Lorne Gunter has long been a worthy writer of common sense articles when it comes to crime, gun laws and effects of dubious regulation. This article is an excellent example, simple, to the point and loaded with checkable facts.
Gun registry proven worthless
Statistics Canada report comes to defence of Canada’s sport shooters, hunters and collectors
By Lorne Gunter ,QMI Agency
First posted: Saturday, December 08, 2012 07:00 PM CST
As soon as I saw the news releases this week from Statistics Canada announcing the annual publication of national murder figures, I readied my arguments about why the increase had nothing to do with the Harper government’s dismantling of the gun registry.
I knew the gun-banning groups would be all over the new numbers, which show a 7% increase from 2010 — a year in which Canada saw its lowest murder rate in four decades.
And I “knew” the anti-gunners would insist the rise was due to the Harper government’s dismantling of the gun registry, even though StatsCan’s latest numbers were from 2011 and the registry was not shut down until this year.
I knew the gun-controllers would jump on the increase in yet another attempt to reinstate the registry and make criminals of Canada’s law-abiding gun owners.
I needn’t have worried, though. StatsCan did my work for me. The national number-crunchers came (indirectly) to the defence of this country’s beleaguered sport shooters, hunters and gun collectors by stating very clearly that nearly all of the increase between 2010 and 2011 was due to knives. Guns weren’t to blame for the increased number of murders, nor were changes to federal gun laws.
And the last time I checked, knives weren’t included in the GUN registry.
Not only was the end of the registry not responsible for the uptick in homicides, StatsCan went further. Gun murders are at their lowest level in 50 years — half a century!
Indeed, StatsCan’s annual report was full of numbers that prove the uselessness of gun control.
For instance, some anti-gun activists will no doubt try to stretch the truth a little and claim the fact that gun crimes are so low is proof the registry worked to make the public safer.
Not so. As StatsCan points out, all murders — but especially firearms murders — have been on the decline since the mid-1970s, long before Ottawa began imposing draconian gun laws. The reason for the decline is demographics. There are simply fewer young men in the population now. And since men between the ages or 16 and 30 are the most likely to commit crime, if there are fewer of them on the street, there will be less crime.
Please read the rest here: http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/12/07/gun-registry-proven-worthless
Showing posts with label failures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label failures. Show all posts
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Flawed registration and bad data
Submitted by the "Duke"
A few years back, I had an opportunity to help a friend out by lending him a non restricted rifle. This lending was 100% legitimate. He had a valid PAL, I provided him with a copy of the registration certificate, I wrote a note explaining that I was lending it to him, and I wrote my 24hr contact and PAL information on the back.
One day, he was pulled over while driving and, somehow, the police officer got into looking into his trunk (SUV). Even though my friend was in the vehicle, the rifle was unloaded, locked, in a locked case and completely out of sight.
Anyhow, not thinking he had anything to hide (officer asked the "do you have any alcohol in the vehicle" line), he allowed the officer to check in the back of his SUV.
Rifle was found, inspected, and confiscated as "stolen property" on the spot, despite the paperwork and contact info. No call, no explanation, just a confiscated rifle. Also curious is that they let my friend drive off, even though he had been in possession of an apparently stolen firearm.
Anyhow, I head to the local RCMP office come Monday. It turned out that it wasn't the lending equation that sparked the stolen firearm confiscation, but the registry had a name other than my own in its database. Funny thing was the registration certificate, that I also had a copy of, was the whole page that included my full name. As was the certificate that my friend had provided during the incident.
The officer did politely return the firearm to me, explaining that he was following the direction of his superiors and that I would be thankful if the situation were different.
Inconvenience aside, the firearm was returned in good order. Frustrating that the almighty database can make your own property "stolen" and no longer yours due to a data entry error.
A few years back, I had an opportunity to help a friend out by lending him a non restricted rifle. This lending was 100% legitimate. He had a valid PAL, I provided him with a copy of the registration certificate, I wrote a note explaining that I was lending it to him, and I wrote my 24hr contact and PAL information on the back.
One day, he was pulled over while driving and, somehow, the police officer got into looking into his trunk (SUV). Even though my friend was in the vehicle, the rifle was unloaded, locked, in a locked case and completely out of sight.
Anyhow, not thinking he had anything to hide (officer asked the "do you have any alcohol in the vehicle" line), he allowed the officer to check in the back of his SUV.
Rifle was found, inspected, and confiscated as "stolen property" on the spot, despite the paperwork and contact info. No call, no explanation, just a confiscated rifle. Also curious is that they let my friend drive off, even though he had been in possession of an apparently stolen firearm.
Anyhow, I head to the local RCMP office come Monday. It turned out that it wasn't the lending equation that sparked the stolen firearm confiscation, but the registry had a name other than my own in its database. Funny thing was the registration certificate, that I also had a copy of, was the whole page that included my full name. As was the certificate that my friend had provided during the incident.
The officer did politely return the firearm to me, explaining that he was following the direction of his superiors and that I would be thankful if the situation were different.
Inconvenience aside, the firearm was returned in good order. Frustrating that the almighty database can make your own property "stolen" and no longer yours due to a data entry error.
__________________
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Suffering from a "registry glitch"
I also suffer from a registry 'glitch'. I inherited my dads guns so we transferred every gun registered to him to me and I took the lot of guns. Turns out he had 1 more registered to him that is now in my name but the gun doesn't exist.
It is a non-existent make with no serial # which I eventually figured out was because one of the rifles was registered twice, the second time being based off of some marking on the buttstock.
So I called the registry to explain the error and have it corrected.... NOPE. The registry doesn't make mistakes I am told.
If I want that gun removed from my name in the registry I must call the police and report it stolen. They will remove it only once I submit the police report. I explained that it is a crime to fraudulently report a crime to which they told me that is the only way they will remove the non-existent gun from my name.
It is a non-existent make with no serial # which I eventually figured out was because one of the rifles was registered twice, the second time being based off of some marking on the buttstock.
So I called the registry to explain the error and have it corrected.... NOPE. The registry doesn't make mistakes I am told.
If I want that gun removed from my name in the registry I must call the police and report it stolen. They will remove it only once I submit the police report. I explained that it is a crime to fraudulently report a crime to which they told me that is the only way they will remove the non-existent gun from my name.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Focus on real solutions to violence
Thought this letter really hit the nail on the head, I have bolded the part that is relevant.
Focus on real solutions to violence
Re: "Gun registry keeps women safe," Oct. 8.http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3327948
I was very disappointed to read this letter.
Supporters of the gun registry can't seem to keep their story straight. First they told us that the registry was needed for public safety. When that was debunked, they told us it was necessary for police officer safety. Since that was proven false, now they are telling us that the registry is needed for the safety of abused women.
In 2006, according to Statistics Canada, a mere 0.75% of all violent crimes, including spousal violence, were committed using a registered firearm. Given that such a tiny fraction of violent crimes involve registered guns, are we really expected to that the gun registry is such a useful tool in cases of domestic violence?
Why should legal gun owners be held accountable when legal guns are almost never used to commit a crime? If anyone should be held accountable, it's gun registry supporters. Instead of working toward real solutions to a complex problem, they have raised one false flag after another.
Instead of educating and empowering young women and teaching them how to avoid abusive relationships, gun control advocates have painted them as helpless victims of men and guns. All they have done is drive a wedge between the sexes and alienate the good men who are willing to help.
It's time to stop focusing on guns and start working toward real solutions to violence in our society.
A little update taken from a thread on CGN. some useful info.
Focus on real solutions to violence
Re: "Gun registry keeps women safe," Oct. 8.http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3327948
I was very disappointed to read this letter.
Supporters of the gun registry can't seem to keep their story straight. First they told us that the registry was needed for public safety. When that was debunked, they told us it was necessary for police officer safety. Since that was proven false, now they are telling us that the registry is needed for the safety of abused women.
In 2006, according to Statistics Canada, a mere 0.75% of all violent crimes, including spousal violence, were committed using a registered firearm. Given that such a tiny fraction of violent crimes involve registered guns, are we really expected to that the gun registry is such a useful tool in cases of domestic violence?
Why should legal gun owners be held accountable when legal guns are almost never used to commit a crime? If anyone should be held accountable, it's gun registry supporters. Instead of working toward real solutions to a complex problem, they have raised one false flag after another.
Instead of educating and empowering young women and teaching them how to avoid abusive relationships, gun control advocates have painted them as helpless victims of men and guns. All they have done is drive a wedge between the sexes and alienate the good men who are willing to help.
It's time to stop focusing on guns and start working toward real solutions to violence in our society.
A little update taken from a thread on CGN. some useful info.
Bottom line, of 38,000 or so reported incidents of domestic violence in
Canada apparently some 40 or less involve a firearm. And ever fewer domestic
violence incidents involving a firearm result in injury or
death...Dorthy Jourdrie shooting her husband in Calgary several years
ago brought those domestic violence gun status up as well. It is unknown
which spouse was using the gun in those 40 or fewer incidents per
year.
http://www.fact.on.ca/newpaper/np991122.htm |
Au contraire, we know answers to both questions:
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collectio...XIE2008000.pdf
See Table 1.10, page 24 of this report.
The 38,573 violent domestic incidents are the ones that caused serious harm and were reported to the police, so all 40 of those involved serious injury. The table also breaks the incidents down according to sex of the victim. Of those 40 incidents, 34 victims were women and 6 men. It doesn't give the sex of the attacker, however. Note the above report is from 2008 and the data from 2006, it is the most recent I have seen in regards to breaking down spousal violence incidents.
This report from 2006: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collectio...XIE2006000.pdf
shows data from 1995-2004 in table 1.3, page 26. The total number of incidents was 211,791, with 358 involving firearms for a rate of 1.69 firearms incidents per 1000 total (0.169%).
One thing I find interesting is they break down the number of one time incidents and repeat incidents. 9 out of 358 firearms related incidents were considered "chronic". That is 2.5%. This completely belies the anti argument that guns are used all the time in domestic violence. Only 0.169% of all these incidents involved firearms and of that incredibly tiny number, only 2.5% were in the "chronic abuse" category. That means that firearms are used in chronic domestic abuse incidents only 0.004% of the time. That is 4 times out of 100,000 incidents. That doesn't really equate to "all the time" in my world.
Mark
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collectio...XIE2008000.pdf
See Table 1.10, page 24 of this report.
The 38,573 violent domestic incidents are the ones that caused serious harm and were reported to the police, so all 40 of those involved serious injury. The table also breaks the incidents down according to sex of the victim. Of those 40 incidents, 34 victims were women and 6 men. It doesn't give the sex of the attacker, however. Note the above report is from 2008 and the data from 2006, it is the most recent I have seen in regards to breaking down spousal violence incidents.
This report from 2006: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collectio...XIE2006000.pdf
shows data from 1995-2004 in table 1.3, page 26. The total number of incidents was 211,791, with 358 involving firearms for a rate of 1.69 firearms incidents per 1000 total (0.169%).
One thing I find interesting is they break down the number of one time incidents and repeat incidents. 9 out of 358 firearms related incidents were considered "chronic". That is 2.5%. This completely belies the anti argument that guns are used all the time in domestic violence. Only 0.169% of all these incidents involved firearms and of that incredibly tiny number, only 2.5% were in the "chronic abuse" category. That means that firearms are used in chronic domestic abuse incidents only 0.004% of the time. That is 4 times out of 100,000 incidents. That doesn't really equate to "all the time" in my world.
Mark
Monday, June 6, 2011
The CACP is not balanced (Open letter to Vic Toews)
Mr. Toews,
The Canadian Association Of Chiefs Of Police president, Chief William Blair, has sought an invitation from you to participate in the Firearms Advisory Committee, claiming that his organization “would provide you with timely and balanced advice on firearms issues from the leading law enforcement organization in Canada.”
I should remind you that the CACP has been anything but balanced. While the CACP was praising Tasers to offset the negative press generated by their use, Taser International was making huge donations to the CACP’s lavish annual conferences along with CGI Group, the software company responsible for the gun registry’s computerized system.
More to the point, many among these Chiefs have publicly expressed their desire to ban guns and they have also consistently distorted the truth on this issue. At the height of the registry debate, a bogus study was released at a 1997 Chiefs of Police conference in Fredericton overstating the number of long guns “involved” in crime by a factor of 9 - including gun collections found during investigations where charges were never laid (i.e. a domestic complaint against a gun collector) or near but not involved with a crime or suicide.
The CACP claimed that 52% of firearms “found at crime scenes” or “in more than half of the criminal incidents” were rifles and shotguns. They continued to repeat this in press releases even after the RCMP objected to this interpretation of RCMP data, which actually showed that a majority of the long guns “involved” in those incidents were unrelated gun collections recovered during investigations that did not involve guns at all.
As late as January of 2004, CACP vice-president, Ottawa Police Chief Vince Bevan claimed that “these guns are commonly used in crimes” and “place police officers and citizens in danger every day”. CACP members Ottawa police Chief Brian Ford and Winnipeg’s Chief David Cassels (both known supporters of Canada’s anti-gun lobby) have gone so far as to say that the firearms were “used” in those incidents.
At a time when Toronto bureaucrats and their Liberal pals in Ottawa were pushing for a ban on handguns, Blair himself was instrumental in making sport shooters and collectors a pariah in Toronto and we saw some shaky statistics come from his office making it appear as though a majority of handguns used by Toronto thugs were taken from legal owners. To further drive home this message, Blair cooked up a plan called “Project Safe City”.
Did this plan target known thugs and convicted criminals? No, they looked up everyone who had expired licenses and searched their homes - eventually finding one miscreant engaged in illegal activities.
The CACP is not a balanced organization that would provide good advice on firearms issues. They are little more than a government funded lobby group that is more focused on political agendas than they are on public safety.
Barry Glasgow
Woodlawn, Ontario
printed from http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37264
The Canadian Association Of Chiefs Of Police president, Chief William Blair, has sought an invitation from you to participate in the Firearms Advisory Committee, claiming that his organization “would provide you with timely and balanced advice on firearms issues from the leading law enforcement organization in Canada.”
I should remind you that the CACP has been anything but balanced. While the CACP was praising Tasers to offset the negative press generated by their use, Taser International was making huge donations to the CACP’s lavish annual conferences along with CGI Group, the software company responsible for the gun registry’s computerized system.
More to the point, many among these Chiefs have publicly expressed their desire to ban guns and they have also consistently distorted the truth on this issue. At the height of the registry debate, a bogus study was released at a 1997 Chiefs of Police conference in Fredericton overstating the number of long guns “involved” in crime by a factor of 9 - including gun collections found during investigations where charges were never laid (i.e. a domestic complaint against a gun collector) or near but not involved with a crime or suicide.
The CACP claimed that 52% of firearms “found at crime scenes” or “in more than half of the criminal incidents” were rifles and shotguns. They continued to repeat this in press releases even after the RCMP objected to this interpretation of RCMP data, which actually showed that a majority of the long guns “involved” in those incidents were unrelated gun collections recovered during investigations that did not involve guns at all.
As late as January of 2004, CACP vice-president, Ottawa Police Chief Vince Bevan claimed that “these guns are commonly used in crimes” and “place police officers and citizens in danger every day”. CACP members Ottawa police Chief Brian Ford and Winnipeg’s Chief David Cassels (both known supporters of Canada’s anti-gun lobby) have gone so far as to say that the firearms were “used” in those incidents.
At a time when Toronto bureaucrats and their Liberal pals in Ottawa were pushing for a ban on handguns, Blair himself was instrumental in making sport shooters and collectors a pariah in Toronto and we saw some shaky statistics come from his office making it appear as though a majority of handguns used by Toronto thugs were taken from legal owners. To further drive home this message, Blair cooked up a plan called “Project Safe City”.
Did this plan target known thugs and convicted criminals? No, they looked up everyone who had expired licenses and searched their homes - eventually finding one miscreant engaged in illegal activities.
The CACP is not a balanced organization that would provide good advice on firearms issues. They are little more than a government funded lobby group that is more focused on political agendas than they are on public safety.
Barry Glasgow
Woodlawn, Ontario
printed from http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37264
Friday, June 3, 2011
South African gun licensing system on "verge of collapse"..
Hmmmm....Didn't Wendy have something to do with helping to set up South Africa's registration system?.....ARTICLE
De Wet Potgieter
The backlog in gun licence renewals is so severe that the entire application processing system is on the verge of “collapsing”, an investigation by The New Age has revealed.
Sources in the South African Police’s Central Firearms Registry (CFR), speaking on condition of anonymity, said that officials were battling to clear the backlog but new applications were coming in everyday.
With 200000 applications already received, and only 1000 being processed each working day, exhausted officers at the Saps’ Criminal Record Centre (CRC) in Pretoria say they are barely making a dent on the ever-growing backlog.
Last year, Safety and Security Minister Nathi Mthethwa, said in a response to a question posed in Parliament that there had been 1365203 applications for the renewal of firearm licences in terms of the new Firearms Control Act (Firearms Act) since it came into effect. Of these applications, 499043 had been approved, 15766 denied and 2009 are on appeal. This meant that almost 850000 were still to be processed.
Besides dealing with applications sent to them for checking by the CFR, the centre is also responsible for checking criminal records for courts countrywide. The CFR also handles all applications for police clearances needed by people for a variety of purposes, including liquor licences and work permit applications.
“The police already owe us 96 hours overtime,” a senior civilian official at the centre said. “But there is no light in the tunnel. The problem lies with management at the CFR, they do not know what is going on.”
In Gauteng alone, the CRC needs to process at least 6000 renewal applications for firearm licences if they hope to make headway in clearing the backlog, another source at the centre said.
“The police simply do not have the capacity to cope,” said a member of the gun lobby group, which has been engaging with government on the licencing debacle.
“The mess at the CRC has been common knowledge for quite some time and even though they claim that the process has speeded up, this is clearly not happening. The people at CFR responsible for the evaluation of applications are not up to standard for this kind of job.”
And, as the backlog grows, more and more irate gun shop owners, security companies and individual firearm owners are turning to the courts, leaving government to defend damages claims running into millions of rand.
Pretoria attorney Jaco Kruger has sold off his general law practice to focus exclusively on lawsuits brought against police because of the shambles in the firearms industry.
“I am handling an average of 30 new such cases every month,” said Kruger, who has already handled more than 200 cases against the police.
Kruger said his court applications cost the government an average of R20000 each to defend – and he has already taken 45 such cases to the courts, with all the rulings being in favour of his clients.
The Black Gun Owners Association also resorted to the courts last year following claims by its chairman, Abios Khoele, that the Firearms Control Act placed black South Africans at a huge physical, educational and economical disadvantage, especially those most likely to suffer from violent crime, as well as the poor and the aged.
Between 2004, when the firearms licencing laws were changed, and 2010, 900 gun shops have closed down and 10000 people have lost jobs, Khoele told a press briefing last year.
His association represents 700000 people – of all races.
De Wet Potgieter
The backlog in gun licence renewals is so severe that the entire application processing system is on the verge of “collapsing”, an investigation by The New Age has revealed.
Sources in the South African Police’s Central Firearms Registry (CFR), speaking on condition of anonymity, said that officials were battling to clear the backlog but new applications were coming in everyday.
With 200000 applications already received, and only 1000 being processed each working day, exhausted officers at the Saps’ Criminal Record Centre (CRC) in Pretoria say they are barely making a dent on the ever-growing backlog.
Last year, Safety and Security Minister Nathi Mthethwa, said in a response to a question posed in Parliament that there had been 1365203 applications for the renewal of firearm licences in terms of the new Firearms Control Act (Firearms Act) since it came into effect. Of these applications, 499043 had been approved, 15766 denied and 2009 are on appeal. This meant that almost 850000 were still to be processed.
Besides dealing with applications sent to them for checking by the CFR, the centre is also responsible for checking criminal records for courts countrywide. The CFR also handles all applications for police clearances needed by people for a variety of purposes, including liquor licences and work permit applications.
“The police already owe us 96 hours overtime,” a senior civilian official at the centre said. “But there is no light in the tunnel. The problem lies with management at the CFR, they do not know what is going on.”
In Gauteng alone, the CRC needs to process at least 6000 renewal applications for firearm licences if they hope to make headway in clearing the backlog, another source at the centre said.
“The police simply do not have the capacity to cope,” said a member of the gun lobby group, which has been engaging with government on the licencing debacle.
“The mess at the CRC has been common knowledge for quite some time and even though they claim that the process has speeded up, this is clearly not happening. The people at CFR responsible for the evaluation of applications are not up to standard for this kind of job.”
And, as the backlog grows, more and more irate gun shop owners, security companies and individual firearm owners are turning to the courts, leaving government to defend damages claims running into millions of rand.
Pretoria attorney Jaco Kruger has sold off his general law practice to focus exclusively on lawsuits brought against police because of the shambles in the firearms industry.
“I am handling an average of 30 new such cases every month,” said Kruger, who has already handled more than 200 cases against the police.
Kruger said his court applications cost the government an average of R20000 each to defend – and he has already taken 45 such cases to the courts, with all the rulings being in favour of his clients.
The Black Gun Owners Association also resorted to the courts last year following claims by its chairman, Abios Khoele, that the Firearms Control Act placed black South Africans at a huge physical, educational and economical disadvantage, especially those most likely to suffer from violent crime, as well as the poor and the aged.
Between 2004, when the firearms licencing laws were changed, and 2010, 900 gun shops have closed down and 10000 people have lost jobs, Khoele told a press briefing last year.
His association represents 700000 people – of all races.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
CFC goofs on classification of re-registered firearm
I put a Krinker Plinker kit on my 10/22 which makes it a restricted firearm due to the total over all length when the stock is folded. So I brought it to a reputable verifier who gave me a copy of all the paperwork and details (confirming that it is indeed restricted now). But when I got my new registration certificate in the mail from the CFC, it still says non-restricted.
Glad the CFC is on the ball... nothing gets by them!
Glad the CFC is on the ball... nothing gets by them!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Ten reasons gun registry must go
Bill C-391 is designed to eliminate the ineffective and expensive long gun registry. And of the many witnesses supporting Bill C-391, few are as credible as Gary Mauser, a Professor Emeritus in criminology from Simon Fraser University who recently made a presentation before the House of Commons Public Safety Committee.
Mauser's presentation had one simple goal: to "show how claims made by the opponents of Bill C-391 are blatantly false or misleading" as outlined below. Mauser's entire presentation and supporting data, is on the website of the National Firearms Association, www.nfa.ca .
Claim No. 1: Access to a gun increases the risk of murder.
False: Canadian gun owners are less likely than other Canadians to commit homicide.
Claim No. 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 No. 3: Spousal murders with guns have fallen threefold since the law passed, while spousal murders without guns have remained the same.
False: Spousal murders 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 No. 4: Stronger gun laws have helped reduce gun violence.
False: 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 No. 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 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 No. 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 No. 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.
In approaching dangerous situations, the police must assume there is a weapon.
Claim No. 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 No. 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 No. 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.
In sum, the test of any governmental program should be whether it meets its goals. In this case, the long-gun registry has failed.
sopuckrdATxplornet.com
via Winnipeg Free Press
Mauser's presentation had one simple goal: to "show how claims made by the opponents of Bill C-391 are blatantly false or misleading" as outlined below. Mauser's entire presentation and supporting data, is on the website of the National Firearms Association, www.nfa.ca .
Claim No. 1: Access to a gun increases the risk of murder.
False: Canadian gun owners are less likely than other Canadians to commit homicide.
Claim No. 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 No. 3: Spousal murders with guns have fallen threefold since the law passed, while spousal murders without guns have remained the same.
False: Spousal murders 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 No. 4: Stronger gun laws have helped reduce gun violence.
False: 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 No. 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 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 No. 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 No. 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.
In approaching dangerous situations, the police must assume there is a weapon.
Claim No. 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 No. 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 No. 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.
In sum, the test of any governmental program should be whether it meets its goals. In this case, the long-gun registry has failed.
sopuckrdATxplornet.com
via Winnipeg Free Press
Friday, October 29, 2010
Falsely accused of owning a Prohibted gun, do not pass Go, go directly to jail!
I received a nasty call from the CFC years ago. The lady was irate on the phone as I apparently had a Smith and Wesson Model 19 with a 2" barrel registered to me and I was not not 12(6). The gun would have to be turned in for destruction as I was in criminal possession of a prohibited firearm without the proper endorsement on my PAL... After listening quietly to the lady I informed her I did not own a Model 19 with a 2" barrel. After about 30 minutes we established that the Model 19 belonged to some guy in BC and they had registered my 617 with a 6" barrel to him. Just a little error...
Another example is the crap I went through to register a AR15 lower received (stripped) as a complete 16" barreled rifle. Took six years for the change to go through, by the time it did I had sold the uppers and it was a stripped lower again. Sigh.
Got a registration slip in the mail for a SKS one day after purchasing a Russian SKS two weeks previous. The serial number did not match any of mine. Turns out the CFC mis-entered that serial. I got the correct SKS reg slip and all was good. 2 weeks later I bought a SKS with that same serial number, what are the odds?
__________________
Another example is the crap I went through to register a AR15 lower received (stripped) as a complete 16" barreled rifle. Took six years for the change to go through, by the time it did I had sold the uppers and it was a stripped lower again. Sigh.
Got a registration slip in the mail for a SKS one day after purchasing a Russian SKS two weeks previous. The serial number did not match any of mine. Turns out the CFC mis-entered that serial. I got the correct SKS reg slip and all was good. 2 weeks later I bought a SKS with that same serial number, what are the odds?
__________________
150 year old gun owner?
A friend of mine (who will remain nameless), who i've bought a pistol from.
He buys out entire estates where firearms are involved and then sells them off for a profit.
He called in to inquire about a pistol that was in a certain estate. Apparently it wasn't registered to the (now dead) owner of the estate. They also apparently had 2 certificuts listed in their system for it but wouldn't tell the person who possessed it now the information. It was then apparently flagged to be destroyed.
After a long bout and numerous phone calls, he was able to identify the 'original' owner of the pistol. Lots of paperwork indicated it was sold to 2 different people and then to the dead estate owner. All of this got faxed in.
What my friend asked of the CFC, "So what your telling me is there was a pistol in your database, with 2 entries, and at least one was registered to a 150 year old man. At no point did any of you wonder how someone could be alive after 150 years legally owning a pistol."
So the moral of the story, even if there is a firearm listed to someone with a birth date of 1900, the CFC wouldn't recognize this as a situation that required someone to at least look at.
He buys out entire estates where firearms are involved and then sells them off for a profit.
He called in to inquire about a pistol that was in a certain estate. Apparently it wasn't registered to the (now dead) owner of the estate. They also apparently had 2 certificuts listed in their system for it but wouldn't tell the person who possessed it now the information. It was then apparently flagged to be destroyed.
After a long bout and numerous phone calls, he was able to identify the 'original' owner of the pistol. Lots of paperwork indicated it was sold to 2 different people and then to the dead estate owner. All of this got faxed in.
What my friend asked of the CFC, "So what your telling me is there was a pistol in your database, with 2 entries, and at least one was registered to a 150 year old man. At no point did any of you wonder how someone could be alive after 150 years legally owning a pistol."
So the moral of the story, even if there is a firearm listed to someone with a birth date of 1900, the CFC wouldn't recognize this as a situation that required someone to at least look at.
Thousands of ghost guns registered to business!
I remember hearing that the record for "ghost guns" was held by an auctioneer in Alberta. He was getting close to retirement and was winding up the business. He contacted the RCMP to talk about handing back his firearms business license and winding up his business and discovered that he still "had" several THOUSAND guns in his inventory.
All of them were sold and legally transfered and the new owners probably all had valid reg certs, but they had not removed them from his file. (I understand that this was common under the old "green sheet" system).
The NFA had a story of a legal case where a guy in the maritimes (a cop no less) was charged because he had allegedly moved, changed his address and moved a handgun without authourisation. Turned out at trial that there were three existing reg certs, one for him at his old address, one for a gun dealer to whom he had at one time consigned it, and the current reg cert that HE HAD IN HIS POSSESSION for HIS NEW ADDRESS, but that the RCMP had no record of in THEIR files (again, this was under the "old" system).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of them were sold and legally transfered and the new owners probably all had valid reg certs, but they had not removed them from his file. (I understand that this was common under the old "green sheet" system).
The NFA had a story of a legal case where a guy in the maritimes (a cop no less) was charged because he had allegedly moved, changed his address and moved a handgun without authourisation. Turned out at trial that there were three existing reg certs, one for him at his old address, one for a gun dealer to whom he had at one time consigned it, and the current reg cert that HE HAD IN HIS POSSESSION for HIS NEW ADDRESS, but that the RCMP had no record of in THEIR files (again, this was under the "old" system).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun never transferred, despite paperwork saying so.
I just asked for a re-issue of all my registration certificates, to make sure CFC was up-to-date on my files (without the lengthy wait for a FOI request).
APPARENTLY I STILL OWN A BERETTA 686 THAT I TRANSFERRED IN 2008!
I am LOOKING at the TRANSFER NOTIFICATION (SELLER) FROM THE RCMP, SAYING THE TRANSFER IS VALID! It is literally IN MY HANDS right now.
Needless to say, first thing Monday the CFC is getting a phone call to resolve this - and if they don't, then they'll be dealing with one angry fellow. When the transfer is approved, and complete, and I have a NOTICE of same... WHY is this gun still on my record???
APPARENTLY I STILL OWN A BERETTA 686 THAT I TRANSFERRED IN 2008!
I am LOOKING at the TRANSFER NOTIFICATION (SELLER) FROM THE RCMP, SAYING THE TRANSFER IS VALID! It is literally IN MY HANDS right now.
Needless to say, first thing Monday the CFC is getting a phone call to resolve this - and if they don't, then they'll be dealing with one angry fellow. When the transfer is approved, and complete, and I have a NOTICE of same... WHY is this gun still on my record???
2 guns from one....
My FN FAL has a serial number on the upper and a serial number on the lower. The registry, in its infinite wisdom decided to list both serial numbers on the reg cert. So now, I could split that rifle in half, get another unregistered FN and swap out the upper and lower and end up with two rifles legally registered to a single reg cert.
No, I have NOT done this. But in theory I could.
-------------
Here are my two stories says Paulz
1. Similar to Suputin, I have a "mixmaster" FN. With an AR-15, the lower receiver is the "firearm", in the FN it is the upper. My reg cert lists the serial number on the lower. In theory, I may be legally liable for having an unregistered prohib, since the serial number on the upper (the "legal" firearm), is not the same as what is written on the reg cert.
2. Bought a Browning Cittori O/U shotgun from a guy at my club. Had infinite trouble (both he and I) getting it transfered. The serial number on the reg cert did not match the serial number on the gun. The nice lady at the CFC explained that the serial number should be a certain number of letters and numbers and should be located by the safety on the tang. The number on the reg cert had no letters whatsoever.
After much discussion, and search on the gun, we finally found a number stamped on the gun (hidden under the foreend) that matched the number on the reg cert. Note that the number on the reg cert was on the barrel, which is made to be easilly disassembled from the gun, and was probably a batch number or possible originally from another gun.
Now, in theory, the RCMP could (again) have charged me with illegal possesion, since the gun and its actual serial number did not show up in the database. In other words, my gun was officially no the gun on the reg cert. Likewise, if at any point in the past it had been stolen, there would be no way to trace it or prove it was stolen.
No, I have NOT done this. But in theory I could.
-------------
Here are my two stories says Paulz
1. Similar to Suputin, I have a "mixmaster" FN. With an AR-15, the lower receiver is the "firearm", in the FN it is the upper. My reg cert lists the serial number on the lower. In theory, I may be legally liable for having an unregistered prohib, since the serial number on the upper (the "legal" firearm), is not the same as what is written on the reg cert.
2. Bought a Browning Cittori O/U shotgun from a guy at my club. Had infinite trouble (both he and I) getting it transfered. The serial number on the reg cert did not match the serial number on the gun. The nice lady at the CFC explained that the serial number should be a certain number of letters and numbers and should be located by the safety on the tang. The number on the reg cert had no letters whatsoever.
After much discussion, and search on the gun, we finally found a number stamped on the gun (hidden under the foreend) that matched the number on the reg cert. Note that the number on the reg cert was on the barrel, which is made to be easilly disassembled from the gun, and was probably a batch number or possible originally from another gun.
Now, in theory, the RCMP could (again) have charged me with illegal possesion, since the gun and its actual serial number did not show up in the database. In other words, my gun was officially no the gun on the reg cert. Likewise, if at any point in the past it had been stolen, there would be no way to trace it or prove it was stolen.
Lost data, wrong serial number, harrassment by the SQ
I have had 2 issues with the registry.
1) called them up to setup a transfer. The firearm I wanted to sell was not listed. So a quick search with the lady on the phone found that
- I had 4 different owner accounts. Each had some error in name, address, phone numbers, ...
- 1 rifle I have was not on record, 3 rifles they had on record I did not own, 1 was registered with the wrong serial number (I sent all the paper work 3 times before they got it right)
2) that was before the long gun registry, I owned a 92FS. I first got it while I was in the army. Having a range on the base, and my home address was the base, they did not issue me a transport certificate (I did send all the paper work, THEY decided not to issue). Years later, I get called by the f***** SQ about those 2 years period where I had a handgun but no transport permit. I got such calls every 6-12 months for 3 years, at which point I sold the damn thing.
Just gotta love registries...
1) called them up to setup a transfer. The firearm I wanted to sell was not listed. So a quick search with the lady on the phone found that
- I had 4 different owner accounts. Each had some error in name, address, phone numbers, ...
- 1 rifle I have was not on record, 3 rifles they had on record I did not own, 1 was registered with the wrong serial number (I sent all the paper work 3 times before they got it right)
2) that was before the long gun registry, I owned a 92FS. I first got it while I was in the army. Having a range on the base, and my home address was the base, they did not issue me a transport certificate (I did send all the paper work, THEY decided not to issue). Years later, I get called by the f***** SQ about those 2 years period where I had a handgun but no transport permit. I got such calls every 6-12 months for 3 years, at which point I sold the damn thing.
Just gotta love registries...
Stolen guns reregistered again and again
Critics of the national gun registry expressed outrage yesterday after the Ontario Provincial Police seized a gun that had been reported stolen over a decade ago but had remained in circulation by evading three separate registry checks. The failure of the registry to spot the stolen gun could have wrongly implicated a future owner, critics said. Police took possession of the gun, a Browning .30-06 single-shot rifle, at a store in Orillia, Ont., about 100 kilometres north of Toronto.
The weapon had been reported stolen in Quebec in 1992. The national registry had both the model and registration number of the stolen weapon on file. In May, an Ontario man brought the gun with its registration papers, to Ellwood Epps Sporting Goods in Orillia, to sell, said the store manager Wes Winkel. Mr. Winkel then called the Canadian Firearms Centre and was given a number that acknowledged transfer of ownership. He then registered the weapon himself. On June 29, when Mr. Winkel went to sell the gun, he was told he could not receive authorization. This week, he was told it had been reported stolen. RCMP said the registration papers Mr. Winkel originally received when he purchased the weapon were legitimate.
Mr. Winkel said he couldn't understand why the registration system did not identify the gun as stolen on the three earlier checks. The slips could have led to the arrest of an innocent owner who would have tried to register the weapon without knowing its history, he said. "It's unbelievable," he added. "How many people are out there with stolen guns?"
Dennis Young, a spokesman for Saskatchewan Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz, also expressed incredulity that the gun had remained on the street. "This is proof positive of their total incompetence," Mr. Young said of the registry staff. Mr. Breitkreuz has led opposition to the registry, often criticizing it as a waste of money. A spokesman for Wayne Easter, the Solicitor-General, could not be reached for comment.
==========
Gun-laundering registry a farce: One billion dollars a big investment for a national firearms lost and found
Sunday 13 July 2003
p. A14
Wes Winkel, the manager of Ellwood Epps Sporting Goods in Orillia, Ont., -- "For all your hunting, shooting, fishing and camping needs" -- says "OPP officers were laughing their heads off," when they came this week to confiscate a hunting rifle from his store, just "two minutes north of Weber's barbeque restaurant," on Route 11.
OPP stands for Ontario Provincial Police, the force that polices rural Ontario the way the RCMP polices much of Alberta outside the big cities.
The rifle had been listed in the RCMP's national crime computers since it was reported stolen in Quebec in 1992. Still, the Liberals' national gun registry had registered it not once, nor twice, but three times. On the fourth, someone at the registry finally got around to matching the rifle to the RCMP's list of heisted guns and prevented its re-registration; actually, its re-re-re-registration. LEGAL REGISTRATION NO. 1
A customer first brought the rifle to Ellwood Epps Sporting Goods in May, wanting to sell it. Winkel bought it and the customer gave him the gun's registration papers, which the RCMP said Friday were legitimate.
Sometime before May the customer had bought the gun and registered it himself, even though the serial number matched one in the Mounties' stolen-goods database.
LEGAL REGISTRATION NO. 2
Winkel then called the Liberals' gun registry in Miramichi, N.B., and, as required by law, registered it to the sporting goods store, the gun's new owner. The registration went through without so much as a hiccup.
LEGAL REGISTRATION NO. 3
An avid hunter, Winkel then bought the gun for himself in late June and, again, registered it without incident.
Far from keeping Canadians safe from gun crime, far from encouraging gun owners to lock up their guns ever more securely so as to discourage criminals from stealing guns to use in robberies, far from inducing a "culture of safety," the Liberals' registry is now laundering stolen guns -- giving stolen guns legitimate pedigrees and the proper papers to go along with them.
When CanWest News broke this story on Friday, no spokesman could be found for Solicitor General Wayne Easter. So the country was denied the pleasure of the government's weasel-word excuse for a "hot" gun slipping through their allegedly airtight security blanket three times without detection.
But let me hazard a guess of what the Liberals will say Monday about this embarrassing flaw in their vaunted, billion-dollar gun registry. They'll proclaim: "Look how well the registry worked! It actually identified a stolen gun and took it off our streets, thereby making Canada and Canadians safer."
Good thing the registry got four chances to "work" so well, though.
If, at any earlier juncture in this story, any of the gun's three legal owners -- the original customer, Epps Sporting Goods or Wes Winkel -- had decided to hold on to the gun, then a stolen rifle would be out there with all the legal documents necessary to stay in circulation forever.
But once Solicitor General Easter or his spokesthingy has put the best possible face on this gross incompetence, we will still be left with the question "How has this made Canadians any safer?"
It is never a bad thing when property is returned to its rightful owner. But returning it doesn't make Canadians safer: Stolen goods don't commit robberies; robbers do. Attempting to stop robberies by controlling stolen goods is putting the cart before the horse.
One billion dollars also seems a frightful price to pay for a sort of national lost and found for firearms.
If taxpayers are going to fork over a billion for an elaborate tracking system so gun owners can enjoy a greater chance of seeing guns returned after they've been stolen, then why not half a billion for a national stamp collection registry, or $2 billion for a car stereo registry or a quarter billion for a Royal Dalton figurine database?
Easter and the other supporters of the Liberals' registry also claim the registry will encourage legal owners to lock up their guns better, so criminals will have a harder time finding guns. Right. Just the way registering cars and locking them up prevents thieves from stealing them.
Guns stolen from homes have never been a major source of weapons used in gun crimes, despite Ottawa's claims. The fact that handguns are now the murder weapon in nearly two-thirds of firearm murders in Canada proves that.
Handguns have been subject to registration since 1934 and to tight ownership control since 1977. Yet in just the past decade, handgun murders, as a percentage of total murders committed with firearms, have more than doubled to over 60 per cent.
The last time Statistics Canada compiled numbers in this way -- in 1991 -- of all the murders committed in the entire country, the number committed with handguns that were once legally owned and registered in Canada, but no longer in the possession of their registered owner, was three.
Smuggling is the main source of Canada's crime guns -- not theft from private Canadian homes or sporting goods stores. Yet Ottawa puts almost no resources into stopping smugglers while putting a billion into harassing law-abiding duck hunters.
Now, far from helping reduce gun crime by forcing every one to register, Ottawa is helping register stolen guns.
No wonder the OPP officers were laughing. The registry is a farce.
Lorne Gunter
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Editorial Board Member, National Post
The weapon had been reported stolen in Quebec in 1992. The national registry had both the model and registration number of the stolen weapon on file. In May, an Ontario man brought the gun with its registration papers, to Ellwood Epps Sporting Goods in Orillia, to sell, said the store manager Wes Winkel. Mr. Winkel then called the Canadian Firearms Centre and was given a number that acknowledged transfer of ownership. He then registered the weapon himself. On June 29, when Mr. Winkel went to sell the gun, he was told he could not receive authorization. This week, he was told it had been reported stolen. RCMP said the registration papers Mr. Winkel originally received when he purchased the weapon were legitimate.
Mr. Winkel said he couldn't understand why the registration system did not identify the gun as stolen on the three earlier checks. The slips could have led to the arrest of an innocent owner who would have tried to register the weapon without knowing its history, he said. "It's unbelievable," he added. "How many people are out there with stolen guns?"
Dennis Young, a spokesman for Saskatchewan Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz, also expressed incredulity that the gun had remained on the street. "This is proof positive of their total incompetence," Mr. Young said of the registry staff. Mr. Breitkreuz has led opposition to the registry, often criticizing it as a waste of money. A spokesman for Wayne Easter, the Solicitor-General, could not be reached for comment.
==========
Gun-laundering registry a farce: One billion dollars a big investment for a national firearms lost and found
Sunday 13 July 2003
p. A14
Wes Winkel, the manager of Ellwood Epps Sporting Goods in Orillia, Ont., -- "For all your hunting, shooting, fishing and camping needs" -- says "OPP officers were laughing their heads off," when they came this week to confiscate a hunting rifle from his store, just "two minutes north of Weber's barbeque restaurant," on Route 11.
OPP stands for Ontario Provincial Police, the force that polices rural Ontario the way the RCMP polices much of Alberta outside the big cities.
The rifle had been listed in the RCMP's national crime computers since it was reported stolen in Quebec in 1992. Still, the Liberals' national gun registry had registered it not once, nor twice, but three times. On the fourth, someone at the registry finally got around to matching the rifle to the RCMP's list of heisted guns and prevented its re-registration; actually, its re-re-re-registration. LEGAL REGISTRATION NO. 1
A customer first brought the rifle to Ellwood Epps Sporting Goods in May, wanting to sell it. Winkel bought it and the customer gave him the gun's registration papers, which the RCMP said Friday were legitimate.
Sometime before May the customer had bought the gun and registered it himself, even though the serial number matched one in the Mounties' stolen-goods database.
LEGAL REGISTRATION NO. 2
Winkel then called the Liberals' gun registry in Miramichi, N.B., and, as required by law, registered it to the sporting goods store, the gun's new owner. The registration went through without so much as a hiccup.
LEGAL REGISTRATION NO. 3
An avid hunter, Winkel then bought the gun for himself in late June and, again, registered it without incident.
Far from keeping Canadians safe from gun crime, far from encouraging gun owners to lock up their guns ever more securely so as to discourage criminals from stealing guns to use in robberies, far from inducing a "culture of safety," the Liberals' registry is now laundering stolen guns -- giving stolen guns legitimate pedigrees and the proper papers to go along with them.
When CanWest News broke this story on Friday, no spokesman could be found for Solicitor General Wayne Easter. So the country was denied the pleasure of the government's weasel-word excuse for a "hot" gun slipping through their allegedly airtight security blanket three times without detection.
But let me hazard a guess of what the Liberals will say Monday about this embarrassing flaw in their vaunted, billion-dollar gun registry. They'll proclaim: "Look how well the registry worked! It actually identified a stolen gun and took it off our streets, thereby making Canada and Canadians safer."
Good thing the registry got four chances to "work" so well, though.
If, at any earlier juncture in this story, any of the gun's three legal owners -- the original customer, Epps Sporting Goods or Wes Winkel -- had decided to hold on to the gun, then a stolen rifle would be out there with all the legal documents necessary to stay in circulation forever.
But once Solicitor General Easter or his spokesthingy has put the best possible face on this gross incompetence, we will still be left with the question "How has this made Canadians any safer?"
It is never a bad thing when property is returned to its rightful owner. But returning it doesn't make Canadians safer: Stolen goods don't commit robberies; robbers do. Attempting to stop robberies by controlling stolen goods is putting the cart before the horse.
One billion dollars also seems a frightful price to pay for a sort of national lost and found for firearms.
If taxpayers are going to fork over a billion for an elaborate tracking system so gun owners can enjoy a greater chance of seeing guns returned after they've been stolen, then why not half a billion for a national stamp collection registry, or $2 billion for a car stereo registry or a quarter billion for a Royal Dalton figurine database?
Easter and the other supporters of the Liberals' registry also claim the registry will encourage legal owners to lock up their guns better, so criminals will have a harder time finding guns. Right. Just the way registering cars and locking them up prevents thieves from stealing them.
Guns stolen from homes have never been a major source of weapons used in gun crimes, despite Ottawa's claims. The fact that handguns are now the murder weapon in nearly two-thirds of firearm murders in Canada proves that.
Handguns have been subject to registration since 1934 and to tight ownership control since 1977. Yet in just the past decade, handgun murders, as a percentage of total murders committed with firearms, have more than doubled to over 60 per cent.
The last time Statistics Canada compiled numbers in this way -- in 1991 -- of all the murders committed in the entire country, the number committed with handguns that were once legally owned and registered in Canada, but no longer in the possession of their registered owner, was three.
Smuggling is the main source of Canada's crime guns -- not theft from private Canadian homes or sporting goods stores. Yet Ottawa puts almost no resources into stopping smugglers while putting a billion into harassing law-abiding duck hunters.
Now, far from helping reduce gun crime by forcing every one to register, Ottawa is helping register stolen guns.
No wonder the OPP officers were laughing. The registry is a farce.
Lorne Gunter
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Editorial Board Member, National Post
26 Ghost guns a year at one store!!!!!!
A firearms dealer ran a check. He asked Ottawa for a list of all registered firearms that Ottawa thought were in his store. The list, when it arrived, included over 200 firearms that were not in his store – ghost guns. He learned that ghost guns were accumulating in his store at an average of 26 firearms a year. All the ghost guns had been legally sold and correctly transferred – but the government’s sloppy firearms control system often failed to delete the record that the firearm was owned by the dealer and located in his store. He “had” over 200 guns, shown in Ottawa’s records as being in his store that were not actually there. He laboriously proved to Ottawa that every one of them was gone, and settled back, satisfied that he had solved the problem. He hadn’t. He ran the same exercise again, a few years later. This time there were even more ghost guns registered to his store. The dealer gave up. He keeps his own records, and has no faith in Ottawa’s records
Still your gun? But I sold it years ago!!
It's crap. Traded a pistol to a dealer then when I requested new certs it was still in my name 8 months later....oh and as a cop, never assisted in any investigation. They don't even return calls half the time, the other half they have no info. Waste of money.
Gun Registry made of Swiss cheese?
According to them, the Swiss Arms Classic Green Carbine only comes in 454mm (17.9" barrel). The only Swiss Arms with a 363mm (14.3" barrel) is the Black Special.
Deregistering destroyed gun takes years
A personal problem I had, years ago I blew up an Enfield. Yeah, it can happen. Anyways, I stripped it and took the barreled reciever to the police station where I was told they would take care of everything. Years went by before it was finally de-registered and out of my name.
Stolen guns and the Keystone cops don't bother recovering them
Well to make a long story short here goes. Had all my guns stolen in a home burglary one month before the mandadorty registration came into effect. I provided descriptions and serial numbers along with some photos of ALL my firearms. I gave the list to the city police the rcmp and my insurance group.
None were ever found. I phoned the registration center right after it was up and running to make sure they had a record of the serial numbers in case some douchebag tried to register. They told me NO!!! So I guess I have to wait for the thief to register them.
Six years after the fact I had my buddy call me at 10 in the evening to tell me one of my guns was advertised for sale in the Saskatoon star pheonix!! He knew it was mine as I had built it and engraved it so on the barrel. The retarded thief figured that must mean something and put it in his advertisement!!! Remember this is after the registration has been in full swing. I notified the rcmp and the city police and my insurance group. I got the guys name who bought it and phoned him to tell him what was going on. This was one week after I notified the police and no one had contacted him a week later!!! Man was I pissed!!It took the police 3 friggen months to litteraly cross the street to pick the gun up from the poor old guy who bought it. I did end up with it after I was investigated for fraud.........makes you wonder who the criminal really is.I think you can see the registration worked for me despite my best attempts. Enter sarcasm.
Also the police followed the sale of the gun back 5 owners and no one was ever charged.
None were ever found. I phoned the registration center right after it was up and running to make sure they had a record of the serial numbers in case some douchebag tried to register. They told me NO!!! So I guess I have to wait for the thief to register them.
Six years after the fact I had my buddy call me at 10 in the evening to tell me one of my guns was advertised for sale in the Saskatoon star pheonix!! He knew it was mine as I had built it and engraved it so on the barrel. The retarded thief figured that must mean something and put it in his advertisement!!! Remember this is after the registration has been in full swing. I notified the rcmp and the city police and my insurance group. I got the guys name who bought it and phoned him to tell him what was going on. This was one week after I notified the police and no one had contacted him a week later!!! Man was I pissed!!It took the police 3 friggen months to litteraly cross the street to pick the gun up from the poor old guy who bought it. I did end up with it after I was investigated for fraud.........makes you wonder who the criminal really is.I think you can see the registration worked for me despite my best attempts. Enter sarcasm.
Also the police followed the sale of the gun back 5 owners and no one was ever charged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)