“Car Control” in Canada

September 30, 2010

Have you ever stopped to think about what Canada’s Traffic Laws would look like if they were designed and enforced like Canada’s Gun Laws?  Here’s a quick overview of what we’d be looking at:

————

Mopeds, Scooters, Motorbikes and Sports Cars are all being reclassified as “Non-Essential Vehicles” as these are the vehicles that seem to have little practical use and seem to be the most dangerous.

Mopeds and Scooters are going to be outright banned and confiscated as they’re simply too slow and thus dangerous to share the road with faster vehicles.

Motorbikes and Sports Cars will require a “Pleasure Vehicle” endorsement on your license which will only be available after additional training. Also, these vehicles will only be allowed to be driven on special government approved driving tracks of which you must pay a yearly membership to be a member of. If your membership expires, you will be forced to turn in your Pleasure Vehicles as you obviously have no valid use for them any longer. Driving Track records will be kept and anyone who does not regularly frequent the course will have their Pleasure Vehicles confiscated.

Because it’s impossible for Police Officers to tell what kind of engine a car has, vehicles that even LOOK fast will be restricted to track use only.

If your driver’s license or vehicle registration expires, you will no longer just get a ticket; instead, ALL your vehicles will be confiscated and held until your paperwork is in order. If this takes too long, (30 days I think – and it probably will since you will only be able to apply for renewals via snail-mail) your vehicles will be destroyed with no compensation AND you will be charged under the Criminal Code – as it is YOUR responsibility to keep your paperwork valid.

Since these vehicles are more dangerous than other “Passenger” or “Commercial” vehicles, the doors must remain locked at all times when not in use AND in a locked garage so that no one without a “Pleasure Vehicle” endorsement can gain access and use them illegally.

And if you’re caught on the open road with one of these vehicles, the entire police force including the SWAT team will arrest you at gunpoint, handcuff you and the rest of your family and then refuse to issue an apology when it is later discovered that the car you were driving only LOOKED like one of the banned ones.

Yes, this actually happened here in Canada to a legal gun owner (and his family) who had done no wrong.

————

Kind of messed up, eh?  But this is frustrating reality that law-abiding gun owners in Canada have to deal with.

“Well…” you might say to yourself, “…these are GUNS we’re talking about here.  They’re more DANGEROUS than cars are!”  Well actually, they’re not.  Literally thousands of more people are killed every year in car accidents than in gun accidents.  Even when you compare what guns are primarily used for in Canada – hunting – cars STILL kill TEN TIMES more animals than guns.

So why have we allowed ourselves to be treated like common criminals when it comes to our guns?  I don’t know either.  But the next time you think that the latest gun law that is being put into effect is “reasonable”, imagine that it was being applied to your car instead and see if it still sounds like a good idea.


If It Saves One Life, It’s Worth It

September 30, 2010

Really? Would you build a $2 Billion hospital if it was only going to save one life? And would you keep it open, year after year for $75 million, still waiting and and hoping to save that one life?

Didn’t think so. Funny thing is, a $2 Billion hospital would in reality save thousands of lives every year, yet I still don’t think anyone would sink this kind of money into one.

But there’s the logic behind the gun registry – something that has yet to save even one life.


A Criminal Perspective on the Long-Gun Registry

September 30, 2010

BY LES MACPHERSON, THE STARPHOENIX, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010

There is no point at this late stage rehashing the debate over the long-gun registry. Except for a few dithering New Democrats, the positions are clearly defined. We have heard from the politicians. We have heard from farmers and duck hunters and from law enforcement authorities. We have heard from the Starbucks crowd and the gopher derby crowd. They all are saying pretty much exactly what they said 15 years ago when the registry was created.

The only group we have not heard from, oddly enough, is the one group the registry is meant to control, namely criminals. The whole idea was to reduce violent crime, although the registry probably has done more to reduce hunting. Since it came into effect, the sale of hunting licences in Saskatchewan, for example, has dropped by about 25 per cent, while violent crime has declined not at all. If hunters were a species, they would qualify as endangered. Meanwhile, the criminal species is flourishing.

This might explain why we’ve heard no complaints from the criminal element about the long-gun registry. It doesn’t seem to bother them. Or if it does bother them, they’re not making a big deal of it. We can’t be sure what they think because no one has asked.

For the criminal perspective on the registry, I tracked down Larry Lowlife, a serial violent offender who is between convictions and briefly out of jail. Here is the transcript of our interview:

SP: Before we talk about the long-gun registry, can you establish your credentials as a violent career criminal?

LL: Sure. (Produces a sawed-off shotgun from under his coat.) Stick ’em up

SP: (Nervous laugh) I’m convinced. Do you mind if I ask if your firearm is registered?

LL: Not to me, but it probably was registered by the previous owner. I stole it during a residential break-in.

SP: You stole it? Was the gun not secured under lock and key, as required by law?

LL: Sure, it was in a locked cabinet. The house was locked, too. Anything worth stealing is locked up. That’s one of the first things we learn in crime school.

SP: I notice you have sawed off the barrel. Did you know that’s illegal?

LL: That’s why it was under my coat.

SP: Have you been following the national debate over the long-gun registry?

LL: Not really. It has nothing to do with me.

SP: But you could be convicted for having an unregistered firearm.

LL: Not if I agree to plead out on the armed robberies.

SP: What armed robberies?

LL: The ones where I use this gun.

SP: Are you saying the registry does not deter crime?

LL: I think I answered that earlier when I said, ‘Stick ’em up.’

SP: Were you aware that the registry has cost taxpayers more than $2 billion?

LL: Two billion dollars? And they call me a criminal?

SP: So you think that’s too expensive?

LL: Not at all. I wish it cost more.

SP: More?

LL: Well, we criminals don’t pay taxes anyway, so the registry costs me, personally, nothing. I’m just glad that $2 billion isn’t available to hire more cops to arrest guys like me.

SP: But a lot of police support the registry. They supposedly access it thousands of times every day.

LL: Good for them. When they come to arrest me, they’ll check the registry and think I’m unarmed.

SP: Has the registry made it more difficult to obtain a gun for criminal purposes?

LL: Finding an illegal gun is easy. The tricky part is getting rid of it later.

SP: What message do you have for MPs who will vote this week to save or dismantle the long-gun registry?

LL: I’d tell them to put up their hands and give me their wallets and jewelry.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Read more:  http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/criminal+perspective+long+registry/3554252/story.html#ixzz10AY48Yze