myata

I'm not sure it's even possible to prove anything to anybody who can't (or won't) read, in the specific sense of, recognizing and understanding logical arguments, and hopefully, responding in a logical manner too. Indeed, I won't even try, sorry.

Not true - find correct information in this thread. Arar's 1 year of prison cost us $10 mln and the annual cost of registration is $25 million. For that we're getting comprehensive gun control regime for the first time in this country's history, facilitated investigation, and host of over potential benefits. Stop droning obviously wrong statements, over and over, it's becoming annoying not to mention that it's not a very smart strategy in a discussion, with any level of intelligence that is. Which crimes exactly?? Did you forget to mention? There're already 29 offences, most gun related, that already carry minimum sentences (find more info in this thread). What specifically is proposed, and will it stand the rights challege (as with reverese bail obligation), I'm not interested in the least to hear any more of the "tough on crime" drone, it's only good for those who think with somebody else's brain. What is a conjecture? What US has less restrictive gun regime? That they're super tough on crime? Or what their violent crime rates are way above everybody else? Or what Harper's moves take us closer to their strategy (less control, tougher justice)? Please share, preferably with some logical argumentation.

Isn't not in the least because 1) the gun control regime in Canda has been consistently strengthening, up until now. Harpers government is the first one that promised to buck the trend. And there're also squeaks and grunts from some conservatives, posted in this thread, about "inefficiencies" of handgun control too. Won't take a genius to put two and two together. And 2) Canada isn't anywhere as much urbanized as the US. The US show us very clearly where a country with a weak gun control regime will end up, no matter how "severe" penalties. And that's exactly the direction this government is taking. Dismantling gun control regime, both openly and quetly behind the doors, while strengthening "severity" of penalties. Maybe, to make us more distinct from the south neighbour? New innovative approach to reduce crime? No need to waste time and money, just look how wonderfully it works for them. But why do I keep stating obviuos facts, when all you have to do is keep droning, after Harper, "less restricted gun ownership plus more jails will solve our crime problems". It doesn't work, it doesn't happen anywhere on this planet (except maybe that wondrous gun lobby showvtown, what's the name?), but who cares, right?

Quashed?? Strange and I didn't notice, when did it happen, again? Maybe in your (pipe) dream? Just about 5 (and more) time less rare than everywhere else in the developed world. No, surely it should be the other way around, with them responsible owners. Must be those numbers, they always lie. Correct, but owning gun isn't a right. It's a privilege that is strictly controlled and can be revoked. Too much risk if they fall into wrong hands. As numerous incidents cited here clearly show. Some are, others (defense of property) aren't. Legitimate purpose does not mean that there should be no control or registration, on the contrary, they help to ensure that the purpose is indeed legitimate. Or is too much of a mental challenge to comprehend? To Wilber: I understand that you aren't proposing "that we be like the US", however your argument for dismantling the only system that allows comprehensive tracking of legally owned guns, will eventually (if followed through, they - Harper's Conservatives i.e still have to pass it in the parliament, I wonder if they'll dare it now their standings being less than stellar), bring us much closer to the US system of unrestricted gun ownership. As may have been a plan all along (one little step at a time).

No, you don't seem to understand, when a poll asks "Do you like A or B" in Canada, it means that we, Canada will make A, or B happen. Not somebody from another planet. I can make all kinds of exorbitant wishes, include peace love and million dollars to everybody on Earth, if somebody else will have to deliver the goodies. That's why the polls are meaningless. Wishing for Canada to deliver good life in Afghanistan will make (some) Afghanis sit up and wait for the good life to be handed. And getting angry if what's being delivered is not up to the expectations.

Of course you ridiculously don't understand the contradictions in your own position. If everybody can legally own any number of guns, with no possibility of even knowing where, or how many, there will be little need to go after "restricted guns" as everybody and everywhere will be full up to the neck with the "unrestricted" ones. Like in the US, with 5.6 guns per household. Is it any surprise that their murder rate is 5 times higher than anybody else's in the developed world? Any trivial crime, road rage, neighbourhood or pub argument, can be escalated to a lethal one, with guns in their hands. Takes really hard core rock solid (frozen) conservative thinking to not see it. And no, my position is not that people with guns are bad. Rather that guns aren't your regular everyday commodity. They need to be strictly controlled, as all dangerous items, and only those who need them for legitimate purpose should have them (or be able to get them). Now, it should be clear enough? So next time when you want to cite me, please spare us your creative interpretations, and simply refer to this post, thank you.

If "brilliant" writers like Steyn is the top of rightwing intellectualism, I'm in serious doubt about their long term survival, at least in the intellectual domain. Whenever I stumble on another of his brilliant pieces, it's every bit as angry, regorgitated, fear and hate dripping drone, as anything coming from our own original and brilliant writers of the jenre on this board. Nevertheless I'm extremely opposed to any formal prosecution. If only for the fact that it adds importance and credibility to these ridiculous writings. These writings for democracy are like healthy exposure to the outside elements for the immune system. No organism can survive without immune system, and no democracy can exist without being able to survive a good deal of controversy. And if somebody fails to undestand the line between a spoken word, and physical violence, it's their problem and they'd need to go for a timeout, in custody if necessary. Or, simply retire to numerous locations on this planet where the line does not exist. The jurisdiction of human rights commissions over media must end. What doesn't fall under criminal, or civil legislation should be possible to say without fear of repercussions.

These polls are quite meaningless, of course, good only to feed to the concerned public back home. Let's do a "would you like $1 mln tomorrow" poll here. I guarantee 95% yes, but does it mean that some hearty alien race (or maybe, some generous neighbours??) will have to come in and hand everybody a pack of crusty bucks? Afghanis will have the kind of life they're used to, and ready to live, no matter with or without our "assistance". What we are doing there is trying to build them a kind of life we think is good for them. Sure if that's that some think is a worthy undertaking, they're welcome to try (or keep trying). The rest should be allowed to opt out though. Of course, we're (self) appointed universal guardians of other's happiness and well being. If necessary we'll stay forever, only to bring them up to civility and decent way of life. Only, our benevolent sight is oh so selective. Sometimes we go in and blast a country up only to make them all happy. Then, won't notice anything wrong with what our friendly dictators are doing (as long as they're friendly and learned to say the magic word). Seriously. In 6 (or is it more now?) years we've given the faction in power a huge headstart over everybody else. If they can't and won't stay in power on their own now, it means only one thing - that they do not have support, mandate, from the people, to govern. No matter democracies, elections, and polls. And if they don't have that support, the last thing we should be doing is to interfere in their internal struggles. In the long run, it won't be any help, will only screw them up more.

I don't think this precedent breaks any principles or rules, as long as enrollment is voluntary and not influenced by race, but I agree with those who expressed concerns that it'll provide any benefits, to the students, in the long run. When they graduate, they'll go into integrated workplace, etc, where life isn't arranged on specific cultural principles. Ignoring or delaying this exposure would hardly do anybody much good. This is not to say that the problem of success in education in some communites couldn't and shouldn't be addressed. But it should be addressed with an open mind, and being open to admitting realities even if they go against some politically correct dogmas would go a long way in creating practical and working solutions.

Which Afghan people are you talking about? Government propped by our forces, that wouldn't probably stand a few months on its own? Explain this: if Afghan people, in great majority, do support this government, why there's not a single province in the country, that can be governed entirely by the supported government, 6 years on?? If Afghan people do not support this government in great majority, they should be able to figure out what they want all by themselves. Without us dictating what their choice should be (remember the incident with Hamaz, also democratically elected, but not "suitable", in our framework of reference?), or in which form it is expressed. Our only concerns should be 1) our security, ie. whatever government comes to power must be assured that it'll pay for any aggressive moves; and 2) humanitarian assistance, if such is requested. Outside of the two, you'll be hard pressed to explain how reengineering foreign societies is different from colonializm, and what we as citizens of this country are getting from it (unlike Mr Harper who can bathe in the sunlight of his great heroes, Bush and Blair and like).

Dion has apologized only for the use of "inappropriate" word: CBC story. Controversy with political interference of the two Harpers stuff memers is still questioned. So much for the clean and responsible governance.

Yeah? So when a church gives a sanctuary to a criminal, they should all be doled justice on par with the criminal, including, depending on the crime, "capital" justice? That's what we did in Afghanistan, anyways. Correct? Or no - as said - we're uber beings, really - the rules we set for others can't be applied to us.

I see. That would be around grades 5-6 when they start introducing abstract concepts in the school math curriculum, and apparently, you aren't there just yet. I can see why the best you can grasp is the plain old simple socially conservative "truth" that the world is made of good people vs bad people, the good ones deserve to be cheered, releaved of all taxes and maybe handed a gun, the bad - booed and rot in jail forever. Too bad it's been already claimed in this thread (many times over), so I can't see how you can break any new ground here, but keep trying, the hope dies last.

Read this BBC: West & "Democracies" for a clue on what kind of "democracy" we want to see wherever we go. Also, if there're any facts supporting the claim that "they" (i.e Taleban, whom we're fighting in their homeland) were directly involved in the attacks on the US, I'd like to hear them. To be complicit in the crime, and to give sanctuary to a criminal is not one and the same thing. As democracy and "democracy" isn't really the same thing. As the rule of law and torture.

Aha keep drumming the old adage that is proven wrong already. Maybe it'll sound better, more convincing, on the 1000th repetition who knows? Guess it's the best you can hope for. No, I think results. Number A is less than number B. Should be easy enough, even for a 5th grader. So what's your solution? Did you forget to share it?

And that comes from? Let me guess... Harper's propamation site? Which was supposed to be government of Canada information... Then, how does Harper's government activities to date, such as e.g. amnesty for non compliers, help to improve its efficiency? I see. First do everything possible to kick it down. Then, oh wonder, it's down!! What ingenuity! One could only wish this brilliant strategy'd work in the way of practical results too. Such as: 1) reduction in the actual crime numbers, consistently year on year; or 2) reduction in the actual emissions of green house gases; or 3) completing critical projects on time and without compromizing public safety; etc. Any prospects of that happening, any time soon? Read above. There're already 29 offences with mandatory minimum sentences, and guess what - Harper's got nothing to do with it. Unless maybe you want to make all sentensing mandatory? Any more, "ideas"??

Noahbody: "...The cost once again works out to over $2 million per homicide with a registered long gun. That's completely idiotic. ..." I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers. And your math skills are already proven to be lacking, to say the least. And there're many things you, as a good Harper's follower, aren't saying such as, how long has the registry been in full operation and is it enough for any reliable statistics. Or what they did to diminish its efficiency, even before they pass (if ever) it in the parliament. And there things that you probably don't even understand, such as that there're other gun crimes than "homicides", as there're other uses of registration that do not directly involvle registered gun in a crime (as e.g. prevention; investigation; general benefits of comprehensive gun control, for the first time covering all kinds of guns). I'm not interested in throwing hot air around. The facts, the costs, etc it's all here in this thread. If your interest is to drum after Harper's crowd "2 billion... 2 billion ... law abiding owner don't need ... don't have ... has the right .." that's your privilege. What I'm saying, and proving, is that Harper's policies won't lead to less crime. On the contrary, they'd lead to a climate of higher crime, and fear, that'd give them better chance of being elected, as they seem to be lacking everywhere a practical measurable result is involved, and excel in spreading smoke and drumming up propaganda.

And now the pumps at the Chalk River are finally online: CTV. So, there was nothing impossible about having it done, as the regulator has instructed in the first place. Only good management and competence, which are apparently lacking in "this responsible government", if it takes a good public splash to have things done. And who's to blame? Sure, anybody but "the responsible government".

Ok, now we can conclude, from your own very informative responses, that your people position comes to this: "nothing can be done about the crime, so let's abandon all regulations and controls (because, according to the famous but nevertheless fallaciuos argument, criminals - and people are born criminals, or saints, right? - won't obey them anyways), hand out everybody a gun or two, and blow the rest of money on building jails and hiring a police officer for every dozen citizens, or armed militiamen, as in the times of old)? Back to the future - wild wild West. Welcome to the social conservatives' pipe dream...

So it appears that somehow we're talking more or less of the same thing. Because if you can recall, nobody here ever stated that gun registry is the magical solution to all crime woes. Then, continuing to ignore the reality, because we've already concluded that registry costs next to nothing to operate, as federal expenses go. And for that, we're getting comprehensive gun control regime, not to mention a number of very useful applications. Not to mention support by the country's leading professional police associations. Of course, if you'd recall what was actually said about strategies to attack crime, those were said to go in at least three main directions: #1, comprehensive gun control, so that trivial crime doesn't turn into lethal crime; #2, going after criminal core, with comprehensive and efficient tools and laws; #3, addressing social roots of crime, to narrow as much as possible the breeding ground for the crime. So now we can look, where this government stands on crime, in real and practical terms, rather than scare off propaganda. #1 - gun control - it's clear where Harper stands on it. When Toronto's mayor is calling for handgun ban, measures to stem the flow of guns across the border - he's not interested. Gun registry, a principal part of a comprehensive gun control regime, recommened by main police associations - they want to disband it. As other gun control measures, discussed in this thread. This is 0 (on any scale), if not negative one. Why, I wonder, for a government that made busting crime their cornerstone priority? Maybe, because they don't believe in it? It doesn't fit into their ideology? #2 - from what is most on the air from Harper's "tough on crime" agenda, it's mandatory sentensing. It's been blown out of all possible proportions, but what's the reality? Check here: CBC: mandatory sentensing reality check. There's already 29 mandatory offenses in this country, and the conservatives are talking about adding another few. Maybe a worthy idea but hardly a breakthrough one might think of from listening to all the drumming. Not to mention that there hasn't been any evidence anywhere that the existing regime has systematic problems (aka, "too lenient"). This is supposed to be given. Especially to those of us who are used to think with someone else's brain. OK, but what about other, urgent needs? Such as maybe, reforming the national police force? Facilitating exchange of best practices and cooperation between provinces? Helping fund necessary upgrades of judicial system, including suffiecient funding / staffing? Showing leadership on the national level by developing crime fighting initiatives, like e.g. same border smuggling problem? Anybody heard of anything of the kind? Anywhere? So, on the balance of things, I'll give it 2, OK 3 to be way over generous (out of five). So much for the "tough on crime". And finally, from all what we can see, #3 is nowhere on the agenda. 0, null, empty. Here. So much for the crime fighting agenda. Less than one out of five in action, but appears like tons (of hot air) more if judged by propaganda. Which (propaganda in place of action, not to mention the result) is quickly becoming a signature of this bunch.

