Logic? Never heard of it.

Some politicians when making important policy decisions use a mixture of statistics, academic studies, advisory reports and the general public mood at the time. Other politicians base their decisions on isolated anecdotes that go against ALL of the other evidence. Which camp do you think Phil is in?

On October 27, Phil said:

"[W]hen this came before committee, we heard witnesses from the police association. We also heard from individual chiefs from across the country. Some of those chiefs believed that the long gun registry served no specific purpose. Although the police association was involved, chiefs in other areas of the country said that it was not the case in their jurisdictions. Also, front-line police officers, in their basic training, have said that they are told to assume that there are guns inside every door when they go there.

Therefore, the unreliability of information that is not current or updated actually does the opposite. It puts some police officers, were they to rely on the information, in harm's way in terms of this information going forward."

Let me get this logic straight: The majority of police chiefs say they want the gun registry. One or two police chiefs say that the gun registry serves no specific purpose. Therefore the gun registry puts officers in harm's way.

It. Makes. No. Sense.

Why was this man elected to be your voice in Ottawa?

$3.1 million > $1.2 billion: Phil McColeman

Stephen Harper has decided to take aim at the gun registry, claiming that it's too expensive. The Conservative government had no problem spending over a billion dollars on a three day summit in Toronto last summer.

Phil tried to argue that gun control is too expensive but out of control spending is okay:



Phil is the same person who had no problem spending taxpayers' money on thousands of Canadian flags with his e-mail address on them and sending them out.



Forget a calculator, Phil needs an abacus!

One Mouth, Two Tongues

French Canadians have an expression that goes, "She has one mouth, two tongues." It means that somebody contradicts themself or says two opposite things. It certainly applied to Phil McColeman yesterday. First, he behaved like a sore loser after losing the vote on the gun registry, which has proven to be an invaluable crime-fighting tool. In Parliament he said:

Twenty coalition MPs originally supported the simple and straightforward bill to scrap the long gun registry, but under pressure from their Ottawa bosses, they turned their backs on their constituents and voted to keep the registry. One of those flip-floppers…

On this side of the House, we do not believe in treating law-abiding hunters, farmers and sports shooters as criminals and we will continue to work to scrap the $2 billion wasteful registry.

Well you know what, Phil? If I don't register and insure my car I can be charged on summary conviction and have to pay a fine. In other words, I'm a "criminal." That's because a car can be used as a deadly weapon and can cause damage to property, in addition to being an invaluable tool. Kind of like a gun, don't you think?

Then, Phil spoke in favour of a nonsensical tough-on-crime bill regarding prisoner transfers, despite the fact that crime has been decreasing for decades in Canada:

…we have taken action on the economy and on many other fronts including cracking down on crime. In particular, we have introduced several measures to crack down on violent gun crimes.
…
The bottom line, as I mentioned, is that Canadians want a justice system that works.
…
[This bill], therefore, reflects this government's commitment we have made to Canadians to stand up for victims and to ensure our streets, our homes, and our playgrounds are safer places.
…
This act would ensure the protection of our society is given paramount consideration

So instead of preventing violent gun crime by making people register their guns, Phil would rather punish people after they've committed the crime. In terms of considering the victim, I think that your average victim would rather not be a victim in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Just ask MP Scott Simms what it's like to have someone in your family killed by a gun. He is one of the "flip-floppers" who voted in favour of the gun registry. If we can prevent even a single death, he said, the registry is worth it. He didn't mention punishment after the fact.

(Mr. Simms also doesn't go around posting tasteless photos of himself with assault rifles.)

Phil with an Automatic Weapon

True to form, Phil has posted a photo of himself with an automatic weapon on his website.


(See this post, this post, this post, and this post for more on Phil's unwavering hatred of the firearms registry).

