The Continuing Saga Of Canuckistani Gun Control Part 2

[JointStrikeFighter]

so, what's the point of a registry? No registry has solved a significant number of crimes. Certainly not compared to just using the money to hire more officers would have.

Except for the Australian gun registry.

[Ryan Thunder]

Only if you think its job is to waste an amount of money best described using the term "billions". I'm sure there was a better use for the money than to fail to solve crimes.

Ah, yeah, you're either as stupid as I thought or no less dishonest than I expected.

Let's see how much hand holding you need to figure it out on your own; What happens when you know you're going to get caught doing something a certain way?

[Ryan Thunder]

Hilarious? A gun law was proposed with the promise it would never be used towards confiscation. Why was this promised? Because the people who wanted to pass the law did not have sufficient votes to get through. So they needed support from the gun owners.

And then after the law is passed, the list is used in direct opposition to what was promised and is used to confiscate weapons from the very people they relied on to get the law passed.

Hilarious because you're still tilting at windmills and the results would have been the same unless somebody decided to break the law and refuse to turn in their guns.

Guess what, genius; the registry wasn't the problem, even if it was used incorrectly. Which is why it was a stupid/dishonest requirement that they not be allowed to use it to confiscate weapons.

[Aaron MkII]

Yes if the purpose was to maintain a list of names, then it worked. Unfortunately it was extremely expensive, 2 billion, compliance is low (witness the long running amnesty), info is inaccurate (transfers often don't get recorded properly) and it pissed a lot of people off.

Even my mother who hates firearms thinks it was a waste. It certainly turned people off the Liberals who might otherwise have supported them.

[Aaron MkII]

So really the question we should ask is whether the benefits of the lgr outweigh the drawbacks?

I don't think they do, but mileage varies.

[Ryan Thunder]

Unfortunately it was extremely expensive, 2 billion

What on Earth did they spend 2 billion dollars on? That's thousands of dollars per firearm. It can't possibly cost that much legitimately, so where did it all go?

compliance is low (witness the long running amnesty),

Because some people who own guns cling to them like security blankets. I have no idea why.

info is inaccurate (transfers often don't get recorded properly)

The question is 'why'.

And if the answer isn't anything more substantial than "because people didn't like the ebul guberment tracking their gunz", we should continue to do it out of spite.

"It's a goddamned pain in the ass" is reason enough.

and it pissed a lot of people off.

Even my mother who hates firearms thinks it was a waste. It certainly turned people off the Liberals who might otherwise have supported them.

The Conservative propaganda machine is surprisingly effective, don't you think?

[MKSheppard]

Ontario requires stores to record ammunition sales because some guy shot a cop in 94.

We used to have that nationwide in the US. It passed in the 1960s as part of a wave of gun control legislation back then, and it wasn't repealed until 1986.

[Zed Snardbody]

Ontario requires stores to record ammunition sales because some guy shot a cop in 94.

We used to have that nationwide in the US. It passed in the 1960s as part of a wave of gun control legislation back then, and it wasn't repealed until 1986.

I believe California just started doing it again.

[Aaron MkII]

What on Earth did they spend 2 billion dollars on? That's thousands of dollars per firearm. It can't possibly cost that much legitimately, so where did it all go?

That's a question I have no answer for, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Because some people who own guns cling to them like security blankets. I have no idea why.

Well we did pay for them after all.

The question is 'why'.

And if the answer isn't anything more substantial than "because people didn't like the ebul guberment tracking their gunz", we should continue to do it out of spite.

"It's a goddamned pain in the ass" is reason enough.

It's not that man. The transfers are done via computer or over the phone at time of sale, or over the phone when you sell them. Someone has to record the transfer and swap things in the system. People have had guns registered to them they never owned, or have sold them and the transfers were never recorded. I keep my paperwork and call the CFC for a list of whats in my name so I don't end up in a cell because someone arsed up.

But I don't think that any of the reasons you listed are good reasons to do a thing, alienating people is not a good basis for setting policy or laws.

The Conservative propaganda machine is surprisingly effective, don't you think?

No, it dates from before that. Lots of long time owners view the firearms act (of which the lgr is just a part) as a betrayal and that it set a group traditionally disposed to supporting the government and law enforcement against each other.

[Aaron MkII]

Ontario requires stores to record ammunition sales because some guy shot a cop in 94.

We used to have that nationwide in the US. It passed in the 1960s as part of a wave of gun control legislation back then, and it wasn't repealed until 1986.

Yeah? I don't think it's accomplished anything, one local guy said the CFO doesn't even bother to check his and he usually doesn't bother to record my address, just my license number. Wal*Mart doesn't even bother half the time.

[Zed Snardbody]

Does Canada restrict what kind of ammunition you can buy or own?

[Aaron MkII]

As far as I know ammo designed to penetrate body armour is illegal as are incendiaries. Explosive rounds are a no-go as well so while I can legally own a 40/37mm launcher I'm restricted to flares and stuff.

[Ryan Thunder]

Well we did pay for them after all.

