Long Gun Registry Not what it Seems

[Keepitsimple]

Sorry for another thread on the subject but this adds some important information to the discussion. Finally we're getting some information that gets to the crux of exactly how much value the Long Gun Registry provides. I was aware that the registry was designed in a fashion where it is a "front end" to any other gun information like the names of people who actually have licenses - which as many people have stated - is the most important piece of information a policeman should have. If they've got a license, they've probably got a gun. In other words, to get ANY of this information, one has to make a query through the Long Gun Registration system. My question has always been - how often do police access the system to actually find out about Long Guns? Well....here's a quote from Peter Van Loan. You may choose to argue with his numbers to some degree but it certainly portrays an order of magnitude that puts things in perspective......and it's not surprising that getting this information is like pulling teeth - the hundreds of people who are responsible for maiantaining the Long Gun Registry are in fear of losing their jobs:

The minister went on the offensive with his own statistics, posted on the RCMP website, which show that only 2.4 per cent of the 10,000 daily police hits to the registry in 2008-2009 were queries about the registration or serial numbers of firearms.

The overwhelming majority of queries was for the names of gun owners — which Van Loan said will still be accessible if the long-gun registry is abolished because the requirement for owners to be licensed will remain intact.

"What you will see tomorrow in this report by the national firearms centre to justify the existence, is that the statistic I just gave you is not included," Van Loan told reporters on Parliament Hill. "Whoever put it together didn't put in the information that only 2.4 per cent of those 3.5 million queries were actually related to information about a long-gun registration number or the serial number of a gun."

Link: http://www.globaltvbc.com/world/Loan+criticizes+Mountie+report+registry/2189658/story.html

Edited November 6, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[OddSox]

As I understand it, the Gun Registry is linked with CPIC - so every time the police plug in your name to see if you have a record, it counts as a hit against the gun registry.

In fact, that figure of 2.4% of actual gun-related requests seems kind of high...

If you volunteer in your community, it is likely that you will be asked for a 'background check' -> CPIC. If you rent an apartment, you may be asked for permission to have a 'background check' done -> CPIC. If you are involved in a traffic infraction or accident -> CPIC. If you apply for a government job -> CPIC.

Actually, the whole issue of CPIC and the Gun Registry raises a few privacy issues as well. For example, if you apply for a civilian job with your local police department do they really need to know if you own a shotgun? Should the fact that you go deer-hunting every fall impact on your eligibility to join the Big-Brothers group?

http://www.cpic-cipc.ca/English/crfaq.cfm

Edited November 6, 2009 by OddSox

[M.Dancer]

CPIC. If you rent an apartment, you may be asked for permission to have a 'background check' done -> CPIC.

Police are not in the habit of doing background checks for either employers or landlords. In fact, I believe refusing to rent to someone because they have a record would be a violation of the civil rights.

[jdobbin]

Sorry for another thread on the subject but this adds some important information to the discussion. Finally we're getting some information that gets to the crux of exactly how much value the Long Gun Registry provides.

That Van Loan held for days before releasing. So much for open government.

And when it was released, he questioned the honesty of the supporters.

My question has always been - how often do police access the system to actually find out about Long Guns? Well....here's a quote from Peter Van Loan. You may choose to argue with his numbers to some degree but it certainly portrays an order of magnitude that puts things in perspective......and it's not surprising that getting this information is like pulling teeth - the hundreds of people who are responsible for maiantaining the Long Gun Registry are in fear of losing their jobs:

Kind of like pulling teeth to get the minister to release the information.

I have asked for a complete review of the gun registry. If the Tories believe the long gun part of the registry is useless, they surely think the same about the handgun registry. And if not, why not?

Edited November 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

I have asked for a complete review of the gun registry. If the Tories believe the long gun part of the registry is useless, they surely think the same about the handgun registry. And if not, why not?

And who are you to ask for that, where was the liberal government when I sent letters demanding they appoint the elected senators from Alberta, instead of a failed provincial leader?

Edited November 6, 2009 by Alta4ever

[Keepitsimple]

I have asked for a complete review of the gun registry. If the Tories believe the long gun part of the registry is useless, they surely think the same about the handgun registry. And if not, why not?

Your comment was childish yesterday - and it's childish today. Long guns have a useful purpose for farmers, hunters and isolated rural populations. These people don't use handguns and don't need them. On this issue, Conservatives listen to their constituents....and the constituents have no problem with the handgun registry - never did, never will.

[jdobbin]

Your comment was childish yesterday - and it's childish today. Long guns have a useful purpose for farmers, hunters and isolated rural populations. These people don't use handguns and don't need them. On this issue, Conservatives listen to their constituents....and the constituents have no problem with the handgun registry - never did, never will.

That is not question I asked and it childish for you to suggest I did. I said that if the Tory argument is that the registry is useless, it surely means that the handgun registry is useless as well. And if it isn't, why?

Explain it it me. All I hear is that registry is useless.

The way the Tories are framing this is that the police can't possibly feel assured or see it is as useful having a registry.

It is why I said that with a majority, the Tories can ditch the registry for handguns using the same argument about it being ineffective. Somehow you think this is childish to think that is even possible.

[OddSox]

Police are not in the habit of doing background checks for either employers or landlords. In fact, I believe refusing to rent to someone because they have a record would be a violation of the civil rights.

It may be a violation of your rights but you will have to convince the courts of that.

Police will provide a criminal background check to anyone who asks for it and pays the fee - all that is required is the permission of the person involved. It is done on a regular basis and is totally legal.

[EDIT] To be fair, the released results of that background check will probably not include the fact that you may or may not own a gun, but the CPIC inquiry will include that information as a matter of course.

Edited November 6, 2009 by OddSox

[jdobbin]

And who are you to ask for that, where was the liberal government when I sent letters demanding they appoint the elected senators from Alberta, instead of a failed provincial leader?

I asked people in the forum to consider it before simply drawing conclusions.

Your letters to the government about electing senators cannot be forced on any government. It is a constitutional discussion. I wish Tories would stop trying to bypass that approach.

[OddSox]

That is not question I asked and it childish for you to suggest I did. I said that if the Tory argument is that the registry is useless, it surely means that the handgun registry is useless as well. And if it isn't, why?

Explain it it me. All I hear is that registry is useless.

The way the Tories are framing this is that the police can't possibly feel assured or see it is as useful having a registry.

It is why I said that with a majority, the Tories can ditch the registry for handguns using the same argument about it being ineffective. Somehow you think this is childish to think that is even possible.

So what? They could ditch the handgun registry - but why would they? Nobody has asked for that, and I doubt that many people want that. The Tories want to be re-elected just like everybody else - they will do what their constituents want them to. Otherwise, the other party will get elected the next time and reinstate whatever registry you want...

But, shout 'secret agenda' from the rooftops as much as you want if it makes you happy.

[Shady]

All I hear is that registry is useless.

It's not only that it's useless, but a complete waste of resources. 2 billion dollars could have been better spent in other ways. As one who wants to nickle and dime the construction of any new prison, you should be on our side of the issue.

[jdobbin]

So what? They could ditch the handgun registry - but why would they? Nobody has asked for that, and I doubt that many people want that. The Tories want to be re-elected just like everybody else - they will do what their constituents want them to. Otherwise, the other party will get elected the next time and reinstate whatever registry you want...

But, shout 'secret agenda' from the rooftops as much as you want if it makes you happy.

I have said there is nothing secret about it. The Tories says the registry is useless. If it is, why keep it?

I personally think the issue should be studied but I was opposed to the idea of the registry in large part because I believed it was going to be expensive and not as useful as records on gun licences.

My view includes the handgun registry. I want to know if is truly and wholly useful.

I don't want to end either if they can be shown to be effective. However, my feeling is that neither of them is and that the focus should be on licencing.

