Therefore it might have been argued, by those who support it, that the gun registry cannot be abandoned now, as it might have helped to avoid this tragedy and it is more needed now than ever before.
How many more billions of dollars will it cost to make the registry effective? It's over a billion dollars now, and some folks are whispering that it's coming up on two billion..... is it worth it to register firearms on the scale they're proposing, especially when inner-city crime committed with guns, are often committed by stolen or smuggled weapons?
I understand that you should register the most lethal mechanical devices in the land - and, judging by the deaths and injuries they cause each year, that distinction would be held by the automobile. But, the provinces do that. The Provinces have jurisdiction over most other forms of property as well, right? So, why are firearm registries covered under the Federal Criminal Code? A lot of gun owners simply don't like feeling like a criminal or as a sub-class of citizen because they own firearms.
The gun registry was never intended to be the end all to fighting gun crime. It is fundamentally a good idea. Unfortunately the average Canadian gun nut is too stupid to understand why...
Well, whether or not I'm a "stupid gun-nut," I personnally did not say that the registry was supposed to be the end all to fighting gun crime. But it has not met its mandate.... it's failed in its supposed purpose - I mean, it was supposed to be fully implimented years ago, for cryin' out loud -- And we're still not there yet.
Pure and simple, the billions spent on the registry could have been better spent on more police on the streets and the borders, cutting off the smuggling and distribution of illegal guns from our southern neighbour. The registry's by-product of irritating legitimate and law-abiding citizens who own firearms, doesn't help either.
But I'm curious to know, fundamentally, it's a good idea to register all firearms... when most gun crime - such as gang drive-bys, home invasions, and so on - are not committed with legally-owned firearms to begin with? They're usually committed with firearms smuggled in from the US; and a good many of the ones popping up on the streets are of the type which could never be "legally" owned anyway, save for those people with the 'Grandfather Clause.' Those include: Full-autos, "Saturday Night Specials (.25 and .32 calibre handguns)" and sawed-off firearms.
We are all smart enough to understand that for at least several years, any gun registry is going to lack a great deal of guns that are hidden by those who are opposed to the government knowing how many weapons they have.
Ah, yes, I've heard of those folks with their hidden guns before. I'd hazard a guess in saying that they're not in the majority. Many folks simply pay their fee and go about their business. But then, this is Alberta.... even if you do have an expired licence or registration, the police wouldn't enforce it.
Besides, with or without the registry, I would point out that both of those pistols are illegal in your country.
Well, it's illegal for him to have them outside his home, or his gun range (or in a point of transit between the two). But then, that law in particular has been around since the 1970s.
But, which pistols were those that you're referring to? The revolver in the picture doesn't look to be illegal in terms of frame size, but of course I can't tell which calibre it is. Unless it's .25, .32 or .50, and the barrel is more than a certain length, it's fair game.
"Talk to me, Goose..."