Not to mention the fact that those guns were probably illegally obtained and aren't registered at all....but hey...we're all safe now, right?
|
|
|
Who cares about the long gun registry?
- Thread starter Duster929
- Start date
Not to mention the fact that those guns were probably illegally obtained and aren't registered at all....but hey...we're all safe now, right?
Exactly.
Some of the commentors on the CBC site made some good points (shocking, i know). This vote will become fodder for the Conservatives come the next election. Even though the Liberals and NDPs "won" this vote, in the long run come election time it will likely cost them more than they gained.
What I care about is the billions of dollars that have already been ****** away on this project, which was created based on a dubious premise anyway. I think that it cost something like 50 times what it was estimated to cost, in the course of the first 5 years.
"No problem," say politicians, "just tax the people more."
"No problem," say politicians, "just tax the people more."
Onagoth
Well-known member
The biggest problem is MPs not following their constituents....the liberals whipped the vote and that's undemocratic.
Sweeping polls across the nation have always shown a majority of people want to see the end of the registry...it just doesn't work and it can't work. Front line officers would never rely on it when approaching a dangerous situation.
And even though the liberals said it would never lead to confiscation of firearms, it already has in at least 2 cases.
Sweeping polls across the nation have always shown a majority of people want to see the end of the registry...it just doesn't work and it can't work. Front line officers would never rely on it when approaching a dangerous situation.
And even though the liberals said it would never lead to confiscation of firearms, it already has in at least 2 cases.
Gun regitry is F***** useless. A couple years ago, the governement released some number and they believe that 6-7 million firearm AREN'T registered in Canada.....A co-worker already offered me to get an prohibited gun for me, from one of is friend in Montréal, I refused. Firearm registry will do nothing about that guy that selling illegal weapon.
Firearm registry is the first step into a no gun country like UK where the amount of murder is increasing every year, even if the country is firearm-free.
So yes, gun registry affect me, I have 9 firearm and 6 of them are from 1906 to 1953, I collect them. The 3 other are for hunting and target shooting.
Firearm registry is the first step into a no gun country like UK where the amount of murder is increasing every year, even if the country is firearm-free.
So yes, gun registry affect me, I have 9 firearm and 6 of them are from 1906 to 1953, I collect them. The 3 other are for hunting and target shooting.
Deimos
Well-known member
I'd hate to see this country turn into the UK
I wish we were more like the states in gun ownership or at least Switzerland.
I'd hate to see this country turn into the UK
I wish we were more like the states in gun ownership or at least Switzerland.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
canada, and especially the u.s., have a higher per capita murder rate than the u.k.
and the u.k. has less than 1/10th the total number of murders than the u.s.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders
i think that tells us that being 'firearm-free' certainly isn't making britain a hotbed of murder.
That is murder per capita, not gun related murders per capita. Where is the data for the resulting spike in UK knife murders since firearms were banned there?
These are the types of "statistics" that proponents of the gun registry present to make their case.
Go to this website.
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-by-human-development-index
The 20 best counties in the world to live allow the private ownership of hand guns. I'm not sure about Ireland though. Look at the worst countries to live in and tell me what their gun laws allow.
Perhaps I'm on the wrong page. The list of countries with "low human development" is a list of countries that don't have laws about private gun ownership, because they don't have laws at all. What do the gun laws of Sierra Leone allow? I think they allow you to have a gun if you killed the guy you took it from. Rwanda and Afghanistan are on that list. Are you implying that somehow their restrictive gun laws have something to do with them being on the "worst countries list".
I'm sorry, I shouldn't criticize your post, because clearly I've misunderstood the point of it or I'm looking at the wrong web page. Can you explain what you mean? Do you mean that countries that allow private ownership of handguns are higher up in the list of human development?
I checked the link. It shows every country on the planet. This is directly to the U.N. website.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
Basically, my point was the best places in the world to live, allow citizens to own firearms. With varying degrees of restrictions. The reason I used this as an example is because anti gun groups pick 15-20 countries to compare rates of firearm deaths. The U.S. is always at the top of the list for firearm related homicides. That being said, the countries they select are also best places to live on the planet. Anti gun groups never use third world countries, that for the most part ban the private ownership of firearms in showing rates of gun deaths.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
Basically, my point was the best places in the world to live, allow citizens to own firearms. With varying degrees of restrictions. The reason I used this as an example is because anti gun groups pick 15-20 countries to compare rates of firearm deaths. The U.S. is always at the top of the list for firearm related homicides. That being said, the countries they select are also best places to live on the planet. Anti gun groups never use third world countries, that for the most part ban the private ownership of firearms in showing rates of gun deaths.
Maybe i'm looking at the wrong list but it appears the top countries in human development have pretty restrictive gun laws where the lowest performing countries any citizen can have a gun with no rules or regs.
In most 3rd world countries everyone has a gun or they just can't afford one. Not much in the way of restrictive gun laws with no functioning government.
Are you suggesting that private citizens are not allowed to own firearms in Rwanda, Liberia, Ethiopia, Congo, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan? And that somehow this "ban" on gun ownership has something to do with quality of life there? Is this to mean that if we allowed private citizens in these nations to own unrestricted and unregistered weapons, the quality of life would somehow improve?
It's absurd, but at least now we're discussing something more important, on a global scale, than whether or not farmers in Alberta have to register their shotguns.
roadtoruin
Well-known member
It's on a bumper sticker, so it must be true.
You sure did pick some $hit ho;e countries. Truth be told, I don't know what the gun laws are in the examples you gave. I was thinking more realistically. Countries that Canadians might actually visit, example Mexico and Jamaica. I'm sure both those countries have banned most if not all guns. The anti's never mention per capita gun related deaths in their statistics. I might add that it is not guns and owning them that makes a country a great place to live. It is the freedom that allows you to own them that makes it great.
I always love the US firearms examples.
Check out the rate of murders in states that restrict private ownership of firearms and compare that with states that are 'shall issue' or Conceal and Carry states.
Armed law abiding citizens = Freedom
Disarmed law abiding citizens = Victims
Check out the rate of murders in states that restrict private ownership of firearms and compare that with states that are 'shall issue' or Conceal and Carry states.
Armed law abiding citizens = Freedom
Disarmed law abiding citizens = Victims
|
|
|
|
|