The squabble over the federal government legislating an end to long gun registry shows few signs of dying down.
Apparently the government, through Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, doesn't even want people who buy firearms to have their names registered by the store, or the serial numbers of rifles recorded.
OPP Supt. Chris Wyatt has been quoted saying, in effect, that if the federal government doesn't want records of gun owners kept, the government should say so specifically in legislation. Otherwise, why shouldn't stores that sell guns keep a record of who purchases them?
Why the feds are bellyaching over this, is beyond reason.
So what if a gun store records the identity of someone purchasing a rifle?
By objecting to, or accusing the province of instigating a "back-door" gun registry to foil the cancellation of a national registry, is just plain silly.
Remember, the long gun registry was abandoned because its costs stretched into billions of dollars (from an original estimate of $2 million), and probably as many people didn't declare their guns, as those who registered them.
It was a foolish law from the start, in that it made criminals out of farmers and people in rural areas who didn't trust government assurances, or simply couldn't be bothered to register their rifles and shotguns.
In 2011 there were some 7.8 millions guns registered in Canada. The National Firearms Association estimates there were up to 21 million guns in Canada in 1993, owned by roughly six million Canadians. What does that tell you? It tells you the unenforceable law was making a lot of decent Canadians into criminals.
End of argument as to why the registry was -- and deserved to be -- scrapped.
And the registry did little to curb crimes committed with guns. Most criminals use hand guns, and there's always been a requirement to register these. Again, when guns are used in crimes, they are usually not registered.
By abandoning long gun registry, the federal government is saving the taxpayer considerable billions. If senior provincial police officers and local politicians feel safer if store owners record the identities of those who buy guns, so what? It'll cost nothing, back door or no back door.
More significantly, why should individuals of the gun-buying public care if they are recorded as gun owners? If you don't intend to use it for a crime, why is anonymity important?
We register when we buy automobiles, or get a driver's license. What's the difference with a gun if you don't intend to shoot someone or rob a bank?
Instigating the gun registry in the first place created a prejudice that lingers today. There's something sinister about wanting to own a gun -- or even owning one.
When I was a kid in Barrie, I bought a .22 calibre rifle at Robinson's hardware store (where I once had a summer job). No one paid heed when Jim Coutts and I would carry our .22s through downtown Barrie on our way to shoot crows and groundhogs in local fields. These days, a toy gun is liable to provoke a swat team reaction.
People bristle at the idea of being listed as a gun owner -- as if they'll be nabbed in a midnight raid. It's a bit like people who oppose babies being fingerprinted, in case future identification is needed. Unless the baby is likely to become a criminal, why not have everyone's fingerprints recorded? It might be invaluable for tracing lost children.
Anyway, the gun registry is no more -- and too costly to ever be re-imposed.
Mark Crowley: #TellVicEverything: The Government Getting What it Deserves
It was a scandal at the time.
CONservatives are diseased.
The yearly maintenance was in the few millions.
a functional, competent government must regulate issues of public health and safety. that certainly includes guns, cars, explosives, poisons, bacteria, etc.
What this means is that fully three quarters of all murders in Canada committed by family members or acquaintances against family members or acquaintances. Not all by guns, of course, but if both handguns and long guns were registered, then it could help protect police called to the scene of a ‘domestic’ incident; it could help judges when setting terms of restraining orders, perhaps even allowing temporary confiscation of firearms; and it could help in solving crimes if a suspect was a registered owner of a firearm of a calibre and type suspected in the homicide.
Furthermore, knowing a gun was registered and easily traceable might also deter someone from using it against a spouse.
You say that criminals don’t register firearms...but aren’t all murderers criminals?
Everyone has to register their automobile, and not everyone commits parking or moving violations. But when they do, they are more easily found. Of course, criminals often steal getaway vehicles in order to be untraceable – should we therefore remove the necessity to register all vehicles?
F&F
Let's stop letting our media tell us what to be concerned about. Who cares about the long gun registry...if future governments want to bring it back they will. The bigger questions is why can't we have a government capable of managing the public administration??
Why can't we?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html
The second false logic I object to is that killing the Registry somehow SAVED billions. It didn't, it's already been spent, never to be seen again. The only way the registry is an absolute waste of money is by killing it and the data collected.
Now we've got nothing left to show for $2.5 billion spent.
Brilliant.
Again Mr Worthington, I'm some what taken aback by your stance here. If it weren't for the headline, I'd swear you were actually for the Gun Registry, because you certainly seem to think all this uproar about registering guns is just nuts, and that Toews indignation that the CFO's won't just take commands from a Minister is mere hubris.
Where's the real Peter Worthington that I haven't agreed with since the war on terror began?
Never mind, I didn't like him very much, but this guy I could learn to live with.
As to your Granma example, it’s mere gibberish. You obviously didn't read the legislation did you?
Again, can you cite a single example of "grandma" that was busted for that? Just one example?
Or is this all just pie-in-the-sky fear mongering based on ignorance of the actual law and lack of critical thought?
I'll take the latter Alex...
They will never legalize or decrim weed. Because they keep telling their right-wing base that is a gateway drug and must be stopped. Your first toke one day .. a week later you will be shooting heroin into your eyeballs!