OK, I read it. And no, no eye openers. We're in the Afganistan for the wrong reason. Basically the same old reason we (in a more general sense) went to India, Africa and all the other places. Presuming that we're uber folks who can teach (and make) others stabilize, democratize, etc, i.e. live their lives as they should. There's all kind of do good propaganda that can be spun around that as it was spun every single time it happened. British were bringing elightement, Russians equality and communism, now we're building them a democracy. All naive illusions at best, all destined for a failure. Nothing new there. We're there for the wrong reason. Taleban is not synonimous with Al Qaeda. While they refused to extradite those responsible in 9/11, there's no evidence that they were involved. They were also one stable local government Afghanis have known in many years. But it wasn't to our liking. So, we invaded, as we do when the government isn't to our liking, not because we were defending ourselves from imminent threat. For that, there were other, less expensive and more efficient, means. We came to democratize. To rebuild, reengineer their society. Because someone somewhere (guess) had this wonderfun idea of redesigning the world according to their brilliant plans. Personally I think that as all ideas of the kind its enormous waste of resources and lives and no, doesn't worth my 2 cents. Assistance, in an open and honest relationship is one thing; installing one's way of life under a pretense of helping, is something completely different.

One thing I particulartly dislike, no, strongly detest, about "this responsible government" is its unsurpassed ability to treat everybody around them on the intellectual level of a 5 year old (not to say, 5 letter word). Here we go, Lunn talking about parliament's decision to reopen the reactor (CBC story). He's asked about his incompetence causing the parliament to intervene with an emergency legislation. He's turning it as though parliament's intervention, caused by his office's incompetent management in the first place, somehow exonerated him from all responsibility. The truth is coming out though. Minister's office did nothing to ensure that safety work was on schedule. And they chose the independent regulator to take blame for their incompetence. And now it looks like the economy is next on their agenda.

OK and now you're saying that registering your sentimental rifle i.e filling a form and payning a few bucks is somehow the same making you give it up (oh dear, I'm so sorry... ). Seriously, though, this is the real problem with this government and people who'd support it no matter what. They aren't interested in reason; intelligent discussion; examination of facts of the matter. They want things their way. The way they were since the times forgotten. No matter how much the world has changed around them. No matter what.

Sorry, there's nothing new here to convince close to 60% of this country's citizens (myself included) that this is a cause worth pursuing. We cannot build their country for other people, we can't dole justice in other people's names and we should not be fighting in other peoples wars. This is however, what the situation starts more and more to look like. Taking one side (the unpleasant and unfriendly one) agianst a puppet government that won't stand on its own if foreign lifeline is cut. Just doesn't appear as a likely winning strategy to me. Moneys will be sunk, lives lost, and in the end it'll all come down to the same: we'll go back home, and they'll live whatever way of life they're used to. Don't get me wrong. Justice should have been done, and the lesson taught. This is simply the wrong way to dole justice and teach lesson. It bleeds us, confuses us, but it reiterates the same old message to those who fight us, and their potential recruits: that we came to control, to change their way of life, to set things up the way we want them. It won't work. What could have worked is a tough lesson from outside, a la Serbia. Only for a while though, and possibly, not very long while, if the policy of meddling and interference in the other people's affairs, as opposed to open and honest engagement, continues.

Hate for people = requiring to register their guns? Are you deliberately trying to be ridiculous? It's working, you know.