Gun Control

[Guest American Woman]

Swtizerland and a city in Georgia have mandatory gun possession and they have very rare violent crimes.

One has to look at the possible reasons why. In the case of Switzerland, it's been pointed out that it's one of the richest nations in the world, has remained fairly isolated, and doesn't have social problems such as drugs and urban deprivation. Link

When UK and Australia had their gun ban, overall crime went WAY up.

Do you have a link to a source supporting that claim?

And I must say once again, ever since the gun registry was implemented in this country, we've seen an INCREASE in shootings. It isn't that we don't believe, facts show they don't work.

What "facts prove" that the registry doesn't work other than the increase in shootings-- which could be attributed to other factors, such as increased gang activity and urban deprivation?-- Or even an increase in population, if you're going by numbers alone. One could argue that there could have been an even greater increase in shootings were it not for gun registration-- unless you have proof positive, rather than speculation, that the registry doesn't work.

[myata]

Here's the questions to which answers have been requested but never given:

1. Does this country need a comprehensive gun control regime?

2. Is comprehensive gun control regime possible if guns used in 30% of homicide are left out?

3. What is the cost of operating long gun registry?

> noahbody: $ 25 million annually (CTV)

4. Why is the long gun registry branded "useless" if the very people directly involved in fighting the crime (police) find it useful?

> myata: Canada Police Chiefs Association, Ontario Police Chiefs Association

5. What is the cost of building and operating one prison?

> $80,000 per annum per prisoner, average (Corrections Canada).

6. How many more prisons will have to be built if mandatory sentencing regime were to be implemented?

7. Why and how is mandatory sentencing regime combined with loosened gun control, is going to reduce violent crime in this country, given that it failed to it in the US in many many years of their extremely "tough on crime" justice?

"Canada's incarceration rate is higher than the rates in most Western European countries but much lower than the United States"

Corrections Canada

Incarceration rates, per 100,000 population, developed counries only, approximate:

US: 700 (highest among developed countries and in the world)

Second echelon (UK, New Zealand, Spain, Portugal): 140

Third echelon (Canada, Australia): 120

EU average: 99

France, Germany: 90

Crime rates:

Homicide rates, per 100,000 population:

South Africa: 55

USA: 5.6

Canada: 1.8

EU average: 1.6

Violent crimes:

International Crime Statistics

8. Other than mandatory sentencing, what are Harper's government plans on controlling the illegal guns?

Answers to these questions cannot be found on Harper's government web site. All that can is tired references to "billion dollars" and "tough on crime". I.e. propaganda. Plomp a simple digestive slogan and it's explanatory in itself. No evidence or discussion needed. No questions asked. No comments given.

If that's enough for some on this boards, so be it. There's nothing to discuss. Just believe and pray to the deity of your choice. God speed.

Edited December 21, 2007 by myata

[akhmel]

One has to look at the possible reasons why. In the case of Switzerland, it's been pointed out that it's one of the richest nations in the world, has remained fairly isolated, and doesn't have social problems such as drugs and urban deprivation.

Well, if that is the case, then social problems should be solved in this country, rather than worrying about guns.

Do you have a link to a source supporting that claim?

Australia: Link

England:Link

What "facts prove" that the registry doesn't work other than the increase in shootings-- which could be attributed to other factors, such as increased gang activity and urban deprivation?-- Or even an increase in population, if you're going by numbers alone. One could argue that there could have been an even greater increase in shootings were it not for gun registration-- unless you have proof positive, rather than speculation, that the registry doesn't work.

If you say one could argue that there would have been a greater number, go ahead then. It would be very interesting to see how one can show it. Is it increasing because of increased gang activity or just speculation? I don't have to prove that it doesn't work, you have to prove it does.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, if that is the case, then social problems should be solved in this country, rather than worrying about guns.

In light of the rise in the number of shootings, I'd say the two are likely intertwined.

Australia: Link

England:Link

Thank you for the links. I was unaware of that.

If you say one could argue that there would have been a greater number, go ahead then. It would be very interesting to see how one can show it. Is it increasing because of increased gang activity or just speculation? I don't have to prove that it doesn't work, you have to prove it does.

Nice try. But when you say it doesn't work, you "have" to prove that it doesn't work every bit as much as I would "have to prove it does." We are all under the same obligation to "prove" what we claim to be fact.

[akhmel]

1. Does this country need a comprehensive gun control regime?

I think the one they had before the gun registry was good enough (training, background checks, etc)

3. What is the cost of operating long gun registry?

I think everyone knows the answer to this question.

4. Why is the long gun registry branded "useless" if the very people directly involved in fighting the crime (police) find it useful?

According to this, you'd be wrong.

5. What is the cost of building and operating one prison?

You can make an access to information request to Correctional Service. One prison is about $25 million.

6. How many more prisons will have to be built if mandatory sentencing regime were to be implemented?

I strongly doubt a lot of people commit this crime, or at least, get caught.

7. Why and how is mandatory sentencing regime combined with loosened gun control, is going to reduce violent crime in this country, given that it failed to it in the US in many many years of their extremely "tough on crime" justice?

I agree with you on this one.

8. Other than mandatory sentencing, what are Harper's government plans on controlling the illegal guns?

What does the gun registry have to do with illegal guns?

Answers to these questions cannot be found on Harper's government web site. All that can is tired references to "billion dollars" and "tough on crime". I.e. propaganda. Plomp a simple digestive slogan and it's explanatory in itself. No evidence or discussion needed. No questions asked. No comments given.

If that's enough for some on this boards, so be it. There's nothing to discuss. Just believe and pray to the deity of your choice. God speed.

Change the name Harper to any politician and that would fit too. All politicians do it like that.

[myata]

According to this, you'd be wrong.

And according to association of police chiefs, it's right:(CTV story). BTW was already posted earlier in this thread. Anyways I can't waste my time addressing all possible creative manipulations of information a la above, also already posted, and addressed in this thread.

[noahbody]

And according to association of police chiefs, it's right:(CTV story). BTW was already posted earlier in this thread. Anyways I can't waste my time addressing all possible creative manipulations of information a la above, also already posted, and addressed in this thread.

Did you take the time to read the link provided? If not please do.

[noahbody]

3. What is the cost of operating long gun registry?

The government will reduce the registry's bureaucracy and will limit its annual operating budget to $25 million, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan announced Thursday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini...004&no_ads=

[myata]

Did you take the time to read the link provided? If not please do.

Did you? Still not convinced? Well, here's more:

Canadian Association of Police Chiefs: Police needs Gun Registry

Ontario Police Chiefs Association: Position on Gun Control.

And here's another fact: International Incarceration Rates. According to the report, Canada is second to but a few developed countries (UK, Spain, Portugal), not counting the non-disputed leader, the US, by rates of its prison population. Will Harper's policies take us to the new hights in this worthy competition? Perhaps even close the gap with the cherished leader? Or maybe get us a honorary second position, at least? Guess it's another question that won't be answered anytime soon.

[acer1982]

I agree with you that we need gun control in Canada - but the registry isn't the way to do it. The registry only has guns of law abiding citizens registered, not criminals. I don't think that the registry will affect gun crime in Canada. Tougher penalties for those caught with illegal guns is one way to affect it. Stop talking about it - start talking jail and significant fines - not plea bargains. The other way is to obviously be tough on those who are found guilty of crimes involving guns.

[jbg]

That would make sense since law-abiding people would tend to turn in their guns; criminals would not.

I agree with you that we need gun control in Canada - but the registry isn't the way to do it. The registry only has guns of law abiding citizens registered, not criminals. I don't think that the registry will affect gun crime in Canada.

Do I hear an echo?

Tougher penalties for those caught with illegal guns is one way to affect it. Stop talking about it - start talking jail and significant fines - not plea bargains. The other way is to obviously be tough on those who are found guilty of crimes involving guns.

The trouble with dropping plea bargains is that you get an "Air India" or "OJ Simpson"¹ result rather often. My experience as a lawyer that does trials is that many people, even police officers, make surprisingly lousy witnesses. An implosion on the witness stand can wreck even a well-prepared case.Prosecutors typically do not have a long-term relationship with their crime victims and sometimes even with key "at the scene" police officers. Given that the witness stand is a very stressful environment it is easy to "unimpress" a jury.

¹I will admit that I think OJ is likely innocent though that is a minority view.

