babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Gun Registry - back in the news (thread #2)

NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

;;


Comments

NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Toews is losing it. His excesses will help do the Cons in.

 

Holster 'back-door' gun registries

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/05/20120510-124034.html


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

[Just repeating my post from the other obsolete thread - let's use this one for continuity...]

Toronto City Council demands Ontario registry data be preserved

Quote:

Councillors voted 39-5 to urge the province to ask the federal government for the data in the registry before it is scrapped.

Councillors also reaffirmed their long-standing support for the gun registry and directed city lawyers to look for ways to intervene to stop the deletion of data on the nearly 290,000 non-restricted firearms which are registered in the Greater Toronto Area.

Mayor Rob Ford, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday and Councillors Giorgio Mammoliti, Denzil Minnan-Wong and John Parker registered the five votes against the motion brought forward by Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam.

Doug Ford voted with the majority against Rob Ford. Luckily Council regulations bar handguns from meetings.


Bärlüer
Offline
Joined: Aug 20 2007

A gutsy decision (that I wholeheartedly support) that will in all likelihood go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

EDIT: BTW, the Canadian Press story is incorrect. The court did not grant an injunction. It declared the provision of the Act to abolish the long-gun registry that provided for destruction of registry data to be of no force and effect as far as it relates to Quebec (to keep things simple).


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Thanks, Bärlüer. Meanwhile, Harper continues to stroke the gun-fetishists:

Conservatives repeal long-deferred gun-show regulations aimed at sponsors


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

For those who are interested, here is the full text of the court decision (en français).

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Ottawa will appeal Quebec court ruling on the long-gun registry

I'll simply adopt one of the comments following the article:

DGC Traveler... wrote:
Did not see that one coming at all... And in other news, the earth continues to rotate though with a slight lean to the right north of the 49th.

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

Vic Toews quote::The savings of scrapping the long gun registry are north of a billion dollars!

TOTAL BS!!!! An audit was done in march of 2005 at that point the total 10 year cost of the WHOLE gun control program was 946 million.

The long gun registry"" PART "" of the gun control program DID NOT COST A BILLION GD DOLLARS!! THAT IS A TOTAL BAREFACED GD LIE!!!


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Yeah I'm not wild about the gun registry as it is. But I do agree with someone who said that the registry belongs to all Canadians and not the "Harper Government of Canada." Hands off, eh.


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

Most police I've dealt with don't even understand Canadian firearm laws and regulations.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

On anniversary of shooting, Quebec vows to create its own gun registry

Quote:

The Quebec government is pushing ahead with its plan to set up its own a gun registry in the province after a unanimous support from the National Assembly.

The announcement was made on the anniversary of the 1989 mass shooting at the University of Montreal’s École Polytechnique when gunman Marc Lépine killed 14 women before taking his own life.


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

Quote:
In August 1989, Lépine picked up an application for a firearms-acquisition certificate and he received his permit in mid-October.[36] On November 21, 1989, Lépine purchased a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle at a local sporting goods store.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine

Forgive me for using wikipedia as a quick reference but I believe it will still illustrate my point.

Marc Lepine aquired a licence and legally bought a firearm. He could have very well registered this firearm.

 

A firearm registery will not stop someone from committing a henious act such as this.  What needs to happen is a more indepth look into someone applying for the firearm licence itself- the act of being allowed to buy firearms in the first place.  This way people with a criminal history, history of violence and abuse or any other red flags will be stopped before legally buying firearms and not just sending the information away to tell the government that they did indeed buy it.

 

We need to make the act of buying a firearm come under better review and remove licences and firearms from criminals with violent histories.

Sadly I do not think there is anything we can really do to stop someone with no red flags from purchasing a weapon and then using it.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Thanks for your input, Serviam6. You're quite right, a registry is far from being enough. But if you think that's why the federal government and all provinces except Québec kissed it goodbye - because they are looking for more effective gun control - I've got news for you.

The use, possession, and storage of all firearms in appropriately defined municipal areas should be banned. That will be a good start. No? And, of course, the registry should be kept as well.

In any event, we Quebecers are more or less unanimous on the need to keep guns under very strict control. We will continue in that direction. Whether others follow is naturally their business.

 


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

Unionist wrote:

Thanks for your input, Serviam6. You're quite right, a registry is far from being enough.

Thank you Unionist.  I actually never had a problem with registering my firearms. I was happy to do so. My only two points of contention with it is the security risk it poses to me and my family should a criminal hack into the polices computers and the fact that over the dozen plus firearms I registered not a single registry card of mine was without some sort of mistake. Some fairly small, others gaping- including wrong make/model numbers and wrong serial numbers.  At one point I was told it would cost me $10 for each new (hopefulyl correct?) cards..

 

 

Quote:

But if you think that's why the federal government and all provinces except Québec kissed it goodbye - because they are looking for more effective gun control - I've got news for you.

Why do you think they kissed it goodbye? I honestly never stopped to consider it.

Quote:
The use, possession, and storage of all firearms in appropriately defined municipal areas should be banned. That will be a good start. No?

I disagree here.

Quote:

In any event, we Quebecers are more or less unanimous on the need to keep guns under very strict control. We will continue in that direction. Whether others follow is naturally their business.

I think it's pretty cool that Quebec decided they want to keep it to the point where they are doing their own thing. Good on them for sure.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Serviam6 wrote:

 

Quote:
The use, possession, and storage of all firearms in appropriately defined municipal areas should be banned. That will be a good start. No?

I disagree here.

 

Because... ?


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

Unionist wrote:

Serviam6 wrote:

 

Quote:
The use, possession, and storage of all firearms in appropriately defined municipal areas should be banned. That will be a good start. No?

I disagree here.

 

Because... ?

 

How come you didn't respond to any of my other questionsor comments?


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

On this of all days, I really have no stomach for picking over this issue.

Good on Quebec for building a registry of their own.

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Serviam6 wrote:

 

How come you didn't respond to any of my other questionsor comments?

Your only question:

Quote:
Why do you think they kissed it goodbye?

1. The gun lobby - extremely powerful and wealthy.

2. The politics of division - playing to the Harperite base by telling them that urbanites and Frenchies want to disarm them.

3. In the case of the provinces - fear, cowardice, and see #1 and #2.

If there was something else you wanted me to respond to, let me know.

Now, if you would kindly explain why you think citizens need to have guns in cities, I'd appreciate pursuing that discussion.

 


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

Unionist wrote:

Serviam6 wrote:

 

How come you didn't respond to any of my other questionsor comments?

Your only question:

Quote:
Why do you think they kissed it goodbye?

1. The gun lobby - extremely powerful and wealthy.

2. The politics of division - playing to the Harperite base by telling them that urbanites and Frenchies want to disarm them.

3. In the case of the provinces - fear, cowardice, and see #1 and #2.

If there was something else you wanted me to respond to, let me know.

Now, if you would kindly explain why you think citizens need to have guns in cities, I'd appreciate pursuing that discussion.

 

 

Appreciate that thank you.

 

To answer your question why I think citizens should have guns in cities it's basically for the same reason citizens have guns outside the city.

 

Citizens in cities, like those not in cities, use firearms for;

Hunting game which provides their family food or a source of income if they sell the food.

For the enjoyment of target practice.

Competition shooting.

Collecting.

A hobby (buying firearms, modifying them and possibly reselling at a higher cost)

 

The only additional reason I can phatom for citizens to have firearms outside of cities is protection from wild animals.

 

Why do you think citizens in cities shouldn't have firearms?


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area.  That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area.  You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

I see the point on the urban rule, but I don't see it as a priority, or even workable and on the whole I don't agree.

Never mind that there are a whole range of storage and registry regulations what would probably be of higher priority, I can hardly think of a tastier target for thieves or abuse than a huge (and probably private) armoury sitting out in the middle of nowhere.

And Serviam6, not just protection from wild animals, but controlling pests and injured and sick animals.

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I see the point on the urban rule, but I don't see it as a priority, or even workable and on the whole I don't agree.

Well, I see it as a priority, and workable, and I agree.

Quote:
Never mind that there are a whole range of storage and registry regulations what would probably be of higher priority, I can hardly think of a tastier target for thieves or abuse than a huge (and probably private) armoury sitting out in the middle of nowhere.

I see your point. We shouldn't store weapons at police stations or military bases either, for the same reason. Or money at the mint or banknote companies. There must be a way to decentralize all that.

Quote:
And Serviam6, not just protection from wild animals, but controlling pests and injured and sick animals.

Yeah, I didn't get that wild animal thing. Lots of domesticated animals can be dangerous as well. And calling the authorities to help with pest control is just a waste of public funds. I think firearm ownership should be mandatory for all households within a certain radius (say, 100 km) of animals.

 

 


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Unionist, I know we have had this discussion before, and probably talked it to death. And I am a supporter of registration as you are. I also see your position, even if I consider it unworkable, which is why I'm not making similar comments about registering kitchen cutlery, or serving bar pints in saran baggies. And I have already given you more detailed reasons for my informed position WRT animals.

More importantly, I think that sort of ban would probably make any new legislation just as much of a lightning rod as the Liberals' handling of it. And as I have told you already, I consider the Liberals just as responsible for the dismantling of the registry as the Harperites and the gun lobby.

It would be different if a city ban would mean absolute prevention, but it is not that. A woman was killed here just a few months ago by an assassin who came from out of town and tragically had the wrong address.

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
kropotkin1951 wrote:

Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area.  That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area.  You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.

Word.

Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
kropotkin1951 wrote:

Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area.  That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area.  You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.

Word.

Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
kropotkin1951 wrote:

Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area.  That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area.  You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.

Word.

Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Because they are dangerous and there is no hunting allowed in any city or exurban area.  That leaves no reason to have a gun of any kind in an urban area.  You want to target shoot then pay for a locker at a shooting range and leave your deadly toys there.

 

I don't think this is a practical idea at all. I think you underestimate the amount of citizens that own firearms.

You want to store thousands and thousands of firearms at local shooting ranges?  It would take millions of dollars to renovate the facilities in order to acomodate this, not that the facilities would even HAVE the room in the first place. They wouldn't.

It would make these shooting ranges a prime target for thieves and criminals. My range has no security, it's a wooden building. To get to it you hop over a little fence walk up the path and it's not locked.

And what about collectors? Their firearms are often investments unto themselves, getting them to store their prized collections (often kept in a strict climate controled environment) at a firearm range would be a pretty big fight.

It's not a practical or fesable plan at all.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

We don't let people own certain breeds of dogs in my city.  Somethings are inherently dangerous and should be avoided.  I am just saying what I think.  Seems to me that if you ban home storage of guns in urban areas then someone will build the proper facilities to store weapons and rent out lockers at a profit.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments