Finally, I agree with you on

Finally, I agree with you on something. The registration requirements for all firearms make absolute sense.

Both for the sake of ensuring firearms are properly accounted for, but also to make it more difficult to acquire firearms without a license. In absence of a registry, second hand firearms become extremely easy to get ahold of whether or not someone has a license.

There are some issues with the firearms act that need ironing out, such as what happens if a gun license lapses and perhaps easier exemptions for antique firearms, but keeping track of where firearms go is a necessary process.

Actually, the police do not like it.

Mr. Tieleman might want to extend his thinking beyond the worn-out misstatements used over and over again by the gun-ban movement.

The writer refers to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, headed, coincidentally, by Chief Bill Blair, Toronto Police Service. The CACP, a political lobby group, has received tens of thousands of dollars from the company that administers the gun registry software. The CACP has close ties with the well-funded Coalition for Gun Control, which is working toward the confiscation of all guns. Moreover, Blair's boss is David Miller, the hysterical gun-hater who, because his police chief cannot control the few-hundred gang members sociopathic enough to shoot somebody, bullied the legal Toronto gun ranges, perfectly safe for several decades, into closing.

In fact, in the most recent cross-Canada poll, completed this month, thousands of front-line police officers voted over 90% to scrap the registry . These officers know that relying on the mistake-ridden gun registry can be deadly. The criminal on the other side of the door did not register his gun.

Domestic homocides? Hands, knives and bats are the weapons of choice in these crimes. Domestic homicides by gun are a tiny proportion--and that proportion began to drop years before the gun registry began. The registry has nothing to do with declining long gun violence. Handgun violence has increased in our cities, and handguns have been registered since 1934. (As a frequent traveller south of the border, it distresses me to see how American women can protect themselves legally against stronger attackers, while disarmed Canadian women must resign themselves to being good little victims.)

Moreover, Mr. Tieleman, either on purpose or through misinformation, confuses gun registration with user licencing. Gun owners will still have be licenced: this means RCMP, spousal, employment, reference and financial checks, plus daily CPIC cross checks. It is this licencing system which encourages storage safety and monitors owners. The registry does none of this.

The writer ends his piece with a "scare quote" by the President of the CACP lobby group. With front-line officers rejecting the usefulness of the registry by over ten to one, it's impossible to fathom exactly what "peril" Mr. Blair refers to, and exactly who is the "we".

Disagree

Well Bill we certainly disagree on this one. V65Fan pretty much covered what I wanted to say. But I will add, and please correct me if I'm wrong, a Private Members Bill is a free vote. And I for one am completely in favor of all bills being free votes. We elect members to serve us, not big business or police chiefs.
The supporters of the registry say that it will not be used in cases where there is no violence yet time and again I hear it being used in traffic stops. And what about the guy on Vancouver Island whose grown son shot a dog. He was registered and they put him through hell for his grown sons gross indiscretion.
No Bill, big brother has gone to far in the long gun registry. IMHO.

Do ALL Police Find It A Good Thing

Tell me, if you were a cop called to a house where a disturbance was called in, and after checking the registry found no guns registered at this address; would you relax your guard?
If there were long guns registered, would you respond with greater force or caution?
It is only law abiding folks who will register their weapons, those bad guys aren't much for keeping their guns in a gun safe either.

Nowhere in Mr. Tielman's

Nowhere in Mr. Tielman's nonsensical, anti-democratic bleating has he offered any evidence that the gun registry has prevented or solved a single crime.

He then tries the rural-urban divide.

I live in a city. I hunt and target shoot.

We're here. We're armed. Get used to it.

I'm no gun lover, don't

I'm no gun lover, don't hunt, but as a rancher have to have some, duly registered, to control predators. Even then I mostly use a gun to make noise and scare them away.

A very large percentage, probably half, of long guns remains unregistered, making registration useless.

How many registered guns, especially long guns have been used in crimes ? How many crimes are being committed with long guns?

The legal acquisition of guns has been under strict
permits for a long time, and the present registration has nothing to do with it.

So, what is the point in having the registration, except to fill the needs of some emotional hysteria ?

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Time to trot out the time worn example.........

..........of the Nazis using the compulsory gun registry in Norway when they invaded that nation, to confiscate private weapons.

In essence, the federal government (and espcially the Liberals as they have been in power most often) does not trust the citizenry of this country, and the Long Gun Registry was designed primarily to disarm the general populace, in the event of bebellion. What they didn't take into account is that the world is awash in weapons far more deadly than hunting rifles.

That registration of long guns may have contributed to reductions of marital fatalities only goes to show that most city dwellers (where most offences occur) shouldn't be allowed ownerhsip of these weapons in the first place. They can do their "hunting" at the grocery store.

Bill's prosyletizing again...

It certainly isn't journalism. If it was journalism, there would be balance, and more importantly, facts to support it.

Most Canadians want it? References please?

"The elimination of Canada's national firearms licensing and registration system for rifles and shotguns will make Canada less safe."

For this to be true, evidence would be needed to show the registry has made us safer. References please?

Once again Mr. Tieleman combines his opinion with other's opinions, along with a disturbing lack of facts, to support a feel-good program of little to no benefit.

The same $2 billion dollars spent on MRI machines would have saved at least one life, abnd likely thousands, which is more than the registry has shown capable of.

jwstewart - Bill is correct

(An) Ipsos Reid survey (published in 2006), ... indicates two out of three Canadians believe the government should revamp the gun registry - not eliminate it.

''There's nothing ambiguous about this,'' said John Wright, senior vice-president at Ipsos Reid.

''The concept of a gun registry has taken root across the country. There's a majority, 67 per cent, that's not a small majority, who believe that Stephen Harper shouldn't be doing away with gun registries.''

The poll of 1,001 Canadians was conducted May 9 to May 11, with a 3.1 percentage point margin of error, 19 times out of 20.

The suggestion that the idea of keeping the gun registry is 'not democratic' is pure sophistry.

In fact, a lot more Canadians support a continued gun registry than support the Harper government.

What a surprise!

little people need big guns

I detect a bit of the wild west attitude here, perhaps mostly by people who are lucky enough to live in remote areas.
However, most people live in close quarters and by necessity have to make accomodations in the interest of public safety.
For instance I am not happy about security cameras everywhere, but realize that they may do some good, and since I have nothing to hide it is not big problem for me.
Likewise a gunowner should be happy that he is free to engage in his hobby and not have to account for every shot fired!
To register is not a chore, so the objections are based on ideology like the idea that we are free to do as we please.
This is not the wild west gentlemen!
We live in a civilized society and we all need to try to fit in.
No doubt the legislation was flawed, but the concept is realistic, just as the requirement to be responsible if you drive a car or have reason to store explosives.

For The Sake of Appearances...

"If Long Gun Registry Is So Dumb, Why Do Police Like It?"

Duhhh. Because they want the people disarmed, or their accessibility to arms severely restricted/controlled? Duhhhh. They want themselves and the other forces of the State to be the only one's with arms, in the increasingly fragile New Capitalist World Order?

Once the limited number of "long guns" are all registered, then the only ones with access to unregistered firearms of all types, will be cops, the forces of the State, oh, and criminals and wackos?.

Again, it's not rocket science.

More than a "long gun" registry is needed a changed, less hostile attitude on the part of "some" males, toward women, and a society of more truly equal opportunity for ALL men and women. (Ending the class system.) Which is going to be a lot harder to get at, I know, than making The State look like it is doing something when it is not. (Which is what passes for "politics" in our society.)

democracy

"There's a majority, 67 per cent, that's not a small majority, who believe that Stephen Harper shouldn't be doing away with gun registries.''

Are these folks, the 50% that didn't vote in the last provincial election, the 85% that skip municipal elections, or the 25% that elected the Gordo and now wish they didn't.

At least they had lots of time and publicity to considered their ill informed nay stupid decisions.

The average dumbass citizen has spent 30 seconds thinking about the gun register and their opinion is important to ?

That's why we have representative democracy as badly flawed as it is. Me, I'd prefer a constituent assembly form of government with members chosen at random from the populace and decently paid but how likely is that.

The frinkin' thing cost $2 billion and how much more to run annually. How many people died for lack of emergency service, child poverty etc because that $2 billion was wasted on a this idiocy. Not a single life saved by it.

Until then, hurrah for free votes!!!

I would like to know how the

I would like to know how the present registration eliminates "irresponsible gun owners"? Especially, with millions of unregistered guns around ?

Ed Deak.

Its a distraction

The gun registry only serves to distract from more serious problems. Its a waste of time. Anyone who is going to use their gun for doing harm has no problem hiding a gun or guns. Why don't they spend their time getting rid of health care problems etc etc.

All depends who you ask I guess....

Dumb-ass, really?

Perhaps the vocal critic would care to talk to the more than 50% of the population who are not men.

Here's some information about what those 'dumbass' women think about guns, violence and gun registries. The suggestion that anyone who agrees with you is a defender of 'democracy' is not worth refuting. The opinion of the 'targets' of much of the violence in this society is worth paying heed to - in my view:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Home.htm

The Reform / Cons have

The Reform / Cons have railed against the gun registry for years. Why is registering something that can kill a person such a big deal to the lovers of guns? But it's like waiving a red flag in front of a bull when someone asks why the registration is such a hard thing. A number of weapons have never been registered , possibly because the present government has railed against the system for years so many folks figure why bother. Private members bills seldom go anywhere as the governemtn of the day blocks them but in this case its sudenly a cause that's right up their alley. My car is registered as is everyone elses but nobody often complains about that sort of thing. I can no longer buy dynamite or other explosives and I accept that as well. If the registry is poorly run, well make it better. I will be asking my MP, who happens to be NDP just how she voted on the gun issue.

More about polls and democracy

This time from the Vancouver Sun, of all places:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/News/Editnov9.vansun.pdf

The Gun Is Neutral...

"In essence, the federal government (and especially the Liberals as they have been in power most often) does not trust the citizenry of this country, and the Long Gun Registry was designed primarily to disarm the general populace, in the event of rebellion. What they didn't take into account is that the world is awash in weapons far more deadly than hunting rifles." RickW.

Pleased we agree, Rick. Likewise, with Fait Lux.

It is not the presence of guns in the hands of the populace that makes society and the world such a dangerous place right now. It is the socially and economically unequal, harsh and increasingly impoverished life of masses of citizens within the social order that makes it such an anger and hate filled place. Such that "some" seriously disturbed and angry individuals suddenly erupt into wrecking violence upon each other and more often than not, themselves.

Weapons of one form or another have always been available to people. Attempting to remove or control them out of the equation has never and will not work. Angry people, or people who feel, and may well be under attack, will still find the means of killing each other.

It is NOT peoples access to guns that is the problem here, especially when it then only the State and Police, and the criminals who will be left with them. It is the social and economic character of a society, and the attitudes and emotions that rise up out of it, to search for the weapon and use them against each other-, that is the real source of the problem.

Wackos such as periodically carry out workplace, school and other massacres arise out of a particular milieu circumstance, and registered or not, guns or other devices, such as an easily made homemade bomb, as they may feel they need to address their circumstances and issues, will still be found, if they really, really want or feel they need it.

A kinder and more equal society that produces less disturbed and angry people holding the weapon is what is really needed to minimize such as what folks seem to want to address here, with such a bullshit, do nothing measure as "registering" long guns.

The gun is a neutral thing, that just lays there cold, lifeless and unthinking, until some human picks it up and determines how it will be used. The same is the case with a brick, a bottle, a baseball bat or a stone.

We have too many sick, angry and disturbed people running around out there right now, not getting the attention or other means of sustenance they need. That's the real problem. The cops, greedy "entrepreneurs" or the State are not going to address this one with the simple creation of a new bureaucracy. We, the people will have to get off our duffs and do so.

Nothing like facts

to get in the way of Bill's biased and poorly researched article.

Some facts from the RCMP:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a2

Some facts from Public Safety Canada:

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx

Some info from these links:

Since 2003, of 2441 homicides recorded in Canada, less than 2 (two) percent were committed with registered long guns.

There are two parts to the Firearms Registration Program: licensing and registration.
There has been no suggestion that licensing will disappear. Just the registration of individual long guns. The police will still know who's licensed to carry a firearm; they get the applications for these licenses.

There are three types of firearms under the act:
non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Long guns are considered non-restricted.

The monster who killed the women in Montreal used a restricted firearm that he had obtained legally.
To repeat: he obtained his firearm legally.

Under the current legislation, even with the removal of the long gun registry, that firearm would still be considered prohibited and would still require registration. It is unlikely that
a firearm of this type would be available to someone with the history this man had (I refuse to dignify him by mentioning his name.) He would just get it illegally now.

The gun licensing and registry system came about because of his actions. Hunters and farmers were made to be doubly (licensing AND registration) accountable because of the actions of this madman.
It was a political move to appease urbanites such as Bill and others who know nothing about licensing of firearms.

I am a woman who believes in gun control. I am a woman who believes in licensing of firearms. I am a woman who believes that registering of long guns is unnecessary and a boondoggle.

