noahbody

So far Harper has saved $10 - 20 billion that would have been given away on an hair-brained carbon trading scheme that does nothing for the environment. Give him credit for this. If Harper signs onto something, it will be based on targets that are reasonable and achievable.

On The Hour, Chretien responded to the comment that we never implemented Kyoto by saying don't blame him, he wasn't there. He says he almost had a deal with the oil companies but since his successors failed to implement this deal that admittedly wasn't done, we have lost four years and won't be able to make our targets by 2012. What an unbelieveable statement. Someone should mention to him we really needed to meet our targets by 2008.

There will be an election just so the Liberals can dump Dion and take advantage of Bush being in office. Also the Leafs will win the cup.

Winter just started. Relax.

Yes, with "reasonable timetable and economic safeguards."

The point the guy is making is that you need to consider the 'catastrophic consequences' of action/inaction. This is a staple in problem solving. If you take out your pencil and chart the consequences of the world acting without the major emitters, you should see that the government's position is dead on. Also chart the pros and cons of joining a carbon trading market. Just for fun.

I think most 5th graders would tell you that 30% of 600 is 180, not 200. They might add that 25 million divided by 200 is 125,000, not 100,000. Now pay attention, you might learn something: How I arrived at the number is I took 100 million (cost of four years) divided by 47 (number of homicides with registered long guns from 2003-2006). That works out to over $2 million per registered long gun homicide.

I'm still waiting for Oleg to blame Bush for throwing rocks at his turkey.

Bhutto said blame Mushaffaf. http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/dec/28bhutto9.htm

$25 million a bare triffle? And for what? It works out to more than $2 million per homicide committed with a registered long gun. You have to be a complete moron to think it's a good idea. Yes they say it's useful. Other police/associations say it isn't worthwhile. There's a difference. What part of only 2% homicides have been committed using registered long guns do you not understand? Registered long guns are not the problem. What's your point? If you're referring to mandatory sentences, it would increase the incarceration rate ifthose committing gun crimes are not seeing any jail time. If they aren't it answers your next question. - Federal Admissions Since November 1994, about 34,200 new offenders have been admitted to federal institutions: Roughly 9 out of 10 offenders admitted to federal institutions have a previous youth or adult court conviction. 24% of these federal offenders have served a prior sentence in a Young Offender secure custody facility. 68% have served a prior sentence in an adult Provincial prison, and when combined, 87% have served either a previous Young Offender or adult provincial prison sentence. 26% have served a previous federal prison sentence. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/faits/facts08-02_e.shtml Why do you not include jail time in your comprehesive gun control regime? It makes it more comprehensive. The numbers don't support the long gun registry. Why do criminals get to go where it's warm?

Sorry, you stated this: So, to which election were you referring, the one in 2004 that I've shown he had a different position or the previous election in 2000 before 911?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Yes and many on the left downplay the role of free trade and the GST, right? If you're referring to 2004, the Conservative Party just had a policy convention a few months before the election. Harpers position on Iraq was that it wasn't feasible. Funny you don't remember that. Putting soldiers on our streets was never a Harper policy either.

Answer this: Can you have effective long gun control when 94% of those who use them in homicide don't register their long guns? Saying police support the registry is a half truth. Some do, others don't.

No. An officer should approach a home with the belief there could be a gun. Relying on information provided by the registry that a person doesn't have a gun is dangerous and could be a fatal mistake. I have to wonder if the officer shot in his truck in Hay River was killed for this reason. ... LEN GRINNELL, RETIRED RCMP STAFF-SARGEANT

Firstly, not all police organisations are behind the gun registry (see link you never read). To your question, the gun registry is "useless" because "Our police officers will continue to be able to determine who is and is not in legal possession of firearms through a quick check of the Canadian Police Information Centre." http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/documents/s=406/bcw1195541082003/ Some police have branded the registry as unreliable (see the link you never read). If 100% of the police don't agree, then the gun registry is dangerous.

Of course not. And that's the problem. The long gun registry deals with less than 2% of homicides. So even if you ignore handgun stats, over 31% of homicides are left out.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini...004&no_ads=

Did you take the time to read the link provided? If not please do.

Please expand on why the above statement is rubbish. Links are appreciated. Thanks.

He actually had three guns all registered. It's not the best example of a multiple murder involving a long gun, because he never fired the shotgun. He only used the handguns he had.

I believe you're wrong. Only 31% believe Kyoto is the best solution. Therefore 69% believe it is not the best solution. Ever hear of good honest debate? Again, this is one man's personal opinion, and not a very good one at that.

The poll says 69% don't believe kyoto is the best way to go. Again this is his personal opinion. And since 69% don't fully support kyoto, I'm not sure how he draws that conclusion. More importantly, please provide a link to where Lyle said "the obstruction."

It doesn't say "in the year it was established," it says "since." The release is from November 2007. Knowing that, would you say we should spend millions targeting registered long gun owners or should we focus on the criminal segment of our society? From a statistical perspective 26% of handgun homicide are committed with registered guns verses 2% of long gun homicide being committed with registered guns. You also need to consider the probablity of the type of gun being used in crime and the nature of the gun. Actually, this is exactly what I mentioned. And it is working. Florida has chosen to spend its money on tough mandatory sentences. As a result, violent gun crime has decreased by 25% since 1999. How many crimes has registration prevented in Canada? Zero. Which do you think is better for a safe society and a better use of taxpayer money?