Debunking the Gun Registry in Real Time
The following essay is provided by one of our readers...
"The favorite quotes of the firearms registry supporters and anti-firearms advocates are "It is in place and it works, why remove it now?", or "Why remove the registry when Police use it 6500 times a day!" and also "Just ban guns as there is no need for them!"
Here are facts to debunk them. I'll start with "It is in place and it works, why remove it now?"
You own a car that cost $20,000 and looks awesome from outside and you get great comments from everyone that passes by your driveway about how awesome it must be and how sleek and sporty it is. On the inside however, there are gaping holes in the floor where you have lost shoes and papers. The roof leaks at the sunroof edges, which causes all the occupants to get wet during a rain storm, and you have severe electrical problems that continually mix up switches and lights.
The engine uses premium fuel and you can get up to 25kph downhill but it requires constant maintenance. While going to the shop for repairs, you can look up a part and the manuals have a dozen different versions of the same part you want, some of which can only be purchased with the proper permit. Of course you cannot fix it yourself and you must rely on mechanics to do the work.
After a decade of ownership, you have a car which has cost you over $1,000,000 (One million dollars). Are you going to keep the car? I know the answer to that. That is the registry, an inefficient program that barely does what it supposed to and not what it was meant to do, and costs HUGE dollars. Why on earth would you continue to use it and not put your money into a better solution?
"Why ban the registry when Police use it 6,500 times a day"
The numbers game...! So let us assume for a second that this number is true. So with 365 days a year that is roughly 2.5 million times a year. Wow. That is pretty close to the legally registered number of gun owners. So the police COULD be checking every gun owner at least once a year to see if they have changed their status/ownership of registered firearms.
There is approximately one police officer for every 500 or so Canadians, which equates to 60,000 police. Out of 60,000 police, does that mean that only 10% use the registry each day?
There is one police officer for every 42 reported crimes in Canada, which equals roughly 2.5 million crimes annually. Seems like a pretty poor showing of numbers, when you consider that the registry is hit at least once for every speeding ticket, reported accident, domestic dispute, B&E, mischief, etc..., let alone for violent crimes like rape and murder. Oh yes very effective for actually stopping the use of firearms for illegal purposes.
How does it help them? A list for the police concerning the fact a suspect has access to three hunting rifles, two shotguns, and an old civil war pistol? Even though that would only apply to those who legally registered their gun? What about the subject accessed who shows no firearms registered in their name, and may have one or more illegally? Should a cop approach a motorist accused of speeding, who is a licensed firearms owner, any differently than a domestic dispute where the homeowner has no firearms according to the registry? I don't think so.
"Just ban them as there is no need for them!"
Look how effective bans are against non-law abiding people. Marijuana is illegal to grow/distribute unless you are one of the under a thousand people who are medicinally allowed to get it from the government, but how many of you have smoked it? It's illegal for youths to purchase alcohol and tobacco products, but how many people do you know who were drinking and smoking before the age of 18? Making it illegal has always stopped people from breaking the law now, hasn't it? It has been shown that in trends of homicides, the rates remain roughly the same, but it is the methods they use that vary.
But then again, you bring up the matter of need. There is no NEED for you to own a cell phone as land lines are better and you cannot be distracted in your car while driving. There is no NEED for you to own a car as you can use public transit to get to work, or a train to visit relatives outside of your city/town. There is no NEED to own a television or radio as you can get the newspaper delivered to your door which has all the news you can stand. There is no NEED for rich, fattening foods or vices like alcohol and tobacco. There is no NEED for you to collect stamps, sports cards, autographs, vinyl albums, or figurines.
It was never a matter of needing anything; it was always a matter of personal choice and circumstance. If someone chooses to own a car, computer, camera, firearm, lawnmower, Cuban cigar, telephone, kayak, lawn dart, stiletto heels, or whatever, it is their right as long as it is used responsibly.
If someone chooses to use an item, ANY item, irresponsibly, that's when it may affect the rest of us, either directly or indirectly. Legislation regulating those who are responsible, in a vain attempt to curb those who are willingly irresponsible, is a very shallow and superficial action taken by those who will not, or cannot, look into root causes and their solutions.
Still don't agree? Ok, so new laws make it so that the only people who have guns are the military, police, political bodyguards, armored car security and criminals. We lose literally 100's of millions in economic value that was based on the hunting industry alone. Olympic teams could never represent Canada fully in Skeet/Trap or Biathlon events due to having to train outside of Canada. Britain has this problem.
7% of ALL Canadians would want to be compensated for their firearms as well. Current numbers put over seven million firearms registered in Canada, average resale value of a used firearm, (using low figures), is about $500, each. That's a minimum $3.5 billion to buy out all the firearms in Canada. Not a very effective or efficient use of taxpayer money. $3,500,000,000 buys a LOT of increases to hospitals, police officers, prisons, taxes.
But why should we get any compensation? After all, those who own guns are apparently "evil" and "waiting to snap", if you believe the standard droll messages from anti-gun organizations like the Coalition for Gun Control. Ever wonder why they only ever say that Canada is a role model for gun control? They never mention that England has some of the harshest gun control laws around and has effectively banned many classes and types of firearms from civilian hands. England now has some of the worst rates of gun violence in the world despite the removal of guns from its responsible populace. Other countries which had enacted similar laws and bans, are headed in the same direction, so obviously restricting responsible firearms owner is ineffective, to say the least.
Sick of references and logical statements yet? Let us talk numbers then...
From StatsCan 2003:
Total Deaths in Canada: 226,169
Nutritional deficiencies: 232
Assault: 447
Assault (Firearms): 138
Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV): 440
Intentional Self Harm: 3,765
Intentional Self Harm (Firearms): 618
Cancer: 65,990
Cancer (Breast): 5,097
Cancer (Skin): 748
Parkinson's: 1,679
Alzheimer's: 5,504
Heart Disease: 73,827
Pneumonia: 4,739
Land, Water, Air transport: 3,125
Non-transport accidents (Falls): 1,978
Non-transport accidents (Firearms): 27
Non-transport accidents (Drowning): 266
Non-transport accidents (Poisoning): 866
Wow... Firearms were the cause of 783 of 226,169 deaths in Canada in 2003. That is 0.35% of the total, suicide makes up 78.9% of that, and we know that those who commit suicide use any means possible. The anti-firearms advocates always spout "If it saves only one life it is worth the cost". Of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a questionable firearms registry, how many lives could have been saved in cases of pneumonia on simple antibiotics? Transport accidents prevented by higher numbers of highway police officers? Nutritional deficiencies? How is this even a cause of death in Canada?
In 2005, there were 658 homicides reported in Canada, 107 of which are gang-related. 222 of the homicides were victims of firearms. We have all heard that the sources of half of the firearms used in crimes are stolen from legitimate owners, but this is according to manipulated statistics and hearsay, and the actual numbers are far, far, less. Police estimate the 78 firearms recovered from these homicides are about 40% of the totals used, which equates to roughly 200 firearms used in 222 homicides. Of those 78 firearms only 23 were registered, that is around 11%. Thats a far cry from 50% that you keep hearing.
The rate of homicides per firearm is virtually the same as it was in 1975 at 0.69 firearm homicides per 100,000 Canadians. Please show me how the registry has helped us control gun violence? Of the 658 homicides in Canada in 2005, 34% are from firearms, 30% were from stabbings, 22% were from physical assault, 7% from strangulation and suffocation, 2.6% is unknown and the remaining 4.4% include fire, shaken baby syndrome, poisoning, etc...
Two thirds of adults accused and a third of youth accused in homicides have a criminal record. Half of the adult homicide victims and one quarter of the youth victims had a criminal record. According to these statistics, of 658 homicides, 375 were committed by adults with prior criminal records (205 of them violent offences), 24 of the homicides were committed by youths (under 18) with prior criminal records (13 of them violent offences).
Back in 1975 shootings accounted for roughly 42% of homicides, with stabbings a distant third (17%) behind beatings, which were the cause of 23% of all homicides. But wait a minute: that means that gun homicides are down as the cause of homicide by almost 10%? I bet you thought that it was going higher with all the media coverage. Unfortunately, the only thing that can compete with sex and scandal for headline news is death and devastation, which is the biggest indication of how poor society has adapted its values to the changing times.
We as a nation were part of a grand crusade to rid the world of the terror known as the Nazi regime back over sixty years ago. While those that participated in that terrible loss of life were forever changed, all of them felt they were doing the right thing. Today we have youths desecrating historical memorials and soldiers who would rather desert and be in the headlines than actually do the job of a soldier. We have politicians who would rather look good for the world than to actually be beneficial to Canada, and we have Canadians who forget about the causes of society's ills and treat the only the outward symptoms, not the true causes beneath the surface.
Of course if you are an anti-firearm advocate, you either don't know, or don't care, about any of this data, or the pro-firearm argument. If you don't care you probably stopped reading as soon as you realized this was composed by a gun owner. If you didn't know, then I hope you have at least read the facts and I thank you for that.
You can prosecute the guilty and the majority of firearms owners will gladly stand behind you with full support; persecute the innocent and responsible and you will find that you are harming the very rights of the individuals you are trying to protect.
If you want better gun control to prevent gun crimes, you need to do several things, but punishing responsible firearms owners for the acts of the irresponsible ones, and listing of the personal property of every legally licensed firearm owner should be at the bottom of the list, as it is a seriously wasteful use of resources and only targets those who are already law-abiding."
"The favorite quotes of the firearms registry supporters and anti-firearms advocates are "It is in place and it works, why remove it now?", or "Why remove the registry when Police use it 6500 times a day!" and also "Just ban guns as there is no need for them!"
Here are facts to debunk them. I'll start with "It is in place and it works, why remove it now?"
You own a car that cost $20,000 and looks awesome from outside and you get great comments from everyone that passes by your driveway about how awesome it must be and how sleek and sporty it is. On the inside however, there are gaping holes in the floor where you have lost shoes and papers. The roof leaks at the sunroof edges, which causes all the occupants to get wet during a rain storm, and you have severe electrical problems that continually mix up switches and lights.
The engine uses premium fuel and you can get up to 25kph downhill but it requires constant maintenance. While going to the shop for repairs, you can look up a part and the manuals have a dozen different versions of the same part you want, some of which can only be purchased with the proper permit. Of course you cannot fix it yourself and you must rely on mechanics to do the work.
After a decade of ownership, you have a car which has cost you over $1,000,000 (One million dollars). Are you going to keep the car? I know the answer to that. That is the registry, an inefficient program that barely does what it supposed to and not what it was meant to do, and costs HUGE dollars. Why on earth would you continue to use it and not put your money into a better solution?
"Why ban the registry when Police use it 6,500 times a day"
The numbers game...! So let us assume for a second that this number is true. So with 365 days a year that is roughly 2.5 million times a year. Wow. That is pretty close to the legally registered number of gun owners. So the police COULD be checking every gun owner at least once a year to see if they have changed their status/ownership of registered firearms.
There is approximately one police officer for every 500 or so Canadians, which equates to 60,000 police. Out of 60,000 police, does that mean that only 10% use the registry each day?
There is one police officer for every 42 reported crimes in Canada, which equals roughly 2.5 million crimes annually. Seems like a pretty poor showing of numbers, when you consider that the registry is hit at least once for every speeding ticket, reported accident, domestic dispute, B&E, mischief, etc..., let alone for violent crimes like rape and murder. Oh yes very effective for actually stopping the use of firearms for illegal purposes.
How does it help them? A list for the police concerning the fact a suspect has access to three hunting rifles, two shotguns, and an old civil war pistol? Even though that would only apply to those who legally registered their gun? What about the subject accessed who shows no firearms registered in their name, and may have one or more illegally? Should a cop approach a motorist accused of speeding, who is a licensed firearms owner, any differently than a domestic dispute where the homeowner has no firearms according to the registry? I don't think so.
"Just ban them as there is no need for them!"
Look how effective bans are against non-law abiding people. Marijuana is illegal to grow/distribute unless you are one of the under a thousand people who are medicinally allowed to get it from the government, but how many of you have smoked it? It's illegal for youths to purchase alcohol and tobacco products, but how many people do you know who were drinking and smoking before the age of 18? Making it illegal has always stopped people from breaking the law now, hasn't it? It has been shown that in trends of homicides, the rates remain roughly the same, but it is the methods they use that vary.
But then again, you bring up the matter of need. There is no NEED for you to own a cell phone as land lines are better and you cannot be distracted in your car while driving. There is no NEED for you to own a car as you can use public transit to get to work, or a train to visit relatives outside of your city/town. There is no NEED to own a television or radio as you can get the newspaper delivered to your door which has all the news you can stand. There is no NEED for rich, fattening foods or vices like alcohol and tobacco. There is no NEED for you to collect stamps, sports cards, autographs, vinyl albums, or figurines.
It was never a matter of needing anything; it was always a matter of personal choice and circumstance. If someone chooses to own a car, computer, camera, firearm, lawnmower, Cuban cigar, telephone, kayak, lawn dart, stiletto heels, or whatever, it is their right as long as it is used responsibly.
If someone chooses to use an item, ANY item, irresponsibly, that's when it may affect the rest of us, either directly or indirectly. Legislation regulating those who are responsible, in a vain attempt to curb those who are willingly irresponsible, is a very shallow and superficial action taken by those who will not, or cannot, look into root causes and their solutions.
Still don't agree? Ok, so new laws make it so that the only people who have guns are the military, police, political bodyguards, armored car security and criminals. We lose literally 100's of millions in economic value that was based on the hunting industry alone. Olympic teams could never represent Canada fully in Skeet/Trap or Biathlon events due to having to train outside of Canada. Britain has this problem.
7% of ALL Canadians would want to be compensated for their firearms as well. Current numbers put over seven million firearms registered in Canada, average resale value of a used firearm, (using low figures), is about $500, each. That's a minimum $3.5 billion to buy out all the firearms in Canada. Not a very effective or efficient use of taxpayer money. $3,500,000,000 buys a LOT of increases to hospitals, police officers, prisons, taxes.
But why should we get any compensation? After all, those who own guns are apparently "evil" and "waiting to snap", if you believe the standard droll messages from anti-gun organizations like the Coalition for Gun Control. Ever wonder why they only ever say that Canada is a role model for gun control? They never mention that England has some of the harshest gun control laws around and has effectively banned many classes and types of firearms from civilian hands. England now has some of the worst rates of gun violence in the world despite the removal of guns from its responsible populace. Other countries which had enacted similar laws and bans, are headed in the same direction, so obviously restricting responsible firearms owner is ineffective, to say the least.
Sick of references and logical statements yet? Let us talk numbers then...
From StatsCan 2003:
Total Deaths in Canada: 226,169
Nutritional deficiencies: 232
Assault: 447
Assault (Firearms): 138
Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV): 440
Intentional Self Harm: 3,765
Intentional Self Harm (Firearms): 618
Cancer: 65,990
Cancer (Breast): 5,097
Cancer (Skin): 748
Parkinson's: 1,679
Alzheimer's: 5,504
Heart Disease: 73,827
Pneumonia: 4,739
Land, Water, Air transport: 3,125
Non-transport accidents (Falls): 1,978
Non-transport accidents (Firearms): 27
Non-transport accidents (Drowning): 266
Non-transport accidents (Poisoning): 866
Wow... Firearms were the cause of 783 of 226,169 deaths in Canada in 2003. That is 0.35% of the total, suicide makes up 78.9% of that, and we know that those who commit suicide use any means possible. The anti-firearms advocates always spout "If it saves only one life it is worth the cost". Of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a questionable firearms registry, how many lives could have been saved in cases of pneumonia on simple antibiotics? Transport accidents prevented by higher numbers of highway police officers? Nutritional deficiencies? How is this even a cause of death in Canada?
In 2005, there were 658 homicides reported in Canada, 107 of which are gang-related. 222 of the homicides were victims of firearms. We have all heard that the sources of half of the firearms used in crimes are stolen from legitimate owners, but this is according to manipulated statistics and hearsay, and the actual numbers are far, far, less. Police estimate the 78 firearms recovered from these homicides are about 40% of the totals used, which equates to roughly 200 firearms used in 222 homicides. Of those 78 firearms only 23 were registered, that is around 11%. Thats a far cry from 50% that you keep hearing.
The rate of homicides per firearm is virtually the same as it was in 1975 at 0.69 firearm homicides per 100,000 Canadians. Please show me how the registry has helped us control gun violence? Of the 658 homicides in Canada in 2005, 34% are from firearms, 30% were from stabbings, 22% were from physical assault, 7% from strangulation and suffocation, 2.6% is unknown and the remaining 4.4% include fire, shaken baby syndrome, poisoning, etc...
Two thirds of adults accused and a third of youth accused in homicides have a criminal record. Half of the adult homicide victims and one quarter of the youth victims had a criminal record. According to these statistics, of 658 homicides, 375 were committed by adults with prior criminal records (205 of them violent offences), 24 of the homicides were committed by youths (under 18) with prior criminal records (13 of them violent offences).
Back in 1975 shootings accounted for roughly 42% of homicides, with stabbings a distant third (17%) behind beatings, which were the cause of 23% of all homicides. But wait a minute: that means that gun homicides are down as the cause of homicide by almost 10%? I bet you thought that it was going higher with all the media coverage. Unfortunately, the only thing that can compete with sex and scandal for headline news is death and devastation, which is the biggest indication of how poor society has adapted its values to the changing times.
We as a nation were part of a grand crusade to rid the world of the terror known as the Nazi regime back over sixty years ago. While those that participated in that terrible loss of life were forever changed, all of them felt they were doing the right thing. Today we have youths desecrating historical memorials and soldiers who would rather desert and be in the headlines than actually do the job of a soldier. We have politicians who would rather look good for the world than to actually be beneficial to Canada, and we have Canadians who forget about the causes of society's ills and treat the only the outward symptoms, not the true causes beneath the surface.
Of course if you are an anti-firearm advocate, you either don't know, or don't care, about any of this data, or the pro-firearm argument. If you don't care you probably stopped reading as soon as you realized this was composed by a gun owner. If you didn't know, then I hope you have at least read the facts and I thank you for that.
You can prosecute the guilty and the majority of firearms owners will gladly stand behind you with full support; persecute the innocent and responsible and you will find that you are harming the very rights of the individuals you are trying to protect.
If you want better gun control to prevent gun crimes, you need to do several things, but punishing responsible firearms owners for the acts of the irresponsible ones, and listing of the personal property of every legally licensed firearm owner should be at the bottom of the list, as it is a seriously wasteful use of resources and only targets those who are already law-abiding."
posted by Stephen at 8:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home - Resource Library and Main Page