Long Gun Registry

[Captain.Sassy]

Anyone else getting sick of how NDP MPs are parlaying their position on the long gun registry and the upcoming vote into 15 minutes of media fame?

Great, it gets a backbencher some air time. Strategically, though, this is so dumb. It's playing right into Harper's attempts to make this a central issue, when it's a backburner issue.

Layton should have let the MPs vote freely, but muzzled them in terms of press conferences etc. If Harpo can do it why not Cap'n Jack?

 

[Corsair 115]

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?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Well, the recent RCMP report suggests it's being run fairly effectively. I can't speak about how onerous the conditions are for registering a gun, but I don't imagine they're likely to deter anyone who wants to buy a gun and go hunting. I was at a gun show a few weeks ago, and they were doing the PAL tests there (possession and acquisition license- what you need to buy a gun and ammo) and I was told that I could take the test, pass the test, and buy a gun and walk out of the building that day.

 

[Ranb]

What is the purpose of the long gun registry there?

Ranb

 

[Captain.Sassy]

It's a searchable database of all legally owned firearms in Canada. Its most common use (as far as I know) is for cops to be able to search addresses to which they've been called (e.g. domestic disputes) to see if there are likely any guns in the house.

 

[Ranb]

I have read that the gun registration scheme in Canada was a very expensive process (for the government) and that it has not prevented any crime. Any truth to this?

Ranb

 

[Captain.Sassy]

It was costly to set up, but the annual cost of running it is very small (4m per year).

In terms of crime, it is hard to say specifically whether or not it has reduced crime, but the police certainly seem to make extensive use of it in responding to domestic situations.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Well, I think the few NDP members who are opposing the registry are from rural ridings, where opposition to the registry is the greatest. So while gun control may be a "left wing" issue, they also do want to appear to listen to their constituent's views as well.

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?

Not sure if the 2 issues are really comparable. After all, when you license a car, you're going to be operating it "on the road" (i.e. on crown land). On the other hand, a firearm is (hopefully) not going to be used on city streets... It will be used either on private land (e.g. for target shooting) or for hunting (which is not part of any sort of municipality.)

There are a couple of reasons people might oppose the registry... freedom is one (and while you think "its not such a big deal", not everyone feels the same way.). In a way its similar to issues surrounding the change in the census... while some may question why its a "big deal", everyone has different areas that they view as touchy.

Then there's also the belief that somewhere along the line the government might use such a registry to "seize our guns". Not sure how much stock to put in that... the government has in the past restricted weapons that were previously acceptable, but the idea of all guns being banned borders on a conspiracy theory. (Although lets face it, we Canadians are a rather complacent lot and probably wouldn't put up much struggle if the government decided to implement a total gun ban.)

 

[Segnosaur]

It was costly to set up, but the annual cost of running it is very small (4m per year).

In terms of crime, it is hard to say specifically whether or not it has reduced crime, but the police certainly seem to make extensive use of it in responding to domestic situations.

One of the statistics that supporters like to throw about is the number of times the registry is checked on a daily basis. However, I do have to question how useful it is. Quite often checks are done as a mater of protocol (in situations where there is no risk of 'domestic violence'.)

Another issue is just how much a police officer will depend on the registry before going into a domestic situation. After all, I figure any police officer to be trained to expect the possibility of gun violence during any domestic dispute, regardless of what the registry says, and the registry might even prove to be counter productive (i.e. giving officers a false sense of security).

 

[Captain.Sassy]

One of the statistics that supporters like to throw about is the number of times the registry is checked on a daily basis. However, I do have to question how useful it is. Quite often checks are done as a mater of protocol (in situations where there is no risk of 'domestic violence'.)

Another issue is just how much a police officer will depend on the registry before going into a domestic situation. After all, I figure any police officer to be trained to expect the possibility of gun violence during any domestic dispute, regardless of what the registry says, and the registry might even prove to be counter productive (i.e. giving officers a false sense of security).

All valid points.

However, until a better evaluation framework is established I'm fairly content to go with the opinion of the police on this one. If the cops' associations are saying the registry helps keep them (and others) safer, then I'll take that at face value until some metrics can be produced to show that the added benefit of the registry is outweighed by the annual operating costs of teh program.

 

[dudalb]

Any differenation between the various types of Long Guns?
I can see why you might want it for a AK 47/74 or an M16, but it might be more trouble then it is worth for a Kentucky Rifle or a Brown Bess, or even a bolt action deer rifle.

 

[Segnosaur]

However, until a better evaluation framework is established I'm fairly content to go with the opinion of the police on this one. If the cops' associations are saying the registry helps keep them (and others) safer, then I'll take that at face value...

That's one of the problems... Right now, both the Association of Chiefs of Police and police unions have come out in support of the registry, but that doesn't mean that the average police officer feels likewise. (The police chiefs may have political reasons for supporting the registry, even if it is ineffective, and unions may not necessarily support all police, only those that choose to get involved with union activities.

I've seen news reports suggesting the RCMP has data showing most officers find the registry beneficial, but I haven't seen any details on how they collected that data. On the other hand, I've seen a 'straw poll' (yeah, I know, not very scientific either) which shows that >90% of officers find the registry of no benefit.

From: http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2010/08/30/15191146.html
the RCMP analysis involved a survey of police officers who use the registry and found 81% agreed that the registry was “beneficial during major operations.”
(I do have to wonder about the remaining 19% and why exactly they don't feel the registry is of any use. I also have to question the logic of trusting the RCMP to 'police itself', given some of the controversies surrounding the organization.)

From: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/08/23/15116956.html
Const. Randy Kuntz's survey, which was included in a police magazine recently, 92% of the officers who responded said the registry was a useless crime-fighting tool.

...until some metrics can be produced to show that the added benefit of the registry is outweighed by the annual operating costs of teh program.

Keep in mind that there are also costs outside of the "annual operating costs". There is the matter of good will between the police/government and the average citizen/gun owner. (Any law that's seen as harrassing "law abiding folk" may make people less eager to help police in more serious matters.)

Oh, and then there was the fact that the RCMP gave gun registry data to a private polling firm. Now, the privacy commissioner did not find any wrong-doing, although some people who were already nervous about having their personal information on line probably won't like the fact that even more people have access to their data.

http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/pa/2009-10/pa_20091216_e.cfm

 

[lopeyschools]

This is a bit of a pet issue for me. I've tried to come at it from an unbiased/skeptical attitude, so let me know if you disagree and why .

Firstly, to be open, I have my Possesion/Acquistion License and currently own several non-restricted "long-guns" and have owned restricted weapons.

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.

The "long gun" registry (bit a of misnomer) hasn't been proven effective at reducing crime and has been ridiciously expensive. I believe Canadian tax dollars are being wasted and more effective methods of reducing crime can be used (more police for example).

Well, the recent RCMP report suggests it's being run fairly effectively. I can't speak about how onerous the conditions are for registering a gun, but I don't imagine they're likely to deter anyone who wants to buy a gun and go hunting. I was at a gun show a few weeks ago, and they were doing the PAL tests there (possession and acquisition license- what you need to buy a gun and ammo) and I was told that I could take the test, pass the test, and buy a gun and walk out of the building that day.

Registering a gun can be an easy process but it depends a variety of factors such as type of weapon classification, the Chief Firearms Officer you're dealing with or the politics at the time. Firearms safety isn't complicated, and most people can grasp it quite readily. I sincerely doubt that you would able to take the PAL test, and buy a gun the same day. You have to provide quite a bit more information to qualify for a license. Required forms are included in link: rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/information/lic-per-eng.htm

Personally my PAL took about a month to process.

It was costly to set up, but the annual cost of running it is very small (4m per year).

In terms of crime, it is hard to say specifically whether or not it has reduced crime, but the police certainly seem to make extensive use of it in responding to domestic situations.

Do you have a source of the 4m dollar figure? I've heard this thrown around the media but I can't find the initial report.

One of the statistics that supporters like to throw about is the number of times the registry is checked on a daily basis. However, I do have to question how useful it is. Quite often checks are done as a mater of protocol (in situations where there is no risk of 'domestic violence'.)

Another issue is just how much a police officer will depend on the registry before going into a domestic situation. After all, I figure any police officer to be trained to expect the possibility of gun violence during any domestic dispute, regardless of what the registry says, and the registry might even prove to be counter productive (i.e. giving officers a false sense of security).

(from wikipedia so add a grain of salt)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_registry#Effects_on_public_safety

Usage
The RCMP Canadian Firearms Program produces a quarterly report called Facts and Figures. The information most often quoted in the media is the total number of queries, in the section entitled Average Daily Queries to the CFRO (Canadian Firearms Registry On-line). This number is what is commonly used to determine how often the registry is accessed by police officers. Changes to the system and the level of automation have resulted in the total number of queries increasing dramatically since the RCMP began tracking these numbers in 2003.

2003 - 1,813; 2004 - 2,087; 2005 - 4,091; 2006 - 6,591; 2007 - 6,973; 2008 - 9,408; 2009 - 11,086; 2010 - 14,012[22]

As of June 2010, the CFRO is reportedly accessed 14,012 times per day. Only 530 (3.7%) of those "hits" are specific to firearms registration (licence number, serial number and certificate number)[23]. The remaining 13,482 (96.3%) are automatically generated every time an address is checked or a license plate is verified.

The specific registry hits are not limited to use by police officers and also include legal sales of firearms. Every time a firearm is legally purchased, 3 hits are generated on the CFRO - one for the buyer, one for the seller, and one for the firearm.

There is no reliable information to suggest how many times per day police officers intentionally access the firearms registry.

All valid points.

However, until a better evaluation framework is established I'm fairly content to go with the opinion of the police on this one. If the cops' associations are saying the registry helps keep them (and others) safer, then I'll take that at face value until some metrics can be produced to show that the added benefit of the registry is outweighed by the annual operating costs of teh program.

Isn't that the opposite of skepticism? I think the police bear the burden of proof in demonstrating the efficacy of the registry. If the tazer controversy has taught us anything, it's that the police aren't exactly an unbiased source of information.

Paper on the Registry
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/forum/FF-gundeaths.pdf

Any differenation between the various types of Long Guns?
I can see why you might want it for a AK 47/74 or an M16, but it might be more trouble then it is worth for a Kentucky Rifle or a Brown Bess, or even a bolt action deer rifle.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a1

As mentioned before "long gun" is a bit of a misnomer. Conservatives want to scrap the non-restricted firearms registry. All the parties play politics with this issue.

Q3. What are the different classes of firearms?

A3. There are three classes of firearms: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited.

Non-restricted firearms are ordinary rifles and shotguns, other than those referred to below.

Restricted firearms include:

* handguns that are not prohibited;
* semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles and shotguns with a barrel shorter than 470 mm;
* rifles and shotguns that can be fired when their overall length has been reduced by folding, telescoping or other means to less than 660 mm; and
* firearms restricted by Criminal Code Regulations.

Prohibited firearms include:

* handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or less and handguns that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition, except for a few specific ones used in International Shooting Union competitions;
* rifles and shotguns that have been altered by sawing or other means so that their barrel length is less than 457 mm or their overall length is less than 660 mm;
* full automatics;
* converted automatics, namely full automatics that have been altered so that they fire only one projectile when the trigger is squeezed; and
* firearms prohibited by Criminal Code Regulations.

Basically my position is that the registry has completely failed it's stated objective: to reduce crime.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not sure I have any great feelings either way. This issue seems to distracting the sheeple from the real issues we should be addressing.

However,

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue

In fact, the urban/rural chasm, according to a Harris/Decima research poll released on Sept. 8, has narrowed to a small crack. The same percentage of urban and rural men (48 per cent) believe it's a bad idea to abolish the registry, and there is only a five-percentage-point difference between urban and rural respondents who support abolishing the registry (37 per cent to 42 per cent).

The percentages were also close between those who thought it was a good idea to abolish the registry: 45 per cent of rural men versus 43 per cent of urban men.

According to the poll, 49 per cent of urban women believe it is a bad idea to abolish the registry, compared to 47 per cent of rural women. Just 30 per cent of urban women believe it's a good idea to abolish the registry, compared to 40 per cent of rural women.

Overall, 48 per cent of those surveyed believe it's a bad idea to abolish the registry, with 38 per cent supporting its abolition. (Harris/Decima interviewed just over 1000 Canadians. A sample of this size has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: The current operating cost of the registry...

Do you have a source of the 4m dollar figure? I've heard this thrown around the media but I can't find the initial report.

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?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I'm OK with believing the cops on this one until their assertions about the registry and safety are shown to be wrong or the benefit of this increased safety is shown to be outweighed by the cost of the registry.

Isn't that the opposite of skepticism? I think the police bear the burden of proof in demonstrating the efficacy of the registry.

It is a pragmatic cost-benefit approach given limited availability of information. There are a number of reasons to support the registry's continuity, including

- popular support for the registry (we're a democracy)
- the low annual cost of the registry (I wouldn't consider sunk costs in this calculation)
- the fact that the cops say it keeps them safer (or at least their associations)

If the tazer controversy has taught us anything, it's that the police aren't exactly an unbiased source of information.

The issue with the Tazer controversy was that people were being killed. I don't think anyone is dying because of the registration of non-restricted firearms.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Also, I agree with what Gord in Toronto said. This is verging on being a non-issue in my books; I brought it up in that context. The Liberals and especially the NDP are being daft and playing right into Conservative hands.

 

[Segnosaur]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue
...Overall, 48 per cent of those surveyed believe it's a bad idea to abolish the registry, with 38 per cent supporting its abolition. (Harris/Decima interviewed just over 1000 Canadians.

I'd have to say... this actually looks like "good news" for the conservatives.

While it does look like the pro-abolishment population is in the minority, the conservatives are the only major political party supporting that position. If this was a crucial issue for anyone (and yes, that's a big 'if') around 40% of the Canadians would be more favorable to the conservatives (and in Canada you can get a majority with around 40%). On the other hand, the anti-abolishment vote is split between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

 

[Segnosaur]

There are a number of reasons to support the registry's continuity, including

- popular support for the registry (we're a democracy)

First of all, just because something is "popular" does not make it correct. Remember, at one point (prior to the Liberals legalizing same-sex marriage), the majority of Canadians actually disagreed with the Liberal's plans. We should argue the value of the registry on the basis of its usefulness/effectiveness.

Secondly, if the registry is is not worth it, shouldn't those of us who have actually thought things through do our best to educate people?

Thirdly, not all polls suggest the registry has "popular support". There are some polls that show a majority want to keep it, but other polls show the majority of Canadians want it scrapped. For example, from: http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2765512
...an Angus Reid poll released Monday found 46% of Canadians want to scrap the registry, and only 40% want to save it, with support for it highest in Quebec and lowest in the Prairies. When asked if the long-gun registry has been a success, 16% said it was, 38% said it has been unsuccessful, 31% said it has had no effect on crime and 15% said they aren't sure.

- the low annual cost of the registry (I wouldn't consider sunk costs in this calculation)

But even if the registry cost $1/year, that's one more dollar saved by the government. Should we automatically accept government waste if its "small amounts"?

And remember, as I pointed out before, there's more than just financial costs... you also have the loss of good will, between otherwise law-abiding gun owners and the RCMP.

- the fact that the cops say it keeps them safer (or at least their associations)

But as I pointed out, there has been at least one (non scientific) poll that showed the majority of front line officers do not think the registry has value.

The issue with the Tazer controversy was that people were being killed. I don't think anyone is dying because of the registration of non-restricted firearms.

I don't think the issue is "how many people died"... I think the point the previous poster was trying to make is that the RCMP isn't always honest in its dealings with the public, and/or its internal management. The Tazer controversies are just one case... You also have cases like "Insite" (where the RCMP had hired people to post negative items about the safe injection site on line), or the Pension fund scandal. We're supposed to trust the RCMP statistics over gun issues when they've shown willingness to spread biased information in the case of Insite? We should trust their accounting practices when they misuse pension funds?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

But even if the registry cost $1/year, that's one more dollar saved by the government. Should we automatically accept government waste if its "small amounts"?

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.