It seems the issue raises emotion -- my sense is that registering guns is a good idea, especially as it allows for some (limited) benefit to police in trying to resolve (or prevent) gun crimes. That said, there is a cost benefit analysis that needs to be considered and if the registration is too unpopular that is an important consideration -- a sensible, but unpopular, law ought not to be the law in a democracy.
Update:
Some political gifts just keep on giving. Among the most generous is the long-gun registry.
Parliament is to vote Wednesday on the future of a sound idea gone horribly wrong. Whatever the result, it will be win-win for Conservatives and lose-lose for public policy.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/720144--gun-registry-a-gift-that-keeps-on-giving-to-tories
I can appreciate that the mechanics of gun registration are a problem; guns are proper and legal and owners use them for many legitimate purposes so any registration should be transparent, respect privacy and not be onerous. But I cannot see why the registration of guns should raise such emotions. Guns are dangerous -- many dangerous items are registered so first responders know what they may face -- guns are no different.
Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA–Gun-control advocates say they are horrified and fearful that Canada's long-gun firearms registry is on the verge this week of being scrapped because the Conservatives may have enough support from the opposition to kill it.
Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, says her organization has been monitoring the progress of a Conservative private member's bill to abolish the registry and is now bracing for it to clear an important vote in the Commons on Wednesday.
"It is astonishing, just a few months after the opposition parties voted for a Bloc Québécois motion that reiterated support for the firearms registry and against efforts to repeal it, that many of the same MPs will support this Conservative bill," Cukier said Sunday.
"It not only eliminates the need to register rifles and shotguns but requires that the information contained on seven million registered guns be destroyed."
...
Liberal MP Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering) said he's not ready to concede defeat yet on killing the bill, but he acknowledged it's going to be tight and it means that a lot of pressure is going to be placed on individual Liberal MPs over the next few days to block the legislation.
"This is deeply concerning. The implications of dismantling the long-gun registry are very serious," Holland said, noting Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair was only last week hailing the registry as instrumental in the seizure of a 58 —guns. All the Conservatives need are between seven to 10 MPs from the opposition benches to support the legislation, and Comartin says he's reasonably certain Conservatives have secured that number from his own caucus and from Liberal ranks.
Wednesday's vote isn't a death warrant for the registry – it still has to be examined by a Commons committee, pass again in the Commons and then in the Senate.
...
25 comments:
Pretty strange how a government claiming to be tough on crime wants to eliminate the gun registry against the recommendations of law enforcement agencies nationwide.
s
Anon, that's because the registry does nothing to stop crime and the billions poured into it could fund thousands of police officers across the country.
You want to drive a car you have to pass a competency test and have the automobile licensed. Everybody accepts that. But licensing firearms represents some sort of unacceptable breach of civil liberties. Lifestyle. Tradition.
Law enforcement in Canada accesses the firearm registry every day. It’s a useful tool. Of course it is not perfect. But arguments against having a national gun registry don’t really hinge on the program’s usefulness. They hinge on emotional appeals. Mainly ridiculous.
Arguments against the gun registry largely hinge on the paranoia of gun owners and their supporters.
That the government is going to take over (begging the question, what is the government of Canada going to ‘take over’: Canada, it is silly), or take their guns away and force everyone in rural Ontario to get gay married to a cross-dressing flamenco dancer with nipple tassels named Freddie.
Yes registration should respect privacy and not be onerous, but such is often not the case.
Police have infringed on the privacy of many, and often go out of their way to make seizures even if they have to employ illegal searches and bend the truth to justify their actions. They are at times prone to take advantage of the lack of legal knowledge of a given targeted person and use false examples of powers of search invested in them. In short, many will do whatever is necessary to arbitrarily seize guns.
Once an action has taken place and guns have been seized, attempting to recover them is almost impossible and obtaining the necessary clearance to replace them is more than onerous.
Besides that, the legislation serves the areas with highly concentrated population and organized crime at the expense and aggravation of rural communities.
As example, Mark Holland's riding.
Why do we hate the registry? Let me count the ways, or at least one very pithy example: It WILL be used to confiscate firearms without - WITHOUT - compensation.
When the Liberal government decided to prohibit a whole range of pistols and revolvers in the early 90's they used the pre-existing handgun registry to do a very simple calculation - How can we ban the most handguns with the least amount of regulation? Their solution was to ban two calibers, .25 and .32, not because they were any more dangerous than any other caliber but simply because they were popular. They then banned barrels shorter than 105 mm which just happened to be a couple of millimeters more than the barrel average length of most handguns in the registry. In that way over half of the handguns in Canada were effectively banned, and completely without compensation. Sure, they grandfathered owners but that only delays the theft until those people die.
None of these were really aimed at making people safer, they were done on the recommendation of people like Wendy Cukier and the Coalition for Gun in order to remove as many guns as possible. Those regs meant that any veteran who brought home a Luger now had a prohibited firearm. They were indiscriminate, punitive, and underhanded in the extreme.
And that is not the only example of the two registries (handgun and long gun) lending help to our federal government in seizing lawfully owned property without compensation. When the government seizes your Chevy then come talk to me about how registering your car is like registering your gun.
Thanks Rat, you reminded me of the other thing I have expected for some time. That being the eventually passing of legislation to clean up on all those long guns that are duly registered and or to implement yearly licensing fees that are so prohibitive, that most will surrender the guns instead. Even the great magnanimous CPC offer to extend Amnesty, could be seen as a ploy to get more guns on the registry.
Amnesty; imagine. I should need Amnesty for what? For doing what I had done for 25 years, safely and without incident? One of the things that sticks in my Okie craw is that whenever a government decides it's time to go fight a war, their first move is to say, here kid, take this gun.
Rat,
You have a point but that goes to the use of the registry and not it's existence. Maybe the existence alone makes the use inevitable -- our American friends would say that is the case. I am not so sure. After all, you can use an axe to chop wood or to kill your neighbour.
My point really is that other than confiscation it's pretty much useless. I have relatives who are police officers so I am fully behind making their job safer. The registry simply doesn't do that. I have said this before, registering guns doesn't make cops safer, licensing gun owners probably does. A police officer may check the registry but no officer assumes a negative means no guns in the house. And as I explained previously, the registry is not able to tell an officer what guns I have on site because I can legally lend and borrow long guns. The fact that I am licensed should be enough information to caution an officer when dealing with me. If I fail to renew my license that can be used to check to see if I still have firearms, Like the city of Toronto is doing now. The registry doesn't help with any of this because it must always be assumed that I have other guns. The registry is only useful confiscation.
I find the anti-gun registry arguments completely dishonest.
The registry is a tool, one among many.
Of course it doesn't guarantee there are no guns in a house. But it can tell a police officer who is responding to a domestic, say, that the drunk beating his wife has a rifle in the house.
The more information the police have, the better. They are endlessly asked to go into risky situations and to not promote a tool which makes those situations a little bit less risky is criminal.
If the registry isn’t enforced, or if amnesties are endlessly offered, the less useful that tool becomes. The less likely police officers consulting the registry before responding to a domestic will be able to trust at all whether the registry is giving them accurate information.
This strikes me as the point of the last couple years of Conservative policy, making the registry useless. Probably not intentionally trying to make it harder for the police to do their jobs, but that is the result.
Of course no of this matters if your primary worry is based around a paranoid fantasy that the government is going to take your guns away, guns which you are going to need in the upcoming apocalyptical final battle, which will erupt when the government comes to take your guns away.
What is the argument against the gun registry? Why do we have license our vehicles (and in some jurisdictions, our pets) and not firearms?
"Of course no of this matters if your primary worry is based around a paranoid fantasy that the government is going to take your guns away, guns which you are going to need in the upcoming apocalyptical final battle, which will erupt when the government comes to take your guns away."
And you guys wonder why you can't buy a vote outside of Toronto?
WSAM - Look you ass, guns have already been seized, legally purchased guns, without compensation. That's not paranoia, that's just plain fact. As to the rest of your specious rant, I own guns because I hunt, and because I enjoy shooting at the range, and because I camp outside of the cushy trailer park settings you probably enjoy. You are such a bigoted moron! You can't fathom people who do things or enjoy things different from you. How incredibly big "L" Liberal of you.
The Gun Registry is similar to Kyoto. Bad Policy to make some people feel better without actually doing anything real.
Gun Registry Gun Violence in Urban Centres.
Kyoto and the environment.
Both examples of Billions being diverted that could have been used more wisely.
Gun Registry
http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com/2009/11/got-yourself-gun-registry.html
Kyoto
http://www.taxpayer.com/blog/02-11-2009/cost-climate-change
You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/the-consensus-is-fake/
I'm a bigot because I cannot see the logic in forcing people to license their automobiles, but not their firearms?
People all over Canada care about helping the police do their job better, not just in hated Toronto.
The registry registers guns, it doesn't ban them. That certain pistols have been banned is a different issue.
You're the bigot!!
Licensing automobiles was originally intended as a means to pay for related highway building and refurbishment. I don't see any correlation to the long gun registry.
If any of you have a valid arguement related to and substantiating denial of traditional rights and practices, which Mr. Morton I believe does have some legal standing still, I am all ears.
WSAM,
You don't speak for Canadians as a whole. Get over it.
Examples of gun confiscation in Canada:
From the NRA (yes, the NRA, it doesn't make it less true)
Canada: Where Gun Registration Equals Confiscation
"Let us not hear that (registration) is a prelude to the confiscation by the government of hunting rifles and shotguns," Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock said in Clintonesque tones on Feb. 16, 1995. "There is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms.
Ten months after Rock's remarks, Parliament passed the Canadian Firearms Act, and confiscating legally owned firearms is precisely the first thing the new law did. The first of three major provisions to go into effect banned private ownership of well more than half of Canada's legally registered pistols. Any handgun of .32 or .25 caliber and any handgun with a barrel length of 105 mm (4.14") or less--more than 553,000 legally registered handguns--became illegal with the stroke of a pen.
Pistol owners, of course, had been promised that registration would never lead to confiscation when Canada's national handgun registry was enacted in 1934. When the newer law passed five years ago, they were given three options: sell their handguns to any dealer or individual legally qualified to buy them (not a real option because the number of potential buyers was so small); render them inoperable; or surrender them to the government without compensation.
And then Paul Martin promised to ban all hand guns, and of course those who had duly registered their guns because they believed in following law were next in line for confiscation. So please don't tell me I'm "paranoid", you aren't paranoid if someone is actually out to get you. And that someone is the Liberal party of Canada.
RAT,
One clarification.
"you aren't paranoid if someone is actually out to get you. And that someone is the Liberal party of Canada."
It's not just the Liberal Party. It's those who use the issue as a contemporary political tool.
Rural and traditional orientated citizens are a minority. The fearful urban masses are a majority. The Political considerations are elementary.
I would like to point out that no argument has been offered as to why firearms shouldn't be registered.
You don't need a registry to ban handguns. You just ban them and then enforce that ban.
This is why you guys are paranoid.
The hint of legislation which might touch upon firearms and you get worked up into a lather about how the government is going to take your guns away.
Fools.
WSAM
The gun registry does nothing to help reduce gun violence, save lives, lower crime etc...
It was a Bad Policy and has NOTHING to do with public safety.
Their is NO study that shows law abiding hunters, farmers, collectors, range hobbyists paying a fee and filling out forms reduces crime.
What does making Old Macdonald on his farm sends a form in accomplish?
He won't drink, go postal and kill his family?
The Gun Registry does not "fix" that problem.
Instead of worrying about Old MacDonald on his farm look up where the use of Gun violence is acutally happening, who is using guns, and if those people are using "registered" guns.
Simple google seach. Best of luck on demanding we continue waste millions on a Billion dollar boondoggle on a bad policy.
Police like the gun registry because they feel it is a useful tool. It helps keep them safe.
But, let me get this straight.
You are arguing that the gun registry is useless because people who register their guns never have trouble with the police?
They never get drunk. Never hit their wives, or kids (or husbands). Never threaten their neighbours. Never get in a situation where it might be useful for the police to know if there is a gun in the house. Never. Ever.
That is what you are arguing? That legal gun owners are without sin? (Then, why is registering their guns such a big problem?)
That is the worst argument I have ever heard.
You fail.
WSAM
are you a victim of spam logic?
Read some history why it was introduced. Some urban police chiefs support it. Why?
Rank and File front lines don't. Can't find that study or proof?
A small number of urban gangs requires Old Macdonald to fill out forms annually about his guns to prevent himself going postal?
Can you explain how that annual form will stop Old Macdonald from committing murder or violence if he uses his registered gun is on a database? No so it can't stop violence (Check)
Brain still smarting?
You want to spend millions more so front line officers can check a database to see if Old Macdonald owns a gun when they respond to calls because the rank and file don't support it? (Twisted yet?)
How many calls does Old Macdonald on his farm get on an annual basis from the police? (10-20 calls?)
Where is the majority of violent crimes taking place with/without guns registered and unregistered?
Should the RCMP and local police ask the local gangbanger if they are sent their paperwork in?
I accept you logic may be a problem. The Long Gun Registy does NOTHING to reduce or stop violence.
So why do you want to spend millions on it?
A properly functioning gun registry allows the police to take the appropriate safety precautions when investigating Old McDonald’s wife’s screaming. Precautions they maybe would not take otherwise.
This is because when Old McDonald's neighbours, or kids, or whoever, calls the police because his wife is screaming the police will have the ability to check if 'Old McDonald' has a registered firearm, or not.
But, for you. Because a tool isn't prefect means it isn't useful.
Or, that criminals have illegal guns means we shouldn't register legal ones?
You are incoherent. Not to mention dishonest.
Furthermore, because of heavy opposition to the gun registry it has never been allowed to function properly.
Basically it hasn’t been enforced for the last three years and before that organized campaigns, like the phone jamming in New Brunswick, sought to make it unworkable.
Again: We require automobiles to be registered. Why not firearms?
"A properly functioning gun registry allows the police to take the appropriate safety precautions when investigating Old McDonald’s wife’s screaming. Precautions they maybe would not take otherwise."
It does no such thing. The registry cannot tell police if a gun is on his property, it can only warn police that a gun COULD be on the property. There are two flaws in your reasoning regarding the registry. The first is that a police officer always assumes that a gun COULD be on the property, so the registry does nothing to help a properly trained officer. You're idea that they would take more precautions if the registry contains a hit is ridiculously silly. Not only is the registry itself unreliable but, believe it or not unregistered guns do exist!
The second flaw is that the registry is unnecessary to indicate the potential presence of firearms. Every gun owner must still be licensed and the license alone is enough to indicate that guns COULD be present. The registry cannot add any more certainty to that. Your argument is fatally flawed, WSAM, try again.
WSAM,
Empirical evidence before the Policy was implemented or shortly afterward supports your Narnia theory?
Where is your study to show how a gun registry stops, reduced violence?
I am very familiar with "tools" I am currently engaged trying to explain the policy has ZERO to do with safety and 20 posts later NO one can make any link to make their case.
So again this "tool" is not supported by the front line police who respond to the calls.
Do you have any proof this tool like you is not useless or ineffective?
Need links on the millions wasted from a third party so you can ignore it too?
http://www.straight.com/article-268260/kevin-gaudet-free-vote-needed-end-canadas-wasteful-longgun-registry
This article shows exactly why the registry is useless:
"(Montreal Police Chief)Delorme described how, shortly after the 2007 Dawson College shooting, police received a report that another individual had been making similar threats.
The registry alerted officers that this person actually owned several guns - which officers seized, Delorme said."
I posted:
The Montreal police got a tip that someone was making threats and they credit the gun registry? Do they mean to say they wouldn't have followed up on the tip if the registry hadn't confirmed guns were there? Or would they have assumed that only registered guns were a threat and not searched for **gasp** UNREGISTERED guns? The registry did nothing that regular police work would have done anyway. Give credit to the citizen who tipped them off, not a useless gun registry."
But seriously, is this the incredibly important, in fact crucial use of the registry that WSAM is talking about? Paaa-thetic.
wsam,
You seem imperious to arguments against dumping a failed program.
1. the gun registry will not pass a cost/benefit analysis. That is why the Liberals never allowed one to be done and did their best to bury the real program costs.
2. Gun registration has not resulted in solving one crime in 75 years.
3. You can buy a vehicle and drive it on private property without a license. Gun owners cannot buy a gun without a license.
4. Police associations that support registration do so for political interests, like the Chiefs Assoc. that takes funding from a CFC contractor & from Tazer. Police from all services & ranks are on record as being against the long gun registry.
5. Even the Coalition for Gun Control was in the Liberal trough for nearly a half million $ to lobby the Liberals in favour of the Firearms Act.
6. For the past two years the majority of Canadians, including urbanites, have called for the end of the long gun registry.
7. The historic fact is Canada does have a culture of firearms ownership that is still practiced by millions of Canadians.
8. Cherry picking stats is fraudulent and yet that is what the anti-gunners do all the time. Look at the long term trends & ask about the source of the stats.
7. Registration has not stopped urban gun crime nor has it prevented gun crimes or made for a safer society.
8. Gun rights historically date to 1689 & those rights passed to Canada with the BNA Act of 1867.
9. Some provinces do not support the Firearms Act.
10. Gun registration has resulted in firearms confiscation. About 58% of registered handguns were listed as prohibited under the Firearms Act as well as many 'military' looking firearms. That is the same mindset as discriminating against ugly people. The Liberals are on record as intending to ban all handguns and all semi-automatic firearms (probably also pump actions). Registration only makes the banning of firearms owned by law abiding citizens easier for the state.
11. The long gun registry has split urban and rural Canadians by a Liberal policy that amounts to cultural cleansing.
12. Even Liberal MPs when not whipped voted for the end of the long gun registry.
It is interesting how some among us are so willing to give away someone else's culture using the familiar tools of first denying its legitimacy and then demonising it. Once politicians move to control citizens instead of criminals we can but wunder what other restrictions are in the wings. Historically Canada has not had a gun problem until a political party found that votes could be milked from the ignorant and the fearful.
Post a Comment