An excellent analysis of this perennial debate.
There are parts of Canada, I am told, in which a gun, a long gun, is useful
if not necessary. We have bears, badgers, cougars, and other predators
that may attack. I have never been in such a situation and know of no one
who has, but gun advocates bring this up in every discussion. I fail to
see what registration hinders such use.
Many Canadians do hunt out of necessity or for sport. I understand this
but fail to see why what is known as an assault rifle or some similar gun
is useful for hunting. I think your suggestion that characteristics of the
weapon and not the brand name are best. This makes sense. Certain weapons
like the assault rifles should be totally banned from civilian use, In my
opinion. Police or military, perhaps some other government agencies would
be the only exception.
The use of handguns is presently quite restricted. Reporting when moving,
only to a gun range, and other restrictions make sense to me. Cumbersome,
yes, but there is no need to expand on what we presently have. For those
that wish to go to a range for the sport of shooting, registration is no
bar. I simply cannot understand the belief that registration takes away
any freedom. Like a car, registration is simply part of modern life. I
might add that if the rules are followed - trigger guard, locked security,
etc. - the time taken to retrieve the weapon takes away any value of
affording protection.
What I hear most often is that “the only way to stop a bad man with a gun
is a good man with a gun”. But the limited cases of this type of situation
arising must be balanced against the obvious harm that can result if
handguns were available to (almost) all as the United States clearly shows
almost daily. When I lived in the US, a person could go to a Safeway for
some potato chips and buy a handgun from that grocery store at the same
time. Even so, it is true that registration does nothing to avoid illegal
guns. If there is a demonstrable need for a handgun, especially a hidden
weapon, allowances could be made. “But I need to protect...” is another
justification. As I recall, in the Oregon mass killing, there was a person
with a handgun who wisely avoided taking it out so to not be mistaken for
the shooter by police. (The very few instances where a good guy does
prevent a crime or uses his gun activity for protection are always
trumpeted by gun advocates). Some armoured car people or security types
have no need to hide that they are “carrying”. Police and military might
have such a need. The presence of a handgun should be and is a deterrent.
In recent years, photos of Americans carrying assault rifles into ice cream
shops or grocery shoppers with holstered handguns simple demonstrates, In
my opinion, the insanity of the American system. There is simply no need
for this bravado, registration or not.
Willow
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 9:17 AM Jim Mann <jimmann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Agree with everything Bob had to say. In Canada this is mostly an urban--
versus rural debate and sadly rural seldom wins as Liberal politicians are
dependent on urban areas to win elections. I carried a handgun for many
years in the RCMP and also was a first class marksman in PPCLI reserves so
have fired virtually every class of weapon in Canada. I also own a shot
gun (was used for bird hunting) and a 30/30 rifle (long gun) for being in
back country although never deer hunted.
Canada’s gun ownership, storage, transport and carry regulations are
reasonable and make common sense although a little bit of tweaking might
become useful when it comes to fully automated weapons. I struggle to
understand why anyone “needs” to own a weapon capable of firing so many
arounds a minute – makes no sense to me. Regulations need to focus on
weapon characteristics as opposed to naming specific weapons.
Legally owned handguns are generally NOT a problem in Canada – some are
used in male suicides but very few used in crimes. Legal hand gun and long
gun owners should not be penalized to curry favor and win elections in
urban areas. This is a political decision and not a decision based on
history and statistics. The source of “illegal” guns is generally
smuggling (particularly from the US) and not theft of legally owned
handguns.
Penalties need to focus on and be increased for possession of a gun during
the commission of a crime and also for those cases related to caches of
guns and possession of illegal weapons.
The process for legally acquiring, possessing, storing and transporting a
legal firearm is more than adequate.
jim
*From:* dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <
dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Bob Thomlinson
*Sent:* May 18, 2022 7:53 AM
*To:* dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* RE: discussion topic- Gun registry
Wynn,
Interesting topic. This news article from the May 2, 2022 edition of the
National Post pretty much sums up my confusion about what the government
hopes to accomplish when even police chiefs are not pointing fingers at
legally obtained firearms as the problem. See:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/first-reading-another-liberal-gun-policy-that-neatly-ignores-where-the-guns-come-from
.
I have never held either an older Firearms Acquisition Certificate or the
newer Possession and Acquisition License (PAL). I have never owned a
firearm - unless you count a pellet rifle and pistol that I used to use for
varmint control on our property. However, both our kids are hunters and
have legally acquired firearms. They have taken all the training, obtained
permits, and have secure storage and transportation facilities. Our son,
Mike, is also a well site geologist and holds a pistol carry permit for
bear control and protection in remote locations. Although he is legal, not
all energy companies that employ Mike will allow crew members to have
firearms onsite. I retired from EnCana, which is one of the energy
companies that banned firearms on well sites only to have a well site
worker killed by a bear on a location. Some companies have changed their
policies to provide for better protection, some have not.
I believe that Canada has a very thorough and stringent set of
regulations, including training requirements, for controlling the legal
purchase and use of firearms. I don’t see how the proposed Bill C-5 is
going to improve the situation if the problems are coming from smuggled
weapons used in criminal activity. I REALLY don’t see how reducing the
minimum penalties for smuggling and illegal use of firearms is helpful to
our society or effectively addresses “*systemic racism in Canada’s
criminal justice system*” by reducing the “*overincarceration rate of
Indigenous peoples*” as well as for other “*marginalized Canadians*”, as
the National Post article claims is the government’s intent.
My thoughts on the matter,
Bob T
*From:* dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <
dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *
dsp.ea.large.messages@xxxxxxxxx
*Sent:* May 16, 2022 11:25 PM
*To:* DSP-EA-General@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* FW: discussion topic- Gun registry
*From:* Wynn Payne <wynn.payne@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* May 16, 2022 11:22 PM
*To:* DSP.EA.Large.Messages@xxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* discussion topic- Gun registry
Hi Guys
I tried a topic about the Ukrainian war but had little input so trying a
new topic.
Please comment on Treaudu's new legislation to re-establish the long gun
registry.
I think this is wrong.
This was tried and failed about 10 years ago while costing millions of
dollars.
Gun crimes are up but it is not crimes committed by legal rifle owners.
Crimes committed by criminals are most often committed with illegal
handguns.
There are significant laws now for legitimate ownerships and use of
handguns. The new legislation won't add to this.
I would love to hear some opinions on this.
Please be respectful as this topic has a chance of being more
controversial than previous ones.
Thanks
Wynn
