Originally Posted by
rajczak_kashka
The idiot proposes a $600 million buyback...hmmm
As we alll know with any federal govt project, that cost will be at least 10 times that! Administration costs alone will be in the many multiples of billions to set up and get running. Look at what the effing long gun registry ended up costing and what was the result in that? Waste of out tax money!
I don't know about 10 times, but certainly it will be more.
e.g.
Assuming they send two officer patrol cars to pick them up, and they average 3 hours to {schedule, pickup, destroy} for each pair of firearms [assumption: 2 ARs on average; cities will be slightly less, rural will be considerably more], then that's
250,000 guns / 2 guns per visit * 2 officers * 3 hours / 225 working days in a year / 8 hour shift * $100,000 per year per officer
= $42 million dollars.
Wanna bet he downloads that $42 million on provinces and municipalities.
EDIT: in http://y2u.be/TFZK1cq6MgM Bill Blair suggests that he might have citizens mail their firearms to police via Canada Post.
But, that's also consuming 416 man years of time. Time that those police officers are not out patrolling.
There are about 70,000 police in this country, assuming half are not white shirts or assigned to ticket duty, i.e. 35,000 are patrolling officers, then if this is spread over an entire year it represents a little over 1% of policing time. So, due to the reduction of deterrence we can expect an increase of 1% in homicides, robberies, etc.
All this to do a buyback of guns. I don't think these politicians have any idea the long odds of a PALer's gun being used in a crime.
Justin's stated goal was "To End Gun Violence" (24 seconds into the below video, and his twitter). Then came up with a policy that isn't even going to make a dent.
http://y2u.be/4DJRYSwSAbE
It’s time to end gun violence in Canada. And that’s what a re-elected Liberal government will strive to do.
-- @JustinTrudeau, https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/st...62499106258944
A useful demonstration of how prohibition can be expected to impact illicit firearms use is found in the United Kingdom (UK). In 1997, the UK banned private ownership of all cartridge ammunition handguns (whether semiautomatic or otherwise). As such, the UK provides real-world data about the impact that a 'prohibition policy' can be expected to have on illegal firearms use. This information is particularly valuable because it is drawn from an applied setting, rather than being based on theory or statistical modelling. Because all legal handgun ownership was banned, rather than just certain types of handgun, the UK policy also represents a “maximum policy impact” scenario – that is, the greatest effect that could be reasonably expected to arise from prohibition. If the policy was successful, then it would be expected that the number of recorded crimes in the UK involving the use of handguns would decline sharply after 1997. Handgun crimes rose sharply after total prohibition of legal ownership, reaching a peak in the early 2000s. The number of handgun crimes has consistently remained higher than it was at the time of handgun prohibition.
Even allowing for the possibility of a 'lag' between policy implementation and policy impact, it is obvious that the prohibition policy did not impact on illicit possession and use of handguns. According to the Home Office, from 2001/2002 to 2010/2011, handguns have consistently been the most common type of firearm used in crime
-- Dr Samara McPhedran, https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...-community.pdf
In England, Recorded crimes involving firearms other than air weapons went from ~4000 in 1997 to around ~11,500 in 2006.
4461 violence against the person, 3676 robbery, 329 burglary, 730 criminal damage, 240 public fear alarm or distress, 1213 possession of weapons, 420 other. (Home Office)
Marcel Wilson, ex gang member, founder One By One (Toronto); on CBC 2019/09/20 said that Justin's announcement won't affect the communities he works in, because they don't follow laws. That that's not the road to take, unfortunately.
We have found it doesn't affect the communities that we directly work in. Myself, being an ex gang member, we didn't follow laws. The way those guns are coming in, are not going to change by the people who are using them legally. So that's not the road to take, unfortunately.
Guns are one element to the whole picture. We focus on the root causes. Poverty. Mental Health (weak). Education (differences between communities). Social media plays a huge role on the shootings that you see now. What makes a person want to pick up a gun and kill another person. It's an on-line ego, that's different than the reality. Social media allows these kids to interact in ways they couldn't before. An argument could steam into a kid getting murdered. In my time that wasn't an issue that we had to face. Out of 100 kids we asked, 100% of them said that social media plays a significant role in the violence we're seeing now. They've dubbed a term 'cyber banging'. If we tackle those issues, we'll see a huge decline. We're bringing forth an awareness campaign to teach our elders how to navigate the specific social media that their kids are using, and maybe they can 'police' from home.
I grew up at a time when there were lots of social programs, that kept us busy especially during the summer. I can pinpoint the time I entered a gang. Our social programs were all cut. They took down our basketball rims, they cut programming, and it started with small crimes, theft, which affect the community, but the boarder we got the angrier we got. The more we weren't getting paid attention to, the more serious the crimes got. And then gangs started to form. Our whole point was to make money to get out of the areas we lived in. But we're not seeing that any more. Now you become popular being a gang member. Or you become popular being a shooter. Everyone wants to be insta-famous. It's no longer about escaping poverty. It's this idea that this is a cool thing to do.
[taking down basketball rims] If you keep taking away from people who have less, they're going to feel boxed in. And we're seeing the results of this now.
Let's get people from these communities, who live within this climate, and hear what they have to say.
-- paraphrased from Marcel Wilson, founder One By One (Toronto); on CBC 2019/09/20 near 1:39 pm
He went on to say that he's overworked and depressed, because of the number of people who seem to be acting against the goal of reducing gang violence. I took that to be politicians, city staff, some members of his community, and the media.
“Every gun surrendered is one less gun in our community,” Toronto Mayor John Tory said. “One less gun potentially available to people who want to cause mayhem in our city.”
A total of 2700 firearms — 1900 long guns and 800 handguns — have been turned in, costing the program $660,000 in payouts, not including staff and other time.
.
Lets see, 2700 guns in buyback, 2 officers to pick up firearm times 2 hours each. 4 manhours per 2700 equals 10,800 hours not devoted to real police work. 10,800 hours at shop rate ($83 salary + $42 overhead) of say $125 equals $1,350,000 plus $660,000 buyback cost for a photo op. Maybe a little less if they picked up multiple firearms at a few homes, and a little more to escort the truck that takes them to be destroyed.
.
There's no way on earth that the $2 million dollars spent on this saved a single life.
.
Gun buybacks are one of the most ineffectual public policies that have ever been invented in the history of mankind. So the typical gun buyback will offer, you know, $25 or $50 or $200 or $350 for a gun, or maybe they’ll offer a camera. There was one where they offered some therapy, you could get therapy. California, therapy if you turned in a gun. But the fact is maybe a thousand guns will be turned in in an incredibly successful gun buyback program. And it’s successful in the sense there’s a really big pile of guns, and the mayor gets to set that pile of guns on fire. And it’s a great media opportunity. But there’s two fundamental problems. The first one is that the only people who bring back these guns in gun buybacks are people who don’t want the guns in the first place. Most of the guns are inoperable, they’re guns people inherited, they’ve just been not sure what to do with them, these are not the guns that are being used to kill people. Anyone who has a gun and wants to put it to a real purpose, legal or not, doesn’t bring their gun back for the buyback. You don't get guns that have been used in any crime, nor guns owned by people who will use them in crime. So you get exactly the wrong kinds of guns. A particular gun has a 0.00062 chance of being stolen (Canadian Firearms Program), and if stolen a 15% chance of being used in a crime and 16% chance of being used for protection of a criminal (Public Safety Canada), making a stolen gun 0.0002 chance of being used in a crime or protection. But more fundamentally, I think people are confused with respect to how dangerous a particular gun is. If I’ve done my calculations right, any particular gun in Canada will kill a person about once every 73,000 years (14 million guns in Canada according to Statcan import/export stats, 191 homicide by firearm per year Statcan *average 2013-2017). For any particular long gun it would be once every 345,000 years (13 million long guns, 38 homicide by rifle/shotgun per year Statcan average 2012-2016). Okay, so in order to prevent one homicide in a year, you would need to get 73,000 guns brought back in a gun buyback. Okay, but the thing is you don’t get 73,000 guns, and they’re not the guns that are used to kill people. So the typical gun buyback program I would guess saves less than 0.00001 lives, and this one is 0.00002 lives (0.00062 / 73,000 * 2700). And I think that’s being optimistic about the size of the effect.
.
Then there's the time those police weren't out patrolling, making arrests, deterring and reducing crime. How much more crime happened because of that? Did that cost a life?
.
Police strength near 216 per 100,000 gives 300 shootings victims per year in Toronto. (3 year average near 2010)
Police strength near 180 per 100,000 gives 585 shootings victims per year in Toronto. (3 year average near 2017)
(585-300)/(216-180) = 285/36 = 7 shooting victims for each (1 per 100,000) police reduction.
( http://www.rangebob.com/Canada/Polic...2017_short.png )
.
Toronto police is currently 5235 sworn officers (wiki).
Toronto Population is about 2.9 million people, giving 180.5172 police per 100,000 population.
.
10,800 hours is 6 man years. (225 work days in a year, 8 hours in a day)
(6 / 2,900,000 * 100,000) * (285 / 36) = 1.64 more shooting victims
.
CONCLUSION
This Toronto Buyback saved 0.00002 lives by getting low likelihood guns off the streets, at a cost of 1.64 more shooting victims by getting police off the streets.
.
A MRI machine is about $3 million. Each MRI machine saves up to 400 lives a year.
Gun buybacks are costly and they don’t have a significant impact on gun violence. This is well established in peer-reviewed evaluation research. Surely there was a more impactful way to use all that money.
-- Jooyoung Lee, June 20 2019, https://twitter.com/theyoungjoo/stat...37245764313089
"The continuation of buyback programs is a triumph of wishful thinking over all the available evidence," said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis
Chicago Tribune 9/6/2000
"Has the gun buyback scheme been a success?"
No - 973 Yes - 24
Herald Sun poll - Melbourne - 23/12/98
"The simple answer to your question is that the first part of your question has nothing to do with the second part of your question."
David Kelly - Senior Adviser - Office of Deputy Prime Minister Fischer - 16/12/98
On how the buyback will reduce crime in Australia
Question: How will the buyback program reduce crime in Australia?"
Answer: "The firearms buyback scheme was an equity measure to compensate people who needed to surrender firearms as a result of the changed firearm laws."
David Kelly - Senior Adviser - Office of Deputy Prime Minister Fischer - 16/12/98
"Taxpayers were slugged hundreds of thousands of dollars so the Federal Government could buyback guns it already owned."
Sun Herald - NSW 7/12/97
On how the Government owned Australian Defence Industries sold its historical arms collection to the buyback for destruction.
Dr Christopher Walker told the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine conference at the Adelaide Festival Centre that gun law reform undertaken in 1996 in response to the Port Arthur massacre was a government fraud. "It has been one of the greatest frauds perpetrated against the Australian taxpayer," Dr Walker said. The Advertiser 13/11/97 Adelaide
"..it was all about draining the suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney of firearms."
Tim Fischer - Deputy Prime Minister letter to SSAA Member 9/9/97 on the gun buyback
Mr O'Connor received $3,950 compensation for three banned firearms - which he topped up to buy three under-and-over shotguns for $7,000.
Gun sales soar - Herald Sun - Melbourne - 13/12/96
Wang-Sheng Lee & Sandy Suardi, The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research Working Paper No. 17/08, Aug. 2008). This paper also reanalyzes data on firearms deaths that was used in previous research, using figures spanning the period from 1915 to 2004.[88] The authors used “an alternative time-series approach based on unknown structural breaks” in analyzing the data to determine the impact of the National Firearms Agreement on homicide and suicide.[89] They conclude that “[u]sing a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that [the NFA] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.”[90] Finally, the authors state that “[a]lthough gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”
-- http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms.../australia.php
The pattern of firearm suicides can be seen in Figure 2. Compared to homicides, there is relatively little variability from year to year. And again, while it is true that firearm suicides fell after the buyback, they had been falling for more than a decade prior to the buyback. Indeed, the rate of firearm suicides was falling at a similar, if slightly slower, rate after the buyback than it was beforehand. Again, the trend line after the buyback is flatter whether one looks from 1997-2009 or any year up through 2014. The buyback was not followed by any sudden drop. All of this data fits with the existing economic research and implies that something other than the availability of guns is driving down suicides. (note that there were 3.2 million guns in Australia pre-ban, they turned in 1 million guns dropping that to 2.2 million, and by 2010 they'd bought 1 million more boosting it back up to pre ban levels. More than half a decade has passed since then).
