Showing posts with label London. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

God made men...


...but Samuel Colt made them equal.

Toronto's mayor has asked London, Ontario's fourth or fifth largest city, for support in asking the provincial government for a province-wide handgun ban.

This may surprise you, considering my political affiliation, but I'm not really a fan of rules. I recognize that they are necessary, but I also recognize that many well-meaning rules are often misguided. Ontario's pitbull ban is a good example. It's a blunt instrument designed to punish irresponsible dog owners, but instead punishes the dogs.

And I know that Greens seem like well-meaning-do-gooder social engineers, but we're not about banning things, we're about internalizing costs.

Having said that, I dig on handgun bans.

I know that a ban won't significantly reduce the incidence of violent crime. And I know that people who are willing to break the law in order to kill, rob or terrorize aren't likely to be swayed by the prospect of another charge of possession of a banned weapon. And I know that there are lots of law-abiding handgun owners that will be adversly affected by this law, and they won't have done anything wrong.

But still, a handgun ban strikes me as a good idea.

I'm not saying ban all guns. And I'm not saying that just because guns kill people we should ban anything that kills people. That's absurd. But here's the thing.

Handguns are specifically designed to kill people.

Long guns are for hunting. Knives are for cutting. Baseball bats are for baseball. Cars are for transportation. Pills are for medicine. And they all kill people. But none of them exist specifically for the expressed purpose of killing people. And that's why a ban is a good idea.

Think about it. We have controls on things that are designed to kill people, and we only let certain people have them. Tanks, armoured personnel carriers, grenades, bioweapons, and the like. How are they different from handguns, besides the scope of murder available?

You may have to defend yourself against a bad guy with a gun someday. However, that bad guy is more likely to have a handgun if they're not banned. And it's not your job to kill the bad guys. That's the job for the cops. As for killing people in other countries? That's the job of the military. If you want to be allowed to kill people, become a cop or a soldier.

The fact is that a handgun ban will reduce the number of guns on the street. And it will be easier to identify the people who are bad. You'll be able to tell, 'cause they'll be the ones with the guns. If the only people in the province who are allowed to have handguns are the cops, we'll all be a lot safer. And if someone does use a gun in the commission of a crime, I find it reassuring that they'll have an extra five or six years in the cooler to think about whether or not they should have grabbed a machete, instead.

Yes, people are violent, and they will kill people. But they will at least have to use a little ingenuity and use a tool that isn't designed specifically to make the job of killing someone easier.

Friday, July 04, 2008

Virtuous Consumer

Written to my local morning news channel today:
I was watching this morning when your "Virtuous Consumer" came on air with "green" baby products.

I want to tell you first that the term "virtuous consumer" is at best a misnomer, and more likely deliberately deceptive. It's offensive. Consumption is the problem, it is not a virtue. It is also region-specific: while we in the West consume, the rest of the planet starves.

Second, the idea of the segment really IS offensive. it's irresponsible journalism to indicate to the general population not only that consumption is a virtue, but that these products actually help the environment. You're lying to your viewers. You imply that phosphate free detergent for the thousands of baby clothes they own or buying a few glass bottles will help. It won't. What would have helped most is not having the baby in the first place.

What's worse, you foster a false sense of responsibility in your viewers: If I buy these products, they think, I will be helping. I'm not preaching from some ascetic moral high ground here. I consume as well. But at least I have the decency to feel guilty about it, and to take steps to reduce consumption, rather than painting a thin green veneer on my selfish activities so I can feel smug about them. Green consumption is still consumption, and doesn't help the broader problem of resource depletion.

I'd like to see A Channel, and CTV more broadly, adopt a far more responsible attitude toward resource depletion and the environmental crisis. I shan't hold my breath.

Respond to this how you wish. I don't seriously expect you to pull the segment (or any of the other "green" product placements you do), to change the name or to start advocating for less stuff for all of us (I'm sure your sponsors would love that). Dismiss me as a crackpot or a crank, or an "eco-terrorist". I don't care how you react. It'd take more than one regional morning show to make a difference anyway.

I just thought you ought to know that at least one person sees through it, and cares enough to point it out.
I'll let you know how/if they respond.