Edited December 21, 2007 by jbg

[Wilber]

The trouble with dropping plea bargains is that you get an "Air India" or "OJ Simpson"¹ result rather often. My experience as a lawyer that does trials is that many people, even police officers, make surprisingly lousy witnesses. An implosion on the witness stand can wreck even a well-prepared case.Prosecutors typically do not have a long-term relationship with their crime victims and sometimes even with key "at the scene" police officers. Given that the witness stand is a very stressful environment it is easy to "unimpress" a jury.

¹I will admit that I think OJ is likely innocent though that is a minority view.

No doubt that is true in many cases but when it comes to something like the simple possession of a restricted firearm, there should be no reason for a plea bargain. You were either in possession or you weren't. If you were, it only remains for the courts to apply the existing penalties to even half the maximum allowed in order to have an effect. That is the problem in Canada, our maximum sentences are a joke because it is a rare event when someone is given anything remotely close to the maximum allowed.

[myata]

... annual operating budget to $25 million,

Good information, for a change. Appreciated. To put things into perspective, a cleanup of one recent major snowstorm in this city of Ottawa cost the city $ 5 million. And the snow removal budget in the city of Edmonton is around $50 million. And the federal budget is measured, if memory serves me well, in the hundreds of billions. Some saving, given that the country's main police associations specifically asked to keep this tool. Looks like the frugality argument, on close consideration, is falling apart faster than it's glued together, is it the fate of all Harpers' policies?

And here's another information. According to Corrections Canada, it costs on average $80,000 annually to keep one person in prison. Let's find out now what's Harpers' plan is going to cost us, even though he's not tellilng. And with what expected result.

P.S your information on the cost of operating the registry will be entered into the list of questions. So that eventually, when the answers are more or less complete, we will be able to make our opinions based on facts and numbers - not propaganda fed by somebody bent on pressing their ideology on the society no matter what.

[White Doors]

What's the cost of NOT putting someone in jail who then goes out and commits another crime?

[Wild Bill]

What's the cost of NOT putting someone in jail who then goes out and commits another crime?

Exactly! Governments do this all the time. They skimp on protecting us so that they have the budget for pet, vote-grabbing projects. Cops come out to write reports AFTER crimes are committed! If your house is burgled in Hamilton they don't usually even come out! They just give you a report number for your insurance claim.

When's the last time you saw a cop walk a beat?

[myata]

What's the cost of NOT putting someone in jail who then goes out and commits another crime?

The answer to this question is right there, in the stats: countries with higher incarceration rates are almost always the same with higher rates of murder and violent crime.

The cost of keeping more people in jail comes in a bundle with higher crime rates. Just what our neighbours south have and apparently what our crime tough government wants to see here.

[noahbody]

2. Is comprehensive gun control regime possible if guns used in 30% of homicide are left out?

Of course not. And that's the problem. The long gun registry deals with less than 2% of homicides. So even if you ignore handgun stats, over 31% of homicides are left out.

Edited December 21, 2007 by noahbody

[noahbody]

4. Why is the long gun registry branded "useless" if the very people directly involved in fighting the crime (police) find it useful?

> myata: Canada Police Chiefs Association, Ontario Police Chiefs Association

Firstly, not all police organisations are behind the gun registry (see link you never read). To your question, the gun registry is "useless" because "Our police officers will continue to be able to determine who is and is not in legal possession of firearms through a quick check of the Canadian Police Information Centre."

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/documents/s=406/bcw1195541082003/

Some police have branded the registry as unreliable (see the link you never read). If 100% of the police don't agree, then the gun registry is dangerous.

[M.Dancer]

Some police have branded the registry as unreliable (see the link you never read). If 100% of the police don't agree, then the gun registry is dangerous.

So then if 100% of police don't agree with abolishing the registry, that would also be dangerous?

[Wilber]

The answer to this question is right there, in the stats: countries with higher incarceration rates are almost always the same with higher rates of murder and violent crime.

The cost of keeping more people in jail comes in a bundle with higher crime rates. Just what our neighbours south have and apparently what our crime tough government wants to see here.

You seem to be saying that the reason violent crime rates are higher is because more people are in jail. I would say it is more logical to draw the opposite conclusion. There are more people in jail because there is more violent crime. The fact Canada has a higher property crime rate than the US would seem to bear that out. We rarely put people in jail at all for that.

A junkie with a 200 dollar a day habit gets about 10% of the value of what they steal which means they have to steal $2000 worth of goods per day or $730,000 per year. Those are kind of costs that are not calculated by the people who say incarceration (for mandatory treatment if possible) is too expensive. They only count the cost to the state, not the cost to society.

Canada is a somewhat unique case. We share one of the longest borders in the world with a country where firearms that are illegal in Canada are relatively easy to obtain and almost as easily transported across the border. The fact is, effective gun control is not possible in Canada for that reason alone. We have no alternative but to get the people who would use those weapons off the streets if we really want to keep them from being used.

[noahbody]

So then if 100% of police don't agree with abolishing the registry, that would also be dangerous?

No. An officer should approach a home with the belief there could be a gun. Relying on information provided by the registry that a person doesn't have a gun is dangerous and could be a fatal mistake. I have to wonder if the officer shot in his truck in Hay River was killed for this reason.

As a retired member of the RCMP, who supervised police officers in Canada's largest Detachments, I have grave concerns about the reliance on the registry for data which could result in death or injury of a police officer.

...

My experience has told me that the greatest hazard to police officers is complacence and I found it prudent to continually remind my staff of that fact. Relying on a flawed system for officer safety will eventually lead to a tragedy. It is unfortunate that the CACP did not take the time to consider the consequences of their position and the safety of the men and women they represent.

LEN GRINNELL, RETIRED RCMP STAFF-SARGEANT

[CandianWatcher]

"Why does this government want to repeal the Gun licensing registry? Because it is "tough on crime?" How is that helpful? It sounds like more American-style ideas coming from our current government, who show in so many ways now their intentions to make Canada's laws the same as in the United States?"

I can answer that question for you, so far it has been a great big waste of a lot of money. So far the only people who have registered the long guns since this white elephant was set up are the law abiding citizens of this country.

Now if we could just find a way to make the bad guys comply with the registry, we would know who was using what gun. The gun registry has done nothing to alleviate crime, it was brought in as another piece of photo op legislation allowing the politician to look like they were cracking down on crime, when in fact the only ones that they penalized by this law was the law abiding citizen.

The days the bad guys start to use a registered long gun in the commission of a crime, then there will be the need of a registery. In fact, most crimes are committed with hand guns and they have been registered for years.

I don't side with this Conservative government on many issues, they are far to right for me, but on this issue they are "right on"

[myata]

...

What was meant is of course "the type of gun used in 30% of homicides" (as follows from the context of the earlier discussion on the major types of guns involved in gun crime: handguns and long guns). Looks like you're attempting being creative, like that other guy who seem to be so popular with the conservative crowd? Again, how can one imagine having anywhere comprehensive gun control regime, if the guns of the kind that is used in a large proportion of crimes, is left out, to a very significant extent?

Firstly, not all police organisations are behind the gun registry

I see, being creative again. The two largest police associations are, so I guess that'll have to close the issue for now, i.e. until you can come up with some information which would have at least some substance.

[myata]

You seem to be saying that the reason violent crime rates are higher is because more people are in jail. I would say it is more logical to draw the opposite conclusion.

Maybe. But if the violent crime isn't going up (as it isn't), why should we all of the sudden start putting more people into jails?

And, build more jails. And, hire more jail guards?

Especially if our current system costs less and provides much better results already? What about great majority of Europe (less prisons, less crime)?

Anyone, children? Right you are: there's no reason. No rational reason, at least. The real reason is, three, two, one: social conservative ideology. The same one that belives that "homo homini lupus est", everybody must have a gun, and criminals are born as they are, should rot in jail or even worse.

[noahbody]

What was meant is of course "the type of gun used in 30% of homicides" (as follows from the context of the earlier discussion on the major types of guns involved in gun crime: handguns and long guns). Looks like you're attempting being creative, like that other guy who seem to be so popular with the conservative crowd? Again, how can one imagine having anywhere comprehensive gun control regime, if the guns of the kind that is used in a large proportion of crimes, is left out, to a very significant extent?

Answer this:

Can you have effective long gun control when 94% of those who use them in homicide don't register their long guns?

I see, being creative again. The two largest police associations are, so I guess that'll have to close the issue for now, i.e. until you can come up with some information which would have at least some substance.

Saying police support the registry is a half truth. Some do, others don't.