Long Gun Registry

[Segnosaur]

The chiefs are not exactly the same as front line officers (who, according to one poll, do not find the registry useful at all). The position of 'chief of police' has certain political elements, which may cause them to support a registry even if the registry itself is ineffective.

You yourself mentioned earlier that particular poll is not a valid poll.

Your right, I did point out it was a straw poll...More than once. I didn't mention it this time because I figure people would know what poll I was referring to.

Frankly, I'd LOVE to see the results of a true scientific survey of police officers. I'd LOVE to be able to talk to one of the chiefs supporting the registry and ask if cops still prepare for danger even if the registry shows no guns present. But, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

Even though the poll was unscientific, it probably has more validity than the opinions of the police chiefs, who, as I said, are in a situation that can be just as much political as tactical.

 

[lopeyschools]

Stephen Harper is a very frustrated man.He's been the Prime Minister of Canada now for nearly five years, yet his Conservative Reform Alliance Party (CRAP) has never held a majority of seats in parliament, so his attempts at implementing his right wing agenda have been hamstrung.

He's using the abolishment of the long gun registry and the long census form as ideological bludgeons, like a mean drunk swinging a bar stool in a tavern brawl.

It just occurred to me at this moment that Harpo seems to have an abhorrence to "long" things. Perhaps a bit of repressed envy?

Thanks for your opinion? Did Harper run over your dog or something?

Which is why I started my statement with "if".

Oh, and as to the cost, how about the government spending over $1 billion dollars on the G7/G20 security arrangements, including a million bucks on a fake lake for foreign reporters? Surely that spending was at least as egregious a waste of money as the long gun registry is claimed to be.

My definition is irrelevant. I'm asking those who oppose the registry to provide a clear and rational description of why the current paperwork and fees constitute an unreasonable imposition.

The problem with that line of argument is that it easily applies to many other areas. Yet those other areas don't draw anywhere near the same comment or ire. Why is that?

Moreover, in terms of security of data issues, why again is the consequnece of such matters the choice must be to scrap the registry altogether? Why not keep it but reform it to make it better?

Has it been proven to be useless yet? The Association of the Chiefs of Police have stated they find it useful.

In terms of fees, which way do you want it? Earlier you made the point that not everyone may be able to afford the fee to register their weapon, but now you're worried about lowering the fees will cost more to taxpayers. (As a practical note, dispersing the cost of the registry onto the entire population of the country would surely mean the amount paid for by each person would be trivial as compared to having the cost of the registry carried only by those with weapons to register.)

Also, I would think over a billion dollars on G7/G20 security matters and fake lakes and whatnot would be far more offensive.

Yah the whole G20 thing was ridicilous, but that's kinda of a red herring to the issue of whether the registry works or not.

The paperwork and fees are unreasonable because the efficacy of the registry has yet to be demonstrated. It's unreasonable to impose paperwork and fees for the sake of paperwork and fees even if it makes you feel better.

It has to be proven useful, not the other way round. Have you ever wondered why the proponents of the gun-registry never cite studies demonstrating it's efficacy? When was the last time a crimnologist defended the registry?

For the record; the Canadian association of chiefs of police did not reach their position unanimonously. There are chiefs of police who strongly disagree. (http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2010/09/01/15217066.html)
I don't understand why people give the CACP such weight. The CACP have held many positions that people probably would be surprised about. (For example:http://www.ualberta.ca/~clement2/cacp.pdf read the first paragraph)

As a practical note, disperse the cost of any single government expenditure across the tax-paying population of the country. Everything seems cheap now, doesn't it?

 

[lopeyschools]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3H4NqPNQ7k&feature=related

Interesting police opinion.

 

[Blue Mountain]

In case any non-Canadians are reading this thread and haven't looked up the news, the bill was defeated in Parliament with 151 in favour to 153 against. The registry remains intact.

 

[lopeyschools]

In case any non-Canadians are reading this thread and haven't looked up the news, the bill was defeated in Parliament with 151 in favour to 153 against. The registry remains intact.

Oh I imagine this debate will rear it's head again in the near future.

 

[lionking]

In case any non-Canadians are reading this thread and haven't looked up the news, the bill was defeated in Parliament with 151 in favour to 153 against. The registry remains intact.

Yes I heard that. We have a firearms registry in Australia which is accepted as a consequence of owning a firearm. I know someone said that a car registration system is not a good analogy, but I think it is. A unroadworthy, unsafe car is a potential safety issue. An unregistered firearm in the wrong hands is likewise.

 

[Ranb]

What are the requirements for registering a car? I could go to prison for ten years for failure to register some of the firearms I own, but failure to register a car in my state is not a felony. How does it compare in Australia?

Ranb

 

[Corsair 115]

The paperwork and fees are unreasonable because the efficacy of the registry has yet to be demonstrated.

Do note that the oppposite also has yet to be demonstrated—that the registry is not yet providing value for the money and time required of the registrants.

I'll state my position more clearly: I'm agnostic on the issue of whether the long gun registry is useful or not. What I do react to are arguments against it which rely primarly or wholly on ideological grounds. As I said earlier, ideologically-based arguments carry no weight with me.

If you want me to agree that the long gun registry is not worth the demands it makes of registrants, then demonstrate that case rationally and with evidence. That I am quite prepared to listen to; ideological arguments I am not.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes I heard that. We have a firearms registry in Australia which is accepted as a consequence of owning a firearm. I know someone said that a car registration system is not a good analogy, but I think it is. A unroadworthy, unsafe car is a potential safety issue. An unregistered firearm in the wrong hands is likewise.

Actually, there is one very big problem with that analogy.

When you operate a motor vehicle, you will likely be operating it on city streets, which are paid for and maintained by various levels of government. (I'm not sure, but its possible that cars that never drive on city streets don't have the same requirements for "road-worthiness"; e.g. race cars)

On the other hand, fire arms are not likely to be used "on the street". They will most likely be used either A: on private property (e.g. shooting ranges, or on farm land for pest control), or B: when hunting, on land that's not maintained (in any significant way) by taxpayers.

 

[Segnosaur]

Do note that the oppposite also has yet to be demonstrated—that the registry is not yet providing value for the money and time required of the registrants.

I'll state my position more clearly: I'm agnostic on the issue of whether the long gun registry is useful or not. What I do react to are arguments against it which rely primarly or wholly on ideological grounds. As I said earlier, ideologically-based arguments carry no weight with me.

I've already pointed out the cost of the registry, and how the money spent for it can be used for alternative purposes, at least some of which can provide real benefit. That's not "ideologically based". Yet your only response to that was to point out that there were greater cost overruns in the government, as if that justifies this particular waste of money.

And do the security issues count as "ideological arguments"? After all, we do have the former webmaster for the registry who claimed security on the system was lacking.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I'll put it this way...

I can imagine or hypothesize a number of ways in which the LGR would increase public safety or facilitate the job of the police. While these benefits might be marginal on a case by case basis, the volume of instances where this marginal probable benefit might accrue could be significant.

I can't really imagine a way in which the LGR would diminish public safety.

I dismiss arguments about gun owners' right to privacy about gun ownership.

Given the very low cost of the LGR, I don't have a hard time reasonably believing that the benefits outlined above outweigh the costs. This could also very well hold for the alternative (opportunity) cost of hiring more nurses or whatnot. 4m is an extaordinarily tiny drop in the bucket of healthcare spending. The marginal benefit of this additional spending is likely to be quite low.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

(let alone that the example of MRI techs is a false choice as it's really provs hiring those folks)

 

[Segnosaur]

I'll put it this way...

I can imagine or hypothesize a number of ways in which the LGR would increase public safety or facilitate the job of the police. While these benefits might be marginal on a case by case basis, the volume of instances where this marginal probable benefit might accrue could be significant.

Well then, perhaps you can provide at least some ways that it would be of assistance. Because so far examples have been pretty sketchy.

So, does that mean you dismiss the straw poll of officers who say the registry is of no benefit?

Does that mean you disagree with the statements made by police officers at hearings over the gun registry that say that the registry is of no use (including one that involved a poll of Sask. police officers)?

I can't really imagine a way in which the LGR would diminish public safety.

Well, one of the links provided by lopeyschools goes into details about that. (Its a video from a police officer in Sask, who feels that between errors in the registry and the fact that criminals will not register guns, then any police who relies on the registry will be putting their life on the line. Granted, it was an opinion, although the officer's background/history seemed to indicate he was an expert in the field.

edited to add: There is also the hypothetical situation where a hacked registry database could be used as a 'shopping list' for criminals. Granted, I am suspicious of claims that its already happened, however, since you seem to be happy talking about marginal possibilities, then you should be willing to accept such marginal risks caused by the registry.

I dismiss arguments about gun owners' right to privacy about gun ownership.

I see...

So, does this mean you now accept that the RCMP did give personal information to a private company (enough to identify individuals and their guns) but view it as acceptable because there is no "right to privacy"?

Given the very low cost of the LGR, I don't have a hard time reasonably believing that the benefits outlined above...

What benefits? All you've done is claimed there are a bunch of cases that could marginally improve safety. You haven't given any yet.

...outweigh the costs.

Of course, you're also assuming that the "$4 million" cost given by the police is actually accurate. The lack of transparency, coupled with other issues in the RCMP report (e.g. their statement about requiring "upgrades", wildly fluxuating costs in the past) should make people hesitant about trusting their figures.

This could also very well hold for the alternative (opportunity) cost of hiring more nurses or whatnot. 4m is an extaordinarily tiny drop in the bucket of healthcare spending. The marginal benefit of this additional spending is likely to be quite low.

I see... so its ok to assume the "marginal benefit" of all those improvements in safety is important, but the "marginal benefit" of getting medical treatment sooner, or having more officers running patrols in my neighborhood is irrelevant?

Oh, and yes, I do recognize that things like health care are paid for by the province, the federal government does provide money to the provinces to help pay for health car. And ultimately, there really is only one taxpayer.