@Da2012Truth What you're suggesting is that I find a statistic which shows how many would-be killers tried or THOUGHT of trying to acquire a restricted gun but was discouraged by the registry.
@GerOffYeWeeBastard Actually support for and against the registry is pretty evenly split, and the trend in 2010 polls were that support to keep the registry was rising.
@Da2012Truth also, it diverted funds from police departments, hampering their workforce. if they would have decided to fund police instead of the registry, they could of had more police on the scene, possibly a better swat team to enter the school and dissolve the situation. I would also agree on putting armed security at large colleges and universities in Canada, this way there would have been trained professionals on the scene when it started, instead of needing to wait for police.
Fact: The two worst spree killings in recent human history occurred in countries with extremely strict gun control laws: The Utoya, Norway shooting as of this year and the Uiryeong, South Korea rampage as of 1982. Now tell me if strict gun control works... I'll wager it doesn't.
@pittsky If you are referring to the Randy Kuntz poll, the Editor of Blue Line Magazine has distanced himself and the magazine from the poll saying "Randy Kuntz went on national news to support his anti firearms registry position by pointing to me and "Blue Line Magazine". His attempt to damage the magazine's neutral position is out of line along with semi-breaching the sanctity of this section of the Forum.", And Kuntz himself said he is the "first to admit the survey is not scientific."
@Kenevin No... find a statistic where, for example, stolen firearms were tracked down by the allmighty registry and intercepted before they were used in a crime. Or where the registry prevented an unstable individual from committing a shooting in public (didn't work too well fro Kimveer Gill, did it?). Also, please do not confuse firearms registration and licensing. One is like a driver's license (tests & background check), the other like a license plate. LICENSING = GOOD, REGISTRY = BAD.
@sendmorebrains Don't forget: They also specifically targeted their laws towards Jews, Gypsies, other so-called "undesirables", political dissidents and civilians in occupied zones.
@MyDSU108 The gun registry will not stop any future "Herostratuses" from making a name for themselves in infamy (Look up the story about the Temple of Artemis to see what I mean), it is a waste of money, and does nothing. And I don't just want the long gun registry to go, I want the restricted firearms category gone, as well as the prohibited category...
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English) Classified guns for "sporting purposes". All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check. Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law. Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons. The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
@MyDSU108 as of yet, the registry has not saved a single life or even been used to prevent a crime. People bent on committing crime, will commit crime - they will not register there guns, they will use other methods of violance if guns aren't there. Dawson may have been better served with if Canada allowed CCW instead of having a LRG.
A LGR proponent claims that the gun registry saves lives elsewhere. Where? South Africa, where a certain anti-self-defence person assisted SA in the purchase of the same software that did not work in Canada? I'm in contact with a SA police chief--medium sized city--who has to deal with a police officer shot in the face by a .44 and women under threat denied self-defence firearms licences--one of whom was raped and murdered two days after her licence was denied. So I have an emotional base, too.
(1) Democracy looks like the recently-elected CPC majority, which has vowed t oscrap the useless Registry. (2) The Registry is much like those Q-Ray bracelets: only its proponents think it actually achieves something. (3) The Registry is built/perpetuated not on the memories of those who died violently, but by the force of false 'statistics' (just how many times a day do supporters claim the Registry is now checked - 50,000 ? ) and those who created their public careers/reputations on it.
As a true believer in Democracy, I respect your right to free speech, and I support that, if not what you say, I'm going to disagree with you that the Long Gun Registry is useful, but I'm not going to hate you for what you say, instead I'm going to respect you for going out to Ottawa and standing up for what you belive in, THAT my friends, is true Democracy.
@MyDSU108 The gun registry protects no one, it simple waste money and criminalizes law abiding citizens. The 2.2 billion dollars wasted could have been used on education and social programming. This would have gone farther than a registration program. The registration has failed and the majority of Canadians voted and wishes to see it go. These students would have done better to make a difference and statement by volunteering at a local inner-city youth programming.
flowers for a piece of legislation? seriously? guns are NOT the problem, it's the people who use guns for criminal activities that are the problem. once you crack down on the criminals with more police and giving Canadians proper self defense rights, the crime rate will become near zero. you also need a government willing to push through with regulation against crime, not the tools.
@Da2012Truth Your Dawson college evidence is proof only that gun registration has not stopped ALL gun crimes, which is a claim not made by anyone. Conversely you made a claim that it saved "zero lives", and this is a positive claim made by you. You then have the burden of proof to give evidence to prove your claim, or it is purely conjecture and opinion.
@Da2012Truth What you're suggesting is that I find a statistic which shows how many would-be killers tried or THOUGHT of trying to acquire a restricted gun but was discouraged by the registry.
@GerOffYeWeeBastard Actually support for and against the registry is pretty evenly split, and the trend in 2010 polls were that support to keep the registry was rising.
@Da2012Truth also, it diverted funds from police departments, hampering their workforce. if they would have decided to fund police instead of the registry, they could of had more police on the scene, possibly a better swat team to enter the school and dissolve the situation. I would also agree on putting armed security at large colleges and universities in Canada, this way there would have been trained professionals on the scene when it started, instead of needing to wait for police.
Fact: The two worst spree killings in recent human history occurred in countries with extremely strict gun control laws:
The Utoya, Norway shooting as of this year and the Uiryeong, South Korea rampage as of 1982.
Now tell me if strict gun control works...
I'll wager it doesn't.
@pittsky If you are referring to the Randy Kuntz poll, the Editor of Blue Line Magazine has distanced himself and the magazine from the poll saying "Randy Kuntz went on national news to support his anti firearms registry position by pointing to me and "Blue Line Magazine". His attempt to damage the magazine's neutral position is out of line along with semi-breaching the sanctity of this section of the Forum.", And Kuntz himself said he is the "first to admit the survey is not scientific."
@Kenevin No... find a statistic where, for example, stolen firearms were tracked down by the allmighty registry and intercepted before they were used in a crime. Or where the registry prevented an unstable individual from committing a shooting in public (didn't work too well fro Kimveer Gill, did it?).
Also, please do not confuse firearms registration and licensing. One is like a driver's license (tests & background check), the other like a license plate. LICENSING = GOOD, REGISTRY = BAD.
@sendmorebrains
Don't forget: They also specifically targeted their laws towards Jews, Gypsies, other so-called "undesirables", political dissidents and civilians in occupied zones.
@MyDSU108
The gun registry will not stop any future "Herostratuses" from making a name for themselves in infamy (Look up the story about the Temple of Artemis to see what I mean), it is a waste of money, and does nothing.
And I don't just want the long gun registry to go, I want the restricted firearms category gone, as well as the prohibited category...
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
@MyDSU108 as of yet, the registry has not saved a single life or even been used to prevent a crime. People bent on committing crime, will commit crime - they will not register there guns, they will use other methods of violance if guns aren't there. Dawson may have been better served with if Canada allowed CCW instead of having a LRG.
@MyDSU108 Sorry, but I thought the "discussion was over" in 1995?
nice to see 40-50?, fortunately, 2+million legal Canadian firearm Owners will stand up to you!
The registry has always been filth, and I'm glad it is on it's way out.
A LGR proponent claims that the gun registry saves lives elsewhere. Where? South Africa, where a certain anti-self-defence person assisted SA in the purchase of the same software that did not work in Canada? I'm in contact with a SA police chief--medium sized city--who has to deal with a police officer shot in the face by a .44 and women under threat denied self-defence firearms licences--one of whom was raped and murdered two days after her licence was denied. So I have an emotional base, too.
(1) Democracy looks like the recently-elected CPC majority, which has vowed t oscrap the useless Registry.
(2) The Registry is much like those Q-Ray bracelets: only its proponents think it actually achieves something.
(3) The Registry is built/perpetuated not on the memories of those who died violently, but by the force of false 'statistics' (just how many times a day do supporters claim the Registry is now checked - 50,000 ? ) and those who created their public careers/reputations on it.
As a true believer in Democracy, I respect your right to free speech, and I support that, if not what you say, I'm going to disagree with you that the Long Gun Registry is useful, but I'm not going to hate you for what you say, instead I'm going to respect you for going out to Ottawa and standing up for what you belive in, THAT my friends, is true Democracy.
@Da2012Truth How do you know it has saved no lives? Where are the correlating statitics? Ever heard of prevention?
LGR = gone!
@MyDSU108 The gun registry protects no one, it simple waste money and criminalizes law abiding citizens. The 2.2 billion dollars wasted could have been used on education and social programming. This would have gone farther than a registration program. The registration has failed and the majority of Canadians voted and wishes to see it go. These students would have done better to make a difference and statement by volunteering at a local inner-city youth programming.
flowers for a piece of legislation? seriously?
guns are NOT the problem, it's the people who use guns for criminal activities that are the problem. once you crack down on the criminals with more police and giving Canadians proper self defense rights, the crime rate will become near zero. you also need a government willing to push through with regulation against crime, not the tools.
@Da2012Truth Your Dawson college evidence is proof only that gun registration has not stopped ALL gun crimes, which is a claim not made by anyone. Conversely you made a claim that it saved "zero lives", and this is a positive claim made by you. You then have the burden of proof to give evidence to prove your claim, or it is purely conjecture and opinion.