One more time Gun Registry

[myata]

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

And why would all the "cites" point to Gary's own publications, I wonder? (no, I don't care to sift through gazzilion of Gary's articles, I've better plans for my time).

In any case, all this is beyond the point. Effective gun control is impossible while keeping loose ownership for some firearms (some pretty dangerous ones at that, as Dawson College or any number of other cases should have taught us). If we're are to have gun control in this country, then registry should be continued and problems with it - fixed.

And if you don't want gun control here, then state it openly, as it is. What's it with switching the attention to unfortunate but all too common nonetheless example of government screw up? After all those ideas, they work so well down south, with greatest prison population in the world, and crime rates multiple of ours (which aren't anything like the smallest in the world in the first place, as one could readily see).

[Handsome Rob]

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)?

True. But non-restricted registration is far and away the largest task in front of them. Licensing is nearly stagnant, and the ration of non-restricted to restricted is massive. They don't get into specifics on cost because it would be so controversial, so I elected to use the 'best' figure available to support my argument.

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

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

Lie, damn lies, and statistics!

It's the same figure, I quoted per 100,000, you quoted the entire figure. It still isn't significant, in the scope of our crime rate.

No it does not. There's no readily available way for police to find out if licensee has multiple (numerous) firearms.

So many guns somehow represents a greater danger than a single gun?

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 such a case, the owner simply transfers the registration to another licensed individual.

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

Such programs are administered provincially. Vehicles are registered for insurance reasons, due to high rates of theft and the fact that automobiles kill far more people every year than guns could ever hope to. Apples & potatoes.

Driver licensing is exactly the same ideal as PAL/POL.

(other than to pull in the notion that gun ownership is a right).

Are you suggesting it isn't? Blunt & sharp objects kill far and away more people than guns do in violent crime every year, shall we ban them as well? Or just have a dangerous knife registry.

We cannot have meaningful gun control in this country and loose gun ownership, for that model look south:

What does the registry have to do with loose gun ownership? We have standards in place to deem whom is acceptable and not for gun ownership, licensing to track people, registration of the firearms most commonly used in crime, etc.

How does having a piece of paper accompanying less than 1 in every 2 guns, with a less than 50% chance of having accurate information on it, keep us any safer?

[Wild Bill]

We always seem to go at such problems from the wrong end. To stop the illegal use of guns, we try to control all the guns that are in the country!

This is just ridiculous! It's like trying to bail with a sieve. Obviously, no one wants to really control the problem. They just want the political brownie points for APPEARING to handle the problem!

If killing someone with a gun meant an automatic death sentence, or using a gun in the commission of a crime meant a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of ever getting out or paroled then the number of such crimes would drop off very quickly. Certainly, there would be no repeat offenders!

However, when that's not the real goal we shouldn't hold our breath...

[myata]

Gosh, isn't it weird how ideological blindfolds make people not notice even most obvious reality? Loose guns plus tough justice = higher crime rates. Obvious common sense (somebody goes crack; finds their gun; bang) confirmed by multiple facts. So if we wouldn't shell out crumbles for gun control now, are we going to spend billions building and running those prisons later? And with that investment of our hardearned bucks buy no less than higher crime rates as career criminals instructed in those jails lay their hands on readily available guns. And live in fear of crime, even violent gun crime. But ideology will be served. And we'll continue to elect our Conservatives as the staunchest supporters of police state (otherwise known as "small government"). And the cycle will go on; and on. For as long as we keep our brains on the shelf, right beside toothbrush.

[Alta4ever]

Gosh, isn't it weird how ideological blindfolds make people not notice even most obvious reality?

Ironic

[Wilber]

Ironic

Isn't it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

We always seem to go at such problems from the wrong end. To stop the illegal use of guns, we try to control all the guns that are in the country!

This is just ridiculous! It's like trying to bail with a sieve. Obviously, no one wants to really control the problem. They just want the political brownie points for APPEARING to handle the problem!

If killing someone with a gun meant an automatic death sentence, or using a gun in the commission of a crime meant a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of ever getting out or paroled then the number of such crimes would drop off very quickly. Certainly, there would be no repeat offenders!

However, when that's not the real goal we shouldn't hold our breath...

Why is it someone always comes up with the harsh penalties = less crimes crap? Look if it actually worked places with the death penalty and other harsh penalties would have less crime as is they tend to have more.

