Pop Quiz: How to Earn More Money

If you want to earn higher income, what should you do?

A. Work, labour and toil for longer hours.
B. Go to law, business, or medical school.
C. Get a second job.
D. Speak two languages.

Answer: here.

The purpose of the gun registry – part 2

In the previous entry (below), I linked to an article at National Post that described how police chiefs will unanimously endorse a “national firearms strategy,” a key component of which is the long gun registry. I also argue the main purpose of the gun registry is to assist with the seizure of long guns, and that police are spending too much time harassing long gun owners when the real threats to public and police safety are left alone.

Now, from the Canadian National Firearms Association:

It has come to the attention of Canada’s National Firearms Association that the political police chief heads of law enforcement associations are planning a nation wide blitz against licensed firearms owners, as retribution for the political action of the Canadian firearms community that has resulted in the final vote in parliament of Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner’s Bill C-391. [...]* All paperwork offenses will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, despite the current limited federal government amnesty which ends in May 2011.

* Home inspections will be performed on an ever increasing basis on firearms owners with more than ten registered firearms, and all restricted and prohibited firearms owners.

* Registered firearms will be seized despite their legal use or status, with the onus put on their owners to navigate the firearms bureaucracy and legal system in order to retrieve them.  Furthermore, CACP will lobby for a national handgun ban, the confiscation of all registered handguns in Canada, and the reclassification of all semi automatic firearms as “Restricted” or “Prohibited” firearms.

CACP lobbyist Bill Blair’s record as Chief of the Toronto Police Service is an indication of the treatment by law enforcement he wishes to impose on all Canadians. As Chief of Police, Bill Blair ordered Toronto Police Service to target senior citizens and confiscate their firearms for paperwork offenses, and conduct a campaign of harassment against anyone with a firearms license and a registered firearm. (Emphasis mine.)

Is it any wonder police are seizing more long guns than handguns each year?

The purpose of the gun registry

The cops have admitted publicly and jointly that the gun registry is not a crime fighting tool. Contra Alan Rock and the gun control lobby, it never has been nor could it ever be used for that purpose.

Its updated purpose, paraphrasing Toronto police chief Bill Blair — public safety, officer safety and seizure.

“It’s not a matter of ideology for us. It’s a matter of public safety. It’s just a matter of officer safety,” Chief Blair said.

Of the last 16 officers shot to death in Canada, 14 were killed with long guns, he said, adding long guns represent the majority of guns seized by officers nationwide.

Sorry, Bill, I’m not buying your safety claim. If police couldn’t use the tool to prevent the deaths of their own then it is highly doubtful it can be used to prevent the deaths of anyone else either. A tool that can’t be used to prevent or fight crime cannot be relied upon to enhance police and public safety. What is more, public safety does not necessarily follow from police safety.

The seizure of long guns, though? That definitely sounds like the primary purpose of the gun registry because it’s really the only area in which it is halfway effective, isn’t it? It tells police whose registrations have expired and then the badges can go and harass the otherwise law-abiding citizen to re-register or relinquish the firearm. Like Joe Fiorito.

The problem is, Bill, pouring all that effort into seizing long guns is to ignore the real threat to public and police safety. Stats Can reported in 2008 that, in 2006, gun-related crime “remained steady,” i.e. did not decrease, and handguns were used in two-thirds of all gun-related crime and were used three times as much as long guns in homicides. Yet year over year police are collecting more long guns than handguns.

What this means is police are spending way too much time harassing law-abiding long gun owners and not enough time and resources conquering the main threat to police and public safety — illicit handguns in the hands of gangs, drug lords, pimps and organized crime. The gun registry is a distraction to police, providing an easy way to enforce a point of law that has little to no effect on police or public safety while conveniently ignoring the more difficult elements of law enforcement that would result in increased safety for one and all. Elephant, room. Deck chairs, Titanic. That sort of stuff.

If safety and crime fighting and crime prevention are the goals, as they should be, police need to rid themselves of the distraction that is the gun registry. We are under no illusions that the gun registry is making anything safer. That’s why the people are demanding the government kill it.

David Frum on Canadian Voter Turnout

My friend and colleague, Scott H. Payne, had the pleasure to interview David Frum.  They were talking about the state of Canadian politics, especially in relation to voter interest.  Here’s a sample, in case readers of The Politic might be interested:

Scott Payne: If you were to give an overview of your take on the current state of Canadian politics, what would it be? Do things seem good? Bad? Lively? Stagnant? Are there some interesting trends that you see when scanning Canadian political headlines? Is there a pervasive narrative that seems to — within reasons — sum up where Canadians are in regards to their political lives?

David Frum: Canada has escaped more mildly from the global recession than any other developed country. Incomes and jobs are beginning to recover. The country’s balance sheet is stronger than any of its major trading partners. Secessionist tendencies in Quebec and the West have ebbed. The country’s armed forces themselves have distinguished themselves in the first major combat operations since the Korean War. That’s a formidable record of good governance. And since the point of politics is to produce good governments, I’d say Canadian politics are doing very well.

SP: And yet despite this, in the country’s last federal election, voter turnout was the lowest in the country’s history. Do you think that election fatigue is solely to blame for Canadians’ recent disengagement from one the primary civic activities of their democracy?

DF: A hair under 60% turned out – that’s pretty good, especially in a country with such a large population of newly arrived immigrants. It will take the newcomers a little time to feel oriented and familiar, to form the kinds of connections that inspire voting…

One final thought on this.  It is quite clear that Mr. Frum is a thoughtful observer of politics, truly interested in the goings-on of our political culture.  Agree with him or not, he’s a worthwhile voice to have in the realm of punditry.

Godspeed to Jean Chretien

The Globe & Mail and New York Times are reporting that our former Prime Minister underwent successful brain surgery yesterday.

Let us wish him well in his recovery.

Overturning Proposition 8 is a Victory for Conservatives

I’m guessing most conservatives aren’t too happy about the decision in Perry, overturning California’s ballot initiative (Proposition 8) that banned gay marriage.  But they’re all wrong… or, at least, so I argue at the Commons.  I submit that the defeat of Proposition 8 is a victory for conservatism, or, at least, small government conservatism.  Here’s the thrust of my argument:

Through the Equal Protection clause, Judge Walker has told the government of California that they must recognize gay marriage.  And that’s the thing.  These couples are married.  It doesn’t matter whether you recognize their marriage, or whether Rich Lowry recognizes their marriage; they are married.  By not recognizing these marriages, the government of California was treating the individuals differently.  At this point, it has nothing to do with couples.

…

Marriage does not belong to the government.  Marriage predates our constitution, our form of government and our nation.  Marriage belongs to the people.  It is a social convention that has grown organically within human society.  It is nothing that has been imposed by government – at least, if we’re actually to believe in liberty, it is nothing that should be imposed by government.  Marriage is an institution in which we organize ourselves.  It belongs to us, and we shouldn’t let the government appropriate it.  Once we cede it to the domain of government, we are relinquishing personal, private control of this elemental part of our society.

Go!

Regarding Abortion and Slavery

Rarely do I tread into the weeds of the abortion debate.  I’m pretty mushy on it; I doubt too many minds will be changed; and I find many people, on both sides of the debate, routinely argue in bad faith.  All these things make me disinclined to broach the subject.  However, I’ll make an exception right now.

I agree completely and wholeheartedly with Erik Kain’s post.  Here’s the crux:

I’m not sure why Andrew thinks likening abortion to slaveryqualifies as a Malkin award nominee. I certainly understand that it’s likely to bog down an already heavily loaded subject – but is it really so far off base on the merits?

If you believe in your heart of hearts that an unborn child is nevertheless a child – a living, growing, human being – and yet the law of the land dictates that said living, growing human being is not in possession of even the most basic right – the right to life – then how different is this from slavery?

I know I’m poking a lot of bears with this; comments are open, so have at it!

(By the way, Erik has further thoughts here.)

Out of Tragedy Comes…

This is a sad story. I feel very sorry for the family and friends of Jeff Draper, and for the engaged couple whose wedding was the impetus for the tragic bachelor party.

Jeff Draper loved being the host.

It was no different Saturday when the 28-year-old Kinburn man planned a bachelor party for a friend: a day of golf, a home-cooked meal and a night out in the city.

However, the party ended in tragedy when an ATV that Draper was driving hit the back of a riding lawnmower during the early hours of Sunday.

A little more than one day later, Draper died in hospital from head injuries.

Unfortunately, the sudden loss of a young man, clearly adored by his loved ones, is threatening a tragic result for another young man:

Police arrested the man who was allegedly driving the lawnmower. Brian Miller, 26, of Pakenham is charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal alcohol limit. He is scheduled to appear in court on Aug. 25.

When I read that a Saturday night bachelor party turned into an early Sunday morning ATV accident, I figured alcohol was involved.  It could well be that the driver of the lawnmower was at fault, and, thus, caused the death of his friend, but in what world do we live where this results in criminal charges?  The man was not driving a car, and he was on private property.  Both the victim and the “perpetrator” were willing participants and, likely, both are responsible for whatever outcome occurred.  But not all tragedies equate to crimes.

I realize, as a society, we have become obsessed with drunk driving, often implementing ill-advised, reactionary laws, but, eventually, we really must stop.  I would imagine Mr. Miller is hurting enough.  Let’s call off the witchhunt.

On the Census, School Choice and Social Engineers

I’m sure everyone has been, by now, fully inundated with the census debate.  The idea of a voluntary long form is pretty dumb… almost as dumb as citizens being threatened with fines or imprisonment for not bending to the whims of politicians and bureacrats.  Anyway, I want to address the issue of the census as a means for social engineers to control our lives, and, thus, that doing away with the census fights back against this grave menace.

Look, the argument is bunk.  How many people actually think that these “social engineers” will stop if they have no census data?  Do we really think that the politicians, activists and bureaucrats who are trying to run our lives will just give up their mission if they don’t have acurate statistics?  If North America’s social engineers were that concerned with data, every jurisdiction would have some form of school choice by now, and we’d be rid of the tyranny of teachers unions.

So sure, let’s ditch the long form census; it’s offensively intrusive, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that this will actually strike a blow againts interventionist goverment.

(P.S. I’m not suggesting that only left wing politicians are guilty of ignoring data; politicians of every stripe ignore, use and abuse data as it suits them.  A pox on all their houses.)

Dropping key standards for the Cyclones

Perhaps military personnel can set me straight on how leaving out key standards is a good thing, but right now this decision seems remarkably short-sighted.

OTTAWA is dropping key performance standards for navy helicopters due this fall in return for the manufacturer’s promise to guarantee another $80 million in work for Canadian aerospace companies over the next two decades.

The revised deal… means the first six Cyclone choppers that fly from frigates in November won’t be required to have a system allowing some encrypted tactical information to be exchanged between ships and helicopters. [...]

The helicopters will also no longer have to pass an endurance test for flying in warmer temperatures nor a test that requires one engine to keep going if a second engine fails in higher temperatures.

Next Page »