05 March 2008

Another CTV Moonbat Moment

Lloyd and company really outdid themselves tonight.

There was a piece that was supposed to be about the Conservatives extending the amnesty on rifles and shotguns... you know... the Liberals infamous and totally ineffectual 2 billion dollar "Farmer Bob Rifle Registry."

In the midst of a slow montage of various pictures of rifles and shotguns sitting in racks... CTV suddenly cuts to a jarring clip of a man firing an MP5 submachinegun... a restricted weapon used primarily by SWAT Teams around the world.

The obvious implication was that Stephen Harper, who apparently has no respect for human life, was loosing a plague of automatic weapons upon the land.

CTV then followed up this little stunt by showing gun control spokes-bigot Wendy Cukier claiming that long guns were responsible for the majority of gun homicides in Canada... which, I assume, would be a bit of a surprise to family and friends of the majority of Toronto murder victims.

It seems though, that wasn't enough for our friends at CTV.

When I went to their website, the article there had a picture of an AK-47 assault rifle... the weapon of choice worldwide... not for farmers, hunters or target shooters... but third world terrorists.

I suppose I should just be happy they didn't try slip in a shot of a bazooka.


UPDATE: We could try some actual facts

Both the rate of handguns and rifles/shotguns decreased in 2006, while the rate of sawed-off rifles and shotguns doubled from 2005.

It also meant that stabbing deaths outnumbered homicides involving firearms. Some 210 victims, just over one-third of the total, were killed by stabbings, 20 more than the number killed by shootings.

In 2006, handguns accounted for 108, or over half, of the 190 victims killed by a firearm. A further 36 victims were killed by a rifle/shotgun, 24 by a (totally illegal and thus not eligible for registration) sawed-off rifle/shotgun and 22 by another or unknown type of firearm.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Via reader James
Actually, the CBC's total cost figure of $2 billion for the entire gun registry "file" amounts to about $685,000 per day, which means they spent the entire initially estimated budget of $2 million, again according to the CBC, every three days, for eight years straight.

That's 20,000 man-years, to register 7 million guns. But what do I know, I'm just a software guy, I'll stick to the database system.

Corporations get sued for cost overruns on the order of tens of percent. Assuming my careful $10 million estimate is reasonable, the registry database is not 10 % over. It's not 100 % over. It's not 1,000 % over.

It's 7,500 % over

LAST WORD: Paging kooky Wendy Cukier
Of Canada's two million licensed gun owners, 111, or 0.00555%, used their firearm to murder someone.

On the other hand, in 2005, 64% of accused murderers had a prior criminal record, including 6% for homicide.


langmann said...

I currently run a webserver which has the FREE mySQL database server currently storing over 200,000 entries of complex data and thousands of addtional user data with multiple entries each.

It is all remotely accessed via this other FREE thing called the internet and is stunningly secure.

This cost me about $200, the price of the PentiumIII machine.

I can do all that for 200 bucks, and having looked at the registry forms (but not filled any out because why should I?) I have to say that extra $1,999,999,800 dollars the Liberals spent hardly seems like money well spent, especially when the Auditor General says there is no proof it has added to public safety.

Then again, spend some time in Toronto and you can see for yourself just how well its working for us.

But hey all in the name of manufacturing soundbites. Nothing sounds better to the ears of the masses then the soothing sounds of our beneficient leaders announcing more money spent on keeping the sheep safely locked up.

Neo Conservative said...

You mean, taking gopher rifles away from farmers isn't gonna solve the problem?

Does this mean we get our two billion dollars back?


Anonymous said...

Hey all,

Whenever the topic of the gun registry comes up, I'm reminded of an article Michael Campbell wrote in the Vancouver Sun, March 2nd, 2004, (alas, I couldn't find the whole article) called, "Gun Registry Not Just Mismanaged." A link that quotes a fair bit, and summarizes the rest is here:


It's worth a read. I've found the numbers dumbfound a lot of the pro-gun-registry types. Not that facts have much influence on their ilk...but there you are.


James Calhoun

The Phantom said...

Hi Neo. You boys have it right, the whole friggin' gun registry could be run off a laptop. If you gold plated everything and ran triple redundant hardware with remote locations for backup, you might be able to spend a million bucks including software. Maybe.

Did Google spend two billion to back up the whole internet? Nuh uh.

The gun registry only becomes comprehensible when you look at as an opportunity to hand out money to "friends" and punish political enemies.

Then it makes perfect sense.

Dennis said...

"a restricted weapon used primarily by SWAT Teams"

Um, I don't want to look like the one who's pickin' the fly poop outta the pepper here, but the MP5 isn't a restricted weapon, it's a prohibited weapon (Former Prohibited Weapons Order No. 13 (in effect since January 1, 1995)):

The firearms of the designs commonly known as the MP5 submachine gun and MP5 carbine, and any variants or modified versions of them, including the Heckler and Koch:

1. HK MP5;
2. HK MP5A2;
3. HK MP5A3;
4. HK MP5K;
5. HK MP5SD;
6. HK MP5SD1;
7. HK MP5SD2;
8. HK MP5SD3;
9. HK 94;
10. HK 94A2; and,
11. HK 94A3.

There's an online list here, if anybody cares to look.

Anonymous said...

We still have a gun registry. In 2 years the Tories have not moved to eliminate it. Ha Ha HA you are so owned by the CONS!

Neo Conservative said...

"dennis says... I don't want to look like the one who's pickin' the fly poop outta the pepper here"

no, dennis... you're right. the mp5 is totally prohibited.

unless you're a member of an elite swat team, or hamas... you're not likely to ever get your sweaty paws on either of these firearms.

but don't tell that to the... cough, cough... reporters at ctv.


Anonymous said...

Excellent column by Lorne Gunter earlier this week in Natiional Post:

A Handgun Ban Won't Work
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 03, 2008

Nearly 340,000 Canadians -- about 1% of the population -- were victims of violent crime in 2006, according to a Statistics Canada study released in late February. But just 8,100 were victims of a violent crime committed with a gun.

If you were the victim of a gun crime, it's probably no comfort to know you were one of "just" 8,100. Still, despite the hype, gun crime is not statistically a serious problem in Canada. Banning guns, or even restricting their use more closely, will have no appreciable impact on rates of violent crime. Knives are used in nearly three times as many violent crimes as guns, yet no one calls for a knife registry. Even blunt instruments are used more often than guns without demands that government licences be required before one may buy baseball bats and lead pipes. So why do liberal-left politicians expend so much energy trying to restrict gun ownership or even ban guns outright?

The principal reason, of course, is that modern liberalism is the victory of symbolism over substance. A public policy or law is seldom designed mostly to solve an identified problem. Its primary purpose is to reflect well on the good intentions of the person or group proposing it.

So what if laws and social programs produce no tangible benefits? They remain on the statute books and retain full funding -- complete with massive bureaucracies -- because they enable liberals to convince themselves something is being done. Activity is confused with achievement.

Gun control is constantly put forward by intellectually lazy politicians and do-gooder activists because attempting to restrict gun ownership is easier than taking on real criminals. More importantly, anti-gun laws enable politicians and activists to claim they are doing something to cure a problem that concerns voters and donors, even though restricting gun ownership among law-abiding citizens has no mitigating effect on violent crime.

Mandatory minimum sentences for guns crimes -- of the kind favoured by Conservative politicians -- may have little impact on violent crime rates, too. The number of violent gun crimes is small. A one-quarter or one-third reduction in gun crime would produce a negligible reduction in the overall rate of violent crime.

But at least mandatory sentences for using a gun punish only the guilty. And a one-quarter to one-third reduction in gun crime means 2,000 to 2,500 fewer victims.

On the other hand, restrictive gun laws punish an entire class of people -- law-abiding hunters, target shooters and gun collectors -- for the actions of others and are never likely to reduce victimization. StatsCan has reported that "handguns made up nearly two-thirds of all firearms used" for violent crimes. This is significant because for more than 70 years, it has been the law in Canada to register all handguns. If registration were an effective method for reducing crime, handgun crime would be nonexistent. Instead, handguns are far and away the most common crime-guns and their use is growing.

So if registering handguns will never reduce crime, perhaps banning them would. That is the solution proposed by Ontario's Liberal government and Toronto's Mayor, David Miller.

Again, this is attacking the problem in a way that will never solve it.

The simple fact is that most crime-guns -- especially criminal handguns -- are not legally owned now. They have never been registered. Their existence is unknown to police. They do not appear in our national firearms databank. Since they are already illegally owned, it's unlikely their owners would hand them in if they were suddenly banned. (Or should I say, "banned more?")

The only people harassed by a handgun ban would be sport shooters and collectors -- people who are already no threat to commit crimes. Drug dealers and gang members would ignore a ban as readily as they ignore existing laws on trafficking, extortion, robbery and murder.

In 2006, Saskatchewan Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz obtained unpublished StatsCan tables showing that between 1997 and 2005, only 2.3% of homicides were committed with registered guns.

The does not necessarily mean 97.7% of firearms murders in Canada are committed with unregistered guns. In some cases the registration status of the weapon could not be determined.

Still, his numbers show how pointless a ban on guns would be; unless, of course, you were looking for a hollow symbol of your deep and abiding concern.


maryT said...

How much of the money alloted to the gun registry really went to it.
How much money that went elsewhere, was charged to the gun registry.
Has there ever been an audit by the auditor general into this.

Jim said...

The real reason Canada has universal firearms registration...


Mark said...

Great post.

Nimrod45 said...

Write a letter of complaint, first to CTV, and then to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council; here is a web page of mine with the info you need: