Canadian long gun registry information being destroyed by the conservatives.

[applegrove]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x472396

What is up with that? Government spent billions collecting that information and Quebec wants it for its soon to be long gun registery even though federally the conservatives are ending the program. But no. No information for the Quebec government. The Conservative Harper government wants to bond with rural people in the way they are ending this registery. This reminds me of how they did away with the long form census. Again, why do away with knowledge? Something to do with leaving all the good intel with corporations (rather than government garnering information and giving it away to the public for free).

[gejohnston]

1. partly because it

has done nothing. Intel on whom? You think the hunters and farmers (who still will be required to have an "unrestricted" licence to have and buy ammunition for)that registered their rifles and shotguns are going to take a hacksaw to them and knock over a Tim Hortons? It will be out of date within a couple of years anyway.
It is like some of the hand wringing with some US "antis". As I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, it only applies to "unrestricted" guns that require an "unrestricted" licence to own. Guns requiring a "restricted" licence (handguns and some rifles) and "prohibited" licence (machine guns and some pistols) will still be registered. As far as I can tell from the debates up there, most gun rights activists are OK with that (although former and wishing to be handgun hunters have issues with a narrow and specific provision on handguns rules that does not allow handgun hunting.)

I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x472396#472502

[applegrove]

3. The reason I'm posting this here and not in the gungeon is because I am interested in the 'politics'

of the conservatives. They do so much with no explanation and you can bet it has to do with emotionally manipulating one group over another. I have to ask...does sticking it to the french in quebec go over well with rural people in the rest of the country? Well it does now. Another party in power, any other party, would not be dialing that number.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. The repeal is not "sticking it to Quebec"

Government at a national level is deciding its information that is not needed and should not be kept. It is not a French/English language issue and last I checked Quebec had Canadians living there, the Quebecois vrai laine not withstanding.

[applegrove]

7. The repeal of the law is law. The refusal to allow Quebec to have access

to the Quebec records of the long gun registry is something else entirely.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. How so? Destroying improperly held personal data is a reasonable thing

[applegrove]

10. There is often this blank space attached to Conservative legislation

that goes unexplained and where human emotion is supposed to take place, in this case bonding with rural english canada voters in a slimy way.

[gejohnston]

13. Quebec will still have

Quebec records of the Quebec (redundant) registry. Records kept by the Sûreté du Québec should be the same as those kept by the RCMP.

[applegrove]

Why the report that the Quebec records would be destroyed?

[gejohnston]

16. The federal records

owned and operated by the RCMP, which has nothing to do with the records kept by the Sûreté du Québec. In other words, if you live in Quebec your gun is registered by both province and federal governments. I think Ontario has one too. If so, the OPP will keep their records as well. Whoever wrote the report most likely does not know that or be aware that Canada has a federal system.

[gejohnston]

11. It is not about language

and you have been moved. There the gun issue is rural vs urban divide (or even an east/west) more than right/left. I tend to think the same is true here, even though we don't like to admit it. The sooner we do, the better it will be for our party and keep Cain and Rom (both deserve a low grade from the NRA based on past statements) out in 2012, but I digress.

Rural Quebec probably has the same opinion as rural Ontario or Yukon on the issue. Keeping it is part of Bloc Quebecois party platform. The registry at issue is the federal law ran by the RCMP. Quebec will continue to operate theirs which is operated most likely by their provincial police (Sûreté du Québec). Quebec is one of the few provices that actually enforces the federal registry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

[applegrove]

12. The report I heard on the news tonight stated that all the registery data would

be erased, including that of Quebec records which their government needs to start its registery. Slimey!

[gejohnston]

14. see post 13.

Quebec has a redundant registry, Sûreté du Québec will still have what they want. Each province is free to have its own gun laws.

[applegrove]

15. Well they better not. I hope the news report was wrong.

[gejohnston]

17. let me clarify

Sûreté du Québec records should mirror or match RCMP records. The RCMP records will be destroyed. The Sûreté du Québec records will remain intact unless the Quebec's provincial parliament and premier decides otherwise.

