Topic 'Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE.' in forum 'Canadian Chat' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23292253 en Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:18:39 EDT Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:18:39 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23306326 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23306326 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:58:16 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23305572 said by peterboro:

So in a word no. Then your guns as they have no use are a danger. Human beings have no use and they're a danger. Why not ban them? THAT would be the only way to really, effectively reduce crime. Oh but you're part of that group so you wouldn't be interested in a solution that ACTUALLY works.

said by peterboro:

Or is your vanity more important than your neighbours safety.
Pretty simple. This is what it comes down to.
My neighbours are extremely safe, just as you are despite the thousands of firearms that have been present in your neighbourhood for decades. Interesting how you've refused to use the tool I provided you and disclosed just how many perfectly legal firearms are around you.

said by peterboro:

»www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2009/Rya···eaux.pdf
There are direct quotes from Hansard if you even know what that is.
Actually, that document says a lot more about you and the dishonest freaks feeding you then it does about the NRA. First it was written by the CURRENT head of the Coalition for Gun Control, Wendy Cukier. Interestingly enough, not only does the CGC lie in it's documentation but they're not even transparent enough to actually identify any of it's members or contributors on it's website (»www.guncontrol.ca). One would think that a "coalitions" strength would rest in it's leadership and it's membership but for some obscure reason they don't disclose that.

Thankfully though her own vanity makes her slip and she actually mentions the fact she's the President of the CGC in some of their press releases (»www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/R···INAL.pdf).

Back to your document It merely identifies one of the Canadian University professors who's interested and has published studies about the failure of the gun registry as being a former American gun collector, who was (and may still be) a member of the NRA as a result of his past. That's hardly a sign that the NRA is leading the charge in Canada.

Even more interesting is that Mrs. Cukier then goes on criticizing Professor Mauser for not disclosing that he's a former American and, as such, a member of the NRA, in his papers yet nowhere in that paper does she disclose that not only is she a member of the Coalition for Gun Control but she's actually the PRESIDENT! About the same level of hypocrisy you've demonstrated here, right on queue. Not only that but she keeps on using her own organization's documents throughout the paper and disguises it as third-party validation of what she's saying. That's down right dishonest but you don't care about that, she agrees with you.

said by peterboro:

You see it gets better they are indirectly trying to influence political parties in Canada with donations of over $100,000.
There you go misrepresenting the truth again. All the document says is that "the gun lobby’s support of Conservative party is on record as totalling “$133 000” in the 2006 election" with absolutely no mention of the NRA in relation to this statement. Strangely enough, since contribution of more than $1,100 to political parties have been abolished since the early 2000s I have a hard time understanding how a lobby group could donate $133,000 to any political party with nobody going to jail for it. Maybe they consider private persons making private donations in the name of their beliefs a "powerful lobby group".

Interestingly enough she does credit her own organization, the Coalition for Gun Control, with influencing the Liberal Agenda on gun control: "“an unusually influential interest group” (the Coalition for Gun Control) effectively organized to move the issue forward"

The only powerful lobby group in Canada that has anything to do with firearms and receives money from not only outside the country but from our own Government (in the Liberal days) to force their vision on our Government is an anti-gun lobby group. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Unfortunately the documents documenting this have since been removed but the old references still exist: »myblahg.com/?p=691

said by peterboro:

I reject that outright. Any police officer I have met is hyper vigilant about securing his firearm.
They are when they're wearing them, because they don't want them used against themselves but have you ever seen how they store or transport them when off-duty?

said by peterboro:

In the absence of tangible information on this I can't comment other than the percentage of incidents is less than civilians I would speculate.
Oh so now percentages matter? Are somehow the lives taken by stolen police guns worth less than lives taken by civilian guns? I thought you said 7 million firearms are 7 million too many? There goes your hypocrisy again...

Don't you find it strange that public agencies are exempt from having to enter their firearms in the registry? You'd think if it was so effective at doing anything they'd want ALL firearms entered in there, no?

said by peterboro:

You tried to twist my words that they are tested as a group more than once a year.
I refuted that I initially stated that. If you can't discuss this without distorting what I say how does that speak to your position.
I distorted nothing. You backed down on your argument when you were called on it, which you do a lot.

said by peterboro:

Not individuals that had weapons from before long guns were registered. Of course that number is negligible now but they are out there.
Registration has absolutely nothing to do with licensing. Again, EVERYBODY WHO HAS A POSSESSION AND ACQUISITION LICENSE WENT THROUGH THE SAME TESTS AND CHECKS. If you can't provide a legal reference (as in a text of law) identifying ANYONE as being grandfathered for the purpose of obtaining a Possession and Acquisition license, kindly STFU.

said by peterboro:

If you have evidence to the contrary I will gladly concede I was wrong.
One can't prove something that doesn't exist. You prove your assertion that anyone obtained a PAL without going through the same tests and checks as everyone else.

said by peterboro:

To me it's just common sense and really quite self evident. The fact that some people think this way doesn't make sense to me but then there are a lot of disturbing things in this world I will never understand.
i.e. you have no argument against it. Check.

said by peterboro:

Back to a variant of the knives talking point. If you can't answer one of the most basic questions in the gun debate just admit it.
I did answer the question but you failed to provide a rebuttal to my argument, again.

said by peterboro:

Better yet I'll start with guns and work my way up.
Well, since the goal has already been achieved (banning murder) you can stop already. But you'd rather ignore the fact that banning ANYTHING can't prevent ANYONE from doing it anyway.

said by peterboro:

Like I said it's a start. The price I put on human life seems to be higher than your obsession with possessing an inanimate object.
...except for the fact that banning firearms won't save a single life, just like banning murder hasn't saved a single life. You put value on the thought that you're doing something even though you know damn well you're not ACTUALLY doing anything.

said by peterboro:

It seems I am focusing on one aspect that is easily rectified with spur of the moment scenarios. Get rid of guns in the proximity.
Ah yes, how well has that been working so far over the last 15 years? Firearm crimes seem to be on the rise in every Canadian metropolitan area. It seems you're focusing on something that doesn't exist in the real world.

said by peterboro:

33% and 20% are significant enough in my books.
There you go misrepresenting the truth again. First your argument was that SOME murder and suicides are caused by easy access to firearms. Now you're taking the ENTIRE proportions of murders and suicides related to firearms and saying you can affect ALL of those by removing easy access. The lies just keep on coming.

said by peterboro:

Pretty consistent. Perhaps you can quote where I state there aren't legitimate uses.
Ok, I'll do just that then:
said by peterboro:

My car, or knife, or bat or anything else I own wasn't designed solely as an instrument of death.
said by peterboro:

Call me crazy but things designed solely to kill people aren't on the top of the list of things I want around.
Is that enough or should I keep going? I do have to assume that you think death and killing people are not legitimate activities but I'd like you to argue that if you would.

said by peterboro:

Your misquotes of my statements reveal a lot about your character.
I quote exactly what you write, in it's entirety, something you haven't done in any of your posts. If you're too inept to write what you think or you keep changing what you mean that's not my fault but your own.

said by peterboro:

You admit they can't be stored 100% safely and you don't need them for your job or to feed yourself so your just endangering those around you needlessly.
The talking points won't get you out of this one. It's blatantly obvious. Cars vs guns, get real.
I am real. I really see that cars kill about one thousand more people than firearms in Canada every year. Is your job worth more than someone's life? That's pretty fucked up. Incredibly selfish too.

