Canadian Firearms Registry Has Failed in Its Primary Goals

[Gorgon]

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here.

Canadian Firearms Registry Has Failed In Its Primary Goals

Friday, July 06, 2007 04:00 AM

The Fraser Institute has released a study on the effectiveness of the long gun registry in Canada.

SFU Professor and Senior Fellow with the Fraser Institute, Gary Mauser, is the author of the report “Hubris in the North, the Canadian Firearms Registry” . He concludes the firearms registry has failed in its primary goals to reduce violent crime and suicide rates.

Mauser points out that while the number of crimes involving firearms and the number of firearm related deaths have decreased since the gun registry was implemented in 1998, total criminal violence, and suicide rates remain “stubbornly stable.”

His report also shows how the total homicide rate has actually increased by 9% and gang related homicides have more than doubled between 1998 and 2005.

He reports that while the overall suicide rate slipped by 3% “an increase in suicides by hanging has nearly cancelled out the reduction in the number of suicides involving firearms.”

Mauser says his research shows those who have motive, will find an alternate means “Motive is the key” says Mauser. When asked if his report was then actually suggesting “Guns don’t kill, People do, ” he says his message really is, “Stop wasting time and money and do something that works.”

Mauser says at a cost of more than $2 billion dollars, the dollars could have been better spent on mental health programs, or keeping violent offenders behind bars, or improving probation or parole supervision.

The SFU prof has never owned a firearm, nor has he hunted, but says as his reaserch on the issue progressed, he came to believe the political reaction to violent acts involving firearms is disconnected from the real problem. “When someone uses a firearm to commit crime, the obvious thing is to attack the hunter in Northern British Columbia as being the one to blame”. There is also a growing movement within urban centres to ( as he refers to it) "demonize" gun owners.

“Clearly, the evidence shows that the registry has failed Canadians. It has failed to reduce gang violence or stop senseless killings. So why then, should we trust it, and why should we continue to fund it?”

He says while the basic tone of his paper is negative, the positive side is that it points to where dollars could be better spent to effect change and reduce violent crime.

Mauser is hopeful his report will open some eyes, but is also very realistic “ Those who are paying attention are either already in the choir, or they already hate you.”

[OneLungMcClung]

Lies! All lies!!




Nice work finding this Gorgon!

The sad part is that a gungrabber (who is almost always also a tax-raiser) won't read the part where he says "the money would have been better spent......" - they only see ""REDUCTION IN GUN CRIMES" and declare victory. Pigs.

[Frenchy]

When comparing countries, it is not always as simple as it seems, In Canada short arms where always more difficult to own, rifles like here where at one time easy to own.

The main difference in the two countries is that here in the US you have the right to “Own and bear” firearms, where as in Canada, you had the right to own a firearm. The bear part was not there to start with.
Speaking as a Quebecker here…

When Canada had the FLQ crisis in the 60’s and 70’s in Quebec, it was very much a war on the streets. Since then, the FLQ was brought down and a new political group came out of the woodworks. Unfortunately the Parti Quebecois is what was once the FLQ. (Federation de Liberation du Quebec)

One would say there is little to be concerned about a population of the times that was about the same as many larger states, New York for example had a much larger population then all of Canada had at the time and still has!

So when politician’s heads started to get murdered on the streets, the government enacted the gun registry.
This made it that long arms had to get registered just as short arms did, and a permit was needed to carry one to go hunting for example. Short arms permit have always been rough to get in Canada. You could own a gun for the protection of your home or business (building) but not carry in any way on the streets. One would tell you it was much easier to carry any short arm in New York City then in Montreal.

In the 80’s and 90’s when long arms became a focus of attention because of an attack on parliament and a few attacks on universities the government responded by tightening up the gun laws even further. It is now as hard to purchase and own a long gun.

It is not amazing that this turn of events took place. Canada a country that once prided its self on military and commercial values, was asked to disarm its self in the 60’s and allow the US to protect its boundaries.
As a child I lived in a northern part of Quebec where there was a military base, the Beaumark of Macaza. a US installation. Although it was not technically a US Army base, the crew there was 90% US. The few Canadians on the base where mainly civilians. Because the US disarmed the once prided Air Force base, the government ordered the US missile heads there filled with sand. The prime minister of the times saying if Canada could not own its own warheads, it surely would not have an other countries missiles armed there.
So it came to be that the Beaumark missiles where for show of might not for protection. The attitude has since grown to the civilian front, you can have your guns, you just can’t use them. Hunting being the main exception.

To this day, Canada has such a depleted armed force, the New York Police could invade Canada and no one in Canada could do much about it but ask the US President to stop them. A once great nation has been disarmed by two different governments and one attitude.

Now the US government wants to disarm its own citizens. The idea being that if the people can not rebel, then the government can do anything it likes and not have any one resist them.
This is how Canada stands now, as a mater of fact, just lately; there has been a push to arm the border guard (RCMP) officers at the US Canada border. Pretty bad when a country disarms so much of its population and listens to a neighboring country as far as disarming its border patrol…

Now the question here is not what will happen to Canada, Canada has promises from the US saying it will protect the country from evil just as France and other countries that where disarmed have. The question is, will the US disarm its citizens, and if that happens, how will they then protect other countries while protecting their own?

Have a look at history; France was a major power before the US made the Ohio agreement. Since then, France has had to depend on the US to keep her safe. Canada was also a military might before the Avro project in the 60’s, since then, it has depended on the US to protect its borders. Since then, the Canadian armed force had depleted to a point, they could not invade Vermont! As we stand now, the US is protecting the Middle East… yet one more country in the middle of being disarmed. If we allow the government to disarm the legal residents and citizens of the US, who will protect the homeland, we already know no guns does not mean more safety… Except of course for the federal Government, who could then do what ever they want of its Citizens with out contest.

Looking at other countries is a good thing, but doing so without learning from it is not. Rather then look at them as a statistic, and laugh at them, why not look at them and see why it happened the way it did.
The US can not protect Canada without a major war, any more then it can protect any other country with out a major war… Including her self. Do we want a major war in the US?
The largest army in the world is the US armed Citizen. Problem is, that scares the US government somewhat because there is no real head to this army. Only individuals and that my friends is what won America from the British back in the 17’00’s.

A rag tag army of civilians who did not agree with the rest of the country marched across the land, removed the French, won the South, and did it all while fighting the natives to secure this country that we now call America. Scary part is, now the Government is worried it might happen again. The only way they can avoid this is by disarming the citizens.

Before you vote in 2008 you should think about who would and who would not try to disarm you.

[Lougotzz]

very nice frenchy.

It is very good for people of different places to show what happened there and how it is starting to happen here. I always show people what was in NY cause I see it happening in PA. It is like a red warning sign. Stop look how it affected this place is that what you want here.


Most people dont look at history or care.


ETA you are 100% gov is cocerned about gun owners revolting. This is why they do nothing about crime. They use crime as an excuse to ban guns.

We are just as bad cause we counter their arguments with crime satistics. We should counter their arguments with their real agenda. Total disarmament to us citizens.