The Great Gun Control Debate

[ballz]

New data shows a direct correlation between mass shootings and gun ownership.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-08/24/gun-ownership-mass-shootings-us-study

So? Why should we care about addressing probably the rarest form of firearm-related death? Besides, mass shootings in the US are on the decline.

We've already discussed that crime rates are going down across the board in developed countries. Whatever decreases you've cited, the fact remains that among advanced countries, the US has by far a higher rate of violent crime, but more importantly a higher rate of gun crime. I fail to understand why the link between gun ownership and gun violence seems to be so controversial.

Why is that more important? Why is it more important to stop crime committed with a gun than other violent crime?

 

[The Bread Guy]

OPP drops investigation into RCMP’s destruction of gun registry data after Tories’ retroactive law change
Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press

The Ontario Provincial Police have dropped an investigation into the RCMP’s destruction of gun registry data, saying the alleged offences no longer exist under a backdated, retroactive Conservative law passed last spring.

Documents filed in court by the federal information commissioner’s office include a letter from the OPP that lays out four potential offences by the RCMP when the national police force destroyed long gun registry records in 2012.

The OPP letter, dated Sept. 22, details at length how Conservative changes buried in a highly controversial omnibus budget bill last spring close off every avenue for investigation of the alleged RCMP offences.

The bill was passed just prior to the House of Commons rising for the summer ....
More on link

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Dang I was hoping to make a killing on popcorn watching the OPP serve an arrest warrant on the national HQ of the Chief firearms Office. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well, here we go again. If there was any doubt which way a gun owner should vote, this should give them a strong push towards the only party that's done anything for us.

Shiny Pony wants to turn us all back into paper criminals again.

If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote.

Graeme Hamilton
| Oct 07, 2015 | Last Updated: Oct 07, 2015 - 4:00 UTC
Seemingly undaunted by their experience with the ill-fated 1995 long-gun registry, the Liberals are positioning themselves as the toughest gun-control proponents in the federal campaign.

The platform released Monday by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau promises a series of measures to reverse Conservative initiatives that “steadily weakened our gun laws,” while proposing a broad range of  initiatives “to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets.”

The Liberal plan drew immediate criticism from organizations representing gun-owners. “They’ve firmly established themselves as the anti-gun party. They want to attack the legitimate ownership and use of firearms in Canada,” said Blair Hagen, executive vice-president of the National Firearms Association. “They’ve learned nothing from the 1990s, it appears.”

The Liberals specify that they would not re-introduce the long-gun registry scrapped in 2012 by the Conservatives, who referred to it as “billion-dollar boondoggle.”

But Trudeau is promising to repeal elements of Bill C-42, dubbed the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act by the Conservatives, which came into force last June. The Liberals would restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith. Under the Conservative law, the authorization to transport the weapon became automatic with the granting of a licence.

The Liberals would also repeal a section of C-42 that gives cabinet, not police, final say over which firearms are restricted. The Conservatives used the new power in August to reverse an RCMP ban on certain Czech- and Swiss-made rifles that closely resemble prohibited automatic firearms.

The Liberals also promise to modify membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, which advises the government and which critics say tilts too much in favour of gun-owners. Trudeau wants committee membership to include public health advocates, women’s group representatives and police officers.

A Liberal government would require enhanced background checks for anyone buying a handgun or other restricted firearm, it would require anyone selling a firearm to confirm that the buyer holds a valid licence and it would implement long-delayed regulations requiring the marking of imported guns. Vendors would be required to keep records of their inventory and sales to assist police in investigating crimes.

Heidi Rathjen, founder and spokeswoman for the gun-control group Polysesouvient, said that even though the Liberals stopped short of promising to revive the registry, their platform is courageous. She said Conservative legislation had opened loopholes that made it easier for criminals to obtain illegal guns.

“This platform will certainly be viciously opposed by the gun lobby, and in that sense, Justin Trudeau is not sitting on the fence,” Rathjen said. “He has taken a strong stand in favour of gun control and I think we should applaud that.”

Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, accused the Liberals of playing politics on the backs of law-abiding gun owners, who would face additional hassles under the Liberal plan.

“There are a couple of million Canadians out there who have firearms licences. Apparently the Liberals still don’t understand those people,” he said. “They have made no attempt to understand those people. And they are willing to take a couple of million Canadians and quite frankly crap on them for their political agenda.”

Hagen said up until Monday, gun control had not been an issue in the campaign, and gun-owners were not necessarily in the Conservative camp. “This is just going to inflame that gun vote to come out and support the Conservatives, and that wasn’t necessarily going to happen at the start of the campaign,” he said.

Bill Blair, former Toronto police chief and Liberal candidate in the riding of Scarborough Southwest, said he is not worried the platform will drive rural gun-owners away from the Liberals.

“I do not believe that the measures we propose are too onerous,” he said. “I do think they can contribute significantly to keeping our communities safe, and ultimately that’s in everybody’s interest.”

NDP leader Tom Mulcair has called the long-gun registry a failure and said he would not re-introduce a registry if elected. The NDP did not respond to a request for more information on its proposals for gun control.

National Post

 

[Lumber]

Well, here we go again. If there was any doubt which way a gun owner should vote, this should give them a strong push towards the only party that's done anything for us.

Shiny Pony wants to turn us all back into paper criminals again.

If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote.

Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?

Nothing in the article, nor anything I've ever heard from the Liberal/NDP or even CPC parties has inidcated that any one of them is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding Canadians, or re-instituing the long-gun registry. According to the this article, the Liberals want to make the following changes:

1. Restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith;

2. Give police the final say over which firearms are restricted;

3. Modify membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, to include public health advocates, women’s group representatives and police officers;

4. Require enhanced background checks for anyone buying a handgun or other restricted firearm;

5. Requiring vendors to keep records of their inventory and sales to assist police in investigating crimes; and

6. Require anyone selling a firearm to confirm that the buyer holds a valid licence.

Can you pleae show me which one of these says that your guns are going to be taken away?

I'm not against gun ownership. However we're not talking about fishing gear or an ATV here, we're talking about gun. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?

 

[c_canuk]

Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?

Nothing in the article, nor anything I've ever heard from the Liberal/NDP or even CPC parties has indicated that any one of them is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding Canadians, or re-instituing the long-gun registry. According to the this article, the Liberals want to make the following changes:

1. Restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith;

Which turns us into criminals when they expire, are an additional expense per firearm, and are completely redundant since it's now built into our current system. You just don't need an additional piece of paper to carry around with you that expires.

2. Give police the final say over which firearms are restricted;

The RCMP have proven they are not unbiased as they have been adding items that were not restricted or prohibited into those groups then demanding people turn them over for destruction without compensation.

Things like police surplus 15" shotguns that were modded by the police to have a 15" barrel from 16" so they'd fit in their cars, then claiming that the new owners are holding illegally modified weapons since the factory never made a 15"... They did make a 14" and still do. etc. None of those firearms were used in any crime.

3. Modify membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, to include public health advocates, women’s group representatives and police officers;

what do public health advocates and women's groups representatives have to do with logical and researched advisory to gun control. We know their stance already, Ban them to get rid of them just like prohibition got rid of alcohol and the war on drugs got rid of drugs. We've already gone over the police's previous abuse of the system.

4. Require enhanced background checks for anyone buying a handgun or other restricted firearm;

ehhh... I'm neutral on this one, criminals get their guns illegally so this doesn't stop them, but at least it might add a safety margin for the disturbed... on the other hand if we get banners and health advocates running the checks who knows what their BS criteria will be. Keep in mind they had doctors asking kids in private if their parents had guns in the house, then if the kid said "Yes" were calling CPS without checking for example if they were legally owned, stored, and safe.

5. Requiring vendors to keep records of their inventory and sales to assist police in investigating crimes; and

pretty sure this is already the case, however, the restricted and prohibited registries already do this. But again, criminals don't register their smuggled in guns anymore than their smuggled in drugs. This will become a tax on gun owners then a tool to divide and conquer them just like the LGR was.

6. Require anyone selling a firearm to confirm that the buyer holds a valid licence.

see #5

Can you pleae show me which one of these says that your guns are going to be taken away?

I'm not against gun ownership. However we're not talking about fishing gear or an ATV here, we're talking about gun. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?

Cause right now in order to own a gun you have to jump through 50 hoops pay 1000s of dollars in extra fees, live under the threat of having your property confiscated/searched by illogical hand wringers who think owning a firearm = criminal.

All this while actual criminals just smuggle in a cheap untraceable firearms with their next shipment of drugs.

Something people should also consider, the harder it is to obtain legally, the more lucrative it is for organized crime to provide illegally.

Consider this as well. The LGR cost over a billion dollars, to run a stripped down version of a car licensing system. The LPC were corrupt and/or incompetent when it comes to gun control. Think about that. 1 billion dollars to run essentially an excel spreadsheet. As a programmer who's background includes building and maintaining databases I can't fathom how they managed to spend so much and get back so little.

How much is the LGR 2.0 going to cost us? Because that is exactly what this is. You can't do the things they claim they want to do unless they revive the LGR.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?

Nothing in the article, nor anything I've ever heard from the Liberal/NDP or even CPC parties has inidcated that any one of them is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding Canadians, or re-instituing the long-gun registry. According to the this article, the Liberals want to make the following changes:

1. Restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith;

2. Give police the final say over which firearms are restricted;

3. Modify membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, to include public health advocates, women’s group representatives and police officers;

4. Require enhanced background checks for anyone buying a handgun or other restricted firearm;

5. Requiring vendors to keep records of their inventory and sales to assist police in investigating crimes; and

6. Require anyone selling a firearm to confirm that the buyer holds a valid licence.

Can you pleae show me which one of these says that your guns are going to be taken away?

I'm not against gun ownership. However we're not talking about fishing gear or an ATV here, we're talking about gun. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?

All your questions have been answered multiple times in this thread. All you have to do is read.

Especially your last point.

Try explain High River if you don't think it can happen.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?

Nothing in the article, nor anything I've ever heard from the Liberal/NDP or even CPC parties has inidcated that any one of them is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding Canadians, or re-instituing the long-gun registry. According to the this article, the Liberals want to make the following changes:

You sure?
from the above article.

“to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets.”

There's no such thing as an assault weapon. The closest thing would be a car, which kills a hell of a lot more than firearms do in Canada.  But the fact they're using such a ridiculous made up term gives you an insight to their mind set.  Do you think for a second that quote implies they will support "law abiding" Canadians in owning and responsibly using handguns and "assault weapons"?

The Liberals would restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith. Under the Conservative law, the authorization to transport the weapon became automatic with the granting of a licence.

A stupid waste of time which in no way prevents any sort of criminal or violent behavior. Do you think if someone wants to take one of their own guns and go shoot a place up that not having a piece of paper will stop them?

The Liberals would also repeal a section of C-42 that gives cabinet, not police, final say over which firearms are restricted. The Conservatives used the new power in August to reverse an RCMP ban on certain Czech- and Swiss-made rifles that closely resemble prohibited automatic firearms.

The police have shown they are incompetent when it comes to this. They've banned .22long rifle caliber guns based on looks alone.

Those extra checks and balances you're defending are useless when the only people it will effect are already law-abiding citizens.

Bill Blair, former Toronto police chief and Liberal candidate in the riding of Scarborough Southwest, said he is not worried the platform will drive rural gun-owners away from the Liberals.

“I do not believe that the measures we propose are too onerous,” he said. “I do think they can contribute significantly to keeping our communities safe, and ultimately that’s in everybody’s interest.”

Wasn't the Toronto police forced to admit some 400 guns have gone missing while in their custody?

 

[Lumber]

All your questions have been answered multiple times in this thread. All you have to do is read.

All my questions were directed at you specifically, based on an article that just came out. All you have to do is read.

I asked two questions, and two questions only:

1. Where in the article does it state that "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote"?; and
2. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?

So far the answers I've received can be summarised as:
1. It doesn't say that, and you're just fear mongering.
2. There are already too many laborious (and often inane) steps, so more steps would be unnecessary.

As a whole, I can accept all that. Some of the responses I received were very enlightening. For example:

Things like police surplus 15" shotguns that were modded by the police to have a 15" barrel from 16" so they'd fit in their cars, then claiming that the new owners are holding illegally modified weapons since the factory never made a 15"... They did make a 14" and still do. etc. None of those firearms were used in any crime.

What a load of bull s**t. This is the kind of technical, bureaucratic rubbish that makes my blood boil.

However, I'd still like to counter a few of the responses I received:

The RCMP have proven they are not unbiased as they have been adding items that were not restricted or prohibited into those groups then demanding people turn them over for destruction without compensation.

The police have shown they are incompetent when it comes to this. They've banned .22long rifle caliber guns based on looks alone.

What makes you think that the Cabinet of Canada is any more qualified to make these decision than the police? Between Police, and Cabinet, who would be a more informed body of personnel to make these decisions?

You sure?
from the above article.

“to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets.”

You're incorrectly using the article in favour of your argument. Whether you think these measures will be effective or not, the whole goal is to try to keep guns off of the street. Period. I say again, even if you think none of this will work, you can't deny (or maybe you can) that the whole point is to try and keep guns from being used in crimes (i.e. "off the street"). "Off our streets" therefore does not mean taking away the guns of law-abiding gun owners. The fact that they use the term "assault rifle" is irrelevant to the argument.

Which turns us into criminals when they expire, are an additional expense per firearm, and are completely redundant since it's now built into our current system. You just don't need an additional piece of paper to carry around with you that expires.

I can only assume the logic behind this one is that a prohibited/restricted gun sitting in a locked gun cabinet in someone's basement is less likely to go missing/get stolen than a gun that is being moved around from place to place. People are lazy. If they have to get a form filled out every time they want to drive across town to the range, they might skip out on it a few times. Annoying and shrewd? Absolutely. Effective? I have no idea. Did any of you ever say "well, I was going to go to the range today, but my transport permit is expired, and I've been too lazy to get it renewed"?

Wasn't the Toronto police forced to admit some 400 guns have gone missing while in their custody?

Right. Doctors have accidents during surgeries, miss-diagnose patients, etc, and as a result, people have died. I guess I shouldn't trust Doctors anymore when they are giving medical opinions.

 

[suffolkowner]

I can tell you that the High River RCMP detachment remains incompetent to this day and I would not trust them

 

[Lumber]

I can tell you that the High River RCMP detachment remains incompetent to this day and I would not trust them

Is this what you're referring to?

http://globalnews.ca/news/2258052/high-river-rcmp-search-for-sheep-shooters/

 

[PuckChaser]

You clearly forgot the keyword "firearms" when you googled High River. Don't worry, I'll save you from further embarrassment:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-watchdog-raps-mounties-over-high-river-gun-seizures-during-2013-flood-1.2954483

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All my questions were directed at you specifically, based on an article that just came out. All you have to do is read.

I asked two questions, and two questions only:

1. Where in the article does it state that "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote"?; and
2. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?

So far the answers I've received can be summarised as:
1. It doesn't say that, and you're just fear mongering.
2. There are already too many laborious (and often inane) steps, so more steps would be unnecessary.

As a whole, I can accept all that. Some of the responses I received were very enlightening. For example:

What a load of bull s**t. This is the kind of technical, bureaucratic rubbish that makes my blood boil.

However, I'd still like to counter a few of the responses I received:

What makes you think that the Cabinet of Canada is any more qualified to make these decision than the police? Between Police, and Cabinet, who would be a more informed body of personnel to make these decisions?


You're incorrectly using the article in favour of your argument. Whether you think these measures will be effective or not, the whole goal is to try to keep guns off of the street. Period. I say again, even if you think none of this will work, you can't deny (or maybe you can) that the whole point is to try and keep guns from being used in crimes (i.e. "off the street"). "Off our streets" therefore does not mean taking away the guns of law-abiding gun owners. The fact that they use the term "assault rifle" is irrelevant to the argument.

I can only assume the logic behind this one is that a prohibited/restricted gun sitting in a locked gun cabinet in someone's basement is less likely to go missing/get stolen than a gun that is being moved around from place to place. People are lazy. If they have to get a form filled out every time they want to drive across town to the range, they might skip out on it a few times. Annoying and shrewd? Absolutely. Effective? I have no idea. Did any of you ever say "well, I was going to go to the range today, but my transport permit is expired, and I've been too lazy to get it renewed"?

Right. Doctors have accidents during surgeries, miss-diagnose patients, etc, and as a result, people have died. I guess I shouldn't trust Doctors anymore when they are giving medical opinions.

I've already been around the block more than a few times here on your and similar questions. If you can't take the time to read, I don't have the time to explain..........again. Especially if all you want to do is trot out the typical anti gun stuff to provoke an argument.

However, just for you. If a gun owner fails to keep up with the paperwork that even the government can't understand, you'll commit a felony, lose all your guns and run the risk of three years in jail (for each count) and a lifetime weapons ban, simply because you forgot to renew your PAL or your ATT has a clerical error on it.

I am not fear mongering, it's happened and will continue to happen with the Libs and NDP.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What makes you think that the Cabinet of Canada is any more qualified to make these decision than the police? Between Police, and Cabinet, who would be a more informed body of personnel to make these decisions?

The police (higher ups)  aren't interested in the rights or freedoms of firearm owners.  They probably assume zero gun ownership means less crime and who cares if law abiding citizens can't enjoy their hobby.

You're incorrectly using the article in favour of your argument. Whether you think these measures will be effective or not, the whole goal is to try to keep guns off of the street. Period. I say again, even if you think none of this will work, you can't deny (or maybe you can) that the whole point is to try and keep guns from being used in crimes (i.e. "off the street"). "Off our streets" therefore does not mean taking away the guns of law-abiding gun owners. The fact that they use the term "assault rifle" is irrelevant to the argument.

Actually it does have considerable relevance.  They are trying to ban a class of weapons that don't exist outside of a very ambiguous term designed by the media.  It shows their incompetence and highlights their stance of wanting Firearms out of the hands of Canadians.

Why don't you tell me what exactly an assault weapon is Lumber?  What kind of assault weapons are the liberals going to get off the street?

I'm all for measures to keep illegal guns off the street,  the way they're going about it,  or trying to,  will effect  only law abiding citizens. 
I have a license that let's me buy hand guns.  Why do I need a separate piece of paper to bring it to a shooting range?  Should I have even more paperwork to buy ammo,  or clean my gun?

Right. Doctors have accidents during surgeries, miss-diagnose patients, etc, and as a result, people have died. I guess I shouldn't trust Doctors anymore when they are giving medical opinions.

So in your mind a doctor making a mistake during an operation by accident is the same as law enforcement officers stealing Firearms out of their own lock ups?  Those are two significantly different things.

And yes lots of people don't trust doctors,  they've taken to taking a black marker and writing  WRONG KNEE on their legs.

[Edited for grammar and remove sarcasm. ]

 

[c_canuk]

Not to mention, not one of those measures. NOT. ONE. Inconveniences let alone stops criminals.

They don't buy their firearms legally, they buy them illegally and they don't report their untraceable illegal weapons to the government.

Bringing back the ATT won't change anything because it's still illegal to take a restricted or higher firearm anywhere but the range. Yet criminals are still doing it. Therefore having a piece of paper that expires isn't going to change anything as far as crime goes.

All this crap is about is throwing the law abiding under the bus to get a couple gun grabber votes.

Prohibition doesn't work for any other good/service why would it work on guns? A hell of a lot more people die from overdoses on illegal narcotics every year by orders of magnitude than from fire arms, yet the same people trying to regulate and ultimately ban firearms are the same ones preaching legalization and increased funding to law enforcement, regulation and rehab.

What if that billion dollars spent on the LGR was instead spent on mental health, troubled teen outreach and anti gang task forces?

Maybe the amount of homicides with firearms would have decreased instead of stayed stable throughout the rise and fall of the LGR.

Maybe if we actually attacked the problem, instead of adding laws to people unrelated to the problem, we might come closer to solving it. i.e. Banning legally obtained registered AR 15s in rural Alberta doesn't solve unregistered illegal obtained handgun drive bys in the GTA.

But actually dealing with the problems is hard.

It's much easier to make some please to emotion, and let special interest groups who know nothing about firearms, write a couple sloppy, irrational, lazy laws that largely only affect those outside the metro centers. They don't actually have to do anything and they get hailed as SJW hero's against us nasty ole rednecks who are somehow responsible for urban gang activities.

 

[ballz]

Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?

Because, with the combination of the registry and allowing police to choose which guns are non-registricted / restricted / prohibited, law-abiding Canadians have already had guns taken away.

I'm not against gun ownership. However we're not talking about fishing gear or an ATV here, we're talking about gun. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?

Legal firearm owners in Canada are *much less likely* to commit a crime than those that do not own a firearm. We don't owe you an explanation as to why we should be able to live free from being harassed, you and other gun-control advocates owe *us* a reason that we should be harassed.

You are talking about taking away people's ability to live freely, that is not a small thing. The onus is on the gun control advocates to demonstrate why these things are necessary or at the very least demonstrate that they have some kind of noticeable effect on violent crime.

You would probably find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car. After all, you're a law-abiding citizen with a proven track record of being safe and responsible. The fact that you could kill or maime 20 people with that car is not a sufficient reason to put the onus on you to prove why you should be allowed to own one.

Why is it different for firearms?

What makes you think that the Cabinet of Canada is any more qualified to make these decision than the police? Between Police, and Cabinet, who would be a more informed body of personnel to make these decisions?

I would like to see you provide any other example where you think it would be appropriate to let the police write the laws instead of the legislators.... and then we'll talk.

 

[Brad Sallows]

1. Restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith;
2. Give police the final say over which firearms are restricted;
3. Modify membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, to include public health advocates, women’s group representatives and police officers;
4. Require enhanced background checks for anyone buying a handgun or other restricted firearm;
5. Requiring vendors to keep records of their inventory and sales to assist police in investigating crimes; and
6. Require anyone selling a firearm to confirm that the buyer holds a valid licence.
Can you pleae show me which one of these says that your guns are going to be taken away?

Confiscation aside, which of those really has any effect at all at preventing criminals from acquiring, transporting, and using firearms?

 

[PuckChaser]

Confiscation aside, which of those really has any effect at all at preventing criminals from acquiring, transporting, and using firearms?

Nothing, because criminals don't follow laws. All of those rules don't stop someone from breaking into your home and taking your lawfully owned firearms, and then using them in a crime.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Confiscation aside, which of those really has any effect at all at preventing criminals from acquiring, transporting, and using firearms?

None of our gun laws have had any effect on criminals. The crime rate may have been going down, but the additions to our gun laws have done nothing to speed it up. The crime rate has been going down since 1974 (or when Canada started keeping stats). Our big dates for Canadian gun control are, 1978, 1994 (C-68), 2011 (for the long gun registry, though that didn't really change much), and 2015 (bill C-42 which was just as much a loss as a win). If those measures had any effect on the crime rate, then there would have been a sharp decrease in crime (which hasn't happened and won't since our laws don't effect criminals in the first place).

Some groups use manipulated data to try to show a decrease since certain laws were enacted, saying there has been a decrease in crime since 1994 for example. That data doesn't take into account the decrease has been happening since before then, and is completely unrelated to any gun control enacted.

 

[Lumber]

Consider this as well. The LGR cost over a billion dollars, to run a stripped down version of a car licensing system. The LPC were corrupt and/or incompetent when it comes to gun control. Think about that. 1 billion dollars to run essentially an excel spreadsheet. As a programmer who's background includes building and maintaining databases I can't fathom how they managed to spend so much and get back so little.

As someone who studied Business Administration with a specialization in Financial Accounting and a real penchant for Excel (lol), I'm also extremely curious as to how they could spend that much money on what is essentially the same as a car registry. Does anyone have any links to good reading on the matter?