“It is not a matter of ideology. It’s just a matter of public safety.”
The Toronto Star has run a rather excellent editorial on the gun registry issue. It’s succinct, it’s informative, and it’s impassioned. And although I’ve got my own biases, I think a lot of important things are being said here.
What isn’t explicitly stated, however, is how the gun registry is used to prevent violent crime. Yes, its importance has been stressed by the professionals who use it and rely on it. Including, as the editorial notes, the top brass represented by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the rank and file represented by the Canadian Police Association. And I think you’ll agree that those are some credible people.
But for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, where are the specifics? How does it help?
Last night, an old friend happened to comment on an earlier post of mine. He said that although he doesn’t support the tactics the Conservatives are using to push their platform, he also doesn’t understand “how, exactly, the registry saves lives,” or “the direct correlation between a registry entry and a life saved.”
These are valid questions, and although the answers are out there, I’m afraid I didn’t have them at the ready. “I’ve been through so many links in the past few days,” I mumbled like an ignorant idiot, “that I can’t readily remember where to find what. But what I will do, if you like, is try to focus on sharing more of that information as soon as I’m able.”
Indeed, a statement from the YWCA that I’d read earlier in the week provides one example of the gun registry’s value in preventing armed violence. It’s drawn directly from Chief Superintendent Marty Cheliak’s recent testimony before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security earlier this year. It only describes one incident, yes, but there’s a lot more evidence out there of the fundamental importance of this registry.
In fact, as the Star noted yesterday in a separate article, there would be even more evidence out there right now if the Conservatives weren’t currently sitting on a report that emphasizes the value of the registry. A spokesperson for Vic Toews, who’s ironically the Public Safety Minister, said that Canadians “don’t need another report to know that the registry does nothing to prevent crime.” Which is fine, because it sounds like this report would actually debunk that particular Tory talking point.
Liberal MP Mark Holland, who I commended just the other day for his work on this issue and others, isn’t surprised by these tactics. “The government’s position,” he said, “is never let the facts get in the way of ideology.”
In any case, that’s going to be one of the major roads I’ll head down as I continue to learn and write about the issue. If you want to share what you’ve learned, then please feel free to do so in the comments.
I’m happy and humbled to say that thanks to Twitter and various links, people are actually visiting this site to learn more about this issue. If people who are more active and knowledgeable than I am want to share what they know with those visitors, then so much the better.
Posted in Save the Gun Registry
I’m afraid I remain unconvinced. It’s a specious argument. The registry informed the police of an additional volume of guns, great. Did they remove the “depressed father”? Knives? Bats? High places he might jump from?
If there’s a safety concern, I would want police to take all reasonable measures, not temper them according to a registry report. What if the depressed father borrowed a gun?
The article, like so many similar, confuses the audience between the long-gun registry, and the handgun registry. It’s the long gun registry, the non-restricted category, that is at issue.
I had more, but my comment was marked as spam.
It was? I’d better take a look at that. I just installed a new filter. Maybe there’s a word count cap or something that I’ll have to remove.
It is the long gun registry that’s at issue, yes, and there are figures out there specifying the percentage of crimes that involve these guns specifically. I’m looking into that now, but if anyone out there can beat me to it, great.
Bah… Yeah, the filter had a two hundred word limit set. Sorry about that. If you do want to expand on what you said earlier, I’d be glad to hear it.
Most of the arguments here are about the owners, not the objects. If there’s a concern about an individual, then I wholeheartedly agree that action should be taken.
There was, in fact one point in the YWCA article that I found acceptable, regarding traceability. This is, however, an after-the fact thing in my mind, and does not prevent a thing.
And the numbers thing. From both sides. There’s no possible way to give numbers with sufficient context that everyone will read the same way.
The registry costs 4.1 Million a year? well, that’s a pittance! what did it cost before? 11 Billion registry checks a day? I sure as hell hope police act as if there are guns in a house, and finding out that there is a PAL holder in the house would offer that slight increased benefit that the registry might provide.
But, for the sake of provoking discussion, I suppose I’ll throw some numbers anyway. According to the RCMP site in 2010, there are an average of 325 queries to the CFRO regarding serial # or Certificate #. Without subtracting handgun-related queries, or those queries for which no result was generated, that’s about $250 a query. Question is, could that $250 be better spent with the objective of saving lives, maybe meds for the “depressed father”?
Ok, last one.
Why is it, if this is such a useful tool, that it’s use is so disproportionate by police across the country? Ontario and Quebec have the highest volume of non-restricted firearms, but Ontario’s Query rate is more than 9 times higher than Quebec’s. I think it’s the handgun- long gun thing, but the RCMP site doesn’t provide that level of detail.
Btw, Mark Holland is my mp, and I remain very happy that he is.
Hey, that’s right! I’d forgotten that you were living out that way these days.
This is definitely a lot of homework. The best short answer I can give, which addresses some of the above but certainly not all, is that the registry isn’t and shouldn’t be presented as an alternative to any and all other preventative measures. Whatever can be done to prevent domestic violence or discourage suicide, for example, should be done.
But nor should that be considered an argument in favour of scrapping an invaluable resource. It’s not like this is a numbers game in which the police and the government have only got two hundred and fifty bucks per potential incident, for example.
The very issue is whether it’s an “invaluable resource”. Police chiefs, Prime Ministers, Unions presidents, etc. saying that it is doesn’t make it so.
It may add to the toolset police have at their disposal, and high-level, anything that adds to the effectiveness and safety of policework is a good thing. The problem is that that benefit comes at an expense, both financial and to personal privacy.
If a government program is going to take any measure whatsoever to infringe on a citizen’s sense of privacy or well being, then the benefit to society should be both of reasonable magnitude and demonstrable.
The $250 was just just a bit of creative math, and is easy to poke holes in, like most of the pro/anti numbers games. the point I was trying to make was: Without the list of long guns, is the query any less useful? are we missing out on other public safety improvements because we’re wasting money on the registry?
could the same purpose be served by a check box on the licence renewal?
[ ] I own, or expect to own, one or more long guns at present, or in the next 5 years.
So, the main uses of the registry are when requested (like the request by one family to help their father, who was depressed, by taking away his guns – when they looked at the registry, they discovered he had 21 more guns than the family thought).
This will often be the case in situations of mental health problems. Individuals who were previously law-abiding can become a threat to themselves and those around them. A registry helps with that.
Having guns registered also means that people are well aware that they are responsible for ensuring their safety. They know that if they don’t secure them properly, the police will know if they are taken and used in a later crime. Since many murders are committed with stolen weapons, I think making people more directly responsible for their security makes a whole lot of sense.
It also means legal owners are less likely to sell guns on to people who are not allowed to own them.
Tracing after a crime is a major issue, and since a major crime investigation easily costs over $1 million, anything to bring the cost of that down is great (and over 50 people were murdered in 2008 with long guns).
The main use of the registry is that if police are called to an emergency situation, they immediately check the registry to see if there are guns in the house. Without the registry, they enter blind. It is no coincidence that 14 out of 16 recent police murders, long guns were used.
Outside the cities, only 29% of murders are committed with handguns. Most rural murders are long gun murders.
I have absolutely no problem with every single gun in this country being registered on a list of some sort. Years ago, when this issue first came up, I remember thinking, “You mean, guns aren’t on a big list somewhere already? Jeezus!”
Register ‘em. Every last one. I don’t want to say “spare no expense,” but be generous with the cash. This is important.
I continue to disagree, I’m afraid.
A family request to remove the guns of a troubled individual does not necessitate a registry, and all possible steps should be taken to assist that individual to remove the danger. Take the guns in the house away, period.
Gun owners are already responsible, they do not need a registry to remind them of that responsibility. In order to acquire a license, they must prove this. Again, registry not necessary. I don’t see the connection with the 50 number, unless the specific cause and effect between long gun registry and crime prevention is proven and clarified.
I shouldn’t even address the “going in blind” argument. There is no incremental benefit to a gun list above knowing that there is a firearm owner in the house, and even then, if that’s offering a sense of security to the officers, then we have more to be concerned about.
Rural – urban is a big part of the issue. There’s a lot more handguns in urban areas, and a lot more long guns in rural. I would expect that long guns would take up a higher % of murders, the same way I expect that tractor accidents happen more often in a rural area.
Jason, I’m guessing you’re not a gun owner. If you were to remove the unfortunate ignorance of guns, and remove their demonization, you might rethink your comment. Try using “beers” or “bibles” instead of guns. does your argument make sense? come to think of it, I bet beer or bible control might have a better impact on crime….
Arguing cost reduction doesn’t work, considering a major knock from the ani-registry side is the cost of the registry to date.
Sell them to irresponsible people? This is incredibly unlikely. The firearm community feels persecuted enough without risking such a thing
I really don’t see how a simple phone call to register a gun for free is a huge problem.
Get over it. Lives are at risk.
Guns are sold, ALL THE TIME to people who cannot legally own them. This is how they get them! A large proportion of illegal guns were originally bought legally in Canada, and ended up on the black market, through theft or sale. The registry would minimize that, by making the gun owners take responsibility for a particular gun, for its security in case of a burglary, and for not selling it on.
Beer and bibles make no sense as a comparator. You know what does? Cars. They are dangerous and can easily kill in the wrong hands. The vast majority of them are used legally and safely, like guns. When they aren’t, they can be tracked down, because they are registered. I’m all for that. It’s not demonizing car owners!
Not all gun owners are responsible. Or people wouldn’t die at the end of them.
ONE SIMPLE, FREE PHONE CALL. That’s all that’s asked of gun owners. It’s simply paranoid to claim that’s persecution.
Actually, I’ve just figured out the best way to resolve this.
I challenge you to a duel, Sean!
I’ll have an unregistered, untraceable gun. You can have your choice of a beer or a bible.
If the registry had evidence-based outcomes that demonstrated even an iota of lifve-saving ability, I’d surely be over it.
With or without a registry, there will be people who wish to harm others, and guns offer an incredible capacity for that harm.
That’s why there are reasonable measures in place to minimize that harm and balance it against the needs and lifestyles of the population of Canada.
I do not dispute the need for gun owner licensing.
The registry only encourages improper sale and increases profits for the black market, making it more, not less, attractive. I don’t know of a prohibition type law that works any other way. Guns, Drugs, Cigarettes, Counterfeit goods, you name it.
Do you honestly believe that guns have killed more people than beer or bibles?
It’s not the effort that’s at issue Kate, it’s the concern about what the information could be used for in future, and the effect it has on the public’s sense of safety and security. I risk a Godwin with that, but it is what it is.
It would never, ever happen, but the single best thing for crime reduction and gun control would be widespread education and experience with firearms. Lamentably, members of the anti gun lobby often lack any actual experience with guns. There are exceptions of course.
With regards to your duel proposal, suppose I was to have a registered, traceable gun, it works pretty much the same way, one end makes a loud noise and causes damage some distance away to something.
It may be free to register a gun, but that doesn’t mean the registry doesn’t have a cost.
Lastly, have you registered a gun? it’s not one Free phone call. just a bit more to it than that, I’m afraid.
If a gun owner were to forget the little piece of paper that has a particular guns details on it when they do pest control, or duck hunting, or some other firearms related activity, they could end up in Jail, with their property confiscated and no legal recourse to reobtain them.
I am all for meaningful measures that actually do something to prevent gun violence. The registry is not such a measure, but it sure sounds good to those ignorant of, or unwilling to listen to reason.
Hey, you know what might be a better use of time and money?
A violent offender registry.
Get the provable stuff out of the way, then go to the specious stuff.
Don’t know any statistics, but could be interesting to see violence rates amongst previously convicted violent criminals compared to violence rates among registered gun owners.
In any case, Matt, this is your blog, and as is everyone else, you’re entitled to your opinions. I’ve written a pile of lengthy comments on a couple of your posts, and as it’s not in support of your effort, let me know if you’d prefer I stop. I’ll just go back to reading it.
By all means, keep posting. Debate is good and necessary, contrary to what the current Tory order would have us beleive, and the reason I haven’t responded to the last few posts is because I’ve been busy tackling work and other projects. After admittedly spending a good chunk of my working day posting about these issues, I figured I’d better buckle down.
That said, as far as a “violent offender registry” is concerned, it sounds to me like you’re talking about criminal records. So don’t worry, dude, Canada’s police are totally on it. And beyond that, there’s a wealth of statistics and information these services continually collect and analyze.
And it’s got to be said that the fact that they do collect and use this information doesn’t in any way invalidate the value of the registry, which is a vital part of that preventative process.
I thought Canada stopped with all the statistics collecting?
Suppose that’s another issue.
Sean, I grew up in a tiny farming community in rural southwestern Ontario. Friends and family of mine have hunted for decades. I am not opposed to gun ownership for legitimate reasons such as hunting or sport-shooting, even though I don’t (and don’t plan to) own one myself. I just want someone to know where they all are (or should be), and who owns them. It’s not that unreasonable a request.
But one can’t know where they all are. Noncompliance and illegal guns render any gun registry incomplete. If you’re so familiar with firearms, or the culture of communities where long guns aren’t seen as evil, why did you express surprise at the fact that not all guns are registered?
The fear with the registry is it’s potential for misuse, or for use above and beyond it’s originally stated purpose.
Suppose an act of government was to make gun ownership illegal. Immediately, a large segment if the population become criminals.
Beyond that, and make no mistake, I trust the police as a whole, but recent events have indicated that individuals within the service are prone to remarkably poor judgment.
I’ve also read that rank and file officers don’t provide the same vociferous support that the leaders do, but that there has been no commissioned survey to confirm that.
Because I’d always just assumed there was a registry for them, that’s why. You have to register a car, so why not a gun? Anyway, that’s not the point. And, the point is also not that a registry could ever be perfect; it can’t be, just like the Ministry of Transportation can’t know for sure that, even though I own my car, maybe I loaned it to someone for a few days or something. But, I sure as hell want to try to nail down who owns what and who should (theoretically, anyway) be in possession of guns. All the arguments I’ve seen against a registry — no offence intended — have either been frivolous, spurious, or American.
Then I suppose I have done a poor job in articulating my position.
Ignoring the fact that guns are not cars, and the distribution of cars is a tad more widespread across the population than Gun ownership, the car registry doesn’t prevent crimes.
Outside, perhaps of some of the arguments presented by Matt and Kate, arguments from the pro-registry side tend towards being emotional, irrational, or just plain ignorant.
I acknowledge that there may be some indirect benefits to the registry, it may make a police officer’s job marginally easier, the issue here is that the cost for that marginal benefit is too high, both financially and to people’s personal freedoms.
It’s guns in this particular discussion, but what if this line of reasoning was applied to other, perhaps more vulnerable segments.
Again
training and licensing gun owners – not at issue
REquiring safe storage of firearms – not at issue
Even Handguns, whose portability and limited use, the registry not at issue.
Having a list of farmers, hunters, and target shooters, people who pose no more threat of violence that people who don’t participate in those pastimes, is.
It doesn’t take much to erode personal freedoms, most people don’t even notice the tiny steps.
Just because an argument is american doesn’t make it useless. Like “ Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”
Ah, I figured you’d bring up the “personal freedoms” argument; it’s the favourite boogeyman of the libertarian crowd. I think the “your rights end where my rights begin” idea is a decent way to think about this, and because we’re all members of the same society here – one in which gun violence either directly or indirectly affects all of us – that makes this issue particularly sticky.
I brought that statement up as example of reasonable thought from an American.
I’d like to believe that I would challenge any motion that I saw as unreasonable and unsupportable that places society at risk.
Agreed, we’re members of the same society. but it’s violence and lack of education that’s at issue, not guns. That’s how arguments about “rising crime” and “ rising teen pregnancy”, and so on resonate so much, despite the fact that they may not be true.
I think there might be a reasonable analogy with Islamophobia, Some Muslims get radicalized, and some radicalized muslims have killed thousands of people, we should have a registry of all Muslims!
As I’ve said before, I am FOR stopping gun violence. A registry is just not the way to go about it, there’s not enough of a link there, and the risks of a registry outweigh the benefits.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/855020—walkom-a-gun-toting-gun-registry-skeptic-recants?bn=1
Some people are smart enough to look beyond ideology, and examine the evidence.
I agree entirely, but there’s ideology on both sides. I continue to look for that very evidence.
Some people also skip the ad hominem arguments.
Also, One holds off on referencing the Sun for the same reason one might hold off on referencing the Star.
So Walkom is sold on the registry as a vital element of a firearms strategy, allowing police to “follow the follow individual weapons and ensure they remain in the hands of licensed owners.”
How in the hell would it do that? Yes, it follows some individual weapons, but there is nothing whatsoever that can be done to have significant confidence that the gun remains in the hands of licensed owners. This presupposes that the registry prevents theft somehow.
An unproven argument from the anti-registry side is that the data is susceptible to hackers, offering an increased risk to society. While there is no published proof of such an attack to date , It presents a hell of an attractive target to someone so inclined. As Walkom offered in his article, the registry is a great starting point for future actions likely to be about as well received.
And again, with the numbers. 63 deaths down to 50! 23 deaths down to 8! So what. There were likely a pile of other initiatives that could have been executed to achieve similar or better results for the cost.
love the body fluids bit. if everyone had to give their body fluids, I’d be more comfortable with that than the singling out of a particular group.