The Great Gun Control Debate

[Sheerin]

As I said, it was an uneducated opinion.  I'm an physical anthro student so if I got a look at his bones I could tell you if he was left or right handed, what sort of occupational stress he'd been through etc etc etc

I can't say I know, but my gut tells me that he probably wouldn't have a single shot... but its just a gut feeling based on several articles I've read.  Take it for what its worth.

I think the gun registry's purpose was to track the movement of registered firearms.  What do you think its purpose is? 

 

[rdschultz]

As I said, it was an uneducated opinion.  I'm an physical anthro student so if I got a look at his bones I could tell you if he was left or right handed, what sort of occupational stress he'd been through etc etc etc

I can't say I know, but my gut tells me that he probably wouldn't have a single shot... but its just a gut feeling based on several articles I've read.  Take it for what its worth.

Good enough, I suppose you did provide a perfectly good disclaimer.  My bad.

I think the gun registry's purpose was to track the movement of registered firearms.  What do you think its purpose is?

Sure... but what does that achieve?  Why bother tracking firearms?  It always traces back to preventing crime.  Even as a tool for law enforcement, there's the underlying principle that better law enforcement will help lower crime rates (well, in the ideal case at least, maybe I'm just being naive though).  Things like the gun registry sell to people in the first place because people believe they will help on the war on crime.

But, just to make my point clear, I don't think the gun registry could or would prevent things like this.  I'm not about to pretend this proves the registry itself is useless.  Stuff slips through the cracks, and something like this the registry never could stop.  It does highlight the fact that the registry isn't a very proactive aid to the overall problem (but you contend that the aid it provides isn't supposed to help the problem?). 

Besides, as a tool for law enforcement, is it really the best tool?  When it was implemented, did the politicians go to the chiefs, the street cops, and the detectives and say "hey, we've got some cash to spend, and we're curious what the best tool for you folks would be?"  I doubt it.  They had an agenda, their agenda believed this would lower crime, and they implemented it.

However, I'm still undecided on how effective the gun registry is (obviously it wasn't implemented properly or efficiently, but all we can do is bitch and moan about that now... and trust me, I will).  I think the principle is a good one, I've got no problems with the basic idea.  Like I said, I'd like to see some numbers on its effectiveness, and I wonder how and when its being used and its success rate.  I doubt those numbers could be compiled at this stage, but I'm curious nonetheless.  Doubtful, but curious.

 

[bossi]

I don't mean to be the devil's advocate with regard to the suggestion this fellow wouldn't have harmed anybody ... but, in one news story his own uncle suggested it was all a ploy (i.e. the uncle said his nephew wouldn't have shot anybody, and that it was all in aid of getting the needed surgery in Ontario vice N.B. ... hmmm ... isn't the Liberal gun registry HQ in N.B. ... hmmm ... maybe here's one example of what the wasted gun registry money could have provided - improved health care, since the pollsters tell us it's such a burning issue). :evil:

On another note:  A letter to the editor suggested the federal government should invest the money wasted on the gun registry on breeding friendly dogs, since apparently they've done a better job of preventing gun crimes (ha!)

We now return to our regular broadcast schedule of family-friendly programming ...

 

[Sheerin]

I like that letter to the editor.

I can't say the gun registry is a good or a bad project.  It honestly hasn't affected my life in anyway, or than my tax dollars being used for it. 
I'd like to find out if the registry is even working, becuase if it does then I have absolutely no problem with spending whatever it takes on it.  If it doesn't then we abolish it and replace it with something that actually works. 

just my 0.02

 

[Kirkhill]

Quote
More police are not necessarily the answer.  Make some inquiries into what's going on in your local courts and corrections facilities.  Do you believe all are being tried in a timely fashion and serving the sentences they deserve?

Good point.  The whole "more police" line is piece of political rabble-rousing to earn votes.

Policing is largely a reactive measure concerned with crime and punishment.  Break the law, you will be caught and forced to face the consequences.

The whole purpose of gun control is largely preemptive; restrict and control the access to firearms and people will be unable to commit crimes with them.  No amount of police on the street would have stopped this guy from getting out of his vehicle and killing people.  Unfortunately, I think an inefficient government registry that targets legal owners is simply not the best way to go about things.

Actually, I am afraid I have to disagree here.

More police is not just political rabble rousing.

I agree that policing as she is understood now in Canada (and maybe the west at large) definitely seems to be a "reactive" activity ... wait for a crime then try and find the perpetrator.

But policing as envisaged by Sir Robert Peel in London in the 1820s was about presence.  The idea was to have a highly visible government presence on the streets to dissuade the many malingerers there at the time.  The situation was so bad that those that could afford it carried weapons and even bodyguards to protect themselves.  Situation much like Iraq today.

The value of presence is still demonstrated by the effectiveness of programmes in New York, London and even in Vancouver where increased presence decreased criminal activity.  Some argue that the crime was not eliminated, that it just moved, but the counter-argument is to increase the area covered by high visibility controls.

Another example to bolster the presence argument is the value of watchmen in downtowns, factories and secure communities.  Presence deters (does not eliminate) criminal activity.

Modern policing (police in cars) is an attempt to make better use of an expensive resource.  Policemen cost money (deservedly so).  But in the process of hiring fewer cops  that are paid more we can eventually reach the logical absurdity of paying one supercop the nation's entire policing budget to solve all the nations crimes.  That individual will be busier than all cops have ever been because there will be more crime happening where she isn't and there will be more crimes to solve.

There is an argument for numbers and presence.

 

[portcullisguy]

I agree, friendly dogs are the answer. 

The government should raise taxes to breed friendly, docile Labs, and issue one freely to each household, along with some kibble and a coupon for dog food.

Clearly, we've been right off the mark all this time.  We need a Royal Commission to sit and investigate this friendly dog business.

Sadly, I fear the anti-gun lobby logic isn't far off from that.  The fact that the gun registry did nothing to deter or identify this individual - and it was only by his encounter with a slobbery, carefree, congenial canine that a disaster was avoided - proves to the reactionary anti-gun lobby that guns should be banned period, end of story.

This is precisely what has been happening in so many places, including Britain, where it is now harder to obtain a gun than it is to practice medicine (or law for that matter).

Contrast this to places like Switzerland, where by law everyone has to serve in the military and gun ownership is widespread - yet crime is quite low.  How can that be?  Hasn't it been proven already that GUNS cause crime, not people?  Only if you're a Liberal.

 

[Sheerin]

It also doesn't prove that guns prevent crime.  Just look at the United States, where gun ownership is ubiquitous, as is crime. 

The only way I could see the registry preventing crimes like this is if he bought all the firearms at, or around, the same time, and if so a reg flag should have been raised.  I admit, I know next to nothing about the registry, as I haven't had to deal with it. 

In fact, I think the only way the gun registry could have even prevented something like this from happening is if the individual was subjected to a psychological profile, or something of that nature.  But I seriously doubt that would go over well with gun owners.

And if I may ask, why should guns be easy to obtain? 
I can think of several reasons why I wouldn't want the general public to be able to go into a gun store and buy a desert eagle, an MP-5 at will. 

 

[portcullisguy]

It all depends on your perspective.  I've talked to many Americans who take a hard line on their Second Amendment.  It's there to prevent a tyrannous government from abusing their individual liberties, period.  "Arms" interpreted in that light means arms of war.  It's not even up for discussion, as the second amendment was seen as part of the "inalienable" rights.. meaning fundamental rights that exist from birth, and which the government, or anyone else, can do nothing to alter or remove (hence "inalienable" ... unable to remove or alienate).  The fact that it is written down is just as a formal reminder.  Accepting that, the reason WHY someone would want a Desert Eagle or an MP-5 or even a .22lr pea shooter are irrelevant.  The relevant issue is solely if they still have that inalienable right as a free citizen.  If they are law abiding, they keep that right.  If they are criminals, tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty of a felony, then they no longer have that fundamental right.

So, according to this logic, it makes no difference why a law abiding person would want to own "assault" rifles, etc..  The fact that they are law abiding is reason enough.

Contrast this to the Canadian system.  We never fought a war of independence from a tyrannous king, and so the view of arms goes way back to pre-Criminal Code times.  A common law right to hunt for sustenance has always existed, as has a common law right to defend one's property.  But arms of war have generally fallen under the governance of the Crown, since it is the Crown alone that can raise armies, declare war, and make treaties.  It is the duty of the crown's subjects to be loyal, so raising up arms to overthrow the government isn't even on the agenda, much less an inalienable right.

This has developed into the system and ideal we have today.  No one expects us to cry foul because we can't buy a neat-looking MP-5 just for target practice, or even home defence.  We accept that that type of weaponry is probably best left to the experts (military & police).  We are content with common hunting rifles, and the odd WWII relic - as a collector's item, because we don't believe in the inalienable right to bear arms in the event that we have to remove an evil king ... we've never had to do it.  Societal liberty comes first, at the cost of individual liberty.

I'm not saying either view is right nor wrong, but that may help explain why things are so different between Canada and the US.  And keep i nmind this is all anecdotal, I have not done an exhaustive research paper on the subject, and have only my 10+ years of firearms experience and my many travels to and fro and contact with gun nuts in the US to relate this viewpoint.

