I said that exact thing you have an obligation to have the proper information to make a report.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Printable View
I said that exact thing you have an obligation to have the proper information to make a report.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Well my gun buying experience began some time after my initial policing. But I can tell you that when I bought my first shotgun at Holman and Hickey on Dawes Road, the gun store owner had to record all the details of the firearm in a ledger which was checked on a regular basis by OPP officers and Toronto officers.This would be one of the starting points for any investigation into a lost or stolen gun.Owners of guns back then also appeared to be pretty good about recording details but many were NOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
After society suffered a number of murders involving firearms and Coroners inquest throughout the Country started making recommendations to tighten gun control.Some of the incidents involved long guns stolen where the owners did not report the theft but it came to light in the investigation.To force the owners to comply with some pretty common sense precautions we got the long gun registry.
BS. We got the long gun registry to make it look like the Libranos were actually doing something about gun crimes. The registry did nothing of the sort as it only targeted law abiding citizens and channeled scarce tax dollars away from police budgets. As an officer did you target cars that were actually speeding or those that weren't? The registry never helped public safety but in typical Liberal fashion swelled the ranks of unionized public servants who vote liberal. In this case Miramichi. Do ya think there is a reason/link as to why the Maritimes worship the liberals? A stolen gun is just as dangerous wether it is registered or not. There already was safe storage laws in place. There already was an FAC police check system that vetted buyers. The criminal's firearm of choice the handgun already had a registry yet somehow they had no problem sourcing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Well not so fast old chap lets have a wee look at the FACTS.
The birth of the Canadian long-gun registry began with the federal Progressive Conservative Party under Prime Minister Kim Campbell. It was the child of former Conservative Senator Nathan Nurgitz, who wrote then Prime Minister Campbell requesting all guns be registered.
- May 1990 – Justice Minister Kim Campbell introduces Bill C-80, which improves the FAC screening process, defines safe storage, bans some military weapons and large-capacity magazines, but, notably, does not ban semi-automatic weapons such as the Ruger Mini-14, register firearms, or control the sale of ammunition.
- November 1990 – In an almost unprecedented turn of events, because of opposition in Kim Campbell's own Conservative caucus, Bill C-80 fails second reading and is sent to a "Special Committee."
- November 1990 – February 1991 – The Special Committee on Bill C-80 conducts hearings.
- March 1991 – Parliament prorogues and Bill C-80 dies on the order paper.
- April 1991 – The students of Polytechnique and Canadians for Gun Control formally merge to form the Coalition for Gun Control. The Coalition holds its first national press conference in Ottawa with representatives from the Canadian Police Association, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Victims of Polytechnique, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, and others calling on the Government to reintroduce gun-control legislation.
- May 1991 – Justice Minister Kim Campbell unveils Bill C-17, a revised version of Bill C-80. The first witness, the Minister of Justice, argues that the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General do not need to conduct extensive hearings but should send the bill back to the House of Commons for third reading. Gun organizations push for hearings in an effort to weaken the bill. Gun-control advocates push for hearings in order to strengthen the bill. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women storms the hearings, arguing that women have the right to be heard, and the bill is subsequently sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
- May–September 1991 – The Legislative Committee hears witnesses on both sides. This time,the Coalition for Gun Control appears with support from health-care, crime-prevention and other experts. Its position is endorsed by over 50 groups and 5000 individuals. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women recommends improvements to the bill to counter problems with guns in domestic violence. Both the Canadian Police Association and Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police advocate registration of all firearms. In response to an advertising campaign by the gun lobby, the Coalition issues a joint statement in support of Bill C-17, with additional measures such as registration of all firearms. The statement is signed by hundreds of community leaders, chiefs of police, and violence-prevention organizations and issued to all MPs and Senators. A campaign by the Coalition lands over 300,000 postcards on MPs' desks, calling for amendments to strengthen the law. The Liberal and NDP parties support the position of the Coalition for Gun Control advocating licensing of firearm owners and registration of firearms.
- November 7, 1991 – The House of Commons passes Bill C-17. Members of all four political parties acknowledge the efforts of the Coalition for Gun Control.
- November–December 1991 – The Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs reviews the legislation. Priscilla DeVilliers, whose daughter Nina was killed months earlier, and John Bickerstaff, whose son Lee was accidentally killed by a friend playing with his father's service revolver, testify.
- December 5, 1991 – Bill C-17 passes Senate. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Chair, Senator Nathan Nurgitz, writes to Justice Minister Kim Campbell advising her to look carefully at the regulations and to registration of all firearms.
The liberals ( Alan Rock) introduced the registry. The Conservatives campaigned on scrapping it and when they got a majority did exactly that. The sad accidental shooting you quote would still have happened wether a public servant in Miramichi was on the payroll or not. Nice try though.
Unless you can provide me credible stats that prove that ending the registry resulted in a) increased theft of long guns b) increase of criminal acts with long guns then you have no valid argument to support a reintroduction of it. What I think you will find is a gradual decline in gun crimes that started before the creation of the registry and continued during the registry and continues today without it.
Well, that's a novel interpretation: that if my firearm is stolen and I do not have a record of the serial number, then because I cannot make a "proper report" by filling in all the blanks on a form, I have failed to make any report at all, and therefore have committed the criminal offence of failing to report the theft?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Sorry. That's incorrect.
B.S x2 on Gilroys post.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Lieberal feel good , super expensive window dressing is the all the registry ever was.
Draconian, over the top provisions existed where an innocent gun owning citizen could end up facing worse repercussions than a lowlife gun steeling thug !
Typical liberal B.S. is all the registry was. I doubt if it ever even saved 1 life.
Imagine Gilroy , how many more police could have been hired and on the street with all that money. On the street actually addressing the real problem, hand guns and gangs !!!
And please don't try to tell me how useful it was for domestics or any visit to a residence by police. I know several Leo,s and most said it was useless. A couple of them tried the"we know if there is guns there" before we arrive theory on me. So I point blank asked them this . Registry shows no guns, do you just walk up to the door unassuming on a false pre tense or on alert ?? They said as I expected on alert. They then actually agreed that in reality it was pretty much useless !
Feel good, appeasement to some of society, waste of money , useless liberal vote buying social engineering experiment is all the registry ever was. And the worst part of it all ,its main target from the beginning was law abiding, gun owners !!! Not the real problem, gangs and illegal guns.
Flogging a dead horse. It simply boggles the mind that some people still,after all this time,are trying to defend the undefendable.LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
THIS^^^^^^^^^!!Quote:
Originally Posted by bushman
[QUOTE=trimmer21;922219]Flogging a dead horse. It simply boggles the mind that some people still,after all this time,are trying to defend the undefendable.LOL
Brace yourself for some form of resurrection of it if, dumb or dumber have their way!!
Resurrecting it would be a bit of a risk. Whoever wins this election will win it because a lot of people who voted conservative in 2011 are voting lib/ndp now. Bring back the registry and see how many of those votes you lose in 2019.
The libs/ndp already have the left wing vote guaranteed, but they needed a lot of 2011 cons to switch. Bringing back the registry may cost them those votes. Not bringing it back will not likely cost them left wing votes.