Welcome to Canada, is that butterknife registered?
 

For those not familiar with Canada's efforts to avoid dead people, several years ago, they introduced bill c-68, voila, the Gun Registration Act. Makes it a huge pain in the ass (an expensive pain) to get firearms and ammunition. It was projected to be a 2 mill project but by 2004 will have ballooned to 100 million.

In 2002 there were 149 murders due to fire arms.
There were 182 due to knives/stabbing.

Can we expect a national registry for knives? Will we need a permit to buy cutlery? Maybe they should all have serial numbers and you must be 21 before you can buy one?

Please share your thoughts.

And dont forget the number of gun deaths also went up since the anti gun bill. So HUGE costs, and more gun deaths. Lets hear it for gun control.

Without context it's hard to judge the program. Have violent crimes gone up or down since 2002?

I would think, though, that enforcing that kind of program is really hard given the porous borders with the United States.

What did the $100 million go for? In USA terms, that's a pretty small government program. By comparison, the department of health and human services spent 8 billion dollars on HIV/AIDS programs in 2000.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that there really isn't enough information in your post to judge the program as good or bad. Personally, I think gun registration is a good thing, but I can understand how people distrustful of government would think that gun registration is the first step to stricter gun controls.

It's really interesting, when you look at how costs rose exponentially for this legislation. Anti gun control advocates went out of their way to make sure costs would rise. Incomplete forms sent in as well as massive amounts of calls to the 1-800 number were all actions organized and carried out by these people. You're right to ask about the context because there's a lot more to this story than many want to admit.


SLM3

What's amazing is that people see no problem with

1) needing to pass a test and have a licence and have insurance in order to use a transportation vehicle or

2) getting searched at airports for no reason other than the fact that you are travelling,

3) getting randomly stopped to check for DUI,

but when it comes to registering an item fabricated for the sole purpose of killing, their rights are being trampelled on.

Unreal.

But gun deaths went up after the act, as it did in every place after gun controls were enacted.

That's because this is a sick gun-obsessed society. There are so many guns in the US circulation that controlling whose hands they fall into is a lost cause.

So Canada, Australia, and England are gun obessed too? I mean they all had large increases in gun homicide after gun control was enacted too.

There's no question that simply registering guns isn't going to stop gun murders and I never suggested as much. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

Also, you cannot include countries like Canada, England, Australia in the same thread wrt US gun murders. Apples to apples and such. If you think that there's no problem in the US wrt gun numbers & murders then you are in serious denial in this topic as well.

Did the % of gun murders go up, or just the number of them? If there were 100 murders, and 12 of them were gun related last year. And this year there were 20 out of 200 murders related to guns, then yes gun murders went up, but there overall impact went down. So does anyone have the percentage? I hope that all makes sense.

I agree that all countries need control (especially Canada, north of the country with the most gun deaths in the world) but the way they did this was all wrong. They screwed around, not enforcing this gun law strongly, and wasting ALOT of money ( I actually thought it was 1 Billion dollars, rather than 100 million) for something that was supposed to cost two. Way to go liberals!

It's all about balance. On one hand, you have tools that serve a purpose and you want people to be able to use these tools. On the other hand, you have tools that can kill people and you don't want people killed. Our freedom to act is important but so is our freedom to live! How do we balance these things?

We harshly legislate guns 'cause, let's face it, they're made to kill. Sure, you don't have to shoot people with it. Hell, you don't even have to kill with it. You can shoot clay discs just for fun! For this reason, we allow people to own firearms. But, at some fundamental level, it's a tool for killing. Murder is made so easy with these things and, so, we regulate their use so carefully. They are so deadly, you can even kill someone accidentally. When was the last time someone was accidentally killed with a knife?

Speaking of knives, they are so useful that they are ubiquitous. You can't go anywhere without finding one and you can find several of them in every household! Sadly, you can use them to kill people and they don't do a bad job of it, too. However, you can kill with just about anything and you can't legislate it all? Serial killers can kill with a knife but how many mass murders were executed with one?

The fact of the matter is that guns aren't terribly essential to everyday life and can too easily be used to kill a great number of people, while knives are all too useful and aren't nearly as good at killing. Thus, one is highly regulated and the other is not.
Really, lets put things into perspective. Yes, there have been more knife killings than firearm killings (according to the original poster) but considering just how ubiquitous knives are it's amazing how rarely they are used to kill. Guns, by contrast, are quite rare (I haven't seen one in person since 1986, not counting the sidearm holstered by police officers) and, yet, have caused so many deaths?


As an aside, exactly how many more gun deaths were there after bill c-68? The recent number has been so low that I can't imagine that it was all that much. Also, a causal relationship has not been established. All we have is a correlation which could simply be a coincidence. Maybe the population increased? Maybe crime went up those years? Was that caused by bill c-68? I think people jump to conclusions all too easily. An occupational hazard in my profession (a cookie to anyone who can guess what that is!)...

Owning an automobile is not an American's right, owning a firearm is. I don't have a problem with requiring people to undergo some form of safety training prior to purchasing a handgun (aka a "purchase permit" here in MN), just the random denial of responsible citizens rights to own a gun.

With that note, this thread is about Canada, let's please not bring American politics into it. :P

The cost is now estimated at 1 billion dollars not 100 million. Just another Liberal party waste of money IMO.

I guess i really don't have a problem with people registering their guns.

But I DO HATE the fact that it cost billions of dollars. That money could have been far more wisely spent than on an idiotic program that i don't see making our society any better.

I think the military could have used a billion dollars to buy some proper amoured personnel carriers, especially in light of what just happened to those poor bastards in Afghanistan. Watching Chretien up their on the podium reading his speech written by someone else made me want to puke from the shear hypocrisy of it all.

How Canada went from having the 3rd largest Navy in the world, and having VERY respectable ground forces, into the 98lbs weakling of today must be an interesting, if sad, story. Since schools in the US basicly ignore Canadan history, I don't know for sure, but I can make a good guess.

But don't you just love it every Canada Day when he gives his trademark speech to the masses of sheep who overwhelmingly support him. "H'ide like to say dat in dis country,we are da best country in da world as we continue da devil-up-ment of dis great land. Bonsoir,merci beaucoup"

Of course that is said secondly because the French language must go first because they are the spoiled children of our society and nobody likes to be called a racist.

I don't think it's nearly as interesting a story as you hope. After World War II, we saw how much war sucked and went out of our way to not involve ourselves in one. If there are no wars, then there's no military.
I swear, sometimes the US goes to war just to test their new stuff out!


As a side note, I'm told that our military is rather top heavy. The idea is that if we really needed a military, we have officers who know how to run one so we can just build one up in short time. Also, we have very good nuclear technology but we have no nuclear weapons. Again, the idea is that we're a non-combatant country that could build nukes overnight, if we wanted.
Rather optimistic, I guess, but our national defense is not pissing anyone off enough to warrant them attacking us.

Also, while our tax money is poorly spent, that's the fault of the government and not the direction of expenditure. A billion dollars could easily have been spent on useless military equipment. Look at the Sea King. Look at our crappy "new" submarines...

Who here would register the knives they have in the house?
Be willing to apply to be able to buy one?

Heh, the people who bother going through the process of legally owning a gun are not the people you have to worry about murdering you. These laws are a waste of time, always are.

And murders rose after the gun control went into effect also. See the links in the England gun control thread.

We should register knives as soon as they make a knife that allows me to walk into a crowded lunchroom at any random high school and kill or wound several of my classmates and/or members of the faculty.

Its a shame how a proud nation becomes a snail in its shell, hiding from the outside world and terrified of even having its own citizens armed.

Oh man, does every thread have to turn into a flame-fest?

^^^ Are you serious? Its people saying things like this that make the world hate americans.

Really?

and how about this...

Perhaps thats ^^^ why Americans like me don't worry about being hated by other people.

America is hated much like the NY Yankees are hated. We are strong, rich, and win a lot. I don't lose any sleep over it. Luckly we are a forgiving people, so when the next major war happens, we will do our best to pull our 'friend's' asses out of the fire yet again.

Sadly, as long as people have an opinion without content, the answer is yes...

Actually, i blame alot of it on the the Diefenbaker conservatives.

They were the FOOLS who cancelled the ARROW. That one move set the tone of the Canadian military for the future. From that day onwards, Canada ceased to be a serious military player. We went from being on the cutting edge to the trailing edge. Forever looking to buy instead of build.

Long live RL-206

The theory around that decision by the Diefenbaker government goes that the US admin put pressure on Dief and Co. to stand down. They didn't want a large standing army on their northern border...

"Don't worry about a thing. We'll take care of you when the time comes..." Diefenbaker was a spinless idiot.

It all depends on how you look at it... You see a snail in its shell...

Many Canadians see that we are just as proud as always and smart enough to see the pointlessness of arming for war. Wars we have no intention of starting or participating in...

As for arming the citizenry... You can arm yourself you just need to register for it... Why should I care? If I want to buy a gun I can. Bureaucratic nightmare aside (because it really is another issue) why should I care if there is a gun registry? Canada has no equivalence to the “right to bear arms”. We don’t have the same gun culture as the US. Yes criminals can get guns. Criminals can also steal cars. Should I use that as a reason to not get a license for my car?

If our citizenry feels safer because there is a gun registry then let’s have one. If it is just sticking our heads in the sand so what… The point is it makes people feel better about guns and that, to me is a good thing.

The fact is that gun crime is not as big of an issue here is it is south of the border.

Canada doesnt need an Army for the same reason Japan and NATO nations doent need one. They are the US's buddies. Our guns are your deterent.

It isn't that Japan doesn't need an army it's because they are not allowed to have one. I believe the terms of their surrender dictate that they cannot have a standing army.

As for the rest of NATO... So the UK, Germany, France don't have significant armies... That's just not the case.

The fact is that no country matches the US on per capita Military spending. They are heads and shoulders above all nations.

"Canada doesnt need an Army for the same reason Japan and NATO nations doent need one. They are the US's buddies. Our guns are your deterent."

No, we don't need huge armies because we do not go around invading countries every 5 years for next to no reason, hence, not many people are pissed off at us, and we dont really have to worry much about being attacked.

Isolationist politics are great for a while. The US has tried it a few times, but then oddly we had to fight these big wars we did our best to avoid.

You can keep your head in the sand for a while, but sooner or later someone comes along and kicks you in the ass while you are not looking.

Ummm... Canada is hardly what would be called isolationist. It is just that when Canada gets involved we tend to lead with diplomats rather than soldiers.

And when we lead with soldiers it is almost always in a peacekeeping role.

Wake up and smell the maple syrup... ;)

And your dipomats know that US Guns are behind them. Are you telling me that if Canada was attacked, the USA would not leap to your defence? Same with France, Germany, and the UK?

Yes, yes, yes... of course the US would back us if someone were so inclined to attack Canada. The likelihood of that occuring is practically inconceivable.

Of course, that is so besides the point.

Our diplomats do not make a habit of going around rattling sabres to get results (especially when the sabre being rattled belongs to someone else). Diplomacy is not about having to resort to violence or even threatening violence (implicit or explicit).

Result can be and are achieved (even by the US) without resorting to who has the bigger army.

France, Germany and the UK in no way need the US to back them up in thier own diplomacy.


Are you so sheltered in the bosom of America that you honestly believe that these nations go spoiling for fights hoping that their big brother "Uncle Sam" is going to back them...

The big difference, with regards to Canada, is that we have no colonial or post-colonial interests abroad. We haven't nor do we intend to invade any other nations.

The times we have been to war have been simply to liberate and leave.

This makes us different form the majority of western powers.

Tell it to Neville Chamberlain.

Can you clarify this please? I know who he is but don't get the reference in this context.

Unless you are refering to Chamberlain being a diplomat... of course it doesn't always work. That is besides the point.


...not to mention that the UK (with not a little help from Canada and other allies) had to deal with that situation when diplomacy failed.

Actually, the only country to EVER attack this country is the United States of America.

Several times actually.

Will the Americans help us fend off the Americans I wonder???

Hehe good point, and if it wans't for all those unregistered guns we sould not have won.

UM you were England back then.

Actually no, we were Upper Canada and Lower Canada, part of British North America.

The funny thing about American politics towards Canada is that we as a country have actually benefitted by extreme American policy.

For example the United Empire Loyalists that came to Canada after the American revolution were some of the best people the USA had. They came here and helped forge a nation.

During the Vietnam war, something like 100,000 Americans immigrated to Canada. Most of them highly educated, productive individuals. There was an article in the Globe and Mail a few years back detailing some of the brilliant Americans who came to Canada during the 60's and 70's and went on to better our society. Doctors, engineers, writers, researchers. Most never returned the US having put down roots here.

Thanks guys.

You guys need to start another draft to put guys over in the middle east war zone so we can brain drain you once again.

[

*Laughs* Now I know why Canada is so weak now, you took in all our cowards :D

Nevermind.

Um You were part of England then, a colony. We never invaded Canada, but a colony of a nation that was oppressing us. You didnt become independant untill decades later.

We prefere the term "enlightend people". :rolleyes:

Oppressing you???

How is that?

If you mean that the British were not allowing you to trade with Napolean, you would be correct.

Britain had told the USA to stop aiding and supplying Napolean, but the USA didn't listen. The us figured it had every right to trade with a homicidal dictator intent on conquoring all of Europe.

If you wade into a war (Britain verses Napolean) you have to expect consequences. That's hardly oppression.

I wonder how the USA would react if France was aiding and supplying Saddam Hussein recently? Do you not think that the the USA would not prevent France from shipping aid and supplies to Iraq???

Not quite.

Send us your cowards.

If they are smart, productive people, we couldn't care less that they are not willing to enforce Exxon's foreign policy. :p

I guess you never heard of the taxation without representation thing. So I assume if you were taxed heavily on your work, and had no avenue or access to your government, all would be cool? And Canada was still England at that time, it was a loyal part of the crown. And France WAS Shipping weapons to Irag, in fact they Russia and CHina were the three biggest violators to the sanctions on Iraq, and one of the reasons why we had to go to war. Hmmm, odd, the three biggest violators were the three biggest naysayers against the war.

Taxation without representation.

Hmm, seems to me that was 1776 when John Hancock (a smuggler by profession, wanted dead or alive by the British, and the only guy to sign the delaration of Independence prior to the American Revolution (he was after all wanted dead or alive by the British, so what did he have to lose)) made such a statement because he didn't like paying duty.

The War of 1812 (when the US tried to conquor Canada) was a bit later mon ami. By that time, the United States was an independant country and was not paying a dime in taxes to Britain.

And no, France has NOT been shipping weapons to Iraq since 1991.

Canada was NEVER a part of England for pete's sake.

It's Britain.

There's a difference. England is but one country. Britain = Scotland, England, and Wales.

P.S. We are still loyal to the crown too.

God save the Queen.

The War of 1812 was started by Britian, you know YOU guys, for capturing our sailors and ignoring our rights as an independant nation. YOu were part of Britian than so your nation was the aggressor. So, steal our saliors and you get attacked.

John Handcock didnt seem to have a problem with taxes once he was given a voice in govenment.

France did sell, they traded oil for weapons.

Really,

It's funny how history is taught on either side of the boarder.

Growing up, we were taught that the United States declared war on us because they wanted to seize our country and steel our property. We were taught that it was president madison declared war on us because he was being manipulated by the war hawks who dreamed of one continent ruled from Washington. Manifestdestiny as it were. We were taught that the Americans were running the British blockades and supplying Napolean in his quest to conquor all of Europe and that Britain had no choice but to put a stop to such beligerence.

We were taught that a rag tag band of Canadian militia, British Regular Forces and a whole pile of Aboriginals warriors fought under a guy named Sir Issac Brock to resist the occupation by the agressive American hordes. We were taught that under Brock, the British, Canadians and Aboriginal warriors (who had seen the genocide waged by the Americans against native people) were vastly outnumbered and out gunned but they fought with their brains and cunning and bravery and defeated the invaders and drove them back at every turn. We were taught that we even managed to burn Washington and the white house down. We were taught that president Madison was a coward who dressed up like a woman to flee from the British in Washington to Virginia. We were also taught that the second the British defeated Napolean and thus could bring the full thrust of their navy and military to bare on the invading Americans that the Americans had a very sudden change of heart and sued for peace rather than potentially lose to the PISSED OFF British.

The treaty of Ghent was signed on Christmas eve 1814.

Funny how history looks on the other side of the boarder?

No hard feelings though eh. :D

So the English never disregarded our rights as an independant nation? The English never constripted our saliors? The English never boarded ships and raided their contents?

Funny how history looks on the other side of the border.

The United States declared War on Great Britain on June 12, 1812. The war was declared as a result of long simmering disputes with Great Britian. The central dispute surrounded the impressment of American soldiers by the British. The British had previously attacked the USS Chesapeake and nearly caused a war two year earlier. In addition, disputes continued with Great Britain over the Northwest Territories and the border with Canada. Finally, the attempts of Great Britain to impose a blockade on France during the Napoleonic Wars was a constant source of conflict with the United States

And all this has to do with butterknives.... how?