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/governmentorgprov/Provincial_Government_Organization.htm

[iverglas]

51. will you just give up at some point?

Each province is free to have its own gun laws.

Wanna fax me a copy of your membership in the bar of whatever province it is, or just your degree from whatever Canadian law school it is?

How about a discussion of the division of powers in the 1987 Constitution Act?

Lordy.

Let's all learn at your feet, shall we?

I think not.

[PavePusher]

2. Because the government doesn't need to have "knowledge" of private belongings.

Duh.

[iverglas]

52. oh, thank you, now I understand

Maybe you can explain why the Harper government is not eliminating the restricted and prohibited firearms registry?

Or the provincial governments are not doing away with vehicle registration ...


God, where would we be without you people to explain things to us?

[PavePusher]

57. "...not eliminating the restricted and prohibited firearms registry?"

Well, they should. Baby steps....

Vehicle registration? Why not get rid of it. It has no crime reduction effect and is merely a way to raise revenue for the government.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. It immediately got moved to the Guns forum where it is a duplicate of

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=472396&mesg_id=472396

[applegrove]

6. This post is about the politics behind the conservatives calculated actions

that accompanies much of their legislation. That is why I did not put this post in the gungeon.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. It is now in the Guns Forum. Take it up with the mods if you wish

I first saw it in the guns forum without replies, which means it got moved immediately after you posted. Moderation questions have their own forum here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=437

[gejohnston]

18. My bad, must correct and retract one thing

Seems that Quebec does not have their own registry after all, but would like to start one. I had previous information that they did. My bad.
That said, what about rural Quebec?
As for RCMP destroying all records including Quebec, the fed owns it. Alberta would be told the same thing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/10/quebec-registry-gun.html

[applegrove]

19. See. It just doesn't make sense that the conservatives destroy

the Quebec records and when the Conservatives do nonsensical things you always have to be in the habit of saying to yourself "what is the payoff for them" and I think, in this case, it is to bond with their rural english canada base as they stick it to Quebec.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Still not clear how Quebec is being harmed

If they want their own registry they can legislate it and start collecting data. Why they would repeat the foolish folly is another question.

[iverglas]

53. because their tax dollars created the asset that now exists

and that the Harper government intends to destroy without compensation to the provincial taxpayers for their share of the cost of the asset they do not wish to have destroyed, and did not vote to have destroyed.

Does that help?

Here's the present breakdown of the 75 Quebec seats in the House of Commons:

Conservative 5
NDP 59
Liberal 7
Bloc Québécois 4

Get the picture at all?


Isn't it just curious how the left-leaning population of Quebec elected a huge majority of left-leaning representatives ... who are opposing the destruction of the registry ...

Damn, it just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

The far right is destroying the firearms registry, the social democrat left is fighting to preserve it ...

Got any fleabites?

[gejohnston]

23. the pay off for them is

keeping votes, yes. I still fail to see how English Canada would care. French Canada, yes. There are a lot of gun owners in Quebec esp. rural Quebec. The pay off for Liberal Party is keeping urban English Canada happy, and make it look like they are actually doing something.

[iverglas]

59. why do you insist on talking about things you know nothing about?

Support for the firearms registry has historically been and continues to be strongest in Quebec.

Support for ALL politically progressive policies has historically been (in the last 50 years) and continues to be strongest in Quebec.

This isn't "English Canada" and "French Canada". It is left and right. Clear, pure and simple.

Quebec is the most left, urban Ontario and globs of British Columbia tend strongly to the left, Alberta and other bits of the west and ex-urban Ontario are right. Obviously there is an urban/ex-urban split, but it isn't actually urban/rural; the bedroom communities around Toronto, recent urban sprawl inhabited by people who depend on Toronto for jobs and their economic life in general, are part of the right wing's hard core constituency.

The Conservative base is the RIGHT. The bigoted, stupid, self-centred right.

I know these people. They send my mother emails about horrible immigrants (legal ones!) and all sorts of filth that I have to clean my monitor after reading. They hate homosexuals and Muslims and foreign aid and they are manipulated expertly by right-wing parties and politicians who mostly don't give a shit about all those petty bigotries, they just want power so they can cut taxes for the rich, turn health insurance over to multinational corporations, exploit natural resources without a thought for the environment, deregulate the financial sector, etc. etc. etc. ... I actually think you know the drill.

Quebec and the Québécois are the least likely to fall for this crap. They have a collective vision of society that doesn't include things like locking up young offenders and throwing away the key and sticking their noses into other people's private business (Quebec juries refused three times to convict Morgentaler under the Criminal Code abortion provisions in the 1970s and that was the beginning of the end for interference in reproductive rights in Canada, for instance).

And they lived through the biker wars of the 1990s, and they have no desire to see that kind of violence start up again. So they support policies that deter gun running and make it more difficult for organized criminal gangs to arm themselves.

And if you think long arms have nothing to do with all that, well, I could just ask once again: why does the arsenal of every drug trafficker ever busted include long arms?


http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/police-probe-link-between-loaded-rifle-biker-war-125063119.html

Police probe link between loaded rifle, biker war
Posted: 07/6/2011

A loaded, sawed-off rifle was found lying in a residential Winnipeg neighbourhood after possibly being used in an ongoing biker war, the Free Press has learned.

Sources confirmed the weapon was discovered last Wednesday on Kingston Row by a woman who promptly turned it over to police. It is undergoing forensic testing as part of the ongoing probe into several recent shootings and firebombings in the city.

The revelation came on the same day a high-profile Rock Machine member was freed from jail.

... The Hells Angels formed the Redlined Support Crew last year to stand up to other criminal networks that might muscle in on their former drug turf after many of their members were arrested and jailed following a trio of recent undercover police operations. At the top of that list was the Rock Machine, which waged war with the Hells Angels in Quebec during the 1990s but only recently has had much of a presence in Manitoba.

But hell, by all means, let's open the door to gun trafficking and arm the gangs by eliminating the long arms registry.

[gravity556]

31. Just out of curiosity,

exactly how many crimes have been prevented by Canada's gun registry? Not guns backtracked to the original owner, but actual violent crimes involving firearms have been pre-emptively stopped before they occured? Is the number high enough to justify billions of dollars spent? And I seem to recall reading that there were a great number of gun owners that flatly refused to comply with the registry. So other than having a handy list of who has what for confiscation, what good does a firearms registry do?

[MicaelS]

34. Your arrogance and condescension toward "rural" people in Canada

Mirrors that of the arrogance and condescension toward "rural" people in the US. Attitude like yours are why the Democratic Party has lost faith with people in rural areas. Democrats ask why "rural people in the US" don't vote Democratic. Well the answer if often right in their own mirror. The biggest problem with too many people on the Left is the US and Canada is they think the only people that matter are in the big urban areas. The term "flyover country" was invented for people with your mindset.

[applegrove]

36. I am taking issue with people having the 'worst angels of their nature' stroked

by their government. Not what one expected from government after the enlightenment. Now who is really disrespecting rural people by trying to grow them into nastyness.

[gejohnston]

38. No, he is right

And it is a case of cultural imperialism if not bigotry. Speaking of the Enlightenment, the US and French republics are products of the Enlightenment. Both founding documents consider owning guns a civil right. BTW, what nastiness are you talking about? I was taken aback by two things in your OP:

You assume there is no rural Quebec, or that there are few gun owning NFA members in Quebec.
Rural English Canada detests all things French, and are less "civilized" than rural French Canada.

I doubt it.

[applegrove]

43. Like I said, this post was put in GD because it is about the Conservatives and

their appeal to the baser instincts of the country they lead and fomenting division. There are many examples of this in the US.... the NRA is just one example of the conservatives picking an issue that will divide so they get people to vote guns rights and not what is in their best interest.

