The trouble with increased sentencing is that it only deals with the issue after people have been killed. The only effective way is increased risk management, reducing the incidents as much as possible.

Once again I say that pat little slogans contribute absolutely nothing to the debate, and demean the deaths of those murdered. Guns ARE used to kill people by people using bullets. Remove any one of the three and those killed would stay alive. Stop the slogans and political posturing and for God's sake DO something that's effective.

As for free votes, when Harper allows a free vote on Afghanistan, Hill's carping about other parties may carry a little weight.

Hill: "In other words, the misguided and failed long-gun registry, instituted by the former Liberal government and costing taxpayers almost TWO BILLION DOLLARS, did not prevent this tragedy and never could."

And how, pray tell, is the elimination of it going to prevent tragedies of a similar nature?

Do we eliminate vehicle and drivers license registrations just because some people steal cars, drive intoxicated, cause fatal accidents?

No, of course not. The Conservatives are using the long gun registry issue as a political football, plain and simple.

Ammonra: "Stop the slogans and political posturing and for God's sake DO something that's effective."

Amen.

I think people are getting confused about why the Conservatives want to scrap the long gun registry. It has nothing to do with preventing tragedies like Dawson since the registry system does absolutely nothing to prevent crime in any form.

Let's review the reasons why the registry should be scrapped:

1) It cannot prevent criminals from committing crime. It's been said over and over, criminals do not respect the law. They buy/steal illegal guns to commit illegal activites.

2) It does not make it harder for criminals to get guns. The vast majority of guns that criminals use are either black market from the united states (not registered) or are stolen from lawful Canadians (registered but still in the hands of criminals). The end result is the same whether they are registered or not.

3) It's not an effective tool for police to track firearms. Lets say the police are called to a domestic dispute. They check their database and see there are no guns registered to this person. Does that mean there can't be guns in the house? Perhaps he owns no firearms but borrows his Dad's instead and has a few stored at his house. Can the police then say, "well I'm not going to wear my vest because my computer tells me there's no guns in the house"? If the computer says there are guns registered to his name does that mean they are actually there? Could they be stored over at his Dad's house? There's no way of telling, so an officer MUST assume there could be firearms in the house and act appropriately. Talk to a police officer and see what they really think of the registry system and see if they think it helps protect them (not elected police chiefs who are political figures, ask an every day on the street cop).

4) It has introduced some draconian laws that directly contravene several charter rights. Police do not need a warrant to search my home because I own guns - which removes my right to unreasonable search. If I screw up some paper work or am late re-newing my PAL I can be put in jail for 2 to 10 years. I'm classified as a criminal just as dangerous as any rapist, or murderer because of a victimless paper crime. If I change residences and forget to inform the CFC then I could also be charged under the criminal code. Even serial rapists don't get tracked as well as I am.

I could go on, but I can't think of any more right now. I'm sure someone will add to my list.

About the only thing the registry does do and the only good I can see from it is if my guns are stolen they can be identified by the police if recovered and returned to me. But if this is the only thing it can do is it really worth all the tax payers money we put into it? Do we continue to put valuable resources into something that doesn't work? Do I continue to paint over the rust, sharpen the blades, and change the oil in my lawn mower even though it doesn't run - even if it cost me 10 times as much as advertised when I bought it?

Posted by Diplomat:

"Do we eliminate vehicle and drivers license registrations just because some people steal cars, drive intoxicated, cause fatal accidents?"

The conservatives are not proposing we do away with licensing. Licensing is a completely different part of our gun control laws and is essential.

Car registration was never intended to stop all of the things you mention above so it's kind of comparing apples to oranges here. If anything you're just furthering the conservatives agument - "registration does nothing to prevent crimes".

I agree with Ammonia on one point however, we should stop the slogans and the politcal posturing and do something that's effective. When someone comes up with something that works and is reasonable I will support it, but keeping the registry around just so it looks like our politicians are doing something is not my idea of a solution.

Posted by Ammonra:

"Guns ARE used to kill people by people using bullets. Remove any one of the three and those killed would stay alive."

Tell me Ammonra, if Gill had no guns at all and couldn't get them do you think he would have just given up on his plans? I think he'd just resort to another method instead. I hear bombs are in vogue in the middle east right now, I wonder how much explosive you could pack under a trench coat?

Good points, Tudenom! But how do you explain why the RCMP stated recently that it refers several thousand times a month to the long-gun registry for information, especially when called to attend to domestic disputes?

Doesn't that indicate that the registry is of some value to those who don't want to be killed when doing their dangerous duty?

Now that 2 Billion has been spent on the registry and it is in place and potentially better administered by the recently elected government it will now be turfed out altogether?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, I rest my case.

Tudenom, one could speculate on what might happen under all sorts of bizarre circumstances about people murdering others, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Gill DID use a registered gun to murder a young girl. That is a fact. I think we should deal with the facts, Sir, not the fancy.

It is not the first murder with legal guns either, I might add. And, once again, I do not advocate outright bans for hunting, target shooting, collecting or other legitimate activities, but I do advocate for a safer society than our children obviously have. If we are not prepared to do ALL we can to protect our children, then what are we?

Tudenom: "Car registration was never intended to stop all of the things you mention above so it's kind of comparing apples to oranges here. If anything you're just furthering the conservatives agument - "registration does nothing to prevent crimes"."

So, are the Conservatives going to abolish the registering of vehicle ownership and drivers licenses, since it did not do enough to prevent vehicular crimes from being committed? (I refrain from using your words "does NOTHING to prevent crimes.")

The gun registry was never intended to stop ALL crimes committed by guns either.

It is a very useful tool for the police, and the police says so.

That is my opinion and if a really valid argument comes along I am willing to possibly change it.

Platitudes like the ones stated by Mr. Hill don't do a thing for me.

They are not the real beef of the issue, but just political haymaking.

I disagree with your "crazy reasons and irrelevant to the discussion" comment, I think it is at the very core of what this is really about. How can the gun registry stop people from killing each other with firearms? Can you think of one single example of how the registry stopped someone from killing someone else with a firearm?

Yes Gill did use registered guns to murder a young girl - the registry did not stop him from doing this.

It's true that we should "do all we can to protect our children" - can the registry protect our children or anyone else? Did it stop Gill, does it stop any criminal in Canada from commiting crimes? What does the registry do that licensing doesn't?

You can boil this whole thing down to one question. Does the registry stop people from murdering other people with firearms? The big resounding answer is NO. Why should we keep a system that does nothing to solve the problem?Lets stop spending money on something that does very little if nothing at all and spend it on something that does (if there is something that can be done about crazy people).

Diplomat, Garry Breitkreuz MP has been trying to track down exactly how the "thousands of times a month" number is determined - it seems that the CFRO is automatically queried in many cases when police officers query CPIC for mundane reasons. There's no way to track what queries are from a legitimate search to see if the person has firearms or if the request tags along automatically every time the police run a license plate. The 5000 hits a month is a very suspicous number and it's impossible to be proved legitimate.

The RCMP automatically assume that there are firearms in the house during any call even if the computer says there are none. It's procedure. So the RCMP approach every call the same whether their computer says "yes registered firearms" or "no registered firearms".

I think you're heading down the wrong road comparing vehicle registration to firearms registration. Vehicle registration is all about insurance purposes, taxes, and safety certification. The only way vehicle and gun registration is similar is a police officer can check to see if the car or firearm is stolen (see above post about returning stolen guns). Vehicle registration fullfils the role that it was designed to fill. Gun registration does not fullfil the role that it was designed to do. Should I stop using my lawn mower because it doesn't cut down trees? Of course not, because that isn't it's purpose.

Tudenom: I am a firm believer in referenda (or, if you prefer, referendums) like they have had in Switzerland for centuries.

Let the citizens at election time put an X in a box to elect their MP, and another X in a box that asks: Do you wish to eliminate the long-gun registry?

In fact, I can think of a number of issues that can (at NO extra cost!!!) be placed on ballots at any Federal, Provincial or even Municipal election.

That way - since we appear to have a democracy - the citizens will be empowered to decide by majority decision what it wants the politicians to enact in Parliament.

I have spoken with Swiss/Canadians and they are full of pride when their system of real democratic government is mentioned. It works!

(Don't tell me to go live in Switzerland; I was not born there and I have no desire to live there).

How is it that polls show that Canadians are less than 32% in favour of Canada being involved in active warfare in Afghanistan, yet the government (without any mandate or vote from the citizens) forged ahead and aligned itself with GW Bush's Middle Eastern pre-emptive war agenda?

Peacekeeping was the mandate; it was changed without consultation by a minority government.

The gun registry issue should be put to a referendum at the next best opportunity - a Federal Election, the sooner the better.

By the way, every time I mow my lawn I am cutting down little trees that are growing up through the grass - I don't use herbicides. Tree cutting with a lawn mower does work.

:)-

Tudenom, I never said anything about "crazy reasons", I did say "bizarre circumstances".

However, you seem to be under the impression that I am in favour of the gun registry. I must draw your attention to the fact that in none of posts about this issue have I once mentioned the gun registry, except to comment that I thought the old system worked quite well. So, all your comments about the registry are wasted on me. I don't care about it one way or the other. Keep it or lose it, I don't think it matters one whit.

What I do care about is protecting young women (and men) from being killed by gun-toting nutcases who have been sucked into some kind of fantasy world by gun advertisers. I want the politicians to stop the self-serving nonsense about whether or not to register guns, an argument that is designed primarily to appeal to their respective constituencies, and actually do something to decrease the likelihood of this happening again. I don't give a damn what it is, but they must make sure it is effective. Our children's safety, and that of the rest of us, has to come first. That's all that matters to me.

There is plenty that could be done, for instance, they could start by asking why a gun like that was available. Why are fantasy-fulfillment guns sold in Canada? Banning guns like that altogether would be a good start, just like switchblade knives and one hand crossbows are banned. If the gun isn't available, people can't be killed by anyone using it, can they?

Firearms will always be available,even if they are banned. It is not permitted to have Coke, Heroin, Grass, but you can get the drugs of your choice anywhere (EVEN ON YOUR QUIET STEET) You want a switchblade Knife, hand held crossbow,submachine gun, rocket lancher, belt fed machine gun, Should take you less then a day DOWN TOWN PG, to get one.

True, partially, but Gill got his fantasy weapon legally and not on a downtown Citysville street corner, so it is only mildly relevant.

Also, people selling those items are likely to get prison sentences if caught, and a submachine gun or rocket launcher salesman would get caught and coke and heroin distributors do get caught regularly. Is this what you think should happen to gun owners, Don? Have you reported these people to the RCMP?

Finally, I did not suggest firearms should be banned, I suggested fantasy weapons that have no legitimate function should be banned. There is a distinct difference. The issue is not black and white, there are shades of grey, and the Government could ban some and not others as they do with knives.

By the way, I have never seen a switchblade in Canada, nor a single handed mini-crossbow, I have seen illegal hand guns. It obviously works better than no ban and completely free access. Besides, wanting to do what criminals do is no good reason for anything, as far as I am concerned.

Uh, okay Diplomat you're going way off topic with the Switzerland stuff (intersting system though).

I'd love to debate your comments about Afganistan and the fact that it has never ever been a UN peace keeping mission and has always been a NATO mission to kick the Taliban out and then rebuild Afganistan. I don't know where this peacekeeping mis-information has been comming from but that's for another thread I'm afraid.

Okay Ammonra, I see that you never ever said that registration is the key to stopping this sort of thing.

But the whole "some guns have an evil aura and make people kill people" thing? Come on gimme a break! I admit that derranged people will be drawn to an "evil" looking gun just like they are drawn to other things like certain types of clothing, or certain music. But music, clothes, and guns, don't make these people derranged!

Maybe we should all head back to the Meisner post about only his kind of firearms since we seem to bea heading away from the registration issue.