No vote scheduled on Tory bill to kill gun registry

[jdobbin]

Well, I guess it all depends on how you see the word 'managable'. It is true that the Liberals instituted a cap of around $25 million per year, and hey, that is 'managable'. I have no reason to believe future costs will escalate more than that.

A database that the police access thousands of times a day, it seems to me that is must be worthwhile and that is why the police chiefs and unions support the reigistry.

Databases cost money. The DNA database which is located in Ottawa costs $5 million a year. If it had as many items as the gun registry did, I expect it would cost even more.

But wht the Auditor general does is examines how money is spend. Even they will admit that it is not in their mandate to examine public policy.

The Auditor does look to see if it fulfills its policy mandate. She has said it does do that now.

So, lets say that costs ARE $25 million/year. The salary of a provincial police officer in Ontario is between 44 and $81,000/year. Assuming police cost around the same in other provinces, the money spent on the registry could be used to hire over 300 police across the country. Personally, I'd feel a little safer with those extra police than with a list of guns that may or may not be up to date, most of which will never be used in a crime. (And for which much of the same benefit could be obtained by simply handling FACs better.)

Well, it isn't up to date because the Tories do not want it to be updated.

I'm sorry. I have to go with the police on the issue. If they think the registry is valuable to them, we should stick with it.

Heck, if you really wanted to save lives, if the money for maitaining the registry were put into health care, they could double the number of MRIs in the country in less than a decade.

We could play the game of where to spend money all day.

We could say that $25 million a year to help prevent FASD would ensure more safety for police.

However, once again, I think I have to go with what the police are saying. If they said that the registry was a waste of time, I would say dump the program.

I never said they were. (Although who knows how many cops would be happy to see them go, but just won't say so because they know it would never fly.)

I think most cops know that the protocols are to ensure they have the trust of the public. As I said, Robert Peel said it is completely necessary for the police to have to do their job.

I used that as just an example of how we, as a society, are willing to give up a little of our potential security because we do not want to give up certain freedoms to the police.

Given the fear of violence people seem willing to submit to licensing and registration as long as it is convenient and cost effective.

There is a major difference between cars and guns: A: If someone has a firearm, very few people if any will ever see it (compare that to the average automobile, where I will encounter hundreds of drivers on a daily commute.. the fact that I encounter more people means that more control is needed), B: there are a lot more crimes committed using cars (especially if you count traffic offences) than with guns. MOST gun owners will never use their firearm to commit a crime. Many (probably even a majority) of drivers will, at some point, break the law with their cars (even if its just a speeding ticket.)

And yet the police access the gun registry thousands of times a a day according to the Canadian Police Association.

Well, here's a suggestion... why don't you do what I do, and actually wait for any evidence to be provided?

Is that what the Tories are doing with their initiative to kill the registry? Are they waiting to see what ordinary people, ordinary officers are saying?

Now, Garry Breitkreuz (the MP most eager to scrap the gun registry) has some stats on his site suggesting that he does have polling information suggesting 'rank and file' cops are against the registry. (Granted, I can't blame you for being skeptical, given his bias and the fact that some of the data is fairly old.)

I have seen the data but I think the Tories have been taken aback by police chiefs and union leaders from the police advocating for the registry.

I don't know who has the pulse of the rank and file officers better but the Tories better know that very well before plunging headlong into killing something that the police will fight them on.

Of course, something else to consider... if there IS a poll asking police about the gun registry, will the question simply be a "gun registry, yes or no", or will it be along the lines of "gun registry yes, or more funding for other police programs". After all, I'm sure some police might support the gun registry if its the only option, but if they thought the registry could be removed and the money spent on other law enforcement options.

Harper has pumped money into police since 2006. Do you think he is going to give them an either/or choice?

I think the police believe they should receive more money and keep the registry.

[jdobbin]

Sorry the weren't convicted for aiding they were brought up on manslaughter charges, nor were all the facts explored, not to mention the Mr. Big aspect to the case. These two weren't convicted with out reasonable doubt. The RMCP were on a witch hunt.

I know some in the community there feel that these guys had nothing to do with the killing but police suspicion about other people being involved started with the gun and the registry.

[jdobbin]

The gun registry is a provincial jursidiction adn it is up tot the provincial governmetns if they will prosecute for registry infractions, it is not the place of the federal government.

It isn't provincial jurisdiction. It has always been in the federal domain.

[jdobbin]

If you want to argue that enforcement of drug laws under the Conservatives is an invasion of our rights, fine. I might even agree with you.

Not exactly what I am arguing. I am saying the Tories are being inconsistent on the law.

But you (and the other parties in the House of Commons), by wanting to keep the gun registry, are substituting one form of government interference in our lives with another form. (If you really cared about freedom, maybe you should consider supporting the Libertarian party...)

I am not arguing about freedom. I support laws that regulate certain products or protect the public.

[segnosaur]

Well, I guess it all depends on how you see the word 'managable'. It is true that the Liberals instituted a cap of around $25 million per year, and hey, that is 'managable'. I have no reason to believe future costs will escalate more than that.

A database that the police access thousands of times a day, it seems to me that is must be worthwhile and that is why the police chiefs and unions support the reigistry.

The fact that the database is accessed 'thousands of times a day' does not necessarily mean that its a great value to the police. Many of those checks could be a simple matter of protocol (i.e. automatic checks whether there would be a risk or not). In addition, since the registry wouldn't tell you if there were any non registered guns on site (obtained illegally or simply not registered), any cop is going to hopefully treat the situation as a potential risk even if there are no guns registered.

So, the cops might check the registry, but if they're smart they won't trust it. So we're spending millions on something who's information will routinely get ignored.

Databases cost money. The DNA database which is located in Ottawa costs $5 million a year. If it had as many items as the gun registry did, I expect it would cost even more.

I actually work with databases for a living. There are on the order of 5-10 million guns in Canada. I've worked with larger databases than that. The cost of the infrastructure would simply not be a major cost. I suspect things like enforcement, advertising, and data entry take up a much larger portion of the costs.

I've already explained a solution that would probably be better: Simply use the Firearms Acquisition Certificate as the basis for police officers doing checks. This eliminates the millions of data entries, and all the enforcement that would be required. And since people typically need a firearms acquisition certificate to get a gun, that should be enough of an indication to police that there is the potential for firearms on a property.

The Auditor does look to see if it fulfills its policy mandate. She has said it does do that now.

Please provide a reference to that. My previous post had a reference to a letter written by the Auditor general in which she said You asked what evidence we have seen that the firearms program has contnbuted more to public safety and saved more lives than the system that preceded it. Neither of these issues was included in

the scope of our audit; they are more in the domain of program evaluation, which our Office does not undertake. This was from 2006. Perhaps you have a more recent reference, but from the looks of things she clearly indicates she can't say if the registry saves lives.

Personally, I'd feel a little safer with those extra police than with a list of guns that may or may not be up to date, most of which will never be used in a crime. (And for which much of the same benefit could be obtained by simply handling FACs better.)

Well, it isn't up to date because the Tories do not want it to be updated.

Actually, even before the tories got into power there were significant problems with non-compliance (not to mention many errors in the database.)

I've seen figures everywhere from 25% unregistered to over 50% unregistered, and this was before the Tories took over. If you were a cop, would you trust your life to a registry where you had a 1 in 4 chance of incorrectly trusting the gun registry?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol/

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm

I'm sorry. I have to go with the police on the issue. If they think the registry is valuable to them, we should stick with it.

Well, once again I need to point out that you haven't actually given proof that the rank-and-file actually supports the registry, nor whether they would prefer the money to be spent in another way.

Even more importantly... there is no guarantee that even if the cops think the registry is valuable, that may not necessarily be the case. There are plenty of people who believe things that aren't true (how many believe in alternative medicine, psychics, etc. without proof that those work either?)

I'd rather the decision on whether to cancel the registry be made on the basis of best available evidence, and if there's no proof that the gun registry is saving more lives than the best alternatives, scrap it even if the cops want it. We pay our taxes to ensure the money is used to make our society as secure as possible, not to provide a 'security blanket' to the police.

We could play the game of where to spend money all day.

Its not a game... its the entire core of the issue. If money were inifinte it might not be a problem. However, money is limited an as such decisions must be made. The fact that you might not like the fact that your gun registry looks less desirable doesn't mean you can avoid that by calling it a 'game'.

I never said they were. (Although who knows how many cops would be happy to see them go, but just won't say so because they know it would never fly.)

I think most cops know that the protocols are to ensure they have the trust of the public. As I said, Robert Peel said it is completely necessary for the police to have to do their job.

Irrelevant statement.

