Will Canadian gun registry be scrapped ? ...

[spin]

Majority report: full steam ahead
Economy, gun registry priorities for local MPs

By: Mia Rabson

Posted: 05/4/2011 1:00 AM

OTTAWA -- He got the majority he wanted, now Prime Minister Stephen Harper will hit the ground running with a laundry list of items he hadn't been able to get done in a minority parliament.

Among them will be the elimination of the long gun registry, ending the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly at least for barley sales, reforming the Senate and a phasing out of the per-vote subsidy for political parties.emphasis added

***snip***

Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner, re-elected in Portage-Lisgar, is gratified her efforts to eliminate the gun registry will finally come to fruition. Hoeppner led the Conservatives' efforts to get rid of the registry in 2009 and 2010 through a private members' bill.

She came within two votes of success last fall but a majority of opposition MPs voted the bill down. She spent four days during the election helping the party in some of the ridings of opposition MPs who voted against her bill and believes at least two of them swung to the Conservatives in part because of the registry. "I'm very happy," said Hoeppner. She said a lot of hunters and outdoors people in Canada have been fighting a long time to get rid of the registry.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/majority-report-full-steam-ahead-121234939.html

Sportsmen’s Alliance president confident that gun registry will be scrapped

Some area gun owners are confident a Conservative majority government will stick to its promise and scrap the long-gun registry.

Northwestern Ontario Sportsmen’s Alliance President John Kaplanis said Stephen Harper promised that if his party won a majority government, which it did on Monday night, it would kill the controversial registry.

"Naturally, for firearms owners we view this as a huge victory," Kaplanis said Tuesday morning.

***snip***

"We’re confident that he’ll follow through on his promise," Kaplanis said. "It’s crime control that is really necessary, not gun control. So we’re hoping that an emphasis is now put on dealing with crime in its many forms and helping police do what they need to do."
http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/index.php/article-archives/734-4-may-2011-gun-news-headlines

The Canadian Firearms Registry has been plagued by controversy since it was implemented in 1993. It's hard to imagine that a national gun registration program would be successful in the United States when registration has faced so many problems including criticism and noncompliance in Canada.

[beevul]

1. Awww.

Its too early for popcorn...


Worms - can - opened.

[iverglas]

2. "registration has faced so many problems including criticism"

Snork.



Harper would love to scrap both the firearms registry and the Canada Health Act.

If it weren't too late now, he'd love to have us in Iraq.

A majority of his caucus would outlaw abortion and gay marriage, and we can expect them to try.

He wants us to spend many $billions on a bunch of US-made and US-controlled fighter planes we don't need.

He wants to spend $billions more on prisons to house all the people he wants jailed contrary to common sense and the Canadian constitution.

Warms the cockles of your heart, don't it?

I have to think it does.

[chibajoe]

3. Maybe if you hadn't alienated all those gun owners with years and years

of repressive laws, you wouldn't be stuck with him now. From what little I know about the guy, it seems a lot of his support came from Canadian gun owners vehemently opposed to the gun registry.

[valhalla]

4. Same thing we are facing here.

Republicans are getting the support of gun owners that would otherwise vote Democratic. The anti-gun platform of the Democratic party is driving them away.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

28. well well well

You may or may not be facing that there.

We are not facing it here.

The Conservatives got the votes of the 40% of the voting electorate who want to have a right-wing government that will do its all to eliminate a lot of things other than the long gun registry: women's reproductive rights, universal health care, Canada's reputation on the international stage, decades of progress on all social justice issues, a relatively equitable income tax structure ...

That's what Conservative voters voted for, and the alternatives on those issues are what they voted against. And vast numbers of them did it because of them are ignorant bigots, and the Conservative Party welcomes and rewards their ignorance and bigotry.

If you actually know of anyone in Canada who would have voted NDP or Liberal, or heck, Green, were it not for those parties' support for the long gun registry, you'll let us know, right?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

5. utter nonsense

His support in the riding where I spent the week before the election came from ignorant bigoted assholes like the ones my mum has to share air with in her senior cits' building there. Her conversation with one of them went like this:

Him: So, do you think there will be a Conservative majority?
Her: Well I certainly hope not!
Him: Er ... what?
Her: (words to the effect of: worst government ever, etc. etc.)
Him: Well I would never vote Liberal.
Her: Then here's your chance, vote NDP.
Him: I would never vote NDP. They're COMMUNISTS.
Her: That's ridiculous, they're not communists; how can you say something like that?
Him: Well there's no point in discussing it, you'll never convince me.
Her: You're right, it would be a waste of time discussing it with you, so I'm not going to.

I could show you some of the virulently racist emails (originating in the US) forwarded to my mum by some of them.

None of the people in the Toronto bedroom community suburb where my sister lives, a mile away, could care less about guns. But there were Conservative Party lawn signs all over it like lice.

In the West (where, by the way, firearms crime rates are higher than in Ontario and Quebec), the Conservative Party's support comes from the same place it came from decades before anyone imagined a firearms registry: the ignorant bigoted assholes who infest that area.

My uncle in southwestern Ontario, who is about 75 and was in fact a huge Keith Olbermann fan and suggested that if his neighbour didn't like the way Canada was being run, he feel free to sell his house and go pay for his hip replacement surgery in the US with the proceeds, voted for Harper because of "abortion and same-sex marriage".

People here vote for right-wing parties because they are ignorant bigots. Just like in the US.

And anybody who says they voted for the Conservative Party here because of the firearms registry or anything else firearms-related is just lying. They would have voted for it if it had proposed to melt down all the guns in the country.

Just like in the US.

[chibajoe]

8. Well, you sure have a lot of racist bigots up there

glad I don't live there. As for America, if some national political party tried to get elected with a "melt down all the guns in the country" plank in their platform, they would be soundly defeated. There are tons of people here who will vote single issue, so I guess it's not like in Canada after all.

[iverglas]

10. sadly, yes

But perhaps I should have been clearer. Ignorant and/or bigoted.

And of course there are the purely self-interested. You know the line, I'm sure: tax cuts.

There's sure a lot of overlap among the sets though, isn't there?

[Atypical Liberal]

14. My mom was the same way.

I have been hammering at her for YEARS about this hole "communism" bogey man, and finally, FINALLY had a half-victory just two weeks ago.

Now she's still completely hard-wired about the idea of "communism" and "class envy of the rich", but I finally broke her by explaining, and showing the data, that shows that this is not an issue of envy. It is an issue of concentration of power.

I showed her the latest graphs (I'm sure you've seen them) that show how wide the current wealth gap is in this country, and shows what people's perceptions of wealth distribution are, vs. what they think it should be, vs. what it is. It is, of course, far more heavily weighted towards the top than most people know or even think it should be.

I showed her that right now the Forbes 400 riches Americans control more wealth than 1/2 of our country combined. I showed her how over the last decade the wealth of the top 1% has skyrocketed while their effective tax rate has been cut in half.

I explained to her, and she finally agreed, that this is not an issue of envy, nor a criticism of people who work for their wealth. This government was very carefully crafted to have very decentralized bases of power, to prevent concentrations of power that might corrupt. But what we are seeing is that people with money now have sufficient wealth to influence government policy to protect and enhance their wealth. This results in a snowballing of power into the hands of a few. It is a plutocracy and an oligarchy. She got it.

You'll never win on the "communism" angle. This was a generation that spent their entire productive lives unquestioningly trying to defeat "communism". It doesn't matter if you point out the "communist" schools, courts, roads, police forces, fire forces, and military forces that we all collectively benefit from whether we pay for them or not - communism is "bad".

You have to couch it in terms of POWER.

[iverglas]

18. the wealth/income gaps are THE issue of this century

The disparity has historically been wider in the US than in any comparable country -- US first, UK a distant second, others clustered below that, Canada around the middle. The gaps have been widening in every single country, Canada no exception.

The numbers these days are simply mindblowing.


The GINI index is a measure of income disparity: the higher the index, the greater the disparity. When you look at those annual lists of best places to live, the UN development index, and so on, it's always: the lower the index, the better a place to live.


An oldie but goodie, to relate this to the forum topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1149085&mesg_id=1151097

I used to have a link to the full article I quoted there, but it's dead. This has the abstract and some other references:

http://www.mendeley.com/research/income-inequality-and-homicide-rates-in-canada-and-the-united-states/

Previous research showing that income inequality (assessed by the Gini index) is a predictor, and hence a possible determinant, of homicide rates, whether at the cross-national, state or city level, has been inconclusive because of a negative relationship between economic inequity and average income.

Comparison across the Canadian provinces provides a test case in which average income and the Gini are instead positively correlated, and we find that the positive relationship between the Gini and the homicide rate is undiminished. Temporal change in the Gini is also shown to be a significant predictor of temporal change in provincial homicide rates.

When Canadian provinces and U.S. states are considered together, local levels of income inequality appear to be sufficient to account for the two countries' radically different national homicide rates.

On "communism" -- fortunately, in Canada, the stupidity was never as strong in that regard. We've had social democratic parties for decades, and everybody knows that's how we got universal health care and so on (Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather was the provincial premier / national leader of the NDP who gave birth to it). The old fool my mum was talking to is really just idiosyncratically stupid. ;)

[spin]

9. Many here in the States would love to have a gun registration system ...

similar to the one in Canada.

However the Canadian experience shows that gun registration in the United States would most likely be a waste of time and money. If such a program is highly unpopular in a nation like Canada and many fail to comply and register their firearms, imagine the problems it would face in the United States which has a much stronger gun culture.

It's highly unlikely that gun registration would even pass in our nation and if it did, once the conservative Republicans gained enough strength, it would be repealed.

I didn't start this thread to glorify the new conservative majority in Canada so no, it didn't "warm the cockles" of my heart. For many years I have hoped to see the United States pass a healthcare program similar to the one in Canada and I hate to see a threat to the Canada Health Act. I also disagree with the idea that all nations friendly to our country should spend enormous amounts of money on American made fighter aircraft and other military weapons. In recent years, the United States has been far too willing to go to war with other nations without a solid reason and we often attempt to drag our friends along.

edited to fix typo

[iverglas]

11. glad you said it and not me ;)

"the Untied States"

My spellcheck just won't fix that one. ;)


If you're not pleased about the Conservative "victory" (you know they got 40% of the popular vote), then it probably isn't wise to retail bullshit stories about how and why it happened.

Not that you did. Others have and will.

[spin]

13. Thanks....

I've had my newer computer with a smaller keyboard for a few weeks now, so I will not try to use it as an excuse for my spelling.

[gejohnston]

21. if the 1995 law goes

the 1934 and 1977 laws are still in place are they not? From what I understand, the Canadian "gun lobby" is quite comfortable with those laws.

[iverglas]

23. what would go is registration of long guns

i.e. non-restricted and non-prohibited long guns.

Licensing and handgun registration would remain, if that was the question?

[gejohnston]

41. correct, I do not know the names

I forgot the 1952 law, registering machine guns. It strikes me as odd that you had tighter controls on handguns than machine guns until then. But then, you did not have someone like Dillinger running amok in the prairie provinces.

[rl6214]

43. So just how did he win?

[iverglas]

46. the system ...

First-past-the-post multi-party system.

It depends in how the vote splits in each electoral district.

He got 40% of the popular vote nation-wide.

But it translated into a majority of the seats in the House of Commons: 167 of 308.

The NDP got 102 seats, which is (unusually) a fairly accurate reflection of its share of the popular vote. The Liberals got 34 seats, which under-represents their share of the popular vote enormously (like by close to half).

We need a system that is at least partially propotional representation -- at least some seats in the House allocated according to popular vote share.

60% of the voting electorate voted against Harper and his party and everything they stand for.

But he now has control of the House of Commons, with many of the same consequences you would fear with a Republican House and President, such as the power to appoint Supreme Court Judges, in addition to the simple power to ram his agenda through Parliament. (He still doesn't control the Senate here, but it is a weak institution with little credibility among the public -- but he will be able to make Senate appointments to fill vacancies as well.)

The political landscape here has undergone a sea change as of this weak, with the perennial third party, the social democratic NDP, now the second party and Official Opposition. It's hard to predict what will become of the Liberals, though. They have an amazing ability to recover, largely through their ability to persuade a large portion of the electorate that the Liberal Party and Canada are one and the same.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. It's probably the same as in the US

I don't know about in Canada, but I'm guessing rifle crime in Canada is about as non-existent as it is in the United States. Only some 300 people are killed annually in the US using rifles - about half as many as are killed with hands and feet.

Rifles just aren't a very popular firearm to use to commit crimes, for obvious reasons. It's silly, then, to waste taxpayer money tracking them.

[iverglas]

12. why not do your research first?

I can name you several tragic cases of people killed with long arms.

My own opinion about the most important function of the firearms registry is that it virtually eliminates straw purchases.

If it is extremely difficult to get handguns legally, as it is, it's entirely logical that people wanting firearms who are not entitled to them will opt for long arms.

There has got to be some reason why all the drug traffickers in the US are so fond of those pseudo-AK47 thingies.

I mean, you do know that homicide is not the only or even the biggest social problem associated with firearms.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. No need, and not interested.

why not do your research first?

Honestly, I'm not particularly interested in Canadian firearm policy. But there is probably no need. Long arms are not easily concealable, and this is almost certainly why they are hardly ever used for homicides. I'm guessing that Canada's long arm crime rate is similar to that in the United States. I don't know what the equivalent of Canada's FBI UCR web site is, and I'm not particularly motivated to go research and find out.

I'm just pointing out that in the United States, rifles are hardly ever used for homicides, and probably crime in general.

I can name you several tragic cases of people killed with long arms.

So can I, but this doesn't change the fact that in the United States, twice as many people are killed with hands and feet than the some 300 every year that are killed with rifles.

My own opinion about the most important function of the firearms registry is that it virtually eliminates straw purchases.

But if long arms are hardly ever used in crime, who cares if they are being straw-purchased? Is it really worth tracking such firearms for the sake of some 300 homicides every year, or whatever number it is in Canada?

If it is extremely difficult to get handguns legally, as it is, it's entirely logical that people wanting firearms who are not entitled to them will opt for long arms.

Except that they are still very difficult to conceal. This almost certainly is why they are seldom used for crime. In the United States, where it is equally easy to obtain either kind of firearm, there is still a massive preference for handguns for homicides.

There has got to be some reason why all the drug traffickers in the US are so fond of those pseudo-AK47 thingies.

Paperweights, maybe. Because they aren't killing many people with them in the United States.

I mean, you do know that homicide is not the only or even the biggest social problem associated with firearms.

While I suppose it's debatable whether people dying is the biggest social problem or not, I'd be willing to bet that not only are long arms seldom used for homicides, but also seldom used for crime in general, either. I'm pretty sure this has been hashed before, though I can't remember which forum I read it on.

[Pullo]

16. Those "AK47 thingies" are very popular with many, many gun owners

There has got to be some reason why all the drug traffickers in the US are so fond of those pseudo-AK47 thingies.

"Assault weapons" are the most popular center-fire rifles sold in the US. In part because of misguided efforts to ban them.

Rifles of all types make up a very small portion of firearms used in violent crime in the US. Handguns, followed my shotguns, are much more commonly used by criminals.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. Long arms used in crime

I'm finding it hard to dig up anything definitive or up-to-date, but, as I suspected, handguns are greatly preferred by criminals for use in crime.

This is dated (2001) but says that some 80% of armed criminals preferred handguns. I'm surprised the number is that low but it is a single report.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/fuopr.cfm

[cleanhippie]

19. "several tragic cases" does not a statistic make.

[iverglas]

20. I said I could NAME several tragic cases

I didn't say there WERE several tragic cases.

As in Nicholas Battersby, killed in a drive-by rifle shooting in Ottawa.
Georgina L. whose last name I'd have to look up, killed in a robbery in Toronto.
Ms. Little something, killed in a nightclub in Toronto.
Four RCMP officers killed by an outlaw in Alberta.
The 14 women killed by Marc Lépine at the Montréal Polytechnique.
The woman killed by Kimveer Gill at Dawson College.


In fact, long arms are responsible for most police shootings/killings in Canada, and I'm seeing a figure of 73% of police killings in the US in a recent year involving handguns, so likely not far off 1/4 by long arm.

Firearms hauls from gangs and the like, in both Canada, always include long arms.

They may not have killed anyone with them, but gangs and drug traffickers are very fond of long arms. Firearms can be used for many more criminal purposes than killing people, and gangs and drug traffickers keep lots of them on hand.


Anyway, if you have something to say that might contribute to a discussion, you feel completely free to come right out with it.

[cleanhippie]

29. And? Your ability to provide anecdotal accounts still means nothing to supporting any argument

The poster made an opinion that long gun crime was probably very low and you countered by implying that he knew not what he was talking about and should "do their research" because you can "name several..." blah blah blah.

Your ability to provide anecdotal accounts still means nothing to supporting any argument that long gun crime was NOT low, which seems to be your implication.

[iverglas]

30. what it means is that you're flailing

AtypicalLiberal said:

I don't know about in Canada, but I'm guessing rifle crime in Canada is about as non-existent as it is in the United States.

I don't give a flying fuck what s/he or anyone else is guessing. But s/he was the one to post that dumb statement.

The fact that I can name numerous examples of rifle crime in Canada, just from memory of news reports, shows very clearly that it is not remotely non-existent.

S/he was the one making the claim. I had no obligation to provide ANY evidence of ANYTHING in return.

You chose to reply to me:

"several tragic cases" does not a statistic make.

as if I had said it was, or as if any statistics at all had been offered by anyone. You would really have done better to just keep out.

You now say:

Your ability to provide anecdotal accounts still means nothing to supporting any argument

What argument?

Someone else made a dumb statement that is actually false. I don't have any obligation to prove it false.

If you want statistics, ask the person who made that statement.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

36. Wow! So many ad homs in a single post! And from a lawyer, no less.

How unimpressive.

[iverglas]

38. ah, it's the fan club

The fan club that can never ever get its facts straight.

If you can tell me which bio of moi you have been reading, I'll ask that they correct the errors.

If you want to whisper to me what you (or whoever) said in the so quickly posted and deleted post, you can do that to.


By the way, a statement is not a "hom", and the only thing I called dumb in that post was the statement in question.

I think making unfounded allegations against someone and saying nothing else -- that would be you, there -- kinda qualifies for the category though, don't you?

[iverglas]

32. worm your way out of this one now

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010003/article/11352-eng.htm#a6

Declines were reported for all three of the most common types of firearms in 2009: handguns, rifles/shotguns and sawed-off rifles/shotguns. Handguns were the most common type of firearm used in homicides.

Of the 179 homicides committed with a firearm in 2009, 112 (or 69%) involved handguns. There were 29 homicides committed with a rifle/shotgun, the lowest number reported since data was first collected in 1961, and 14 with a sawed-off rifle/shotgun (Table 4).

Despite declining in 2009, the use of handguns has generally been increasing over the past 30 years. In contrast, the use of rifles/shotguns has generally been declining.

Chart 6
Use of firearms declines in 2009



1. Excludes sawed-off rifles or shotguns.
Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Homicide Survey.

Handguns remained the most common type of firearm involved in homicides in major metropolitan areas, accounting for almost three-quarters (73%) of all firearm homicides in CMAs in 2009. In non-CMA areas, rifles or shotguns were the most prevalent, being used in about four in ten firearm homicides.

With 33 fatal shootings, Vancouver reported the highest rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 population among the largest 10 CMAs, followed by Toronto (Table 5).

In 2009, 80% of gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm, compared to 16% of homicides that did not involve gangs. Among all gang-related homicides that were committed with a firearm in 2009, handguns were used in 70% of incidents.

31% of all homicides, and substantially higher percentages of non-gang-related and non-urban homicides, are not "about as non-existent" as anything.

To know this, all you had to do was what I did: google homicide canada 2009.

[cleanhippie]

37. Worm my way out of what?

I'm not IN anything.

[iverglas]

39. funny

When people butt in, that's usually where they end up: in.

In your case, I guess it's your foot that was in, your mouth. Still seems to be.

[cleanhippie]

48. Well, it would appear that you know much about it.

Butting in, that is. And perhaps guessing is not your strong suit, it may lead to the conclusion that your head is in there, your butt. Conclusion is strong, too.

[WatsonT]

52. So hand guns are responsible for most gun crime

and that proves that in fact rifles are responsible for most gun crime? And the best showing you can get is 4/10ths in certain areas which, let me check my math, amounts to a minority?

Do you wonder why you get called out on your stats and conclusions so frequently?

[iverglas]

53. how often do you get called out on your falsehoods?

Around here, not nearly enough, I'd say.


that proves that in fact rifles are responsible for most gun crime?

No. It doesn't. No one said it did. Why are you "asking" me this?


I was responding to this:

I'm guessing rifle crime in Canada is about as non-existent as it is in the United States.

The guess is a bad one.

Four out of 10 homicides alone is not "non-existent".

No one said it was a majority.


Do you wonder why you get called out on your stats and conclusions so frequently?

Not at all, not ever.

For the simple reason that it never happens.

However, I do quite frequently face people making 100% false statements about things I have said.

[WatsonT]

58. See here's where you kind of lie:

"Four out of 10 homicides alone is not "non-existent"."

It's not 4 out of 10. It's 4 out of ten IN CERTAIN RURAL AREAS WHICH DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE MAJORITY OF MURDERS IN CANADA!

If the majority of murders in one trailer park were committed by waffle irons would I be justified in saying that the majority of murders are committed by waffle irons when discussing national murder rates?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WatsonT]

63. So you are now stating that rifles account for only a tiny amount of the total

firearm related deaths in Canada?

[WatsonT]

64. No doubt in some regions moose attacks are the leading cause of death

if someone were to point out that moose related fatalities are "almost nonexistant" and as such are not a major concern would I be justified in pointing out that "nu uh, in this one area they are really common so clearly it is a major problem"?

You see why you're coming off as silly?

Keep an eye out for those moose though, I hear yall don't even try to license them.

[iverglas]

67. if you say it, it must be true

The only place I, personally, ever came close to death by moose was in Maine.

If you can find an instance of a fatal moose attack in Canada, you will let me know.

Maybe one of these fell over?

http://www.toronto.ca/moose/home.htm



You see why you're coming off as having no regard for the truth?

[WatsonT]

70. haha

yes because clearly my argument was now that moose are actually the greatest threat we face. You don't *get* analogies do you?

[cleanhippie]

79. Oh, she "gets" them, she just picks and chooses when and why.

Then uses them to suit her agenda.

[cleanhippie]

78. The projection is strong in this one.

[cleanhippie]

76. Wait. 4 out of 10 homicides in Canada are from long guns?

[iverglas]

77. Stop. Turn around. Go back.

You are in serious danger of going off the rails and injuring yourself.

[cleanhippie]

81. Sweetie, you derailed this train long, long ago.

[iverglas]

80. OMG, I committed a mortal

typo. Sometimes happens when you type the same thing over and over, in the hope that someone will stop pretending it wasn't there or it meant something it didn't mean ...

"In non-CMA areas, rifles or shotguns were the most prevalent, being used in about four in ten firearm homicides."

As I have said over and over.

What can I ever do to redeem myself??

[cleanhippie]

82. Oh, it was a typo. Oh, well in that case....

[WatsonT]

50. I am increasingly convinced that a complete disdain for the entire field of statistics

is essential to holding this anti-gun view.

Not simply being bad at it, or poorly understanding it. But the very basic assumptions of statistics must infuriate you.

"a significant trend is whatever I say it is! Damn your facts. My friends uncles, next door neighbor was totally killed by a hand gun (or maybe it was a weed-whacker) last month so don't tell me crime is trending downward!!!!!"

[Straw Man]

75. Numbers.

I said I could NAME several tragic cases

I didn't say there WERE several tragic cases.

So you know of some and you surmise that there may have been a lot more, all of which means that... there were some.

In fact, long arms are responsible for most police shootings/killings in Canada, and I'm seeing a figure of 73% of police killings in the US in a recent year involving handguns, so likely not far off 1/4 by long arm.

A few factors to consider here: first, the tighter control of handguns in Canada would make long guns the de facto favored firearm of criminals. Second, police killings are a very small percentage of total homicides: 160 officers died in the line of duty in the US in 2010, and the leading cause of on-duty death of police continues to be traffic accidents. The number of officers shot and killed was 59. Even accepting your 1/4 figure (which, by the way, doesn't account for non-firearm killings), the number of police killed by long guns in the US in 2010 would be 15.

[iverglas]

84. so you have no regard for truth

So you know of some and you surmise that there may have been a lot more

No.

Want to buy another chance?


A few factors to consider here: first, the tighter control of handguns in Canada would make long guns the de facto favored firearm of criminals.

You actually haven't noticed me saying that, over and over?

Second, police killings are a very small percentage of total homicides: 160 officers died in the line of duty in the US in 2010, and the leading cause of on-duty death of police continues to be traffic accidents.

So ... what?

[Straw Man]

88. Oh, so we're playing silly games now...

So you know of some and you surmise that there may have been a lot more

No.

Want to buy another chance?

OK, I'll bite. By this...

I said I could NAME several tragic cases

I didn't say there WERE several tragic cases.

...you meant...

(a) that there were probably more than the ones you knew of;
(b) that there were probably fewer than the ones you knew of;
(c) that you don't know if there were more than the ones you know of

What is (a), Alex. If not, please explain what your point was. Or just keep flipping and flapping, which is probably more likely.

Second, police killings are a very small percentage of total homicides: 160 officers died in the line of duty in the US in 2010, and the leading cause of on-duty death of police continues to be traffic accidents.

So ... what?

So... it's odd that you would choose to focus on police killings to make the case that the number of long-gun killings is significant, since it is clearly a very small part of the overall picture.

[iverglas]

92. you blew that one

...you meant...

(a) that there were probably more than the ones you knew of;
(b) that there were probably fewer than the ones you knew of;
(c) that you don't know if there were more than the ones you know of

No.

You can try again, at the likely expense of what credibility you have left.


So... it's odd that you would choose to focus on police killings to make the case that the number of long-gun killings is significant, since it is clearly a very small part of the overall picture.

Not where I'm at. And not by the standards of anybody who gives a shit.

[Straw Man]

96. More evasion.

We can play this game forever. If you in fact had any point, make it. "That's not what I meant" is generally followed by clarification, unless you're just trying to dodge the question.

"Anybody who gives a shit"? Spare us the moral grandstanding. It's just another ploy.

[beevul]

95. Look, straw...

Look, straw, if you intend to catch whats thrown your way, you'll have to run in or out a bit faster:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774

Read the link and it will all become clear.

[iverglas]

97. no, LOADED QUESTION

When presented with a list of things and asked which I agree with / which is correct, if I agree with none of them / none of them is correct, I do not answer the question.

How could I???

[beevul]

99. Simple.

By saying "I agree with none of them / none of them is correct", rather than not answering the question.

:rofl:

[iverglas]

102. nope

One does not dignify a loaded question with any kind of response. I was being generous.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4049582&mesg_id=4049882

[beevul]

105. Hey, you asked and I answered.

Sorry you didn't like the answer.

Too much like throwing the ball right to someone, for your tastes, I suspect.



Your sense of being overly dignified is noted.

[iverglas]

108. what did you imagine

that "no" meant.

"Yes"?

[beevul]

110. Make up your mind.

"When presented with a list of things and asked which I agree with / which is correct, if I agree with none of them / none of them is correct, I do not answer the question. How could I ???" - iverglas

And then, in response to me replying "By saying "I agree with none of them / none of them is correct", rather than not answering the question"

You reply:


"what did you imagine that "no" meant. Yes"?


Make up your mind, whether you answer or don't, and let us all know, wont you?

[iverglas]

98. I'm going to give you a huge benefit of the doubt

although doing this is not very flattering to you, I'm afraid. It involves the assumption that you really, really don't understand simple things.


...you meant...

(a) that there were probably more than the ones you knew of;
(b) that there were probably fewer than the ones you knew of;
(c) that you don't know if there were more than the ones you know of

As I said: No. I did not mean ANY of those things. Your assertion that I meant one of them was false.

I meant that there ARE many more than the ones I could NAME offhand (which I then did).

Since I KNEW that, I didn't mean "probably" anything, let alone that I didn't know something that I did know.

And since, in the interim, I have presented the official statistics so that you too could know what I already knew, you do yourself no favours by behaving this way.

[Straw Man]

106. Nice rearguard action, but you're proving my point.

Since I KNEW that, I didn't mean "probably" anything, let alone that I didn't know something that I did know.

Are you actually quibbling over "probably"? I was being kind, since you hadn't presented any data, and your anecdotes were... how you say? ... anecdotal.

And since, in the interim, I have presented the official statistics so that you too could know what I already knew, you do yourself no favours by behaving this way.

Ah, "in the interim." So you scrambled to provide the evidence you failed to provide the first time around. Was it gauche of me to point that failure out? So sorry...

[iverglas]

107. was it gauche of you?

No. Maybe you don't know the meaning of that word, I dunno. But while it was several things of you to flatly misrepresent what I said and attribute meanings to me that no rational, sincere person would have inferred from what I said, "gauche" it wasn't.

So you scrambled to provide the evidence you failed to provide the first time around.

So you're still doing that: attributing meanings to me that no rational, sincere person would have inferred from what I said.

[Straw Man]

109. You provided your data after the fact.

Until you did so, it was merely anecdotal. That's what I pointed out, and what I continue to point out. Where is the misrepresentation?

[iverglas]

111. no you didn't

You made false statements about what I KNOW.

When I have an obligation to provide any proof of anything, I'll let you know.

[Straw Man]

112. I don't claim to know what you know.

I offered some hypotheticals. You've had ample opportunity to explain yourself, but you'd rather play evasive games. Apparently, this is called "sincerity" north of the border.

No, you have no obligation to provide proof of anything. But there's that pesky little thing called "credibility." Relying on anecdotal evidence isn't the best way to establish it. You know that -- that's why, when challenged, you went after the data.

You're welcome.

[iverglas]

116. my credibility is just fine, ta

The credibility of people who take up the cause of someone who made an incorrect statement and pretend that someone else is obligated to refute it, playing stupid games as they go along ... well, you know.

[Straw Man]

120. As is mine, thanks.

How can that be?

Oh, I see -- you weren't talking about me, you were talking about... people.

[TheWraith]

22. And I can name several tragic cases of people killed by bears.

That doesn't mean that bear-on-human violence is an epidemic, or even that it's statistically significant in any way. Anecdotes are not data. But since all the scientific data proves you wrong, I'm not surprised that you'd prefer to move the goalposts.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Think how much worse it would be if they armed bears!

I kid, I kid.

[iverglas]

25. but ... isn't that in your constitution somewhere??

What, you thought I wasn't going to say it?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. I thought I already said it.

:D

[TheWraith]

27. I have a t-shirt that someone gave me as a gift.

"I support the right to keep and arm bears."

[WatsonT]

65. Why is this the first I'm hearing of this bear murder epidemic?!?!?!?

Do they have to be licensed? What about child safety locks?

My gawd, what about the children?


I bet the NBA* is behind this.

*national bear association, although the basketball one may be in on this as well, they're both GOP puppet groups.

[one-eyed fat man]

31. Fondness for pseudo-AK47 thingies

goes along with the fondness for Glocks among the same crowd.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/w/wu+tang+clan/the+glock_20147410.html|Wu-tang Clan "good thing we brought the glock" Lyrics

It is stylish. Like spinner hubcaps, grills, pants hanging down.

As I See It by Cynthia Tucker

[iverglas]

33. whew

You didn't even leave any lines to read between there, did you?

[one-eyed fat man]

40. "Thug" culture

Maybe it is a problem when millionaire athletes feel they need to adopt the "thug" persona when they go out clubbing. College degree, and a Glock stuffed into the waistband of his designer sweatpants

Maybe it's a problem when kids in an affluent suburb write an article in the school paper that disturbs folks enough to commission a study. They got their study and don't like it much. Maybe it is a problem when the children of successful professionals do not see their parents as role models but aspire to be gangstas.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/rich-black-flunking/Content?oid=1070459&showFullText=true

Maybe Bill Cosby was right when he ruffled all those feathers at the NAACP's banquet.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/7681419/ns/today-books/

The hip-hop world’s celebration of savage violence, educational failure and misogyny by gangsta rap has not merely reflected behavior but has also inspired it, much of it lawless and destructive. Its lyrics are paeans to murder and mayhem. It celebrates an outlaw culture that disrespects women, mocks middle-class values and celebrates black men as fathers in absentia, completely divorced from the lives of their children, providing neither material support nor moral guidance.

If it is better to be an outlaw than to be a teacher or a chemist or accountant, then young black men will continue to go to prison in record numbers. If you want to ruin a nation, a society or an ethnic group, persuade its members that the highest form of achievement lies in criminality.

So you want lines to read between? Is gangsta rap art imitating life, or is life imitating gangsta rap? Or is it all unrelated and the little gangtsa wanna be's will outgrow it if they don't kill each other first?

[TPaine7]

42. There is plenty of blame to go around,

but it is central to black culture to adapt, to make lemonade. We improvise and make do. But we make do with style--enough style to make people who have looked down their noses at us for centuries jealous--to make the grandchildren of the most virulent racists wish they were born black.

I never was a child in the ghetto with the knowledge that society in general didn't care enough to provide police protection as I walked to school, fearful of being shot in crossfire. I do recall watching a child on TV, discussing police presence after some dramatic crime. As best I can paraphrase from memory, he said "they'll be gone in a couple of weeks."

He was about 7 to 10 years old, handsome, very intelligent, and already jaded.

When I put myself in his shoes, I can understand him becoming a gang leader, a criminal mastermind, a drug lord. If he can break free and become a gangsta rapper, he's doing well. Not many boys of any race, with systematically broken families, decimated culture, emasculated male figures, and no prospects for the future would become model citizens.

I do not mean to excuse the glorification of thug mentality. I do not mean to excuse any criminality. But I do understand it. We, all of us middle class folk who care too little for that boy and others like him, bear blame. Sure, we have pristine criminal histories. Sure we don't steal, rape, pimp, and terrorize innocent folks. But we have never had to chose between being a bad ass with a solid street rep and having our family members beaten, raped tortured or killed. We have not had society tell us, systematically, during the formative years of our lives, that our protection meant nothing. We haven't had near adolescent police officers bully and mock us at gunpoint for sport or torture confessions out of us for investigative convenience.

We shouldn't pat ourselves on the back too hard because we haven't decided to glorify thug culture.

PS: Please understand that I don't mean to "call you out" or hold you up as an uncaring person. Note the use of the word "we." I blame society--in part--for the situation. I also agree with the truth that Bill Cosby stated; thugs are also to blame. Especially the people who freely and without coercion CHOOSE thuggery. But there's plenty of blame to go around. I blame us all (or at least the vast majority of us).

PPS: For all I know, you may be in the tiny, tiny, relatively blameless minority.

[one-eyed fat man]

45. All I have are questions

First, from a historic perspective it was not always so. When you look back to the "Great Society" I think the seeds for the destruction of the black family were sown there. I was a young soldier and I got a part time job painting houses to pick up a little extra cash. One of my co-workers was talking at lunch about he hoped he could sneak home and see his wife and kids. This floored me, I had to ask, why would you have to sneak home?

Quick and dirty, the explanation was simple, his wife got welfare. If there was a man in the house, back in those quaint days, and he had a job, he was expected to support his family and no welfare money. So the welfare folks were always checking to see if there was a man around so they could quit paying. Not to put to fine a point on it, there was monetary incentive to removing black men from a "traditional" role of breadwinner and head of household.

Yes, its a simplification, and the programs and policies were all started with the best of intentions but it incentivized absentee fathers to the point of random sperm donors. That pretty much ensures a lack of positive male role models for boys and improves the odds they will grow into being lousy role models as well.

You bring up the example of the kid in the ghetto. The problem is he's not the only one. Back again to the firestorm that was launched by the students writing an article for their high school paper in Shaker Heights. The kids looked at the disparity in performance between blacks and whites in their affluent suburban high school in 1995 and the shocker was a 2.5 grade point split between back and white.

This is the offspring of successful doctors, lawyers, professionals in every field, college presidents, corporate executives. This is a peer group that is as far removed from the desperation of the urban ghetto as they are from Bangladesh. Yet when questioned about academic achievement, it is looked down on as "acting white!" The kid is driving a new BMW, his father is a senior researcher at NASA's Lewis Research Center, his mother is a endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic but he's running around Shaker Mall in 300 dollar Nikes, sporting colors, and talking like a minor character in Grand Theft Auto for social acceptance.

I just have to wonder if the glorification of thugs by the culture is part of the problem. If that rich black kid sees more social acceptance in boosting cars than getting into a good college, there is big trouble in River City. Especially when it goes beyond just talking bad to being bad.

I'll be seventy next summer and I am inclined to agree with Cosby, people did not have rocks thrown at them, suffer attacks by dogs, the nightsticks and axe-handles of "Bull" Connors or Lester Maddox for this. Maybe it's my age, but it is hard to be optimistic.

[RSillsbee]

44. If it is extremely difficult to get handguns legally

I bet the criminals don't have any problem

[iverglas]

47. you'd be quite wrong

Organized crime / gangs do have easier access, through smuggling. But as the number of thefts, especially of "collections", indicates, they have to work at it.

Street-level criminals simply do not have firearms. The last time someone used a weapon to try to hold up my local 7-11, it was a pocket knife of the nail-clipper kind. I have no knowledge of any gun crime in my city or neighbourhood other than the occasional, and I mean occasional (I remember the ones about 20 years ago), organized-crime/gang-related in-fighting.

(Oh, and I live in a "bad" neighbourhood, improving now but known for years for its drug and prostitution problems.)

[cleanhippie]

51. Again with the anecdote, as if it disproves the point being made.

I just watched a PBS show about Punjabi gang crime in Surrey, and the ability to obtain a gun seemed to be much easier than you think it is. And that was one city. Gang crime with guns is at what many in your country consider to be epidemic proportions, especially in the greater Vancouver area. Does that mean your strict gun laws are to blame? No. But it does mean that when it comes to handguns, its mostly the criminals that have them and are carrying them around. Statistics Canada has some new info on gun crime, but it would seem I have to pay for it to view it.

[iverglas]

54. lord fucking jayzus

I SAID:

Organized crime / gangs do have easier access, through smuggling.

and you reply with:

I just watched a PBS show about Punjabi gang crime in Surrey, and the ability to obtain a gun seemed to be much easier than you think it is.

and you think you've accomplished something???


Gang crime with guns is at what many in your country consider to be epidemic proportions

Just goes to show how little of it there is, doesn't it, when what would pass for a very slow day where you are is regarded as an "epidemic" here.


But it does mean that when it comes to handguns, its mostly the criminals that have them and are carrying them around.

What it means is that a relatively small number of highly-organized criminals have handguns and in fact do not make a practice of carrying them around at all.

"The criminals" do not have handguns. Specific criminals, involved in specific organizations and activities, have some handguns.

In nearly 30 years in a low-income neighbourhood in a large city, with a high percentage of the population from one of the immigrant ethnic groups associated with certain gang activity that does occur here, and a whole lot of homegrown drug dealers, drug users, prostitutes and pimps and their assorted customers, I have never seen or heard a firearm, let alone a handgun. I can think of two instances of the use of firearms -- one an invasion of an Italian restaurant (the former dominant ethnic group in this area) and one an invasion of a Vietnamese restaurant (one of the current heavily represented ethnic groups in this area). That would be, like, once 20 years ago and once 5 years ago, more or less.

I have known one person in my entire life who was a victim of firearm violence -- a client who was shot and killed about 25 years ago by her sister's husband, a gang affiliated drug dealer with a handgun. I know of one other person who died by firearm, the 13-yr-old son of a former partner of mine, a small-town hunter, who killed himself with his father's rifle under the influence of serious depression about a disability.

The ongoing efforts of gun militants in places like this to portray Canada as a country awash in handguns and gun crime continue to be laughable.

If the US had had the same rate of firearm/handgun homicide as Canada in 2009, it would have had roughly 1,000 handgun homicides and a total of roughly 1,600 firearm homicides. Instead, it had about TEN TIMES that number of firearm homicides.

Laugh, or cry, eh?

[cleanhippie]

62. Sweet krishna on a crutch

What I am noticing is that you have the uncanny ability to either miss the point and/or misconstrue what a person has said (whether intentionally or not is highly debatable).

While my communication skills always have room for improvement, what appears to be a smug sense of superiority and sanctimonious attitude coming from you is being highly overused and if it were checked at the door, these conversations just might be more fruitful. Thats my take, YMMV.

[WatsonT]

49. haha

"why not do your research first I can name you several tragic cases of people killed with long arms."

Yes the fact that you can name several cases clearly disproves his claim that rifles have never ever, not even once, never, absolutely never, been used to commit a crime.

Except for the fact that he said it was very rare, not non-existent.

The fact that you can only name "several" supports that claim.

[iverglas]

55. I'm sure you can copy and paste

What was said was "about as non-existent as" in the US.

I have proved that homicide by long arm in Canada is very far from about as non-existent as ANYTHING.

But hey, you keep pretending.


The fact that I can only name "several" is because FIREARMS HOMICIDE ITSELF is such a rarity in Canada.

In 2009, in a country of 33+ million: 179 FIREARMS HOMICIDES. Do you grasp at all how rare this is? It is TEN TIMES RARER than in the US.

The fact remains that OF THOSE HOMICIDES, in non-metropolitan areas, four in 10 were committed by long arm, and overall about 1/4 were committed by long arm.


I apologize for not knowing the names of all the victims.

[WatsonT]

59. "about as" does not equal "the same as"

So about as nonexistant doesn't mean it is nonexistant.

If I were to say your arguments were about as factual as the a fairy tale that wouldn't mean they are the same, merely close.

"The fact remains that OF THOSE HOMICIDES, in non-metropolitan areas, four in 10 were committed by long arm, and overall about 1/4 were committed by long arm."

So what does that tell you when a minority of a minority are committed by rifles?

While by anti-gun logic a minority of a minority is a majority if it suits the argument.


Also in a country of 33+ million about 45 murders (if we're to believe your stats) amounts to basically non-existant.

Tragic no doubt for those who were murdered. But statistically insignificant.

[iverglas]

66. do you really have this big a problem with the English language?

If something is "about as non-existent" as something that is non-existent, it is non-existent.

If you are about as pregnant as someone else, are you pregnant or not? Depends on whether that person is pregnant, not on how pregnant she is.

The person I replied to said something quite dumb, and not especially meaningful. Long arm homicides are not non-existent in the US, but for some reason it seemed wise to that person to use that term in stating that dumb "guess". Not my choice.

If we replace it with "rare", the "guess" is still WRONG. A statement to that effect would be FALSE.

Long arm homicides are NOT rare in Canada, relative to handgun homicides or total homicides. Period.


Also in a country of 33+ million about 45 murders (if we're to believe your stats) amounts to basically non-existant.

Now get a grip.

If you look at the SOURCE of the statistics, WHICH I GAVE YOU, you will see that the TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMICIDES in Canada in 2009 was 610.

The fact that there were 15,000 homicides in the US that year -- not far of 3 TIMES the Canadian homicide rate -- has nothing to do with statistics or rates or characterizations thereof in Canada.

Nearly 1 in 13 homicides in Canada are committed by long arm.

They are also disproportionately the murders of peace officers.

You think what you like about the murders of people and police in your country.

I'll do the same, and I will not be thinking that they are negligible.


While by anti-gun logic a minority of a minority is a majority if it suits the argument.

No, but by gun militant morality, it's acceptable behaviour to say that, I guess.



html fixed

[WatsonT]

69. If we're to believe your stats:

1/13 * 610 = about 46. That is pretty rare for a country that populous. Almost non-existant even.

Also, what is your objective standard for rare? It seems to be zero, but that isn't the proper definition so I'm curious what version of the language you're using.

[iverglas]

73. you don't have to believe them; feel free to eat them

[gejohnston]

87. gun deaths, knife deaths, just as tragic

and a stupid distraction to boot. It seems like you antis only care if someone is shot of if someone is stabbed or blown up by a bomb, it is a non issue. Most of our gun deaths are suicides. We have more gun suicides than Canada or Japan. Canada and Japan both have higher suicide rates.

[rl6214]

89. 179 FIREARMS HOMICIDES.

That's because everyone is frozen up there.

:rofl:

[onehandle]

56. Conservatives are AWESOME!

If only teabaggers could take our Presidency.

Sigh.

[cleanhippie]

86. Thats some really strange desires you have there.

sigh, indeed.

[iverglas]

57. long arms and dead cops

... and spousal violence ...

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/777593

The tiny town of Sundridge is reeling at the news that a "very friendly" and "easygoing" 70-year-old former politician is the prime suspect in the shooting death of an OPP <Ontario Provincial Police> officer near Wingham, Ont.

Police said Pham was shot after pulling over a pickup truck on the North Line, a lonely rural stretch of road near Wingham, which is about 100 kilometres north of London. He was hit as soon as he got out of his cruiser. "Vu didn't have a chance," the OPP source said.

Preston's neighbour said the retired reeve had a passion for hunting moose and deer and was a notoriously accurate marksman.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/suspect-named-in-death-of-opp-officer/article1494811/print/

The provincial police officer allegedly shot and fatally wounded by a 70-year-old man in rural southwestern Ontario Monday had responded to a domestic trouble call from the home of the man’s estranged wife, police sources say.

The suspect in the confrontation was named this afternoon by the Special Investigations Unit as Fred Preston, 70, of Burk’s Falls in northern Ontario.

... Shortly before the gunfire erupted, Mr. Preston had showed up at the home of his ex-wife armed with a rifle, one of the sources said.

Responding to a 911 call, Ontario Provincial Police Constable Vu Pham was killed after pulling over Mr. Preston’s pickup truck as it drove away. Mr. Preston got out of his truck, took the rifle from the back and opened fire, a source said.

That's one law-abidin' gun owner.


These ones survived:

http://news.ca.msn.com/local/north/nunavut-men-face-jail-time-for-firing-at-mounties - April 2011

Two young men in Nunavut will be sentenced next month for shooting at RCMP officers with rifles in two separate incidents.

Benjamin Malliki and Levi Nowdlak appeared in separate sentencing hearings in an Iqaluit courtroom on Thursday. Both have pleaded guilty to charges stemming from incidents that took place within the past two years.

Malliki pleaded guilty to one count of discharging a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm, along with one count of possessing a firearm while under an order not to handle one, in connection with an armed standoff on Sept. 28, 2010, in Repulse Bay, Nunavut.

... At the time, Malliki was distraught because of a breakup with his girlfriend, defence lawyer Andrew Mahar told the court on Thursday.

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110325/edm_bicknell_110325/20110325/?hub=EdmontonHome - March 2011

Convicted murderer William Bicknell is facing more charges Friday. Police have released new images of weapons and ammunition they seized from Bicknell's vehicle following a shootout with police near Sexsmith, Alta. last weekend.

"These are all high powered weapons, rifles, shotguns," said Chief Superintendent Marianne Ryan, criminal operations officer of "K" Division RCMP.

... Police say one of the guns allegedly used by Bicknell shot out the window of a police vehicle. RCMP say that's when one of their members was struck in the head. Mounties aren't sure if the officer was hit by a bullet or broken glass, but he is now recovering.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/null-40695607.html - March 2009

SASKATOON - A firearms expert says a rifle belonging to a man charged with fatally shooting two Mounties and injuring a third was discharged eight times.

Dean Dahlstrom, a civilian member of the RCMP, testified Tuesday at the first-degree murder trial of Curt Dagenais, 44.

... All three officers had been involved in a high-speed chase in July 2006, trying to arrest Dagenais for allegedly assaulting a family member in the town of Spiritwood, Sask.

Cops here are shot by long arm, in rural areas/the west (the heartlands of Conservative Party support), in situations having nothing to do with organized crime/gangs and a lot to do with spousal abuse and other family disputes among regular folks.

[RSillsbee]

61. Aparently Canada's Long gun registry has been repealed before

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SFlQncMbYE&feature=relmfu

Canadian RKBA activist discusses Canada's gun registry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-w8SYHjz2U&feature=relmfu

Canadian Cop doesn't care for Canada's Firearms registry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoCQ8sXduAk&feature=related

Canadian Gun registry stats aren't quite what they seem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6Ii6qmEyM&feature=related
Apparently not all Canadians agree w/ Iverglas

[iverglas]

68. you know those executive order things Democrats in the US love so much?

That's how we have got several years of "amnesty" for long arm owners not having to register their weapons.

Funny how the right wing operates so similarly in different places, ain't it?

My speakers aren't connected so I can't benefit from the wit and wisdom of your youtube heroes just now.


Of course not all Canadians agree with me. Who imagined they did?

40% are the bastards who voted this scum government into office the other day.

[oneshooter]

71. Why should we give a care about the politics in Canukland? n/t

[iverglas]

72. ASK THE PERSON WHO STARTED THE FUCKING THREAD

for fuck's sake.

[RSillsbee]

74. How are Democrats the "right wing"

you know those executive order things Democrats in the US love so much?

Funny how the right wing operates so similarly in different places, ain't it?

I'm am pretty sure my youtube hero is conservative (hey we all have faults) but when it comes to RKBA she's pretty progressive as far as putting the choice in the hands of the citizenry and trusting them to make the right decision.

She's also (apparently) out for blood because they arrested her daddy right in front of her and threw him in the Candian joint.

Of course not all Canadians agree with me. Who imagined they did?

That part was a joke.

[iverglas]

83. executive orders

They were the Bush's chosen method of governing, were they not? So when I referred to Democrats loving them, I would have been being sarcastic. Democrats hated them.

Harper has used the equivalent, an order-in-council made by Cabinet, i.e. by the Conservative Party, to grant amnesty year by year to long arms owners who do not register their firearms as required to do by actual law. No vote in Parliament. No committee hearings. Just the stroke of a pen. Just like Bush.

Omg. You haven't posted a youtube link to the sad exploited 14-yr-old kid, have you? I must look after all.

[RSillsbee]

90. She's a hot exploited 19 year old university student now

To be fair she isn't responsible for the trash people post on her youtube site and to be fair you could post a picture of a 6 YO and someone would say " I want to fuck that!!!! LOLZ".

[iverglas]

93. ah, to be fair

The tags on her videos are put there by the person who posted them, I believe -- in at least the first instances, by her father.

blonde, hottie, and whatever the third one was.

Her father is a twisted piece of shit, from every direction. And he has devoted his life to twisting her.

[RSillsbee]

101. If her father is putting her out as "Blondie" or "Hottie"

Then you are 100% correct he's a piece of shit. (My moral values state that)you don't use terms like that to describe your child (or any minor).

But that doesn't take away from the fact that Canada's gun registry appears to be a rather expensive flop. Truth is truht regardless of who tells it

[iverglas]

103. it's those stopped clocks again

This time, the clock stopped on a piece of shit. Surprise!


But that doesn't take away from the fact that Canada's gun registry appears to be a rather expensive flop.

And a video by a 14-yr-old on youtube doesn't lend an iota of weight to that claim.

Truth is truht regardless of who tells it

And bullshit isn't truth.

[RSillsbee]

113. Are her claims true?

Have less than 50% of Canadians complied? IMO that right there would make it a flop.

[iverglas]

117. if she claims that

it is utter and total bullshit.

A simple google will help you. I recommend using google.ca and selecting "pages from canada" in the search results to proceed.

Then disregarding the flood of lying right-wing crap from sites with names like lufa and breitkreutz.


... Bah, I'm not finding any facts, there's just too much of that shit in the way. I probably have something bookmarked, but it's late Friday evening and I'm going to be off to watch The Royal. Hahaha. It's a soap drama about a hospital in England in the late 60s, where, of course, no one paid a penny for treatment.

[iverglas]

85. oh no, you really did do it

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SFlQncMbYE&feature=relmfu
Canadian RKBA activist discusses Canada's gun registry"


Sad and sick, I'm afraid. Please read this thread from July 2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x176590

(you can skip over the discussion of the severed feet)

This exploited child has never had a life outside her neo-Nazi father's obsession with guns.

She is apparently now mixed up with Oleg Volk. Seems like an arranged marriage made in hell.

To participate in this exploitation is just not decent.


http://scc.lexum.org/en/news_release/2010/10-09-13.2a/10-09-13.2a.html

William Bruce Montague is a firearms dealer and manufacturer. He allowed his firearms licence to expire in November 2002 without renewal. His Firearms Acquisition Certificate expired in November 2003. His wife, Donna Jeanne Montague’s firearms licence expired without renewal in March 2004. In September, 2004, acting on the authority of two search warrants, the police seized more than 200 firearms and related devices, together with in excess of 20,000 rounds of ammunition and boxes of military-related books and associated paraphernalia from the Montagues’ home. Many of these weapons were discovered in a hidden storage room in the basement of the house. The evidence at trial established that Mr. Montague believed himself to be preparing to defend himself, and others, in the event of a war. Mr. Montague was charged with various firearms-related offences under the Criminal Code on a 53-count indictment. Mrs. Montague was charged with one count of unlicensed possession of a firearm.

Mr. Montague was convicted of 26 firearms-related offences. Mrs. Montague was convicted of one count of unlicensed possession of a firearm. Mr. Montague was sentenced to a global sentence of 18 months’ incarceration, followed by 90 days imprisonment to be served in the community, plus probation for one year. A lifetime weapons prohibition order was also made. Mrs. Montague received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for six months. The Montagues both appealed against conviction and Mr. Montague appealed as well against sentence. Their appeals were dismissed however it was ordered that the issue of forfeiture was to be addressed by the trial judge.

It's virtually impossible to find any info on line about this bozo other than what's posted by him and his friends and at websites I would not link to here.

Apparently their property was subject to forfeiture. I have been completely unable to determine the cause of that.


This man is unspeakable, and what he has done to his daughter is the same.

[RSillsbee]

91. I know Oleg Volk

And he and Katey are not working together due to scheduling conflicts. I don't know her although I have corresponded w/ her but I get the distinct impression that she's in this on her own.

[iverglas]

94. Oleg Volk knows me

I saw a reference to their plans to work together. I'm sure they'll manage it sometime.

Any reinforcement of this woman's current ideas/activities is complicity in the abuse perpetrated by her father.

[RSillsbee]

100. She's an adult what ever she does is her choice now.

Oleg told me a while back that they couldn't work out the scheduling conflicts. It sounded like it just wasn't going to happen.

[iverglas]

104. yeah, everybody has choice

People who have been brainwashed and exploited since early childhood suddenly, magically, become autonomous agents upon reaching the age of 18 (which she barely has).

That's why children forced into prostitution go back to school when they turn 18, stop using drugs, and become doctors.


If one's case depends on it being argued by right-wing pieces of shit and exploited children, one just might want to re-examine one's case, I always say.

[gejohnston]

115. outside of the gun issue

what does she say that is right wing? We agree on the NRA leadership, but what about the NFA leadership or members? What evidence do you have that they are to the right of Harper?

[iverglas]

118. I'd love to help

but I don't have a couple of weeks spare to deliver a course on Canadian politics. I say very sincerely.

Nobody in Canada has ever heard of the NFA, for starters. Seriously.

Google them and see what their politics are. I don't know that I'd say to the right of Harper. That would be kind of hard to do and still be on this part of the continent. Check out Gary Breitkreutz and LUFA as well.

I don't really need to offer evidence of anything having to do with Canadian politics, I would just note. People who choose to discuss a subject need to take responsibility for acquiring the minimum knowledge that it takes to discuss it meaningfully. The evidence that, for example, Stephen Harper is hard right-wing (taking into consideration that this is Canada), is all over the internet.

Fast google, second result:

http://mostlywater.org/node/3797

Opinion piece, but full of facts and pretty much sums it up.

[gejohnston]

114. first, who is Oleg Volk?

and how is Katy's views on guns or anything else a form of abuse? Are you saying I was abused because I learned shooting as a kid?

[iverglas]

119. hahahaha

on two counts.


On the first, who is Oleg Volk? -- google

iverglas "oleg volk"


On the second, how is Katy's views on guns or anything else a form of abuse? -- I wouldn't know, since I didn't say they were, and it wouldn't have made any sense if I did.

I believe I've linked to a lengthy discussion of the family in question and its neo-Nazi connections from a couple of years back. I recommend reading it. Which is why I linked to it.


Are you saying I was abused because I learned shooting as a kid?

Are you saying that I'm a complete idiot?