Prof's study takes shot at Canada's gun registry

[pnb]

Prof's study takes shot at Canada's gun registry
The StarPhoenix
May 3, 2004

http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=774e47e8-d3e4-448b-a1b3-7b783241094b

Canada's gun registry does not work, according to Dr. Gary Mauser, a Simon Fraser University professor.

He spoke Saturday in Saskatoon at a conference organized by the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association (CUFOA).

"We have spent $2 billion on licensing and registering guns in Canada and it has not decreased violent crime and suicide," Mauser said.

He has authored a study: The Failed Experiment, Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales and the Firearms Act.

The Firearms Act, also known as Bill C-68, requires gun owners to be licensed and registered.

Mauser said his study found that the approach to gun control in the United States -- greater firearms access and stiffer penalties for criminals -- works better than the Canadian model.

He said the gun registry is a waste of money and is destroying tradition.

---more---

[HEyHEY]

1. He's right, it's just been sucking funds

[iverglas]

2. ah, those sterling sources

The Fraser Institute, so right-wing that it isn't even taken seriously by the mainstream right wing here.

Gary Mauser, it's pet "professor". What's he a professor of? Business Administration, for fuck's sake. Quite the authority on ... well, whatever he's supposed to be an authority on this time.

The firearms registry is a Liberal government boondoggle. Just like the Quebec sponsorship scandal now spilling all over the media, the political interference in the operation of the Business Development Bank, and whatever the hell is going on in the halls of the Liberal legislature in BC.

Somehow, the feds managed to spend a trainful of dollars on some computer systems for the registry. I don't know how, but I'd like to.

The fact that something has been done badly IS NOT proof that it should not have been done. It's that simple.


http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/

I'm not seeing anything on his site at Simon Fraser University to indicate that he actually teaches something. But here
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/index1.html#papers
we see that he's been published in the National Review. (Don't get confused -- his CBC piece was a "commentary", time offered to members of the public to present their views on issues. It doesn't confer credibility.)


He has authored a study: The Failed Experiment, Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales and the Firearms Act.

We've just so been through this before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=39544&mesg_id=39740&page=

I can reproduce the whole thing for you if you like, but here's a tidbit. Do read the whole discussion though, eh?

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/forum/More-guns.pdf or http://www.saf.org/JFPP14ch5.htm

In contrast to handgun-dense United States, where the homicide rate has been falling for over 20 years, the homicide rate in handgun-banning England and Wales has been growing. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000."

Uh, yeah.

And the homicide rate in the US in 2000 was 5.5/100,000 -- roughly 55 per million.

... Here's a useful little commentary on their brand of junk science in this area -- "English Crime Trends"
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/malcolm.html

... while firearms homicide increased from 49 in 98/99 to 62 in 99/00 to 73 in 00/01, all of these are less than the number of firearms homicides in 1993 -- if you examine the figures for the whole decade instead of those for a few months as Malcolm does <"between April and November 2001 murders with a firearm soared by 87%. During the same period the number of people robbed at gun point rose by 53%">, no significant trend <is> present.

Or as Mauser does, when he compares 1990 to 2000 without looking at intervening years.

Furthermore, in the case of firearms homicides, it is misleading to present the changes as percentages, since the raw numbers are so small. Even small random fluctuations look like dramatic changes when converted to percentage increases or decreases. It also obscures the fact that firearms homicide in England and Wales is extremely rare.

Rare, as in 73 firearms homicides in a population of nearly 59,000,000.

That is the equivalent of the US having about 350 firearms homicides in 2000. Hahahaha! -- 350 firearms homicides annually in the US?!? There were OVER 10,000 FIREARMS HOMICIDES IN THE U.S. in 2000 -- more than 3/4 of them committed using handguns.

I think, all untutored in the art as I am, that Gary Mauser's shots might best be described as being of the pot variety.


edited: eek, I typed "it's" instead of "its".

.

[CO Liberal]

3. John Lott/Mary Rosh is a "Professor", Too

Doesn't change that fact that he's an asshole and his "findings" are bogus.

[iverglas]

4. heh

Mauser has devoted a paper to the Bellesiles "academic scandal"
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/index1.html#papers
... but nary a word about JohnMary!

I like the academic rigour in this one:

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/women/Law-review-abstract.pdf

One warm summer night, a slim and lovely young mother walked from an Orange County, California mall to her car, parked on the outer perimeter of the parking lot. Her stomach tightened as she sensed that a man following about fifteen yards behind was stalking her. ...

As you may guess, she whips out a pistol and scares him off. Of course, since her pistol was illegal, she didn't report the incident to the police. To hell with any unarmed women that the man in question might have more successfully stalked thereafter, eh? Well ... that's if he was actually stalking anyone at all, and not just obliviously going about his business until some women who "sensed" that he was a danger to her pulled a gun on him. I'd probably gasp and "exit the scene like a world-class sprinter", too.

I guess there is some reason not to think that this "slim and lovely young mother" (damned if I know what her weight or "loveliness" has to do with anything but perhaps Mauser's fantasy life) exists somewhere other than in his imagination. I'm not seeing any such reason in the paper that he opens with that tale. Oh, there we are. She was a student of his co-author. Sure.

I can't read any more of that. Makes me want to take a shower.

But ...

Is she a dangerous criminal for carrying a "Saturday Night Special" without a permit? Or, as a citizen resisting violence and thwarting crime, does she contribute to the "security of a free state?"

... being a Canadian Business Administration professor obviously doesn't make him a constitutional or legal scholar. To answer his question, I'd have to know: was there some threat to the freedom of the state abroad that night -- perhaps her alleged stalker was actually Benedict Arnold off on another frolic? a scout for an invading flotilla of alien spaceships come to colonize and subjugate the USofA? -- that she somehow averted?

.

[CO Liberal]

5. The Only Logical Use For Mauser's Papers Would Hurt...

...because that paper is scratchier than Charmin.

[MrBenchley]

7. The entire case for concealed carry

seems to be this sort of demented fantasy, akin to what used to be found in "True Mens Adventure" magazines from the 1950s....



Of course, words such as "missed" and "innocent bystander" seem never to occur in these fantasies....

[iverglas]

6. p.s.

Mauser teaches a North American international trade issues class and an introduction to marketing research class, in the upcoming academic year.

Quite the authority on social and political and legal issues, obviously. Oh, and how à propos my "sterling" remark was: that's the name of the prize he's won from Fraser. ;)

.

[MrBenchley]

8. Puts him one up on Mary

The gun industry was able to buy Lott occasional chairs at universities, but none of those places ever let him get near a classroom. Guess there was a limit to what blood money can buy.

Amusingly, that doesn't seem to have kept Lott from inventing students when he needed them...

"Despite extensive coverage on the net, in many papers such as the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post and an ad in the alumni magazine, none of the eight students Lott claims conducted the survey have been heard from. "

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/roshhuntress.html

[CO Liberal]

9. Spooky

"... none of the eight students Lott claims conducted the survey have been heard from. "

They weren't shot, were they???

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

10. LOL!!

[slackmaster]

14. Just for the record

"Michael Bellesiles."

Thank you.

[minavasht]

11. They really spent $2 billion on the registry?

Do they carve the owners' names on golden plates?
At roughly 4 million gun owners, that’s like $500 apiece!
Some really thick plates!

[pnb]

12. Not much there

The Fraser Institute, so right-wing that it isn't even taken seriously by the mainstream right wing here.

Gary Mauser, it's pet "professor". What's he a professor of? Business Administration, for fuck's sake. Quite the authority on ... well, whatever he's supposed to be an authority on this time.

Does this mean you question his results, the numbers he mentions, what? Just saying there is a credibility problem in and of itself means nothing.

The firearms registry is a Liberal government boondoggle. Just like the Quebec sponsorship scandal now spilling all over the media, the political interference in the operation of the Business Development Bank, and whatever the hell is going on in the halls of the Liberal legislature in BC.

Somehow, the feds managed to spend a trainful of dollars on some computer systems for the registry. I don't know how, but I'd like to.

The fact that something has been done badly IS NOT proof that it should not have been done. It's that simple.

He claims that the registry has been a waste of money...you pretty much back that statement up. You also show nothing that says a more efficiently run government registry (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) WOULD be good. I would think that would be a prerequisite for that type of expenditure.

Regarding the rest of your response about comparing the real numbers of murders in the US vs. England and Wales, it is a whole lot of talk that means absolutely nothing to this debate. Gauging the increase/decrease over time in a specific area is how to measure the effectiveness of these laws. Its already pretty much established that for whatever reasons, Americans are more violent than the people of many other countries. Regardless of what laws exist anywhere, we will have more violent crimes and murders per capita than virtually all other areas. To blame these differences on guns is wholly incorrect. Trends are what have to be looked at.

[iverglas]

15. really? (edited)

Does this mean you question his results, the numbers he mentions, what? Just saying there is a credibility problem in and of itself means nothing.

How true!

Of course, I also provided quite a wealth of data to demonstrate the complete worthlessness of a number of things Mauser has said in the past. I also provided a link to where I had provided even more.

Did you miss all that, somehow?


He claims that the registry has been a waste of money...you pretty much back that statement up.

Actually, no, I do no such thing.

I said that money has been wasted on it. I did not say that it was a waste of money. Do you need the difference explained in more words? Would you acknowledge reading them if I wrote them?


You also show nothing that says a more efficiently run government registry (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) WOULD be good.

I also didn't show anything that says that the moon is not made of green cheese, or provide you with the price of tea in China today.

I would think that would be a prerequisite for that type of expenditure.

And if you'd care to discuss that issue, do feel quite free to start the discussion. Just don't be bothering to draft Mauser onto your side. That was pretty much what I was saying.


Regarding the rest of your response about comparing the real numbers of murders in the US vs. England and Wales, it is a whole lot of talk that means absolutely nothing to this debate.

Oh look! You did read it! Except -- "comparing the real number of murders in the US vs. England" WAS NOT WHAT I WAS DOING.

I was demonstrating the completely deceitful and dishonest nature of Mauser's writings about the UK. I offered comparative US data to

(a) demonstrate the weakness of the UK data (in particular, the minute numbers involved) and the reason why it was difficult to draw any conclusions from them; and

(b) demonstrate that unless we looked at the data in context, we might think that Mauser had discovered a Mt. Everest when in fact he was examining a very small molehill.


Gauging the increase/decrease over time in a specific area is how to measure the effectiveness of these laws.

Uh, yes. Now you could try going to the sources I cited, and observing how THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MAUSER DID NOT DO. That was pretty much what I was saying.

But heck, let me say some of it again for you, edited down so that maybe it won't be such a chore to grasp the point.

Mauser said, of the UK:

In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000."

Now here's what really happened -- I reproduce my summary from my earlier post to which I linked in the post you responded to:

Remember: "while firearms homicide increased from 49 in 98/99 to 62 in 99/00 to 73 in 00/01, all of these are less than the number of firearms homicides in 1993".

<Mauser's> "50% increase" in homicide rates over a decade from 1990 to 2000 ignores the fact that FIREARMS HOMICIDE rates in 98/99, 99/00 and 00/01 were LOWER than in 1993.

What a guy, eh?

Mauser examines homicide rates in his supposed attempt to determine the effectiveness of firearms controls. He observes that homicide rates have risen from point A to point B -- disregarding the question of the statistical significance of the increase, and disregarding any fluctuations during the period -- and completely disregards the fact that firearms homicides declined over that period.

Furthermore, in the case of firearms homicides, it is misleading to present the changes as percentages, since the raw numbers are so small. Even small random fluctuations look like dramatic changes when converted to percentage increases or decreases. It also obscures the fact that firearms homicide in England and Wales is extremely rare.

The numbers in question, for firearms homicides in a population of close to 60 million people, have never risen beyond single digits. Are you getting an image of a molehill here? Are you appreciating the dishonesty and deceit it takes to pretend that something like a 50% increase is meaningful when you are talking about a homicide number that has never reached 1,000 in a population of nearly 60 million?

No decent, honourable, informed person would purport to draw the conclusions that Mauser does. His track record in this respect is so appalling that no intelligent person with integrity would rely on any facts he presents without investigating what facts he has omitted or rely on his conclusions without testing them, either for personal use or for public argument.


So, anytime you want to address anything I've actually said, you feel free now, y'hear?

(edited to correct a confusion)

.

[slackmaster]

13. We should develop a shorthand notation for posts that fall into patterns

This one is a good example, and I propose the designation C1 for any newbie post regarding Canadian gun laws that draws on a source that can be readily impugned as right-wing or conservative.

If the source quotes Gary Mauser like this one, or Stephen Harper of the Canadian Alliance, etc. the post should be designated C1 and nobody need reply because we all know where it will go - iverglas will dance her hornpipe all over the conservative individual cited, and no discussion of the factual issues presented will be permitted regardless of their actual merit. CO Liberal and MrBenchley will then take turns blurting out pithy comments about John Lott/Mary Rosh, and one or two pro-RKBA contributors will mention Michael Bellesiles. Any suggestion that criticism of the article based solely on source constitutes a Genetic Fallacy will be summarily ignored by those on the pro-control side.

If a few days or weeks later the New York Times reports the exact same information that shall be disignated C2. iverglas will then take the tack that what Canadians do with their money is their own business and that monolingual (sic) USAmericans are not intellectually or morally qualified to criticize it. If the information happens to suggest that the Canadian gun laws under discussion have not produced any measurable reduction in crime, CO Liberal and MrBenchley will avoid the thread.

Similarly, a pro-RKBA newbie quoting the Washington Times, NewsMax, Sierra Times, etc. regarding a US gun law issue shall be designated U1, and MrBenchley or CO Liberal will take the lead in beating up the source. Then when the same information is printed in the Wall Street Journal that gets a U2 designation and summary dismissal by the pro-control side.

Any suggestions to enhance my system are welcome.

[iverglas]

16. tell ya what

iverglas will dance her hornpipe all over the conservative individual cited, and no discussion of the factual issues presented will be permitted regardless of their actual merit.

How about you go through my post, line by line -- and don't omit the earlier post to which I linked -- and write "doesn't discuss the factual issues" after each bit of it. And see how many times that statement is actually true when applied to the various elements of my posts.

If someone wants to present some ACTUAL FACTS about the cost of the Cdn firearms registry, I'm all ears.

Nothing produced by Mauser has or will ever fall into that category.


If the information happens to suggest that the Canadian gun laws under discussion have not produced any measurable reduction in crime, CO Liberal and MrBenchley will avoid the thread.

Or maybe Pert_UK will join me in asking whether you are prepared to throw out the system of registering motor vehicles because it has produced no measurable impact on the size of the tomatoes in your garden.

If a few days or weeks later the New York Times reports the exact same information that shall be disignated C2.

I'm kind of willing to bet that the NYT doesn't make a practice of quoting Gary Mauser.

iverglas will then take the tack that what Canadians do with their money is their own business and that monolingual (sic) USAmericans are not intellectually or morally qualified to criticize it.

Hey! Criticize the corrupt Liberal government of Canada all you want! If you need some ammunition, ask google for "sponsorship scandal" quebec "auditor general", or shawinigate. Or check this out:
http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/030401_csl/introduction.html
for some really great dirt on the revolting Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Meanwhile ... let's try to keep in mind that the registry has only been brought in line in the last couple of years, that the deadline for registration was only what, a few months ago? and that really and truly, nobody at all actually SAID that any measureable results should be or were anticipated by this date.

Here is Mauser's actual study, rather than some hick newspaper's report on it, has said:

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/registration/Fraser-Institute22104.ppt.pdf

He quotes what the Auditor General (the one who recently exposed the sponsorship corruption on the part of the feds in Quebec):

We stopped our audit when an initial
review indicated that there were significant
shortcomings in the information provided.
We concluded that the information does
not fairly represent the cost of the program
to government.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser, Dec. 2002

Should there be further investigation? YOU BETCHA.

But I just didn't notice anybody disbanding the US military when what it was spending on toilet seats was discovered.

Here's what Mauser tells us:

Are We Safer?

Total homicides have gone from 588 in
1995 to 582 in 2002

Domestic homicides have increased from
177 in 1995 to 182 in 2002

Firearm homicides have decreased from
176 in 1995 to 149 in 2002

Handgun homicides have gone from 95 in
1995 to 98 in 2002

I dunno. The rest of the thing looks pretty much the same. Numbers, followed by things called "conclusions" that really just don't fit the definition. Academic rigour, none.

Statements like "homicide rates declining faster in the United States" ... well, I'd have a couple of questions. How did Mauser account for the Downtown East Side murders in his figures? Here's how Statistics Canada does:

http://www.statcan.ca:80/Daily/English/031001/d031001a.htm

Part of the increase in 2002 is a result of 15 homicides that occurred in Port Coquitlam in previous years and that were reported by police in 2002. Homicide counts reflect the year in which police file the report.

I believe that at this point more than 15 of the 50+ missing women have been determined to be victims of homicide. When you're looking at figures of under 600, even 15 (all victims of a single person) have a significant effect on the data, and on conclusions about changes in the homicide rate.

Anyhow ... like I say, if anybody wants to actually address what Mauser has said, and the bases he offers for saying it, go right ahead.

.

[MrBenchley]

17. Amazing isn't it?

"If the information happens to suggest that the Canadian gun laws under discussion have not produced any measurable reduction in crime, CO Liberal and MrBenchley will avoid the thread."
Posts three, five, seven, eight, nine and ten...

But then some of us already know what to expect....

"slackmaster
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"
"slackmaster
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"
"slackmaster
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875