• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, cleaned it up a bit and rereleased this album.  Play nice - if you have some interesting facts or arguments related to something said earlier, by all means post it - but if all you are going to do is rehash something that was said 35 pages ago, spare us the bandwidth.

As well, no personal attacks - I don't want to have to ban people here.
 
Awww, all the juicy insults hurled at me are deleted. My posts are the same. Must have missed the best ones that almost got the thread locked, PM me. LOL
 
Why are gun control laws getting stronger?
People are afraid of violent crime.

So would preventing violent crime in urban areas take the pressure off of legitimate gun owners?
Yes.

Would longer and harsher prison sentences prevent violent crime?
Judging by the experience in the USA, no.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with our system of incarceration, it does not seem to be working?
Yes.
  It seems that the ancient custom of incarcerating the body in an unpleasant location for a set period of time is ineffective. Violent criminals especially don't find jail much of a hardship. I think incarcerating the body is primitive compared to what we can now do to the criminal mind. Why not brainwash them into being productive members of society. ( insert evil laugh here )

Does anyone remember those CIA mind control projects? Projects Artichoke, Blubird and Mk-Ultra. You could even call it rehabilitation, there would be very little recidivism. I am only half kidding, jail is a waste of time and money. I am ready to try something new.
 
Now, I admit that Lorne Gunter is not everyone's cup of tea, but he has a view, too, and it is expressed in today's National Post at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=7c8e444c-e4e2-46fb-b23f-0d83536dfe4c

Gun control myths just won't die

Lorne Gunter
National Post

Monday, May 09, 2005


I have never owned a firearm. Heck, I've never even held a real gun, much less fired one. Still, there are few federal programs that irk me more than Ottawa's gun registry.

It's not just the waste, although that's atrocious -- nearly $2-billion for a dysfunctional pile of uselessness.

And it's not just the uselessness. The registry is also one of those truisms for liberals, one of their articles of blind faith. To a liberal, universal registration of guns is something all intelligent people must support or, well, they're not intelligent. They use gun control as a litmus test for who is and isn't sophisticated and subtle of mind. So that even if you can prove the registry will have no practical effect -- it won't prevent armed robberies or murders, or keep enraged spouses from killing one another -- a liberal still has to cling to it for fear of being seen as NOKD (not our kind, dear).

But what troubles me most is what it says about its supporters' attitude toward the people and government. Backing most gun laws amounts to proclaiming trust in government over trust in one's fellow citizens.

This is especially true of Canada's gun registry. You really, really have to have faith in government, and be really, really suspicious of the gun owner down the block to continue to think our national registry will ever do any good.

Frankly, I'll take my law-abiding neighbours over politicians, bureaucrats, experts and advocates any day.

Believers in our registry like to say that since its inception in 1998 it has helped keep gun licences out of the hands of 13,000 people deemed unstable or too violent to possess guns. What they never boast about is that the registry doesn't even try to track the 131,000 convicted criminals in Canada who have been prohibited by the courts from owning guns.

Gee, who do you think is the greater risk?

Still, the fact that 13,000 Canadians -- about one-half of one per cent of applicants -- have been refused a licence in the past seven years might be meaningful if gun-controllers could then point to lowered murder rates, or show that firearms suicides have declined faster than suicides by other methods, or demonstrate a significant reduction in spousal homicides (most of the 13,000 denials have stemmed from complaints by one partner against another).

But despite these thousands of licence refusals, government ministers and special interest groups who favour the registry can't even point to a reduction in armed robberies.

The registry is not keeping the unfit from getting guns, just licences. And licences don't kill people, guns do. Keeping licences out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns is meaningless.

James Roszko, the slayer of four Mounties in Alberta, had been banned from owning guns for the past five years. But paper gun controls were useless at keeping him from acquiring the weapons he used in his murders.

The only meaningful gun control is taking firearms away from criminals. And since crooks, drug dealers and murderers don't register their weapons, the registry is useless in this task.

Consider, too, (from the latest Statistics Canada homicide report), that 68% of firearms murders in Canada in 2003 were committed with handguns, and handguns have been subject to mandatory federal registration since 1934. Indeed, in the past 15 years, the percentage of total murders committed with handguns has doubled, despite their being tightly controlled.

That should tell you all you need to know about the worth of firearms registries.

Now the Library of Parliament has released a comparison of violent crime rates in the Northern Plains states versus Canada's Prairie provinces. The simple conclusion: Rates of gun ownership among law-abiding private citizens have no effect on crime.

Despite having nearly twice as many households with guns as their Canadian counterparts -- and similar economic, cultural and social demographics -- Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho have lower crime rates than Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Researchers determined "both violent and property crime rates were two-thirds higher in the Canadian Prairie provinces than in the four border states."

Murder was 1.1 times higher; violent assaults and attempted murder, 1.5 times; robbery, 2.1 times; breaking and entering, 2.3; and vehicle theft, 3.2.

Harassing duck hunters, target shooters and gun collectors to register their firearms will have no effect on crime. But don't tell liberals. They take great comfort in their myths.

© National Post 2005

I am no longer shacked and appalled by government corruption or ineptitude but, like Gunter, I have a special, deep distaste for the gun registry.  I can forgive waste, I can forgive what appears to be a chronic, maybe genetic inability, amongst about 35% of civil servants, to think, what I find immensely distasteful is the notion that social engineering, of any kind ever does any good.  I reject that notion out of hand; in my well informed opinion all social engineering is always destructive of the very values its misguided proponents aim to preserve.  The gun registry is social engineering gone mad.  It isa a silly programme designed to pacify the masses.  Svengali would be proud.


 
Now the Library of Parliament has released a comparison of violent crime rates in the Northern Plains states versus Canada's Prairie provinces. The simple conclusion: Rates of gun ownership among law-abiding private citizens have no effect on crime.

Despite having nearly twice as many households with guns as their Canadian counterparts -- and similar economic, cultural and social demographics -- Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho have lower crime rates than Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Researchers determined "both violent and property crime rates were two-thirds higher in the Canadian Prairie provinces than in the four border states."

Murder was 1.1 times higher; violent assaults and attempted murder, 1.5 times; robbery, 2.1 times; breaking and entering, 2.3; and vehicle theft, 3.2.


This should be a bitter pill for those who crusade for gun control by trying to make comparisons to the "wild west" US of A. ^-^
 
Last night a friend, who is connected in such circles, told me that the Libs have a plan to get rid of all privately owned handguns by 2007.

this info is not confirmed in any way, however i am going to dig in and see what I can find out about it.

Slim
 
Slim said:
Last night a friend, who is connected in such circles, told me that the Libs have a plan to get rid of all privately owned handguns by 2007.

this info is not confirmed in any way, however i am going to dig in and see what I can find out about it.

Slim

They can only "get rid of" the ones they know about, the tens of thousands they don't know about will still be out there. To bad there is no reality check that seems to work with these social engineers, if they were designing bridges they would be out of work and in jail long ago.
 
" I am only half kidding, jail is a waste of time and money. I am ready to try something new."

Nemo, lets try something OLD: It's called execution - no repeat offenders.

NO?  The lets try capital imprisonment - jail works best, when they don't get out of it.  Recidivism means you let him out too early, thats all.

The 2 - 4 % criminaly violent psychopaths are the recidivists, target them, get in their back pocket - and put them away until they die.

How?  By using health and safety legislation. These guys are a health hazard, isolate them in 'sanatoriums' in the arctic.

Then, to tidy up - remove the citizenship and deport every papered Canadian convicted of a criminal offence.  Institute exit controls so others cannot leave Canada to return to their homelands to fight against Canada.  Puplicize the link between organized crime drug orgs and terrorist funding, and treat drug dealers as terrorist fudraisers - which they are.

There.  Too easy.  Why should I have my private property confiscated because 'Canadians of convenience' do not have the cultural preparation and background to properly appreciate and handle our freedoms?

If they don't, won't, or can't legally adapt to our peaceful culture - back on the boat with them.
 
Actually recidivism is  67% after three years out in the USA. They also have a massive proportion of their population imprisoned. Its reached 1.3% of the male population. They have longer sentences, tougher prisons and more crime(nationwide). Some cities in the states feel like war zones.  Following their lead will probably be as effective as gun control at cutting crime. Good parenting  prevents crime, treament for drug addicts maybe. Better schools teaching values and morals and how about how to be a good parent ?  More opportunity to get good paying jobs? Urban fear mongering  is a cheap way to get votes though. The "truth" is often not very sexy. Democracy at its best.
 
Well now Piper, maybe you will, and maybe you won't.  Remember - the government deemed confiscated without renumeration over 500,000 handguns by classifying them as Prohibited 12(6) and "Grandfathering" their owners.  That means if any of your Dad's handguns are Prohibited 12(6), he can own them and fire them, but when he dies, you are out of luck, you cannot inherit them.  Your PAL will not now or ever show a Prohibited 12(6) designation.  Non-Restricted and possibly eventually Restricted, yes.  Prohibited, no, unless you already have it.

There may have been instances where firearms have "disappeared" upon the death of the owner, but those guns are then bad news for the person found afterwards to be possessing them - particularly if prohibited.  No doubt, if a perp has just robbed a bank, the firearms charges don't mean diddly, since they will be plea bargained off, or served concurrently anyhow.  But for a law abiding family man, FA or related RSC charges can be a nightmare.  Remember, the guvmint has been packing the Supreme Court with trustworthy minions, and they have not been recruiting them out of Gun Clubs or RCL Branches.

Tom
 
TCBF said:
"No objective observers."

Or, perhaps we are all objective observers.    

A gun is a tool, wielded for good or evil.   Our society is changing, and it is becoming much more acceptable to blame objects rather than individuals.  


How will this end?   Who knows.

Well, one day, sooner than later the only guns in Canada will in possession of the following:

- the crims,
- The CF
- LEO and designated security agencies

The general populus will be SOL.

Sad but true in ths PC world that you have let be created by the minorities not wishing to 'offend', and ENFORCED by a government the population bases in Ontario and Quebec voted in. I would not give the Liberals the steam off my crap to boil and egg!

truly disgusted,

Wes
 
Wait for it, the final chapter has not been writen yet. If the fiberals win again after Gomery, I am not sure how much longer the west will want to be involved with the ROC
 
I'll say the same thing that I say to separtists from Quebec. Go ahead and leave, just don't think any of CANADA'S  land is going with you..........
 
Well I would much prefer to see us stay together, but I am hearing a lot more talk from people who are sick and tired of the way the political agenda is run by one area of the country.
 
No. Mostly from Alberta, I am not sure what things are like in BC and Sask, but I am hearing from people I talk to that they have had enough. As the old saying goes "If Ii had a dollar evey time I heard...." that if the Liberals win again after everything that has come out I will join a seperatist party... I would be able to retire today. It's really kind of scary, because we have always had a fringe seperatist element out here that never has really amounted to much, but people are tired. a lot of us were screwed by the NEP when we were young and now what with Kyoto and the rest of the liberal nonsense going on they dont want to carry on with the same old same old.
 
I can remember seeing a cartoon in an old social studies text c.1970s when I was in high school. It had a cow superimposed over the map of Canada, with the head eating out of the Atlantic provinces ;D, the milk udders over Ontario and Quebec  :eek:, and the western provinces being shat upon  :-\.

I love Canada a great deal although I no longer live there, and I understand the frustration of eastern Canadian politics dictating western Canadian lifestyle. Although we are Canadians, different regions do have their own culture. Look at the difference between NFLD and Sask for example. Different slang, different employment, and different accents.

I understand how you feel Larry, and I enjoyed Manning and what he repressnted until the idea was hijacked by Day (thats how I feel) and then it all fell apart.

Would I support a western republic? Well I don't know. But if was what the majority of westerners wanted, then I suppose, yes suppose, I just might. In thought anyways. Its just too deep to even begin to discuss on here.

I hope our great country stays together.

Cheers,

Wes

Cheers,

Wes

PS - I am from Saskatchewan, and imported to Australia.
 
It will stay together, with a few more bumps and bruises.

Older hot heads in the west (and Quebec) will die off and younger more forward thinkers will prevail.

The Liberal's will not last forever, or even as long as the Alberta Tories. I think barring a forced election, they will serve one term then be knocked off as everyone gets (even sicker) sick of them and the conservatives realize more and more that their regional Alliance/Reform (hard right) ideals don't wash in the rest of the country. Then we'll see an acceptable alternative to the Liberal's and the vote will go that way. And as always, the NDP will be a small minority.

And maybe one day the Alberta Tories will be knocked off too. Yeah right...
 
"Older hot heads...    .... will die off and younger more forward thinkers will prevail.'

Now THAT theory has a solid 6,000 years of success behind it, doesn't it? ;D

Tom
 
Heh.

Well when we're not busy killing each other it does...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top