It is 'incompetence' beginning from their perceived need to introduce
further 'gun control' without any knowledge of whether it was needed or
would be effective. The government only wants to be "perceived" as doing
something.
Marc Lepine murdered 14? young women at Concordia University with a hunting
rifle after he was refused admission and I believe that he thought that it
was due to his being male during a time of reverse discrimination ( what's
the real term? ). Needless to say, people were upset and since they could
not vet(sp) their angst on the devil, as he had committed suicide, they
chose the object that he used. Women's groups headed a call for further gun
control and since they are the largest voting group, they got more,
regardless and sometimes in spite of, the facts. In a nutshell, that
describes our current round of gun control. What would we have done if he
had plowed down a group of people at a crosswalk with his 'registered' car?
What difference would it have made if his rifle had been registered? ( That
particular brand and model of hunting rifle is now banned in Canada under
the latest legislation. ) The flags in Canada now fly at have half mast on
Marc Lepine day, and did not on Remembrance day ( they did this year ).
Personally, I think his remains should have been hung from a public flagpole
and let the birds have at him to discourage other insane people from
repeating his actions so that they to can be immortalized. I really feel
for the parents, friends and relatives of the murdered girls, but I don't
think that this placebo legislation will help in a concrete way.
The Auditor General at the time ( '93 ) said that there had been no attempt
to figure out if previous gun control had had any effect and the changes
were being made without facts to support change and that it was being
implimented to appease those who asked for gun control.
1993:
"27.29 Our review of the new regulations indicated that important data,
needed to assess the potential benefits and future effectiveness of the
regulations, were not available at the time the regulations were drafted.
The government proceeded with new regulations for reasons of public policy."
I'm a computer programmer. The database and programming should be
reasonably simple. The logic behind it is not so simple. There will be a
fair amount of civil disobedience because each previous round of gun control
( started around WWII ) involves confiscation/banning of yet another
subgroup of firearms including in this last round, 56% of legally owned, and
to redundant for the sake of clarity, registered handguns in the hands of
law abiding citizens who had to undergo RCMP investigation, spousal
approval, not have a criminal or mental history of violence, interviews of
neighbours, etc., etc. etc. Also, the government funded women's group ( I
forget what they are called but is is something about 'violence against
women' ) criticized the government for not following their recommendation of
seeking full compliance on the registration and then proceeding with
confiscation. The government tried to do a bit of both simultaneously which
got gun owners backs up and unified their resistance. It used to be: ' I
only target shoot, not hunt like those barbarians' or 'I only hunt, I have
no need for handguns', etc. etc. etc. Also, there is a clause in the
legislation that says that the govenment will not take away from the
aboriginals treaty rights, so status indians do not have to register. So, a
thinking person begins to wonder what is the purpose of a 85% complete
database whether it was free or a billion dollars. Even if it was 100%
complete, it would still not include the criminal element. I think that the
money would have been better spent registering criminals and on social
programs, because some people are losers who can no be rehabilitated and
some people sure could use a break. The greatest indicator of incidences of
violent crime is poor economic times, alcohol and other substance abuse, and
the absence of good parental examples. That's what my research has shown.
Legislate against that!
No flame suit required. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But,
actions that affect every person in a country should not be based on
opinions, and that is what this government is doing.
Adverse effects of a registry? None, I suppose, if you believe that there
is no-one in your country who could benefit from an itemized inventory. I
hate to plant seeds, but suppose you belonged to Al Qaeda and wanted access
to a shopping list. Where would you go? You would hack into a gov't
registration system. Hilter made use of a registration implimented before
he came into power to disarm his people.
Benefits of a registry? None, I suppose, if you were lead to believe that
it was to be used by police to know whether or not a certain individual
might have a firearm when they you go to get him/her. Criminals won't
register. The cop will be dead if he trusts the registry. Wouldn't it be
simpler to register those who should not have firearms and check up on them?
But, . . . you register your car don't you, why the aversion to registering
your gun? To that I say: "Why do I register my car"? I am registered as a
driver and the car is my property. Is there a benefit to me to registering
my car or because someone else registers his car? When a car comes into or
is manufactured in a country, couldn't it be uniquely plated for
identification purposes? You might come up with some semi-valid reasons and
I won't argue them with you, but assuming that you found a reason that you
are comfortable with, why do I have to keep registering it when it remains
in my possession?
Better cut it short here.
Robert D.
----- Original Message -----
> Is this really a gun issue or simple incompetence.
>
> We have had gun registration in Australia for ages (even decades I
> believe)
>
> How hard can it be? A couple of records (serial numbers) linked from each
> gun licence. As a matter of interest, each shooter's licence has a list
> of the guns/serial nos that they own listed on the licence itself.
>
> I see no adverse effects from the regsitration and can see no reason
> why it should be expensive to run.
>
> OK, out with the flame proof suit again... Better make it bullet proof
too!
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Robert Duquette wrote:
>
> > I must say that I am revelling in this.
> >
> > Allen Rock could lose a shot at party leadership over this issue.
> >
> > http://cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2002/12/05/gun_vote021205
> >
> > Please reply off list, if you must, as we know that not everyone shares
our
> > interests.
> >
> > LOL
> > Robert D.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets
|