Registered Perfection in Canada

[Toad]

Oh, yes...it's all going well up there and makes perfect sense.

Sources:
 http://www.garry-breitkreuz.com/publications/oped01.htm
 http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/gunz08.shtml
 http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Reform/19971107.html


In 1996, Statistics Canada reported in Canadian Crime Statistics that there were a total of 291,437 crimes of violence. Of this total, there were 121,291 violent incidents where weapons were involved but only 6,375, or just 2.2%, that involved firearms.

Of the violent offences where firearms were involved, 74.9% involved handguns [almost all unregistered] and only 6.9% involved rifles and shotguns. Clearly, the 65-year-old handgun registry hasn’t reduced the criminal use of handguns.

Still, the government ignores this evidence and plods ahead spending hundreds of millions to register 20 million rifles and shotguns which represent only 0.15% of the violent crime problem in Canada.

LOL! NOW I know why Igloo doesn't want to talk about the effectiveness of registration in lowering violent crime rates! 65 years of handgun registration and still 75% of violent crimes with firearms are committed with hanguns, most of them unregistered!


Canada has had a handgun registration program for decades and a system of registering gun purchases for several years. But under the new national law, each of Canada's estimated 3 million owners of long-barreled guns, including shotguns, is to register by the end of this year and to apply for a license.

The owner will also be required to register the gun itself, by the end of 2002. But, 18 months after the licensing system opened, licenses have been issued to 150,000 people, about 5 percent of the owners.

With Alberta and other provinces refusing to have local law enforcement officials register gun owners and their guns, the federal government has hired or reassigned almost 1,500 employees to carry out the program, which has cost $230 million so far.

Three weeks ago, reflecting the government's growing desperation, the Canadian Firearms Center, the Justice Ministry agency in charge of registration, treated 40 leaders of Canada's largest hunting and shooting clubs to a free weekend at an Ontario resort to try to persuade them to take part in the licensing system.

In 1995, Justice Minister Allan Rock told the House of Commons that the firearms registry would only cost $85 million over five years. An Access to Information Request reveals that at the end of March 1999, the government had spent $216 million dollars and the Department of Justice now admits they will spend between $50 and $60 million a year to operate the system. That’s more than a billion dollars by the year 2015. It was recently discovered that the government had between six and eight hundred paper-pushing bureaucrats working on the gun registration project.

2. Cuts and lack of police resources for real crime fighting initiatives

Here are the headlines of a few news stories published in recent months:

Underfunding of RCMP imperils public
Fewer police per capita report says
RCMP’s white-collar crime unit needs staff, cash
Systematic underfunding reduces local RCMP to critical level
‘Force rusting out,’ says Alberta’s top Mountie
RCMP cuts make crime pay
Money for gun control, none for police
Police association ready to fight for more cops
RCMP Chief says lack of funds means Mob ‘on a roll’

The public was told by the government that the primary purpose of the firearms registry was to let police know which houses have firearms in them. But that only works if the system doesn’t have any errors. A few weeks ago, the RCMP’s Registrar of Firearms told a staff meeting that they were experiencing virtually a 100% error rate.  

Peter MacKay, M.P. for Pictou-Antagonish-Guysborough, Nova Scotia, House Leader and Chief Justice Critic for the Progressive Conservative Party seconded Breitkreuz’ bill. "Issues of justice and public safety transcend partisan party lines. These regulations are not about public safety - it’s just another tax," said MacKay.

Bill C-68 was 137 pages long and so far the government has introduced 131 pages of regulations.

Sure sounds like a simple, inexpensive, smooth-running operation.   Unfortunately, it apparently doesn't work. 65 years of handgun registration and STILL most handgun crimes are committed with an UNREGISTERED handgun. Perfection indeed!....oh wait! I bet the Yanks are the reason it doesn't work!    

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-13-2000).]

[Pongo]

Read your own post you idiot and look at that % of violent crimes that included firearms...
Registration has been so effective here that when one of our kids copies yours and trys to take down his school he is limited to a single shot 22 that wounds one child not kills 14..
Gunshops have been shutting down all over canada for years. There are many less guns arround hence only less then 7% of crimes invove the use of them. Of course many of them are illegal. Of course criminals will get their hands on them. But how many criminals compared to the US....
Oh well. We as a nation have made our choice.  We will have to live with less fear. Fewer kids killed by gun accidents. More shelf space for fishing gear.
Do you fly anymore or just pay your subscription to be a gun advocate.

[leonid]

Come on, Toad.  What's there really to brag about?      

• In 1998 in the USA, there were 10,976 homicides with firearms.  That's 4 murders per 100,000 Americans.(reference)
  
• In 1999 in Scotland, there were 6 homicides with firearms, equating to 2 murders per 1,000,000 Scottish.(reference)

The murder rate with firearms in the USA is roughly 2000% greater than Scotland.  Very strict gun control laws are in place in Scotland.

I know Canada is not Scotland, but both are similar enough as western countries, and both were once part of the Commonwealth.

[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 10-14-2000).]

[Toad]

Pongo!

Thanks! The first “ad hominem” attack on me! This must be what Leonid was talking about. I look eagerly look forward to your use of other pejoratives!    

Taking your easiest question first, yes I still do fly in the MA. However, I can only “fly” on my “home” computer and I’ve rarely been home since August. My job is on the road and on the weekends my family has been traipsing across the US watching the firstborn son play Div IA football. (Yes, we are proud of him.)

I just got a laptop but so far I have been unable to get it to run AH. After selecting the video, it dumps me to a blue screen lock. I haven’t really had time to delve into this problem. The laptop works fine for the BBS though, don’t you think?    

This weekend we have a “bye” weekend in football but unfortunately my father, known to a few on this board as “Panther” suffered a heart attack. I have been connecting, reading and writing using brief connects on the phone in the hospital room. It helps keep the mind off REAL problems I think.

It looks like he is going to pull through in fine shape. In fact, the heart Doc just told us that the cath showed that except for the one place a bit of plaque broke off and cause the problem, he has the heart of a 45 year old. Not bad for an 80 year old man.

In sum, I fly as much as I can. I hope to fly more when I get this laptop up to speed. I’m sorry I don’t meet your standards for flight time. Is there a certain number of flight minutes per post or is it word count/airborne seconds?    

Now to the slightly more relevant part of your post:

I did not write the above statements, other than the commentary in italics. If you take issue with those statements, I’m sure you can follow the links to a place where you can submit feedback.

I readily admit that canada has a lower crime rate per person than the US. I believe that there are many, many reasons for this.  These reasons, I believe center primarily in social and economic areas.

Further, I believe firearms registration has little or nothing to do with the lower crime rate. I believe Canada’s own statistics bear this out.

In 1996, after 65 YEARS of handgun registration, 74.9% of canadian violent crimes that involved firearms featured a HANDGUN as the firearm. ...and most of these were UNREGISTERED HANDGUNS.

This makes it a little tough to see registration as the panacea that some would make it out to be. In fact, it suggests registration has essentially no effect on the use of hanguns in violent crime.

In fact, it seems to show that despite six decades of registration efforts, most violent crimes involving firearms are STILL committed with unregistered handguns.

Is that how you read that? Or can you see it a different way?

Now, if you want to discuss the reduction in the number of firearms with respect to violent crime rates, that is an entirely different issue, isn’t it?

The argument “fewer guns means fewer violent crimes involving firearms” would be a different argument than “registration of firearms means fewer violent crimes involving firearms” wouldn’t it?

I guess it’s just the “idiot” in me.  

I thought registration and reduction (are you suggesting confiscation?) are two completely different issues.

Sorry.    


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-14-2000).]

[Toad]

leonid: Come on, Toad. What's there really to brag about?

Who is bragging? I’m not content AT ALL with the rates of violent crime in the US! NOT AT ALL!

Where there is disagreement, however, it is over the methods by which we should attack this problem.

Igloo has been pretty prominent urging registration as the panacea to a more peaceful society, telling us to “wake up and join the 21st Century”.

Unfortunately, Canadian statistics underline the fact that 65 YEARS of handgun registration didn’t stop 75% of violent crimes involving firearms from featuring a handgun as the weapon and a majority of those UNREGISTERED.

Registration is plain and simple a waste of money; one we can’t afford.

I assure you, I will vigorously support ANY method of reducing violent crime, PARTICULARLY violent crime involving firearms, that puts the RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY on the criminal, not the inanimate object or law-abiding citizen.

I offer Projects Exile in Richmond and CeaseFire in Philadelphia as prime examples of such programs. They WORK! A 60% drop in Richmond’s violent crime rate in ONE YEAR! Positive results in a short period in Philadelphia. All without infringing on the law-abiding citizen’s rights. Without doing anything but actually PROSECUTING AND IMPRISONING CRIMINALS.

Can you support that Leonid? Could we possibly work together towards THAT goal?


Further, I’m not sure you can statistically compare either Scotland or Canada with the US. I think you’ll agree that most of our crime is centered in our major metropolitan areas. We have far more of such areas than either of those countries.

Therefore, such “across the board” comparisons might benefit from more specific examinations.

Further, I don’t think either of those countries has the diverse population, extreme spread in economic situations and rampant drug problem that is present in the US.

Can it be that factors such as these are MORE important in rates of violent crime than guns?

In short, this is a problem that defies simplistic assessment.

That’s why I favor programs that deal with the cause of violent crime: the criminal.

That’s why I favor programs that have been shown to work, like Exile/CeaseFire rather than programs for which there is pretty convincing evidence that they are huge money-wasting bureaucratic boondoggles.

BTW, welcome back Leonid!

 

[Igloo]

The violent crime rate with guns in the US can not even come close to being compared with Canada.  Canada is a much, much safer nation.  I wonder why.  Of course there are some crimes with unregistered guns. But there are a heck of a lot less than the US because of registration and other gun restrictions.  


2.2% of violent crimes invlove firearms.  That is a number to be proud of in my opinion.


------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Dinger]

I shudder to get even involved in another one of the O' Club gun-nut debates. But I'll just throw out a little logic.
The argument here is:
2% of all weapon-related incidents involved guns
"Canada requires handgun registration"
of the 2% "75% of gun-related crimes involved handguns, 7% involved shotguns and rifles"
Almost all handgun crimes involved unregistered handguns.
Therefore, requiring registration of shotguns and rifles will not make much of a difference in the overall figures.

That's a reasonable argument.  It is a waste of money to worry about what is essentially hunting equipment (well, a shotgun would be my number one choice for any daughter-related incidents), when they forms an insignificant part of the overall crime figures.

On the other hand, the conclusion:
"Clearly, the 65-year-old handgun registry hasn't reduced the criminal use of handguns" is faulty  The fact that NOW most handguns used in crimes are unregistered tells us NOTHING about what effect registration has had on the overall crime rate.  Indeed, I could argue the opposite point: the fact that most handguns used in crimes are unregistered betrays a significant reduction in their use: purchasing an unregistered handgun involves more difficulties, and a greater commitment (both personal and financial) on the behalf of the purchaser now that it is illegal.
Heck, even you gun nuts will agree with this one: the most dangerous gun owner is the one who thinks s/he knows how to use the weapon, but in reality hasn't a clue.  I'll go a step further: the most dangerous gun-wielding criminal is the one who gets a gun on impulse.  Let's face it: in any society a person with sufficient intelligence and dedication can transgress with impunity virtually any law.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

To put it another way, this argument is as fallacious as the old chestnut "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".  The response is, "Sure, but a helluva lot less outlaws will have them."  Frankly, the guy who scares me isn't the professional bank robber; it's the kid gets ahold of a piece and tries to heist a convenience store; it's the folks who can't pull off a proper assassination so they mow down bystanders in a drive-by.

Dinger
(Travis Bickel for president)

[Toad]

Dinger: "Clearly, the 65-year-old handgun registry hasn't reduced the criminal use of handguns" is faulty

Ding, that isn't what I said at all.  

I said: In 1996, after 65 YEARS of handgun registration, 74.9% of canadian violent crimes that involved firearms featured a HANDGUN as the firearm. ...and most of these were UNREGISTERED HANDGUNS.

I didn't discuss "reduction" at all.

I've found two very interesting crime statistics sites, one by the US FBI and the other from Statistics Canada.

Due to different reporting methods, it's going to take a little sorting out. For example, "violent crime" includes different categories.

Initially on a quick pass, using each nation's own definitons, Canadian reported violent crime in '99 looks like 955 incidents/100,000 population. The FBI repors 525/100,000 in '99. That would put Canada nearly double the US rate. But it's going to take some sifting to try to get to "apples to apples". I'll try to do that when I get some time.

The US murder rate IS three times higher than Canada's. Roughly 6/100,000 vice 2/100,000. Some interesting breakdowns of who's killing who in that US mess.

Given the previous stats though, if a handgun WAS used in Canada in a murder it's a safe bet that it was unregistered.

...and that's the point. Registration doesn't prevent anything.

Other factors are the primary players.


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-15-2000).]

[Maverick]

Toad,

Using logic, facts and figures in an argument gives you an unfair advantage over someone like Igloo. SHAME on you!!!  

Mav

[Dinger]

 

                      Given the previous stats though, if a handgun WAS used in Canada in a
                      murder it's a safe bet that it was unregistered.

                      ...and that's the point. Registration doesn't prevent anything.

Let me try again:
The argument seems to be:
[unstated premise] Handgun registration can only prevent crimes if most handguns used in a crime are registered.
In time X, in a country where handguns are registed, 3/4s of all crimes involving a handgun involve an unregistered handgun.
Therefore, Handgun registration cannot prevent crimes.

The unstated premise is the only one I can conceive of according to which your argument would have some sense, but it is clearly nonsensical.
It's like saying: "The law against crossing a US border with more than $10,000 of undeclared currency can only be effective at preventing drug smuggling if most drug smugglers declare their currency."  Or perhaps even closer, "Driver's licenses can only be effective at preventing wreckless driving if 98% of people so charged have Driver's licenses."
Even better: "Concealed weapons permits can only work if most of the crimes involving concealed weapons concern people with concealed weapons permits."
In other words, the 74.9% of unregistered handguns is beside the point of the effectiveness of handgun registration.  

Consider the following hypothetical situation:

A. in the period before handgun registration, there were 10 violent incidents involving handguns per 1000 inhabitants.

Now, take two opposite "after" conditions:

B. in the period after handgun registration, there were 100 violent handgun incidents per 1000.

B'. in the period after, there was 1 per 1000.

Neither B nor B' is incompatible with the fact that 74.9 percent of those incidents involved an unregistered handgun. So you can't use that fact to show that "handguns registration doesn't prevent anything"

Frankly, I don't understand how both
A. Handgun registration doesn't prevent anything
and
B. (A.) has nothing to do with whether they involve a reduction in the use of violent crimes.
can be logically compatible.

Sorry.

[StSanta]

You poor guys have a high crime rate  .

In 1998, there were 13 422 reported violent crimes in Denmark, up slightly from four years earlier. With a population of a little more than 5.3 million, that means 253 per  100 000 people if I can convert the numbers ok. 78% of all these crimes were succesfully dealt with by the police, meaning they were resolved.

Violent crime in these stats is defined as "violence against a government official (includes military, police etc), violence against a citizen, murder, and attempting murder, and manslaughter". Interestingly enough robbery (2606 cases) is regarded a property crime, not a violent crime.

There were 998 reported crimes involving drugs or drug trade, which means 19 incidents per 100 000 population. I gather the US figure is a bit higher?

No stats on guns though.

Source:
 http://www.dst.dk/siab.asp?frame=right2&o_id=1006

It is in Danish though.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Replicant]

Well living in the UK (which Scotland is still part of by the way, and the commonwealth!     ) I find all this gun talk rather fascinating.

In Britain there have always been restrictions to guns and even now the majority of guns that are available are shotguns, revolvers and .22 rifles for shooting competitions.  Everyone is heavily scrutinised and your property is inspected to see if your firearm is kept safe.  Most revolvers and .22 rifles are kept within clubs.

Even though I would have liked the opportunity to have gone shooting with very high powered rifles of different bores I am not too fussed about it mostly because here in Britain it is a pretty safe place as far as gun related crime goes.  Okay, if you really want a particular gun then criminals will get them but you'll find that anywhere.  Our Police are not even armed unless it is an armed response unit.  We have had gun tragedies here in the UK, most notably Dunblane and Hungerford (AK47, Uzi, magnums etc) and each time the government has imposed tougher gun controls.  Many business' went down.  BUT, unlike the US things are very different here.  There has never been a real popular gun movement with it basically being restricted to gun enthusiasts, farmers, clubs and the odd loony.  Farmers could carry on normally though gamekeepers with high bored rifles had to have special reason and licenses.  Clubs carried on with a lower type of gun available, but if it is targets they are shooting what is the difference shooting a target with a .22 and a .44?  Bigger hole?  Same skill.  The remaining enthusiasts were hit really bad but more importantly so were the 'loonies'.  I guess it stopped the opportunist into buying easily available weapons and using them for their strange motives.  Additionally the government restricted large hunting knives, machetes, other offensive weapons etc.

What I am trying to say is that countries are very different to each other.  In North America there are more target clubs, hunting clubs etc., and that is totally different to anywhere over here.  Having said that if you hear that someone owns a gun or at least hear of someone being shot by a gun then you're pretty shocked.  That's because you feel safe in knowing that guns are not easily available here.  It's just my opinion guys but I like it being kinda safe here in the UK.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to have gone shooting and all, but it's a price to pay for keeping the 1 - 3% loonies from using guns and killing men, women and children.

Regards

'Nexx'

BTW  Gun crime is at it's most rife in London, Manchester, and Glasgow (Scotland) within Great Britain.

[This message has been edited by Replicant (edited 10-16-2000).]

[Igloo]

The reason I don't bother wasting my time digging for figures is because the gun nuts just wont care.  Sad but true.  

I really don't care anymore.. Whenever there is another shooting in the US, the world just shakes their head and wonders when they're gonna wake up.

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[Regurge]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
The public was told by the government that the primary purpose of the firearms registry was to let police know which houses have firearms in them. But that only works if the system doesn’t have any errors. A few weeks ago, the RCMP’s Registrar of Firearms told a staff meeting that they were experiencing virtually a 100% error rate.  

So if they just assume all their information is wrong, they will have a nearly 100% success rate!

Just thought that was kind of amusing  

[This message has been edited by Regurge (edited 10-16-2000).]

[Gman]

Intersting....

Canada isn't quite as safe as you guys are making it out to be.  I can give you streets in Toronto of Vancouver, and even Calgary where I gurantee you'll get diddlyed with if you walk around for an hour or so.

I've lived here a good portion of my life, and two times I've used a firearm to defend myself, one time during a hold up at a service station I managed by a PCP'd out idiot, the other when some 16 year old kid was being beaten by a bunch of hindus with tire irons at the same location.  Both times I pointed an unregistered shotgun (not registerable in 92-93) at the criminals and they surrendered immediately.

The sad thing is, most Canadians would just sit in inaction when presented with this type of life and death situation, but I was brought up in a law enforcement household (my father was on the original CERT/SERT RCMP hostage rescue team before it became JTF-2).

Before you go spouting a bunch of roadkill about how great our guns laws are, and the wonders they have done for the criminal justice system, look at the facts.

I used to own/operate PMI Canada/MR Paintball, and since a lot of the cliental was younger guys who like guns, from them I found out how easy it is to acquire illegal weapons in this country.  An hour from picking up the phone I could buy every single type of handgun/mp5/uzi/ar15 etc unregistered/hot I wished to lay my hands on.  ILLEGAL guns are everywhere, and THEY are the problem, not the legit owners.

BTW if Canada is so safe, why has there been 2 murders within 200 feet of my wife's restaurant in the last few weeks?  Take a look at the national statistics for armed robery/assualt/home invasion/murder why don't you?  I bet those dead people sure think this is a safe place.  What a frickin crock.  You tree huggers are just desensitised from the real world in which we live.  

BTW, if either of the two restaurant clerks killed in the place of buisness 2 doors down from my wife's were given provision to defend themselves (having a firearm for self defense is illegal here, as is having one in a place of business), they would probably be alive.

We need to allow non-criminals the option to carry/own defensive weapons if they take the proper training, and make violent/gun crimes a mandatory 25 year sentece.  Until such time I'll continue to carry legal defensive tools, but I'd trade em all in for the ability to pack my USP.

P.S.  I'm all for registration...I'll register all the unregistered firearms I own when the time comes...so long as it gives me more rights (conceal carry etc) instead of taking them away.

[This message has been edited by Gman (edited 10-16-2000).]