Long Gun Registry

[Segnosaur]

The smaller the amount the government spends the less is the threshold of benefit at which the expenditure is non wasteful. For 4m a year, a fairly small amount of benefit from the registry is likely to exceed this cost.

Well, lets see... first of all, we still haven't seen that the registry has any benefit. Many of the statistics provided by the RCMP are questionable at best. (They point to the reduction in gun crimes/deaths in the past few years, but fail to recognize that these statistics were already on the decline before the gun registry was put in place. They point to the number of times the registry is accessed, but they fail to show how police actually rely on the information, since most accesses have nothing to do with situations involving potential gun violence. And when there are benefits, they tend to be related more to the possession and acquisition licenses than the gun registry.

So basically your assumption of a 'benefit' (even a small one) at this point seems to have little supporting evidence.

Secondly, lets consider what exactly could be done with that "small amount" of $4 million. A police officer earns around $70k/year (plus you have the cost of equipment, etc.) That $4 million could have been used to put another 40 police officers on the street. Heck, even if it didn't go to policing, that same money could have been used to hire another 50 or so MRI technicians (allowing MRI clinics to have longer hours, reducing wait times and potentially saving lives), or another 80 or so paramedics.

In terms of 'lost goodwill' between gun owners and the RCMP, what is the cost here? You think that gun owners will be less likely to help the RCMP in investigations because they have to register their guns?

Yes, that is my concern. (Well, either in current investigations, or in the future if the police ask for "other" concessions from the public.)

I'm sure plenty of goodwill was 'lost' when people first had to start wearing seatbelts too.

I'm sure that happened. But unlike the registry, seatbelts do save lives. So far, the statics provided by the RCMP regarding the gun registry have not demonstrated any such value.

 

[lopeyschools]

The smaller the amount the government spends the less is the threshold of benefit at which the expenditure is non wasteful. For 4m a year, a fairly small amount of benefit from the registry is likely to exceed this cost.

In terms of 'lost goodwill' between gun owners and the RCMP, what is the cost here? You think that gun owners will be less likely to help the RCMP in investigations because they have to register their guns?

I'm sure plenty of goodwill was 'lost' when people first had to start wearing seatbelts too.

I'm too young to remember or be to bitterly jaded, but speaking to older firearms owners I've
gathered the impression that many feel demonized by the media and marginalized by police. Apparently upon implementation the creators of the registry promised that the registry would never lead to confiscation without
due process. Yet, it was only a couple elections ago when Mr. Martin promised a complete handgun ban(likely without compensation) upon electoral victory. Oddly enough, the people who tend towards shooting sports are often the same people who graviate towards police or military careers.

The 4 million figure is suspect IMHO, I recall Sheila Fraser's audit had difficulty following all the money shuffled around the firearms program. There is evidence that the registry is causing harm in other ways as well. For example it appears the registry has been hacked on a few
occasions and used as a shopping list for crimnals.

I don't understand how the registry aids police as much as they say it does. If the vast majority of firearm homicides are committed with unregistered weapons then how does checking the registry help determine anything? When has registering anything prevented it's misuse? Registring cars doesn't prevent drinking and driving. If the police arrive at a domestic disturbance and one or more individual has registered firearms do the police simply stop checking after they've located the registered firearms?

 

[Beerina]

I find it odd that any NDP member would oppose something like the long-gun registry. It would seem a policy that is right up their alley.

I also find the opposition to the long-gun regsitry hard to fathom. I mean, is filling out some paperwork and paying a fee really that much of an egregious violation of your freedom? Is it any worse than what one has to do to get one's driver's licence or licence plates?

So...to you a registry is no more than a way for government to suck a little bit more cash out of people?

What about it providing the government with a list of people they can go round up at a moment's notice, "if necessary"?


I'm confused at your position. The first is idiotic, and the second, dangerous.

 

[foxholeatheist]

<snip>

I believe licensing is a practical and effective method of firearms control. It forbids anyone with a crimnal record from legally obtaining a firearm and reduces firearm deaths by complusory training. You also know that everyone at the firing range with a PAL has been cleared by the government, so IMHO generally speaking, firearms owners are more trustworthy.

<snip>

Do you have any hard figures for the statement "reduces firearm deaths by complusory training."? Which firearm deaths? Accidents? Criminal? Both? Will compulsory training discourage criminals?

Also "so IMHO generally speaking, firearms owners are more trustworthy" I would change to "so IMHO generally speaking, law abiding firearms owners are more trustworthy". Criminals may or may not feel obliged to follow the same rules and regulations that the lawful would. The sheer amount of guns in Mexico, a country that has very Draconian gun laws, proves again that criminal elements of society will be able to get a hold of guns quite easily.

All this seems to be more hassle for the law abiding with no real effect on criminals.

 

[lopeyschools]

The report can be found at the following address:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/eval-eng.pdf

I believe the registry costs are listed on Page 57-58 on the report, where they give the total operating cost of the firearms program to be $76.5 million, of which the registry is between $1 and 4 million for the fiscal year 2008/2009..

I am a little curious about the figures... The percentage attributable to the registry is only shown for the last year. However, the total cost of the firearms program seems to vary widely, in some cases rising and falling by over $10 million a year. Why is that happening? Why were we not given the breakdown for the direct registry cost in previous fiscal years? Did they do some sort of financial manipulation to make the registry look like it cost less for that one year?

I'm confused. I also see a graph on page 13 which states registration costs were 22.3 million. Which number is the right one?

Do you have any hard figures for the statement "reduces firearm deaths by complusory training."? Which firearm deaths? Accidents? Criminal? Both? Will compulsory training discourage criminals?

Also "so IMHO generally speaking, firearms owners are more trustworthy" I would change to "so IMHO generally speaking, law abiding firearms owners are more trustworthy". Criminals may or may not feel obliged to follow the same rules and regulations that the lawful would. The sheer amount of guns in Mexico, a country that has very Draconian gun laws, proves again that criminal elements of society will be able to get a hold of guns quite easily.

All this seems to be more hassle for the law abiding with no real effect on criminals.

I've been searching for about two hours now and I can't seem to find that report on stats can I found before. Hmmm, so I guess the answer is no. I don't have any hard numbers and if I can't present them I will retract that statement

Of course you are right. I was implying "law-abiding" firearm owners. I haven't managed to meet any "non law-abiding" firearm owners, thankfully.

 

[Corsair 115]

So...to you a registry is no more than a way for government to suck a little bit more cash out of people?

What about it providing the government with a list of people they can go round up at a moment's notice, "if necessary"?


I'm confused at your position. The first is idiotic, and the second, dangerous.

I'm confused by your confusion. Many of the opponents of the long run registry appear to do so purely on the basis of ideology. Ideologically-based arguments carry no weight with me, I'm a pragmatist first and foremost. If the registry works, provides a service that law enforcement finds useful, is able to function at a reasonable cost, and the forms and fees required of the registrant are not onerous, then I fail to see the vitriol that some of the opponents direct at the registry is either rational or deserved.

I also see a false binary choice being offered: either scrap the registry altogether or keep it as it is. Why not a third choice: keep the registry (since several major police associations have deemed it useful) and then reform those aspects which opponents find troublesome (e.g. streamline the paperwork involved, reduce the fees, involved, etc.).

 

[Segnosaur]

I believe the registry costs are listed on Page 57-58 on the report, where they give the total operating cost of the firearms program to be $76.5 million, of which the registry is between $1 and 4 million for the fiscal year 2008/2009..

I am a little curious about the figures... The percentage attributable to the registry is only shown for the last year. However, the total cost of the firearms program seems to vary widely, in some cases rising and falling by over $10 million a year. Why is that happening? Why were we not given the breakdown for the direct registry cost in previous fiscal years? Did they do some sort of financial manipulation to make the registry look like it cost less for that one year?

I'm confused. I also see a graph on page 13 which states registration costs were 22.3 million. Which number is the right one?

Good question... in the table that gives the '$4 million' price tag for the registry, they have a footnote suggesting that that would be the cost savings from "dismantling the registry". Perhaps the $22 million price tag was for the registration of long guns, plus the cost of dealing with acquisition licenses. (Or it could be that they are including the costs of handling hand gun registrations.). So, even if you aren't registering the long guns, they wouldn't necessarily eliminate all control measures, and they'd keep at least some people and computers around to register handguns and deal with owner licenses.

But then, that's just a guess.

Another reason to be a bit wary of the "$4 million" claim is that on page 56 they mention scheduled "upgrades" for the fiscal year 2009/10. So, its possible that the $4million is a "low point", and when modifications are made that cost will go up. (I don't think the report goes into detail about what's involved in those upgrades.) And, of course, pointing to the costs when they're at a low point makes them look good...

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm confused by your confusion. Many of the opponents of the long run registry appear to do so purely on the basis of ideology. Ideologically-based arguments carry no weight with me, I'm a pragmatist first and foremost. If the registry works...

Which of course, hasn't been established... As has been pointed out before, gun crime was already on the decline before the registry was implemented (and also declined in the U.S. in the same time period). Yet somehow the report seems to suggest the registry was the cause.

... provides a service that law enforcement finds useful...

Again, something that hasn't been established. As has been pointed out, most of the 'hits' on the registry have nothing to do with "violent situations", and while the RCMP report suggests a majority of officers favor the registry, their survey was self selecting and not scientific (and was contradicted by other surveys that showed most officers found the registry of no use)

...is able to function at a reasonable cost...

As I have pointed out, the supposed $4 million cost could be used to hire dozens of additional police men, or hire more MRI technicians or paramedics... all of which have the potential to save lives (or at least improve the quality of lives here).

...and the forms and fees required of the registrant are not onerous...

Define "onerous". What would you consider to be an "onerous" fee? $10? $100? Why are you assuming everyone has the financial resources to handle that?

...then I fail to see the vitriol that some of the opponents direct at the registry is either rational or deserved.

Well, do you consider it wrong if someone believes in maintaining privacy, even if to you it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"?

And do you consider it wrong if someone has concerns about the security of their data, even though it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"? (Remember, one of the previous web masters has pointed out that there were serious security issues, and a copy of the registry was given to a private company.)

And did you know that at the same time they brought in the registry, they also changed the status of some more exotic weapons to make them illegal to own, son anyone who owned those weapons had to either turn them in, or disable them (thus reducing the value to the owner). Is it wrong to have concerns that they might do the same thing in the future with other currently acceptable weapons?

I also see a false binary choice being offered: either scrap the registry altogether or keep it as it is. Why not a third choice: keep the registry (since several major police associations have deemed it useful) and then reform those aspects which opponents find troublesome (e.g. streamline the paperwork involved, reduce the fees, involved, etc.).

You do realize that by reducing the fees, you end up costing the average taxpayer more. I have no firearms myself, yet I don't want to see my tax money going to supporting a useless registry.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Something else I read in a blog or newspaper the other day:

THe registry's utility extends beyond that of keeping police safe when responding to calls; it is also useful in investigations of crimes.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Well, do you consider it wrong if someone believes in maintaining privacy, even if to you it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"?

And do you consider it wrong if someone has concerns about the security of their data, even though it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"? (Remember, one of the previous web masters has pointed out that there were serious security issues, and a copy of the registry was given to a private company.)

Did they do nothing to 'mask' the data that was given away? Link please.

I don't really buy the privacy argument. Licensees are already catalogued.


And did you know that at the same time they brought in the registry, they also changed the status of some more exotic weapons to make them illegal to own, son anyone who owned those weapons had to either turn them in, or disable them (thus reducing the value to the owner). Is it wrong to have concerns that they might do the same thing in the future with other currently acceptable weapons?
[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with this whatsoever. In a democratic system people can decide they feel that the possession of certain weapons should be prohibited or limited to the state. I don't know of any country where a private citizen owning a functional and armed T-90 MBT is allowed. I think this is good.

 

[Segnosaur]

Something else I read in a blog or newspaper the other day:

THe registry's utility extends beyond that of keeping police safe when responding to calls; it is also useful in investigations of crimes.

But you have to ask yourself... how exactly is it supposed to do that?

After all, I rather suspect most "criminals" probably won't bother having an acquisition license in the first place, so tracking down individual guns will be of limited benefit. (And I believe sellers have to keep records of who they sold guns to, so the police already have a method to verify if a criminal purchased a gun legally.) It may help them trace the source of stolen guns if found in the possession of someone found breaking and entering; however, the victim in that case probably already filed a police report (which should have the information needed to identify the firearm.)

Yeah, I'm sure its possible to create hypothetical situations where the registry has some value, but in a lot of situations any data provided by the registry is available from other sources.

Well, do you consider it wrong if someone believes in maintaining privacy, even if to you it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"?

And do you consider it wrong if someone has concerns about the security of their data, even though it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"? (Remember, one of the previous web masters has pointed out that there were serious security issues, and a copy of the registry was given to a private company.)

Did they do nothing to 'mask' the data that was given away? Link please.

The RCMP gave a copy of the data to a polling firm, in order to survey how firearms were being used. The case was investigated by the privacy commissioner (who, I admit, did not find a problem with the misuse of data). However, the RCMP did not clear the release of the data with the public safety minister, and such incidents don't provide a lot of confidence that our data is being properly safeguarded.

http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Pri...ts+down+registry+complaint/2487525/story.html

As for the security of the database:
critics, including John Hicks, former Canadian Firearms Centre (CFC) Webmaster, say the registry is profoundly flawed. Adding long guns and rifles to the registry caused costs to soar. And, until recently, criminal organizations could easily hack into the registry logs. "Basically," said Hicks, "a 16-year-old could have broken into that system in a heartbeat." (from: http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/05/04/GunningSmugglers/)

Granted, the statement by Hicks is more or less an opinion; however, he was involved with the registry at one point, so his ideas should have some relevance.

And did you know that at the same time they brought in the registry, they also changed the status of some more exotic weapons to make them illegal to own, son anyone who owned those weapons had to either turn them in, or disable them (thus reducing the value to the owner). Is it wrong to have concerns that they might do the same thing in the future with other currently acceptable weapons?

I have no problem with this whatsoever. In a democratic system people can decide they feel that the possession of certain weapons should be prohibited or limited to the state.

Fine if you feel that way, but do you at least acknowledge that the concerns of gun owners (registration eventually leads to confiscation) might have at least some basis? After all, you had no problem with the democratic government taking away some guns... what would stop you (or people like you) from demanding all guns be banned?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

But you have to ask yourself... how exactly is it supposed to do that?...Yeah, I'm sure its possible to create hypothetical situations where the registry has some value, but in a lot of situations any data provided by the registry is available from other sources.

Shotgun gets stolen, is subsequently used in armed robbery and tossed out window of getaway car. Cops find shotgun, trace it to burgled house, evidence etc. and so on. IANAD. It's just a faster way of doing the things you outlined in your post.

The RCMP gave a copy of the data to a polling firm, in order to survey how firearms were being used. The case was investigated by the privacy commissioner (who, I admit, did not find a problem with the misuse of data). However, the RCMP did not clear the release of the data with the public safety minister, and such incidents don't provide a lot of confidence that our data is being properly safeguarded.

If the privacy commissioner didn't find a problem with the release of the data, then I will bet up to and including 126$ that the data was masked thereby making tracing firearms to specific owners impossible for the recipient.

Fine if you feel that way, but do you at least acknowledge that the concerns of gun owners (registration eventually leads to confiscation) might have at least some basis? After all, you had no problem with the democratic government taking away some guns... what would stop you (or people like you) from demanding all guns be banned?

Nope and nothing.

If the Canadian people vote that we don't want guns in Canada then kiss guns goodbye. It's not a constitutional right here and so it is subject to the democratic process. If people don't like it they can move south.

Now, that being said, I have no problem with gun ownership for recreation. I can't wait to get my PAL and a rifle. When I do, I'll make sure to register it and keep it under lock and key, ammo stored separately, etc. I think these are very reasonable constraints on firearm ownership in a modern society.

 

[Segnosaur]

But you have to ask yourself... how exactly is it supposed to do that?...Yeah, I'm sure its possible to create hypothetical situations where the registry has some value, but in a lot of situations any data provided by the registry is available from other sources.

Shotgun gets stolen, is subsequently used in armed robbery and tossed out window of getaway car. Cops find shotgun, trace it to burgled house, evidence etc. and so on. IANAD. It's just a faster way of doing the things you outlined in your post.

But as I pointed out, information about that stolen shotgun would probably exist in the form of a crime report from the original owner of the shotgun. So, the police have to look at one database (the "outstanding crimes" database) instead of another (the gun registry).... Is it really worth $4 million a year just to go to one database instead of the other?

If the privacy commissioner didn't find a problem with the release of the data, then I will bet up to and including 126$ that the data was masked thereby making tracing firearms to specific owners impossible for the recipient.

Actually, the data was not masked by the RCMP. It was eventually masked by the polling firm though.

From: http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/pa/2009-10/pa_20091216_e.cfm
The investigation confirmed that the RCMP hand-delivered a master CD to EKOS which contained a subset of personal information relating to approximately 37,495 licensees from the Canadian Firearms Database.
...
Our review of the master CD confirmed that it contained personal information about licensees including basic demographic information and information relating to the status of their firearms.

Like I said, the privacy commissioner did clear them, but they weren't cleared because the data the RCMP gave was 'clean'. It wasn't. The RCMP gave information on not only the people, but the guns they owned. The privacy commissioner just found that individuals working on the project for the private company had proper security clearance, destroyed data after the project was done, etc.

do you at least acknowledge that the concerns of gun owners (registration eventually leads to confiscation) might have at least some basis? After all, you had no problem with the democratic government taking away some guns... what would stop you (or people like you) from demanding all guns be banned?

Nope and nothing.

Wait a second... when you said 'nope', does that mean you don't acknowledge a cause for worry (about guns eventually being confiscated)?

How can you claim that, when right after you say you have no problem with a democratic government removing guns? Seems rather disconnected.

If the Canadian people vote that we don't want guns in Canada then kiss guns goodbye. It's not a constitutional right here and so it is subject to the democratic process.

You're right, its not a constitutional right. But you are assuming that only those rights that appear in the constitution are worth protecting.

I've complained about the Canadian constitution many times before (notwithstanding clause, lack of property rights, etc.) I think the rights we have go beyond those as defined by the constitution.

 

[Corsair 115]

Which of course, hasn't been established... As has been pointed out before, gun crime was already on the decline before the registry was implemented (and also declined in the U.S. in the same time period). Yet somehow the report seems to suggest the registry was the cause.

Again, something that hasn't been established. As has been pointed out, most of the 'hits' on the registry have nothing to do with "violent situations", and while the RCMP report suggests a majority of officers favor the registry, their survey was self selecting and not scientific (and was contradicted by other surveys that showed most officers found the registry of no use)


As I have pointed out, the supposed $4 million cost could be used to hire dozens of additional police men, or hire more MRI technicians or paramedics... all of which have the potential to save lives (or at least improve the quality of lives here).

Which is why I started my statement with "if".

Oh, and as to the cost, how about the government spending over $1 billion dollars on the G7/G20 security arrangements, including a million bucks on a fake lake for foreign reporters? Surely that spending was at least as egregious a waste of money as the long gun registry is claimed to be.

Define "onerous". What would you consider to be an "onerous" fee? $10? $100?

My definition is irrelevant. I'm asking those who oppose the registry to provide a clear and rational description of why the current paperwork and fees constitute an unreasonable imposition.

Well, do you consider it wrong if someone believes in maintaining privacy, even if to you it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"?

And do you consider it wrong if someone has concerns about the security of their data, even though it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"? (Remember, one of the previous web masters has pointed out that there were serious security issues, and a copy of the registry was given to a private company.)

The problem with that line of argument is that it easily applies to many other areas. Yet those other areas don't draw anywhere near the same comment or ire. Why is that?

Moreover, in terms of security of data issues, why again is the consequnece of such matters the choice must be to scrap the registry altogether? Why not keep it but reform it to make it better?

You do realize that by reducing the fees, you end up costing the average taxpayer more. I have no firearms myself, yet I don't want to see my tax money going to supporting a useless registry.

Has it been proven to be useless yet? The Association of the Chiefs of Police have stated they find it useful.

In terms of fees, which way do you want it? Earlier you made the point that not everyone may be able to afford the fee to register their weapon, but now you're worried about lowering the fees will cost more to taxpayers. (As a practical note, dispersing the cost of the registry onto the entire population of the country would surely mean the amount paid for by each person would be trivial as compared to having the cost of the registry carried only by those with weapons to register.)

Also, I would think over a billion dollars on G7/G20 security matters and fake lakes and whatnot would be far more offensive.

 

[FreshHat]

Stephen Harper is a very frustrated man.He's been the Prime Minister of Canada now for nearly five years, yet his Conservative Reform Alliance Party (CRAP) has never held a majority of seats in parliament, so his attempts at implementing his right wing agenda have been hamstrung.

He's using the abolishment of the long gun registry and the long census form as ideological bludgeons, like a mean drunk swinging a bar stool in a tavern brawl.

It just occurred to me at this moment that Harpo seems to have an abhorrence to "long" things. Perhaps a bit of repressed envy?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Our review of the master CD confirmed that it contained personal information about licensees including basic demographic information and information relating to the status of their firearms

From your description it sounds masked to me i.e. you couldn't use it to trace a firearm to a specific person. But I could be wrong. If it was truly unmasked data then I would have expected them to say 'names and addresses' rather than 'demographic data'.

Wait a second... when you said 'nope', does that mean you don't acknowledge a cause for worry (about guns eventually being confiscated)?

No, I don't think that outlawing guns is cause for worry, for two reasons:
1) it isn't likely to happen
2) it wouldn't be a disaster even if it did happen

You're right, its not a constitutional right. But you are assuming that only those rights that appear in the constitution are worth protecting.

I've complained about the Canadian constitution many times before (notwithstanding clause, lack of property rights, etc.) I think the rights we have go beyond those as defined by the constitution.

Property rights are the least of my concerns when it comes to protection of rights. Again, two reasons:

1) people with property tend to have inordinate indirect political power; people without property are the ones whose rights and wellbeing need safeguarding (i.e. I'm not too worried about the Canadian government abolishing property rights)
2) property 'rights', from a philosophical standpoint, are different from any of the other civil or human rights in that property is rivalrous and exclusive- I can have total freedom of religion without impacting on your religious beliefs, but I can't own property in any meaningful way without the right of excluding others from the enjoyment of that property. This is pretty tangential to our gun discussion though...

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Stephen Harper is a very frustrated man.He's been the Prime Minister of Canada now for nearly five years, yet his Conservative Reform Alliance Party (CRAP) has never held a majority of seats in parliament, so his attempts at implementing his right wing agenda have been hamstrung.

Actually, I think it's pretty impressive/worrisome how Haper and his gang have been able to wield power and implement substantial amounts of their agenda while never having more than 40% popular support. The system doesn't work! Also, the CRAP (lol) has somehow managed to frame any kind of a coalition government (which ostensibly WOULD command a majority of popular support) as 'undemocratic'.

What a silly polity.

 

[Segnosaur]

Oh, and as to the cost, how about the government spending over $1 billion dollars on the G7/G20 security arrangements, including a million bucks on a fake lake for foreign reporters? Surely that spending was at least as egregious a waste of money as the long gun registry is claimed to be.

First of all, there has been some misinformation regarding the G8/G20 summit. The 'fake lake' did not cost millions... it actually cost a fraction of that. (It was part of a tourist pavilion, which did cost several million, but rightly or wrongly the government thought it might help boost tourism.) In fact, the G8/G20 summit may have been pretty much in line with what you'd expect from those types of international meetings. (After all, the site of the G8 meetings has been rotating among its various members for years.)

From: http://www.torontosun.com/news/g20/2010/06/23/14492486.html:
In a report released Wednesday, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page concludes the cost of the G8 portion in Huntsville appears to be par with similar summits in past.
(Admittedly, they still have to do a final accounting.)

Secondly, even if there were bigger examples of government waste, why should that excuse the much smaller $4million waste caused by the gun registry? Heck, if I were in charge I'd cut the $1 billion CBC budget before I do anything else, but that doesn't mean we should accept smaller examples of waste.

Well, do you consider it wrong if someone believes in maintaining privacy, even if to you it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"?

And do you consider it wrong if someone has concerns about the security of their data, even though it doesn't really seem "pragmatic"? (Remember, one of the previous web masters has pointed out that there were serious security issues, and a copy of the registry was given to a private company.)

The problem with that line of argument is that it easily applies to many other areas. Yet those other areas don't draw anywhere near the same comment or ire. Why is that?

Perhaps in those other cases, the government has actually managed to provide a compelling reason the loss of privacy/risk of data is justified by actual benefits.

Or perhaps the question you should be asking is not "why are people complaining about privacy/security over the gun registry", but instead you should be asking "why are people not complaining about these other issues"?

Moreover, in terms of security of data issues, why again is the consequnece of such matters the choice must be to scrap the registry altogether? Why not keep it but reform it to make it better?

Possibly because its totally impossible to have data which is completely secure. Even if you mark data as "top secret" there is still the possibility that someone might leak it. The only way to guarantee data from leaking out is to not collect it in the first place.

Has it been proven to be useless yet?

No it hasn't. But then, it hasn't been proven to be useful either. (Are you assuming that, given no other information, the default is to believe "its useful"?)

The Association of the Chiefs of Police have stated they find it useful.

You're right, they have. However:

- Support among the chiefs of police is not universal exactly universal, and some chiefs have raised issues with some of the data (http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2010/09/01/15217066.html)

- The chiefs are not exactly the same as front line officers (who, according to one poll, do not find the registry useful at all). The position of 'chief of police' has certain political elements, which may cause them to support a registry even if the registry itself is ineffective.

In terms of fees, which way do you want it?

I have to admit, I have no real answer to that. Possibly because I don't think there is a good answer.

If the majority of cost is paid for by the taxpayer, we are wasting money on a system which could very well be useless. If the costs are paid for by the gun owners, you're unfairly punishing thousands of gun owners, most of whom will never use their firearms (and possibly cause some to loose their firearms if they cannot pay the fees.)

 

[Captain.Sassy]

The chiefs are not exactly the same as front line officers (who, according to one poll, do not find the registry useful at all). The position of 'chief of police' has certain political elements, which may cause them to support a registry even if the registry itself is ineffective.

You yourself mentioned earlier that particular poll is not a valid poll.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Data provided from RCMP to Private company (EKOS)...

From your description it sounds masked to me i.e. you couldn't use it to trace a firearm to a specific person. But I could be wrong. If it was truly unmasked data then I would have expected them to say 'names and addresses' rather than 'demographic data'.

First of all, if you read the report from the privacy commissioner, they give a little more detail and point out that it was EKOs itself that masked the data. (And the report did mention "gun status", so it appears as if information on individual firearms was given.)

Secondly (and most importantly), the data was provided so EKOS could run a poll. That would necessitate that at the very least a telephone number would need to be provided, and given the existence of reverse phone directories, obtaining the name in many cases would be a no brainer.

Re: Chance of confiscation...

No, I don't think that outlawing guns is cause for worry, for two reasons:
1) it isn't likely to happen

First of all, any reason why you think it won't? After all, there are some polls that show the number of people who favor an outright gun ban is nearing a majority... it would be a temping target for any party trying to find issues for which to gain wide support. (What do you think the chance of an outright ban is? 0%? 1%? 49%)

2) it wouldn't be a disaster even if it did happen

Perhaps not. But if you're a gun owner, wouldn't you be at least a little miffed if an object of yours that's worth hundreds or thousands of dollars got taken away from you?

Property rights are the least of my concerns when it comes to protection of rights. Again, two reasons:

1) people with property tend to have inordinate indirect political power; people without property are the ones whose rights and wellbeing need safeguarding (i.e. I'm not too worried about the Canadian government abolishing property rights)

Ummm... we don't HAVE property rights. Can't abolish what was never really given in the first place.

2) property 'rights', from a philosophical standpoint, are different from any of the other civil or human rights in that property is rivalrous and exclusive- I can have total freedom of religion without impacting on your religious beliefs, but I can't own property in any meaningful way without the right of excluding others from the enjoyment of that property. This is pretty tangential to our gun discussion though...

Many people, when they discuss 'property rights', are not referring to just land. They are referring to tangible assets and other forms of wealth too. And the aquisition of wealth is not a zero-sum game. A person can enjoy and/or expand their property/assets without harming others.