[gejohnston]

46. not exactly

the NRA, or NFA for that matter, lean conservative only because the Dems and Liberal party platforms contain items that is against their interests on that issue.
Curtailing my freedoms, or whatever you want to call it, to try to deal with a problem that I do not contribute to, that is against my best interest. For example, I do not contribute to gun or gang violence in the US or Mexico (or Canadian gun owners in general there). Pot smokers coke heads do (especially Mexican violence) because they fund it. Many of the same people who fuel the violence with their money, are clutching their pearls over gun owners. What is even worse is these same people are saying "you don't need a (fill in the blank) for defense" or deer hunting or whatever. None of these people know anything about self defense issues, hunting, or firearms.

[iverglas]

62. you've got a real hate on for those liberal élites, doncha?

Many of the same people who fuel the violence with their money, are clutching their pearls over gun owners.

Will you substantiate this some day?

You know, for example, that I stopped buying pot a very long time ago, in large part precisely because I didn't want to be part of the problem. Just like I don't shop at WalMart or eat at McDonalds, and try to "buy local" and conserve resources and energy and make ethical decisions in various others of my economic activities.

What evidence do you actually have of any overlap between the sets "drug users who participate in the international drug trade" and "firearms control advocates"? Specifically, any overlap that is any greater than the overlap between any two groups that engage in any activity that is in some way inconsistent with their political position?

Is some significant proportion of firearms control advocates actually comprised of cokeheads?

Are drug users all Ivy League-educated, Volvo-driving, private-school fee-paying snobs -- you know, the people behind gun control in your non-reality-based construct? Or is a genuinely significant portion of that class of people drug users?

Who among us, in any event, does not suffer from some sort of hypocrisy? Do you decry poverty and yet not give your shoes to the poor (let alone buy shoes made in sweatshops)? Do you urge equal employment opportunity and yet not give up your job to a member of a disadvantaged minority? Do you support labour rights and yet eat at union-busting fast food joints?

What is it about people who engage in an activity that should not be illegal that calls down your opprobrium on their heads (even if imaginary) so regularly? More firearms control supporters probably buy clothing made in sweatshops in Mexico than buy drugs from or via Mexico. And at least equal numbers of firearms control opponents obviously do that.

Given that the economy is the real "root of the problem" when it comes to the drug trade-related violence in Mexico, why aren't you slamming the folks who buy that crap? They're the ones who create the demand for the mountains of cheap products that they don't need, that Mexico's race to the bottom produces for them. Where's the blame that needs to be laid at their doorstep?

If I were into finger-pointing, that's where I'd be aiming my finger.

[gejohnston]

68. buy a hay field?

You know, for example, that I stopped buying pot a very long time ago, in large part precisely because I didn't want to be part of the problem. Just like I don't shop at WalMart or eat at McDonalds, and try to "buy local" and conserve resources and energy and make ethical decisions in various others of my economic activities.

So do I.

What evidence do you actually have of any overlap between the sets "drug users who participate in the international drug trade" and "firearms control advocates"? Specifically, any overlap that is any greater than the overlap between any two groups that engage in any activity that is in some way inconsistent with their political position?
Is some significant proportion of firearms control advocates actually comprised of cokeheads?

most if not all people do things that is inconsistent with their political beliefs. That is different than funding gang warfare and point their finger at me simply because I own some firearms and contributing to nothing. In the latter, I was pointing out some celebrities,not the typical advocate. The portion is of cokeheads are about as rare as gun owners/gun rights advocates who are misogynists or racists. That is to say, very few.

Given that the economy is the real "root of the problem" when it comes to the drug trade-related violence in Mexico, why aren't you slamming the folks who buy that crap? They're the ones who create the demand for the mountains of cheap products that they don't need, that Mexico's race to the bottom produces for them. Where's the blame that needs to be laid at their doorstep?

Are they related? If so, not as directly. It also applies to most gun violence in the US, Canada, and Europe.

Are drug users all Ivy League-educated, Volvo-driving, private-school fee-paying snobs -- you know, the people behind gun control in your non-reality-based construct? Or is a genuinely significant portion of that class of people drug users?

