PUBLICATION:
The
Windsor Star
DATE:
2004.12.30
EDITION: Final
SECTION:
Editorial
PAGE:
A8
COLUMN:
Barbara Yaffe
BYLINE:
Barbara Yaffe
SOURCE:
CanWest News Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun
registry off target: Canadians don't need rhetoric. At this point, they need
hard data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There
surely is no human specimen more patient and forgiving than the Canadian
taxpayer. You don't need a scientific experiment to back this up; you need only
look to the survival these past nine years of the federal gun registry.
Governments
often do dumb things. They're run by politicians who are generally
well-intentioned but preoccupied with the task of getting themselves reelected.
Such
was the case back in 1995 when then-justice minister Allan Rock conjured up the
gun registry -- a Liberal response to escalating public concern about gun
violence, a concern that persists to this day.
The
National Firearms Program was to cost $2 million and maintain a record of all
those who possess guns. A good portion of the public was prepared to go along
with it, given the effective lobby that followed the murder in 1989 of 14 female
students in Montreal by a nutbar with a semiautomatic rifle.
Keep
in mind that handguns have been registered in Canada since 1934. Also keep in
mind, criminals aren't generally fussy about bureaucracy and often neglect to
follow government registration rules, be it for guns, bombs or other
paraphernalia.
It
should also be noted, rifles and shotguns are used mainly by farmers, hunters
and native Indians. Even before the firearms registry was established, there
were legal requirements for the purchase of a long gun. Gun storage laws existed
and hunters had to get a licence.
So,
it's arguable whether we really needed the registry in the first place. But hey,
a government can't be too careful when it comes to reducing crime. And it wasn't
as though $2 million was going to break the federal bank.
But
here we are in 2004 and the firearms registry budget is broken. Costs have
soared to $1 billion and the program won't even be fully operational until 2007.
At
what point does a government say, enough is enough? This initiative is no longer
a federal program, it's a national joke.
And
Ontario Liberal backbencher Roger Gallaway, for one, admits it. He was prepared
to float a motion to drastically cut the venture's fourth-quarter funding.
His
motion never came forward because Gallaway got the message from his Grit
colleagues that it would be voted down, presumably so the party could save face.
It
was therefore left to Conservatives to put the motion forward, but there weren't
sufficient votes in support because the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois lined
up behind Liberals to safeguard the billion-dollar boondoggle.
Awkwardly,
the vote came at the same time as the 15th anniversary of the Montreal students'
murder. Cabinet heavies Anne McLellan and Jean LaPierre exploited this by
alluding to the memory of the dead as justification for keeping the firearms
registry.
As
if the registry would have prevented those murders from taking place. As if the
registry has been effective in reducing gun crime in Canada's largest city.
It
is in Montreal and Toronto -- important areas for Liberals -- where most support
for the firearms registry exists.
A
Toronto Star editorial called the registry "a crucial investment in the
safety of all Canadians." Such a statement sounds wonderfully comforting,
but it's dubious.
Surely
the time has come to stop throwing around unproven assertions about the registry
and start evaluating it on a genuine cost-effectiveness basis. Sufficient
statistics on crime trends exist and there are plenty of cops with first-hand
experience.
In
other words, McLellan and LaPierre should put up or shut up. Instead of making
self-serving statements in blind support of the firearms registry they owe it to
Canadians, $1 billion later, to show them the beef.
Has
the registry benefited Canadians in tangible ways that justify the enormous
cost?
How
useful is it in the eyes of officers on the front line?
Would
Canada be better off diverting funds to employ more law enforcement personnel,
or focusing on gun smuggling?
Canadians
don't need rhetoric. At this point, they need hard data, untainted by political
considerations. Nine years on and a billion dollars later, taxpayers deserve at
least that much.
Barbara
Yaffe is a Vancouver Sun columnist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT THERE IS ALREADY LOTS OF HARD DATA - THE LIBERALS JUST IGNORE IT!
STATISTICS CANADA REPORT: GUN REGISTRY AIMED AT THE WRONG TARGET
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/Article442.htm
STATISTICS CANADA: UPDATED DOMESTIC HOMICIDE TABLES, 1995-2003
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/DomesticHomicides-1995-2003-2004-10-07.xls
STATISTICS CANADA: FIREARM HOMICIDES, BY TYPE OF FIREARM AND REGISTRATION STATUS, 1997-2003
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/FirearmHomicidesbyRegistrationStatus,1997-2003.xls
NOTE: In 2003, 71% of the 548 victims were murdered using something other than a firearm
STATISTICS
CANADA: ROBBERIES BY WEAPON PRESENT & LEVEL OF INJURY, 2003
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/RobberiesbyWeaponandInjury-2003.xls
STATISTICS
CANADA: "The specific impact of the firearms program or the firearms
registry cannot be isolated from that of other factors." [Emphasis
added by Statistics Canada]
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/Article511.htm
STATISTICS CANADA: HOMICIDES INVOLVING FIREARMS, 1974-2003
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/HomicidesInvolvingFirearms1974-2003.pdf
WHAT POLICE HAVE SAID ABOUT THE GUN REGISTRY
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/policequotes.htm
SEVENTEEN FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GUN REGISTRY
http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/Article508.htm