The Continuing Saga Of Canuckistan Gun Control

[Aaron]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/ ... -1204.html

The owner of a large gun shop in New Brunswick is disappointed a private member's bill to scrap the long-gun registry was defeated on Wednesday.

A Conservative motion to kill the 15-year-old federal program failed when the New Democrats joined the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois. The bill was defeated 153 to 151.

Ross Faulkner, the owner of the Gun Dealer in McAdam, said he's disappointed with the vote's outcome but he doesn't believe it will halt the debate over the gun registry.

"We will go on and certainly carry on and hope that the Conservatives get a majority government and that this firearms registry goes away," Faulkner said.

Faulkner admits as a gun seller he has a vested interest in the matter.

But he also said the registry is not working, and the millions of dollars it costs would be better spent on health and education.

The Wednesday evening vote was a marked difference from the vote last fall on the gun registry, when eight Liberal MPs supported Tory MP Candice Hoeppner's bill, along with 12 New Democrats.

This time all of the Liberal MPs voted against the motion, while six NDP MPs sided with the Tories.

Supporters of the long-gun registry — including police officers, doctors, women's groups and victims-rights groups — had been vocal over the past few weeks in urging MPs to save the contentious program.

Opponents, including farmers and hunters, also made passionate arguments. They argued, among other things, that the registry is ineffective and a waste of money.

The federal firearms centre is headquartered in Miramichi, N.B.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper stopped in Miramichi in August to announce 550 jobs would be located in the northern New Brunswick city to house a new federal payroll centre.

Harper reaffirmed a long-standing promise that his government would replace any jobs in Miramichi that were lost if the gun registry was shut down.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/ ... z10O4ASbzQ

So one of the PC parties long standing promises is to ditch the Long Gun Registry, which covers things like rifles and shotguns. Restricted weapons (handguns/some longarms) would be unaffected. Not surprisingly, the Liberals voted (apparently in a whipped vote) to keep it, along with the NDP, keeping it by two votes.

Now I don't oppose the registry, though I do oppose the massive cost over-runs and poorly thought out amnesty system. I'm honestly not sure whether we should keep it, or ditch it. The system is already in place and paid for, though theres no way of forcing people to register guns they had before it took place. It doesn't cost much in time to register either, I bought a shotgun this week and was in and out in 30 minutes.

But regardless, an interesting look at Canuck gun politics for our Southern neighbours.

Edit: Spelling

[Ritterin Sophia]

Don't you guys just keep extending the amnesty period and nothing gets done?

[Aaron]

Yeah. It'll probably be extended indefinitely. And seeing as you can still buy ammo with an FAC (the old license), theres no way to tell unless you get caught doing something. Ammo sales are logged but I don't think anything gets done with that.

[Solauren]

Getting people to register their guns would be so easy....

Offer a discount on House Insurance to anyone with registered working firearms in the house. Say 1% per firearm up to 10, then 1% per additional 5. Or maybe make that a property tax discount. Or maybe an income tax refund.

You’ll have every legal weapon in the country registered within a year.

[Aaron]

Thats actually not a bad idea. Yeah you'll get the odd nut that might refuse out of some weird belief that we're entitled to them but not a bad plan over all. I could use a few bucks off my house insurance, thats for sure.

[Solauren]

Thats actually not a bad idea. Yeah you'll get the odd nut that might refuse out of some weird belief that we're entitled to them but not a bad plan over all. I could use a few bucks off my house insurance, thats for sure.

The way to motivate people to do anything; pay them.

I bet you if we paid people to vote, Canada would have close to 100% voting, each time.

[Phantasee]

I imagine you could beat that number, even. Shit, you pay me to vote and I'll do my patriotic duty as many times as I can!

[Glocksman]

Interesting comment by the store owner about how the money could be better spent on healthcare and education.
The gun store owners I know here in Indiana and Kentucky would say that it would be more evidence that tax cuts are needed.

I guess that's one more difference between Americans and Canadians.

[Stuart]

Getting people to register their guns would be so easy. Offer a discount on House Insurance to anyone with registered working firearms in the house. Say 1% per firearm up to 10, then 1% per additional 5. Or maybe make that a property tax discount. Or maybe an income tax refund. You’ll have every legal weapon in the country registered within a year.

Or do it the reverse way; impose a 30 percent property tax penalty on anybody who doesn't register a gun. That way people who don't want their guns registered can pay for that privilege.

[Aaron]

Interesting comment by the store owner about how the money could be better spent on healthcare and education.
The gun store owners I know here in Indiana and Kentucky would say that it would be more evidence that tax cuts are needed.

I guess that's one more difference between Americans and Canadians.

Yeah I think most folks in the country would prefer that those be properly funded. There usually amongst the first things cut when we need to save cash. Those are administered by the Provinces though and the gun registry is run by the Feds, so there would need to be an adjustment to the transfer payments.

Or do it the reverse way; impose a 30 percent property tax penalty on anybody who doesn't register a gun. That way people who don't want their guns registered can pay for that privilege.

That has the unfortunate effect of punishing those who don't own them.

[Lusankya]

Or do it the reverse way; impose a 30 percent property tax penalty on anybody who doesn't register a gun. That way people who don't want their guns registered can pay for that privilege.

That has the unfortunate effect of punishing those who don't own them.

As does not providing them with a discount. The only difference between "providing a discount for people with a registered gun" and "imposing a penalty on people without a registered gun" is that a discount sounds nice and happy while a penalty sounds mean and nasty. Unless, of course, you have way of determining who owns unregistered guns, in which case you could impose a penalty on those with unregistered weapons, which would leave both those with no unregistered guns and those with no guns happily penalty-free.

[Aaron]

As does not providing them with a discount. The only difference between "providing a discount for people with a registered gun" and "imposing a penalty on people without a registered gun" is that a discount sounds nice and happy while a penalty sounds mean and nasty. Unless, of course, you have way of determining who owns unregistered guns, in which case you could impose a penalty on those with unregistered weapons, which would leave both those with no unregistered guns and those with no guns happily penalty-free.

Personally I consider a 30% penalty to be worse then no discount. Considering your paying more when no proof exists, thats not something I'm comfortable with.

Mind you the Feds could offer to pay X amount of money to folks who come in and register, or offer to wave the course and license fee. Because even if you come out and say "yeah I have this", you still require the course and license (provided you don't have one. That saves you about 200$ for non-restricted.

[Lusankya]

Personally I consider a 30% penalty to be worse then no discount. Considering your paying more when no proof exists, thats not something I'm comfortable with.

That's the same kind of logical mistake that monkeys make. Either way, people with "no registered gun in the house" are paying more money than people "with a registered gun". In terms of outcome, it makes not a whit of difference how they phrase it. The only difference is in your mind where you think of it as "I don't get a discount" or "I pay a penalty" - which is a mere psychological distinction. The only way to make such a scheme "fair" is if they were penalising people "with an unregistered gun in the house", which would require having a way of tracking unregistered guns, and if they had that, then they wouldn't need a registry.

Mind you the Feds could offer to pay X amount of money to folks who come in and register, or offer to wave the course and license fee. Because even if you come out and say "yeah I have this", you still require the course and license (provided you don't have one. That saves you about 200$ for non-restricted.

That seems much more plausible.

[Aaron]

That's the same kind of logical mistake that monkeys make. Either way, people with "no registered gun in the house" are paying more money than people "with a registered gun". In terms of outcome, it makes not a whit of difference how they phrase it. The only difference is in your mind where you think of it as "I don't get a discount" or "I pay a penalty" - which is a mere psychological distinction. The only way to make such a scheme "fair" is if they were penalising people "with an unregistered gun in the house", which would require having a way of tracking unregistered guns, and if they had that, then they wouldn't need a registry.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand any of that. So I'll simply concede.

That seems much more plausible.

Indeed.

[Phantasee]

Think of it like the volunteer line up: everyone lines up, volunteers are asked to take a step forward, and half the guys step back while the other half stays put. For not doing anything half the guys just volunteered.

[Uraniun235]

Personally I consider a 30% penalty to be worse then no discount. Considering your paying more when no proof exists, thats not something I'm comfortable with.

That's the same kind of logical mistake that monkeys make. Either way, people with "no registered gun in the house" are paying more money than people "with a registered gun". In terms of outcome, it makes not a whit of difference how they phrase it. The only difference is in your mind where you think of it as "I don't get a discount" or "I pay a penalty" - which is a mere psychological distinction.

Hahaha, I gotta remember this for the next thread where people throw a huge bitchfit about how terrible it is to feel "obligated" to tip waiters, but somehow it's okay to just increase prices to pay for higher wages so we don't have to tip.

[Psawhn]

That link Lusankya provided was only about small stakes (a couple of grapes), however, and the two cases were functionally identical. Either deal resulted in the monkey owning an average of 1.5 grapes, and before the monkey chose what game to play it didn't have any grapes.

I don't think the discount vs. penalty goes for gun registry situation has an equivalent tradeoff. I already have a certain amount of property tax to pay (or I will when I move out) and I already do not own a gun, nor do I currently want to have a gun in the house.

That means that if the choice was up to me, I'd have to choose between seeing my tax rate stay the same or increase by 30%.

Of course I'd rather not see a hike in my taxes, and if my neighbour gets a discount while I don't then I can say "congratulations!" and not have to re-balance my own budget.

[Lusankya]

Hahaha, I gotta remember this for the next thread where people throw a huge bitchfit about how terrible it is to feel "obligated" to tip waiters, but somehow it's okay to just increase prices to pay for higher wages so we don't have to tip.

I believe that the point behind making the base wage higher is not so much to make it cheaper for the customer, but rather to provide the waiters with some kind of income security, because in a tipping culture, a waiter can have a large part of their wage docked simply because the customer is forgetful, in a bad mood or foreign.

Of course I'd rather not see a hike in my taxes, and if my neighbour gets a discount while I don't then I can say "congratulations!" and not have to re-balance my own budget.

For some things (disability, children, age, etc.), that's all very well an good, but do you really think that owning a registered gun is any more worthwhile a reason for paying less tax than, say, owning a flat-screen television? The only reason it sounds less bad to you is that you're now paying in opportunity loss, rather than cash.

[aerius]

For some things (disability, children, age, etc.), that's all very well an good, but do you really think that owning a registered gun is any more worthwhile a reason for paying less tax than, say, owning a flat-screen television? The only reason it sounds less bad to you is that you're now paying in opportunity loss, rather than cash.

The theory is having a gun at home can deter property crimes while a TV does not. Thus if the property crime risk is lowered, the home insurance rates can also be dropped accordingly. Whether this is actually true I'm not get into since I've had enough firearms & crime debates to last me for the next 10 years.

[Psawhn]

For some things (disability, children, age, etc.), that's all very well an good, but do you really think that owning a registered gun is any more worthwhile a reason for paying less tax than, say, owning a flat-screen television? The only reason it sounds less bad to you is that you're now paying in opportunity loss, rather than cash.

You're right. And like many people in such a situation I'd be seriously considering starting the process to get a permit and buy a gun just for the tax benefits. I'd then have to choose between the effort and price of that, versus the tax/insurance money I'd save.

Personally, I'm undecided to whether such a scheme would be good or not. It'd essentially be a government incentive to own guns, not just to register any existing ones. I can only imagine the furor that would cause .

[Ritterin Sophia]

Or do it the reverse way; impose a 30 percent property tax penalty on anybody who doesn't register a gun. That way people who don't want their guns registered can pay for that privilege.

If they knew everyone that had a gun they wouldn't need to offer amnesty for registering a weapon, now would they?

[Jeremy]

Or do it the reverse way; impose a 30 percent property tax penalty on anybody who doesn't register a gun. That way people who don't want their guns registered can pay for that privilege.

That has the unfortunate effect of punishing those who don't own them.

I think that was the point. Turn the society into a regulated and self defending one. The militia is all male citizens of fighting age...

[Phantasee]

Canuckistan doesn't have a militia.

[ray245]

For some things (disability, children, age, etc.), that's all very well an good, but do you really think that owning a registered gun is any more worthwhile a reason for paying less tax than, say, owning a flat-screen television? The only reason it sounds less bad to you is that you're now paying in opportunity loss, rather than cash.

The theory is having a gun at home can deter property crimes while a TV does not. Thus if the property crime risk is lowered, the home insurance rates can also be dropped accordingly. Whether this is actually true I'm not get into since I've had enough firearms & crime debates to last me for the next 10 years.

But that logic, shouldn't people with a good home security system be paying less taxes as well?

[Aaron]

Canuckistan doesn't have a militia.

Yeah, lets keep that stuff South of the border. And out of this thread.