[Shady]

But, shout 'secret agenda' from the rooftops as much as you want if it makes you happy.

It probably does make him happy, because that way he knows his Liberal check is in the mail. If he doesn't scream, he doesnt get paid.

[jdobbin]

It's not only that it's useless, but a complete waste of resources. 2 billion dollars could have been better spent in other ways. As one who wants to nickle and dime the construction of any new prison, you should be on our side of the issue.

Think I've said numerous times that I opposed the registry. Still, I'd like to see a full assessment of it before simply ending it.

My feeling is that if the long gun registry is useless and costly, it probably holds true for the hand gun one as well. But I wouldn't end it unless I was dead certain that a better approach could be made.

[Alta4ever]

I asked people in the forum to consider it before simply drawing conclusions.

Your letters to the government about electing senators cannot be forced on any government. It is a constitutional discussion. I wish Tories would stop trying to bypass that approach.

That wasn't the tories it was/is the province of Alberta wanting its wishes respected within this countries federal government.

[jdobbin]

It probably does make him happy, because that way he knows his Liberal check is in the mail. If he doesn't scream, he doesnt get paid.

Why is that you consistently act out? I don't believe you need a check to act the way you do. It is in your nature to personalize.

[Keepitsimple]

That is not question I asked and it childish for you to suggest I did. I said that if the Tory argument is that the registry is useless, it surely means that the handgun registry is useless as well. And if it isn't, why?

Explain it it me. All I hear is that registry is useless.

It's pretty simple Dobbin. As long as people go through the proper process of getting a license, and having it renewed....I don't care if people have a rifle or shotgun.....they have a useful purpose and cannot easily be concealed. I DO care if someone has a handgun and every single one should be registered.....and if they are not, the law is being broken. It has always been difficult to get licensed for a handgun and it should continue to be that way. Every single handgun should be accounted for. That's why the handgun registry must and should continue. There is not that need with long guns. As to how effective the handgun registry is with regards to immediate access and value by the police - I can't speak to that. I still maintain that the most important piece of information is whether an individual has a license to own a gun.....that means proceed with utmost caution.

[jdobbin]

That wasn't the tories it was/is the province of Alberta wanting its wishes respected within this countries federal government.

Unfortunately, the provinces don't get to decide their senators. If they do want that, they should ask for constitutional hearings instead of bypassing the process.

[OddSox]

It probably does make him happy, because that way he knows his Liberal check is in the mail. If he doesn't scream, he doesnt get paid.

LOL - next thing you know there will be "soldiers in the streets - with guns" along with all the other gun-happy maniacs!

[Alta4ever]

Unfortunately, the provinces don't get to decide their senators. If they do want that, they should ask for constitutional hearings instead of bypassing the process.

Maybe the Liberals should learn how to respect the wishes of others, maybe they would be elected to a few more ridings if they did.

[jdobbin]

Maybe the Liberals should learn how to respect the wishes of others, maybe they would be elected to a few more ridings if they did.

Maybe the Tories should respect the Constitution. They might win a majority if they did that.

[Shady]

Think I've said numerous times that I opposed the registry.

Why?

[jdobbin]

LOL - next thing you know there will be "soldiers in the streets - with guns" along with all the other gun-happy maniacs!

One again, why the personalizing? I don't believe I have attacked you.

I have asked why the handgun registry is useful if the Tories believe the registry in general cannot be relied on. I've said I believe the Tories will end that handgun registry if they have a majority using the argument that it is ineffective. I keep hearing that is impossible but have not heard a good reason why.

[jdobbin]

Why?

I believed it was going to be expensive to run a central database on guns when licences seemed more important for policing.

[Topaz]

The Tories would/have done everything and anything to get this passed so they can say they kept their word and its all about them and not about safety. Canadians have died by long guns and as far as the hand gun issue, the government needs to do a better job at the borders to keep them out. I did hear one conservative say in the debates, they people will still have to licence the guns and take a safety course to get that license so what the difference between registering and the license, they have the info and you have to pay.