I will hypothesize this, however:  If they DID legalize MP-5's or Desert Eagle .50's for ownership by existing licenced gun owners in Canada, I submit that there would be no increase in the number of gun crimes in Canada, beyond what we already accept as a norm.  Guns still account for less deaths in Canada than heart disease, lung cancer, and drunk driving incidents.  Guns are still not the majority mechanism for homicide or suicide.  If anyone wants the sources for those stats, I can get them, but for the most part they are on the Canadian Firearms Centre website.

 

[Infanteer]

as has a common law right to defend one's property.

I thought that under the Firearms Act, you would be charged for defending yourself or your property from an intrusion with a firearm.  I think the way that the theory was pitched to me was that in doing so you loaded and discharged a firearm in an area where it was unlawful to do so, so you've commited an offense.

I remember a case in my hometown that was over this.  Four teenagers broke into an isolated home/gas station owned by a 70 year old man.  The old man got up and grabbed his shotgun, the kids bolted.  The old man shot and killed one of the kids in the back.  His firearms were seized and he was charged with manslaughter.  He claimed that it was dark and he had just shot at one of the four figures he noticed moving around his property for fear of his life.  The jury let him walk, which I must say I was happy for, knowing the character of the intruder who was shot.  Imagine that will set some precedence here, that you better make damn sure there is a threat to your life if you use a firearm, or else you're going to be explaining it to a judge and jury.  (Better to be tried by twelve than carried out by six, I say)

 

[Sheerin]

excellent post.

I used to be one those leftist who believed that no gun is the only good gun.  However, as I've aged (albeit its only been a difference a few years) I have begun to recgonize that both sides of legitiment arguments. 
I also believe that the authors of the 2nd admendment down south dind't envision C7s, Mac 10 (is that what they're called?) etc etc .,.. But i'm not an American citizen and don't really have a right to discuss issues such as these.

As for Canada, I agree that if MP-5s became accessable to the general public the level of crime woudln't increase, however, I wouldn't be surprised that if training wasn't required there would be more accidental shootings, or, along those lines, people using the weapon without proper regard.

Guns are still not the majority mechanism for homicide

Actually, i just checked statscan and between '98 and '02 they've been at the top 3 out of the 5 years and stabbings has the other two years. ALthough you are partially right, at the worst year, firearms only accounted for 33% of all homicides in Canada, that is still a lot mind you.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal01.htm

 

[Smoothbore]

Although I love firearms (my father recently granted me his Sig-Sauer P226) the harder they are to obtain - ther better. The key to preventing violence is a wholesome middle-class society and the way our children are raised, not the number of firearms. Take Switzerland for an example, all citizen soldiers that are drafted and pushed into the reserves have an obligation to keep and maintain their SG551 assault rifles at home, and the number of firearms offences is close to zero.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Doesn't Switzerland have thee highest suicide rate in the world?

 

[Sheerin]

I wouldn't say that the Swiss have no gun crime... in fact, in 2000 murders with firearms accounted for more than a third of the countries murders very similiar to Canada...

edit: forgot to put in my source http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz/Crime&b_define=1

 

[Smoothbore]

I wouldn't say that the Swiss have no gun crime... in fact, in 2000 murders with firearms accounted for more than a third of the countries murders very similiar to Canada...

edit: forgot to put in my source http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz/Crime&b_define=1

Murders with firearms: 40 (2000)
(per capita): 0.00 per 1000 people

That is a very low figure when you have 400,000 individuals with fully automatic assault rifles at home along with ammunition.
No country has ever had completely no gun related criminal offences (well, maybe Lichtenstein or Pandora etc.), these figures further prove my theory.

 

[portcullisguy]

I wouldn't say that the Swiss have no gun crime... in fact, in 2000 murders with firearms accounted for more than a third of the countries murders very similiar to Canada...

edit: forgot to put in my source http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz/Crime&b_define=1

Switzerland - 40 gun homicides (2000)
Canada - 165 gun homicides (1999)

Yes, we do have 4.5x the population as Switzerland, and yes that is comparable to our own total and per capita rates of firearms murders.  A few points though:

- The website only lists firearms used in murders, not other types of offences, such as robberies.
- The statistics for Canada are 5 years old, and are only 1 year after the Firearms Act passed, when most of its regulations had not yet been implemented.
- The firearms laws are vastly different between Canada and Switzerland, from who may own firearms, to everything else.  Here is a link to a United Nations database document on firearms statistics by country - http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
- My original point was that CRIME is lower in Switzerland than in Canada ... since I cannot find my original source for that claim, I retract my statement, however I will reserve the right to make an anecdotal claim that based on my law enforcement experience of some 9 years, it is generally held and accepted amongst law enforcement that crime is considered lower in Switzerland than in Canada, and this includes gun crimes.  Take it for what it's worth, as I can't find any empirical evidence to support my claim at this time (my Whitaker's Almanack is missing!)

