Jump to content

Talk:Canadian Firearms Registry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The budget figures are contradicted by the reference #1. The $66.5M figure is the budget for the entire Canadian Firearms Program, of which the registry is only a small part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.119.4 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cost Overruns

[edit]

I have deleted the following, not because its not true (it probably is), but because it hasn't been properly cited (November 2008 and May 2008). I leave it here in case someone wants to find cites for it and put it back

  • The Auditor General's report found other significant problems with the way the project had been handled. These included significant questions around the financial management of the project. In particular, the report stated that estimated project costs often excluded project costs incurred by other agencies, such as the RCMP and provincial governments, giving a false impression of real cost. Problems were likewise reported with how funds were requested from Parliament, with 70% of funds requested through "supplementary estimates," a method intended for unanticipated expenditures and requiring only a one-line statement to Parliament on the purpose of the request [citation needed]. In comparison, only 10% of funds for all other programs in the department were requested in this way over the same period.[citation needed]

--76.10.163.221 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • something else that could probably use looking into is the indirectly related income and savings made possible by the gun registry

I'm boldly removing the following:

Documents obtained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation now estimate the program cost at $2 billion.[citation needed]

That's a very extraordinary claim, and if the CBC has reported it it should be simple to have a citation. So until someone finds the citation I think it should simply not be there.91.37.254.56 (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian gun registry

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

end of moved discussion

re-redirected

[edit]

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)

Unrelated Information Removed

[edit]

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)-[reply]

Unsupported/False statement removed

[edit]

"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)[reply]

Misuse?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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 warrant to arrest him? only in canaduh.

POV

[edit]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

References

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Dawson College Shooting

[edit]

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)[reply]

Removal of blurb about innefectivness

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is only right that both sides of the argument be heard. I would only insist that the Coalition be held to the same standard of academic scrutiny. I am tired to listening to anonymous sources being quoted, the use of unverifiable 'statistics' and 'facts' and statements that rely on scare mongering and propaganda as a substitute for reasoned debate. All Canadians want a safer society and true value for our tax dollars. So much of reality indicates we are getting neither with this program.

Zeister29 21:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


since some bots are being twats

[edit]

here is the link I wanted to add, it is not spam as some bots are assuming it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOmUXycDPs

--216.110.236.243 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how is this a reliable source, what about linking to the original, etc. etc. And for the information you try to link it to, please read up on WP:SOAPBOX. And though a bot is not a person, there is no reason to call it names. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Civil. Even if you are calling a Bot names, it's not appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think we are all mixing up our wikipedia rules here. the guideline says not to use youtube vids as primary evidence. This is not primary evidence, How does our citing watching him say exactly what was written constitute anything bad? it's certainly not against reputable source. --Jadger (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May Bulzz ittch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.210.102 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Murphy

[edit]

I removed the following: "In one year, 69 people in Toronto were murdered with firearms, none of these criminal cases could be solved or helped in any way by the gun registry, proving the gun registry to be, as Rex Murphy stated "useless" [2]"

Despite the presence of a citation, I would deem this POV. Rex Murphy is a political commentator, not a firearms expert. If it is to be included, it should be added as opinion - e.g. "Rex Murphy called the Gun Registry a "...debatable policy [that] cost one billion dollars and the registry itself is useless to boot." Instead, as worded, the sentence essentially reads that the registry is useless because Rex Murphy says so. The original assertation that "none of these criminal cases could be solved or helped in any way by the gun registry" would need a better citation than that. Blotto adrift (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it POV? it states an experts position, Wikipedia has to be neutral, its sources do not. Rex Murphy is a political commentator yes, which is why his remarks are valid. How would being a firearms expert add anything to his credibility? A firearms expert deals with the use and history of the weapons, not with the laws made up by politicians to control the weapons. A Firearms expert can tell you how fast a MG42 can empty a belt of ammo, but how will this add anything to a politically debated issue? Rex Murphy makes his living studying the laws made by Canadian government, how is he not qualified to comment on this issue? After all, this issue is Canadian Law
--Jadger (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criminologist then. Firearms policy expert. Murphy is a pundit, not an expert. Pundits generally quote experts. He is as qualified to comment on the issue as anyone, but his pronouncments in this article do not warrant the blanket "the registry does not work" comment at the beginning of the article. As noted earlier, the sentence should be reworded to suggest that Murphy says the registry is a failure, not that it's a failure because he says so. As I've said, I'm not necessarily against including the quotation, but I'm not in favour of it as it stands. It would be better after Gary Mauser and the other comments later in the article. That said, Murphy refers to the Auditor-General's report and other controversies already mentioned in the article - he isn't adding much that hasn't already been said. Blotto adrift (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Did you even look at my edit before reverting it? I did change it up as you wanted to say that Rex thinks it doesnt work. and as you said, it hits on many things that are also said elsewhere in the article, making it perfect for the lead. Just because it is stated elsewhere in the article by other sources doesn't mean we can also use this source. The more sources the better. I would suggest we both stop touching the article until you come up with a clear reason why it shouldn't be added. As I know all too well how this works, no one touches it in order to finish this dispute, and then the person who didn't want the information in the article will just stop discussing because they think they have won. and then revert whenever the page gets changed.
--Jadger (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And speak of the Devil, not even 5 minutes after I wrote the above, looks who does not discuss on the talk page and simply starts reverting again and again. He hasn't even discussed on this talk page once despite reverting the article more than 4 times in the last day, and despite the fact that multiple other users have tried to contact him on this discussion page, but he simply ignored it, and promptly had the anon blocked for two weeks.
and then look, he's started deleting my statements on the talk page, why is that Betacommand? Take a look at his contributions, The first page, the only talk page contribs he makes are reverting my edits on this talk page here (talk about incivil)
--Jadger (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I crafted a reply, but it was wiped out due to conflicting edits. I'll try again. I apologise for temporarily deleting your comments - I thought Betacommand had deleted them and was reinstating them. I then realised that Betacommand had already reinstated them, so I RV'd my change. In any event, your comments are here. I maintain that the article as it now reads is POV.

"In one year, 69 people in Toronto were murdered with firearms, none of these criminal cases could be solved or helped in any way by the gun registry, proving the gun registry to be, as Rex Murphy stated "useless"

In order to determine that "none of these criminal cases could be solved or helped in any way by the gun registry," someone would have to study the outcomes and methods used in these cases to make a determination of what roles what crimefighting methods played. And I'm no grammar expert, but I don't believe that this is even a proper sentence.
I have suggested changes that I believe would make the addition less POV, yet still allow it to remain. Despite the fact that I don't believe the repitition of points already made improves the article, I am prepared to compromise. You suggest that no one touch your edit until I "come up with a clear reason why it shouldn't be added." I would suggest that you leave out the edit until we can come to a mutually acceptable solution. Blotto adrift (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


that is not the latest version that I editted it to, giving even more credence to that fact I stated that you don't even look at my edits before reverting them. and as for studying them, no, all one has to do is see if any of the guns used in these crimes were registered, and whether they were not stolen. If they are unregistered or illegal weapons, then the registry doesn't work, and if the gun is registered but stolen, then the registry still does nothing. That is all that is needed to be known if the gun registry could help or solve them, which is in fact known to be the case.

I would suggest that you leave out the edit until we can come to a mutually acceptable solution.

I have already stated why this doesn't work, because one editor that already has his version on the page will stop discussing it and it will remain his way until someone changes the article again, which in all probability will mean reverts again and again. Betacommand already gave a perfect example of this not five minutes after I said that the first time.

--Jadger (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How about this [3]

But as Canada's experience with its registry -- which hasn't solved any crimes -- shows, gun control isn't the answer

--Jadger (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just a note for the obvious that User:216.110.236.243 is User:Jadger and that 216.110.236.243 was blocked yesterday for adding this same info. βcommand 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@#$% edit conflicts keep killing my edits. Jadger, the section I quoted was identical to the last edit, minus the citation. I know the citation was there, but didn't cut & paste it because I was talking about the content of the sentence, not the citation. I do read the edits, thank you again for asking.
As for your change in wording, I would have to say that I cannot support it. The registry is one part of gun control and this article is about the registry only. And again, saying that the registry hasn't solved any crimes would require some sort of detailed study of the issue. As to your comments about unregistered firearms' use in crimes, I'm not here to debate the effectiveness of the registry or gun control. Your opinions are widely held, but there are also other views on the subject that are widely held. Additional comments like this won't remove that POV tag. Blotto adrift (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed comments by Gary Mauser, as they don't pertain to the registry (only gun control in general). Removed comments regarding murders and murder rates as there is no indication of casuality - the stats date before the registry was implemented. Blotto adrift (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WTF is this? I leave for a couple months, come back and I'm getting accused of sh!t I didnt do? remember to follow wikipedia's guidelines, including assume good faith

--Jadger (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also notice that the anon IP was only warned 3 times from 19:23 to 19:24 on 28 January, during which time he did not edit... resulting in a block at that time, a little bit of a bias don't you think? especially since it seems Betacommand was asked repeatedly to discuss edits but instead revert warred with the anon... but was not himself blocked at all. a little bit of selective justice IMHO.

Your opinions are widely held, but there are also other views on the subject that are widely held. like what? citations? wikipedia has to be NPOV, but our sources do not. Why are you against the insertion of any expert source that doesn't support the gun registry?

--Jadger (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial opposition

[edit]

The first two sentences in this paragraph are unsourced and I will delete them if no one has any reason why they should be included. While I am sure that some people thought the registry would lead to "the confiscation of all guns in Canada" that did not represent the mainstream opposition to the bill. The article would be improved if someone could add why the Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc opposed the bill. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of times registry used daily

[edit]

I think its best to leave that out completely, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said 9400/day however, its meant total of 9400 searches on personal info daily, NOT searches related to firearm registry. Kullwarrior 18 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.187.167 (talk)

allegations of lobbying section

[edit]

I'm troubled by the fact that this whole section seems to depend on a piece from the Red Deer Advocate, which is a local paper without any national scope. The title, "Liberals just keep wasting our money", implies that this is an opinion piece rather than reportage. I'm going to look for a better source for this. A man in space (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citation 18

[edit]

It doesn't seem to be functional. Can someone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.12.55 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper

[edit]

Should we say the Long Gun Registry is now abolished after the conservatives scrap it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.102.112 (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance

[edit]

There was some reverting of contradictory figures on gun owner's compliance with C-68, namely LUFA's figure of 30% and a CBC report stating 75%. Given the widely divergent claims on both sides, it seems reasonable to have both views represented. The Coalition for Gun Control claims 90% compliance, so a reference to that source was added. Blotto adrift (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian Firearms Registry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canadian Firearms Registry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Firearms Registry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing my lost gun registry certificate

[edit]

Where can I call to get another copy if it ?? 170.203.222.31 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/timeline-the-gun-registry-debate-1.786548. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_Firearms_Registry&oldid=1263052204"