CSSA – For Immediate Release

May 15, 2009


May 15, 2009

The Canadian Shooting Sports Association applauds new Bill to end the failed Long Gun Registry

OTTAWA – The CSSA is pleased to support Portage-Lisgar M.P., Candice Hoeppner’s Private Members Bill C-391, to end the failed and wasteful Long Gun Registry

“We are pleased to see the Conservative government attempting to achieve consensus in the House of Commons regarding firearms legislation. This Bill addresses the concerns of the Opposition while removing the costly albatross of the long gun registry,” stated Tony Bernardo, Executive Director of the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action.

The Hoeppner Bill, C-391, contains provisions that will end the Long Gun Registry, reducing the exorbitant costs associated with the Firearms Act. “Ending the Long Gun Registry can only result in massively decreased costs with no loss of public safety,” Bernardo added.

Despite having only half the firearms in Canada entered into the registry, the CBC has estimated its costs to Canadian taxpayers at over $2 Billion and it is estimated another $1 Billion + will be needed to complete the program, not including annual operating costs.

Support for the failed program has almost totally diminished, except for certain special interest groups like the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, a group that accepts large donations from the company that runs the Registry computer systems (CGI.)

CSSA Executive Director Larry Whitmore states, “This is a Bill that all Canadians can feel comfortable with. C-391 will help restore credibility to Canada’s firearms control measures and we strongly encourage all Canadians to support it.” He added, “The Opposition has clearly stated their desire for such a Bill. It’s time for them to stop the rhetoric and act in the interests of Canada’s taxpayers. They need to support Bill C-391”



Shoot Safely. Shoot Often. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others.


Top Ten Myths of the Long-gun Registry

May 15, 2009

The Ten Myths of the Long Gun Registry

Myth #1: The Gun Registry is a valuable tool for the police and they access it 9,500 times per day.
The “9,500 hits” figure for the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) is misleading per the Public Security Ministry’s website of May 17 2006 (Ques 18). Whenever police officers access the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for any reason, such as for a simple address check, an automatic hit is generated with CFRO whether the information is desired or not. This is the case, for example, with the Toronto Police Service (5,000 officers), the Vancouver Police (1,400 officers), Ottawa Police Service (1,050 officers) and the BC RCMP (5,000 officers). Additionally, every legal purchase of a firearm generates three administrative hits to the registry; for the buyer, for the seller and for the firearm. These changes to the computer records are conducted by police agencies and are counted in the totals. Given the seven million firearms registered in the system, legal transfers must account for the majority of “hits”. Clearly, a hit on the Registry does not denote legitimate investigative use.

Myth #2: The registry provides police officers information on the presence of firearms when they respond to emergency calls.
Maybe. The Firearms Registry only provides a list of the legal guns, the very guns an officer is least likely to be harmed by. The truth is, very few legally owned guns are used in the commission of crimes. The latest report shows some 7% of firearm homicides were committed with registered firearms in the last 8 years. The elimination of the registry will only eliminate the useless lists of lawful guns. The fact an individual has a firearms licence will still be known to the police. They will know whether a legal firearm is at a particular location by virtue of the fact that an individual has a licence. The abolition of the long-gun registry doesn’t affect that. Even so, it is the illegal firearms that police are usually the most concerned about (93% in the last 8 years). No police officer would rely on the inaccurate registry data to dictate how they approach a domestic or emergency call. They would approach all calls with an appropriate measure of safety.

Myth #3: Firearms related deaths have been reduced due to the long gun registry.
Reduction in firearms deaths started in the mid 1970’s, well prior to the introduction of the registry in 2003 (StatsCan) and mirrors a proportionally greater reduction experienced in the United States, where firearms laws are being loosened. There is no evidence to link the reduction in deaths with the registry and it has far more to do with the aging demographic that anything else.

Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered . . . the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.

Myth #5: The registry protects women in violent domestic situations.
Registered long guns were used in (all) homicide only twice in 2003 (Public Security Ministry website), and a total of 9 times from 1997-2004 (Library of Parliament). The registry of 7,000,000 firearms did not prevent these deaths. Given the extraordinarily low rate of misuse of some 7,000,000 registered firearms, it is unreasonable to believe that maintaining a registry of long guns could have any effect on spousal homicide rates. Moreover, the vast majority of violent domestic assaults are preceded by a lengthy, police recorded history, effectively denying abusers a firearms license. This should address their access to legally acquired guns.

