Sushihunter
Active Member
http://www.nfa.ca/police-and-registry-what-are-facts
The Police And The Registry — What Are The Facts?
By Gary Mauser
September 1, 2010
The recently released RCMP evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program contains little new. The report recycles the same old canards that Canada’s long-gun registry is an important tool for law enforcement. It sidesteps the key question: whether the long-gun registry is more effective in protecting public safety than putting violent offenders in prison.
The report does admit that the registry costs over $20 million per year, not the paltry four million the Chiefs of Police claimed earlier this year. The goal must be public safety, and the report implies that it is more important to focus on ordinary citizens who own firearms because they might commit suicide than on violent criminals.
The report is a blatant attempt to influence public policy. The police are lobbying to write the laws they are employed to enforce. Policy-making is the mandate of elected governments on behalf of the people. Certainly police should be consulted on the efficacy of current policies, but it is not proper for police chiefs or Firearms Program civil servants to lobby the government attempting to dictate which laws it should adopt.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is not an official government body. The CACP is funded by the CGI Group -- the software contractor for the gun registry. It boggles the mind that the Police Chiefs’ support of the registry is not connected to their source of financial support. In fact, ethicist Dr. John Jones resigned from the CACP’s ethics committee last year because the CACP had ignored his conflict-of-interest warnings that they should stop taking money from organizations they do business with.
The long-gun registry should be abandoned because it focuses on the wrong people. We will all be safer if the police focus their efforts on violent criminals, not duck hunters and target shooters. As I testified this spring to the House Committee on Public Safety, the facts show that Canadian gun owners are less likely than other Canadians to commit violent crimes such as murder.
Supporters of the registry cannot point to any research supporting their claim that stronger gun laws have helped reduce gun violence or criminal violence in general. None of the examples given by Vancouver Police Chief Chu, for example, include instances where the registry helped to stop a crime from being committed.
It is shocking that the police claim to trust the accuracy of the registry. Police officers cannot and should not trust the information in the registry. Less than half of all firearms in Canada are included in the registry, and of course, none of the guns owned by criminals.
The Chiefs claim that the registry is essential for taking preventative action and enforcing prohibition orders to remove firearms from dangerous people. This is false and dangerous. The registry only includes guns of people willing to get licences. Obviously, dangerous criminals are not. Also, the long-gun registry contains no information on a gun's location but only descriptive information about the registered guns. Any police officer who trusts the registry for being alerted to the presence of a gun is foolish.
Rank and file police members do not find the registry useful. In approaching dangerous situations, the police must always assume there is a weapon. Evidently the Chiefs of police care more about politics than the safety of their own officers.
The RCMP report argues that the “full registry” be maintained, calling it a valuable tool for the police. However, there is no convincing evidence supporting the claim that the long-gun registry has had any effect on homicide, suicide, or domestic violence rates.
The long-gun registry wasn't introduced until 2001, not in 1995. Since 2001, homicide rates have been essentially flat, even though homicide rates had been plummeting since the early 1990s. The long-gun registry has not saved any lives.
Few guns involved in violent crime have been stolen. Studies vary, showing between 1% and 17% of guns used in crime were in the registry. Almost all have been smuggled. This is true in Australia and the UK, as well as in Canada. This is organized crime, not citizens.
The claim the gun registry is consulted by police 10,000 times a day providing important information is false. Almost all of the "inquiries" are routinely generated by traffic stops or firearm sales and are not specifically requested; front line police officers rarely report they find this information useful.
The Hon. Peter Van Loan, then Public Safety Minister, in November, 2009, reported that after analysing the police statistics, 97% of the times authorities check the CFRO, they want information about the owner, not the firearm. This concerns owner licensing, not gun registration. Bill C-391 proposes no changes in licensing.
Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
The Police And The Registry — What Are The Facts?
By Gary Mauser
September 1, 2010
The recently released RCMP evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program contains little new. The report recycles the same old canards that Canada’s long-gun registry is an important tool for law enforcement. It sidesteps the key question: whether the long-gun registry is more effective in protecting public safety than putting violent offenders in prison.
The report does admit that the registry costs over $20 million per year, not the paltry four million the Chiefs of Police claimed earlier this year. The goal must be public safety, and the report implies that it is more important to focus on ordinary citizens who own firearms because they might commit suicide than on violent criminals.
The report is a blatant attempt to influence public policy. The police are lobbying to write the laws they are employed to enforce. Policy-making is the mandate of elected governments on behalf of the people. Certainly police should be consulted on the efficacy of current policies, but it is not proper for police chiefs or Firearms Program civil servants to lobby the government attempting to dictate which laws it should adopt.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is not an official government body. The CACP is funded by the CGI Group -- the software contractor for the gun registry. It boggles the mind that the Police Chiefs’ support of the registry is not connected to their source of financial support. In fact, ethicist Dr. John Jones resigned from the CACP’s ethics committee last year because the CACP had ignored his conflict-of-interest warnings that they should stop taking money from organizations they do business with.
The long-gun registry should be abandoned because it focuses on the wrong people. We will all be safer if the police focus their efforts on violent criminals, not duck hunters and target shooters. As I testified this spring to the House Committee on Public Safety, the facts show that Canadian gun owners are less likely than other Canadians to commit violent crimes such as murder.
Supporters of the registry cannot point to any research supporting their claim that stronger gun laws have helped reduce gun violence or criminal violence in general. None of the examples given by Vancouver Police Chief Chu, for example, include instances where the registry helped to stop a crime from being committed.
It is shocking that the police claim to trust the accuracy of the registry. Police officers cannot and should not trust the information in the registry. Less than half of all firearms in Canada are included in the registry, and of course, none of the guns owned by criminals.
The Chiefs claim that the registry is essential for taking preventative action and enforcing prohibition orders to remove firearms from dangerous people. This is false and dangerous. The registry only includes guns of people willing to get licences. Obviously, dangerous criminals are not. Also, the long-gun registry contains no information on a gun's location but only descriptive information about the registered guns. Any police officer who trusts the registry for being alerted to the presence of a gun is foolish.
Rank and file police members do not find the registry useful. In approaching dangerous situations, the police must always assume there is a weapon. Evidently the Chiefs of police care more about politics than the safety of their own officers.
The RCMP report argues that the “full registry” be maintained, calling it a valuable tool for the police. However, there is no convincing evidence supporting the claim that the long-gun registry has had any effect on homicide, suicide, or domestic violence rates.
The long-gun registry wasn't introduced until 2001, not in 1995. Since 2001, homicide rates have been essentially flat, even though homicide rates had been plummeting since the early 1990s. The long-gun registry has not saved any lives.
Few guns involved in violent crime have been stolen. Studies vary, showing between 1% and 17% of guns used in crime were in the registry. Almost all have been smuggled. This is true in Australia and the UK, as well as in Canada. This is organized crime, not citizens.
The claim the gun registry is consulted by police 10,000 times a day providing important information is false. Almost all of the "inquiries" are routinely generated by traffic stops or firearm sales and are not specifically requested; front line police officers rarely report they find this information useful.
The Hon. Peter Van Loan, then Public Safety Minister, in November, 2009, reported that after analysing the police statistics, 97% of the times authorities check the CFRO, they want information about the owner, not the firearm. This concerns owner licensing, not gun registration. Bill C-391 proposes no changes in licensing.
Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250
