John Geddes

John Geddes writes on politics and policy, with occasional reporting and comment on arts and culture.

Categories: Capital Read, John Geddes

The case against the gun registry I'd like to hear

by John Geddes on Thursday, November 5, 2009 12:31pm - 137 Comments

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police put out a news release that makes the case—as they have many times—for the gun registry as a useful tool in police work.

They offer examples. The registry helps police find out if guns are in homes where they are responding to domestic disputes. It helps them obtain warrants to seize guns from people who pose a threat. It helps police investigate when legally purchased rifles and shotguns are diverted into the black market.

Opponents of the registry often assert that it isn’t helpful in these or any other ways. But I can’t think of any reason, aside from patently paranoid suspicions, for thinking the police chiefs make all this stuff up.

So I wish a thoughtful opponent of the registry would begin a good-faith argument by saying, “Sure, the registry is of some use to police, but that isn’t a good enough reason to keep it because…”

Tags: gun registry

More by John Geddes

Mike T.

Please demonstrate where somebody's home and children have been taken as a direct and sole result of not registering a firearm (which, it should be noted, is the exact opposite of registering a firearm).
TedTylerEzro

It was supposed to cost 2 million to make, and really 3 million dollars a year for a database is a little obscene.

Anyway, somehow it blew through hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 7 years. Any evidence that it won't do so in the next 7? We've been told the money has already been spent before.
TedTylerEzro

I was assuming he was talking about churches who opposed it being forced to officiate over them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

More of a cease-fire from the groups still hell bent to reverse any gains on that front.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I haven't seen any others from either the commenters here or the police.

As to the money spent, let's recap. The registry was supposed to have a net setup cost of several million. It ended up having a net setup cost between 1 and 2 billion. Now, do you really think that this kind of excess is irrelevant to whether we should throw more money at the project?

It's not as though the estimates so far have been within an order of magnitude (or three!) of the actual numbers.

Craig O

The excess is irrelevant to whether we should continue to fund the project because, by all indications, the excess has already passed. The start-up costs were obscene, no argument here, but we're not paying the start-up costs now, we're paying for the maintenance. The two have nothing to do with each other at this point in the game.

It's like buying an overpriced car with perfectly reasonable maintenance costs, then throwing the car away because of the overly high sticker price, which you already paid! Yeah the car was overpriced, but the money's gone anyway and now you've got no car!

Andrew

I have proposed an entirely re-done system of gun control in this country to the MPs involved in bringing down the registry, and keep in mind I am a gun owner:

No 1 Case for removing long-gun registry is because the police find it so useful. They are already more heavily armed than what is allowed to the general public. It is not morally fair to have an unarmed public. What is unwritten in their support of the bill is that they can confiscate at any time for almost any reason. That is not safe or fair and is wide open to abuse and this fact has been proven throughout history.

What I would like to see is a licensing and responsibility system that is tied into public displays of responsibility. DUI? Loose both driver's and gun licence. Drug violations? Same. Domestic abuse? Same. Public displays of irresponsible behavior. I know way to many goons who drink and shoot (and drive), and that is just wrong.

I would make the training for the licencing far more involved. It's too easy. I completed it when I was 13 with a 96% average. There's no problem in that (I would go so far as to make it mandatory, in this age of computer-generated reality) but I believe that it would be wise to make licencing much tougher and more expensive. I would also add highly expensive, registered concealed-carry licences for citizens of good standing. Price at around $3000. This will allow a silent threat to all criminals.

Canada's gun laws are created by polarized debate and that is stupid. I am a gun owner and I get a particular kick out of semi-auto "assault" weapons used on stumps and barrels and whatnot, but firearms are too dangerous to be used indiscriminately. Registration, however, creates a false sense of security, does no real good for the situation on hand, and creates a police state. It is unbalanced. I am not saying we need machine guns in every home, but that we need a system that reflects reality. The present system only addresses criminal intent and does nothing to eliminate a far more real threat of dangerous stupidity and ignorance.
kcm

I think i've read enough of your comments to not get wound up about your analogy.:)
It's straw man [IMHo] precisely because the reason the police want it are in no way analogous for a reason to have a cracy persons registry. On the whole i'd rather the police know where at least some of the guns are – even if that's offensive to some. Now if police officers were to come forward and say it's all bunk…we'd be talking.
http://intensedebate.com/people/philchau philchau

Way to change the subject Mike T. and answer a question with a question. You get a cookie!

Registering a firearm has nothing to do with the safe storage of a firearm and there's no factual correlation with one registered/unregistered long gun and a negligent discharge causing death.

Call StatsCan, I did.

Unsafe use of a firearm kills kids, so do swimming pools and bicycles. What's your point?
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

The auditor general is not a cop — why would anybody pay attention to her?
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Now, don't be giving any comment-dissers any ideas, there, G…
http://notquiteunhinged.blogspot.com Catelli

Actually no. Well not according to a magazine article I read recently (in Popular Mechanics, see here:http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/milita…

The problem with ballistics is that the markings on a bullet are a) assumed to be unique, b) consistent with every round fired, c) easily and accurately identified as unique.

All 3 points have been called into question as they have not been scientifically validated.
the realist

Reports of the demise of the long gun registry may be a bit premature. The bill now goes to commitee for study and I expect it to be studied like few other bills ever have. Police chiefs from accross the country will be called to witness and once they are done it will be the turn of the families of gun violence victims (montreal massacre, RCMP officers et al.) to give their stories. This will probably take months and months and result in the bill being sent back to the house as a bill amending the registry rather than abolishing it. You can bet the assorted gun nuts who support abolition wont be called to testify because THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITY VOTED AGAINST THE BILL IN THE HOUSE. I suspect the bill will die in commitee when the next election is called. Just to make things clear I own some hunting rifles and very much approve of the registry.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

And I *personally* am not going to the wall either. I'm a wussified city-boy who hasn't camped more than twenty feet from the car in years. I don't hunt, I don't need to deal with varmints (although the skunks need a lesson taught to 'em, let me tell you…), and I do not commit crimes. The last firearm I discharged was some Fisher-Price BB gun when I was a boy scout (I hit the paper once or twice, but they did say something about inside those silly rings). I have no close family member in law enforcement.

I just don't get how law-abiding people lining up to do good because the state says they must will be of any use in controlling the criminal use of either registered or unregistered weapons. And I have not been persuasively shown how cops' lives have been saved by this expensive intrusion. What I have seen and heard is a large number of law-abiding people pointing out what a waste it is.

And indeed you drive a hard bargain for what you're willing to give up. Can we throw in an abolished or elected Senate, Quebec's signature on the constitution, and more polar bears?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Bears!!!!? But then I'd need to get a rifle, and – er, nevermind…

http://intensedebate.com/people/philchau philchau

The liberals, the CAPC, CGI, Coalition for Gun Control and a TON of other companies/organizations have their hands in the cookie jar. This crap has been going on for years.

Now that the gov't has changed, the hand's are getting slapped at the cookie jar, and you bet your sweet ass the liberals don't like it at ALL.

Liberals like getting free money, and they are scrupulous scavengers. They feel no guilt in their theivery. They avoid a guilt feeling by justifying their slippery business with a feeling of entitlement. "Oh, another cookie is ok…I deserve it…I WORKED for it".

Thay haven't worked for anything.

All the registry is to them is a cash cow….AND, it gives them control. And that's what they're all about. They care not about crime statistics or bloody murders on the city streets. They care about cold-hard-quid.

If the liberals lose the registry, they lose a segment of control over the populace, and they also lose an avenue of cash.

So, don't be fooled by what's right and wrong – factually and statistically. They want it for only 2 reasons – Money and Power
http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

If guns are decriminalized before marijuana I'm actually going to lose my mind. I can't believe the Liberals are actually pandering to this.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Most gun usage is does not harm anyone. The same is not true of marijuana. Anyway, I agree that marijuana should be decriminalized.

herringchoker

Constable: "He has a firearms licence, your honour, and we'd like to search his home to see if he has any firearms as we consider him a threat."

Not too hard is it.

Of course then you need to come up with a convincing reason why the person is a threat, but that shouldn't be too hard.
Bill Simpson

Why should we believe the police about any of this? These are the same clowns who have resisted any restraint on their use of tasers, and we know how that worked out.
http://intensedebate.com/people/philchau philchau

Your statement makes no sense. Legal guns are already legal. Legal medical marijuana use is already legal by Health Canada.

Please lay off the pot and make a coherent statement, k-thx-bai!

http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

The Liberals want to decriminalize failure to register your weapon as a compromise to the current legislation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Two problems:

(1) The maintenance cost is not reasonable. It's a database.
(2) Why should we believe the estimate for the maintenance cost after seeing what happened with the sticker price?
LC Bennett

"Sure, the registry is of some use to police, but that isn’t a good enough reason to keep it because… "

…the money used to maintain and eventually upgrade the system could be put to better use. Most of the gun crimes in Canada are committed by gang members and parolees. If we are going to infringe on people's rights in the name of fighting crime then 3 million pays for quite a few ankle monitors and police surveillance of known criminals . But we all know that watching actual criminals is wrong while keeping an eye on Farmer Joe is critical. Seriously, spend the registry money on tightening up the border to reduce weapons coming from the US or on front-line police officers.
George Penfold

All I know about the registry is the fact that in the 5 full years of it's operation 2004-2008 there were 321 more homicides than in the 5 years 1998-2002 prior to it's so-called completion in mid 2003. I also know using the unsubstantiated stats of the so-called police chiefs that the registry has had more hits than firearms registered and even with this the police cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that a single crime has been prevented. No wonder, their spending all their time not chasing criminals 10,000 times a day, how many more millions has that cost? . Clearly if one wanted a definition examplifying useless, one would be hard pressed to find something better than the Liberal's Firearms Registries both long gun and handgun the only difference being the handgun registry which has proved itself useless over 70 years.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

If we concede Geddes' point that it is beneficial to the police (which I don't believe), then the next argument is:

Just because something is beneficial to the police does not make it worthwhile. The police would have us all under house arrest, because that would make their lives easier. Any infringement upon personal liberties, such as registries and licenses, should be avoided, because it penalizes everyone, regardless of our behaviour. People should be allowed to own something without justifying it to the police and paying targeted fees and taxes for it, if those people are law-abiding citizens. This includes hunters, gun enthusiasts, and people who want to own guns for self protection.
TedTylerEzro

So, Mr. Geddes. Have you heard the argument you wanted to hear yet? I mean, I don't expect you to agree with the other side, but do you at least acknowledge that there might be some room on the other side of the debate for reasonable doubts about:

a) The effectiveness of the long gun registry in terms of public safety.
b) The actual reason the police like the long gun registry.
c) That we haven't seen the end of out of control spending on the long gun registry.
http://intensedebate.com/people/dhwbailey dhwbailey

“Sure, the registry is of some use to police, but that isn’t a good enough reason to keep it because…”

it really has no useful purpose.

Imagine yourself as a police officer check the long gun registry when approaching a home. The check comes back negative. Would you approach the house with a casual 'well I don't have to be careful because the registry says there are no guns there" attitude? Of course not, because criminals don't register guns.

A check of the LICENCE section would tell you that the owner was licensed, but what difference would that make? Licensed citizens have passed a background check and have no criminal record, and by and large are probably more careful with guns than the average citizen.

The long gun registry was introduced to appear to solve a problem, but was poorly designed and was created by people who knew absolutely nothing about firearms. It was and is merely smoke and mirrors.

The problem when it comes to firearms is more related to drugs and gangs than honest firearm owning citizens. The focus is in the wrong place. Gangs use guns to control territory, people and commodities. That should be the focus of police, not firearms owners.

The Liberals instituted something they thought would work without really researching it properly. They ignored advice from the RCMP that it was unworkable, but once they were in it, they felt they couldn't back out. As a result, they backed it at all costs, otherwise they would have to admit they made a mistake.

The long gun registry was ill conceived and definitely wrong headed legislation. It needs to be put out of its misery I say.
r nelson

using a horse to push a cart. Why are we not demanding that gun makers have pattern from each gun before being put on sale–then every purchaser will be registered to a certain gun–criminal or otherwise. work on the bullets rather than the guns.
http://intensedebate.com/people/DaffyDuck67 DaffyDuck67

I have conclusive proof and that guns long or short don't hurt anything or anybody. Further I have very strong evidence to support the previous claim.

I will give a hint "All guns require assistance in order to do mayhem"

It's people that are the problem…..The justice system in this country isn't just in the toilet its has decended to the septic tank.

Bottom line every gun fatality,injury or other crime or accident involving any firearm has a human acomplice.