It goes well beyond the level of clinginess I'd associate with 'mere' ownership.

It's not that man. The transfers are done via computer or over the phone at time of sale, or over the phone when you sell them. Someone has to record the transfer and swap things in the system. People have had guns registered to them they never owned, or have sold them and the transfers were never recorded. I keep my paperwork and call the CFC for a list of whats in my name so I don't end up in a cell because someone arsed up.

Well, I can agree; that's a totally unacceptable level of unreliability.

No, it dates from before that. Lots of long time owners view the firearms act (of which the lgr is just a part) as a betrayal and that it set a group traditionally disposed to supporting the government and law enforcement against each other.

I don't understand why they would feel that way.

As far as I know ammo designed to penetrate body armour is illegal as are incendiaries. Explosive rounds are a no-go as well so while I can legally own a 40/37mm launcher I'm restricted to flares and stuff.

Well, can you get beehive cartridges for it? You could shred outhouses for target practice. It'd be awesome.

[Aaron MkII]

It goes well beyond the level of clinginess I'd associate with 'mere' ownership.

I'm not so sure, I have thousands of dollars invested in my hobby. That's a lot of money to flush.

Well, I can agree; that's a totally unacceptable level of unreliability.

It's pretty much the saga of the lgr.

I don't understand why they would feel that way.

Prior to the FAC system, you could own whatever you wanted. After the FAC, you had to have a background check and they started looking more closely at what we could own.

Under the current system, guns were arbitrarily classified according to appearance, calibre and length. They system allows for whole scale confiscation, or reclassification via an Order in Council (sorry, i forgot about that before) and it's all aimed at owners. None of it affects criminal elements but one of the reasons given was to crack down on crime, even though gun crime had been declining since 1973 IIRC.

It gave the feeling that we were being persecuted for the actions of a lone nut, hence the "Marc Lepine Memorial" crack I made earlier. Throw in the general level of ignorance with the police not knowing whats classified as what...well, I think you can get the idea.

Well, can you get beehive cartridges for it? You could shred outhouses for target practice. It'd be awesome.

I'm not sure actually, I haven't looked to closely at them because it's money with basically no utility but guys do reload them so it wouldn't be hard to make your own.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Ryan, would you mind answering my question?

How do you figure?

[Ryan Thunder]

Ryan, would you mind answering my question?

How do you figure?

Sorry about that, I figured we'd get to it soon enough with Beowulf. My bad.

Anyway, the point of a registry isn't really so much to solve crimes committed with guns as to make sure that its harder to get guns that you could commit crimes with--since the ones you buy legally are all registered and stuff, so using them for a crime would just be stupid.

[Ryan Thunder]

I'm not so sure, I have thousands of dollars invested in my hobby. That's a lot of money to flush.

I guess it depends on whether you're fairly compensated or not, then. But some people wouldn't even accept that.

Of course, I'm working under the assumption that if something is confiscated its because its more dangerous than its entertainment value or general utility is worth in some way. I guess that's kind of idealistic of me.

I don't understand why they would feel that way.

Under the current system, guns were arbitrarily classified according to appearance, calibre and length.

Yeah, I don't really get that either. They ban guns by name rather than capability, or by arbitrary characteristics that don't really have anything to do with capability. I can understand why owners would be fed up with that by now. Even I think its silly.

They system allows for whole scale confiscation, or reclassification via an Order in Council (sorry, i forgot about that before) and it's all aimed at owners. None of it affects criminal elements but one of the reasons given was to crack down on crime, even though gun crime had been declining since 1973 IIRC.

If you don't at least get compensated for a reclassification that affects you, I can understand why you'd feel persecuted. It would imply that you should've known better somehow, when you presumably bought the gun in good faith.

What do you mean when you say 'it's all aimed at owners'?

Well, can you get beehive cartridges for it? You could shred outhouses for target practice. It'd be awesome.

I'm not sure actually, I haven't looked to closely at them because it's money with basically no utility but guys do reload them so it wouldn't be hard to make your own.

My friend told me about some reuseable ones he found in a catalogue. I can't recall where that was at the moment, but I could ask him for you if you're curious.

[SCRawl]

IIRC, one of the purposes of the registry was to allow law enforcement officers to undertake operations in possession of the facts about suspects. For example, if they were to arrest a person at his home, and they found out that he had a cache of (for example) rifles in his house, then they can take some precautions. There was just such an occurrence a few years ago, before the registry, in which some RCMP officers were killed.

Of course, anyone can have illegal weapons at any time, whether or not the registry is in force, so in this sense having one would not prevent all unexpected complications due to firearms. But it was liked by a large number of police agencies; indeed, in Quebec the police have sued to keep the data from it.

[Aaron MkII]

I'm not so sure, I have thousands of dollars invested in my hobby. That's a lot of money to flush.

I guess it depends on whether you're fairly compensated or not, then. But some people wouldn't even accept that.

Of course, I'm working under the assumption that if something is confiscated its because its more dangerous than its entertainment value or general utility is worth in some way. I guess that's kind of idealistic of me.

Theres always people like that.

Yeah, I don't really get that either. They ban guns by name rather than capability, or by arbitrary characteristics that don't really have anything to do with capability. I can understand why owners would be fed up with that by now. Even I think its silly.

Agreed.

If you don't at least get compensated for a reclassification that affects you, I can understand why you'd feel persecuted. It would imply that you should've known better somehow, when you presumably bought the gun in good faith.

What do you mean when you say 'it's all aimed at owners'?

Exactly that, the Firearms Act is almost excursively aimed at regulating licensed individuals. If the penalties weren't all criminal in nature it might have gone over better.

My friend told me about some reuseable ones he found in a catalogue. I can't recall where that was at the moment, but I could ask him for you if you're curious.

Oh! Please do, I'd appreciate that.

IIRC, one of the purposes of the registry was to allow law enforcement officers to undertake operations in possession of the facts about suspects. For example, if they were to arrest a person at his home, and they found out that he had a cache of (for example) rifles in his house, then they can take some precautions. There was just such an occurrence a few years ago, before the registry, in which some RCMP officers were killed.

Of course, anyone can have illegal weapons at any time, whether or not the registry is in force, so in this sense having one would not prevent all unexpected complications due to firearms. But it was liked by a large number of police agencies; indeed, in Quebec the police have sued to keep the data from it.

Personally I wish they had never tied it to the cars computer, it breeds complacency and in fact has lead to the death of at least one officer. They should assume a firearm is present at any call, because even if the registry lists something, they could have borrowed one, they could have ones that aren't subject to it. I have a flintlock that isn't required to be registered, yet it will allow me to kill at least one individual as they come through the door just as well as my Remington 870

[Alyeska]

Hilarious because you're still tilting at windmills and the results would have been the same unless somebody decided to break the law and refuse to turn in their guns.

Guess what, genius; the registry wasn't the problem, even if it was used incorrectly. Which is why it was a stupid/dishonest requirement that they not be allowed to use it to confiscate weapons.

The registry was used to create justification to seize the weapons in the first place. Its a hell of a lot easier to say "we need to ban guns, here's the list that proves it!".

And it gets better. Have you heard of Ex post facto? Making something that was legal illegal and making it a crime to even own something that was legal. So you are stripping property from people. Many of these bans have actually been ruled as Unconstitutional by the courts. The problem is the registry allows the police to seize the weapon. And seized weapons are destroyed. So even if the courts vindicate that the ban was illegal, the registry was used in a manner that caused the destruction of private property. And you can't un-destroy something that was melted in a blasting furnace.

[Aaron MkII]

Hilarious because you're still tilting at windmills and the results would have been the same unless somebody decided to break the law and refuse to turn in their guns.

Guess what, genius; the registry wasn't the problem, even if it was used incorrectly. Which is why it was a stupid/dishonest requirement that they not be allowed to use it to confiscate weapons.

The registry was used to create justification to seize the weapons in the first place. Its a hell of a lot easier to say "we need to ban guns, here's the list that proves it!".

And it gets better. Have you heard of Ex post facto? Making something that was legal illegal and making it a crime to even own something that was legal. So you are stripping property from people. Many of these bans have actually been ruled as Unconstitutional by the courts. The problem is the registry allows the police to seize the weapon. And seized weapons are destroyed. So even if the courts vindicate that the ban was illegal, the registry was used in a manner that caused the destruction of private property. And you can't un-destroy something that was melted in a blasting furnace.

Your laws don't allow it, but ours do.

[Alyeska]

Your laws don't allow it, but ours do.

Don't? If our laws didn't allow Ex post facto, gun confiscation would be illegal. It isn't. Its just very frowned upon, most of the time.

[Aaron MkII]

Fair enough, kinda disappointed to be wrong though.

[Ryan Thunder]

You know, I was going to respond to the rest of the post as well until I realized what a gem this is.

The registry was used to create justification to seize the weapons in the first place. Its a hell of a lot easier to say "we need to ban guns, here's the list that proves it!".

So, you admit that you would prefer that lawmakers work from ignorance if it means you get to keep your guns?

[Simon_Jester]

The argument is that the registry is being used as a tool for the government to plan its taking away of the guns.

If the government should not be taking the guns, the government should not be drawing up battle plans for taking the guns. I think Alyeska has a point; if a gun registry always winds up being the de facto foundation for a plan to take away the guns, then people who want to keep their guns would oppose the registry. There are a lot of things we don't let governments do because we know where those practices lead, and don't want to go there.

So if it's a question of lawmakers "working from ignorance" of exactly who owns guns, versus guns remaining legal, I can see the argument. If there's no registry, it's not like lawmakers don't know what guns are capable of, or roughly how many of them there are in the country. They just don't have a huge list of every single gun in the country, any more than they have a list of every piece of furniture or every knife, sword, or spear in the country.

And the advantage of that is that you avoid the shaky ex post facto aspect of gun confiscation- of taking things away from people without their consent, when they were not illegal at the time. It may be constitutional for your government to do it, but it shouldn't be something you do quickly or thoughtlessly.