Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Seaward: You clearly have no understanding of Canada's criminal element. Just to make this easier for you, we have a fairly significant Hell's Angels presence, to name one.

Hey, what do you know. It makes 30 year-old Virginians laugh, too.

Seriously, though. A tiny population spread out over a vast area, less than half the guns per capita, Fisher-Price criminal enterprises...and it's really the gun laws? Really?

..edit..nvm
goobered up my response.

Europe has higher population density but often less crime. You can't blame gun-related crimes entirely on population density-- it is only one of many, many factors that result in a higher or lower rate of gun-related crimes. And it is only one of many things which must be taken in to consideration when thinking about this debate.

 Melissia wrote:
Europe has higher population density but often less crime. You can't blame gun-related crimes entirely on population density-- it is only one of many, many factors that result in a higher or lower rate of gun-related crimes. And it is only one of many things which must be taken in to consideration when thinking about this debate.

I'm glad you agree with me.

No, I do not agree with your attitude on the topic.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Az you realize that providing or selling a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one, such as one's two-strike loser cousin is already illegal right?

What's that popular line of thought the guns-for-everyone movement likes to take? Oh, yeah: "laws don't stop criminals". In other words, if the mere fact that it's illegal doesn't stop criminal types, then the universal background check will hopefully make it harder for someone's not-a-criminal-yet cousin to straw purchase firearms for them.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Seaward: You clearly have no understanding of Canada's criminal element. Just to make this easier for you, we have a fairly significant Hell's Angels presence, to name one.

Hey, what do you know. It makes 30 year-old Virginians laugh, too.

Seriously, though. A tiny population spread out over a vast area, less than half the guns per capita, Fisher-Price criminal enterprises...and it's really the gun laws? Really?

1. I honestly read that first bit as "30-year-old vigins" and woke the S/O up from laughter, so thanks for that.
2. Shall I take that less-guns-per-capita excuse to be your admission that gun crime increases as an effect of firearms being present? Because that appears to be what you just said.

Also, I think we've established before that population size doesn't really affect crime rates.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Az you realize that providing or selling a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one, such as one's two-strike loser cousin is already illegal right?

What's that popular line of thought the guns-for-everyone movement likes to take? Oh, yeah: "laws don't stop criminals". In other words, if the mere fact that it's illegal doesn't stop criminal types, then the universal background check will hopefully make it harder for someone's not-a-criminal-yet cousin to straw purchase firearms for them.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Az you realize that providing or selling a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one, such as one's two-strike loser cousin is already illegal right?

What's that popular line of thought the guns-for-everyone movement likes to take? Oh, yeah: "laws don't stop criminals". In other words, if the mere fact that it's illegal doesn't stop criminal types, then the universal background check will hopefully make it harder for someone's not-a-criminal-yet cousin to straw purchase firearms for them.

So laws don't stop criminals, so we should add MORE laws.

come on Az, you can do better then that.

How? How is it effective at all? If I'm a scum bag getting an illegal handgun I probably don't give a gak about getting a background check. We just established the act is illegal already. We already know you're more likely to be struck by lightning in the U.S. then be prosecuted for doing a straw buy for someone. We know criminals don't care about laws. So who does it affect? No one we don't want to have guns. It just affects the law abiding. So what does it stop? Nothing at all.

How about, and I'm going out on a limb here, we actually prosecute and enforce the FETHING LAWS on the books before we add useless ones that just make life harder for the law abiding and do NOTHING to restrict criminals. How about we try that yes?

If we need to add ANY laws to the books it's strict mandatory minimums for the use of a firearm in a crime. Armed robbery? Enjoy 20 years in the slam. Murder? You're done, enjoy your cell cause you ain't leaving unless it's in a pine board box.

 azazel the cat wrote:
1. I honestly read that first bit as "30-year-old vigins" and woke the S/O up from laughter, so thanks for that.
2. Shall I take that less-guns-per-capita excuse to be your admission that gun crime increases as an effect of firearms being present? Because that appears to be what you just said.

Also, I think we've established before that population size doesn't really affect crime rates.

Do you think there's more snowmobile-related crime in Canada or in Belize?

Also, please go back and read what was actually written. Population density was hardly the sole issue touched on. There's also the matter of the vastly different scope and scale of crime in the United States. You guys have maple syrup heists, we have inner city youth routinely killing each other due to involvement in the drug trade. Believing that background checks on private sales would stem the flow of already illegal firearms to the criminal underclass strikes me as akin to believing that background checks on private sales of cocaine would have a similar effect. It's simply not dealing with the reality of the problem.

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:

1. What is the goal of your proposal (in this specific case, what do you think mandating 'universal back ground checks' is supposed to fix?

2. How do you think this proposal if enacted would accomplish your goal?

3. What are the costs of enacting your proposal (monetary and lost freedoms.)

1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.

1. Wrong, if they are doing it now they will do it then with no more problem.
2. see answer to 1. It doesn't tighten a filter on everyone, just those who submit to back ground checks.
3a. Wrong, there is a cost, you assume the applicant pays for it. Even IF correct, it is an increase to the cost of gun ownership you want currently law abiding citizens to agree to submit to without a real gain for them.
3b. Wrong again, I can currently give a rifle as a gift or buy one from a friend without any additional cost or state interference. I would lose the freedom to do so.. If that makes me a paranoid delusional unfit to own a firearm in your opinion, then I am damned glad folks like you fail to pass these laws and pray you continue to fail.

And I am still waiting for the multitude of examples of guns bought legally without a background check being used by the legal owner to commit violent crimes. If your answer in 1 is really the goal, then this MUST be a problem worth addressing. Yet there seems to be a lack of evidence it is a real issue. I am sure if you dig hard enough you'll find some examples, the law of large numbers works that way. But it is not anywhere near the scope of problem that demands federal legislation to deal with it.



On another gun thread I pointed out that swimming pools kill orders of magnitude more kids each year than guns do. Pass legislation to have all swimming pools filled in and you will save more lives than any gin law you could pass, and do so without infringing on a constitutional right.

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Seaward: You clearly have no understanding of Canada's criminal element. Just to make this easier for you, we have a fairly significant Hell's Angels presence, to name one.

Hey, what do you know. It makes 30 year-old Virginians laugh, too.

Seriously, though. A tiny population spread out over a vast area, less than half the guns per capita, Fisher-Price criminal enterprises...and it's really the gun laws? Really?

its not the gun laws, we didnt have a gun violence problem before mr Rock forced these gun laws down our thoats in the 90's, and we still dont have one after.

Canadians had access to tommy guns and all the full auto goodness in my lifetime, and it wasnt a problem, no one has ever used a legally bought full auto maliciously here, then they were banned and touted the new laws as preventing all the crime that wasnt there in the first place.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:How? How is it effective at all? If I'm a scum bag getting an illegal handgun I probably don't give a gak about getting a background check. We just established the act is illegal already. We already know you're more likely to be struck by lightning in the U.S. then be prosecuted for doing a straw buy for someone. We know criminals don't care about laws. So who does it affect? No one we don't want to have guns. It just affects the law abiding. So what does it stop? Nothing at all.

How about, and I'm going out on a limb here, we actually prosecute and enforce the FETHING LAWS on the books before we add useless ones that just make life harder for the law abiding and do NOTHING to restrict criminals. How about we try that yes?

Well, here's the thing: I keep reading about the absolute certainty of criminals obtaining firearms through nebulous means. Why don't we qualify exactly how that happens, yes? Because it is my belief that one of (not the only, just one of) the avenues criminals use to obtain firearms is through strawman purchases, often inter-state. So a universal background check will make this facet that much harder to pull off, because...

...I believe there should be a national firearm registry. Nobody has to lose any firearms. But every single serial number gets logged, and either has a dealer, distrubutor or owner attached to it. Every time there's a transfer, the registry is updated. That way, when a criminal does use a firearm in a crime, it's very easy to trace back the provenance of the firearm in order to determine how that criminal managed to get hold of it. And from there, the authorities can start to enforce and press charges, cutting the criminals' access to firearms off closer to the head, rather than settling for their hands.

Does this infringe on any freedom? I'd say no. Sure, there's always going to be paranoia about national lists, but I consider that fear to be a psychosis approaching a type of schizophrenia. (And before anyone makes the tired "Hitler made lists and shipped people to camps" argument, I'll preemptively say that it was pretty obvious that Hitler was going to persecute the Jews from day one; antisemitism and xenophobia was pretty much his campaign slogan in 1933; to think that it crept up out of nowhere would be on par with electing a Klansman and then acting puzzled when he targets African Americans.)

Hell, you can even make it a state registry, if you want. That would probably work, too (though maybe not quite as efficiently. Or maybe more efficiently, I'm not sure how the dynamic works in practice in a republic). Basically, I want the same kind of system for firearms that is currently used for automobiles. I'd prefer the licensing element, too, but I do understand how there are legitimate and (unfortunately, IMO) well-grounded legal challenges to that idea. But the registry does not take away any rights. At all, and it makes the actual firearms laws to be actually enforceable.

CptJake wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:

1. What is the goal of your proposal (in this specific case, what do you think mandating 'universal back ground checks' is supposed to fix?

2. How do you think this proposal if enacted would accomplish your goal?

3. What are the costs of enacting your proposal (monetary and lost freedoms.)

1.) to make it harder for people who should not have guns to obtain them (not impossible, just harder)
2.) the filter would tighten, increasing the difficulty for criminals and the mentally incompetent to obtain firearms.
3.a) monetary cost: zero. The applicant pays for background check costs, and can receive a tax deduction in return.
3.b) freedom cost: zero. Anyone who believes that a background check before buying a gun to be an assault on their freedom is likely experiencing the sort of paranoid delusion that ought to discount them from owning firearms to begin with.

1. Wrong, if they are doing it now they will do it then with no more problem.

Not only do you have no basis to make that claim, but it represents a depressing Calvinistic level of fatalism, in addition to rendering any discussion with you as moot. It is the equivalent of saying "nuh-uh". However, I will counter it just as I did when Whembly said it: criminals aren't likely hindered from breaking into your home because of the lock on the door, or the door itself. So do you bother to lock your doors when you go out, or even have doors at all? According to your line of thinking, a criminal will be able to break into your house no matter what, so there's no reason to even bother with doors and locks.

CaptnJake wrote:3b. Wrong again, I can currently give a rifle as a gift or buy one from a friend without any additional cost or state interference. I would lose the freedom to do so.. If that makes me a paranoid delusional unfit to own a firearm in your opinion, then I am damned glad folks like you fail to pass these laws and pray you continue to fail.

Just from a black-letter-law standpoint, the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms; it does not grant you the right to obtain or transfer them. In other words, it is legal to prohibit the sale, though not the possession of such. But rules-lawyering aside, your "freedom" to give out firearms willy-nilly to whoever you choose is already restricted by current laws (you cannot give a gun to a criminal, for example). All the background check is doing is ensuring that you are not breaking the law, perhaps even by accident. After all, maybe your cousin Timmy whom you are gifting a firearm to has a felony conviction that you don't know about.

CaptnJake wrote:On another gun thread I pointed out that swimming pools kill orders of magnitude more kids each year than guns do. Pass legislation to have all swimming pools filled in and you will save more lives than any gin law you could pass, and do so without infringing on a constitutional right.

I am really tired of this silly, juvenile argument. It is the same thing as saying we should not bother to do anything to help people, ever, because curing cancer will save more lives, so we should do nothing at all until we first cure cancer.

Yes, it's a really pathetic argument. See it all the time in feminist discussions (almost invariably, but not exclusively, from non-feminists).

