Deadly Bullet
Sheila Fraser's report on the gun registry is set to land tomorrow and early leaks are that it will say that there were a lot of problems but that things are reasonably under control now. So, of course, the logical conclusion the Tories will jump to is to...axe the gun registry. Huh?
Yes, CTV is reporting that Stockwell Day will be saying "yes, guns kill people, but not shotguns or rifles". That's despite the following:
Now, I'm sure some people will jump over the last line as "proof" the registry doesn't work, but the fact of the matter is, there will always be gun crime. The registry should help decrease the amount of that crime by choking off the supply of guns. By keeping the registry in place for shotguns, the Tories are conceding there are benefits to registering weapons. So, why then give out free passes to certain types of guns which we know are used in crime?
Police use the gun registry. Criminals are prosecuted using the registry. You need the registry to show if a gun is stolen or legal. You need the registry to encourage responsible gun ownership and to track the transfer of weapons.
Problems in the past does not justify killing a program. There wouldn't be many government programs left if we simply killed any program which had growing pains. This is simply about Harper playing to his base - people who can't be bothered to take a few minutes and dollars to register their weapons.
UPDATE: There's an article in the Globe about police support for the gun registry. I didn't mention this point in my main post (although I have touched on it before), but the registry helps keep 3,000 guns out of the hands of the mentally ill every year.
Yes, CTV is reporting that Stockwell Day will be saying "yes, guns kill people, but not shotguns or rifles". That's despite the following:
Despite controversy and cost overruns, the gun registry has supporters. Police consult the firearms databank approximately 5,000 times every day and officers say limiting the types of guns listed will not help law enforcement.
"Our last six or seven police officers were killed with long guns," said Tony Cannavino of the Canadian Professional Police Association. "That's very sad."
Now, I'm sure some people will jump over the last line as "proof" the registry doesn't work, but the fact of the matter is, there will always be gun crime. The registry should help decrease the amount of that crime by choking off the supply of guns. By keeping the registry in place for shotguns, the Tories are conceding there are benefits to registering weapons. So, why then give out free passes to certain types of guns which we know are used in crime?
Police use the gun registry. Criminals are prosecuted using the registry. You need the registry to show if a gun is stolen or legal. You need the registry to encourage responsible gun ownership and to track the transfer of weapons.
Problems in the past does not justify killing a program. There wouldn't be many government programs left if we simply killed any program which had growing pains. This is simply about Harper playing to his base - people who can't be bothered to take a few minutes and dollars to register their weapons.
UPDATE: There's an article in the Globe about police support for the gun registry. I didn't mention this point in my main post (although I have touched on it before), but the registry helps keep 3,000 guns out of the hands of the mentally ill every year.
posted by calgarygrit at
10:35 p.m.
27 Comments:
Excellent post, CG. Bang on.
Ted
Cerberus
By
Ted Betts, at 10:59 p.m.
liberal fortunes had it half right.
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
By
C4SR, at 11:26 p.m.
Maces don't kill people - visigoths kill people!
By
Concerned Albertan, at 12:29 a.m.
wtp,
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws & the government will have guns.
That's pretty scary."
-I don't think its scary, if the government can protect me from communism, terrorism, facism, and bird flu, they can protect me from a few outlaws with guns.
By
Concerned Albertan, at 12:32 a.m.
Even as a Liberal supporter, I think the gun registry needs to go. Most firearm owners are hunters or farmers living in rural areas, not gang members in big cities. Most murders that involve guns use handguns. Secondly most are purchased illegally. More police and tougher border controls are needed.
By
Monkey Loves to Fight, at 1:41 a.m.
Almost all of the police chiefs in Canada and almost all of the police associations (i.e. unions) support the gun registry. That is why it is consulted some 5000 times a day.
The gun registry serves a lot of purposes. Two not discussed in most conversations are the knowledge our protectors have when attending at a domestic dispute (as they say, this is how they use it the most) and also in de-registering someone after they commit a crime.
We register our cars and for driving. We register for fishing licences. We register for hunting licences. We register our lobbyists.
Does that mean illegal driving, illegal fishing, illegal hunting and illegal lobbying is stopped or that it only criminalizes law abiding citizens?
It is not a big deal to register, the Auditor General today will say that it is not costing a lot to run (contrary to misleading Conservative leaks) and the cops think it is a valuable tool and helps saves lives.
That's enough for me.
Ted
Cerberus
That's enough for
By
Ted Betts, at 8:41 a.m.
I really have to wonder how many of the folks who find the gun registry so reprehensible are actual gun owners and not just malcontents railing from a partisan perspective. I am not a gun owner. I find guns violent, despicable WMD's. I do however have many gun owning family members who have quietly and respectfully registered their weapons as that is what the law mandates. I, like Winnipeg Police Chief Jack Ewatski, support the gun registry no matter what the cost.
By
Omar, at 8:47 a.m.
As a gun owner I have the following critique of the gun registry.
1) The mandatory training is a very good idea. But the training is general enough that it should/could be offered to all Canadians.
The training involves understanding basic principles like 'don't point a gun at anyone unless you mean to kill them' or how to unload a gun that you find.
2) The classification system of guns is awful and made without a proper understanding of firearms.
As an 1812 historical re-enactor we fought for years to get flint lock and match lock muskets delisted. (and were successful ultimately) But 1856 reproduction caplock rifles are still listed alongside semi-automatic AK-47s in the registry. This is a mistake (and if any of you know anything about guns you'll understand my point).
3) The gun registry is useless since only those citizens that are law-abiding to begin with will register.
Instead of punishing the criminals, the gun registry focuses on punishing those citizens that are honest enough to try to follow the laws of the country by registering their firearms.
4) Police organizations have gone both ways on this issue. Fantino, the former police chief of Toronto was vehemently opposed to the registry as a collosal waste as were many other police chiefs. Political groups (in my opinion) sidelined these officers and promoted those with similar viewpoints.
As for the 5000 uses of the registry per day, I'd be interested if that includes times that police ask 'is this gun on the registry' and the answer is 'no'.
5) Gun control is proven not to work.
Handguns have been all but banned in Canada for 30 years. Still, we have people being gunned down by handguns in the streets of our cities.
In England, when they banned all handguns in the country (a blanket ban - only the army may have handguns if i remember correctly) they saw an increase of 300% in hand gun crime.
6) Long guns and rifles are used as often in criminal activity as knives. See statistics canada about this.
By
Eric, at 10:15 a.m.
Re-reading my 5th point, I guess I should alter/clarify it.
It should be 'Gun bans don't work'
Gun control has its benefits if done properly and with a full understanding of the issues.
By
Eric, at 10:17 a.m.
Oh and the last police officer killed was killed by a handgun in Windsor, Ontario. My hometown.
By
Eric, at 10:18 a.m.
"-I don't think its scary, if the government can protect me from communism, terrorism, facism, and bird flu, they can protect me from a few outlaws with guns."
I have a rock that protects me from polar bears. I bought it from Homer Simpson. I have never been attacked by a polar bear. See how well it works?
By
The Rat, at 10:43 a.m.
amen, pass the ammunition everyone....
"We register our cars and for driving. We register for fishing licences. We register for hunting licences. We register our lobbyists."
that makes too much sense, why stop with getting rid of the gun registry, lets get rid of all licences!
Of course it cost a billion dollars, but what is worse a billion for a working gun registry or a billion for absolutely nothing?
By
Sean S., at 11:15 a.m.
The gun registry is not about gun control, it is about imposing an urban set of values on rural gun owners. The Toronto Star-that bastion of conservatism-recently did an article showing that the area of Ontario with the highest gun ownership had the lowest gun crime rates, and downtown Toronto, with the lowest gun ownership rate had the highest gun crime rate.
Washington DC had a gun registry long before Canada and it had no effect on crime rates.
There are about one million gun owners who refuse to register their guns. It would cost tens of billions to prosecute and jail them. During the 2004 election a candidate at an election debate I attended announced he had not registered his gun and dared the government to come get him. The regisry is meaningless because no one has to obey.
AS for the police consulting the registry thousands of times a day, I've read that police computers are automatically set up to consult the registry whether the police want to check someone for gun ownership or not, running any kind of check links to the registry.
By
nuna d. above, at 11:42 a.m.
"...We register for fishing licences. We register for hunting licences..."
I believe an appropriate analogy would be that that we register our fishing rods for fishing. The problem is that we don't. We get a fishing licence for fishing and a hunting licence for hunting. We do not need to register fishing rods.
Why do we need to register long guns?
Answer: Read Nuna D's comment.
By
Dr. Strangelove, at 12:18 p.m.
Mr Halifax
Specifically in your reference to the police approaval of the gun registry and the old FAC.
One of the reasons that the police do support the gun registry is that the local police no longer have to administer the program.
This has saved by my understanding the Calgary police department about 3 million dollars a year.
Multiply this number across the country including local RCMP, OPP and Surete detachments and you have one great benifit of the the gun registry. It allowed local police to take money spent on gun registration and administration and put it into local policing. One number I heard was about 30 million a year was saved by police and moved into local policing, ie feet on the streets.
How come this number is never brought out by opponents of the gun registry.
The result of the gun registy was to put 30 million dollars a year into the hands of local police to actually fight crime as opposed to being bureaucrats.
Getting rid of the gun registry will also cost local police departments at least 30 million a year and probably far more to reestablish the previous way.
Hopefully the Conservatives will go ahead with this and we will have their first Billion dollar boondoggle within the year and all at the cost of local policing.
Whoo hooo.
By
Aristo, at 12:41 p.m.
People don't seem to understand "sunk costs". Just because the program has cost 1 or 2 billion, axing it will not bring back 1 or 2 billion into the government coffers. We're not talking about going back in time and never setting the program up - it's a question of whether or not to continue.
We'll have to see the numbers, but I believe the program costs something like 60-80 million dollars a year to run now (but I may be wrong on that). To me, that's not a lot of money. And, I imagine that removing certain guns from the registry won't save more than a few million a year.
So, from a cost benefit analysis, this one seems like a no brainer to me.
By
calgarygrit, at 12:49 p.m.
"One of the reasons that the police do support the gun registry is that the local police no longer have to administer the program."
You're going to have to elaborate on that one. How do the police no longer administer a program that never existed in the first place?
And on another track... if this registry is consulted 5000 times per day, where the devil was the consultation that should have revealed ex-con Francois Pepin of Laval owned a high-calibre hunting rifle when he shot Constable Valerie Gignac to death in December?
By
Dr. Strangelove, at 1:09 p.m.
The point is if your going to spend 2 billion... spend it right. Not on something that doesn't work.
No amount of justification anyone can present can justify spending 1 to 2 billion on something that should only cost around 60 to 80 million.
By
Joe Calgary, at 1:10 p.m.
CG - while I understand what your saying, in terms of raw math, you'll never be able to argue successfully in relation to cost/benefit. In fact, the ratio is so low it's almost of the map.
By
Joe Calgary, at 1:12 p.m.
I think many Liberal posters need to make a distinction between the long gun registry and licensing gun owners.
Nobody is suggesting getting rid of the license to buy ammo and guns - this is the process that weeds out mental cases and criminals from buying legal guns. Guns are a tool and are only useful if the owner knows how to use them safely. The licensing program does this.
What many conservative-minded people such as myself want axed is the registry. It is just a list of law-abiding owners of rifles and shotguns. The problem that many of us have with this list is that those who are on it are hunters and farmers. Criminals do not put themselves on the list. I would be interested to know how many firearms crimes were committed by the legal owner of a registered firearm. My blind guess is less than 10 - but again that's just a guess.
CG - you mentioned sunk costs. You are right the money will never be recovered, but the fact that the money was already spent should not matter going forward because throwing good money after bad just wastes more money.
Its time for the government to stop punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals - Its time to axe the registry.
By
Anonymous, at 1:21 p.m.
Sorry CG... I posted this once before, and I'm going to again.
This time I will do one better. By Friday I'll send you privately what the gun registry should look, as part of an unsolicated proposal to the Federal Government by my company.
I would encourage you, if you agree with what is sent, to publish any part you want.
For the record, I personally think a registry is a good idea. I know the one we have now is useless.
For those of you who think the police like the current program, I would suggest to you that there is such a thing as being happy with what is, because to not have it is to have nothing.
So here is the last study I did:
Case Study of the Gun Control Program
Background on the Program
In the late 90’s, the Canadian Government announced the launch of Canada’s first true, all encompassing gun registry, which would form a database of all guns legally owned in Canada. This is an effort to better understand the distribution of firearms across the country, and to enable the Canadian Government to presumably control the issuance of licenses and such to people who sought gun ownership.
As of 2003, most people, who are not directly involved in the Gun Control Program, would agree that the model instituted by the Federal Government was an unmitigated failure. This caused no small amount of anger amongst the population, and was responsible for defacto rebellion from some of the western provinces unwilling to accept the law. Alberta for example essentially refused to prosecute the act of violating the program.
The Department of Justice is responsible for the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP). The program is organized as a sub-activity within the department. The 1995 Firearms Act requires that all owners and users of firearms must be licensed by January 1, 2001 and that all firearms must be registered by January 1, 2003. In 2000, a sample survey conducted by GPC estimated that there are 2.46 million owners and users of 7.9 million firearms in Canada.
The Result of the Program
Given the fact that over $2 billion has been spent at an annual cost running into the tens of millions, each registration by owner costs about $900 for every $100 spent by a user per annum. Put another way, each firearm cost the Federal Government an average of roughly $300 to process at $31 per registration per gun per year. On top of that, it is an incomplete database. Theoretically, the gun registry costs more than all the guns in this country combined.
Gun related crime actually increased since the programs inception, and hardly any firearms retrieved from gun related homicides have ever been registered.
In July of 2005, Deputy Prime Minister Ann McCellan announced the program had successfully prevented a little over 2000 applicants from receiving license’s for firearms, and that the nations police had made over 20 million inquiries to the register. This, she proclaimed, was proof the program was money well spent.
The same day she made the announcement, the gun related homicide statistics for the province of Alberta were released announcing that they were up in 2005 by 33% over the entire year of 2004. Only a small percentage of the firearms used were registered.
The program’s success is obviously highly debatable.
The cost of the registry database is mis-represented as "information". If one considers having information on registered guns and law abiding gun owners the measurement of success, while ignoring gun crimes, unlawful gun distributions and the ever increasing use of guns in criminal behavior. Then one could say the program is a success.
However, if one begins to take gun crimes, prevention of unlawful gun distribution, and the percentage of crimes involving guns as the measuring stick, (this being the published and stated goal of the CFP) then the program is a failure.
The registry "information" is wrongly promoted as gun control where there are no mechanisms, implementations or even a means of "control". The originally proposed cost of $2 million is fair to create and manage the run registry. The cost of $2.3 billion is a result of "trial and error" based on misunderstanding a bad design, while attempting to make the database a source of information and information as control.
Where did it all go wrong?
Simply put, the Government had the right idea to commence on a program, namely the gathering of all pertinent information regarding who owns what guns.
Raymond V. Hession, who was contracted by the Federal Government to do an independent evaluation of the program, summed where the program failed best. He stated categorically in 2003;
“The first baseline forecast suggesting that the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) would cost taxpayers only about two million dollars in excess of the fee income it would generate was plainly based on flawed assumptions. The technical requirements and business processes that were developed to implement the stipulated functions of Bill C-68 (Firearms Act) proved to be dauntingly complex.
And, the project struck to manage the development failed to prescribe the business process and technical architecture of the solution based on which it would be designed in detail, built, tested and rolled out. Without that full architectural expression, it was not feasible to do a proper estimate of development costs. Instead, the architecture evolved and, change-by-change, the project grew more complex. The development costs escalated.
And, because the CFP was a wholly new venture for the department, there was very limited operational experience on which to draw as a check on the unintended deleterious effects of policy requirements on efficient program administration. The procurement method employed by the government allocated little performance risk to the two contractors who were asked to detail the design and build the solution. They did what they were told to do and billed accordingly”.
Clearly, lack of understanding, and an unclear definition of what was attempting to be achieved, completely derailed what in essence is a very simple program.
In other words from the beginning the IT companies controlled the whole process, they provided the hardware, developed the software and data processing, and maintained control over it leasing it back to the government. Every time a change was made, a charge was issued, driving up the operational costs of the CFC and the CFP. The costs were in the millions, and the government still did not own the hardware, software or data, this was still the property of the IT companies.
It is apparent that in this case, large multi-national companies took complete advantage of the ignorance of the managers from the government side of the equation. As Eugene Plawiuk, an executive member of CUPE states:
The result of all this outsourcing of computer technology for the CFP is the recommendation from Hennison that "to bring development costs under control, with the exception of normal application maintenance, no additional software functions should be added to the existing technical infrastructure." So when outsourcing fails once we try it again and when it fails again and cost overruns occur we now freeze the program.
Like EDS, Team Centra benefited from outsourcing. "By joining forces with AMS, CGI has doubled its critical mass in both the United States and Europe. With 25,000 professionals and US$3 billion in revenue, CGI is one of the largest independent IT and BPO companies in the world," says their web page. And again they profited from cost overruns at CFP, just like EDS.
He basically states that the P3 model deployed for this program was a complete wash, and that because of lack of technical expertise on the part of the Government, the large multi-nationals were able to lead the Government managers down the garden path, by not helping to educate them on what they were attempting, but rather allowing them to think they understood the end run goals of the program on the implementation side.
This is confirmed in Hennsion’s report, although he states it in a much more diplomatic manner.
The first baseline forecast suggesting that the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) would cost taxpayers only about two million dollars in excess of the fee income it would generate was plainly based on flawed assumptions. The technical requirements and business processes that were developed to implement the stipulated functions of Bill C-68 (Firearms Act) proved to be dauntingly complex.
And, the project struck to manage the development failed to prescribe the business process and technical architecture of the solution based on which it would be designed in detail, built, tested and rolled out. Without that full architectural expression, it was not feasible to do a proper estimate of development costs. Instead, the architecture evolved and, change-by-change, the project grew more complex. The development costs escalated. And, because the CFP was a wholly new venture for the department, there was very limited operational experience on which to draw as a check on the unintended deleterious effects of policy requirements on efficient program administration. The procurement method employed by the government allocated little performance risk to the two contractors who were asked to detail the design and build the solution. They did what they were told to do and billed accordingly.
The Federal Government made the mistake of assuming that because you have information at your fingertips, you have control. They commenced on design with an eye towards implementation, and discovered they hadn’t put enough into the planning stage, thusly forcing them to continue to go back to the developer companies to revamp this form or that, and those companies cheerfully took their marching orders without explaining the complexities that were mounting with the continual changes. They would just send a bill and do the change.
Conclusion
This categorically shows that the implementation of a policy is a crucial if not the most important factor of enforcement. A conventional and political way of introducing policy would typically result in "putting the cart before the horse".
Like "gun control" and most other policy implementations, they come to the conventional route of "information = control = enforcement" where "information" is misinterpreted as "control", and "control" is misunderstood as "enforcement". The control and enforcement are designed and applied based on the assumptions that law-abiding citizens are accounted for and would commit a majority of the gun crimes.
This methodology is somewhat akin to placing a "do not enter" sign at a bathroom door and subsequently dedicating resources to watch the door, then using lawyers to punish those go through the door and get caught.
The purpose of gun control is to control the guns, gun trafficking, and gun uses that are specifically associated with gun crimes and criminals.
There are at least 50 Boutique software firms who could design and implement for the gun control program, and integrate with all the existing criminal databases, with real-time enforcement devices at every gun shop, every gun supplier, every police station, every emergency vehicle, and every border crossing, and it would cost less than 10% of what has been spent today.
The reason for this is simple, Boutique Software firms educates thier customer, participating in the design process, and works hand in hand to make sure that what the customer is paying for is what they get, while still achieving the end goal.
Large entities are not so mindful of this, and at the end of the day, will take advantage of the situation because what the customer wants is only part of what they are being charged for, using the 90’s mentality of “trapping the customer”, by providing the carrot, but dangling it from a stick.
This is substantial, because it speaks to how the IT world does its business. To companies like IBM, CGI, Microsoft etc… a problem is not a problem when it requires servicing, because servicing means man-hours and man-hours mean money. So in effect, if there are no problems, that is a problem for the IT supplier because they do not make money on technology that does not break.
What we emphasize in relation to the gun control program is the importance of trying to have people learn the costly lesson of what not to do in every aspect of the program. In the case of the CFP the design, development, implementation, deployment, and the risk management resulted in mistakes, and the cost of that has been clearly shown.
Whoever got the $2 billion is the only true beneficiary of the gun control program.
Without knowing where to go, and how to get there, it is fair to say that the Government got on the wrong bus at the cost of $2 billion, and are still figuring out which direction to go.
In relation to cost vs benefit vs control, It would have been cheaper and more effective to purchase a handgun for every Canadian over the age of 16. Then everyone would have a gun, every gun would be noted in the registry, and illegal gun distribution would effectively be eliminated because everyone would already own a gun. Most importantly, the database to store ownership information might cost around $20 million, and the Government would have spent less than a billion dollars.
Irony has no limitation.
By
Joe Calgary, at 1:21 p.m.
Mr Halifax
I did not admit that at all.
I actually specified the opposite.
There are now more police on the street, where they should be, then in the office.
I was pointing out that as a result of the gun registry we are actually safer, if you consider an increased police presence on the street safer, which I do.
I also think you completly proved CG's point. If we are to disregard sunk costs as you suggest then we only look at the gun registry on an ongoing basis so all the noise you are making about supposed billions of dollars being wasted is just noise as you yourself just admitted.
Then if the result is that getting rid of the gun registry is to increase costs to local police departments (DR Strangelove: Prior to the creation of the registry, the local police had to check out applications to buy guns one of the benifits of the registry was that local police no longer had to do this procedure, guns may not have been registered but you still needed a permit) therefore by your own argument James you have to concede that the gun registry needs to be kept.
Otherwise you are suggesting we need to by a new house after the retaining wall with super duper hurricane fencing and breakwaters is complete. Right lets by a new house and start trucking in that sand all over again.
The problem with conservatives is that they let ideology trump wisdom every time.
Gun Registry made mistakes so gun registry BAD.
Get rid of Bad Things.
What you mean mistakes finished and now program good.
No gun registry BAD!
Kill Bad registry Kill Kill!
What you mean cost police more money?
Registry Bad!
Go away registry!!
By
Aristo, at 1:31 p.m.
Actually, only Police who are enabled can check the registry... that's one of it's problems.
By
Joe Calgary, at 2:20 p.m.
Merboy, read the G&M article that states that people who register their firearms can have that fact used as justification for a wire-tap or a search warrant.
That is how gun owners are punished.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060516.REGISTRY16/TPStory
The mere fact that you have a firearm doesn't make you more likely to be a criminal. But that is how it is being portrayed.
By
Eric, at 5:16 p.m.
On the mentally ill point, yes an individual with a mental ilness cannot buy a gun. But if someone develops one, the registry will say if they own a gun which must be taken away.
On the same point, if someone is charged with a violent crime, I believe they can't own guns. Therefore the registry will tell people if they have a weapon which needs to be taken away.
On the sunk point cost, I believe that proves my point Andrew. What happened is irrelevant. It's like if you sign an MLB player two year deal, paying 2 million a year with a 10 million dollar signing bonus. If he has a terrible first year, the signing bonus and the first year contract are already spent money. So when deciding to keep him or not, it's a question of whether or not he's worth 2 million next year.
And, on another topic, it's a lot harder to prosecute and prove that a weapon is stolen or not being stored correctly without a registry to tie the gun to its owner. Now, if there are problems tracking the flow of guns, that's a problem which needs to be addressed. But by tying a gun to it's owner, it brings some accountability to owning a weapon.
By
calgarygrit, at 6:19 p.m.
Hello All,
The Liberal government brought in the Afghan mission and I am really hopeful that the majority of our party MP's will support the vote tonight. However I hear that upwards of 80 lib MP's are planning on NOT supporting the mission.
On my blog I am calling on ALL bloggers to support the mission today and send a signal to the MP's that Canadian's support our mission. Hopefully readers of this blog will also follow suit.
By
Forward Looking Canadian, at 9:52 a.m.
Let us have a referendum in Toronto:
Choose (1) or (2)
1) one billion dollars for a long gun registry
2) one billion dollars for more police on the street, more customs officers to investigate gun smuggling, and funding for extracurricular activities in poor neighborhoods in cities.
The guns that are killing people on city streets in Canada are not registered guns.
By
godot10, at 1:36 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home