In the comments, Bryceman asks for help;
I have a question for my fellow conservatives. 99% of the time, I can handle myself well in a political discussion/debate on any of the hot-button topics of the day. And I can usually send the more left-leaning of my political adversaries to the defensive. Not in a bad way. Most of the people I discuss politics with are very cool and reasonable people who will give and take political points on grey-area issues. These aren’t knock-down, drag-out arguments with extremists…just friendly debate.
But, there is one approach to one topic that I never have a very good come-back for. It’s about gun control.
Now, I don’t actually own any firearms. While I have not kept the tradition alive, I come from a long line of hunters. I used to be certified to handle and carry guns (except for restricted weapons). But, my old certification was declared null and void (thank-you Mr. Rock) because I hadn’t had it since before 1979.
So, I have to take it all over again. And I will – since I am set to inherit some guns that have been in my family – some of them going back as far as the 1870’s.
Anyway, when something like the Dawson College incident happens, I always react by saying, “Hunters and farmers from BC to Newfoundland will be made to pay for this.”
And my “less-right” political sparring partners respond by posing questions like, “Yeah. But, in today’s world, what do we need guns for anyway? And what’s the limit on what kind of guns a person should be allowed to own? Should they be allowed to own a tank? How about a SAM launcher?”
I’m never able to answer these kinds of questions to my own satisfaction. I never get that “slam-dunk” feeling when arguing back. Sure, I can go on about the creeping nature of the state unecessarily taking away the rights of law abiding citizens in a hollow response to a problem (like Dawson) that has nothing to do with them. But, I can’t go much further without my own argument sounding weak – even to me. Second Ammendment arguments don’t have any relevance in Canada. And, as I am a prime example, the argument that there is a need to hunt for you and your family’s food is all but gone in the modern world.
Has anyone got a suggestion on how to answer this one better?
Yes, I do. Concede the point.
“I agree. There is no need in today’s world for a citizen to own a gun.”
Having come to agreement that “need” is the threshold for a citizen’s right to own a firearm, the discussion is ready to move forward.
Announce to your friend that you are ready to accompany them to their home. You will begin with an inspection of the kitchen, and from there, will work your way through their house, tagging each possession you believe they do not need in “today’s world”.
Don’t forget the garage.
There’s no logical reason to limit the inspection to possessions that pose a threat as weapons. With the consequences that await society from global warming, and the alarming increase in energy consumption, those homes with a television in every room, two cars in the garage, and appliances of pure convenience – food processors, cappuccino makers – cappuccino makers! – must come under review.
Tagged items will then be removed to a truck and taken to a location for safe disposal.
Explain that only possessions for which you determine there is current need will be allowed to remain – the “greater good” is not open to negotiation. You might point out that this position is perfectly consistant with your friend’s determination that there is no “need” to own a firearm. The only thing that has changed is the person doing the determining.
(In addition to those tagged for immediate seizure, items with the potential to become unecessary in the “today’s world” of tomorrow will be recorded in a registry. In that way, future unecessaries may be confiscated more efficiently. Some accomodation may be made for heirlooms and items with sentimental importance – antique automobiles, plasma tv’s, recreational vehicles – so long as they are rendered permanently inoperable. Plus, they’ll need a permit.)
When you are interrupted – and you will be interrupted – ask your friend this;
If “need” is to be a criteria for the private ownership of property, then what’s so damned special about guns? And if the definition of a citizen’s “need” is at the perogative of the state, then what’s so damned special about yours?
Harper in all likelihood will introduce stringent gun controls – as Howard in Australia did. If Harper doesn’t, then PM Rae or PM Dion will.
Posted by: August1991
Dream on. Harper is an Albertan at heart. It will snow in hell first before he does that.
As for the other two. If anyone of them become PM . There will be no Canada for them to ban guns in.
Harper is this Confederations last Chance.
I agree with the Folks who are for liberty instead of State control.
For the same reasons. Self Defense in an incessantly coarse, uncivil, dangerous world.
Hunting & Target shooting which I enjoy myself now. Since my left elbow was broken. With the loss of using a bow.