Never said that most "gun control advocates" are. Nice straw man though, but not very original. I know Ivy Leaguers that have bigger gun collections than I do. Who do you think is the typical Holland and Holland owner? Not a good ole boy in South Carolina or Newfoundland. Besides, Volvo is a good car.

Given that the economy is the real "root of the problem" when it comes to the drug trade-related violence in Mexico, why aren't you slamming the folks who buy that crap? They're the ones who create the demand for the mountains of cheap products that they don't need, that Mexico's race to the bottom produces for them. Where's the blame that needs to be laid at their doorstep?

The roughly 40 families of oligarchs that control basically all things in Mexico.

My point is simply that we could close every gun shop in the south west, that will change nothing in Mexico or the US. They will still get their guns where they get most of them now. Take a way their money, that will change everything. Grow your own, legalize it whichever works.

[iverglas]

69. you evidently bought a straw one

most if not all people do things that is inconsistent with their political beliefs. That is different than funding gang warfare and point their finger at me simply because I own some firearms and contributing to nothing.

What finger is that, and to whom is it attached? And what is the finger saying?

In the latter, I was pointing out some celebrities,not the typical advocate. The portion is of cokeheads are about as rare as gun owners/gun rights advocates who are misogynists or racists. That is to say, very few.

Yeah, and I'll be waiting for the substantiation of that one, too.

The evidence that has long been before mine eyes is quite to the contrary.

Never said that most "gun control advocates" are. Nice straw man though, but not very original. I know Ivy Leaguers that have bigger gun collections than I do. Who do you think is the typical Holland and Holland owner? Not a good ole boy in South Carolina or Newfoundland. Besides, Volvo is a good car.

The straw is entirely in your own home. You are the one who is constantly flinging around these vague, unsubstantiated accusations of complicity in terror and murder against firearms control advocates. I'd suggest you just stop doing it if you don't like being called on it.

There are no Hollywood celebrities in this forum ... and even if you think it necessary to drag Hollywood celebrities into the discussion for some reason, just your vague, unsubstantiated accusations won't do there, either. And if you think there aren't gun-luvvin drug-takin Hollywood celebrities who could be flung back at you just as quickly ...

Given that the economy is the real "root of the problem" when it comes to the drug trade-related violence in Mexico, why aren't you slamming the folks who buy that crap? They're the ones who create the demand for the mountains of cheap products that they don't need, that Mexico's race to the bottom produces for them. Where's the blame that needs to be laid at their doorstep?
The roughly 40 families of oligarchs that control basically all things in Mexico.

I'm sorry, that didn't even make sense.

My point is simply that we could close every gun shop in the south west, that will change nothing in Mexico or the US. They will still get their guns where they get most of them now. Take a way their money, that will change everything.

Yes, organized crime never finds other ways to make a buck, and certainly will not need and use firearms to that end.

Why, you folks repealed that Prohibition thing, and organized crime just went POOF in a puff of smoke and has never been heard from since.

[MicaelS]

41. Are you claiming people who wish to own a gun are

Some sort of savage or barbarian?

[applegrove]

42. No.

[iverglas]

61. are you claiming that this has anything to do with

"people who wish to own a gun"?

If so, speak up and tell us about it.

If not, why are you engaging in this ugly demagoguery?

[iverglas]

60. exactly; see my post 59 n/t

[petronius]

21. Setting aside the specific topic, and recognizing that most everything

conservatives do is slimy in one way or another, I find it oddly refreshing to see any level of government voluntarily disposing of personal information about individuals. I have difficulty imaging that happening here in the US... :)

As for why they want to dispose of it, I can think of three reasons:

1) They truly think the info is improper for government to collect, in which case destroying it (and not leaving subsets) is the ethically consistent path. Of course, that doesn't jibe with the 'wasteful and useless' explanation that was actually given for opposing the registry.

2) They dislike the registry idea in general, and erasing it makes it more difficult for a future government to restart it (it would take more political effort to start from scratch).

3) They just want to put a thumb in the eye of people who support the registry.

My guess is a combination of 2 and 3, but heavy on 3. I honestly doubt that corporations have anything to do with it. (And FTR, I oppose registries here in the US but I have no particular feelings about what Canada or its provinces choose to do...)

[Callisto32]

22. Free?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Remmah2]

24. The equivalent of dismantling the Patriot Act.

You're on the list brother.

[Glassunion]

25. You almost answered your own question.

"Government spent billions collecting that information"

With all of those billions of dollars spent, the reward was no decline in crime at all and zero arrests or crimes solved using the registry.

If Quebec wants to spend billions of dollars to have a zero percent decline in crime and never use it to solve a single crime... more power to them.

Admittedly the federal government says that the data is flawed and useless. Why would they not destroy something that is flawed and useless? The federal government is actually stepping up and saying that they screwed up. They had a good idea, they tried it out and it was an absolute failure. They recognized the screw up, admitted the failure and voted to fix it.

Questions for you.
This registry and the information it contained had zero impact on crime rates. Why is it so important to retain this information and give it to a lower level of government?
This registry and the information it contained never was used to solve even 1 single crime. This registry information was always available to authorities in Quebec. What use would this information suddenly be to Quebec if it has never been of value in the past?
This registry cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Was it worth it? And... Where is the value for Quebec?

[one-eyed fat man]

26. Good God, man!!

Where is the value for Quebec?

Isn't it obvious? It's a list of names of slimy gun owners! How will the OP be able to point and click on some website and find a Google map of the slimy gun owners in her neighborhood if Quebec doesn't have their names?

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Because it is expensive and useless.

The conservatives are right on this issue.

The long gun registry, which was sold as only costing a couple of million, has now cost a couple of billion.

All to track the guns that are hardly ever used in crime.

In the United States, about 300 people every year are killed with rifles. This is half as many as are killed each year with hands and feet.

I'm sure even less people are killed with long arms in Canada every year. Why spend billions on a non-existent problem?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. There is no billions of dollars worth of intel

It was billions of dollars spent but unless that information resulted in some valuable end it was just money spent and nothing more. You might as well say you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn last year's winning powerball numbers. Sure, you can spend lots of money but what did it get you?

[Katya Mullethov]

30. Jobs !

But..... such revolutionary and innovative economic thinking is always going to have its detractors . It would have been better spent on a solar powered electric dog polisher factory , and then we would have millions of electric dog polishers to recycle for the copper , but I digress .

[iverglas]

64. c'mon, step up to the plate

It was billions of dollars spent

Please provide an itemized account of these "billions of dollars".

Since you have made the assertion, I have no doubt that you have the money to back up your mouth.

How do you people become such experts about all things Canadian??

:rofl:

Anyhow, I'll be keeping this thread (and a few others) in mind next time somebody tells me to keep my nose out of US business ... even when I haven't put my nose there ...

[oneshooter]

29. What would you do with the information? n/t

[oneshooter]

35. That simple question scared her off. n/t

[spin]

32. The system was expensive, worthless and unpopular ...

it was merely a "feel good" law that served as a baby pacifier for those who dislike firearms in Canada. The money wasted could have been spent on financing and improving law enforcement.

The biggest problem is NOT honest people who own firearms.

[iverglas]

65. the system operates at reasonable cost and has wide public support

Try again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. I'll ask again- What *actual good* did the registry do? How many crimes solved or prevented?

The most I can recall hearing from supporters was "well, police consulted it <X number of times>", without further elaboration...

[ileus]

37. It made anti's feel good?

[applegrove]

44. Reports in the newspaper today say that police chiefs would like to use the records.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

56. NPR says the FBI likes

National Security Letters too.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/26/141699537/as-it-turns-10-patriot-act-remains-controversial

They're bothered by another part of the law, the so-called sneak-and-peek provision. It lets FBI agents search a person's home or business with a judge's blessing, but without telling the person they're doing it.

"We're now finding from public reports that less than 1 percent of these sneak-and-peek searches are happening for terrorism investigations," says Michelle Richardson, who works for the ACLU in Washington. "They're instead being used primarily in drug cases, in immigration cases, and some fraud."

