Also, tidbits like this:
http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/minis…

make it impossible for the opposition to use this without sounding like complete idiots. (I know being a minister and sitting in caucus are different things, but not in the battle of sound bites.)

If your intended question was the one preceding your final question, my answer would be the same, because you asked "why the RCMP and CACP are coming out in support of such an obviously flawed program".

If you were asking why the right thinks that the police chiefs want to keep the registry, I think my first answer would cover that as well. If you were asking why the right thinks the police chiefs are wrong for wanting to keep the registry, I think you already know: the arguments range from "waste of money" to "ineffective waste of money" to "unnecessary government intrusion" to "I find it annoying that I have to register my guns".

Am I missing something?

If so, then I continue to think that "protecting Canadians from authoritarian over-reach" isn't what I would've thought.

I would expect that the argument would be that the RCMP are a government bureaucracy. Government bureaucracies (from a conservative point of view) aren't particularily concerned about how much things cost. Especially if it is something that they can use that doesn't come out of their budget.

Allow me to cut the Gordian knot: the right does not think.

I'm also flabbergasted. I think I now understand. though. Your question wasn't "why the right thinks that the police want to keep the registry?", as a single, stand alone question about the right's impression of the polices' motivations on this issue.

Your question was "why does the right think that the police want to keep the registry, and if it's that the police always want more power, influence and information however they can get it and regardless of the cost, how do they square that position with the fact that they constantly support the police regarding the latters other demands and justify their behaviour even when that behaviour exhibits the exact same tendency they're now citing as a reason not to take the police seriously on the gun registry issue?

Essentially, if you think my answer to your original question (as asked) would find many right wingers in a rather hypocritical position, I would whole heartedly agree with you.

That was painful. Worst genuine effort to communicate in the history of Macleans.ca. I'm going through the thread and giving us both thumbs downs.

Agreed, I read and ENJOYED every word too!

I agree with your general point about the differences between fiscal conservatives and "progressives". However, the substantive gun registry debate isn't so much about the costs these days, given that most of the costs are sunk and the operating costs are fairly minor. One of the major irritants for the anti-registry camp has always been the "criminalizing" of law-abiding hunters, farmers, and collectors by penalizing them if they fail to register their long guns, even though most actual criminals who use long guns don't register them.

It's odd that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police haven't been able to provide tangible proof that the registry is a good thing, which makes me suspect that it doesn't make much of a difference either way. I would probably support the gun registry if there was solid evidence demonstrating its ability to save lives.

You'll notice that a lot of the arguments for the registry, like those made by the CMA, are based on the idea that it reduces the availability of guns (not that the existence of those guns is recorded). For many on the urban left who've never used a gun, this sounds like a great idea, because guns are useless and bad. For many on the rural right, who use guns to hunt and protect live stock and what have you, guns are useful and good. Thus the debate.

I'm glad that you put "criminalizing" in quotes; without commenting on the worthiness of the registry, the claim that the registry criminalizes legitimate gun owners always struck me as hyperbole.

Is it really that onerous for legitimate gun owners to register their guns AND, at the same time, make their case for changes or repeal of the registry? They couldn't give supporters of the registry the benefit of the doubt AND argue for a real study of some sort to verify the value?

I'll record your response in the "Not Too Onerous" column.

Well, as a matter of fact there is…..but that column is on a totally separate tally sheet.

Would that apply to the various (and expensive) ombudsman offices and appointments boards that Harper has set up and whose collective calculable usefulness appears to be close to zero?

Are you expecting me to mount a full scale defence of this governments consistency? Because I have no intention of doing that. Although I can say with some degree of certainty that if the Liberals had come up with a bunch of useless bureaucrats, Harper would have a cogent and fiscally conservative argument against it, which he would scream from the rooftops.

1) Well, there has been classifications of guns that have been outlawed before and confiscated. Hand crossbows and other miscellaneous weapons that aren't any more dangerous (and even considerably less dangerous) than handguns and long guns have been outlawed and confiscated as well. They simply aren't very many of them that owned those types of guns, so there wasn't as much political backlash. So there is a feeling that the urban majority is just waiting until it is politically feasible, and is discouraging gun ownership as much as possible in the interim.

2) Well, I'd never move to certain states in the US because they have capital punishment, so I'll readily admit that I'm a little paranoid. I'm the type of person who feels very vulnerable to state power. So if you can show me a procedure that the police would take with the automatic presumption that I'm a more dangerous citizen than a non-gun owner that doesn't scare the crap out of me, I'll gladly waive objection #2.

Of course, even without the registry, the police will know that I have renewed my Firearm Acquisition Certificate and taken my Firearm Safety Course in the last 5 years, but not that I am necessarily a long gun owner. Many people take the training simply to keep a .22 or 20 gauge for shooting pests or borrow a neighbour's or relatives gun for hunting in the fall. (I myself fall under that category, as I don't personally own a gun.) It is a common enough occurrence that you can't use it as an assurance that I am readily armed. Of course, it is best not to trust the registry on that front either, because I can easily obtain a gun that I frequently borrow.

Also, it would be nice if we were given some credit about the fact that there wasn't a huge blowback about the expiration date on the mandatory safety training that was brought in, which is considerably more hassle than registering a firearm once. We can see the value and purpose of that (though we'll grumble at its annoyance). If there could be shown to be a public good to the gun registry that can overcome our objections, most people would fall into line. After all, most people did register their firearms, even if they disagreed with the registry.

*sigh* The guns are to be kept in a locked cabinet that meets federal guidelines, and the ammunition is to be kept in a locked strongbox in a separate room. The only problem is enforcement, and it isn't really something that the gun registry will help with. We don't get credit for not opposing that either.

As for coming with guns drawn, I'm not at all reassured that all I have to do is keep my hands up. I'm sure it will help, but I'm not reassured at all. I think I'd much rather they didn't come with guns drawn. I resent the idea that I am a greater threat to public safety as a gun owner. After all, if the police were to have a greater likelihood to come with guns drawn on someone if they have been charged with drug possession in the past, then I would certainly think they should tone that down and I think you'd agree. Given that a person with a drug conviction is probably (per capita) more likely to a threat to the officer's safety than those who own legally registered guns, why should gun owners be singled out?

As for the crazies, well if they have a criminal record or are mentally unfit they aren't legally allowed to possess a gun. That's why James Rozko (the guy who shot up those mounties in Alberta ) had to smuggle his illegal guns from the States. If they don't have a criminal record, or haven't been declared mentally unfit, the only way to keep them from having a gun… is to confiscate guns from the general public. Hence, objection #1.

Frankly Jen, that is pretty weak sauce, and I think you know that.

If the Farmer isn't locking his guns up properly (and there can be spot checks if there is a concern about that) then it isn't going to be locked up properly whether the guns are registered or not. Either you are a careless person who doesn't respect his firearm, or your not. It is not about securing firearms against crazies, it is about keeping your guns locked up and away from kids. After all, if someone has breached your house (especially in a rural area) then what is to keep someone from blowing or prying it open?

Well, in any event, a registry wouldn't have hindered you from getting a firearm. Yeah, people who are crazy can do damage with a firearm, there isn't any disputing that. But either you have access to a firearm, or you don't. The fact that it is registered isn't going to keep a criminal or crazy person from using it.

After all, you probably could have taken a firearm safety course, got an FAC, purchased a firearm (which is automatically registered when you buy it) and then go kill your husband if the craziness didn't pass. There isn't any real objections in Canada about cooling off times either, because again gun owners can see the public good.

Yes, like I said, it wasn't about the bother. We already do things for the guns that are more of a bother than registering them. Which makes you realize yet again, what a gross mismanagement of public funds the registry was. Either this was the most inefficient development of software in history, or the taxpayers were stolen from. I am angry that the left is screaming about my opposition to the registry more than its calling for the heads of their bureaucrats. Frankly, with 13 years of majorities, the gun registry should be a settled deal. You have better targets to hate than the gun registry's opponents if it is scrapped.

I sympathize with your anger, but if you lived next to a farm, the registry wouldn't have stopped you. If the cops check your house they'll find guns laying around carelessly, they'll find them whether they were registered or not. If they are concealed on the property, the guns aren't registered. Who would hide and conceal a registered firearm from the police?

As for the locked cabinet, I have a hard time believing that you don't have knowledge of basic tools enough to open the gun cabinet. If that's the case, how would you reassemble the gun to use? The firing pin is stored with the ammunition, not the gun.

Surely you could understand though why people would be upset about being treated differently from non gun owners. That is a reason to oppose it, especially if there is no discernible public good. Plus, I think I've shown how easy it is to get hold of an unregistered firearm, so anyone who has an arrest warrant or is the subject of an investigation should be treated as they have a gun, and we should expect the police to act in a professional manner whether they are on the registry or not.

I will also say that the biggest problem with the registry is how it was implemented and how it was sold to the public. The public was sold on the registry as "gun owners are a threat to public safety". Right there that is going to make gun owners suspicious and defensive. Just like Ignatieff said about the HST implementation today right?

If they had started off with a voluntary registry, sold it as a means to track stolen guns rather than a safety measure, and hadn't used it as a tool for criminal profiling, don't you think it would have been better received? It could have always been ramped up later as people got used to it.

Of course, we would have still been a problem of people either grossly mismanaging and/or embezzling from it, but that is a public administration problem. Which still puzzles me why the left isn't screaming for bureaucrat heads on spikes about the massive waste. Part of the reason people want the long form census is so that government funds are allocated properly right? Here is about the clearest case of misappropriation of funds that I've ever seen. So why not get angry about it?

If we did not have the registry in place, would the nation be better off if we had it? What should be the reasonable cost in public purse and citizen hassles to justify whatever benefits it might provide?

Or: Never mind the cost — go ahead and assume the whole thing set us back two bucks at startup and costs a dime per year to run. Will the nation be at least no worse off if we scrap it? Because "look we spent so much on it already it seems a shame…" has to be the dumbest justification to keep running a program if it's useless or worse.

Not entirely unrelated: How's that Do-Not-Call Registry working for everyone who signed on to benevolent government watchdog protection?

How would being obstructionist have anything to do with the costs of developing the registry system? There wasn't any enforcement of compliance with the registry as part of the cost.

Whether people cooperated or not, I fail to see how the costs of developing the database can be blamed on anyone but those developing it.

Of course, a very detailed audit of everything spent over the last 15 years and released to the public would solve the problem quickly.

As for the profiling, I'll say we agree to disagree on the subject, because I've been using guns since I was 12 years old, and they are a foreign part of your existence. But certainly it is not so unusual that one would not want to be profiled. I think I'm perfectly reasonable in desiring not to be profiled by the police for owning a tool if I can be allowed that. Nor am I unreasonable to seek it through my public representatives, even if you are ideologically opposed to it. That was your original question after all.

I had a good conversation too. It was a pleasure not leaving a discussion frustrated.

Also, I have no problems with police using the appropriate amount of force if someone is identified as a dangerous offender. I'm just worried that I will be labeled as dangerous simply for owning a registered firearm, before I've done anything to deserve it.

Oh yes. Divorced, husband remarried. Oddly enough, he died suddenly when he was only just turned 47 years old. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

Anyway, I guess I showed him, or something. And I'm very happy with my no-longer-new boyfriend/spouse guy. We've been together now longer than I lived with said husband.

Thanks for asking!

Oh, and high-powered hunting crossbows are still legal. It is the smaller hand-crossbows which are illegal. Think of it as having a similar relationship to the hunting crossbow as the handgun has to the long gun.

They could I suppose, but then you might as well carry a handgun.

No, people carried around hand crossbows because they were awesome. Which is why there wasn't a huge outcry over banning them. Just a worry that it was a harbinger of things to come. Especially since it was done at about the same time that the registry was brought in.

Oiled?

Hey, are you making fun of me?

I hope you've only heard. Those guns are illegal for civilians to possess.

That would be unauthorized use of military equipment, so yes.

Unless it was some kind of PR exercise by the military, and proper protocols were followed. It would certainly be against protocol if you had unsupervised access to the weapon, and probably illegal as well.

Why all the fuss over the M-60, a measly 7.62 mm calibre?

Mind you, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable living beside the proud owner of an M242 Bushmaster chain-gun. Those things are dangerous. Even Texas won't allow you to carry one of those around, to its credit.

You say that like it's a bad thing…

You must always remain vigilant, particularly now that you're unarmed.

That republican scoundrel's grandson once dabbled in the occult in an attempt to reanimate his dead grandfather, but fortunately for us he only succeeded in reanimating his mother and a few of his beloved dogs. The former only wanted to scrub his ears, and the latter were more interested in playing fetch than in establishing the Republic of Canada through armed insurrection.

Frustrated by his failed dabblings in necromancy, the grandson was forced to content himself with a paltry few decades heading the government of the country he wanted so desperately to overthrow.