The gun registry and the sunk cost fallacy
The Conservative government in Ottawa has the long-gun registry in its sights. What was supposed to cost a few million has cost over a billion, and for all that, it is not clear what contribution the registry has made in fighting crime (I'm being diplomatic in my wording here). If the registry had cost half the originally predicted amount, defenders would say Canadians were getting a well-managed bargain. Strangely, though, defenders of the registry say the vast cost overruns are also a reason to keep the registry:
[Coalition for Gun Control] president Wendy Cukier said the shotgun and rifle registry currently costs about $10 million a year, while the high costs in the past were incurred to initially screen and license gun owners.
"The ongoing costs are modest. Dismantling the system now, after all the money has been spent, makes no sense," she said in a release. [emphasis added]
Dismantling the system after having spent, and overspent, the money, makes perfect sense. The reason is that money spent is irrelevant, except as an predictor of how poorly the registry is likely to be managed.
Cukier is pushing what is known as the sunk cost fallacy:
Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources. This is called "loss aversion". Many people, for example, would feel obligated to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they passed the point of no return. This is sometimes called the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made.
In other words, going to the movie you've decided is not worth seeing is a waste of time. You've already wasted the money on the advance ticket. You can't recover that cost, so it should have no bearing on your decisions going forward. Willingly wasting time after you have already wasted the money is foolish -- hence the "irrational" label.
The same goes here. Does the long-gun registry work? Is the money to run it better spent on more policing or hiring more judges? Are the resources being expended wisely?
The notion that the answer to these questions should be somehow weighed aginst the money already spent is, well, irrational. If the registry doesn't work, or is horribly inefficient given the investment, or is fatally hobbled by widespread resistance, then kill it. Its uselessness is not somehow ameliorated because the previous Liberal governments spent a billion dollars or more on it.
Cukier needs to refine her argument. I know that if I was on the fence on the issue of the registry, and someone like Cukier tried to convince me to support the registry using the sunk cost fallacy, that would almost certainly clinch the decision for me against the registry. The sunk cost fallacy, besides being incredibly poor reasoning, is almost a form of blackmail ("You'll be responsible for throwing all that money and effort away. You don't want that, do you?"), and I hate blackmail.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I'm reading this one differently: Cukier's arguing that we shouldn't take the wasted $2B as reason for dismantling; rather, we should look to the $10m ongoing annual costs instead, and keep it on that basis. She's arguing that the $2B is sunk and shouldn't be considered.
Of course, a sensible response would be that the costs have been lowballed all the way through, that we have no reason to believe that $10M/year is the actual ongoing cost, and that we have no reason to believe that the system has ever been used to solve / prevent any crime.
Posted by: Eric at May 14, 2006 11:34 PM
The movie ticket analogy makes little sense to me.
Yes I would probably go see a movie if I had already spent the money on the ticket. I would not be obliged to keep spending money on the ticket once inside the theatre however
Posted by: Largs at May 15, 2006 05:50 AM
Sadly spent, but that is a lot of $ to spend, and I am thinking at least some of it was returned to the LPC in kickbacks. Follow the $ and see what turns up, and if it is recoverable and perhaps along the way there may be a few people to throw in jail as well.
Posted by: morison at May 15, 2006 06:50 AM
First Loss is the Least Loss.
Throwing Good Money After Bad.
Posted by: Brian Lemon at May 15, 2006 06:57 AM
Steve, Ms. Cukier's arguments have never been known for their intellectual rigor. Gun control is at base an indefensibly stupid idea. Its supporters -believe-, they do not -reason-. As I know to my continuing sorrow, one cannot use logic with a gun control advocate, they are like Moonies.
Windy Wendy's "argument" will be 100% effective on her selected audience, her followers. I'm quite sure she doesn't give a rip about the gun registry, she's just posturing to make sure the money keeps rolling in to her little foundation there.
We should cut her some slack Steve, Wendy's having a bad year. With Harper at the wheel, a major source of Wendy's income just dried up. Bills are coming due, there's no new gubmint "consulting" contracts being issued to Friends of Jean & Paul, she's probably getting a little cranky. ~:D
Posted by: The Phantom at May 15, 2006 07:25 AM
Kooky Wendy is just looking after her own bottom line. The mantra that 'if only one life is saved' keeps being repeated--and yet not one example can be given as to that 'saved' life! In fact we can prove that, due to a judges stupid ruling using the gun registry, we have a dead policewoman in Montreal!
I agree with morison--follow the money--I am sure we will not be surprised at the outcome of that. It will make adscam look like a toddler!
Posted by: George at May 15, 2006 08:20 AM
I am surprized that Cukier hasn't ressurrected the old"If it saves just one life it is worth the cost" line of BS to justify the money wasted.
Posted by: RNC at May 15, 2006 08:42 AM
Actually, I thought the most telling quote from that article was this one, found nearly at the end of the article.
"It is not about safety. It is not even about money. It is just payback to the gun lobby."
If you don't have a registry like that for safety, what is the point of it exactly? By somehow hoping if you erect enough barriers in front of potential gun owners they'll take up a different hobby? Maybe you can drive the firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy by crippling the civilian market, which is peanuts compared to what the militaries of the world are spending on weapons every year. I'm having a hard time grasping the logic here.
Posted by: Archaic at May 15, 2006 09:45 AM
I never believed for a moment that it could possibly cost over a billion dollars to create a simmple database of registered gun owners, but clearly the money went somewhere - though who knows where. So given that, I don't believe for a moment that only 10 million dollars is being spent per year on it now. And I doubt that it will ever save even one life, given that criminals have a tendency not to register illegal firearms.
I am just wondering if the truth about the whole thing will ever be discovered?
Posted by: Larry Borsato at May 15, 2006 09:57 AM
There'll be enough ammo tomorrow to kill it and that's all that'll be required.
Another promise kept.
BTW, I'd love to see the poll question that found 2/3 of Canadians think it should be kept.
It must have been a real soft question, like 'Should police know if someone has a gun?'.
Anyway you can dig that question up?
Posted by: molarmauler at May 15, 2006 10:38 AM
I'm a little ticked right now. I went to Ipsos-Reid to see what I could find.
I won't become a member to get all the inside info on the poll but the stuff I did see has me angry at the NP for it's article on the 67% support for the GR.
Pop over to my site so I can avoid typing it all up again over here.
Posted by: molarmauler at May 15, 2006 11:17 AM
"One life saved" Heh.
How many lives have been lost because the police were denied funds in order that this ridiculous gun registry initiative was funded?
Posted by: Bruce at May 15, 2006 12:41 PM
Help me out here:
long guns [rifles, shotguns, collectors rifles etc] are legal but need to be registered.Yes?
Handguns are currently prohibited by law [presumably except for pistol shooting sports, which may need to be registered]
Are not most crimes committed with hand guns? which are already illegal?
Posted by: ian at May 15, 2006 12:57 PM
According to current regulations, long arms are unrestricted (legal) but must be registered.
Handguns are restricted which means the owners must not only register them but also apply for permits to carry them.
Unless things changed again (which is possible) to go to competitions, handgun shooters must have get a permit to move the handgun from wherever they normally store it to the range and back.
The sole exception are prospectors who can obtain a permit to carry a handgun while hiking in the wilderness (ie: to scare off bears, etc.) but they must prove they make a percentage of their livelihood by prospecting.
Canada has no "carry concealed weapon" permits.
Posted by: Mac at May 15, 2006 01:58 PM
the web quote is as follows over at Ipsos...
Canadians Take Aim At Gun Registry
Majority (54%) Feel Current Gun Registry Should Be Scrapped And Most (56%) Blame Liberal Politicians, Not Bureaucrats (37%), For Bungling
But Majority Of Canadians (67%) Also Support Idea Of Having Some Type Of Gun Registry Put In Place By Harper Government...
so somehow the first statement has been spun by the National Post to reflect we should keep it??? Give me a break...how much more biased can the media demonstrate themselves to be...
Read the survey initial statement and it's clear in the article at the Post there's a hidden agenda...
"Majority (54%) Feel Current Gun Registry Should Be Scrapped And Most (56%) Blame Liberal Politicians, Not Bureaucrats (37%), For Bungling"
Posted by: Mr Ed at May 15, 2006 02:05 PM
Ian, the situation is as follows. One must have a license to own a rifle/shotgun, and the gun itself must be licensed. Think cars.
One may also get a license to own a pistol and the pistol itself must be licensed. If you want to move the pistol from your house to the shooting range and back, you must have a permit to transport it. Think school bus: like a car, but more fiddling about with the testing etc.
You may also have a license to own a full-auto rifle, aka machine gun, IF you owned a machine gun prior to 1975. They were grandfathered in. Each gun must have its own license, and another, different special permit to transport must be gotten over and above the pistol version. I think.
Certain semi-auto rifles and pistols are banned outright by Orders in Council from the Mulroney era, but not the full auto versions oddly enough. Example, if you have a full-auto license (and lots of guys do) you can buy a full-auto Uzi from another collector, but you can't buy or own a semi-auto Uzi.
Or you can ask the nearest hooker/drug dealer/biker where to find pretty much any friggin' thing you want from a Raven .22 to an RPG and just keep it to yourself. The bikers fill orders on a two week turn around I hear, volume discount too. Maybe even air miles if youy ask nice.
Gun registry working exactly as expected. That's what makes it an indefensibly stupid idea.
Posted by: The Phantom at May 15, 2006 02:17 PM
Even if a murder is committed with a registered weapon...Is'nt it already too late?
Posted by: metalguru at May 15, 2006 02:37 PM
The I-R article (claiming 67% favour keeping some form of registry) is misleading in the extreme. It should highlight (rather than bury) the stat that 54% favour dismantling the current long-gun registry, since absolutely nobody is suggesting anything less stringent than current regulations on handguns.
And my understanding is that the $10M cost is misleading, too: it ignores the fees being collected from law-abiding long-gun owners. So the question is whether the total of the monies collected annually from registrants and from general tax subsidies justify the continued existence of the long gun registry? In my opinion, this money would be better spent directly on policing.
Posted by: Paul O at May 15, 2006 04:19 PM
The Tories should not be too hasty to make any decisions until they have done a cost benefit analysis. I am sure with 2 billion already spent they won't dump it too soon. You want to be absolutely certain before you pull the plug or keep it.
Posted by: steve d. at May 15, 2006 06:47 PM
No price is too high if it increases crime, eh Steve?
Posted by: The Phantom at May 15, 2006 06:52 PM
Does it work?
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 guns used in crime (the effective against crime bit) We can calculate this ratio.
There were 302,000 crimes of violence in Canada in 2003. Statistics Canada's 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.
15,100/7,000,000 = 0.0022 or.22%, a cost-benefit of 22 hundredths of 1%
Accordingly, 99.9978% of our effort was wasted on non-crime guns and only .0022% 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 ¼ of 1% of our efforts will involve crime guns.
This 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. A gun registry has zero connection to guns that are not registered.
In order to link a registered crime gun to a particular registered gun owner:
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.
This linking problem makes the low return on investment even more problematic.
We can test this analysis by comparing our statistical analysis with empirical evidence from a gun registry. 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.
Posted by: Bruce at May 15, 2006 06:53 PM
One word Bruce..... "SWEEEEET"
Posted by: Mr Ed at May 15, 2006 07:04 PM
There is no question the gun registry has got to go. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that criminals don't register their guns, and all the registry does is put stress on law abiding gun owners. I have never heard of a murder case that was solved through the gun registry. I also suspect that most guns used in crime are illegaly smuggled into this country.
Therefore, it seems a person thinking rationally -not ideologically - would suggest that stronger border protection and tougher sentences for gun crimes rather than $2-billion plus on a list.
I hope Harper tables a bill tomorrow that will eliminate the registry and give amnesty to all law abiding long gun owners who didn't register their guns.
One final point:
People shouldn't make comments like these: "Sadly spent, but that is a lot of $ to spend, and I am thinking at least some of it was returned to the LPC in kickbacks. Follow the $ and see what turns up, and if it is recoverable and perhaps along the way there may be a few people to throw in jail as well." without evidence to back it up.
Posted by: Andrew Smith at May 15, 2006 08:10 PM
Has anyone noticed the Liberal spin today about how the police access this registry some 5 or 10 thousand times a day. I'm not real sure about this and you can correct me if I'm wrong; but I'm sure that I heard that if your great, great, great grandmother who drives 2 miles an hour drives thru an intersection and becuase the light goes from green to orange to red before she gets halfway thru, when the police call up her plate it automatically hits on the gun registry???
Posted by: Marlin at May 15, 2006 08:55 PM
Excellent analysis, Bruce.
The Firearm Registry wasn't meant to reduce crime or anything remotely useful. It was meant to convince Canadians that Liberals were tough on crime... and it was a stepping stone to banning all guns.
Posted by: Mac at May 15, 2006 08:56 PM
Check out the 'success' of firearms legislation in Great Britain and Australia via Google. It's free, and the Liberals could have done this before they enacted Bill C-68 and saved taxpayers $2B. Incompetent fools.
Posted by: Ross at May 15, 2006 09:54 PM
"Check out the 'success' of firearms legislation in Great Britain and Australia"
I don't know about the latter, but it's been a horrible failure in the UK. They have effectively banned all firearms, and yet violent crime (much involving illegal guns) continues to rise.
Gun control is never about public safety. Big government just doesn't like the idea of peasants having any sort of power.
Posted by: Liebermann at May 15, 2006 11:46 PM
As yes the gun registry. So many of my friends were peaking and freaking about the registry and police state and ....well take your pick.
It was never that to me. It always looked like a major rip to me. These scumbags ripped me and mine off for millions and millions of dollars and the swine are still walking free. Rock with his made up statistics (that's lying by the way) and the billions spent on computers and then the whole infrastructure that was set up on the east coast.
Makes me sick. But I'm over that now. Now I'm just mad as hell. GO GETT'EM STEVIE!!!
Pat Patrick
Posted by: Pat at May 16, 2006 01:44 AM
Sadly I think the problem with the gun registry is that the reason it was introduced was because of a knee jerk reaction to the terrible tragedy at the institute polytechnique,It was promoted as a solution to gun crimes and domestic violence.It opened up a much bigger can of worms and now we are using the answer to one problem as the answer to another question completely.Did wait times [before permits were issued]help reduce domestic violence when a gun was used?
Posted by: ian at May 16, 2006 10:54 AM
Lieberman--gun crime is up in both the UK and Australia--when the ban was instituted only honest citizens had guns removed--and now the only ones armed are the criminals--and they can now commit their crimes without fear of the victim being armed.
Posted by: George at May 16, 2006 10:55 AM
LET US LOOK AT GUN CRIME. LARGELY RELATED TO THE DRUG TRADE, AND ETHNIC GROUPS WHO HAVE IMMIGRATED THROUGH CANADA'S LAX AND IRRESPONSIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICIES, (I.E. CRIMINALS WHO HAVE KNOWN CRIMINAL HISTORIES IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, YET HAVE STILL BEEN ALLOWED ACCESS TO CANADA), GUN CRIME HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH MOST CANADIANS, LESS THAN 2% OF GUN CRIMES ARE CAUSED BY CANADIANS WHO ARE NOT EITHER ACTIVE IN THE DRUG TRADE, OR FROM EAST INDIAN/CHINESE/KOREAN/OR ANOTHER CULTURAL GROUP.
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ACT RESPONSIBLY, MASSIVE CUTS TO HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL FUNDING HAVE CREATED FURTHER DIVISIONS IN A SOCIETY THAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO "LOSE ALL OF IT'S ORIGINAL CANADIAN FLAVOR". IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU LIVE HERE, LEARN THE LANGUAGE, MELT INTO THE COMMUNITY, AND LEAVE YOUR CASTE SYSTEMS, CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS WARS AT HOME.
CANADA USED TO STAND FOR A STRONG SOCIETY OF "STRAIGHT" MINDED, CARING AND NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE. WE NEED TO GET THAT BACK!
Posted by: Vince Hargreaves at May 22, 2006 05:31 PM
 
|
|