We should support a law just because the police like it? Is your zeal and fervor dependent on the population being targeted?

A policeman's job is easier in a police state.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. Excellent... I hope this goes through for Canadia and it's inhabbitants.

:hug:

[iverglas]

66. thank you, yes, we're thrilled

with our brand new right-wing majority government.

It is going to bring us many blessings in the four year to come.

Be sure to congratulate us as we spend that $30 BILLION over the next few years buying useless fighter planes from that military-industrial complex of yours at inflated prices and then paying for maintenance services and getting no economic or other benefit from that expenditure of our tax dollars at all ...

The firearms registry costs every Canadian resident less than $3 a year to operate.

Over 10 years, that bullshit contract is going to cost each of us about $100 a year.

Just think how many hospital beds that could fund ... but hey, congratulate us, we have a right-wing government we didn't vote for, and life is good.

[slackmaster]

40. Without new data coming in, the data set becomes more stale with each passing hour.

That kind of information can only be used for good or evil. Sometimes it's best to destroy it to save future generations from having to make that horrible choice.

[Euromutt]

47. I'm all for government not keeping information for which it has no immediate pressing need

Any time information is retained by some organization, including government, the possibility exists of it falling into the hands of the wrong people, no matter how innocuous the purpose for which the information was originally gathered.

By way of an extreme example, prior to 1940, the Dutch authorities listed its citizens' religion in the population records. Then the Nazis invaded and occupied the country, and using the population records were able to readily identify and round up Jews. This played a large part in why the Netherlands lost a higher percentage of its Jewish population than any Nazi-occupied country except Poland.

As a less extreme example, take the proposed "Real ID" program, which I'm proud to say my state of Washington opposed. Aside from "Real ID" being an unfunded mandate, a major concern was that it would make all state ID databases accessible to the governments of every other state, thereby rendering the information security of every state only as strong as the weakest one; an identity thief who managed to hack into, say, a Mississippi Dept. of Public Safety computer could steal identities from Maine to Hawaii.

Crudely put, any government database is an infringement of citizens' privacy (or worse) waiting to happen, all the more so when it's accessible to the public. Just ask Rebecca Shaeffer. Oh wait, you can't, because she was murdered in 1989 by a stalker who acquired her home address from publicly accessible California DMV records. You could fortunately still ask Susan Wicklund, an MD who ran a number of clinics providing abortions, whose house was practically besieged in 1991 by anti-choicers, who had almost certainly acquired her home address by looking up her license plate number in publicly accessible DMV records. During the siege, her daughter had to travel to school in a police car, and Wicklund herself resorted to wearing a variety of disguises, body armor, and a loaded handgun to get to and from work unharmed (lucky for her she lived in a jurisdiction where she could carry a loaded firearm in public). Both cases played a major role in Rep. Jim Moran's introduction of the bill ultimately adopted as the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994.

And ultimately, governments are the only entities that can actually force you to provide them with your personal information. I'll concede it's increasingly difficult to live a normal life with all the amenities of the 21st century (as opposed to subsistence farming in, say, rural Idaho with no phone, cable TV or internet and paying cash for all your purchases), but in principle, no corporation can get your personal information if you refuse to give it to any of them (which admittedly would entail not using any of their services, which is close to being a practical impossibility). Government can, and once it has it, it is for all practical purposes out of your control where your information winds up.

[applegrove]

48. I do feel it is not too much of an imposition to allow the police to know

how many guns a homeowner has when they have an emergency call. But that is just me. What I object to here is the government not passing on that database to Quebec because they want to start their own. It is just typical of the politics these conservatives in Ottawa play at.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. It's poor practice for cops to *not* assume someone might be armed during a call.

Thinking there are no guns at a certain address because it does not appear in the registry is folly of the highest order, and
those most likely to shoot it out with cops weren't registering their guns to begin with.

And btw, Quebec is still free to start its own registry (if the Quebecois see fit to do so). Wouldn't work any better than the
moribund federal one, imo, but it's their province, no?

[applegrove]

50. What a waste of money for Quebec to have to do the registering all over again. That money

could be spent on infrastructure or a new bridge (they need both badly). What a collosal waste of money.

And when the police go to a home that has listed weapons they usually bring the tactical team..which takes time. Better to actually know that a home has no guns so that the police can arrive and help right away.

[gejohnston]

54. what are the odds of

them showing up to a place where legal guns are there? It would be just as easy to see if anyone in the household has a PAL and what type. restricted PAL means pistol or rifle some in the US call "assault weapon", Unrestricted PAL means some "assault weapons" and more traditional long guns. Prohibited PAL means some pistols (small low power) and machine guns.

All restricted and prohibited guns will still be registered.

[Euromutt]

58. If Quebec's revenue were better spent on infrastructure, then maybe it should just do that

Rather than trying to replicate a registry that has already been shown not to work. As the saying has it, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results" (attributed to various people including Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein, but most likely Rita Mae Brown's novel Sudden Death from 1983).

Better to actually know that a home has no guns so that the police can arrive and help right away.

You're committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent, which goes:

• If P, then Q
• Q
• Therefore, P

Specifically:

• If there are no guns in a household, it will not be listed in a firearms registry
• This household is not listed in a firearms registry
• Therefore, there are no guns in the house

Unfortunately, Q ("this house is not listed in the registry") may be true for other reasons than P ("there are no guns in the household"), for example that any firearms in the house are illegally possessed and thus unregistered. And if the latter is the case, responding officers are at more risk, and even more so if they complacently assume that no registered guns means no guns present. Which was friendly_iconoclast's point.

[iverglas]

63. ah, those unproved premises

Rather than trying to replicate a registry that has already been shown not to work.

Can somebody point me to the proof of that premise that this one has provided somewhere? Or anyone has? I seem to have missed it.

Be sure to let me know what it has been shown not to work for, too, 'k?


Unfortunately, Q ("this house is not listed in the registry") may be true for other reasons than P ("there are no guns in the household"), for example that any firearms in the house are illegally possessed and thus unregistered. And if the latter is the case, responding officers are at more risk, and even more so if they complacently assume that no registered guns means no guns present.

And yet, of course, police do not assume any such thing. So you've been wasting your time getting all snotty and superior about a big old nothing, haven't you?

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. Naturally, the "police do not assume any such thing." The OP did, and was corrected.

Once again I need to remind my brother and sister Duers that when supporting or opposing something, it's always best not to use a specious reason....

[AtheistCrusader]

55. I'll give you this much.

You asked a much more honest and reasonable question than the OP of the duplicate thread. Thank you for that.

[applegrove]

70. Oh I posted this thread in General Discussion because it was really

about the Conservative politics of the issue, not the gun issue itself. I agree with anyone who says the long form census should continue. Why would we want the mayhem of the USA or Mexico? Why would we want that gun culture? Why follow your sad situation?

[gejohnston]

71. US and Mexico?

US and Canada's gun culture are more alike. Mexico really does not have one for roughly the same reason UK does not. Do you seriously think an organized crime industry that brings in $50 billion a year is going to be bothered my Mexico's gun laws? US gun laws? They get most of their guns (machine guns, rocket launchers, other military stuff) from the southern border and explosives from North Korea and other points abroad. They make their own submarines to smuggle, they can't make their own gun factories? During WW2, Danish and Polish resistance fighters used to make STEN sub-machine guns in bicycle repair shops.

That is most of US gun violence too, which is concentrated in urban areas and/or major drug trade routes. Most if not all have stricter laws than Canada. US Virgin Islands, Chicago, DC etc. Most of our murders are gangster v gangster.

To be really ugly and blunt: the typical bong owner (unless they grow their own) contributes more to gun violence in all three countries than the NRA, NFA, and both gun cultures combined.

Edit to add, was Canada's murder rate higher before 1934? Machine guns before 1951 or 1977? Until 1977 it was easier for a Canadian to legally own a machine gun than here.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Most of our gun problem is directly resulting from our hyper-conservative drug policy.

That's all. You have a gun culture whether you admit it or not.