07.03.2012 06:25 AM

This happened right at the end of my street

Worth keeping in mind when Messrs. Harper, Hudak and Ford say gun control doesn’t work.

Wonder how they’ll react when a shooting happens steps from their front door? I sure do.

[More here..]


  1. JamesHalifax says:

    I think the better idea would be to ban people who use guns to commit crime………

  2. JP Hlady says:

    Cancelling the gun registry was much like swimming halfway across the English channel then deciding it’s too far and swimming back. 😛

    • Ted B says:

      No. It’s like getting within 100 metres of France and then deciding it’s too far and getting on boat and driving back. And not letting anyone else on the boat off for a visit to France even if they are willing to pay. Even though those on the boat paid for the trip and it’s got a negligible cost to get to France.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Actually, cancelling the gun registry was more like grabbing your kid when he’s throwing your money out of the upstairs window into the yard……and stopping him from doing it before you lose all your money.

      • Ted B says:

        The country is going to go bacnkrupt at $7 million a year????

        • Jason King says:

          More likely JamesHalifax gets all lead fingered on the keyboard when he attempts to be witty.

        • Philip says:

          But the $50,000,000 to Tony Clement’s riding is perfectly acceptable to Conservatives. Apparently helping a buddy get re- elected rather than saving lives is the best use of taxpayer dollars. Classy.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            I actually agree with you Philip……there was a lot of money mis-spent…and Tony should have been kicked in the groin for doing it. True, no money was stolen, and it was all accounted for, but clearly, this money was spent for political reasons. It’s things like that that piss me off…..

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Ted B…..closer to 2 Billion…….just to start it up.

          And why spend $7 million a year on ANYTHING that doesn’t work?

          Just to make you feel better?

          • Dan says:

            Did the fake lake work? Who really knows, except for Tony.

          • Ted B says:

            $2B start-up costs is eggregious, without question.

            But it is completely wasted by cancelling the program. Completely so when Harper refuses to even let the provinces use the data. How wasteful can one PM get?

            But $7M for something the cops want and use daily and have campaigned to save and have written report after report arguing its efficiency and usefulness.

            Inconvenient truths that go against the ideological imprint of The Harper Government (TM), but truths nontheless. There is a reason Harper has suppressed these reports afterall.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Ted, you are aware of variable, fixed, and sunk costs correct?

            Variable costs – vary, depending on the amount of activity.

            fixed Costs – costs that never change, regardless of level of activity.

            Sunk Costs – Costs you can never recover, usually referred to by a failing entity, or activity.

            the gun registry had all three.

            Variable Costs – dependent on the number of registered firearms and firearms users.
            Fixed – costs for infrastructure, wages, and salaries of those manageing it.
            Sunk costs – the $2Billion mis-spent on setting it up.

            Here’s the kicker. The gun registry, even if it worked exactly as planned…..would do nothing to prevent crime, suicide, or accidents. The law simply focused on the wrong group of people.

            If you eliminate it….you get rid of all the costs, and the money you had already sunk into it…was lost in any event. At least by cancelling it, you get rid of the variable and fixed costs that are no longer incurred in perpetuity.

            The thing was a waste of money from start to finish. It was just Alan Rock and the Liberal’s way of trying to score political points off the bodies of 14 murdered women by one maniac.

            do you really think someone like Marc Lepine would give a damn about the registry if it were in effect before Montreal?
            That’s the point.

          • Ted B says:

            Actually it is you and the anti-gun control types who are focused on the wrong group of people, albeit aided and abetted by the media.

            The gun registry has saved lives – eg. suicides, domestic abuse.

            It has also helped track down criminals after the fact, like a fingerprint. Imagine if we applied the same rules to fingerprinting as you do to gun control. Tell me, how many crimes has fingerprinting stopped?

            And all for the extremely low price of $7M a year, some/most of which is funded by the low registration fees, and the extremely minor convenience of having to register like we do our cars and our pets, etc.

            It saves lives. It made people safer (including cops). It catches criminals. It costs almost nothing.

            Or I should say it saved, caught and costed. Because for Harper it was an ideological issue and so lives, safety, crime rates and costs are all secondary.

          • Ted B says:

            And the proof of it being ideological is his desire to:
            (1) go back to 1977 laws instead of 1993 laws (businesses now no longer even have to record to whom they sell weapons)
            (2) block willing provinces and police forces from using the data or the system to create their own registry.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Ted B…clearly, you are a duffus.

            The gun registry has not prevented ANYone from committing suicide. As I stated above, do you really think a person who is about to shoot themselves would give a damn if the gun he was going to use was registered or not? In fact, do you think if the cops took someones gun away because they thought he may commit suicide…would stop him or her from doing so?
            For example: Cops confiscate gun because someone thought someone else..may be suicidal. It doesn’t prove anything. If the suicidal person then commits suicide by hanging…..does that mean the registry was effective?
            Sorry Ted….you too easily fall for false hype put out by gun opponents.

            As for the gun registry helping to track down criminals…hmmm…how do you prove it? I doubt many of the jamaicans shooting up Toronto took the time to register their guns before cutting lose on the Streets of T.O. The gun registry is useless in preventing crime..or suicide.

            The fact that you still swallow the argument that the gun registry can prevent crime….is proof enough that you lack the intellectual capacity to see any argument other than your own misguided beliefs.

            There are no cases showing clearly the gun registry prevented any crime, but there are many examples of where increased jail time for thugs and gang-bangers would have prevented the murders in Toronto.

          • Ted B says:

            So you think the cops are outright lying to the whole nation, James? Really?

            The fact that you still swallow the argument that the gun registry is useless and cannot prevent crime….is proof enough that you lack the intellectual capacity to see any argument other than your own misguided beliefs or the basic reading level of a 10 year old – read the police reports on this bud, they are clear and give examples, real, live examples.

            “As for the gun registry helping to track down criminals…hmmm…how do you prove it?” Prove to me, right here and now, that fingerprinting has helped in tracking down criminals? Give me one concrete example in Canada. Not all criminals have their fingerprints on record so it must be a waste. That would be a dumb argument. No different with the gun registry just not as prominent.

            If you bothered to read and not swallow the Con BS spin whole, you would know that cops have used the gun registry to trace the history of a gun, whose hands it started with, where it ended up, to build criminal cases in a number of cases. One example tied in evidence from a robbery in which a registered gun was stolen with a gun crime a year or so later. Did they get the criminal solely because the gun registry? Likely not. Could they have gotten the criminal without it? Who knows but it helped. So was the gun registry useful? Absolutely and obviously.

            “There are no cases showing clearly the gun registry prevented any crime.” 100% false. Do try to keep up. The police reports and surveys that Harper surpressed year after year are very clear on this point and provide examples.

            Point is that the gun registry is not magic, it is not a crystal ball, it is not as significant as fingerprinting or DNA analysis, but it IS useful for a whole bunch of reasons: crime tracking, suicide prevention, domestic abuse, safety of officers, reinforcement of good and prudent gun sales and safekeeping.

            But your juvenile name calling does match your juvenile appreciation of facts and arguments though. Well done.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Ted B…as suspected you still miss the point. I’m not surprised…zealots tend to follow their emotions over logic.

            First, you compare the act of fingerprinting, with the act of registering a gun. Please note, fingerprinting works…because they are attached to the people who own the fingerprints. Guns….not so much.

            Then you launch into the tirade about cops tracing a gun back to its owner…or trying to trace the person who used the gun. Do you see your flawed argument here, Ted? If not…let me help you out. The cops tracing a gun used in a crime……clearly shows that the crime has ALREADY been committed….and a registry would do nothing to prevent it.

            In fact, crimes committed with stolen guns…..would be committed whether the guns were registered or not. Suicide by gun….would happen whether the gun was registered or not.

            As for the gun registry not being magic….I agree. In fact, it doesn’t even qualify as a cheap trick.

            As for the police supporting the registry……I’m not surprised. Any information they can gather without a warrant is good in their minds. Please note however, it was only the Police Chiefs and other justice beaurocrats that supported the registry…it was not the cop walking the beat.

            Face it Ted B…..your side lost not only the argument…..you lost the registry.

            Get over it.

      • Paul says:

        But we continue letting our kid throw money out when it comes to gazebos and fake lakes. Brilliant!

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        But where did the backyard go with the money in your scenario?

        • Dan says:

          It was replaced by a fake lake. And surrounded by a gazebo. But it’s surrounded by police from all over the country, all without badges and name tags, so don’t think of going in there.

      • GFMD says:

        A better metaphor would be your kid is fixing up his bike and goes over the amount his allowance will cover and made some inefficient choices in going about the procedure.

        What’s the best plan? Teach him to do better going forward, put measures in place so fixing up a bike can be done better in the future?

        Well, if you’re Harper you turn rural folks against the bike and then smash it to pieces.
        Real smart.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          GFMD…you analogy is incorrect.

          At least spending too much to fix your bike…..will still result in a bike that works.

          The gun registry, would never work. They never have worked.

          You will note the handgun registry doesn’t do anything to prevent crime, correct?

          It’s the people who misuse guns who should pay the price for their crimes……not the folks who use them properly and legally.
          The fact some people cannot comprehend that is a sad statement on the ability of some people to think critically or clearly.


          • GFMD says:

            completely incorrect, as pointed out to you numerous times.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            GFMD….that’s all you got?

            Come back when you can prove your point…I’ve already proven mine.

            Frankly, having a few half-wits spit out the same lame arguments repeatedly because they read it on a pamphlet somewhere…proves nothing. Nothing written by gun registry fans to date……has been accurate or factual.

            But keep telling yourself you won the argument….if it makes you feel better about losing the registry.

          • Tim Sullivan says:


            Of all the things you’ve said to date, this must be the smartest!

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Yep..unfortunately that’s what sometimes happens when you can type without staring at the keyboard and hunting and pecking everywhere.

            By the way….please see my above comment about half-wits and lame arguments. Now..don’t you feel special.

  3. Mike L says:

    Sorry to hear that – for what it’s worth, at the Jay’s game on Canada, the entire stadium started booing Harper when his “Canada Day Address” came on the big screen.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Imagine that…..a bunch of folks in the Centre of Toronto booing a Conservative.

      • Ted B says:

        Not that many actually go to a Jays game, but the traffic on the DVP and the Gardiner before and after a game would indicate pretty clearly that these folks are from Toronto and outside Toronto. Shows what a freak election 2011 was and how tenuous Harper’s majority.

          • Ted B says:

            Sold tickets were 34,853.

            Bus in seats? Who knows. They don’t report on that.

            Anyway the point is that it’s not just Torontonians boo-ing Dear Leader.

          • Ted B says:

            That should have read “Bums in seats?”

        • billg says:

          Keep on thinking that Ted….the CPC is counting on election wins one, two and three being considered “freakish” and “tenuous”.

          • Dan says:

            The CPC rely on election fraud and robo-calling in Toronto: the only way they can win elections there.

          • Philip says:

            I’m sure your Conservatives were also counting on not getting busted by Elections Canada either. Look how that is turning out for them. Those election wins just may turn from “freakish” and “tenuous” to “illegitimate” and “fraudulent”.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Dan, Philip……keep telling yourself that.

            As long as you think people were casting ballots based on a false premise…the more we will win elections.

            Here’s a hint…..Liberal losses in the last three elections, have been the fault of Liberals, Liberal Policy, and Liberal leadership candidates.

            If you want to plan your next run on “robocalls” and other false premises….please be my guest. The more you look in the wrong direction..the more Harper wins.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Again Ted B…….folks from Toronto….or thereabouts.