Phil's Gun Crazy

The following is a great recent article in the Expositor:

Keep the long gun registry, Mr. McColeman

By Pat Kawamoto, The Brantford Expositor, August 7, 2010

Contrary to Brant MP Phil McColeman’s recent article on ending the long gun registry, not all Canadians are fed up with paying for it.

While the initial cost to implement the registry was high, police associations confirm that it is now controlled by the RCMP and costs this country a reasonable $4.1 million per year to run.

Also, while McColeman’s article iimplies that police chiefs and officers do not support the long gun registry, it should be noted that all of the major Canadian organizations representing police support the registry -including The Canadian Police Association, representing 41,000 police officers in Canada and The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs.

Additionally, Ontario’s Attorney General, public health organizations, labour organizations, social organizations, women’s safety experts and many others support the long-gun registry.

In fact, the parliamentary standing committee on public safety and national security, which McColeman acknowledges he is a part of, recommended to the House of Commons in its latest report that the government should keep the long-gun registry as it is a tool “…that promotes and enhances public security and the safety of Canadian police officers.”

Here’s what the experts are saying (visit www.guncontrol.cafor more information) and what McColeman’s article didn’t tell you:

– As of 2009, 111,533 firearms were seized by police for public safety reasons. Of those 87,893 or 78.8% were long guns;

– Of the 16 police officer shooting deaths in Canada since 1998, 14 were the result of long guns.

– Police across Canada access the long gun registry about 11,000 times a day, or more than four million times a year. Of those inquiries, more than 2,800 a day, or one million a year, directly involve community safety issues.

– Between 1974 and 2008, 40,000 long guns were stolen from Canadian residences and 1.85 million long guns changed hands in Canada since 2006. Registering long guns holds owners accountable for the safe storage of their firearms, for reporting lost or stolen guns and reduces the chances that legally owned guns will be diverted to unlicensed owners.

– On average, one in three women killed by their husbands is shot -88% of them with legally owned rifles and shotguns.

– When firearms are available, domestic homicides are more likely to involve multiple victims and end in suicide.

– Northern Ontario communities have higher rates of long gun ownership and gun-related injuries than the provincial average.

– Contrary to popular belief, it is relatively easy to register a long gun and it is free.

McColeman states in his article that the Conservatives support the registration of prohibited and restricted weapons but not the registration of long guns.

His argument for this is that the long gun registry is ineffective as criminals do not register their guns. If criminals do not register their long guns, why would they register their prohibited and restricted weapons?

Where is the logic in supporting one registry over another?

In closing, keep the long gun registry, Mr. McColeman — don’t waste the significant tax dollars already spent and please help protect our families and communities.

Pat Kawamoto was born and raised in Brantford and is a career banker currently working as an independent financial planner. She is a strong believer in giving back to both the local communities in which we live and the broader global communities with which we share our humanity.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2702500

Phil McColeman: Soft on Crime, pt. 2

There's been a lot of debate over my post in Dec. 2009 titled "Phil McColeman: Soft on Crime." So I thought I'd follow up.

The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards have both decided that the Firearms Registry DOES prevent crime. This is despite what certain armchair pundits claim. Yet Phil McColeman does not support the continuation of this valuable tool. In fact, he has spoken up in Parliament, calling opposition members "bullies" for fighting to keep the Registry.

At the same time, Phil has sent out numerous flyers to the constituents of Brant claiming to be "Tough on Crime." The fact is that Harper's tough on crime strategy involving harsher jail sentences WILL NOT reduce crime, but WILL be very expensive. This is a proven fact.

Therefore, while Phil claims to be "Tough on Crime," he is not actually doing anything to lower the crime rate. All he advocates is 1) scrapping a valuable crime-fighting tool, and 2) replacing it with a very expensive strategy that will accomplish nothing.

Phil McColeman is NOT tough on crime. If he claims to be tough on crime he is lying or ignorant.

I encourage Brant students to participate in Phil's Public Safety Essay Contest by writing about the efficacy of gun control compared to the efficacy of harsh prison sentences.