Quebec superior court prevents destroying gun data

[0bserver92]

I see no reason why allowing provinces that want a gun registry to have one is an issue.

[Shakeyhands]

That's nice! We ALL got to share in paying for a useless bit of symbolism. That's so warm and inclusive!

Symbolism? I think a few here have pointed out the usefulness of the police having access to this data a few times, why do you feel it was a useless bit of symbolism?

[westguy]

It's completely irrelevant the number. People do move between provinces and their information gets lost or is outdated. If the registry is not federally managed, the provinces will have a difficult time communicating with each other and sharing information. The number of cases doesn't matter.

My sense was that the gun registry was a oondoggle to start with and was politically based to secure the feminist vote after the 1989 Montreal killings. It was an unknown expense which likely indicates that it was much more than the Libs indicated. I recall that the Auditor- General could not idenrify the actual expense cuz the government of the day concealedthecostsunder several different ministries. All it did was to turnhunters and farmers into potential criminals while the gangs and criminals continued to use unregistered guns. Good riddance to this white elephant.

[Wild Bill]

Symbolism? I think a few here have pointed out the usefulness of the police having access to this data a few times, why do you feel it was a useless bit of symbolism?

If I had a nickel for every time this question was answered...

Just because a homeowner is not listed in the registry as having a gun doesn't make that info useful to a cop knocking at the door. He has to assume the possibility no matter what some registry says!

Moreover, the number of registered weapons involved in crimes compared to those unregistered is mice nuts!

Meanwhile, billions of dollars were spent. How many more police officers would that have paid for?

It was all just a placebo to make those who are satisfied with symbols instead of substance happy. Not only did the Liberals not add a single day to the minimum sentence of anyone using a firearm in a crime, the penalty for not registering in the first draft of their registry Bill was greater than that for actually using a gun to rob a variety store!

It was all just smoke and mirrors. Any Utilitarian like myself was thoroughly disgusted. I would support anything that is cost-effective and would actually WORK, but frankly I don't see how that would be possible anyway.

[cybercoma]

My sense was that the gun registry was a oondoggle to start with and was politically based to secure the feminist vote after the 1989 Montreal killings. It was an unknown expense which likely indicates that it was much more than the Libs indicated. I recall that the Auditor- General could not idenrify the actual expense cuz the government of the day concealedthecostsunder several different ministries. All it did was to turnhunters and farmers into potential criminals while the gangs and criminals continued to use unregistered guns. Good riddance to this white elephant.

The problem is that looking at over 30 years of domestic violence and domestic homicide data shows that long-guns that would have been registered under the program are used in the home against spouses. I'm not talking just husbands against their wives, although the vast majority of the time it is. People say that registering the guns won't stop that and they might be right. Who knows? The argument is, however, that a person would be less likely to use a gun in the home to threaten their partner or kill their partner if it's tied to them through a registry. Moreover, it allows the authorities to know what kind of firearms are in the home if they need to be confiscated when someone does get into domestic altercations. Yes, it's true the person could just go and get some unregistered firearm after the fact or kill his/her partner with their hands or a knife or some other means, but the research shows that it's much less likely to happen that way. There's something more primal about killing another person with your bare hands, a blunt instrument, or a knife. You actually need to make physical contact with them to do it. Another thing, when a partner murders their partner, they're much more likely to commit suicide afterwards if they commit the murder with a gun. These situations need to be controlled in some way and while a gun registry is not perfect by any means it's at least a step in the right direction. I haven't heard any other solutions that make more sense. Some say ban all guns, but there's no reason for that. People ought to be able to have firearms for hunting and sport shooting. So what do you do then?

[PIK]

Symbolism? I think a few here have pointed out the usefulness of the police having access to this data a few times, why do you feel it was a useless bit of symbolism?

No no one has pointed anything of any value in the gun registry. Front line police did not like it, only the political police chiefs ass did. You do know that when they run your lic, it automaticly checks the gun regisrty, so police were not using it 15000 times a day. It was a typical liberal feel good policy, did nothing to protect anyone ,but you sure slept well at night, something like kyoto.

[CPCFTW]

I see no reason why allowing provinces that want a gun registry to have one is an issue.

Imagine an IP address registry that registered everyone's ip addresses and tracked their internet usage. Now imagine another party was elected promising to abolish this registry. Would you want a provincial government to still access this registry?

The problem with a province wanting to keep a federal registry is that the federal electorate voted to destroy the registry.

[g_bambino]

The problem with a province wanting to keep a federal registry is that the federal electorate voted to destroy the registry.

The federal electorate voted to do no such thing. Regardless, a provincial registry is not a federal registry.

[Wild Bill]

The federal electorate voted to do no such thing. Regardless, a provincial registry is not a federal registry.

I seem to recall that destroying the Liberal gun registry was a plank of the Tory election platform. It was part of why I voted for them!

[g_bambino]

I seem to recall that destroying the Liberal gun registry was a plank of the Tory election platform.

It was. But that doesn't at all mean "the federal electorate" voted in favour of it.

And that's beside the point: if a province sets up a gun registry, it is the province's government's, not the federal government's.

[CPCFTW]

It was. But that doesn't at all mean "the federal electorate" voted in favour of it.

And that's beside the point: if a province sets up a gun registry, it is the province's government's, not the federal government's.

AFAIK the "province's" gun registry is just the data from the federal gun registry that the province refuses to dispose of.

And the federal electorate voted in favour of disposing of the data within the context of our democratic system... Good enough for you?

Edited September 17, 2012 by CPCFTW

[The_Squid]

I seem to recall that destroying the Liberal gun registry was a plank of the Tory election platform. It was part of why I voted for them!

If every CPC voter voted for the CPC because of the gun registry, then we can assume 38% support for abolishing the registry, which is not even a majority of Canadians.

However, this was a platform policy. There was no referendum on the issue.

[gunrutz]

If every CPC voter voted for the CPC because of the gun registry, then we can assume 38% support for abolishing the registry, which is not even a majority of Canadians.

However, this was a platform policy. There was no referendum on the issue.

Yes because everyone who didn't vote cpc wanted the registry.

[The_Squid]

Yes because everyone who didn't vote cpc wanted the registry.

Then, by your logic, 62% opposed the removal of the gun registry.

[gunrutz]

Then, by your logic, 62% opposed the removal of the gun registry.

Read it again, you made the point that only 38% of people wanted the registry gone, this is assuming there was only one issue to vote on during the election, some people would vote Liberal or NDP even if they were against the registry, so what you wrote is completely irrelevant and nonsensical.