On an average day, women’s shelters referred 221 women and 112 children elsewhere due to lack of funding. Clearly, there are better uses for the money than registering duck guns.

Myth #6: The registry helps track stolen guns and forces firearms owners to be more responsible in storing their firearms. Over 50% of firearms used in crime are stolen from gun owners
Past Department of Justice studies found that among homicides where details were available, 84% of the firearms used in the commission of the crimes are unregistered and 74.9% are illegal guns smuggled into Canada, not the 50% some claim. Recently, Canada’s National Weapons Enforcement Support Team reported that 94% of crime guns were illegally imported into Canada. Vancouver Police report 97% of seized firearms are smuggled. Other government sources show between 9 and 16% of crime firearms originate in Canada. That figure is speculative as the vast majority of firearms used in crime are never recovered and most recovered guns cannot be identified as the serial numbers are removed.

Myth #7: The information on the registry database is secure and cannot be accessed by the criminal element.
There were 306 illegal breaches of the national police database documented between 1995 and 2003, 121 of which are still unsolved. Many police investigators have publicly voiced their concerns that the gun registry has been breached and become a “shopping list” for thieves.

Myth #8: The money has already been spent to set up the registry. It is foolish to dismantle it now.
The gun registry is by no means complete. Only 7 million of the 16.5 million guns that are in Canada (according to government import and export records) are registered. More than 300,000 owners of previously registered handguns still don’t have a firearms licence, more than 400,000 firearm licence holders still haven’t registered a gun and more than 300,000 owners of a registered handgun still have to re-register 548,254 handguns ( Canadian Firearms Registry). Based upon precedent, it will cost another billion dollars to complete the registry.

Myth #9: Rifles and shotguns are the weapon of choice for criminals and are the most used firearms in crime.
Where firearms were used in a violent crime, 71.2% involved handguns (but it is estimated that over 1/3 involve replicas or air guns), only 9% involved rifles or shotguns (of which 2.1% were registered) and 6.5% involved sawed off rifles or shotguns (already prohibited).

Myth #10: The tragic deaths of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, by the hand of a criminal with a rifle proves the need for the long gun registry.
The registry’s monumental failure to prevent the tragic deaths of these police officers underscores the folly of registering the firearms of the law abiding. The criminal who committed these crimes was in illegal possession of firearm, despite the presence of the registry. These events prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the ineffective uselessness of the long gun registry in protecting our society.


Shoot Safely. Shoot Often. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others.

Our minions sometimes overdo it in the zealousness…

March 12, 2010



We would like to take a minute to correct the blatently obvious that was ignored and readers of the Star were mislead about.

The Registry DID NOT save Mr. Preston’s intended victim.

It was OPP Constable Pham who, in doing his sworn duty, gave his life while attempting to stop Mr. Preston from carrying out any harmful intent inflicted by his episode of mental derangement.

Our apologies to anyone that has been mislead by the above linked article into thinking the Registry actually played a part.

Our humblest gratitude for Cst Pham’s sacrifice for another human being.

Normally we don’t like to eat our own…but…

December 5, 2009

“…Classified as a long gun, the Mini-14 is capable of firing the same ammunition as the M-16 rifle used by NATO troops. The Mini-14 is regularly stocked at firearms stores in the Montreal area.

“If this legislation becomes reality you will be able to buy not one but 50 Ruger Mini-14s and no one will know you have them,” Cukier said. “Something like the RM-14 uses NATO-standard ammunition and…we saw the results at [École] Polytechnique.” …”

The above quote was contained in an article at the McGill Daily.

We feel duty-bound to correct the technical omissions in the interest of balance.

1. The 5.56mm cartridge is also referred to as .223 Remington.

2. The Ruger Mini-14 is a hunting rifle. Hunting rifles use a variety of calibres. .223 is one of them.

3. There is no such thing as an RM-14 rifle. That is claptrap intended to fearmonger. That is wrong.

4. The mini-14 can be stocked at any firearms dealer.

5. The mini-14 is not an “assault rifle”. “Assault rifle” is a bogus term used to mislead those who don’t have much interest or knowledge about firearms.

6. Prior to the Registry, under the FAC provisions in existence at the time, stores kept books of the sale of firearms. Someone knows who has the firearm and those records were required to be presented upon demand by a Peace Officer.

7.  NATO-standard. All that means is that the caliber is compatible for use with other firearms employed by NATO forces. A rifle in the German Army can use Canadian Army issued ammunition where our forces operate jointly.

We apologize if anyone reading that article was mislead by Mrs. Cukier’s statements and their printing by the McGill Daily without fact-checking her comments before publishing.


Shoot Responsibly. Shoot Often. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others.

Update on police survey for keeping or getting rid of the Registry in Canada.

June 22, 2009
09 Jun 21
1432 for scrapping the registry
101 for keeping it.
Shoot Responsibly. Shoot Daily. Share Your Shooting Sport With Other.

People without licenses shooting guns in Canada. Safely. Educationally. For fun.

June 15, 2009

Photo: Sue Reeves

East Elgin Sportsmen’s Association held another successful Open House.

Canadian citizens got to try out firearms. Many to satisfy a curiosity. Some to educate their children. Some to get some practical exposure before pursuing a career as Peace Officers.

Well done Mr. Evers and the volunteers at East Elgin Sportsmens Association for responsibly promoting the shooting sports in Canada.



Shoot Responsibly. Shoot Daily. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others

Firearms in a public park? For a BBQ…?!

June 9, 2009

Imagine that.

Citizens exercising their rights.

Having a good time.

Breaking bread together.

Openly possessing their firearms.

And being responsible and decent citizens respecting one another…

No one was shot either.

Who wants to bet that criminals steered waaaaaay clear of these citizens?


Gun owners show support for open-carry law at picnic in Kalamazoo

by Kathy Jessup | Kalamazoo Gazette Monday June 08, 2009, 11:15 AM

John A. Lacko | Special to the Kalamazoo GazetteRob Grinage and Josh Tishhouse, both of Kalamazoo, work on cooking the hamburgers and hot dogs during the Open Carry Picnic in Bronson Park Sunday afternoon.

KALAMAZOO — It resembled most any Sunday afternoon picnic in Bronson Park. Except most of the people assembled around tables filled with watermelon and grilled goodies had firearms in holsters strapped to their waists.
The Glocks and the Smith & Wessons remained holstered but visible during a three-hour Open Carry Picnic designed to raise public awareness of what organizers called Second Amendment rights in Michigan to openly carry a firearm in most places.
They were high school teachers, college students, computer geeks and housewives with one thing in common. Rather than a cell phone, the leather pouch they wore at their waist contained a gun. The picnic drew about 40 people on a wet afternoon.
Josh Tishhouse, 22, a native of Otsego now living in Ann Arbor, was wearing his 9 mm Glock 17 as he held a soda in one hand, passing out Michigan Open Carry information brochures with the other.
The University of Michigan systems administrator said he has openly carried his handgun for the past year. But not at work, saying he respects the university’s work rules that ban firearms on campus.

RELATED CONTENT • For more information on gun laws and the national Open Carry organization, go to www.opencarry.org.

For Tishhouse, openly carrying a weapon is a matter of self-defense. But he says Americans also need to exercise their constitutional rights to the lawful ownership of firearms or risk losing them.
“I hope never, ever to have to draw this,” Tishhouse said. “But I absolutely believe it’s a deterrent. If somebody’s looking for a soft target to mug and they see you have a weapon, they’re not likely to pick you.”
According to Michigan Open Carry, any resident 18 or older who owns a legally registered handgun may openly carry that firearm in a holster.
The fact that the handgun is registered means the owner has passed a criminal background check. And many Open Carry members also have permits for concealed weapons that they say required additional scrutiny.
There are restrictions if you do not have a concealed-carry permit. Tishhouse said it’s unlawful to possess a firearm in a bank, church, theater, sports arena, day-care center, hospital or any establishment licensed to sell liquor. Property owners also can impose their own firearms restrictions.
The purpose of the event was to educate the public about openly carrying firearms within the State of Michigan.
Ryan Ransom, a Coloma High School automotive technology teacher, said people who open-carry their handguns often are assumed to be off-duty police officers.
And although Ransom said he has never been confronted by a civilian for wearing his 9 mm pistol, some police officers have been unaware of the laws that allow it and have questioned him.
Stephanie Grinage says people in their Edison neighborhood refer to her husband, Robert, as “Wyatt Earp,” an iconic 1800s Western lawman. Robert often walks their dog with his holstered firearm in full view.
The owner of a neighborhood convenience store refers to the pair as “my friends,” she explained, after a “shady” man eyeing the cash register left the establishment one day when the openly armed Grinages stopped to make a purchase.
Stephanie Grinage has a concealed weapons permit that allows her to keep her Smith & Wesson .38 Special tucked in her purse.
“The weight of a gun around my waist pulls my pants down,” she mused.
For the young housewife who is often home alone, her gun is about protection.
“I don’t want to feel powerless,” said Grinage, who still suffers from the scars of a physical assault when she was 18. “I want to be able to protect myself and not worry about the cops showing up too late.”
People milling around at Sunday’s event said they’re not all the stereotypical conservatives criticized by Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign for “clinging” to their guns.
“I don’t identify myself as a Democrat or a Republican,” Tishhouse said. “I consider myself a constitutionalist.
“If you want to know the truth, I voted for Obama.”


Shoot Responsibly. Shoot Daily. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others.

John Bowman and outlawing guns.

June 2, 2009


When Guns Are Outlawed…Only Government Will Have Guns

 by John Bowman

Author R.J. Rummel has produced a significant body of work including numerous essays and several books that deal with the subject of democide, a term he coined to describe a widely-accepted legal definition of murder that applies when perpetrated by government upon its own people. After examining about 10,000 sources over many years, Rummel estimates that governments of the world have murdered (i.e., committed democide on) approximately 262 million people in the 20th century alone. That shocking figure is no joke and, as Rummel points out, is about 7 times higher than the combat death toll from all wars fought over the same period combined. 20th Century wars were the worst in man’s history and killed almost twice as many people as “ordinary” civilian criminal murders across the globe over the same one-hundred-year span. Yet, even though “the 20th century is noted for its absolute and bloody wars,” war was not the 20th Century’s biggest killer. Democide was. Or rather government was. And the comparison was not even close.

It should come as no surprise that the hallmark of democide according to Rummel is authoritarian government. It should also be no surprise that virtually every monstrous genocide or democide event in modern history was conducted by collectivist or socialist-style dictatorships, with the lion’s share of atrocity garnered by the Marxist variety – those great saints who do everything “for the good of the people” and who without any sense or shame hold offices and/or comprise significant political parties in most “civilized” nations today. In fact, the results of various flavors of socialism are what prompted other historians to invent the word “genocide” in the first place.

To put the 262 million murders in more conceptual terms, consider that if one takes a random walk through the entire set of murdered men, women, and children, more than 9 out of 10 murders across all times and all nations, were perpetrated, not by civilian criminals, but by criminal thugs operating under the auspice or directive of government to murder its own people, generally those who oppose the government or who oppose the politically well-connected or who own what the government covets for itself. If deaths due to war – what many currently believe is the greatest threat to life and limb – are included in the set, then still over 4 out of 5 violent deaths (83%) are the result of murder by the host government with the remaining 17% comprised by 11% war casualties and 6% civilian murder1. Yet, while totalitarianism, foreign invasion, and civilian crime – the primary historic threats to everyone’s safety – all arise for a vast array of reasons, there is, fortunately, at least one thing that is proven to prevent or mitigate all of these to a very high degree: widespread gun ownership by the civilian population.

Therefore, if one cares about one’s own personal safety or that for one’s children, family, and neighbors, then there is no substitute for a well-armed society. This is not rocket surgery. A well-armed society is a civil society. A well-armed society is also a serious deterrent to foreign invaders and modern technology such as satellites, planes, missiles, and tanks has not changed that. And finally, most importantly, a well-armed society has never yet, not once, been the helpless victim of democide to any significant degree, and it takes no great imaginative leap to understand why. When guns are outlawed, only government will have them, and look at their sorry record. The figure would be supremely monstrous and unacceptable if it were a mere 1 out of 100, yet more than 9 out of 10 murders committed on planet Earth were orchestrated by the victim’s own government. In fact, major events of democide unilaterally occur to people who are disarmed, usually (ludicrously) within months of disarmament of the population, which of course was promoted and ordered for their own good and safety, and often made possible by government-maintained registration or licensing records.

Today, we are continually bombarded with propaganda relating to the dangers of gun ownership. This propaganda shamelessly claims stiffer and stiffer gun control is necessary to “protect the children” or some other nonsense about personal safety. At the same time, depending on age range, children are more likely to die from drowning in their own toilet or bathtub, from falling off a ladder or heights, or from bee stings than they are from intentional or accidental death from a gun wound. And lest we forget, these same gun control advocates think nothing of putting their children in cars, which kills tens of thousands every year. Why? Because it is clear the great utility of vehicles justify the small yet deadly risks. Yet, wide proliferation of guns (with zero controls) also has great utility, namely prevention of the worst crimes in history as well as the run-o-the-mill variety. Furthermore, guns have a lower risk factor to law abiders than do cars, so where is all the clamoring from the “I-want-my-children-to-be-safe” crowd for bans on automobiles? There ain’t any because this brand of stupidity is emotional, not rational.

On the other hand, democide appears to expressly target children. Children whose parents if not unarmed would have long ago overthrown the tyrants who impoverish them to retain or regain their own property and means of feeding and rearing their children. That is why gun control advocates horrify me, especially those who are well-meaning and passionate about the issue. They genuinely believe removing guns from law abiders will solve social ills, while ignoring the consequences. To remove guns from the hands of law abiders is the tyrant’s dream, the criminal’s dream, the warmonger’s dream. And it is the law abider’s nightmare. To remove guns from the hands of law abiders unleashes every horror conceivable, and some that are inconceivable. And for what? To prevent some perceived threat that, even if realistic, is 5 or 6 orders of magnitude less likely to cause harm than the nightmare with a long and distinguished pedigree that may ensue if they get their wish?

It is as though gun control advocates seriously believe it is desirable to rip up the parachute, use the material to sew a windbreaker, then proudly proclaim they’ve prevented the skydiver from catching a cold on his trip down. It would be comical if not so deadly serious. To be fair, yes, many die from gun wounds. Yes, that is tragic and senseless. Without a doubt, guns can be quite dangerous, but the same can be said of cars. Of electricity. And even of love, a major player in crimes of passion and suicide, the latter of which takes more US lives every year than all reported gun violence and is in fact responsible for over 70% (higher in many other countries) of what is included in the gun-related death figures – a component that heavily skews these figures, yet is rarely considered by gun control advocates as if these suicides would not have occurred but for the availability of guns. Are there not consequences to banning any of these things: cars, electricity, love? Or of banning guns? Consequences that apparently go well beyond the narrow horizons and lack of historical knowledge of the typical ban advocate.

On the lighter side, one beauty of widespread gun ownership is that members of the adamant “I’ll-never-touch-the-things” crowd do not have to own one. They need only pray that their neighbors do, because those law abiding, gun-toting neighbors will protect them from the true heinous threats to their existence and livelihood, even if they are unwilling or unable to do so themselves or even oblivious to the dangers. And consider further, that the protection afforded by widespread gun ownership by law abiders can extend across national borders as well as neighborhoods. For example, while Canada does have a relatively significant number of guns, many Canadian gun enthusiasts have noted that much of their personal safety can be attributed to the fact that the populace of their closest neighbor maintains so many firearms.

As a final, more mundane thought, basically everyone knows or has heard that there is a correlation between gun control and crime. In fact, areas in the US with virtual gun bans, like DC, have not only the highest crime rates, but also a disproportionately higher amount of violent crime, whereas areas with few gun regulations tend to show much lower crime overall, with most of it of a non-violent nature such as property crime like theft, instead of violent crime like assault, rape, or murder. Gun advocates tout these statistics, while gun-grabbers are completely mystified and so go in search of some rationale to explain it away, or they focus on other issues, usually something like the safety of children.

I earnestly desire that everyone in the world becomes or remains a staunch advocate of widespread, unregulated gun ownership. There are few, if any, paradigms one could adopt to better ensure personal safety and peaceful pursuits. Such a paradigm would mitigate crime, reduce warfare, and, by far the most important, provide the ultimate backstop – when unalienable rights and Constitutions fail – against the most heinous danger all inhabitants of the world face: democide. It is neither a joke nor the subversive tripe you have come to expect from the phrase to say, support gun ownership! If not for yourself, do it for the children.

Note Please note, I understand this is a contentious subject, and mere statistics or numbers can never sum up these atrocities. Moreover, the figures I use are 35 million casualties of war in the 20th century and 20 million (probably too high) 20th century civilian-perpetrated murders worldwide, which appear to be widely accepted figures. Again, these are estimates, believed to be accurate, so please do not write me to suggest these figures are either too liberal or too conservative or otherwise incorrect unless any are off by one or two orders of magnitude or more because unless that is the case, it does not change in any way the thesis of this note – that widespread gun ownership by a civilian population will significantly improve the safety of said civilian population from every colossal threat, especially the most serious of all: democide.

 June 1, 2009 John Bowman  lives in Washington State.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given


“…In fact, major events of democide unilaterally occur to people who are disarmed, usually (ludicrously) within months of disarmament of the population, which of course was promoted and ordered for their own good and safety, and often made possible by government-maintained registration or licensing records. …”


Shoot Responsibly. Shoot Daily. Share Your Shooting Sport With Others.