          Try having Mulcair give a speech in Alberta…see what happens.

      • Cynical says:

        Lots of grumbling on Wellington St in front of the big show, as well. Most political Canada Day ever. Disgusting.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        Yeah, next thing we’ll hear they got a call from the PMO telling them to shut down their Twitter accounts…

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Ronald, if you get your news and opinions from Twitter…….

          That explains your posts. Too many words and characters tend to confuse the slow-minded. Good luck with that.

      • wsam says:

        Most people at the Jay’s game were from Scarborough, Rob Ford country.

  4. Rob says:

    Stop the war on drugs – and you put a big dent in guns and crimes. Make drugs legal and available through normal means such as pharmcies (hard drugs) and convenience stores (marijuana).

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Sure, Rob….lets ban guns so that nobody can have them…..and legalize heroin and cocaine.

      After all…everyone knows that duck and deer hunters are a threat to society, whereas junkies are harmless.

      I do think pot should be legal though…..

      • Jason King says:

        Having some comprehension problems today James? Rob was statement was about stopping the war on drugs and reducing the influence it has on guns and crimes.

        Meanwhile, James comes along and jumps the shark completely. But not to be outdone by himself he creates the lamest argument ever about duck hunters vs junkies. Yes JamesHalifax employed the “Do you support hurting the kittehs” technique of argument where if you disagree with them you sound irrational.

        Too bad James couldnt actually recognize the subject of the comment is responding to before going all half cocked

        • JamesHalifax says:

          My comprehension is fine Jason. Rob Clearly proposes legalizing hard drugs to reduce the lucrative drug trade, and prevent rival gangs from shooting up the streets. If he had said something like legalize pot (which I hope happens) and try a tough love approach to get junkies off hard drugs…I would agree with him.
          I lived in BC for years, and I’ve seen what hard drugs do to people. It turns them into animals who care for nothing except their next hit or fix. The idea of providing them to junkies through a pharmacy simply means Government becomes the new drug dealer.

          So perhaps you should go back and read it again Jason….I got it the first time.

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        Straw man … Rob didn’t say ban guns, and made no mention of guns. At all. Are you haveing trouble with the Reply button again?

        Ban mortgages! Ban cars! Ban dogs! For they are registered, unlike guns, which when used as intented, kill.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Tim, clearly you show your ignorance.

          Guns aren’t just used to kill. In fact, I’d say that most firearms that are fired, don’t result in anything dying. Most are fired for target practice and don’t result in a human death. If you are referring to hunting firearms, then yes, something will die. But that something is usually going to become a meal.

          As for Rob not mentioning guns….go back and read it again. It’s there in his first sentence. True, he never said to ban guns, he just wanted a different approach to the drug trade. I agreed with part of what he wrote, but my response was directed more towards the attitude on this entire thread.

          I actually agreed in part with what Rob wrote….I just don’t agree with his idea of giving hard drugs out through Pharmacies.

          • Tim Sullivan says:

            And clearly you don’t agree with his suggestion to ban guns which he didn’t suggest.

            You can’t just go making shit up, JamesHalifax, and expect to be taken seriously. Rob didn’t say to ban guns, but you said in response “Sure, Rob….lets ban guns so that nobody can have them …”

            You having trouble with the Reply button again, or are you just making shit up? Because justifying your response to a suggestion not made hurts the brains of anyone who has one and reads your bullshit.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Tim, clearly you cannot “infer” anything, as that would take a bit of thinking.

            In the future, I will spell things out slowly for you…and use little words. That may help you…but I doubt it.

            Now…shouldn’t you be at an Israeli Apartheid event somewhere?

          • Tim Sullivan says:


            You have truly outsmarted me. What the hell is “an Israeli Apartheid event”, and what does that have to do with, well, anything?

            You’ve impugned my intelligence, my mental health, my academic credentials, and whatever is implied here. Got anything of any substance, like a fact, a source for information except from your ideological viewpoint? Can you contribute anything other than insults and innuendo, a modicum of critical thinking, or inference from words not espoused?

            And go ahead, brainiac. I’ve asked before and it was ignored. What is the difference between a summons and a subpoena. How about the difference between Sasha Trudeau and Alexander Trudeau.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Tim, it’s too late to backtrack now.

            In a post you made several weeks ago, you indicated that you don’t think the Holocaust actually happened. I asked you to admit that you believe the Holocaust actually happened, and as far as I know, you failed to do so.

            I haven’t take you seriously since that post. As for your intelligence, mental health, or academic credentials…sorry. If you happend to write something that is intelligent, showing good mental health, or with a hint of academic credibility….I’ll let you know, and perhaps change my mind.

            You still need to admit the Holocaust happened though, before I take you seriously. Until then, I put you in the same category I save for LIbby Davies and Meghan Leslie.

    • frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

      I agree Rob…..though with marijuana, I would do like the French, and have the equivalent of tabacs, which I believe would have more control over who the product gets sold to…..as well, it wouldnt expose younger folk to its availabilty……
      And FYI, Mr. Halifax, making heroin available to Swiss addicts free of charge produced a remarkable reduction in crime in those cities where the free heroin was permitted.

  5. Paul O says:

    Which narrative are you suggesting here? That violent crime really isn’t down as all Good Liberals have been trying to claim for years? That good, law-abiding citizens who register their guns have decided that a shooting spree is in order now that registration of long-guns is no longer required? Or perhaps that this “group of 2000 thugs and criminals”, as the Police Chief refers to the source of most of Toronto’s gun violence, have all switched over to long guns now that the long-gun registry is no more?

    Or, perhaps, that more prison time is justified for those who commit crimes while using violent means including guns.

    Others here could be reminded that the gun registry remains fully in place (only the long-gun registry was removed), and many weapons remain prohibited (I believe the AK-47 is prohibited).

