strategic voting

[darkfroggy]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Those were initial costs. If costs around 4 million to run per year. Harper talks about cost savings buy canceling it but at the ave time wants to reduce the fee's associated in getting a gun.

A 100 mill is drop in the bucket compared to what the G8 summit cost.

The G8 is necessary to enhance our global prestige. Say what you want, but the leaders of the most developed countries in the world DO deserve special attention.

The gun registry in its current state is horribly implemented and ineffective. Of course law enforcement want to it stay, they'll take anything that makes their job a little bit easier. 60 million can go a long way towards funding education and childrens' sports programs.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by darkfroggy

The G8 is necessary to enhance our global prestige. Say what you want, but the leaders of the most developed countries in the world DO deserve special attention.

The gun registry in its current state is horribly implemented and ineffective. Of course law enforcement want to it stay, they'll take anything that makes their job a little bit easier. 60 million can go a long way towards funding education and childrens' sports programs.

Why are people holding onto the political propaganda issued by the conservative party that the long gun registry costs $60 million dollars a year, it doesn't, the entire gun registry only costs $66.4 million. I pointed that out in the post above yours.

If Canadian's can't look past the partisan statements that obviously aren't based in fact, how can we expect our politicians too and make reasonable informed decisions on our behalf. That statement is directed towards not just Conservatives, but Liberals, Bloq, NDP, Green and I don't think the marijuana party has a platform more advanced than hot boxing the house of commons but their supporters too.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by darkfroggy

The G8 is necessary to enhance our global prestige. Say what you want, but the leaders of the most developed countries in the world DO deserve special attention.

Yep they deserve a fake lake. and global prestige the only people it's impressing is a bunch of politicians. There is a lot of better ways to improve our global image with a billion dollars.

[darkfroggy]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

Why are people holding onto the political propaganda issued by the conservative party that the long gun registry costs $60 million dollars a year, it doesn't, the entire gun registry only costs $66.4 million. I pointed that out in the post above yours.

If Canadian's can't look past the partisan statements that obviously aren't based in fact, how can we expect our politicians too and make reasonable informed decisions on our behalf. That statement is dedicated towards not just Conservatives, but Liberals, Bloq, NDP, Green and I don't think the marijuana party has a platform more advanced than hot boxing the house of commons but their supporters too.

Why are you assuming that I'm holding onto political propaganda?

I think the entire gun registry is a waste of money, which could be better spent elsewhere. Where has it been proven that the gun registry has significantly reduced rates of crime, or made it easier to investigate such instances?

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by darkfroggy

Why are you assuming that I'm holding onto political propaganda?

I think the entire gun registry is a waste of money, which could be better spent elsewhere. Where has it been proven that the gun registry has significantly reduced rates of crime, or made it easier to investigate such instances?

As I said, that statement is directed towards everyone of every political affiliation. Conservatives cling to the idea that the long gun registry costs $60 million+ a year and site it as their reason for wanting to scrap it. If you want to scrap the entire registry you can understand my confusing you as a member of the stream of conservatives who preach scrapping just the long gun registry and leaving the hand gun registry in tact, that's an entirely different debate that hasn't been actively pursued.

I haven't seen the hard figures that show the gun registry has reduced crime rates and I agree with your point that it's not the most effective system possible, and I would agree with scrapping it if there was a better system planned to replace it. Although no one has hard numbers on the effectiveness of the gun registry and the only measure we have is opinions of the officers who use it, gun control of any sort is proven to reduce crime.

[CanadaGoose]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

Why are people holding onto the political propaganda issued by the conservative party that the long gun registry costs $60 million dollars a year, it doesn't, the entire gun registry only costs $66.4 million. I pointed that out in the post above yours.

No, it is not propaganda: it cost approx. $60 million PER YEAR in tax payers dollars to operate ($66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year)

By 2005 it was already at 1 billion dollars, from the original $2 million the entire program was slated to cost when it was first proposed in 1995.

Total cost to date is nearly fifty times the amount you posted, it is in the billions. Enough to fund a space program and send a man to the moon and plant a Canadian flag on it.

[CanadaGoose]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

I haven't seen the hard figures that show the gun registry has reduced crime rates

It's because no one uses a firearm registered in their name to commit a crime.

So the registry effectively targets the wrong people; the law abiding citizen.

It's no suprise gun laws in Canada will have no effect on crime whatsoever, because outlaws do not care about the law, and as long as their is BC Bud going south to our American neighbors, coke and a shitload of guns will be coming north regardless of what system or registry is in place. So like I said, the firearms registry is effectively targeting the wrong people; the law abiding citizen and ONLY the law abiding citizen.

It's a nuisance, and HUGE waste of tax money on all Canadian citizens. Literally everyone who pays taxes is having a portion of their contribution thrown into the wind just to keep something alive that should've been axed a loooooong time ago. It's no secret the system has proven to do jack shit, yet here we are, still being forced to throw money at it. It's bureaucracy at it's finest.

I can understand why it's not such a straightforward decision to axe it though.... they know once it's gone, good luck EVER getting it back - everyone is going to be so opposed to ANY kind of system after witnessing this shit, you know? It's like fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by CanadaGoose

It is not propaganda: it cost approx. $60 million PER YEAR to operate ($66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year)

Total cost to date is nearly fifty times the amount you posted, it is in the billions.

The entire gun registry costs $66.4 million dollars for the 2010-2011 fiscal year; the conservative government claims the long gun registry costs $65 million per year and thus should be scraped. A huge component of the argument for scrapping it is the cost, but claiming that long guns make up 97.8% of the gun registries total cost is ridiculous. What's wrong with this statement?

The total cost to date is irrelevant, scrapping it now won't make the money come back, it's not like we can sell it to someone.

Originally Posted by CanadaGoose

It's because no one uses a firearm registered in their name to commit a crime.

So the registry is effectively targeting the wrong people; the law abiding citizen.

It's no suprise gun laws in Canada will have no effect on crime whatsoever, because outlaws do not care about the law, and no matter what system the government implements, as long as their is BC Bud going south to our American neighbors, coke and a shitload of guns will be coming north regardless of what the registry is in place. So like I said, the firearms registry is effectively targeting the wrong people; the law abiding citizen and ONLY the law abiding citizen.

It's a nuisance, needless tax and HUGE waste of money on all Canadian citizens. Literally everyone who pays taxes is having a portion of their contribution thrown into the wind just to keep something alive that should've been axed a loooooong time ago. The system has proven to do jack shit. It's bureaucracy at it's finest.

If the gun registry was scrapped, then when a fire arm is sold it would disappear into oblivion and it would become easier for it to find it's way into a criminals hands and tracking ownership prevents that, am I wrong? That's my understanding and it's really hard to sort through the tide of partisan bull shit and find solid answers.

I'm not a big supporter or the gun registry in it's current form, I'm sure the money could be used in a more effective way, I'm just a supporter of gun control. If a system were proposed where the registry were scrapped and the money directed towards a more effective system then I would be hugely in support of that.

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

If the gun registry was scrapped, then when a fire arm is sold it would disappear into oblivion and it would become easier for it to find it's way into a criminals hands and tracking ownership prevents that, am I wrong? That's my understanding

Any criminal who wants a gun can get one as easy as you or I going to the corner store to buy a pack of gum.

Smugglers can get anything they want into Canada - cocaine, heroin, cigarettes, black market/knockoff brand name products - you name it. Why is it that people seem to think guns would be any more difficult to bring in?

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by CanadaGoose

It's because no one uses a firearm registered in their name to commit a crime.

That's B.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89c...nique_massacre

The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6, 1989 at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot twenty-eight people before killing himself.

Originally Posted by dangonay

Any criminal who wants a gun can get one as easy as you or I going to the corner store to buy a pack of gum.

Smugglers can get anything they want into Canada - cocaine, heroin, cigarettes, black market/knockoff brand name products - you name it. Why is it that people seem to think guns would be any more difficult to bring in?

If you can get a gun in 15 minutes prove it because that's B.S.

Why not legalize everything since we cant stop it.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by dangonay

Any criminal who wants a gun can get one as easy as you or I going to the corner store to buy a pack of gum.

Smugglers can get anything they want into Canada - cocaine, heroin, cigarettes, black market/knockoff brand name products - you name it. Why is it that people seem to think guns would be any more difficult to bring in?

I don't think a gun would be more difficult to bring in, I've said in my posts above that the effectiveness of any gun control in Canada is severely limited by the Americans complete lack of it. Mexico actually has extremely strict gun control policies within their own country, but that doesn't matter when someone can go to a gun store in Texas, have fifty guns thrown in a duffle bag and then they just wander across the border. I assume that a gun smuggled into Canada from the states would be more expensive though and that makes it a bit more difficult for low level criminals to get them compared to a gun that could potentially be sourced from within Canada.

Maybe we should do like Chris Rock suggests, forget gun control and just control the bullets lol.

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Manic!

If you can get a gun in 15 minutes prove it because that's B.S.

Why not legalize everything since we cant stop it.

I know several ways to get a gun, largely due to relatives being Status Indians. I'm not going to post them up on a public forum. If you choose to believe guns are hard to get, then so be it. I suppose you think it's hard to buy heroin too.

Another weak-ass argument. That's about as stupid as saying "since murders happen anyway, why make murder a crime?" Maybe you should study up on why laws exist and what their purpose is - totally eliminating something from happening is NOT the purpose of a law.

[apple_cutie]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

The entire gun registry costs $66.4 million dollars for the 2010-2011 fiscal year; the conservative government claims the long gun registry costs $65 million per year and thus should be scraped. A huge component of the argument for scrapping it is the cost, but claiming that long guns make up 97.8% of the gun registries total cost is ridiculous. What's wrong with this statement?

The total cost to date is irrelevant, scrapping it now won't make the money come back, it's not like we can sell it to someone.




If the gun registry was scrapped, then when a fire arm is sold it would disappear into oblivion and it would become easier for it to find it's way into a criminals hands and tracking ownership prevents that, am I wrong? That's my understanding and it's really hard to sort through the tide of partisan bull shit and find solid answers.

I'm not a big supporter or the gun registry in it's current form, I'm sure the money could be used in a more effective way, I'm just a supporter of gun control. If a system were proposed where the registry were scrapped and the money directed towards a more effective system then I would be hugely in support of that.

The Gun registry is a total waste of money and time, here is a prime example of how useless it is, a Manitoba man registered his soldering gun/heat gun as a firearm and received a registration certificate in the mail. Shows you that none of the applications get even reviewed and checked before being processed.

http://www.rangebob.com/OttawaCitize...ertificate.pdf


Also Gun control doesn't work, show me any statistics that prove it works, don't just spew emotional bullshit that you thought up "oh if we limit guns, there would be less violence"

Also a Quebec man managed to register his Fuller Screwdriver as a firearm and was issued a registration certificate as well.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by apple_cutie

The Gun registry is a total waste of money and time, here is a prime example of how useless it is, a Manitoba man registered his soldering gun/heat gun as a firearm and received a registration certificate in the mail. Shows you that none of the applications get even reviewed and checked before being processed.

http://www.rangebob.com/OttawaCitize...ertificate.pdf


Also Gun control doesn't work, show me any statistics that prove it works, don't just spew emotional bullshit that you thought up "oh if we limit guns, there would be less violence"

Also a Quebec man managed to register his Fuller Screwdriver as a firearm and was issued a registration certificate as well.

Pointing out that there are flaws in a automated system isn't going to prove anything, the point of the gun registry isn't to review whether people should own guns, it's to track who owns guns. I have no idea what people were trying to prove by registering a soldering gun, fill me in as to what it proves?

The debate isn't on whether gun control is effective, it's on the long gun registry and the election tomorrow. If you want to evidence of the effectiveness of gun control look at rates of gun violence compared to gun control in various countries. I'm not anti-gun, I come from a family that hunts and owns guns on our farms, I just believe that their ownership should be controlled.

[apple_cutie]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

Pointing out that there are flaws in a automated system isn't going to prove anything, the point of the gun registry isn't to review whether people should own guns, it's to track who owns guns. I have no idea what people were trying to prove by registering a soldering gun, fill me in as to what it proves?

The debate isn't on whether gun control is effective, it's on the long gun registry and the election tomorrow. If you want to evidence of the effectiveness of gun control look at rates of gun violence compared to gun control in various countries. I'm not anti-gun, I come from a family that hunts and owns guns on our farms, I just believe that their ownership should be controlled.

Gun violence in gun controlled countries are lower versus countries with no gun control, however the overall rate of violent crimes are still the same before and after gun control laws were enacted. A prime example of this is Washington DC after they banned guns.

I agree with you that gun ownership needs to be controlled, but targeting law abiding citizens who rightfully register their guns, apply for transportation permits, go through all the hoops to obtain their license is not the way to go.

The only way to truly stop the amount of gun violence is to enforce stricter smuggling laws and provide the border patrol with more power in confiscating and prosecuting illegal firearms that are being brought into the country.

As with gun control, a key saying goes "if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have them" sleep on that quote.

[Nightwalker]

Long gun registry is probably the -only- thing I really agree with the Conservatives on. But all the other issues are bigger, so screw the Conservatives.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by dangonay

I know several ways to get a gun, largely due to relatives being Status Indians.

And what are you doing about it?

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by dangonay

I know several ways to get a gun, largely due to relatives being Status Indians. I'm not going to post them up on a public forum. If you choose to believe guns are hard to get, then so be it. I suppose you think it's hard to buy heroin too.

Another weak-ass argument. That's about as stupid as saying "since murders happen anyway, why make murder a crime?" Maybe you should study up on why laws exist and what their purpose is - totally eliminating something from happening is NOT the purpose of a law.

The key word is relatives, that's not something the majority of the population has access too and I don't know anyone with their card actively selling illegal guns.

[StylinRed]

^^^ getting a gun license is insanely easy.. i actually don't know why people are in an uproar

It's actually easier than a gangster smuggling in a gun... which doesn't make sense..

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Manic!

And what are you doing about it?

Why should I do anything about it? I'm not the police. Why don't you head on to the downtown eastside and do something about the drug dealers there?

Originally Posted by MindBomber

The key word is relatives, that's not something the majority of the population has access too and I don't know anyone with their card actively selling illegal guns.

I never said my relatives smuggled guns - I said I knew of ways to smuggle guns because of my relatives. No diffferent than saying I know how to smuggle guns because I have an uncle who works for the RCMP. People in other industries (like shipping or trucking) can also probably think of numerous ways to easily smuggle anything they want into Canada. Just seeing all the illicit drugs that come in shows it's not that difficult to do.

Originally Posted by StylinRed

^^^ getting a gun license is insanely easy.. i actually don't know why people are in an uproar

It's actually easier than a gangster smuggling in a gun... which doesn't make sense..

Getting a license is easy for a law abiding citizen. Try getting a license if you're a gangster, have a record or are even associated with people that do.

If you buy a gun legally it can be traced. A smuggled gun can be bought, used to kill someone and dumped without fear of it being traced to anyone even if it is found. That alone is worth the extra couple hundred you might have to pay for a gun.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Those were initial costs. If costs around 4 million to run per year. Harper talks about cost savings buy canceling it but at the ave time wants to reduce the fee's associated in getting a gun.

A 100 mill is drop in the bucket compared to what the G8 summit cost.

I see what you're doing, you're splitting hairs. The majority of guns in Canada are long guns. This is the most recent stat I can find, yet I am going to assume i has not dramatically changed:

1974 – 11,186,000 FIREARMS IN CANADA – STATISTICS CANADA

TABLE 1 – FIREARMS STOCK

Table 1(a) Proportional Breakdown of Estimated Total Firearms Stock, 1974

Comment: there are approximately 11 million firearms in Canada. This total is broken down as follows:

Handguns - 717,000 (6%)
Rifles - 6,652,000 (60%)
Shotguns - 3,817,000 (34%)
Total - 11,186,000

The program costs $65M to run, yet I round up to $100M cause not all costs are eaten directly by the agency running it.

As others said, if it cost a couple $M to run I'd be all for it - yet instead its bloated - and I do not trust any government to run it better for less - so get rid of it before the NDP waste money researching how to improve it.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Manic!