In fact, having a law which is so widely ignored by so many people can only damage trust.

Of course, this is not just a 'trust' issue... Even if the public trusted the police 100%, we would still expect controls to be in place to safeguard our freedom.

Given the fear of violence people seem willing to submit to licensing and registration as long as it is convenient and cost effective.

Correction... some people seem willing to submit to registration. Not all do.

In addition, simply being 'willing to submit' does not make something a good law. (By that logic, were black people in the U.S. "willing to submit" to segregation laws before Rosa Parks?

I have seen the data but I think the Tories have been taken aback by police chiefs and union leaders from the police advocating for the registry.

Don't see why you'd think that. Even before the last election there were a lot of police organizations that were supporting the registry (even if there was no hard evidence that the rank and file did.)

[jdobbin]

The fact that the database is accessed 'thousands of times a day' does not necessarily mean that its a great value to the police. Many of those checks could be a simple matter of protocol (i.e. automatic checks whether there would be a risk or not). In addition, since the registry wouldn't tell you if there were any non registered guns on site (obtained illegally or simply not registered), any cop is going to hopefully treat the situation as a potential risk even if there are no guns registered.

The police say it is valuable. I think it is presumptuous to assume they don't know what they are talking about.

So, the cops might check the registry, but if they're smart they won't trust it. So we're spending millions on something who's information will routinely get ignored.

The police say it is a valuable resource despite the flaws that you point out. I'd be hesitant to remove a tool the police say is useful. Given that the Tories usually go by what the police say, it can't be a comfortable position to be to try and contradict what they are saying.

I actually work with databases for a living. There are on the order of 5-10 million guns in Canada. I've worked with larger databases than that. The cost of the infrastructure would simply not be a major cost. I suspect things like enforcement, advertising, and data entry take up a much larger portion of the costs.

I have no idea. I wish it was more in line of what the DNA database costs but I am no expert on that. I can only go by what the Auditor says.

I've already explained a solution that would probably be better: Simply use the Firearms Acquisition Certificate as the basis for police officers doing checks. This eliminates the millions of data entries, and all the enforcement that would be required. And since people typically need a firearms acquisition certificate to get a gun, that should be enough of an indication to police that there is the potential for firearms on a property.

That is what I was arguing for years ago and in these forums. However, my addendum was that guns owned by the FAC licence holder could be listed on the FAC paperwork. No need for a new database and the list of guns would be held by the owner and only need to be produced when asked for by a police officer.

Please provide a reference to that. My previous post had a reference to a letter written by the Auditor general in which she said You asked what evidence we have seen that the firearms program has contnbuted more to public safety and saved more lives than the system that preceded it. Neither of these issues was included in

the scope of our audit; they are more in the domain of program evaluation, which our Office does not undertake. This was from 2006. Perhaps you have a more recent reference, but from the looks of things she clearly indicates she can't say if the registry saves lives.

My argument was based on the cost analysis and fulfilling the public policy mandate of registering weapons. Program evaluation is what we should leave to the police and public security committees.

The Tories seem to have concluded the program is useless and should be scrapped. Perhaps it is they who should be having public hearings as to the effectiveness of the legislation.

Actually, even before the tories got into power there were significant problems with non-compliance (not to mention many errors in the database.)

Which the Tories have made no effort to correct.

I've seen figures everywhere from 25% unregistered to over 50% unregistered, and this was before the Tories took over. If you were a cop, would you trust your life to a registry where you had a 1 in 4 chance of incorrectly trusting the gun registry?

If you were a cop would you want to registry improved or scrapped in favour of... nothing.

Well, once again I need to point out that you haven't actually given proof that the rank-and-file actually supports the registry, nor whether they would prefer the money to be spent in another way.

Perhaps the Tories will poll those officers before they move to scrap the registry.

Even more importantly... there is no guarantee that even if the cops think the registry is valuable, that may not necessarily be the case. There are plenty of people who believe things that aren't true (how many believe in alternative medicine, psychics, etc. without proof that those work either?)

This assumes that the Conservatives know better on this issue. Perhaps they produce their solid reasons for scrapping the registry.

I'd rather the decision on whether to cancel the registry be made on the basis of best available evidence, and if there's no proof that the gun registry is saving more lives than the best alternatives, scrap it even if the cops want it. We pay our taxes to ensure the money is used to make our society as secure as possible, not to provide a 'security blanket' to the police.

Then why have the Tories not tried to get that information? They made a decision to kill the registry without really studying it or ensuring it works.

Its not a game... its the entire core of the issue. If money were inifinte it might not be a problem. However, money is limited an as such decisions must be made. The fact that you might not like the fact that your gun registry looks less desirable doesn't mean you can avoid that by calling it a 'game'.

If the Tories make it an either/or type of thing, they are making it a game. I have seen no indication that it has to be an either/or situation.

Irrelevant statement.

Not to cops doing their job.

In fact, having a law which is so widely ignored by so many people can only damage trust.

Is that why the Tories are increasing penalties on drug use?

Of course, this is not just a 'trust' issue... Even if the public trusted the police 100%, we would still expect controls to be in place to safeguard our freedom.

One could argue that the police are able to retain trust when we do have control protocols.

Correction... some people seem willing to submit to registration. Not all do.

However, the Tories are inconsistent. If they believe that people who don't submit to laws should be left alone, they should hold that view for pot use.

In addition, simply being 'willing to submit' does not make something a good law. (By that logic, were black people in the U.S. "willing to submit" to segregation laws before Rosa Parks?

I have seen no evidence from the police that they view that registry as a bad law.

Don't see why you'd think that. Even before the last election there were a lot of police organizations that were supporting the registry (even if there was no hard evidence that the rank and file did.)

Since the Tories are trying to put this law through the Senate rather than the House, I am assuming they might be trying to score political points against the Senate rather than strike down the law. And since the Senate leader is not indicating a vote is forthcoming, I am wondering if the Tories know something from their own internal polling (which we know they do more of than previous governments).

[noahbody]

The police say it is valuable. I think it is presumptuous to assume they don't know what they are talking about.

The police also say it is useless and dangerous. But keep on spewing the propaganda.

The police say it is a valuable resource despite the flaws that you point out.

See above

I'd be hesitant to remove a tool the police say is useful.

And useless.

Given that the Tories usually go by what the police say, it can't be a comfortable position to be to try and contradict what they are saying.

Maybe they have common sense.

I have no idea.

I fully agree.

My argument was based on the cost analysis and fulfilling the public policy mandate of registering weapons.

$2 million per long gun homicide, based on maintenance costs alone. Genius.

[jdobbin]

The police also say it is useless and dangerous. But keep on spewing the propaganda.

I provided a link. How about you? The Police Association and chiefs have said that this week?

I know that that conservatives have been trying to link the chiefs to the Liberals and nefarious ties to Power Corp but...yeesh.

I'm afraid the spewing of propaganda is you. And if the Tories were so confident that they were on the side of the police on this, they would introduce this in the House and make it a confidence motion.

$2 million per long gun homicide, based on maintenance costs alone. Genius.

It is obvious that you are angry about and prone to some nastiness but show me where the police have said for the registry to be dropped? They said that this week?

The RCMP said in 2006 that eliminating the registry would save $3 million a year. That is what they say it costs to solve complex murder cases. You can look that up if you want. It has been reported a few times.

The police say that the registry led to the arrest and conviction of two people responsible for the death of four RCMP officers. These are the facts that Conservatives will have to address when they cut the registry.

Edited April 23, 2009 by jdobbin

[ToadBrother]

I have no idea. The police association said they would present more evidence if the Tories pressed the case. The fact four RCMP murders were solved with the registry probably speaks volumes though.

No it doesn't. A single investigation doesn't speak anything. That's one single data point, that's it. To try to make any sweeping statements about the effectiveness of the registry based on a single event is not only a violation of basic statistical analysis, but also simply idiotic.

And why don't the cops just provide this data? Why are they even permitted to control this information? If I was in power, I'd give them about an hour to provide the information, or have them fired and stripped of their pensions.

[myata]

Is there really something to discuss here? We register our homes, cars and pets. It's only a matter of common sense that deadly tools like guns, whose only purpose is to kill, should be registered as well.

The registry is implemented now too bad it way way over cost, but it's not the first (and by far not the last) example of government mismanagement. Take that 1 bln dollars Conservatives security failure in the PS IT nobody wants to talk about.

Time to move on, enforce the policy, and go after those who deliberately break the law. Not "jail" forget it, but a sizable fine (will help with paying the operating costs, for once.

I hope our "flake" new would be PM finally discovers his principled stance on the issue.

[Borg]

I think you will have an argument with the police about that.

I don't disagree that it cost a lot a lot to set up. I was opposed to the registry for that reason and believed that arms should be listed on the Firearms Certificate and kept on the gunowner's person to be presented when asked for.

Having said that, the registry is now in place and the costs, according to the Auditor, are now manageable for the program.

The Tories want to close the barn door after the horses are left.

There is no recovering the money used to set up the program. Criticize the Liberals for incompetence but end the program now and go against the police.

I don't see police arguing to end search warrants.

Robert Peel was the one that said that the ability of the police to operate successfully was built on trust. Search warrants are part of that trust. It ensures that police act according to guidelines and that arbitrariness is removed.

The gun registry is not arbitrary when it affects a whole category of things that the government wants to monitor and regulate. In terms of provinces in Canada, it means that cars face registration and licensing.

I don't see gun registry opponents also opposing car registration so the privacy argument seems a little overstated.

If Conservatives feel the rank and file officers have a different point of view, I'm sure they will kill the registry but when both union and management of the forces say they support the registry, I tend to think that the view on not killing the registry is shared by a large chunk of the police.

Car registry song and dance

To compare firearms to cars.

You cannot prohibit me from buying a car.

I can have an unregistered car on my property

I can not be forbidden from transporting my car.

I do not have to have family or ex family permission to own a car

Police do not have the right to enter my house because I own a car

And many more

That is why we do not argue about car registration

You need toget out more

Borg

[jdobbin]

That is why we do not argue about car registration

You need toget out more

The argument is that guns are not the only thing that is licenced and regulated by the government.

The song and dance is what you are doing.

[jdobbin]

No it doesn't. A single investigation doesn't speak anything. That's one single data point, that's it. To try to make any sweeping statements about the effectiveness of the registry based on a single event is not only a violation of basic statistical analysis, but also simply idiotic.

The the Tories should produce numbers to show the registry is ineffective. To simply end the program without addressing that point is idiotic.

And why don't the cops just provide this data? Why are they even permitted to control this information? If I was in power, I'd give them about an hour to provide the information, or have them fired and stripped of their pensions.

The government has access to that data. They don't control it. The statistics are there for them as much as it is for the police. Let's give the Tories a hour to provide the information or have them fired and stripped of their pensions.

[noahbody]

I provided a link. How about you?

The gun registry places police officers’ lives at risk. The gun registry offers a false sense of security.

Sk police officer

As a police officer who represented the Saskatchewan Association of Police Officers in opposition to the Firearm Registry, I have spoken with police from across Canada who see little or no value in the Registry. Many have gone so far as to question the rational or motive of the Canadian Professional Police association’s continued endorsement of it.

MURRAY GRISMER, SERVING POLICE OFFICER IN SASKATCHEWAN

Calgary Police Association president Al Koenig is skeptical of the Alberta government’s plan to have people willingly hand over unregistered guns. “To presume that gangsters will hand over their guns, somebody is living in wonderland,” Koenig said.

CALGARY POLICE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AL KOENIG

Not once, however, during my career do I recall using the gun registry to solve a major crime.... I observed that most front-line officers have little faith in the gun registry, and see it as another bloated and failed attempt by the former government to appease its constituents.

SERGEANT BOB COTTINGHAM

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=3644

I'm afraid the spewing of propaganda is you.

We'll see. If you continue to use "The police say..." as an absolute, it is clearly you. Doesn't it speak volumes that members of the police force would speak out against the registry?

The RCMP said in 2006 that eliminating the registry would save $3 million a year. That is what they say it costs to solve complex murder cases. You can look that up if you want. It has been reported a few times.

That's right up there with the 5,000 times a day propaganda. Again registered long guns are only used in 2% of gun related homicides. I would assume most of these are domestic and don't require an investigation costing $2 million. What do you think?

The police say that the registry led to the arrest and conviction of two people responsible for the death of four RCMP officers. These are the facts that Conservatives will have to address when they cut the registry.

That incident was included in the 2% by way. Has there been another or have we spent over $1 billion to arrest two guys who gave a guy a ride and a gun that was never used? For that money, the police could have offered a thousand rewards of $1 million dollars for tips solving major crimes. Which do you think would have been more effective?

Edited April 23, 2009 by noahbody

[Dave_ON]

Car registry song and dance

To compare firearms to cars.

You cannot prohibit me from buying a car.

I can have an unregistered car on my property

I can not be forbidden from transporting my car.

I do not have to have family or ex family permission to own a car

Police do not have the right to enter my house because I own a car

And many more

That is why we do not argue about car registration

You need toget out more

Borg

The problem with this counter argument is in the fundamental difference between a gun and a car. The primary purpose of a car is transportation, that is its intended use and that's the primary reason they are manufactured; If you choose not to utilize it in that fashion that does not change the fundamental reason d’être of a car. Guns by contrast are intended to be used as a weapon, whether it is on animals or people it is still intended to be used as a weapon. Again if you choose not to use them this way that does not change their fundamental functionality.

So in response to your talking points.

You cannot prohibit me from buying a car.

- Correct, because of the reason above, a car is not intended as a weapon a gun is. It is the primary function of an item that should determine how restricted its availability is.

I can have an unregistered car on my property

- Correct, but you cannot drive it off of your property if it is not registered and you are not licensed to operate a car. Essentially you can't use it for its primary function.

I cannot be forbidden from transporting my car.

- Correct, provided you are not operating the unregistered vehicle to do it.

I do not have to have family or ex family permission to own a car

- Correct, but you often need references to get a job, rent an apartment and many other things in life. I don't think it is unreasonable to need references from people who can attest to you mental stability when you're looking to purchase a weapon.

Police do not have the right to enter my house because I own a car

- Correct, again a car is not designed as a weapon.

I don't see the issue in registering guns, at its heart it's a great idea and can be every bit as useful to police as the current car registration system is. It all leads back to who is responsible for the weapon, car, pet, house or whatever. If a gun is stolen it can be reported just like a car, if it's not that's suspicious. It doesn't restrict your freedom to own a gun, it regulates it. Restricting who can and cannot legally obtain a gun is just common sense, just like restricting who can and cannot legally operate a vehicle is.

[jdobbin]

We'll see. If you continue to use "The police say..." as an absolute, it is clearly you. Doesn't it speak volumes that members of the police force would speak out against the registry?

These comments go back to 2006. Anything current?

If the Tories are so certain that the police are against the registry or that the rank and file are against it, I am sure we will see this put forward with no confidence motion.

That's right up there with the 5,000 times a day propaganda. Again registered long guns are only used in 2% of gun related homicides. I would assume most of these are domestic and don't require an investigation costing $2 million. What do you think?

The number time accessed has been confirmed by the police and by the Auditor. You think they are both lying?

If the registry is that useless to the police, why do so many chiefs and associations not want to see it eliminated?

That incident was included in the 2% by way. Has there been another or have we spent over $1 billion to arrest two guys who gave a guy a ride and a gun that was never used? For that money, the police could have offered a thousand rewards of $1 million dollars for tips solving major crimes. Which do you think would have been more effective?

Once again, barn door argument. Criticize the Liberals for incompetence for setting up the program and the cost involved in achieving it all you want. However, the database is there now and appears to be used by the police.

If Conservatives want to make the argument that cops don't need the database, they are free to make it. It seems to me that the Tories are not so sure themselves that they want to really to debate police spokesmen about that.

[eyeball]

I don't see the issue in registering guns, at its heart it's a great idea and can be every bit as useful to police as the current car registration system is. It all leads back to who is responsible for the weapon, car, pet, house or whatever. If a gun is stolen it can be reported just like a car, if it's not that's suspicious. It doesn't restrict your freedom to own a gun, it regulates it. Restricting who can and cannot legally obtain a gun is just common sense, just like restricting who can and cannot legally operate a vehicle is.

I agree.

There's only one real issue here but its a big one - government incompetence in its handling of the registry. A review of this program should simply lead us back to who is accountable for this incompetence. I'm tired of seeing good socially responsible ideas fall by the wayside because of a lack of transparency and accountability for incompetence and the stench of corruption that surrounds every attempt to cover it up.

Ultimately it is us that is accountable for the incompetent governments we get because in a democracy, even one that's as peculier and backwards as ours, we're the ones that keep voting for them.

[noahbody]

These comments go back to 2006. Anything current?

Has the registry changed since 2006? Have gangs started to register their long guns?

If the Tories are so certain that the police are against the registry or that the rank and file are against it, I am sure we will see this put forward with no confidence motion.

There are police on both sides of the issue.

The number time accessed has been confirmed by the police and by the Auditor. You think they are both lying?

It's a very deceptive statement. Police officers are not making direct requests to the registry. It's just automatically checked. A more relevant question would be "how many times is it relied upon?" If the answer is above zero, then it's endangering officers lives.

If the registry is that useless to the police, why do so many chiefs and associations not want to see it eliminated?

There are several reasons. None of which change the fact that the registry isn't targeted, reliable or cost-effective.

Once again, barn door argument. Criticize the Liberals for incompetence for setting up the program and the cost involved in achieving it all you want. However, the database is there now and appears to be used by the police.

With the current cost you could offer twenty-five rewards of $1 million. Which do you feel would be more effective?

If Conservatives want to make the argument that cops don't need the database, they are free to make it. It seems to me that the Tories are not so sure themselves that they want to really to debate police spokesmen about that.

I'd love to debate a police spokesman on this.

[myata]

Once again, registration of firearms is a no brainer. They are dangerous (certainly, more so than pets, cars, or children), they may get into wrong hands (illegally or legally - e.g. by loving owner going crack). Or used in the wrong moment. Or used accidentally. Or... The knowledge of whether somebody has 1 gun or 20, can make a lot of difference. It's hardly any burden on anybody, if that idyllical farmer is short of 20 bucks to pay registration, they can get a special rate of 15, upon presentation of official farmership certificate, or equivalent. The whole loud cry is probably sponsored by gun lobby, worried that registration would cause drop in sales (less guns around, how terrible), and those loudest 20% of ..% of gun owners who consider stockpiling deadly weapons as their sacred right.

Now what I'd really like to find out is the position of Mr Ignatieff. This is one a of key issues, and yet he's been somewhat shy, coy, mum and sitting on the both sides of the fence. He just so wants to get there, and wouldn't disappoint anybody, it'd break his heart!

BTW just to preempt likely comments, no, gun registry, alone, won't solve all crime problems. It's one of the tools that, given consistent, comprehensive policy to address causes and combat manifestations of crime, could be very useful and even absolutely necessary. That's something about 76.8 lightyears beyond the grasp of an average binary socially conservative mind, that's firmly set on a belief that there's one universal and 100% effective method to deal with crime, and this method is to throw everybody with a touch of potential guilt in jail, forever. Only, for some reason they haven't yet discovered it. Right, not an oxymoron, no: they know that the right, golden solution is to flood the place with legal guns and put everybody in jail. Yet wherever and whenever they try, it always produces opposite result.

[segnosaur]

The police say it is a valuable resource despite the flaws that you point out. I'd be hesitant to remove a tool the police say is useful.

Correction... Some police organizations say that its useful. And we don't even know if that usefullness includes an ability to list individual firearms, or just the ability to do a query into having a FAC.

I actually work with databases for a living. There are on the order of 5-10 million guns in Canada. I've worked with larger databases than that. The cost of the infrastructure would simply not be a major cost. I suspect things like enforcement, advertising, and data entry take up a much larger portion of the costs.

I have no idea. I wish it was more in line of what the DNA database costs but I am no expert on that. I can only go by what the Auditor says.

Well, if you want I can post references giving the cost of running similar-sized databases.

The price list for an Oracle enterprise liscence is a little under 50,000. (That's for companies... governemets get a discount). The cost of a Dell server is around $1-3000. (Lets assume $3000). Might want to use RAID storage, so lets be generous and add an extra $1000. Lets also be generous and assume you want a second box to have a testing environtment. So, you're talking about less than $150,000 for the database and liscensces.

The fact is, hardware is cheap. Its the meat-ware that costs money. In the case of the registry, it includes people to process the forms, people to perform ad campaigns, etc.

http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/pricelists.html

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/xserv...799-not-999-655

Actually, even before the tories got into power there were significant problems with non-compliance (not to mention many errors in the database.)

Which the Tories have made no effort to correct.

Perhaps they realize that, with the nature of human beings, there will ALWAYS be problems with the registry.

The Liberals almost stood on their head with the registry, with cuts (or even eliminating) the registration fees, advertising campaigns, and amnesties, and they were never able to get better than 75% compliance. Apart from actually sending police into people's homes to count the guns themselves, how exactly do you think they could actually get 100% compliance?

This assumes that the Conservatives know better on this issue. Perhaps they produce their solid reasons for scrapping the registry.

Ummmm... just wondering... why exactly do you think the onus should be on the Conservatives to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the registry? The registry has never been proven to be effective either. In a situation where you have 2 options without any significant evidence either way, why should YOUR little assumption be given a higher priority?

However, the Tories are inconsistent. If they believe that people who don't submit to laws should be left alone, they should hold that view for pot use.

I've already admitted the conservatives are inconsistent in the idea of applying the concept of "freedom". Are you prepared to do the same and admit the Liberals (as well as the NDP/Bloc) also seek to limit freedoms, just differnet ones than the conservatives?

In addition, simply being 'willing to submit' does not make something a good law. (By that logic, were black people in the U.S. "willing to submit" to segregation laws before Rosa Parks?

I have seen no evidence from the police that they view that registry as a bad law.

Ummm... go back and look at the thread. I wasn't discussing what the police thought of the registry. I was referring to the comment you made that because many gun owners themselves were complying, then there was nothing wrong with the law.

(The exact phrase I was referring to was: Given the fear of violence people seem willing to submit to licensing and registration as long as it is convenient and cost effective.)

Since the Tories are trying to put this law through the Senate rather than the House, I am assuming they might be trying to score political points against the Senate rather than strike down the law. And since the Senate leader is not indicating a vote is forthcoming, I am wondering if the Tories know something from their own internal polling (which we know they do more of than previous governments).

I really have no idea why the tories are doing what they're doing.

Maybe they want to score points against the senate. Maybe they believe the registry is a bad idea and want to eliminate it, but realize they'd never get the votes in the house of commons to do so, and brought it into the senate in order to try to shift public opinion (and thus possibly the house of commons). Any opinions are just idle speculation.

Edited April 23, 2009 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

The RCMP said in 2006 that eliminating the registry would save $3 million a year. That is what they say it costs to solve complex murder cases. You can look that up if you want. It has been reported a few times.

Ummm... first of all, you do realize that those who make the claims are responsible for providing proof.

Hey, if you want to play that game, I have proof that the registry actually CAUSES the deaths of innoncent people. The RCMP said so themselves. You can look it up if you want.

Secondly, I'd make sure you actually handled statements like that very carefully, and you could be taking numbers out of context. The RCMP may have said that it saves them $3 million/year, but that may only be the direct cost to them... additional costs may be bourn by local/provincial police, or other departments.

Remember, the Liberals supposedly capped the cost of the registry at $25 million. Obviously the difference between 3 and 35 must be explained somewhere.

[Alta4ever]

The problem with this counter argument is in the fundamental difference between a gun and a car. The primary purpose of a car is transportation, that is its intended use and that's the primary reason they are manufactured; If you choose not to utilize it in that fashion that does not change the fundamental reason d’être of a car. Guns by contrast are intended to be used as a weapon, whether it is on animals or people it is still intended to be used as a weapon. Again if you choose not to use them this way that does not change their fundamental functionality.

Which one kills more people in Canada per year Dave? Thats right its a car! Are you going to require a registry on knives how about hunting bows, all of these are intended as a weapon why no the out rage. How about the person who receives marshal arts training? People who are willing to give up freedom for the illusion of safety are pathetic.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Alta4ever

[Alta4ever]

The police say it is valuable. I think it is presumptuous to assume they don't know what they are talking about.

I'm sure the police would also find it valuable to be able to search a residence without a warrant as well.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure the police would also find it valuable to be able to search a residence without a warrant as well.

I haven't heard them make that argument, have you?

[jdobbin]

Ummm... first of all, you do realize that those who make the claims are responsible for providing proof.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/616567

In 2006, the RCMP testified that eliminating rifle and shotgun registration would save less than $3 million a year, roughly the cost of a couple of complex murder investigations.

There's mine.

Hey, if you want to play that game, I have proof that the registry actually CAUSES the deaths of innoncent people. The RCMP said so themselves. You can look it up if you want.

Where's yours?

Secondly, I'd make sure you actually handled statements like that very carefully, and you could be taking numbers out of context. The RCMP may have said that it saves them $3 million/year, but that may only be the direct cost to them... additional costs may be bourn by local/provincial police, or other departments.

The RCMP wasn't just talking how much it saved them but overall numbers.

Remember, the Liberals supposedly capped the cost of the registry at $25 million. Obviously the difference between 3 and 35 must be explained somewhere.

I expect it might be in an additional costs to the police as was mentioned in testimony in 2006.