It's a very simple proposition: if someone commits a crime with a gun, that person should spend a period of time in jail.

Most of the Canadian population would agree with the Conservatives gun bill. After all, it was one of their key platforms during the last election, and the Conservatives won.

Unfortunately, Manitoba Liberal MP's don't agree.

Neville said the bill was poor legislation because it stripped the judiciary of its sentencing powers and refused to support it.

"It flew against the advice of many people in the justice system," said Neville, adding sentencing is often best left to judges after they've heard all the evidence in a case and not legislators.

"You have to leave the discretion to the judiciary."

She said her main concern with the bill was an escalating clause that would send criminals to prison for longer sentences with subsequent offences.

Except that judges have been saying for years that new legislation is needed if Canada is to get tough on gun crimes. They've claimed that there are precedents that prevent them from handing down "tough" sentences. The only solution to this problem is new legislation.

The "escalating clause" of the bill which Neville is so opposed to, is one that would have criminals serve longer sentences the second time they commit an offense. As the bill currently stands, for a first conviction of a gun crime, the minimum sentence handed down would be a five year jail term. On that persons second offense, the minimum sentence would lengthen to a seven year jail term. If you keep doing the crime, you keep getting more time. It seems fair.

Not to Anita Neville however. Neville would rather leave that up to the judges discretion, to let the criminals justify there behavior, and get a slap on the wrist. We're not talking about punk auto-thieves, or shoplifters here; we're talking about criminals that point a gun at their victims and threaten their lives. They have absolutely no place on our streets.

The truth of the matter is that for three consecutive Liberal governments, the laws of this land were watered down in favor of criminals. If Liberal MP's were to vote in favor of these "tough on crime" laws, it'd be an admission that their reign was a failure. You need to look no further than the Youth Criminal Justice Act for evidence.

The Liberals would rather spend billions of dollars on a gun registry, which has proven to be a failure, while letting the criminals off without taking any responsibility.

In fact all of Manitoba's Liberal MP's voted against the legislation. That includes Tina Keeper, MP for Churchill; and Ray Simard, MP for St. Boniface. For the Liberal MP's from Manitoba it was a free vote, they had no instructions as to how to vote. They voted how they thought their constituents would have wanted them to vote. But even the typically soft-on-crime NDP voted for the bill.

To those folks living in Winnipeg South-Center, contact Anita Neville and let her know how you feel about her "stand" to keep as many gun criminals on the streets as possible. She can be e-mailed at Neville.A@parl.gc.ca or at email@anitaneville.ca.

Update: Right in Manitoba raises another point:

Even more ironic is that just this week we heard Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty demanding that the federal Conservatives toughen up gun laws. Rather than call on the Conservatives Dalton, you may do better talking to you brother David [Liberal MP for Ottawa South] and his cronies!

Labels: Anita Neville, Canadian Justice, Conservative Party, Guns, Liberal Party, Manitoba, NDP, politics, Winnipeg Crime

Books! I love 'em, but rarely have/find the time to read them. I finally finished Mark Steyn's Head to Toe, which had been sitting on my night stand for QUITE... SOME... TIME. I love Steyn, don't so much like his books made up of old random columns, only because the theme tends to get lost.

This week the University of Michigan Press offered me a free read, so I gladly obliged. The book is called "Private Guns, Public Health" by David Hemenway.

My first reaction was obvious: here's another ivory tower university professor type telling us a lot of reasons to ban guns. But apparently, it's not so.

I have yet to have a chance to open the book, but while 'about the town' tonight, I actually heard from some other people who'd read the book. It seemed that no matter their political disposition, the reader had enjoyed the book, and most agreed with Hemenway's ideas.

So, my aim is to finish reading this book in two weeks (thats a high bar for me). I will review the book upon completion. And I will also be doing up a review of Mark Steyn's "From Head to Toe". Book Reviews... I hated them in high school, and now I'm doing them for fun! Who'da thunk it?

Labels: David Hemenway, etc, Guns, Private Guns Public Health

Since the tragedy at Virgina Tech last week, there has been a lot of talk about gun control. The argument for gun control, is that if it were harder for the lunatic to get guns, it may have prevented the massacre. The argument against gun control is that if there were more sane-minded gun-totters at the scene, one of them may have been able to take the mad-man out and prevent any more murders.

The LA Times has a video up on their main page about the University of Utah where students are allowed to carry a concealed piece (h/t The Shotgun Blog.

Professor Peggy Nash thinks its "outrageous" that if "you have more guns, in the hands of more people in more place, we're going to have a safer society". Peggy takes the view of most gun-control advocates that this idea is "stupid and dangerous".

Another unnamed professor, who had just been told that one of his students was carrying a concealed weapon chuckled and replied, "it really makes me feel a little safer". In fact, at the University of Utah, over 500 students on campus carry concealed weapons. Mass shooting sprees to date: 0. The problem with Prof. Nash's argument is that it's "stupid and dangerous", but more importantly lacking any actual statistical evidence.

There are three points that people make in favor of gun control. The first is that "the fundamental role of government is to secure the public's safety and security, and that disarmament is a means to that end." While there is no doubt that public safety is one of the governments responsibilities, there is even less doubt that an individuals safety is paramount to himself, and therefore he should be able to use whatever means possible to secure his own safety. Since it is the governments job to secure the safety of society, it is therefore the governments duty to allow individuals to provide safety for themselves.

Others argue that prohibition of guns will reduce both their availability and their inappropriate use. Prohibition will reduce the availability of guns, there is little doubt about that. But prohibition does nothing to reduce the inappropriate use of firearms. If you own a gun that is banned, any use of it is then inappropriate.

The main claim is that fewer guns means fewer deaths from homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths. Cars are responsible for many unintentional deaths as well, but we don't ban them... we regulate them, and those who can use them. As far as suicide goes, you don't need a gun. A person who is bent on ending their own life can find a plethora of tools to do so. Having a gun around does not make sane people want to end their own lives.

The question of homicide rates is the big 'what if'. This chart by Boris Gimbarzevsky of the University of Saskatchewan shows some interesting trends. Most notably is that gun related murders tend to correlate to total murders. Except, in certain years like 1977 in which there was an increase in murder, but a decrease in gun-related murders. Or 1981, which saw an increase in overall murder, but the killers with guns took a full year to catch up. The chart shows that overall, gun-murderers tend to follow the trends set forth by murderers without guns.

Labels: Guns

An interesting video on the Pakistani gun-market (h/t Dust My Broom.
Clearly, the Taliban won't be running out of weapons any time soon. More reason to kill 'em. More means to kill each other.

At least 40 people have been killed and more than 70 wounded in clashes between Sunni and Shia Muslims in north-western Pakistan, a senior security official said.

Labels: Afghanistan, etc, Guns, YouTube