RCMP CFP Evaluation – Part 3.3

~~~

Read along at: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pd-dp/eval/index-eng.htm

– 28 –

Average Daily Queries to the CFRO

Type 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Individual Name 1,561 1,820 2,397 4,001 4,262 6440 6,722
Address 27 42 1,434 2,268 2,364 2574 2,606
Serial# 128 130 143 187 176 202 271
Other 95 95 117 136 172 197 207
Total 1,811 2,087 4,091 6,592 6,974 9,413 9,806

This table seems to be just stuck in there for “filler” – the “2 ba-zillion checks per day” factoid has been shown to be completely bogus, as well as meaningless.  Most of these “hits” are automatically generated, and the Auditor General said that such figures are “what we call an activity indicator than an indicator of effectiveness.”  In other words, this is nothing more than “bureaucratic busywork”.

A survey of CFRO users showed that 81% of trained police officers supported the statement, “In my experience, CFRO query results have proven beneficial during major operations.”(1) So beneficial, in fact, that RCMP dispatchers, RCMP Operational Communications Centres, Quebec Police agencies, Halifax Regional Police, Halton Regional Police, Canadian Military Police, OPP, Peel Regional Police, Toronto Police Service, West Vancouver Police Department and the Tsuu Tina Police Service have re-designed their Records Management Systems to auto-query CFRO whenever a police officer queries CPIC.(2) Additionally, 513 RCMP detachments and federal units, 579 Canadian municipal police agencies and 88 OPP locations query CFRO yearly.

(1) This is the “survey” from Appendix G; this is their “methodology”:

In early 2007, the Canadian Firearms Program undertook an initiative to assess the usefulness of CFRO to general duty police officers. The purpose was to gain an understanding of how CFRO could be improved to offer greater assistance to the policing community as well as to identify the need for additional training.

The survey was sent to 500 police contacts from a wide variety of agencies, encouraging distribution to as many general duty officers as possible. The CFP received responses between March and July, 2007. During this period, 408 police officers from 56 police departments completed the survey with a functional breakdown as follows; 262 general duty patrol officers, 64 criminal investigators and 82 supervisors. The responses fully reflect the diversity of police departments from large to small, urban to rural, federal, municipal and provincial. The survey consisted of questions focusing on the use of CFRO and the users’ familiarity and training with the system.

This table shows the questions and the responses:

– 29 –

A survey sample size of 408 police officers – that seems rather small.  Out of 500 “police contacts” with “general distribution”, this is all they could come up with.  How many total police officers are there in these 500 agencies?   If every “agency” has a “firearms officer”, this is less than the total number of firearms officers of all agencies.  And just who responded, and more importantly, who didn’t?  Was this survey “anonymous”?  I can imagine that any cop who was against the registry had, not unreasonably, fears of negative repercussions if they spoke out.

Was the survey “scientific”?  That is to say, were the questions designed by bona-fide pollsters?  Were there any “controls” applied to the results?  Is this poll “correct 19 times out of 20”?

Of the total respondents, how many were actually trained?  To what standard?

What constitutes “use”?

What constitutes a “major operation”?

And the anti-gun extremists were complaining that Edmonton Police Service’s Randy Kuntz’s survey of 2,631 peace officers, 92% of whom want the registry scrapped, was “unscientific”…

(2) Yet more evidence of “auto queries” padding the numbers!

Another tid-bit from Appendix G:

[…]

The results of the survey indicate that many officers who use CFRO have never had training in how to use it.

So, after 15 years of this nonsense, the po-leece still don’t know how to use the system? FAIL!

CFP assists law enforcement, the policing community and Crown prosecutors by preparing affidavits that certify licensing or registration information related to individuals or firearms. Typically, affidavit requests are to determine what firearms an individual has registered to them, or to determine if a given firearm is registered. This certification is based on data maintained and controlled by both the CFO and the Registrar.

Number of affidavits produced: Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Affidavits# 1,150 2,260 2,400 3,374 3,606

Well, good for them!  This strikes me as just another “busywork” number – there’s no information on whether a conviction was secured or not – yet more meaningless numeric bafflegab…

In November 2008, Canadian police services and other public agencies started recording their service firearms, and all other firearms recovered, seized, or otherwise in inventory. This will enable users of the firearms registration database to find and track firearms recovered from crime scenes and at the borders, and generally allow for far better firearms intelligence analysis. Preliminary numbers from police agencies show that the majority of firearms seized since November 2008 are non-restricted (79.7%)(1). A search of the registration database showed that 46.5% of non-restricted firearms seized were registered.(2)

(1) Seized how?  How many of these supposed “crime guns” were seized only because of an unrelated non-firearms crime?  We’ve seen the po-leece “pad the numbers” like this before.

(2) So, of these long-guns that were “seized”, less than HALF were registered.  What does that tell you?  Either there is massive non-compliance by gun owners, or criminals don’t register their guns…

– 30 –

The Public Agents Firearms Regulations came into effect on October 31, 2008. These regulations require all police services and all government departments and agencies to report firearms in their possession. As a result, the CFP is able to quantify and track the number of protected firearms within police and other public agencies. Additionally, information related to these firearms is available to police forces across the country to assist in their investigations via a central database.[18]

The initial inventory (23,606 firearms) refers to the number of firearms in police custody accounted for when the Public Agents Firearms Regulations came into effect October 31, 2008. The final inventory data (45,963) was reported August 31, 2009. Increases of 22,357 police-identified firearms have been seen in the 10 months following the program’s implementation.

Why is that?  What has caused this increase?  Does this have anything to do with Chief Bill Blair’s “Project Safe City”, which harasses law-abiding gun owners who have let their Firearms License lapse?  Why is there no breakdown by “agency”, or by Province at the very least?

Again, compared to the total number of firearms legally owned in Canada, these numbers seem pretty infinitesimal.

[46,000 / 7M = .65%]

The Public Agents Firearms Regulations will have a direct impact on enforcement actions within Canada. The Firearms Operations and Enforcement Support Unit of the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program identifies real time, criminal trends and patterns regarding the criminal use of firearms and reports on this directly to front-line enforcement units in order to directly impact ongoing firearms investigations.[19]

[18] Canadian Firearms Program, Strategic Integration and Program Management Services, Report 9500, run 24Sep09

[19] ‘Enforcement Support’ FOES analysts will be able to identify at a glance which firearms are in illegal status in Canada and under what circumstances they were seized. Those firearms will be cross-referenced with trace and occurrence data obtained by NWEST and the Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre (CNFTC) and if appropriate will be submitted for tracing, the results of which are forwarded back to the agency of jurisdiction for action. This will be a critical first step in closing the tracing gap in Canada; the ‘Public Agents’ PAFR will allow the ‘Enforcement Support unit’ FOES to accurately report on ALL firearms seized by police and identify their origins. Furthermore, should the origin of a firearm not be traceable, the ‘Enforcement Support unit’ FOES will be in a position to determine the reason and report back to the agency of jurisdiction with recommendations.

What “tracing gap”?  If a firearm is not “traceable”, how can they “determine the reason”?  And how does that help?

In one paragraph – in a footnote – we find three new agencies I’ve never heard of before: FOES, CNFTC and PAFR.  The bureaucracy just keeps growing and growing…all to keep track of law-abiding, gun owning citizens!

– 31 –

Strategic engagement has been the focus for CFP through 2007/2008 and has been led by the Director General. Over 20 in-person presentations to Government and Police officials across the country were conducted, resulting in a wide spread recognition of the Program and thus an increase in the use of the CFRO tool of over 25%.(1) Communication initiatives have been initiated throughout the year to keep clients and the public aware of not only the law, but also the program. Along with the strategic engagement initiative, these communications included pamphlets, mail outs, and manuals, and were a key contributor to meeting this priority.(2)

(1) More “busywork” is still just “busywork”…

(2) I think they mean “propaganda”.

In terms of tracking firearms, the program continues to attract hundreds of thousands of new registrations each year, and enables investigators to trace firearms across every Canadian jurisdiction.

OK, so they’re tracking firearms between legitimate gun owners and businesses – so what?  What is this actually accomplishing, besides nothing?  Criminals don’t register their guns, and they sure don’t call up the CFC to transfer them to other criminals!

The Program not only impacts the 1.9 million Canadians who own firearms, it enhances the safety of all other Canadians who live in the same communities, by promoting safe use and storage of firearms. The requirement that all firearms must be registered and known to authorities supports a climate of individual accountability and public confidence, which in turn goes a long way toward ensuring the 30 million Canadians who do not own firearms to accept the privilege of others to do so.

More like a “climate of fear”, don’t they mean?  And they still have yet to provide anything resembling substantive evidence that this whole thing “works”.

And have you noticed how they keep repeating that gun ownership is a “privilege”?  Another example of the “Big Lie”!

End of Act Three of this dog and pony show…




%d bloggers like this: