What is your Opinion Of the Long Gun Registry?

[Edward Smith]

Let's stick to the Facts and not let emotion run rampant. The facts as I see it is that it is an expensive venture that did nothing to prevent the crimes it was supposed to! But, What do think?

[Fred Woodman]

it could be spent anywhere and Canadians would be getting better value for the $20 million we are spending on the Registry, for which we get nothing

[Edward Smith]

I was told that the money that was used to run the Registry is minimal. I'm glad $20 million dollars is a minimal amount, LOL. And, that the registry is hit 11,000 times a day. So, it is demonstrating its effectiveness. I nearly laughed, but this is not a joking matter.

[Edward Smith]

You are correct Gerald. over 2 billion dollars has been spent to date. But, the $20 million is what is spent yearly to keep it running. Scary isn't it.

[Fred Woodman]

Gary Mauser, Ph D Professor Emeritus Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies Faculty of Business Administration Simon Fraser University Burnaby BC, CANADA www.garymauser.net To: Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Re: Bill C-391 - Countering Ten Misleading Claims Executive summary Bill C-391 is a simple and straightforward bill that proposes to dismantle the long-gun registry for non-restricted long guns, nothing more. Bill C-391 leaves in place the rest of Canada's gun control regime, including the requirement to obtain a licence, the screening of applicants, the requirement to register restricted and prohibited long guns, the need to take and pass the firearms safety course, and the rules on safe storage and transportation of firearms. The evidence demonstrates that the repeal of the long-gun registry will not reduce public safety in Canada and may even improve it. After a brief review of the arguments, I examine and rebut the key points in the Coalition's letter sent to MPs on October 20, 2009. The statistics provided here clearly shows that the long-gun registry has not been effective in reducing criminal violence and most especially that it has not saved lives. The multiple murders by shooting that have occurred since the registry was put in place prove that it is a waste of time and money. Bill C-391 deserves support because the long-gun registry has failed to protect Canadians from gun violence and diverts vital police resources away from more effective efforts. In her report to Parliament, the Auditor General of Canada found that the long-gun registry cost taxpayers at least one billion dollars; later research doubled this estimate. She also noted that the Department had been unable to substantiate whether the long-gun registry had increased public safety or saved lives, which is surely the standard by which any success of the program should be measured. Every one of the claims made by Ms Cukier made in her October letter to oppose bill C-391 is false or misleading. In response to the misleading claims made by the Coalition for Gun Control, please consider the following information: Claim #1: Access to a gun increases the risk of murder. False: Canadian gun owners are less likely than other Canadians to commit homicide. Claim #2: Rifles and shotguns are the weapons most likely to be used in domestic homicides. False: The problem is the murder of family members, not the means of killing. Rifles and shotguns are not the weapons most likely to be used in domestic homicides. Knives are. Claim #3: Spousal murders with guns have fallen threefold since the law passed, while spousal murders without guns have remained the same. False: Spousal murders (with and without guns) have slowly been declining since the mid-1970s. There is no empirical support for the claim that the long-gun registry has reduced spousal murders. The long-gun registry was not begun until 2001. Claim #4: Stronger gun laws have helped reduce gun violence. False: Ms Cukier's letter begs the question of the effectiveness of gun laws against crime. She is deliberately confuses the date the long-gun registry began with the date the legislation received royal assent. The rate of homicides committed with a firearm generally declined from the mid-1970s to 2002. This steady, long-term decline has been driven by economic and demographic changes. However, the use of firearms in homicide has increased since 2002. Claim #5: Firearms stolen from legal owners are a significant source of crime guns. Registration is essential to prevent dangerous individuals from getting guns. False: All studies of crime guns (or guns used in murders) agree that stolen registered firearms are infrequently involved. It is the criminal record check, which is part of licensing, and certainly not registration, that stops criminals from getting guns legally. Bill C-391 will not change the current provisions for obtaining a firearms licence. Registration simply refers to the firearm, not the owner. Claim #6: Firearms pose more problems in smaller cities where there are more gun owners. False: Homicide is a particularly acute problem in large cities where ironically there are fewer legal gun owners. Claim #7: The registry is an essential tool for police when taking preventative action and when enforcing prohibition orders to remove firearms from dangerous individuals. False: The long-gun registry does not contain information on a gun's location. The registry only contains descriptive information about the registered guns. Rank and file police members do not find the registry useful. In approaching dangerous situations, the police must assume there is a weapon. Claim #8: The gun registry is consulted by police 10,000 times a day and provides important information. False: Almost all of the "inquiries" are routinely generated by traffic stops or firearm sales and are not specifically requested; nor do police often find them useful. Almost all of these inquiries involve licensing, not the long-gun registry. Claim #9: Polls show Canadians believe the gun registry should not be dismantled. False: Two recent polls show that the public does not support the long-gun registry. This is consistent with at least 11 earlier polls, all of which have clearly demonstrated that the Canadian public has no faith in the long-gun registry or its ability to increase public safety. Claim #10: Stronger gun laws have helped reduce gun-related death, injury, violence and suicide. False. No properly designed study has been able to show that gun laws have been responsible for reducing criminal violence rates or suicide rates in any country in the world. More police officers and better technologies are more effective routes to improving public safety. In sum, the test of any governmental program should be whether it meets its goals. In this case, the long-gun registry has failed. It has failed to save lives. It has failed to reduce murder, suicide or aggravated assault rates. The long-gun registry continues to cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars each year. This money could be better spent on other more useful law enforcement measures, or be directed towards a number of other key priorities for Canadians such as health care.

__________________

[Fred Woodman]

Chief Chu is wrong

---

Canada’s National Firearms Association
Box 52183, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T5 Telephone: [phone]
Toll Free: 1-877-818-0393 www.nfa.ca

Canada’s National Firearms Association Media Release
For Immediate Release 31August 2010
Chief Chu fails to present a single compelling reason for the continuance of a firearms registry which does little more that force citizens to engage in a bureaucratic exercise that has nothing whatsoever to do with the safety of the public or of law enforcement officers.
Any officer who relies upon the error-filled registry to guide their approach to a particular situation is taking their life in their hands. Does it make any sense to presume that no firearm is present just because a computer data base in Miramichi has no record of it? Should a “no firearms” response change the officer’s reaction? Of course not - any officer should always proceed with consistent caution. What is particularly offensive is the idea that just because a person is indicated as owning a firearm that they could receive treatment different from anyone else.
Owning and using firearms, including rifles, shotguns, and handguns for defence, competitive shooting, target practice and hunting are legitimate activities. It should be a concern to anyone in a free society that the police would want more control on the activities and property of citizens. This despite overwhelming evidence that people who own firearms are statistically less inclined to violence than the general population. Registration’s only purpose is to confiscate firearms from people who the state determines should no longer have them. In every country in which registration programs were initiated, including Canada, confiscation of firearms has followed – that’s not paranoia, it’s history.
For more information contact:
Blair Hagen, Executive VP Communications, 604-753-8682 [e-mail]
Sheldon Clare, President, 250-981-1841 [e-mail]
www.nfa.ca

[Fred Woodman]

Rcmp hyprocrisy

---

This forum is stuck and being a member I though you/all should know about a situation in the Central Kootenay.
Recently the RCMP invaded a private home and took all the owners firearms.
The owner supposedly utter threats so the RCMP broke into his safe and confiscated his personal property.
Two charges were laid and both were thrown out. However the RCMP refused to return the firearms?? The RCMP maintain that the Provincial CFO must give permission for the return of the firearms. This is contrary to what they stated two week previously, when a local Gun Club obtained permission to display firearms at a mall promotion.
At that time the CFO gave consent to display both Restricted/non-Restricted on local club tables. The only condition was no magazines or ammo.
Upon informing the local RCMP the display would be presented the RCMP refused to allow the display. Maintaining they were in control.
These patterns are becoming more frequent and disturbing.
We need a CPC Majority Govt. to address this runaway.

[Cathy Stamp]

VOCM The Conservative candidate for the Avalon riding says that, if re-elected, the Harper government would introduce legislation to abolish the long-gun registry once and for all.

{Should have been put in place sooner rather then election time.} 

Fabian Manning says Harper would also establish a hunting and wildlife advisory panel comprised of representatives from hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations to ensure that governmental decisions are based on sound science. 

 {What has wildlife been at since confederation?!}

 
Manning says we must stop targeting law-abiding gun owners and focus instead on real criminals.

 {Old & worn out no one listening}

They said they would abolish it the last time they got in, so I think they should abolish it before the election.

All tarred with the one brush, Case Closed.   

[Fred Woodman]

The Conservatives ( harper) did put before the house a vote to eliminate the long Gun Registry.last fall, the Liberals pulled rank and forced its members to tow the line and vote against its elimination. The NDP is somewhat of a flip flop also voted against its elimination. Given we had a minority Government The Conservative motion was defeated, by the combination of Liberal and NDP Votes.

 

Those are the facts, we cant dispute that

 

[Cathy Stamp]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7iz1HTh9U Check this out bet her gun is registered