Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Hey, I was wondering why everyone opposes the gun registry. I'm thinking there is something I'm unaware of.
I don't mind that my guns are registered. Seems like a legitimately good idea. I guess I'm more neutral... for now anyway. Just another thing to do though when buying and selling though...
Kind of annoying having to bring registraton papers out with me when hunting which I seldom do... just leave them in the truck or camp. But still not a big deal.
Do we have to pay to register guns... can't remember if I did or not? I am REALLY annoyed that it's cost so much and is about to be scrapped. If its scrapped then it has been such a waste of money... more than it already has been.
Hoping to hear everyone's thoughts on the gun registry...
I play by the rules, so in that regard I support the registry - as I have everything registered. However, I don't see the ROI for the registry to exist, nor do I support the principle of the registry.
The gun registry supports the notion that an inanimate object is the root cause of violence, when the focus should be on the person initiating violence.
By way of example... Bandidos massacre in Shedden. Kellestine was under a lifetime firearms ban. Didn't stop him from amassing the weapons used to kill. Of course they weren't registered.
Keeping Kellestine locked up for his multiple earlier convictions would have prevented the killings.
We have a legal system, but not much of a justice system. The firearm registry furthers the Legal system against law abiding citizens, while not doling justice to the real perpetrators of violence - the one pulling the trigger, or wielding the bat, stabbing the knife etc.
Would I feel safer with a gun registry or with criminals serving longer sentences?
I vote to scrap it and spend the registry maintenance budget money on additional police officers and bigger prisons...
I think the gun registry is based upon that guns are only available to licensed legal owners... they aren't. But that's why it was created... what's the alternative?
I don't feel safer with a registry... I know it is easily circumvented... maybe its a deterrent at most?
I agree with the last poster and would like to see alot more MNR and Police officers.
Just a thought... the example about the Kellestine massacre... were those weapons current and recently made within the registry years? Or were they some weapons that somebody had before the registry.
Even if they were new guns, they could've been smuggled in to CAN or just illegaly handled. The bad guys have their ways.
Well to me it is pretty simple. Criminals won't register their guns! And even if they did, how will a piece of paper stop them from using it in a criminal activity???
Hi,
Definitely the money wasted on the gun registry would have been a huge plus for the MNR if they had received it.
Most people who support the Long Gun Registry do not understand that there is already a separate Restricted Weapon Registry that I do support.
Most people who hunt, have one or several guns so if they check their files they already know where the guns are.
there was never any communication to guns owners who were registered, reminding them of the simple rules regarding locking of guns and ammunition.
In Toronto the police used the registry to go around and give fines to those who did not have ammunition and guns stored properly. If this had been done as a public service with warnings on proper storage then it would have been good. Fines were just a money grab and no "criminals' were found.
I think that if the average Joe public knew that we had to keep our guns locked, use trigger locks and keep ammo locked & separate from the guns they would not be worried about the registry.
You should not have got me started, I could ramble on all day.
Super
Ask the people who are dying and need to wait 6 mons for a mir if the money was well spent why would any one suppport this.This is just a prelude to gun confication they need to know were all the guns are so the can come get them!!! dont think so ask anyone living in Aus or U.k they started the same way and now it is inpossible to own guns in those places.Also any place that has ban guns the crime rate went up how is that making me safer.!!
The only good reason I can see for the registry is, if the Police respond to a call at a house they know nothing about, they now may be able to determine if there are weapons in the home. This works for the safety of the officers and the safety of any people (family members) in the home.
Other than that its just a tax on gun owners. Moreover, it only taxes legitimate gun owners and those who live outside the rules do not pay the tax.
Maybe it makes big city folk feel safer about their cities. Problem is legitimate guns aren't the problem in cities; the illegal guns are.
Billy Dee wrote:The only good reason I can see for the registry is, if the Police respond to a call at a house they know nothing about, they now may be able to determine if there are weapons in the home. This works for the safety of the officers and the safety of any people (family members) in the home.
Other than that its just a tax on gun owners. Moreover, it only taxes legitimate gun owners and those who live outside the rules do not pay the tax.
Maybe it makes big city folk feel safer about their cities. Problem is legitimate guns aren't the problem in cities; the illegal guns are.
There are pros and cons to this. As a gun owner I don't want the police coming to my door knowing there are guns. I am worried they may be a tighter grip on their guns. If they go to a place where, according to the registry there are no guns, they may be a little more lax. This could be a criminal with an unregistered firearm. All citizens should be treated the same!!!!
Buck Fever wrote:Well to me it is pretty simple. Criminals won't register their guns! And even if they did, how will a piece of paper stop them from using it in a criminal activity???
Absolutely true!
The registry will however stop known criminals from legally buying guns. That's about all though... at least its something.
Super wrote:Hi,
Definitely the money wasted on the gun registry would have been a huge plus for the MNR if they had received it.
Most people who support the Long Gun Registry do not understand that there is already a separate Restricted Weapon Registry that I do support.
Most people who hunt, have one or several guns so if they check their files they already know where the guns are.
there was never any communication to guns owners who were registered, reminding them of the simple rules regarding locking of guns and ammunition.
In Toronto the police used the registry to go around and give fines to those who did not have ammunition and guns stored properly. If this had been done as a public service with warnings on proper storage then it would have been good. Fines were just a money grab and no "criminals' were found.
I think that if the average Joe public knew that we had to keep our guns locked, use trigger locks and keep ammo locked & separate from the guns they would not be worried about the registry.
You should not have got me started, I could ramble on all day.
Super
Please ramble as I'm confused...
The Toronto Police used the gun registry to go around and check for proper storage?!!?? Can anyone verify this claim?
I really doubt that they did that... So, if I lived in Toronto, I could reasonably expect the Toronto Police to just come to my door and inspect my gun storage method?
tinman454 wrote:Ask the people who are dying and need to wait 6 mons for a mir if the money was well spent why would any one suppport this.This is just a prelude to gun confication they need to know were all the guns are so the can come get them!!! dont think so ask anyone living in Aus or U.k they started the same way and now it is inpossible to own guns in those places.Also any place that has ban guns the crime rate went up how is that making me safer.!!
Hey, smart guy, that knows all... did you mean MRI? I'm assuming of course buddy...'
Well, my uncle is the #1 guy in the UK (England) for sharpshooting in his division and he has been for the last 14 years that I know about. His guns are stored at the gun club. So, that's what you're saying.... you're an idiot? No, I know... you mean well, buddy... just chill, chief... you're not going to change a thing... my uncle will continue to refuse the top spot on the Olympic team... why?, simply cos he'd rather manage the store. Whatever...
TLunge wrote:The police treat every call as if there could be firearms, thats their job and their training. They do not rely on the registry thats for sure.
Last year Ottawa Police repsonded to a call for my buddy that was drugged out/going nuts in the streets outside his home. They asked if there were any firearms in the residence... there were a few, all registered... the police didn't check. Either they didn't care or they were just checking... either way... nothing happened, just as it should have.
Hi
I found one article. The one I had read was also around October 30th but I cannot find it.
The jist of the story I read was that the Toronto Police were using the Gun Registry to search houses for stroage issues. This story says they compared the old registry to the new one and searched gun owners homes that had let their registration lapse.
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Friday, October 30, 2009
If you hand out enough parking tickets, occasionally you're going to nab the odd car thief in the process. But it would be wrongheaded to imagine you could make a dent in the total number of auto thefts by increasing your enforcement of parking bylaws.
Yet, this is about what Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair would have us believe about gun registration.
Since the summer, as part of "Project Safe City," Toronto police have been rousting firearms owners who have failed to renew their gun licenses. The other day while performing a search on one such owner's home, officers stumbled across an impressive cache of weapons. Instead of the 25 registered firearms they expected, they found 58 firearms and 6,000 rounds of ammunition: one machine gun, one submachine gun, 17 handguns, 35 rifles and four shotguns.
That sounds like an impressive haul -- and it is -- but its discovery is coincidental to the usefulness of Ottawa controversial rifle and shotgun registry. Finding these guns was like stumbling across a stolen Lexus while writing its driver a ticket for parking in front of a hydrant.
Chief Blair, though, used the occasion to throw his support (again) behind the federal gun registry. The chief, who is also the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said the find proved the registry's worth in battling gun crime and urged MPs -- who next Wednesday will hold an important vote on whether to dismantle the billion-dollar registry through a private member's bill -- to keep the databank because it is helpful to police.
But his own officers' seizure does not back this claim.
The owner in whose home the collection of guns was found had not registered his guns with the new registry. His home was selected for a search because he had permits under the old Restricted Weapons Registry System, which predated the current registry and permitted the ownership, in some circumstances, of machine guns and other automatic and semi-automatic weapons. His old permits had lapsed seven years ago and police were curious about the state of his collection now.
So it wasn't the new database, but rather an old one that tipped police to the owner of this hoard of guns.
Chief Blair told a news conference that without the registry, his officers would never have known about the original restricted weapons; and would not have information about individual firearms owners because Bill C-391 would do away with owner licensing. Neither claim is true.
Even if the private member's bill, introduced by Manitoba Tory MP Candice Hoeppner, manages to survive an open vote next week in the House of Commons, and eventually brings about the closure of the registry begun by the Liberals in 1998, individual gun owners will still have to take rigorous safety courses and obtain federal licenses before legally buying and using guns. Also, handguns and other "restricted" weapons will still have to be registered.
Captian, between your uncle and your buddy, you have some colorful people in your life... LOL... don't we all..
The gun registery is a great idea, on paper anyhow. To me there's nothing wrong with registering and keeping track of guns. They have made the system pretty darn hassle free. Takes me 20min longer at a store for them to register, check and process me getting the gun out of their possession.
The thing that irks me is the firgg'n costs to value ratio. We can pretty easily track the costs, I think they are up to 3billion now, but what is the value of the registery? Gun crimes haven't fallen.
I'm hoping that the entire system either demonstrates some value, or goes away. If long-gun reistration falls down, that's a good thing in my mind simply because of the implied, and hopefull realized savings in government dollars which can be reallocated to other programs.
One major problem the government will have is the people who work as part of the registration system. You cannot just lay them off... it's going to cost a lot of money to shut down this machine and I hope that cost has been factored in.
annoyed that it's cost so much and is about to be scrapped. If its scrapped then it has been such a waste of money... more than it already has been. 
