Scientia est potentia

Comment policy: your first comment will be held for moderation, all non-spam comments will be approved.

Math is hardly a contentious subject. It’s a topic that’s unlikely to evoke any sort of response from most people, beyond a casually dismissive remark like “I was never any good at that stuff.”

But for me, math is something I get very upset about. Not math itself – I’m an engineer, not a mathematician, and can lay no claim to anything but the most cursory of knowledge about rigorous math – but the way that people perceive it.  Ask most people and they’ll tell you that they aren’t any good at math. But I would put money on the fact that almost no one who professes a lack of competency or even an active dislike of mathematics could define “math” for you, or even give you an example of a mathematical theorem or concept. And that – people deriding or dismissing something that they do not understand – is a problem for me.

Why does no one know any math?

The answer is easy. People don’t know math because no one is teaching it at the primary and secondary levels. Sure, there are lots of things called “math”. But all of them boil down to mindless computation, continual application of an algorithm which is not explained or justified. “Math” education at the K-12 level in North America utterly ignores the fact that mathematics is, at it’s heart, a conceptual exercise.

Gauss called mathematics the queen of the sciences. Whatever he meant by that, it is certain that math stands apart from the natural and applied sciences. Math has no explicit object – it is like a living being in that the only goal of mathematics is to accomplish, well, math. The first thing to understand about math is that it is, at a certain level, arbitrary. We seek to understand things, how they behave, how they interact with other things, and so forth – except these are not physical things. We are not motivated by the existence of some object in nature, or the desire to create something for an external purpose. Some mathematical concepts can be understood by analogy to the physical world, but many cannot.

Take numbers for example. You might say that the concept of numbers has obvious physical meaning. It’s just a way of quantifying how much of something you have. But that is only true for some numbers. You could easily imagine 5 of something, or maybe even one million. What about -5? How many is that?How about 2.71828183? ?? 2 + 3i?

One of my first year calculus professors would often write some new (to me) expression on the board and then say, “I want to understand this thing.” And that is really what math is.  We begin with a system of logical axioms. Under these axioms we define certain objects. We realize that these objects can be combined, that they can interact in complex ways. We begin to see that although we started arbitrarily, patterns emerge from the logically derived results of our assumptions. And herein lies the beauty of math. Aside from the initial axioms, there can be no more arbitrariness. Everything must be logically justified and there can be no contradictions. And as we unravel how our artificial constructs behave under these few restrictions, we see an amazing interconnectedness. We see that these objects, operations and relationships that we have derived in complete generality and abstraction can be adapted to model the realities of the physical world. But it is still so much more than that. From a lot of scratch marks on a piece of paper we’ve conjured up a whole new universe of the mind, the ultimate expression of the human search for truth and meaning.

Everything I’ve written in the last 3 paragraphs probably seems alien to you. From K-12 you were never permitted to take even the faintest glimpse of this world. You could not be trusted with it. Kids couldn’t possibly understand hard questions like why and so had to be told the answer to the much easier question, how. Why justify a result when instead you can just accept it? You spent years memorizing multiplication tables – a computation which, on it’s own, is utterly useless – but were never asked why the product of two numbers should exist, and what it’s definition should be. You spent a great deal of time memorizing how to compute the areas of various shapes (as if, later in life, people would routinely demand that you ascertain the area of a trapezoid or be shot), but none asking what area means, questions how to define it, and given a definition, if we could come up with a general way of computing it.

Someone probably told you about a thing called sine (and his friend cosine), and what it meant in the context of right-angled triangles. But no one ever told you what sine really is (quick way to stump a high school math teacher – ask how your calculator knows what the sine of, say, the square root of 5 degrees is). It turns out that this function has lots of clever applications (and by lots I mean pretty much everything in your house that uses electricity), and none of them are at all related to triangles.

And if all this stuff seemed hard, if it never really made sense to you, it’s totally understandable. You were never allowed to see the big picture, the great tapestry of mathematics, but were instead forced to make sense of a few arbitrarily selected crumbs of knowledge. Your teachers always wanted you to know the answer, but math isn’t about getting the answer. The answer to a math question is more questions – is there, in general, an answer to that type of question? If so, can I always find it? If I get the answer, how will I know that it is right? Can I find a way of expressing ALL answers to ALL variations of the question? I can only figure out one answer – can I show that it is the ONLY one? What features characterize the solutions to this type of problem? Can I relate them to other, similar, but harder problems?

