Registering hand guns has been law since 1934. Has that stopped the use of illegal hand guns in crime? No.
Will registering guns now have any more effect on criminal activity than previously since 1934? No.
Will registering long guns stop criminals or those with criminal intent (including domestic disturbances) from using long guns? No.
Do those with criminal intent register any guns? No.
Where the registry does not show record of fire arms at a site, should police assume there are none and act less cautiously? No.
Will the registry stop those, who may be prohibited under law or by the registry, from obtaining firearms? No.
Can the monies used to support the registry, be better used to fight crime through other means? Yes.
there is no need for the registration of our firearms. We as the owner is already registered (through our PAL) and have been deemed safe to own them. this is proof that the police are just sticking their noses in for information. Right now they say that it makes them safer because they know if a house has firearms (which is stupid because criminals won't register, and they are far more likely to harm a police) I don't want them to snoop around at all, but if they are sooo worried, why don't they just look to see if you have a PAL. It doesn't matter what you have for firearms, they don't need to know.
The police need all the help they can be given in the fight against gangs in all our major cities. If THEY want to keep the gun register they should have it. There have been more than enough police shot while on duty i this so-called civilised peace loving country.
r sampling - 14 years ago
the registryis a total failure it has yet to prevent one crime and never will. i have spoken to many police who say the regististry is a complete waste
keith griffin - 14 years ago
The chiefs of police association was against the charter of rights and freedoms. That should tell you a lot about their motives.
Luke - 14 years ago
The Canadian Firearm Registry is a tool used by the police for public safety.
“Overall the program is cost effective in reducing firearms related crime and promoting public safety through universal licensing of firearm owners and registration of firearms,"
Should we let politicians dictate which tools our military should use? Usually the politicians will determine the military’s budget and let the military decide what equipment and tools are needed.
Isn’t it strange when Harper announces stiffer laws and longer jail sentences he has the police brass on hand. Of course he will also talk about the victim’s right.
Why is it that Harper personally didn’t bring in the bill to scrap the long gun registry? Is he a coward and doesn’t want to be perceived as anti-police.
What about the pleas of the victims of gun violence to keep the registry. Probably the clanging noise of the gun lobbyist’s coins dropping into the Conservative’s bucket have muffled their pleas.
Wayne Pruden - 14 years ago
It is interesting that the Police Chiefs support the gun registry but not one police officer that I have asked, and I ask every one I meet, thinks it is of any use. Do criminals register guns? Has a gun being registered prevented it from being fired? Does one feel better if they are shot with a registered gun? When officers are raiding a building do they check the gun registry and then just waltz in when they find no guns registered to that address? The public should be allowed to see a list of all the reasons police might access the gun registry. The registry was nothing but an effort by Allen Roche and his ilk to get votes. Would Marc Lepine's gun not have killed if it had been registered?
The Police Chiefs would like nothing better than a "Police State" where they had data/files on every citizen.
Police are hired to enforce laws that the Government deem appropriate. Police Chiefs are hired to manage Police Departments and the officers in them. They should be minding their own business, end of story!!
dhwbailey - 14 years ago
When police start making laws and policy, we head down a very slippery slope.
Police are not elected and answer to their employer, not the other way around.
When more than 50% of the population oppose a law, we change the law.
Laws express the will of the people. Police merely enforce that will, they don't decide it.
Souclhaser - 14 years ago
Just trmember one thing ladies and gentlemen:
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police were AGAINST the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms being enshrined into the Constitution.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~clement2/cacp.pdf
The first line:
"The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is of the firm opinion that a Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in the Constitution is neither necessary nor desirable"
Stephen - 14 years ago
Police have no say in making laws they are here to enforce them NOT dictate them. This is not a police state
Robert0288 - 14 years ago
The police should play no part in the making or interpretation of laws. Their only job is to enforce the laws passed by parliament as interpreted by the justice system.
There is a reason for this division of power, lets not forget why it exists.
M. Bourbonnais - 14 years ago
It is arrogant for the police to think they should influence this decision. We know how you feel , now go away. This is a promise made to the taxpayers of this country by the Conservatives. Lets get on with it.
Ryan - 14 years ago
"ENFORCE does NOT equal DICTATE what are good or bad laws.”
You're equating ineffective gun laws to crimes which when committed, have an intentional victim. This is a fallacy on all accounts and panders to ignorance and fear. Additionally police officers because they enforce the laws know the efficacy and the scope to which they can be realistically enforced. Therefore I posit to you, who better to help dictate laws?
Should the citizen with no experience or knowledge of the laws make the decision?
Should the politician who is reality at the whim of the citizen, who also has no knowledge and relies completely on their staff to inform them make the decision
Or
Should the men and women who are out there every day of the year putting themselves at risk and intervening to help create a stable and safe society have influence on how laws are applied and what the law dictates?
Jarlath Drake - 14 years ago
No offence, but if the majority of Canadians suddenly decide that Marijauna should be decriminalized, and the voted in Government says OK we are going to change the laws, why would the cops get ANY say the matter.
Police are there to ENFORCE the laws put in place by the elected representatives of the population. ENFORCE does NOT equal DICTATE what are good or bad laws.
There is a reason why we have laws regarding spousal abuse and illegal drugs amongst others; because at some point in the past the government created laws (hopefully at the behest of the population) to deal with such behaviour that went against the current society norms.
