Ibon,
I would only modify your last bit, we have become a society of sociopaths.
Or at least the sociopaths seem to be in charge of our propoganda, err....media and advertising and economics and politics and...???
I'm sorry I kn, it I detect a wee bit of Trump in your arguments. I mean that as a friend holding up a mirror. Not as a personal attack.
PeakOil is You
Las Vegas attack
Re: Las Vegas attack
by Newfie » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 17:28:25
-
Newfie - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 18651
- Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Re: Las Vegas attack
by rockdoc123 » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 18:10:56
The gun registry was implemented in Canada and deemed a massive failure. Not only did it accomplish little in the way of eliminating crime but it was way over budget and it is likely less than 50% of those owning long guns registered them.
It was brought in as a bill in 1993 under Jean Chretien's government. It was in place up until it was repealed in 2011. The original budget was $2 MM Cdn and ended up costing north of $600 MM US. There is still an uproar about the need to destroy records collected during the time registration was in place.
Basically, no self-respecting rancher or farmer registered anything. Most hunters I know told them to piss off...."hell, I'm not registering my Holland and Holland side by side just so one of those liberal bastards can take it away from me" was heard more than once. The RCMP were not fans at all, some stating that it is very unlikely the type of person who would commit a crime with a long gun would step up and volunteer to register. Very little information is available on the effectiveness of the registry which suggests that it did not contribute to a decrease in violent crime (otherwise the liberals would have been tripping over themselves to get to a microphone in order to brag).
So the US should learn from that experience. ON a side note I read a book this past summer by Steven Coonts titled Libertys last stand. Basically a fictional view of what might happen if you had a nutbag President (in the case of this book it was clearly supposed to be Obama ie. his name is President Barry Soetoro) who wants to have a kingdom where he does not have to be re-elected and an assurance to that is to take all the guns away from the citizens. Of course, Admiral Jake Grafton will have no part of this (hey, anyone who has read a Coonts book knows who Grafton is) and gathers up an army of citizens to fight the US army that the President deploys against citizens not willing to cow-tow to his edicts. A bit far-fetched but does point to the original reason for the second amendment.
It was brought in as a bill in 1993 under Jean Chretien's government. It was in place up until it was repealed in 2011. The original budget was $2 MM Cdn and ended up costing north of $600 MM US. There is still an uproar about the need to destroy records collected during the time registration was in place.
Basically, no self-respecting rancher or farmer registered anything. Most hunters I know told them to piss off...."hell, I'm not registering my Holland and Holland side by side just so one of those liberal bastards can take it away from me" was heard more than once. The RCMP were not fans at all, some stating that it is very unlikely the type of person who would commit a crime with a long gun would step up and volunteer to register. Very little information is available on the effectiveness of the registry which suggests that it did not contribute to a decrease in violent crime (otherwise the liberals would have been tripping over themselves to get to a microphone in order to brag).
So the US should learn from that experience. ON a side note I read a book this past summer by Steven Coonts titled Libertys last stand. Basically a fictional view of what might happen if you had a nutbag President (in the case of this book it was clearly supposed to be Obama ie. his name is President Barry Soetoro) who wants to have a kingdom where he does not have to be re-elected and an assurance to that is to take all the guns away from the citizens. Of course, Admiral Jake Grafton will have no part of this (hey, anyone who has read a Coonts book knows who Grafton is) and gathers up an army of citizens to fight the US army that the President deploys against citizens not willing to cow-tow to his edicts. A bit far-fetched but does point to the original reason for the second amendment.
-
rockdoc123 - Expert
- Posts: 7685
- Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Las Vegas attack
by Ibon » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 18:22:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '
')
I'm sorry Ibon, it I detect a wee bit of Trump in your arguments. I mean that as a friend holding up a mirror. Not as a personal attack.
')
I'm sorry Ibon, it I detect a wee bit of Trump in your arguments. I mean that as a friend holding up a mirror. Not as a personal attack.
Naturally, I cannot forsake my American heritage and I still want to fit in with everybody.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
-
Ibon - Expert
- Posts: 9572
- Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Volcan, Panama
Re: Las Vegas attack
by yellowcanoe » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 18:46:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', 'T')he gun registry was implemented in Canada and deemed a massive failure. Not only did it accomplish little in the way of eliminating crime but it was way over budget and it is likely less than 50% of those owning long guns registered them.
That would be the ill-fated long gun registry which was intended to extend registration to non-restricted firearms. I would certain agree that it was a poor idea that wasn't likely to reduce gun crime. I was also told by an individual involved with the registry that it had been deliberately engineered to be of less use to police than it could have been. For example, if a crime involving a gun was committed you would expect it would be simple to check the registry to see who in the vicinity owned the type of gun used but in reality it wasn't.
Registration of restricted firearms remains in place. Registration of handguns has been in place since 1934. Acquisition of handguns is strongly discouraged. If you live in an urban/suburban area you would pretty much have to join a shooting club before you could get a license to own a handgun, you would only be able to transport the handgun between your home and the shooting club and when the handgun was at home it would have to be securely locked up. Handguns are easier to acquire if you live in a rural area. Assault rifles which are generally the weapon of choice in mass shootings are prohibited in Canada.
"new housing construction" is spelled h-a-b-i-t-a-t d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.
- yellowcanoe
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: Las Vegas attack
by rockdoc123 » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 19:02:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ssault rifles which are generally the weapon of choice in mass shootings are prohibited in Canada.
I actually own a sidearm (Blackhawk 41 New Ruger), the rules around getting a Fire Arms Acquisition Certificate to cover that is not as strict as you might think. Yes you need to get fingerprinted and it takes awhile for them to search your background but otherwise not much of a problem. Transporting them from place to place requires a permit but otherwise ownership is not that difficult for a normal citizen. Again the bad guys will get sidearms from the black market and will not be registered so whether or not all the angst over handgun control in Canada is worthwhile remains a question in my mind. As to Assault rifles....someone who is skilled can do as much damage with a bolt action Winchester .308, but that being said all manner of semi-automatic rifles are legal in Canada including something like the Smith and Wesson M&P .223 Rem semi-automatic sport rifle which in the hands of someone semi-competent could do a lot of damage and you can buy one at the Cabelas store at the mall (I guess that would be Bass Pro now).
-
rockdoc123 - Expert
- Posts: 7685
- Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Las Vegas attack
by evilgenius » Thu 12 Oct 2017, 02:36:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', '
')In terms of living, I suggested a registry. I suggested that because it isn't about banning. It takes into account the Second Amendment. A registry doesn't infringe upon anybody's ability to either possess or sell the kinds of weapons that make non gun owners afraid. What it does is introduce transparency into the situation. And transparency exposes owners of those types of guns and gun accessories that would put a person on the registry to how non gun owners would react to them when they have knowledge. If it developed according to my suggestion, where most pistols, hunting rifles and other reasonable use items for which there are considerable examples of use within society, don't place a person on the list, then those people would not come under the scrutiny of the non gun loving public. That's what compromise looks like, not that you get something in return, but that you listen. If you listen that means when you hear the other side considers a thing to be very important you make concessions.
')In terms of living, I suggested a registry. I suggested that because it isn't about banning. It takes into account the Second Amendment. A registry doesn't infringe upon anybody's ability to either possess or sell the kinds of weapons that make non gun owners afraid. What it does is introduce transparency into the situation. And transparency exposes owners of those types of guns and gun accessories that would put a person on the registry to how non gun owners would react to them when they have knowledge. If it developed according to my suggestion, where most pistols, hunting rifles and other reasonable use items for which there are considerable examples of use within society, don't place a person on the list, then those people would not come under the scrutiny of the non gun loving public. That's what compromise looks like, not that you get something in return, but that you listen. If you listen that means when you hear the other side considers a thing to be very important you make concessions.
Interesting, maybe we should expand your idea. How about making anyone who buys a scary looking knife register it? If you wanted to own a scary looking knife, you could, but with a registry it would become transparent to the general non scary knife owning public.
Maybe everyone who goes to a psychiatrist should also be forced to register the type of mental health treatment they receive. That way the general non mentally disturbed public would know what ailments those crazy people are being treated for and can base the way we treat them because of the transparency. After all crazy people, statistically are a greater danger to the public.
The list could go on and on, in some cases you would not even need a registry to inform the public. Maybe make people with bad driving records paint their cars florescent orange so we can immediately identify the bad drivers while on the road?
Think of how safer we will all be if these ideas catch on!!!
/sarcasm
You're making a fundamental error, when you say everything should go into the registry. Or, indeed, that it ought, in any further iteration, to encompass more than the agreed upon forms of contentiousness as decided by argument from both sides and in relation to the idea that the Second Amendment means something. The place where you fall into error is in the relationship between the individual and society. Whereas the registry as I propose it doesn't involve any sort of official or governmental recognition of who the average man is, or demand there be an average man, as far as that goes, your take on expansion of it does. The whole idea, from my perspective, is that individuals have the right to function within the framework of society. Those that don't appreciate gun ownership as well as those who do should be able to express themselves. By seeing who owns a registered item, and we are not talking about things that are commonplace in the pubic psyche, but the objects of legitimate contention, people can make decisions as to whether they will buy on a street, or in a neighborhood, where they see that owners of those contentious items reside, for instance. As those actions transpire within society the owners of said items may find they feel disenfranchised. They may seek redress in the courts. The precedents they set may well apply to other aspects of society, where there has been, even if analogically, a similar disenfranchisement. There may exist the possibility of class action, but that is probably not something that this scenario allows. What you get is legal precedent, which would work its way through society via the courts, one case at a time. And, as these actions which transpire outside of legal challenge proceed, one transaction, or not, between individuals or small groups of people at a time.
Your take is very much like the European take on the individual in relation to society. Those societies see the individual, largely, as some aspect of an average man. The legal, tax and other structures approach people upon that basis. Instead of letting people go to hell in their own ways, they try to tell them how many units of alcohol they should be consuming. They tax every sin as if to annihilate it. They meddle into how much people eat, and demand they not waste, or they may have to pay a tax. Not stopping there, they tax use of infrastructure as a means to define the nature of how people interact with each other. They tax cheap things, like energy, until they are so expensive that every really cold winter they find old people frozen to death because they can't afford to heat their homes and pay all of the other taxes. They make you recycle, instead of incentivizing you to. They don't allow individual compassion to be the ultimate decision maker over whether a person will be charitable, it would seem, but attempt to legislate charity out of people based upon their participation in society as 'average' members. In their way of thinking the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
To be certain I am not saying that individuals ought to rule over society based upon certain gained 'rights' as they perceive them, such as land ownership that they feel empowers them to do whatever they want with something they own to the detriment of everyone else. What I am saying is that in a world where everyone is king, eventually everyone will have to stand in line. Going on and on about gun rights and paying no attention whatsoever to those who don't want so much of that is like cutting the line. I said previously that the lack of such a thing may very well overstate property values because it leaves people who disagree uninformed about the makeup of a neighborhood. It doesn't give them an informed choice, but insists that whether there are fringe owners on a street or in a neighborhood or not doesn't matter. It, essentially, demands that those people seeking to buy respect the 'average.' The Second Amendment itself imposes a sort of average, where gun ownership and other basic means of self-defense will never be outlawed, as does tradition when we talk about hunting, but there are these points of contention that no reasonable person could call average in that sense.
As far as you people who seem to demand that a registry would require people to volunteer information about their present state of gun related ownership, I don't get your point. I don't see why a registry can't simply begin with all current transactions. If it involved all of the easy ways to do so, it would eventually gather up the things you are so concerned ought to be included to begin with. People do both buy and sell all of the time. Sure, they would ramp up buying when they realized the registry was about to happen, and before it actually did, but their surpluses would warp things and the markets would be their only very effective means to address that.
-
evilgenius - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3730
- Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Stopped at the Border.
And it is illegal to own any knife adapted for use primarily as a weapon. Just how in God's name could you tell? A 3" pen knife innocent looking gentlemens pen knife can do as much damage as a 5" out the front automatic tactical knife in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing.