Québec wins temporary injunction to keep gun registry

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
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.

 

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Stop Harper! Arm everyone!!!!!!

 

But only give them 5 round magazines for their guns!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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?

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.

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".

 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?

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?

 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

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.