You know Parliament is hopping when the politicians, who should be doing things like making sure we actually have healthcare and roads that won't swallow up your car, are busily coming up with ways to make everybody angry.
The recent vote on the gun-registry is a typical example. On the one hand you have the Tories bent on scrapping the bloated program, and on the other you have the opposition parties suddenly banding together to defeat the motion, some of whom flip-flopped like carp on a wharf.
Naturally the journalists jumped into the fray analysing the debate in terms of political fallout. Which parties would win, and who would be the big loser? The people who, in theory, were most affected by this legislation, responsible gun-owners and those who lost a family member to gun-related violence, were paraded in front of the cameras like political pawns to become talking heads for reporters salivating over a usable sound-bite.
In the end, nothing was resolved, everyone is pissed-off and the politicians and their advisers are off to find some way to spin the results or find another political football to toss around.
The truth is, the gun-registry issue is complex and not as easily resolved by simply scrapping it or keeping the status-quo. The Canadian Firearms Registry is part of the Firearms Act, which was first passed in 1995. The bill was first introduced in response to the December 14th massacre of 14 young women by Marc Lepine at École Polytechnique in 1989. The required registration portion of the firearms act only came into effect in 2001. It should be noted that all owners of firearms in Canada are required to obtain a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL). The PAL costs anywhere from $60 for non-restricted firearms and $80 for restricted. The license is renewable every 5 years. There is also a Possession Only License which is limited to ownership of a single firearm. All gun-owners are required to have a license, this cost is not being disputed.
The registration portion of the act requires all gun-owners to register the firearms they own. This registration is free and can be done by mail or over the internet. Although it is a requirement, a number of gun-owners have refused to register and the current government is extending amnesty against prosecution.
The issue at hand is that the long-gun registry (which refers specifically to rifles) has run up a huge bill for taxpayers. While it has not made it more difficult for gun-owners to acquire firearms, responsible gun-owners, many of them from rural communities, feel that they are being unfairly targeted for what is essentially an urban police issue. From a law enforcement standpoint, the registry has given officers vital information as to which households may contain firearms, allowing them to be better prepared when responding to a call.
It has been argued that many guns used in criminal activities were illegally obtained and therefore would not have been registered. This is often true. It has also been argued that it is primarily illegally obtained handguns used in criminal activity that are responsible for the bulk of gun-related deaths in Canada, not rifles. This is often not true. It has been stated that the gun-registry cost Canadian tax-payers far more than was estimated. True. When the program was initiated, it far exceeded its estimated cost of $2 million when accounting for revenue from licensing. The actual cost ballooned to over $860 million. It has also been stated that the program continues to be a huge burden on taxpayers. This is not true, the program currently costs around $4.1 million annually while revenue from licensing is in the area of $140 million.
Who is right here? Well, both. The firearms act, including the long-gun registry, is the right idea being poorly executed. Although it is not a fair comparison, everyone who owns a motor vehicle in Canada must have it licensed, again a fact that no one is disputing. Because firearms have one, perhaps two purposes (that is to shoot something or be collected) I think it is completely reasonable that they ought to be registered, particularly since such registration is free. At the same time, tax-payers should not have to foot the bill for a law that was essentially passed in response to one lunatic. Considering that the vast majority of the country is sane and responsible. The government has an obligation to fiscal responsibility, and should be more cautious in the implementation and management of public programs.
These issues could be debated back and forth forever, but the truth is, like it or not, guns need to be registered. Let's be clear, there are no do-overs when it comes to firearms. They were designed and built for a single purpose: to deliver a powerful and deadly blow. They absolutely must be handled responsibly. Given humanity's track record, coupled with the degree of risk, we would be foolish to assume that a personal promise is sufficient to protect the public. However, the registry program needs to be run efficiently and at a reasonable cost. Yes, it will require tax payer dollars, but most agree that some costs, like the police and military, are essential for the government in its role to protect its citizens. The government must also do its utmost to ensure this information is kept private and secure.
Will the registry prevent crime? Likely not, but that was never the intent. Reducing gun-related deaths was the goal. Giving authorities the knowledge of the owners and the location of firearms is indisputably valuable in achieving this goal. Guns come under no other category than weapon and I can see no downside in at least knowing who owns the legal ones and where they are. Like all things governmental, it's not perfect, but better than nothing.
When politicians go about taking a complex issue and turn it into an 'us versus them' argument by pitting rural against urban, nobody wins. What people want are solutions, not oversimplified arguments designed to divide the populous and feed the political parties' egregious and self-serving need to score political points.
Stop wasting our time trying to stir up a fight nobody wants.
No comments:
Post a Comment