One more time Gun Registry

[Handsome Rob]

Gun control is a must in a safe society and registration of guns is a necessary and even critical component of it. (For once) I applaud Iggy's decision to support it, unquestionnably and without confusion or backtracking.

You're talking about a paper dream. We spent 2 billion dollars to register anywhere from 25% to 50% of the non-restricted firearms in the country, in a database plagued with errors, that is more often than not, unusable.

Using the conservative estimate of 50%, are you proposing that we spend another 2 billion to capture the other 50%?

As a firearms owner, I have no problem registering guns, think it's absurd that people would want to carry them on their person. Just to throw a figure out, I'd say 90% of the people I shoot with feel the same way.

(Edit for clarity: people I shoot with consists of young, and urban. I don't believe that the rural 50+ crowd will ever willingly register a rifle.)

That being said, think of the lives that 2 billion dollars could have saved. How many hospital beds could it keep open, how many social welfare programs could it have run, how many schools could it have funded?

The gun registry is a failure. It's akin to continually pouring money into a broken down car, that breaks down every time you take it out of your driveway.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Handsome Rob

[Dave_ON]

Support for the gun registry is highest in Ontario and Quebec. It's all about the votes and playing to your base.

This is exactly it. I don't think the LPC expected to make gains in the west, much like the CPC has given up on Quebec and Newfoundland.

[Born Free]

The gun registry is a failure. It's akin to continually pouring money into a broken down car, that breaks down every time you take it out of your driveway.

Its implementation was less than stellar certainly from a spending perspective but the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports the program..

[Wilber]

Double post

Edited April 21, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Like Rob, I own a gun, it is registered and registration is not a big deal to me other than thinking it is a waste of money and accomplishes little. It's an idealogical issue, always has been and will make very little real difference whether there is registration or not.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Wilber

[Handsome Rob]

Its implementation was less than stellar certainly from a spending perspective but the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports the program..

Well sure. If there's a 0.0001% chance it can help them catch a crook, why wouldn't they support it.

But as taxpayers, at what point do we declare something a complete waste of money. For many of us, volcano insurance represents a 0.0001% chance of doing us some good, shall we support that too?

[Born Free]

Like Rob, I own a gun, it is registered and registration is not a big deal to me other than thinking it is a waste of money and accomplishes little. It's an idealogical issue, always has been and will make very little real difference whether there is registration or not.

Better speak with the police chiefs then.

[myata]

You're talking about a paper dream. We spent 2 billion dollars to register anywhere from 25% to 50% of the non-restricted firearms in the country, in a database plagued with errors, that is more often than not, unusable.

Unfortunately, it seems the way our governments work that has nothing to do with the registry per se. Recall comparable examples of Conservatives IT boondoggle (over $1 billion) and Ontario's eHealth (close to billion).

Perhaps in a more competitive and transparent governance system it could be different. Here, the government in power is unchecked in its running of affairs and such affairs come to the light too late with huge cost overruns.

Using the conservative estimate of 50%, are you proposing that we spend another 2 billion to capture the other 50%?

You surely understand the notion of one time cost?

As a firearms owner, I have no problem registering guns, think it's absurd that people would want to carry them on their person. Just to throw a figure out, I'd say 90% of the people I shoot with feel the same way.

Looks like we are on the same boat here.

That being said, think of the lives that 2 billion dollars could have saved. How many hospital beds could it keep open, how many social welfare programs could it have run, how many schools could it have funded?

But they cannot be saved now, anymore than IT or eHealth moneys. The only thing that could happen is that along with hugely overrun (no question there) initial cost, we'll now bury all the benefits of the up and running system.

The gun registry is a failure. It's akin to continually pouring money into a broken down car, that breaks down every time you take it out of your driveway.

There're many registration system in this country (tax, birth, transportation), so there's no innate reason gun registration could not be made to work. Other than, granted, ideological dislike for any limits on guns.

Edited April 21, 2010 by myata

[wyly]

Of course we don`t dismantle all the laws. but we certainly should not continue down a failed road with laws that are not workable. The gun registry has proven itself to be useless. Four young fellas dead because of sending them into a gunfight unequipped with the fire power of a criminal who did not register his guns.

The same goes on the streets of the big cities where Cops are out gunned by the Gang Bangers who just have not got the message they should register their guns. 2 billion wasted and gun crime continues.Any other good ideas Allen Rock? Oh yah your busy at U of O making sure no one says anything nasty that may hurt some liberal feelings.

how many billions upon billions upon billions have been wasted on auto registry, I hate it.. it costs me money and time and it's proven useless in preventing bad guys from stealing cars and using stolen cars in crimes so let's scrap the auto registry...

Edited April 21, 2010 by wyly

[Wilber]

Better speak with the police chiefs then.

I know police officers. I'm not saying it has no value at all but it is very limited. It tells you whether someone who is recorded as living at a residence, or owns a particular vehicle, also owns a registered firearm. Nothing more. Given the option of having the registry or having it taken away and getting nothing back in return, of course they would say keep it. That doesn't make it a particularly worthwhile thing, just better than nothing.

[Handsome Rob]

Unfortunately, it seems the way our governments work that has nothing to do with the registry per se. Recall comparable examples of Conservatives IT boondoggle (over $1 billion) and Ontario's eHealth (close to billion).

Perhaps in a more competitive and transparent governance system it could be different. Here, the government in power is unchecked in its running of affairs and such affairs come to the light too late with huge cost overruns.

So if any government program is going to suffer from this, let's reduce the amount of frivolous nonsense that the government does. The long-gun registry is not alone in this.

You surely understand the notion of one time cost?

Again, if it cost that much money to voluntarily register less than half of the non-restricted firearms, how much exactly is it going to cost to capture the rest involuntarily? Surely this can't be called a one time cost.

But they cannot be saved now, anymore than IT or eHealth moneys. The only thing that could happen is that along with hugely overrun (no question there) initial cost, we'll now bury all the benefits of the up and running system.

It is not an up and running system. If you purchased a vehicle for $20,000, and proceeded to dump $400,000 into it to make it barely run, at which point does one give up and call it quits?

Even the authorities acknowledge it is plagued with problems. The simple idea of the thousands of registered glue guns & staple guns is basic evidence enough, without getting into things like modified firearms, addressing, sales without transfer of title and the TAN & so forth.

There're many registration system in this country (tax, birth, transportation), so there's no innate reason gun registration could not be made to work. Other than, granted, ideological dislike for any limits on guns.

Money. Cost VS benefit, something it seems no government employee has any concept of.

[bloodyminded]

Money. Cost VS benefit, something it seems no government employee has any concept of.

I understand what you're getting at, but it's inaccurate to talk about "government employees" as if they're all bureacrats wasting money. My lady works for the government, has no control over money, and is part of a skeleton crew that work harder than most private-sector employees. Her job is an example of tight-fisted government getting the most bang for the tax dollar.

Don't get me wrong: when people say what you did, I'm sure we all know what they mean.

Just sayin'....it can be done. (Contrary to privatization fundamentalists--for that's what they are, religious fundamentalists--who claim it is literally impossible for government to be efficient. Not so.)

Anyhoo, sorry for the small diversion.

[myata]

It is not an up and running system. If you purchased a vehicle for $20,000, and proceeded to dump $400,000 into it to make it barely run, at which point does one give up and call it quits?

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers (and analogies). There was another thread on this topic where I posted a link, the annual cost of running the registry is $25 million. It comes to about a half of snow removal budget in Calgary.

Even the authorities acknowledge it is plagued with problems. The simple idea of the thousands of registered glue guns & staple guns is basic evidence enough, without getting into things like modified firearms, addressing, sales without transfer of title and the TAN & so forth.

Our governments are routinely plagued with problems. It's their normal mode of operation. Again, nothing particular to firearm registry.

Money. Cost VS benefit, something it seems no government employee has any concept of.

The cost is known and it is negligeable on the government's scales of spending. The benefits are multiple and will expand over time, especially when this government finally stops compromising it in every way possible. For once, and over time it will create the notion in the public mindset that owning guns is not an automatic right for anybody and requires control and discipline.

[wyly]

I understand what you're getting at, but it's inaccurate to talk about "government employees" as if they're all bureacrats wasting money. My lady works for the government, has no control over money, and is part of a skeleton crew that work harder than most private-sector employees. Her job is an example of tight-fisted government getting the most bang for the tax dollar.

Don't get me wrong: when people say what you did, I'm sure we all know what they mean.

Just sayin'....it can be done. (Contrary to privatization fundamentalists--for that's what they are, religious fundamentalists--who claim it is literally impossible for government to be efficient. Not so.)

Anyhoo, sorry for the small diversion.

my wife works for the government as well,lot's of responsibility, under staffed, long hours, high stress, with no overtime pay, wages frozen... how many private-sector Canadians would be willing to do that?...I tell her to go work in the oil patch, higher wages for the same hours but she loves her job... Edited April 21, 2010 by wyly

[Handsome Rob]

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers (and analogies). There was another thread on this topic where I posted a link, the annual cost of running the registry is $25 million. It comes to about a half of snow removal budget in Calgary.

Our governments are routinely plagued with problems. It's their normal mode of operation. Again, nothing particular to firearm registry.