I am also a woman who is a long time member of the NDP. I am a yokel, apparently, because I think that the possession of a long gun is necessary to protect my livestock from predators. And because I live in the country.

I keep reading that Canadians want gun control. They have always had it. The long gun registry did not change that. The absence of it will not change that.

It is unfortunate that the media (and I include Bill in this) have not made clear the distinction between long guns and other firearms vis a vis firearms registrations.

The Bacon boys and their ilk don't register any of their prohibited firearms. How has the long gun registry stopped them? How are Canadians protected from them?

little people fear guns

alive:

Since you have nothing to hide, I suppose you won't mind the police popping around to look in your house or apartment now and then?
Shouldn't be a problem, right? No warrant required! After all, you have nothing to hide.

Objections based on ideology are exactly what democracy is all about - that am free to do what I want, provided I do no harm to others. Presuming I will do harm, rather than assuming I won't is backwards. If we follow your argument, then perhaps we should make you register your kitchen knives, or confiscate your car when your drivers license expires (yes, this is how the current gun licensing/registration legislation currently allows - that we're criminals come midnight if our license expires).

The gun registry punishes law abiding citizens, because criminals aren't gong to be the ones who register their guns.

Spend the money on something more effective - more policing, social programs, education, etc. Just stop treating me like a criminal because I choose to own a particular inanimate object.

Our partner called a few

Our partner called a few minutes ago, warning us to be careful when we go out, because there's a cougar around, he found the tracks in his yard.

This is backwoods Canada, not some city. But even there the coyotes are getting dangerous.

Ed Deak.

"If Long Gun Registry Is So Dumb, Why Do Police Like It?"

Police support the continuation drug war and mandatory minimum sentencing too (also dumb). The answer to your question: because police aren't always right and tend to have an institutional bias in favouring of supporting the continuation and expansion of their powers.

Alive: The Wild West?

Alive states that "we" live in a civilized society, not the "Wild West". Sure, cheap shots at Americans really display Canadians at their best.

The latest official statistics will change your point of view, "Alive".

Britain, which banned all legal handguns, has since become the most violent country in Europe, with 2034 violent crimes per 100,000/per year. They never grasped the fact that criminals will not obey any ban. Canada, with strong gun controls on the law-abiding but no gun controls on the criminals, shows 935 violent crimes per 100,000 per year. The United States, with almost all of its "wild west" gun violence limited to about 6% of its counties--where handgun control is strongest-- shows 466 violent crimes per 100,000. If Canada were as safe as 94% of the counties in The United States, it would be a much safer country than it is. So, who lives in the so-called Wild West now?

Often the truth is veiled by prejudice and political agendas. And these political agendas are not related to public safety. They are related to power over people.

Several years ago, I was in favour of strong gun controls, but since then, I've see most of the United States becoming safer as they allow their law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with equalizing force against criminals, and I see Canadians victimized by the propaganda of a well-funded disarmament lobby.

The tank is neutral ...

- it just lays there cold, lifeless and unthinking, until some human picks it up and determines how it will be used:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AcVSEY2DP0

Then the gov'mint prohibits law-abiding citizens using RPGs to defend themselves. Or at least, to go fishing :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk6Puz_sdts&feature=fvst

Every loving husband should help his wife defend herself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OdFWpdjqE

More guns means more safety; bigger guns means bigger safety:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-lADZG6-PI&NR=1&feature=fvwp

When criminals don't register their weapons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-lADZG6-PI&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Have a safe day.

Criminals do register their firearms

From 1999 to 2008 approx 16,000 people had their firearm licence taken away because they were deemed to be a threat to public safety. Some reasons for a firearm licence to be revoked are; a history of violence, potential risk to oneself or others, unsafe firearm use and storage, drug offences, and providing false information. So I guess criminals do register their firearms. Yes I do know the difference between a firearm licence and registration certificates. Stay with me here.

These 16,000 people would now have to dispose of their firearms under the direction of the Registrar of Firearms. The Registrar of Firearms is notified of all licence revocations, is responsible for revoking all associated registration certificates, and works to ensure proper disposal of the firearms. Now if these firearms weren’t registered how would the authorities know how many firearms a person must get rid of?

The criminal doesn’t register their firearms? So where do they get them? Do they make them in their basements.

So if only non-registered firearms were used in all crimes, don’t it make sense to have all the firearms registered then there won’t be any more firearm related crime.

I realise it could be a pain to fill out the forms to register your firearms, but if a person isn’t responsible enough to fill out the paper work, should the public trust that person to be responsible enough to handle or store firearms?
Maybe it’s just too difficult for people to register their firearms.

Registration is easy and efficient
Firearms owners can get non-restricted firearms verified over the telephone, fill out paperless registration applications on-line, and submit them directly to the Canadian Firearms Program. In most cases, a registration application can be done in minutes with the applicant receiving confirmation that the application has been entered correctly and received.

my gunz

Let's see now,if long gun owners step forward and register rifles and shotguns, the Lib's, Lefties and Loons assume the crooks will do the same with their Uzi's, handguns, and other weapons? La, La, La...

*erratum :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmFo_AosB-I
Have a safe day

The Way We Were...

"I am a woman who believes in gun control. I am a woman who believes in licensing of firearms. I am a woman who believes that registering of long guns is unnecessary and a boondoggle. " wrote NDP supprter, Offended.

There are many very good and important contributions to this discussion here, including from women opposed to long gun registration, but yours was most outstanding in my view, woman.

I'll repeat; there is a misconception amongst well intentioned, I'm sure, but naive liberals out there that unregistered guns are the problem. Guns are not the problem. Period. The real nature of the problem is just a little more complex than conventional liberalism is prepared to address, such as would come truly closer to resolving the issues.

Amd neither am I against having to purchase a "license" as part of buying a firearm, same as purchasing a fishing license, which has long been there anyway, over my lifetime, and which effectively registers all firearms purchased and owners in any case. That has, as I've said, been there for a long time anyway. Which is always the way it was . There is no reason this cannot be done as it was however, at the point of sale, going back all the way to a time when there was actually less gun violence even than now, for all the new bureaucracy creation.

The problems of inequality and angry and disturbed people in society is a different problem, however, that is NOT going to go away with more paperwork. And its the real problem that the police and the atate are unlikely to do anything about.

Gun Deaths compared to Violent Crime

A classic distractor used by Con men:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fmjUjWIuLs

Gun death distribution in US:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2

It's a redneck thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qRJzpQXb7c

Criminals do (not) register their firearms

Luke_m:

So bad legislation turned law-abiding citizens into criminals, and now you think that criminals register their guns? Unbelievable.

But nothing compared to this little leap of logic:

"The criminal doesn’t register their firearms? So where do they get them? Do they make them in their basements."

Really? You claim to know the difference between registration and licencing, but you can't distinguish between acquisition and registration? Just because criminals don't register their guns doesn't mean they can't get them in the first place. How? By buying illegal guns smuggled into the country.

But wait, there's more!

"Registration is easy and efficient."

Hmm, 2 billion dollars spent, no crimes solved, and a substantial percentage of guns still unregistered. Doesn't sound very efficient to me. Not wanting to fill out the paperwork has nothing to do with being responsible. It's got everything to do with the registration process being useless, and fear that registration will lead to confiscation. Paranoid? Look at the recent events in Toronto where police have seized guns during a supposed amnesty period - no charges have been laid either, BTW. So if these "criminals" warrant having their firearms seized, how come they aren't being charged? Simple answer, most of them aren't breaking the law, and the Toronto police are on a politically motivated witch hunt.

Unk - Not your Gunz any more!

Many who legally owned certain firearms did have them confiscated without compensation. The basis for the registry being a step toward confiscation of private property has already been established.

I was Honest and Very Stupid!!!

My father who was a police officer gave me my first targets rifle at the age of 12, made in the USSR. When the registry came I paid a $10 fee. What came next was being screwed by Harper. The next license fee was now $600% higher. After a yearlong fight and I took it to court was the fees where waved, but now they wanted me to take a gun course costing $1200% more. I had not use the rifle in over 30 years, it was a family heirloom that I was forced to give up. I am on a disability pension and I couldn’t afford the ransom. I wrote the test online 6 times for free and scored 100% each time. It was $120.00 for the official rifle course would have to be rewritten every couple/few years. Stockwell Day the Minister in charge of the Gun Registry never once return my calls, faxes, and letters. I wonder what the cost was in the end to destroy my $25 rifle? I had a Criminal Check a couple of mouths ago for a job and in “section 4” it shows involvement with the police. The RCMP said that mark means nothing but is for life. I think I got lucky because the person that hired me part time, has known me for years. I’ve never had even a parking ticket. I could have been ruined for life, just because I was to honest. What lesson did my child learn. That rifle was her inheritance, and she/me got held for ransom, we where lie to, ignored, I have a blemish on my criminal record for life.
If I had to do it over, then I would say I would not have handed over that first $10 over again. I got robbed. You know that first fee, did register me, there was no need to register people over and over again. Harper and Stockwell Day, both steel from childern, seniors, disabled, and from honest people. Welcome to the Right Wing, Christian, Conservative, POLICE STATE.

Misinformation

I am soo tired of hearing this biased arguement. Police Chiefs are political animals, not wanting to upset the apple cart. Ask the average beat cop and a overwheming majority say the long gun registry is and always was a sham. They knew it would not work and it did not. I am sure Bill, you would make a wonderful propaganda minister for a benevolent totalitarian government. Lets address the need to spend all the wasted registry money, and soon to be wasted money in plugging up the borders where the illegal guns are coming from. This is not and never has been a rural phenomana, Legal law abiding gun owners are everywhere, and trying to make this an urban/rural issue is rather insulting

It is just a Harper ploy at our cost again.

Is this about playing cheap Reform politics or is it about common sense. It is a given that a political party will play to the rabid loyalists in its ranks. Gun Control was always a hot button issue with right-wing rednecks and in the early stages the debate took an almost bizarre turn. There were Nazis under every bed or the KGB was going to knock on your door at night and confiscate your guns.

The Tory/Reformers now want to rekindle that same fervor they once had and what better way to do it than a silly, inconsequential issue like whether I need to register my guns. But you got to have some shibboleth with which to beat on the opposition, doesn't matter the cost to the poor taxpayer who'll pay either way. In the end we'll be out of pocket, we'll have everyone buying guns, getting them stolen or forgetting where they left them and we'll all be safer. Right.

I won't get worked up about it and sure would never vote Conservative/Reform just because my guns are unregistered and I own a dozen. I'm not that dumb.

let me get this straight...

So you are telling me that the correlation between guns and safety is the following:

More weapons = more safety

Because I was under the impression that there was a statistically significant correlation between more guns resulting in more gun shots and deaths whereby we can deduce that less guns would mean less deaths.

Or wait - no we have accepted that the state has a monopolization of Violence in order to protect the greater good.

Sarcasm noted.

Good riddance

The Police like Cannabis prohibition, too

For very self-serving reasons - jobs for the boys and lots of low-hanging enforcement fruit!

The long gun registry does nothing to make it harder for criminals to get guns illegally - all it does is add yet another useless costly bureaucratic hurdle for the law-abiding. The registry has its roots in the same hysteria that prompted the "assault rifle" ban in the US - designed to show the hysterical that the government was doing something. It's an expensive useless pat on the head.

So where do they get their guns?

"The criminal doesn’t register their firearms? So where do they get them? Do they make them in their basements." asks a supporter of long gun registration.

The Vancouver Police have the answer to this, " Illegal smuggling by organized crime is by far the principal source of firearms on our streets. Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime (Vancouver Police, Strategic Plan 2004-08). "

Found at:
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx

None of these illegal weapons, and those that will replace them for the purposes of criminals, will ever be registered. Gun crime will remain unresolved by the long gun registry.

How do you tell...

...if a gun is smuggled into the country if there is no registry? How do you keep track of how many are smuggled, how many are stolen from legal gun users, how many are purchased legally if there is no registry? How does registering one prevent one from enjoying it for recreational purposes? One could go on with a lot more question which make the whole pro vs. con debate sound like some silly ideological debate between Reformers of the NRA variety "from my cold dead hands" and liberals "we gotta do something to stop the violence, anything".

long guns - little people

Little people get upset when they are asked to register their prize possessions eh?
I note that ED Deak has cougars around and I see no problem with him firing shots to scare them off, but why is that more difficult if his gun is registered?
Where is the problem?
Yes I read where the law has some quirks, so let us re-write it!
That is what happens to most laws once they have been out for a while and flaws detected.

Do I object to having the police ransacking my home? Silly red herring argument!
We have laws in place that set out the steps required, to try to make it sound like a nazi state is just plain stupid.

Where is the problem?

