More cries of "well I never really liked the idea to begin with", "it was never a core issue", "I was always (secretly, deep in my heart) opposed" and so forth surrounding the gun registry's repeal from the progressive blogosphere than I've seen in awhile re an issue their representative parties caved over. It would I suppose be cruel to go through people's blog archives and find posts where they were for the gun registry before they were against it, but I am sure they're there. The leader says the world is a square, and supporters run around saying the world is a square; next day the leader looks at a poll and says the world is a rhomboid, and supporters run around saying the world is a rhomboid, and saying that the leader always said it was a rhomboid.Anyway, I think Aesop got to the truth of this situation a long time ago.
Actually, so did Monty Python:
BCL remonstrates over gun registry defeat.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, there was an excellent discussion on CBC Radio yesterday, including:
ReplyDelete- two criminology professors from the University of Ottawa, Ron Melchers and Irvin Waller
- Dr. Mark Totten, a consultant currently working on reducing youth violence in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec in the development and evaluation of multi-year gang prevention, intervention and suppression strategies;
- senior analyst, Mia Dauvergne, with StatsCan
The result of the discussion? Almost unanimously, they advised that there is NO evidence to suggest that the use of a gun registry system will have any positive impact on reducing gun violence. That the $2 billion is essentially, thrown to the wind when it could be used to have ACTUAL impact on reducing violence, such as anti-gang programs in Boston and elsewhere in the U.S.
The gun registry system is a political solution, not a real solution. It makes people in the GTA feel safer, but in reality, it does nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The NDP and Liberal MP's who used their brains are to be congratulated, not castigated.
For anyone interested, you might also look at the article by Simon Fraser and U.B.C. professors, Gary Mauser and W.T. Stanbury, here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/forum/FF-gundeaths.pdf
Their opinion?
"Even criminologists who do not support firearm ownership agree (albeit sometimes reluctantly) that no solid evidence can be found to support restricting access to firearm ownership among the general public (Jacobs, 2002; Kleck 1997; Mauser and Maki, 2003). This is reassuring news since the best available research suggests that access to firearms does not increase overall suicide, homicide, or accident rates (Kleck, 1997; Lott, 2003)."
there was an excellent discussion on CBC Radio yesterday, including:
ReplyDeleteIt was only excellent because you agreed with it.
Go back to screaming about selling off the CBC.
Rob, the fact that they cited Lott's study as evidence immediately removes any credibility they may have had. I suggest you read up on Lott's (in)famous firearms study. The man is a fraud and horrible social scientist.
ReplyDeleteHeh, and it turns out the esteemed Mr. Mauser is a member of the National Firearms Association with an obvious axe to grind:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.garymauser.net/
Conservative academic fail. How surprising.
he fact that they cited Lott's study as evidence immediately removes any credibility they may have had.
ReplyDeleteWoa. How did I miss that?
Lott is a total fraud. He sock-puppetted in an online discussion to amplify support for his work.
I love the Holy Grail...thanks for the laff of the day
ReplyDeleteLott is a lott of laughs.. but that's it.
ReplyDeleteI often remark that libertarians should just give up trying to argue that guns make us safer, and instead should get honest and admit that they often don't, but that it should still be an individual's decision to make.
I'm anxiously awaiting the downfall of the registry so I can purchase my .50 cal sniper rifle.
I know, I know. People aren't running around the clubs downtown with them. But, you know, as soon as those goons catch on, sawed-off shotguns and the like will be all the rage.
And then we'll hear "It's the Liberals fault for ill-designed the long gun registry. We just had to scrap it."
What about Melchers, and Waller?
ReplyDeleteAnd - I'm open to opposing studies. What suggestion is there that someone who buys a gun, say, today.. is less likely to use that gun to kill his wife, say, next year, because he registered it? That's the question, ultimately, isn't it, which isn't answered by registry proponents.
Now - in theory, it may be easier to track down people AFTER they shoot somebody, but again, that really isn't the point is it? The point is not to make prosecution easier, it's to make people safer.
Are there studies suggesting that registering a firearm makes it less likely that the registrant will use it to commit a crime?
And - is the suggestion that there is no use of $2 billion that could be more effective in reducing violence than a gun registry system.
The issue really is that when it comes to gun violence, most law-abiding Canadians are in danger of the type of violence done by rifles and shotguns, a lot of it senseless and carried out by disturbed people. In the upscale condo next to me in my well-to-do North York neighbourhood, some loony started firing with his rifle at the Don Valley Parkway one day. That has been the only instance of gun violence in this neighbourhood in over 20 years.
ReplyDeleteWith unregistered handguns used by criminals, those who end up on the receiving end are mostly other criminals. With a few, high profile exceptions, naturally.
An interesting point that's come up (thanks to Rob's intervention here) is that the more Harper betrays his supporters on *major* issues, the more they cling to the rather ones to rationalise their continued support. Thus proving that Conservatives are, above anything else, irrational.
And - is the suggestion that there is no use of $2 billion that could be more effective in reducing violence than a gun registry system.
ReplyDeleteOh, there we go. The 2 billion again.
After the Harper Government broke the country to the tune of 60 billion just this year, you really should give that up. But this is why Conservatives always screw up the finances; penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Don't know, Waller and Melchers could be fine. I wasn't really talking about the long gun registry, I was talking about the heaping pile at the end of your post.
ReplyDeleteI have no strong feelings about the long gun registry. On balance, I think I'd rather have guns registered than not and, for the life of me, I cannot fathom the anger created by the simple process of filling out some paperwork so that you can own something that is designed to kill things.
I had to go renew my drivers license the other day and did it without punching the public service employee in the face or starting a new political movement to stop this horrible oppression. I just don't get the RAGE among the rednecks.
Yup - they get annoyed as hell at city folks, but don't mind taking the taxes they provide to subsidize them when they've had a bad year. Rather rude don't ya think?
ReplyDeleteOh those damn city folks - who buy their products.
Perhaps there should be an investigation regarding tax breaks, etc. that farmers get....it would be an eye opener. Example, what about so-called farmers who own farm land, but not really farming and getting all the breaks a working farmer gets - on their vehicles, etc.
Jay, great point about the getting tough on crime legislation. Amazing how conservatives are suddenly so concerned about empirical evidence.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the fact we see this split in the progressive blogosphere speak to the fact that this issue was never the one-sided slam dunk that gun registry supporters assumed? I actually think it shows that the respective parties were right to have free votes, because clearly there is no unanimity from the grassroots. Dare I say, representative?
ReplyDeleteJay,
ReplyDeleteAs a hick myself (and lets face it, at least 99% of Canadians are less than one degree removed from hickdom) I'm not at all hostile to life in the boonies. There are real advantages to it, one being the price of housing and the other being how much less time you spend or hassle you endure just getting from place to place And I'd rather spend the winter in the boonies than in the city.
But the fact remains that uncomplicated lives force a lot of people to go looking for problems. I face it every time I go home for extended visits. You don't dare bring up anything much about issues that don't affect the locality because you're just invited a lot of pointless uninformed and angry opinion.
It's gotten worse with modern communications technology, because it's dead easy to be exposed to things that cause these people to shake with fury so easily.
Western Canada is particularly bad in this regard, since urban versus rural hostility is very much part of its history, something that is almost non-existent in the East, particularly in Québec.
The Reform party spread this sociopathy to the rest of us. It's infected not just the purely rural areas of Ontario but is also afflicting the suburbanites, who also don't have enough real conflict to keep them busy and are burdened, as well, by a lifestyle that is alienating and insecure if not buttressed by high levels of material comfort.
Ti-guy,
ReplyDeleteYou just explained while i haven't been home for 6 years. My parents had lived in Alberta for a long period of time and that behavior you just described is how they are now. I have never heard such misinformed opinion, especially on immigrants, come from my parents. They had been the most understanding, loving people. Now they are paranoid, ignorant and rude.
Its unfortunate because it seems to be a characteristic being brought to Newfoundland with the oil field workers as they return home. Its bizarre because these people are not hurting for anything or in need of much. They are making huge amounts of money out west, but they seem so angry about other people.
Is this the end result once you get all you ever wanted? Nothing to worry about except what others are doing that you don't like?
Is this the end result once you get all you ever wanted?
ReplyDeleteThat and a lot of booze. Remember, Albertans are the biggest lushes in Canada.
The boozing is just a sympton. Living in Northern Alberta is the cause.
ReplyDeleteSo come all you fine young fellows who've been beaten to the ground
This western life's no paradise, but it's better than lying down
Oh, the streets aren't clean, and there's nothing green, and the hills are dirty brown
But the government dole will rot your soul back there in your hometown
So bid farewell to the eastern town you never more will see
There's self-respect and a steady check in this refinery
You will miss the green and the woods and streams and the dust will fill your nose
But you'll be free, and just like me, an idiot, I suppose
That and a lot of booze. Remember, Albertans are the biggest lushes in Canada.
ReplyDeleteFalse. Yukoners are by a large margin:
http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/download/522/522
False. Yukoners are by a large margin:
ReplyDeleteI didn't bring it up because it skews the results. Yukon is really nothing more than a small town.
Yukoners can also hold their liquor, which is more than you can say for the Albertans.
Sorry, that sounds dismissive. I love the Yukon. I'd live there in a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteYes we drink like fish.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Amazing how conservatives are suddenly so concerned about empirical evidence."
ReplyDeleteSo what are you saying, Rover? Are you against tough-on-crime and the registry, for them both, or are only interested in empirical evidence when it's convenient?
Anyhow, I agree with Jay that many Liberals and NDPers are just as irrational on this issue as conservatives are on "tough-on-crime".
Jay. I have an idea. How about rather than some pointless ad hominum attacks, you respond to the issue?
ReplyDeleteIs there some evidence to suggest that people who register their weapons are less likely to commit crimes with them? Are there any studies to suggest that the use of a gun registry reduces the likelihood of those weapons being used in a crime. People much smarter than me (and clearly more intelligent than you) say different.
Now - as you change the subject (no doubt because you are unable to respond in any fashion than approaches intelligent argument) as Ti-Guy knows, I have blogged quite clearly my own opposition to minimum sentencing provisions, blogging on my June 5, 2009, unequivocally, "Mandatory Jail Sentences for Drug Crimes - a Bad Idea All Around."
Not every Conservative idea is a good one. Minimum drug sentencing has the same illness as the gun registry. It appeals to voters, but it doesn't make us safer, and costs us more money. One idea is as bad as the next.
But good effort Jay trying to make this a "he's a conservative, so, by definition he's an idiot."
Try responding to the question, try to engage in a real discussion. It doesn't hurt.
Try responding to the question, try to engage in a real discussion. It doesn't hurt.
ReplyDeleteWith Conservatives? Oh, yes it does hurt. It hurts like hell.
It's been clinically proven to cause migraines, in fact.
...you can look it up.
Lenny, perhaps you should read my post again. Specifically the part about not really caring what happens with the long gun registry.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would certainly suggest that there is a huge difference between empirical evidence suggesting that a variables makes something much worse (getting tough on crime with mandatory sentences etc.) and empirical evidence suggesting that, at worst, something has no effect at all (the gun registry).
Don't be so quick to scream "THE LIEBERALS ARE DOING IT TOO!!!" when their hypocracy won't result in more people getting killed and an absurd increase on public safety spending.
Is that what you're saying? You're allowed to believe that the conservative justice policies are great, despite the massive amount of research on the subject, because you don't think the gun registry works? Really?
So they aren't hypocrites because nobody will die?
ReplyDeleteIf we're to use "nobody will die" as the only prerequisite for legislation we'll be running a trillion dollar deficit and filling out forms 24/7.
"Is that what you're saying? You're allowed to believe that the conservative justice policies are great, despite the massive amount of research on the subject, because you don't think the gun registry works? Really?"
Totally incoherent.
By the way, I don't for a minute think that conservatives care about empirical evidence on this or any other issue, but I think progressives should.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that the Liberals and the NDP weren't hypocrits. Can we not allow for different levels of hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteWhat I said is that I'm far more concerned about justice policies that are demonstrably horrible for a society than about a registry that tells cops where many of Canada's guns are.
As I said above, I could really care less about the gun registry. I simply said that Jay had a good point.
"Is there some evidence to suggest that people who register their weapons are less likely to commit crimes with them?"
ReplyDeleteIs there any evidence the DNA database reduces crime? Is there any evidence registering your car reduces drinking and driving?
No, but then that is not the point. The point is to use these registries as investigative tools, something the police do every day.
Did you know the gun registry was a key piece of evidence leading to the conviction of the two men who assisted Rosko after he murdered four mounties? A gun that was in his possession (not the murder weapon) was traced back to them.
I'm not interested in having my DNA in a database either, Gayle.
ReplyDeleteGood Lenny - because a database that stores vital personal information is somewhat more invasive than one that says you own a gun.
ReplyDeleteI expect you to be out marching against the DNA databank tomorrow then.
Gayle,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe my DNA currently is, or is required to be, in any databases.