Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never reaped any benefits from the project. The legislation to end the program finally passed the Parliament on Wednesday. Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities.
Gun-control advocates have long claimed that registration is a safety issue, and their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.
Advertisement
Nice logic, but reality never worked that way. Crime guns are very rarely left at the crime scene, and when they are left at the scene, they have not been registered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered crime guns are left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.
The statistics speak for themselves. From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveals that the weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the homicides with firearms, and that about three-quarters of the identified weapons were not registered. Of the weapons that were registered, about half were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases — that is, only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides — was the gun registered to the accused. As most homicides in Canada are not committed with a gun, the 62 cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides.
To repeat, during these seven years, there were only 62 cases — nine a year — where it was even conceivable that registration made a difference. But apparently, the registry was not important even in those cases. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.
The problem isn’t just with the long-gun registry. The data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. There is no evidence that, since the handgun registry was started in 1934, it has been important in solving a single homicide.
Looking at just long guns shows that since 1997, there have been three murders in which the gun was registered to the accused. The Canadian government doesn’t provide any information on whether those three accused individuals were convicted.
Nor is there any evidence that registration reduced homicides. Research published last year by McMaster University professor Caillin Langmann in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence confirmed what other academic studies have found: “This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.” There is not a single refereed academic study by criminologists or economists that has found a significant benefit from gun laws. A recent Angus Reid poll indicates that Canadians already understand this, with only 13 percent believing that the registry has been successful.
There's one policy that will reduce homicides. Put murderers to death with rapid justice and do so on TV so that everyone can see the wages of murder. There are three benefits:
1. The murderer will not murder anyone else, including other prisoners or prison employees, which happens all too frequently today.
2. A lot of would-be murders will think twice about committing murder if they and everyone else knows that the ultimate consequence will be paid.
3. Less violent criminals will not be hardened by exposure to as many psychopaths while in prison.
There's another policy that will curb not just murders by all violent and property crime. Encourage law-abiding citizen to buy firearms and train to use them and then give them the right to shoot anyone attempting to break into their car or house or tress-passing on their property. A LOT more criminals will get into another line of work if they know that the consequences of being caught include execution on the spot.
The death penalty for something like 1st degree murder is certainly a just punishment, but as a crime control tool it's not very successful.
1. Research has clearly shown that criminals are deterred far more by the certainty and celerity of punishment than it's severity. In other words, how likely is it I'll be caught, and how soon will I be punished. Remember, criminals tend to be a little more impulsive, and a little less inclined to think long term.
2. The way that other Western countries, like the US, do it, there is an appeal process that takes years to get through before being executed. Being executed 10 years down the road isn't all that effective a deterrent.
3. With the process as it now stands, something like 1/4 to 1/5 of death row inmates end up being acquitted. That's not have their sentence commuted, that's completely cleared of the crime they were to be executed for.
That means that in order to use the death penalty as a deterrent, you will have to cut down the appeal process to the point that you will, without a doubt, be executing innocent people on a regular basis. That's just not worth it.
As for giving out CCW permits more easily? That's something that I agree with you that I would like to see Canada go forward with.
I've been waiting for this for over 20 years-finally law abiding firearms enthusiasts get some well deserved vindication. Maybe now, we can finally get some rights back.
Of course, this law, and the vast majority of gun control laws, is not about solving or reducing actual crime. It is about government power, control and, ultimately, confiscation.
It's so great to read something intelligent about this topic - and anything about Canadian politics really. Thanks!
Well, we've finally got the Conservative majority we've been yearning for nigh these many years...so get used to decisions like this at least in the short term. We're on the right track nationally (please don't talk about provincial politics though...) which makes your situation south of the border all the more sad. Sorry...
One of my favorite 'gun control' quotes comes from that Mockumentory expert Michael Moore on Sept. 11 2002 while making Bowling for Columbine..
Quote: "This started out as a documentary on gun violence in America, but the largest mass murder in our history was just committed -- without the use of a single gun! Not a single bullet fired! No bomb was set off, no missile was fired, no weapon (i.e., a device that was solely and specifically manufactured to kill humans) was used. A boxcutter! -- I can't stop thinking about this. A thousand gun control laws would not have prevented this massacre. What am I doing? "..
This quote was on his website right after the 911 attack. But alas the almighty dollar sign must have popped up again, because It was removed less than 24 hours later.
"Constitutionalists argue that that Second Amendment did not grant a new right but simply acknowledged an existing right. Although this assertion contains some truth, it does not alter jurisdictional overtones.... The framers could have acknowledged the Scriptures as the foundation for this right, which would have alleviated any possibility of edicts prohibiting concealed weapons. They could have but they did not. Instead, they left it to Congress to implement such firearms restrictions as we have today.
"If the responsibility to keep and bear arms is God-given, no one except Yahweh Himself has the right to withdraw it. If you are a Christian3 (and particularly if you are the head of your home), you were given the responsibility to keep and bear arms long before the United States Constitution was framed or ratified:
'Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.' (Psalm 149:6-9)"
For more, see "Firearms: Scripturally Defended" at External Link.
We are at the very beginning of what perhaps is the most significant paradigm shift in America's history (besides perhaps the 17th-century Puritans establishing their Colonial governments upon Yahweh's law). America is beginning to recognize her national idol that like Gideon of old must be repented of before we can regain Christian dominion of our nation. Our darkest hour will prove to be our brightest moment. I offer as proof a radio interview Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America conducted with me on December 31, 2011. You can listen to or download it from Gun Owner's of America's website at External Link. See the seventh entry from the top, entitled "Ted Weiland: Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution."
I am absolutely ecstatic that $2.7 billion was thrown down a rat-hole and none of it was from the United States. I am thrilled that we might have some competition (however weak) in wasting taxpayer money.
