The Liberal Love-in

[I Miss Trudeau]

You still haven't stated just what you believe the "claim" is.

I did. Twice. Its the part of my last post that you cut out. Anyway, here is number three:

There are so many problems with this registry, starting with the suggestion it will do anything to eliminate the misuse of firearms.

Got it?

The hand gun registry has been in effect for decades. Despite this, the use of firearms in the commision of crimes is growing, not shrinking.

Let me begin by saying that I find it odd that you attempt to support the very claim that you suggest I haven't pointed out to you. What are the odds?

So let me get this straight. A law only works if it results in a decline in what it seeks to prevent? Does a "mere" reduction in the rate of increase not count as doing something "to eliminate the misuse of firearms?"

The federal government has shown no real interest in combating gun crime.

In fairness to the government, this is largely because the mere hint of tighter gun control laws invariably draws a cacophany of rhetoric about gun control being the start of nazism.

extremely liberal judges will absolutely not impose severe sentences on anyone for anything if they are given a choice.

Fair enough. But I think the gun and carnage loving right share a greater part of the blame than those evil liberals for the current state of affairs.

[Argus]

You still haven't stated just what you believe the "claim" is.

I did. Twice. Its the part of my last post that you cut out. Anyway, here is number three:

There are so many problems with this registry, starting with the suggestion it will do anything to eliminate the misuse of firearms.

Got it?

No. Is English your second language? Are you arguing against the statement that there are many problems with the registry, or are you arguing against my implicit statement that it won't do anything to eliminate the misuse of firearms?

So let me get this straight. A law only works if it results in a decline in what it seeks to prevent? Does a "mere" reduction in the rate of increase not count as doing something "to eliminate the misuse of firearms?"

You could not, to save your life, demonstrate that the hand gun registry has done anything to affect the use of hand guns in crimes. You don't know if it has had any affect or not. You don't know, presuming it has, what that affect might be. You don't know how to measure it in conjunction with the repeated stiffening of gun control (which, please note, is NOT the hand gun registry).

The federal government has shown no real interest in combating gun crime.

In fairness to the government, this is largely because the mere hint of tighter gun control laws invariably draws a cacophany of rhetoric about gun control being the start of nazism.

No, in fairness to the government it is because it has no actual interest in combating gun crime. Most gun crime happens away from the cosey neighbourhoods where politicians and their families live, and nobody is bribing them to do anything about it.

extremely liberal judges will absolutely not impose severe sentences on anyone for anything if they are given a choice.

Fair enough. But I think the gun and carnage loving right share a greater part of the blame than those evil liberals for the current state of affairs.

The way to combat gun crime is stiff, enforced punishment. The Liberals have been in office most of the last fifty years. They are, therefore, almost entirely to blaim for the fact we don't have any stiff, enforced gun laws.

Example. Shortly after the long gun registry came into affect, replete with new laws and promises to crack down on actual criminals instead of just registering the shotguns of farmers, police in Cornwall stopped a car and took its occupants into custody at gunpoint. They were street gang members from Montreal with long criminal records. In the car, they found a pair of fully automatic Uzi submachineguns, loaded.

The gang members were convicted, and sentenced to..... a stiff fine. Then released.

You want to talk about the "gun and carnage loving right"? Compare the demonstrated desire of the right for lengthy sentences for those who break laws to the laid back, gentle, tolerant approach the left is notorious for. Whether it's child rapists or gang bangers, our cities are full of people with dozens of convictions who were given a slap on the wrist and then quickly paroled back to continue what they were doing. That's not the fault of the "carnage" loving right, but the bleeding heart left.

[I Miss Trudeau]

No. Is English your second language? Are you arguing against the statement that there are many problems with the registry, or are you arguing against my implicit statement that it won't do anything to eliminate the misuse of firearms?

Groan. Here's to being intentionally obtuse! At any rate, I asked you to provide an argument to support your claim. Being that one part of the oft-quoted statement is meant to support the other, it ought to be clear which is in need of justification. Isn't it?

You could not, to save your life, demonstrate that the hand gun registry has done anything to affect the use of hand guns in crimes. You don't know if it has had any affect or not. You don't know, presuming it has, what that affect might be. You don't know how to measure it in conjunction with the repeated stiffening of gun control (which, please note, is NOT the hand gun registry).

And you've finally realized my point, allthough I thought I had made it clear. You can't, to save your life, demonstrate that the hand gun registry has done nothing to affect the use of hand guns in crimes. Yet you take it to be an established fact and trot it out in post after post. Why?

Most gun crime happens away from the cosey neighbourhoods where politicians and their families live, and nobody is bribing them to do anything about it.

Funny, because most of the people in cosey neighbourhoods will tell you that the government isn't doing enough to protect them.

You want to talk about the "gun and carnage loving right"?  Compare the demonstrated desire of the right for lengthy sentences for those who break laws to the laid back, gentle, tolerant approach the left is notorious for.

Gross over-simplifcation. Consider, for example, war crimes. Boy do the tables turn with that calculated in, eh?

At any rate, a look at the gun crime in various industrialized nations will show you that disarming the people is the best way to prevent gun crime, not throwing away someone for life after the fact.

[Argus]

You could not, to save your life, demonstrate that the hand gun registry has done anything to affect the use of hand guns in crimes. You don't know if it has had any affect or not. You don't know, presuming it has, what that affect might be. You don't know how to measure it in conjunction with the repeated stiffening of gun control (which, please note, is NOT the hand gun registry).

And you've finally realized my point, allthough I thought I had made it clear. You can't, to save your life, demonstrate that the hand gun registry has done nothing to affect the use of hand guns in crimes. Yet you take it to be an established fact and trot it out in post after post. Why?

Let me see if I've got this right. What you seem to be upset about is that I'm suggesting (note the word was in the post to which you object) that the registry will not do anything to prevent the misuse of firearms because.... because I can't PROVE that it won't do nothing?

How about if we spend $2 billion to buy ass scratchers for every cop in Canada. I'll supply them. You can't prove they won't do anything to help fight crime, now can you?

Asking people to prove a negative is an intellectually bankrupt exercise. Try proving the registry has any real value. We've already spent $2 bilion on it, after all, and are spending millions more every year.

You want to talk about the "gun and carnage loving right"?  Compare the demonstrated desire of the right for lengthy sentences for those who break laws to the laid back, gentle, tolerant approach the left is notorious for.

Gross over-simplifcation. Consider, for example, war crimes. Boy do the tables turn with that calculated in, eh?

No, they don't. And I'm interested in crimes commited against Canadians.

At any rate, a look at the gun crime in various industrialized nations will show you that disarming the people is the best way to prevent gun crime, not throwing away someone for life after the fact.

The gun registry is not designed to disarm Canadians. What purpose does it then serve?

[I Miss Trudeau]

How about if we spend $2 billion to buy ass scratchers for every cop in Canada. I'll supply them. You can't prove they won't do anything to help fight crime, now can you?

You claimed that the gun registry has done nothing to prevent gun crime in Canada. You've yet to provide anything resembling an argument for that claim. You've merely transferred the burden of proof for your own claim on to others, demanding that they produce evidence of the falsity of your claim, seemingly aware that evidence either way is impossible. Yet you continue to make the same claim, over and over. You remind me a lot of Hugo.

I didn't argue that it the registry had prevented gun crime. I merely pointed out that you have not constructed a single compelling argument that the registry has not prevented gun crime, though you repeat the claim constantly.

If you feel that ass scratchers are analogous to the gun registry, I really don't know what to say. Some ignorance is beyond comprehension.

Asking people to prove a negative is an intellectually bankrupt exercise. Try proving the registry has any real value. We've already spent $2 bilion on it, after all, and are spending millions more every year.

No, predicating an argument on the fact that no one can call you to task on any statement because it is a negative is intellectually bankrupt. If you're not going to make a claim that can be evaluated, one way or another, don't make it.

[kimmy]

The costs were increased by the delays and the need to maintain systems and staff long beyond their due date. Who knows how much cost was involved in that. It was substantial, quite obviously. I could find other reasons amongst the figures but I won't bother since my purpose was not to defend the incompetency.

I have suggested that even had there been no political opposition whatsoever, there would still have been substantial delays due to the flaws built into the registry through inadequate computer systems and excessively complicated forms.

They have confessed themselves that they were unable to properly process even the applications they did receive.

So while blaming opponents for the backlogs is certainly a convenient excuse for registry administrators, I think it's very appropriate to question how much of the delay was *really* due to opponents, and how much is was a result of their having to revamp their computer system.

It's there in black and white that their computer system had problems that

could not be resolved without "massive change," including "significant investment" in the computer system."

Are we really supposed to believe that they were able to do business as usual while they were replacing their computer system?

I personally feel that it's a lot more of the latter than registry-types are willing to admit, and that their stubbornness in clinging to the former is the real politicking being played here. I know you disagree with that, and that's fine. We'll agree to disagree.

Aside from that line of thought, there's also the registry's own 2002 audit. They claimed total costs of $629 million, of which staffing and "other" costs were included in a $332 million figure. Since the argument for backlogs causing cost over-runs is that they had to keep staff on longer than planned, and since *total* staff costs (according to their figures) were only half of the cost of the venture, and backlog-related costs were necessarily only a portion of total staff costs, we're clearly looking at a portion that was much less than half the total costs.

So while you might have a fair point in saying that opposition to the program contributed to the costs of the program, I personally doubt that it constituted a significant portion of the cost over-runs. I think logic and examination of the facts they've offered us bears that out.

I feel that allowing the government to use this as an excuse for the cost over-runs without any scrutiny is simply another failure of our government to provide any kind of accountability.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

I didn't argue that it the registry had prevented gun crime. I merely pointed out that you have not constructed a single compelling argument that the registry has not prevented gun crime, though you repeat the claim constantly.

I'll second the claim that the registry has not prevented gun crime in Canada. There's no statistical information to suggest otherwise.

Of course, the response will be: well it hasn't been operating long enough to have an impact yet. Give it some time and we'll see.

So instead of arguing about what it has done, let's discuss what it *will* do.

Will the gun registry reduce gun crime in Canada?

IMT, you can start off the "yes" side.

Argus, please start off for the "no" side.

I will chime in later with my own views.

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

I'll second the claim that the registry has not prevented gun crime in Canada.  There's no statistical information to suggest otherwise.

Is there statistical information to support your claim?

Of course, the response will be: well it hasn't been operating long enough to have an impact yet. Give it some time and we'll see.

No. My response is, and has been, that there is no way to tell one way or the other. Unfortunatly, one side seems to believe that the absence of evidence contradicting their view is somehow evidence to support their view.

So instead of arguing about what it has done, let's discuss what it *will* do.

1) I can't see the future. Neither can you.

2) How do you decide, for example, whether the rate of increase has decreased due to the registry or a greater societal change?

That discussion is a waste of time - I can concieve of no possible way to make an argument either way, even if you had statistical information 20 years into the future in hand.

For my part, I think that the gun registry will prove to be a useful law enforcement tool. Not every gun crime is committed by a career criminal who decided not to register his or her firearm. There are crimes done by ordinarily law abading citizens. The gun registry is useful for those. It is disheartening to see so many "law abiding" (?!?!) gun owners willfully violating the law, however.

[kimmy]

I'll second the claim that the registry has not prevented gun crime in Canada.  There's no statistical information to suggest otherwise.

Is there statistical information to support your claim?

Yes. I presented it in a discussion here sometime last fall. Based on homicide figures from Stats Canada. I can't be bothered to find the information right now, but I'm sure that with a little use of this forum's search functions you will be able to dig it up.

No. My response is, and has been, that there is no way to tell one way or the other. Unfortunatly, one side seems to believe that the absence of evidence contradicting their view is somehow evidence to support their view.

Can statistics not give us an idea of how well it's working?

So instead of arguing about what it has done, let's discuss what it *will* do.

1) I can't see the future. Neither can you.

That's a cop-out. We can at least make educated guesses as to the outcomes, can we not? For example, you said you believe the registry will be more effective in reducing crime than Argus' police ass-scratchers. You have reasons for this belief, yes? Ok, let's state them.

2) How do you decide, for example, whether the rate of increase has decreased due to the registry or a greater societal change?

There's some truth to this. Even before the arrival of the firearms registry, there has been a long-term trend of a declining number of yearly firearms deaths in Canada. But if one looks a few years before the registry and a few years after, surely there wouldn't be any societal change having more impact on gun violence than the registry itself?

For my part, I think that the gun registry will prove to be a useful law enforcement tool. Not every gun crime is committed by a career criminal who decided not to register his or her firearm. There are crimes done by ordinarily law abading citizens. The gun registry is useful for those.

How so? This is another of those situations where you can explain what you think and why you think it.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs is one interested body that has noted substantial cost increases as a consequence of political and other delaying tactics.

Also, the Gun Registry has already resulted in the removal from the streets of a significant number of guns.

[Argus]

No. My response is, and has been, that there is no way to tell one way or the other. Unfortunatly, one side seems to believe that the absence of evidence contradicting their view is somehow evidence to support their view.

You don't need statistical information to support the view that the money being spent on the gun registry is a waste of time. You don't need statistical evidence to know it will do little or nothing to combat gun crime. All you need is basic logic and logical inference.

Let's look at the purpose of this registry. Now, of course, the real purpose was political, and it has served that purpose. However, it was sold to the public as a means to help control gun crime, prinicipally in large urban areas

We know that the vast majority of such crime is done with restricted weapons. And we can infer that gun control and its accompanying hand gun registry have largely been a failure in this simply by the wide and easy availability of restricted weapons. Would hand guns and assault rifles be even more widely available without a registry? It's hard to see how. We know that the registry only comes into play AFTER someone has obtained permission and legally purchased a firearm. So the registry has little affect here.

Now with the long gun registry, we can infer from the above that it will have even less affect. Street gangs aren't doing drive-bys with deer rifles, after all. They're not holding up corner stores with 30/30s.

If you took the money, some $2 billion, perhaps which has gone into the registry and used it to fund strike teams to do undercover and sting operations in all the major cities trying to find those selling restricted weapons, and to fund border teams to help fight smuggling, you'd be a long, long way further in slowing gun crime. But in the end, you need to put people away in prison for long periods of time when they're found selling, smuggling, or in posession of restricted weapons, most particularly if they have a record of violence. Since the Liberal government, the Liberal patronage judges it appoints, and the Liberal parole boards and Liberal prison governors it controls have been adamantly opposed to strong sentences for violent offences I can see no possibility of a reduction in gun crime in the near future.

As such, the gun registry is an expensive farce designed really to be nothing but a placebo, to silence critics of the government's crime and violence-friendly agenda.

[Guest eureka]

So you don't need statistical evidence to support your contentions: just "basic logic and logical inference." To have a different position to yours requires statistical evidence!

[Redneck Yokel]

HOW THE FIREARMS ACT (BILL C-68) VIOLATES THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

The above is an excellent document to read. Even if the costs were not present, this type of thing is enough to show that the program should have never been implemented.

[I Miss Trudeau]

You don't need statistical evidence to know it will do little or nothing to combat gun crime. All you need is basic logic and logical inference.

Then why do you invoke this statistical claim?

