Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Bravo, Quebec – will other provinces follow?

In a Conservative majority Parliament, it will be the provinces that will at times have to oppose the Conservative right-wing agenda, and Quebec is doing so with the long-gun registry:

Quebec and Ottawa are on a collision course over the scrapping of the long-gun registry, with the province refusing to destroy data that the federal government wants to eliminate as part of its bid to scrap the controversial legislation. Ottawa claims that the data is under federal control, but Quebec says it will not shred the information, which the provincial police force has collected over the years under current legal provisions. And the province says it needs additional data and software from Ottawa so it can build its own replacement registry.

I want to see Ontario follow Quebec’s lead – Dalton Mcguinty owes Harper no favours – and I’d like to see other progressive provinces follow Quebec’s lead. Here’s a chance for example, for BC’s Christy Clark to show her supposed progressive stripes and announce the same thing.


6 comments to Bravo, Quebec – will other provinces follow?

  • Al

    (fhg1893) I can help you with your wish to be able to prove how many lives have been saved due to the gun registry.A considerable number of suicides are done with rifles.I personally have known of two. At the time of the Gun Registry enactment there were approximently 1400 suicides per year performed with rifles,with the most recent year reulted in 800 suicides by rifles. Thats 15 years of staedy reductions.It’s a stat that can be easily tabulated.A reduction of murder by rifles is more difficult,however it only stands to reason that less weapons=less murder.

    • fhg1893

      You’re really going to try that one Al?

      First, I don’t think that you and, most who speak on this issue really understand the difference between licensing and registration. Oh sure, people claim that they do, but the more these debates go on, the more it becomes evident that the political left assumes that the end of the registry means the end of gun control. This is simply not the case. Do yourself a favor, read the Firearms act, its regulations, the firearms provisions in the Criminal Code, and the regulations pertaining to firearms in the criminal code. The non-restricted firearms registry is the least egregious, least offensive, and easiest target for the Conservatives. And doubt they’d have much success using it as a wedge if it hadn’t been for the horrendous cost.

      Can you tell me this. What exactly is he non-restricted firearms registry? I’m not sure that you, or anybody else on the left except JJ actually knows what it is.

      But back to the issue at hand. Concerning suicide, what we see can’t possibly have anything to do with the non-restricted firearms registry. The Canadian rate of suicide has been in slow, but steady decline since a peak 1978. The decline in suicide is part of a trend towards a somewhat more stable society. But apparently, the left would have us believe that the gun registry is so good, that it can travel through time! (SARCASM)Or is that where the 2 billion dollars went? That must be it, the Liberals secretly built a TIME MACHINE, which they used to go back and make sure that firearms registration began with Confederation in 1867!(/SARCASM)

      Irreverent and silly humor aside, the raw number of suicides has remained relatively stable. Even choosing firearms as a method has been steadily decreasing since 1977, which predates the current firearms act by just less than 20 years!

      In other words, NONE of the statistics presented can be conclusively linked to the registry, or the Firearms Act. Correlation does not causation make. It’s a gross over-simplification to argue that the Firearms Act has been the cause of all these positive trends.

      Concerning murder, this ignores the overwhelming body of evidence from the United States which shows something quite different. Every state which passes concealed carry enjoys a sudden decrease in the rate of violent crime, including murder. More guns = less murder? Yup. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why either, but I expect it’s going to be beyond you – prove me wrong.

      It is NOT an over-simplification, nor is it a misrepresentation of the truth to argue that the Firearms Act is by and large a heinous piece of legislation which is in serious need of reform. It is NOT inaccurate to argue that it’s shockingly inappropriate, and a gross miscarriage of justice to imprison and criminalize a person belonging to a group who is statistically the least likely to commit a crime for a trivial made-up paper-crime.

      Do me a favor. Picture yourself owning a gun. Then read the Firearms act, the regulations in the firearms act, the Criminal Code provisions concerning firearms, and the regulations in the Criminal Code concerning firearms. Then come back and tell me how you feel. Remember to picture yourself owning a gun through this exercise. Once you’ve done that, maybe, just maybe we can talk intelligently about this matter.

  • stan

    Biggest scam ever.
    Where did the hundreds of millions go?
    And all for nothing:'tShootStraight.html

    “A universal gun registry could only appeal to people who didn’t care about costs or results, and who didn’t understand what riled up decent folks in Camrose.

    Which is precisely why it appealed to those putting together the Liberal Red Book for the pivotal 1993 election. If the object of the policy exercise was to appear to be “tougher” on guns than Kim Campbell, they had to find a policy that would provoke legitimate gun-owners to outrage. Nothing would better convince the Liberals’ urban constituency that Jean Chrétien and Allan Rock were taking a tough line on guns than the spectacle of angry old men spouting fury on Parliament Hill.

    The supreme irony of the gun registry battle is that the policy was selected because it would goad people who knew something about guns to public outrage. That is, it had a purely political purpose in the special context of a hard-fought election. The fact that it was bad policy was crucial to the specific political effect it was supposed to deliver.”

    It was never about public safety.

  • fhg1893

    If I could prove that the Firearms act had cost at least one life, would the left change its tune? Somehow, I doubt it…

    To me, this has interesting implications about the political left. If they won’t consider the facts, that can only mean that the truth of the matter is that gun owners have been in the crosshairs all along, and they like the idea of gun owner persecution.

    Interesting, and troubling.

    • It’s pretty ironic to hear a right winger lecture lefties about facts (destruction of the Census, ignoring data on climate change, anyone?)

      Here are some facts on the long gun registry, how it’s been beneficial to the police, and how the claims of gun collectors and duck hunters crying harassment are bunk.

      • fhg1893

        The undisputed fact is that the Chrétien government argued before the Supreme Court of Canada that the firearms registry was being implemented as a matter of public safety. The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning, and over-rode the authority of the provinces in regulating property. The statscan survey linked at Geddes McLean’s article did not in fact indicate that the firearms registry was successful in preventing murder and injury. Indeed, all it indicated about homicide with a firearm, was that the rate of homicide by firearm has been on a downward trend since 1991, which predates the firearms act by four years. And indeed, on the long term, the rate of homicide has been decreasing ever since 1975. Correlation does not causation make.

        Furthermore, Geddes could only state, In any case, registration records figured in the police investigations and trials. Unfortunately, Geddes fails to explain how this information is useful in obtaining convictions, which makes this a matter of opinion, and not a fact.

        Concerning the second link that Geddes provides, Geddes claims Yet Statistics Canada recorded 3,100 thefts and robberies in 2006 in which at least one firearm was stolen. Three-quarters were rifles or shotguns. He says this as though it means something. Yet, it’s not significant at all: the vast majority of firearms in private hands are rifles and shotguns! According to the RCMP, non-restricted firearms there were 7,137,386 registered non-restricted firearms in September of this year, compared to 528,323 restricted firearms. Assuming a steady crime rate, it should come as no surprise at all that roughly 3/4 of stolen guns are non-restricted; they outnumber restricted firearms by an order of magnitude! By sheer statistic alone, one would expect figures in line with what statscan has reported.

        He goes onto say, “None will be registered now. That will make it less likely owners will report the thefts (especially if, say, they neglected to store their guns properly), and far less likely police will figure out where criminals got those guns if they turn up later at crime scenes or in the arsenals of gangs.” Considering that a firearms owner is extremely likely to be charged with unsafe storage, Geddes only confirms my suspicion. Would Geddes really have us believe that police will return a firearm that turns up at a crime-scene to its owner? Or is such a victim of theft going to be prosecuted for unsafe storage – thanks to the firearms registry? Sounds to me like I was right, it’s us you’re after!

        Concerning his third point Geddes says, “Licences will still be required, thank goodness, after this week’s scrapping of the long-gun registry, but police and courts won’t know anymore exactly what guns are in the possession of people previously granted licences, but later deemed unfit to own a gun.” This is in reference to suicides, which statistics Canada demonstrates are steady. Furthermore, statscan has also established that while suicide by firearm is declining, other methods have filled the void. Those who are determined to kill themselves will do so, firearm or no.

        As a self-professed “duck hunter,” my claims are not bunk, and Geddes doesn’t even say so. Given what he wrote in McLean’s, he wouldn’t get far against me for instance.

        Let’s be honest here. What you’ve provided is little more than a collection of opinions which don’t accurately reflect the facts. Furthermore you’ve decided to believe those opinions because they match your political bias. And next, I suspect you’ll deliberately choose to ignore the real life experience and opinion of a person who is much closer to this issue than you are, but I always like being wrong. You needn’t bother pointing out that I have a bias: I’m fully aware of that. The difference is that I’m taking ownership of it as much as possible. But anyway, here’s your chance to serve me some crow! Ready?

        The firearms act has already cost the life of a 15 year old aboriginal boy. His name was Martin Angnatok. He was shot and killed (note, I didn’t say murdered, but more on that in a moment) by a man named Abraham Zarpa. How do we know that the firearms act is connected to the incident? Well, at the time of the killing, Abraham Zarpa was under a firearms prohibition for a history of violence and dangerous use of firearms. Yet the firearms act FORCED the RCMP to quite literally hand Mr. Zarpa a non-restricted .223 rifle, which was legally owned and registered to Mr. Zarpa, which was then used to kill Martin Agnatok in Mr. Zarpa’s own home. You see, there’s an exception to firearms prohibitions made for sustenance hunters. As Mr. Zarpa, also an aboriginal was, or is, a sustenance hunter, he was or is, allowed to collect his firearms from the RCMP whenever he wants to go hunting, though he was, or is supposed to return them afterward. You see, the words is or was are chosen deliberately: Abraham Zarpa, though he was charged with the second degree murder of Martin Angnatok, did not stand trial, and to the best of my knowledge seems to remain a free man to this day. The speculated reason that he never stood trial is because in a court of law, a prosecutor would have no choice but to explain how the firearms act forced the RCMP to give a rifle to a man with a firearms prohibition because he is an aboriginal. Speculation aside, the firearms act forced police to hand a gun over to someone who was known to be a public danger. The firearms act is responsible for the killing, and apparent murder of Martin Angnatok.

        How does the party rhetoric go? Wasteful ineffective? It seems to me that we can add yet another epitaph: racist.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.