John Geddes

John Geddes

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

Criminals didn’t register guns, but registered guns figured in crime

by John Geddes on Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:45am - 78 Comments

Among the arguments against the long-gun registry, I think the most compelling, at least superficially, was the indignant assertion that gun owners are, by and large, law-abiding citizens who present no danger to society. I know that’s true. Why impose a registration requirement on them?

I’m inclined to respond with smart-alecky questions about similar impositions. Why audit taxpayers when most dutifully pay up? Why ask drivers to blow at those RIDE checks when most are sober? But I fear that many of those who hated the gun registry would miss my rhetorical point and heartily agree that random roadside breathalizers and routine CRA audits should be done away with next.

So let’s stick to the registry for a moment. Since criminals didn’t register, was the system useless? In 2009, Statistics Canada reported that in the previous five years police recovered 253 guns used in murders and, in fact, about a third were registered. Some had been stolen, some used by their owners, some were owned by the victim. In any case, registration records figured in the police investigations and trials.

Did registration help police in tracking down stolen guns that might end up being used in future crimes? Police chiefs certainly told us, to no avail, that it was a useful tool. Critics of the registry dismissed that claim. Yet Statistics Canada recorded 3,100 thefts and robberies in 2006 in which at least one firearm was stolen. Three-quarters were rifles or shotguns. None will be registered now. That will make it less likely owners will report the thefts (especially if, say, they neglected to store their guns properly), and far less likely police will figure out where criminals got those guns if they turn up later at crime scenes or in the arsenals of gangs.

But guns used by career criminals of that sort likely aren’t the biggest concern. So we turn to the saddening matter of suicides, accidents, and violence done by troubled individuals. In 2009, 515 firearms licences were refused and 2,085 licences were revoked, often by judges. Licences will still be required, thank goodness, after this week’s scrapping of the long-gun registry, but police and courts won’t know anymore exactly what guns are in the possession of people previously granted licences, but later deemed unfit to own a gun.

And that means people who succumb to mental health problems, or who have been convicted of crimes but are out on probation, or who threatened a spouse or neighbour, or who show suicidal tendencies. Providing courts and cops with a tool that helped get guns out of the homes of hundreds of Canadians who fall into these disparate categories might even have been worth asking law-abiding farmers and duck hunters to put up with a bit of inconvenience.

Bookmark and Share
  • OriginalEmily1

    Hear hear!

  • Anonymous

    Mandate !!!!!

  • Smorgasgord

    I always object to the characterization of “law abiding farmers and hunters.” Would these be the sam people that, when registration was the law of the land, refused to register their guns en masse, to the point the government ultimately declared they wouldn’t be enforcing the law until it was off the books? If you have any respect for the English language, you can’t call these folks law abiding. That’s not a value judgement on whether or not the registry was a good idea, just an insistence on accuracy and that we all follow the same rules and standards.
    How does what they did differ in any way from a pot smoker who thinks the pot laws are bunk and ignores them? Is that pothead law abiding? If not, neither are farmers and hunters who wouldn’t register their guns when that was the law. 
    It’s essentially claiming that laws they don’t like can be ignored, but not laws they like. That way lays anarchy. And it’s also a terrible double standard. 

    • Anonymous

      Ah, but farmers and hunters are Real Canadians. Pot smokers, union members, Torontonians (the list varies depending on political expedience) are not Real Canadians.

      • Anonymous

        The new expression is ‘salt of the earth people’.  Everything old is new again as the country regresses.  

      • Healthcare Insider

        You assume no farmer smoke pot….hahaha!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3LTTP6244OE6S3WTQLQYLB3WXA Bernie

      What?! Civil disobedience is uncool again? Have you let the kids at Occupy Fillintheblanks know this?

      • Smorgasgord

        But civil disobedience at least acknowledges that a law is being broken, to make a political statement. It doesn’t try to claim that anyone is law abiding. That’s my beef. 

    • Austin Williamson

      It’s called Civil Disobedience when you ignore a law deemed unjust. Enough people ignoring the law, the law gets repealed. Remember Rosa Parks?

      • Smorgasgord

        See above. 

        • kcm2

          You couldn’t have rock ribbed small c conservatives labelling themselves as law breakers; the cognitive dissonance would make their heads explode. Safer all around to save that label for pot heads, tree huggers, environmentalists,occupiers and folks of that ilk.

          • Smorgasgord

            Yet here’s the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry on civil disobedience:

            Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. 

          • kcm2

            Just indulging myself ; i completely agree with your earlier point re: lawbreakers. It is just typically tory hypocrisy. It is entertaining to watch them suck and blow at the same time. They just can’t bear the thought of being in the same boat as a bunch of so called hippies who want to occupy something or other for some reason or other. It is a form of snobbery really, one that many protesters indulge in themselves when they look at more privilleged folk.

          • Anonymous

            LOL!

    • Anonymous

      It is amazing attitude for a law and order government. 

      • Anonymous

        Well, Jan, this is one of those unreported crimes they want to crack down on. And rather than jail a huge swath of their voters, they decided it’s better to do away with the law that’s being broken.

        • Anonymous

          It’s like turning water into wine .

    • The Knave

      I would say that all the registry has accomplished is turning a class of people who were formerly law-abiding citizens into criminals.  Much like prohibition in the 30′s and marijuana laws now.

      • Smorgasgord

        I wouldn’t disagree with that characterization, but isn’t that the explicit intent of laws? To regulate what we can and cannot legally do? By that definition any law makes a formerly law abiding citizen a law breaker if they don’t change their behaviour. For example, say I used to be able to drive drunk without much fear of serious legal reprisals — but that’s changed dramatically over the past three decades or so. Now it’s clearly illegal and one can face very severe penalties, especially for repeat offenses. If I’m a drunk who likes to drive, do I get to claim that I’m a law abiding citizen and the problem is with the terrible law? I doubt I’d get very far in front of a judge trying to argue that point. I simply don`t see why the laws of logic appear to be suspended for this one law.

        • The Knave

          But that is the quandary we find ourselves in, isn’t?  If a large segment of the population is not complying with the law, we basically have three options:

          1) Increase the enforcement and give harsher punishment (marijuana in the US)
          2) Repeal the law (alcohol)
          3) Ignore the people who aren’t complying (speeding)

          Do we really want to bog down the justice system with people who are non-compliant with the registry (option 1)?  I would hardly compare a non-registered *log gun to the same level of seriousness as drunk driving.  And is ignoring the problem really a solution?

          *edit: long gun, The Knave

          • Smorgasgord

            I don’t disagree that the law probably should be repealed. As I’ve told people more than once, I suspect we’ll soon be awash in unregistered guns illegally important from the US, so I view it as the regulatory equivalent of the Maginot Line.
            What I’m less certain about is how this government, and its supporters, appear to be willing to cherry pick the laws they like. In part that’s the right of any government, of course, but they’re required to actually repeal the law before they stop enforcing it are they not?
            At the very least I want them to stop playing the Orwellian game of calling a group they like that clearly said “we’re not going to follow this stupid law” law abiding. That’s my fundamental objection. 
            And if they are going to insist that you can break a law and be law abiding a the same time, I’d like someone to pass me the bong and pack it good and full on the way by, please. 

          • The Knave

            I won’t disagree with that argument, except to say that they’re taking option 3 until they can implement option 2.  But the part about the semantics and propaganda is true.

          • Smorgasgord

            @TheKnave… we appear to have come to agreement, damnit. Where’s the fun in that? Thanks for the great discussion

          • The Knave

            No, thank you, sir!  Let reasonable debate prevail!

          • WhyshouldIsellyourwheat

            The Liberals kept on putting off enforcing it.  The Conservatives weren’t going to start.

            Canada is already awash in illegal handguns from the states that are actually used in crimes.  Those are the guns that you should be worried about.

          • Deckardism

            I imagine you are not subject to the harassment that comes with this ‘law.’  If you were, you wouldn’t be able to stomach such a glib and insensitive assertion.  Repealing this Act is one of the few times the good guys (and gals) actually won the day.  It’s refreshing.  Organized hatred failed.

    • WhyshouldIsellyourwheat

      Civil disobedience is completely legitimate means for a law-abiding citizen to protest bad laws.  They dared the government to arrest and prosecute them.  The government didn’t have the balls.

    • Jessy Piche

      Lol ya some didn’t register it so what your telling me that makes them 1000% more likely to kill someone?

      How does pot have anything to do with firearms. Our constitution doesn’t say everyone has the right to self defense and smoke pot. Firearms go in self defense if you passed grade 2 you should know.

    • Regbites

      The problem with the registry was in how owners were treated
      - the very vibe that the Liberal party emanated at every chance regarding it
      annoyed people to death and only set the stage for the endless confrontation
      this has caused.  What you have to remember is that many folks just don’t
      give a damn what the Liberal party may think is “inherently
      questionable” – this is a democracy and everyone gets to vote – even duck
      hunters.

  • Healthcare Insider

    Is there any way to tell what kind of homicides the registered guns were involved in….gang violence v. domestic violence?

    • Yanni

      Sure if you follow the link that Geddes provided.

      253 were registered, but only 212 could determine ownership.   So that means there was some problem with the registry for around 16% of the recovered guns.  I suppose this might mean that the serial numbers were filed off, but then how would you determine if it was registered?   I imagine that in 16% of the cases, there were probably just errors in the registry.

      Of the 212 remaining, 103 (49%) were owned by the accused and 17 (8%) owned by the victim.   I imagine few of those were used in gang activity, but were probably domestic homicides.  Of the remaining 43% you might have the gang activity you want, but it couldn’t be the whole amount, because you would have several cases of borrowed guns committing crimes, such as junior borrowing grandpa’s gun to shoot dad.

  • http://twitter.com/Catelli_NQU Catelli NQU

    Quibble with your last point.  If a person is licensed to use/posses guns, and that license is taken away, what prevents a warrant being issued to search the premises for firewarms?  A throrough search of a residence should be performed whether firearms themselves are registered or not.

    Put it this way, if we kept the registry, and a court ordered the removal of all registered firearms from a residence, would it not make sense to thoroughly search for any unregistered weapons as well?  In either case, a thorough search has to be performed. Ergo, a good team will find all weapons regardless of the status of their registration.

    • Anonymous

      Searching the premises for unregistered arms is something that should be done, yes. But, without a list it becomes quite easy for someone who’s pending review of their license to offload his weapons on someone else “to hold on to” or store them offsite to avoid such a review. This is, and was, not entirely unknown to happen. 

      Having a list of items that should be there for retrieval or have to be transferred legitimately to another owner prevents this because these weapons now need to be accounted for either way. 

      • http://twitter.com/Catelli_NQU Catelli NQU

        I get your point.  But I know gun owners that were casually transferring weapons back and forth while they are registered, but this not reflected in the registry in a timely manner.  And in any event, a registered owner could still claim he disposed of his weapons “pending a review” and claim sorry, no I don’t have the proof of that, other than they are no longer here.

        The list is useful, but it is not proof.  It cannot be trusted.  Therein lies the problem (and my key point).  So yes it has utility, but that utility cannot be trusted because it is easy to circumvent.  This decreases the actual value of the list.

        Please note that I am stating it decreases the value of the list, not that the list has zero value (there is a difference).

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3LTTP6244OE6S3WTQLQYLB3WXA Bernie

      The police already have been doing arbitrary searches of gun owners premises and seizing legally owned firearms on exteremely dubious storage violations. What’s to stop them from continuing this behaviour? Hey, it increases the arrests-to-conviction ratio, and let’s the police take a break from solving real, tricky, crimes. Win!

  • The Knave

    I must disagree with the assumption that the firearm registry prevents suicides.  Only about a fifth of suicides are done with firearms to begin with, and restricting access to them will only shift suicides to other methods.  I think this is a reasonable statement unless there is evidence to the contrary.  Suicides by firearms fell from 41% in 1979 to 26% in 1998, but strangulation rose from 24% to 40%.

    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2002002/article/6349-eng.pdf

    Check out Chart 3 in the link Geddes provided.  It provides much more useful data than just saying a number.  Firearm violence due to long guns have been falling steadily since 1977, with no observable change in rate since 1995, when the registry was introduced.  I would say that means the registry was: a) ineffective, and b) unnecessary, since long gun violence was pretty much a non-issue by that point.
    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm

    I find it amusing that the Conservatives are pushing their crime bill even though crime has been falling steadily and isn’t an issue, but the people on the other side of the spectrum who (rightly) oppose them are hung up on long-gun violence, even though it has been steadily decreasing and is in fact a pretty small segment of violence as a whole.  Both sides are staking their positions out on ideological/emotional grounds.  

    I want to see hard statistical evidence that the long gun registry prevents crime, not just what-ifs.  

    • gtrplyr055

      I’d like to see hard statistical evidence that registering one’s car prevents accidents and drunk driving…..

      • The Knave

        Those statistics are harder to compile so I’m not going to do it.

        But, anecdotally:
        a)  To register your car it must pass a safety inspection.  It would therefore be reasonable to assume this prevents accidents.

        b) Do you have anything to contribute to this conversation? Obviously registering vehicles doesn’t prevent drunk driving.  Quit being facetious. 

        • OriginalEmily1

          Safety inspections don’t prevent accidents. It’s the nut behind the wheel that causes them.

          A gun registry registers guns. It does not prevent murders.

          • The Knave

            If a registry’s only purpose is it’s own existence, then it shouldn’t exist.

            Tell me what it’s purpose is and give me evidence that it is accomplishing that.  Because it’s certainly doing a lousy job of registering long guns.

          • OriginalEmily1

            The gun registry exists to register guns. The same way a car registry exists to register cars.

            They make guns and cars traceable.

            The gun registry has existed since 1934.

            If you think it’s doing a lousy job, complain to Harper not me.

          • The Knave

            Thank you for ignoring all my arguments and instead responding with non-sequiters and tangential statements.  It was really worth my time to read your comment.  Thank you so much!

          • OriginalEmily1

            @jldonald:disqus 

            You don’t have an argument. You have a chip on your shoulder.

          • The Knave

            @OriginalEmily1:disqus 

            Maybe if you insult me some more your comments will become more relevant.  It’s worth a shot.

          • OriginalEmily1

            @jldonald:disqus 

            Maybe if you stuck to the topic, and had something useful to say….without the chip….you wouldn’t be so paranoid.

          • The Knave

            @OriginalEmily1:disqus 

            “Maybe if you stuck to the topic…” says the person who made the posts about drunk driving and nuts behind the wheel, which were of course completely relevant to the topic of whether the long gun registry should be scrapped.

            Do you know what the definition of “paranoid” is?  I don’t see how you can remotely say my posts were paranoid.  

            I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that supplying statistics qualified me as being “paranoid, with a chip on my shoulder”.  You must have been so happy when the Conservatives scrapped the long form census and kneecapped StatsCan.

          • Healthcare Insider

            “the nut behind the wheel”…..gee they are called accidents for a reason.

          • OriginalEmily1
          • The Knave

            Emily’s argument (from my understanding):

            “Most vehicle collisions are caused by drunk drivers, therefore we need a long gun registry. “

          • OriginalEmily1

            @jldonald:disqus 

            Your understanding is not great.

            Neither is your logic.

          • OriginalEmily1

            @jldonald:disqus 

            I was replying to your comment about safety inspections stopping accidents, and to Healthinsider who apparently had never heard the phrase ‘nut behind the wheel’…although it doesn’t just apply to drunks.

            And now that you and your chip have effectively talked your way out of this entire discussion amongst rational people….ciao.

          • The Knave

            Oh, there were rational people here?  Can you introduce me?

          • OriginalEmily1

            Why would rational people want to meet YOU?

            Now Ciao….

          • Healthcare Insider

            Gee Emily I checked you assertion that “the nut behind the wheel” causes the car accidents in your favorite source – wikipedia and actually – driver error is only soley responsible 57% of the time.  The rest of the time it is a combination of things like road condition (who would have thought so in wintery Canada) and car problems, etc.

          • Anonymous

            Safety inspections don’t prevent accidents.

            LOL WUT???

            Safety inspections don’t prevent accidents???  Think about that for a second Emily. 

            Sure, safety inspections don’t prevent ALL accidents.  Accidents are often caused by irresponsible drivers.  You know what also causes accidents sometimes though?  Someone’s breaks failing.  Or their steering wheel locking up.  Or their car stalling in the middle of the 401 while they’re doing 120.  Or their tire exploding at speed.

            Safety inspections get unsafe cars fixed, and/or off the road.  OF COURSE safety inspections prevent accidents.  That’s why they’re called SAFETY inspections.

          • OriginalEmily1

            Be serious…K?

      • Healthcare Insider

        I understand registering your car is about the value of the car.  Car’s are expensive and if your car is stolen the VIN makes it more likely the car will be returned to you, the owner.

        • Anonymous

          If that’s the reason, then why would it be mandatory? 

          • Healthcare Insider

            Perhaps so that if you stole someone else’s car, you would have to register it and then you would be caught with the stolen property or if you bought a stolen car and tried to register it, the car would be identified as stolen and the car would be returned to the original owner?

    • Healthcare Insider

      As a psychiatric nurse I would have to say that you are likely right about the firearm registry not preventing suicides.  If families are aware that a person is depressed, they usually  remove the guns from the home on the advice of mental health staff.  

      • Anonymous

        And yet Emerrgency Physicians are one of the groups that support the gun registry as a suicide prevention tool.
        *Is there some reason you have to tell us you’re a  nurse in every post? 

        • Healthcare Insider

          Well Jan, I wanted to CLARIFY that I am a psychiatric nurse because Emily accused me of pretending to be a nutritionist and a specialist in MS, etc.  I did tell her that I have done a lot of reading in various medical journals as that is part of the requirement of renewing my license every year but she was insistent that I have been dishonest.  Thus, I just want to always be honest and up-front about my credentials every time that I blog my opinion so as not to give anyone any impression that I have experience outside of what I do. 
          Having said that, I would really appreciate receiving your source regarding the emergency physicians.  In Alberta when a sucidal patient is brought into the ER they are referred to psychiatric services almost immediately.  As well, I was not aware that physicians had access to the long gun registry but I guess that is possible.

  • Anonymous

    You raise some very interesting and compelling points, Mr. Geddes. I anticipate an opposition MP or two might raise these very points when it comes up for debate in the House of Commons… OH, wait, nope, never mind. Your thoughts on this issue won’t be required.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-bring-down-debate-limiting-sledgehammer-on-gun-registry/article2215777/

  • Yanni

    “Licences will still be required, thank goodness, after this week’s
    scrapping of the long-gun registry, but police and courts won’t know
    anymore exactly what guns are in the possession of people previously
    granted licences, but later deemed unfit to own a gun.”

    I know someone who still has a semi-automatic rifle he gained through a restricted license, and after being charged with a felony, lost his ability to legally own a firearm.   He still has his gun.

    So I doubt the registry was doing its job the way you think it was.   That’s my real rub with the gun registry.  It is an intrusion into people’s lives, and is incredibly expensive, but it doesn’t do what it is supposed to do despite that.

    • OriginalEmily1

      So you have of course reported this, so that the error can be corrected?

      • Yanni

        Yes.  He still has his gun.

        • OriginalEmily1

          Sounds like some lax law enforcement.

  • http://idrinkinthemorning.com Rick Omen

    The LGR in it’s current form was useless and expensive, and I’m glad the federal government has done away with it.

    That said, I’d have no problem with provinces or cities enacting their own LGR’s. Quebec, for example, still wants a LGR and I believe most of the people there would support it. Even out west, the major cities could start their own LGRs, because gun violence happens almost exclusively inside city limits, and that’s where the political-will for such a thing exists. 

    What our federal politicians need to realize is that this country is far too large and diverse for “one-size-fits-all” solutions to a lot of problems. I think the fact that a single spree-shooter in Montreal caused a change to federal law was the big mistake. Why wouldn’t Quebec implement it’s own solutions to that “problem”, and if other provinces like the results, they’d be able to follow suit. 

    • Healthcare Insider

      The chief of police in Calgary said the long gun registry was useless to his force because the criminals never registered their guns.  The Calgary city police shot and killed a man who was threatening his family and then police with a weapon…he was swinging an axe.

  • Sorensende

    Wrong again sir
    Its about cost benefit analysis. You would save more lives, have better police information by turning out cops on the streets as opposed to a paper exercise of who owns what.
    Again clearly you don’t understand what civil liberties are striken from someone who steps up as a firearms owner compared to everyday joe citizen.
    Did the fact these were registered firearms actually stop the homicides? no. . . .

  • Anonymous

    Your stable majority government must destroy data because it is concerned for
    your privacy.
    Your stable majority government must not collect census data because it is
    concerned for your privacy.

    http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/10/27/watchdog-warns-toews-government-surveillance-plans-endanger-privacy/

    • Healthcare Insider

      They are still collecting census data.  It is still illegal not to fill out the short census form.  It is not illegal if you fail to fill out the long census form…that is voluntary.

  • Jessy Piche

    Ya its not because they have a gun that there a killer. Its not because they owned a gun they could of used a baseball bat or a knife which is used more often in homicides. A killing is an act of impulsion thats why the conservatives aren’t retarded they know that and they want to fund programs that would actually help. 

    The decrease of firearms related crimes in 1977 18 years before the gun registry. New zealand had a gun registry and scraped it and gun crimes never went up it kept on going down. 

    England and australia had a total gun ban and firearm crimes never went down they kept on going up.

    This just proves that the registry is useless. Someone with a mental illiness doesn;t have it stamped on his forehead and they can still get guns. 

    If the girls didn’t insult the guy a polytechnique it would of never happened. 

    The person who first though of gun control was Hitler he said it was the perfect idea. He also though killing all the jews was a perfect idea.

    I wasn’t aware that canada had so many ignorant and anti gun freaks and people approving of a communist laws.

    The reason theres more gun deaths in the USA is that anyone can get a gun you just walk in a gun store and buy it. Here its not the same thing thats why theres fewer gun deaths.

    Anyone with an IQ over 10 should know this.

    They think because there was a decrease in firearms violence when the after 1955 that it was linked to the gun registry but you can’t prove that and theres the fact we are way more aware of Mental illnesses and have better social services.

    Anyone that would want to save lifes would be fore scraping the gun registry. No where in the history of earth that theres actual proof linking a gun control to the decrease of gun violence.

    go buy a pistol in new york and come back to canada its that easy they still can smuggle drugs even if there illigal and you dumb enough to think they can’t smuggle tons of guns?

  • Fredder99

    Opponents to the long gun registry never opposed licencing gun owners.  In fact they feel controlling access to guns does a lot more to protect the public than having farmers and hunters register their weapons.  The registry never saved one life.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MJJXQBNBXW2B5EYY24IB7RDKPY Canada_Dad

    Excellent points.  Where were you before the bill to dismantle the registry was introduced?

  • Giffin

    Pray that when the next big massacre comes along, moronic Con supporters are the corpses on the ground.

    • Anonymous

      Ah no – what kind of God do you have that would entertain that idea? 

  • Anonymous

    In 2009, Statistics Canada reported that in the previous five years police recovered 253 guns used in murders and, in fact, about a third were registered. Some had been stolen, some used by their owners, some were owned by the victim. In any case, registration records figured in the police investigations and trials.

    So, if some registered guns were used by their owners to murder people, doesn’t that mean that some murderers HAD, in fact, registered their guns???

From Macleans