Québec wins temporary injunction to keep gun registry

141 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2015-03-30 12:11

Paladin1

I don't see how this will work well.

If I buy a gun from someone in Quebec my information will not be recorded.

As well if I sell a gun to someone in quebec I am not obligated to notify anyone. The person buying the gun will have to decide to register their firearm.

I think I read a stastic that said when the national firearm registry was impliment they estimated 7 million firearms were legally owned in Canada and around 3 million firearms were registered.

bagkitty wrote:

Hats off to Quebec for making the effort, even if they are stuck bordering two of the jurisdictions who did almost everything in the power to stymie the original implementation of the national registry. As for the selfish actions of those who celebrate the death of the national registry, I hope the next time there is another murder of a woman by firearm in a "domestic dispute", a Polytechnique, or Mayerthorpe, or Moncton style shooting they come forward to demonstrate how that could never, ever have been averted by police being able to ascertain who has access to what weapon....

I don't see many ways in which a registry would prevent shootings. One way I guess would be if someone did something that caused them to have their firearms licence taken away the police could look at the registry, assuming the person registered all their firearms, and would know how many weapons and what type the person had.

Mon, 2015-03-30 12:18

#103

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Stop Harper! Arm everyone!!!!!!

But only give them 5 round magazines for their guns!

Mon, 2015-03-30 17:12

#104

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I don't see many ways in which a registry would prevent shootings.

I've been waiting for years to hear even just one plausible account of the registry making the difference that led to a crime being prevented or solved.

We hear over and over again how the police "use the registry hundreds of times per day", but my understanding is that that's just a systemic and routine check of the registry -- that's not the same as the registry actually solving or preventing a crime.

It's a bit like saying "Mr. Magoo uses Google dozens of times each day!!" when in fact Google is just my homepage. It loads every time I launch Chrome. It doesn't mean I actually USE it, and it certainly shouldn't imply that I somehow RELY on it. It's just an automatic thing.

I suppose another way to ask the same question would be to ask if, since the registry was deprecated, unprevented long gun gun crimes or unsolved long gun crimes have increased. If the registry really was preventing or solving crime, and it's taken away, wouldn't we expect statistics to show this?

Mon, 2015-03-30 20:28

#105

Unionist

Paladin1 wrote:

I don't see how this will work well.

If I buy a gun from someone in Quebec my information will not be recorded.

Who gives a crap? One less gun in Québec. Use it carefully.

Quote:
As well if I sell a gun to someone in quebec I am not obligated to notify anyone.

Who gives a crap? You get rid of a gun, that's one less gun you can accidentally kill some kid with - or vice versa. You shouldn't notify anyone - good deeds are their own reward.

Quote:
The person buying the gun will have to decide to register their firearm.

Fuckin' right. A Quebecer who violates the registry law will be punished according to law. Or are you actually saying that firearm owners will not be law-abiding?

Quote:
I think I read a stastic that said when the national firearm registry was impliment they estimated 7 million firearms were legally owned in Canada and around 3 million firearms were registered.

I thought firearm owners were law-abiding citizens. You're accusing a majority of them of being lawbreakers. You should really have a long look at yourself in the mirror.

Quote:
I don't see many ways in which a registry would prevent shootings.

The purpose of a registry was never to "prevent shootings". It was to catch the perps especially after a gun crime was committed - and then to punish them as deserved. You should do a little more reading on the subject. An additional benefit of the registry is that it makes gun owners feel as if they're being watch by the state. Law abiding firearm owners won't mind that - because as innocent citizens, they have nothing to fear. It is the violence-prone gun loving fetishists who worry. And that's how it must be.

Needless to say, a registry is not a solution - only a tool. The solution is two-fold: 1) Ban all private ownership of guns. 2) Ban possession or use of firearms in all appropriately-defined municipal areas. With extremely sever penalties for violations. That will do the trick, IMHO, without in any way infringing on the use of firearms for hunting or sport, or on the inherent rights of Aboriginal peoples.

Tue, 2015-03-31 07:58

#106

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

We hear over and over again how the police "use the registry hundreds of times per day", but my understanding is that that's just a systemic and routine check of the registry -- that's not the same as the registry actually solving or preventing a crime.

What they mean by that is that every day Canadian firearm owners have a police check done on them which included accessing the firearms registry.

Unionist wrote:

-Who gives a crap? One less gun in Québec. Use it carefully.

-Who gives a crap? You get rid of a gun, that's one less gun you can accidentally kill some kid with - or vice versa. You shouldn't notify anyone - good deeds are their own reward.

One less gun to prevent a rape, assault, murder. Prevent women like Mary Beth Miller or Cecile Verreault-Lavoie from being mauled to death by bears.

