Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Long Gun Registry?
The problem I have had with the registry is that no one has actually explained to me the benefit of the registry. If someone who supports it could please explain how the gun registry is gun contol, or specifically how it reduced crimes, I would be happy to support it.
However, having a list of those who have long guns has not prevented any crimes from those with hand guns (which have been restricted and registered for upteen-years) and those who choose to acquire weapons illegally.
I, like many other conservatives, believe the original gun registry concept was nothing but a cash grab. As it was implemented, it became nothing more than a boondoggle.
I am not a big supporter of guns. I don't see the need for one in urban settings (although here in town we have a huge influx of Coyotes, so maybe I may have to rethink that :-) ) I have owned rifles in the past when I participated in biathalons (but I have no desire to have a gun in the house with kids around), so I am not totally anti-gun.
But calling the gun registry "gun control" as we allowed the Liberals to do, is a farce.
Now maybe the money can be better used like, oh I don't know, hiring more cops to go after those with illegal handguns, not legal long guns.
In the Globe story on the same subject, the police chief said that police used the registry prior to serving warrants to see if there is a gun in the house.
Does it not seem ridiculous for police to assume otherwise?
If you are serving a warrant, then hopefully all police officers go with the idea in mind that the offender may be armed?
Our only hope is that the criminals who haven't registered their guns are kind enough to announce they are armed to our police when they arrive.
As for the Firearms being removed from the mentally ill, would it not make more sense to keep tabs on those who have been issued Firearms Acquistion Certificates, rather than the individual weapons. Certainly easier and cheaper, one would think.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]