XPost: can.politics, can.rec.hunting, can.talk.guns   
   XPost: kingston.general, talk.politics.guns, van.general   
   From: klunk@theothershoe.org   
      
   here... i decided i had enough free time to actually read this bullshit...   
      
   > Calculating Cost/Benefits   
   >   
   > The number of guns to be registered is an important variable since the   
   > more guns there are, the more cost and effort is involved in the   
   > registration process.   
      
   invalid assumption... costs can decrease as systems become efficient...   
   right from the get-go, his assumptions are flawed...   
      
      
   > In Canada the number of guns in the country is the subject of some debate.   
   > In 1974, a Statistics Canada survey established the number at 11,186,000.   
   > Historical import/ export estimates would place the current number at   
   > anywhere from 18 to 21 million. In 1991, the Justice Department estimated   
   > the total number to be 6 million. For the purpose of this analysis, I have   
   > chosen 7 million as the number of guns to be registered. This estimate is   
   > on the low side and may underestimate the registration effort required, as   
   > such it slants the analysis in favour of gun registration.   
      
   ok....?!?!?!.... whatever value this actually serves in determining cost   
   seems to lie within the imagination of the reader of this analysis...   
   certainly nothing concrete here.... he's imagined, like you, some   
   astronomical figure that gets his goat and attempts to provide a rational   
   front by choosing a "conservative" number that means squat... aside from   
   strategically attempting to position his argument, that is...   
      
   > One measure of cost/benefit is the ratio of total effort to effective   
   > effort, in this case the ratio of all guns registered (total effort) to   
   > registered - and therefore traceable - crime guns (the "effective" against   
   > crime bit) We can calculate this ratio in a number of ways.   
      
   ok... now this is where it breaks down entirely.... he's manufactured   
   baseless baselines... "total effort" is an unknown figure and likely will be   
   as gun loons continue to spin their magic... and "effective effort"... is a   
   fairy-tail concept he's just pulled out of his ass and means absolutely   
   nothing.   
      
      
      
   > Homicides   
   >   
   > In 2003 there were 548 homicides in Canada, 161 resulted from shooting.   
   > Assuming that each shooting involved a separate gun these figures yield   
   > the following cost-benefit ratio.   
   >   
   > Assuming there are only 7 million guns we get the following calculation.   
   > 161crime guns/7,000,000 not-crime guns = 0.000023 or .0023%, a   
   > cost-benefit ratio of 23 ten thousandths of 1%   
   >   
   > Therefore, in terms of the effort expended, 99.9977% of our effort was   
   > wasted registering non-crime guns and only .0023% of our effort landed on   
   > guns used in homicide (our crime prevention pay-off).   
   >   
   > Crimes of Violence   
   >   
   > We can expand this analysis to include the more common "crimes of   
   > violence." There were 302,000 "crimes of violence" in Canada in 2003.   
   > Statistics Canada indicates that 5% of these crimes "involved" a firearm.*   
   > Assuming that each incidence involved a different firearm, this works out   
   > to (302,000 X .05) 15,100 firearms "involved" in a "crime of violence"   
   > (includes homicides). This yields the following cost-benefit ratio.   
   >   
   > Low estimate 7million guns   
   > 15,100/7,000,000 = 0.0022 or .22%, a cost-benefit ratio of 22 hundredths   
   > of 1%   
      
      
   okely dokely.... stats on crime to which he applies his assinine formula and   
   then below embarasses every other human being on the planet with his   
   completely inept assessment of a problem which is obviously too overly   
   complex for his pathological personality to comprehend... how much are YOUR   
   kids worth, anyway.... just a few pounds of chemicals, after all.... a   
   coupla loonys?   
      
      
   > Accordingly, 99.78% of our effort was wasted on non-crime guns and only   
   > .22% of our effort affected guns used in crime.   
      
   yes.... wasted.... hmmmm.... yup... that's the conclusion of the gun-loon...   
   his calling card, actually... just listen for it... every time... and you'll   
   hear it.... cawing in the distance like a bad b-movie... add a little funky   
   beat to it and you might get some a.m. airtime....   
      
      
   > This analysis highlights the basic cost/benefit problem of gun   
   > registration as crime control. Even if we make the clearly incorrect   
   > assumption that each crime involves a different gun the best "return on   
   > investment" we can hope for is that less than ¼ of 1% of our efforts will   
   > involve crime guns. Arguably, this is a inefficient way to spend scarce   
   > law enforcement resources.   
      
   and what a highlight it was.... Even if we follow along through with this   
   insane exercise of pathological assumptions, we can only hope that some   
   humanity remains at the end.   
      
      
   > The Registration Problem   
   >   
   > The above analysis contains other assumptions besides the one gun per   
   > crime assumption. It assumes that all crime guns are registered. It should   
   > be noted that this is a crucial assumption at the very centre of the   
   > debate. The whole gun registration equals crime control argument rests   
   > heavily on the assumption that gun registration will apply to the guns of   
   > criminals as well as the guns of law-abiding citizens.   
      
   This entire analysis contains flawed assumptions beyond that of an imaginary   
   sticker price that can't be placed anywhere concretely, it is a completely   
   exposed view into the mind of a pathological thinker who's only concerns in   
   life stem from personal gratification and that an empathetic moment is a   
   nauseating one.   
      
      
   > The percentage of crime guns that are registered is subject to   
   > considerable variation. Only 31% of guns used in homicides are recovered   
   > and of these only 28% were registered. Citing another example, we can note   
   > that the Department of Justice reported that 70% of guns "recovered" from   
   > criminals in Metropolitan Toronto were registered. This gives us a wide   
   > variation in crime gun registration rates, from 28% (recovered homicide   
   > guns that were registered) to 70% (guns seized from criminals).   
      
   ho-hum.... and so this gives us a wide variation of data in which we can   
   bury ourselves in and lose the point of this discussion.... yup... if'n ya   
   kain't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.... well, he was   
   successful with me at first... but i thought i'd put your little "analysis"   
   to bed before you decide to post this crap again.... citing another example,   
   the numbers are meaningless testimonies proving nothing... no different than   
   coughing up numbers of guns owned... big fucking deal... larry, if you   
   really want to offer up something of substance, then connect the fucking   
   dots, don't just parrot some crap some other asshole has posted that "seems   
   to sound good to you" and offer it up as some form of justification... try   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)