I think that has been explained adequately. The registry isn't working. It costs a lot of money. That money could be far better spent, if we wish to spend it on violence-preventative measures. Based on the previous, it remains a sop to the nervous Nellies that would prefer everyone of their fellow human beings declawed, toothless and living in padded cells with a lock on the outside. And I really think the point about such a registry falling into the wrong hands is a valid one. It doesn't just have to be an invading foreign power, it could be a couple of hard drives that weren't disposed of in a quite effective manner, and were picked up by people we do not want to have such information. That kind of things have been seen before. I have seen a lot of good arguments for getting rid of the registry and really none for keeping it, other than the wish for a false sense of security, and a need for forbidding other people things you don't quite dare to do yourself. Being a gun owner is a heavy responsibility, which many do not want. That is OK, but it becomes a little to whiny to therefore want to set limits for other people based on your own preferences. In the realm of basic rights and freedoms, we should not need to account for why we wish to own something, as long as we pay for it and do no harm with it. It seems to me that you tend to turn this argument around, so it becoems a 'why' rather than a 'why not'.

Four things

Criminals aren't smuggling in 12 gauges (which is a non-prohibited long gun); they're bringing in 9mm Glocks (a prohibited firearm/pistol).

I would never ever vote for the Conservatives. I am an NDPer. Just like Bill T.

The proposed removal of long guns from the registry does not mean that the owner of the firearms does not have to get a license to possess a long gun. To put it another way, they will no longer have to register it twice; once for licensing and then again for registration. They will still have to follow the law regarding storage for both firearm and ammunition (they must be kept secured separately). The police will know who has been licensed.

And lastly, the amount of money the government has wasted on the long gun registry could have been put to much better use. You pick it: health care, womens' shelters, education. Or would you prefer to pay a bunch of bureaucrats unnecessarily for a wasteful program?

Its not that the gun registry is bad ...

... its just not nearly good enough.

The problem is that only law-abiding gun owners will register their long guns, or any guns for that matter. The bad guys - big surprise! - won't bother and there's no way to make them. A single comprehensive firearms registry system is a good idea. Unfortunately the government, in its rush to roll out a registry for points at the polls completely screwed it up - half measures, poor planning, ridiculous amounts of money wasted.

Not surprisingly the bulk of long gun owners are rural residents. That contributes to the skewed perception that the police are picking on rural residents.

The police like it because it is, frankly, better than nothing. If they're going to a call at a residence its theoretically reassuring to know what weapons might be kept there.

Just a populist

I'm new to The Tyee - first time commenter. This subject shows up one of the oddities of our crazy electoral system. If we had a proportional voting system, the 2/3 of Canadians who support the gun registry, and who voted against the Harper Conservatives, would not need to be having this discussion. Our elected representatives would by now have found a way to improve the popular long gun registry, to bring even more people onside.

Alliance for Arms Abolition

Lt Gov Simcoe of Upper Canada was a leader in slavery abolition:
http://www.hemyockcastle.co.uk/anti-slavery.php

Have Canadians lost the rectitude to lead now ?
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/p0864/$File/ICRC_002_0864.PDF

"I take courage—I determine to forget all my other fears, and I march forward with a firmer step in the full assurance that my cause will bear me out, and that I shall be able to justify upon the clearest principles, every resolution in my hand, the avowed end of which is, the total abolition of the slave trade."
William Wilberforce /speech in House of Commons London 1789

Do your homework

I read with interest Bill Tieleman's comments regarding the Long Gun Registry. In the closing argument he gives the last word to Toronto's police chief Bill Blair, regurgitating the same drivel we've heard over and over in every discussion on the issue. Strikes me it would have been much more professional and interesting if Mr. Tieleman had actually stepped out of his bubble and spoken so some of Vancouver's finest. He might have learned that a good many of them do not actually support the registry and point out that they go into every situation with the assumption that there could well be a firearm or any other device on hand, registered or not. To do otherwise can lead to tragic consequences. But then doing the research would have taken some effort; much easier to mindlessly pick up Mr. Blair's statement.

Who said the registry isn't working besides the NRA

Ref Jereld Hannis;

Hear is your logic, a law abiding firearm owner breaks the law and you want him to keep his firearms? That sounds very sensible for crime prevention.
Every person starts off in life as a law abiding person, but somewhere down the line, due to circumstances or whatever, a person may go down the wrong path and break the law.

Why hire police officers if crime is still occurring on the streets?

Did you ever think of why firearms are smuggled into this country? Maybe because some of the states don’t believe the firearm owner should be held accountability. Straw purchases.

The Firearms Act prohibits individuals from selling firearms to those who are not eligible. Under the CFP’s management, registration must be transferred to the new owner and during the transfer process a computerized public safety check on the new owner makes sure that there are no reasons why they should not have firearms. Without this process, people could buy firearms legally, and then sell them on the criminal black market without fear of being held accountable.

If we copied some of the firearm laws from some states that surely would eliminate the gun smuggling problem here in Canada.
The Cdn criminals would just acquire the illegal firearms from their own backyard.

But wait you say “ Hmm, 2 billion dollars spent, no crimes solved, and a substantial percentage of guns still unregistered. Doesn't sound very efficient to me.”

So the long –gun registry cost 2 billion dollars. Show me proof of that.

You don’t think it’s important if a person wants a firearm licence for the authorities to do a background check on that person.

Security Screening – All firearms licence applicants are thoroughly screened, and their eligibility to possess and use firearms is continually re-assessed. As a result, almost 23,000 licenses have been either refused or revoked based on risks to public safety being identified and addressed.

You don’t think it’s important to register restricted and prohibited firearms. Guess what that all cost money.

You think 7,463,685 firearms registered is a waste of money.

Perhaps the reason some of the guns aren’t registered is because this government hasn’t enforced the law and brought in gun amnesties after gun amnesty since 2006. How long does it take for an individual to register their firearms, 3 years?

We register cars ...

... and cars aren't designed to kill. We register pets. We register bicycles in many cities. What's the big deal about registering guns? Other than the threat to certain gun owners' manhoods, that is.

a little education...

I'm with you Morty - what's the big deal about registering a gun? (Although your thesis doesn't explain the women who object to the gun registry)
OilbertaRedTory, thanks for distracting me wonderfully on a rainy Tuesday :)

I like the registry...

I live somewhat in the country. I have a number of long guns. I have also hunted most of my life. I'm also reasonably law-abiding. When we were told to register our rifles and shotguns, I did so. Sent in the money, got back a card which would allow me to buy more guns if I wanted, etc. (Even used it, since it has my photo, to go across the border.)
The funny thing was that about a year later, the department responsible for registry sent me my fee back. I thought that was a bit unusual but I took the money. Since then my card has expired and I get letters asking me to re-register, but I have been waiting until this issue was resolved.
Someone mentioned "rednecks" in the country side, and I agree that it was mostly these people that disagreed with the registry, perhaps because of the fees involved for a dozen weapons that a lot of them have in their possession. By and large we are a law-abiding group here in the sticks, but on occasion someone goes on the rampage with a rifle.
But, obviously, most crimes are committed with hand guns and sawed-off shotguns or short automatics which nobody registers, I would think. I was disappointed, as I usually am, when our elected officials (mostly g-- d-- lawyers), think they know better then the majority of the people that elected them.

Coyoteman

Not sure if you've ever come across this, in regards to social dysfunction and inequities:
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.12-health-rat-trap/

The criminal establishment

The criminal establishment is afraid of honest folk, especially angry honest folk with long guns who find out suddenly that they no longer have a country, no longer have property and no longer have freedom.

The establishment

... no doubt, is quaking at the thought of angry honest folk armed with unregistered hunting rifles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTvU9j3og5k

As the armed and angry honest folk turn on Harper's anti-Canadian quislings - for whom they voted - and finally get their revenge :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eENWTA0bs4&feature=related

Guns and Marijuana

"The proposed removal of long guns from the registry does not mean that the owner of the firearms does not have to get a license to possess a long gun. To put it another way, they will no longer have to register it twice; once for licensing and then again for registration. " writes Offended.

The woman speaks common damned sense such as the hysteria driven "registry proponents" refuse to see or understand, in their simplistic and bureaucratic attempt to resolve an issue as complex as violence within society. That is now worse on a daily basis than it was when I was young, and there was not even licensing, and guns were readily available at any Simpson-Seats, Eatons or plethora of "sporting goods" stores everywhere.

Other forces within society are at work here, than the simple availability or ownership of guns. (Hell, widespread numbers of men, city and rural, owned guns and hunted in those days.)

I, for example, have two guns legally licensed AND registered. Creating the additional registry has not and will not make society anymore safe from the likes of me or violent crime even, than the licensing system alone did/does. And I have owned and used guns since before I can even remember-, from the time of first going hunting with my Dad, to Sea Cadets as a young teen, The Regina Rifles reserve infantry unit, to the full time Navy, down to the present. And I have never committed a crime with a gun.I'm the only kind of person, with expected exceptions as always exist, that will be "prevented from committing gun crime" by the registry.

Meanwhile, back on the streets, after the superfluous and expensive bureaucracy has finally run its course, and will ongoing cost the public untold millions, the deranged, desperate and criminal elements will still have access to the 97% of "unregistered" and illegal guns used in current crime commission, being smuggled in from the USA, in an "underground" venture truly going to harm more people than marijuana ever did or will.

Go figger. The logic of these folks escapes me. (Though I accept that they mean well.) They have simply fallen for the system's propaganda solution to nothing. Which is usual for The System.

Say what?

To put it another way, they will no longer have to register it twice; once for licensing and then again for registration.

Is there more than one set of rules in Canada? in the neck of the woods where I live, you get a license to 'acquire and possess', with no attachment to any specific firearm, just like your driver's license isn't attached to your red Corvette specifically. Then when you buy one or more firearms, you register each one. How in that system do you get to register anything twice??

By the way, prairie wolf, You've written some of the best stuff here I've ever seen from you. Thanks.

Sorry,

there should have been quotation marks around the first paragraph, as in

"To put it another way, they will no longer have to register it twice; once for licensing and then again for registration."

a lot of new faces here...

Who would have guesses that this issue would bring all the wackos out of the woodwork? ;-)

"Criminals won't register their guns, so what's the point?"

How about being able to tell the difference between a legally registered gun and an illegal gun?

Criminals won't get ownership licenses either, so I guess that's the next "useless boondoggle" to come under attack? Once we can buy any weapon we want at a fleamarket like in the USA, then criminals will be too scared to do crime because every granny has a bazooka, crime will end and we won't need police anymore either?

"We already get licenses, why should we have to register on top of that?"

The car analogy above works best. You don't like registering your vehicle either? Are you still fighting that fascist seatbelt law too?

"They will use the database to confiscate our guns!!"

But you're already licensed, couldn't they come get your guns whenever they want already?

There is 1 thing I don't like about it - if you are on the database, it gives the police the excuse to come with the SWAT team and the stun bombs and kick in your door with machine guns drawn instead of a couple of regular officers when your neighbour complains that you are arguing too loud in your house. If you are a law abiding citizen going through all the hoops crossing your ts and dotting your is, it shouldn't get you "special" attention from the athorities.

What I love about it is, it draws a clear line between legally aquired guns, and the illegal guns that are constantly smuggled in from our "tolerant" neighbour to the south. It also gives authorities another stick to beat actual criminals with - posession of an unregistered firearm. If that adds a few months to the pathetically few years they get for rape & murder, then money well spent I say.

GUN CONTROL

To those who made the comment that the leaders of the NDP and Liberals were gutless in allowing the members of their respective parties a free vote in the matter of Gun Control

The people WE elect to represent us in Parliament are sent there to REPRESENT US in government NOT their party. Too many times our representatives are censured for not toeing the party line regardless what their constituents say

Perhaps it is time for all votes in parliament and legislatures to be made free votes. WE would be represented as it should be rather than have the non elected government agendas pushed onto us as the whims of the ruling political party is made into the laws of the land

If people felt that they were truely being represented in government rather than our represetatives just following party lines perhaps then voter apathy would be deminished

67 percent of those who agree wouldn't know BS if their mouth

was full of it.

This is better than watching the Olympics. The mental gymnastics are spectacular; in some cases, unbelievable. And it’s not hard to tell who’s been doped.

The best “manufactured’ performance so far is the registered automobile/firearm poll vault team. Apparently, according to those that have studied the surveys and given it their best performance claim the fact that everyone has to license and register their vehicle (and few object) justifies firearm registration.

There’s one problem: the fact that vehicles must be registered and licensed hasn’t reduced the number and frequency of inappropriate use or “accidents”. The same applies to firearms.

This issue is strictly diversionary … it keeps the masses occupied and their focus off the power elite's continued alienation of those seeking participation in what’s left of our democracy.

not for nothing

Coyoteman claims,“They have simply fallen for the system's propaganda solution to nothing.”

Almost true, except the system’s propaganda has a purpose, and you can bet it’s not for nothing. And that’s why I’m proposing legislation that calls for the licensing and registration of TVs and cellphones.

Aside from the rise of the third reich, or the Harper conservatives, can anyone think of anything that has perverted the thinking of so many so fast and done so much damage to informed, rational thinking?

Every time someone powers up and lets "the system" invade their psyche they run the risk of being humiliated by someone eating a BigMac or driving an import while texting or having unbelievable pleasure while drinking a Coke or not having enough life insurance or listening to the bleatings of a condesending politician.

After awhile the tho’ts of failure and inadequacy becomes too much to handle … and Pow, the next thing you know you’re looking for an unregistered hand gun.

from Ralph Surette

Here is the address for an article on this issue.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1151540.html

When THEY got tasers and sound cannons that jingle jangle jingle

Long guns? Who's worried about long guns....

Read Crawford Kilian's article about sound cannons on The Hook.

Bad bureaucracy Undefended

... begs for discard or replacement ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGI_qoso9IM

The Con-bots want Mr Minority to play as Sgt 'Handcuffs' Harper in his next election campaign :

"Harper's Hard On Bad Boys" ;
No gun control ; license and register angry young males
http://tinyurl.com/BoysNGuns

But will he extend his 'Hard-On' for women ?
No gun control ; license and register male spouses
http://tinyurl.com/WifeBeaters

Registry Fails On Implementation, Can't Prevent Crime

There's nothing like an article about guns or religion, that's when the knives really come out!

I commented before about the failure of government to engage rural people properly on this issue. I would add that, I don't see a huge issue with a registry on principle, just as long as it isn't a huge waste of money or a complete pain in the ass.

I think there must be a way to get a buy in from those who oppose it by resolving some of the issues and backing away from the rural vs. city debate.

People who are coming to the registry with a larger legacy collection of rifles should have the fees subsidized so as not to be punished for a collection of rifles that were previously within the bounds of the law.

I'm always amazed at how government is unable to put projects in place without it costing so much money. Unfortunately, this always seems to be the result of cronyism, back door deals and lack of oversight. Just look at the E-Health scandal in Ontario. Working in retail logistics, I've seen big systems put in place on the cheap. Despite the short comings of anything preceding, I would never want to see something like this outsourced or privatized. There just needs to be some transparency on these kinds of projects.

Arguing the stats around crime with long guns can be done to death but currently, rifles are stored in gun lockers with trigger locks. What kinds of crime are we talking about? Crimes of passion or pre-meditated murder? Armed Robbery? A rifle locked away with a trigger lock and ammo stored seperately would be an unlikely weapon in a crime of passion. The time it would take to unlock everything an put the ammo in would move the crime into the pre meditated category in light of the deliberate action required, in my opinion.

A registry is a list of names, it can only be used as an investigative tool after the fact, or perhaps to brief officers about the presence of rifles when responding to a call. I don't see how a registry can prevent gun crime any more than the current practice of locking them up with trigger locks, nor would it do anything to prevent improper storage of rifles.

Support for the registry in Quebec is attributed to the memory of the Polytechnique shootings. Think about that for a minute though, a shooting of that kind isn't done by someone who is concerned about getting caught and no matter what precautions and safeguards are put in place around guns, once someone has the rifle in hand, nothing can stop the actual crime. So let's stop fooling ourselves into thinking it can. I would think that a person bent on destruction of life who coudn't access rifles would find another way.

We need to define what the registry can and can't do, simplify its design, safeguard its privacy, lessen the financial impact on rifle owners and tax payers in order to even approach something that is agreeable to all sides.

Gun paranoia

First of all I would like to say that I do not own a gun of any shape or description and will never change that fact. I live in an urban setting and have never seen the need to own one.

That being said, I think that the gun registry as a whole has been one big waste of both time and money. Bill states that it only costs $8.4 million to run this programme per annum as if that is chump change. Maybe in Bill's world that is chump change but the reality is that a lot of taxpayers' dollars. And what has the gun registry accomplished. It didn't seem to be of much value to the four RCMP officers that got mowed down in Mayerthorpe, Alberta. Did it protect the two innocent people that were murdered in the Surrey six slaying? The answer is obvious.

Next one has to question the poll that states that two-thirds of respondents support the gun registration. Were the respondents urban or rural dwellers, and if so were an equal number of each involved? Seeing as the majority of Canadians reside close to the Canada/US border one would have to assume that there were probably many more urbanites involved in this poll versus those that live in rural locales. The validity of this poll would be questionable at best.

Now to the question about free votes in either the Canadian Parliament or the BC Legislature. You state that it was wrong for the leaders of the various parties to not mandate their various MPs as to how to vote. If we live in a true democracy, then no one should ever be told how to vote on any matter whether they are an individual or an elected member of a political party. For anyone to suggest anything else is only aiding and abeting a democratized dictatorship. Now is the time to choose whether Canada is truly democratic or just a banana republic. At present one would get the impression that we are the latter.

Police's main task

if the shite hits the fan is to protect the 'monied' interests (who will pay $).

And the police want to know how many guns the 'rabble' have so that thay can pre-emptively confiscate before the uprising!

GWest - Bill's Wrong!!!

Poll #1
http://harrisdecima.com/sites/default/files/releases/2009/11/11/hd-2009-11-11-en375.pdf

Those in favor of abolishing long gun registry-
BC - 51%
AB - 64%
SK - 61%
MB - 61%
Nationally 46% .vs. 41%

POLL#2 - 164 MP's voted to abolish it, 134 voted to keep it. That's 55% against.

Those who forget history...

"After awhile the tho’ts of failure and inadequacy becomes too much to handle … and Pow, the next thing you know you’re looking for an unregistered hand gun."

By the balloon sun dangling from Odin's shoulder in a medieval rendition! You don't have to look to any 'system' messing with people's brains and getting them hot under the collar. Before there were systems; before there were technology; before there were big Macs and texting, people blew their lid over stupid things. You either do or you don't. Read the Icelandic sagas and see people actually killing each other by the dozens over name-calling due to the failure to grow facial hair!

Guns nothing. It's all in your head.

About democracy

Some countries, notably Denmark, has a section of its constitution say that

"§ 56
Members of Parliament are bound by their conviction alone, and not by any prescription given by their constituents."

Maybe if we ever revamp our own paper, we could put in something similar, so it is not at the discretion of individual party leaders...

“You either do or you don't.”

That would mean attempts, by inquiring minds, to uncover reasons behind killing people over name calling and facial hair is really a waste of time. Or that telling those going through a period of depression that it’s probably genetic. Not really helpful in my view.

If that’s truly the case all we need to do is follow Hitler’s ‘volkish’ plan where only the ‘healthy’ beget children . A somewhat appalling thought I’d say.

People don’t do those things because it’s in their genes. They do it because they were taught to …

Registration Paranoids

- helping all the latte-sipping urbanites feel the pain:
http://tinyurl.com/Details-schmetails

Next thing you know the gov'mint will make you register

- to vote
- to start a business
- for CPP/EI/OAS
- to work as Dr
- for tax refunds
- your dog

- even your death:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8PFe6AEjX8

Or a close proximate thereof.

Bullshit and Propaganda Smoke and Mirrors...

"Almost true, except the system’s propaganda has a purpose, and you can bet it’s not for nothing. And that’s why I’m proposing legislation that calls for the licensing and registration of TVs and cellphones.

Aside from the rise of the third reich, or the Harper conservatives, can anyone think of anything that has perverted the thinking of so many so fast and done so much damage to informed, rational thinking?"

Funny, KWD, but also right on.

It is all about "control" here, less about criminals than the ordinary citizenry. As I said at the beginning here, it is about only the police and the state with its armed forces having access to guns. It is part of the democracy and power grab from ordinary citizens going on, on the part of the ruling class State. For the criminals and deranged,and the lunatic right, nothing is going to change with this registry bullshit. Nothing.

police are paid lackeys of the fascist state

Not a hunter and no longer a gun owner. The drug war is the issue with gun violence, the registry is a waste of time and money. The police and the state refuse to admit their failures and impotence. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Rangergord...

rangergord makes an excellent point. You seriously want to end most of the gun violence, which has to include police violence and invasion of privacy, End The War on Drugs, NOW!

But, no, because that cuts too close to the quick and means challenging the police and the state, folks are still looking to create another bureacratic/legalistic way to obfuscate the problem. Create another War On Guns this time, to go along with the War on Drugs, to exacerbate the problem even wider and deeper, and to create another underground economy in guns to go along with the underground economy in drugs, and all the misery that has brought with it, including gun violence.

Register this.

And outside of a joint maybe once a year, I don't do drugs, other than legal pharmacy drugs that seems to parallel my old age, and which itself is at least a major source of drug abuse, if not the greatest single abuse source.

The hypocrisy is rampant and widespread throughout the police, state and citizenry of "decent" society.

It's all so odd

Shadowy government/military/police entities are data mining phone calls, email, web browsing histories, google searches, financial transactions - ad infinitum...

My guess is, they have a better gun registry (of sorts) in place already and don't need the old one any more.

Any government that distrusts its citizens to the extent the neo-cons do - as evidenced by the data mining mentioned above - is going to keep darn close tabs on who has guns, how much ammunition they are buying etc...

There can be no doubt; the authorities know all about your arsenal.

Bill Tieleman - holding fire till next week

There have been a lot of postings here that need a response and a lot of misinformation spread in my view, not to mention gratuitous insults.

Therefore rather than post now in limited form I will be responding in next Tuesday's column here and in 24 hours newspaper and my blog - with both barrels.

http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/

Thanks Bill, I hope you have

Thanks Bill, I hope you have a license for your response.
By the way, I would like to see all guns manufactured registered as well. How do criminals get so many guns? Do they steal them from the manufactures or do they buy them from the manufacturers? Or are they sold to gun merchants who sell them to criminals? If all these sales were tracked, some of our problems with illegal weapons might be solved.

KWD

"...telling those going through a period of depression that it’s probably genetic..."

"...People don’t do those things because it’s in their genes. They do it because they were taught to …"

Er. please explain to me, where I said anything about the mental configuration being genetic?? I said "You either do or you don't". This means, in plain English, that people who fly into rages out of habit and spread destruction in an attempt to make the pain go away, rather than cool it and look for a constructive, considered remedy, will follow that pattern regardless of what exactly the issue is, whether being bogged down by a modern convoluted 'system' of bureaucratic nature, or, as in the example I used, being taunted because they couldn't underline their masculine dignity by growing a full beard.

If you think it is a waste of time to try to find out why some people do one and others the other, I don't know how you would go about attempting to make progress. But I have nowhere claimed the difference to be genetic, as I didn't even endeavor to make such judgments one way or the other. I merely said technology and complex societal organization have not created the problem.

Coyote -

you're not right about this all being the powers that be. Are you really not aware how many of your fellow citizens are desirous of taking that degree of autonomy away from everyone about them. As I wrote previously, it's about 'What I do not dare, you won't be allowed', and about 'what would you want a gun for anyway, tell me that!' It's about not understanding the true nature of freedom and about not wanting it to prevail, because that is scary. I usually don't do this, because I think it possibly rude, but I will recommend you a book you might find interesting, hoping you will know the spirit in which I do so. The book is Erich Fromm's 'Escape from Freedom', which tries to explain why most people really want that cage around them - and about others too, that they feel safer that way. Those to whom safety is not the thing they most value in life are a minority and should know that others may easily grow to hate them for that difference.

dorothy

The "powers-that-be" derive said power from the citizens you've described. What it means is that any "leavening" of the inequities of society is not a fight against The Man -- it is a fight against your fellow citizens who (consciously or otherwise) allow The Man to be in power. That is what is so "messy" about the whole affair.

But in broad strokes, what this issue and many others are, is the question of the ethicality of so-called "preventative laws", or laws designed to prevent a criminal action. Laws of this nature necessarily run counter to the entire notion of being "innocent until proven guilty". "Preventative laws" assume guilt in a society that never-the-less insists we are innocent until proven guilty.

par for the course

My grandfather on my fathers side lived in Norway when the nazis invaded. At the time Norway had a gun registry. The nazis did not go around and knock on peoples doors asking them to please hand in their guns, they just kicked the doors in and killed whomever was inside, how nice. A gun registry does nothing to stop crime, try changing the laws. If a gun is used to commit a crime keep that criminal in jail until they die. Let people own whatever kind of gun they want, nail them if they use it to commit a crime and compensate the victims of crime - not the state. No victim = no crime.
If you really want crime to drop, end the war on drugs along with the dozens of other wars we have going on. Remember that a government strong enough to give you everything you want is also strong enough to take it all away, often at the behest of an areshole burecrat who has a grudge.
When we move from a system where the state gets restitution from criminal acts to one where the actual victims get compensated/restitution from criminal acts then we will have a just society, until then I'll keep voting for Libertarians.

RickW

You are right about 'the man' of course. The view that I tried to be critical of is that most of 'the people' support 'the man', because he succeeds in hoodwinking them to think he stands for something other than what he actually does, so that there is ground to be gained by enlightening 'the people'. I believe otherwise, and that is what I tried to express. Maybe you think this is a straw man, but it is nevertheless how some postings have come across to me,and so that is what I tired to respond to. You are right, it is complex and messy, and the question of the things we can change and those we can't is very much in the foreground