Laws don't stop illegal immigrants, why fix them.

Why have laws at all!

d-usa wrote:Laws don't stop illegal immigrants, why fix them.

Why have laws at all!

Right? It's weird: Murder is against the law, but yet some people still do it! So, like, we should just stop making murder illegal, because it obviously isn't a perfect deterrent.

 d-usa wrote:
Laws don't stop illegal immigrants, why fix them.

Why have laws at all!

Close. You're almost there. Just snug that thinking cap down a little tighter.

If I say, "This law wouldn't stop illegal immigrants!" does that, by default, mean all laws won't? Because that's the argument you're trying to make here.

The answer, of course, is no. Calling the laws proposed bs feel-good measures doesn't mean that all laws, even those trying to achieve the same goal, necessarily are. If you really, really, really can only come up with one way to do something...well, you probably work for the public sector.

 azazel the cat wrote:

...I believe there should be a national firearm registry. Nobody has to lose any firearms. But every single serial number gets logged, and either has a dealer, distrubutor or owner attached to it. Every time there's a transfer, the registry is updated. That way, when a criminal does use a firearm in a crime, it's very easy to trace back the provenance of the firearm in order to determine how that criminal managed to get hold of it. And from there, the authorities can start to enforce and press charges, cutting the criminals' access to firearms off closer to the head, rather than settling for their hands.

And registries that have been made before were fairly quickly used to remove those POWs from civilians hands...I believe in another thread that it was pointed out that Canada did this at one point. It's also been pointed out that Hitler did it. I'm not saying that whatever Hitler did, we should do the opposite, I mean the Autobahn is pretty fething spectacular, it's just that there are quite a few things he did politically that no "free nation" should ever do.

Honestly, the ONLY place that people should be registering their firearms is with the manufacturer. It's fairly obvious to me on that one, but basically, with a manufacturing registry, you'll be able to get quicker notifications of all recalls and other maintenance related issues from them (my newest pistol just recently went through this, the recall didnt affect my S/N, but it may yet, I'll find out when I head to the range)

Just because registration works fairly well for things like automobiles does not mean that it should be universally applied to anything that could pose a danger, or a threat to the average person.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Laws don't stop illegal immigrants, why fix them.

Why have laws at all!

Close. You're almost there. Just snug that thinking cap down a little tighter.

If I say, "This law wouldn't stop illegal immigrants!" does that, by default, mean all laws won't? Because that's the argument you're trying to make here.

The answer, of course, is no. Calling the laws proposed bs feel-good measures doesn't mean that all laws, even those trying to achieve the same goal, necessarily are. If you really, really, really can only come up with one way to do something...well, you probably work for the public sector.

Actually that is the argument that everybody makes against gun laws. Even though they spit out "gun laws don't stop criminals because criminals don't obey laws" from one corner of their mouth while screaming "we need more laws to stop criminals doing something I don't support like imigration" from the other.

The only real new gun law I support is universal background checks. All the other measures I support is canceling all the NRA-backed prohibitions from enforcing current laws already on the books.

 d-usa wrote:
Laws don't stop illegal immigrants, why fix them.

Why have laws at all!

Keep the legions intact. They make the law legal.

 d-usa wrote:

Actually that is the argument that everybody makes against gun laws. Even though they spit out "gun laws don't stop criminals because criminals don't obey laws" from one corner of their mouth while screaming "we need more laws to stop criminals doing something I don't support like imigration" from the other.

The only real new gun law I support is universal background checks. All the other measures I support is canceling all the NRA-backed prohibitions from enforcing current laws already on the books.

Could you name some of those laws that the government's prohibited from enforcing?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Actually that is the argument that everybody makes against gun laws. Even though they spit out "gun laws don't stop criminals because criminals don't obey laws" from one corner of their mouth while screaming "we need more laws to stop criminals doing something I don't support like imigration" from the other.

The only real new gun law I support is universal background checks. All the other measures I support is canceling all the NRA-backed prohibitions from enforcing current laws already on the books.

Could you name some of those laws that the government's prohibited from enforcing?

Seriously?

Fething Seriously?

You know what? Nope. Not going to do it. For two reasons:

1) For somebody who is so well informed about these issues and has researched all these solutions and decided that they could not possibly work, you would think that you would know about them.
2) They have been explained to you in a couple of other gun threads already. Some of them have been mentioned in this very thread. If you cannot, or don't want to, remember them then that is pretty much your fault. I'm not going to waste my time and precious bandwidth typing them again.

Stick your fingers in your ear and go "nanananana" all you want. I'm tired of arguing with you about it.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

...I believe there should be a national firearm registry. Nobody has to lose any firearms. But every single serial number gets logged, and either has a dealer, distrubutor or owner attached to it. Every time there's a transfer, the registry is updated. That way, when a criminal does use a firearm in a crime, it's very easy to trace back the provenance of the firearm in order to determine how that criminal managed to get hold of it. And from there, the authorities can start to enforce and press charges, cutting the criminals' access to firearms off closer to the head, rather than settling for their hands.

And registries that have been made before were fairly quickly used to remove those POWs from civilians hands...I believe in another thread that it was pointed out that Canada did this at one point. It's also been pointed out that Hitler did it. I'm not saying that whatever Hitler did, we should do the opposite, I mean the Autobahn is pretty fething spectacular, it's just that there are quite a few things he did politically that no "free nation" should ever do.

Just because registration works fairly well for things like automobiles does not mean that it should be universally applied to anything that could pose a danger, or a threat to the average person.

Sorry, I'm pretty tired here, and am having some trouble slugging through the pronouns and what POW refers to in this conxtext- what exactly did Canada do?

Also, your argument appears to be entirely based on a slippery slope fallacy: you are assuming that because a government makes a registry, that it will use said registry to round people up an disarm them. However, you seem to have taken an arbitrary point to make your stand: if you're so concerned that a government will round people up, why stop at the registry point, when you'd be even safer from that event if you didn't have a government at all?

Having a registry (like Canada has) is not something to rationally fear.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Just because registration works fairly well for things like automobiles does not mean that it should be universally applied to anything that could pose a danger, or a threat to the average person

Why not? Could you give me a reason without making a slippery-slope, nirvana fallacy or poison-the-well argument? This is an honest question; I don't mean to call you out or anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Actually that is the argument that everybody makes against gun laws. Even though they spit out "gun laws don't stop criminals because criminals don't obey laws" from one corner of their mouth while screaming "we need more laws to stop criminals doing something I don't support like imigration" from the other.

The only real new gun law I support is universal background checks. All the other measures I support is canceling all the NRA-backed prohibitions from enforcing current laws already on the books.

Could you name some of those laws that the government's prohibited from enforcing?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf
Even though it's the Daily Show, this is very concise.

Here are some print sources:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102302996.html?sid=ST2010102304311
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/guns/documents/tiahrt-1.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Here you go. I know you won't like some of the sources of the articles, but that doesn't make them wrong and their information is all verifiable.

Here is a source you might prefer:
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/03/atf-revokes-federal-firearms-license/#axzz2IHZPGxj0
It denotes the ridiculous measures required to revoke the license of a dealer in gross repeated violations of the laws.

Did you just cite Jon Stewart - the comic- as a source???

For example, the ATF cannot require dealers to conduct inventory checks,

They can look at your paperwork any time.

. force dealers to respond to police requests,

Define police requests first.

cannot investigate dealers for inventory discrepancies more than once a year (even if they voluntarily conduct an inventory check),

So either they can do an inventory check or they can't. It just blew its own argument. Some ATF were using inventory checks as a method of harassment.

has had only about 2500 agents for the past few decades

4,000 actually.

, cannot create a federal registry of gun transactions (which would help isolate where illegal guns are coming from),

You're bloody well right they can't. Registration leads to confiscation.

and cannot have a director unless approved by Congress (which means they haven't had a permanent director in 6 years).

Considering they dont' anything in the first place...meh.

 d-usa wrote:
Seriously?

Fething Seriously?

Yeah. Seriously. Name one law the NRA has successfully managed to get the government to not enforce.

Stick your fingers in your ear and go "nanananana" all you want. I'm tired of arguing with you about it.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Here you go. I know you won't like the sources of the articles, but their information is all verifiable.

Yes, the NRA has successfully lobbied to restrict the ATF's record-keeping powers.

Now, back to the question: can you name one law the NRA has successfully managed to prevent the government from enforcing?

Frazzled wrote:Did you just cite Jon Stewart - the comic- as a source???

No, I used the Jon Stewart clip as a nice, concise summary. If any of the information presented there -and backed up by the print citations- is incorrect, please feel free to not only point it out, but also cite your contrary evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:Now, back to the question: can you name one law the NRA has successfully managed to prevent the government from enforcing?

If I blind you and cut your arms and legs off, have I prevented you from going to work? No, you can always roll there. Hopefully it's not up any steep hills.

However, in practice, yeah, I've probably made it next to impossible for you to get to work.

 azazel the cat wrote:
If I blind you and cut your arms and legs off, have I prevented you from going to work? No, you can always roll there. Hopefully it's not up any steep hills.

However, in practice, yeah, I've probably made it next to impossible for you to get to work.

Just one law. Just looking for one federal firearms law.

While you're looking for one, could you tell me where the NICS Improvement Amendments Act came from and who pushed it through?

Frazzled wrote:Did you just cite Jon Stewart - the comic- as a source???

For example, the ATF cannot require dealers to conduct inventory checks,

They can look at your paperwork any time.

. force dealers to respond to police requests,

Define police requests first.

cannot investigate dealers for inventory discrepancies more than once a year (even if they voluntarily conduct an inventory check),

So either they can do an inventory check or they can't. It just blew its own argument. Some ATF were using inventory checks as a method of harassment.

You're being willfully obtuse. The ATF canot require (that is, compell) dealers to conduct inventory checks. However, once a year they are allowed to look at the inventory. Being allowed to be the law, and being permitted to by the dealer are two very different things.

And no, registries do not necessarily lead to confiscation. Canada has had a registry for a long time, and nobody has confiscated our guns. Your believe in this slippery slope is paranoia; nothing more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
If I blind you and cut your arms and legs off, have I prevented you from going to work? No, you can always roll there. Hopefully it's not up any steep hills.

However, in practice, yeah, I've probably made it next to impossible for you to get to work.

Just one law. Just looking for one federal firearms law.

Now this I will not placate. You actually are sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana can't hear you". We're done here. Please inform me once you've prgressed past a concrete operation phase and we'll continue the discussion. The repitition is tiresome.

[edit: feth it. Too off topic.]

 azazel the cat wrote:

And no, registries do not necessarily lead to confiscation. Canada has had a registry for a long time, and nobody has confiscated our guns. Your believe in this slippery slope is paranoia; nothing more.

That is not true, plenty of guns have been confiscated using the registry in canada, the most recent being a "deadly super dangerous" semi auto .22lr rifle. Saying that no guns have been banned using the registry in canada is 100% false, more and more models every year have been banned, no compensation paid, and if you dont turn em in you go to jail or lose your license.

We got rid of the registry last year for a reason (actually many good reasons, it cost too much, did too little, make paper criminals of otherwise law abiding people, was hacked by criminals to make a shopping list for guns, amoung other reasons)

Oh and getting rid of the registry has not led to more crime, just as implementing it did not decrease crime. All the registry did was prove for once and all that 95%+ of all guns in crimes in canada were guns 100% out side the system (ie not registered, not licensed, illegal black market guns) and that pouring 2billion dolllars (america would pay 10x that since they have ~ 10x the guns) for something that told us what we already should have known.

IE the crooks are the problem, even if we regulate the honest people more, crooks are still the problem.