We know that the vast majority of such crime is done with restricted weapons

And this one?

And we can infer that gun control and its accompanying hand gun registry have largely been a failure in this simply by the wide and easy availability of restricted weapons.

Base logic? Please explain to me how you arrive at the conclusion that the gun registry is and will be a complete failure using only logical inference. This ought to be good.

As such, the gun registry is an expensive farce designed really to be nothing but a placebo, to silence critics of the government's crime and violence-friendly agenda.

In an earlier post, you claimed that there was no political pressure on the federal government to take gun crime more seriously. Which is it?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Yes. I presented it in a discussion here sometime last fall. Based on homicide figures from Stats Canada.

How could homicide figures possibly provide statistical evidence either way on whether or not the gun registry prevents crime? For example, how would you form an argument to show that the rate of increase was reduced due to the registry? How would you form an argument to show that the rate of increase was increased due to the registry? How would you form an argument to show that the registry had no impact on the rate of increase?

You can't.

Can statistics not give us an idea of how well it's working?

No, not really. Any discussion about the statistics will invariably be reduced to interpretation of statistics that by their nature can't provide definitive evidence either way. You end up with what is happening in this thread; one side says it can't fathom how the registry would have an effect, the other side says it can't fathom how the registry would not have an effect.

That's a cop-out. We can at least make educated guesses as to the outcomes, can we not?

How? How can you possibly decide what the difference in rate (if any) would be had the gun registry not been introduced? Any guesses made would be specious, not educated.

But if one looks a few years before the registry and a few years after, surely there wouldn't be any societal change having more impact on gun violence than the registry itself?

Why not? Furthermore, how do you decide what the rate of increase would be with, and without the gun registry? You guess.

How so? This is another of those situations where you can explain what you think and why you think it.

The presumption seems to be that all gun crime is done by career criminals who know better than to register their guns. Are there no cases in which an ordinarily law abiding citizen is driven to extreme action due to circumstances? Are there no "crimes of passion" anymore? There will be crimes committed with registered firearms. That is a given - not every crime is premeditated or committed by a mobster.

For example, Mr. Doe, for whatever reason, comes home one day, flies off the handle, and shoots his wife, and disposes of her body in a far away field. He reports her missing. Later, the body is found and the police note the caliber of the weapon used to kill her. Knowing that her husband has a registered firearm of the same caliber may have a very positive effect on the investigation.

[Argus]

So you don't need statistical evidence to support your contentions: just "basic logic and logical inference." To have a different position to yours requires statistical evidence!

Or a logical argument, which you have thus far failed to produce.

[Argus]

You don't need statistical evidence to know it will do little or nothing to combat gun crime. All you need is basic logic and logical inference.

Then why do you invoke this statistical claim?

What are you talking about?

We know that the vast majority of such crime is done with restricted weapons

And this one?

Please explain. Your communications skills are sorely lacking.

And we can infer that gun control and its accompanying hand gun registry have largely been a failure in this simply by the wide and easy availability of restricted weapons.

Base logic? Please explain to me how you arrive at the conclusion that the gun registry is and will be a complete failure using only logical inference. This ought to be good.

Sorry, but I'm getting the idea here that you really aren't interested in any kind of evidence, ideas, or information, that you're basically trolling and playing games. I long ago lost interest in the Socratic game of asking endless questions as a form of debate. I'm really not interested in that kind of a nonsense discussion.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Please explain. Your communications skills are sorely lacking.

It's really quite clear. You wrote:

You don't need statistical information to support the view that the money being spent on the gun registry is a waste of time. You don't need statistical evidence to know it will do little or nothing to combat gun crime. All you need is basic logic and logical inference.

But then you invoked two statistical claims:

We know that the vast majority of such crime is done with restricted weapons.

wide and easy availability of restricted weapons.

So you claim that you don't require statistical evidence, but then make two statistical claims. Why? If they aren't needed, why did you include them? I would suggest that they serve a purely rhetorical purpose.

If you really don't require statistical evidence, construct an argument without any mention of statistical evidence and prove me wrong.

Sorry, but I'm getting the idea here that you really aren't interested in any kind of evidence, ideas, or information, that you're basically trolling and playing games.

No, I've merely raised the point that your conclusions do not, and can not, follow from "basic logic and logical inference." Why? Because the type of conclusion you are attemtping to foist upon us absolutely requires statistical evidence. Evidence which you have not (and, I think, could not) provide.

If you read my replies to Kimmy, you will see why I think that any appeal to crime rates is doomed to be a complete non sequitur. You didn't address any of the points I made, leading me to believe that your own criticism is more aptly applied to yourself.

The logical inference you are making is not deductive, but rather inductive. And for an inductive inference to hold, you need evidence of some sort.

[Argus]

Please explain. Your communications skills are sorely lacking.

It's really quite clear. You wrote:

You don't need statistical information to support the view that the money being spent on the gun registry is a waste of time. You don't need statistical evidence to know it will do little or nothing to combat gun crime. All you need is basic logic and logical inference.

But then you invoked two statistical claims:

We know that the vast majority of such crime is done with restricted weapons.

wide and easy availability of restricted weapons.

So you claim that you don't require statistical evidence, but then make two statistical claims. Why? If they aren't needed, why did you include them? I would suggest that they serve a purely rhetorical purpose.

I'm not interested in engaging in this kind of pedantic foolishness. You clearly have no interest in the actual topic under discussion. And I have no interest in playing word games.

[I Miss Trudeau]

And I have no interest in playing word games.

Yet that is exactly what you did.

When it became clear that others did not share the same interpretation of the statistics as you did, you tried to imply that any opposition to your view was irrational. And when I call you on that, you accuse me of playing word games?

I'm not interested in engaging in this sort of pedantic foolishness.

[CAGERATTLER]

You don't defend a billion dollar program by suggesting that it "might" have saved lives - perhaps. Due to demographics crime has dropped both here and in the United States. That has nothing to do with the long gun registry.

Hint:: The long gun registry did not cost one billion as it is only one part of the gun control program.

Stop the lying if you cannot make a point without lying about it the party you support can't have any real good policies for you to rant about!

[kimmy]

Hint:: The long gun registry did not cost one billion as it is only one part of the gun control program.

You're quite mistaken. The gun registry's cost overruns are not inclusive of other gun control programs.

-k

[Trial-and-Error]

Cagerattler, I'm all for gun control. Stronger, even, if I had my way, this country would be purged of all firearms. Any foreigner trying to enter Canada with a firearm would be denied access to this country for 25 years--no exceptions, no excuses; caught with a firearm, you're out of here. (I'm still working on an appropriate punishment for Canucks caught gun smuggling.)

As for the cost overruns on the Liberals' gun registry program, I'm not just a mite suspicious of where all the money went. We may never know. The Liberals just as the Conservatives before them have a good deal of splainin' to do--but we all know we'll never get to the root of government corruption. And we the public are the best enablers to the worst politicians.

The gun registry to date has been pure farce.

[Argus]

You don't defend a billion dollar program by suggesting that it "might" have saved lives - perhaps. Due to demographics crime has dropped both here and in the United States. That has nothing to do with the long gun registry.

Hint:: The long gun registry did not cost one billion as it is only one part of the gun control program.

You couldn't buy a hint, and the only rattling I think you do is the one your mommy tosses in your crib in the mornings.

Stop the lying if you cannot make a point without lying about it the party you support can't have  any real good policies for you to rant about!

So defensive! Is it starting to get embarrassing, being known as a supporter of corruption and theft?

[Fortunata]

I have a problem with the gun registry inasmuch as it doesn't go far enough. It should have included ballistics on all weapons that were registered. A serial number can't tell you as much as ballistics.