Thursday, December 08, 2005

It writes itself, as they say...

Babble on.

I was going to pour myself a coffee, get comfortable in front of my keyboard, crack my knuckles, and patiently wade through each asinine portion of the Liberals's plan to 'ban' handguns. In fact, I was going to point out how adding one Liberal inanity to another actually uses synergy to produce a sum of stupidity that is greater than its parts.

But as usual, Tarantino beats me to it. You have to get up pretty early in the morning to get a jump on Bob, and to tell you the truth, I'm just not that dedicated. Go, keener, go.

For my money, here's his best line:

Mr. Martin will argue in Toronto that the only way to stop the recent rash of slayings and gang-related violence is to ban handguns and choke off the supply.

Right. Because if I was smuggling guns into Canada (which is, again, already illegal), I would now stop because it's become even more illegal.


That's it in a nutshell, you see.

And if it's handled properly, this is a hanging curveball out over the middle of the plate for the Conservatives. The press release writes itself:

"If the Liberals think that criminals will stop committing violent crimes that are already illegal with smuggled weapons that are already illegal just because the Liberals make it more illegal, they're deluding themselves.

This is a serious issue for Canadians, especially those in urban centres. It deserves a more serious response than an empty campaign gesture that will have absolutely no effect on violent crime.

Instead of wasting time and effort on an ineffectual pseudo-ban, a Conservative government will devote [fill in significant dollar figure] to tighten our border security, improve the technology used to detect and apprehend illegal weapons and the criminals who use them, increase the law enforcement presence in urban areas, and toughen penalties for those who use illegal weapons to commit a crime.

The Conservatives have a plan. The Liberals have a soundbite. The choice for Canadian voters concerned with violent crime couldn't be clearer."


Feel free to poach this one, Stephen. It's on me. Gratis.

Just win the damned election, and get the criminals off the streets.

Babble off.

Update: I took Skippy off the blogroll awhile back because I thought he was being an insulting ass, and gratuitously too. As someone who strongly believes in compassionate conservatism, I still take objection to the crude sentiment he ascribed as the underlying theme to my political philosophy.

But despite all that, he's back on the roll. Why? Posts like this one:

Some will argue, and indeed, some already are arguing, that the fact that a few people enjoy target shooting or like to collect guns can't justify gun ownership. If one life can be saved, they argue, that outweighs what other people want.

Those people are wrong.

Unless, that is, they would agree with a proposal to build a separate highway system for commercial vehicles, and then to limit the speed limit for private automobiles everywhere in Canada to 50 km/h. After all, folks, speed kills, and if we can save even one life by making everyone drive really slowly on the highway, well, that outweighs your desire to get to your destination quickly. Why are you so fucking selfish?


Besides, when he's not completely bitter and twisted - that is to say, when he's only somewhat bitter and twisted - Skippy's funny. I have a soft spot for funny.

Upperdate: Funny, and eloquent when the spirit moves him. I'm not even going to excerpt the post, because I truly want you to read the whole thing.

13 Comments:

At 10:52 AM, Blogger KevinG said...

I presume you're just ignoring the parts of the Liberal plan that doubles mandatory minimum sentences, and increases policing resources (75 new officers to fight gun smuggling and $225 million increase for gang related team). You're not arguing against those policy positions, right?

 
At 11:13 AM, Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Nope, I think those parts of the announcement are positive - not enough, but a step in the right direction.

But if the Liberals think criminals are the problem, why does their website read "Liberals Announce Handgun Ban for Safer Communities" instead of "Liberals Get Tough on Violent Crime"?

It's because they're more interested in optics than results. And it's yet another example of why they should get booted out of office.

 
At 11:25 AM, Blogger mm said...

Keving - They could make the mandatory minimum decapitation but if no judge or justice of the peace or crown counsel enforces it it means nothing.

 
At 11:40 AM, Blogger KevinG said...

BB-

I think a large number of Canadian are concerned about handguns as a specific example of violent crime. Proposing specific solutions to violent crime that is in the forefront of people's minds is not just good policy, it's good politics.

Of course the Liberal have always been good at proposing sound policy -- it's implementing it that seems to trip them up all the time.

mm-

mandatory minimum is not a sentencing guideline.

 
At 11:56 AM, Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

KevinG, I think you need to put the Kool-Aid down.

"I think a large number of Canadian are concerned about handguns as a specific example of violent crime."

This is typical of the muddy reasoning used to justify this poor excuse for policy. Repeat after me: a handgun is not a crime, let alone a violent one. Legal, registered handguns and their law-abiding owners are not the problem here. Banning a weapon won't do a single thing to slow down violent crime.

Look past your ideology here to the evidence. Banning handguns might temporarily make uninformed people feel safe, but it won't make them any safer.

As far as 'minimum' sentencing is concerned - look at Liberal perfidity on the subject and then talk to me.

 
At 12:39 PM, Blogger KevinG said...

The point of my original comment was that the Liberal plan contained a couple of the policies you claimed it should have. I thought it might have been appropriate to acknowledge that.

"Banning a weapon won't do a single thing to slow down violent crime."

This is silly. The number of people killed in Toronto with a metal ruler is, I'm pretty sure, zero.

Even sillier is the evidence which, after a quick read goes like this: in some places with gun controls gun crimes are up. Gun crimes are on the rise just about everywhere. If you wanted to talk about evidence then it might be better to look at whether it is rising faster or slower after gun controls were adopted. Is it rising faster or slower in place that have less strict controls? What other social drivers are at play? Has the data been normalised at all? For what?

There are people in urban centers who have, for various reasons, have adopted criminal behaviour. So, do you want these people to drive by with kitchen forks, or handguns, or maybe rpg launchers. If I follow the logic of your statement there is no difference between a thug with an rpg and a thug with a kitchen knife because the weapon, in itself, and access to it, is irrelevent.

The point of my comment was that the Liberal plan contained a couple of the policies you claimed it should have. I thought it might have been appropriate to recognize those.

What does "/* mean?

 
At 1:08 PM, Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

"There are people in urban centers who have, for various reasons, have adopted criminal behaviour. So, do you want these people to drive by with kitchen forks, or handguns, or maybe rpg launchers. If I follow the logic of your statement there is no difference between a thug with an rpg and a thug with a kitchen knife because the weapon, in itself, and access to it, is irrelevent."

KevinG, you're completely out to lunch on this.

Criminals do not look through the Criminal Code of Canada and peruse some list of legal items with which they can arm themselves. Criminals don't care what Paul Martin bans. The only people who care are responsible gun-owners.

A law banning handguns will only affect those who follow the law.

Since criminals don't fall into that group, the handgun ban will have precisely zero effect on them.

As far as acknowledging the strong points in the Liberal platform - OK. The other portions of the announcement do take a step in the right direction.

Of course, given the fact that Paul Martin's Justice Minister has only recently flip-flopped in favour of minimum sentencing shows just how trustworthy the Liberals are on this issue.

 
At 1:33 PM, Blogger deaner said...

The government is faced with an increase in the use of handguns, leading to concern and fears for public safety. The increase in gun use is sparked by violent confrontations over the drug trade, among other factors, increasing the demand for guns among a certain sub-sgement of society. The Liberals' reaction is the prohibition of handguns.

I just want to know why the guys who are so confident that prohibition won't work on drugs are so confident that it will work on guns. I mean, I agree that it probably won't work - but at least I'm consistent about it: we will not get rid of either problem by passing another law that says it is wrong, either to use (or have) guns, or to use (or have) marijuana or other drugs. In the case of drugs, the Liberal response is to decriminalize, or even to legalize, since "prohibition won't work." Okay - but what distinguishes guns, such that a prohibition will be more effective?

 
At 1:52 PM, Blogger Kateland, aka TZH said...

So do I have to make you laugh or cheeze you off to go back on your blogroll?

Instapundit has a great little blurb on PM and his hand gun bann.

 
At 1:58 PM, Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

OMG Kate! I horrible oversight on my part - you were on the REB roll for so long I didn't think twice about it. Correction made, with red-faced apologies.

I even gave you a comfy spot right next to Occam's Carbuncle.

 
At 3:01 PM, Blogger KevinG said...

Deaner-

Do you think increasing penalties, increasing resources for enforcement, adding staff to fight importation and involving the community on social drivers will have an effect?

Are you seriously saying hand guns and joints are roughly equivalent dangers and require the same approach for regulation?

 
At 3:33 PM, Blogger deaner said...

"Do you think increasing penalties, increasing resources for enforcement, adding staff to fight importation and involving the community on social drivers will have an effect?"

I expect (and hope) that they will. I don't think any other policies could have an effect - the point is that when faced with an increasing demand-driven use of two illegal products, the response can be diametrically opposed.

"Are you seriously saying hand guns and joints are roughly equivalent dangers and require the same approach for regulation?"

No. I agree that different policies are appropriate. I just think it is laughable, though, that the reponse to drugs isn't that "we shouldn't try prohibition even though it would work;" it is that prohibition can't work (and by the way, I agree with that assessment). Then the same brains trust turns around and says "prohibition can work" against guns.

Consider which product has the higher elasticity of demand: a recreational product with some close substitutes, or a product that may save a life (at least, in the mind of the drug dealer / pimp / thug who wants one) and is necessary to establish his business and safeguard his economic success (and his street cred). Everything else we know suggests that if prohibition of anything is going to have any effect, it will have the greatest effect on the first product, not the second - we've already conceeded that it won't work there. What is it about commutative relationships that these dipsticks don't understand?

 
At 3:39 PM, Blogger wonderdog said...

Well, thanks, Damian.

And now, just for fun, I'm going to piss you off again, and then make you forgive me, and then piss you off again ... we'll see how patient you really are. :)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home