These aren’t questions that are only relevant to mathematics. They’re the type of probing questions that people in general need to ask about a lot of things. A framework is much more useful than an answer, and type of rigorous, logical thought taught by mathematics would serve everyone well. To realize where results come from, to question every step of the process as well as the initial assumptions, is the difference between an informed, responsible citizen and a mere subject. So please, give math a chance.

If you thought this was the least bit interesting, please read A Mathematician’s Lament by Paul Lockhart and A Mathematician’s Apology by G.H. Hardy.

In an entry discussing an interview with Alok Mukherjee, Elizabeth Mandelman wrote this:

Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected.

This is categorically false. Coming from the Chair of the Police Services Board, someone who has access to numerous experts on firearms laws in Canada and ought to know better, it is a lie. It is a glaring error to anyone which is familiar with Canadian gun laws. All firearms in Canada must be registered.

Rather than admit this error, Mandelman scurried to defend it. Here I will document her sorry attempt to make sense of a blatantly false statement.

Chris R.:

“Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected.”

All modern firearms must be registered, so the above sentence is very misleading and totally false. Based on mistakes like this, it should not be surprising that dialogues of yours receive criticism. Also, if someone’s criticism of your work is undeserved or is based on bad information, don’t not post the dialogue, show why the criticism is unjustified.

Mandelman:

Chris, No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list for over a decade. This is indeed a loophole, and it’s being exploited by many firearms retailers. Many new firearms have been designed that are being sold in Canada that meet the criteria to be on the prohibited or restricted lists. Here’s an example of a website advertisement from Wolverine Supplies is Manitoba:
The final class is the Prohibited (With out grandfathering) this
would include (but not limited to) firearms from all the Prohibited
Grandfathered classes that were not registered into the system prior
to their respective cut off dates. Do not try and register one of
these firearms (Even during an amnesty) you will lose it! If you
have something interesting in this area contact me and I will explain
your options, Yes you do have more options than simply surrending
her, but don’t delay.
There are many errors and misunderstandings concerning the
classification of different firearms. The following are just a few
examples. Lots of people think all Fifty cal rifles are prohibited.
WRONG!!!! Some are, and some are not. The Mini 14 is still not
restricted, folding stocks are legal, so are factory shotguns with 14
inch barrels. An MP5 SMG would have to be either a FA or CA. The
factory semi auto version, the HK 94 would be in the 12.5 class. This is
very straighforward and easy to understand. However when you look
at the FN FAL family you have firearms that could be in either FA, CA
or the 12.5 class, and some FN FAL whose correct classification can
not be determined. These last ones are accepted at face value in
whatever class they are currently registered in.
Here at Wolverine Supplies we deal in all classes of firearms. We
supply both private citizens and Government Agencies, literally from
coast to coast. Whilst we do not support all the current facets of our
firearm control system, we will follow the law. Due to my long
extensive involvement in the Canadian Firearms Industry I have a
better than average understanding of our system, if you have any
concerns regarding any intended purchase, please phone or e-mail me.
John Hipwell
President
Wolverine Supplies

Mandelman says, “No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list in over a decade.” That is a lie. Hundreds of firearms have been classified as restricted or prohibited since the introduction of the Firearms Act based on the criteria set out therein. The criteria are set out in s. 84 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

“prohibited firearm” means

(a) a handgun that

(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or

(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,

but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,

(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or

(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm;

“restricted firearm” means

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm that

(i) is not a prohibited firearm,

(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and

(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

(d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;

Based on these criteria, many firearms have been added to the Firearms Registration Table (FRT) database as prohibited or restricted. The letter that Mandelman quotes from Mr. Hipwell of Wolverine Supplies (a very nice guy, by the way, who sold me one of these post-1995 restricted firearms that Mandelman claims does not exist) is utterly irrelevant and displays her complete ignorance of Canadian law. He is describing how owners of non-grandfathered prohibited firearms who are unable to register their guns because they missed the cut-off date may be able to transfer the firearms to himself – a dealer with the correct license – so that the firearms can be registered. Ironically Mandelman is so out of touch that in an effort to show how guns can be not registered, she quotes an example of someone explaining how to register unregistered firearms!

Chris R. replies:

“Chris, No new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited list for over a decade.”

Now hold on, you wrote that the firearms didn’t need to be registered, which is incorrect. You mentioned nothing about prohibition orders, and what you said in your reply is completely different than what I replied to. Also, how is not adding to the prohibited list a loophole?

“I’ve made clear in many of my posts, and comments, that I’m not opposed to people owning firearms safely and legally for sportsmanship purposes. I’m pretty sure there are even a few gun nutz who would be willing to back me up on that one. You may want to take a look back at my entries and comments.”

I’ll back you up on this one, but I think that hand guns are sporting arms, along with the AR-15 and many other firearms that are currently restricted….

Chris figures that Mandelman may be talking about the fact that no new firearms have been restricted by name (not based on any criteria), as described in paragraph (d) of both definitions quoted above. If this is the case, it is not a loophole. These firearms were originally restricted or prohibited by name simply because they didn’t fit the criteria already established. No new firearms can meet the criteria for being prohibited or restricted by name because there are no criteria. If there were, they would have used those criteria instead of the name! Furthermore, the regulations refer to “all firearms of the design commonly known as…”, so all variants of a firearm proscribed to be a prohibited or restricted firearm are also in that class. I still don’t see the loophole.

Mandelman, who has no experience navigating the murky waters of Canadian gun laws, is now completely out of her depth as she shows with her next comment:

Chris, Go back and read my original entry. I wrote that there are new firearms being designed that haven’t been added to the prohibited or restricted list, and if I didn’t use those words explicitly, it was implied. Retailers are able to market these firearms as ones which can be purchsed [sic] and not registered, because the lists have not been updated. My original post clearly states this, and the example I provided backs it up.

Okay, so there are new guns being made that aren’t restricted or prohibited. So what? That’s because they don’t meet the criteria. That is not a loophole. The portion is bold is a lie. All firearms in Canada must be registered. The example she provided does not back anything up, in fact it is an example of how prohibited firearms can be registered, not go unregistered. Another lie.

Commenter Mark knows the truth:

Elizabeth: You need to the check the LAW. The statement: “Additionally, the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered (because the list included in the legislation it out of date and contained no measure to regularly update it) needs to be corrected”, IS WRONG. By law ALL firearms in Canada must be registed.

To which Elizabeth, having been thoroughly proved wrong, respondly cheekily:

Mark, Thanks for the suggestion, but I have checked the law. Apparently though, the law, Dr. Mukherjee, and the law enforcement officials I’ve checked with are just flat out wrong. Not surprising, since apparently I’m wrong about everything, along with all of the individuals I’m interviewed during my time here, no matter what their credentials.

Ironically it is only in her sarcasm that she is actually correct.

Here I have demonstrated that Mandelman is factually incorrect – yet she refuses to admit it. No doubt she considers what I doing right now to be “harassment”. If she can provide a single example (make and model, of course) of this: “… the current loophole that allows manufacturers to slightly alter a firearm and market it to the public as a new model not needing to be registered…”, I will donate $100 to the charity of her choice (caveat: must be a registered charity in Canada).

The ball in your court now, Elizabeth. You shut down comments on that entry but I’m not letting this lie go unchallenged.

Dear Ms. Mandelman:

Throughout your brief tenure in Canada, you have chosen to accomplish your stated ideological goals of civilian disarmament through a combination of outright lies, misrepresentation and selective use of statistics, and fallacious appeals to authority. When selectively quoting statistics failed you, you turned to interviewing fellow gun control advocates under the bizarre impression than your unsupported opinion is more valuble when someone else says it.  You have regulated debate on your blog with an iron fist, deciding arbitrarily which comments are appropriate for posting. You have routinely deleted entire civil discussions with commenters after the fact, for no reason other than the realization you were losing the debate.

Anyone who wishes to talk politics should expect disagreement, and anyone who uses your methods should expect to be called on their deceitful tactics. When you or your colleagues make assertions that are patently false, that should and will be pointed out.

Many of the comments you have received are heated, but few are insulting. The existance of a handful of insulting comments in not a reason to discount the vast majority which are civil. Some commenters have unearthed small mountains of statistics, none of which you have countered or discredited in any way. One commenter summed up your failures nicely:

Ms. Mandelman,

It might have been an honest mistake on my part, my apologies.

However, I do not see you trying to address the points I raised in that particular comment, such as:

- Historical uses of gun control and their consequences (ie: Nazi Germany, Balkans, Rwanda, Stalinist Russia, post-Katrina New Orleans, Saddam Hussein’s 2002 election with 100% of the votes, etc);
- Veracity of the claims regarding Mrs. Carrick’s marital life;
- Failure to provide hard evidence to disprove the facts raised by members of the firearms community;
- Failure to put statistics in context;
- Explain how you can claim you are not out to insult gun owners, soldiers and men in general when you liken us to murderers, wife-beaters, gang members, rapists and war criminals;
- Why do you constantly ignore the use of weapons other than guns quoting that “guns are more lethal”;
- Constantly ignoring the MALE victims of domestic abuse, insinuating that it is not a human rights issue when they are the victims.

And those are only the ones I can easily list.

Should you start answering the points that myself and other bloggers consistently raise, it would go a long way towards earning the respect you demand we accord you for no reason other than your status as a fellow associated with IANSA and your post-graduate studies.

And as usual, it will be sent to various recipients in order to maximize the amount of light shed on this issue.

Instead you respond to comments which raise legitimate, factual points with replies like this:

Everyone is entitled to there [sic] opinion, and to open and respectful debate. That is not what has happened here. That is not what the pro gun community chooses to engage in. Trying to “stomp all over” those who disagree with and wear them down emotionally by calling names and attacking personal characteristics is not intellectual. “Stomp all over” are the words of gunnnutz.com, not my own. Try as you may to make someone backdown just for having an opinion. It obviously doesn’t work, as Wendy Cukier has been an advocate of gun control for many years, and you haven’t been able to “stomp” her out yet, have you?

The signal-to-noise ratio here is rather poor. The fact is that you have nothing to say. All you can do is make vague references to “open discussion and debate” (something you have not permitted on your blog). To you this means that only your opinion and the opinions of those that agree with you are presented. You accuse the “pro gun community” of “harassing” you. If perpetually providing a logical and well-supported counterpoint to your opinion is harassment, then I suppose we are harassing you – with the truth.

I challenge you to provide examples of this so-called harassment, complete with names and IP addresses. Let me remind you of the definition of harassment, from the Criminal Code of Canada:

Engaging in the conduct referred to below that causes the other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them:

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

You have tried to paint a picture of gun owners as violent and crude people, for example by stating that you would not post your email dialogue with a member of CanadianGunNutz.com for fear that he would be harassed (as you supposedly are). Unknown to you, he was posting the entire dialogue on CGN with absolutely no harassment.

It is you who avoid open discussion, because you have no arguments to present. You state, without basis, that you will not meet any members of the firearms community because you fear for your own safety. In this regard the onus is on you – the one who always talks about open discussion and debate – to explain why you refuse to say anything outside of the well-controlled cocoon of your own blog.

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Rishi Maharaj

One of the things that has always struck me about anti-gun activists is how they self-identify. When you call yourself a gun control activist or participate in organizations with rather self-explanatory names (like the Coalition for Gun Control or the International Action Network on Small Arms), you tell everyone that you’ve already made your mind up on what the problem is. You are saying that you are dead set on campaigning against inanimate objects rather than the social, cultural, political and economic problems that cause violence. Read more…

Canada and Somalia, can you tell the difference? Elizabeth Mandelman can’t.

As “documentary” film makers like Michael Moore are keenly aware, the medium and format used to present information makes a big difference in the level of credibility that people assign to it. Pulling information out of your hindquarters verbally in a casual conversation isn’t likely to convince anyone, but once it’s in print in the mainstream news media or a widely-distributed film, it has to be true.

Read more…

After apparently running out of bogus statistics and fallacious arguments to peddle about guns and domestic violence, Elizabeth Mandelman has moved on to another time-honoured anti-gun talking point: suicides. (School shootings is coming next, I can feel it in my bones).

As per her SOP, Elizabeth’s latest entry is full of broken logic and half truths, which I will document and correct here.

Read more…

I couldn’t resist dissecting this post by  gun control supporter “Alberta Gordon” on Elizabeth Mandelman’s blog. Before I quote it, let me note that this was originally 3 seperate posts by “Natasha”, Paul Thiessen and a 3rd poster whose name I don’t recall. Elizabeth merged them into one post under a 4th name, once again showing how little integrity she has.

Hi Elizabeth,

Please don’t get discouraged because of all of the negative posts.

You see, there is a well organized gun lobby at work that attacks anyone who favors the registry. Check out CanadianGunNutz.com (a rather fitting name)to see how organized they are.

The other sad thing is that the Reform/Conservative party used misinformation and fear tactics against the gun registry to gain votes in past elections.

Now that their poll numbers are dropping it appears the same misinformation and fear tactics used in the past are being recycled. This is morally wrong!

For your info, Elizabeth, and for the info of the “GunNutz”, a very informative and factual “Stats Canada report on Homicides in Canada 2007” can be found at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008009/article/10671-eng.pdf .

Particularly interesting are pages 8,9,10, and 22 in the report. The data shows that long gun homicides have declined since the Registry.

The report also shows that the rates per 100,000 population are highest in MP Garry Breitzkreuz’s western Canada, especially in Manitoba.

Is it not paradoxical that areas of Canada populated by “law abiding gun owners”, who believe there should not be a registry, have the highest homicide rates!

Personally I am not “anti-gun! I am “pro Gun Registry” and believe it is as useful a program as the Vehicle Registry and that all Canadians should support it. The human and monetary resources invested in the Registry must not be wasted!

I find it incomprehensible how those who register vehicles without complaint or concern cannot do the same with their guns!

Every positive reason for having a Vehicle Registry can also apply to the Gun Registry.

It is intended to keep vehicles out of the hands of unsuitable drivers.

You must pass a test to get a license to drive. You must register the vehicle and obtain a license plate for it. And you must have valid insurance to operate the vehicle.

Police can trace vehicles stolen or involved in accidents.

If you operate your vehicle irresponsibly, i.e. drive under the influence, cause death, or have numerous violations of the Traffic Act, your License and right to operate a vehicle can be taken away.

Conversely, every frivolous negative argument used by opponents of the Gun Registry sound ridiculous when applied to the Vehicle Registry!

It penalizes law abiding vehicle owners. Criminals will not register their vehicles. The registry has not prevented a single traffic death. The cost is astronomical. With the money wasted on the registry we could hire more traffic police and fix potholes. Etc, etc.

I urge Conservatives and their “GunNutz” supporters who oppose the Gun Registry to do the right thing. Get in their registered vehicles, check to make sure their license plates, insurance, and drivers license are current, and go register their guns!

KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT ELIZABETH!

Let’s go through this piece by piece:

1. There is a well-organized gun lobby.

Yeah, we have an internet forum for our hobby. I’m not sure how this translates into a “well-organized lobby” (I’d love to hear who the president of it is, or how much this supposed lobby’s budget is), but ok. Even if it was a well-organized lobby (and I wish it was), so what?

2. The Reform/Conservative Parties have used misinformation against the gun registry.

That’s entirely possible (after all they are politicians), but we need look no farther than a few lines down for some misinformation…

3. The StatsCan report.

I guess you were figuring that I wouldn’t read the report and just take your word for it, eh? From the report:

Although the overall rate of homicides committed with a firearm has generally been declining since the mid-1970s, the use of handguns has generally been increasing since the mid-1980s. However, the use of rifles or shotguns continues to decline (Chart 5).

Wait… you’re attributing a trend that started in the 1980s to the long-gun registry which was brought into force in 1998? And you were saying what about misinformation? Here’s the chart for those who don’t want to dig through the report (click for full size):

Do you see the start of a new trend in 1998? Because I sure don’t.

I’m not even going to bother addressing the asinine comment about Manitoba’s homicide rate. It’s not even true anyway, as anyone who bothered to read the report will have noticed. Note that this particular comment was originally penned by Vancouverite Paul Thiessen and re-attributed to “Alberta Gordon” by Elizabeth. Liz, next time you’re gonna make up bogus comments, make them consistent, OK? Try not to have an Albertan slagging Western Canada.

4. Gun/vehicle comparisons

This one is as old as the hills.

a) Why are gun owners opposed to registration of firearms but not cars?

Well answer me this: in all the time cars have been registered in Canada, has any of the following ever happened:

• a particular model of car, which is mechanically no different from those commonly available at the time, is banned without any justification being offered, and the registry is used to track down owners of said car and confiscate their vehicles without compensation;
• a bureaucracy is set up to approve car purchases (even though you already have a driver’s license), which sometimes makes you wait weeks or months to approve your purchase, again with no justification offered;
• a person who has been charged or is simply under investigation for an entirely unrelated offence (say fraud) has all their cars confiscated (with the assistance of the car registry of course);
• you are required to register your tractor which you only ever use on your private property.

All of those situations have happened with guns in Canada. Now you know why gun owners are a little tense about registration. But that’s not all.

b) “[The vehicle registry] is intended to keep vehicles out of the hands of unsuitable drivers.”

