• http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ Canadiansense

    Great video, clearly outlining the next step needed by Canadians to scrap the long gun registry. Elect more Conservatives.

    The Liberals and Democrats can’t be trusted to keep their promises. The twenty MPs will have some splaining’ to do when return home to their ridings.

  • Frank

    Wow. I’ve never heard her speak before. She should be looked at very closely as the next leader of the CPC!

  • Liz J

    This is a case where the losers of the vote are the winners. The Liberals and Dippers who defied the wishes of their constituents on this issue will have some trouble. My riding is a good example. It went from decades of Liberal representation to soundly Conservative, all over the Liberal Gun Registry. There is not a chance this vote yesterday in the HOC will change their minds. We have a former Liberal MP, in the riding running nest time as an Independent and a new to politics gal running for the Liberals. They may as well save their time an money, their fate is clear.

  • batb

    Slow and steady, honest and steadfast, wins the race, Liz. We can’t apply these qualities to the Librano$ or Dippers (and let’s not even talk about the blasted Bloc).

    Unfortunately for me, Olivia Chow Chow is my MP, a total wipeout. She’s never done anything for me. But, of course, that’s because I’m neither a feminist nor a member of a VISIBLE minority. Being white, British, and Christian, I’m in a minority situation now, but she could care less. In her books I’m the enemy. Well, in my books, she’s the enemy too … ‘good thing we Christians pray for our enemies as opposed to other groups that do other things to their enemies …

    The CPC are a class act when it comes to this issue and, as PMSH and Candice Hoeppner have pointed out, this isn’t the end of the issue. They may have lost this battle but the war is far from over. Two votes make this a cliff hanger and voters are taking notice.

  • Real Conservative

    Good interview and covers everything. She is hot! (real conservative)

  • Real Conservative

    Good interview and covers everything. She is hot! (real conservative)

  • Gabby in QC

    Ms. Hoeppner is a very articulate person, even when swarmed by hostile reporters. I hope she doesn’t mind some suggestions from an observer — yes, a partisan conservative one.
    • To the reporter who asked her if the NDPers who voted for her bill were in a coalition with her and her party (I believe I recognized Hélène Buzzetti’s voice, from Le Devoir) Ms. Hoeppner should have replied “I don’t have time now to explain to you what a real coalition is, but I’d be glad to do it later” and then smile at Buzzetti. Then turn to the next question.

    • Next time around, Ms. Hoeppner should emphasize how much it actually costs to run the long-gun registry, with a copy of the RCMP report in her hand. Even today, I heard the V-P of the CACP (Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police) on the radio stating that it only costs $4 million annually. Julie Van Dusen and Andrew Coyne have used the same erroneous figure. Fortunately, the Globe & Mail finally took the trouble to actually read the RCMP report. In an editorial entitled “Gun registry’s price was not as advertised” (Sep. 22, 2010 1:31PM EDT) The Globe said:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/gun-registrys-price-was-not-as-advertised/article1717453/
    “… The source of this estimate of $4-million appears to be a badly written line in the RCMP’s 2010 evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program: “ . . . the gun registration portion of the CFP has been determined, by independent sources, in terms of cost savings to the CFP, at a range of $1.195-$3.65 million for the initial year, and subsequent years will range from $1.57-$4.03 million. . ..” (Emphasis added.) The key phrase is cost savings. The RCMP, which took lead responsibility for the program in 2006, claims it is doing so more efficiently than its predecessors. Elsewhere in the report the RCMP puts the annual net cost of the Canadian Firearms Program for 2010-11 at $66.4-million. …”
    People should form their opinions based on facts, not inaccurate information.

    • Ms. Hoeppner should also emphasize the fact that legal ownership of a gun requires the granting of a license to the prospective buyer. The license is apparently granted only after careful background checks. Many people think the licensing and the registration process are one and the same, so they need to have that confusion cleared up.

    • Ms. Hoeppner should stress that
    — Kimveer Gill, the Dawson killer who is rightly invoked as a danger society must guard against, had registered weapons in his possession. Neither licensing nor registration of those weapons prevented his murderous spree.
    — The perpetrator of the École Polytechnique massacre also lawfully obtained a permit (before the gun registry, of course). “In August 1989, Lépine picked up an application for a firearms-acquisition certificate and he received his permit in mid-October.” [Wiki]
    — Pro-registry advocate Elaine Lumley, who is sometimes called upon to talk about her son’s unfortunate homicide, neglects to mention her son was killed with a handgun, not a long-gun, which is what Ms. Hoeppner’s bill was about.
    None of those crimes was prevented by licensing and/or registration.

    • Finally, Ms. Hoeppner should ask those MPs who now want to “fix” the registry why it took her bill to wake them up to the registry’s flaws?

  • Nick

    Elsewhere in the report the RCMP puts the annual net cost of the Canadian Firearms Program for 2010-11 at $66.4-million. …”

    Baloney. Tempest in a teapot.
    Hoeppner’s bill would only have removed the long gun registration requirement. The requirement to register handguns or apply for FAC’s was never under debate and these form the majority of the operating cost. If you want to save the $66 million a year, then run on a platform of scrapping all forms of gun control in Canada.

    Go on, I dare ya.

  • Anonymous

    • Ms. Hoeppner should stress that
    — Kimveer Gill, the Dawson killer who is rightly invoked as a danger society must guard against, had registered weapons in his possession. Neither licensing nor registration of those weapons prevented his murderous spree.
    — The perpetrator of the École Polytechnique massacre also lawfully obtained a permit (before the gun registry, of course). “In August 1989, Lépine picked up an application for a firearms-acquisition certificate and he received his permit in mid-October.” [Wiki]

    None of those crimes was prevented by licensing and/or registration.

    That handful of homicidal nut cases is NOT what the long gun registry is for. For every one of those page-one murders we can cite, the police respond to thousands of domestic violence calls, or neighbourhood fights, or drunk and disorderly calls, or bail violations, or a hundred other routine but potentially dangerous calls. These are the calls where knowing that a registered firearm is possibly in the house can be helpful, not only for saving lives of the police officers, but also for reduced risks to suspects and bystanders.

    The LGR festers as an issue mainly because the CPC wants it to fester. It here, it’s been 15 years, it’s not perfect, but rather than fix the flaws, the CPC prefers to fan the old resentments around it. Easier to campaign on anti LGR sentiments than it is to propose policies that will move Canada forward, I guess. But I don’t think it’s the slam-dunk rural issue you think it is. Nick’s corrected your numbers, and there’s always the faint possibility that the rural voter will realize that it’s not the end of freedom as we know it if they register their rifles and shotguns.

  • Liz J

    Long gun registration is the dumbest legislation ever.

    It does nothing to make us safer, it treats law abiding people like untrustworthy criminals.

    Suicide, domestic violence, or other crimes committed with a gun of any sort cannot be prevented by registering a gun. Guns are licensed, people have to go through background checks to get that license, registering them on top of that is both ridiculous and a total waste of our money.

    The Police Chiefs took a fall in credibility on this one IMO and I’m not alone, not by a very long shot.

    The Gun Registry will not survive, the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper will increase support as they continue to work towards it’s demise.

    When it comes to Leadership, this PM has it in spades.

  • Liz J

    Long gun registration is the dumbest legislation ever.

    It does nothing to make us safer, it treats law abiding people like untrustworthy criminals.

    Suicide, domestic violence, or other crimes committed with a gun of any sort cannot be prevented by registering a gun. Guns are licensed, people have to go through background checks to get that license, registering them on top of that is both ridiculous and a total waste of our money.

    The Police Chiefs took a fall in credibility on this one IMO and I’m not alone, not by a very long shot.

    The Gun Registry will not survive, the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper will increase support as they continue to work towards it’s demise.

    When it comes to Leadership, this PM has it in spades.

  • Anonymous

    You’re not alone, indeed; many people have this wrong.

    It does nothing to make us safer, it treats law abiding people like untrustworthy criminals.

    Suicide, domestic violence, or other crimes committed with a gun of any sort cannot be prevented by registering a gun. Guns are licensed, people have to go through background checks to get that license, registering them on top of that is both ridiculous and a total waste of our money.

    So much wrong there. First, PEOPLE are licenced (Possession and Acquisition Licence ) , not guns. Guns are REGISTERED.

    And of course you deliberately misstate the point of the LGR. It can’t stop someone from pulling the trigger of a gun already in their hands. What it does do is to give the police a heads-up that a gun may be present at a given address, which gives them enough info to secure it. This is a definite advantage when you are responding to something relatively minor (domestic dispute, fistfight, D&D, someone is depressed or deranged, burglary, etc). It can stop a long gun from getting into someone’s hands in the first place.

    it treats law abiding people like untrustworthy criminals

    Classic right-wing hysteria. Gee… are there “trustworthy” criminals? Also, if people won’t register their guns, they’re no longer law-abiding, are they?

    It’s the same hype as the CPC expressed over the mandatory long form census. The government wants you to do something simple and easy. Did you know it’s free to register or transfer the registration of rifles and shotguns in the LGR and gun owners can register their guns online or over the phone in minutes? What’s so hard/freedom-robbing about that?

    People would have long ago just sucked it up and registered their guns if the CPC hadn’t so effectively kept fanning the issue as it’s ace in the hole with the rural set.

    Money – the LGR itself costs under $4 million a year. Fact. The whole Firearms registry, including the LGR is what costs $66m. You want to wreck the LGR to save … $4m? The federal gov’t just pissed away $1+ billion on the G20/G8. And the gov’t just committed how much on new jets on a single-source no-bid contract? Not saying we don’t need the jets, but you can bet we could have got a better deal. If you’re genuinely concerned about saving money, the LGR is beneath consideration.

    Any remaining issues with the LGR have simple fixes. Killing it will not bring back the money already spent. A real leader wouldn’t deliberately sustain such a small yet divisive issue for its own selfish ends.

    Some people in the rural North do get it, btw, and it’s entirely possible that people may yet have the good sense to move on, even if the CPC doesn’t.

  • Gabby in QC

    Why am I getting this message
    bad JSON: {“method”: “postComment.onFailure”, “params”: [{“message”: “Get thee some captcha”, “code”: “captcha-required”, “succeeded”: false, “request”: {“post”: {“message”: ”
    when I try to post a reply to Kenn2?

  • Gabby in QC

    Why am I getting this message
    bad JSON: {“method”: “postComment.onFailure”, “params”: [{“message”: “Get thee some captcha”, “code”: “captcha-required”, “succeeded”: false, “request”: {“post”: {“message”: ”
    when I try to post a reply to Kenn2?

  • Anonymous

    check for wierd punctuation, especially brackets () {} []. Maybe try a simple “test” then edit.

  • Anonymous

    check for wierd punctuation, especially brackets () {} []. Maybe try a simple “test” then edit.

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    Looks like you’re able to post but you’re not typing in the image of letters (captcha). I’ve never encountered that problem on the site before.

  • Gabby in QC

    Something really screwy is going on. I tried to post my comment in reply to a commenter here — moniker begins with K — several times, but have been unable to. I get messages like “bad JSON: {“method”: “postComment.onFailure”, “params”: [{“message”: “Get thee some captcha”, “code”: “captcha-required”, “succeeded”: false, “request”: {“post”: {“message”: “OK, I’m goinfg to try posting my response to Kenn2’s first comment here.

    That is frustrating enough in and of itself. But what’s even more frustrating is that I cannot get out of this site after that message appears without quitting my browser.

  • Gabby in QC

    Thanks, but what weird punctuation? There’s none. And if you notice, I was able to copy & paste the messages above where there are some weird brackets & parentheses.

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    Looks like you figured it out!

    Make sure you have a modern browser as well.

    I suggest googling “google chrome” or “mozilla firefox”

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    Looks like you figured it out!

    Make sure you have a modern browser as well.

    I suggest googling “google chrome” or “mozilla firefox”

  • Gabby in QC

    I haven’t been typing in the captcha because I have NOT been requested, prompted, or whatever to do so.

  • Gabby in QC

    I haven’t been typing in the captcha because I have NOT been requested, prompted, or whatever to do so.

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    Try clearing out your browser cache and internet history too

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    Try clearing out your browser cache and internet history too

  • Gabby in QC

    One last try …

    “Nick’s corrected your numbers …”
    Not quite. Did I say it cost $66.4 million to run the long-gun registry exclusively? No.
    I merely cited the RCMP report (via a Globe editorial) to prove the media had either not read or had misread the information therein, arguing that the long-gun registry should be maintained as is because it only costs $4 million maximum to run it, which is inaccurate.

    Then, to your argument that the gun registry is for the “thousands of domestic violence calls, or neighbourhood fights, or drunk and disorderly calls, or bail violations …”
    Permit me to cite the RCMP report once more, this time directly.
    I do not provide a link in case it caused my comment not getting through ? (see my previous complaints)

    Page 94-95, from Statistics Canada, Juristat

    • 594 homicides year 2007

    • homicide victims at equal risk of being shot or stabbed

    • 190 homicides by stabbings

    • 188 homicides by shooting

    • 116 killed by beating

    • 50 by strangulation/suffocation

    • 16 by motor vehicle.

    That means 31.6% of homicides were committed with a firearm, whereas 68.4% were not. Should sharp objects and strong hands be registered? How did the long-gun registry help those 406 homicide victims who were NOT killed with a firearm?
    Parading the Dawson students out in support of the gun registry is using crass emotionalism to persuade people. The registry did not prevent that terrible event from taking place. The police were called because shots were fired, so the registry was completely irrelevant in that case.

    Then, from page 115, Homicide in Canada 2007, StasCan, Juristat:

    • “contrary to a general decline in homicides, gang-related homicides continued to increase”

    I doubt gang members license & register THEIR guns 

    • “homicide victims are at equal risk of being either shot or stabbed, with each method accounting for about one-third of all homicides”

    Again, should knives and other sharp objects be registered?

    • “incidence of handguns used in homicides continues to rise, while use of rifles/shotguns continues to decline. In 2007, two-thirds of firearms-related homicides were committed with a handgun.”
    Did the long-gun registry “prevent” those homicides?

    Look, being an urbanite, I neither need nor wish to have a long-gun, or any other gun, for that matter.
    But I look for public policy to be based on facts rather than on inaccurate information or the crass manipulation of people’s emotions. I wish everyone would.

  • Gabby in QC

    One last try …

    “Nick’s corrected your numbers …”
    Not quite. Did I say it cost $66.4 million to run the long-gun registry exclusively? No.
    I merely cited the RCMP report (via a Globe editorial) to prove the media had either not read or had misread the information therein, arguing that the long-gun registry should be maintained as is because it only costs $4 million maximum to run it, which is inaccurate.

    Then, to your argument that the gun registry is for the “thousands of domestic violence calls, or neighbourhood fights, or drunk and disorderly calls, or bail violations …”
    Permit me to cite the RCMP report once more, this time directly.
    I do not provide a link in case it caused my comment not getting through ? (see my previous complaints)

    Page 94-95, from Statistics Canada, Juristat

    • 594 homicides year 2007

    • homicide victims at equal risk of being shot or stabbed

    • 190 homicides by stabbings

    • 188 homicides by shooting

    • 116 killed by beating

    • 50 by strangulation/suffocation

    • 16 by motor vehicle.

    That means 31.6% of homicides were committed with a firearm, whereas 68.4% were not. Should sharp objects and strong hands be registered? How did the long-gun registry help those 406 homicide victims who were NOT killed with a firearm?
    Parading the Dawson students out in support of the gun registry is using crass emotionalism to persuade people. The registry did not prevent that terrible event from taking place. The police were called because shots were fired, so the registry was completely irrelevant in that case.

    Then, from page 115, Homicide in Canada 2007, StasCan, Juristat:

    • “contrary to a general decline in homicides, gang-related homicides continued to increase”

    I doubt gang members license & register THEIR guns 

    • “homicide victims are at equal risk of being either shot or stabbed, with each method accounting for about one-third of all homicides”

    Again, should knives and other sharp objects be registered?

    • “incidence of handguns used in homicides continues to rise, while use of rifles/shotguns continues to decline. In 2007, two-thirds of firearms-related homicides were committed with a handgun.”
    Did the long-gun registry “prevent” those homicides?

    Look, being an urbanite, I neither need nor wish to have a long-gun, or any other gun, for that matter.
    But I look for public policy to be based on facts rather than on inaccurate information or the crass manipulation of people’s emotions. I wish everyone would.

  • Gabby in QC

    If I had a gun — registered or not — NOW would be the time I’d use it, after all the futile attempts (since yesterday late evening) to post a reply. I have to go walk off my anger & frustration!

  • Anonymous

    (hooray – it worked. Clearing the cache did it?)

    The long gun registry component of the Canadian Firearms registry currently costs less than $4m a year. That’s ALL you’d save by canning the LGR. From numerous sources, including here:

    In 2006, an RCMP deputy commissioner told a parliamentary committee that about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns, and that the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year, or less.In 2006, an RCMP deputy commissioner told a parliamentary committee that about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns, and that the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year, or less.

    If you can disprove this, please do so (links willing…)

    And your stats say nothing about how many times the registry allowed police to identify and secure a long gun, thus reducing the risk for harm.

    Hey have a look at this. Money quote:

    The long-term trend in firearm-related homicides shows that the rate steadily declined from the 1970s to 1998 and has remained relatively stable since (Table 2). The peak of 1.3 in 1975 was more than double the rate in 2006.

    The decline in the firearm-related homicide rate can be largely explained by a decrease in homicides involving rifles or shotguns (Chart 3). The number of homicides committed with a rifle/shotgun fell from 183 victims in 1975 to 36 victims in 2006, representing an 86% decrease in the rate (from 0.8 to 0.1 per 100,000 population).

    You also refer to this in your argument: “…while use of rifles/shotguns continues to decline”. Wonder why that’s so? Must be something having an effect…

    And, seriously, do I really have to respond to “Did the long-gun registry “prevent” those [illegal handgun] homicides?” Well, crossbow registration wouldn’t have affected the stats for homicides by poisoning, either.

    But I look for public policy to be based on facts rather than on inaccurate information or the crass manipulation of people’s emotions. I wish everyone would.

    I couldn’t have said that better. 100% agree.

  • Anonymous

    (hooray – it worked. Clearing the cache did it?)

    The long gun registry component of the Canadian Firearms registry currently costs less than $4m a year. That’s ALL you’d save by canning the LGR. From numerous sources, including here:

    In 2006, an RCMP deputy commissioner told a parliamentary committee that about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns, and that the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year, or less.In 2006, an RCMP deputy commissioner told a parliamentary committee that about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns, and that the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year, or less.

    If you can disprove this, please do so (links willing…)

    And your stats say nothing about how many times the registry allowed police to identify and secure a long gun, thus reducing the risk for harm.

    Hey have a look at this. Money quote:

    The long-term trend in firearm-related homicides shows that the rate steadily declined from the 1970s to 1998 and has remained relatively stable since (Table 2). The peak of 1.3 in 1975 was more than double the rate in 2006.

    The decline in the firearm-related homicide rate can be largely explained by a decrease in homicides involving rifles or shotguns (Chart 3). The number of homicides committed with a rifle/shotgun fell from 183 victims in 1975 to 36 victims in 2006, representing an 86% decrease in the rate (from 0.8 to 0.1 per 100,000 population).

    You also refer to this in your argument: “…while use of rifles/shotguns continues to decline”. Wonder why that’s so? Must be something having an effect…

    And, seriously, do I really have to respond to “Did the long-gun registry “prevent” those [illegal handgun] homicides?” Well, crossbow registration wouldn’t have affected the stats for homicides by poisoning, either.

    But I look for public policy to be based on facts rather than on inaccurate information or the crass manipulation of people’s emotions. I wish everyone would.

    I couldn’t have said that better. 100% agree.

  • Anonymous

    (hooray – it worked. Clearing the cache did it?)

    The long gun registry component of the Canadian Firearms registry currently costs less than $4m a year. That’s ALL you’d save by canning the LGR. From numerous sources, including here:

    In 2006, an RCMP deputy commissioner told a parliamentary committee that about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns, and that the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year, or less.In 2006, an RCMP deputy commissioner told a parliamentary committee that about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns, and that the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year, or less.

    If you can disprove this, please do so (links willing…)

    And your stats say nothing about how many times the registry allowed police to identify and secure a long gun, thus reducing the risk for harm.

    Hey have a look at this. Money quote:

    The long-term trend in firearm-related homicides shows that the rate steadily declined from the 1970s to 1998 and has remained relatively stable since (Table 2). The peak of 1.3 in 1975 was more than double the rate in 2006.

    The decline in the firearm-related homicide rate can be largely explained by a decrease in homicides involving rifles or shotguns (Chart 3). The number of homicides committed with a rifle/shotgun fell from 183 victims in 1975 to 36 victims in 2006, representing an 86% decrease in the rate (from 0.8 to 0.1 per 100,000 population).

    You also refer to this in your argument: “…while use of rifles/shotguns continues to decline”. Wonder why that’s so? Must be something having an effect…

    And, seriously, do I really have to respond to “Did the long-gun registry “prevent” those [illegal handgun] homicides?” Well, crossbow registration wouldn’t have affected the stats for homicides by poisoning, either.

    But I look for public policy to be based on facts rather than on inaccurate information or the crass manipulation of people’s emotions. I wish everyone would.

    I couldn’t have said that better. 100% agree.

  • Gabby in QC

    No, Stephen, it looks like YOUR site finally figured it out. There was NOTHING different in the way I tried to post yesterday and this morning. The only difference was that you read my complaints.

    As to my browser, I have both Safari, which Apple updates on a regular basis & Firefox, which also updates its version regularly. I am NOT working from a Commodore 64.

  • Gabby in QC

    No, Stephen, it looks like YOUR site finally figured it out. There was NOTHING different in the way I tried to post yesterday and this morning. The only difference was that you read my complaints.

    As to my browser, I have both Safari, which Apple updates on a regular basis & Firefox, which also updates its version regularly. I am NOT working from a Commodore 64.

  • Gabby in QC

    No, Stephen, it looks like YOUR site finally figured it out. There was NOTHING different in the way I tried to post yesterday and this morning. The only difference was that you read my complaints.

    As to my browser, I have both Safari, which Apple updates on a regular basis & Firefox, which also updates its version regularly. I am NOT working from a Commodore 64.

  • Gabby in QC

    No, Stephen, it looks like YOUR site finally figured it out. There was NOTHING different in the way I tried to post yesterday and this morning. The only difference was that you read my complaints.

    As to my browser, I have both Safari, which Apple updates on a regular basis & Firefox, which also updates its version regularly. I am NOT working from a Commodore 64.

  • Gabby in QC

    “(hooray – it worked. Clearing the cache did it?)”

    No, nothing’s changed at my end, except the level of my anger … but that has now passed. Quick to rise and just as quick to abate.

    My cache, history etc. is emptied on a weekly basis. My Safari has a handy thingy in its many menus allowing me to “reset Safari” if I choose to do so.

    Will be replying to your latest soon.

  • Gabby in QC

    “(hooray – it worked. Clearing the cache did it?)”

    No, nothing’s changed at my end, except the level of my anger … but that has now passed. Quick to rise and just as quick to abate.

    My cache, history etc. is emptied on a weekly basis. My Safari has a handy thingy in its many menus allowing me to “reset Safari” if I choose to do so.

    Will be replying to your latest soon.

  • Gabby in QC

    Since you liked this so much, allow me to repeat it:
    “I look for public policy to be based on facts rather than on inaccurate information or the crass manipulation of people’s emotions. I wish everyone would.”

    So, let’s look at some facts …
    • In your reply to me, you state “your” stats — they are not MY stats, they are the RCMP report’s stats.

    • In the Toronto Star article you reference, please note this sentence: “In 2006, an RCMP deputy commissioner told a parliamentary committee that about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns, and that the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year, or less.” [my highlighting]

    That and similar sentences is where the inaccuracy about the actual cost of the registry stems from. The same thing happened with the RCMP report. Practically everyone has latched on to the phrase “the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year” as meaning that is the actual cost of running the registry.

    Now, both you and Nick agree the total cost of running the CFP is $66.4 million, correct?
    As your quote indicates, “about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns …” which one could then conclude means running the registry requires about 20% of the total cost ($66.4 million).
    Well, even with my less than brilliant math skills, 20% of $66.4 million is $13.28 million, not $2.9 million a year.

    • I would venture a guess that the RCMP deputy commissioner cited in the Toronto Star article was saying the same thing stated in the latest RCMP report (page 66, scribd version)
    “… Expenditures on the CFP have decreased since it has come under the RCMP and are expected to continue in this downward direction. This serves to validate the rationale given in 2006 for moving the CFP to the RCMP, with a $10 million reduction in the overall budget. An exercise that was recently completed to separate out the costs of registration from its supportive link with licensing has demonstrated that portions of the program are actually operating at a much lower cost program than first presumed, even by the RCMP itself. For instance, the gun registration portion of the CFP has been determined, by independent sources, in terms of cost savings to the CFP, at a range of $1.195-$3.65 million for the initial year, and subsequent years will range from $1.57-$4.03 million depending on the classification certification that will still be required. …”

    Unless I and the Globe and Mail editorialists misunderstand that paragraph, the cost of running the registry itself is NOT “less than $4 million a year” as stated here and elsewhere. Those figures — between $1.195 and $4.03 million — are the cost savings to the CFP (Canadian Firearms Program) as a result of the RCMP running it (the RCMP took over its administration in May 2006).

    • Re; your “money quote”: “ The long-term trend in firearm-related homicides shows that the rate steadily declined from the 1970s to 1998 and has remained relatively stable since (Table 2). The peak of 1.3 in 1975 was more than double the rate in 2006”

    Here’s my “money quote” [From Wiki]:
    “The Firearms Act was created by Bill C-68, An Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons, which was introduced in 1993, and aimed at the licensing of all gun owners and registration of all firearms. It was passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent in 1995. The Canadian Firearms Centre was established in 1996 to oversee the administration of its measures.
    The registration portion of the Firearms Act was implemented in 2001 and became mandatory in 2003.” [my highlighting]

    Since the registration portion of the Firearms Act was implemented in 2001 and became mandatory in 2003., the decline in firearm-related homicides pointed to in your money quote — “from the 1970s to 1998” — could not have been affected by the registry, could it?

    • “You also refer to this in your argument: “…while use of rifles/shotguns continues to decline”. Wonder why that’s so? Must be something having an effect…”
    Ummm, maybe because gang members prefer to be “discreet” — handguns can do the same job and can be easily hidden in their clothing. Just guessing, since I am not a consultant to local gangs.

    Look, I doubt you’ll admit I’ve presented convincing facts. No skin off my back. I enjoy putting information out there for anyone with an open mind to consider. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

  • Gabby in QC

    Since you liked this so much, allow me to repeat it:
    “I look for public policy to be based on facts rather than on inaccurate information or the crass manipulation of people’s emotions. I wish everyone would.”

    So, let’s look at some facts …
    • In your reply to me, you state “your” stats — they are not MY stats, they are the RCMP report’s stats.

    • In the Toronto Star article you reference, please note this sentence: “In 2006, an RCMP deputy commissioner told a parliamentary committee that about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns, and that the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year, or less.” [my highlighting]

    That and similar sentences is where the inaccuracy about the actual cost of the registry stems from. The same thing happened with the RCMP report. Practically everyone has latched on to the phrase “the annual cost saving could be $2.9 million a year” as meaning that is the actual cost of running the registry.

    Now, both you and Nick agree the total cost of running the CFP is $66.4 million, correct?
    As your quote indicates, “about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns …” which one could then conclude means running the registry requires about 20% of the total cost ($66.4 million).
    Well, even with my less than brilliant math skills, 20% of $66.4 million is $13.28 million, not $2.9 million a year.

    • I would venture a guess that the RCMP deputy commissioner cited in the Toronto Star article was saying the same thing stated in the latest RCMP report (page 66, scribd version)
    “… Expenditures on the CFP have decreased since it has come under the RCMP and are expected to continue in this downward direction. This serves to validate the rationale given in 2006 for moving the CFP to the RCMP, with a $10 million reduction in the overall budget. An exercise that was recently completed to separate out the costs of registration from its supportive link with licensing has demonstrated that portions of the program are actually operating at a much lower cost program than first presumed, even by the RCMP itself. For instance, the gun registration portion of the CFP has been determined, by independent sources, in terms of cost savings to the CFP, at a range of $1.195-$3.65 million for the initial year, and subsequent years will range from $1.57-$4.03 million depending on the classification certification that will still be required. …”

    Unless I and the Globe and Mail editorialists misunderstand that paragraph, the cost of running the registry itself is NOT “less than $4 million a year” as stated here and elsewhere. Those figures — between $1.195 and $4.03 million — are the cost savings to the CFP (Canadian Firearms Program) as a result of the RCMP running it (the RCMP took over its administration in May 2006).

    • Re; your “money quote”: “ The long-term trend in firearm-related homicides shows that the rate steadily declined from the 1970s to 1998 and has remained relatively stable since (Table 2). The peak of 1.3 in 1975 was more than double the rate in 2006”

    Here’s my “money quote” [From Wiki]:
    “The Firearms Act was created by Bill C-68, An Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons, which was introduced in 1993, and aimed at the licensing of all gun owners and registration of all firearms. It was passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent in 1995. The Canadian Firearms Centre was established in 1996 to oversee the administration of its measures.
    The registration portion of the Firearms Act was implemented in 2001 and became mandatory in 2003.” [my highlighting]

    Since the registration portion of the Firearms Act was implemented in 2001 and became mandatory in 2003., the decline in firearm-related homicides pointed to in your money quote — “from the 1970s to 1998” — could not have been affected by the registry, could it?

    • “You also refer to this in your argument: “…while use of rifles/shotguns continues to decline”. Wonder why that’s so? Must be something having an effect…”
    Ummm, maybe because gang members prefer to be “discreet” — handguns can do the same job and can be easily hidden in their clothing. Just guessing, since I am not a consultant to local gangs.

    Look, I doubt you’ll admit I’ve presented convincing facts. No skin off my back. I enjoy putting information out there for anyone with an open mind to consider. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

  • Anonymous

    Now, both you and Nick agree the total cost of running the CFP is $66.4 million, correct?
    As your quote indicates, “about 20 per cent of the annual registration work is devoted to long guns …” which one could then conclude means running the registry requires about 20% of the total cost ($66.4 million).
    Well, even with my less than brilliant math skills, 20% of $66.4 million is $13.28 million, not $2.9 million a year.

    If your figure was true… why isn’t anyone running with it? That would seem to be a no-brainer, wouldn’t it? But NOWHERE is any anti-LGR proponent providing that $13m number in their arguments. Just alot of handwaving, restating the early overruns, and oblique references to the $66m. Why, I wonder?

    I grant you that the way the <$4m number was arrived at seems poorly supported, but everyone seems to be running with it. It should be really obvious that the actual annual cost must be pretty darn trivial, or else it would figure more prominently in the CPC's arguments.

    I think $4m is plausible, moreso than your $13m. Which is still peanuts in the grand scheme of government things.

    Re decline in long-gun homicides… you're right, there. The decline, from the late 70's on is likely attributable to the FAC and restrictions on gun& ammo sales.

    Here's one more point in favour of the LGR – it prohibits the casual, unrecorded sale or transfer of long guns. This should keep them from showing up in pawnshops, estate sales, or "tailgate" sales.

    We are definitely down to splitting hairs on this issue. The fact remains that simply canning the LGR would have been a Pyrrhic victory – an ideological promise kept, but little actual savings, a useful tool lost and 15 years of effort and expense just tossed out.

  • Gabby in QC

    Kenn2, remember this annoying little fact?
    “The registration portion of the Firearms Act was implemented in 2001 and became mandatory in 2003.”
    Well, here’s another annoying set of facts, provided courtesy of that corporation we conservatives love to hate http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/f-gun-registry.html

    I’ve selected a few choice passages which may satisfy your sceptic’s mind.
    “April 2002
    The tab for implementing the registry rises to $629 million. Here is a breakdown of the costs:
    • $2 million to help police enforce legislation.
    • At least $60 million for public-relations programs, including television commercials ($18 million of which went to ad agency GroupAction, which received millions in sponsorship scandal contracts).
    • $227 million in computer costs. Complicated application forms are slowing processing times and driving costs higher than anticipated.
    • $332 million for other programming costs, including money to pay staff to process the forms.
    January 2003

    … Days after the deadline passes, Ontario Safety and Security Minister Bob Runciman calls on the federal government to put the program on hold, calling it an “unconscionable waste of taxpayers’ money.” His demands are echoed by justice ministers in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

    Others who doubt the efficiency of the gun registry include Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino, who says the program would neither prevent crimes nor help solve them.

    Feb. 13, 2004
    Documents obtained by Zone Libre of CBC’s French news service suggest that the gun registry has cost $2 billion so far.

    June 2005
    In the 2004 Report of the Commissioner of Firearms on the administration of the Firearms Act, the Canada Firearms Centre estimates that the cost of running the registry for the year ending Dec. 31, 2004, was less than $100 million. The report says costs are continuing their downward trend and should fall to approximately $85 million beginning in fiscal 2005-2006. …”

    There’s lots more where those tidbits came from.

    Finally, you ask “If your figure was true… why isn’t anyone running with it?”
    Inevitably, we come back to the question of the media. Everything this current government proposes or disposes is filtered through the prism of a less than friendly media, to put it delicately. That should explain my unsolicited advice to Ms. Hoeppner, whom I still think did an admirable job in defending her bill.

  • Gabby in QC

    BTW, Stephen, FYI my latest comment posted at around 3:15 pm Sept. 25 required me to write in the “captcha.” But it doesn’t always ask me.

  • Gabby in QC

    BTW, Stephen, FYI my latest comment posted at around 3:15 pm Sept. 25 required me to write in the “captcha.” But it doesn’t always ask me.

  • Gabby in QC

    And now I notice that the time of the posting is given in Spanish: “Hace 0 minutos”!

  • Gabby in QC

    And now I notice that the time of the posting is given in Spanish: “Hace 0 minutos”!

  • Gabby in QC

    LOL! now it’s “vor 0 Minuten” — German, I think.

    OK, I won’t take up any more space ;-)

  • Anonymous

    Finally, you ask “If your figure was true… why isn’t anyone running with it?”
    Inevitably, we come back to the question of the media. Everything this current government proposes or disposes is filtered through the prism of a less than friendly media, to put it delicately. That should explain my unsolicited advice to Ms. Hoeppner, whom I still think did an admirable job in defending her bill.

    let’s bypass the filter then. Show me the CPCs own words about how much Canadians will save by scrapping the long gun registry.

  • Gabby in QC

    Kenn2 writes: “Show me the CPCs own words about how much Canadians will save by scrapping the long gun registry.”

    No can do. I’m really INTO the party, but I don’t have an INside track. My guess is whatever is spent on it now, which apparently ranges anywhere from $1 million to $100 million, depending on whose guestimate you believe.

    I’ll trust the bean-counters in the Finance and/or the Treasury Board departments, or the AG herself, to come up with the actual figure, if the registry is ever scrapped.

  • Anonymous

    If I read you correctly, you’re saying that even if scrapping the LGR would save $0 per year… you’d still want to scrap it?

    Anyway, you seem to be tacitly agreeing that the potential savings in scrapping the LGR are negligible… which makes scrapping the LGR a purely ideological act. Nice.

  • Anonymous

    If I read you correctly, you’re saying that even if scrapping the LGR would save $0 per year… you’d still want to scrap it?

    Anyway, you seem to be tacitly agreeing that the potential savings in scrapping the LGR are negligible… which makes scrapping the LGR a purely ideological act. Nice.