How exactly does targeting farmers...
...duck hunters & skeet shooters... reduce urban handgun crime?
-- WINNIPEG -- "The general consensus among sporting shooters is that the kinds of guns we are using are not the kinds of guns to commit crimes," Mosscrop said. "No one is going to take a $17,000 Perazzi shotgun and hold up a 7-Eleven."
15 comments:
OT, but visit climbing out of the dark, where your alias is making a fool of himself. So what else is new.
*
yup... good ol' "liberal supporter" forging comments all over the bt blogroll... yet again.
it's what he does best.
*
In fact, since C-68 the numbers of hunting licenses issued here in BC fell dramatically over the years, and has only begun to turn around in the last couple, due to efforts by the BC government to get seniors back into hunting again, and introduce youth to the sport.
Consequently the amount of revenues generated by licensing and tags fell dramatically, too, and had to be significantly increased along the way in order to maintain conservation efforts/projects in the province.
Guide outfitters also took an hit because many Americans, the mainstay customers of a multi-million dollar industry in Canada, got pissed off with both the concept of registration and the bureaucratic red tape that got put into place just to come up here with their rifles to hunt. Many, either out of protest or just spite, stayed home, or went elsewhere with their $6,000 to $10,000, plus tips, licenses, etc., for their 5 to 7 day hunts.
I've read stats suggesting that literally thousands of small sporting good shops across the country ultimately shut their doors due to the down turn in the hunting/shooting sports resulting from C-68.
All this misery and grief caused by a bunch of lying Libtards, and their ideologically inspired leftist crap, for no more good reason that to present a political placebo to buy the votes of urban voters!
They deliberately went after gun owners because a) we are a minority, b) we are a rural minority, and c) who mostly don't vote Liberal anyway...especially in the west!
It had SFA to do with crime prevention, never did!!!
And now Liberal a**holes like Holland have the audacity to accuse Harper of divisive politics over the registry???
AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!! Lordy, give me strength!!!
The long gun registry isn't meant to address handgun crime. It's meant to address crimes committed with long guns.
If duck hunters aren't shooting anything but ducks with their registered firearms, they've got nothing to worry about.
Long guns are involved in domestic violence far more often than hand guns since they're easier to obtain. Further, they're used in suicides in astounding percentages.
You want to hunt or shoot skeets? Fine, you just have to register your weapon first. Now then, that's not so hard to understand is it?
Springer...that is a truckload of facts that are never considered, and should be gatting more coverage. I wish the CPC would get with the program and use those talking points.
bluetech
An Ipsos Reid poll in 2006 found three out of four Canadians want stricter, not more permissive, gun controls. Most agree the gun registry is flawed. They want it fixed, not dismantled to appease special interests.
Most Canadians reject rural arguments that only handguns -- the assumed weapon of choice for urban criminals -- need to be controlled because rifles and shotguns are just benign implements in the hands of sober, law-abiding rural citizens who watch the crime waves in the cities and shake their wiser heads.
Nor will most buy the gun lobby's argument that guns defend us from criminals. A 2009 study published in the American Journal of Public Health shows that on average, guns don't protect their owners -- in fact, they are four times more likely to be shot than somebody unarmed.
Property crimes dominate in urban settings. Criminal gangsters are more likely to be shot by another criminal with a restricted firearm in a city.
But recent studies in both the U.S. and Canada confirm that rates of domestic violence are comparable in urban and rural settings and a 2007 federal study reports that homicide rates in rural Canada are consistently high and that small-town Canada has higher overall crime rates than large cities.
Furthermore, statistics show clearly that women are more likely to be murdered with a long gun than with a handgun. So much for the myth of the big, bad city and the moral superiority of a tranquil country life.
Now let's dispel the myth of the long gun as a benign farm, subsistence and sporting implement.
On its website, the RCMP posts sobering statistics about long guns and their relationship to violence.
Fifty-two per cent of the firearms recovered by police in relation to criminal incidents were non-restricted rifles and shotguns, according to a study conducted by police departments in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan.
Fifty-four per cent of firearms homicides from 1974 to 1997 were committed with non-restricted rifles and shotguns.
Eighty-five per cent of domestic homicides involving firearms were committed with a non-restricted rifle or shotgun. According to a 2007 study of family violence by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the victims of murder or attempted murder by a spouse or ex-spouse were women 87 per cent of the time.
Seventy-four per cent of firearms recovered from suicides and suicide attempts were unrestricted rifles and shotguns.
