Posted on 12/03/2003 9:51:14 AM PST by knighthawk
Every time the Canada Firearms Centre is in the news, its credibility diminishes. Whether it is an exposé of bureaucratic incompetence at managing the computer system leading to the permanent extinction of the records of thousands of registered guns or the sending of an angry letter to a dead man, rebuking him for failing to register hunting rifles that had long been sold by his family, nearly every story about this billion-dollar fiasco provides another reason to scrap the entire project.
The latest stories concern a typical administrative cover-up and an even more typical administrative screw-up. In response to the scathing report by the Auditor-General, which among other things detailed the half-million dollars spent on hospitality and $13-million on travel, the bureaucrats have apparently hidden their spending in other departments.
The registry was supposed to track stolen guns, which are disproportionately in the hands of criminals. So far, the bureaucrats have been able to trace about 4% of guns stolen in the country.
There has always been a deep well of emotional support for the gun registry. TV images of armed killers are powerful and compelling, and politicians get the message that something must be done to make society safe again. Since murderers are usually portrayed as children or otherwise ordinary people (even though they are much more likely to be habitual criminals who graduate from lesser crimes to armed robbery and murder), the politician who wants to appear to be doing something can always restrict access to weapons. In short, criminal violence causes gun laws.
An important result of registering weapons and restricting ownership is to make advocates feel good about themselves, a kind of therapeutic narcissism for the timid. These supporters of the registry all along assumed that guns caused people to die and that, because every life is infinitely precious, the cost means nothing. "If one life is saved," such people say, "it's worth it." For individuals in the grip of powerful emotions, evidence is beside the point. However touching such exquisite concern for human life may be, it makes no practical sense.
The real issue is not the infinite preciousness of human life, but limited human resources. Accordingly, the real policy question, as most commonsensical critics of the federal gun registry have said from the start, is whether a billion dollars spent on something else would result in even more infinitely precious lives being saved.
Some of its advocates argued, more or less coherently, that a comprehensive gun registry would help cut violent crime. The gist of the argument was that the availability of guns contributes to increases in violent crime, and restricting access will reduce it. If this argument makes sense, it should be supported by evidence.
Gary Mauser, a professor at Simon Fraser University, has examined the evidence in excruciating detail. His latest study looked at gun regulations in Britain and Australia as well as Canada. He asked whether all these regulations had reduced violent crime. After all, society is no safer if the trends in violent crime go up, however many guns may be registered.
In Britain, for two decades, gun laws have grown more restrictive and violent crime has increased. In 1996, the UK surpassed the U.S. in violent crime rates. Banning ownership of handguns in 1997 was followed by a serious increase in both violent and gun crime. Likewise in Australia that same year, draconian firearms legislation was immediately followed by an increase in robbery and armed robbery. The Australian taxpayers forked over $500-million to enable bureaucrats to confiscate and destroy thousands of guns. As in Canada, sensible Aussies made the obvious criticism that the money could have been spent on more police and better equipment.
Worst of all for the emotional as well as for the more reasonable gun control advocates in Canada, the comparison with the U.S. is particularly unflattering. Today, where 35 states allow qualified and responsible citizens to carry concealed weapons, violent crime and homicide rates have plummeted.
The evidence is clear and so is its meaning. Confiscating, prohibiting and registering guns are all expensive failures. The only beneficiaries of this perverse policy are criminals who can more easily prey on an unarmed citizenry and their bureaucratic accomplices whose jobs have the effect of harming this same populace.
Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
Most people would consider a $1 billion price tag on a program that was originally going to cost $200 million a gross miscalculation. In a socialist environment, turning a useless $200 million program into a useless $1 billion boondoggle is considered a great accomplishment.
Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.
SO9
You know, it's not as if the Canadians have a billion dollars to just fritter away. They might try spending the money on something useful. National Defense would be a good place to start.
Therapy for the timid. That's all gun control is for its supporters. For politicians, its election or reelection. Nothing more, nothing less.
Works for me.
And it probably will end up costing close to this amount. These things take on a life of their own when they are started. Whether it's Canada or Kalifornia, the public trough attracts a lot of pigs.
Any sign of a tax cut in the near future for you folks?
The province already has a flat rate for its provincial income tax, and once the province's debt is retired there is some talk of eliminating the income tax altogether. Alberta raises an enormous amount of revenue from oil and gas royalties on provincial lands -- something you folks in Alaska know all about!
Nah, The Defence Department will just spend it on crap like sex change operations for their soldiers...
Copyright 1998 Micromedia Limited Canadian Business and Current Affairs Copyright 1998 United Western Communications Ltd. Alberta Report
September 14, 1998
The military's changing face: a soldier gets a free sex change, despite an inadequate army medical budget
Over the last 20 years, the Canadian Forces have been bogged down in a continuous and enormous battle. So far, it has not involved any bloodshed: it is a battle fought from behind desks, between those who want to remodel the army for political purposes and those who believe that combat-readiness should be paramount. The political warriors scored perhaps their most resounding victory on September 1, when the Department of National Defence confirmed that it had approved a taxpayer-funded sex-change operation for a soldier.
The individual at the centre of the furore is still unnamed, but sources indicate that "he" is a sergeant who services computers at the Tunney's Pasture government complex in Ottawa. The staff at Tunney's Pasture observe casual Fridays, replacing military uniforms with relaxed clothing. The gender-confused sergeant apparently gave a new meaning to "casual Friday" and declared his orientation by arriving for work in women's clothing: on one Friday, according to a military insider, he sported a lavender pantsuit.
The Canadian Press reported September 1 that the sergeant's request for a sex-change was the first in the history of the Canadian military. DND spokesman Elaine McArdle says, however, that past requests for sex reassignment have been considered and rejected. Earlier applicants, according to Ms. McArdle, were unable to provide the review committee with sufficient evidence that they suffered a gender-identity disorder.
In this case, the decision to proceed with surgery was made after doctors performed thorough physical and mental examinations and concluded that the surgery would be in the soldier's best interest. "It would have been difficult to deny him when the province would pay," says Ms. McArdle, referring to the fact that provincial healthcare systems will pay for sex reassignment under certain circumstances.
"They just finished getting a scathing report on the poor care that the injured get, and now they come up with sex-change operations," fumes Leon Benoit, the Reform Party's deputy defence critic and a member of the Commons' Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCODVA). Mr. Benoit is upset that DND uses a comparison with provincial healthcare in justifying the sur-gery, when basic military medical care is not up to pro-vincial standards. SCODVA studies and an internal military study have shown that many military families face extreme economic need and that soldiers injured in the line of duty do not receive ad-equate care. The sex-change operation will cost between $10,000 and $20,000.
"The priorities of the military are convoluted," says Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps magazine. "Soldiers from Bosnia who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other injuries are not getting proper support, but meanwhile they are taking on other functions."
The department itself does not seem particularly proud of the decision, which was made by assistant deputy defence minister and Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire. Despite the commitment to "openness" which was supposed to follow the convoluted Somalia scandal, military spokesmen denied in March that a sex-change was under consideration. In the ensuing months, questions from the press generated a blizzard of evasions and double-talk, and although the surgery was approved in July, the military did not own up until last week, when proof of the order for surgery was leaked to the press.
The fact that the information was leaked speaks to the dissension within the Canadian Forces. "For the junior and middle-rank officers, it takes a lot of courage to release this information to the public," says Mr. Taylor. "There is a fight between loyalty and integrity. They have to choose between their loyalty to the institution and the people in charge. Truth, duty and valour are not upheld, so they break off."
Robert McNoughton, a 55-year-old former artilleryman, first heard the news on September 2 as he relaxed with a beer at the Canadian Legion branch in Edmonton's Norwood district. After a moment of disbelief, he had this to say: "These last 10 years it's getting to be a farce. An army is to defend your country. It's not a game. It's not a matter of want. You commit yourself...It's a matter of pride in your country. This makes the Canadian army a laughingstock."
Now you're talking about Texas.
Jacques is leaving the state senate January 1 to lead the country's largest gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual alliance, based in San Francisco. She is passing her senate seat to a Democratic collegue so as to avoid the messy process of the state's having to hold a special election to replace her. By staying until January 1 she adds an additional whole year to her state pension benefits. One day for one year's benefits. 'You go, girl!'
The very flower of Liberal Democrats.
And no sales tax!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.