Wrong. The licensing process is what screens drivers, not registration. Since you don’t need a driver’s license to acquire, possess or register a car (only to operate it on public roads), I can’t fathom how this statement can possibly be true. Let me put it in bold: the DRIVER is LICENSED, the CAR is REGISTERED. YOU ARE LYING.

c) “You must pass a test to get a license to drive. You must register the vehicle and obtain a license plate for it. And you must have valid insurance to operate the vehicle.”

More lies. None of these statements are true, unless you add on “… on public roads.” The entire licensing and registration system for vehicles and drivers is predicated on the Crown’s authority to regulate what you do on it’s property. Firearms are entirely different because those law extend to what you do on private property. You do NOT need a license to own a car. You DO need a license to own a gun. You do NOT have to register every car you own. You DO have to register every gun you own.

d) “If you operate your vehicle irresponsibly, i.e. drive under the influence, cause death, or have numerous violations of the Traffic Act, your License and right to operate a vehicle can be taken away.”

And this has absolutely nothing to do with registration.

Sent to the editor in response to this:

This tragic incident is yet another example of a killer who immediately shot himself when confronted by police, much like the Virginia Tech killer. I cannot help but wonder if the brave man who died trying to save his employees might still be with us today if the spa owner, one of the employees, or ANYONE had been armed and able to confront the gunman sooner. The dead man made a valiant effort, but he was not equipped to do anything but buy some time for others to escape. Had he been armed, the lunatic’s rampage might have ended right there.

The police tell us to give robbers what they want and not escalate the situation. But in the face of deranged and bloodthirsty criminals like this one, who simply want to kill, appeasement is not an option. They seek to wreak havoc on the helpless and kill themselves when they encounter resistance. The police tell us not to arm ourselves – someone might get hurt. Yet it isn’t their lives on the line, and when it is, the police are armed to the teeth. But when seconds matter, the police are minutes away.

For how much longer will we allow ourselves to be helpless victims?

In response to this gem:

Sir: With all due respect for former Member of Parliament Roger Gallaway, what makes the gun registry a failure?

Deaths caused by firearms have diminished by 28 per cent over 10 years (from 1,125 in 1995 to 818 in 2005). Homicides with rifles and shotguns have been cut by nearly half (61 in 1995 to 32 in 2007).

Police officers support the registry and say they use it 10,000 times daily. Approximately 15,965 firearms licenses have been refused or revoked since the law came into force. Two men were identified and convicted as accessories to the murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, in part because a registered rifle was left on the scene of the crime. These are all evidence that the gun registry works.

A rifle, if in the hands of the wrong person, is as deadly as a handgun. Owners of lethal weapons are licensed to ensure they are not a risk to public safety and their guns are registered to their name to ensure they are accountable for them. It’s common sense. In most cities we need permits to own cats and dogs to make us responsible and accountable.

Let’s be clear, gun owners may complain but filling in once a form to register one’s guns is a very small price to pay for owning a dangerous weapon.

Emily Brown, London

Sent to the editor:

Re: Gun registry works, April 23

Emily Brown cites the 15,965 firearms licenses that have been revoked since the Firearms Act came into force as evidence of the controversial gun registry’s effect. Like many proponents of the registry, Ms. Brown confuses licensing with registration. Licensing is not at issue here – even if the registry is scrapped, firearms owners will be continue to be licensed and those licenses may be revoked if that person becomes a threat to others.

Furthermore, the oft-mentioned “10,000 times a day” statistic is bogus. Those who drop this number rarely explain what these “hits” actually are, so allow me to do so. The firearms registry is tied into the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) system which is used to conduct ALL electronic information queries. Thus, ANY search for ANY information by police officers, 911 operators, or other emergency services personnel generates a “hit.” If you call for an ambulance, a “hit” is registered when the 911 operator runs your address, regardless of whether you own firearms! If you are pulled over by a police officer for a traffic stop, a “hit” is recorded when he checks your name for outstanding warrants, regardless of whether you own firearms.

So how many of these “10,000″ hits a day are actually inquires into information that would be lost if the registry was scrapped? The RCMP provides a detailed breakdown of this information (to the editor: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/f…/index-eng.htm is the page on the RCMP website, scroll down to CFRO Queries), and only NINETEEN of the vaunted 9,413 “hits” per day are actually related to a registration certificate query.

It’s no surprise that gun control advocates immediately reach for the bigger number without pausing to consider what it really means.