These statistics tell us that the decision by parliamentarians to scrap the long-gun registry is ideologically based pandering to a self-serving myth held by a minority of Conservatives and amplified by intense lobbying from a special interest group.
Getting rid of the long-gun registry isn't what most Canadians want. They want a registry covering all firearms and they want one that provides law officers with effective tools to reduce all firearm violence, rural as well as urban.
First Anon...
Hanguns have been registered, by law, since 1938 in Canada.
Stats Can released figures circa 1974 showing that over the previous 20 years, only 4% of all handguns involved in crimes were registered.
Stats Can quit keeping records on this after 1974 because the registry was so unreliable as to be utterly useless to them.
Last year Stockwell Day last year confirmed that this statistic has not changed one iota! The figure is still a paltry 4%!
4%!!!
$2 billion dollars spent in order to be able to track a GD lousy 4% of firearms involved in crime!!!
Because criminals...well, DUHHHH!!!...don't register their guns! And they're not stupid enough to use registered guns! And if it is registered, they file off the serial numbers anyway!
Clearly criminals have IQs a damn sight higher than your average left wing twit!
Jeeeezus! Grab yourself some freakin' brains already!!!
*
"nonny trumpets... they want one that provides law officers with effective tools to reduce all firearm violence"
ah, nonny... nice of you to speak for all us canadians.
let me point outthat the decision to go after farmers, duck hunters & skeet shooters cost 2 billion taxpayer dollars and has prevented not a single death.
just ask the families of the four slain mounties out west.
two billion dollars for a liberal p.r. stunt.
you really think a long gun registry prevents sociopaths from beating up their spouses.. or eliminates suicides?
seriously?
where do you live... neverland?
*
You can't register a gun until you have got a licence and permit to buy one. And you can't get that without a background check, taking a safety course run by the RCMP, and then get a FAC permit. (fac now called something else). So yes, it is difficult to get a gun.
Registering said gun and licensing said gun are two different things. And how will said registry prevent a person that plans to commit suicide. Is there some civil servant calling every registered gun owner and asking, do you plan to commit suicide.
People have committed suicide by car accidents, trains, pills, knives, and jumping off a bridge.
The suicide argument is about the stupidest one being used.
Without the cost of the registry more police could be hired, and those owning guns will still be kept track of via who has an FAC.
And that background check has some really great questions, like, has x ever hit his wife, ever been drunk, been in a domestic dispute with wife or kids, how long have you known said person.
Then there were questions re his business, finances and other stuff.
When one applies for a license, they have to give a list of references and then those references are called. Just went thru it a couple of weeks ago.
The Brits, led by, yes, a left wing socialist government, banned handgun outright.
Handgun crime in Britain is now worse than ever before. A helluva lot worse!
Of course, banning and confiscating all those handguns from legal, law abiding citizens was not possible were it not for the registry.
Same in Australia, where another, yes, left wing socialist government banned outright all pump and semi-auto shotguns. They spent over half a billion in confiscating some 600,000 of these.
Of course, this too was only possible because of registration.
Didn't solve any of their firearms crime rates, either.
In 1995 the Liberals said, quote: "Trust us, we don't want your firearms!"
In the 2006 election, when his butt was getting kicked to hell and back by Harper, what did Paul Martin resort to?
Of course! He decided his Liberal government was going to ban all handguns!
And of course, he would use the registry to pull this off.
Trust us, we don't want your guns.
Except when our political asses are in a sling, that is! Then get ready to cover yours!
Lying, stinking bastards!!!
has prevented not a single death.
The long gun registry costs Canadians $4.1 million a year to operate to track nearly 7 million guns — about 60 cents a year per firearm. With 100,000 women and children leaving their homes in Canada each year fleeing violence, and almost 600 missing and murdered Aboriginal women, the long gun registry is an essential national investment. Does it save lives? On the facts alone: Yes.
If 100,000 women flee every year, how many are repeat offenders, or refuse to press charges, go home only to flee again. And how many times are they counted. Maybe we need a fleeing womens registry.
And how many guns were in the homes they fled from.
Throwing numbers around that are picked out of thin air is not advancing your argument.
Nony 1:02 PM, September 02, 2010:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Give it a good read before you post again. Or give us a single example of the registry saving a life. Just one.
Gee, some young kid tried to commit suicide by jumping off a bldg and landing on a car roof. No gun involved, registry did nothing to prevent it.
*
"nonny says... On the facts alone: Yes."
what facts?
and, oh, yeah... your nonsensical math forget to figure in the initial 2 billion dollars. pls recalculate.
*
Post a Comment