that whirling noise you hear

[the_siobhan]

For some reason I always find it really interesting when the media latches onto a story about the media itself. A little bit of meta-journalism, if you will. So when I saw the headline about a big stink going on right now over an article published in the Globe, I went right on over and read all about it.

Apparently a journalist who wrote an article about the recent shootings in Montréal made the statement that Quebecois culture has to take some of the responsability for actions of Gill at Dawson College, and also for the the Lépine shootings at l'École Polytechnique sixteen years earlier.

Because francaphones are "unwelcoming".

I shit you not.

Now the editor is saying the remarks should have deleted before the article went to print and lots of people are demanding apologies all over the place. And I think the whole thing is hilarious.

To be perfectly clear where I'm coming from, I don't think it's funny that Wong printed something inflammatory and stupid. I sure as hell don't think it's the slightest bit entertaining that a bunch of people died because some douchebag was Fucked In Head With Gun and decided to take his bad day out on a bunch of innocent people.

No, what makes me smirk is just how seriously everybody is taking Wong's comments.

I mean, come on people. She actually suggested that some guy shot up a school cafeteria because Quebecois are unfriendly. Roll your eyes, give the girl one of those pointed hats with the big "D" on it, and get on with your day.

This is all fed by my complete inability to understand why we give people microphones when we already know that something stupid is going to come out of their face. Why is Ann Coulter ever able to even get people to interview her? Why does anybody give a man airtime to talk about international politics when his day job is to play a fucking guitar? Why does anybody really care what the head of some religion thinks about our same-sex marriage laws, or in fact, anything to do with anything except maybe, you know, his religion?

And more importantly, having found somebody to give them a platform - what the hell inspires anybody else to actually listen?

On the other hand, if the world wasn't full of Really Stupid Ideas, we wouldn't have the opportunity to make fun of them. That would pretty much eliminate the Daily Show, and things like the The Racist Survivor Theme Song. And that makes a lot of this stuff totally worth it.

Comments

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Well, I think that's all a matter of perspective. Whereas 2 billion is a lot for me, it's
a drop in the bucket for a government. That's what? 70$ or so per canadian? Over how many
years

So you're fine with your government spending $2 Billion on something that is to buy votes of the left but do absolutely nothing with regards to actually stopping criminal activity? When you consider the tax base and how many pay, it's quite likely more than $70 Can per taxpayer. Kindly go outside and throw $150 in the garbage can if you think it's trivial. It'll have the same effect.

Amnesty for long guns, you mean the amnesty where the provincial police in 5 territories have refused to enforce/operate the registration system for long guns because it's just too much headache for no effective result?

$2 Billion is not an obscene amount of money for a complete waste of time? The data base has a higher than 30% error rate. Is that even remotely useful?

Well, they're allowed their opinion. Perhaps I would change my mind if I were in their
shoes. Personally, I don't think that under 100$ every 5 years (which is less than a
fishing license)is a huge deal. And I certainly don't buy into the idea that police
officers are selling people's gun info, addresses, etc on the streets to the snitches
they supposedly hang out with.

You're not paying so it's not your bailiwick. But there's already been a security breach of the computer system from what I've heard.

A firearms license about providing the government with the information on what weapons can be
found in your home or on your property. As we are talking about weapons, the requirements are
that you not be a criminal or prone to destructive behaviour.


And that has what effect upon crime? Can you show an impact on crime as due to the registry/licensing scheme? Siobhan clearly saw people that didn't look like cops to her running around at an incident in Toronto. Gang Activity the way she described it. _Clearly_ the criminal gangs are taking the time to abide by the registry.

Again, if you miss a week renewing your license to drive, the police aren't going to show up at your home and take all your cars are they? Confiscation of property for failure to comply with administrative paperwork is bullshit. No matter how you sugar coat it.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

And that has what effect upon crime? Can you show an impact on crime as due to the registry/licensing scheme? Siobhan clearly saw people that didn't look like cops to her running around at an incident in Toronto. Gang Activity the way she described it. _Clearly_ the criminal gangs are taking the time to abide by the registry.

You have no idea how many gang stories I have where the participants clearly didn't have guns.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Is that indicative of the gun registry preventing the gangs from being armed with firearms? Or is it just incidental?

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Don't know.

Just pointing out that one street-gun story is not proof of anything.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

And just so, one mentally disturbed person isn't either. Contrast that to the number of guns in Canada that are not used to murder people by every day Canadians. Thus lies the folly of gun control. One instance of a gun on the streets in violation of gun control is never significant. One shooting in absence of total gun control is significant. ;-)

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Dude I AM NOT DEBATING GUN CONTROL WITH YOU.

Period.

Knock it off.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Then why did you keep answering me. I was ready to drop it after my alt.gothic.siobhan.shooting.guns.guns.guns statement. :-D

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting that in order to avoid being presented with an argument I don't want to engage in, I have to not talk to you at all?

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Not at all. But it seemed as if you were keeping up the discussion on several points, thus I continued the discussion.

Bing, thank you good morning. Oh look at that your time is up (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915&q=argument+monty+python).

[montieth.livejournal.com]

There's a link there, just not very clear because of the text...it's meant in jest....

[mr-sharkey.livejournal.com]

Ahem. May I remind you all that you're arguing on the Internet?


M.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

It's what we do. ;-)

Well, me at any rate....

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Maybe I haven't been clear.

There are discussions I'm quite willing to have - wanna talk about how decisions are made on the personal or government level, sure. Or how people weigh personal experiences against anecdotes against statistics when making judgements, sure. Or how our governments and citizens of our respective countries prioritize individual rights against common good, also great. Or semantics, hell I can talk about semantics for hours. I'm also good for several rounds of dick jokes.

My perception here, however, is that no matter what part of the discussion I take out to play with, you are only willing to respond with "gun control bad". And since that's the one thing I said I'm not interested in, I'm finding it a little exasperating.

Pee Ess

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

You are, however, more than welcome continuing the debate with E or anybody else who wants to chime in.

It's not a "forbidden" topic, it's just one that I feel I can't do justice unless I do a ton of homework that I just don't have time for.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Or maybe instead of the word "proof" I should say, "statistically significant".

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

>"So you're fine with your government spending $2 Billion
>on something that is to buy votes of the left but do
>absolutely nothing with regards to actually stopping criminal
>activity?"

I'm not fine with the government wasting *any* money but you
know as well as I do that it happens. As with any political
initiave, there are flaws in the gun registry. I do not think
that necessarily makes it a failure. Have you ever seen a
government put something together that did *not* have problems?

Now, as far as that 2 billion dollars goes, I repeat: Over how
many years? Big numbers are impressive but context is important.
Currently, the gun registry and it's enforcement costs about 100
million a year. Again, that's one of those numbers that's big
for me but really a pitance for the people in charge.

What's more, this is not really an issue of right versus left
in the way that you're thinking. This is an issue of city living
versus rural living. Though those two groups have a certain
demarcation along the left and right, it certainly isn't the
same thing.

Politicians push this issue because it is one that is important
to people living in cities. Because they are the ones who have
to deal with crime and gang violence. The population is also,
of course, concentrated in within the cities so they also form
a huge voting block. Something close to one third of the
population of canada lives in the cities of Toronto and Montreal.

But, more importantly, does it have an impact? Well, that's
hard to tell. The reason isn't necessarily because the impact
is minuscule but rather because it is difficult to find the
links of causality in a situation like this. The fact that
politicians on both sides of the equation try to muddy the issue
doesn't help either.

We do know, however, that the rates of homicide are much less
in Canada than in the US (8.8 per 100k in the US, 2.3 per 100k
in CA) and that over 65% of homicides in the US involved
firearms compared with 32% in Canada.

So that seems to indicate that the country is doing something
right about guns. But, again, that could be attributed to many
things.

Are homicides more common in the US because of the easier
access to guns? Well, the argument could easily be upheld by
the statistics but who know if that's the case.

Until proper statistics are released for the years 2000-2006,
we won't really be able to tell if the new legislation has made
much of an impact.

But saying that it does nothing with regards to stopping criminal
activity is a misleading statement.

Crime is mostly the result of poverty, not guns or lack thereof.
Does regulating firearms prevent crime? Well, no.

It does seem to have an impact on gun crimes and homicide.

>"Amnesty for long guns, you mean the amnesty where the provincial
>police in 5 territories have refused to enforce/operate the
>registration system for long guns because it's just too much
> headache for no effective result?"

Again, that's misleading. There are only 3 provinces/territories
with their own police force. That's Ontario, Quebec and
Newfoundland. The rest is under the umbrella of the mounties. So
what we're talking about is a decision by the RCMP.

And the RCMP's actions were not a decision based on lack of
enforceability or results. Harper declared the amnesty, their
job is to go along with it.

Is it difficult to enforce registration of long guns? Depends.
It is in some areas, like the northwest territories. Does it
have much of an impact on street crime? Probably not. Again,
we're generally talking about more rural areas.

I don't think this invalidates firearms registration in any way.
Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. That's why we have mechanisms
in place to change legislation. I don't really see the point of
scraping the entire act because part of it should perhaps be
revised. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, isn't it?

>"$2 Billion is not an obscene amount of money for a complete
>waste of time?"

Again, that's emotional and manipulative language. Sure, 2 billion
is obscene for a complete waste of time. But there's nothing to say
that firearms registration is a complete waste of time.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

>"The data base has a higher than 30% error rate.
>Is that even remotely useful?"

I don't know? I've never heard that there was
such a significant error rate. And what does
error rate mean? What sort of errors?

>"You're not paying so it's not your bailiwick.
>But there's already been a security breach of
>the computer system from what I've heard."

Right. But I live in the same society so it is
my problem just as much as the guy who collects
WW2 guns or the hunter or the gangbanger.

As far as breaches, that should be alleged
security breach. A gun collector got robbed
and speculation ran rampant that it could have
been criminals breaking into the database and
using it as a list of places to rob. Like most
politicized issues, that quickly turned from
"people could do this" into "people are doing
this" among the politicians and newspapers.

That resulted in a serious review of the
system and its security.

The RCMP did come forward later and, after
proper investigation, admited to a few
thousand security breaches. That got the
alarmists going for about 5 minutes until
someone read the statements instead of
jumping the gun (no pun intended).

The RCMP found that there have been no
breaches of the system from the outside.
The idea that criminals were breaking into
the database to get a shopping list of gun
owners was bullshit. What they did find is
that, at times, police forces would access
the database when they didn't really have
any business doing so. Generally to check
if house x they were going into had an
arsenal hiding in the basement.

So, yes, security breaches but not of the
kind put forward by people with agendas.
And, afaik, that is now heavily monitored.

>"And that has what effect upon crime? Can
>you show an impact on crime as due to the
>registry/licensing scheme? Siobhan clearly
>saw people that didn't look like cops to her
>running around at an incident in Toronto.
>Gang Activity the way she described it.
>_Clearly_ the criminal gangs are taking the
>time to abide by the registry."

Well, as I said earlier, it *does* seem to
have an impact on gun crimes and homicide.
With time, we'll see if that's some sort
of cultural fluke.

Saying that criminals will do crime is kind
of a meaningless point. Much like using one
person's experience as demonstrative of the
entire crime situation in canada.

Honestly, I grew up in some pretty poor
neighbourhoods. Gangs and bikers were pretty
common. Very few guns, however. I can probably
count on my fingers the times were guns came
into it.

Certainly, criminals don't care about
registration. But getting guns was a relatively
difficult endeavour. And, even then, they
weren't necessary most of the time because they
knew the other guy didn't have one so why risk
getting caught with it or something going wrong?

May be hard to relate to but, in my experience,
most street criminals don't have guns or access
to them. Doesn't mean they're not out there,
of course, but regulation of guns does seem to
keep it down some.

You should maybe take a look at statscan
to see what the crimes and rates are like
in Canada. You'll quickly see that violent
crimes have not gone up for quite a few years.
I'll grant you that the overall crime rate has
gone up in the last 4 years but you'll see that
this is mostly driven by an increase in
counterfeiting and crimes like disturbing
the peace and mischief.

>"Again, if you miss a week renewing your
>license to drive, the police aren't going
>to show up at your home and take all your
>cars are they?"

Not the same thing. Cars have become
necessary for a lot of people in the
western world. The urban sprawl and need
to commute have seen to that.

When you take someone's car away, you
could very well be taking away their ability
to earn a living. And that does good to no one.
If anything, it would be easy to argue that
this would raise poverty and crime.

>"Confiscation of property for failure to
>comply with administrative paperwork is bullshit. "

I agree, there should probably be another
way of dealing with it. But, currently,
all we have is the bureaucracy's
discretionary powers.

But it certainly does not invalidate
the firearms registration act.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

Me is long winded. Apologies. I never really got the hang of concise.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Not the same thing. Cars have become
necessary for a lot of people in the
western world. The urban sprawl and need
to commute have seen to that.

We can fix that.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

Right.

And, realistically, we probably *should*
fix that.