Its a control on totalitarian creep. By Politico’s & Autocrats.
I think Gun responsibility should be taught in school. Along with civics.
For hunting. Why should citizens be banned from hunting in there own Country? As long as there is a good wildlife control program. More top down governance.
I agree there should be background checks but on ones merit, not gossip.
This whole ugly mess was created I might add by these self same Social Liberal Fantasists. With there unremitting social engineering, based on proved lies. That has made these life demeaning Marxist dogmas, into actuality.
All for power & greed mongers. I loath them. They would see us all die before giving up there obsessions of Utopia, by the jackboot. Worse they would put on the market, us all out in a heartbeat. For there own lives with a stolen fortune. There is no honor where Self defense is a crime. Where morality is viewed as supercilious.
In the end its a graveyard society. Obsessed with death & scared of life. With the Elite hidden in undisclosed gated communities & others left to the mercies of psychopaths , lunatics, & strongmen. While the powerful hide behind the Army or what’s left of it.
I ask the lefties. Who will be there to save your hides when you have abused, corrupted than decimated the principled, with your mania for absolute control? Who will fight for degenerate, despotic, narcissists?
Another way of looking at it or asking the question is, what is the purpose of disarming the victims?
Because that is what is being done.
Ahh Texas Canuck, but you are still reacting AFTER the fact. Shouldn’t we be trying to prevent it in the first place? Shouldn’t we be addressing the “root causes”?
Canada has already made a great start – we currently have the lowest crime rate than we have had in the past 50 odd years or so. We must be doing something right.
A really good examination of how the criminologists found no benefits to gun regulation as crime control and the medical community took over with propaganda
GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF
VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html
A while ago I did a study that correlated gun sales versus crime.
The findings were that HAND GUNS and crime were POSITIVELY correlated.
BUT
RIFLES and crime were INVERSELY correlated.
HOWEVER,
The rise in hand gun sales coincided with the economic deterioration known as the 70’s. One would make the argument that poverty and a crappy economy would have more to do with an increase in crime than. Factor out the economics of it, and there is no correlation.
So you can say that it won’t matter because there is no correlation.
The end argument you’ll end up using however is that the criminal track record of people who have permits to carry a concealed weapon are a mere fraction of those that carry guns without a permit.
If that fails, use their psychology against them;
THE EVIL US FASCISTS ARE COMING!!! WE NEED BASIC HOME DEFENSE!!! BUSH IS AFTER OUR SAND PIT OIL!!!
Captain Capitalism:
Woohoo…I’ve visited your site and I like it. I’ve referred a few of my US-residing friends to your blog…it’s good stuff.
OK…enough boot-licking.
I just wanted to respond to your mention of the economic deterioration of the 70’s and the rise of handgun sales:
I don’t claim to be an expert. But, didn’t our lord Rush Limbaugh (just kidding) used to make a point (over and over again) of refuting the claim of a link between poverty and crime by pointing out that The Great Depression saw none of the violent crime spikes that became common-place during and after the 60’s?
I’m not saying that I have a better explanation. But, is it not fair to say that, with the exception of a few ‘blips’, the violent crime rate had (until recently) been steadily climbing no matter what the economic situation since the “Age of Aquarius?”
B. HOAX AWARE said: “The MEDIA !! Control the medium and you have it all.”
The MSM said: “A hate-filled gun lover’s bloody rampage”.
Hows about: A hate-filled machete lover’s bloody rampage in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, left a man bloody dead this past weekend. …-
Afghanistan, gun laws dictate Parliament fall session
Canada.com, Canada – 14 hours ago
OTTAWA – A hate-filled gun lover’s bloody rampage at a Montreal college has handed MPs a daunting and emotional issue to juggle as they return to the Commons …
Simply as points for consideration:
Until 1920 there was no serious gun control legislation in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
A private citizen could quite legally buy a machine gun–I mean a real one, e.g. a Maxim or Vickers–yet the murderous use of firearms was tiny. An no-one ever used a machine gun.
“Before 1920, any British adult could purchase a machine gun; after 1920, any Briton with a Firearms Certificate could purchase a machine gun. During the 1936 British debate, the government could not point to a single instance of a machine gun being misused in Britain,[68] yet the guns were banned anyway.”
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm
Perhaps the attitude of both the populace in general, and of individuals in particular, are determinants. Moreover, at those times, the level of poverty in the UK was by contemporary standards extreme.
And, I must say, video games of the “Grand Theft Auto” sort (having watched them being played) must be banned. They are, to use a conservative word, wicked.
Mark
Ottawa
Gayle (9:01 PM)
“Canada… we currently have the lowest crime rate… in the past 50 odd years”.
So why do you want MORE gun control?
Signed, ‘not a gun owner’
P.S. The long gun registry is for the birds. Ya don’t need it.
“you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public’s safety at large. no more guns.”
So Jeff would you have any problem with the state taking DNA and finger printing all citizens for our public’s safety?
a hate filled gum lovers’ bloody rampage has led the authorities to ban, recall and/or confiscate all gum…whether it’s fresh mint or double bubble.
Ken melrose; it is a criminal code offense to carry a concealed weapon. ie: knives
According to 2002 Canadian stats;
63% OF MURDER VICTIMS WERE STABBED, BEATEN OR STRANGLED – 26% WERE SHOT (3wdotgarrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns95.htm)
B.Hoax; (3:07) well said.
Wild game is organic. You don’t need a farmer to feed animals, they can do that themselves. The meat is low in fat, avoiding predators is good exercise. Wolves thrive on the weak, the stupid, the lazy, and the fat. A wolf pack or two would do Toronto some good in getting rid of some un-needed fat.
I’m assuming all of this talk about the individual’s right to bear arms, and to defend oneself against an enemy, extends to sovereign nations as well…
Joe – when did I say I wanted more gun control? It is just that we, as a society need to determine where to draw the line. Did you know that switchblade knives, brass knuckles and pepper spray are all prohibited weapons in this country? Should they be? Should we have any limitations on weapons at all? Does prohibiting their possession stop people from possessing them? No, but it does make them arrestable when they do possess them. There have been many, many times when I have read newspaper accounts of gang members being held “on weapons charges”. So, are we creating an offence when none is needed, or are we drawing a line in the sand.
And, by the way, the greatest drop in the crime rate (including gun crimes) in Canada came after 1993. Just saying…
No doubt there are a few Muslim terrorist wannabes in this country looking forward to a day when gun control is done away with…
I forgot to add that I come from a family of gun owners. My father and my brothers are responsible, law abiding gun owners. I was raised to be afraid of them, for which I am thankful as I certainly was never curious about them as a child. My family uses their guns to hunt, and I often enjoy the spoils of their endeavours. I do not have a problem with guns. I also do not have a problem with the government knowing who owns them.
And by the way Cheri – the state already does take the DNA and fingerprints of many of our citizens.
Bill C-68 did exactly as predicted by it’s opponents. It caused an increase in gun crime and illegal gun ownership. It’s a standard principle that whenevwer the Government restricts or prohibits anything, the criminal element moves in and supplies the demanded service or goods. American prohibition in the 1930’s is but one example. Ever hear of anyone being murdered over a cigarette? Well a heavy cigarette taxe created such a situation in the 1980’s in Ontario.
C-68 opened Pandora’s Box.
That argument won’t change any left Liberal mind, nothing will, but it sure shuts them up.
Liberal Willy Whipper Graham brings out the cat’o’nine tails.
Cruel and unusual punisher is Graham. There oughta be a law against whipping. …-
“It will be a whipped vote,” interim Liberal leader Bill Graham said.”
Liberal, Bloc MPs told to vote ‘no’ after Dawson shooting
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13410.6
Kate – as usual – you have spoken for those of us who often feel put down because of our “conservative” views. Kudos!
Many of our citizens Gayle?
To the best of my knowledge DNA is only taken if you have been convicted of a serious crime. I’m not talking about criminals with no rights (rightfully so).
My question to Jeff was concerning identification of citizens ‘for our own good’.
Hey Alberta Girl,
One small problem with her argument though. You could use it to justify anything: the right to own everything from nuclear weapons, to a military arsenal, to vials containing the ebola virus, in your basement.
It’s a weak one.
The only weak thing I see is your backbone tony.
A free man will own anything he damn well wants. If you dont like the fact that I own ANYTHING come and take it from me.
Well done, tony. That was precisely my point when I brought up sovereign nations.
Thanks.
Oh. And FREE, sounds like it’s time to go back on the meds, man. If you begin to lose the arguement, then out comes all the macho nonsense, eh?
Tony Tony Tony, what the heck are you on about? In the case of guns we are talking about something which has a legitimate use in society. Drawing equivalencies between guns and nuclear weapons is just silly. I am a gun owner, and a hunter. I can tell you without a doubt that a nuclear weapon is relativly ineffective for big game hunting. Spoils the trophy, and vaporizes the meat. Also kills the hunter. They are also not that great for personal or home defense. Nor are they very useful for competitive shooting.
Your objection to Kate’s argument is a clear case of reductio ad absurdum.
Actually, criminals do have rights, or haven’t you heard people complaining about that on these boards. And it is not only the most serious crimes where DNA is being ordered. And, it is a slippery slope from where we are now to where DNA will be part of the arrest procedure much like photos and fingerprints (which means it will be taken BEFORE there is a conviction, and kept even if the accused is acquitted).
Here in Edmonton many prostitutes have willingly given their DNA “for their own good” as we have a potential serial killer targeting them (and before the rest of you ask, no, (s)he is NOT using a gun to kill his victims).
Of course, if the killer had been compelled to register his DNA, he would have been caught after victim #1, or, better yet, would not have even made a victim #1.
Bryceman:
My comment, Sept 18, 1250 pm, along with an excellent comment by “WLM Mackenzie” at 1034, evidently got stuck in the filter. There now…
Mad Mike
.
Hey Karl,
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Your point is you NEED the gun to hunt.
I was taking exception to the whole premise of this post — that we DON’T NEED guns, but the government has no right telling us what we should and shouldn’t own.
You and Kate seem to be arguing two different points.
I agree with yours.
But Kate’s argument could be used to justify owning virtually anything — no matter how dangerous, no matter how useless, no matter how lethal, because in her opinion the government has no business interfering with your property rights. That’s a dangerous argument and a slippery slope.
So if you’re gonna argue in favour of gun ownership, at least argue that there’s a pertinent reason for possessing something that could be used to mow down a couple dozen living beings per minute.
Because the alternate argument is anarchic in nature and represents a big, wide, open door to chaos.
Still an interesting argument, though, and certainly more intelligent than the brain-turd just popped out by FREE.
“craig”
Your ‘sovereign nations’ argument is bogus.
We don’t want Iraq and Iran to have nuclear weapons for the same reason you don’t want a 6-year-old to have a loaded .45.
Yes, it’s that simple.
As a reason for owning a firearm, how about simply “because I want one”?
no, mad mike, the question is the right to self-determination. when it comes to the freedom to defend oneself, we cannot simply pick and choose whom it applies to out of convenience. that’s what “freedom” means.
Gayle; you still haven’t said if you are FOR or AGAINST, DNA and fingerprinting of Canadian Citizens. Prostitutes, criminals or otherwiise.
When all guns are outlawed….only outlaws will have guns
Hi Tony,
You wrote:
“Your point is you NEED the gun to hunt.”
True, but I don’t need to hunt.
“I was taking exception to the whole premise of this post — that we DON’T NEED guns, but the government has no right telling us what we should and shouldn’t own.”
I’m not sure this is entirely representative of Kate’s point. We are not talking here about unrestricted ability to own anything that one chooses to own, but about a suggestion by some that the government should take away something already owned by a person on the grounds that they do not need it. We have no history of private ownership and legitimate private use of nuclear or biological weapons. Nor do we have a history of private ownership and legitimate use of hand grenades, tanks, etc. But we do have a history of Canadians owning firearms for hunting, competitive shooting, and yes, self defense. I don’t think that Kate is arguing that anything goes. Nor do I think she would agree that her argument could be used to justify ownership by anyone of anything. Perhaps I am wrong. Kate, are you there? Perhaps you could clarify.
“But Kate’s argument could be used to justify owning virtually anything — no matter how dangerous, no matter how useless, no matter how lethal, because in her opinion the government has no business interfering with your property rights. That’s a dangerous argument and a slippery slope.”
Again, that an argument COULD be used in this way is not the same thing as saying that it could PROPERLY be used in this way. This is reductio ad absudum because you ask us to accept an absurd conclusion in order to discredit the original argument. But there is a certain amount of question begging going on here. I will not concede the point that Kate’s argument for property rights is the same as an argument for unlimited property rights. Again, only she can clarify at this point.
“So if you’re gonna argue in favour of gun ownership, at least argue that there’s a pertinent reason for possessing something that could be used to mow down a couple dozen living beings per minute.”
I disagree. When the issue is that governement wants to take away a right to own something, the burden of proof is upon them to justify their action, not on me to justify my ownership.
“Because the alternate argument is anarchic in nature and represents a big, wide, open door to chaos.”
No, the alternative argument is to recognize Kate’s point. We do not require citizens to justify their legal ownership of something on their basis of their need of that thing.
“Still an interesting argument, though, and certainly more intelligent than the brain-turd just popped out by FREE.”
Agreed. I enjoy an intelligent debate. Therefore, I have enjoyed our exchange.
cheri – I am happy with the way things are. There is a DNA database for persons convicted of certain crimes. This database enables authorities to track people who reoffend, although I think its greatest value at the moment is obtaining convictions on cold cases. The point, however, is like mandatory stiff sentences for certain crimes, is that it does little to prevent crime. According to a number of people posting here, the gun registry does little to prevent crime, so I wonder what is the difference? Don’t you think it is a little hypocritical for people to be against the gun registry and for higher sentences, when the same argument to defeat the gun registry can be made for higher sentences?
One thing the gun registry does is assist our law enforcement agencies in investigating crime. If you think I am incorrect about that you better take it up with law enforcement in this country who have been pretty vocal in their desire to have the registry maintained (the few dissenting voices quoted here notwithstanding). I also think that forcing people to register guns, and outlawing certain guns, does increase public safety. Sure, some criminals will be able to get their hands on guns whether or not they are legal, but, as someone who works with street youth, I can tell you that there are a lot of very disturbed individuals out there, who do not have the sophistication to get their hands on illegal guns, but would be able to get them if they were legal. The last thing we want are mentally ill, mentally deficient or otherwise low functioning/dysfunctional individuals able to pop in to their local Walmart and walk out with a hand gun.
So, the question we as a society have to ask is how far will we encroach on individual freedoms in order to protect the masses. I think we have a fair balance right now. I am loath to suggest we should all give up a sample of our DNA at birth. As much as I believe it would be an excellent tool to maintain peace and order in our society, I do not want that much of my personal information in the hands of the government. On the other hand, they already know where I work, where I live, how much I earn, what kind of a car I drive, when I go to the doctor and why, so is it really such a great leap?
Bill Whittle over at ejectejecteject.com has an eloquent way of summing up why gun control efforts should be resisted. The context is an American one. But, it is no less applicable here…
“Once the Second Amendment goes, the First will soon follow, because if some unelected elite determines that the people can’t be trusted with dangerous guns, then it’s just a matter of time until they decide they can’t be trusted with dangerous ideas, either. Dangerous ideas have killed many millions more people than dangerous handguns — listen to the voices from the Gulag, the death camps, and all the blood-soaked killing fields through history.”
Jeff:
“you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public’s safety at large”
So you have no problems with Bush’s NSA spying, racial profiling at airports and sensitive areas, etc., then? Seems like the same lefty assholes who whine about the government’s attempts to prevent terrorists killing us have no problem whatsoever with restricting the liberties of law-abiding people.
I’d ask you to explain this lefty hypocrisy but if you were able to you wouldn’t be a lefty.
