Sometimes political arguments amaze me. Listening to debate on certain issues makes one wonder whatever happened to logic and reason. Perhaps those things are no longer taught in schools, or maybe the will to win a point is stronger than common sense for many people. In either event the net result is a dumbing down of society and the attendant poor results that are liable to come from the political process.
One could make this argument using the Tea Party silliness in the U.S. where hordes of people are being manipulated with fear and half-truths to the benefit of a system that exploits them. However, closer to home in Canada there are two recent issues that are worth noting in this regard. One is the carbon tax folly in B.C. that flared up a couple of years ago and is still simmering. Another is the never ending struggle by some to ban firearms from the country.
At the root of the carbon tax issue lies the officially unstated, even unrecognized, problem that human society has out grown its living space and has become a cancer in the global web of life. The over use of carbon fuel is but one symptom of this problem, a symptom that many scientists agree is connected to human activity.
Debate on the relevance of this problem aside, the method put forward by many economists and the B.C. government was one that defies logic. Who knows what motivated the economists and the environmentalists who suckered into the plan? But, what motivated the B.C. government was to appear to deal with a problem while at the same time protecting the economic interests of the corporations that fund them.
A paltry tax on carbon at the user end is a joke. Even a higher tax would be insufficient as it allows for choice and makes for variable and uncertain results in an area where exact and certain results are required.
An honest and logical approach to limiting carbon emissions would be to directly limit the amount of carbon fuel available for use through controls on extraction of coal, oil and gas, on imports and refining and sales of same. This of course would raise the issue of fairness which would then bring up the issue of rationing and price controls. And, it would stop growth in the carbon fuel industries as well as reduce economic activity and thus profits related to or dependent upon those industries.
The corporate world did not buy the B.C. government to do something like that. And the B.C. government is not going to cooperate with environmental groups that do not buy into their carbon tax scam. So, we get lots of hype divorced from reality on a program meant to pacify people, not help them.
Advertising
When it comes to firearms there is no doubt in a rational and progressive society that there needs to be effective safeguards. Unfortunately in Canada the issue has moved from safe and effective possession and use to the realm of fear and fantasy. The current issue over the registration of long guns is a case in point.
The history of gun control in the country has been one of moving from one justification to another as each proceeding one is demolished. Now, according to the proponents of the registry, long guns seem to be a major threat to society and a registry will help cure the problem. We are told that supporting the registry is supporting safety for women. Statistics are presented out of context to make this and other supporting points.
The first thing missed in arguments for the registry is that the amount of injury caused by long guns relative to other preventable causes is less and the question arises if spending any amount of money on the registry can be justified over spending it elsewhere where there is a better chance of reducing harm.
Spousal homicides over the past decade or so (based on 2006 data) have been less than 100 per year, with the majority of victims being women. Less than a third of these homicides were committed with firearms. This holds true for all homicides in Canada. In addition, handguns, which are far more regulated than long guns, count for 60 per cent or more of firearm related homicides. The incidence of homicide with long guns is relatively small.
Another thing missed is the role of alcohol. Alcohol is responsible for far more preventable injury in Canada than firearms, and no doubt some of the firearm statistics really have more to do with the use of alcohol than firearms. If we were to factor out the firearm incidences directly related to the consumption of alcohol the number would probably drop even more.
The pro-registration argument likes to cite dropping homicide rates as proof that the registration is working. However, there is no real proof that the two are related. Homicide rates have been dropping for over 30 years, even before any long gun registry.
There is also the misleading argument that the police support the registry. No doubt some do, but not all. There has been a survey showing thousands do not. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support the registry, too, but not all Chiefs of Police. Said support is also subject to political pressure, and it is alleged that the Association receives financial support from the company that is the software contractor for the gun registry.
The argument is also made that the registry is accessed thousands of times a day. So what. That does not tell us what effect, if any, such access has on reducing firearm violence. In fact it does not tell us even if the access was related to firearms at all or just another way to get information on an individual. Good police will use every tool that they have to get information, that does not necessarily mean that the tool is serving its intended purpose, or that some other tool won't do the job as well or better.
Another argument made to support the registry is that we license automobiles, why not guns. But registering automobiles is conditional. If it sits in your garage or on your farm and is not used in public, you do not have to license it. If the two were comparable the registry would only be for firearms to be used in public. That is not the case.
The biggest supporter of the registry is irrational fear of the danger posed by long guns. The pro-registry side arguments lack real concrete connection to any specific amount of harm reduction that can be proven makes this clear.
Since the given reasons for the registry are full of holes, and since a well-designed possession and user licensing program would meet all of the stated reasons for having a registry, and do it more effectively, and get much wider support, one wonders what lies behind this push for registration.
In the case of the long gun registry, as in the carbon tax folly, we have real problems being evaded by smoke and mirrors for political purposes. Sadly many are taken in by the illusions presented.
Jerry West is the publisher, editor and janitor for The Record, an independent, progressive regional publication for Nootka Sound and Canada's West Coast.
Hunters,farmers protecting their crops and livestock,citizens living in rural towns..
There is no doubt that there are legitimate law abiding gun owners in Canada.
For hunting enthusiasts,I don't see why registering their firearms while renewing their hunting liscences would be inconvenient or a blatant compromise of their individual rights.
We all have to renew our driver's liscences,our medicare cards and in some cases,our pets.
I don't see why a registry would cost more,be any more inconvenient or any more personally intrusive than renewing one's driver's liscence.
In the case of cost,if the bill is going to cost $1 billion a year as some people believe,the registry would be a colossal waste of tax money,inefficient and undesirable.
Apparently the real cost of the registry is less than one-tenth of the $1 billion mark.
The registry needs to be ammended,not scrapped.
I live in urban Canada,not rural Canada...I don't want an American NRA policy in my city.
My brother lives outside of Detroit,he and my sister-in-law went to a yard sale and to the shock of my Canadian brother,hand guns were on sale.
No registry,no liscence,no background check..nothing.
I have been to the United States hundreds of times....I strongly suggest to Canadians who believe we have a crime problem , to visit Detroit,Chicago,NYC,DC,Philadelphia,St.Louis, Baltimore,Oakland,San Francisco,Los Angeles or New Orleans.
Then come back and complain about our crime rate.
When you live or visit a society where guns (hand guns and automatic weapons for example) are more accessible than health care...Where neighbourhoods are bonafide war zones,where shooting sprees happen every other month,where walking in the wrong direction can put your life at risk,anyone who is NOT dead from the neck up will instantly recognize there is something wrong with that picture.
And the rallying call from the NRA in the States and the American wannabes in Canada is the relentless brush off of 'Guns don't kill people..People kill people'
And what is the point of a gun again?
It makes a good back scratcher?....It adds inches to one's manhood?
The U.S. can never toughen up their gun laws...Not because gun laws are some sort of leftist conspiracy but because the United States has the right to bear arms explicitly written in their constitution.
Because of that,the NRA will always win any campaign against anyone trying to touch that particular ammendment.
Somehow,Canadians are acting as if that ammendment applied to Canadians as well...It doesn't.
And there is nothing in our Charter of Rights which even remotely mentions anything of the kind.
There should be a registry but it should be as cost effective,efficient and non-intrusive as renewing one's driving liscence.
And Canada should continue to keep handguns HEAVILY regulated.
Alan, the only registry that makes sense is recording the firearm at the time of sale. Beyond that every purported benefit is redundant and not worth the price or intrusiveness, at any cost.
A good possession and licensing program for individuals, complete with background checks is sufficient to make legal possession of firearms as safe as possible. Most Canadians would support this. Most do not support the registry.
The problems that you mention in the US are not problems in Canada. Almost no one is asking for the wide open, unregulated trade in firearms that they have down there. And, we have a different culture, and almost no problem with firearms, regulated or not.
This gun registry can be thanked for at least two things, resources taken from women's centres and other more useful programs to address violence, and possibly a Conservative majority in the next election.
As for comparison to a driver's license, it is not comparable. It is comparable to vehicle registration. Of course we only register vehicles that are operated on public land, to be really comparable with that we would only register firearms to be use on public property. Then there are the provisions for search and seizure that are different for vehicles.
OK..My bad.
I thought the registry WAS liscencing and background checks.
Then what exactly is the registry?
And are we still talking about long guns or are we talking about hand guns and automatics?
I'm still a little confused how the registry somehow takes resources away from women's groups...Didn't Harper already cut resources from womens centres?
And I think it's naive to believe that unregulated firearms would not be a problem in Canada.
What's different with Americans?...Is it something in their water?
No..they are a product of a socially injust system with HUGE poverty issues and a terrible education system.
Give a large portion of despaired and marginal groups in a city,state or country unregulated access to hand guns,automatic high calibre firearms and you end up with a violent and cold culture with absolutely no respect for human life.
It can and it will happen here if Harper's conservatives get their way and we end up with a U.S. style gun policy,a U.S. style social policy and a U.S. style justice system.
No thanks.
I thought the registry WAS liscencing and background checks.
It is registering of a tool, there may be a check when registering one, but that is already covered in the possession permit one must have to even register one. In this case we are only talking about long guns, which is the extra, redundant, beaucracy that has put in place. Hand guns and automatics are covered by laws regulating prohibited and restricted firearms and almost no one at this point has an issue with those.
[quote}
I'm still a little confused how the registry somehow takes resources away from women's groups...
Because it sucks up resources that could be used for those or other programs that would have more effect on reducing violence than the redundant registry which addressess, in Canadian context, a very small problem. The argument that it doesn't cost that much ($2-4 million per year from what I have recently read) is a dumb argument since at any price it is a waste of resources.
And I think it's naive to believe that unregulated firearms would not be a problem in Canada.
This presumes that regulation makes much of a difference. Most problem firearms are illegally possessed and outside of the system, that is where the real problem lies. The registry doesn't change that as long as possession licensing remains in place. Are registry fans willing to trade away possession licensing for the registry? If not, the registry is redundant for most purposes. Then there is the issue of the size of the problem, which is small.
It is also wrong to assume that registering firearms makes much difference in keeping firearms out of the hands of anyone who really wants them, anymore that prohibition kept people from getting alcohol or drugs or an abortion if they really wanted to.
Regulated possession and use is a good thing, very few would argue against that, but registration of long guns, again, does hardly anything for improving safety or reducing violence. The statistics usually cited to show that it does are not conclusive, often misleading and subject to alternative interpreations.
The sad part about Harper's conservatives getting their way is that the result of this latest registry incident is likely to strengthen the Conservative voter base in key districts, mainly where the NDP is the other major player, and give Harper a bigger caucus at the expense of the NDP. Any Liberals now holding seats in districts where the registry is a liability are now also at risk. Consider about 2/3 of the country opposes the registry.
Conservative strategists must be celebrating this week.
The US, by the way, is not quite as bad as you paint it, which is not to say that it is good, but there are a lot of good people down there working to make changes. The big problem for both countries is the economic system and the social system that comes from that. Very little will be changed in a progressive direction until we are willing in mainstream politics to raise this issue and take on that system and the wealth behind it.