Gun Registry

Freeman wrote:ARen't we talking 2 idfferent things? One is the register of gun owners and the other is the registry of every firearm in the country.

Long before the gun registry, it was put in place that a Firearms Acquisition Certificate was necessay to purchase a firearm. This was separate from the requirements for owning a restricted weapon (pistol). I had an FAC as I needed one to purchase a shotgun back in the good old days. Prior to that, I just had to be over 18. The FAC required a cursory check on my background (I was not a criminal and still remain that way and I am of sound mind, in spite of what you may think)

The gun registry requires the registration of every firearm in the country, which provides no practical purpose. The intent of the registry, as detailed by the Liberals, was to reduce crime involving firearms. Can someone explain to me how thats working out for them?

Deank wrote:With all guns being registed those damn russians americans will know who to go after first when they invade!

Triniman wrote:I believe MP and former cop Shelly Glover said that cops are under pressure to not speak out against the gun registry, even if they personally believe that it's a waste of money.

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

Triniman wrote:I believe MP and former cop Shelly Glover said that cops are under pressure to not speak out against the gun registry, even if they personally believe that it's a waste of money.

Glover eh? The same one who's own mother supported another candidate in the election?

Goth_chic wrote:

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

Triniman wrote:I believe MP and former cop Shelly Glover said that cops are under pressure to not speak out against the gun registry, even if they personally believe that it's a waste of money.

Glover eh? The same one who's own mother supported another candidate in the election?

Please provide a link.

Goth_chic wrote:Call who? Shelley Glover or her Mother? I didn't post it so why would I call to confirm?

umcrouc0 wrote:

Freeman wrote:ARen't we talking 2 idfferent things? One is the register of gun owners and the other is the registry of every firearm in the country.

Long before the gun registry, it was put in place that a Firearms Acquisition Certificate was necessay to purchase a firearm. This was separate from the requirements for owning a restricted weapon (pistol). I had an FAC as I needed one to purchase a shotgun back in the good old days. Prior to that, I just had to be over 18. The FAC required a cursory check on my background (I was not a criminal and still remain that way and I am of sound mind, in spite of what you may think)

The gun registry requires the registration of every firearm in the country, which provides no practical purpose. The intent of the registry, as detailed by the Liberals, was to reduce crime involving firearms. Can someone explain to me how thats working out for them?

If there's no practial purpose, why does anyone want it? I don't know what that practial purpose is, but there must be some reason why police forces want to keep it going. Most arguments here for not keeping it are because it's not stopping something it's not able or intended to stop (illegal guns). But if it has zero impact in illegal guns, what is the net benefit of getting rid of the registry? I still haven't seen an argument saying what the positive effect would be of not having anything registered. If there's a net benefit to not registering any guns, then we shouldn't be registering them and the registry should be scrapped. If there isn't, why bother to get rid of the registry?