Before the buyback, firearm suicides were falling despite a very large increase in non-firearm suicides, and the upward trend in non-firearm suicides continued for another year after the buyback began. And yet, after the buyback, between the years 1997 and 2004 to 2007, the drop in non-firearm suicides was larger than for firearm suicides. If the buyback reduced firearm suicides, why were firearm suicides falling faster than non-firearm suicides before the buyback and then falling more slowly than non-firearm suicides after the buyback ?
The reason that some people who look at this data for firearm suicides and homicides conclude that the buyback was beneficial comes from a simple specification error. They look at the average firearm suicide and homicide rates before and after the buyback, but don't look carefully at how these rates were declining before the buyback occurred.
-- "The War On Guns", page 113
Similarly, Wellford et al. (2005) believed that the logic behind gun buyback or amnesty initiatives was fundamentally flawed, and argued that the majority of guns turned over in a buy-back program are either old and malfunctioning, or are guns that were only recently acquired from methods such as inheritance. It makes little sense that a firearm would be turned into police for destruction when the firearm could be sold on the secondary market for a higher value. Further, it makes even less sense that a firearm acquired by a prohibited individual would be turned over, given the trouble these individuals go through to obtain the firearm in the first place. These prohibited individuals are likely using those firearms in their daily illegal activities, such has selling drugs, or carry a firearm for personal protection, and it seems very unlikely that these individuals would then voluntarily surrender that firearm. Further, due to the high number of firearms in the United States, and the unregulated secondary market, it would be easy to obtain another firearm anyway.
-- https://cjr.ufv.ca/wp-content/upload...l-Firearms.pdf
Wellford et al. (2005) pointed out that the likelihood that a firearm will be used in the commission of a murder is rather low, as less than 1 in 10,000 firearms are ever connected to a murder. Given that most gun buy-back programs net fewer than 1,000 firearms, it is logical to assume a reduction of about 1/10thof one homicide per year due to the buy -back program (Wellford et al., 2005). They also pointed out thatempirical research has consistently shown no decline in gun violence after a gun buy-back program in the United States, largely due to these reasons.
-- https://cjr.ufv.ca/wp-content/upload...l-Firearms.pdf
The federal government is considering further restrictions on handguns but will stop short of an absolute ban, as the cost to buy back legally owned handguns is pegged as high as $2 billion, the Star has learned.
A second Liberal source suggested it is more likely that the government would look at enacting stricter storage, transportation and transfer regulations than an outright ban.
The source said the $1.5 billion to $2 billion estimate for a handgun buyback was based on a loose estimate of 1 million handguns registered in Canada. The source added there are “probably” twice that number in illegal, unregistered handguns in circulation.
-- https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...effective.html
Taking guns from the people who did not do it, will have no measurable effect on our country's violence rates. I think people are confused with respect to how dangerous a particular gun is. A gang member's gun has a fairly high risk. A Canadian licenced firearms owner's stolen rifle has about a 0.0000000018 of being used in a homicide (odds of a particular rifle being used in a homicide * odds of a rifle being stolen). A gun buyback will not save lives because it is a fantastic waste of money and police time, both of which will cost lives.
Gun control advocates like to use the expression, “If it saves one life, it’s worth it.” What they fail to recognize is that if the same amount of effort and money utilized in a different manner would save ten lives, then refusing to do so and saving only one is criminal.
-- Senator Don Plett, March 27 2019, http://www.donplett.ca/my-work/artic...ragic-failure/
During the Long Gun Registry argument years, ~2006 to ~2012, it was frequently said that the Billion Dollars spent on it could have purchased hundreds of MRI machines.
Andrew Scheer announced yesterday that, if elected, in his first year, he would spend $1.5 billion on MRI machines.
That's a policy that will save lives.
Justin's policy will waste a few billion in federal tax dollars, and wreck a multi billion dollar industry.
Sort of like he did with pipelines.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote