noahbody

Aren't pollsters supposed to be commenting on polls? This is a poll of one.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/24/c...-emissions.html

Yes, and since registration, registered long guns have accounted for 2%. I would keep hand gun registration. I've already showed you that a similar tough mandatory sentence policy has helped reduce viloent crime in Florida by 25% since implemented in 1999. Exactly, gangs are the problem so let's use our resources to target them effectively. Apparently they don't register their long guns either, so let's stop pretending this is a solution in any way. All parties agree mandatory minimimums are needed. Gangs are the problem as you mentioned. As crime is their lifestyle, keeping them off the street means less crime. Letting them out, means more. Which do you prefer?

Sorry I've never owned a gun. Never will. I'm just against high cost/low (or no) benefit initiatives. You're not.

Yes, I understand. What escapes me is why "legally owned at some point in time" is relevant to the discussion. Since you said "are committed" you are referring to the present tense. Only guns that are registered are legal.

Legally registered is historically about 17%, based on handguns stats, as long gun registration is recent. Since then, registered long guns have been used in less than 2% in homicides.

It says exactly that. I think you answered my other question. English is your second language.

Again: I have to assume English is your second language. Is that correct?

And you voted for which party last election?

Let me simplify it for you, people an overwhelming majority of people who commit crimes do not use registered guns, especially registered long guns. For me it is an issue of budget and being effective. This targets law abiding citizens instead of criminals. It accomplishes nothing. Police are on both sides of the issue. Julian Fatiano said it would reduce or solve crimes. So has it? It would be a good idea to do a police poll on what is a better crime prevention measure, getting and keeping criminals off the street (focus on more officers and sentencing) or the gun registry. What do you think the result of that poll would be? This has to do about common sense. If every person registered their guns, it would be useful. But they don't and never will. As a tool to protect the lives of police officers, the gun registry is a devil in disguise. If a police officer puts his/her faith in the registry he or she may end up dead. Agree? Well in Florida "touch justice" began in 1999. And minimum sentencing is working. The Liberals and the NDP also campaigned on minimum sentencing last election, by the way. Likely because it was the "morally" right thing to do.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...k=20410&p=1

What connection would that be? That they know each other? Of course you'd hope so. You're still in denial that the party to which you pledge your loyality to was basically a criminal organisation; the most corrupt government in the history of Canada. If only you could paint the Conservative governement with the same brush, you'd feel so much better. But you can't or at least you shouldn't. I assume you're about to write the sponsorship scandal had to do with only a few beurocrats, competely ignoring the players involved, chief of staff, personal friend of PM, brother of PM, etc. Denial is bliss.

A man of the land might have called for another ice age not too long ago.

Please read it again. It doesn't say 1/3 of gun crimes are committed with legally owned guns. The guns are already marked with serial number that accomplish the exact same thing. So that policy accomplishes absolutely nothing. I assume you're equating tougher sentencing with the death penalty which is apples to oranges. Might be worthwhile looking at states that have implemented stiff mandatory minimums, like Florida. They did it in 1999. Their violent crime rates per 100,000 in 1998 was 938.7. It has decreased every year since then, with the exception of 2006 where it raised three points to 712. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

It would be more fitting if you moved into Chretien's house. Like you, he did nothing for years.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/speeches/mar-25-2003.htm

CO2 is what you breathe out. It has as much to do with asthma as Ronald McDonald's balls.

There is a test. It's called committing a crime.

Mrs. Brown was the head of a gang with 10 members. She sent two armed lads to deal some coke. They get busted and get sent to prison, where they both meet new boyfriends. How many gamg members are still on the street?

Going home makes the patient a person again. I think it's good for both the patient and the family.

So how are checks and alarms going to stop shootings? Are you going to hire officers to tail law abiding citizens 24hours a day? He campaigned on it. It will fix our revolving door justice system that keeps putting gang members back onto the streets to the frustration of police gang units.

Is man significantly changing the concentration?

Harper's Conservatives don't like spending money on non-solutions like the gun registry. Saying they don't believe in gun control is silly as they're the party that introduced legislation for mandatory sentences for gun crimes. Are you under the impression they want to get rid of registration for hand guns? Canada is not the US. We do have tough restrictions when it comes to firearms. What this government want to achieve is control by accountability. As a FYI, the Dawson College guns were registered. The Mayerthorpe gun had been illegal for four decades.

That may be the intention, but it has about as much affect on crime as me eating a peach pie. Manitory sentencing and placing greater focus on those committing the crime (i.e. gang squads) will address the problem. Yet you'd be in favour of spending billions on nothing. This is why they give you dull scissors.

I think it's almost a certaintly he'll be found guilty of second degree murder and face the manditory miniumum. Where this case will be interesting is when he becomes elible for parole. If held to the same standard as Latimer, he should have to state Sharia Law is wrong. Otherwise, he should not be released. At least not into Canadian society.