Archives

Categories

Gun registry supporters (police groups etc) launch new website.

We have a new website up from proponents wishing to keep the Long-gun registry intact. It’s called Truths & Myths, and the list of organizations that support the site is impressive:

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
The Canadian Police Association
The Canadian Association of Police Boards
The Canadian Public Health Association
The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
The Canadian Association for Adolescent Health
The Canadian Paediatric Society
The Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists
The Trauma Association of Canada
The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions
The YWCA of Canada

Here are the Top Ten Myths about the Canadian Firearms Program, and my favourite page of the site, some specific examples how the registry helped police officers and helped their safety.

Nice to see the police associations helping to publicly support the long-gun registry and ensure it survives. On a related note, You’ll note that the Conservative Party and its supporters often boast about how they’re the most “pro-police” party out there, yet when the police publicly disagree with them on an issue like this, they suddenly aren’t so pro-police. Curious how that works like that, eh?

Share

36 comments to Gun registry supporters (police groups etc) launch new website.

  • – Begin Quote Jon Pertwee —
    “@Stan, What the hell are you carping about Stan? you’re making no sense and you’re full of vitriol and nonsense. Stop, think and come back with something coherent.”

    “@ridenrain, hey, no bragging about the s**tty things you can’t do right at your job.”

    “@Jim Orlik, um you still havent provided proof to your argument.

    “As far as other staistics, none are needed.”

    You essentially fail in your argument with that statement. Essentially you are making a statement, telling me to find your proof and then you say you dont need statistics to prove your point. That’s pretty weak Jim. You aren’t the same Jim who comments on bigcitylib are you?”

    “@ridenrain, Cripes RR your arguments are getting incredibly weak and poorly thought out. You havent had a lobotomy recently have you? Seriously, you’ve got your knickers in a knot about stock photos and you have the hypocritical audacity to accuse others of pettiness?

    How you have any credibility with anyone astounds me.”

    “@Jeffery Walker, it’s those cult leaders again Jeffery. Quick run before the Kool Aid Man arrives!”

    “@ridenrain, wow Ridenrain, you contributed absolutely nothing with that comment.

    Thanks for hitting us with the deep concepts.

    /rolls eyes”

    — End Quote Jon Pertwee —

    @Jon Pertwee, for someone who keeps harping on everybody else for not contributing anything of worth, you sure don’t offer much insight.

    — Begin Quote The Liberal —

    “It’s a proven fact that gun owners are piece of s**t male chauvinist pigs.

    All guns should be banned and confiscated, and hopefully the registry will make it easier to achieve that end.

    When guns are banned, only police and military will be allowed to have guns. And then a liberal progressive government should hire more women and minorities in these areas to stick it to the white male chauvinist pig hierarchy.

    I am a liberal and PROUD OF IT.”

    — End Quote The Liberal —

    @The Liberal, ah yes and you are the stereotypical Lieberal, at that. Full of absolutely no useful facts and can only insult others to try and make your point. How’s that workin’ out for you?

    • Jon Pertwee

      @Tyler, well Tyler it’s often hard to offer any insight when so little is offered as an argument. It is quite difficult to offer a counter-argument to someone’s bluster and vitriol. You have attempted to insult me by proving that Ive responded to nonsensical comments by criticizing them. Do you have an intelligent and insightful argument to the Kool Aid comments? Or have you found a method of carrying on an insightful discussion with someone who puts forth conjecture, opinion and talking points yet refuses to back them up? I didn’t think so.

      It’s good to see that cut and pasting is still a required skill at the CPoC training courses. You’re growing up to being a nice little Wilson arent you. Also, nice to see that you are keeping up the tradition of hypocrisy by accusing me of not providing any insight, while providing no insight, relying on the traditional Conservative qualities of bluster, vitriol, talking points and cut and pasting. Oh dont forget hypocrisy, but that’s just the lifeblood of Conservatism.

      Funny that your last sentence completely proves that.

      Long winded, meandering and ultimately your argument fails. C-

      • @Jon Pertwee, it’s nice to see the Lieberal trait of “not looking up facts before you speak” is alive and well with you. If you had bothered to actually look up, you’d notice that I had contributed an argument to Big Winnie’s post. It may not be a huge contribution, but it’s more than you’ve offered thus far. But I digress, I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your politically correct feelings.

        • Jon Pertwee

          @Tyler,Not really Tyler. You spout off some numbers but fail to cite any source for proof. Epic fail actually and you overstate your contribution. Arrogance and bluster are not exactly a contribution but nice try.

          Politically correct? How wrong you are you redneck hillbilly.

          D+ Try harder Tyler. It’s too easy to get through your thin skin.

        • Apparently I can’t reply to you directly. Oh well:

          @Jon Pertwee, I have quoted your own set of “facts”:

          Myth #1: Cost = $4.1M
          Myth #7: Accesses = 11,076 inquiries / day
          Big Winnie: $1.16 / inquiry

          I get the feeling that you feel you’ve agitated me. Your name calling is to be expected, it’s easier than looking up facts for yourself. Now whether that’s because you’re typing from a mobile device (BlackBerry?) or you’re just too lazy, I guess that’s to be seen.

        • Jon Pertwee

          @Tyler, those are numbers, just numbers without any cited proof. Glad to see you can come up with numbers but without citation or proof they are just numbers.

          Why should I do the legwork to prove your argument Tyler? That’s not being lazy on my part but yours. So far you havent proven anything other than you put forth an incredibly weak argument and refuse to prove it, instead insisting I prove your argument. Come on Tyler that’s either being stupid or lazy. Now go get those citations and then maybe you can rest on you laurels.

          I have gotten under your skin and you know it.

        • @Jon Pertwee, believe what you will. If CGC, CAPC, CAPB and various other organizations can use these “facts” without providing sources, then I will take the same liberty in refuting them.

        • Jon Pertwee

          @Tyler, CGC, CAPC, CAPB is your proof? You can’t even supply a simple link to any of the data that you cite rather you list a series of abbreviations.

          How did you finish school successfully? Did you just will your teachers into submission with ignorance and arrogance?

          You still haven’t provided proof and judging from your response are incapable of doing so.

          F-

          How you get worse at this every time confounds me Tyler.

        • @Jon Pertwee, I think I’m getting under your skin. Your replies are getting more and more abrupt with more insults and name calling. Very telling and very stereotypical of a Lieberal who can’t properly counter an argument.

          The link has already been provided to your beloved website. The link is at the top of the page labeled “Canadian Firearms Program”. It’s the only time on this site, besides this reply, that it is mentioned. You could even just use your browser’s “Find” feature. If you need help finding that, let me know and I’ll try to help you out. Of course that would require help from a “lesser” person, such as myself, as you seem to believe.

        • Jon Pertwee

          @Tyler, I’m puzzled with you Tyler. You accuse me of name calling yet you call me a Lieberal in the same paragraph. I’ve read my comments and cannot see how I could be fairly accused of resorting to name calling when you were the first to do so. Seems like a bit of a glass houses situation for you.

          So you’re link is a top ten myth list and your argument is to disprove it by accusing another commenter of having failed math. That is a paltry straw man at best Tyler and not a contribution to any discussion as you boast. You have not only failed to prove your argument but thanks to you pointing to your proof I can honestly say you lack an argument to begin with. It must be the swirling sound of hot air that you boast so much of.

          So you have failed completely in your effort. You have attempted to insult me about my browser usage and claim to be a lesser person though sarcastically and quite revealing that you view yourself as a superior. Too bad your weak responses have not helped you.

          I love the accusation of me becoming more abrupt and resorting to name calling the most. Your first response was meandering and poorly thought out, from then you took on passive aggressive tones; implying that I was name calling while you called names in the next sentence.

          Please Tyler, even Ridenrain is better at this than you.

          F-

  • There are a recent generation of drugs that are stronger than xanax. Anti-depressants have worked wonders for me and they are non-addictive. Please confer with a Dr. who specializes in the treatment of addicts and alcoholics before making up one’s mind on any medication.

  • Stan

    I see the RCMP had a ice internal memo get away on them.
    All it said of course is that the members aren’t supposed to let anyone know their real opinion of the registry.
    Funny how the only way progressives can justify and sell their ideas is with the threat of force and lies.
    If there was support from the members for for this scam they wouldn’t need the memo, would they?
    Odd the CBC couldn’t find that memo, but hundreds of bloggers could.
    But once again, the poll numbers show the jig is up for the liars.

    • Jon Pertwee

      @Stan, What the hell are you carping about Stan? you’re making no sense and you’re full of vitriol and nonsense. Stop, think and come back with something coherent.

  • ridenrain

    Not to mention the seeming inability of the registry to put the same person’s picture and their name on the same ID card.

  • Jarlath

    OK. Lets Go thru each of the 10 myths.

    1. In 2009 it cost $4.1 t operate the long gun registry.
    In 2009 there were 4,000 registered firearms traced using the registry. 1,600 were non-restricted long guns. Numbers are direct from RCMP Chief Superintendent Cheliak. That is over $2500 per registered non-restricted firearm not $1.16.

    2. Registering is fast.
    Speed of registering non-restricted firearms has never been the issue (restricted and prohibited registrations are not fast). The fact that historically, registration lead to confiscation was the primary issue. The only way of speeding up registration would be to eliminate it.

    3. Registering is free.
    It is now. Initially it cost $25 per gun registered. Later dropped to $25 per call (Multiple guns at once) and then finally free.

    4. 2009 saw over 110,000 firearms seized by police, 87,000 were long guns.
    Wow Great statistics. Tell us how many of those long guns were registered? How many were non-restricted? Sounds like the suicide numbers, less people have committed suicide with firearms since the registry was enacted. True, but suicides have also increased since then. That is not a win overall, it is a loss.

    5. Of 16 officers shot & killed since 1998, 14 were with a long gun. Also true, but again leaving out important info. How many of those were registered non-restricted long guns? Mayerthorpe (4 officers) was with an prohibited long-gun, used by a person with a firearms ban.

    6. All the political organizations representing police support the registry.
    Of course they do. Must be why they have sent out training seminars to all the police chielfs on the “benefits of the long gun registry”. If the benefits were so obvious, why do 90% of all front line officers, ignore the registry when responding to calls?

    7. Police access the registry 11,000 times a day, 2,824 regarding addresses.
    So the police are saying they investigate over a million addresses a year for registered firearms? That is such utter rubbish. That would mean that every two years, every single licensed firearms owner in Canada was investigated for community safety incidents. Lets check actual registration checks and serial numbers (19 & 335 times daily) equals 122,000 per year. Yet the RCMP already stated that 4,000 registered firearms were traced last year. So what are the remaining 118,000 serial number and registration checks for? Oh yeah. They haven’t told us, because 4 million hits a year sounds impressive.

    8. It impacts officer safety as evidenced by over 4 million uses last year.
    Oh give me a break. Of the 4 million uses, 2.3 million were simple name queries from everything from speeding tickets to purchasing a firearm at a sporting goods store. Of the remaining 1.7 million uses, one million were address checks (also available from firearms licensing, surprise). So that leaves roughly 750,000 uses a year, of which only 122,000 involve queries about firearms themselves. So at best, 3% of all the police “usage” is actually about the firearms themselves. Very efficient tool then right?

    9. It’s another tool that assists police in making informed decisions that contribute to community safety.
    Excuse me? Police do not rely on the registry when entering into any situation, it is assumed that on a call with any chance of violence, that a firearm is present (In act police are trained to know that they are bringing a firearm into a possibly violent situation). Police who have warrants/court orders to remove firearms from a home, will do a search until they themselves are convinced that there are no remaining firearms at that home regardless of what the registry lists. Do do otherwise is reckless and inviting disaster.

    10. The CFP’s national database has never been breached by hackers. Information is safe and secure.
    The RCMP themselves admitted it, yet somehow these organizations know better than those who run the program? Come on. All you need to do is get request an Access to Information about the registry and security breaches.

  • Jim Orlik

    Jon Pertwee, sure, read the chronicle Hearld. It was just this week where there was an article about firearms being turned over to police. It was also on CTV news.
    As far as other staistics, none are needed. If a program was introduced nearly 20 years ago and there are still firearms that aren’t registered, then obviously the program isn’t working.

    • Jon Pertwee

      @Jim Orlik, um you still havent provided proof to your argument.

      “As far as other staistics, none are needed.”

      You essentially fail in your argument with that statement. Essentially you are making a statement, telling me to find your proof and then you say you dont need statistics to prove your point. That’s pretty weak Jim. You aren’t the same Jim who comments on bigcitylib are you?

  • ridenrain

    Whoever paid for it couldn’t even be bothered to include a picture of a Canadian policeman:

    “Party goes back to drawing board after image of U.S. officer altered to include Ottawa police symbol”
    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Liberals+registry+hits+rough+patch/2996749/story.html

    It’s like they simply can’t help themselves from lying.

    • Jon Pertwee

      @ridenrain, Cripes RR your arguments are getting incredibly weak and poorly thought out. You havent had a lobotomy recently have you? Seriously, you’ve got your knickers in a knot about stock photos and you have the hypocritical audacity to accuse others of pettiness?

      How you have any credibility with anyone astounds me.

  • Jeffery Walker

    Has anyone considered the potential conflict of interest when you check the domain registration information and then have a look at the Police Act?

    Specifically about political involvement.

    That website is registered to the Toronto Police Service. Yet nowhere on the site is the TPS openly acknowledged.

    Mind you, we all know that TPS Chief Blair is the President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

    Who paid for all the related costs for this site? The taxpayer did. We paid for a Political Lobby Group to use our money to put up a website that has many misleading “facts”.

    There’s something that isn’t up front and honest about this.

  • Jim Orlik

    The long gun registry came into effect early in the 1990’s. Just last month in Nova Scotia there was an amnesty program where anyone could turn in unregistered firearms and over 500 were turned into police. If the gun registry is so effective, why after nearly 20 years is/was there still 500 firearms still unregistered in Nova Scotia alone.
    The gun registry is bogus, it’s ineffective and overly expensive. It serves absolutely no purpose.
    I would far rather see the money being spent on this gun registry be used for education, health care and any number of essential programs that have seen cuts over the last few years.

  • The Liberal

    It’s a proven fact that gun owners are piece of shit male chauvinist pigs.

    All guns should be banned and confiscated, and hopefully the registry will make it easier to achieve that end.

    When guns are banned, only police and military will be allowed to have guns. And then a liberal progressive government should hire more women and minorities in these areas to stick it to the white male chauvinist pig hierarchy.

    I am a liberal and PROUD OF IT.

  • ridenrain

    Every police search automatically references the registry, regardless of it being a burned out turn signal or a homicide. The fact that they receive a $1.16 automatically, for no work is a indication of how much of a boondoggle this really is. Sheila Fraser was right.
    The folks who keep expecting the police to protect their civil rights need to try waving a stapler around in YVR.

    • Jon Pertwee

      @ridenrain, wow Ridenrain, you contributed absolutely nothing with that comment.

      Thanks for hitting us with the deep concepts.

      /rolls eyes

  • The comparison is not valid. A registry of people is more specific. If I lend my gun to a neighbour, it is in someone else’s house and no longer in mine. I cannot lend my identity.

    The identity issue is what bothers me and my personal example will help illustrate. When I turned 16, I applied for and obtained my Firearm’s Acquisition Certificate. I was a registered, licensed long-gun owner. How many and of what calibre were not registered. But as an individual potential gun owner I myself was registered. I can see how that information would be useful. An officer searching my records while approaching my home or during a roadside stop would get a flag saying, “Hey! This guy, this individual, has guns! He might have one on him!”

    When the system changed, my FAC was replaced by the new possession only license. Digital records with photo ID, so this part of the system was improved. (And please note no one really protested this part. I really believe was improved at this point because my personal information was updated in the system.)

    The second step was to register each of my guns. I never registered my long-guns. My particular rifles were of such a vintage that there were no identifying marks on them. No serial numbers, product IDs, nothing. Just a stock and a barrel. I looked at the requirements of the forms and what I possessed and said fuck it, this makes no sense.

    Since I never registered, just this past fall the federal government sent me a letter revoking my possession license.

    So according to the government, this individual is no longer registered as licensed. No one confirmed what I possessed. They went so far as to delete my potential ownership from the system. That put the nail in the coffin for this debate for me. For over 20 years the cops knew I had the potential to have a firearm with me, and this wonderful system even took that away from them.

    So where are my guns?

    I tell you truthfully I sold two of them and deactivated the third and kept it for sentimental reasons (my grandpa gave it to me and it is the one I learned to shoot with).

    But all you and everyone else have is my word on that.

    • Anon ABC

      I find your comments very interesting.

      I do agree that if you lend your gun to a neighbour, an officer calling on his/her house will not know that. However, if that gun is used in a crime, and it is registered to you, the police would know it is your gun. I would think that just knowing that the police would be able to trace the gun ownership would discourage most people (without criminal intent) from lending it to people they don’t trust, don’t you? I know that it would certainly discourage me, so from that point of view, having the registry would still be useful, wouldn’t it?

      You mentioned that although you were supposed to register your guns, you did not proceed with it. Consequently, your possession licence was revoked without anyone checking whether you still possessed any guns. A couple of points. First, if you did not register those guns, as you were supposed to, how would anyone know that you still possessed the guns? Is it not possible that someone could have thought that since you did not follow through with the registration, that you no longer own any? — just playing devil’s advocate here. Not sure if this is an appropriate example, but if I do not file my tax return when my income obliges me to, I do not think that Rev Can will accept that explanation when they finally catch up with me one day that it is their fault because they allowed me to get away with not filing my return.

      Second, despite the previous comment, I do agree that someone from the registry should have done due diligence and checked whether you still own any guns. It seems to me there are two “transgressions” (no offense meant) here: your failure to register the guns, and the failure of someone in charge at the registry to do due diligence. Both of these reasons do not at all negate the usefulness of the gun registry. In fact, if the registry were run properly, it would have flagged that you own two guns while your possession licence has been revoked.

      Am I missing something here?

      • @Anon ABC,

        The problem is (and why I didn’t register these guns) is that they did not have any identifiable markings on them whatsoever that could uniquely identify them. All rifles of the same manufacture all look exactly the same. There was supposed to be a process where I applied for a sticker to apply to the gun to make it unique and at that point it got so confusing that I gave up.

      • @Anon ABC,

        And no you’re not missing anything. I was not flagged at all. Hence the usefulness of the registry is flawed. In my case a rookie officer would conclude that I have no dangerous weapons in my possession. It just happens to be true. But on one has confirmed that.

        And yeah, this is (probably) the fault of the Conservatives as they have mismanaged the database into a complete state of uselessness. According to the live-blog Kady did earlier this week, less than half of the long-guns in this country have been registered. (Which begs the question, if they aren’t registered how do they know how many there are? Are they just extrapolating based on statistics?)

        So the police only “know” about some of the long guns people have in their possession.

        • Anon ABC

          @Catelli: Thanks for your clarification. You know, I probably would have given up in frustration too under the circumstances that you described.

          I suspect that many of the people who support the registry would agree that its operation could be improved, probably even significantly. As you had mentioned, and which had also been my thoughts, the Cons probably mismanaged it. In fact, a cynical person could opine that they probably did it to sabotage the usefulness of the registry and then claim that it is fatally flawed. Recall that it had been alleged by some that PVL had withheld relevant information from Parliament until after the vote. I think I read somewhere that they did not even collect the fees that the designers of the registry intended to collect. Any surprise, if that was true, why it was costing taxpayers big-time?

          Glad that you allowed me to share my thoughts on this issue.

  • Big Winnie

    I’m in favour of the registry and even with the organisations that support the registry, Conservatives are still fighting it?

    BTW, I heard a few days ago (CPAC had the hearing on C-391) that the cost of checking the registry is $1.16/inquiry. Gees, that’s less than a cup of coffee at Tim Hortons. Moreover, the annual cost is 1/8th of the annual advertising budget of the government.

    Sounds like a good deal to me.

    • @Big Winnie, you have just disproved their “fact” on Myth #1. Fact #1 says “In 2009, it cost $4.1 million to operate the long gun registry.” According to your facts, at $1.16/inquiry and at 11,076 inquiries/day (given in fact #7), you’re looking at a daily cost of $12,848.16 and an annual cost of $4,689,578.4. That’s just the inquiries and doesn’t even include the cost for staffing, etc.

  • Myths 7 and 8 don’t address the fact that the registry is incomplete and/or inaccurate. The registry is not a list of what firearms are in what residence at any given time. I have personal knowledge of that fact.

    So any officer (including my neighbours that are front-line cops) always assume there is a firearm in a residence (or automobile) they are approaching. Its not what they know that can kill them, its what they don’t. The registry doesn’t solve that.

    I don’t care if the registry lives or dies. However I do care about the false assumption that it somehow makes things safer. It does not such thing. It is a list, and like almost any national list, it is inaccurate and incomplete. It is information only, it does not convey knowledge.

    • TofKW

      @Catelli, The national sex offenders list is incomplete as well. By your logic that means it doesn’t make the public safer and should be scrapped too. Hell the US should scrap their no-fly list ’cause it obviously doesn’t work either.

      BTW – I’m not even a fan of the registry, but this argument is lame. Also, the list being incomplete has a lot to do with the CPofC’s actions, both in opposition and (more-so) while in government.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.