Thieves the lot of them.The liberals & there revolting tax grab.

Not to mention encouraging crimminals plus, making self defense a crime. Or the treatment of honest men & Women. Killers get a freer pass than law abiding gun owners.

Harper should be putting the kibosh on this absurdity as quick as possible.

But someone could have been knocked over the head with it, eh?

Exactly -- when will we have to start registering our baseball bats? Kitchen knives? Box cutters? Heck, I bet I could do some major damage to someone with my steel toe boots!

I heard of a guy in BC (in the Okanagan) who slipped on his wet kitchen floor and fell upon a knife in his open dishwasher and died from his injuries(true story). Register dishwashers maybe?

And this family is so rich the several thousand dollars from the legitimate sale of it doesn't matter?

I saw this BS happen last time they had a gun amnesty,in small town B.C., an elderly widow on a small pension gave up her late husband's entire gun collection, worth thousands she could have used.

What about fair compensation for a valuable collectors item, or isn't that the Canadian way?

But seriously: this highlights the central and essential problem of government regulation: the inability to take special situations or individual differences into account. I recently spoke to CRA about an estate I'm executor to. Told them the sole recipient of the income was a tax-exempt university and that therefore there was no point in filing a T3 for estate income. They made me do it anyway!

Praise Helen for turning in her 8 pound 30 inch barrelled double. Everyone knows that these are the preferred gun of criminals.
It really does get tiring yet laughable, listening to these self righteous zealots blather on about how evil guns are. Almost without exception an armed society is a polite society (save for the middle east...but that's another story).

I hope that there are no criminals taking note in Langley of all the people that are disarming themselves.

"No shotgun shells exist that fit the piece, which is estimated to be over 130 years old."

A fact that would most likely escape the attention of the good volunteers at 1-800-Mirimachi.

"Late at night, most likely around the year 1880, when George was closing down the bar for the day, a man appeared at the door and demanded a beer. ... George refused, but after having the shotgun aimed at him, he obliged the man's request for a drink.

The man must have been already drinking beforehand"

In Manitoba in 1880? The more things change, the more they stay the same. lol

Be a damn shame if that piece gets destroyed.

I wonder if they looked into the value of that gun before they gave it away. Just a quick google reveals a selection of Greener's in the $2500 to $30000 range.

George took the gun and turned it on its owner: "My grandfather said to him, 'Now you get out of here,'" Helen said.

The gun was eventually passed on to her father and then to her and her husband, Harold.

What irony. Grandfather gets a second chance at life, thanks to a gun, while his descendants can only grovel on their knees at 3 am when faced with a criminal in their bedroom. This story on so many levels is so damn pathetic. And, so aptly the terminal end of liberal lunacy and their disrespectful distrust of individuals.

Almost without exception an armed society is a polite society

You've got that right. The decade I lived in New Mexico, as a vestige of the gun culture, twits didn't lay on their car horns. Driving home at odd hours from a hospital and sustaining a few breakdowns, I never feared assistance from others either. We also had big poisonous snakes in the yard which I guess Canadians are expected to strangle with their bare hands.

Yes penny, your gun culture is really something for the world to emulate.

I knew several people, including my grandparents, who lived in the Dakotas in the 1890s. Almost every man, including my notably gentle and peaceful grandfather, owned a sidearm and every farmer owned a rfle and/or shotgun. People addressed strangers and their elders as "Mr." or "M'am", foul language in the presence of ladies or children would get the mouthy individual knocked on his ass and, although disputes among neighbours would sometimes be settled with fists and boots, lethal violence, notwithstanding the amount of firepower available, was as rare as it is today. (And, contrary to leftist propaganada, the murder rate in the still heavily armed Dakotas is about half of that in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. File that among your interesting factoids.)

maryjane: Please enough with your cyber vomit. Everywhere take your hate filled, leftist- anti-everthing with common sense-over the top stupidity elsewhere.

maryjane, my friend, fear the government that fears your gun. They've been turned in without fail in totalitarian states. History might have been different if the Hungarians and other Eastern Europeans had been armed - less years of serfdom under the Communists.

Statistically crime is worse in Canada's major cities than here. Google it, just for the fun of it.

I'm surprised you're back soon. You've gotten over freedom fighter, al-Zarqawi, demise faster than I thought.

Apparently the people who believe in the "Fear Mongering BS" promoted by the Libcomsimps are the same idiots who vote for the bastards.

It's a damned shame that we live in a country so crippled by fear.

Shame on every last person who falls for this crap.

who cares
its not like they forced her to give it up

the shotgun being described by the langly couple is very reminisent of one that a friend of mine's father owned. it was a 8 guage and although i was never a fan of shotguns this one was a work of art. it had silver inlay on the breech. the date as i recall was 1875 but i cannot remember the manufacture. i truly hope her's makes it to a museum.

Several point
first the chance of a gun being stolen and used in a crime much less a murder is extremely remote. The stolen gun to murder weapon is so rare you have a better chance of a lightening strike.

second this is a public announcement of official govt and police surrender to gangs and criminals. Now they can no longer"protect" us from robbers or violence. We are now solely responsible and must fulfil our responsibilities by making ourselves completely defenseless and offering no resistence

thirdly this sleasy cowardly con is offered as "action against crime"

Yo maryjane,

My recollection is that the numbers back up what Penny says. (you'll have to do your own legwork to find them.)

Frankly, I think a well-armed society with excellent law enforcement would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

The Switzerland model would be nice.

http://www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/archive/switzerland.htm

"Conscription is enshrined in art. 18(1) of the 1848 Federal Constitution (as amended in 1992), which states: "Every Swiss is liable for military service. The law will provide for the organisation of civilian service." [4]

The legal basis of conscription is the 1907 Law on Military Organisation and the 1992 Defence Law (Wehrgrundgesetz). [2]

In wartime everyone -- women, men and children -- must help in the defence of the country. [3]

Switzerland, a federation of several small states, introduced national conscription in 1870. It was clearly part of a nation-building programme. Although Switzerland has remained neutral in the majority of European wars, it firmly believes in a 'total defence', requiring every citizen to play some part in the country's defence. The Swiss standing army is relatively small, but there is a large potential militia-army.

military service

All male citizens are liable for military service between the age of 20 and 50 (55 in the case of officers). [2]

Under the canton defence system laws -- and contrary to the Constitution -- women with particular skills are already conscripted in wartime and therefor must follow certain training courses as part of Switzerland's total defence concept. [3]

The length of basic military training (recruit school) is four months (118 days). Thereafter conscripts must undertake reservist training until they are 50. Reservist training consists of eight 20-day training courses up to the age of 32, and three 13-day training courses up to the age of 42. [2] [4] [5]

Altogether, conscripts must perform some 300 days' military training (reduced from 331 days in 1995, and from 364 days in 1991). During this three decades of his life, he remains a regular member of the militia army, which includes home maintenance of equipment, a rifle and ammunition. [2] [6] [10]

Those with relatively good qualifications can be forced to become military officers. Military training for officers lasts at least 460 days. [1]"

A man with a gun is a citizen
A man without one is a subject

Naw Common'.....You know we are supposed to be living in fear ...guns are SCARY and we should be afraid of them. We NEED the Government to protect us from GUNS!
;)

Seems people are more afraid of a 130 yr old gun than they are of the fact there are of dandger of the terrorists in
our midst.

I highly recomend Ann Coulters book. Just reading how Social LIberals defend themselves, is worth the effort of reading it.

This is an excellent review of that book. It has examples galore on how pernacious this system of belief is.

How like this subject on gun control how they obscure, lie, & disemble.

The whole gun control issue is one of control & graft. A vally full of liberal daisies waiting to be plucked for the next election.

Thank God for Ann Coulter
Jun 9, 2006
Review by Ben Shapiro

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/reviews/benshapiro/200642.html

I find it very contradictory, when I'm talking to people who say that all Muslims should be partially blamed, face stricter immigration rules, etc., and then they go on to say that not all gun owners should face stricter regulations because of the crimes of a few. Agree? Disagree?

With guns banned, knifings increase
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | June 9, 2006 | Editorial

Posted on 06/09/2006 4:22:18 PM PDT by Graybeard58

In 1997, Great Britain outlawed private ownership of handguns, and by 2003, gun crimes had doubled and violent crime had increased markedly. Those numbers continue to rise. Now knife crimes are increasing in Britain. For the most recent one-year period for which government records are available, 29 percent of homicides -- twice the rate of the United States -- were committed with "sharp instruments": knives, switchblades, etc. London had 12,589 knife-related crimes, most involving teenage boys. Knives are becoming the weapon of choice for young people, criminologists say, because they're easier to get and "less illegal" than guns.

It's not as if Britain doesn't have knife laws, however. Students can get up to four years in prison just for bringing a knife to school. But the rise in knife crime is related to the gun ban because criminals, whether wielding a knife or a pistol, know the government has disarmed their intended victims.

Officials are responding to the spike in knife attacks and homicides with an amnesty program. Through June 30, thugs may surrender their knives at police stations, schools, churches and supermarkets. As similar efforts the world over have shown, amnesty doesn't work because it aims to disarm people who have no intention of giving up their weapons.

Meanwhile, Parliament is considering measures to make it illegal for anyone under 18 to buy a knife, give teachers the right to search students for weapons and mandate jail time for possessing a knife "without cause." But history has shown repeatedly that making weapons "more illegal" won't make the public safer; arming the people does.

In the last decade, while right-to-carry laws expanded in this country, violent-crime rates dropped. John Barnes of the Washington Policy Center reports 40 states now issue permits for people to carry guns. Common sense tells us the right to carry deters crime, and Mr. Barnes provides the statistics to back us up. "Research shows at least 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the United States. Guns are used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes. Most often the mere sight of a gun prevents a crime from occurring or getting worse." ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646558/posts

excerpt: (Paddy O'Toole converts to Islam????)

"A bearded Irishman from Dublin, a convert [to Islam] of five years who gave his name as Khaled, said:

“The Prophet Mohammed said ‘you should carry

weapons’ and he is right.”

Headlines at:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

UK Muslims: "British Police Go To Hell"

Secret Report: Muslim Police Corrupt

(In Caledonia, Ontario, Canada, the Ontario Provincial Police has been neutered/spayed by the Liberal Government of Liberal Dalton McGuinty.)

I think if the 17 terrorists had easy access to guns they could have moved more quickly along the path to terror. Instead they had to try to smuggle guns into the country and were caught.

Having weapons at home in your closet doesn't help you when the terrorist is attacking the transit system.

Having a shotgun in your closet isn't going to help you against any army or police that I know of.

Having a weapon at home makes it far more likely it will be used against you or someone in your family or someone will use it as a preferred method of suicide.

Having a weapon at home increases your chance of a breakin to get the weapon. There were at least two cases of gun collections stolen, yes from a safe, this year in Toronto.

Excerpt from Death by Murder:
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#usa

"VI. GUNS AND HOMICIDE
Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%.

"Gun control laws are stiffer in Canada, and many claim this accounts for the murder rate being lower in Canada than in the United States. 65% of US homicides were committed with firearms, versus 32% in Canada. However, a large American study indicated that liberalized laws for carrying concealed weapons reduced murder rates in the US by 8.5%. US homicide rates in the year 1900 were an estimated 1 per 100,000 -- at a time when anyone of any age could buy a gun. Statistics-gathering may have been less thorough at that time -- and few people had the money or interest to buy guns. But American gun supply (including handguns) doubled from the 1973-1992 period, during which homicide rates remained unchanged (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4-Aug-2000, p.A10).

"Politicians in Massachusetts have cited the State's tough gun control laws as the reason for its low murder rates. However, the adjacent states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have some of the least stringent gun control laws in the US, yet the first two have lower murder rates than Massachusetts and the murder rates in Vermont are comparable to those in Massachusetts. Murder rates in Boston increased 50% in 2004 over the previous year, while murder rates in Los Angeles, Miami, Washington and many other major cites saw murder rates decline."

...which goes to show you can prove anything with statistics.

"Exactly -- when will we have to start registering our baseball bats? Kitchen knives? Box cutters?"

As Jay Jardine once depressingly pointed out to me, reductio ad absurdum arguments will not work with these people. They just give them new ideas.

1) "I think if the 17 terrorists had easy access to guns they could have moved more quickly along the path to terror. Instead they had to try to smuggle guns into the country and were caught."

As long as you don't have a criminal record guns are now easier to get than they were under the old FAC system. I've gone through both processes and it is easier now under the Liberal program, the difference being that they register long guns, among a few other minor changes.

2.) "Having weapons at home in your closet doesn't help you when the terrorist is attacking the transit system.
Having a shotgun in your closet isn't going to help you against any army or police that I know of."

Sounds like a good argument for instituting concealed carry laws in Canada. Glad to hear you are all for law abiding citizens being allowed to protect themselves when they are away from their home Steve.

3.) "Having a weapon at home makes it far more likely it will be used against you or someone in your family or someone will use it as a preferred method of suicide."

Where are the stats that bear this out? You would rather watch your wife be raped and children killed than shoot an intruder? A preferred method of suicide? So are they less dead if they kill themselves with Carbon Monoxide from the family car?

4.) Having a weapon at home increases your chance of a breakin to get the weapon. There were at least two cases of gun collections stolen, yes from a safe, this year in Toronto.

It is interesting to note that these breakins occurred in Ontario where Ontario law requires store owners to keep records of what ammo they sell to who along with their addresses. Several people have noted that these lists are left in plain view of the general public. Makes a good "shopping list" for gun thieves. Incidentally the guy who had his guns stored in a gun safe was charged with improper storage despite the fact that it took the thieves two days to break into it while he was on vacation in Florida.

Oh, and MaryJane: Violent crimes have been steadily decreasing in all states that have enacted right to carry laws in the last decade or so, while they have increased in Washington DC and any place where guns are more restricted.

Violent crimes and "hot" burglaries in England have soared since the guns have been taken away from citizens. Violent crime rates in England are now on par with the most violent part of the United states (Washington DC)

Not sure how it can be made any more obvious to you. However, to liberal sheep, obvious and oblivious are sometimes indistinguishable.

steve d (who else) says...
"Having a weapon at home increases your chance of a breakin to get the weapon. There were at least two cases of gun collections stolen, yes from a safe, this year in Toronto."

Almost like someone had compiled a list of who had what and where they lived? Now who would be irresponsable enough to compile such a list? And why?

You know who Steve D, don't you?

If you were trying to explain why, in the interest of public safety, sledgehammers must be taken to the hard drives in Miramichi NOW, you've made your point quite well.

I've lived in both the USA and Canada. I was much safer in the USA than Canada. Why? As a thief, you take your chances breaking into a home in the USA - does the owner have a gun, or not? Roll the dice, thief.

Canada? Well, we don't have property rights anyway. So the stuff isn't really yours to protect in the first place. Since all property is thus communal, you have neither the need, nor the right to protect it.

There were no shootings on the main street in the USA city I lived in on Boxing Day.

Canadians have this completely smug, more-holy-than-thou attitude to the USA that makes me gag.

Thats what happens when people read McLeans instead of The Double Gun Journal.

Anyone else have any Parkers,LC Smiths,Holland and Holland or Westly Richards gathering dust?

Let me know.

Thats what happens when people read McLeans instead of The Double Gun Journal.

Anyone else have any Parkers,LC Smiths,Holland and Holland or Westly Richards gathering dust?

Let me know.

3.) "Having a weapon at home makes it far more likely it will be used against you or someone in your family or someone will use it as a preferred method of suicide."

