25 September 2008

I sure hope the Toronto Sun...

...has a separate fuse panel for their switchboard... because Peter Worthington just did it again... yeah, the simple truth...

Toronto -- Canada, in fact -- has had an effective ban on handguns since 1934, when mandatory registration was imposed and ownership made relatively strict and selective.

And for most of those 74 years of handgun registration, abuses were manageable, with indiscriminate and organized shootings relatively rare -- unlike today, when weddings, funerals, parties, nightclubs, and school functions have become dangerous.

Is it not valid to assess which elements of the city's population are using guns to settle disputes, or are using them as status symbols and causing unimaginable grief and misery to families whose kids are having their lives cut short or irreparably damaged due to being shot?

Do these people not deserve protection from the gunslingers?

The police know the tenderloin areas, the danger spots. They may even know, or think they know, individuals and gangs that do the shooting -- but are unable to act because, well, because that could be called "profiling" or discriminatory.

If the excessive use of guns is a disease in some cities, surely the disease needs to be diagnosed before a cure can be found. And a diagnosis will inevitable raise the question of drugs, territorial disputes, intimidation, revenge, ethnicity and cultural background.

Instituting a ban of handguns will change nothing. It is not even treating the symptom of the disease. As has been said before, banning guns because innocent people (and some not so innocent) are being shot, is like blaming pens and pencils for spelling mistakes that people make.
Okay, everybody get under their desks... this is gonna get ugly.

**********

RELATED: "If only there was some sort of law..."
-- TORONTO -- A man is facing multiple drugs and weapons charges after a brazen afternoon shooting in the heart of downtown Toronto.

Shots were fired at Yonge and Alexander Streets at around 5:30 p.m., at a time when people were heading home from work and school for the day.
**********

FROM THE COMMENTS:
"Here's one for you, complicated for the left to understand, but one that will work."

"Less leftist cuddling criminals = less criminals."
**********

LAST WORD: Wake up... and smell the moonbats

*


50 comments:

ddt said...

Come on. Everyone knows its Mike Harris' fault.

Anonymous said...

What part of "Less Guns = Less Gun Crime" are you unable to understand?

ddt said...

Anon: It isn't the gun it is the criminal. A rock isn't a weapon until I pick it up and throw it at someone.

Anonymous said...

It's that damn global warming, I tell ya..

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon, lacking facts, goes instead for sarcasm... What part of "Less Guns = Less Gun Crime" are you unable to understand?"

well, nonny... i guess i'm gonna have to go with this part here...

In 2003, there were 161 gun homicides in Canada. Assuming that each shooting involved a separate gun we can calculate what percentage of Canadian guns were involved in these murders. If we take the official figure of seven million guns we get (161/7,000,000 = 0.000023 or .0023%).

Only 23 ten thousandths of 1% of the Canadian gun stock was involved in a homicide.

that work for you, scooby?

you really think the 2 billion plus dollars the fiberals blew on the "farmer bob rifle registry" made any sort of an impression on the "bangers" committing these murders?

and, my fuzzy-bunny friend... that's not a rhetorical question.

*

Honey Pot said...

Simple equation from the simple left. Less guns=less crime.

Here's one for you, complicated for the left to understand, but one that will work. less leftist cuddling criminals = less criminals.

Anonymous said...

Has the gun registry ever solved one crime?
Just wondering.

Pongo said...

The less guns = less crime is a tired old canard that is tossed out by people like anonymous who are very poorly informed. However, to be fair, here is a question for anonymous: if less guns = less crime, how many fewer guns must there be to see a demonstrable reduction in crime?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"pongo asks... how many fewer guns must there be to see a demonstrable reduction in crime?"

well, that's actually not the real issue, is it?

"Only 23 ten thousandths of 1% of the Canadian gun stock was involved in a homicide."

my guns aren't committing any crimes... are yours?

how about asking, "how many fewer criminals with illegal, unregistered guns must there be..."?

oh wait... this is canada... we're not allowed to do that.

*

Anonymous said...

if less guns = less crime, how many fewer guns must there be to see a demonstrable reduction in crime?
The US has about 7 times the handguns as Canada. It has 14 times the handgun murder rate. Link

It would seem reducing handguns per capita reduces the handgun murder per captita by twice as much.

That would seem pretty demonstrable, no?

Anonymous said...

Apples to oranges, anon. The US, aside from having a gargantuan population compared to Canada, also has a comparatively large criminal element. Do you SERIOUSLY think that taking guns away from the average citizen will have ANY effect WHATSOEVER on the crimes committed with handguns? Do you REALLY think that would-be criminals are buying their weapons through legal channels???

All a handgun ban would do is remove the ability for average citizens to protect themselves. When you ban guns the only ones that will still have them are the criminals...

-- bob

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... It has 14 times the handgun murder rate."

it has 14 times the criminals.

*

Pongo said...

We are not living in the US and the question I put to you is how many fewer guns must there be to see a demonstrable reduction in crime. Your glib reply about rates of gun ownership and gun crime in the US is irrelevant. Furthermore, correlating levels of gun ownership and gun crime this way and concluding that more guns = more crime is a common fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc. You have no more demonstrated that higher levels of gun ownership = more crime than someone who correlates the consumption of diet pop with levels of obesity, i.e., since more obese people drink diet pop than non-obese people, it follows that restricting consumption of diet pop = less obesity among the population.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"pongo says... restricting consumption of diet pop = less obesity among the population."

nice thesis, pongo... but you're obviously wasting your breath here.

if this guy chooses to disregard the fact that none of these thugs is the registered owner of a legal gun... he's just standing there with his fingers in his ears shouting... "nah, nah, nah... i can't hear you."

and nonny... the only thing that's "pretty demonstrable" here, is your reluctance to face the reality of the situation.

you really drank that kooky wendy cukier kool-ade, huh?

*

Pongo said...

Anon's crooked thinking does resemble that of Cukier. It was Cukier who was comparing rates of FACs issued to that of dog adoptions from the Toronto SPCA and getting in an awful uproar over the fact that fewer people were refused FACs than were people refused adoptions of dogs from the Toronto SPCA. In Cukier's topsy turvy line of reasoning it was appalling that "it is easier to get a gun, than to get a dog from the Toronto SPCA." What the one has to do with the other she never bothered to point out.

ddt said...

It doesn't matter about the number of guns, its the willingness to use them in criminal acts. A cultural difference perhaps?

langmann said...

Of course they always go to the US for their numbers, disregarding the huge number of poor illegal immigrants, and culture of complacently and subsidies that have been going on down there.

Whenever you point out a another civilized country with more guns per capita but less shootings per capita, they always change the subject.

Its not worth it. You cannot argue with a delusion.

Sammy said...

Along the 'profiling' line..now the msm has their panties in a knot,over Calgary..you guessed it ..Conservative..candidate,that dared to speak the truth! what is it about no one wanting to openly admit,that there ARE an over abundance of crimes committed by immigrants? Wpg has a terrible gang of African immigrants 'the Mad Cowz' and it is reported as such.Why can't cbc,ctv etc do the same?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"langmann says... You cannot argue with a delusion."

aptly put.

the shopworn truism, "you might as well reason with a cat" immediately comes to mind.

for the left, the word "critical"... as in "critical thinking"... is clearly a curse word.

*

*

Neo Conservative said...

*
"sammy says... a terrible gang of African immigrants 'the Mad Cowz'..."

now, sammy... you have got to be shittin' me... even kurt vonnegut couldn't have come up with 'the Mad Cowz'.

next you're gonna try tell me about the big rumble they had... with their cross-town arch-rivals... 'the rabid squirrelz'.

*

arctic_front said...

You hit the head, Langman.

Facts and reality just don't seem to matter much to the anti-gun crowd. Things like reality just seem to get in the way of clear thinking.

The fact that, of the 40 states that have allowed concealed-carry, to law abiding citizens, the crime rate has dropped measurably. I guess those kinds of facts are ignored to promote this silly 'less guns equals less crime' nonsense.

Criminals WILL posses guns.... regardless of the law..... a simple concept to anybody with a brain. A law-abiding citizen is not a criminal.... therefore, not a criminal. Ergo, citizen with gun = no threat. criminal who ignores the law, and has gun = major threat.

Ergo, taking guns away from good citizens does not equate to less crime.... It really IS that SIMPLE...

However, logic is not a trait commonly found amongst the left... Who knew??

Use your brain... use facts.... think clearly.

philosoraptor said...

Criminals WILL posses guns

Why? Where do the guns come from?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon plaintively asks... Why? Where do the guns come from?"

hey, scooby... read slower... the answer is being posted for the third time in this thread... and it is... "not from legal owners of registered canadian guns".

"Only 23 ten thousandths of 1% of the Canadian gun stock was involved in a homicide."

the guns are smuggled in over our borders... and before you suggest yet another ban... i should mention gun-running is already illegal in canada too.

the thing is, these guys are what we conservatives refer to as... "criminals"... and they tend not to respect the law. and that's why we, unlike the fiberals, want to put them in prison.

see... if the chretien mafia had spent that two billion dollars they wasted on the "farmer bob rifle registry"... on the "customs & immigration" systems and personnel... we wouldn't have this problem.

so you can continue to try put this mess on legal owners of registered guns... or you can take your head outta yer ass... and realise what the issue really is here.

yup... that's right, you finally get it, huh?

it's. the. criminals.

*

philosoraptor said...

So why are we not putting resources into stemming the tide of gun smuggling, then?

Thanks for the patronizing tone, though. I'll remind you that you don't know a thing about me, despite your very clearly overinflated confidence. If you can provide answers to the questions and save the childish vitriol, that would be great. Thanks.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"philosoraptor says... you don't know a thing about me... provide answers to the questions and save the childish vitriol"

hmmm, philo... sounds like somebody got up on the wrong side of the futon.

see, what i do know... is that despite having the answer already provided here twice prior to your last post... you apparently needed a fuller explanation.

unless of course, like so many of my usual leftbot trolls... you didn't actually need the answer... but were playing dumb and attempting to get under my skin.

there is no vitriol here, my friend... if anything, you have today... more than once... put a smile on my horribly disfigured neo-con face.

but hey... c'mon back soon... it's been a slice.

*

Anonymous said...

We are not living in the US and the question I put to you is how many fewer guns must there be to see a demonstrable reduction in crime.
Cut the number of handguns in half, the number of handgun murders is quartered is what I stated. You did not define "demonstrable", and until you do, I can't give you a number of guns. If quartering the handgun murder rate is "demonstrable", then reducing handguns by one half million would do this.

Your glib reply about rates of gun ownership and gun crime in the US is irrelevant.
Your flame bait aside, the US is right next to us. Another commenter did not understand that I was referring to per-capita rates which factor out the population difference. Seven times the per capita handgun rate, fourteen times the per capita handgun murder rate.

Furthermore, correlating levels of gun ownership and gun crime this way and concluding that more guns = more crime is a common fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Well it was worth commenting here. I got to look up "post hoc ergo propter hoc". I only knew it as "correlation does not prove causation". Now I have a nice Latin phrase no doubt supplied by some ivory tower elitist.

Your claiming it is a fallacy does not make it so. Are you an unemployed tobacco lawyer? Because it is still not actually proven that smoking causes cancer. Correlation does not prove causation, but it is a strong indicator. Lack of correlation will disprove causation though.

Since you are so full of nuance today, contrary to the usual spewing of talking points, the "nuance" in this argument is that correlation can indicate causation. It should not be simply ignored when the things being correlated mathematically are actually related in reality.

I think owning handguns and handgun murders are sufficiently related that correlation should not be dismissed out of hand, as you have chosen to. After all, every handgun murder involves a handgun, and someone owns it, so they are not unrelated.

You have no more demonstrated that higher levels of gun ownership = more crime than someone who correlates the consumption of diet pop with levels of obesity, i.e., since more obese people drink diet pop than non-obese people, it follows that restricting consumption of diet pop = less obesity among the population.
You should research your straw men before you present them. It seems there is a link. Link.

In the soft drink case, the correlation is thought to be related to the artificial sweeteners increasing one's desire for high calorie foods.

In the gun case, it is simply the fact that more guns creates more chances someone will use one. It is a reasonable explanation.

Whenever you point out a another civilized country with more guns per capita but less shootings per capita, they always change the subject.
Like Switzerland, with its mandatory military service and rifles issued to all. Those are not handguns. Plus you can't get more bullets than the bullets you are issued.

Its not worth it. You cannot argue with a delusion.
Usually the "delusion" gambit is trotted out when you are losing the argument.

The fact that, of the 40 states that have allowed concealed-carry, to law abiding citizens, the crime rate has dropped measurably.
Ha ha ha! You should talk with "pongo" about "post hoc ergo propter hoc". It seems we cannot simply assume causation as you would have us do.

With open borders between states, you will see the crime shift to where the pickings seem easier. When all states are concealed carry, the rates will go back up.
Plus, they don't count accidents as crimes.

I guess those kinds of facts are ignored to promote this silly 'less guns equals less crime' nonsense.
I guess calling it "silly" is the main argument you have.

Criminals WILL posses guns.... regardless of the law..... a simple concept to anybody with a brain.
Flame bait aside, criminals find it harder to possess handguns and ammo when nobody is allowed to have them. You can't steal them from owners if they don't have them. You can't steal them from dealers if there aren't any.

A law-abiding citizen is not a criminal.... therefore, not a criminal. Ergo, citizen with gun = no threat.
False conclusion, much? They are a threat because their handguns can be stolen.

criminal who ignores the law, and has gun = major threat.
Of course. And if I know that anyone with a handgun must be a criminal, I won't hesitate to take them down any way I can. If they might have a license, then I will be much more hesitant, since I would be considered to be harassing them should I do anything and they turn out to be legal.

Ergo, taking guns away from good citizens does not equate to less crime.... It really IS that SIMPLE...
The discussion from the post was handguns, not guns in general. You can protect your home with a shotgun or a rifle just fine.

Handguns need to be considered radioactive by the criminals. Extra punishment for their use in crime is one part, which everyone here probably agrees with. The other part is making it a crime simply to have them.

philosoraptor said...

neo:

In the interests of full disclosure, I have my restricted PAL and I own two handguns: a browning .22 and a 9mm. Now that we have that out of the way, I'm not the enemy on this issue. I'm also not a gun nut. I have enjoyed hunting in the past, and I still enjoy target shooting when I get the chance.

I just asked a simple question relating to what measures are being taken to address the flow of illegal guns into the country. Personally, I'm all for the level of registration we have now. I don't think the gun registry is a danger to the social fabric, but that's not the conversation I wanted to have. I was just curious what anyone knows about anti-smuggling measures, and why we don't hear anything about addressing this very obvious side of the issue.

Tougher penalties only work up to a point. That's been shown. The CPC wants to be the tough on crime party, so these measures have good optics. If we seriously wanted to curb gun crime, we would be making smuggling a major issue as well.

philosoraptor said...

As I'm sure you know, when I use the word 'we', I'm using the royal 'we'. I'm not a CPC supporter, but I don't see any of the parties talking about smuggling.

I think that the money (or a fraction of it) that is being spent on tougher penalties and more jail space would be better spent on tackling cross-border gun smuggling.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon wrote an essay just to get to... The other part is making it a crime simply to have them."

it already is.

it has been... since 1934.

none of these thugs are using legal, registered guns.

they break the law the second they touch these guns.

taking away my registered, perfectly legal guns... will prevent not a single thuggish crime from being perpetrated.

say it with me, scooby...

"it's. the. criminals."

*

Honey Pot said...

Minute men at the Canadian borders?

Phil are you suggesting that other cultures, such as...I don't know...American, or say Jamacian, are importing the criminal element into Canada? The cultures are too violent for the meek Canadian citizens not to be lining up to adopt?

Someone just got their ass reamed for that today, for suggesting, it is something that perhaps should be looked at.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"philosoraptor asks... I just asked a simple question relating to what measures are being taken to address the flow of illegal guns into the country."

and the simple answer is... the fiberals continue to stall and obstruct conservative "tough on crime" measures in the senate.

so, yeah... there actually is a scary, hidden conservative aganda... "It's true, Stephen Harper should scare you stupid... if you're a violent, unrepentant thug."

remember philo... friends (especially gun-owning friends) don't let friends vote lberal.

*

philosoraptor said...

All I'm saying is that the guns get into the country somehow. They are either a) manufactured here, b) smuggled here, or c) stolen from legal owners. Guns don't just tunnel over the border (by digging, or quantum mechanically - well, the latter only with vanishingly small probability). They are brought into the country from somewhere.

Between a, b, and c, there are is a whole range of measures that could be taken if we were serious about addressing gun crime. Tougher penalties only work up to a point, and they avoid all of these other possible ways to get a handle on the situation. If it is mainly a), then we should look at tighter manufacturing control, or put some onus on the manufacturers. If it's mainly b), then we should be talking about improved border security, or joint programs with the Americans -- hell, they export their drug war over here, so surely we can ask for some leeway on this issue. If it's mainly c), then we need to make sure we're only giving guns to people who know how to use and store them properly. The registry is supposed to fit in somewhere in c) - but I'm not interested in debating the registry. I'm interested in finding out what the status is of the other sources of illegal guns.

Someone just got their ass reamed for that today, for suggesting, it is something that perhaps should be looked at.

I'm not even going to have this conversation. 1) All types of people commit crimes, from all over the world and from within our own country, Caucasian or not, and 2) as I said, the guns get here somehow.

philosoraptor said...

By the way, it's okay to say that either you don't know about what is being done to address the other sources of illegal guns, or that you've never heard anyone mention it. I don't need to hear partisan justifications for everything. It's clear to me that this debate is purely political. It is only ever about tougher punishments for crimes after the fact, or abolishing the gun registry. Everyone and their dog is aware of the talking points, and no one is surprised when CPC supporters blame it on the 'fiberals' blocking legislation. Putting all of that aside, I have not seen an honest attempt by anyone to address this problem except with their own particular ideological pet measures.

I'm beginning to think it's in the interest of all parties just to keep the issue around.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"philosoraptor says... They are brought into the country from somewhere."

see, philo... you're doing it again.

all i can say... to avoid being accused of being "patronising" yet again, is... "asked and answered".

*

Neo Conservative said...

*
"philosoraptor gets in the double-tap... It is only ever about tougher punishments for crimes after the fact"

as opposed to what, philo... more social workers?

from what i'm seeing these days... that liberal "lighter punishments" thing sure hasn't been working out as well as people mighta hoped.

did i miss out on your solution, somewhere here?

*

philosoraptor said...

All that you told me was that everything is due to criminals. That's not very insightful, or at least, it is skipping the details that would help in addressing this.

I'm not asking who's responsible, I'm asking why we're not seeing more money or political effort going towards these other very obvious sources, rather than just tougher penalties. The people that smuggle guns into the country don't get the tougher penalties, and I doubt they would care if they did. We need to stop the smuggling in a more direct way than just attempting to deter it indirectly with increased penalties.

Everyone here is so sure of themselves, they just keep repeating themselves rather than answering my initial question: What has anyone proposed about addressing smuggling, working with manufacturers, or working with the Americans? I'm referring specifically to measures that aren't simply increased penalties. If no one knows of anything, then just say so; I don't understand what is so hard about that - I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. It's less embarrassing overall. Jeeebus. It's not ALL a hyper-partisan fight.

And if someone has a reference, include it, don't just claim that my question has been answered. Clearly, I can't find the reference upthread, or anywhere else.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"philosoraptor says... We need to stop the smuggling in a more direct way..."

well... we could try killing the smugglers and putting their heads on sharpened pikes all along the 49th parallel... that's pretty, uh... direct... and, if i'm not mis-remembering those old tarzan movies from my childhood... really got people's attention.

hey... that is fun.

your turn.

*

Honey Pot said...

Phil, you are trying to suggest that we arrest the guns. It is the guns responsibilty that the crime has been committed.

A gun is an inanimate object. It cannot do anything on its own, it like other inanimate objects needs a life form attached to it, to make it perform.

Phil, I find your thought patterns incongruent, in that you can't seem to grasp that concept.

You have to look at the root of the problem, which would be the life form, in this case the criminal, that makes the gun kill.

If they didn't have guns, they would use another weapon to kill. Like a knife, or car. We can't ban knives, and though the glowtards would like to ban cars, it ain't gonna happen.

It is faulty thinking to want to live in a country where only criminals and government appointed officals have the right to guns.

Neo Conservative said...

*
okay, okay... mrs neo just read over the thread and suggests that philo is actually trying to initiate a conversation about the matter at hand... which, these days, given dawg and cc and my own personal troll... is not something to be sneered at.

philo... we got off to a bad start here... so if you think you'd like to try again, we can do that. the point being... i'm not simply running an echo chamber here.

maybe one or two issues at a time will keep the confusion to a minimum.

*

Honey Pot said...

The criminal element is well organized. Anyone have any idea how many illegal guns get into the hands of the Toronto street scum? How many illegal guns are being imported? Are we talking hundreds? thousands? Does every little snot nose gangsta in Toronto have one? Are they positive they are coming from the states? Could it be Europe, China,Cuba, the ME? We do have ships coming in to our ports daily.And cargo planes. Is every gun used in a Toronto killing, an import?

langmann said...

philosoraptor said...
Criminals WILL posses guns

Why? Where do the guns come from?



Man are you actually trying to make a point or are you trolling?

Where does cocaine come from, meth, pot, opioids etc.? I sure see enough of it on a shift.

Where do stolen cars come from that drive over people? Or knives and metal bars? Where do the drunk drivers get their alcohol from before they run someone down?

People are inventive. Criminals will find a way or make a way.

Catch them, convict them, and put them in jail for a long time. Why? Because the real evidence is that people who frequently commit crimes are likely to do so again. Targeting the 1/10000th owners of handguns, the people who use metal bars to build basements, and the folks who have a drink on friday night at home is not the answer.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"langmann says... Targeting the 1/10000th owners of handguns..."

or, as the liberals did... targeting farmers, hunters and recreational shooters... but i digress.

there is a pressing need to do away with the prevailing, in the media anyway, "catch & release" mentality.

simply put... serious crimes should have serious consequences.

and, as i very often say to mrs n... stop me if you've heard this before...

"Someone, for the love of God tell me, how does a 2 billion dollar rifle registry (remember... handguns have required registration since the 1930's) that targets farmers, hunters and target shooters, stop a piece of shit career thug like Jeremiah Valentine?"

let's get serious.

*

Thucydides said...

Switzerland should be mentioned far more often whenever this debate is trotted out.

By law, every Swiss male must have an automatic rifle or semi automatic pistol and 200 rounds of ammunition stored in his house. Switzerland has an extremely low rate of gun crime, so availability has nothing to do with it (and for the anonymous poster who said "you can't get more bullets", all a Swiss male has to do is show up on the range and he can be issues all kinds of ammunition to replace the 200 rounds he brought from home. BTW, how many gangbangers carry even a fraction of the 200 round allotment on the street?)

Yet, by the "reasoning" of the "Progressives", there should be few people left alive in Switzerland, given the high availability of weapons and ammunition and the widespread distribution of these items.

Time to recheck these premises....

Honey Pot said...

The progressives have illogical thought patterns.

If they believe their own hysterics about global warming, and that the USA on the verge of taking all of Canada's water and sucking us dry, you would think they would be all for arming its people.


A logical tribe, a tribe that aimed to survive, would arm every man, woman and child, and ensure they have the skills necessary to shoot the eye out of weasel at 30 feet.

Just exactly how they are going to protect their little turnip patches without weapons, from other glowtardian tribes who may fall on hardtimes, should be discussed.

The tribe with the bfg's, and their people trained to use them, is going to be ruling the roost.

langmann said...

@ Thucydides: I've given up talking about examples like Switzerland. This debate is simply emotional for the lefties. At the end of the day, self defence and gunpowder represents the ultimate personal freedom. They hate the idea of people taking responsibility, not needing the government and being independent.

You would think they'd be 100% behind a woman being able to protect herself with the equalizer - but its not so.

They flourish in the environment of victimization.

Pongo said...

The debate is over values. Anon does not like handguns and wants to have them prohibited. We can quibble over faulty reasoning and subtle points of logic until kingdom come and still stand by our original point of view. In short, we can agree to disagree.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"pongo says... In short, we can agree to disagree."

funny... that's not what david miller, dalton mcslippery, wendy cukier... or the rest of the lunatic left is screeching.

*

Pongo said...

Wendy Cukier may have the letters Ph.D. after her name, but she is a very poor scholar. Here is a review of the Global gun epidemic: from Saturday night specials to AK-47s, the book she co-authored with Victor Seidel an American prohibitionist:

Wendy Cukier's book is akin to your average fairy tale, pure fantasy! One way that this book isn't like a fairy tale is that there is little to no entertainment factor to it. I was given an advanced copy by a prof since I'm writing a paper on small arms in the modern world. What I, a lowly student knows and obviously Miss Cukier doesn't (or doesn't want to admit) is that Criminals are the problem with the world, not inanimate objects.
The central theme of the book is that by making guns illegal, criminals will stop using them and the world will become some manner of utopia. But in order for criminals to obey the law and not use outlawed weapons . . . well I think you see where this is going.

On second thought, in case Wendy Cukier is in fact reading these reviews I'll make it more obvious. Criminals don't obey the law! If they did then there wouldn't be a need to outlaw guns! Nice little catch 22 there?

If I was a lawful gun owner in Canada (where Miss Cukier's from) I'd be insulted by her insistence that they are the problem and not criminals. It seems that the author is quite the advocate of stopping violence against women. . . as long as it's committed with a gun. It would appear that she doesn't care about beating, stabbings, or strangulation which happen to be the most common forms of violence against women.

This book is neither fit for entertainment or reference, when writing my paper I found that most of the statistics used in this book are either fabrications or taken totally out of context. The bulk of her data comes from supposed Canadian statistics, but Stats Canada (the official government statistics bureau) contradicts nearly all of her facts, or shows that they have been exaggerated.

This book is a crime in itself by trivializing the nature of violence by blaming hunks of wood, plastic, and metal instead of the human nature.

The review was written by a student in the UK who had never heard of Cukier or the Coalition for Gun Control. The review and others like it can be found at this link: http://www.amazon.ca/review/product/0275982564/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Pongo said...

I will add one final comment regarding the folly of claiming a causal link when a positive correlation is established between two phenomena. I am doing this with my tongue firmly in cheek. The example I cite is published in a text book on statistical analysis. Here goes: when birth rates in northern European countries were correlated with numbers of storks it was found that where there are more storks more babies are born. Hence, it may be true after all that storks bring babies. However, this does not necessarily mean that storks bring babies, but in accordance with Anon's reasoning, this correlation is a "strong indicator" that this is so.

If you take a closer look at birth rates and storks in northern European countries, what you find is that storks nest on rooftops in cities. There are more people living in cities than in the countryside, hence more babies are born in cities than in the countryside. The higher numbers of storks present where higher numbers of babies are born is incidental and has bugger all to do with birthrates.

Neo Conservative said...

*
pongo... that book review deserved a post of its own.

thx again.

*