07.24.2011 08:48 AM

In today’s Sun: a gun owner, on guns

I’m a Liberal. I’m also a gun owner.

Now, I’ll bet those aren’t two sentences you’re used to seeing strung together.

But, in my case, it’s true. I don’t see them as being mutually exclusive concepts, either.

I got to thinking about guns, and the politics of guns, with the news this week the long-gun registry is a goner.

111 Comments

  1. Chris says:

    They will be voting on the elimination of the gun registry right around the time the Anders Breivik trial will be happening.

    (you are going to see a large influx of anonymous gun-nuts on the blog this weekend)

    • Ted (the anonymous one) says:

      THE REGISTRY ONLY PURPOSE IS FOR FACSIST LIBERALS TO KNOW WHERE ARE GUNZ IS AT. THEN THEY FORCE US TO PUT R GUNZ IN CENTRAL STORAGE TO SIGN OUT WHEN WE NEED THEM. THEN WITH SEKRIT ORDER IN COUNCIL THEY CONFISCATE ALL ARE GUNS. THEN ALLEN ROCK COMES AND SAYS ALL YOUR GUNZ ARE BELONG TO US.

      • sunsin says:

        Lol… hey, dummy, they can do that already if they want. Sniffers and metal detectors can find your guns quite nicely, unless you bury them ten feet deep.

        So you’re stuck with it. They can take away your guns and there’s not a damn thing you could do about it. Of course, in a country like Canada, taking away all the guns would be as nutty as taking away all the shovels and forks on a farm. But I’d be very happy if they took away all the handguns. Who hunts deer with a pistol anyway?

        • Braden says:

          Plenty of people, a .44Mag will take a deer with ease, and be an ethical kill. Of course not here in Canada, since overzealous Liberals have taken away our right to move our handguns from our houses to anywhere but the range.

      • andy says:

        ….I think you have your fascists and socialists mixed up—it’s the Conservatives that are the fascists

    • Africon says:

      The tragedy in Norway makes exactly the point that you appear to have overlooked.
      The right to self defense. 80 plus innocent and disarmed ( by a socialist government ) people gunned down while waiting for the police to arrive.
      As responsible, mature, tax paying contributor to society, I am all for licensing of all guns, training requirements, safe storage etc but I get really angry when you anti gun nuts seeks to deprive me of the human right to defend my self, my family and my property.

      What gives you the right to do so ?

      • Michael says:

        There is no human right to defend yourself with the use of deadly force. In Canada there is no right to bear arms. It’s even a dubious proposition in the US, if you read the second ammendment in its entirety.

        As well, statistics show that rather than defending themselves, gun owners more often than not end up being the victims of their own guns.

        • Africon says:

          Oh please, so are you saying that none of those young Norwegians had a right to self defense ? What gives YOU the right to deny that to anyone ?
          By all means deny yourself but other than that you’ve no right to deny others, none.

          Every week end someone or often several people in Winnipeg are attacked, how is the victim supposed to know if the attacker is going to use “deadly force” or not?
          Answer, they do not but if the attacked citizen pulls out a gun, chances are he will not have to use deadly force but YOU would deny that person such a right.
          Heck people like you would deny a women even the use of pepper spray – non deadly force.
          Lord help us or maybe the police will eh? yup worked out well for those kids didn’t it? So much for your “statistics”.

        • Braden says:

          Show me these “statistics”.

          Norway was an example of defense with deadly force potentially saving dozens of lives. A single gun in the hands of a good guy would have prevented a lot of the 90 minute slaughter.

          It’s your choice to be defenseless, but if I want to carry and be trained in defensive use of a firearm, that should be mine.

        • Kindanyume says:

          The 2nd is based on the magna carta and British common law.. the same as our own system is

          It does NOT “give” any rights.. it is a protection of that right from the government trying to take it away.

        • mark sager says:

          “There is no human right to defend yourself”

          unbelievable, please don’t spew filth like this on a public web site

          “As well, statistics show that rather than defending themselves, gun owners more often than not end up being the victims of their own guns.”

          Quote just one example please, this is utter trash……

          Come on, just one……..
          Knew ya couldn’t

      • MattMcD says:

        So you’d be in favour of allowing teenagers at a summer camp to bring guns with them? That would definitely make them safer.

        • Braden says:

          Doesn’t have to be the teenagers, there were adults there too.
          If a person is competent with, and trained in the use of a firearm, then YES, they would have been safer, no doubt.

        • Kindanyume says:

          Certainly it would especially if they had training with firearms. Look at the Swiss for example.

          I have been using guns since I was 6… age is not the factor there at all.. and even w/o training..

          If they had access at all that would be better than no guns at all with which to fire back at the lunatic…. and long odds are better than no odds!

        • Africon says:

          “So you’d be in favour of allowing teenagers at a summer camp to bring guns with them? That would definitely make them safer.”

          You obviously have a very low opinion of our armed young soldiers too?

          It’s all about training and I am a big advocate of training prior to having a license to drive or own a weapon.

          • Kindanyume says:

            Read again.. then learn what critical thinking is.. and then try to formulate an intelligent reply again.. since you failed this time big time.

    • Kindanyume says:

      There are a great many firearms owners that are not “conservatives” and yet you speak as if you are a rarity, put that BS to rest.. The party line does not = beliefs of all of the citizens.

      “Gun Control” has been proven over and over and over to be a total FAILURE.

      Fact is you should be asking yourself.. since you WANT that crap retained how do you feel that your doing so has contributed to the deaths of innocents and police officers.

      The”Registry” has never saved a single life yet but it has cost lives.. not only via the officers that were stupid enough to believe what it told them.. but how many lives have been lost since the $ wasted on such crap never went to things that actually do HELP.

      So… your “feel good” law has made you feel all safe.. but it has caused irreparable damage.

      GROW UP!

      Here is a partial list of those whom have lost their lives due to the “Registry”:

      – Officer Valerie Gignac from the Laval PD was shot and killed by a guy on a firearm prohibition order. The CPIC query showed no gun at that address. But some criminal friendly judge had decided to allow the guy to have one rifle for hunting season… Because she trusted the system and let her guard down, she paid with her life.

      – Constable Daniel Tessierdied when his team made a dynamic entry for an arrest warrant… The Gun Registry told them there wasn’t suppose to be any firearms at that location. Next thing you know, Basil Parasiris shot and killed the officer.

      – How about the Mayerthorpe shooting? There wasn’t suppose to be any guns at that location and James Roszko was prohibited from legally possessing firearms. Next thing you know, officer Peter Schiemann, Anthony Gordon, Lionide Johnston, and Brock Myrol lost their lives.

      – How about the "Spiritwood Incident". Curtis Dagenais shot and killed Const. Marc Bourdages and his partner Const. Robin Cameron… If I remember correctly, his gun wasn’t registered either.

      – Constable John Atkinson, Windsor Police. Shot and killed on Friday, May 5, 2006. He was questioning two suspicious men he observed at a convenience store when one of them pulled a gun on him. The Gun Registry didn’t do him any good.

      – Officer James (Jim) Wilbert Gregson Galloway, RCMP. He was shot in the back after a six-hour standoff with a schizophrenic man in Spruce Grove Alta. Martin Ostopovich didn’t have a valid firearms license, he was known to police, and the police had been to his place before to seize a number of firearms…

      – Constable Benoit L’Ecuyer, SPVM. He was shot and killed on February 28 2002 following a chase with a stolen car. The shooter (Stéphane Boucher) had a illegal firearm.

      – Constable Jurgen Seewald, RCMP. He was shot and killed by Salomonie Jaw while responding to a domestic dispute in Nunavut. The gun registry didn’t help him one bit.

      – Constable Dennis Strongquill. RCMP. Shot and killed on December 21st 2001 after him and his partner pulled over a vehicle which failed to stop at a stop sign as it entered the main highway. After a gun fight and a car chase, their patrol car flip over, and he was shot at point blank range by Laurie Bell using a shotgun. She was a drug-addled alcoholic, her and her accomplice had previously stolen firearms and ammunition from a farm.

      – Constable Thomas (Tom) Patrick Coffin, OPP. He was shot in the head while at a bar with colleagues. The shooter (Al MacDonald) had been arrested by the officer the previous year for DUI. Al MacDonald was a former North York fire captain and chairman of the Penetanguishene police board.

  2. I read your piece in this morning Ottawa Sun about the “long-gun registry” saying scrapping it could endanger police officers responding to a domestic violence! “Hogwash!” Are you saying if a police computer says there isn’t any weapons at that particular address,that there isn’t any? It only means there isn’t any registered weapons,period! I’m in Montreal and I’ve heard that police officers are trained to go into homes with the idea that there are weapons no matter what the police computers say! The registry gives a false sense of security! Will I ask myself this question,”did I let this happen?” “NO” I will not,because it’s a ridiculous question! That is like saying if gov’t should fail to pass their crime agenda because of opposition to it and some innocent bystander should be shot dead by a repeat offender,would you ask yourself this question? Did I let this happen? Think about what you’re saying,thank you!

    • sunsin says:

      Then why do police want the registry preserved? Inquiring minds would like to know.

      It’s hilarious reading comments like this from people whose mantra at things like electronic surveillance and wiretapping is “If you’re innocent, you shouldn’t worry about the police knowing what you are doing.”

      • JH says:

        The Police Chief’s association wants it preserved, not the cop on the street. Ask a police chief about all the travel and perks they get through their association. Then ask him how much money the Co. that runs the registry contributes to their organization.

      • Kindanyume says:

        Just because the CACP wants it they do NOT represent actual officers on the street.

        See Randy Kuntiz’s poll of actual officers on the streets for a reality check.

  3. I forgot to mention,I unlike you am not a gun owner strange coming a conservative, isn’t?

    • Kindanyume says:

      No more so that someone that is a gun owner that is not a conservative. It’s about freedom of choice and this should be a non-partisan issue

  4. I forgot to mention,I unlike you am not a gun owner strange coming from a conservative, isn’t?

  5. Yup, the suspect doesn’t have a gun – I checked the registry! – so I guess I can just leave mine in the squad car…

    • smelter rat says:

      Don’t be an idiot.

      • Graham says:

        Police in Quebec did something like that.

        They were going to serve a search warrant with dynamic entry (forcing their way into the home unannounced).

        The officer in charge checked the address against the registry, which told him there were no guns at the address.

        So, he told the SWAT team to stand down. In other words, he told them the were not needed on the call.

        Well, there were firearms at the address.

        Officer Daniel Tessier was shot and killed on that assignment.

      • Kindanyume says:

        Care to try again?

        – Officer Valerie Gignac from the Laval PD was shot and killed by a guy on a firearm prohibition order. The CPIC query showed no gun at that address. But some criminal friendly judge had decided to allow the guy to have one rifle for hunting season… Because she trusted the system and let her guard down, she paid with her life.

        – Constable Daniel Tessierdied when his team made a dynamic entry for an arrest warrant… The Gun Registry told them there wasn’t suppose to be any firearms at that location. Next thing you know, Basil Parasiris shot and killed the officer.

        – How about the Mayerthorpe shooting? There wasn’t suppose to be any guns at that location and James Roszko was prohibited from legally possessing firearms. Next thing you know, officer Peter Schiemann, Anthony Gordon, Lionide Johnston, and Brock Myrol lost their lives.

        – How about the "Spiritwood Incident". Curtis Dagenais shot and killed Const. Marc Bourdages and his partner Const. Robin Cameron… If I remember correctly, his gun wasn’t registered either.

        – Constable John Atkinson, Windsor Police. Shot and killed on Friday, May 5, 2006. He was questioning two suspicious men he observed at a convenience store when one of them pulled a gun on him. The Gun Registry didn’t do him any good.

        – Officer James (Jim) Wilbert Gregson Galloway, RCMP. He was shot in the back after a six-hour standoff with a schizophrenic man in Spruce Grove Alta. Martin Ostopovich didn’t have a valid firearms license, he was known to police, and the police had been to his place before to seize a number of firearms…

        – Constable Benoit L’Ecuyer, SPVM. He was shot and killed on February 28 2002 following a chase with a stolen car. The shooter (Stéphane Boucher) had a illegal firearm.

        – Constable Jurgen Seewald, RCMP. He was shot and killed by Salomonie Jaw while responding to a domestic dispute in Nunavut. The gun registry didn’t help him one bit.

        – Constable Dennis Strongquill. RCMP. Shot and killed on December 21st 2001 after him and his partner pulled over a vehicle which failed to stop at a stop sign as it entered the main highway. After a gun fight and a car chase, their patrol car flip over, and he was shot at point blank range by Laurie Bell using a shotgun. She was a drug-addled alcoholic, her and her accomplice had previously stolen firearms and ammunition from a farm.

        – Constable Thomas (Tom) Patrick Coffin, OPP. He was shot in the head while at a bar with colleagues. The shooter (Al MacDonald) had been arrested by the officer the previous year for DUI. Al MacDonald was a former North York fire captain and chairman of the Penetanguishene police board.

  6. Dean says:

    The registry is for each individual firearm a person owns. The police should still be able to see who has a possesion licence and that will tell them firearms could be present. The biggest problem with gun control in our country is the gaping hole they left on people who are turned down on firearm possesion, or who are prohibited from owning firearms. They should inspect these folks homes every now and then and see if they are in possesion. That would make everyone safer.

  7. Savant says:

    Firstly, let’s remember this applies only to long-guns, not hand guns. Any handguns on the registry now, will still be on the registry later. Your failure to accurately mention that only the long gun registry is being scrapped is intellectually dishonest at best and misleading at worst.

    Secondly, anyone who (legally) owns a gun of any kind must have a PAL (Possession and Acquisition Licence) whether they own one gun or a dozen. That information is available to police now, and will continue to be available later.

    Thirdly, and most importantly, ask any senior police officer and they will tell you that you ALWAYS assume that there are guns present at a location. Using the registry to make see if there are ‘guns’ at a location could be a fatal flaw – since the registry can only indicate registered guns. What’s more, who says that a person couldn’t bring their weapon to another location? Making an assumption on such a flawed premise is suicidal.

    Lastly, and certainly not least, criminals don’t registrer their guns.

    What bothered me the most about your colum was the closing remark. “Next time you hear about a cop getting shot dead while attending to a domestic dispute, ask yourself one question: Did I let this happen?”

    The registry is just lines on ‘paper’. The registry can’t help or hurt anyone. Furthermore, when was the last time you ever heard about an officer being killed by a long gun in Canada? I can help you out here, it was the Mayerthorpe shootings that claimed the lives of four RCMP officers. The officers were aware that he had the guns, and they had been registered. Sadly, it didn’t help prevent their deaths. It couldn’t.

    The real ‘killer’ here is illegal weapons. Despite our current gun laws, the last statistics in 2009 (from Statistics Canada) found that over 2/3rds of weapons recovered in homicides were unregistered. Many more were registered but had been stolen from their legal owners.

    However, and I say this seriously, why is it that we aren’t registering knives? At present, and you can verify this at Staistics Canada, there are more people killed with knives than with guns. Do their lives mean nothing? What about the police officers killed by knives in the past?

    Let’s get real here. Long guns aren’t the real problem when people talk about gun crime. I’ve never owned a gun, never fired a gun, never been around guns, and never lived in a rural area. I can say with absolute certainty that I am a lot more worried about Joe gang-banger with his handgun cruising the steets of the city than I am about Farmer Jack in the country with his hunting rifle that he uses to protect his cattle.

    People seem to have lost sight of the difference.

    • here,here! You’ve articulated much better than I! Great points!

    • sunsin says:

      The argument is logically incoherent and ends up by using a straw man. If I were teaching argumentation, you wouldn’t pass. Not because of your attitudes but because of the flawed and borderline dishonest arguments that you use.

      It is true the registry is just “lines on paper.” So is an arrest warrant. So is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The value of the registry, as police officers have REPEATEDLY indicated, is that it conveys information to them about the nature of the threat that they may be facing. Anyone who thinks that they blindly take that information as 100% true has a very poor opinion of the intelligence of the average officer. It isn’t 100% true. But it’s something.

      And “when was the last time you ever heard about an officer being killed by a long gun in Canada? I can help you out here, it was the Mayerthorpe shootings that claimed the lives of four RCMP officers” is either a flat out lie or very lazy. Try googling the name “Vu Pham.” He was an Ontario Provincial Police officer killed by a man with a rifle last year. And that information was the result of a five minute search. There are certainly others.

      The implication that the long gun registry is useless because it didn’t help the officers killed in the Mayerthorpe incident is true but irrelevant. The officers’ body armor didn’t help them in that incident either, but we don’t argue that police shouldn’t wear body armor because of that. There is no 100% effective means of catching criminals or keeping police from being killed. There are only percentages, and the police naturally welcome anything that tilts the percentages their way.

      And no, you aren’t being serious when you suggest registering knives. Try killing someone 50 meters away with a knife. Try knifing a police officer in body armor. (No, don’t. You probably wouldn’t survive the experiment.) We devote the most attention to the things that can do the most damage, and guns win out over knives hands down. And as a matter of fact, knives are under various legal restrictions for the safety of the public (if you don’t believe that, try playing with a butterfly knife or a switchblade in front of a police officer).

      Given your carelessness and/or mendacity in the argument, forgive me for believing that your claim of not being a gun owner etc. etc. is a mere rhetorical flourish. I grew up with people who knew a lot about guns from fighting on the front lines in two world wars, and they would have despised you.

      A gun’s a necessary tool in undeveloped areas, but there’s no reason it shouldn’t be registered and controlled, the same way we control drugs that are necessary in some circumstances and dangerous in others. But all guns in urban areas should be forbidden, except for storage of weapons that are used elsewhere. Then you might be able to arrest “Joe the gang-banger” before he shot someone, not after.

      • Bil Huk says:

        i would have politely pointed out a couple of inconsistencies in your post, but since your reply to savant was barely hanging onto civility, i’ll keep my post in that vein.

        Brilliant idea on catching Joe the gang-banger before he shoots someone. What do you think is happening now, we can’t pick up Joe because his gun is registered, and THEN he uses it to kill someone? Seriously? Joe doesn’t use a registered gun, at least not one he’s registered. So if Joe gets pulled TODAY with a non registered or stolen gun, he’s brought in. That’s the definition of ‘carelessness’ and “intellectual dishonesty’. more so than what your slapping savant for.

      • Savant says:

        “The value of the registry, as police officers have REPEATEDLY indicated, is that it conveys information to them about the nature of the threat that they may be facing.”

        It does no such thing, and any senior officer will say as such. As I mentioned above, anyone who (legally) owns a gun of any kind must have a PAL (Possession and Acquisition Licence) whether they own one gun or a dozen – or perhaps no guns at all. That information is available to police now, and will continue to be available later.

        It’s like suggesting that the best way to determine if someone is in possession of a car is to check to see if that person has any license plates in their name. Would it not be better to check to see if they have a driver’s license instead?
        Since a person can posses a gun – legally – without actually having the gun registered in their name, it makes far more sense to check to see if the person has a PAL.

        “There are only percentages, and the police naturally welcome anything that tilts the percentages their way.”

        If that was indeed the case, then they should be checking for PALs, since that covers anyone who has a license to possess a gun. Such a person may not have registered a gun, but they need the PAL to buy it. Access to that database has been and will continue to be available. That database contains every single name from the long gun registry and thousands more. If you really want to tilt the percentages, would you not want to check the PAL?

        Regarding Vu Pham, I stand corrected. I did recall that incident but I didn’t think it was a long gun that was involved. Sufficient to say that, as noted, the gun in that case was registered as well.

        “And no, you aren’t being serious when you suggest registering knives. Try killing someone 50 meters away with a knife. Try knifing a police officer in body armor.”

        I was being serious. Or are you suggesting that we should have no laws against certain knives? Currently there are some knives that cannot be legally possessed in Canada. Yet all knives can kill. You are the one who talks about ’tilting the percentages’, it would seem to me that this would certainly fit the bill.

        As for knifing a police officer, I guess you are not from the Toronto area or you would know that Detective Constable William Hancox was knifed to death by a woman in an altercation outside Centenary Hospital in Scarborough about 10 years ago. Knives are just as deadly to police as guns are.

        “A gun’s a necessary tool in undeveloped areas, but there’s no reason it shouldn’t be registered and controlled…”

        I know it’s a tired expression, but it is apt. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

        We have a database of PEOPLE who are legally allowed to own a firearm, ANY firearm. That database covers everyone in the long-gun registry and thousands more. That, to me, is a far more valuable resource.

        The real truth is that the long gun registry has been more of a tool to seize weapons than to just know ‘where they are’. That can be found evident by this story.

        If the worry is really about the ‘safety of lpolice officers’ when they go out on calls, then they are free to check for PAL registration, which is a more through search.

      • Africon says:

        I’m sorry but I do not understand this statement –

        “But all guns in urban areas should be forbidden, except for storage of weapons that are used elsewhere. Then you might be able to arrest “Joe the gang-banger” before he shot someone, not after”.

        Hand guns HAVE been forbidden for decades and yet Joe the gang-banger is still around shooting up innocent bystanders in broad daylight in cities across Canada. There has not been any increase in arrests of illegal gun owners so far as I know.

        I am all for much higher automatic sentences for anyone caught with an illegal or unlicensed gun of any kind, period. An 11 yr old kid in Winnipeg was recently found with a hand gun so clearly despite your wide eyed idealism, it’s far too easy for anyone to obtain an unlicensed gun.

    • TofKW says:

      “Furthermore, when was the last time you ever heard about an officer being killed by a long gun in Canada?”

      Last year?
      http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100308/officer_shot_100308/

      The shooter, Fred Preston (70) died later in hospital from his injuries. He was a lifelong resident of Sundridge Ontario, a former reeve of Joly township, and was active in the local community church (ironically, constable Vu Pham belonged to the same church once, though the two probably didn’t know each other). Preston was also an avid hunter and all his guns were registered, including the one he used to shoot constable Vu Pham.

  8. Tiger says:

    Plenty of American liberals claim to — and often do! — own guns.

    So I’ve seen it before, I’ll see it again.

    • Kindanyume says:

      Indeed.. the majority of the NRA membership are Democrats not Republicans.

      • Tiger says:

        The NRA’s political wing — even though it is staffed by people who tend to vote Republican — spends its time defending pro-gun Democrats.

        The people who can figure that out, now understand the point of single-issue organizations.

        • Kindanyume says:

          In part true… fact is though it is far more non-partisan by the populace… hence why the majority of NRA members are democrats.

          You should ignore those in office that love to use such BS as “gun control” to further their own agenda… as with most things in life the people you see on TV for “anything” are usually the raving morons.. since that gets the best “ratings”..

  9. dave says:

    I thought the idea was to get a handle on the availability of guns, so that they are less likely to be used on people.
    Most of us do keep our guns differently than we used to before the legislation.

    If there were problems with the legislation and regulations, why not deal with those speciifc problems?

    Anti registry people are technically right that availability of guns and their use for violence by others are not their responsibility.
    But it would be refreshing if the anti registry people did suggest some ways of mitigating gun violence, before it happens. ( I am not sure that stiffer jail deters much of anything – a lot of crime, especially violent crime, just doesn’t happen that way.) They claim to know the field really well; I’m sure they have useful contributions to make.

  10. Graham says:

    Warren:

    There is a rather large part of the registry’s uselessness you are missing: Borrowed firearms.

    The registry contains no information on them, and it “shoots” holes in your argument regarding police and domestic despute response.

    As a gun owner, you should know you are allowed to lend a firearm to another person so long as they are licensed for that class of firearm, in this case non-restricted.

    So, let’s say we are both have our PAL (which I actually do, RPAL in fact). You own firearms, I don’t. Now,, let’s say another friend asks me to his gun club to do some skeet shooting. I come to you and ask to borrow a shotgun. Being buddies, and knowing I have my PAL and it is perfectly legal to lend me the firearm, you do.

    I call you later in the evening to return the shotgun but you are not at home, so you tell me to keep it until the next day. So, I take it home and store it in accordance with the safe storage requirements under the Firearms Act.

    Now, just for the sake of argument, lets say the wife and I have a disagreement that gets a little loud. The neighbours call the police. According to you, enroute to my house, police would check my address against the registry to see if any firearms at my address. Here’s where your argument falls apart.

    Even though I am currently in LEGAL POSSESSION of a borrowed shotgun, the registry check of my address will show the responding officers NO FIREARMS are at my home.

    Had police done a check of my address against the firearms LICENCE database using CPIC (which they have been able to do long before the registry was put in place and will continue to be able to do long after the registry is gone) they would have seen someone at my address had a firearms licence. In my opinion, that is a much more accurate check.

    There have been a number of police officers killed because they trusted the registry information.

    Valerie Gignac, Danielle Tessier and Jurgen Seewald come to mind off the top of my head.

  11. Graham says:

    Chris:

    The Liberals promised the registry would prevent something like L’Ecole Polytechnique from happening again.

    How did it stop the shooting at Dawson College in 2006?

    The answer is it didn’t.

    The individual responsible used registered firearms.

    • Kindanyume says:

      They promised something that can never happen. Not to mention they knew it was a blatant LIE.

      Our “Firearms Act” (aka c-68/c-17/c51 etc) has nothing to do with public safety… nor crime control.. it is designed for confiscation from the populace and more to the point.. it is about CONTROL..

      • Paul says:

        Yep. Registration is just a preamble to eventual confiscation. Sure, they said (in C-68): well, we’re going to go ahead and ban a bunch of scary-looking guns that we have decided you do not need, then we are going to make a list of the rest so that someday when we decide you don’t need those we’ll know where to find them.

        Everyone knows that laws only get more and more restrictive over time, so eventually we’ll end up like Britain where almost all guns are illegal and you can be charged for having a swiss army knife in your pocket. All in the name of “public safety” and the futile notion that if we could just ban all the bad, scary inanimate objects in the world crime and violence will go away.

        • Kindanyume says:

          If we don’t fight back that can very well happen.

          If the general public is not educated about the actual facts…

          If WE all put huge pressure on Harper right now to immediately repeal c-68/c-17 and return to the FAC days as a first step.

          We have the facts that prove it is not about public safety… time to light a fire under their asses to get things done!

  12. Bruce from Etobicoke says:

    I exchanged notes with a friend this week – after the data was released about how much the crime rate dropped again last year I had suggested that maybe we could use all of Harper’s new prisons for senior’s housing. He responded “His mind’s made-up as are the fact’s on which it is fixated.”

    Then he said something I did not know. “I saw something the other day: 9 of 14 police deaths by firearms were caused by buggers using long guns. More support for abandoning the long gun registry.”

    You are right Warren. But you aren’t going to change minds that are “made up as are the facts they are made up on”. Only 400+ Police Chiefs wanted to keep the registry. One or two swing voters in small towns wanted it gone. Do the Harper math.

  13. Ted (not the other one) says:

    I remember way back when Harper was my MP in Calgary West. He voted with the Liberals on Bill C-68.
    Anyway, I don’t think the registry is as useful to the police as many claim. When the cops arrive at the scene of a domestic dispute they have to be prepared for anything, regardless of what the registry is telling them. That being said, I no longer believe that the registry is as harmful to gun owners as many also claim. When I was a little younger, and more impressionable (gullible), I bought into the paranoia of my older and wiser shooting pals. The registry was just one more step toward the liberal goal of firearms confiscation, so they said. The registry is clumsy, and a pain in the ass at times, but it hasn’t been a major inconvenience for me. It hasn’t made me feel any safer either.

  14. Graham says:

    Bruce from Etobicoke:

    If you actually READ the story on crime rates falling, you would have seen they used REPORTED crimes.

    In September 2010, Statscan released a five year study that showed only 31% of crime victims actually reported the crime to police. Fewer people reporting the crimes, obviously the crime rate will fall.

    As for the police chiefs supporting the registry, their assaociation, the Canadian Associaltion of Chiefs of Police (CACP) recieves monetary donations from registry contractors such as CGI Group. Their support is about protecting their funding, not public safety.

    • smelter rat says:

      Ah yes, the mythical “unreported crimes” that we’re building all the prisons for.

      • Africon says:

        Ah yes, of course you are right – ALL rape is reported, uhuh and ALL cases of child sexual molestation too no doubt. And as we all know ALL cases of robbery are reported too. You think over crowded, 100 year old prisons are just perfect places for any hope of rehabilitation too, I suppose.

    • Bruce from Etobicoke says:

      Reform Party Talking Point Alert!

      Sorry Graham but if it ain’t reported and the Police don’t make a call on it, then it’s fantasy crime, not unreported. You aren’t a “crime victim” unless you actually participate in the system and become a real victim. As in, it’s investigated, someone’s charged and convicted. If they aren’t convicted there was no crime committed. That’s how we run the legal system. Anything else and you’re just providing an opinion and you’re wasting time and breath. As in “I thought I was assaulted, but couldn’t be bothered to report it. Dancing with the Stars was on”. Sorry you didn’t know that. Stop spouting Con talking points.

      The crime rate started dropping like clockwork in 1973 in Canada and England and in 1974 in the USA – pretty much when abortion was decriminalized in each country. It’s dropped steadily ever since. You need to read more yourself. Start with Schlosser, Gladwell, or Stephen Levitt. They present facts. What you are talking about is foo-foo dust. Conservative fear mongering foo-foo dust.

      And I hate to be the one to break it to you sunshine, but Chiefs of Police don’t base their decisions on a $10K cheque from CGI. They think about that long line of Police Officers at the funeral. And the widow and kids. A lot. Give your head a shake pal. Good Lord.

      • Bruce from Etobicoke says:

        Should have read 17 years after 1973 and 1974. I doubt you’ll care.

        • Graham says:

          Gun crimes had been falling since 1974. LONG before any modern day gun control laws were on the books.

          Gun crimes actuall began to INCREASE in 2003, they year it became mandatory to register all firearms in Canada.

          And by the way Bruce: I come from a police family.

          11 members of my family are cops.

          NONE support the registry.

          • Bruce from Etobicoke says:

            I always love the “All my family members think like me with the implication that we represent every other police officer in the country’s thinking” argument.

            Pretty sure 11 family members isn’t a signifigant statistical sample Graham. Bad logic.

            I on the other hand know 12 police officers who are not related to each other who ALL support the registry? Do I win now? By your logic I guess I do…..

        • Kindanyume says:

          Bruce from Etobicoke says:
          July 25, 2011 at 10:12 am

          I always love the “All my family members think like me with the implication that we represent every other police officer in the country’s thinking” argument.

          Pretty sure 11 family members isn’t a signifigant statistical sample Graham. Bad logic.

          I on the other hand know 12 police officers who are not related to each other who ALL support the registry? Do I win now? By your logic I guess I do…..

          Once again… check out the stats from Constable Randy Kuntz’s poll of officers on the streets… it confirms exactrly what Graham said and then far more…

  15. Bob C. says:

    It is my opinion that all firearms are lethal. Public safety is dependent on the responsible and accountable ownership and use of firearms. Responsible and accountable ownership is only enforceable if firearms can be readily matched/traced to an individual, hence the need for firearms to be registered to individuals that are legally entitled to possess them. I am still convinced that the registration of firearms is a vital component of the Canadian Firearms Act, and I know of no way in which to replace its intent.There is no cost associated with the registering of a non-restricted firearm. Owners of non-restricted firearms are not required to renew their registration on a prescribed basis. Once a non-restricted firearm is registered, no further action is required until such time as the non-restricted firearm is sold, gifted, or otherwise disposed of by the owner. There is no cost associated with the disposal of a non-restricted firearm.

    On the other hand I am not equally convinced that, in the majority of cases, a Firearms License is required. The intent of the License is to ensure that those individuals described in Section 5 and 6 of the Act are not permitted to possess a firearm and that individuals owning a firearm are trained in the safe use of firearms (Section 7 of the Act).

    The requirement for an individual to possess a Canadian Firearms License to purchase and/or register a common hunting Non-Restricted Firearm could be replaced by the production of a valid Photo ID, a real-time Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) data base check that would be performed by the Canadian Firearm Centre at the time the firearm is purchased/registered, and documented proof that the owner has completed a valid [provincially or federally approved] hunter’s safety course. [Note: Currently under sections 23 of the Canadian Firearms Act, the vendor is required to contact the Canadian Firearm Centre prior to transferring the firearm, and under Section 27 the Centre is required to verify that the transferee is entitled to possess the specific firearm so no extra work should be required]

    Eliminating the need for a Firearm License would also eliminate the fee and the possibility that hunters and farmers can become criminals simply because they forgot to do their paper work to renew their PAL/POL, or for that matter to obtain one. In addition, Policing bodies, the Courts and other enforcement bodies will have almost the same level of information available to them through the Firearms Registry as they do with the current Firearm License and Registry data bases combined. The same cannot be said if the Firearm Registry is scrapped.

    It should also be noted that when an instance [as noted under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act] arises that would prohibit an individual from owning a firearm, persons in authority should be checking the Firearm Registry to determine if the individual possesses any firearms, and if so, appropriate action to seize the firearms should be taken immediately and not at the renewal of the License [which could be up to 5 years later].

    • Kindanyume says:

      All firearms can be lethal… so can knives.. cars… baseball bats… fists… do you want a registry for those as well?

      You FAIL since you are focusing on an inanimate object.. and regardless of what “feel good” legislation exists the criminals will continue to have and use such regardless of the laws.

      “Gun Control” is a total utter FAILURE due to this simple reality… CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW.

      Due to your sort of idiotic thinking the public is less safe… more vulnerable to the criminals.. and many people have been killed where they need not have been.

      You should be ashamed!

      • Bob C. says:

        Kindanyume….. I should be ashamed of what????? Guns have only one real purpose and that it to kill. Certain knives, designed strictly for killing, are banned under the Criminal Code, The majority of knives and other items such as bats, cars, etc were all designed for other purposes. If they are used in a criminal offence then the charge is “possess weapon dangerous to the public peace”.

        The real crime here is your inability to comprehend what is being stated. It is too bad we do not have a registry for Cement Heads as you would surely be at the top of the list.

        • Kindanyume says:

          No.. Guns have a purpose of propelling a projectile from the inanimate object forward in a predictable trajectory. They do not choose to kill.. period.. Regardless of the motivation of the person whom is utilzing such a tool. Much the same as a knife has no intent to kill.. or a baseball bat.. or a kitchen chair.. or.. or.. or

          You fail straight off by trying to infer sentient characteristics upon an inanimate object. Virtually anything can be used as a “weapon”.. (inclding a chile as was evidenced not long ago by a moronic woman using a child as a weapon).

          To try to blame the tool is beyond stupid… the gun if left alone on the table does … NOTHING.. it does not randomly jump up and decide to shoot people.. It is only a tool.

          Now assuming you grasp that concept lets move on.

          The person using the “tool” I’m sure u will call evil for killing etc etc.. (again the gun/knife etc did NOT kill anyone). You will of course jump to the conclusion that it is “due to X”..

          But the problem there is again.. the tool is not the problem.. it has never been.. (see above for inanimate object)

          But further in you will (if you can follow) arrive at the “whom did what” part of that same situation.

          Let me give a few possible cases.. just for illustration:

          #1 Gang banger hates other gang banger and uses a Beretta 92 9mm to shoot X.

          #2 Wannabe thug has bought a gun on the street and decides he needs cash and tries to rob the local LCBO.. pulls it out.. and while threatening the poor clerk shoots them and several others due to malice or sheet stupidity.

          #3 A wannabe “dirty harry” buys a S&W model 27 and shoots himself in the foot.

          #4 A cute girl walking in the pack on her way home from her X job is accosted by some unknown person.. and they attempt to rape her… she manages to get into her purse and using the snub nose 432 her father/boyfriend etc gave her shoots the perp.. and kills him before be can complete hat crime.

          #5 A random person whom has never committed any crime is walking along the street and has gunfire directed at him/her.. having a CCW and common sense looks around.. spots some wannabe thug 10 feet away that has taken a shot w/o thinking and happened to be near by… and is now threatening the store clerk and demanding $ or he will shoot the kid standing behind the clerk ( safely assuming the kid to be his/her daughter/son).. and then takes aim.. and shoots the perp.. probably killing him w/o harm to the innocents involved.

          All of the above are different.. all show how a gun is merely a tool… and all prove you are w/o any doubt a MORON that cannot see past your own nose if even that. pay close attention to the contrast.. of evil.. stupid and good in those examples.. and then read again before continuing.

          This quote is something you fail to understand:

          “Killing is neutral in it’s morality, but the reason one kills defines his character.”

          If you had grasped such a reality you would not have made such a post full of FAIL.

          PS: ANYTHING can in the wrong hands be used against the public peace…. so do we ban the entire planet? Or do you GTFU and clue into the cold hard reality instead.. somehow I seriously doubt you are capable.

          • Bob C. says:

            You are right Kindanyume, a gun is a tool, a tool that was designed to kill whether it be the coyotes bothering the neighbours cattle, or a elk during one of my son’s hunting trips, or the rogue bear that the Conservation Officers had to put down, or the clown who refused to put down his firearm when the police tell him too. The bottom line is guns were designed to kill.

            As for some of your other comments, I suggest that you look in the mirror and you will find a prime example of a stupid moron.

        • Kindanyume says:

          ~~~~

          Bob C. says:
          July 26, 2011 at 8:24 am

          You are right Kindanyume, a gun is a tool, a tool that was designed to kill whether it be the coyotes bothering the neighbours cattle, or a elk during one of my son’s hunting trips, or the rogue bear that the Conservation Officers had to put down, or the clown who refused to put down his firearm when the police tell him too. The bottom line is guns were designed to kill.

          As for some of your other comments, I suggest that you look in the mirror and you will find a prime example of a stupid moron.

          ~~~~

          Yeah it is a TOOL.. that is all… how a tool is used is what matters.. not the tool itself.. something you fail to grasp.. and all of the “gun control” is not aimed at those using such tools for evil.. they are only aimed at those that are NOT doing so.

          As for the last comment.. please.. you are the one wearing the rose tinted glasses… time to wake up and do a reality check.

          The pointless “feel good” legislation does no good and causes great harm.. anyone supporting it is delusional, misinformed by the anti’s (whom abuse victims for their own agenda) and in many cases just plain stupid. I would suspect you are most certainly the latter.

          • Bob C. says:

            This article is about non restricted firearms. The only pointless thing here is your obsession with handguns and the truly dumb scenarios you come up with. Handguns are restricted and prohibited firearms in Canada and will remain as such forever. No Political party, no matter how strong they may be, will ever allow handguns to legally return to the street. Get over your obsession.

  16. Dave in Maple Ridge says:

    “Gun Registry is Dead so Who’s Next?”

    Uhhhh … the Liberal Party, perhaps?

    Sorry, just couldn’t resist.

    • Kindanyume says:

      I would say if the Liberal party does not clue in and return to it’s roots (just left of center) they will suffer a fate much like the PC party did when Mulroney ran away.

  17. Graham says:

    Warren, did you ever consider that your party’s continued blind support of this failed program is part of the reason the Liberals are where they are right now?

    Three of the 8 Liberal MP’s who changed their vote on C-391 are no longer in the House of Commons.

    2 more won with their slimest margins of victory ever.

    The Chief Liberal registry defender, Mark Holland was also defeated.

    • Attack! says:

      Yes, and it was no coincidence: Mark Holland in partic. went down because of the concerted opposition and assistance (both financial and volunteer) of pro-gun lobby groups like http://www.canadiangunnutz.com

      But Graham, did you ever consider standing up for, saying, or doing something on principal — because it was the right thing to do — even if it would cost you or your company sales, advancement, or even your entire job?

      Didn’t think so.

      P.s., further to what Bob C. was saying:

      one of the biggest losses of scrapping the long gun registry is that it hobbles the safe storage program.

      if there’s no way to trace old guns (I gather brand new ones have to get registered to the new owners names by the dealers at the point of sale) to the owners, there’s a lot less incentive to make sure they’re locked up safely, away from the ammo,

      which makes it a lot more likely they’ll be more accessible both to kids fooling around and to burglars,

      which means there’ll be a lot more accidental shootings, injuries and deaths (which have all dropped dramatically since the LGR was implemented), and more stolen guns which end up being sold to criminals to be used as sawn-offs and robberies.

      And this will be on you Cons, ideologues, and yes men.

      • Graham says:

        Attack!:

        Safe storage laws are COMPLETELY SEPERATE from the gun registry.

        Do you even understand what the registry actually is?

        It’s a list. That’s it.

        We get a little piece of paper (registration certificate) for each firearm.

        Do you honestly think a piece of paper is the only thing that makes people store their guns safely?

        As for your claim more guns will be stolen once the registry is gone, I’m sure you would be interested to know that thefts of firearms from their lawful owners has INCREASED since the registry was put in place. The registry has been accesses by people NOT AUTHORIZED to access it more than 300 times.

        A member of the Hells Angels was arrested, and in his possession was an actual printout of registry information.

        More accidental shootings, injuries and deaths? Then explain to me why all of those thing INCREASED after the registry was introduced. One of the classic anti-gun statements is “Oh firearm related suicides have fallen since the registry was introduced.”

        While technically true, the OVERALL suicide rate has remained remarkably consistant. People are simply finding other ways to kill themselves.

        Look at the suicide barrier the City of Toronto put up on the Bloor Viaduct over the Don Valley.

        It eliminated people jumping off that bridge to kill themselves.

        Only problem is, the SAME number of people are still jumping off the other bridges that go over the Don Valley like the one at Millwood.

        • Kindanyume says:

          “While technically true, the OVERALL suicide rate has remained remarkably consistant. People are simply finding other ways to kill themselves.”

          This is typical BS that is spewed from Wendy etc.. and in that one sentence you have shown how their BS cannot stand up to the truth w/o cherry picking stats that merely help promote their agenda.

      • Graham says:

        “And this will be on you Cons, ideologues, and yes men.”

        And the next time a career criminal out on bail or parole under his FOURTH “lifetime ban on firearms ownership” uses a firearm to injure or kill someone, it will be on you Liberal, hug-a-thug, rehabilitate over punish, bleeding heart types.

        They registry is not, nor was it ever about public safety.

        To quote Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs:

        “The registering of hunting rifles is the first step in the social re-engineering of Canadians”

        • Kindanyume says:

          Gun Control has nothing to do with safety.. safe storage.. criminals.. etc.. it is only about control

          A few bits to add in:

          “…disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda.”
          – Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.

  18. 454 Casull says:

    Warren, you just can’t fix stupid. I have three relatives that are police officers and I have six very close friends that are either “on the job” or recently retired . I would sincerely hope that none of my associate or relatives would be so stupid as to assume that a miscreant wife beater could not get around the current firearms laws and acquire an illegal firearm. As to your submission that a cop may die as a result of the demise of the unenforceable long gun registry I would suggest that Darwin was correct.

  19. JStanton says:

    As a liberal who shoots and owns more firearms than most folks, I’m firmly behind gun control. Gun control ensures that any firearms present in any circumstance are one of two things – either legitimate – because they are owned, maintained and used by an individual that has been vetted by those closest to them, and by the government, or illegitimate – and therefore owned by a criminal, whose mandate needs to be ended. What could be more simple than that?

    It’s the simplicity of this notion that makes gun control successfully administrable by government and law enforcement, and that thereby, on balance, increases public safety.

    But there are some that feel this to be an unreasonable encroachment on their liberty, as if their own self obsessed and infantile viewpoint should be sufficient to over-ride the Charter, which clearly subsumes the interests of the one below the interests of the many.

    Yes, I do appreciate that the Charter is the product of Liberalism, and therefore suspect by conservatives. But if we left it to your lot, we would all still be slaves.

    Let me be blunt – people who don’t support the Charter, can simply leave. The Charter is what separates us from those other folks who through an accident of fate and bad luck don’t get to be Canadian. Anybody who doesn’t want to be Canadian can leave any time, the sooner the better.

    There is another point though, that some firearms owners choose to forget, and this has to do with simple courtesy. Just as on the range we repeatedly practice ACTS and PROVE, to ensure that firearms are safe – for our own sake, (even though in most instances we know perfectly well that the firearm is safe, since it has not been out of our control since the last time it was PROVED), but also, importantly, so that our fellow shooters know that they are safe. Registering firearms is no different.

    Sure, in a world of good guys and bad guys, you know that you are one of the former, and that your firearm is an instrument completely under your control. Your family knows this, trusts and depends on you that this is the case, and that there is no way in hell that you will let them down. But what about everybody else? What about your neighbors, who you don’t tell about your hobby, because, well, why look for trouble? What about your co-workers, who believe, however irrationally, that only cops and bad guys have guns? What about strangers, representing the vast majority of people in Canada, who are suspicious of gun owners, simply because guns can kill? Why, in and advanced, civil society, would you not want to reassure these people, and anybody else that doesn’t own firearms, that you and your gunss are safe and legitimate?

    In our home, we have a simple pecking order. First comes the cat, who has the most authority, and can command obedience by any and all. Then come the kids. I reside at the bottom of the pile, despite my vast arsenal of firearms, and proven skill for punching holes in paper, because that’s what the Charter and simple courtesy require and expect of me.

    If you’re a shooter and you don’t want to register your firearms, then fucking grow up. Your family, your society and your country expects more from you. By doing so, you are making Canada a safer place – particularly for women and cops. Who the hell wouldn’t support that?

    .

    • Graham says:

      If gun control worked, Dawson College would not have happened.

      IF gun control worked, why does Britian still have handgun related crime?

      They banned handguns in 1997, and handgun related violence rose 300%. In fact gun crime is so bad there, in some areas they have begun to arm police officers who go out on routine patrols. And they aren’t just being armed with pistols. They are being armed with sub machine guns.

      If gun control worked, why is their so much gun related violence in Chicago which has a total firearms ban? Over the span of 12 months, more than 500 highschool aged young people wre shot. They have had numerous instances where there have been upwards of 40, yes FORTY shootings in one weekend.

      If gun control worked, why was Washington DC continually ranked in the top three most violent American cities despite a firearms ban there? Since the SCOTUS struck down the city’s handgun ban, the crime rate has FALLEN in Washington DC.

      Why is there still 1600 gun related murders in Jamaica every year despite a band on civilian gun ownership?

      If gun control worked, why do mass shootings always happen in “gun free zones?”

      Explain why gun crimes in Canada had been dropping since the mid 1970’s long before any modern gun control laws were on the books, and only started to increas when government began passing gun control laws.

      As for my neighbours and co-workers, they all know I have guns, despite the fact it really in NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS that I do.

      Oh, and why the foul language?

      CAn’t you Liberals carry on a civil conversation without swearing? You seem like an very angry person.

      Perhaps a member of your family should call the police and get your firearms removed from your possession, assuming you even have any, until you deal with your anger.

      • Attack! says:

        And if Graham worked, he wouldn’t have time to write a kajillion posts full of gun lobby talking points and misinformation protesting too much about why it’s too much work to fill out little form when one buys or transfers a rifle or shotgun. (Unless, er, he works for the gun lobby.)

        • Kindanyume says:

          Wow.. such an amazingly childish reply when you have nothing of real merit to add.. or to counter actual facts instead of your drivel.

          As for the rest of your drivel… you are oblivious and choose to not get it.. how sad indeed.. you make a good little sheeple though.

        • Graham says:

          1) The majority of my posts were done on the weekend.

          2) I do work.

          Fire Protection Engineer installing, manitaining, designing fire alarm, fire sprinkler and other life safety systems. Cleared just over $88,000 in 2010. Thanks for asking.

          You see, when you have a job, you get these things called vacation days where you don’t go to work on those days.

          You talk a big game for someone posting at 3:29 in the afternoon on a Monday.

          Shouldn’t YOU be at work?

          Oh, and there are no forms to fill out when buying or transfering a firearm. It’s done on the phone or computer. The forms come in the licensing process.

          I suggest you research you talking points before posting so you won’t embarrass yourself so much.

          • Kindanyume says:

            Don’t hold your breath esp if waiting for an intelligent and researched response. He has none to give as has already been proven on this page many times..

            Such as the next main section below where he attempts to exploit tragedies to make his point.. and even that was so pathetically attempted he again in effect shot himself in the foot again. (pardon the pun)

      • JStanton says:

        Your arguments are absurd – akin to “if birth control works, how come people keep being born?”. And yes, I’m angry, because people with the asinine world view that you demonstrate here, try to co-opt the gun-control discourse with nonsensical reasoning, and to hijack the political process. The Registry and firearms ownership in general is a trivial issue, and the effort required by thinking people to police your lobby is disproportionate to its importance. It’s a waste of time, effort and resources that should be allocated to serious issues, rather than the predilection of boys with insufficient maturity to self-identify with something substantive. When you become men, you put aside childish ideas; until then, you evidently need to be watched closely and regulated tightly.

        .

    • Kindanyume says:

      The fail in your thinking is beyond words

      Turn in your guns now.. you do not deserve to have them.

      • JStanton says:

        What do you mean by “deserve”? Are you able to frame and discuss concepts… or is “fail” as thoughtful as you get?

        .

        • Kindanyume says:

          Your supporting of ‘gun control” esp the BS we have now is why you do not deserve to have them at all. There is zero benefit to ‘gun control’ since all it does is place undue restrictions on the law abiding.. wastes huge $$$$$$ and actually harms the public good… It has been proven to be an unequivocal disaster and failure over and over and over.. Despite the facts you say you are behind it?

          So let me simplify it for you…. YOU are for infringing on the rights of the law abiding in a manner that is beyond pointless and for harming the general public. While ignoring the real problem completely.

          The real problem btw… CRIMINALS

          FAIL is exactly what you did in your above statement.

          There are only 2 kinds of gun owners… the good law abiding and the criminals… time to pull your head out of your ass and focus on the latter since the former are not the problem.

        • Kindanyume says:

          btw you said: If you’re a shooter and you don’t want to register your firearms, then fucking grow up. Your family, your society and your country expects more from you. By doing so, you are making Canada a safer place – particularly for women and cops. Who the hell wouldn’t support that?

          Not only are you being abusive straight off to those you do not know… not wanting to do something that is completely pointless and that has zero benefit for society is the adult thing…
          The drivel you are “behind” has done exactly the opposite of what you claim.. it has made it LESS safe for women.. and cops.. and everyone in general.

          Who wouldn’t support that you ask?

          Rational adults that understand critical thinking and the actual FACTS… something you are not doing. Now whom needs to grow up?

  20. Anne Peterson says:

    2860 people were killed with guns in Texas last year. And probably that’s the average kill per year. If you add all the victims of this crazy person in Norway into the death by gun statistics in that country they are still almost nothing. Isn’t it ironic that a gun advocate did this horrible crime. I don’t trust gun advocates with guns. Or anyone else in love with their guns. All you are doing when you advocate everyone having a gun is to add to the death statistics and support the arms manufacturers.

    • Kindanyume says:

      Wow…. and yet for all of those words and lovely stats you FAIL again…. “2860 were killed with guns” you say… but you do not break it down into how many were murder, how many were killed by cops.. how many were people protecting themselves from criminals.. and the majority of those were criminals shooting each other. Yep you are trying just like Wendy to pick and choose to make a point instead of using logic and critical thinking.

      remember:

      “Killing is neutral in it’s morality, but the reason one kills defines his character.”

  21. Pedro says:

    A few years ago a woman was killed by her estranged husband who was known to be an avid hunter.
    The husband returned to his estranged wife’s home after an earlier incident at her home to which the police were called. The early stand-off was defused then the husband returned later to shoot his estranged wife. I am still waiting to hear why the police failed to monitor the husband since they knew he had guns. The registry had no effect on preventing this mother’s murder. I’d like to hear if the children who lost their mother are suing the police forces.

  22. okay says:

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/regina-saskatoon-top-national-crime-stats-152930332.html

    If Regina and Saskatoon has more right and more gun and more crime and more drug

    must have reason behind this motivation: It is anger hate and snitching link with disobey law orders

    ONE at a time need to change people habit from BAD habit to GOOD habit

    such as people like to drink win

    If we give them drink BUT not make them DRUNK or affect to their brain cells

    Halal food company made solution in Canada and aboard

    ISTAK 320 ml MALT beverage drink made new beer and win taste falvor make you same sense of enjoy drinking
    but has not alchol added to it

    http://www.istak.com

    all Mail shaier or
    sharab alshaeir khali man al kamol without alchol

    this drink is use by Muslim now in reach all NonMuslim to reduce drinking bad habit
    and this kind of drink still under more development with differetn varity of taste and flavor

    avaiable in Canada

    There is big link between alchol and drug and hate and crime exist in world
    alchol affect brain cell lead in older and younger age to mental illness

  23. Michael says:

    Once the Conservatives have abolished the gun registry, I hope they go aftr automobiles. 😀

    Because if it is an infringement on my rights to have to register my gun, surely it is an infringement of my rights to have to register my car. 😉

    • Kindanyume says:

      Actually you do not have to register your car.. so long as it is not used on public property. More importantly.. if you do not renew your registration of your car they do not send the police to confiscate it.. arrest you and send you to PRISON..

    • Africon says:

      Nobody is suggesting that legal gun owners should not be licensed.

      You do make an excellent point about auto registration – despite it’s having been a requirement for decades, how has that had ANY impact of lowering the death rates on our roads ?

      Yup, that’s right – ZERO, so much for the usefulness of registering guns.

      In both cases, deaths would be decreased by better safety which is fine by me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*