HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Why the long-gun registry...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:33 PM

Why the long-gun registry doesn’t work — and never did [Canada]

registration is a common gun control desire. It was a colossal and expensive failure in Canada.

In March, Stephen Harper’s government reversed decades of increasing restrictions on civilian firearms, scrapping the controversial long-gun registry on grounds that it was wasteful and ineffective. Gun laws, the prime minister correctly said, should focus on criminals rather than law-abiding citizens such as farmers and hunters.

In 2002, the auditor-general revealed that the Firearms Centre had grown out of control. Despite political promises that the program would not cost over $2-million, costs were expected to exceed $1-billion by 2005. By 2012, this had ballooned to $2.7-billion. The auditor-general uncovered irregularities including mismanagement and corruption. Her findings stimulated a parliamentary revolt. In 2003, Parliament imposed an annual spending cap. The auditors’ reports led to RCMP investigations of Liberal insiders and contributed to the fall of the Liberal government in 2006.

To this day, it has been claimed that the registry is important in protecting women. But in fact, there is no convincing evidence that registering firearms has been effective in reducing either homicide rates overall, or spousal murders in particular. Even though homicide rates have been gradually falling since the 1970s, a wide variety of researchers have been unable to find solid evidence linking gun laws to this decline. Changing demographics, not firearms laws, better explain the decline in homicides involving long guns over the past 20 years. It is difficult to argue that Canadian gun laws are effective when homicide rates have dropped faster in the United States than in Canada since 1991.


A third claim is that long guns are the weapon of choice in domestic homicides, and that registration can help to identify the perpetrator. (This is related to the aforementioned claim that guns promote violence against women.) In fact, the long-gun registry and licensing are rarely needed by police to solve spousal homicides for three reasons: (1) in almost all cases, spousal murderers are immediately identified; (2) firearms are not often used to kill female spouses; and (3) the firearms used by abusive spouses to kill their wives are almost all possessed illegally. Statistics Canada data show that just 4% of long guns involved in homicides were registered.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/

7 replies, 1313 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why the long-gun registry doesn’t work — and never did [Canada] (Original post)
hack89 Dec 2012 OP
believer10101 Dec 2012 #1
-..__... Dec 2012 #2
hack89 Dec 2012 #3
gcomeau Dec 2012 #4
gejohnston Dec 2012 #5
hack89 Dec 2012 #7
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #6

Response to hack89 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:38 PM

1. Illinois anti-carry law struck down

 

Federal Court Strikes down Illinois' total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business

Fairfax, Va. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled today that Illinois' total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business is unconstitutional. The case involves lead plaintiff Mary Shepard, an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in both Utah and Florida. The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for all law abiding citizens in Illinois and gun owners throughout the country,” said Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of NRA. “The court recognized that the text and history of the Second Amendment guarantee individuals the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and other lawful purposes. In light of this ruling, Mary Shepard and the people of Illinois will finally be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

On September 28, 2009, while working as the treasurer of her church, Ms. Shepard and an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by a six-foot-three-inch, 245 pound man with a violent past and a criminal record. Ms. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Ms. Shepard's injuries required extensive surgeries and she continues physical therapy to this day attempting to recover from her injuries.

In today’s decision, Judge Richard Posner ruled that Illinois’ ban on carriage is unconstitutional. The Judge went on to say, “One doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. . . . Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk than in his apartment on the 35th floor.”

"Today's ruling is a major victory for law-abiding Illinoisans—and for everyone who understands that the Second Amendment protects the right both to keep arms, and to bear arms," added Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "This ruling makes clear that Illinois cannot deny law-abiding residents the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home. This is a step in the right direction for all gun owners. We know it probably won’t be the end of this case, and we’re ready to keep fighting until the courts fully protect the entire Second Amendment.

http://admin@nramedia.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:41 PM

2. Ohh... now you've gone and done it!

 

I'm willing to bet that there's at least one very frustrated and angry lurking Canadian just foaming at the mouth because she/he/it can't respond to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:43 PM

3. I can feel the vibes from here! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:49 PM

4. Since you chose to bold this...

"It is difficult to argue that Canadian gun laws are effective when homicide rates have dropped faster in the United States than in Canada since 1991."



I can only assume you thought it made some kind of valid point. It does not, for the simple reason that the current rates in Canada are still THREE TIMES LOWER than in the US.

Only looking at the rate of change while disregarding the starting point is a nice little trick to pull. Kind of like looking at two houses, one of which is an energy inefficient power wasting boondoggle and another which is a model of energy efficiency... then turning the lights off in the energy wasting house, looking at the drop in power consumed, and saying that since there was no corresponding drop in power in the energy consumed by the energy efficient house obviously it isn't effective at saving energy, because look! The power usage dropped faster in the wasteful house!

Never mind what it dropped from and to... yeah that''s not important...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:08 PM

5. their rate was one third ours

from 1968-1977 when their laws were overall laxer than ours. While they did begin a handgun registry and licensing in 1934, they did not register machine guns until 1952, and required no permits or ban them until 1977. When you balance specific provisions, their federal laws seem more or less stricter than ours, but not really. There, most felons may legally own guns after their time is served. Federal law allows 18 year olds to buy handguns, while here it is 21. With a minor's permit, a 12 year old may buy ammo and possess an unrestricted long gun without adult supervision (the law allows subsistence hunters a waiver to allow those as young as 9 to get a minor's permit) Putting a shoulder stock on a handgun is not a crime there, here it is creating a short barreled rifle without a manufactures license, a federal felony. A resident of one province may buy a gun in another as long as you have a valid PAL. Internet sales work the same way, the gun comes to your door. Can't do that here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:28 PM

7. But it does beg the question

of the impact of gun control laws if US rates are falling faster even though the US is actually relaxing their gun laws while Canada was strengthening theirs.

It's demographics not guns that drive crime rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:27 PM

6. But there is one area of success for Canada's gun-registration bureaucracy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread