The Gun Registry Post I Wasn't Going to Write

I wasn't going to say anything about the gun registry on this blog. Because seriously, who needs that kind of abuse?

Of course my reticence didn't stop me from spending the past week leaving comments on every blog post and media article I found on the subject. And it wasn't like I actually thought I was going to convince anybody one way or the other.

I just got fed up with seeing the same old misinformation making the rounds.

The problem is, there really is an urban/rural divide on this issue, but it has nothing to do with who does or doesn't benefit from the long gun registry - it has to do with who has firsthand knowledge of our firearm licensing and registration system. City folk, by and large, do not own a lot of rifles or shotguns. So even if they support the long gun registry, their arguments tend to fall apart when those against it start pulling out authentic-sounding facts and figures. They have no way to contradict these people because they have never themselves registered a firearm.

I have. So let me clear up a couple of things for you.

1) There are three categories of forms we're talking about here: the gun registry (which is for the gun but connects it to the person), the hunting license (if that's why you want a gun), and the firearm license, which is either a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) or a Possession Only License (POL). You need one of those last two in order to purchase, own, or temporarily possess a firearm, and you need to take a firearms safety course before you get one.

2) There are no 'intrusive questions' on the gun registry form, unless you consider the length of your barrel to be nobody's business but your own. The only questions that might be considered intrusive are on the two firearms license forms. These are questions like, "Have you recently ended a long-term relationship?" and "Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness?" Personally, I think these are important things to know, but they have nothing to do with the gun registry.

3) Registering a non-restricted rifle or shotgun is FREE. I'll repeat that: there is NO CHARGE for registering a non-restricted long gun. Anyone who tells you different has obviously not registered a weapon since 2006 when the fees were eliminated.

4) The elimination of the registration fees was the direct result of complaints from people who owned multiple guns. It is also one of the main reasons why the gun registry came to cost so much to taxpayers.

5) You do not need to renew the registration on a long gun unless it's modified in some way. You do have to renew you PAL or POL - there is a fee for that, but it has been waived until next spring.

6) You cannot have a gun for 'home defence' in Canada. Legally. You can have one for hunting, sport shooting, or as a collector, but you aren't allowed to have one just so you can pull a Clint Eastwood on your front lawn. If you write in anything except hunting, sport shooting or collecting under 'reason for applying' on your PAL or POL form, they will not give you a gun license.

There are lots more facts and statistics at the RCMP's Firearms Program website, which you can browse at your leisure. The same website has all the licensing and registration regs just in case I've missed anything.

I did want to say something about this notion that 'criminals don't register their guns'. Frankly, I don't worry so much about criminals, or at least not the kinds of criminals most people are thinking of when they make statements like that. Even when I lived in some of the worst neighbourhoods in Toronto, I knew that when there were shootings it was generally just the bad guys shooting at each other.

But here in Milton, we just don't have a lot of gang-bangers or drug dealers or bikers or Mafia-types, or any of the sorts of scary career criminals you see on American TV (well, we do, but most of them are locked up in Maplehurst up the road).

What we do have in this quiet little town are drunks, abusive spouses and bored teenagers. Some of them have access to firearms. Most of them are upright, law-abiding citizens - right up until they're not. So for me as well as for all those other people trying to defend their 'rural lifestyle', the odds of getting shot by a previously law-abiding spouse, or a drunken neighbour, or some kid showing off his dad's .22 to his friends are much, much higher than the chances of getting shot by a gang member with an illegal handgun.

In other words, the people who tend to be the most vocal against the long gun registry are also the ones who potentially benefit the most from it.

As for exactly how effective the gun registry is in preventing domestic crime, protecting police, or keeping illegal guns off the street... I don't know. I'm just a gun owner, not a police officer, so I'll let the police themselves answer that question for you.

There. I've said my piece. Have at it.

UPDATE: Here's a chart based on homicide stats since the homicide peak of 1991, from the Department of Justice. The firearms registry was started in 1996. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Let's Make It a Real Revolt!

The Star's Susan Delacourt has made note of a growing number of Liberal bloggers who are speaking out today against the Conservatives' crime bill, which would impose mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. She called it a "grassroots revolt" against the Liberal Party's stated intention to let this thing pass. Sadly, a few bloggers do not a revolt make. But hundreds of emails just might be a little more convincing.

I just sent the following email to every Liberal MP, including Michael Ignatieff, and I strongly recommend that everyone reading this do the same. To that end, I put together a handy email list of the entire Liberal caucus on my Facebook page. Just copy, paste, and email away!

As a member of the Liberal Party, I strongly urge you and your fellow Liberal caucus members to vote against the Conservative crime bill C-15, which would impose U.S.-style mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.

Mandatory minimums have proven time and time again to be ineffective and counterproductive. In fact, nearly every expert witness appearing before the Justice Committee examining this legislation said that it would fill our jails while doing absolutely nothing to curb crime or decrease drug addiction. Countries around the world - including the United States - are backing away from this type of narrowly punitive approach to drug crime, and Canada should be doing the same. Instead, this bill will drag us backwards.

This is not a confidence motion. What it is is an opportunity for the Liberal Party to show some spine and prove that our Party still represents progressive, practical policy and not blind populism.

For more information from a legal perspective, please read the following analysis:
http://lawiscool.com/2009/06/05/dont-do-mandatory-drug-sentances/

Thank you for your consideration.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: Punk & Thug Edition

The latest Conservative promotion of their 'law and order' agenda seems to be meeting with a rather lukewarm response. Except, of course, from the likes of Sun columnist and global warming curmudgeon Lorrie Goldstein:

Today let's take a break from the BS we're being fed about global warming to examine the BS we're being fed about crime statistics.

Specifically, about how "low" they are today compared to the past, how anyone who believes otherwise is paranoid and how the best way to make the crime rate even lower is to go even softer on criminals than we already are.

First, let's examine what the crime rate actually is compared to years ago, as opposed to what we've been told it is.

Here are some figures you probably didn't see widely quoted in the media earlier this month when Statistics Canada released its 2007 data on falling Canadian crime rates.

- First, violent crime is up 320% since 1962, when modern records first started being kept.

- Second, property crime, which many victims don't even bother to report anymore, is nonetheless up 75%.

- Third, the overall crime rate is up 152%.

Shock! Horror! And of course the fact that crime rates have been going up around the world for one hell of a lot longer than that is quite easy to dismiss when you've got a point to make - and when you pick a rather convenient year to measure against.

Happily, the Fraser Institute has a handy chart of some of those 'pre-historic' crime statistics:



Damn those Depression and Eisenhower era hoodlums!

But ok, sure, let's look at those post-1962 numbers in a little more detail, shall we?



Apparently things are a little more complicated than Goldstein's simplistic analysis. Violent crime had been on a slow but steady increase until 1991, when the trend reversed itself and began an equally steady decline. Property crime, on the other hand, has gone through some pretty wide swings over the past 45 years, with huge spikes in '81 and '91 and lesser jumps in '71 and '75. Gee. What could it possibly mean?



Yes, Lorrie, those grey bars there are economic recessions. Which would seem to indicate that there just might be a link between socio-economic conditions - like poverty - and crime.

Ya think?

Then there's also this bit of information that Goldstein has conveniently left out:

The rate of violent crime increased at essentially the same pace as rates of property crime between 1962 and 1983. Thereafter, following a comprehensive expansion of the laws against assault and sexual assault, the rate of violent crimes known to the police continued a sharp growth that peaked in 1992 but have since declined.

And yet, Goldstein professes bewilderment at these trends. Which doesn't stop him from blaming (you guessed it) weak-minded, 'soft-on-crime' policies.

Whatever happened, the hug-a-thug crowd today uses the relatively small post-1991 drop in the crime rate to argue that since crime is going down, we don't need to toughen laws or impose stiffer sentences. In fact, they say, we should do the reverse.

Nonsense. One could just as easily argue the skyrocketing crime rate we experienced throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to levels which essentially still exist today for violent crime, was the result of the soft-on-crime attitude of both federal Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments.

Yes, one could argue that, were it not for the overwhelming evidence, from both sides of the border and even on the Government's own Justice website, that "getting tough" on youth crime by increasing sentences and funnelling them into the adult system, actually increases recidivism rates. But I'll let Rational Reasons tell you all about that.

None of this makes even the slightest impression on Lorrie Goldstein of course, nor on his political idols. Because it's not about facts or a rational understanding of cause and effect - it's about ideology. It's not about the truth - it's about how we perceive the truth. It's about our rosy, dimly remembered view of the past when compared to the oh so dreary present. And first and foremost, it's about making people afraid so you can do... well, pretty much anything you want to them.

Perhaps Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said it best.

"We don't govern by statistics in our government. We're governing by what we told and promised Canadians."

Good for you, Rob. We wouldn't want to let a few facts get in the way of the Relentless Implementation of the Conservative Agenda, now would we?

In the grand scheme of things, it might actually be a good thing if Harper were to put his "tough on crime" laws into practise as soon as possible. Because if that chart of economic trends when compared to crime rates is any indication, we are probably in for a rather sharp uptick in crime - particularly property crime - sometime very soon. And if that happens on Harper's watch, especially if it's after he's purged the justice system of all those namby-pamby Liberal policies, then that just might bring his whole ideological house of cards tumbling down.