You're biased against firearms. You don't think anyone in Canada should own a gun, I get it. I hate to break this to you but there are actually a lot of Quebecers that own and enjoy collecting firearms, hunting, recreational shooting and even dastardly types who want to carry them for their own protection.

Quote:
I thought firearm owners were law-abiding citizens. You're accusing a majority of them of being lawbreakers. You should really have a long look at yourself in the mirror.

That's a pretty weak attempt at twisting my words. Firearm owners are law abiding citizens just like vehicle owners are.

Quote:
I don't see many ways in which a registry would prevent shootings.

The purpose of a registry was never to "prevent shootings". [/quote]

The registry was pushed by gun control advocates as a means to prevent another polytechnique type shooting. Polytechnique is still brought up when the gun rregistry is brought up.

Quote:

It was to catch the perps especially after a gun crime was committed - and then to punish them as deserved. You should do a little more reading on the subject. An additional benefit of the registry is that it makes gun owners feel as if they're being watch by the state. Law abiding firearm owners won't mind that - because as innocent citizens, they have nothing to fear. It is the violence-prone gun loving fetishists who worry. And that's how it must be.

Wrong. Firearm owners are already watched by the state. as I mentioned, every day a back ground check is run on them. You're confusing the difference between a firearm licence and a gun registry.

Another primary use for the registry is for when the RCMP arbitrairily decideds a certain gun is now illegal and decides they will go into someones house and take that gun away without compensation. They just tried that with the Swiss Arms fiasco except Canadians had enough and said no way, to which the politicans listened and the breaks were put ont he RCMP.

Quote:

Needless to say, a registry is not a solution - only a tool. The solution is two-fold: 1) Ban all private ownership of guns.

And there it is. Ban all firearms :)

Except of course the police and the military but we have nothing to worry about from them.

Unionist I have a genuine question. Have you ever gone target shooting before?

Tue, 2015-03-31 08:30

#107

Unionist

I never said ban firearms. Take your eyes off the scope and read the words. I said ban private ownership.

Guns would be rented and used for exactly the same legitimate purposes as they are now. But all such activities - including possession and storage - would be strictly and punitively banned from municipal areas (requires legal definition, but that's not a big problem).

As for police and military, I would severely restrict their current use of firearms. For example, we need a serious national discussion as to why cops should be armed all the time.

Yes, I have gone target shooting, and enjoyed it, though not brilliant at it. Why do you ask?

Tue, 2015-03-31 09:19

#108

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

One less gun to prevent a rape, assault, murder. Prevent women like Mary Beth Miller or Cecile Verreault-Lavoie from being mauled to death by bears.

Never mind whether Unionist has ever fired a gun (whatever that is supposed to indicate) I'm wondering where your understanding of human-bear encounters comes from that you think a firearm is any sort of prevention.

As for the rest of that, all I have to say is what could possibly go wrong? Vigilanteeism now? I suppose that might work for us white people who can get away with it and much more; not sure about everyone else. And there's the story behind that little meme that has been in facebook over the last few days.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/193576/at-least-five-americans-accidenta...

(figured I'd go for the comedy rather than the much darker examples)

See, the problem isn't the rational and reasoned arguments for responsible gun ownership, it is the people who have demonstrated that is a non-starter for many.

Tue, 2015-03-31 09:45

#109

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

I never said ban firearms. Take your eyes off the scope and read the words. I said ban private ownership.

Guns would be rented and used for exactly the same legitimate purposes as they are now. But all such activities - including possession and storage - would be strictly and punitively banned from municipal areas (requires legal definition, but that's not a big problem).

As for police and military, I would severely restrict their current use of firearms. For example, we need a serious national discussion as to why cops should be armed all the time.

Yes, I have gone target shooting, and enjoyed it, though not brilliant at it. Why do you ask?

I stand corrected and apologize for the mistake. It seemed like you were leading towards banning ownership completely, I forgot about your idea of renting firearms and keeping them locked up at a central location from previous discussions. I can`t contribute much to that former discussion save I don`t think the answer is taking peoples properity away from them leaving them only in the hands of police, military, criminals and security guards.

I was going to suggest we go target shooting, but also, again incorrectly, assumed you never tried it.

Tue, 2015-03-31 10:14

#110

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Never mind whether Unionist has ever fired a gun (whatever that is supposed to indicate) I'm wondering where your understanding of human-bear encounters comes from that you think a firearm is any sort of prevention.

I believe I do. Humans working in northern and wilderness areas.

Quote:

An Inuk woman underwent surgery in Montreal Friday afternoon, four days after she was mauled by a polar bear near Kangiqsualujjuaq, a small Inuit community in Nunavik, in northern Quebec.

