Talk:Canadian gun registry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PREVIOUS CONTENT WAS:

---

From vfd

Contents 1 Canadian gun registry 2 re-redirected 3 Unrelated Information Removed 4 Unsupported/False statement removed 5 Misuse? 6 POV 7 References 8 Dawson College Shooting 9 Removal of blurb about innefectivness

[edit] Canadian gun registry

2 BILLION DOLLARS (according to CBC) to do what 50 guys with Excel could do... this is approximately 40million per person :)

A person giving his genuine opinion on Canadian gun registration. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to express your personal opinion. Thue 23:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Could have been speedy deleted. RickK 23:16, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • It sounds very genuine, so I wanted to give him a chance to read our reasoning before deleting. Thue 23:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
• This needs to be voted on? Delete. Wyllium 23:20, 2004 May 24 (UTC)
• Replace with redirect. The present content is far from a neutral point of view, and we already have a good article on Gun politics in Canada. I'm going to move the present content to Talk:Canadian gun registry; those interested in continuing this dicussion should refer to that page. I'm going to replace Canadian gun registry with redirect to Gun politics in Canada. Perhaps User:24.244.75.127 might be interested in working on that article, after familiarizing himself with Wikipedia's tradition of a neutral point of view. Dpbsmith 00:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC) On second thought, I'm going to make the article not a pure redirect so that the VfD notice will be visible if the contributor looks for his article. Will make it a redirect when the VfD discussion expires unless there's consensus otherwise. And I've placed this note on User_Talk:24.244.75.127:

Your essay on Canadian gun registry was well written, and I hope you will consider continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow encyclopedia articles to be essays presenting personal opinions. Personal opinions can be expressed in your own user page and in the Talk pages articles, but they cannot be articles in themselves. It would violate two Wikipedia policies: first, the policy of a neutral point of view; and second, the policy of "no original research." Your essay was listed in Wikipedia:Votes_for_Deletion where you can follow an ongoing discussion.

I've replaced your article with a "redirect" to a good article we already have on Gun politics in Canada. This means that people typing in Canadian gun registry will be automatically sent to the Gun politics in Canada article. The discussion in Votes for Deletion is not over. The original text of your article has not actually been deleted, but is preserved in Talk:Canadian gun registry. Dpbsmith 00:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

end of moved discussion

[edit] re-redirected

I have added the redirect back to Gun politics in Canada. It looks like some thought went into making this decision quite recently. I realise that the gun registry is a big issue atm so I have added quite a lot of detail and broken the article into sections, so it is east to find the gun registry information. I realise that there is may be an argument for moving the gun registry out into an article of its own, but as gun politics is the longer standing and more heavily edited article I thought it made sense to improve it and stick with the vfd decision that was made. Pasd 16:36, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thought went into redirecting a completely different article than the one you did. The gun registry is perfectly deserving of its own article. - SimonP 03:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated Information Removed

I just removed the following statement from "Use of the Registry":

"Statistics Canada data show that Canada's total violent crime rate fell 2 per cent last year, and has been in decline since 1992. This same data show that the national homicide rate increased 12 per cent to 622 victims last year, after hitting a 36-year-low in 2003."

If you don't see the problem with this statement, may I remind you that the price of gas went up since 1992 - can you also attribute this to gun control?

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV.

--Sheldonc 02:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)-

[edit] Unsupported/False statement removed

"It also required gun buyers to take training courses on the safe usage of weapons."

From Gun politics in Canada:

"Legislative provisions between 1977 and 1979 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates for all weapons and provided controls on the selling of ammunition. Fully automatic weapons were prohibited. Applicants for Firearms Acquisition Certificates were required to take a safety course."

Safety courses were in place long before the gun registry. If anybody can prove that the registry somehow extended the reach of these courses, explain how.

It seems as if the article was edited to make the gun registry palatable to the masses. Biased.

--Sheldonc 03:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse?

From the "Alleged Mis-Use of the Registry", this sounds plausible, but is there any local newspaper articles documenting these claims at all? It sounds as if somebody totally made it up. --Sheldonc 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

look on the web theres several pieces on several gun collectors getting robbed cant rember his name

one guys hiding in the states and we have a warrent to arrest him? only in canaduh.

[edit] POV

I am not surprised that there would be a lot of dispoute over content on this page. This is an empitional issue for many people. But we have to remember thet Wikipedia is not a soap box. We should try to present both sides here, not one "correct and unquestionably right" view. There are two sections:

• 7 Is the gun registry an easy target for computer hackers? and
• 8 Has the registry become a shopping list for criminals?

that are not appropriate for Wikipedia. They appear to have been copied from newspaper or magazine articles. And they go on and on making the smae point. They should be cut way back to state the point simply and neutrally, and then move on.

Please see WP:NPOV for more information on writing point-of-view-free articles. Ground Zero | t 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These sections are very speculative, without any references and probably could be removed. (Probably added by anon users as well) That said, I doubt this article will ever be truly neutral. The program is immensely unpopular. --Sheldonc 04:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have condensed these two sections. The new sections still make the same point, but not quite so often. Also, it seems pretty clear that they were cut-and-pasted from the OFAH website. The quotations for the most part re-iterated what the text said, much like a news reslease. I have deleted most of the quotations. Ground Zero | t 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted a mess of edits just now. An anonymous editor dumped in poorly formatted blocks of text that made no effort to have a neutral point of view. The anon was clearly trying to make an argument: "It must be noted that....", etc. I'm not saying that there isn't material there worth keeping, but that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. It's an encyclopedia. If you want to promote an agenda, please do so elsewhere. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 02:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not know how to properly format article's according to Wikipedia's liking. However, as the article currently now stands it only gives a superficial "media" level understanding of the Gun Registry. The oft repeated "6,500 hits per day" is never fully understood in the context of the automated hits and never disputed. The accuracy and usefulness of the registry is never questioned. Further, statements by frontline Police officers against the registry are not taken into account. What we end up here is with an article that simply examines the long-gun registry from media sources, who often do not investigate the Government as they should.

Furthermore, the article mentions how many licences were revoked, this something seperate from the long-gun Registry as licences were revoked before the advent of the long-gun registry. This should not be included in an article on the Registry and simply shows the level of understanding the media has of the Registry. The licencing program and the registry have been confused in many articles produced by Canadian journalists. I do not believe that I am "standing on a soapbox" and on the otherhand I believe that the section on the use of the registry only presents one highly flawed view of the Registry. fuddleduddle

I have been watching the changes made to this page and I want to inquire why the "Police use of the Registry exaggerated" section was removed? The linked site was a government webpage explaining the "6,500 hits per day," if you believe that the Government website has some sort of an "agenda" than surely the two police chiefs have an "agenda" as well.

The registry check is done automatically along with other searched for information, so the true utility of the registry isn't known - no one has published any figures on how often the registry is checked for reasons specific to firearms offences, etc.Michael Dorosh 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, none of my criticisms above have been addressed so far, as the section on the revocation of licences still exists. Yes, the registry and the licencing programs are administered by the CFC and were part of C-68, but licencing should not be considered part of the long-gun registry considering that firearms licences/certificated were revoked prior to the existance of the long-gun registry. The firearms revocation should be part of an article on the CFC, not the long-gun registry. Fuddleduddle May 31

[edit] References

I'm gonna need help with this. The external link references in this article needs to be made into proper citations. --JFred 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

doneMichael Dorosh 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawson College Shooting

The Beretta CX4 Storm rifle can be legally purchased and owned by a civilian in Canada, however because of its legal classification, specific criteria must be met with different configurations of the CX4 Storm rifle. The CX4 Storm rifle as manufactured by Beretta is a semi-automatic, center-fire rifle that has the legal classification of "restricted" in Canada when found in the original factory configuration possessing a barrel length of 422mm. Any person possessing a firearms licence (PAL) with "restricted" licence privileges may purchase this firearm, subject to the approval of the Chief Firearms Officer of the respective province; and in addition the rifle is subject to a more stringent set of rules for possession and use because of its legal classification.In the case of Kimveer Gill, he did have a gun license and it was registered with Canadian gun registry; therefore, he owned the weapon legally under Canadian law. LindaWarheads 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of blurb about innefectivness

Hi, I have removed your blurb, not because I believe it is wrong. Actually I agree with you. What I am saying is that, in it's current form, it contains POV and is not admissable. When adding to an article, also try to steer away from "it is often ponted out" as per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I have no problems with the content, just the wording needs to be fixed, perhaps references added, best regards Cavell 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While I admit that it uses weasel words (it is a work in progress that I was looking to add to) I fail to see how it is POV, perhaps you can point out the specific statement that makes it POV? as for adding references, I am looking for them, but I know this statistic from when I was watching CP24 (a Canadian news channel) about the time of Jane Creba's murder last year. how about instead of using the weasel words it is often pointed out... to people wishing to commit a crime using a firearm often realize that a registered firearm is easily tracked, so they either do not register the firearm or obtain it illegally. As for a reference, how about | BBC News specifically where it quotes Gary Mauser (aptly named, lol) ""The handguns being misused are illegal. Nobody thinks banning guns will stop violent crime, and there is no empirical support for gun controls working," he says." although it does interview some rather ludicrous and delusional people also. or perhaps this site: [1] which quotes Toronto Police Cheif Julian Fantino "We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.". If the Toronto Police Cheif isn't an authorative enough source on Toronto Crime, I don't know who is.

--Jadger 11:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, that looks great lots of references. Maybe you were right about POV I didnt look back to check, but this looks waaaay better anyways. I hope you're gonna add this newer version, Cheers, Cavell 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations alone don't make a good article or section. This section should be rewritten as an assessment of the effectiveness or lack thereof of the registry. Both sides of the debate, and there are two sides, should be represented. Garry Breitkreuz is also not the best person to quote - he is an MP who is personally opposed to the registry from a party that is opposed to the registry - it's also hosted on gunowners.org, not exactly a NPOV source. This section appears to cherry-pick arguments on one side of the debate - even the BBC article quoting Mauser contains arguments from both sides, but only one side is quoted. This section is totally unbalanced and needs to be rewritten or removed altogether - ideally the former. Blotto adrift 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia says be bold so let's see what you can come up with. and the BBC article uses quotes from the registry supporters that are non-sequiturs. A lot of their points make no sense, there is absolutely no connection between crime rates and gun control. in 2005 there were more than 85 gun related deaths in Toronto, none of them could have been helped by the gun registry.

Also, sources don't have to be NPOV, only articles do. Actually, I earge you to find a NPOV source on practically anything. the purpose of books, essays, reports, etc. is to put forth the point that is being made. the only source that can really truly be NPOV is a dictionary.

--Jadger 08:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can come up with some content to add over the next little while. Your point about NPOV sources is taken - however, there are better sources out there. For example, Breitkreuz's own MP site has several studies - it would be better to cite them directly than a third-party site with links. Or direct links to LUFA - the closer you can get to the original source of the study, the more authoritative it is. In Breitkreuz's case, I believe that he commissioned research by the Library of Parliament - that would be extremely authoritative. Also, as noted, I feel that the other side of this debate should be represented as well to ensure that the article is as neutral as we can get it. I'm hoping we can work together to improve this article.

Some of the newspaper story links are dead or hit the subscription wall. It would probably be better to just cite the story without the link.

The "Alleged mis-use of the registry" and "Security" sections could probably be combined into one, as they cover the same ground. You may be interested in a recent series by the Ottawa Citizen that touched on this subject.

Finally, the description of the CAPC as a "a federal lobby group employing paid lobbyists" - is this an appropriate place for this link? Perhaps it would be more appropriate on a separate page for the CAPC. Also, the link leads to the search page and not to a specific listing of the CAPC's lobby activities (I realise that the database may not be set up for permalinks). I removed it, because I felt that it wasn't an appropriate summary of the group's activities, the link and because I felt that there was POV in that I have seen this argument used before in a dismissive "they're just a bunch of lobbyists" manner. You reverted the change, so you obviously feel otherwise.

Your comments seem to provide an indication on where you stand on the issue, so I don't imagine you would be too impressed with a section that contained nothing but references from the Coalition for Gun Control going on about how effective the thing is and what a shame it is that it was cancelled. So let's see what we can do here. Blotto adrift 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "a federal lobby group employing paid lobbyists" I don't think I put that in.

Your comments seem to provide an indication on where you stand on the issue, so I don't imagine you would be too impressed with a section that contained nothing but references from the Coalition for Gun Control going on about how effective the thing is and what a shame it is that it was cancelled. So let's see what we can do here. um...

1. it wasn't cancelled, the gov't just refuses to prosecute ordinary citizens that perform a little civil disobedience, you don't see all protestors getting arrested do you?
2. I would like to see some examples from the "coalition for gun control" that shows how effective it is. as the gun registry only works in limited circumstances where a number of criteria have to be met i.e. a) the gun must be registered b) the gun can't be stolen, or else the registry doesn't lead the police anywhere c) an illegal act must be committed with the gun for the registry to come into affect, so claiming it lowers/stops crime is a definite non-sequitur.

I am a hunter, and personally own guns, and I have never had the urge to point them at anyone or shoot someone. so why am I not being trusted? it is like assuming that I will do something illegal with it simply because I own it. all a registry does is turn common citizens into criminals if they don't register. tell me, would you be in support of mandatory registration of all the knives you own? (including butter knives) as they have just as much potential to kill someone as a gun does.

Also, as noted, I feel that the other side of this debate should be represented as well to ensure that the article is as neutral as we can get it. I agree with you, they should be represented, but the faulty logic and non-sequitur reasoning they often (not always) use shouldn't be included, unless they are being critiqued, perhaps a sort of "Pros and Cons" section could be created. Indeed sometimes they have valid points, and those should be added, but it must also be noted that the gun registry couldn't have prevented the death of Jane Creba or any of the other 80+ people murdered with illegal guns last year in TO.

If someone wants to commit an illegal act with a gun, why would they register it? that would be like handcuffing yourself and walking into the police station. it only works in cases such as crimes of passion where in a rage a person may grab a gun, or in a fight with someone else. it doesn't stop pre-meditated crimes, or any crime really, it just makes it easier to keep tabs on citizens with guns.

--Jadger 01:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not looking to debate the effectiveness or lack thereof of the registry or gun control.

What would you suggest for a representation of the pro-registry side? I would suggest the Coalition for Gun Control, as they seem to be the most visible and vocal groups in favour. Happy to hear other suggestions. And basically, all I'm suggesting here is that the article say something like group A (including organisations/individuals B, C and D) is against the registry for the following reasons. Group E (including organisations/individuals F, G and H) is in favour of the registry for the following reasons. People may not agree with arguments from one side or another, but they should be aired.

If I get a chance, I'll post something here for comment and we can move from there. Blotto adrift 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)