See, my position is that there is absolutely no way to make anything 100% safe in this world because there will always be fallible human beings involved. IMO the solution is to stay focused on things that are PROVEN to be effective instead of useless measures that don't actually have any impact of safety or security.

Your position, on the other hand, is that it's OK to put restrictions on others because those restrictions don't affect you and then go on grand-standing on top of your pedestal and talk about the value of life and all that bullshit but when it comes to YOU actually doing something then your own comfort and convenience are worth more than other people's lives.

said by peterboro:

I am aware of what goes on in the hunting context and some of it is far from humane and respectful.
Ignoring how the food gets on the nice little plastic tray again I see. Give me an "H", give me a "Y", give me a "P", give me an "O"...

said by [user=peterboro1 :

]Nice. Typical of the gun owner mentality though.
Yeah what can I say, we're disgusted by hypocritical liars. Guilty as charged...

said by [user=peterboro1 :

]Throwing out the standard red herrings when you can't support your position. I expect no less of the typical gun zealot.
Deviating again.

said by [user=peterboro1 :

]Your right to indulge your immature, juvenile and unwarranted fascination with guns ends with my right to be safe and secure from them falling into the wrong hands.
As far as staying out of your life if you continue to endanger mine I'll do what ever it takes to protect myself.
Hahaha, speaking of red herrings. Nevermind facts and reality, let's go emotional over lies and deception. Jeez one must be miserable to live life being afraid of statistically irrelevant things.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23305572 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:21:37 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23304800 said by IamGimli:

No, you definitely backpedaled there but it's ok, I don't expect you to be honest or logical, you haven't demonstrated those two qualities yet. You just demonstrated my previous point. Thanks.

There are ways to safely store firearms that greatly reduce the chances of accidents or theft. Those ways are actually made into law at the moment. Can it reduce them by 100%? No, but then again, nothing can, not even a total ban as there will always be people who don't give a shit what laws are. Those are the people you should be worried about, not the ones who do actually comply with the laws as much as it is feasible.
So in a word no. Then your guns as they have no use are a danger.
Or is your vanity more important than your neighbours safety.
Pretty simple. This is what it comes down to.

There you go mentioning the NRA again, again with no proof of what you're saying because no evidence exists of your dishonest claim.
»www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2009/Rya···eaux.pdf
There are direct quotes from Hansard if you even know what that is.
You see it gets better they are indirectly trying to influence political parties in Canada with donations of over $100,000.

I stand corrected, you've shown one hint of intellectual and factual honesty. I doubt it's genuine but let's keep going...
It's genuine but a rarety among the gun gurus unfortunately.

It's relevant because police officers, military personnel and other law enforcement officials are human, just like every other firearm owner except that they are forced to carry firearms by the nature of their duties, which make them a lot less conscientious in the protection of their duty firearms than civilians, who actually have to willingly go through countless hoops to be allowed to own the firearms they bought with their own hard-earned money.
I reject that outright. Any police officer I have met is hyper vigilant about securing his firearm.

Do you think firearms aren't stolen from military installations and police detachments? You would be wrong but somehow the police and military don't seem to issue the same number of press releases when they themselves "lose" or "misplace" firearms as when firearm owners do.
In the absence of tangible information on this I can't comment other than the percentage of incidents is less than civilians I would speculate.

You implied it as a rebuttal to my argument that most law enforcement official was less proficient i the use and care of his duty weapon than most firearm owner. I knew you'd go back on that one too.
You tried to twist my words that they are tested as a group more than once a year.
I refuted that I initially stated that. If you can't discuss this without distorting what I say how does that speak to your position.

You're completely wrong on that one. EVERYONE had to pass the same tests and checks to get a Possession and Acquisition License after the Firearms Act was enacted in the '90s. Nobody was grandfathered.
Not individuals that had weapons from before long guns were registered. Of course that number is negligible now but they are out there.
If you have evidence to the contrary I will gladly concede I was wrong.

..and as a good anti you fail to respond to the argument and change the subject, underlining the fact that you have no logical rebuttal to it.
To me it's just common sense and really quite self evident. The fact that some people think this way doesn't make sense to me but then there are a lot of disturbing things in this world I will never understand.

There's no "need" to have 7 million firearms in Canada, just like there's no n"need" to have motorcycles, or pools, or kitchen knives, which are all responsible for a lot more deaths than firearms. Are people killed with firearms somehow more dead than the people who drown in pools or get killed riding their motorcycles?
Back to a variant of the knives talking point. If you can't answer one of the most basic questions in the gun debate just admit it.

If you want to eliminate homicides caused by firearms why don't you just ban murder instead?
Better yet I'll start with guns and work my way up.

Oh yeah, that's right, you've already done that and, just like every other ban, it's absolutely useless to get rid of the problem because no matter how many restrictions you put on people, the people who don't give a shit won't give a shit any more. So really the only reason to ban firearms is so you can hit on some social group you're not a part of so you can feel better about yourself even though you've done absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
Like I said it's a start. The price I put on human life seems to be higher than your obsession with possessing an inanimate object.

Bullshit. There you go again making stupid claims you can't back with actual facts or evidence. Firearms are only used in about 33% of homicides and about 20% of suicides so even if there was a significant portion of those that were "spur-of-the-moment" (which is nonsense), why wouldn't you want to focus efforts on the leading causes of homicide and suicide instead of focusing on a tool that has nothing to do with the decision to commit murder or take one's own life?
It seems I am focusing on one aspect that is easily rectified with spur of the moment scenarios. Get rid of guns in the proximity.
33% and 20% are significant enough in my books.

Well, you do keep changing your story, which makes it difficult to argue with but does demonstrate a lack of logic and honesty.
Pretty consistent. Perhaps you can quote where I state there aren't legitimate uses.
Your misquotes of my statements reveal a lot about your character.

I've never endangered anyone with any of my firearms. You endanger a lot more people driving your car around every day than my firearms ever could. Are you saying that the value of the lives of the people you endanger driving around is less than the value of the lives taken by firearms every year in Canada? All 200 or so of them?
You admit they can't be stored 100% safely and you don't need them for your job or to feed yourself so your just endangering those around you needlessly.
The talking points won't get you out of this one. It's blatantly obvious. Cars vs guns, get real.

Hahaha, good old hypocrites who prefer to ignore what happens to the animals that provide the meat they buy in their neat little packages at the supermarket but scoff at the skilled individuals who can actually get the meat off the animals themselves, humanely and respectfully.
I am aware of what goes on in the hunting context and some of it is far from humane and respectful.

People like you disgust me.
Nice. Typical of the gun owner mentality though.

Hey, I'm not the one who makes shit up and demonstrates hypocrisy and dishonesty at every corner. My discourse remains the same, I don't backtrack and change my positions. You wish you had the mental fortitude to be honest, even if it was only with yourself.
Throwing out the standard red herrings when you can't support your position. I expect no less of the typical gun zealot.

I've seen your "conscience", "social responsibility" and "moral compass" and you're right, I want none of it. I'm quite comfortable with my own conscience, social responsibility and moral compass and, ironically enough, I'm not the one trying to legislate mine onto you.You want nothing to do with guns? Fair enough, don't. Just stay the hell out of my life. I'll even let the good little teddy bear eat your guts next time you take a hike in the woods so as not to offend your sensitivity to firearms.
Your right to indulge your immature, juvenile and unwarranted fascination with guns ends with my right to be safe and secure from them falling into the wrong hands.
As far as staying out of your life if you continue to endanger mine I'll do what ever it takes to protect myself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23304800 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:31:44 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23304025 said by peterboro:

That hasn't changed. Guns are not the same as knives or cars or whatever else talking points the gun lobby feeds you.
Equating them over and over and my refuting this doesn't insinuate I'm backpedaling. No, you definitely backpedaled there but it's ok, I don't expect you to be honest or logical, you haven't demonstrated those two qualities yet.

said by peterboro:

7 million guns in Canada is 7 million too many. Each one with the potential to kill or injure in the wrong hands just as sure as the nuclear example.
Are you suggesting there is a full proof way to store either?
There are ways to safely store firearms that greatly reduce the chances of accidents or theft. Those ways are actually made into law at the moment. Can it reduce them by 100%? No, but then again, nothing can, not even a total ban as there will always be people who don't give a shit what laws are. Those are the people you should be worried about, not the ones who do actually comply with the laws as much as it is feasible.

said by peterboro:

No need to defer if there seems to be a consensus among reasonable minded people in Canada does there?
"Reasonable minded people" (whatever that means) used to think Earth was flat. That didn't make them right.

said by peterboro:

Or I could listen to the propaganda of the NRA (Canadian Division) for a taste of the truly bizarre.
There you go mentioning the NRA again, again with no proof of what you're saying because no evidence exists of your dishonest claim.

said by peterboro:

You make a valid point. About the only one in this thread
but I'm sure you're just getting started so another might pop up.
I stand corrected, you've shown one hint of intellectual and factual honesty. I doubt it's genuine but let's keep going...

said by peterboro:

No. Tell us why it matters? I'll take a few cops who can't shoot straight over 7 million guns that can get in the hands of thugs any day.
It's relevant because police officers, military personnel and other law enforcement officials are human, just like every other firearm owner except that they are forced to carry firearms by the nature of their duties, which make them a lot less conscientious in the protection of their duty firearms than civilians, who actually have to willingly go through countless hoops to be allowed to own the firearms they bought with their own hard-earned money.

Do you think firearms aren't stolen from military installations and police detachments? You would be wrong but somehow the police and military don't seem to issue the same number of press releases when they themselves "lose" or "misplace" firearms as when firearm owners do.

said by peterboro:

Did I say as a group? Shall I type slower for you. Peterborough. 705-876-1122
You implied it as a rebuttal to my argument that most law enforcement official was less proficient i the use and care of his duty weapon than most firearm owner. I knew you'd go back on that one too.

said by peterboro:

Not the criminal and other character checks. If you had the gun you get to keep it.
You're completely wrong on that one. EVERYONE had to pass the same tests and checks to get a Possession and Acquisition License after the Firearms Act was enacted in the '90s. Nobody was grandfathered.

said by peterboro:

I give you just the slightest small little example of why you are wrong and you bring up the standard gun lobby talking points to deflect the issue.
...and as a good anti you fail to respond to the argument and change the subject, underlining the fact that you have no logical rebuttal to it.

said by peterboro:

Again, I or family, and I presume yours don't want to be on the receiving end of that 1%.
It is difficult for me to understand why there needs to be 7 million guns in Canada. Enlighten us?
There's no "need" to have 7 million firearms in Canada, just like there's no n"need" to have motorcycles, or pools, or kitchen knives, which are all responsible for a lot more deaths than firearms. Are people killed with firearms somehow more dead than the people who drown in pools or get killed riding their motorcycles?

If you want to eliminate homicides caused by firearms why don't you just ban murder instead? Oh yeah, that's right, you've already done that and, just like every other ban, it's absolutely useless to get rid of the problem because no matter how many restrictions you put on people, the people who don't give a shit won't give a shit any more. So really the only reason to ban firearms is so you can hit on some social group you're not a part of so you can feel better about yourself even though you've done absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

said by peterboro:

Many suicides and even murders with firearms are spur of the moment that would not happen but for the access to a gun.
There are certain elements in society that only set out to kill if they have access to a firearm.
Bullshit. There you go again making stupid claims you can't back with actual facts or evidence. Firearms are only used in about 33% of homicides (»www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/le···-eng.htm) and about 20% of suicides (»www.statcan.gc.ca/studies-etudes···-eng.pdf, page 14) so even if there was a significant portion of those that were "spur-of-the-moment" (which is nonsense), why wouldn't you want to focus efforts on the leading causes of homicide and suicide instead of focusing on a tool that has nothing to do with the decision to commit murder or take one's own life?

said by peterboro:

I already stated there are legitimate uses for guns. Your point is moot.
Well, you do keep changing your story, which makes it difficult to argue with but does demonstrate a lack of logic and honesty.

said by peterboro:

Tell us why your gun is necessary?
It's not, just like nothing you own is necessary except for shelter and food.

said by peterboro:

If it's not tell us why you have to endanger us with your gun?
I've never endangered anyone with any of my firearms. You endanger a lot more people driving your car around every day than my firearms ever could. Are you saying that the value of the lives of the people you endanger driving around is less than the value of the lives taken by firearms every year in Canada? All 200 or so of them?

said by peterboro:

No slaughter is what you do to an animal when hunting in order to prove what a man you are instead of going to the grocery store.
Thanks for demonstrating that you are completely clueless or conveniently prefer obfuscation of the term.
Hahaha, good old hypocrites who prefer to ignore what happens to the animals that provide the meat they buy in their neat little packages at the supermarket but scoff at the skilled individuals who can actually get the meat off the animals themselves, humanely and respectfully.

People like you disgust me.

said by peterboro:

No just tradition. You do know the difference don't you?
I do but traditions are part of history, which you seem to be unaware of.

said by peterboro:

Thanks for playing "Deep down I know I'm wrong but it's too late now".
Hey, I'm not the one who makes shit up and demonstrates hypocrisy and dishonesty at every corner. My discourse remains the same, I don't backtrack and change my positions. You wish you had the mental fortitude to be honest, even if it was only with yourself.

said by peterboro:

Don't worry though you've got good company.
What they lack in a conscience, social responsibility and a moral compass they make up for in tenacity and self interest.
I've seen your "conscience", "social responsibility" and "moral compass" and you're right, I want none of it. I'm quite comfortable with my own conscience, social responsibility and moral compass and, ironically enough, I'm not the one trying to legislate mine onto you.

You want nothing to do with guns? Fair enough, don't. Just stay the hell out of my life. I'll even let the good little teddy bear eat your guts next time you take a hike in the woods so as not to offend your sensitivity to firearms.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23304025 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:49:47 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23303781 said by IamGimli:

Actually, what you stated was that firearms needed to be held to a higher standard because they were designed to kill.That hasn't changed. Guns are not the same as knives or cars or whatever else talking points the gun lobby feeds you.
Equating them over and over and my refuting this doesn't mean I'm backpedaling.

Actually yes, nuclear weapons are extremely safe, until someone (multiple people actually) all come together and decide to launch it.
7 million guns in Canada is 7 million too many. Each one with the potential to kill or injure in the wrong hands just as sure as the nuclear example.
Are you suggesting there is a full proof way to store either?

Ah yes, I can see that you would rather defer to people who have no idea what they're talking about to for your opinions. It's quite obvious.
No need to defer if there seems to be a consensus among reasonable minded people in Canada does there?
Or I could listen to the propaganda of the NRA (Canadian Division) for a taste of the truly bizarre.

I have, multiple times, and those who CHOOSE to practice more are an extremely small minority.
You make a valid point. About the only one in this thread
but I'm sure you're just getting started so another might pop up.

You still haven't answered whether you actually have attended one of their annual qualifications, where they ALL have to show up.
No. Tell us why it matters? I'll take a few cops who can't shoot straight over 7 million guns that can get in the hands of thugs any day.

So your local force, as a group, practices more than once a year? What local force would that be, I'd like to give them a call and verify that.
Did I say as a group? Shall I type slower for you. Peterborough. 705-876-1122
There is no such thing as grandfathering to have a firearms license, everybody has to pass the safety tests.
Not the criminal and other character checks. If you had the gun you get to keep it.

Yet you focus on the tool rather than the moron holding it. Morons misuse cars and kill people too (a whole lot more than firearms), why don't you chastise the car instead of the moron driving it?
I give you just the slightest small little example of why you are wrong and you bring up the standard gun lobby talking points to deflect the issue.
Again, almost 100% of firearms in Canada have never and never will kill anyone. It may be a bit difficult for you to understand but that means almost 100% of firearms do have other purposes than to kill people, otherwise we wouldn't own them.
Again, I or family, and I presume yours don't want to be on the receiving end of that 1%.
It is difficult for me to understand why there needs to be 7 million guns in Canada. Enlighten us?

Homicide requires a person to make the decision to take the life of another person and does not require a firearm. A firearm is only a tool, just like a knife or a car, who both kill a lot more people in Canada than all 7 million firearms we own up here.
Many suicides and even murders with firearms are spur of the moment that would not happen but for the access to a gun.
There are certain elements in society that only set out to kill if they have access to a firearm.

Really? So, since guns only have one purpose according to you, to kill people, who did you kill with the guns you fired?
I already stated there are legitimate uses for guns. Your point is moot.
Tell us why your gun is necessary?
If it's not tell us why you have to endanger us with your gun?

Slaughter is what happens to the piece of meat you find in your plate every day. Hunting has nothing to do with slaughtering but thanks for demonstrating, once again, that you have no clue what you're talking about.
No slaughter is what you do to an animal when hunting in order to prove what a man you are instead of going to the grocery store.
Thanks for demonstrating that you are completely clueless or conveniently prefer obfuscation of the term.

So you want to change history now.
No just tradition. You do know the difference don't you?

I'll let you know that I've never given money to a political party or representative but thanks for playing "How can I show how clueless I am?" some more.
Thanks for playing "Deep down I know I'm wrong but it's too late now".
Don't worry though you've got good company.
What they lack in a conscience, social responsibility and a moral compass they make up for in tenacity and self interest.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23303781 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:53:17 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23303060 They don't call them Indian smokes because they come from India.
IMHO the gun registry is a waste of tax money for all the reasons stated above.
If it did anything It put more guns on the street.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23303060 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:07:24 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23303057 said by Sears:

Don't feel bad IamGimli, dj is more then qualified to make those claims. :D
go bury your head back in the sand Sears.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23303057 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:06:30 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23302896
WAAAAAAY OFF TOPIC ANYHOW.

From a quick google search, it's not the aboriginals per se, but it seems to be more the gangs (ie: hells angels, warriors, etc) smuggling THROUGH the first nations (due to lack of external policing/distrust and poorly funded band police forces)

CTV: »www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s···b=Canada
On a recent fact-finding trip accompanying native smugglers on the Akwesasne Mohawk reserve, which straddles the Ontario, Quebec, and U.S. borders, Sher said his hosts boasted about "the huge amount of guns" they had brought into Canada.

Montreal Gazette: »www.montrealgazette.com/news/Moh···ory.html

Another:
»forums.canadiancontent.net/news/···bec.html

»www.insideprison.com/prison-gangs-canada.asp
»www.mackenzieinstitute.com/1996/···wks.html

or how about Google Books:
»books.google.ca/books?id=KvpZ4NS···&f=false

»www.nowpublic.com/world/canada-u···k-land-8

I cannot comment on the bias of any of these, but I'm just throwing it out there, that we KNOW aboriginal affairs are a VERY touchy subject for any sitting government at the provincial or federal level, and any dissemination of certain aspects of law enforcement by the gov't can come with serious consequences.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23302896 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:31:07 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23302630
Now, its a whitewash. Everybody knows it, but nobody will publish it. The government is conspiring to keep the people in the dark about the truth.

said by IamGimli:

I'm not qualified to say whether native smuggling is how the majority of illegal firearms get into the country...
Don't feel bad IamGimli, dj is more then qualified to make those claims. :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23302630 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:43:09 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23302144 said by peterboro:

As I stated it doesn't matter why they were designed ,probably to cut meat or other stuff before they figured they could kill with them, they have more than one purpose then and now. Actually, what you stated was that firearms needed to be held to a higher standard because they were designed to kill. You can try to backtrack but it's obvious that even you recognize your argument to be worthless.

said by peterboro:

There are thousand of nuclear weapons in the world that haven't killed yet either. Doesn't make them safe either does it? Your out of straws!
Actually yes, nuclear weapons are extremely safe, until someone (multiple people actually) all come together and decide to launch it.

said by peterboro:

I'll go with what a reasonable member of society would define it as opposed to the lunatic fringe of gun nuts.
Ah yes, I can see that you would rather defer to people who have no idea what they're talking about to for your opinions. It's quite obvious.

said by peterboro:

I've actually shot beside officers in a range and they seemed pretty accurate to me. Have you?
I have, multiple times, and those who CHOOSE to practice more are an extremely small minority. You still haven't answered whether you actually have attended one of their annual qualifications, where they ALL have to show up.

said by peterboro:

My local force practices a lot more than once a year and there is a range right in the station.
So your local force, as a group, practices more than once a year? What local force would that be, I'd like to give them a call and verify that.

said by peterboro:

I'd trust an officer with a weapon before a civilian who got grandfathered to possess his weapons or because he has no record.
There is no such thing as grandfathering to have a firearms license, everybody has to pass the safety tests.

said by peterboro:

Here are some of the people who own firearms in Canada right from Canchat »Idiotic neighbour
Yet you focus on the tool rather than the moron holding it. Morons misuse cars and kill people too (a whole lot more than firearms), why don't you chastise the car instead of the moron driving it?

said by peterboro:

As a mechanical object some are amazing pieces of machinery. That said so is a tactical nuclear warhead.
Call me crazy but things designed solely to kill people aren't on the top of the list of things I want around.
Again, almost 100% of firearms in Canada have never and never will kill anyone. It may be a bit difficult for you to understand but that means almost 100% of firearms do have other purposes than to kill people, otherwise we wouldn't own them.

Homicide requires a person to make the decision to take the life of another person and does not require a firearm. A firearm is only a tool, just like a knife or a car, who both kill a lot more people in Canada than all 7+ million firearms we own up here.

said by peterboro:

In respect to guns I've probably fired more for than most people when I was stationed in the US.
Really? So, since guns only have one purpose according to you, to kill people, who did you kill with the guns you fired?

said by peterboro:

My definition is out of the country if possible.
Is that how you store your evil deadly knives?

said by peterboro:

Just yesterday in the paper was a storey of 4 long guns stolen from a guys gun vault locally.
Destined to hit the streets no doubt where they might injure or kill someone.
Yet you blame the inert pieces of metal instead of the criminal who stole them and the criminal who may use them.

said by peterboro:

Funny I thought all the guns would be out at hunting camps where the arseholes can drink beer and slaughter deer this week.
Slaughter is what happens to the piece of meat you find in your plate every day. Hunting has nothing to do with slaughtering but thanks for demonstrating, once again, that you have no clue what you're talking about.

said by peterboro:

I don't follow the gun debate much but I do remember stories about NRA money and ties to the lunatic fringe up here.
As for lies and stats most people with a shred of common sense can see there is no place for guns in society accept for a few circumstances.
Yep, and most people have no idea just how many guns are around them that they know nothing about.

Just for fun, put your postal code in the Ottawa Citizen's abstract of the registry and let us know just how many legal guns are in your region that have never been and never will be used to commit a crime:
»www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/fe···orm.html

said by peterboro:

Perhaps others are done appeasing gun nuts in the name of misguided traditions.
So you want to change history now. Pretty ballsy for someone who can't even figure what knives were designed for.

said by peterboro:

You've got a ways to go. Send some more money to the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party who are playing you like a fiddle.
I'll let you know that I've never given money to a political party or representative but thanks for playing "How can I show how clueless I am?" some more.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23302144 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:18:17 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301905 said by zong:
dirtyjeffer (you're DJ right?)

yes, i am.
quote:
Ridiculous.

yes it is...hopefully, it will be no more.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301905 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:50:10 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301835
You are spot on... I don't personally know any of these "just for fun" individuals either. I can agree that there may be some out there, but having been around for the better part of 4 decades, and knowing and have known many many different "classes" of individuals that I call friends, not a single one, from any walk of life has been a "shoot animals for fun" person.

Targets... that's fun.

Animals... that's food.

You have to be licensed ON TOP of your Firearms PAL license (and ON TOP of the soon to be canceled longgun license) for hunting, you additionally have to be "tagged" with a valid tag for the game you are hunting at that moment.

For me to go hunting, I need:
1) Firearms License / PAL (background/criminal check one)
2) Peice of paper for my particular firearm which is the "long gun registry" (paper)
3) Valid Hunting License
4) Valid Game Tag/Seal

You know what the most annoying part about the long gun registry is... I have 'x' little slips of paper, yes, that's right, paper (with a watermark) that if I do not have the correct little slip of paper, on my person (regardless of if I have my current Firearms PAL and my valid hunting license AND my valid tag for that particular animal/game) and that if I lose/destroy/don't have my little peice of 3" x 3" PAPER ON ME (that means, I can't leave that little peice of delicate paper at the camp where it is dry, it has to be on me) - you know PAPER that goes with that exact firearm I am using and the MNR / police stop me - I am a criminal. Outdoors activities in the rain, snow, etc do not mix well with paper...

(edit: before anyone compares this to a car, and the car registration, you can at least go to the police station AFTER you have got your "no registration" ticket within 24 hours and get that quashed. with the long gun registry, there is no such provision - you are instantly a criminal. Also, most people with their car registration leave it in a dry glovebox, or in a dry wallet/purse, plus if you happen to lose/foul your current registration on a car - you go to any number of MTO offices and get a temporary in 10 minutes, until you receive your new replacement in the mail)

And you know how long it takes to get a replacement peice of paper that says I can legally own my gun? Took me 4 weeks last time after I got rained on heavy, water seeped into the ziplock, my permit for my GUN (not my PAL - that is plastic, and not my Hunting license - that is plastic, and not my tag/seal - those are kind of a papery waxed paper thing) - 4 weeks!!!!! In those FOUR WEEKS I was technically a criminal as I could not "PROVE" the firearm that I had a receipt for, at home, was legally mine.

Ridiculous.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301835 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:37:24 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301775 said by peterboro:

I am sure you are an upstanding member of society. The vast majority of gun owners I know are.
But I have absolutely no use for people who go out and blow away innocent animals with firearms for sport. i agree with you, however, i don't know of anyone who "blows away animals for sport"...as well, having been to the local gun club and speaking with many of the people there, the firearms are either for a hobby, sport (skeet shooting, or standard targets), or practice for work (police, etc)...i don't know of anyone, or have i heard of anyone around here who simply shoots animals for the fun of it...yes, there are plenty who shoot animals for food, but they take their kill and use the meats...there is nothing wrong with that...now, i don't know all the rules regarding "hunting", but i don't think you are allowed to simply shoot animals for fun (perhaps pests on a farm, maybe - like gophers, raccoons, etc)...i don't think you are allowed to go into the wild and just start shooting deer and moose for something to do.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301775 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:27:24 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301742
(I'll give you this: there *IS* a little sport in it for me as there has to be, but it is far more about my freezer and processing my own food than anything else... I also have my own fully functional garden - I prefer my own grown and harvested food to that which the mass produced stores will sell me and you)

And I'll also put this out there, and this is hard and concrete evidence produced by our own Ministry of the Environment... without the various hunts, the wildlife population would get out of control. Bear attacks and incursions (already seeing them), deer eating farmers livelihoods (you'll probably not believe me, but I have two spots for the deer hunt that I have farmers who pay me when I bag a deer on their back lot... they don't have the time to do this themselves - farming is a 20 hour a day job - and the things are pests - they eat the crops and destroy the farmers livelihoods if not kept in check).

Again, go www.mnr.gov.on.ca all the scientific reports are there, and you'll probably find this biased but the OFAH (www.ofah.org) and Ducks unlimited also do their own reports and for the most part, they agree with the MNR. Wildlife needs to be kept in check. We are doing our part.

The OFAH and Ducks Unlimited are not "gun nuts" either.

Yes there are some drunkards out there, while on the hunt at that. I have came across them and they scare the living shit out of me when I am in the same area. But that is why there is enforcement (I have now twice made a call on my CB to report such activities). Personally, I think we need far, far, far more MNR officers to bust people like that like 10 years ago before the budget cutbacks.

But if you're saying I can't fire up a stogie, pour a glass of single malt (or 5), play some cards and shoot the shit at the camp while I don't have a firearm in my hand, after the day's hunt is over - you are way out of order.

The fact that you are standing by your statement shows the moral and ethical nature of your person, and frankly, you are again out of order. You are far too removed from the realities of the situation to make a definitive judgment against an entire industry and group of people.

side note: I can see by your statements that when you state "I have had the opportunity to articulate such to their face. It makes for some interesting situations." - I'll submit that you could be an intelligent creature, or you might not be, as with hunters - there are some dumasses and there are some like me. But that reads like you are picking for a fight... just like you are here, with no sentient argument.... if that is in fact the case, and you cannot "articulate" your point without argument than you are worse than them.

Anyhow, ignore that last statement in your replies to me... I am just calling it as I see it. The real argument here is that the firearms registry for long guns serves no purpose (as I have stated very well above) and personally, I am glad it is on its way to being abolished.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301742 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:21:44 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301683 said by zong:

re this statement of yours: "Funny I thought all the guns would be out at hunting camps where the arseholes can drink beer and slaughter deer this week."
I'm not an arsehole and I respectfully demand you retract that statement.I am sure you are an upstanding member of society. The vast majority of gun owners I know are.
But I have absolutely no use for people who go out and blow away innocent animals with firearms for sport.
If you expect a retraction than you can, to quote you "blow it out your a**"
On many an occasion I have had the opportunity to articulate such to their face. It makes for some interesting situations. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301683 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:05:20 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301657
I know others have stated this, and I am just going to point this out right now one last time in a short note.

All LEGAL Firearms owners (long or short) have to have criminal background checks done, and renew their licenses with Mirmachi every so often. We are already registered. Any police coming up to a situation should always believe that they are in harms way and assume the worst. If they don't they could be dead. The "registry" that says I have 'x' guns at my house is useless, the police can already tell that I have an PAL and I *may* have firearms - but that is beside the point, they should always assume there are and that they are in harms way (and having a brother, uncle and about a half dozen friends in the rcmp and various local forces that this IS ALREADY THE CASE - anyone who doesn't is not following their training).

All handguns have been registered since the 30's. Anyone before being able to get a handgun has to have an active range membership, apply for an ATT (Auth. to transport) and once that is processed, only then can you get a handgun. When tansporting you can't even deviate from your path between your house and the range to go pickup groceries or they can bust you.

The registry for long guns is useless and tells the police nothing that they can't already ping via the Mirmachi / FAC database. Personally, I see no use for handguns. I understand that people like target sports and that is indeed a legal use for them, personally, I don't own any nor will I ever.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301657 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:01:07 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301581
Peterboro1 - your points are hogwash. You keep reiterating the same strawman argument over and over.

Relating to knives. Peterboro1 - Just give it up - you are wrong. I don't even know what the hell you are trying to state, you just don't make any LOGICAL sense. Too much emotion, too little logic.

As for one of your quotes about being an upstanding member of society, I can tell you I most certainly am. Very active in the community, no convictions, no traffic tickets, a good job in the legal community, and a member of several community organizations including 2nd VP on a board.

re this statement of yours: "Funny I thought all the guns would be out at hunting camps where the arseholes can drink beer and slaughter deer this week."

I'm not an arsehole and I respectfully demand you retract that statement. I'm off to the hunt tomorrow actually for the week and you can (for sake of my own emotions getting in the way here - blow it out your a**).

I bet my collection which isn't very big, you would consider an "aresenal" and let me tell you, I own not a single handgun. All longguns, all witha specific purpose and specific game they are targetted towards.

Also, just so you know, I am literally a card carrying member of the Ontario NDP. I vote at federal / provincial elections and even go to the delegates convention for the past 3 years. So you can take your insinuation that guns are for conservatives / reform and alliance and throw that out because again, you are flat wrong.

And you want to know why these guns were stolen from that guy (havne't heard the report) but coincidently after the registry went live - many, many people have had their collections stolen... wonder how that came about. Seemingly innocuous and otherwise unknown individuals got their "stashes" wiped clean. I can only posit that somewhere (and others in the media have posited the same) that someone in the registry office has released that information to the nefarious side of civilization... nuff said on that point. Do some research... it's out there.

edited for spelling.
2nd edit: IamGimli... and the other chap who is on this side - you are welcome at our camp any time. You seem like safe and upstanding individuals.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301581 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:48:57 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301423 said by IamGimli:

Please do explain how today's knife design is so different from those evil knives our ancestors designed oh-so-long ago. Sharp edge: check. Handle: check. What makes old knives inherently more evil than modern knives?As I stated it doesn't matter why they were designed ,probably to cut meat or other stuff before they figured they could kill with them, they have more than one purpose then and now.

I'm sorry, I didn't know logic was grasping at straws. You claim that the only thing guns can ever do is kill people. I demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of all 7+ million guns in Canada have never killed anyone. How is that grasping at straws?
There are thousand of nuclear weapons in the world that haven't killed yet either. Doesn't make them safe either does it? Your out of straws!

Ahhh, the whole "period, end of discussion" argument. That's always a winner. Nevermind the fact that there's absolutely no definition anywhere of exactly how many firearms constitutes an "arsenal" or on what a "cache" is, besides scary words gun control freaks and media use to trigger emotionally-fragile dimwits.
I'll go with what a reasonable member of society would define it as opposed to the lunatic fringe of gun nuts.

Here's another interesting gem from you though. Law enforcement. Interesting you should mention them. What makes you think that they are magically immune to the dangers of firearms? Most law enforcement officers use their firearms once a year, for half a day, when their departments make them to keep up their qualifications. I've actually attended police officer qualifications before, have you? If you had you would know that most officers are not even basically proficient in the use of their firearms and require as many as four or five attempts at the mandated course to get a passing mark.
I've actually shot beside officers in a range and they seemed pretty accurate to me. Have you?
My local force practices a lot more than once a year and there is a range right in the station.
I'd trust an officer with a weapon before a civilian who got grandfathered to possess his weapons or because he has no record.
Here are some of the people who own firearms in Canada right from Canchat »Idiotic neighbour
What is it with your obsession against firearms? Do you have any rational reason to dislike an inert object so much?
As a mechanical object some are amazing pieces of machinery. That said so is a tactical nuclear warhead.
Call me crazy but things designed solely to kill people aren't on the top of the list of things I want around.
In respect to guns I've probably fired more for than most people when I was stationed in the US.
Please define "store properly" for me.
My definition is out of the country if possible. Just yesterday in the paper was a storey of 4 long guns stolen from a guys gun vault locally.
Destined to hit the streets no doubt where they might injure or kill someone.
Funny I thought all the guns would be out at hunting camps where the arseholes can drink beer and slaughter deer this week.
The NRA doesn't give a hoot about Canada, they don't exist here. You though seem to be taking your debate techniques from the Coalition for Gun Control and the International Action Network on Small Arms who also cannot provide logical arguments to support gun control but rather need to lie and mis-represent statistics and appeal to people's emotions to push their agenda through.
I don't follow the gun debate much but I do remember stories about NRA money and ties to the lunatic fringe up here.
As for lies and stats most people with a shred of common sense can see there is no place for guns in society accept for a few circumstances.

Sorry if our refusal to roll over in face of your baseless, lying, politically and emotionally misguided propaganda disappoints you but I think you'll find we're done taking the abuse in the name of social appeasement.
Perhaps others are done appeasing gun nuts in the name of misguided traditions.
Thankfully, as demonstrated by the Commons vote yesterday, more Canadians seem to be able to see through the lies now that we actually have a voice to point out the lies propagated by the international anti-gun lobby.
You've got a ways to go. Send some more money to the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party who are playing you like a fiddle.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301423 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:20:28 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301134 said by Sears:

Funny, their report doesn't mention natives at all, as you and others claimed it would.I'm sure you're not unaware that, because of the political pressures surrounding native affairs, they are usually not mentioned in any kind of bad ways in Government documents, whether they could be or not.