This statement is a much quoted Liberal panacea in gun control debates. It originates with several studies that are over a decade old. For example Killias, 1993, studied 11 European countries plus Canada, USA, and Australia and concluded that there is positive correlations that "suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelyhood of homicide or suicide."
A Simon University, Faculty of Business Administration Discussion Paper, examines this and other studies that propose similar conclusions. They say: "Even a brief examination of this study shows that the findings were artificially created by questional manipulations."
Unfortunately Killias's paper was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, so it must be true?
Killias's study makes much use of correlation in place of causation. The error here is that much more important (social) factors are omitted. For example, simply comparing US gun deaths of 15 years ago with Canadian statistics ignores long standing problems of racism, poverty and drug abuse in the USA. This misteak is proven out by the FBI Uniform Crime Report where, African Americans, although they account for only 12% of the population, constitute 54% of the homicides. And you'll never hear a Liberal quote this fact.

And that perhaps is why this faulse notion of the causation between gun ownership and harm is often quoted without reference. All the references have proven wanting.

Judy Wasalyshn-Leis the ndipper From Winnipeg wanted to register breast implants supposedly to follow up the busty recipients health.{ Another gun registry} I was ready to apply for an inspectors position with the registry but no one would listen to her.

It could have turned into Canadas biggest boob doggle.

"Canada? Well, we don't have property rights anyway. So the stuff isn't really yours to protect in the first place. Since all property is thus communal, you have neither the need, nor the right to protect it"

huh?

kmm....whassa matter. the true statement of no property rights confuse you??

Heart attack? Old man? Old lady? Non-native residents of Ontario, Canada swarmed by Indians?

TV reporters attacked?

Police stand by and watch.

Where? Iraq? Detroit? Moscow? Darfur? Gaza Strip?

No. This is happening in Ontario, Canada.

Lawlessness is now legal in Ontario, Canada.

The Ontario Provincial Police are complicit in lawlessness in Ontario, Canada.

johnboy said: "Glad to hear you are all for law abiding citizens being allowed to protect themselves when they are away from their home Steve."

Keep your powder dry. +

Leasa said:

Watching CTV this morning, I couldn't believe what I was hearing!
An elderly couple were driving on hwy. 6, Caledonia when they were stopped and swarmed by natives. In an effort to get away they pulled into the Canadian Tire parking lot, where their car was swarmed, Indians pounded the car, climbed on it, telling the old folks they had no business on Indian land.

The old man had a heart attack and is now in hospital.

Meanwhile, a Hamilton news crew was making footage of the area and caught the assault on tape. The Indians noticed them, and attacked. The stole the equipment and beat the two reporters. One had stitches in his head.

As all this was going on the OPP watched. People (including the reporters) asked for help. The ignored the calls. Just watched.

As news got out about the attacks, Caledonia residents confronted the Indians. One man was arrested (native?).

So, let me get this straight. Now in Ontario you can not only vandalize power station, burn bridges, set tire fires, tear up roads, but you can also attack the elderly and anyone you feel like. All legal.

Do you like the changes to Ontario's laws? ...
http://www.voy.com/178771/2804.html

Stevie, Stevie, Stevie - you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the false lies put out by Wendy Kook-ier and her band of grant sucking, anti gun allies.

Instead of spouting these lies - why don't you actually research some of the things you say. It will make you look less of an idiot.

I would debate your numbered comments but others have done an excellent job - go back and reread their comments - then come back and let us know how you will refute those comments.

Oh right - the police look at the gun registry "5000 times a day" - the new anti gun mantra.

Do some research Steve

Nothing could give us a more graphic reminder that the whole duck gun registry debate boils down to opposing sets of personal values than this latest amnesty abomination.

It's not about controlling crime or criminals it's about the dystopian urban value system that would destroy a priceless sporting piece of hand-crafted steel and wood to placate their own insecurities over an incapability to cope with violent crime/criminals. They make irrational equivalence judgements between crime, criminals and general civilian use and ownership of sporting arms. People subscribed to such dystopian myth also make dyslexic rationalizations (like suspecting the morality/stability of anyone who owns a gun and vilifying the inanimate gun to a point where, in their thinking, it becomes some self-animated supernatural malevolent force which no mortal man can be trusted to contain.)

This deep insecurity causes these dystopians to lash out at ALL civilian firearms ownership. Their primitive belief in animism allows them to assume all guns will either criminally corrupt the owner or magically leap out of his hands into that of a killer. The fact that no crime has ever been committed with a $10,000 antique side hammer double barrel sporting arm, has no relevance in this dyslexic value system.

The police commissars (or the poor propagandized soul who rendered up the gun for destruction) could have gotten tens of thousands for it at a legitimate auction where only legitimate qualified buyers will pay this money for a rare Greener....they could have given this money to a police or community charity....but the PR and symbolic visual image of the Greener going to the crusher was far more important to those with the twisted value system that animates all guns as a supernatural demonic force.

Dystopian value system/judgement is the only explanation for the rendering of a beautiful old Greener sporting arm to a crusher under the guise of crime prevention or public safety. It is also official notice that Canada’s police function and bureucrati/political elite have adopted dystopian values.

dystopia
One entry found for dystopia.

Main Entry: dys·to·pia
Pronunciation: (")dis-'tO-pE-&

Function: noun

Etymology: New Latin, from dys- + -topia (as in utopia)

1 : an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives

I have a nice one with damascus steel barrels, its difficult to say which end you would want to stand by. Luckily the hammers are long frozen.

W L Mackenzie redux at June 10, 2006 09:24 AM
That my good man (?) is a brilliant anaylsis. So good, I couldn't isolate a single phrase or sentence to quote here.

" the police look at the gun registry "5000 times a day" - the new anti gun mantra."

Two Saturdays ago, I was awoken on my couch (where I fell asleep about 9 30) at 4AM by a series of thumps on my basement apartment window, and a flashlight shining in my face.

Wondering what the hell was going on I noticed a OPP arm patch.

I opened the door to see four cops all arranged in a semi circle (in case I bolted I guess). I asked them if there was a problem only to be offered the question" Where were you this evening?".

The local pizza joint was broken into around 3 AM in town and the K 9 unit wound up at my door( my youngest daughter and her friend walked up town earlier that evening, I guess it liked their scent).

Now if I was suspect of said mischief and holding a PAL as well as having a registered gun like I do. Why wasn't one of the first questions thought of or asked "where was my gun?"Even half asleep it was already apparent to me they had me labeled guilty. Why then would all four of them stand full view all in a tight group 7 feet from my door weapons holstered, if checking the registry they would have known I could be armed.

I don't think they checked a damn thing before they disturbed my peaceful slumber, and they had to be shown I deserved a law abiding citizens respect, something they didn't come to my door with, along with the information the gun registry offered - which I gave them,not a computer beforehand when they asked for ID, .

What always made me reluctant to address the issue of gun control was all the hyperbole surrounding it from both sides of the issue. Therefore, it was imperative to be able to locate similar statistics from multiple sources, to insure factual validity.

First, it is important to establish a pre-ban baseline and then compare it to similar research after the ban to determine crime trends. For that, we will reference the International Crime Victimization Surveys of 1992 and 2000. (3)

In general, the research shows that violent crime rates were lower in the UK than the United States in 1992. (Rated in percent of those interviewed responding ''yes'' to being victimized.)

Burglary with entry: UK – 2.5% U.S. – 3.5%
Robbery: UK – .9% U.S. – 1.7%
Sexual assault of women: UK – .3% U.S. – 1.5%
Assault with force: UK – 1.1% U.S. – 2.2%

In the 2000 survey the researchers combined the three violent crimes of robbery, rape, and assault into one category entitled ''Selected Contact Crime.'' Here is what they report (post-ban for UK.)

Burglary with entry: UK – 2.8% U.S. – 1.8%
Selected contact crime: UK – 3.6% U.S. – 1.9%

These two reports were done with essentially the same criteria and methods, and they clearly show that while selected violent crime rates rose 100% in the UK, they fell 65 % in the U.S. During this time, Britain outlawed private ownership of firearms, while over 70 million additional civilian firearms were sold in the U.S. (4) At the very least, a reasonable person is forced to conclude that availability of firearms to the general public is not a contributing factor to any increase in crime.

These trends are confirmed by Britain’s own Home Office. (5) In the period of 1997 through 2001, homicide rose 19% in the UK while it fell 12% in the USA. (6) Violent crime incidents rose 26% in the UK while falling 12% in the USA. (7) Robbery rates rose 92% in the UK and fell 15% in the USA. (8)
http://www .chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7862

"When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite," concluded Reader.
- Barney Moorhouse

http://www.fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20 060403_105428_4888&page=1

From Sheila's report today.
canada.com Excerpt:
The criticism that the Liberals are certain to face for their handling of the gun registry may not end with this report either. Fraser's report also reveals that her office is continuing to investigate the handling of a number of the 3,642 contracts awarded for work done on the registry.

The "red flag" contracts include those worth less than $25,000 - exempting them from a competitive bidding process - whose value subsequently increased by 150 per cent; properly awarded contracts whose value increased significantly; and "fixed-price" contracts awarded in 2001 and 2002 that had no measurable goal and no record of a product being delivered.

"The initial value of each contract was below the $25,000 limit, but the final values were much higher: $50,000, $107,000 and $319,431," the report said. "We will be reviewing these contracts in greater detail."

The auditor general's report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety.

"The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms," the report said.

Plus this

"When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite," concluded Reader.
- Barney Moorhouse

http://www.fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20 060403_105428_4888&page=1

I'm sure it's been addressed here before, but the 5000 hits a day are NOT police officers directly accessing the gun registry. If a police officer runs your licence plate then the computers automatically scan the gun registry as well. This is where the 5000 hits a day comes from.
IF officers are using the registry before entering a home are they more likely to kill an innocent person who happens to be have a PAL? Are they going to go into a drug house that shows no registered guns expecting that everyone in there will be unarmed? Any police officer I have heard speak on the topic says that they would be foolish to rely solely on the registry to determine if there are guns on the property.

Thieves are cowards.
Liberanos are thieves.
I think there may be a connection.

They can regi my gun when they take it from my cold dead fingers.

"First, it is important to establish a pre-ban baseline and then compare it to similar research after the ban to determine crime trends. For that, we will reference the International Crime Victimization Surveys of 1992 and 2000. (3)"

This would be a unscientific and intellectually devoid assumption. Canada is NOT Britain or the US...we have different cultures and any percived misuse of lawful civilian owned arms will be reflected in the impact culture has on this.

The concept of a "ban" is premised upon the fact that a citizenry is so untrustworthy and prone to violence or crime that it cannot be trusted with a weapon....Canada has no such culture.....and historically if we want to start banning weapons from those who are prone to abuse them it is statistical fact that as a profession Police are 300 times more prone to criminal violence, suicide and gun crime as the average civilian firearms owner.

It is self-evident that with the gun registry the Liberals weren't concerned with public safety. The Liberals have failed us on all fronts vis a vis public safety: soft on crime, social-worker judges making excuses, a enviscerated military, a truly astoninishinly lax approach to undocumented "refugee" claimants released on their own cognizance before their hearing, deportations that don't happen and are not monitored, fund-raising with a Tamil terrorist front group and on and on.

W L Mackenzie redux is right. Liberals simply have a complete contempt and distrust for the average Joe and Jane. They believe that the citizens are perma-children (the best premise for continual state expansion) and of course we have the "urban-sophisticate" (definitely in quotation marks) vs. the "hayseed" cultural clash.

And let's not forget the feminist angle here: the Dec 14 massacre in Montreal, as we are reminded annually.