- Joined
- Dec 16, 1998
- Messages
- 1,066
I've picked this up from our sister forum. While it speaks to gun control in Canada we should not miss the opportunity to "borrow" the sound logical arguments presented.
July 22, 1999
Gun control: The facts don't count
Anti-gun activists are neurotics at best. At worst, they're militant statists
By GEORGE JONAS
Toronto Sun
'The same woman can't be fooled by the same man in the same way more than half of the time," wrote the
American journalist Helen Rowland in her 1922 book, A Guide to Man. The principle may also apply to the Canadian media. At least I doubt if the Liberal government has been able to fool journalists on gun control more than half of the time.
By now there have been dozens of sensible editorials on the subject. In the last three months I saw some in the Toronto Sun, the Ottawa Citizen and in the National Post, among others. During May and June Lorne Gunter wrote a series of excellent columns in the Edmonton Journal. He pointed out in his pieces that "nothing this government says about its firearms registry, from Justice Minister Anne McLellan on down, can be trusted to be the truth."
To mention one minor example, the number of civil servants working on the registry isn't 200, as the government has assured us, but more like 600 or 800. If spending $50-$60 million annually on the useless task of registering Grandpa's gopher-plunker wasn't already a hideous waste, it now seems certain that it will cost many millions more.
According to Gunter, the government is playing fast and loose, not only with the cost of the registry, but withthe of the figures. It seems, for instance, that the actual number of new registrations under the program isn't 1.3 million, as the chief registry spokesperson informed the media last month, but a mere 106 (yes, that's one hundred and six weapons).
These bits are only the most recent in a whole series of revelations about the gun registry fiasco. Other people -e.g., columnist Peter Worthington, researcher Gary A. Mauser, or Reform MP Garry Breitkreuz - have been compiling, studying and writing about the facts for years.
Do the latest facts, or any other facts, matter? In my opinion, no. The gun control debate has long ceased to be about facts, if it ever was about facts to begin with.
At best, anti-gun lobbyists have a visceral fear of firearms, sometimes openly admitted by public figures likeToronto mayor Mel Lastman. Such fears are no more responsive to rational analysis than phobias of any other kind. One might even sympathize with phobias, as with other neuroses; it's a different question whether we should let phobias become the basis of public policy.
In this debate, anti-gun activists are neurotics at best. At worst, they're militant statists. They wish to disarm
individuals on principle. Even that's only part of it, because what they especially want is to accustom people to state intrusion. The more senseless and bureaucratic, the better.
Since statists use crime (or accidents) only as rhetorical devices in the debate, they're inured to evidence
showing that guns in private citizens' hands don't cause crime or may even reduce it. It isn't crime or accidents statists worry about, but people's ability to bring checks and balances to bear, whether actual or symbolic, that might limit or parallel the power of the state.
State power
Those who believe in, and identify with, an omnipotent government cannot admit any source of autonomy outside state power. They become uneasy at the thought of people retaining private spheres of sovereignty.
The very idea of individual authority - say, the idea of a man protecting his home or family - is what upsets them most. They don't want people to be in charge of their destinies, not just in business or family matters, but even in their hobbies, health, or personal safety.
Twisted egalitarianism also plays a psychological part in this syndrome. One anti-gun lobbyist, speaking perhaps in an unguarded moment, was quite open about it.
"Maybe you know how to use a gun," he said to me, "but many people don't. Why should you be able to defend yourself when other people can't?"
Gun registration, leading ultimately to prohibition, has nothing to do with crime control. As Canadian
anthropologist Elliott Leyton put it once, the debate is "symbolic," inspired by middle-class urban ideology, not analysis.
Indeed. The joint scheme of ex-justice minister Allan Rock and present Justice Minister Anne McLellan can only be understood in terms of psychology and ideology. Facts and arguments won't make a dent. When sharks begin to circle a swimmer in the water, reciting statistics to them isn't likely to alter their behaviour.
------------------
TANSTAAFL
July 22, 1999
Gun control: The facts don't count
Anti-gun activists are neurotics at best. At worst, they're militant statists
By GEORGE JONAS
Toronto Sun
'The same woman can't be fooled by the same man in the same way more than half of the time," wrote the
American journalist Helen Rowland in her 1922 book, A Guide to Man. The principle may also apply to the Canadian media. At least I doubt if the Liberal government has been able to fool journalists on gun control more than half of the time.
By now there have been dozens of sensible editorials on the subject. In the last three months I saw some in the Toronto Sun, the Ottawa Citizen and in the National Post, among others. During May and June Lorne Gunter wrote a series of excellent columns in the Edmonton Journal. He pointed out in his pieces that "nothing this government says about its firearms registry, from Justice Minister Anne McLellan on down, can be trusted to be the truth."
To mention one minor example, the number of civil servants working on the registry isn't 200, as the government has assured us, but more like 600 or 800. If spending $50-$60 million annually on the useless task of registering Grandpa's gopher-plunker wasn't already a hideous waste, it now seems certain that it will cost many millions more.
According to Gunter, the government is playing fast and loose, not only with the cost of the registry, but withthe of the figures. It seems, for instance, that the actual number of new registrations under the program isn't 1.3 million, as the chief registry spokesperson informed the media last month, but a mere 106 (yes, that's one hundred and six weapons).
These bits are only the most recent in a whole series of revelations about the gun registry fiasco. Other people -e.g., columnist Peter Worthington, researcher Gary A. Mauser, or Reform MP Garry Breitkreuz - have been compiling, studying and writing about the facts for years.
Do the latest facts, or any other facts, matter? In my opinion, no. The gun control debate has long ceased to be about facts, if it ever was about facts to begin with.
At best, anti-gun lobbyists have a visceral fear of firearms, sometimes openly admitted by public figures likeToronto mayor Mel Lastman. Such fears are no more responsive to rational analysis than phobias of any other kind. One might even sympathize with phobias, as with other neuroses; it's a different question whether we should let phobias become the basis of public policy.
In this debate, anti-gun activists are neurotics at best. At worst, they're militant statists. They wish to disarm
individuals on principle. Even that's only part of it, because what they especially want is to accustom people to state intrusion. The more senseless and bureaucratic, the better.
Since statists use crime (or accidents) only as rhetorical devices in the debate, they're inured to evidence
showing that guns in private citizens' hands don't cause crime or may even reduce it. It isn't crime or accidents statists worry about, but people's ability to bring checks and balances to bear, whether actual or symbolic, that might limit or parallel the power of the state.
State power
Those who believe in, and identify with, an omnipotent government cannot admit any source of autonomy outside state power. They become uneasy at the thought of people retaining private spheres of sovereignty.
The very idea of individual authority - say, the idea of a man protecting his home or family - is what upsets them most. They don't want people to be in charge of their destinies, not just in business or family matters, but even in their hobbies, health, or personal safety.
Twisted egalitarianism also plays a psychological part in this syndrome. One anti-gun lobbyist, speaking perhaps in an unguarded moment, was quite open about it.
"Maybe you know how to use a gun," he said to me, "but many people don't. Why should you be able to defend yourself when other people can't?"
Gun registration, leading ultimately to prohibition, has nothing to do with crime control. As Canadian
anthropologist Elliott Leyton put it once, the debate is "symbolic," inspired by middle-class urban ideology, not analysis.
Indeed. The joint scheme of ex-justice minister Allan Rock and present Justice Minister Anne McLellan can only be understood in terms of psychology and ideology. Facts and arguments won't make a dent. When sharks begin to circle a swimmer in the water, reciting statistics to them isn't likely to alter their behaviour.
------------------
TANSTAAFL
