Canadians will be shocked by the true cost of the federal government’s ill-fated gun registry, says new Public Security Minister Stockwell Day.
Day told The Canadian Press that figures bureaucrats have shown him during briefings for his new portfolio are much higher than previously thought. He would not divulge what the tab is, but said it’s upsetting.
“Some of these numbers, when we get out all the numbers and when the auditor general releases them all very soon, eyebrows are going to go up,” he said Thursday.
“People are going to be upset and they’re going to have a right to be upset.”
Finally, a real honest look at this program! I can’t wait to see what he really finds, see just how much lying has been going on about this.
It’ll still be chump change compared to the billions pissed away on ag subsidies.
So, let’s speculate. $2.5 billion? $3 billion?
Regardless, a criminal probe should ensue.
Spelling: Bureaucracy? BureauCrazy?
Well, I wuz kinda shocked already at $2B, which was 1000 x initital (net of fees cost) of $2M.
That’s how many MRI machines at $2M a pop? Why, it’s a round 1000.
Heh, Anne Happier: that’s the great thing about the Librano$$$$$$$$, you can always find an even worse example.
And didn’t someone connected with it get a promotion?
Word on the street in Ottawa is closer to 4 billion…….
Yes, 2.5 To 3 billion every six months. Criminal indeed.
The 5pm Global Calgary newscast kept talking about the ‘gun registry’ while showing b-roll of people firing handguns.
Sheesh!
The gun registry was a lesson learned for the government and the people of Canada. Once the program is scrapped entirely by the Conservatives, then it’ll just be a monumental waste. How is that a solution?
Assuming the above posting stating that ‘word on the street in Ottawa says it’s $4 billion’ is correct, that number is roughly equivalent to the ENTIRE budget of the 21,000 person-strong RCMP for nearly THREE years…
Sorry if you’ve seen this one but I just got this email and seems relivent, sort of, to this post.
A very interesting perspective
Subject: Canadian Tax System For Dummies
******************************************************************
Analogy on how our tax system works……
Suppose that every night, 10 men go out for dinner at La Porchetta’s. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the
way we pay our taxes, and it went like this:
The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.
The fifth paid $1.
The sixth $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.
All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said: “Since you are all such good customers, I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for
the 10 only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”? They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the
fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggested reducing each man’s bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:
The fifth man paid nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100%saving).
The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for free, as now did the fifth – but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10!” “That’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner.
The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn’t have enough money between all of them to meet even half of the bill!
That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Monaco and the Caribbean.
Oh, and Charles, nobody is proposing to scrap the handgun portion of the registry, that functioned very well for 70 years with annual budgets under $2 million. If you can convince me how a long gun registry that seemingly has the sole purpose of getting in the faces of otherwise law-abiding duck hunters, farmers and big-game hunters has been ANYTHING other than a “monumental waste” since its inception, please feel free to enlighten me
Charles J: That is a solution ‘cos it’s always best to stop throwing good money after bad i.e., to cut your loses (key investment terms). And there are a lot of cops doing pointless desk jobs too. I know a few cops. I have a feeling that they are nearly unanimous that it saves zero lives.
I’ve seen the tax story around quite a bit. It always makes the point. 🙂
Bruce: That is a damn good way to put it.
Bruce:
Yep, lets get rapper 50 Cent to put 2 Cents worth of lead into the useless long gun registry.
On the other hand my exempted 45 calibre muzzle loader may just do the trick!!
I thought only flintlocks were exempt, Hans, and that even percussion cap rifled muzzle loaders (like those used in the American Civil War) owned by re-enactors weren’t exempt. (BTW even re-enactors’ flintlock pistols are a pain to get.)
And is there a suggestion that Beau Bridges is to blame?
The interesting thing about the money spent on the gun registry will not be HOW much was spent but will be WHAT the money was spent on and WHO recieved the money …
I suspect we will see Liberal Friendly firms who recieved huge contracts for little or no work … wonder where I have seen that before …
Charles J, ” Once the program is scrapped entirely by the Conservatives, then it’ll just be a monumental waste. How is that a solution?”
Don’t throw good money after bad.
The only reason why we have a gun registry is because of Mark Lepine. He committed that crime just at a time when the feminist movement in Canada was a) most radicalized b) at the zenith of power and c) looking for something more substantial to sink its teeth into than protesting beauty pageants. Mark Lepine connected all those dots. Not a good basis for a policy.
I’d support scrapping the registry and going back to the old FAC system. It’ll save us money and probably make us safer too. Gun registration has simply turned a lot of previously respectable gun trade underground which might be cool for things like pot but it ain’t so cool with guns.
And you never know sometimes when you treat people like responsible adults they act like them too.
And further to Jose’s post, the actual truth is that Mark Lepine’s real name was Gamil Gharbi, son of Algerian immmigrant Liess Gharbi, a muslim who had nothing but contempt for women and instilled that prejudice in his son as he grew up.
I’m just happy to see the Canadian Press produce a news item that doesn’t totally diss the Conservatives. Maybe this is a sign of a new era in Canada’s media when they will take a more balance approach in reported the news and try to show less political bias?
Jose: Spot on with the Lepine/feminism argument. That is exactly right. BTW, Mark Steyn has had some interesting comments about this: evidently Lepine was a muslim, son of a wife-beater.
Off topic, but I’m getting awfully sick of the Dec 14th men-are-awful anniversary too.
Yeah, it’ll be real keen to know where all that dough went alright; I mean, it was only a LIST!
Allan Rock: Tainted Blood Scandal; Firearms Registry (Long Guns) Scam, Liberal; replaced as Canada’s UN ambassador.
>>>>>
Career diplomat to replace Liberal Allan Rock as Canada’s UN ambassador. >> via cnews
Bruce:
Yes, there are some of us who would do away with the handgun registry. Sure it’s been around for over 70 years – so what?
The problem is that the HG registry is full of errors, so much so that info from it can not be used in a court of law. A number of years ago there was a Calgary police sergeant who was almost convicted of having an unregistered HG because it did not show up in the registry. Luckily for him, someone checked the log for the day he registered it and found an entry stating he had brought it into the police station to be registered – and this only as the judge was about to decide the case! The charge was thrown out.
This is only one example of bad data in the system. There are thousands more!
I would like to see all the registry be dumped and people who want to own any firearm have to go through a criminal record check. If no criminal record, then you are OK to own the firearm, any firearm. If you screw up with it, then your right to own a firearm is taken away.
If you are not allowed to own a firearm, then your name should go into a registry. Register criminals, not guns.
Like others have said here, it will be very interesting to see WHERE the money went. Watch for Librano friendly firms and kickbacks similar to AdScam – but with more zeros in the numbers.
Several years ago, we predicted that this farce would cost $2 Billion – today, I would not be suprized to see it go to $3 Billion.
Someone here said there were rumours of $4 Billion in costs. Can you find any sources? Please list them here, I’m curious…
Charles J:
Is the expression “don’t throw good money after bad” entirely lost upon you? Maybe we should buy a few more Upholder class rustbucket subs from the Brits to store semi-permanently in Halifax Harbour, or delay the purchase of the Sea King replacement helios another 10 or so years?
Sheesh.
Ken:
Loved the tax lesson. Am distributing it as I blog…
mhb23re
The skeletons are indeed, very damn indeed, being hauled out of the closets of the house previously inhabited by the hated and feared Librano crime family.
This is just one of many, many more to come.
I cannot believe the Libranos are acting so delusionally smug and are openly musing about a speedy comeback. Not going to happen. Hell, they’re ten points behind in a poll I saw via NealeNews today. And the Tories are also ten points ahead of the Libranos in Quebec, with the Bloc slumping ever further.
The stuff of last week? Small political stuff compared to the real job ahead. Of course, there’ll be movement of persons all over the place, with a few such moves causing plenty of angry chatter… I’d smarten up if I was a Librano, but of course they won’t see the world as it really is. They still have their rose-colored glasses on. Ignorance is bliss for these folks. Kinda like Saddam Hussein and his crazy rantings in the courtroom! We know he’s screwed, just like the LibMob.
We should throw out handgun registration also. The best case scenario would allow people who want to jump through the hoops to be licenced firearms owners who then could also carry. This is one proven way to reduce violent crime.
I would love to know how much money ended up in the hands of Wendy Cukier and her club! I can’t remember the name of her anti-gun group, but she was rabid in her defence of it. In my opinion, when someone does not accept reason or logic in a debate, they are either stupid or benefitting in some unknown way. Hope someone has a way of finding out more than I can.
Surprize surprize……….
This is what people have been told about this liberal boondoggle for years.
Just imagine……..all the time the liberals tried to portray Day as incompetent. Now Day gets the chance to show just who the incompetent imbeciles are.
Cost/Benefits of Gun Registration as Crime Control: The Canadian Experience
By Bruce Gold
Introduction
The efficiency and effectiveness of gun regulations are 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 s 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.
One measure of cost/benefit is the ratio of total effort to effective effort, in this case the ratio of all guns registered (total effort) to registered – and therefore traceable � crime guns (the �effective� against crime bit) We can calculate this ratio in a number of ways.
Homicides
In 2003 there were 548 homicides in Canada, 161 resulted from shooting. Assuming that each shooting involved a separate gun these figures yield the following cost-benefit ratio.
Assuming there are only 7 million guns we get the following calculation.
161crime guns/7,000,000 not-crime guns = 0.000023 or .0023%, a cost-benefit ratio of 23 ten thousandths of 1%
Therefore, in terms of the effort expended, 99.9977% of our effort was wasted registering non-crime guns and only .0023% of our effort landed on guns used in homicide (our crime prevention pay-off).
Crimes of Violence
We can expand this analysis to include the more common �crimes of violence.� There were 302,000 �crimes of violence� in Canada in 2003. Statistics Canada indicates that 5% of these crimes �involved� a firearm.* Assuming that each incidence involved a different firearm, this works out to (302,000 X .05) 15,100 firearms �involved� in a �crime of violence� (includes homicides). This yields the following cost-benefit ratio.
Low estimate 7million guns
15,100/7,000,000 = 0.0022 or .22%, a cost-benefit ratio of 22 hundredths of 1%
Accordingly, 99.78% of our effort was wasted on non-crime guns and only .22% of our effort affected guns used in crime.
This analysis highlights the basic cost/benefit problem of gun registration as crime control. Even if we make the clearly incorrect assumption that each crime involves a different gun the best �return on investment� we can hope for is that less than � of 1% of our efforts will involve crime guns. Arguably, this is a inefficient way to spend scarce law enforcement resources.
The Registration Problem
The above analysis contains other assumptions besides the one gun per crime assumption. It assumes that all crime guns are registered. It should be noted that this is a crucial assumption at the very centre of the debate. The whole gun registration equals crime control argument rests heavily on the assumption that gun registration will apply to the guns of criminals as well as the guns of law-abiding citizens.
The percentage of crime guns that are registered is subject to considerable variation. Only 31% of guns used in homicides are recovered and of these only 28% were registered. Citing another example, we can note that the Department of Justice reported that 70% of guns �recovered� from criminals in Metropolitan Toronto were registered. This gives us a wide variation in crime gun registration rates, from 28% (recovered homicide guns that were registered) to 70% (guns seized from criminals).
We can identify the best-possible return for our efforts if we pick the higher registration rate (a gun registry has zero connection to guns that are not registered). If we apply this best-case solution and use a crime gun registration rate of 70% we find that our most favourable �return on investment� becomes (.0022 X .7 = 0.00154) .154% or about 15 hundredths of 1%.
Therefore 99.846% of our effort will be wasted on non-crime guns. A best case �return on investment� ratio of 15 hundredths of 1% indicates that gun registration is a rather inefficient crime control measure.
The Connecting the Guns Problem
The above analysis is based on another assumption. It assumes that, in every case, we will be able to �link� each registered crime gun to the criminal involved. This is a critical assumption. The entire registration equals crime control argument rests heavily on the assumption that the police can use the registry to trace registered crime guns back to criminals. (A registry cannot be used to trace unregistered guns, nor can it be used to trace guns that have not been recovered for identification.) This raises real problems. Not all crime guns are recovered for identification. Accordingly, we must conclude that the 15 hundredths of 1% best case �return on investment� is too optimistic and must be reduced even further to factor in unrecovered crime guns.
However, there are still the registered guns that are recovered so we can argue that there is still some return on investment. Unfortunately, taking the next step, moving from gun recognition to evidence against a criminal is not always easy. In order to use a registry to �link� a crime gun to a particular criminal all of the following things must be true:
the gun must be left behind at the scene of the crime, or otherwise recovered;
the gun must be linked to the crime by being found at the scene or by ballistic evidence;
the criminal must have registered the gun, using his true name and identity;
the gun was not stolen, which would break the link between gun and owner leaving the criminal unidentified; and
the criminal who was the registered crime gun�s owner did not claim that the gun had been stolen or lost prior to the crime.
Obviously, not all of these conditions are true in every gun crime. Our best case �return on investment� already below 15 hundredths of 1% must be reduced again.
Conclusion
The above is a statistical analysis of the cost/benefits of gun registration as a crime control tool. Since it is good analytical practice to cross check statistical analysis against other known empirical data we should confirm our findings with an empirical test. Fortunately, here in Canada we have a readily available existing gun registry that can be used as a cross check. In Canada, handguns have been strictly registered since 1934, sixty-one years later in 1995 the Department of Justice admitted that they could not identify a single instance where the handgun registry had ever �helped� solve a crime.
Accordingly, our analysis would indicate that gun registration is not a cost/effective way of reducing crime or spending our limited crime control budget.
*(The Statistics Canada number (5%) is misleading, guns �involved� in crime are guns picked up by the Police from a crime scene – say ones that were found in a closet. Guns are actually used in violent crime about 1.9% of the time. The higher number is used because it was the one used in Parliament to justify the long gun registry.)
Ken et al ~
Your tax lesson was originally written by Dr. D. R. Kamerschen, distinguished professor of economics at the University of Georgia.
I wouldn’t be so quick to write off the registry just yet. I know, I know, campaign promise and all that, but… As noted above, its core constituency is in Quebec and given the way Harper and co. have pandered to Quebec these last couple of weeks, this committee of three just established yesterday may be the start of a long, long maybe good bye.
Bruce,
Your percentage is off abit. For example, Toronto Metro Police reported 700 gun seizures in 2005, and one was registered… having been from a break in.
Extrapolate that out to the nation, and your benifit vs invest ratio is too generous.
Aside from an easy to toss around number, a lesson in how to not manage a government program…. We really need to know WHO cost us this money, so they don’t do it again. as “me no dhimmi” said, it was a list!! all they needed to do was keep the list out of the rain so the ink didn’t run!
It is one thing to know you were in an accident, but only if you know Why you were in an accident, can you prevent it from happening again..
To simply blame the Liberals, will not get anyone anywhere, it is like blaming Marc Lepine. Ok, say he’s an idiot… but then what? What were the men thinking that were ordered to leave the room? When Lepine started to shoot, they stayed in the hallway? They heard the gun being fired in the classroom… and then what? Nothing?
They were like sheep. just following orders.
The wisdom of crowds
Consider the new Lara Croft from Bethnal Green, the constituency of George Galloway.
Karina Adebibe, a 20 year old from Bethnal Green, will be playing the video game industry’s iconic heroine. To prepare for her role as Lara Croft, Karine will have to undergo SAS (Special Air Service) training and survival program.
Bloggledygook carries the story of a German Muslim group that has dared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit the Auschwitz concentration camp and deny the Holocaust there.
By denying the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad not only denigrated the Jewish victims of the genocide but also the 200,000 Roms and Arabs murdered in the “gypsy camp” of Auschwitz-Birkenau and other camps, the institute spokesman said. The fact that the president of an Islamic state repeated Nazi anti-Semitism was harmful to the image of Islam and “a disgrace for all the world�s Muslims”, he added. The Berlin-based institute, founded in 1927, is the oldest Muslim body in Germany.
Commentary
There’s a saving power in the ordinary world. German Muslims who can see Jews as neighbors and those who can see Karine Adebibe as Lara Croft can never be truly lost. The greatest blows against the fantasy ideologies occur when ordinary people stand up for daily things which aesthetes have held themselves above. Tolkien well understood to what airless places men are led in the quest for solitary power — “no taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me,” was Frodo’s description of the arid sustenance of the Ring. The struggle against unremitting stupidity of Political Correctness or the remorseless hatred of Osama Bin Laden are both at heart an effort to reclaim ordinary life — with its laughter, pity and guiless admiration — from the faded wraiths who envy our mortal humors.
posted by wretchard at
http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/
Dear Ken:nice but you have down kind of mmmmm…read the Brentwood Structuer.
Maz2-
I remember a time when it was a ok to make racist remarks and I for one am happy those days are gone. So we did get some good things out of political correctness but like any social movement the pendulum swung to the absurd. You’re right to rail against its excesses but rest assured it is receding anyway. If you get impatient you can always move to Europe they’re ahead of the curve on this one. Canadians invented political correctness and they’ll probably be the last to let it go.
…Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore….
Even the 74 illegal aliens, recently smuggled across the border, decided that they’d prefer to go out for dinner in the US instead of Canada.
Maz:..I see that you are good at research…And you have a lot of time on your hands too.I like the way you think..Jose makes a good point..but iv watch you for a while..you should be making money off of your comp.
marc58510,
You might be getting into your own head a little bit much. There are millions of gun owners that had nothing to do with Lepine (or even know him).
The only thing wrong with the Libs program (aside from shuffling Billions of dollars into unknown pockets) was to make law-abiding citizens criminals if they did nothing. Law abiding citizen today – criminal tomorrow … did nothing.
To prevent it happening again … easy … don’t vote in morons.
Vitruvius,
Dr. D. R. Kamerschen denies writing it:
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp
I just received it through a forwarded email and liked the point it made. I live in Sask and have seen people here leave to Alberta just because the current government considers them to be the 10th guy in the story (they were probably more like the 6th or 7th guy). I think Saskatchewan could have an economy as strong as Alberta’s if we had a business and tax regime that matched. Unfortunately it would probably take about 20 years of not electing the socialist for any “rich” people to come back or stay.
“Just Me” – I dont know what you mean.
maybe Ural… maybe
I don’t mean to draw a straight line between Lepine and normal people that had nothing to do with him.
I have difficulty believing that government incompetence is limited to one party… I do think maybe limiting government is the answer… (and having property rights?)
Jim Pook:
I’m not familiar with the case you cite, involving the CCP Sergeant. Having served nearly 30 years with the RCMP (commencing in 1968)I do not recall any serious problems with the old handgun registry…it was always simple, basic, and if the database had some problems, the fact that the handgun owner was in possession of paper-based licences/permits was always the tie-breaker that would prevent such matters from actually going to court.
I always worry about you guys up north. I so hope your new government brings some sanity to your gun laws which I have written about most recently in:
http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2006/01/unarmed-and-defenseless-in-canada.html
Suprise, suprise. This is one of many reasons why no one will run for the Liberal nomination. They know there is enough dirt out there to throw half of them in jail. I’ll give them Grant Devine’s phone number as a public service. Bye, bye Liberals. There will be no regrouping from the bad press coming in the next six months. The PC’s will be in the drivers seat to call the next election. (Now here is where I have to unfortunately digress. For those of you who have read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich this is exactly the position Hitler found himself in in 1933.)
“The gun registry was a lesson learned for the government and the people of Canada. Once the program is scrapped entirely by the Conservatives, then it’ll just be a monumental waste. How is that a solution?”
Charles; this has not been a lesson learned by the Liberals. I am more certain than ever that they stalled Fraser’s report from Nov. to Feb., as they did with Gomery and Dingwall, and they are lurking in the shadows waiting for just the right moment to pounce. Did Martin EVER officially say he wouldn’t run again? The reason Liberals will never learn is because they think THEY are God’s gift to Canada.
Unlike Gomery and his terms of reference that prevent any further legal reprecussions, I hope that if there is criminal wrongdoing within the Gun Registry that those responsible are brought to justice.
I have heard that the gun registry is a liberal money laundering scheme of gigantic proportions.
Why do you think it was so passionately defended by the Libs no matter how much it was proven to be flawed and detested by Canadians.
The scheme was hatched when they had a majority. They thought noone would find out as long as they controlled the books – AND the information that Sheila Fraser was allowed to see.
Who else here thinks they also had a lot of influence over Sheila fraser herself. Lots of “scathing” reports and not a single person in jail.
HMMMM.
Gun registry. Only one of the many cans of worms to be opened.
Each one as it is opened and exposed should contribute to the conversion of all those *Rigid Liberals* in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
Liberals so firmly entrenched at the troph that no amount of logic about fraud would sway them. Let us hope. TG
The Liberal Party wasted Billions on the registry, so for many Canadians that’s just fine. Liberal voters didn’t care that the Party reached into their wallets and took their money for themselves so long as they called themselves Liberals, so why worry about a few more billion?
Theft and crime is just fine by many Canadians so long as it’s done by the appropriate people. Hey, if I could access their bank accounts and retirement funds – I’ll call myself a Liberal too!
Jim Pook..
No hard numbers yet,however i work with civil servants and groups involved with firearm training for the Canadian forces(we tested the first c-7 rifles..)and the word is you will be shocked by the numbers …it will be interesting to see.Remember,it is not just the cost of the registry it also includes costing out of all the various departments that oversee and administrate the programs across the country.
The gentleman who put up the longer post, Bruce, should be commended. There were very important points in their:
1) Gun registry just before WWII.
2) HALF of ALL guns directed to “CONFISCATION” status.
3) Confiscation blown off as no big deal, but those guns are still GONE when the owner dies.
4) Even guns that post extremely limited potential for public weapons are still included. Like flintlocks. Why?
5) 4 billion dollars gone. That is alot of money that may have gone to a foreign source for services rendered at a later date.
I suggest everybody take a good hard look at those 5 points again and connect the dots. This is not about gun control. This is about gun prohibition.
This program should not only be immediately scrapped as promised, but the actual list should be destroyed. How well did Poland do throwing stones at Germany after they took away their guns?
Don’t get me wrong, I am a simple farmer in central Saskatchewan and I doubt I could shoot someone to defend myself in case something ever happened. My point is that having guns is a big deterent for any attack in the first place. It is about RESPECT. A wolf will attack a weak animal because its an easy meal. An armed society is like a healthy herd, they are still vulnerable, but they make you think twice about messing with them.
That 4 billion went somewhere. The Liberals can’t steal every taxpayers dollar. Don’t let your past emotions with the ad scam and other bureacracy waste blind you to what is really going on here. Somebody, somewhere, wants to disarm us.