They are fast approaching the final vote to repeal the long gun registry in Canada. The gun control groups there are doing everything they can to prevent it from happening. To me the greatest argument against the registry is the cost, and the fact that it diverts law enforcement resources from catching actual criminals toÂ bureaucraticÂ administrative functions that have little or nothing to do with catching criminals and preventing crime. Canada’s number look somewhat similar to ours in this respect:
There are nearly 7 million registered long guns in Canada, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports. Yet, the public safety department adds, of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2Â percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered.
So we’re talking two percent of homicides. Imagine if the billions of dollars the registry cost were instead spent on increasing the number of police on the streets of Canada’s major cities?
9 thoughts on “Gun Control on Defensive in Canada”
Or how about simply returning the money to the Canadians from whom it was extracted. “More police” is not always the answer, or even an especially good idea in most Western societies these days. And one does not have to defensively raise that cry each time one speaks in favor of removing obnoxious restrictions on liberty.
The optimal crime rate in a free society is not zero.
Did the registry help solve the crime in those 2% of cases? I’m still not certain what having a registry is going to do for you.
+1 to Brass
2%, and the Registry wasn’t even needed to solve those cases.
100% wasted money.
Notice also that the registry didn’t prevent those 47 homicides. Sure, they occurred with a registered firearm, but those 47 people are just as dead as they’d been if killed by someone with an unregistered firearm.
I know it’s a small percentage of murders that is committed with long guns, and that the cost has been ridiculous, but the wording of that quote was 2% with long guns “known to have been registered.”
Wouldn’t that mean that it’s more than 2%?
All guns are required to be registered in Canada. Has always been the case. When you purchased a firearm with your purchase license (used to be called FAC: Firearms Acquisition Certificate), the details of the firearm were sent to the police for registration in their database.
Starting in the 1970s, the paperwork began to be ignored and the records weren’t kept up-to-date so over time, the registry became less and less accurate with information invalid or simply missing.
So Canada decided to create a second registry to force citizens to hand over the information the police was required to compile but had allowed to fall into neglect. It was supposed to cost 2 million dollars.
2+ billion dollars later and compliance has been low, to say the least despite several registration “amnesties” in that time.
How many crimes has the registry solved? Not a one. Because registries can’t prevent crime.
The only argument in Canada for keeping the registry is it makes certain politicians feel important and certain citizens “feel better” that someone knows who owns guns. That’s it.
Yes, crimes have been committed with registered long guns. That shooting in Montreal not too many years ago was committed with a registered long gun. A restricted long gun, in fact. By “restricted”, I am referring to a scary Beretta CX4 Storm semi-auto carbine that is cash-and-carry here but requires a special additional license to own and requires police permission to transport BOTH TO AND FROM the range or gun shop ONLY. Must be locked up all other times. Sort of machine guns here.
The fellow who committed that crime was double licensed for gun ownership (general and restricted) and yet, the knowledge that he owned that gun prevented nothing.
“Known to have been registered” is a red herring. A lot of Canadians gave the government the big middle finger on doing their dirty work for them. The government already had and has ALWAYS HAD the records in question. They were simply too lazy and incompetent to do anything with them.
The gun used is either in the registry or it isn’t MikeB. Of the 2,441 homicides, 47 were committed with guns “known to have been registered.” In other words, guns that were in the registry.
This shouldn’t be hard to understand. It’s not rocket science.
Isn’t this the same registry that has a Black & Decker soldering iron listed in it?
MikeB302000 is right but misses the point entirely.
The probability of murders with long guns is higher then 2% — allowing for those smuggled in, not registered, etc.
But that misses the point — Like American or Semi-Italian Anti-Rights Advocates, the Canadians sold the registry as a way to solve or prevent crimes.
Yet as the statistic shows — only 2% of the homicides committed have been traceable using the registry.
Note that isn’t saying that 2% of the murders have been solved with the registry either.
Can you say BOONDOOGLE MikeB302000?
I knew you could (but probably won’t)
Don’t you trot out a similar argument MikeB302000?
That a registry will help police solve crime?
People didn’t register their firearms — making them criminals for not telling the police about their private property
About 7 million long guns have been registered, but as many as 8 million guns, according to various estimates, have not been in what many say is outright defiance. The Conservative government has also extended to May 16, 2011, an existing amnesty for rifle and shotgun owners facing charges for failing to register their firearms.
Hey MikeB302000, do you think you should have to tell the American or Italian governments about your private property?
Perhaps how many computers or cameras you have — if those governments deem it necessary to reduce the heinous crime of child pron?
So MikeB302000, How does a gun registry stop a crime?
How does a gun registry solve crimes?
Can you point out any cities, states, or countries that have successfully reduced crime using a gun registry?
Comments are closed.