That's B.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89c...nique_massacre

The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6, 1989 at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot twenty-eight people before killing himself.

and would a gun registry have prevented that crime? Criminals don't register their guns, and good citizens who buy guns don't suspect they'll turn out to be criminals eventually.

There was a study that showed many assaults/killings are actually done by family/friends/acquaintances of the victim. All the gun registry does is eliminate a bit of policing to find the obvious suspect - at a huge expense to the tax payer.

[johny]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

The police most commonly use the gun registry when responding to calls at house holds, particularly disturbance and domestic violence calls to ascertain if there's weapons potentially in the house hold. This allows them to be prepared with non lethal interventions upon arrival.

They use this in other emergancy response situations as well. I know someone who's father was suicidal and manic and the police responded to a call at his house. Because they knew that he had a weapon in the house they were ready and tasered him when he was found waving around a rifle. Otherwise the police officer said he probably would have been shot if they hadn't had the warning.

Later they used the registry to get a list of all his firearms and make sure they were all removed from the house while he was getting treatment.

This is the shit that doesn't get on the news. But the police and other emergency services utilitize the gun registry often and generally it's to protect the gun owners and those in their households, not to harm them.

Like I said, it's not a perfect system, I think it can be made better for everyone, but I do believe it is important to have.

And I don't think the gun registry generally prevents "crime" at least not in the way you're thinking about it, as in gang violence. I think it DOES prevent deaths and accidents.

4 police were killed in Alberta a few years ago because they walked onto a farm without proper backup, no proper "swat" gear etc because the gun registry told them no guns on site. they were shot.

this is not the only time the police have been in trouble by assuming what they see in the registry is correct. they should always assume weapons are on site everywhere they go. for this purpose the registry is useless. they are more likly to run into trouble with weapons in places were no weapons are listed, then in places where law abiding people have filled in their paper work.

the gun registery has so many flaws. the first being that when it came into effect, customs inport documents estimated there were 24 million legal guns had been sold into Canada over the past ~50 years. 9 million have since been registered. yet they now claim over 90% of guns are registeried. what happened to the other 15 million?... they are in Farmers barns, grampa's attic etc. millions of guns in houses all across the county not on that list.

2nd gun owners have no requirment to store firarms at their house. they can borrow, lend, store them anywhere they want. if their is a domestic abuse call. and he happens to legally own say 3 guns. he might have 0 guns in the house, he might have 3, or he might have 300. if the police walked in and removed the 3 guns listed on the registery and walked out they have failed to do their job. becasuse their could be more legal guns in the house, or even illegal guns in the house too. a full search of the house should take place no matter what the registery says. once again making the registery useless. it doesn't matter how many a list says he owns, it only matters how many are in the house.

gun licences would remain intact, and were in place long before the registery was. so police would still know if houses had gun owners or not. and can then assume guns are in the house.

how does the gun registery prevent deaths and accidents? there is licence training and testing. there are laws on storage, use, transportation etc of firearms. these help prevent deaths and accidents. the registry is just a list of numbers on peices of paper.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by taylor192

I see what you're doing, you're splitting hairs. The majority of guns in Canada are long guns. This is the most recent stat I can find, yet I am going to assume i has not dramatically changed:



The program costs $65M to run, yet I round up to $100M cause not all costs are eaten directly by the agency running it.

As others said, if it cost a couple $M to run I'd be all for it - yet instead its bloated - and I do not trust any government to run it better for less - so get rid of it before the NDP waste money researching how to improve it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...port-rcmp.html

The report found that the cost of the program is in the range of $1.1 million to $3.6 million per year and that the Canadian Firearms Program is operating efficiently.

[johny]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

Oh I know we don't. I was responding to someone saying the Libs were trying to take away their right to own a fire arm (which we don't have).

We register our cars too, and renew our registration every year when we renew our insurance. We aren't allowed to use our cars if we don't have them properly insured and I'm all for taking away cars from people who use them recklessly.

.

you can't use cars in public property if they are not registered. however you can own them, store them at your house, drive them on your own property, or private property (IE a farm), without insurance or registration.

so you can not compare car registration to gun registration.


and no you can't take away cars or car registration from reckless drivers. you take away their licence.

there is a big difference.