The Great Gun Control Debate

[GerryCan]

Well your opinion is right. Criminals don't rob convenience stores and shoot people on buses with registered firearms, unless they're complete idiots. What they have done is screwed the average joe who would never commit such an offense in the first place. It's not only appaling to see the money that we waste, it's embarrassing.

 

[Gouki]

I personally hate it..

I wrote my non-restricted posssesion and acquisition license earlier this year and it took three friggen months to get it back. I had to include a stupid little photo in my letter to them too, it felt so amateurish.

I wrote my restricted license last week as I have my eye on a beauty of a .357 Magnum which is used but I can easily restore to 100% (or as near as possible) condition. Well la dee da by the time I get my restricted license that will probably be gone.

What really fries me is... I went to Wolverine Supplies in Virden, an hours west of Shilo, and I saw an Armalite 180B semi-auto. I can buy that with my current license. However, I cannot buy say, a Steyr-M pistol or the revolver I wanted. Now, I am aware of concealability factors and what have you but my God, if I were nuts and wanted to pull a copycat scenario like the one in LA a few years back when those two nuts held off a whole section of police with assault rifles - am I gonna buy a dinky little pistol or a semi automatic rifle that packs a punch? I just think something is fundamentally flawed when I can walk out with that sort of weapon but not a handgun.

That all being said, I do think the card system is good. As one of the local gundealers put it, "when people show me that card with their picture on it, I know they passed the tests and are certified to hold guns" that is the big benefit of it. However, all of the above plus the ridiculous cost overshoots the positive by far.

In my opinion.. it would be much more effective to simply allow the dealers themselves to create the cards. This would eliminate the horrendous waiting periods. The dealers would simply send your test marks down the electronic line to the firearms registry bureau, some clerk gives his or her approval, and you come back in a few days to pick up your card.

Our gun registration as it is now ... is a joke.

 

[The_Falcon]

You could employ 10,000 police officers for one year at $100,000 a year for one year in Canada. For the same salary and benefits you could employ 4500 police officers across Canada foe their entire career. I herad this stat on the Lowell Green show last week and I thought it would be interesting to what you guys think of it!

I think you (or maybe your source) forgot a few zeros in the monetary figure you put down.  The Toronto Police Service employ approx 5000 uniformed officers with an average Salary of $70,000.  Last year approx 100 or so officer topped the $100,000 mark.  Just an observance but the point you make is understood, the registry ate a load of money that could have been spent on front-line officers.

 

[The_Falcon]

I wrote my restricted license last week as I have my eye on a beauty of a .357 Magnum which is used but I can easily restore to 100% (or as near as possible) condition. Well la dee da by the time I get my restricted license that will probably be gone.

What really fries me is... I went to Wolverine Supplies in Virden, an hours west of Shilo, and I saw an Armalite 180B semi-auto. I can buy that with my current license. However, I cannot buy say, a Steyr-M pistol or the revolver I wanted. Now, I am aware of concealability factors and what have you but my God, if I were nuts and wanted to pull a copycat scenario like the one in LA a few years back when those two nuts held off a whole section of police with assault rifles - am I gonna buy a dinky little pistol or a semi automatic rifle that packs a punch? I just think something is fundamentally flawed when I can walk out with that sort of weapon but not a handgun.


Our gun registration as it is now ... is a joke.

Just a few points, it has been a requirement to register restricted class firearms (in particular handguns and pistols) for the better part of the last century (since the 1920s I believe).  Second the perpatrators of the North Hollywood shoot-out were using fully automatic AKs, not semi-autos.  Third as was pointed out to me, by the instructor running my firearms course, is that all the weapons that are deemed restricted/prohibited under the order-in-council provision of the Firearms Act, are done so mostly based on looks.  You have to remember when things are decided by "order-in-council", that means the Cabinet or Privy Council (ie dumb@$$ politicians) of the respective level of government.  All you have to do is look at the list of weapons deemed res/prohib by o-in-c and is plain most of it is based on looks based on what the "bad guys" and "good guys" use in movies and tv for so long.  The Colt AR15/M16 series of weapons (good) are restricted while AK/SKS (bad) types are prohibited.  Other weapons are designated prohibted soley on looks,  Benelleli M3/M1 super 90 shotguns (the "tactical ones), .50 cal Rifles (Barrett "Light Fifty" Model 82A1 rifle , McMillan M87), Steyr AUG rifle, HK G3, Galil, MP5 etc.  So it is not just the "long-gun" registry that is messed up, but how we actually classify weapons as non-res/res/prohib.

That enough rambling outta me, if you wanna see the full list go here http://www.cfc.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/factsheets/r&p_e.asp

 

[ramy]

The gun registry is such a waste of money.... As the fella stated, we could have used the money better for law enforcement.... 

