XPost: can.politics, can.rec.hunting, can.talk.guns   
   XPost: kingston.general, talk.politics.guns, van.general   
   From: @   
      
   Yes, unfortunately it does come down to dollars and cents at some point.   
   Contrary to what you deliberately close your eyes to, there isn't a   
   bottomless pit of money and to keep this registry going.   
   Not only were we deliberately lied to and misled from the very beginning   
   about the cost of the registry, they now want millions more on top of that   
   to keep it going. That means they will have to cut some from the law   
   enforcement funds, which will result in decreasing the number of police   
   officers, or perhaps already stretched too thin prison guards, maybe getting   
   rid of the police helicopters, or cutting public services, such as health   
   care.   
   There is a reason the Alan Rocks' of this country want to pour money into a   
   registry even they know is worthless, they think it might lead to   
   confiscation. But there's millions of us they're going to have a problem   
   with coming into our homes to steal our firearms. Because once a government   
   forces their way into our homes and tells us what we can own or not, you   
   have just become a communist state.   
   Besides that, we have had the handgun registry for 72 years, but still the   
   crime rate involving handguns continues to rise. Surely after 72 years,   
   according to your logic, crimes should have decreased, significantly.   
   But, lets apply your logic to a scenario. Lets say I go away on vacation.   
   All my guns are registered, and correctly stored in a gun safe with my ammo   
   also locked away in a separate place, thus I've taken every precaution and   
   legally responsible. Then professional thieves break into my home, crack my   
   gun safe and steal a shotgun. (I have always had a picture of every gun I   
   own, with serial numbers logged, since I got my first gun.) A few weeks   
   later, they commit a murder using my stolen shotgun and leave it behind when   
   fleeing the scene. The police track it back to me and discover I reported it   
   stolen, because I called the police as soon as I got home and discovered I   
   had been burglarized, so I can be compensated for damages  through my   
   insurance. However, the criminals are never apprehended because they left no   
   evidence.   
   According to you, the police being able to track a gun used in a crime back   
   to the owner is going to assist them in solving the crime. How???   
   Or are you going to charge me for the murder because it was my shotgun,   
   though they illegally entered and burglarized my home, were illegally in   
   possession of a firearm, and ultimately committed the crime???   
   What if the criminals grind off the serial number, how do they trace it   
   then?   
   And the obvious, criminals don't register their guns, especially if they   
   intend to use them to commit crimes. That's why they're called   
   "criminals"!!!!   
   So, since the registry is "only" a decade old, and all guns had to be   
   registered by 2003, and you say that's not long enough to be able to produce   
   any efficiency data, **how about giving us an analogy** of how the registry   
   is going to assist the police enough to justify the inconceivable amount of   
   money it's costing, rather than scrapping it and put any available monies   
   into resources that will get the real criminals and illegal guns off the   
   streets?   
   After all, wouldn't achieving that reduce crime and keep us safer than   
   knowing what guns law abiding citizens own?   
   Here is a cost/benefit study I posted earlier. It gives rather compelling   
   figures even though the author, whenever estimating, did so favouring the   
   registry.   
   The very low return on the registry means we could spend less money to   
   increase resources that would provide better results then the registry.   
   btw. My guns are registered, and though I have a little concern with that,   
   the main reason this registry bothers me is the cost. I know that money   
   would produce far better results spent more wisely.   
      
   Cost/Benefits of Gun Registration as Crime Control: The Canadian Experience   
   By Bruce Gold   
   Introduction   
      
   The efficiency and effectiveness of gun regulation is a matter of   
   controversy. The debate over this issue has become notorious for its emotion   
   driven rationales and hardened policy positions. This analysis is based on   
   the belief that good laws and sound policy should be based on evidence and   
   subject to effectiveness reviews. Accordingly, it examines the cost/benefits   
   and effectiveness of gun registration as crime control.   
      
   Background   
      
   There have been three periods of gun registration in Canada. The first, the   
   registration of handguns began in 1934 and continues to this day. The second   
   was the registration of all guns during WWII. This registration period is   
   not well documented, but it appears that the law was never seriously   
   enforced and in any case it lapsed in 1945 when the RCMP requested it be   
   discontinued. The third period is the current registration system brought in   
   by Bill C-68 in 1995. This law required the licensing and registration of   
   all gun owners by 2001 and required the registration of all guns by 2003.   
   This legislation continued the previous policy of handgun registration and   
   introduced long gun (rifle and shotgun) registration.   
      
   The 1995 legislation also moved about half of all handguns into a   
   "prohibited" category based on technical details such as calibre or barrel   
   length. Although there was no evidence of any kind that guns with these   
   technical details were in any way more prevalent in criminal gun use it was   
   felt that they "might be" and therefore must be banned. Somewhat   
   irrationally, these "too dangerous", now prohibited guns were then left with   
   their owners who could buy and sell them freely with other "prohibited" gun   
   owners. It became a criminal offence for anyone else to possess one.   
      
   (This is one of the biggest "registration to confiscation" events that has   
   ever happened in North America, about half a million guns were confiscated,   
   even though there current owners can keep them. The guns are to be   
   confiscated when the current owner dies.)   
      
   Calculating Cost/Benefits   
      
   The number of guns to be registered is an important variable since the more   
   guns there are, the more cost and effort is involved in the registration   
   process. In Canada the number of guns in the country is the subject of some   
   debate. In 1974, a Statistics Canada survey established the number at   
   11,186,000. Historical import/ export estimates would place the current   
   number at anywhere from 18 to 21 million. In 1991, the Justice Department   
   estimated the total number to be 6 million. For the purpose of this   
   analysis, I have chosen 7 million as the number of guns to be registered.   
   This estimate is on the low side and may underestimate the registration   
   effort required, as such it slants the analysis in favour of gun   
   registration.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)