00 to 40 dollars an hour, depending on whether I'm rigging or crane op /hot head tech !
There is nothing fair about what the governement here is doing, they are hurting the country they are keeping people in debt the tax rate is so high when you look at all the compounded tax on tax on tax for every fucking thing..except for a couple of items like glasses to see with. raw food although its price is increasing because of the huge fuel taxes.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-04 15:37:26


I don't understand how a Martini-Henry repeater is not classed as a firearm? Could you explain, or am I reading the picture wrong?


MrPercie on Dromedary: "smug santa claus face, bringing nicieties to those he likes but shite to those he hates - which is everyone"

Sig by this dude

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-04 16:43:35


At 4/4/11 02:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I hatez teh guvermint!

What does any of that have to do with the fact that a large portion of gun crimes are used with registered guns in the hands of their owner? Sure, there will always be an element that gets guns illegally, not much can stop that. However for the majority of crimes where a husband kills his wife, or a friend kills their lover, or a coworker kills another cowoker, the guns used are their own and fully registered. This registration does help track guns back to owners and solve crimes. If it did not, there would be no reason to check it, yet this is on eof the first things done in an investigation invilvong gun violence.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-05 04:36:02


At 4/4/11 01:21 PM, JoS wrote: Here is another example of when a gun registry is useful. A law abiding gun owner who registers his guns becomes depressed and threatens to kill himself. Men statistically are most likely to use a gun to kill themself. Police know exactly how many guns he has so they can seize them for safekeeping.

Well, that's a rather dumb argument. If the man is so believable that the police intervene...then he needs to be committed. Simply taking his guns is useless. He can stab himself, shoot himself with an unregistered or friend's gun, hang himself, drown himself, walk in front of a bus....the options are endless.

Taking a guys guns to keep him from killing himself is like seizing a guy's twinkies to make him lose weight. It makes little sense when you put more than 5 seconds thought into it.


And like I said before the registry can help trace a recovered stolen gun. To think without a registry people will keep track of serial numbers is ridiculous. My friend told me about a case where police were investigating a bunch of break ins at expensive cottages and 17 large LCD TVs were stolen, and only 4 the owners had their serial numbers, and most of them got it from the store after the fact.

Of course, the first thing gun thieves do after a theft is to remove the serial numbers. Considering no guns are made without them, and most guns recovered from crimes have no serial numbers....hmm....

This too is mushy thinking.


I was thinking about this the other day, is most people;s aversion to the registry really based on the fact they don't want to be bothered with having to register the guns, or the cost, rather than the privacy arguments? Cars are registered, voters are registered, land is registered, snowmobiles are registered and no one seems to have a problem with this, so why do people have problems with guns being registered?

Yet, the question should be: Is there a valid reason to register snowmobiles. Not to use snowmobiles to justify another registration.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-05 04:43:52


YOu may not register your land every year, but you do pay property tax on it every year, also currently there is no fee for registering a firearm. So whats your excuse now, its free?


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-05 04:47:03


At 4/4/11 01:21 PM, JoS wrote: Here is another example of when a gun registry is useful. A law abiding gun owner who registers his guns becomes depressed and threatens to kill himself. Men statistically are most likely to use a gun to kill themself. Police know exactly how many guns he has so they can seize them for safekeeping.

Now see, there's the very thing that I mean regarding mentality.

Just as with crimes of passion, it's an issue with mentality. An enraged husband, or wife, or even gay lover is not going to simply stop being enraged because there are no guns in the house for them to reach for. They'll reach for a butcher's knife, or a baseball bat, or simply use their fists, or strangle their lover with their bare hands until the very life drains out of them.

With someone threatening suicide, it doesn't matter if the person owns a gun or not. No guns simply means they'll use a different method. Slit their wrists in the tub. Down an entire bottle of sleeping pills. Okay, granted those are methods women would normally use. But a despondant dude still has options. Jumping from a tall building, walking out into traffic, getting in his car and driving over 100 mph before intentionally crashing into a pole, etc.

Crimes of passion or suicide . . . Simply taking away a specific inanimate object out of the equation is not going to change a person's mentality or mental state at that exact moment. As for the police, they're not just going to show up, remove all the registered guns from the home of a person threatening suicide, and then call it a night as they head out the door. They're going to take him into protective custody because they know that you don't leave a despondant person in the home. They know that person is still suicidal. Even if they have all of his registered guns . . . He's still going to try to kill himself. Removing those inanimate objects isn't going to change his mentality.

