Jack Layton probably knows these things, too. However, as of yet he is unwilling to whip his MPs on this issue, citing his principle of letting MPs vote their conscience on private member's bills. This is an admirable democratic principle. Yet, with the safety of citizens' at stake, Jack Layton should take a firmer stand. He should stand up for what is right. He should whip his MPs to oppose this dangerous bill. Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Jack Layton Should Whip his MPs on Long-Gun Registry
When the bill to abolish the long gun registry was last put to a vote in the House of Commons, 8 Liberal MPs supported it. To avoid such an outcome on the upcoming decisive vote, Michael Ignatieff has whipped his MPs into opposing the bill. Ignatieff has understood that the registry is an important tool for police in their fight against crime. He also knows that the registry makes society safer.
Jack Layton probably knows these things, too. However, as of yet he is unwilling to whip his MPs on this issue, citing his principle of letting MPs vote their conscience on private member's bills. This is an admirable democratic principle. Yet, with the safety of citizens' at stake, Jack Layton should take a firmer stand. He should stand up for what is right. He should whip his MPs to oppose this dangerous bill. Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
Jack Layton probably knows these things, too. However, as of yet he is unwilling to whip his MPs on this issue, citing his principle of letting MPs vote their conscience on private member's bills. This is an admirable democratic principle. Yet, with the safety of citizens' at stake, Jack Layton should take a firmer stand. He should stand up for what is right. He should whip his MPs to oppose this dangerous bill. Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There's no reason to believe anyone's safety is at risk. That's been suggested, but it remains unproven. If it's true, then you've got a point. But, until it's shown to be true, unfortunately, you don't.
ReplyDeleteADHD sounds like the old apologists of the tobacco lobby -- "Warning labels aren't nec.: there's no proof smoking's dangerous, yet!"
ReplyDeletePoppycock. Just cuz there's no definitive proof, yet (there rarely is in empirical matters involving counterfactuals, confounding factors, and very impartial data collection), doesn't mean there is "no reason to believe" it is and will be a useful tool in enhancing public safety -- particularly in saving police from being killed and injured.
The problem, as the Auditor-General pointed out, is that as of 2006, they still hadn't been collecting and comparing the right kind of data to perform a proper evaluation to determine whether it did or did not accomplish anything.
That may have changed: let everyone see that report well in advance of the vote, Harper!
But by ABD's reasoning, the Dippers might as well let the Cons' dismantle _all_ safety regs. that haven't been "proven" to work, while they're at it, incl. the whole Cndn. Gun Protection Program (screening, licensing, training, for all types of firearms). The Coalition of the No Reason To Believe.
sorry, that should have read: "very imperfect and partial" data collection
ReplyDeleteAfter all the human rights abuses at the G20 protests - the last thing we need is to give the police "more tools"
ReplyDeletere: last anon: yeah, well, except it's not a new tool, it'd be taking away an old one.
ReplyDeleteAnd actually their intel tools worked pretty well at the G20: their threat assessments told them there was unlikely to be any real violence beyond violence, and there wasn't, which is why they made their prep's around non-lethal forms of containment, which is why no one got killed, or even seriously hurt. The importance of that shouldn't be overlooked or scoffed at.
But if you take away the gun registy, I bet more people are going to be killed in 'going postal' events: mostly cops. Maybe you think that's a good thing, but I don't, on calls like when they're genuinely trying to keep the public safe.
I do not see any relation between the gun registry and the action of the police at the G20, no matter what they did. I guess you could say that the G20, depending on how you look at it, eroded some of your trust in the police. Even if that's the case, it's not dangerous for the police to have the gun registry at their disposal. In fact it makes them and us safer.
ReplyDeleteTo the first comment, I think that the police must have some justification for thinking that it is useful. If there is not exact causation proven, there are strong indications. Much better to be safe than sorry.
oops, "any real violence beyond violence" should've read: "any real violence beyond vandalism" in the penultimate comment
ReplyDeleteI found your this post while searching for some related information on blog search...Its a good post..keep posting and update the information. Double Barrel Shotguns
ReplyDelete