ER doctors urge MPs to keep gun registry

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Police officers -- that is, people with experience stopping and catching actual criminals -- disagree with you and claim the registry helps them on a daily basis.

From wikipedia (consider the source):

The CACP is purely a political group. Strangely enough the CGI Group (a contactor of the registry) has donated a bunch of $ to the CACP. The results are predictible.

Speak to any line officer you know over a beer, they will tell you that the registry is completely useless.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Azure

I asked the person who looks after the police firearms here in town what he thought about it. He said that having to register long guns is ridiculous, but restricted weapons are a different story.

Yep sorry I wasn't more clear, registering restricted weapons is different - that one I have no problems with.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't get the opposition to registering your gun if you own one.

It really doesn't have anything to do with registering the guns, per se. In fact, I have no problems with people knowing that I own firearms.

My objection is based primarily on the sham idea that "It makes us safe". Further, even when it was clear that this is, was, will always be a bad idea, it was rammed done our throats and done anyways.

The other reasons that I vehemently oppose the registry:

1. Criminals, the ones most likely to use firearms illegally, do not register them.
2. The cost of the program (well over a billion) could have put a lot of additional prevention/enforcement assets in place.
3. We've yet to see a crime solved/prevented by the registry.

In my opinion, the gun registry has always been "Smoke and mirrors" and little more than the government saying "Hey, we can ###### with you whenever we want."

[burn_this_city]

Personally I always felt it was a make work project to buy votes in New Brunswick.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The long gun registry was a bloated waste of money that cost far too much to get up and running, but now that it's operational, the on-going annual costs are relatively low. Law enforcement officers have repeatedly said that they find it very valuable in conducting their duties. Harper wants to scrap it on ideological grounds because he campaigned against it as an example of Liberal largesse, not because it's useless or expensive to maintain.

Approximately $4 Million per year. Reasonable or excessive is up to interpretation I think.

I do have a problem with the second half of your statement though. Harper (and the Conservative Party as a whole) feels that the program has not and will not make Canada safer from gun crime - that is why it's being scrapped. As you suggest, the registry is also viewed as a fine example of ridiculous spending by the previous government.

So the question becomes, why the hell would the government continue to fund a program that does not actually accomplish what it was intended to?

[MarchHare]

2. The cost of the program (well over a billion) could have put a lot of additional prevention/enforcement assets in place.

Agreed, but the money has already been spent. Scrapping the registry now won't allow that billion to be spent on different programs or refunded to taxpayers.

3. We've yet to see a crime solved/prevented by the registry.

Source?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

The other reasons that I vehemently oppose the registry:

1. Criminals, the ones most likely to use firearms illegally, do not register them.
2. The cost of the program (well over a billion) could have put a lot of additional prevention/enforcement assets in place.
3. We've yet to see a crime solved/prevented by the registry.

The bolded part is confusing.

How could anyone possibly know if there was crime prevented by the registry? Ever gun that is turned in, confiscated or remain unpurchased because of the redtape nightmare could be a potential prevention of a crime.

Heck, me walking down the street tomorrow and picking up every rock I see could potentially prevent vandalism or a car break in from occurring. How could you say otherwise, unless you have access to the future ala Minority Report.

However, that certainly does not imply that ever gun removed from the streets is one (or more) potential crimes eliminated.

[Azure]

How exactly would the gun registry prevent a crime from being committed?

[Barnes]

I have sold and registered hundreds of guns and I know for a fact that the Registry has helped solve crimes.

Not to say that these crimes wouldn't have been solved without it but it did help.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I have sold and registered hundreds of guns and I know for a fact that the Registry has helped solve crimes.

Not to say that these crimes wouldn't have been solved without it but it did help.

Exactly how?

Also, I'm sure everyone realizes that in order to BUY a gun, you must have a FAC, and in order to get the FAC, you need to go through an approval process, including a police background check.

If you're going to register your firearm, I'd assume you will need to prevent proof of having the FAC. So if the cops are going to claim that the firearms registry helps them find out if there is a gun at a certain house, I ask the question why don't they just check if the owner has a FAC.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Police officers -- that is, people with experience stopping and catching actual criminals -- disagree with you and claim the registry helps them on a daily basis.

From wikipedia (consider the source):

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad.../15095571.html

Kuntz, a 22-year EPS veteran, says 2,410 of the 2,631 officers from across the country he surveyed in Blue Line magazine since last spring believe "inaccurate" data from the registry is affecting police safety in every province and territory.
The firearms database shows registered firearms and their owners, but Kuntz says the data doesn't tell police officers where the firearms are actually located.
There's nothing that says a firearm has to be in possession of the person who the gun is registered to as guns are never linked to an address in the system, says Kuntz who is an avid hunter

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly how?

Also, I'm sure everyone realizes that in order to BUY a gun, you must have a FAC, and in order to get the FAC, you need to go through an approval process, including a police background check.

If you're going to register your firearm, I'd assume you will need to prevent proof of having the FAC. So if the cops are going to claim that the firearms registry helps them find out if there is a gun at a certain house, I ask the question why don't they just check if the owner has a FAC.

Cops would come in and ask questions. Ask us to identify people or provide descriptions.

You need a PAL to purchase firearms and ammo. Your PAL number links which SN and CERTS you have registered to you. The store also keeps records.

I have a PAL (expired now I think) for non-restricted and restricted but don't own any guns. Looking to see if someone has a PAL would tell the cops that the purchaser can buy guns but not if they bought any. Just because I have a drivers license dosen't mean I own a car.

The registry was a massive pain in the arse for everyone when it first started and cost way too much money to set up (shouldn't be a surprise to anyone as it was the government) but it literally takes 5 minutes to have the sales clerk register a firearm and it doesn't cost the buyer anything. It used to take me more time to find the box for the gun than register the gun.

I am just not sure why today people are still complaining about this. I register my car, my dog, my cat, my marriage, my television, my china pattern.

[Azure]

You still haven't told me how it prevents/solves crime.

The PAL(formally FAC)....also gives you information on who bought a gun. In fact I'd say if the cops what to identify someone, or get a description of the person, the PAL does it a lot better than a statement of registration.

My PAL has my name, height, eye color, DOB, and I assume if they'd scan it, where I reside and phone number as well.

If the idea is to strictly find out whether or not there is a gun at the house the cops are raiding, you have to consider a few things. If they're raiding a house, chances are there are criminals inside, and criminals don't register guns, so if the cops check the database and it says no guns in house, then the information could be life threatening.

That much has already been said by numerous cops. Some whom I personally know.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

You still haven't told me how it prevents/solves crime.

The PAL(formally FAC)....also gives you information on who bought a gun. In fact I'd say if the cops what to identify someone, or get a description of the person, the PAL does it a lot better than a statement of registration.

My PAL has my name, height, eye color, DOB, and I assume if they'd scan it, where I reside and phone number as well.

If the idea is to strictly find out whether or not there is a gun at the house the cops are raiding, you have to consider a few things. If they're raiding a house, chances are there are criminals inside, and criminals don't register guns, so if the cops check the database and it says no guns in house, then the information could be life threatening.

That much has already been said by numerous cops. Some whom I personally know.

You seriously think that no criminal has ever owned a gun that he registered? You think that every single act a criminal does is illegal?

No one that has ever grown pot in their basement leads an otherwise normal life.

How about someone who has hunted his entire life and then gets into a fight in a bar and the cops need to go to his house and pick him up? Since he is now a criminal, by your logic, he will have a stockpile of non-registered weapons sitting in his basement that didn't exist before hand?

I don't know off hand and don't have the time or inclination to look it up but did the person who shot those RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe a few years back a registered gun owner? Would it change the actions of the officers either way? They knew he was dangerous and probably proceeded as such. Same thing will happen if they are raiding a drug house.

To think that police suddenly run haphazardly into situations where there is no registered gun is really assuming the worst from our police force. Who knows though, maybe they are all idiots.

What does the gun registration hurt?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Hevishot

What a crock. Everyone knows that ER doctors kill more people per year than guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

This is a textbook Ad hominem fallacy.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

This is a textbook Ad hominem fallacy.

Who cares? He's probably right with that fact. The fact ER doctors are weighing in on the long gun registry is a crock of crap itself.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Who cares? He's probably right with that fact. The fact ER doctors are weighing in on the long gun registry is a crock of crap itself.