  6. GPAlta says:

    Why is the Harper “Government” against gun control, when it is so easy to show that it works to reduce suicide and domestic murder? Why did they get “tough on crime” when crime rates were at their lowest in two generations? Why are they closing public prisons and setting the stage for private ones? The answer, as it always is with the Harper “Government,” is that they are executing a business plan for friendly private profiteers who expect to get rich from these otherwise completely illogical policies.
    Here’s the end game, in an entertaining quiz show format: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPZed8af9RI (the important part starts at 2:22)

    • JamesHalifax says:


      do you have to work hard to be so wrong, about so many things…so often?

      The Harper Government is not against gun control…they are against “useless” gun control. As long as people are trained in the safe use of firearms, have no criminal record, and no history of mental illness……they should be allowed to enjoy their hobby. The fact you see no use for people owning a gun is not the issue. If you don’t want a gun…don’t get one.

      If you don’t want to see people shooting up the streets of Toronto….go after the people who are doing it. Here’s a hint…..it ain’t the duck hunters doing it. It’s the gangs…..and they don’t register their guns.

      What should be done, is make it a rule that anyone who owns a legal gun keeps the make, model, and serial number of all of their firearms. In the event they are stolen, give the info to the police.

      Trust me…the biggest proponents of a gun registry, are the same folks who think only the police and military should have guns….and no one else. That’s why hunters opposed it.

      Frankly, when I received my firearms license in 1986, there were over 9 Million gun owners, and over 21 million guns in Canadian hands. You’ll note the registry had far lower numbers than that…because most people simply didn’t register them.

      • GPAlta says:

        So you’re saying that the long gun registry didn’t reduce suicides or domestic murders? It did. I didn’t say anything about street crime because the statistics are much less clear there, and the real problem with guns used in Canadian street crime is the lax gun laws in the US, not anything here.

        I also said that increasing the incarceration rate is the Harper “Government”‘s plan, because it is. I didn’t say anything about compliance with the gun registry or anything similar.

        You seem to have been happy with the level of gun control in 1986, but you seem to be unaware that it wasn’t just the long gun registry that was scrapped. We now have similar gun control (on long guns anyway) to what we had prior to 1977, as gun stores are no longer allowed to keep any records at all of who purchased their wares. That means that long guns are now completely unidentifiable as legal or illegal the second they walk out of the store. I would say that a “government” that is willing to reverse policies that have led to a 74% reduction in domestic murders with firearms over the last 30 years is actually opposed to gun control http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/25/f-firearms-numbers.html , but if they actually are in favour of it but just show it strangely, fine.

        My point is that they are deliberately trying to increase the incarceration rate by following a specific recipe that has proven successful for private prisons as well as for manufacturers in the US, and I stand behind that. Their actions prove it.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          GPAlta……go back and read the first line of your comment. Now consider, do you really think that someone who has reached the point of suicide, or murder will care if the gun they use is registered or not?

          You didn’t say anything about street crime, not because of statistics, but because street criminals don’t give a fig about registering anything. That’s the point. The bad guys won’t register their guns.
          Then, you come up with a real brain storm. US gun laws control the amount of street crime in Canada? Really…is that where you are now? If you are referring to guns used in Canada which are smuggled into Canada….then please explain how a gun registry for duck hunters and deer hunters could possibly help control street gangs in Toronto using illegal handguns. Your logic is flawed.

          As for increasing incarceration rates in Canada…I’m all for it. How many lives would have been saved if some of these thugs were in jail instead of running the streets. How many times have you read in a Toronto paper that the latest gang banger who shot up Toronot should have been deported back to Jamaica or Somalia, but instead were in Canada illegally. Or, all of the thugs who were on probation, on parole, or under house arrest with restrictions on their posesseing a firearm. The gun registry would not have addressed any of these issues, only tougher laws against thugs do that. The Eatons shooter is a good example, as is the guy who killed Todd ballis (sp?).

          As for the laws in 1986, I do remember the store taking my name, address, make and model of the gun, as well as the serial number. That in effect was a registry….so why make a duplicate registry that costed far more. Frankly, even that intrusion into your personal life was too much. Before anyone gets a gun license, there is a rigourous background check. The police check with your neighbours, former employers, spouse, former teachers, etc..etc….then you have to take a three day safety course on how to handle a firearm safely, followed by a written exam, and practical safety handling exam.
          By the time you received your license, the cops were pretty sure you were not a threat, and that you are capable of handling a firearm safely. Oh yeah…they also want to know why you want one. (Usually only for hunting or target shooting)

          You best point though…you save for last.

          In effect, you are saying that US gun laws are responsible for Canadian crime. Hmmm….that’s a bit of a stretch, considering the guns you are referrring to are no doubt the illegal handguns smuggled in from the USA. Now, please tell me how the gun registry would have prevented that, given that the organized crime folks and gang-bangers have no intention of registerying these firearms.

          As I wrote earlier….the gun registry was a false promise, delivered to the gullible. Why do you think it was only non-firearms owners who approved of it?

          Good riddance to a bad law.

          • GPAlta says:

            It appears we have a misunderstanding:

            -Long gun control dramatically reduced suicides http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1077286–gun-control-keeps-suicides-down (almost one life saved per day while the registry was in effect), why? because with control there is less access to guns in the home for desperate teenagers. long guns account for 5 times as many suicides as handguns.
            -homicides have decreased during the registry http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/25/f-firearms-numbers.html, and 50% of domestic homicides involve a long gun.
            These are facts.

            I didn’t say the long gun registry could reduce street crime in Canada- I said it could not. I said nothing we can do in Canada can prevent the smuggling of illegal handguns into Canada. So I don’t think we disagree on the duck hunters there. I don’t think it is so much my logic as your reading comprehension that is flawed.

            We don’t disagree that conservatives like you want to see incarceration rates increase. No problem. With crime rates at their lowest in generations, and gun crime also at its lowest, I think staying the course would be fine, you think reversing course is the way to go. Thats why I don’t vote conservative, their policies don’t make sense.

            “Why make a duplicate registry” You’re wrong about this- as of today, gun stores are not allowed to take down your name, address, make, model, serial number etc. We have not returned to pre-long gun registry, we have returned to pre 1977. there is now no information about any long gun on the streets.

            I don’t think you understood my last point at all, that prisons make profits, that manufacturers use prisoners for slave labour, and that in the US appliance manufacturing, paint manufacturing, and office furniture manufacturing, as well as defense equipment manufacturing would not be profitable- that is what the youtube link was about. It has made money for those industries in the US, and the Cons are trying to duplicate it here. The long gun registry is only a part of a trend including changing sentencing, closing public prisons, and planning for private prisons that indicates this is the way they are going.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            GPA….the fact you rely on stats by a long time opponent of guns, is clearly an issue of supporting someone with your own bias. But, for the sake of argument, lets go that route. Mr. Bryant claims that suicides in households with firearms are 5 times higher, than households without guns. Which, brings me back to my earlier point. Do you really think someone who wants to kill themself will care if the gun is registered or not? In fact, with or without the registry, the gun would kill someone just as dead. The gun has no control over how it is used…only the person using it does. We’ll forgo for a moment that the stats have been gathered by the “Gun safety Council”…which is basically a “We hate all guns and no one should have them group”….and consider your faulty logic.
            The gun control debate started out as a way to reduce crime, which, we all know is not factual. Gun crimes were dropping well before the registry came into effect, mainly due to changing demographics. Since gun control proponents couldn’t win the argument using a crime based analysis, they jumped to suicide to see if that would catch on. It didn’t. Why? Because people know inherently that by the time someone wants to kill themself……a gun registry won’t stop it. The same applies to domestic violence. If someone reaches the point they want to shoot their wife or husband….do you think they are considering consequences? Nothing is perfect. No law will protect from every scenario, the trick is to find a law that works well…but doesn’t infringe upon the rights of millions of people who will never break the law, or present a threat.

            As for your final points about slave labour…..perhaps you aren’t aware that most prisoners who do perform labour, do so on a voluntary basis. They are actually paid….and they use the money to purchase additional items while in prison. There are no slaves in US prisons….but given your fixation with the USA and what’s wrong with it…….I doubt you’ll see the point.

            As for the duplicate registry….please note, it would be in place if the registry wasn’t cancelled. You cannot fall back on that argument, simply because you lost the first one. The point is….there was already a Quasi-registry in place that did everything you wanted it to do. We knew who had guns, and we knew what guns they had. Today, we only know who has them….and that’s not a big deal given that people who acquire a license are usually qualified to possess them.

            Now…let’s move on to another fact.

            Michael Bryant has killed more people with his car……………. than I have with my firearms.

            And yet….you use him, a long time opponent to firearms of any sort…as your citation. And he in turn, uses a well known anti-gun lobby group to bolster his argument.

            yeah…..real good job GPAlta.

          • GPAlta says:

            Why did suicides decline dramatically when the registry came in to effect? Guns had to be locked up, ammunition locked up separately, owners could be held accountable for what happened to their guns (enforcement could actually come and check on them if you let your registry expire). My father’s guns, which have been out in the open with the ammunition stored beside them for the last 50 years or more were finally put in a safe place. There was never anything stopping me or any of my friends from stealing or misusing those guns when I was a child or a teenager, and I knew people in similar circumstances who killed themselves or others because of easy access to firearms. The registry and the accompanying laws did change those circumstances, even on my parents’ farm. 80% of all suicide attempts fail, and almost everyone who survives a suicide attempt never attempts it again, but almost every suicide attempt with a firearm is successful.

            The Ontario government attempted to require gun shops to continue keeping records after the “Harper Government” killed the registry, and the “Harper Government” says that’s illegal anywhere in Canada.

            All US prisoners in federal prisons are required to work unless they have a health exemption under the Crime Control act of 1990 and they are paid from 23 cents to $1.15 per hour. In work release programs they can earn up to $8 per hour. Working for UNICOR is voluntary, but working in prison is not.

            Whether the numbers of people killed by guns are reported by Michael Bryant or anyone else is irrelevant to the numbers themselves- I don’t think stats canada can be accused of lying about gun deaths. It doesn’t even matter if the report comes from the Chiefs of Police, Conservatives still don’t believe it. Helps them sleep at night, I guess.

            Have a good day

          • JamesHalifax says:

            GPA….we’ve had safe storage laws well before the Gun registry. So your points are taken, but they are meaningless. And gun owners have always been held accountable for their actions..so again, you repeat something that was already in effect before the registry.
            As for suicide by gun being reduced by the registry……what about the number of actual suicides? True, attempting suicide by gun tends to be more successful, but if someone is committed..they will find another method. Suicides can be reduced any number of ways that have nothing to do with guns, whether improved recognition of depression and treatment, better medications, changing demographics..etc..etc….
            Frankly, the number of kids being born has been reduced significantly in Canada over the years as well. Was that due tot he gun registry?

            And then off you go again about the USA….here’s a hint. Canadians committing suicide is NOT the fault of US prisoners working or not, nor of US gun laws. As for michael Bryant, I’ll say it again. He’s killed more people with his CAR….than I have with my guns.

            And again….your side lost. Suck it up.

          • GPAlta says:

            One last round, then lets call it a draw- you win in your mind, and I’ll win in mine.

            -Safe storage laws before the registry: before the registry, police did not know where your guns were and could not come to your house and check that you were storing them safely. Also, trigger locks, locked cabinets, and separately locked ammunition were new with the registry- those have not been repealed it is true, but now that no one knows where the guns are, enforcing them is once again impossible. My father and all of his friends bought their first gun locks and safes when the registry came in because it was the registry that gave enforcement any opportunity to search out and punish violations. Now you can just say, “no I don’t have any guns” and there will be no reason to suspect you do (long guns anyway)

            -total number of suicides by all methods: sadly for your argument, the overall suicide rate tracks the gun control legislation directly
            http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/cana.pdf –rates rose until 1977 when gun control was introduced, plateaued from then to 1995 when the registry was introduced, and declined throughout the registry period. I’ll be very sad to see it if that tracking of rates with gun laws continues by increasing post registry, but we have 50 years of data that suggests it will. Since the birth rate did not have any significant change in trend in either 1977 or 1995, I don’t think it was related to gun control, unfortunately the same cannot be said about suicide.

            -the example of the US is meant to explain why the government is doing what it is doing. There is a profit motive at work behind every Harper “Government” action. Profiteering in the prison-industrial complex will cause suicides in Canada, but only as a side effect of making profit in Canada. The US is the model, Canada will be the copy.

            -We all lost with Harper, you just don’t realize it yet.

          • JamesHalifax says:


            It’s clear we will never agree on this issue. No matter what facts I state, or what stats you show…there will always be an equally convincing counteragument that can be twisted to prove our own seperate point of view. I don’t agree with you….and you don’t agree with me.

            However, you insistence that the Government is always looking for a “profit” is a little far-fetched, as you seem to imply that Harper is trying to make a profit off of the legislation they pass. Clearly, that is simply foolish. You’re “prison – industrial complex” is another example of over the top hype, which you clearly think is true, but again, I disagree.

            As for everyone losing with Harper……not too sure about that. Let’s look at who loses?

            1. Corrupt and bogus “immigration” consultants
            2. Unions who hold the people who pay their salaries as hostages….getting overpaid and underworked, and still complaining about it.
            3. Terror networks operating in Canada. (or lose their “charitable status)
            4. Criminals lose
            5. Activist and lefty groups who rely on taxpayer funding
            6. Sleazy lawyers who can’t profit from the Court Challenges program…etc..etc…etc..
            7. Wheat Board Beaurocrats
            8. Anti-Gun zealots who know nothing about guns, yet consider themselves experts.

            Frankly, all the people who “lose” with Harper…..are the reason I support him.

            Yep. We won’t agree on much.

          • GPAlta says:

            -apparently we also don’t agree on the definition of “facts” since I don’t see any in your previous posts. I agree to disagree on that too.
            -I’m only writing this to clarify to others what I think I’ve made clear already, but what you don’t seem to understand. Harper’s motive is to drive profit to the corporations that have funded his party’s operations. Obviously the government itself doesn’t profit, Harper has undermined the government’s ability to fund basic services by giving away its revenue through reckless and illogical corporate tax cuts.

            I hope they’re paying you well, because they have lots of money: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tories+raised+nearly+million+campaign+funds+last+year/6884467/story.html
            We should all ask ourselves why a party that is supported by less than a third of Canadians can raise more than all the other parties combined. It is because their supporters are expecting a cash return in tax cuts (lowest corporate tax in the G8 and falling) http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/972072–canada-s-corporate-tax-policy-sustains-child-poverty, in free money
            or in jobs for life http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/political-patronage-alive-well-161045315.html

            Is Harper’s plan to enrich his rich friends working? Look up Gini Coefficient, and note that Canada’s income inequality has been rising faster than almost anywhere else in the world in recent years. http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx

          • JamesHalifax says:

            GPA….if you think spouting off your bogus “facts” by groups and folks who are biased bolsters your argument…keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.

            Seriously…the STAR? Winnipeg Free Press? Montreal Gazette?

            Why don’t you just copy and paste the NDP website?

            Frankly, your conspiracty theory about Harper getting rid of the registry to enrich his friends, is so far out there….I suspect you also have a membership card to the Scientologists, or the Adbusters group.

            As a reminder…..all of those opposed to the gun registry, are not Harper’s “rich friends” as you seem to believe. They are to be found in all Parties. The most vocal supporters of the registry, are also those most likely to know nothing about guns, or gun owners. Most gun registry supporters, are completely ignorant of the issue, and rely on bogus stats and speaking points from the gullible.

            that’s why the registry is gone…….no sensible, or logical argument could be made to support the idea of keeping it.

            that’s why you lost. Suck it up buttercup.

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        So JamesHalifax, we have a system in place to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and those with a history of mental illness? Funny, we lost the capacity to know who has guns when we destroyed the registry.

        Maybe the census will help.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Tim, we know who the LEGAL gun owners are…they are all licensed. Those with a mental illness are not given a license. If a legal gun owner has a mental illness, we know who they are, not that this will help much. Even if you take away someone’s gun…you can get one in a day or two from any gang in Toronto.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          you tell me Tim….I’m sure your name is at the top of the list.

          And by the way…..the registry didn’t change the licensing requirements. If you had mental issues….you were never given a license in the first place, let alone a gun.

          • Tim Sullivan says:

            Yeah, a “mental issue”. I’m sure that’s in the DSM. And where, pray tell, is the list of people with “mental issues” to cross reference with “gun license”?

            Do you make this stuff up, or does it just come to you as knowledge?

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Tim….you may have been reading what I have written, but clearly you are not paying attention.

            Scroll up and re-read (and try to understand this time) what is required to even get a license.

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        “What should be done, is make it a rule that anyone who owns a legal gun keeps the make, model, and serial number of all of their firearms. In the event they are stolen, give the info to the police. ”

        … just don’t call that rule “registration”.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Registration is completely different than what I propose. My idea leaves control in the hands of the gun owner, not the Government. You only provide the info when required, not when demanded. The gun registry allowed the state to enter your home and search without a warrant, and every country that has ever enacted a registry eventually sent the police to take them away from the rightful owners, without compensation.

          Look what they did in the UK after that maniac killed a bunch of kids at an elementary school. They confiscated and destroyed the property of thousands of people. I’m not sure if you are aware Tim, but some firearms are rather expensive. Some go for six figures ( Holland and Holland)
          That’s a rather big hit to take for the actions of one maniac.

          And please note…..gun crime is still a problem in the UK.

          • Ted B says:

            That has to be the absolutely most brain-dead, convoluted, hypocritical response I have read on this issue anywhere.

            So apparently, the gun registry – which requires the registration of guns upon sale – is useless because criminals don’t register guns.

            Ah, but, if you just ask nicely those same gun owners, criminal and non-criminals alike, will just do it and give you the information whenever you ask for it.

            It’s so stupid it’s brilliant! Think of all the government waste we’ve cut. So much so that why don’t we try the same approach elsewhere. Car registration? Just try to remember that VIN number in case you get in an accident or your car is stolen. How about taxes too? Don’t worry about filing a return. I’m sure the numbers are correct and as long as you promise to keep it on file, we know you’ll do it right.

          • Tim Sullivan says:

            Ted B, don’t try to have a battle of wits with the guy. He’s unarmed.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Wow, Tim….I’ve never heard that one before.

            What you lack in originality, you at least make up for in predictability.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Ted B….if you really want to read ” the absolutely most brain-dead, convoluted, hypocritical ” comments on this site, I recommend you go back and re-read your own posts.
          Clearly, you again missed the point completely. The person who legally buys a gun in Canada….has already been thoroughly screened…they are not the threat, so yes, the in-store registry was useless. If a legal gun is stolen, the owner provides the make, model, and serial number. There….the cops have what they are looking for. WHat they don’t have however, is a data-base filled with personal information about personal private property…….that can be taken away based upon the whims of some brain-dead politician looking to score political points (say hello Alan Rock..say hello…almost any Toronto lefty councillor).

          Then…you go onto the predictable rant because you cannot refute my logic…or because you simply refuse to see it. That’s ok….you’re allowed to remain daft. I find it entertaining.

          And again…..just because it makes me happy….you’re side lost.

          Suck it up. 🙂

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        “You’ll note the registry had far lower numbers than that…because most people simply didn’t register them.”

        Those law-abiding gun owners, mostly.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Tim, people protest for any number of reasons. In canada, it’s usually protesting for more freebies…..

          Gun owners who didn’t register didn’t obey the law because they understood the inherent unfairness of it. Civil disobediance…but at least they didn’t run amok and burn cop cars or break windows.

          If you click on the link above to stats-Can and guns….you’ll note the numbers are very low compared to actual gun owners and their firearms. The gun registry didn’t fail simply because it didn’t work….it also failed because most gun owners didn’t comply.

          • Tim Sullivan says:

            And what is your ignorant, ideological, narrow-minded evidence to support that moronic conclusion (re freebies)?
            And what is your ignorant, ideological, narrow-minded evidence to support that moronic conclusion (re gun owners’ illegal conduct)?
            “The gun registry didn’t fail simply because it didn’t work….it also failed because most gun owners didn’t comply.” Look up “tautology”, idiot.

          • JamesHalifax says:


            Hmm….been to Quebec lately? (all those students and union thugs demanding fee tuition)
            Been to a G20 Protest? (you know…all those young marxists demanding an end to capitalism, and smashing store windows or torching cop cars)

            As for the gun owner protesting (by not registering their guns)..you will note that none of them went on a rampage and destroyed the property of others’

            Actually, Tim…I accidentally looked up your second word..”idiot”..and it said, “See Tim Sullivan”…

          • Tim Sullivan says:

            Funny. Have any witty retorts from adulthood?

          • JamesHalifax says:

            I do Tim…but why waste them on you.

  7. Paul says:

    Come on Warren, more “gun control” would not have prevented this incident and you know it. The federal government could pass a law tomorrow declaring all types of firearms illegal and ten years from now we’d still have handgun murders on the streets of our cities. Banning inanimate objects as a response to this sort of thing simply does not work, because criminals by the very definition of the word just ignore the laws.

    Canada already has some of the toughest restrictions in the world on handgun ownership, and even so I highly doubt that the shooter in this case had his restricted PAL and a lawfully registered handgun. Why not start with actually enforcing the tough laws that we already have, and keeping the criminals in jail for a meaningful length of time? Why are we constantly hearing about these gang scumbags with multiple prior convictions out on the streets still committing crimes? How was a guy under house arrest able to get a gun and shoot up the Eaton Centre? Certainly not though legal channels, that’s for damn sure.

    Gun control. The easy way out for empty-headed politicians like Colin Vaughn et. al. who want to be seen as “doing something” about violent crime, without actually doing anything about violent crime!

    • Kelly says:

      But it does do something about violent crime. Every restriction placed on gun ownership, transportation, storage,etc. REDUCES gun crime. Elimination will never happen — nobody said they were trying to eliminate it. As long as humans have hands and fists and access to stones on the ground, there will be murders and attacks with weapons. Your side is making it easier for more guns to be out there. Gun crime will increase. Believe it. And it will be all your guys’ fault.

      • JamesHalifax says:

        Some of what you say is true Kelly.

        In fact, we could do the same thing with cars. We could place heavy restrictions on cars, car ownership, transportation, and storae. That would definitely reduce the number of car accidents. Of course, that would not only punish the few bad drivers who have disregard for the law…it would also punish the good drivers who do no harm.
        In fact, banning cars and guns….would definitely reduce both car accidents and gun crime…..but the reality is that people who would ban all guns (because they don’t own, or understand them) would not place the same restrictions on themselves when it came to their property.

        That was just lame kelly…..try again.

        • Ted B says:

          “In fact, we could do the same thing with cars. We could place heavy restrictions on cars, car ownership, transportation, and storae. That would definitely reduce the number of car accidents.”

          THAT is the bloody point, James. We DO place heavy restrictions on cars, car ownership, transportation and storage of cars. Way more so than for guns. And you don’t hear anyone whining about what a waste it is, what an infringement on liberties it is, what useless idea of Big Brother government intervention it is. The car is registered. The purchase and sale of cars are registered. Each purchase and sale must have a specific government form completed. The car must also have a registered license plate. The car ownership and the plates must be renewed annually. You can’t drive if you don’t have a license and you can’t get the license unless you meet many criteria including a test. The license must be renewed periodically. You have to carry a minimum level of car insurance to own and operate a car. Etc etc etc.

          What is being asked of gun owners is even less than we ask of car owners and yes, as you have finally admitted, it does deter harm and crime.

          But despite that, at a measily pittance of an annual cost, who needs that deterance when ideology trumps all.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Ted, if you think comparing a car to a gun is the same thing…then you clearly have no idea of what is required to obtain one.

            You do not have a background check to get a car…other than a credit rating. The car dealer does not speak to your employer, your former teacher, your spouse, your doctors……before selling you a car. The police cannot enter your home without a warrant because you own a car. The police cannot come and confiscate your car…simply because some mad man killed a bunch of people with his car.

            Geezus…you level of ignorance is embarrasing.

  8. Kelly says:

    Couple of approaches to deal with different areas…

    The obvious approach is to take away the market for violent crime. Legalize the stuff that gangs trade — ie, drugs. At one time gangs had turf wars over booze. The government legalized booze and so other addictive substances took over as the stock in trade. People get shot by guns in many cases because of money or dealings or power issues related to the trade in illegal substances. Make the substances legal and take away the reason for gangs to be involved. Harper has never made the Hell’s Angels so much money. He’s making their business more valuable by increasing the risks, and restricting market access from possible competitors — such as pharmacies. Just take away the reasons for gangs to exist. Give kids a reason to engage in other stuff than hanging out with idiots — more facilities, rec programs, mentoring, all the kinds of stuff that works and Harper has been defunding. Increase income transfers to low-income Canadians in order to lower the stress level in families. A couple more percentage points of income tax would cover it in a flash.

    Another approach is to restrict the movement of guns. Just yesterday a cache of handguns was stolen from a Manitoba business. Here’s an idea: all guns are stored at the local police station. You have to go sign them out to use them unless you are a registered livestock farmer, or have traditional subsistence hunting rights (such as aboriginal and metis people). If you’re caught with one outside of those criteria, you get the guns seized and you get fined in the 4 to 5 figures. Right now there are too many access points to steal guns so it’s relatively easy to find and steal them.

    Personal ownership of handguns should probably be banned outright. There’s just no good reason to own them. They could be owned collectively by registered target shooting clubs, for example if all the Rambos out there just HAVE to go out and make lots of noise and pretend they’re magnum PI or whatever.

    Lots of ways to control this. Property rights aren’t unlimited. If your property is inherently dangerous, citizens have the right to join together collectively through democratic government to control and restrict individual property. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. The alternative isn’t pretty.

    • Philip says:

      I admit to liking Chris Rock’s idea for gun control, pay the current price for the gun and then charge $5,000 per bullet. That way all the wannabe Rambos can fondle their piece to their heart’s content but would have shell out real money if they want to actually shoot anything.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      True Kelly…..before Harper became prime Minister…there was no crime.

      ( O ) ( o) <-------someone trying to sort out Kelly's thought process. At least he did come out and admit the real agenda for the gun-control proponents. Ban them altogehter. Kelly...you have just proven the point opponents of the registry were making. The gun registry was just the first step in eventual confiscation.

  9. Greg from Calgary says:

    Yeah, the registry was a screw up when started, cost overruns etc. But what was the cost per year for the last few years? The argument often comes down to dollars and cents and I have no problem with looking at the cost effectiveness of a program. But all I hear from Harper and Co is billion dollar boondoggle. OK, I get it a billion was wasted and that needed to be addressed. But since we cannot get that money back on a go forward basis what is the annual cost and is it worth it? I would have liked less retoric on this from the gov’t and more thoughtful discussion.

  10. JamesHalifax says:

    Greg, it’s simple.

    Kelly’s laid it out for all to see. The real opposition was not the registry itself. It was the concern that people who think like Kelly would ever get into power. She/he clearly doesn’t agree with property rights or individual freedom.

    The registry was never meant to prevent crime, or reduce shooting victims. It was an illusion of doing something, without actually doing something..other than costing big $$$

  11. JamesHalifax says:

    Philip…how can a simple two questions be unconsitutional? I never said the police had to do a search, I simply asked “what if” they did a search. The fact you refuse to answer it, is all the proof I needed that you knew the answer, but could not admit it due to your “progressive” nature. (progressives, in this context of course, being the ability to ignore the obvious, if the obvious goes against “progressive” teaching)

    Then you launch off on a tangent about hunting accidents, and finally admiting that a registry wouldn’t have prevented it, a few sentences after you say that a gun registry is a good place to start.

    Double-think much PHilip?

    As for dangerous sports……try and google a few sports and the stats on death. You’ll soon see that hunting accidents are pretty rare in comparison.

    I think anyone reading my initial questions knew the answer to them, and they are more than hypothetical, as they can be based on facts. One simply has to be aware of the number of shootings at the Pride Parade…..and the number of shootings at the Caribanna.

    The answer was clear. The reason you couldn’t bring yourself to admit it, and your pathetic excuse for not doing so….is also clear, regardless of the claptrap you tried to use to defend yourself.

    “Progressives” always claim to know the answers, but they always refuse to admit the truth when it is unpleasant, or unpopular. That’s why the problems still exist.

Leave a Reply

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