The state’s infringement on the rights of its citizens has to be based on reality. Gun control that infringes only on those least likely to be a danger to the public are not valid restrictions of liberties. Only those targeting actual, real threats (like terrorists) are valid. You dimwits have it backwards – as usual.
There are no group of people on earth I hate more than meddlesome, controlling assholes who think they have the right to tell other people what they can and can’t do. Anyone who thinks they have a right to veto other people’s behaviour (when those people are not infringing on the rights of others) should be banished from society and never allowed to return…
Gayle:
Front line Police Officers are overwhelmingly against the current Firearms Registry. The Police Associations and the Police Chiefs support it. They are largely red tape loving beaurocrats with political adjendas. Far removed from the street level cop. This can be seen reading the comments to various blogs by past and current officers. Law enforcement Guys and Gals correct me if I’m wrong.
Hey Karl,
Your point is well-argued. But essentially, it all boils down to the exact same point that Jeff makes to justify gun ownership: “how about simply `because I want one’?”
My argument is that “because I want one” simply doesn’t cut it — or shouldn’t cut it.
Because your next-door might “simply want” heroin, and the guy down the street might want hand-grenades, or something even worse.
You may ask: Well, why would you NEED hand-grenades to hunt, or for anything else?
And I’d reply: Thank you, my point exactly. Necessity is, always has been, and must continue to be, an element of consideration by law-enforcement and policy-makers.
So Kate’s original argument, in my opinion, fails to square that circle. But I congratulate her on her 100,000th comment.
I need to own a gun because I need to have the proper tools to do whatever job I decide that I need to do.
I need power tools for cutting and drilling, shaping and fastening.I need vehicles to transport myself and my tools to where I wish to be.
I claim the right to own and use any type of tool for whatever purpose I deem necessary.
Gayle,
The long gun registry is useless in preventing crime in that criminals do not normally register their weapons. A criminal serving a manditory sentence is however behind bars and one less person out on the street trying to rob (or worse) me.
The amount of money and manpower wasted to satisfy lieberal promises could have been better used getting more cops on the street. And yes, an officer would be more effective even teaching about crime prevention, safe handling of weapons and such than flying a desk trying to find out why I haven’t renewed my old shotgun.
Also, for the record, authorities have my fingerprints because of the nature of my previous occupation but I’ll be damned if they will get my DNA just in case.
My father used to hunt ducks; his 12 guage shotgun was kept in my parents’ bedroom closet, leaning against the wall. A box of shells was kept on the top shelf… in plain view. Times change, I know, and now I’m certain my father would feel compelled to store his guns (he owned a single-shot 22, also) and ammunition in a locked cabinet. The point is, I was raised to respect firearms, not fear them.
I work with 3 or 4 fellows who like to hunt; they own big, powerful rifles that can blow a hole in an elk the size of two fists, I’m sure. I trust them implicitly with their guns… wouldn’t matter to me if they owned Uzis… THEY won’t harm me, EVER.
On the other hand, James Rozsko with a kitchen knife, well, you see what I mean.
I’ve read every post here. Warwick at 1:15 PM. nailed it; WL Mackenzie Redux (10:34AM yesterday) made a lot of sense, too, as have others. Lots of NONsense here, too. Just my humble opinion…
Signed (again) ‘not a gun owner’.
Yup. And your point is? Confusing the concept of “need” with the concept of “WE don’t want you to have it”, is the crux of the argument. I think that’s Iran’s point…
“Don’t you think it is a little hypocritical for people to be against the gun registry and for higher sentences, when the same argument to defeat the gun registry can be made for higher sentences?”
Gayle what are you suggesting? Higher sentences? Stiffer sentences? More convictions?
“One thing the gun registry does is assist our law enforcement agencies in investigating crime”
For the umpteenth time, criminals do not register their guns.
Second; knowing about the prescence, or the likelihood of guns being present, didn’t help Jim Galloway in Spruce Grove or the four Mounties who died in Mayerthorpe.
“So, the question we as a society have to ask is how far will we encroach on individual freedoms in order to protect the masses. I think we have a fair balance right now.”
Confiscating property from law abiding citizens? Liberals and police using the gun registries (hand and long gun) in Toronto, for example, to round up all known property, without compensation.
“I am happy with the way things are.”
I’m sure you are. Most lefties are happy in their space, but just try to infringe on your civil liberties. Don’t dare tell you that you have to be registered for security purposes. And as Warwick pointed out; don’t dare profile you or anyone else.
Heard of Caledonia Gayle? How about their rights? Coming to a screen near you?
Warwick; I asked essentially the same question of Jeff last night and have yet to see him answer.
Gayle: As someone in law enforcement, the only ones who think the registry is worth anything is the CACP, and that’s quid pro quo. Cannivino is in favour, and that’s quid pro quo, again. The registry is a minor tool, like the motor vehicle registry. For the persons of interest, their data is usually not valid, in either registry.
I’m not convinced either about the uselessness of long sentences. I haven’t seen what I would call meaningful data that they not useful. There’s no long sentence data from Canada in any case, because there are no long sentences. Comparisons with the US typically have very low confidence.
I need my firearms because the left doesn’t want me to have them.
CERDIP said it all…..”I need my firearms because the left doesn’t wnat me to have them.” The perfect answer!
“I need my firearms because the left doesn’t want me to have them.”
and I will decide what I need not anyone else.
Bazoo – without any numbers you have nothing but speculation. I know you WANT that to be true, but you need something more than that to convince me. In the meantime, the official position of the two organizations you mention stands, and I have yet to hear any public outcry from the “front line” officers to say otherwise.
Texas canuck – once again, I was referring to preventing the crime in the first place, rather than waiting for a crime to occur and then imposing a lengthy sentence. I think we would all prefer to eliminate victims if that were possible. As much as you hate the liberals, it is true that the greatest drop in the crime rate occurred AFTER Cretien won the election, and after the gun registry was implemented. Maybe no correlation to the registry, but I do think there is a correlation to the party in power. I certianly believe you would be blaming the liberals if the crime rate increased.
Cheri – I am suggesting that higher sentences do NOT reduce crime, and I find it hypocritical that people here would argue that sentences should be increased anyway, and at the same time argue that we should not have a gun registry because it does not reduce crime.
As others have posted, there are many in law enforcement who do believe the gun registry is important and should be maintained. Also, I have personally been involved in a case where the registry DID enable the police to identify, and ultimately apprehend a youth who used a (registered) gun in a crime. But you are correct, knowing about the presence, or non-presence of guns is not always a solution, much the same as having DNA, or fingerprints is not always the solution. As for the rest of your post, I confess I am at a loss to understand what you are referring to. Did I not say that I do NOT think the government should have everyone’s DNA, and fingerprints, despite the fact that keeping this information on record would undoubtedly assist in keeping the peace? I pointed out that the government has access to all kinds of information about everyone who has a SIN number, who has a health care number, and who has an automobile. You asked me where I stand and I told you. We have to draw a line – I am happy where the line is drawn. If we move it in the direction you are seeking, then we have to move them all. It has been pointed out over and over again (and not responded to by anyone supporting your position) that if the government cannot outlaw guns, then what CAN they outlaw. Should we all be permitted to have drugs – and sell them, for example. What about the switchblade knife or brass knuckles – both currently outlawed in Canada.
I have answered your question about where I would draw the line. Please tell me, where would YOU draw it.
Skip – that is very convenient, but the studies show what the studies show. Long sentences do nothing to prevent crime, because they do nothing to deter crime. In addition, they are extremely expensive. Considering the lack of results, I think that is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, when they could be more effectively spent on things like low income housing, schools, health care, mental health facilities (which could keep the mentally ill off the streets and therefore away from crime).
I do not know what you call a long sentence, but I think “life” is a pretty long time. Yes, many people do serve their entire life sentence in prison, which you should know if you are in law enforcement – you should also know that many “murderers” do not have a record and will not reoffend, which pretty much goes for the majority of people who have served penetentiary time.