Any mention of natives in such reports is systematically edited out to avoid political shrapnel.

said by Sears:

The majority of seizures occur at land border ports of entry where the firearms are either concealed in hidden compartments in personal vehicles or duct-taped to the body.
From the tone of the report they seem to be talking about seizures while the firearms and being smuggled in, which would not cover firearms smuggled through reserves as the RCMP is generally forbidden from patrolling borders located on reserves and, when they do, they're not allowed to talk about it, they don't issue press releases, etc.

Just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I personally know an officer that was involved in the seizure of over 1000 firearms from a native owner in Cornwall (right next to the reserve) about a year ago. The operation had personnel from the RCMP, SQ, OPP, Canadian Coast Guard, FBI, BATFE and US State Dept. involved yet nobody ever heard about it.

I'm not qualified to say whether native smuggling is how the majority of illegal firearms get into the country but it's certainly large enough to be significant.

Either way, it's absolutely irrelevant to the issue of the registry and how useless it is :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23301134 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:31:09 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299917
quote:
According to Statistics Canada, in 2006, handguns accounted for 108 of the 190 victims killed by a firearm. Of the remaining 82 victims, 36 were killed by a rifle or shotgun, 24 by a sawed-off rifle or shotgun and 22 by another or unknown type of firearm.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299917 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:33:18 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299912
Here we have the RCMP's report,
Current Trends in Firearms Trafficking and Smuggling in Canada

»www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports···-eng.htm

Funny, their report doesn't mention natives at all, as you and others claimed it would.

quote:
The majority of seizures occur at land border ports of entry where the firearms are either concealed in hidden compartments in personal vehicles or duct-taped to the body.


So, the majority of seizures occur at ports of entry, not at reserves. How very interesting!

Further on:

quote:
The illicit firearms market is characterized by a wide range of criminal participants, particularly individual entrepreneurs to full-fledged members of criminal organizations.


Also very interesting, it seems the gun smugglers are not dominated by one group, but encompass a wide scope of individuals.

So, you were saying?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299912 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:27:13 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299815 --
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299815 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:27:40 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299641 said by dirtyjeffer:

i already said the numbers would be tough to find....for one, i don't even know if such a publication exists, although i would love to see it...anyone who would publish such an article would be called a racist, by every other idiot in this country who is just like you...pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I never once claimed that it didn't exist. Maybe the natives are in fact responsible for the vast majority of gun smuggling. Who knows, I certainly don't.

Point is, neither do you. Yet, that doesn't stop you from pretending that you do, and that facts exist to back up your claims, which as of the moment they don't.

I'd have no problems with what you said if there was some numbers to back it up, then it'd be factual. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm an idiot for believing that when someone claims something as fact, he should be able to prove it? Wow.

I think we should just agree to disagree, because this isn't going anywhere.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299641 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:34:35 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299622 --
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299622 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:30:19 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299611 said by dirtyjeffer:

the numbers are out there...look 'em up yourself if you can take your head out of the sand to search for them.
I had no idea it was my responsibility to prove your arguments for you. You keep claiming they are there, well pleaese show us!

If they existed, you would have posted them. They don't, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299611 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:28:11 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299601 said by Sears:

Nobody has claimed that there hasn't been incidents where gun smuggling was going on at reservations.

What has been claimed, over and over by some, is that the natives are responsible for vast majority of gun smuggling. Yet, nobody has posted anything to prove this. Still, it is being repeated ad nauseum as FACT. You opinion is not a FACT. Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so. Pointing to specific incidents does in no way prove anything.

You can't just make blanket generalizations like that without backing it up, thats the point. You can't back it up, maybe you should prefix your statements with something like "in my opinion".
i didn't realize DKS' kid posted in here...welcome to the party junior. :p
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299601 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:25:25 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299594 said by Sears:
It's about as valid as me stating that the Jews are responsible for the vast majority of white collar crimes.

no it isn't...i don't see articles on a regular basis about Jews and white collar crime...there are HUNDREDS of articles related to natives and smuggling...that is a fact.

quote:
Without numbers to back it up, it's racist, pure and simple.

the numbers are out there...look 'em up yourself if you can take your head out of the sand to search for them.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299594 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:23:00 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299588
What has been claimed, over and over by some, is that the natives are responsible for vast majority of gun smuggling. Yet, nobody has posted anything to prove this. Still, it is being repeated ad nauseum as FACT. You opinion is not a FACT. Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so. Pointing to specific incidents does in no way prove anything.

You can't just make blanket generalizations like that without backing it up, thats the point. You can't back it up, maybe you should prefix your statements with something like "in my opinion".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299588 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:20:54 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299568 said by peterboro:

and any knives one has aren't from then are they?... not that it matters... nice try though.Please do explain how today's knife design is so different from those evil knives our ancestors designed oh-so-long ago. Sharp edge: check. Handle: check. What makes old knives inherently more evil than modern knives?

said by peterboro:

wow you're grasping at straws today....they may not have killed anyone but they aren't necessary either are they?
I'm sorry, I didn't know logic was grasping at straws. You claim that the only thing guns can ever do is kill people. I demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of all 7+ million guns in Canada have never killed anyone. How is that grasping at straws?

said by peterboro:

A large cache of guns is called an arsenal. Period, end of discussion.
Ahhh, the whole "period, end of discussion" argument. That's always a winner. Nevermind the fact that there's absolutely no definition anywhere of exactly how many firearms constitutes an "arsenal" or on what a "cache" is, besides scary words gun control freaks and media use to trigger emotionally-fragile dimwits.

said by peterboro:

This just gets better and better. Give us more useless examples.
How about you provide a rebuttal to my argument instead?

said by peterboro:

My interest and hobby is in not getting shot by firearms that have no legitimate place in society except for law enforcement.
Funny, neither are mine! Here's another interesting gem from you though. Law enforcement. Interesting you should mention them. What makes you think that they are magically immune to the dangers of firearms? Most law enforcement officers use their firearms once a year, for half a day, when their departments make them to keep up their qualifications.

I've actually attended police officer qualifications before, have you? If you had you would know that most officers are not even basically proficient in the use of their firearms and require as many as four or five attempts at the mandated course to get a passing mark.

Maybe these can help show you (sorry, not brainwashed you, just the general you) just how competent law enforcement is with firearms:

London, ON cop fires 19 shots at suspect (not hitting him once): »www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/20···sun.html
Several cases of misuse or accidental discharge of firearm were also substantiated.: »www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb···ses.html
Canadian motorist accidentally shot in the head by constable during traffic stop receives $4 million settlement: »www.aele.org/law/Digests/civil91.html

said by peterboro:

If they used a gun of mine that I didn't store properly I suppose.
What is it with your obsession against firearms? Do you have any rational reason to dislike an inert object so much? Please define "store properly" for me.

said by peterboro:

No I didn't know that. Do you get twitter updates right from the NRA for this propaganda?
Don't need to. The NRA doesn't give a hoot about Canada, they don't exist here. You though seem to be taking your debate techniques from the Coalition for Gun Control and the International Action Network on Small Arms who also cannot provide logical arguments to support gun control but rather need to lie and mis-represent statistics and appeal to people's emotions to push their agenda through. They've called firearm owners domestic abusers, current and former military members murderers the way I could call you a rapist for the sole reason that you may have a penis.

Sorry if our refusal to roll over in face of your baseless, lying, politically and emotionally misguided propaganda disappoints you but I think you'll find we're done taking the abuse in the name of social appeasement.

Thankfully, as demonstrated by the Commons vote yesterday, more Canadians seem to be able to see through the lies now that we actually have a voice to point out the lies propagated by the international anti-gun lobby.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299568 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:17:37 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299525
»articles.latimes.com/1995-02-08/···fficking

Ah, heck ... Take your pick. Smokes, drugs, people and guns.

»www.google.com/search?client=ms-···=browser

It isn't racist. It's a known fact.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.

The opinions in this post are wholly my own and in no way reflect the opinions of, or are influenced by, Bell Canada or its affiliate companies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299525 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:08:32 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299456
Without numbers to back it up, it's racist, pure and simple.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299456 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:54:42 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299396
I won't say they are the largest criminal organization, but they are certainly trying their best to claw their way to the top of the lucrative black market for the above mentioned goods.

Is truth racism? Have we descended so low to have to deny what we see lest someone be offended by the observation?

Not me anyways, DJ has a valid argument. :)
--
Support C391]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299396 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:39:12 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299083 --
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23299083 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:40:35 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23298078
Well certainly there is nothing prejudiced with that line of reasoning at all.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23298078 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:09:26 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297925
quote:
»www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s···b=Canada

On a recent fact-finding trip accompanying native smugglers on the Akwesasne Mohawk reserve, which straddles the Ontario, Quebec, and U.S. borders, Sher said his hosts boasted about "the huge amount of guns" they had brought into Canada.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297925 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:34:03 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297923 said by loosedobbs:

You must have heard on CHCH news Hamilton. so it doesn't count.
you are probably right...CHCH news is racist. :uhh:
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297923 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:33:22 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297922 said by IamGimli:

Pardon? Knives were exactly designed thousands of years ago by our ancestors for the specific purpose of killing prey and ennemies,......... and any knives one has aren't from then are they?... not that it matters... nice try though.

When has a gun ever been involved in a crime without someone pulling the trigger? I can guaranty that well over 99% of all firearms in Canada never killed anyone. Are they all defective?
wow you're grasping at straws today....they may not have killed anyone but they aren't necessary either are they?

Arsenal? It's a COLLECTION.
A large cache of guns is called an arsenal. Period, end of discussion.
Nobody needs motorcycles, better ban those too, especially since the biker gangs use them. Nobody needs pools, hundreds of kids drown in family pools every year, better ban those too. How about fireplaces, they burn houses down and kill people, out!
This just gets better and better. Give us more useless examples.

Just because YOU don't find an interest or use in firearms doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about you let peaceful, legal, safe firearm owners alone and we don't try to make YOUR useless hobby/property illegal?
My interest and hobby is in not getting shot by firearms that have no legitimate place in society except for law enforcement.

I'm sure some of the people you hang out with smoke pot (whether you know it or not), which is a crime. Should we hold you responsible when they commit crimes against you?
If they used a gun of mine that I didn't store properly I suppose.

Here's another interesting fact for you. Did you know that Great Britain for all intents and purposes banned all private firearm ownership a few years ago? Do you know what the results of that ban are? Criminality has skyrocketed, especially violent crimes involving firearms, because criminals know that nobody can effectively put up a fight. It's gotten so bad that the traditionally firearm-less bobbies are now forced to carry handguns and sub-machine guns on their regular patrols. Now do you also know that it's the very same people and organizations that lobbied the British legislature for that ban that's now lobbying the Canadian Government for similar laws (conveniently not mentioning the results they encountered in England)?
No I didn't know that. Do you get twitter updates right from the NRA for this propaganda? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297922 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:33:20 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297874 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297874 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:22:40 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297857 said by loosedobbs:

said by dirtyjeffer:

they already know they are the largest source...of course, saying so creates exactly what you and DKS do...throw out the race card...someone in politics or in a high position can't afford the backlash of calling it like it is...i can...i couldn't care less if you called me a racist.
Your statement is clearly racists. Your denial confirms it.
I've heard the same allegations on tv and on the radio about the reserves being one of the biggest sources for the entry of illegal guns into Canada from the USA. I guess if they can be used as a point of entry for illegal tobacco why not guns? Sorry no links...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297857 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:19:47 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297113 said by dirtyjeffer:

they already know they are the largest source...of course, saying so creates exactly what you and DKS do...throw out the race card...someone in politics or in a high position can't afford the backlash of calling it like it is...i can...i couldn't care less if you called me a racist.
Your statement is clearly racists. Your denial confirms it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297113 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:07:39 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297089 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297089 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:02:52 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297083 said by dirtyjeffer:

said by digitalfutur:

Using that logic every person should provide a DNA sample to the government,
i would be OK with that...it would help solve crimes much faster and reduce the cost of solving those crimes as we would have a database of every person.
But will you enjoy giving your "sample"? ;)
--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke. "Walk the Talk".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297083 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:01:37 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297056 --
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297056 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:56:02 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297038 said by dirtyjeffer:

those articles point to the fact that the RCMP have already stated a vast majority of illegal guns, drugs and cigarettes are smuggled across the borders by the natives...Really? Why don't you quote me the section in your "links" that the RCMP states that the "vast majority" of guns are smuggled by natives.

Considering that the NP article had nothing to do with gun smuggling, I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read them.

The closest thing is the Mack report that states certain reserves are a big conduit, with no numbers or anything to back it up.

You are just coming off as a racist.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23297038 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:51:13 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296782 said by Robert:

said by digitalfutur:

Registering cars does not reduce car theft, just as registering long-guns has not reduced long-gun crime.

But if a vehicle is used for a crime, the registration allows police to track down its owner to help solve the crime.
I'm sure most of the guns used by criminals are not registered. Most are likely stolen....or purchased on the black market. Also most crime is done with handguns and/or automatics...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296782 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:02:22 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296717 said by dirtyjeffer:

good lord...has hell frozen over??...three posts in a row in which i 100% agree with what you have said...maybe i am still asleep and this is just a weird twilight zone type dream. ;)
Meh, shit happens ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296717 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:47:58 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296703 said by Robert:

Then why register cars then?
Because it provides a revenue stream for the Government. Don't kid yourself, that's the ONLY reason cars have to be registered, just like cats and dogs, who are also stupidly used by the anti-gun lobby as a comparison for the firearms registry.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296703 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:45:40 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296682 said by digitalfutur:

Using that logic every person should provide a DNA sample to the government, i would be OK with that...it would help solve crimes much faster and reduce the cost of solving those crimes as we would have a database of every person.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296682 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:40:46 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296681 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296681 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:40:45 EDT Re: Canadian Firearms Registry is NO MORE. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296668 said by Robert:

said by digitalfutur:

Registering cars does not reduce car theft, just as registering long-guns has not reduced long-gun crime.

But if a vehicle is used for a crime, the registration allows police to track down its owner to help solve the crime.
Using that logic every person should provide a DNA sample to the government, and there should be closed circuit TV cameras, with audio, on every street corner. Because anyone has the capability to commit a criminal act. The more tools police have at their disposal, the better.

The registration of every long gun is not proportional to the benefit received. Unlike handguns, there are legitimate uses for rifle and shotguns outside of law enforcement. And a licence is already required to own either, or buy ammunition.
--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke. "Walk the Talk".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Canadian-Firearms-Registry-is-NO-MORE-23296668 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:39:30 EDT