I wonder if the Hells Angels and all those Indo - Canadian gangs register their firearms ?

hahaha

 

[I_Drive_Planes]

are restricted while AK/SKS (bad) types

FYI the SKS is non-restricted.  :fifty:

If you want some real non-restricted firepower personally I would call up the great folks at Marstar (they really are good to deal with) and have them send down one of these http://www.marstar.ca/semi-mg/live-M2HB.htm A .50 Cal M-2 Browning MG, converted to semi auto.  I think it would be much fun.  :fifty: That is, if you can afford the ammo (at oh $6-12 per shot)

On a more serious note, I feel that the federal firearms registry is a huge waste.  It doesn't work.  Many gun owners have only registered the firearms that they use regularly.  I one registered my entire collection because my future career path does not allow me to take any risk of having a criminal record, otherwise I wouldn'tve registered one of them.  I feel that firearms licences are important, but I feel that the same regulations that apply to long guns should apply to handguns.  I think it's silly that I can blast away with my rifles in my back yard, yet I cannot discharge a handgun anywhere except for a certified range, and to even apply for a restriced licence I would pretty well need to be a member of a gun club (yet another $50 per year ontop of all the other fees).  I feel that there should be a "firearms licence" which trains in the use of all firearms.  The firwarms licence course could be beefed up too, and should include live fire.  The IPSC Black Badge course is a good example.  I got to try IPSC shooting this summer (I did really well I might add for never having fired a handgun before, I outshot nearly everyone there.  All those years of playing duck hunt really paid off ;D) and I was really impressed with the level of saftey on the range, even though it was just a few people shooting informally.  I'm sure the firearms registry looks very appealing to those who have no knowledge of firearms, but as nearly any firearms owner, or police officer will tell you it just doesn't work.

Just think of how many MAR HEL replacements we could've bought, or Paul Martin's new peacekeeping regiment.

 

[armyrules]

thankx for your opinion guys.

 

[bossi]

They're going to have to add some stuff to their list ... based on the conversation I overheard while Christmas shopping last week:
"Where do you keep your baseball bats?"
"Sorry, we don't have any right now - they're seasonal and we only sell them in the summer."
"What?  I need one for tonight!"
(hmmm ... funny - he didn't need a glove or baseball ... I guess it's some new sport, eh?)

 

[The_Falcon]

are restricted while AK/SKS (bad) types

and to even apply for a restriced licence I would pretty well need to be a member of a gun club (yet another $50 per year ontop of all the other fees).

There is no requirement to be a member of a gun club to get a restricted licence.

 

[Ghost]

Just think of how many MAR HEL replacements we could've bought, or Paul Martin's new peacekeeping regiment

lol like he is gonna get 8,000 new soldiers.

its been 4 months and I still am waiting for an offer

 

[1feral1]

the gun registry, as it exists today, is a embarassement and a failiure that needs fixing.  
my opinion of course

It is a failure that needs to be 'disbanded'.

There is nothing wrong with firearms education, and the registering of handguns, and other 'restricted' weapons, but general long arms is outragous. One day the only people that will have guns in Canada will be the police, military, and the criminals.

Registration is the first step to confiscation. Its already happened in Canada, tell that to owners of the .22 Calico semi auto rifle, FAMAS semi auto rifle, and the SPAS 12 shotgun (just to name a few of the total prohibition from the early 1990s). The honest tax paying general public had to surrender them without compensation. I had a FAMAS in SA, a $1500 investment, and I sold it before the ban at a tragic loss in $$$ ( at that time it was still un-restricted so, no paper trail., but at least it did not get the torch ;D.

Weird, because they left the AUG alone, allowing it to be in a grandfather clause, while the FAMAS was notally prohibited. They are both bull-pups of teh same calibre and all, but its all about being PC I guess, even then.

In any democracy thats wrong. Gun owners in Australia were raped by the government, and you can't even own a pump action shotgun or semi atomatic rifle in ANY calibre here. Retarded, as the crims have even out armed the police.

At least here gunowners here were compensated for their loss of not only their privaste property, but their hobbies and passtimes too. Totally unfair.

Steve, I know John H of Wolverine personally. Good bloke. BTW that AR180 was it used? I at one time had one. Ser No, S206XX. I seen it in 1999 at a gun show in Regina still unsold and doing the circuits.

Regards,

Wes

 

[aesop081]

It is a failure that needs to be 'disbanded'.

Look , i agree with you but i also ealize that political realities demanded such legislation...like it or not.  Not too sure on how much public support you would get for scraping the registry all together but i highly doubt you would find enough to do it.  The government misshadled ( a bad idea IMHO) the program and it ended up costing a fortune.  The current gov will not comit political suicide .....it would rather witter the storm over the costs because it will survive that.........path of least resistance.

 

[M16]

It is a failure that needs to be 'disbanded'.

On a more serious note, I feel that the federal firearms registry is a huge waste. It doesn't work.

What kind of idiot would think that firearms registry will stop criminals from getting firearms?   I really don't think criminals get an FAC, register their gun and commit a crime with it.   It doesn't stop criminals at all.   If they would really wanted to fight crime they would've employed thousands of police officers with the billions of dollars that were put into the failure that they call the firearms act.

Gun control just ticks off firearms owners by making it hard to buy guns.   What does firearm registry change crimewise?   Look at the countries that don't have some form of gun control and you will see that they have lower crime rates committed with firearms.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Look at the countries that don't have some form of gun control and you will see that they have lower crime rates committed with firearms.

Do you have stats to back that up?

 

[M16]

Yes there are stats to back that up.  The liberals don't like to talk about it.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well please produce them.

And keep this in mind:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17343.0.html

 

[M16]

Looking for them.  Saw it in an issue of guns and ammo few days ago.

 

[M16]

Still looking for those stats.  Found something on the same topic.

Murder Rate and Firearms
According to the FBI, as reported in the May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped 20 percent--from 24,526 to 19,645--from 1993 to 1996.  There was an additional nine percent drop in 1997.



The murder rate in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000; in 1996 it went down to 7.4 per

100,000. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)



Although exact figures are not known, firearm ownership increased since 1994, while, as shown above, the murder rate decreased during that period. This conclusively shows firearms do not lead to higher murder rates. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)



In 1995, there were a total of 22,552 homicides (which would include murders, but exclude the 343 "legal interventions") in the U.S.  Of these, 15,551, or 69 percent, involved the use of a firearm.  The percentage of firearms-related homicide decreased from 71 percent in 1994.  (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)



In 1995, there were 3.3 non-fatal firearms related injuries for each death. (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)

 

[M16]

Got it.

The Numbers Speak For Themselves


Despite anti-gun propaganda, the U.S. murder rate is nowhere near that of many other countries.

By John Hay Rabb

Here's a pop quiz for you: Which country in the world has the highest murder rate? If you said the United States, you would be wrong, but your error would certainly be excusable. The incessant drumbeat from the mainstream media and anti-gun groups serves to perpetuate the canard that the U.S. is the bloodiest free-fire zone on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In his article "America: The Most Violent Nation?" researcher David C. Stolinsky shows conclusively that there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than the U.S. This information comes from the United Nations report "The 1996 Demographic Yearbook." The report lists the murder rates in some 86 countries. There are more than 200 countries in the world, and more than 100 did not provide murder-rate data to the U.N. Even so, the Yearbook opens a fascinating window on the failure of gun-control laws around the world.

The connection between murder rates and gun control is quite clear. The vast majority of murders are committed with firearms. Therefore, it is possible to determine if there is any sort of correlation between gun laws and murder rates in selected countries.



Gun laws, like all laws, should be evaluated to determine if they meet accepted measures of success. Gun-control advocates contend that gun laws reduce murders as well as other gun crimes. An examination of this proposition shows conclusively that gun laws fail to reduce murder rates in many countries. Therefore, they fail to meet the fundamental measure of success and should be amended or repealed.

A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7.

By contrast, consider Brazil. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued.

Therefore, it should not be a revelation to anyone that Brazil has a thriving black market in guns. Virtually any type of gun is available, for a price. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year.

In Cuba, Fidel Castro controls every aspect of life with an iron hand, including gun ownership. Castro remembers well how he and his rag-tag armed Communist rebels overthrew the government of Fulgencio Batista and set up a Communist dictatorship. An armed populace is threatening to a repressive government. Still, somebody in Cuba is obtaining guns and using them to murder fellow citizens. Cuba's murder rate is 7.8.

The former Soviet state of Lithuania is now an independent democratic country. But it still retains some vestiges of Stalinism. Lithuania's citizens must obtain a police permit to buy a gun. All guns are registered with the government. Somehow these restrictions are not deterring the criminal element; Lithuania has an unenviable murder rate of 11.7.

Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed.

Mexican authorities seem to take a particular delight in arresting and imprisoning unwitting Americans who are not familiar with Mexican gun laws. Americans may not bring legal guns or ammunition into Mexico. Possession of even one bullet can get you thrown in a medieval Mexican prison. The State Department says that at any one time there are about 80 Americans imprisoned in Mexico for minor gun crimes. The State Department even went so far as to issue a special notice to U.S. gun owners, warning about harsh Mexican gun laws. Americans are allowed to hunt in Mexico, but they must first obtain a permit from the Mexican Embassy or a Mexican Consulate before taking their hunting rifles south of the border.

Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals.

Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property. By the way, Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6.

It is surprising to learn that there is gun trouble in the tropical paradises of Trinidad and Tobago. Here a permit is required to purchase a gun. All guns are registered with the police. In spite of (or perhaps because of) these restrictions, Trinidad and Tobago together have a murder rate of 11.7.

In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies. The countries I have discussed, along with many others, have gun laws that are more restrictive than U.S. laws, yet their murder rates exceed the U.S. murder rate. These laws clearly do not meet the fundamental measure of success, which is ultimately to save lives.

What anti-gunners all over the world fail to understand is that people everywhere are basically the same in one important respect. They are determined to protect themselves and their families. If their governments will not allow them to have firearms for self-defense, then they may obtain guns illegally, even at the risk of harsh punishment. It is a natural human response to danger.

Try as they might, Sarah Brady and her bunch will never be able to defeat man's primal instinct to protect himself and his family through whatever means necessary. This fundamental human truth may offer some small measure of comfort to law-abiding gun owners around the world.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I am not a fan of the Gun Registry but this looks like something the loonies in the NRA would submit.