Bottom line is gun laws are no suitable replacement for common sense and responsible firearm ownership.  The creation of a myriad of laws relating to owning or using firearms in a safe and ethical manner, and the process of criminalizing some irresponsible practices by otherwise law abiding citizens, I believe leads to more serious and intentional contraventions of those laws.  Right or wrong, normally law-abiding citizens are mad as hell that laws have been written to make sure they are doing what they have been doing already, such as responsibly and safely owning and using firearms.  Because they feel singled out, they choose to commit acts which disobey laws written to prevent them from doing what they weren't doing in the first place.  And the real shame is that the criminals are still getting away with being criminals.

I still believe mandatory sentencing for gun crimes will do far more to protect Canadians than registering long guns.  I have no qualms with the rest of the gun laws, most of which worked effectively long before the Firearms Act.

 

[The_Falcon]

I still believe mandatory sentencing for gun crimes will do far more to protect Canadians than registering long guns.   I have no qualms with the rest of the gun laws, most of which worked effectively long before the Firearms Act.

Mandatory sentences for using a firearm to commit an offence!! Oh my god what a concept! Now why can't our judges (we have those laws somewhat already they are just not implemented) actually hand down stiff sentences.  I mean it's like they live in a friggen bubble, what are they doing smoking all the crack and pot in the evidence lockers?!  Before all the bleeding hearts and what not start hollering for stricter laws, lets start enforcing the ones we have first. For example using firearm or replica in the commision of an indictable offence can get you up to 14 years. 
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41775.html

Use Offences

Using firearm in commission of offence
85. (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (causing bodily harm with intent -- firearm), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage-taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion),

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm.

Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence,

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.

Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year;
(b) in the case of a first offence committed by a person who, before January 1, 1978, was convicted of an indictable offence, or an attempt to commit an indictable offence, in the course of which or during flight after the commission or attempted commission of which the person used a firearm, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years; and

(c) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.

Sentences to be served consecutively
(4) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 85; 1995, c. 39, s. 139; 2003, c. 8, s. 3.


It is right there, just remove that ridiculus mandatory min, and have the it say mandatory 14 years.  The laws are there but the judges, parole board members etc don't have the cojones to actually use the tools they already have.

As a side note it is my opinion (and that of many others), the long-gun registry was created to pacify Canadians, into believing that the Government was taking firearms crimes seriously.  The money spent on the useless piece of garbage could have been spent better.  Not on more cops, like most people would suggest, but at our borders and on customs enforcement.  Like PortCullis Guy mentioned in another thread, the amount of stuff they have to prevent from getting over the border is quite a large list.  More money for more front-line customs officers, and the tools and resources to better search items coming into Canada would greatly decrease some of those statistics (drugs coming into Canada, and more importantly illegal handguns smuggled across the border, which are the main weapons in firearms offences). 

End Rant

 

[portcullisguy]

I am fully aware that mandatory sentencing laws for firearms offences are already on the books in Canada, and they were long before the Firearms Act.  I am further aware that the courts have not been liberally handing out those sentences.  Part of the problem is a reluctance to add punitive sentences (consecutive sentencing only happens in exceptional circumstances).  The other part of the problem is the offences are often plea bargained away in exchange for convictions on the other, more serious offences, and consequently, a lighter sentence often occurs anyway because of the "cooperation" shown through plea bargaining.

And, remember, Parliament doesn't make the laws in this country.  The judges do.  Don't believe me?  How often have we seen perfectly good laws thrown out by the Supreme Court?

There are all sorts of problems on every side of the issue.  And the criminals are laughing themselves silly over the whole affair.

 

[The_Falcon]

I know, my sarcasm was not directed at you.

 

[armyrules]

I have two points to bring up with the money that has been spent ont the gun registry. You could employ 10,000 police officers for one year at $100,000 a year for one year in Canada. For the same salary and benefits you could employ 4500 police officers across Canada foe their entire career. I herad this stat on the Lowell Green show last week and I thought it would be interesting to what you guys think of it!

 

[aesop081]

I can't comment on the stats but IMHO, the gun registry, as it exists today, is a embarassement and a failiure that needs fixing.  Al, it does is keep hones ppl honest, it doesnt get guns out of the hands of criminals.........

my opinion of course