Alicie Baron, 57, stepped out of her hunting cabin late Monday night, checking around for a bear as she normally would.

She didn't see anything.

"I think this bear was hiding behind our cabin," she said.

Baron said she turned around after hearing a sound and found herself face to face with the bear.

"I yelled twice. I tried to make a very loud yell, since my husband was inside. He only heard my last yell," she said.

Baron's husband grabbed a hunting rifle and tried to shoot the bear. His first bullet jammed, so he got a second gun, firing two shots before the bear let go of Baron.

http://www.mssltd.com/nwtbiathlon/citizen.htm

Quote:
An international-level Canadian biathlete, who inspired youth in the Northwest Territories with her enthusiasm, was found dead and mauled by a bear Sunday after she failed to return from a training run.

I've seen a comment on here before basically suggesting we should stay out of bears natural habitat, the woods, but I don't feel that's a very logical

Quote:

As for the rest of that, all I have to say is what could possibly go wrong? Vigilanteeism now? I suppose that might work for us white people who can get away with it and much more; not sure about everyone else.

Do you think it's wrong for a home owner to shoot an intruder trying to break into their home?

What do you think of a woman carrying a concealed pistol in order to defend herself against an assault?

Quote:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/193576/at-least-five-americans-accidenta...

(figured I'd go for the comedy rather than the much darker examples)

See, the problem isn't the rational and reasoned arguments for responsible gun ownership, it is the people who have demonstrated that is a non-starter for many.

This is one of the reasons I think carrying around long rifles in the open is a bad idea and we need mandatory training and safety classes.

Tue, 2015-03-31 10:36

#111

6079_Smith_W

Then you probably know that polar bears are a very different animal with a very different reputation than the blacks or even the grizzlies that most of us here in the south are likely to run into.

... and that virtually all the bad encounters have to do with our ignorance and acting stupid or encroaching on their territory, or fucking things up by baiting them for sport and then stopping the food supply when hunting season is over leaving a bunch of hungry bears.

...and that in any case firearms are not a solution at all. We're all supposed to carry 303s to the dog park, walking trail, and the dump now?

And yes, I have a problem with vigilantee behaviour, and not just because I have been met at the door by a guy with a gun as a demonstration of his territory.

Furthermore, last guy who did that in this province - walking up to some snowmobilers with a rifle and hitting one in the head - got caught, convicted, and wound up with a ban because it is against the law.

Training couses? Sure, and laws for those who think decent behaviour doesn't apply to them.

Tue, 2015-03-31 11:22

#112

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Anglophone gun rights enthusiasts should understand that in Quebec we take a very dim view of guns. Here are 14 major reasons why:

Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student
Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student
Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student
Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique's finance department
Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student
Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student
Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student
Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student
Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student
If you can bring any of these women back, maybe we will talk about your stupid guns.

Tue, 2015-03-31 11:54

#113

6079_Smith_W

montrealer58 wrote:

Anglophone gun rights enthusiasts

Do you think Francophones have some sort of special dispensation, or that there are none in the rest of Canada? Or is this yet another case of taking a cheap and irrelevant shot? Do you even know what Paladin's first language is?

I thought we were talking about gun control.

Tue, 2015-03-31 12:47

#114

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Then you probably know that polar bears are a very different animal with a very different reputation than the blacks or even the grizzlies that most of us here in the south are likely to run into.

Lorna Weafer was killed by a black bear in Alberta. Her coworkers tried in vain to scare the bear away.

Claudia Huber was killed by a Brown bear in the Yukon.

It's not just polar bears that kill.

Or just bears for that matter. Wasn't there a coguar attack not too long ago in BC?

Quote:

... and that virtually all the bad encounters have to do with our ignorance and acting stupid or encroaching on their territory, or fucking things up by baiting them for sport and then stopping the food supply when hunting season is over leaving a bunch of hungry bears.

or Claudia Huber who was killed after a bear climbed through the window of her house.

Quote:

...and that in any case firearms are not a solution at all. We're all supposed to carry 303s to the dog park, walking trail, and the dump now?

That's your opinion and I respect that but I suspect you don't live or work in a wilderness area?

Some other Canadians who work in the wilderness are of the opinion that they want to carry a firearm to prevent animal attacks. Who are you or I to say a firearm isn't the solution to them protect themselves and their families from animal attack? I understand humans can and are sometimes the cause, or at fault for these attacks, but that's not always the case.

Quote:

And yes, I have a problem with vigilantee behaviour, and not just because I have been met at the door by a guy with a gun as a demonstration of his territory.

That sounds like a shitty situation. I don't think that qualifies as vigilantee behavior though.

Quote:

Furthermore, last guy who did that in this province - walking up to some snowmobilers with a rifle and hitting one in the head - got caught, convicted, and wound up with a ban because it is against the law.

Yup! I'm glad he did. The farmer was in the wrong.

Quote:

Training couses? Sure, and laws for those who think decent behaviour doesn't apply to them.

Firearm ownership is a right in the US, in Canada it's a privilage. I'm all for firearm regulation.

Tue, 2015-03-31 12:55

#115

Paladin1

montrealer58 wrote:

Anglophone gun rights enthusiasts should understand that in Quebec we take a very dim view of guns. Here are 14 major reasons why:

Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student

Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student

Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student

Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student

Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student

Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student

Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique's finance department

Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student

Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student

Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student

Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student

Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student

Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student

Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student
If you can bring any of these women back, maybe we will talk about your stupid guns.

According to Hélène Colgan's family she was "pro-gun", a good shot and planned on buying a handgun in a few days. Her family feels that if she would have been carrying a concealed pistol she may be alive today.

Tue, 2015-03-31 12:56

#116

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

According to Hélène Colgan's family she was "pro-gun", a good shot and planned on buying a handgun in a few days. Her family feels that if she would have been carrying a concealed pistol she may be alive today.

NRA talking points in a progressive forum.

Fucking disgrace.

Tue, 2015-03-31 13:24

#117

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

That's your opinion and I respect that but I suspect you don't live or work in a wilderness area?

Please don't continue with this fucking game. I live in Saskatchewan. Are you going to ask if I have ever fired a gun too? I would have thought Unionist's response would have been enough to make you think about trying it again.

Last bear I crossed paths with was last August. Two year old male. I may not be treeplanting anymore but I don't think there has been a year when I haven't run into one. I have never felt the need to have a gun there.

Question is, what do you know about bears and more importantly humans? Because to follow your advice would do nothing but send blacks and browns the same place where grizzlies are - mountaintops and wilderness areas. And once humans exert their right to all ride ATVs and skidoos everywhere, that will be extinction.

And you seem to be cherrypicking death stories in a way that I would not, since it is not an accurate reflection of most of the bear encounters that happen. Sorry, but to me bears are big intelligent dogs that require a bit more caution and brains - not rifles - to move around. And most of those bad encounters wind up with them being killed, not us. And generally as a result of our stupidity.

(edit)

And I know conservation officers in some jurisdictions are asking to be armed. From what I have heard it it hasn't changed too much since I had a roommate as one back in La Ronge in the 80s. The concern is more about the threat that walks on two legs. And their role as even more of an enforcer than the cops in some northern areas.

Tue, 2015-03-31 14:04

#118

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

That's your opinion and I respect that but I suspect you don't live or work in a wilderness area?

Please don't continue with this fucking game. I live in Saskatchewan. Are you going to ask if I have ever fired a gun too? I would have thought Unionist's response would have been enough to make you think about trying it again.

Last bear I crossed paths with was last August. Two year old male. I may not be treeplanting anymore but I don't think there has been a year when I haven't run into one. I have never felt the need to have a gun there.

Last fall I crossed paths with 7 black bear is one day while at work. I've also been to the arctic and heard stories about what the polar bears can do up there. You and I are practically experts ;)

When you were tree planting did you have any defense against bears or animals? I understand you never felt the need to carry a gun to protect yourself. Just because you didn't doesn't invalidate the feelings or beliefs of others who do.

Quote:

Question is, what do you know about bears and more importantly humans? Because to follow your advice would do nothing but send blacks and browns the same place where grizzlies are - mountaintops and wilderness areas. And once humans exert their right to all ride ATVs and skidoos everywhere, that will be extinction.

Humans need to respect wildlife and wild life habitants. It pisses me off when I see youtube videos or news stories of skidooers and off roaders crossing paths with an animal and shoot it because it's in their way and when their life isn't in danger. That said I'm not going to suggest someone working in bear country "get a new job". I don't have a right to tell Canadians how they should make a living.

Quote:

And you seem to be cherrypicking death stories in a way that I would not, since it is not an accurate reflection of most of the bear encounters that happen. Sorry, but to me bears are big intelligent dogs that require a bit more caution and brains - not rifles - to move around. And most of those bad encounters wind up with them being killed, not us. And generally as a result of our stupidity.

I mostly agree with you but my stance is still that Canadians should be allowed to carry firearms in the wilderness to protect themselves. Some Canadians actually do have permits to open carry large caliber handguns as a defense against animals up north but those permits are very difficult to get. We're getting off topic though.

Quote:

And I know conservation officers in some jurisdictions are asking to be armed. From what I have heard it it hasn't changed too much since I had a roommate as one back in La Ronge in the 80s. The concern is more about the threat that walks on two legs. And their role as even more of an enforcer than the cops in some northern areas.

I agree in their role they're more likely to be threatened by a hunter or poacher than wild animal.

[/quote]

Tue, 2015-03-31 14:05

#119

Paladin1

alan smithee wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

According to Hélène Colgan's family she was "pro-gun", a good shot and planned on buying a handgun in a few days. Her family feels that if she would have been carrying a concealed pistol she may be alive today.

NRA talking points in a progressive forum.

Fucking disgrace.

It's wonderful that you think the views and opinions of Hélène Colgan's family are a fucking disgrace.

Tue, 2015-03-31 14:45

#120

6079_Smith_W

If it is off topic then why did you bring it up?

To get back to my first response, you can encounter a bear pretty much anywhere, even close to major cities. You don't need to be an "expert" like us. I am way more leery of moose, and I ran into one of them on foot 20 km from Winnipeg one time.

That doesn't change the fact that arming everyone is not a solution for any of these situations. Having everyone carrying in the heavily-treed dog walking area south of town here? Lots of deer and other stuff crashing around the bush. Again, what could possibly go wrong.

No, Canadians should not be carrying in the wilderness any more than they should downtown. It just gives idiots more license to act like idiots and kill a bunch of animals instead of taking responsibility when they are in someone else's territory.

And the secret weapon we used to keep the bear off the cook shack when he came around every few days? Mothballs.

(edit)

As for people who work in the bush being such experts, I have seen enough of what they have left behind to know that ain't true.

Tue, 2015-03-31 17:03

#121

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If it is off topic then why did you bring it up?

Sometimes people stray off topic my friend, I assure you there was no nefarious motivation.

Quote:

To get back to my first response, you can encounter a bear pretty much anywhere, even close to major cities. You don't need to be an "expert" like us. I am way more leery of moose, and I ran into one of them on foot 20 km from Winnipeg one time.

That doesn't change the fact that arming everyone is not a solution for any of these situations. Having everyone carrying in the heavily-treed dog walking area south of town here? Lots of deer and other stuff crashing around the bush. Again, what could possibly go wrong.

I'm with you there. The bear around my place seem to be doscile thanks to generations of encounters with humans. Loud noises and shouting has very little effect on them. I don't think we need to press guns into everyones hands but it should be an option workers have in their tool box.

Quote:

No, Canadians should not be carrying in the wilderness any more than they should downtown. It just gives idiots more license to act like idiots and kill a bunch of animals instead of taking responsibility when they are in someone else's territory.

I want to disagree but I think you have a point, sorta. There probably would be some idiots who choose to break the law and do stupid stuff including disrespecting or harming animals. I think more lives would be saved than lost however. Also that's why we have people that enforce these kinds of rules. You would be hard pressed to find someone like me even coming close to breaking a rule, I have way too much money tied up in my collection to even contemplate breaking a law. If the license to carry these costed $400 a year or something, which includes the already on the books punishment of loosing your firearms, vehicle, cabin (if found violating wild life laws), I don't think people would be too inclined to risk it.

Tue, 2015-03-31 18:14

#122

Hurtin Albertan

I do prefer having a gun in camp when I am in the bush, can't say I would want to cart one around with me everywhere I go though, gun fetish notwithstanding. Depends on the situation I guess. Only ever did it the one time and that day we never did see the bear that was causing issues, and I found it to be a huge pain in the ass carting a shotgun through the willows along with all the other stuff I carry. Which I guess is the whole point of allowing handgun carry for people with valid Wilderness ATC's but those can be hard to get depending on what you do for a living and where you live.

Anyways, I've seen Unionist use the old "Aren't all gun owners law abiding?" routine before, which is pretty rich coming from someone who lives in Quebec where civil disobedience is probably more common that other parts of Canada. Did all those protesting students have a valid permit? Aren't all those students law abiding, and if not, what other treasonous acts might they be plotting in the hallowed halls of academia???

Also for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.lufa.ca/

Law Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association website, which is a bit of a contradiction on the face of things to be both law abiding and in defiance of the gun registry, but then we're back to the civil disobedience of unjust laws thing.

Oddly enough I never did join LUFA or donate any money to them. Suppose it's a bit of a moot point now anyways.

Tue, 2015-03-31 18:26

#123

6079_Smith_W

I didn't mean for that to sound angry either. Just that we're already talking about it.

And truth be told, those who have a good reason to be armed in the bush - trappers and the like - already do so, and that is fine.

My objection is to bringing it up in the context of the general public, as a strategy for dealing with wildlife, and as any sort of public safety measure.

(edit)

Some fellow just got a $7,000 fine for among other things, illegally transferring a moose license and wasting meat. I think fines are no different than the death penalty when it comes to deterrence.

Tue, 2015-03-31 18:29

#124

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm happy I live in a society where I don't have to worry about getting shot by some random lunatic. Gun violence and random violent crime is so rare in this city that it barely exists.

Talking about 'law abiding citizens' all the potheads I know,including myself, are law abiding.

Where are OUR rights?

Tue, 2015-03-31 18:35

#125

6079_Smith_W

alan smithee wrote:

I'm happy I live in a society where I don't have to worry about getting shot by some random lunatic.

I sympathize with the ideal, but what society is that? We have had two gun incidents here in Saskatoon in the past week. I can't imagine it is any better even in Quebec.

Tue, 2015-03-31 18:45

#126

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'm happy I live in a society where I don't have to worry about getting shot by some random lunatic.

I sympathize with the ideal, but what society is that? We have had two gun incidents here in Saskatoon in the past week. I can't imagine it is any better even in Quebec.

Montreal is probably the safest city in North America.

Tue, 2015-03-31 23:48

#127

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'm happy I live in a society where I don't have to worry about getting shot by some random lunatic.

I sympathize with the ideal, but what society is that? We have had two gun incidents here in Saskatoon in the past week. I can't imagine it is any better even in Quebec.

Actually, alan is right. Montréal is weird that way. Never heard about people worrying about walking the streets at night. The only real threat is from fascist cops who are issued guns, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and batons. But you know what? They're cowards. They will lose.

And I love the NRA talking points in this thread, as in others. Seriously, they excite me, and make me think about having babies by certain gun lovers. Trouble is, I'm over 42, and Bill 20 will stop coverage of in-vitro fertilization at that age - although there are some indications that the government may be relenting on that point. So gun fetishists: Don't give up yet. I'm ready for parenthood, even if I have to pay the freight!

Wed, 2015-04-01 12:18

#128

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

And I love the NRA talking points in this thread, as in others. Seriously, they excite me, and make me think about having babies by certain gun lovers. Trouble is, I'm over 42, and Bill 20 will stop coverage of in-vitro fertilization at that age - although there are some indications that the government may be relenting on that point. So gun fetishists: Don't give up yet. I'm ready for parenthood, even if I have to pay the freight!

Why not do it the old fashioned way?

This post made my day thanks.

Wed, 2015-04-01 14:58

#129

Hurtin Albertan

I am always amazed at how fixated Canadian anti-gun people are with regards to the NRA. I suppose they must hold a special place of hatred in your heart of hearts because:

A) They are pro-gun (Ungood!)

B) They are American (Plusungood!)

C) They get things done on behalf of their members (Doubleplusungood!!!)

I would recommend fixating more on the CSSA talking points, or better yet, on the NFA talking points, which would offer you far better mileage based on the general extremist views that the NFA seems to hold. For the record I am a lifetime member in both organizations, suppose I'll have to look in to joining the NRA now too.

Anyways, instead of having children might I suggest buying guns instead? I have sometimes thought of starting my own family, or maybe having a pet of some sort, but overall owning guns seems to have filled that particular need for me. I don't even need to buy new ones any more to get that old thrill back, recently I swapped out the synthetic stock and fore end of my Winchester shotgun back to the factory origional wood. It's almost as satisfying as having a new gun. Almost.

In many ways I suppose guns are better than having children. They are far easier to organize for group photos, they don't complain about having to ride in the back seat on long trips, it's easier to add new members to the family, and you generally don't get disappointed in how they turn out, unless maybe you buy from Norinco.

Wed, 2015-04-01 15:28

#130

6079_Smith_W

Maybe it's because they don't keep their manic obsessions on their side of the border.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2010/05/13/hepburn_us_gu...

Fair comment, I say. And once this conversation drifts into the realm of carrying handguns and claims of self defense, we are beyond any debate of the Canadian status quo and into NRA dogmaland.

Wed, 2015-04-01 16:31

#131

Paladin1

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

I would recommend fixating more on the CSSA talking points, or better yet, on the NFA talking points, which would offer you far better mileage based on the general extremist views that the NFA seems to hold. For the record I am a lifetime member in both organizations, suppose I'll have to look in to joining the NRA now too.

Have you been following the internal problems going on with the NFA? Half of the directors are taking the president and other executives to court because they alledge the president has been hiding the financial statements for the last 5 years and they haven't been auditing the financial records like they are supposed to. The NFA have a censorship campaign where they delete comments on their facebook pages asking what the hell is going on and then blocking the members. Everyone is also trying to figure out why the NFA all of a sudden backed out of testifying against bill C51 like they were supposed to do.

I just purchased/came into possession of 6 firearms- 4 of them are registered. When I bought the two unregistered firearms the store still recorded my firearms licence number and the firearm serial number. I'm quite confident if my unregistered firearms were used in a crime I would have police at my door just as fast as the "2 million" (in truth 2 billion) dollar or supposed "30 million" dollar registered firearms.

Speaking of money, where is quebec going to get the money for this registry?

I was reading elsewhere that Quebec may have a very hard time criminally charging someone who doesn't register their weapons because the issues surrounding federal vs provincial laws. A while ago alberta tried to do something involving firearms saying it's property and there fore is (or can be?) a provincial issue but the federal government ruled that because of the safety surrounding firearms that it was a federal issue. Or something to the effect.

Wed, 2015-04-01 16:57

#132

Unionist

Paladin1 wrote:

Speaking of money, where is quebec going to get the money for this registry?

Alberta. I hope. Gotta get that oil price back up first.

Wed, 2015-04-01 17:45

#133

bagkitty

Unionist wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Speaking of money, where is quebec going to get the money for this registry?

Alberta. I hope. Gotta get that oil price back up first.

I would look to British Columbia, especially if the feds get off their asses and decriminalize/legalize cannabis and open that revenue stream wide.

Thu, 2015-04-02 13:04

#134

Paladin1

I can't tell if you're all being sarcastic or not, sorry!

I meant where would the province take the 30 million from? Charge firearm owners $100 to register all their firearms? $20 a firearm? Raise taxes?

Thu, 2015-04-02 15:53

#135

Hurtin Albertan

It really comes down to convincing gun owners to voluntarily cooperate with whatever scheme you come up with. Otherwise any sort of registry will be incomplete or inaccurate or otherwise not worth the $$$.

Make it too costly or too complicated and for sure you will not get the voluntary compliance required to make this work.

Think with the last registry the compliance rate was estimated between 25% and 50%, no one really knows for sure. I'd guess it was probably closer to 25% than it was to being 50%, but that's a pure guess. Some people sold off their stuff to avoid having to deal with it, I know for sure some people only registered one or two firearms out of the several they owned at the time, some people registered everything they owned, some people registered nothing.

Paladin1: been sort of following the NFA situation unfold second hand based on what people are posting over on CGN. Kind of regret buying a lifetime membership with them, kind of committed now I guess, nothing I am prepared to quit over. Hopefully they get their issues sorted out and get back to work.

I suppose only having one pro-gun organization lobbying on my behalf would have it's advantages, I can see the advantages in having the 2 we've got. Sure would be nice to be a part of an organization with the resources and abilities and numbers of the NRA, maybe that will come with time.

Sat, 2015-04-04 17:50

#136

Paladin1

Another obstacle for the registry is that only target shooters or hunters would really run the risk of 'getting caught'. Someone who just collects guns and doesn't plan on them leaving the house wouldn't really be in a position to be caught or have someone ask for their registration cards like a conservation officer or police.

I quit the NFA after they seemed to progressively get more and more extremeist in their views. On FB I noticed the admins ways of dealing with homophobic and racist behavior was to just delete the thread and sweep it under the rug without addressing the member doing it. When someone would point out the unacceptable bevaior they would get ganged up on. Why are you even here, you're a spy, you're not X enough for this place, wow look at this guy he's ruining the placve I'm leaving!. (which has a familiar ring eh?)

Thu, 2015-05-14 21:39

#137

Paladin1

What registry?

Information commissioner wants Mounties charged; government rewrites the law

Quote:

OTTAWA – An unprecedented Conservative bid to rewrite the law in order to retroactively erase the RCMP’s mishandling of gun registry records sets the table for legislated, after-the-fact cover-ups of far more serious crimes, Canada’s information commissioner declared Thursday.

In a damning new report tabled in Parliament, Suzanne Legault concluded that the practice establishes a “perilous precedent” of rewriting laws — one that could jeopardize the ability of authorities to prosecute electoral fraud or other government scandals.

Legault recommended almost two months ago that charges be laid against the RCMP for its role in withholding and destroying gun registry data.

But instead of Justice Minister Peter MacKay moving on the recommendation to lay charges, the Harper government rewrote the law, backdated the changes and buried the amendment in an omnibus budget bill.

MPs and senators should “look themselves in the mirror and decide whether they can, in their own integrity, actually vote in favour of those proposed amendments,” Legault said in an interview.

“We could do the same thing after investigating potential electoral fraud. We could erase these things retroactively.”

At issue are millions of records from the defunct long-gun registry, which the Conservative government voted out of existence in April 2012.

Legault found that the Mounties stonewalled a request for the registry data in March 2012 and later released only portions of the eight-million-plus records.

Legault was assured in writing by then-public safety minister Vic Toews that the RCMP wouldn’t destroy records while her investigation continued. The RCMP, nevertheless, went ahead and destroyed the data in October 2012.

Legault filed a suit Thursday in Federal Court in an effort to preserve the rights of the unnamed complainant in the case, but she said the issue goes far beyond gun registry records.

Backdating changes to the law to make something legal that was illegal — and after a finding of wrongdoing — breaks new ground, she said.

“If we accept that this is legal, constitutional and — perhaps further — legitimate in our Canadian democracy … then I think we could have done the same thing when (auditor general) Sheila Fraser investigated the sponsorship scandal” under the Liberals in the 1990s, Legault told The Canadian Press.

“We could have ousted her entire jurisdiction after the fact.”

The RCMP insisted it has fully complied with provisions of the Access to Information Act.

“The RCMP would vigorously defend against any accusation of unlawful conduct in respect of the handling of this access to information request,” spokesman Sgt. Harold Pfleiderer said in an email.

Under the provisions in Bill C-59, the Mounties won’t have to defend anything.

The omnibus budget bill exempts any “request, complaint, investigation, application, judicial review, appeal or other proceeding under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act” related to those old records.

Legault said it’s the fourth time she has provided evidence to the attorney general of Canada or a minister that there were grounds for criminal charges.

No charges have ever been laid under the Access to Information Act, despite past findings of blatant and illegal political interference in the workings of the system, which is designed to inform Canadians about the activities of their government.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the Mounties were just obeying the will of his majority government.

“The government, the Parliament of Canada, has already decided to abolish the long-gun registry,” Harper said at an event in Windsor, Ont.

“The RCMP have acted fully within Parliament’s intention in destroying the data in the long gun registry.”

Harper asserted that the dispute is over contradictions between the Access to Information Act and his government’s legislation to end the long gun registry. That is not the case.

In fact, the dispute revolves around the RCMP refusing to disclose gun registry data while the Conservative bill was still being debated and not yet law, then destroying records it knew were under an active investigation.

Liberal MP Wayne Easter, a former solicitor general, said the government appears to be blinded by its fixation on destroying all traces of the long gun registry. “They don’t see the other implications here — and there are other implications.”

Easter said the RCMP would not make a decision to withhold records without political direction or support.

“If they’re complicit with the government in terms of destroying information against the law, what next will they be complicit with their political masters in? That’s a huge, huge question.”

Nonetheless, the Conservative move will be popular with gun advocates.

Eliminating the long-gun registry, which was part of a wider gun control initiative brought in by a Liberal government in 1995, has been a huge fundraising and vote-winning issue for the Conservatives over the years.

Tue, 2015-06-23 13:28

#138

Unionist

Kudos to Suzanne Legault, Information Commissioner:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/quebec-gun-registry-data-handed-over-to-... gun registry data handed over to Federal Court - Judge Luc Martineau ordered hard drive handed over by 10 a.m. Tuesday, RCMP complied[/url]

It warms the spirit to see occasional flashes of a semblance of democracy - like, a court telling the government and the police that it doesn't trust them to just hang on to the data, and orders them to hand it over for safekeeping, now.

Tue, 2015-06-23 13:42

#139

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Is a registry a licence issue?

If so,let's abolish driver's licences.

Tue, 2015-06-23 18:34

#140

Paladin1

The RCMP behavied dubiously and broke the law. The Conservative government is re-writing the laws they broke and putting it in effect retroactively so that the RCMP will not be punished for their actions. That has some pretty serious implications.

alan smithee wrote:

Is a registry a licence issue?

If so,let's abolish driver's licences.

In this context you would have a drivers licence and also pay to register every vehicle you own. If the ministry of transportation decides your honda civic is too fast, or that they're percieveyou're going to use it for street racing, they could come to your house and take it without compensating you.

Tue, 2015-06-23 19:12

#141

NorthReport

Well said Unionist.

Unionist wrote:

Kudos to Suzanne Legault, Information Commissioner:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/quebec-gun-registry-data-handed-over-to-... gun registry data handed over to Federal Court - Judge Luc Martineau ordered hard drive handed over by 10 a.m. Tuesday, RCMP complied[/url]

It warms the spirit to see occasional flashes of a semblance of democracy - like, a court telling the government and the police that it doesn't trust them to just hang on to the data, and orders them to hand it over for safekeeping, now.

Québec wins temporary injunction to keep gun registry

Pages