Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Chris,

You wanted some response to your views on gun control and etc. Here's a quick one. You wrote:

Gun control: It doesn't work. There is no research that proves it does. The facts are clear, it increases crime. Simon Fraser University professor Gary Mauser finds that a year after the British obediently surrendered 160,000 legal handguns, London muggings were up 53 percent, gun murders up 90 percent and robbery up more than 100 percent. By the year following, annual gun crimes overall had risen 39 percent.

I am more familiar with American studies than the material you note above. In most cases, people advocating (like yourself) for "conceal carry" legislation tend to rely on the work of John Lott and Brandon S. Centerwall. Their work has been in turn been extensively criticized by writers such as Duggan and Dan A. Black, who was kind enough to send me .pdfs of a number of his papers. I confess to be ill equipped to decide between their varying statistical arguments for and against the more "guns = more/less crime argument", although Duggan seems to have established fairly conclusively that higher rates of gun ownership and availability leads to higher suicide rates, especially among men.

But lets get serious, shall we? The Tories didn't blast your ass out the door for merely holding somewhat eccentric (in the Canadian context) views on gun control. They turfed you because you accused women and gays who do not hold the same views as your own of, essentially, getting what they deserve when hate crimes were committed against them:

If women and gays really wanted to stop being victims of hate crimes, they'd be in support of this, but judging from discussions, they'd rather be helpless and rely on government.

You also accused, basically, the whole nation of being "effeminate" for not supporting "conceal carry" laws.

Ignore for a moment the idea that a gay male should use a common anti-gay slur ("effeminate") to characterize the Canadian character--which seems pathological--but why would you want to serve such an unworthy folk in the first instance? Did you (and does the Conservative Party of Canada) intend, if elected, to give us all a good slap to get us thinking straight?

Finally, the part of your recent post that I find most interesting is this passage:

One second you're shaking hands with the Prime Minister and on the blackberries of the campaign staff, the next day you can't get called back.

I am assuming that this confirms what the Western Standard has already reported--that the Conservative party knew of your blog, ordered you to pull it down, and then dumped you when its contents were revealed. This is the same process we seem to see unfolding in the Warawa case. Since the CPoC have already screwed you over and, as you say, betrayed their Conservative principles, why not answer a couple of questions.

1) How many Tory candidates have been ordered to scrub or otherwise disappear their blogs for the course of the election?

2) Who exactly within the Tory War Room gave these orders? And who was the guy on the other end of the phone that told you your time was up?

C'mon, Mr. Reid. You still haven't given us the real story. Spill it.


Reality Bites said...

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the incredible comments about the people on the Greyhound bus were the tipping point. That wasn't attacking a large group like Canadians, gays or women. It was a ridiculous attack on several dozen actual individuals in relation to real, not theoretical events.

In regards to Reid's views in general, as I pointed out on his blog before it was closed to comments, at one point his views may have mattered to those who oppose them, but now he's just another crank with a blog. And frankly, if one is interested by looking at train wrecks, it's better with video.

Ti-Guy said...

On the Greyhound incident: some people really need to think about what those buses are like: cramped and dark. If people are hysterical and standing up, there's no way anyone can judge what was happening in a commotion and the only rational action is to get away.

I'm so sick of that Conservative talking point that comes out with numbing regularity these days after every tragedy; that everyone there was a gutless coward because no one played the hero.

These people need to stop playing World of Warcraft and reconnect with the real world. I suggest compulsory military service; boot camp might slim down a couple of those tubby Conserva-boys, if nothing else.

Reality Bites said...

900 ft - effeminate is not a synonym for female. Only men can be effeminate.

I'm betting that Chrissy is a big ol' queen himself. Most gays who rail about others being effeminate have a big blind spot when it comes to the tiara welded to their own head.

900ft Jesus said...

Yes, I know effeminate means having female characteristics - but that still implies that female characteristics are so undesirable as to qualify as an insult. Splitting hairs, sure, but it still bugs me. Like saying “you hit like a girl!” “You whine like a woman!”

Reality Bites said...

Arguably, effeminacy is the most undisputably male of all traits. While both men and women can be described as feminine and/or masculine, only men can be effeminate.

It means more than simply being female or having female traits. I believe it is all but invariably used as in insult. It's not a neutral word describing having female characteristics. Feminine works just fine for that.

Ti-Guy said...

but that still implies that female characteristics are so undesirable as to qualify as an insult.

Oh, please. Can we put an end to the language policing already?

It's not the hot issue, here.

Auntie Liberal said...

You really don't understand it do you, because your little mind is so full of hate for guns that you can't see the truth. (I thought all you lefties were 'troofers').

Look at murder statistics around the world - all murder types, not just guns. There is NO correlation between murder rates and firearm ownership rates. None. Zero. Nada. Zip. The societal values within each country, along with various other socio-economic and demographic factors are the key, not whether or not certain tools are available.

Look at the gun ownership history in England. In the late 1800s, early 1900s handgun ownership in particular was run of the mill common, and crime was very low. Murder was almost nonexistant. Step forward 100 years. Firearms are all but entirely banned from legal ownership, yet the UK murder rate will soon eclipse that of the U.S. in total. Police are armed with submachine guns. Gun crime is epidemic.

Murder is rooted in social causes, not in availability of tools.