My link

[Wild Bill]

Why is it someone always comes up with the harsh penalties = less crimes crap? Look if it actually worked places with the death penalty and other harsh penalties would have less crime as is they tend to have more.

My link

And our present approach is working? I say again, to attack the problem at the supply end is an exercise in futility. Guns keep pouring in and criminals have no problem obtaining them. Only law-abiding citizens comply with gun registries.

What is the source of what seems to be a total aversion to penalizing criminals for the illegal use of firearms? The Liberals were ready to give a gun owner more time for not complying with the gun registry than for using one in a commission of a crime! If capital punishment is considered too severe I can understand someone making the argument, even if I don't happen to agree. What I can't understand is how we seem to have little or no penalties for illegal firearm use at all!

If harsher punishments have no effect on reducing crime then why have punishments at all? Why was the "broken window" approach so successful in New York at cleaning up the city that was so far down the road to lawlessness that it had become a cliche plot in movies?

Again, there seemed to be no trouble with harsher punishments for not registering a firearm!

The difference in approach between the real world and what we do in practice seems considerable. Our yardstick should be "whatever actually works!"

From my perspective, if a system doesn't actually make myself and my family safer IN REALITY then it is just so much political BS! We are already at a point where it seems much petty crime like home burglaries is not reported. It only drives up your home insurance premiums (sometimes to the point where you can't get insurance!) and rarely results in actually catching the burglars. What is the inevitable end to such a trend?

We're also at the point where if a woman is assaulted walking home late at night on a dark street we blame HER for using the street instead of trying to be better at making the streets safe!

Trying to solve the problems by controlling the supply of guns is about as practical as trying to control the supply of drugs. How well has that worked out?

Any bonehead can support or pass a law. It takes true intelligence to come up with a system that actually works! So far, brains seem to be lacking.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

And our present approach is working?

Steady and falling crime rates say yes.

[Handsome Rob]

What is the source of what seems to be a total aversion to penalizing criminals for the illegal use of firearms? The Liberals were ready to give a gun owner more time for not complying with the gun registry than for using one in a commission of a crime! If capital punishment is considered too severe I can understand someone making the argument, even if I don't happen to agree. What I can't understand is how we seem to have little or no penalties for illegal firearm use at all!

If harsher punishments have no effect on reducing crime then why have punishments at all? Why was the "broken window" approach so successful in New York at cleaning up the city that was so far down the road to lawlessness that it had become a cliche plot in movies?

I think that mandatory sentences are ridiculous, but then again so is our judicial system. There is no point in even talking about a registry until that is addressed.

I would like to see something along the lines of a, "30 strikes and your out," or some other figure much greater than 3.

I was reading something a while back, a massive Toronto raid, something like 80 people arrested with over 1000 prior's between them. That's just disgusting, at this point the judges should go to jail.

From my perspective, if a system doesn't actually make myself and my family safer IN REALITY then it is just so much political BS! We are already at a point where it seems much petty crime like home burglaries is not reported. It only drives up your home insurance premiums (sometimes to the point where you can't get insurance!) and rarely results in actually catching the burglars. What is the inevitable end to such a trend?

We're also at the point where if a woman is assaulted walking home late at night on a dark street we blame HER for using the street instead of trying to be better at making the streets safe!

Not that I'm a proponent of it, but the 'make my day law' has generated some considerable positive results in a lot of places. Don't think it's worth the cost though.

I think it's time to go back to the drawing board, and look at the root causes. The social, and economic factors that drive people to crime.

I view the crime rate as a gauge of our civilizations failure to provide legitimate opportunity.

Trying to solve the problems by controlling the supply of guns is about as practical as trying to control the supply of drugs. How well has that worked out?

So entirely true.

[Guest TrueMetis]

And our present approach is working?

The crime rate is ever decreasing so yes it is.

[Wilber]

The crime rate is ever decreasing so yes it is.

Yes BUT.

Which category do you think most involved the use of firearms that will never be registered no matter what?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes BUT.

Which category do you think most involved the use of firearms that will never be registered no matter what?

Which unfotunately has to do with gangs more than anything else. If they couldn't get guns they'd use something else, that's not to say illegal guns aren't a problem ,there are people in my town with freaking AK's which is something I don't like. (I don't get it there isn't a lot of crime and my town violent or otherwise what possible use could someone have for an AK?) A better solution would be to stop them from getting here at all along with something else to help decrease the amount of gangs.

[Alta4ever]

Which unfotunately has to do with gangs more than anything else. If they couldn't get guns they'd use something else, that's not to say illegal guns aren't a problem ,there are people in my town with freaking AK's which is something I don't like. (I don't get it there isn't a lot of crime and my town violent or otherwise what possible use could someone have for an AK?) A better solution would be to stop them from getting here at all along with something else to help decrease the amount of gangs.

An AK is not a legal weapon in canada.

[yarg]

The crime rate is ever decreasing so yes it is.

So, I registered for this forum when I saw this thread, and while i know some of you won't listen or don't care because this is only a political exercise for you, here goes anyway.

In 2003, there were 331 homicides in Canada. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-205-XIE/0000385-205-XIE.pdf

Of those, 25.1 percent were committed with firearms, 21.8 with knives, 8.8 with blunt objects and 26.3 percent were in the other category.

Of the 25.1 percent or 83 homicides, 13.3 percent were committed with rifles or shotguns, that's a total of 11 rifles/shotguns related homicides.

In 2003 11 rifle/shotgun murders were committed out of a total 331, or 3.3 percent.

Statistics from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx indicate that only 47 of the 2441 homicides in the years following the implementation of the registry were registered firearms, or 2 percent.

In 2003 knives were used to commit 21.8 percent of homicides, using the numbers above long guns only 3.3 percent, registered long guns as low as 2 percent, why is there no knife registry?

In 2003 blunt objects were used to commit 8.8 percent of homicides, using the numbers above long guns only 3.3 percent, registered long guns as low as 2 percent, why is there no blunt object registry?

In 2003 the "other" category was indicated in 26.3 percent of homicides, using the numbers above long guns only 3.3 percent, registered long guns as low as 2 percent, why is there no "other" registry?

It is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 97-98% of homicides in Canada are committed with something other than a rifle/shotgun, registered or not. Violent crime in Canada has been trending downward for 40 years, ironically since the gun registry was implemented the rate has not changed much at all, I don't blame the registry, but it hasn't helped either, of course anyone should be able to see that it never could.

There are many, many other points that are easy to refute, but it's been done and some people just won't listen, because this isn't about actually reducing crime, for some are just afraid, others think hunting is cruel, others see firearms as only a weapon of war, whatever it doesn't matter the reason, it just matters that they are wrong. If we really wanted to save lives, after all a life saved is a life saved right? That life could be saved through better health care, better policing, better roads, better education, you name it. Does anyone have any ideas? Surely we would trade 47 that never had any chance to be saved by the registry for hundreds that could have been saved in our hospitals or on our roads, or in any number of ways, that is the goal right, to save people? 2 billion to our hospitals..2 billion worth of policing...road improvements..it goes on and on and on.

So the registry is in place now and i like many gun owners are fully registered, even discounting the errors, which are many, some say we should keep it going, despite its ineffectiveness. The answer is no, the reason is that it is a bad law, it targets mostly peaceful people and it was only ever enacted to placate the ignorant masses, those who fear firearms but will put themselves at much more risk every day by the way they cross the street, the things they eat or how they drive. It is an irrational, emotional, illogical fear that spawned an equally useless law devised only to buy off those typically left wing voters. We, the adults, need to stop allowing ourselves to be dominated by emotional nonsensical people, the pendulum has swung too far, getting rid of this pathetic law will bring it back at least a little.

It has been mandatory to register hand guns in Canada since 1934, In 2003 79.5 percent of the firearms homicides were committed with hand guns, 79.5, how is that registry working out? There are an estimated 15,000,000 firearms in this country, possibly many more, so of those 83 were used in a homicide in 2003 11 were long guns, that is .00007 percent by my math.

Stop focusing on the tool, focus on the people. Please. Between 2003 and 2007 5193 Canadians were killed by drunk drivers that is 36 percent of the total of over 15,000 vehicle fatalities in those years, I hope all of you that are for the registry are staying off the roads, after all you are about 1800 percent more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a registered long gun, being logical and not wanting to be murdered by negligence, you shouldn't drive. But we have to drive you say, and I agree, but then I wonder how many of those 5193 and counting lives could have been saved by 2 billion + dollars, that should matter to you pro registry folks, but it likely won't.

[Handsome Rob]

An AK is not a legal weapon in canada.

Not entirely true. One can be grandfathered a license allowing Prohib 12(5), and there are lots of them around.

Utterly retarded, they should have collected them all and compensated. There is no legitimate reason for to own a fully automatic rifle.

[Guest TrueMetis]

So, I registered for this forum when I saw this thread, and while i know some of you won't listen or don't care because this is only a political exercise for you, here goes anyway.

I'm not for the registery or anti-gun. I for finding the root cause of a problem and dealing with it and anti-assault rifle and automatic weapons for the public. You want a rifle cool, you want an assualt rifle hell no.

[maple_leafs182]

Let's legalize drugs so gangs can no longer reap billions from an untaxed market. The less gangs there are the safer our streets will be.

[myata]

Focused and persistent targeting the hotspots of crime, gangs, organised crime groups; social development to prevent recruitment into crime; and gun control to reduce availability of weapons to pro crime, and severity of "everyday" violence are all the common sense approaches to dealing with the crime that's been shown to work over and over. And of course, CPC's "tough" approach is directly opposite: sabotage gun control, reduce social programs, and put more people into jails. If we buy into it, it will result in higher crime rate as 2 x 2(and cost us more too, through building and running those jails as the Conservative answer to investing into communities).

I'm not saying that everything is great with the system we have as I commented several times, nor with the gun registry in particular, but it's working and is bringing results in the continuously falling crime rates, and there's no rational reason to sabotage it and no reason to replace with something that so obviously does not work, other than for pure and sheer ideology.

Edited April 23, 2010 by myata

[Muddy]

So, I registered for this forum when I saw this thread, and while i know some of you won't listen or don't care because this is only a political exercise for you, here goes anyway.

In 2003, there were 331 homicides in Canada. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-205-XIE/0000385-205-XIE.pdf

Of those, 25.1 percent were committed with firearms, 21.8 with knives, 8.8 with blunt objects and 26.3 percent were in the other category.

Of the 25.1 percent or 83 homicides, 13.3 percent were committed with rifles or shotguns, that's a total of 11 rifles/shotguns related homicides.

In 2003 11 rifle/shotgun murders were committed out of a total 331, or 3.3 percent.

Statistics from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx indicate that only 47 of the 2441 homicides in the years following the implementation of the registry were registered firearms, or 2 percent.

In 2003 knives were used to commit 21.8 percent of homicides, using the numbers above long guns only 3.3 percent, registered long guns as low as 2 percent, why is there no knife registry?

In 2003 blunt objects were used to commit 8.8 percent of homicides, using the numbers above long guns only 3.3 percent, registered long guns as low as 2 percent, why is there no blunt object registry?

In 2003 the "other" category was indicated in 26.3 percent of homicides, using the numbers above long guns only 3.3 percent, registered long guns as low as 2 percent, why is there no "other" registry?

It is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 97-98% of homicides in Canada are committed with something other than a rifle/shotgun, registered or not. Violent crime in Canada has been trending downward for 40 years, ironically since the gun registry was implemented the rate has not changed much at all, I don't blame the registry, but it hasn't helped either, of course anyone should be able to see that it never could.

There are many, many other points that are easy to refute, but it's been done and some people just won't listen, because this isn't about actually reducing crime, for some are just afraid, others think hunting is cruel, others see firearms as only a weapon of war, whatever it doesn't matter the reason, it just matters that they are wrong. If we really wanted to save lives, after all a life saved is a life saved right? That life could be saved through better health care, better policing, better roads, better education, you name it. Does anyone have any ideas? Surely we would trade 47 that never had any chance to be saved by the registry for hundreds that could have been saved in our hospitals or on our roads, or in any number of ways, that is the goal right, to save people? 2 billion to our hospitals..2 billion worth of policing...road improvements..it goes on and on and on.

So the registry is in place now and i like many gun owners are fully registered, even discounting the errors, which are many, some say we should keep it going, despite its ineffectiveness. The answer is no, the reason is that it is a bad law, it targets mostly peaceful people and it was only ever enacted to placate the ignorant masses, those who fear firearms but will put themselves at much more risk every day by the way they cross the street, the things they eat or how they drive. It is an irrational, emotional, illogical fear that spawned an equally useless law devised only to buy off those typically left wing voters. We, the adults, need to stop allowing ourselves to be dominated by emotional nonsensical people, the pendulum has swung too far, getting rid of this pathetic law will bring it back at least a little.

It has been mandatory to register hand guns in Canada since 1934, In 2003 79.5 percent of the firearms homicides were committed with hand guns, 79.5, how is that registry working out? There are an estimated 15,000,000 firearms in this country, possibly many more, so of those 83 were used in a homicide in 2003 11 were long guns, that is .00007 percent by my math.

Stop focusing on the tool, focus on the people. Please. Between 2003 and 2007 5193 Canadians were killed by drunk drivers that is 36 percent of the total of over 15,000 vehicle fatalities in those years, I hope all of you that are for the registry are staying off the roads, after all you are about 1800 percent more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a registered long gun, being logical and not wanting to be murdered by negligence, you shouldn't drive. But we have to drive you say, and I agree, but then I wonder how many of those 5193 and counting lives could have been saved by 2 billion + dollars, that should matter to you pro registry folks, but it likely won't.

wow ! you sure did some home work! I hope everyone does a serious read on this first great post.

My old army buds and I used to go to the range and scare the heck out of targets with every known small arms known to man in the last hundred years.Yes ,even AK47`s! Nobody ever got hurt ,wounded or maimed. Non of us ever became criminals or used a fire arm for intimidating our fellow man. Why I wonder? Those who are inclined to use a fire arm in the hope of doing dastardly deeds will get a fire arm no matter a registry. I don`t own a gun ,but friends and neighbours do. Who cares! They are not criminals.First great post Yarg. Welcome to the fray!

[eyeball]

Yes BUT.

Which category do you think most involved the use of firearms that will never be registered no matter what?

The same category that Right-wing gun-nuts insist the government continue to waste billions of dollars trying to stamp out.

I realize the gun registry is also a waste of time and money but that won't stop me from cheering it on. The same with the prohibition and criminalization of tobacco. Bring it on. It's not spite it's the hope that the utter futility of it all will sink in and force some practical changes.

That said, I would like to see more controls on guns and especially ammo. The main reason is a particular stop sign I drive past every day that is full of bullet holes most likely from long-guns. I and my family not to mention hundreds of others including school buses have to drive through their trajectory every day. I've pointed them out to police but...I guess they're too busy wasting their time on more Right-wing pursuits.

Okay maybe there is just a bit of spite.

Edited April 23, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Which unfotunately has to do with gangs more than anything else. If they couldn't get guns they'd use something else, that's not to say illegal guns aren't a problem ,there are people in my town with freaking AK's which is something I don't like. (I don't get it there isn't a lot of crime and my town violent or otherwise what possible use could someone have for an AK?) A better solution would be to stop them from getting here at all along with something else to help decrease the amount of gangs.

Trying to keep US guns out of Canada is as futile as Americans trying to keep Canadian pot out of the US.

[Argus]

The crime rate is ever decreasing so yes it is.

The crime rate might or might not be decreasing. We don't actually know.

Even Statistics Canada carefully uses the term "police-reported crime" to distinguish what people report to police from what is actually going on. In a few months they will come out with the results of the 2009 Victimization survey. The last one, in 2004 presented quite a different result than that obtained from police-reported statistics.

[myata]

Isn't it.

Can't tell for sure though, are we? To understand irony, one should be able to at least see both sides of the story as well as facts behind it. If we're stuck in our ironset ideological mindset we'd only be able to craw the same old "tough justice .. crack" no matter what's going on out the windon.

[Argus]

Focused and persistent targeting the hotspots of crime, gangs, organised crime groups; social development to prevent recruitment into crime; and gun control to reduce availability of weapons to pro crime, and severity of "everyday" violence are all the common sense approaches to dealing with the crime that's been shown to work over and over.

You're a criminologist, are you?

Let's examine that phrase "gun control". Now, we can put thirty million dollars a year into registering long guns which are rarely misused anyway, or we can put that thirty million into the creation of, let's say a dozen small anti-gun teams, say 5 or 6 people in each team who specifically work major cities trying to obtain illegal guns, seeking out those selling them and trying to put them in prison.

Which of these two uses of our money do you believe is most likely to reduce the criminal use of firearms?

I know which one I judge to be most likely to work - and it isn't yours.

I'm not saying that everything is great with the system we have as I commented several times, nor with the gun registry in particular, but it's working and is bringing results in the continuously falling crime rates,

You have absolutely ZERO evidence to support that opinion. No one on your side of the political fence has ever been able to show that the gun registry has had the slightest influence on gun violence.