If you have any aptitude for logical thought, you care.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You seriously think that no criminal has ever owned a gun that he registered? You think that every single act a criminal does is illegal?

Uhhh, yeah?

Of course it depends on what kind of criminal you're talking about, but in order to register a gun, you must first own a PAL, and in order to get your PAL, you need to pass a police background check.

Since cops are gnerally concerned about violent offenders, drug dealers, or people with weapon offenses when they raid the house, it won't help them much to look at the gun registry database, since it is impossible for someone with that kind of criminal record to register a gun in the first place since they can't even acquire the license to BUY a gun, much less fill out the paperwork to tell the government that you OWN it.

No one that has ever grown pot in their basement leads an otherwise normal life.

How many normal 9-5 people do you know that grow pot in their basement? I grew up in rural Alberta, where it is FAR more likely to have small grow operations in various houses in town, not to mention farms/ranches, and people don't grow pot out back for the heck of it. It was pretty widely known where one went to get his pot from around here.

How about someone who has hunted his entire life and then gets into a fight in a bar and the cops need to go to his house and pick him up? Since he is now a criminal, by your logic, he will have a stockpile of non-registered weapons sitting in his basement that didn't exist before hand?

Is someone like that likely to be violent? Assuming he isn't drunk anymore. How is procedure for the cops going to change considering the man has no criminal record, and the bar owner just told the cops that he's a regular that went a little overboard. When you start dealing with more serious criminals, the cops will know that because they have a CRIMINAL record. And if the cops have to raid the house of a violent offender, or someone with weapons charges, and the gun registry shows that the occupant doesn't own any guns, you actually think the cops are going to send a two man team to pick up someone who has a serious criminal record?

Also, if you own a PAL, and you get charged with certain crimes, your PAL can be revoked.

I don't know off hand and don't have the time or inclination to look it up but did the person who shot those RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe a few years back a registered gun owner? Would it change the actions of the officers either way? They knew he was dangerous and probably proceeded as such. Same thing will happen if they are raiding a drug house.

Good example actually. At least for me because it blows any argument in favor of the gun registry out of the water.

According to Wikipedia.

At the time of the incident he was prohibited from legally possessing firearms.

So when the cops went to check the gun registry, they saw that the man didn't own any weapons. And yet he had enough firepower to take down 4 well trained cops. All the good the gun registry was then in the worst day in 100 years for the RCMP.

The one gun that they found that WAS registered, was stolen from someone else that was affiliated with James Roszko, and there was no way the cops could have known Roszko had it.

Thing is, despite the fact that the cops were killed, Roszko had a history of violent and sexual offenses, which would have been an indicator of who they were dealing with, although they obviously had no idea that the man had a semi-automatic rifle, not registered, and a 9MM pistol, also not registered.

To think that police suddenly run haphazardly into situations where there is no registered gun is really assuming the worst from our police force. Who knows though, maybe they are all idiots.

They almost certainly don't. But from the cops I have talked to going back all the way to high school, the gun registry doesn't change much in terms of looking for non-restricted weapons, i.e. long guns. Why? Because people who are likely to be violent can't register guns in the first place, therefore your 'serious' criminal won't have any registered guns, and the amount of long guns stolen from law-abiding citizens, reported stolen, and recovered before a crime was committed with them is VERY low.

I've had this argument so many times before, and no matter from what angle you look at it, the 'long gun' registry serves no purpose to Canadians. It was a waste of money to begin with, and every year we waste another $4 million on it that could be spent on teaching gun safety to people who want to take their PAL.

What does the gun registration hurt?

Prove to me its beneficial and I'll support it. What does it hurt is a lame argument.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

If you have any aptitude for logical thought, you care.

The argument is kinda stupid because ER doctors don't kill people on purpose, unlike the people who shoot other people with a gun.

Why do you think ER doctors want the gun registry to not be shut down?

[DrJ]

Originally Posted by Hevishot

What a crock. Everyone knows that ER doctors kill more people per year than guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Wow, what an ignorant statement. While you oppose the gun registry, don't state that ER docs are killing people.