A Registry “cost” explanation for the “numbers-challenged”.

May 28, 2009

The writer of this letter (from 2004) tries to help put the Registry cost into perspective for those of us that don’t see things in big numbers.

Bill C-391 is on the table folks. Bill C-391 is intended to help save Canadian Taxpayers money.

The Registry is not licensing. Licensing is not going to go away. Licensing screens the people. The Registry does nothing.

(Boldface added for emphasis.)

“…My Fellow Canadian ~

I once read an excellent Isaac Asimov non-fiction essay on really big numbers. Humans are in general really bad at understanding big numbers. Because of my math / science / engineering background, I’m maybe a bit better than average, but I’m no Asimov. I have though learned a few ways to help me better understand big numbers, so that I can better deal with them when I need to. This essay shows how some of those methods work.

The initial Government of Canada estimate for the gun registry database system was $1 million. Technically, I think that’s probably a bit low. Based on my on three decades of work in the field of distributed multi-user database transaction processing systems like the registry, and on some systems I’m currently working on which are of that type, I think $3 million would have been a better estimate.

If someone from the Government of Canada can provide me with a simple accounting showing some component of the system that I’ve missed, I’d be more than happy to adjust my analysis of the situation to take that data into account. My current analysis is based on the numbers I have collected from the public media over the last few years.

Given how important it is for state monopolies to serve citizens to the highest possible ethical standard, let’s throw in a factor of three-ish over my base estimate and call it $10 million, to be as careful as possible.

Now, say you had such a $10 million contract with some customers. And then, say you spent three times that: $30 million. Does it occur to you that your customers (in this case, we citizens) might be, oh, shall we say, somewhat angry? Ok, let’s say it’s another factor of three: $90 million. How are your customers doing now? Fine. Let’s throw in another factor of three, so we’re now up to $270 million. How angry are your customers now? In more primitive times than we live in, would you still be alive? But wait, there’s more. How much would we pay for another factor of three? Oh, about $810 million. Say, that’s interesting, the gun registry database system has, according to the CBC, cost $750 million.

It didn’t cost 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times 3 times as much. It cost 3 times 3 times 3 times 3 times as much.

That’s like planning to have two children, and ending up with 162 (two times three to the power of four). Now stop. Think about that number, 162 children. It’s unimaginable that you could legitimately have 162 children, in any way whatsoever. Likewise, there is no way I can come up with to imagine how the registry database project could legitimately cost $750 million, whatsoever.

Never mind that it is to me unfathomable that it could take eight years to develop the registry database, and never mind that according to the CBC it doesn’t actually work; $750 million divided by eight years is about $250,000 per day. That’s right, they spent what should have been, at its most extreme, a $10 million budget for the entire project, they spent that much every 40 days, for eight years.

Here’s another way to look at it. The database system has cost about 750 / 8 = $94 million per year, for eight years. Loaded full-time staff costs in this field are about $100,000 per year. That means the development of this system employed 940 full-time staff per year for eight years. How the hell can a database fundamentally designed
to store and retrieve 7 million gun records distributed across 3 million person records take 7,500 man-years to develop? What is this, the Pyramid of Cheops?

(Actually, the CBC’s total cost figure of $2 billion for the entire gun registry “file” amounts to about $685,000 per day, which means they spent the entire initially estimated budget of $2 million, again according to the CBC, every three days, for eight years straight.That’s 20,000 man-years, to register 7 million guns. But what do I know, I’m just a software guy, I’ll stick to the database system.)

Corporations get sued for cost overruns on the order of tens of percent. Assuming my careful $10 million estimate is reasonable, the registry database is not 10 % over. It’s not 100 % over. It’s not 1,000 % over. It’s 7,500 % over.

It’s not 10 times less than the standard we citizens are held to, under threat of criminal prosecution. It’s not 100 times less. The state’s standard of performance for itself is 750 times less than the standard it holds us to.

Who the hell, exactly, do these people think they are, and why the hell shouldn’t we smite them?

Ok, I’ll tell you what. Section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada calls for jail for up to 10 years for fraud over $5,000. Applying the 750 factor apparently used by State Canada, let’s just say that any politician or civil servant that is guilty of fraud over $5,000 should go to jail for 7,500 years.

That’s starting to sound like a big enough number for me.

Tony Olekshy,
The Sagacious Iconoclast