Gun Registry

Looks like the gun registry might be on it's way out pretty soon. I get why people were complaining about it when it was introduced but that was 15 years ago. And now it doesn't cost them anything to register a long gun so I don't really get why there's still so much opposition to it. A lot of areas require you to get a license if you have a dog. If people can deal with that, what's so hard about filling out a form if you buy a shotgun?

the gun registry costs way too much for the services it provides to police or other agencies.

no police force in its right mind would check the registry and assume that because nothing was listed they have nothing to worry about.

Why do we have the registry if its not an effective tool?

Not only that, but I think I remember hearing that police were obligated to run a check against the registry...so that may account for the 9000 hits per day that the registry receives....

Perhaps some off duty officers can provide some insight into this issue, as far as what they are obligated to do with the registry. I don't think that part of the story is spoken of that much.

It labels all gunowners as criminals and doe,s nothing to stop crime , besides it is a make work project from a Liberel mind . And has cost way to much money, for nothing tangible to show. If I hunt and take Licence to do it good chance I own a gun and you have that info with my licence . Knives kill more people so lets register them too .

Yes, no police would assume no danger if the registry doesn't show anything. But if the registry shows something, they will have some advance warning of what they could be walking into. I don't see a problem with that.

It seems like the system could be very cheap to run if done correctly. Do stores needed to have special licenses to sell guns?

Pavolo wrote:It labels all gunowners as criminals and doe,s nothing to stop crime , besides it is a make work project from a Liberel mind . And has cost way to much money, for nothing tangible to show. If I hunt and take Licence to do it good chance I own a gun and you have that info with my licence . Knives kill more people so lets register them too .

It labels gun owners as gun owners, not criminals. Am I labeled as a criminal because I registered my car? No, I'm labeled as a car owner.

Yes they do need a permit and you have to be a gun course certified person to sell them . Fine criminal is a strecth but

If there are only certain stores that can sell guns because of permits, couldn't you just setup a secure online registry system so it's done automatically at the stores when someone buys a gun, sort of like how autopac is linked to insurance places in the city? I'm just thinking about reducing costs.

Yes but then the fisherperson in Miramich would be out of a job , as said it was a make work project to buy votes .

So, they would have a job if the registry was removed and the data erased?

umcrouc0 wrote:If there are only certain stores that can sell guns because of permits, couldn't you just setup a secure online registry system so it's done automatically at the stores when someone buys a gun, sort of like how autopac is linked to insurance places in the city? I'm just thinking about reducing costs.

That would work, but what about all the guns that are bought used or inherited or acquired as gifts? It does not make sense to compare guns to things like cars that have different purposes. The purpose of guns is to kill and I think that a gun registry is not enough to control these devices, there should be even more stringent rules and checks on the owners.

Anyone can sell a gun to anyone else that has a Firearms Acquisition certificate.

As to police "checking" if someone has guns. Seeing them or not seeing them on the registry can NOT have any impact on how they respond. Criminal usually do not register the weapons and as such police must assume and respond as if there might be weapons.


but yes. A gun registry system should cost less then 1 million per year. At present its what 76 million or something stupid like that?

Just like Ehealth balooning to an unreasonable level of cost these simple Databases with simple interfaces seem to be run by morons.

Here is a little insight on how the system works:

a) Anyone who legally owns a gun in canada must take a firearms safety course which teaches law on proper storage, handling, etc... In order to receive a license called PAL (Possesion Acquisition License), not only do you need to pass the course, you also need to undergo a full background check through the RCMP. If you have a history of mental illness, domestic violence, crime, etc.. you cannot qualify for the permit or at least make it far more difficult to get one. As part of the process, you also need three references (much like a passport) that will vouch for you.

There are two seperate courses: Non-restriced firearms (shotguns, rifles, etc...) and Restricted firearms (Handguns, and certain guns with shorter barrels). In Canada, restriced firearms can only be shot at a registered gun range and are given a specific route that must be followed from point a to point b while travelling with your restricted firearms, given to you by the RCMP. Its illegal to discharge a Restriced gun anywhere but at a range or to transport it off your given route. HEAVY fines and punishment is imposed on those who break this rule.

b) Once you have your lisence, you can purchase and possess firearms and ammunition. When you purchase your firearm or ammo at the store, you need to show your valid PAL before purchase at which point they call the RCMP hotline and register it on the spot. The process takes about 15mins. At that point, you can walk out the store with your gun legally registered to your name. If you are purchasing a restriced firearm, the process take much longer (days).

Your gun would now be ''Registered''. What the conservatives are planning on eliminating the need to registere NON-RESTRICTED fireamrs, not restricted ones. The PAL permit will still be in effect, which everyone (including gun owners) support, as this is where the majority of the would-be criminals are stopped, since they do not pass the background test.

c) If you inherit a gun or purchase a gun through a private sale, you must also register the gun with the RCMP. If you do not have a license and you want to keep your great-grandfathers old side-by-side, you have to have it 'deactivated' which means the RCMP will fill seal the barrel with lead and remove the essential mechanical devices that allow the gun to operate.

yeah PAL thats it.. not FAC... that was before.

I think that I'm just used to having so many things registered (computer, vehicle, ipod, appliances, home, most home electronics, various software to maybe 20 different companies, various consumer products, etc), that I don't really get the problem of needing to register a gun for free. If the gun came with a warrenty they'd need to register it with the company. And I don't see why it can't be run for a low cost with today's technology. Maybe people didn't know how to do much online in 95 but these days it's pretty easy.

If it's done basically automatically, why bother getting rid of it?

As for the police checking, it wouldn't be of any use for something like a drug bust, but if you respond to a domestic violence call and know there's a gun in the house that could be useful information. If they didn't see any value in it, I don't know why they would support having it.

There are police agencies on record talking specifically about domestic violence issues and saying "we would be crazy not to assume there might be weapons present even for a domestic violence call"

"If it's done basically automatically, why bother getting rid of it? "

one reason is the insane cost
another is, if its not effective, why keep it?

We assume that most criminals are not using registered guns. The registry is a handy tool to criminalize owners and users of unregistered guns. If they find a hoodlum with a gun that's not registered, they have a good reason to penalize him. Without registry they may have to let him go and possibly give him back the gun and he can go on and kill some people. So there may be some considerable crime prevention outcome inherent to the registry.

There are a few reasons gun owners are opposed to the registration process.

a) they are often villainized in the media. As they grouped together with violent gang members when discussion about 'GUNS' occur.

b) the current system is basically the result of a knee-jerk reaction from the École Polytechnique shooting. The same happened in Australia, and now nearly ALL guns are outlawed in that country no matter the intended use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia .

So the way many Canadians react to guns and gun owners, whenever gun crime occurs they lump all gun owners in the same boat and want immediate action taken even though the guns used in crime all almost NEVER registered or even purchased in Canada. It's the fact that a precendent has been set that could just as easily go the way of the Aussies that scares law-abiding gun owners.

"If they find a hoodlum with a gun that's not registered, they have a good reason to penalize him."

Most criminals dont use long guns. Or at the least they dont use unmodified long guns.

I know the cost was insane when it was started, but haven't seen anything on the current annual costs. If it's all linked up to the RCMP computer system, the only required cost should be the officer's wage during the time they are putting the information into the system, and any IT costs specific to that system.

I don't really know what it's not effective in doing. It's supposed to keep a record of people who own guns. That seems to be what it does. The only people who seem to say the police don't need it aren't actually police. If the police are saying that they find value in the system, I can't see people who aren't police having better insight into the situation and knowing that they actually don't have value with the system. I also don't see the point of destroying the current information if it's already in the system. It seems like that would cost more than to just leave it on the server.

Deank wrote:"If they find a hoodlum with a gun that's not registered, they have a good reason to penalize him."

Most criminals dont use long guns. Or at the least they dont use unmodified long guns.

True. And most people who get in car accidents aren't drunk at the time, but we still have drinking and driving laws.

Triathlon68 wrote:There are a few reasons gun owners are opposed to the registration process.

a) they are often villainized in the media. As they grouped together with violent gang members when discussion about 'GUNS' occur.

b) the current system is basically the result of a knee-jerk reaction from the École Polytechnique shooting. The same happened in Australia, and now nearly ALL guns are outlawed in that country no matter the intended use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia .

So the way many Canadians react to guns and gun owners, whenever gun crime occurs they lump all gun owners in the same boat and want immediate action taken even though the guns used in crime all almost NEVER registered or even purchased in Canada. It's the fact that a precendent has been set that could just as easily go the way of the Aussies that scares law-abiding gun owners.

If it's recognized that most guns used in crimes aren't registered, how does registering a gun lump someone into the same group as a violent gang member? Doesn't it do the opposite because they are legal registered owners of guns, rather than owners of unregistered guns?

Because when violent gang gun crime occurs in cities, the immediate response is to force hunters and farmers and target shooters to register their guns. Instead, why is the immediate response not to counter smuggling of weapons acrosss borders? Or have severe punishment for arms smuggling?

The general public follows this logic:

Gun crime.
Reduce gun crime = control guns
the only guns that are controlable are those that are legally registered.
Guns that are legally registered are owned by responsible law-abiding Canadians.
Therefore law-abiding Canadians are being penalized or targeted because of Gun crimes by illegally owned guns.

Thousands of people drown every year. Why don't we register bathtubs? How can we sit idle and have unregistered tubs in every home in North America?
Want to address drowning? How about we lock up the people that hold the victims heads under the water. Aren't they the ones responsible for using "water" to commit a crime.
Anybody caught carrying a gun or using a gun in a crime should be removed from society until they learn otherwise. Don't let politicians play with your intelligence any longer. Demand that perpetrators be punished - not the law-abiding.

The important thing to remember is that when the Liberals brought in this great legislation, the government estimate of costs was about $200,000, I believe.
Typically in government tradition of giving us, the taxpayers, good value for the expense, the expense now is over $4 billion spent, and the damn crooks are still not registering anything, while the farmer who owns a shotgun, in case you try to sleep with his daughter without marrying her, refused to sign up!
No one uses the registration! the police wouldn't be so stupid as to go into any house where there is a problem complaint, and after checking the computer tell the officers- it is OK , there is no gun registered on our computer records!
The whole idea was and is done, and our great Conservative P.M. is simply trying to cut wasteful costs!
The registry never worked and yet to cancel it becomes an impossibility, because it is a government program.
Let it go!