In 2005, the government provided 114 million in excess of what the CFC collected.

Can't find more recent financial statements.

The cost is known and it is negligeable on the government's scales of spending. The benefits are multiple and will expand over time, especially when this government finally stops compromising it in every way possible. For once, and over time it will create the notion in the public mindset that owning guns is not an automatic right for anybody and requires control and discipline.

What benefit?

2.4% of violent crime in Canada involving guns. Of that, handguns, which have nothing to do with the registry account for over 60% of that.

So using those stats, with a violent crime rate of 1,000/100,000 pop, 24 involve a gun. Of those 16 are handguns. This leaves us with 8 violent crimes using a non-restricted firearm, and with a registration rate of less than 50%, perhaps we might have 3 of them, if the records are accurate.

So a 2 billion dollar start up cost, 100 million dollar annual cost, to maybe assist in the conviction of 3 violent crimes out of every 1,000 per 100,000 pop.

This is supposed to be a benefit? I realise using the media to collect stats is ridiculous, but you get the picture?

The PAL/POL provides more than sufficient checks and balances when operated properly.

[bloodyminded]

In 2005, the government provided 114 million in excess of what the CFC collected.

Can't find more recent financial statements.

What benefit?

2.4% of violent crime in Canada involving guns. Of that, handguns, which have nothing to do with the registry account for over 60% of that.

So using those stats, with a violent crime rate of 1,000/100,000 pop, 24 involve a gun. Of those 16 are handguns. This leaves us with 8 violent crimes using a non-restricted firearm, and with a registration rate of less than 50%, perhaps we might have 3 of them, if the records are accurate.

So a 2 billion dollar start up cost, 100 million dollar annual cost, to maybe assist in the conviction of 3 violent crimes out of every 1,000 per 100,000 pop.

This is supposed to be a benefit? I realise using the media to collect stats is ridiculous, but you get the picture?

The PAL/POL provides more than sufficient checks and balances when operated properly.

I have to admit, this is a strong argument.

[Pliny]

a little morning trolling, hey Pliny?

I mentioned 3 associations... even if one were to accept your unsubstantiated claim that one of those associations receives federal funding, are you suggesting that the Harper Conservative government continues to fund that association... because it supports the gun registry? Is that your claim, Pliny?

No. That is not my claim. Get those neurons and synapses snapping and popping and take another stab at it, Waldo. You might need to take your meds for the proper chemical balance...er....you don't own a gun do you, Waldo?

[Argus]

Its implementation was less than stellar certainly from a spending perspective but the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports the program..

When I was young, the police were all in favour of closing down pool halls, video arcades, and basically - everything - where they had ever experienced the least trouble. They'd have closed down all the bars the cops didn't visit too if they'd had their way.

The gun registry costs them nothing. It's possible that in the rare, odd case, it might produce something of relevance to an investigation, so why not support it.

Personally, if I was solicitor general, I'd call all those supporting police organizations together, happily tell them that because of them I'm keeping the gun registry, but that I'm taking the funds for it directly out of their budgets. The RCMP would have to close down stations and lay off officers to pay for the tens of millions which would be their share, and local police agencies would lose whatever amount of grant money they were currently receiving in order to pay for the registry.

I wonder what would happen to their support for the registry then.

[Argus]

I know police officers. I'm not saying it has no value at all but it is very limited. It tells you whether someone who is recorded as living at a residence, or owns a particular vehicle, also owns a registered firearm. Nothing more. Given the option of having the registry or having it taken away and getting nothing back in return, of course they would say keep it. That doesn't make it a particularly worthwhile thing, just better than nothing.

They could get pretty much the same information from firearm permits. Oh they wouldn't know what kind of a long gun the person had but they'd know he had a permit to buy one. Most people who have such permits have guns.

I don't own a gun and don't hunt. If I had my way all guns would be banned except for the police. Hunters could keep their weapons in a storage facility on the edge of the city. But I hate this stupid, pointless, useless waste of money. Registering rifles and shotguns has almost no value, the system that does it is filled with holes, and the money could be vastly better spent elsewhere, like catching and prosecuting people selling hand guns to criminals.

[Argus]

Unfortunately, it seems the way our governments work that has nothing to do with the registry per se. Recall comparable examples of Conservatives IT boondoggle (over $1 billion) and Ontario's eHealth (close to billion).

Your desperate efforts at making government IT boondangles political is noted but pointless. There have been innumerable such money wasting efforts over the years from governments run by all political parties. Several departments in Ottawa were long noted for massively overcosted and failed IT schemes dating back through the Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau years, principally DND and Public Works.

You surely understand the notion of one time cost?

You think it's all set up and purring like a cat, ready to go now? From what I've read the current system is such a massive mess that if you actually wanted it to have any real utility you'd need to scrap it in its entirety and start over from scratch.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Your desperate efforts at making government IT boondangles political is noted but pointless. There have been innumerable such money wasting efforts over the years from governments run by all political parties. Several departments in Ottawa were long noted for massively overcosted and failed IT schemes dating back through the Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau years, principally DND and Public Works.

I have a somewhat amusing story about one such boondoggle. Years ago I worked for a small trade school which had a Unemployment Insurance (as EI was called in those days) contract. The Feds decided they needed to have a unified client management program that everyone could use (despite the fact that they would still be receiving paper reports, this was in the olden days). They hired a programmer who spent about two years and something of the neighborhood of $50,000 (we later heard total costs were well over $100,000) on a client management database program written in FoxPro. My boss and I were called to a meeting along with a bunch of other service providers where the programmer and a couple of civil servants were going to demonstrate the system and do some training.

The program, of course, was hopelessly buggy. It crashed back to DOS with severe errors, fields weren't properly saved, the whole thing was a bit of a debacle, particularly as the Feds weren't paying our travel time. Anyways, we drove in disbelief and disgust, and didn't hear anything about it for over a year... until suddenly one day, quite unannounced, a floppy disk came in the mail with the software and a half page of installation instructions. We hadn't heard anything, but figured they must have cleaned up the bugs. What became evident within minutes is that it was exactly the same, with the exact same bugs in the exact same places. We tried to play with it for a couple of weeks but returned to our own weird little system that used Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect and some form designer software.

Edited April 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

Your desperate efforts at making government IT boondangles political is noted but pointless.

No, nothing political, just an example from the most recent records. Of course, we, Conservatives would never dream of making such "political" statements.

You think it's all set up and purring like a cat, ready to go now? From what I've read the current system is such a massive mess that if you actually wanted it to have any real utility you'd need to scrap it in its entirety and start over from scratch.

Did you forget to mention what you were reading?

[Muddy]

But the final question is, does it save lives? Has it prevented crime? Does it not finance itself? Does it keep guns off our streets? If the answer is no ,then scrap the darn thing and let legal gun and rifle owners get on with their lives and enjoyment of their property.

[Argus]

No, nothing political, just an example from the most recent records. Of course, we, Conservatives would never dream of making such "political" statements.

Did you forget to mention what you were reading?

The following facts taken from government figures are available from Gary Breitkreuz' site, all with cites pointing to origins.

ERROR RATE IN FIREARMS REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS = 90% + 42%

NUMBER OF GUNS REGISTERED WITHOUT SERIAL NUMBERS = 728,046

# OF REGISTERED GUNS WITH SAME MAKE & SERIAL NUMBER = 222,911

NUMBER OF FOREIGN FIREARMS GOV’T HAS LOST TRACK OF = 288,688

KNOWN BREACHES OF POLICE CPIC SYSTEM 1995 to MAY 2003 = 306

# OF GUNS CONFISCATED - REVOKED LICENCES = GOV’T DOESN’T KNOW

# OF DUPLICATE FIREARMS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES ISSUED = 26,800

# REGISTERED WITH SAME SERIAL NUMBERS AS STOLEN GUNS = 250,305

# OF “STICKERS” ISSUED FOR GUNS WITHOUT SERIAL NUMBERS = 813,822

Gary Breitkreuz

[myata]

In 2005, the government provided 114 million in excess of what the CFC collected.

Can't find more recent financial statements.

And couldn't figure out that the budget is for the entire CFC that does much more than registration (licensing, imports both individual and commercial)?

What benefit?

The source has a lot of valuable information, let's just say that you got your numbers a bit wrong:

Handguns accounted for about two-thirds of all violent gun crime in 2006, with police services reporting 8,100 victims of such crime, the agency said in its report released Wednesday.

One third (firearms other than handguns) of 8,100 would amount to near 3,000 (2,700) victims, annually.

The PAL/POL provides more than sufficient checks and balances when operated properly.

No it does not. There's no readily available way for police to find out if licensee has multiple (numerous) firearms. This information may be kept somewhere in the local office but wouldn't be readily available to police in another town across the country. It's hard to verify that all guns are removed if the license is revoked.

In any case, we have two tier registration system for cars (owner and vehicle), and those are just innocent means of transportation, so I don't really see what the terrible whine is all about (other than to pull in the notion that gun ownership is a right). We cannot have meaningful gun control in this country and loose gun ownership, for that model look south:

"Canada's 2006 firearm homicide rate was nearly six times lower than the United States," the report said.

"But it was about three times higher than the rate in Australia and six times higher than in England and Wales. The rate of non-firearm homicide was fairly similar in all four countries."