As for tracking down stolen guns, that happens in a small percentage of cases. Many gun owners are indeed very responsible individuals. They don't want a violent criminal possibly getting their hands on one of their firearms. So, they secure them properly. There are giant, heavy, gun vaults for those with medium to large collections. And there are gun safes that are smaller but still very secure since they bolt into the floor. These are often just large enough to contain 2 medium-sized handguns, or one handgun and a box of ammunition. They only open by a special sequence that must be punched in by the safe's owner. Thankfully, in an emergency, the owner can unlock the safe in seconds. A thief would have to cut out part of the floor, and then take the vault or safe with him. Not likely since the homeowner can come home at any time. The real pros spend less than 5 minutes in a house they've broken into. I know a lot of gun owners. They don't have criminal records, and all of them lock up their guns.

Time and again, registration of firearms has lead to one thing; confiscation.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-05 05:15:26


At 4/5/11 04:43 AM, JoS wrote: YOu may not register your land every year, but you do pay property tax on it every year, also currently there is no fee for registering a firearm. So whats your excuse now, its free?

Again, that's not relevant. Because there is no yearly tax on owning a gun it is ok?

What if paying yearly tax on property is bad?

Non sequiter.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-05 11:29:31


At 4/5/11 09:23 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Maybe JoS could spell out a very specific situation where a registry would act as a helpful tool instead of a crutch for lazy law enforcement?

Unsolved murder. Gun found year later in dumpster. Ballistics match. Gun traced via registration to husband of victim. Prosecution now has evidence to convict husband, where none may have existed before.

I think Canada should make a law saying all guns used in a criminal manner is criminal. That would solve the same amount of problems a registry would.

Not really.

And microstamping cartridge casings. That's another foolproof idea that wouldn't incarcerate any truly innocent people based on flawed science fact.

How would registering incarcerate an innocent person more than anything else would?

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-05 13:56:58


At 4/5/11 12:22 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
At 4/5/11 11:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/5/11 09:23 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Maybe JoS could spell out a very specific situation where a registry would act as a helpful tool instead of a crutch for lazy law enforcement?
Unsolved murder. Gun found year later in dumpster. Ballistics match. Gun traced via registration to husband of victim. Prosecution now has evidence to convict husband, where none may have existed before.
Okay, now same scenario, gun is registered to friend of the husband. Does the registration convict the owner, or the husband, or both? Why?

No but it does give the police a place to start.

Police recover a gun from a person who is not supposed to have one (no licence, prohibited, whatever) but he refuses to tell where the gun came from. Turns out the gun is registered to another individual, who has neither reported it stolen, missing or sold. Police now have someone to look at for weapons trafficking. Perhaps this is not the first time they have sold off their guns like that. These people are sometimes refereed to as straw purchasers.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-05 13:58:55


I'm no gun enthusiast, so pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't controlling ammunition be a better idea? I don't know of any killer who would look around for the bullet casings or the actual bullets.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-06 05:01:47


At 4/5/11 11:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Unsolved murder. Gun found year later in dumpster. Ballistics match. Gun traced via registration to husband of victim. Prosecution now has evidence to convict husband, where none may have existed before.

Oh be real. A gun is found in a dumpster a year after a crime and is run against a year old murder? What are the real odds of that?

What happens if there are other prints on the weapon? Goodness this is silly.

How would registering incarcerate an innocent person more than anything else would?

Because the automatic assumption is...if this person's gun killed this other person...the owner is responsible. There's simply no other way to pretend that a registry helps.


It is a shame that the government breaks the law more than the criminals it punishes.

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-06 12:06:10


At 4/4/11 04:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 4/4/11 02:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I hatez teh guvermint!
What does any of that have to do with the fact that a large portion of gun crimes are used with registered guns in the hands of their owner?

;;;
I was talking Canada.
Get your facts str8, then reply please.
Less than half of the murders in Canada are commited with firearms.
See chart #4
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/20 08002/article/10518-eng.htm


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-06 12:12:10


At 4/5/11 04:43 AM, JoS wrote: YOu may not register your land every year, but you do pay property tax on it every year, also currently there is no fee for registering a firearm. So whats your excuse now, its free?

;;;
Paying taxes insures my garbage gets picked up. My street gets plowed. Road work etc gets done. Registering my firearm does nothing .
Nothing at all.

As for no cost...you obviously haven't done your research.
http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/crimi nal/242.aspx

A $60 dollar or $80 dollar fee every 5 years ,doesn't sound 'free' to me.
But to some people 80 dollars is chump change.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Response to Canadian Gun Control 2011-04-06 12:19:32


One other link to deaths in Canada & US comparisons
http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Wo rks/gangsandguns.pdf


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More