October 27, 2005

• Opps, sorry, this is the link.
• Well, we blame other countries for our drug problems, so why is it unfair when the shoe is on the other foot?
• Earlier, Prime Minister Paul Martin indicated it was among the issues he intended to raise with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I wish you lots of luck with that, Mr. Prime Minister. Looooooooooots of luck.
• Dismissing this as a frivolous lawsuit completely misses the forces at work here. Businesses have a vested interested in making money. They do not have any kind of ethical standard. In some cases, their vested interest is dangerous enough to the public to be illegal (see pyramid schemes). In other cases, the danger of their inherent interest is offset by benefits (which may include simply profit). By this reconing, then, under some moral standards gun manufacturers should not be allowed to exist. I strongly believe they should be heavily regulated. We have restrictions on nuclear weapons, why shouldn't we have them on small arms? "More than 500,000 people die from small arms annually, 90% of them being civilians comprised mainly of women and children. Additionally, the United Nations estimates that 40-60% of the over 500 million small arms in circulation are illicit and have been employed in 46 of the 49 major conflicts conducted since 1990." from here Do you think gun manufacturers really have a problem with this? I'm not advocating a totalitarian, gunless state. But I have no problem with "frivolous lawsuits" when they may actually serve to counter what I view as inherently malicious tendencies of institutions. There is a good site online somewhere dispelling most of the traditional 'frivolous lawsuits', by the way. Anyone have a link? Anyway, google "frivolous lawsuits" and then google "frivolous lawsuits myth" and report back with your findings.
• I'm not sure about the site, but I do remember SNOPES dealing with the urban myth of outrageous tort decisions, some tome ago.
• I don't know much about this, but it seems unreasonable to expect a manufacturer to check out every outlet they deal with. It would just be impractical. If the manufacturer did business with a shop that didn't have their relevant permits or whatever it's another matter.
• Pre-electioneering. The odds of getting caught with a gun are low, and the penalties are a joke. It would be one thing if the Canadian government had introduced strict laws against gun use during crimes, instead they introduce a registry program that sucks up billions, angers people who don't live in eastern cities, and has yet to demonstrate any practical use. Canadian law used to allow for proscriptive crimes. (If a gang robs a bank, and someone got killed, all the members could be tried for murder, including the guy sitting in the car.) Maybe it's time to bring this back to deal with the gangs. It would require the notwithstanding clause, but would likely have popular support. Also, making gun use a separate crime with strict minimum sentences would help. Or randomly searching more cars crossing the border. However, given that the Canadians arrested a guy selling marijuana seeds at the Americans request, (Canadian laws hadn't been broken), it's probably only a matter of time before the Canadian equivalent of the NRA pressures a Reformatory government to allow all types of guns here.
• You're right, NE, that Canada's courts have been too lax when it comes to gun crimes. There should be mandatory prison terms for any crime involving a gun, and multiple offenses should be given consecutive sentences, not the joke of concurrent sentences we have now. None of this would require invoking the notwithstanding clause, which in my opinion should never be used. This lawsuit is a stupid idea, but is typical of governments who blame others for their own failings.
• Stripe - not to ridicule you, but by you logic suit should be brought against anyone who builds stair cases. According to the BBC, in the UK 1,000 die from stair falls annually. Extrapolation of the number of world-wide stair deaths is mind boggling! The generic phase, "xxx don't kill people, people harm people" is being ignored. I am working hard in raising my three year old to be responsible for his actions. If the boy grabs a stuffed monkey and whaps his baby brother with it, he is responsible for his action, not : (1) the toy manufacturer, (2) the store the sold the toy, (3) the person who bought the toy and gave it to the child, (4) my wife for not putting the toy on a shelf out of his reach. The same responsibility lies with anyone who wields a gun, a knife, a car, a stair case, a stuffed monkey, anything to harm another person. (Okay, the stair case doesn't make sense, but you know where I'm going with this.) Who would a Neanderthal sue when Ogh clobbers Uklik with a thigh-bone? The entity who wrote the specifications for "intelligent design"? Who are the survivors of natural disaster going to sue? Gaea? When I see my government issuing statements like the link above, it is embarrassing.
• Except, you know, handguns are built for the expressed purpose of killing people, which they do very well when used as intended. But don't let that sour your analogy...
• I thought Canada didn't really have a problem with gun-related crime. At least, that's the impression Michael Moore gave us with his last film. That said, I have a problem with mandatory sentences in general. Mandatory minimum sentences are an attempt by the legislative branch of government to coopt the power of the judicial. Here in the states we have had to endure a tough-on-crime arms race by politicians that puts nearly 13% of the population behind bars at some point in their lives. The poor and uneducated end up being hurt most. Please, Canadians, try to maintain the standard of creative, sensible, compassionate solutions that you have set for us less fortunate co-americans to the south. /rant
• Rocket, the proscriptive crimes where everyone in a group was charged with the maximum crime, when only one person pulled the trigger would be against the charter of rights. Bringing this back would require the use of the notwithstanding clause. But if everyone in a gang could be charged for the actions of one, it would create a strong peer pressure deterrent. I wouldn't want to face a jail term because one of my friends waved a gun at someone. The gun crime in question is almost exclusively gang and drug related. If it wasn't occurring in Toronto, it wouldn't be at the top of the national news, and Martin just wouldn't care. But because Torontonians are scared, and an election is coming, a quick announement beats an actual thought out policy.
• People's 'web of association' is not as simple as well defined gangs though. I've ended up hanging around with criminals who use guns through 'mate of a mate' and I don't think would be right to be charged if one of them had a gun on them and did something.
• I am working hard in raising my three year old to be responsible for his actions. If the boy grabs a stuffed monkey and whaps his baby brother with it, he is responsible for his action, not : (1) the toy manufacturer, (2) the store the sold the toy, (3) the person who bought the toy and gave it to the child, (4) my wife for not putting the toy on a shelf out of his reach. If your 3-year old reached for a kitchen knife instead of a toy monkey to use on his brother then I'm pretty certain there'd be some questions asked about how it was left out, and definitely some action to make sure it didn't happen again.
• Gunless state does not equal totalitarian state. This is an asinine American prejudice. Most civilized countries do rather well without an armed populace. Such wankery.
• I think Canada's attempt at a national gun registry was a good idea. The only reason it turned into a $Billion waste and ultimately failed was because the pro-gun lobby sabotaged it by telling their members & supporters not to participate.
• The problem is that the US is letting guns out of the country? Or, is it that Cananda is letting them in? Of course, we have to remember that guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
• Except, you know, handguns are built for the expressed purpose of killing people, which they do very well when used as intended. That's a pity. Mine must be faulty... I'll sue!
• The only reason it turned into a $Billion waste and ultimately failed was because the pro-gun lobby sabotaged it by telling their members & supporters not to participate. Ahhhh, no. Not registering a gun means less work done by the agency, means less money spent. The gun registry was doomed to failure from the start. Here is a Fraser Institute report published in 2002 . I love how it starts, “The ballooning $1 billion price tag of the Canadian gun registry was predictable to anyone who has followed this massive boondoggle.” $1 billion from the original $85 million, people. A link to the actual study itself can be found here.
• Not registering a gun means less work done by the agency, means less money spent. It's not that simple (most things aren't). When the initial period for voluntary registration of guns ended, very few gun owners had bothered to register. The period was extended, and new processes and forms were developed. Again, very few registered. It was extended at least one more time (if I recall correctly). All of this increased the cost of the program. There were other reasons for cost overruns, of course, including basic beurocratic incompetence, but the original intent of the registry was a good one, and if gun owners had cooperated, I think it would have worked.
• Except that Joe Dealer isn't about to register his illegal handgun. They could have established a registry, and merely created a very severe penalty for using an unregistered gun in a crime. Anyone regularly using a gun that required official sanction (hunters and their licenses, etc) would be required to register. Mr. Alberta Farmer who had a gun to protect their herd wouldn't be forced to register. Instead we wound up with an unpopular system that doesn't do anything to stop the actual shooting using illegal guns.
• WPDK: I think responsibility is important, sure. But people do not act in a vacuum. Not only do scenarios exist in which responsibility is entirely questionable (what happens when you give a weapon to someone you have every reason to believe is inclined to murder someone else?), I would argue that they are commonplace. You are generally in control of your immediate actions. You are far less often in control of the scenario that gave you those choices, and I think the creation of those scenarios should be taken into account. I'm sure you do too, in many contexts. Why can't this apply to gun manufacturers?
• I'm suing WPKD. His dispair has affected the quality of my life and cause pain and suffering. His post has impacted my handgun ownerage, and I demand compensation!
• Northen Exposed writes; Canadian law used to allow for proscriptive crimes. (If a gang robs a bank, and someone got killed, all the members could be tried for murder, including the guy sitting in the car.) I'm not convinced that this is an effective remedy. This California case is an example of the grave potential for injustice when such a blanket approach to wildy varying circumstances is used.
• Monkeyfilter: Such wankery. Chy, I really wish you had said "douchebaggery". I love that word.