Despite that, the Chiefs of Police say they represent the rank and file and support the registry. That is like saying that Bill Gates and Jim Balsillie, of Microsoft and RIM respectively, speak on behalf of all their employees. That idea should be laughed at by any person who has a pinch of common sense. Yet the Pro-Gun Control crowd would have you believe that from the chief's of police. What nonsense.
Registering hand guns has been law since 1934. Has that stopped the use of illegal hand guns in crime? No.
Will registering guns now have any more effect on criminal activity than previously since 1934? No.
Will registering long guns stop criminals or those with criminal intent (including domestic disturbances) from using long guns? No.
Do those with criminal intent register any guns? No.
Where the registry does not show record of fire arms at a site, should police assume there are none and act less cautiously? No.
Will the registry stop those, who may be prohibited under law or by the registry, from obtaining firearms? No.
Can the monies used to support the registry, be better used to fight crime through other means? Yes.
there is no need for the registration of our firearms. We as the owner is already registered (through our PAL) and have been deemed safe to own them. this is proof that the police are just sticking their noses in for information. Right now they say that it makes them safer because they know if a house has firearms (which is stupid because criminals won't register, and they are far more likely to harm a police) I don't want them to snoop around at all, but if they are sooo worried, why don't they just look to see if you have a PAL. It doesn't matter what you have for firearms, they don't need to know.
The police need all the help they can be given in the fight against gangs in all our major cities. If THEY want to keep the gun register they should have it. There have been more than enough police shot while on duty i this so-called civilised peace loving country.
the registryis a total failure it has yet to prevent one crime and never will. i have spoken to many police who say the regististry is a complete waste
The chiefs of police association was against the charter of rights and freedoms. That should tell you a lot about their motives.
The Canadian Firearm Registry is a tool used by the police for public safety.
“Overall the program is cost effective in reducing firearms related crime and promoting public safety through universal licensing of firearm owners and registration of firearms,"
Should we let politicians dictate which tools our military should use? Usually the politicians will determine the military’s budget and let the military decide what equipment and tools are needed.
Isn’t it strange when Harper announces stiffer laws and longer jail sentences he has the police brass on hand. Of course he will also talk about the victim’s right.
Why is it that Harper personally didn’t bring in the bill to scrap the long gun registry? Is he a coward and doesn’t want to be perceived as anti-police.
What about the pleas of the victims of gun violence to keep the registry. Probably the clanging noise of the gun lobbyist’s coins dropping into the Conservative’s bucket have muffled their pleas.
It is interesting that the Police Chiefs support the gun registry but not one police officer that I have asked, and I ask every one I meet, thinks it is of any use. Do criminals register guns? Has a gun being registered prevented it from being fired? Does one feel better if they are shot with a registered gun? When officers are raiding a building do they check the gun registry and then just waltz in when they find no guns registered to that address? The public should be allowed to see a list of all the reasons police might access the gun registry. The registry was nothing but an effort by Allen Roche and his ilk to get votes. Would Marc Lepine's gun not have killed if it had been registered?
The Police Chiefs would like nothing better than a "Police State" where they had data/files on every citizen.
Police are hired to enforce laws that the Government deem appropriate. Police Chiefs are hired to manage Police Departments and the officers in them. They should be minding their own business, end of story!!
When police start making laws and policy, we head down a very slippery slope.
Police are not elected and answer to their employer, not the other way around.
When more than 50% of the population oppose a law, we change the law.
Laws express the will of the people. Police merely enforce that will, they don't decide it.
Just trmember one thing ladies and gentlemen:
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police were AGAINST the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms being enshrined into the Constitution.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~clement2/cacp.pdf
The first line:
"The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is of the firm opinion that a Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in the Constitution is neither necessary nor desirable"
Police have no say in making laws they are here to enforce them NOT dictate them. This is not a police state
The police should play no part in the making or interpretation of laws. Their only job is to enforce the laws passed by parliament as interpreted by the justice system.
There is a reason for this division of power, lets not forget why it exists.
It is arrogant for the police to think they should influence this decision. We know how you feel , now go away. This is a promise made to the taxpayers of this country by the Conservatives. Lets get on with it.
"ENFORCE does NOT equal DICTATE what are good or bad laws.”
You're equating ineffective gun laws to crimes which when committed, have an intentional victim. This is a fallacy on all accounts and panders to ignorance and fear. Additionally police officers because they enforce the laws know the efficacy and the scope to which they can be realistically enforced. Therefore I posit to you, who better to help dictate laws?
Should the citizen with no experience or knowledge of the laws make the decision?
Should the politician who is reality at the whim of the citizen, who also has no knowledge and relies completely on their staff to inform them make the decision
Or
Should the men and women who are out there every day of the year putting themselves at risk and intervening to help create a stable and safe society have influence on how laws are applied and what the law dictates?
No offence, but if the majority of Canadians suddenly decide that Marijauna should be decriminalized, and the voted in Government says OK we are going to change the laws, why would the cops get ANY say the matter.
Police are there to ENFORCE the laws put in place by the elected representatives of the population. ENFORCE does NOT equal DICTATE what are good or bad laws.
There is a reason why we have laws regarding spousal abuse and illegal drugs amongst others; because at some point in the past the government created laws (hopefully at the behest of the population) to deal with such behaviour that went against the current society norms.
Despite that, the Chiefs of Police say they represent the rank and file and support the registry. That is like saying that Bill Gates and Jim Balsillie, of Microsoft and RIM respectively, speak on behalf of all their employees. That idea should be laughed at by any person who has a pinch of common sense. Yet the Pro-Gun Control crowd would have you believe that from the chief's of police. What nonsense.