segnosaur

Ummmm... technically, if you really decided to "go with nature", you'd spend your time eating grubs and roots. Good buy twinkies, Coke, and almost everything else you might be eating these days. People had fewer problems with cavities in the past because they ate fewer foods that contained refined sugar. (Not to mention the fact that people didn't survive as long.) Just like anything else, dosage is everything. Fluoride is already contained in many foods. In large concentrations it can cause toxicity. It can also cause tooth discoloration. However, the amounts used in fluoridation are small and haven't been linked to problems in those concentrations.

A number of things. It`s all in the cite. Yeah but the article in the opening posting doesn't really go into much detail. - The main complaint was that she was suspected of snooping in other people's desks, improperly handling files, and using her cell phone at work. - The employee claimed she did not feel 'comfortable' with the required dress code (e.g. skirt, heels, etc.) as a "traditional muslim woman"; instead, on at least one day she wore leggings, a tight short skirt, and an ankle bracelet (So, she wasn't dressed in either the required business attire, OR traditional Muslim clothing.) Edited to add: one of the problems is that the employee claimed she'd never dress in the way described; however, the owner was not allowed to bring in any witnesses to support her case. - And the microwaving? The employee claimed that she felt singled out over her use of the microwave, but apparently the owner was sensitive to smells, so all employees were avoiding the microwave http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Fx1VY37O2TIJ:onlinedb.lancasterhouse.com/images/up-OHRT_Audmax.pdf+Seema+Saadi+telfer+desk+leggings&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESixAq4UrBqdTE4zKmnep1D8EQ_q5jMk58NtD1lJWfEWs4QfYKF3Wa5VAuXeSYFn3Wmu1tt6EsXrEYzSmKsEHhAly-rqNcYAi0xCnIHLYI5erNFtO14QvsY4cXi4LEkGLzsQqUCL&sig=AHIEtbQV53SA50kv5J6r_uqrHeG15iPUUg http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-case-of-the-smelly-lunch/article1892245/

Hey, I'm an atheist, and I admit, I've used terms like "Sky Pixie" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" before. However, that does not necessarily mean I consider every believer in god to be a simpleton. For example, my parents are churchgoers. (Heck, I used to be one too.) It doesn't necessarily mean a lack of intelligence; it could simply mean that their past experiences (e.g. my parents grew up in a rural farming community) did not give them the scientific curiosity or the desire to challenge their belief in god. (However, they do not try to force their beliefs on others.) Instead, I reserve my scorn for those who either do try to force their religious beliefs on others, or who should know better, but choose to misrepresent science, history, or logic in an attempt to justify their beliefs.

What about it? You're the one who believes in evolution. Everyone here noticed you dodged the issue, probably because it would make those believing in biblical creation look rather foolish. The issue is consistency. If you are using the bible as any sort of guideline for how earth/life was created, then you should either: A: Accept all parts of the bible (even the silly talking-snake portion) B: Provide a rational why one part of the bible is valid, but other parts can be ignored So, what do you think of the whole talking snake thingy?

Ask and you shall receive: Here's a valid theory that explains all that... http://www.smbc-theater.com/?id=174

These observations are facts but they are not "evolution". They are facts that support the theory of evolution. Well, first of all, I never said that individual observations were "evolution". I said that we've established evolution as a "fact" based on multiple observations/pieces of evidence. Yes they could... but you'd still have the 'fact' of evolution, even though the theory (i.e. mechanism for the process) is different than natural selection. That is ultimately my point. Yes, it was your point. But, in your post you actually used the term "theory" to apply to creationism. To apply "theory" to such bunk as creationism is to give it more credit than it deserves, and just wanted that point to be emphasized.

Actually, the reason why it can't be called a "known truth" is because, in science, you can never really "prove" anything. Technically, we can't even "prove" that bacteria and viruses cause disease (the "germ theory".) What we can do is to provide evidence that supports/verifies a theory, and if enough support is obtained (enough to make any alternates virtually impossible) then it is accepted by the scientific community.

I hate to nitpick... but, Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The "fact" portion is that we know (through observation) that life on earth shares a common ancestor, with various species exhibiting changes over time. The "theory" portion involves our understanding of how such changes come about. The accepted "theory of evolution" basically involves selective reproductive success through genetic changes (as opposed to, for example, "Lamarkian evoluation"). There is no real debate over this point; the vast vast majority of the scientific population has accepted the "theory of evolution" too. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html Another nitpick... The fact that creationism/intelligent design does not allow us to make predictions pretty much precludes it from being a "scientific theory".

Only because a majority in a legislature says so. Its called a "definition". Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of life. Irrelevant. Just because justice was overly brutal in the past (or in other cultures) doesn't mean that the "bad" penalties handed out before can't continue to be used now. Put it this way... in the past, people were sentenced to jail for sodomy. Does that mean that just because jail was used as excessive punishment in the past (for something that shouldn't even have been a crime) that nobody should be jailed today? I don't choose to ignore it. Well, either you're ignorant of the definition of "murder", or you are ignoring the definition. You can't have it both ways. False characterization. Sorry, falsely claiming that those who favor the death penalty are similar to the killers themselves is nothing but lander, and no more accurate than if I called those against the death penalty as "criminals who are probably psychopaths themselves but just don't want to risk getting killed themselves". The legality is not in question. The question is should a state have a right to take a citizens life. You asked what the difference was between what a murder does and what the state does during executions. I gave a list of differences. The fact that you would dismiss those differences is rather telling. True, but what has that to do with killing someone. Once again (since it doesn't seem to be sinking in)... YOU were the one that claimed that we don't need to kill to prevent a criminal from harming society. I was pointing out that there are criminals that we jail but don't have to. Yet we still incarcerate them. Why? Its because simply letting them go free (with appropriate checks/balances on their behavior) would not be seen as justice. Maddow did something bad, he gets jailed. Not just to keep him from setting up another ponzi scheme, but because we (as a society) believe its in our best interests to have appropriate punishment for crime. Nope, because I made it quite clear: If we did have a death penalty, I would want it reserved only for those who have committed acts so vile that they have forfeit the right to live. Some petty theft may never become a successful business person or doctor, and he may end up 'costing' society (through incarceration), but at least he should be given the chance to make society better. Bernardo, Bundy, etc, would never have that opportunity due to the nature of their crimes.

You are being over-simplistic here. For example, you say an incarcerated individual cannot provide any real restitution "for society." But can you prove it and can you prove this to be true for the future? No, you can't so you don't know. What we do know is that if we kill them there is no chance for finding out. I'm a firm believer in science. As such, I cannot prove that the earth won't end in 2012, that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer, or that the sun will come up tomorrow. What I can do is examine the evidence. The overwhelming evidence is that there will be no "cure" for the psychopathic mind within our lifetime, so no reason to expect that such individuals will be treated and released (so that they can provide restitution) within the lifetime of anyone on this forum. Sorry, must have overlooked that. Which post was that in? Not really. I haven't gone into detail about what is meant by "redemption and rehabilitation" because the issue is not whether a prisoner is capable of undergoing those transformations, but whether it will be relevant to society. Its not, because the death penalty, if implemented, would be reserved only for those who would never be released into society. Got it? Actually, I've already pretty much given a delineation... those who engage in multiple murders, or those who's crimes include additional components (e.g. torture), the type that should never get out would qualify for the death penalty. (Subject to M'Naughten.) There are a lot of possible reasons we don't have the death penalty. Perhaps a majority of people are opposed to it because of the potential of executing an innocent man. Perhaps its because elections are decided on multiple issues, of which the death penalty is only one, and many people view their candidate's stance on the economy, foreign affairs or the environment to be more important than the death penalty. When you say 'murderer' what rationalizations are you going through? Thought it was pretty clear what a 'murderer' was... an individual who takes a human life outside the bounds of the law (meaning: not an act of self defense, nor a soldier in the performance of their duties, nor an accidental killing.) Government sanctioned kidnapping includes the principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution... Irrelevant. If you are arguing 'slippery slope', you are suggesting an increased abuse of the particular system. The fact that we haven't had a 'slippery slope' for arrests giving us interment camps means that our government has appropriate checks to its power to keep such a slippery slope from happening. Dragging your worthless 3-Rs into things means nothing to the slippery slope fallacy. But it is not a valid punishment than includes the principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution. Irrelevant. As I've pointed out, restitution is unlikely to be made, and rehabilitation/redemption will not impact society since the individuals affected would never be candidates for release anyways. It's an institution like all other institutions. Why get married? You still haven't answered the question. Do you think someone who views even jail as a "big step backwards" to more moral than you are? No but rehabilitation, redemption and restitution are winning ideas and is why these principles are deployed to the great extent they are in our prison system. Whether its applied to convict accused of (for example) robbery or theft is irrelevant. Those individuals would be subject to eventual release, so rehabilitation, etc. is a good idea for them. The death penalty should (in theory) be only applied to those who's crimes would ensure they would never leave jail. Irrelvant. Actually quite relevant. You were the one who was touting the great "advances in neuroscience" as a reason to keep psychopaths alive (under the assumption that they might be cured). However, the fact that after all our work we've managed to actually make the problem worse is quite relevant. Its an indication that that magic pixie dust you're suggesting as a cure for the psychopath is something that's not going to be coming in anyone's lifetime.

this is dead wrong. Do you not imagine there might be people with a principled opposition to executions who are not "smug," who do not call it "murder" Yes, you are right... there are people who have principled opposition to the death penalty who are not smug or call it murder. However, I've attempted to try to focus my attention only on those people who have made the false connection that capital punishment=murder. Plus, keep in mind that there is at least some satire here. Yes, 'smug' may not be appropriate in all cases (although some of the anti-death penalty people here make me think it might fit). Of course, while I may be inappropriately characterizing some death penalty opponents as 'smug', keep in mind that they are likewise inappropriately characterizing those who favor the death penalty too.

The question is, does "adequately punished" extend to taking someones life. Well, that's a decision that has no real answer, and depends only on a person's personal views. If you want to claim that jailing someone is "adequate punishment", you have that right. However, that does not automatically make someone who feels execution is "adequate punishment" is automatically wrong. Put it this way... if someone came out and said "incarceration is state sanctioned kidnapping and the state should not do it", would you consider yourself any less moral than that individual? There is nothing more premeditated than an execution whether carried out by the state or an individual. Ummm... never claimed that executions weren't premeditated. My complaint was the way you characterized it as murder, which by definition it is not. Yet you chose to ignore it, in an attempt to unfairly smear (through false words) those who might support the death penalty. So you have no problem lying to justify your position is what you're saying. Ummm... how about: - those legislators are usually (in the western world) democratically elected and thus answerable to the people - Because whatever laws are passed have to respect the constitution of whatever country (and typically constitutions cannot be changed on a whim, and are set up to ensure fair treatment of citizens) - Because, once whatever capital punishment laws are in place, there will (at least in western society) be procedures that must be followed Those are rather significant differences between capital punishment and the lone murderer killing because he doesn't give a cr*p. Yet we still 'kidnap' (incarcerate people) even if there are other options that would also prevent them from doing harm. Bernie Maddow is a perfect example. We also don't need to let them (meaning convicted criminals who's crimes are especially heinous) live either. Ignoring costs for a moment (since it can get tricky, comparing the cost of incarceration vs. legal fees in carrying out a death sentence), keeping such individuals alive serves no value to society, other than the false sense of smugness held by those who falsely equate murder with capital punishment.

No, I am not assuming those are the only principles we need to consider when sentencing someone, just that they cannot be applied if we execute them. Yet when you gave the principles, you ignored the concept of justice/punishment. So you'll have to forgive me for assuming you were only concerned about those 3 things. As I said: Restitution is not applicable because an incarcerated individual has pretty much no ability to provide any real restitution to society. Redemption and rehabilitation are irrelevant, because the type of people that would normally be sentenced to the death penalty have participated in crimes so horrible that they'd never be let out of jail. It doesn't matter if Bernardo all of a sudden started to feel remorse, or if Picton realized the error of his ways and wanted to hug puppy dogs. They should still remain in jail and as such whatever improvements that have happened in their lives don't really matter. Ummm... for pretty much the same reason that gives police/government the right to arrest and incarcerate someone even though society says that kidnapping is wrong, and the same reason that gives police/government to fine someone even though society says theft is wrong. And once again, the process of rationalization a murderer goes through are not the same that society goes through when performing capital punishment. The murderer does not care about due process, following any sort of society guidelines, etc. Nope, its not. Not any more than the government-sanctioned kidnapping (i.e. arrest/incarceration) of people is a slippery slope towards internment camps. We have due due process, judicial oversight, and the political system. Nope, its not a step back. Or a step forward. Its just an arbitrary line that an individual draws that says "this is valid punishment; this other stuff is not". Would you consider it a valid point if someone claimed the existence of any jail is a "big step backwards"? After all, it curtails freedom, and we in western society consider freedom to be a rather key concept. Irrelevant. Even if, in the future, we could cure all "psychopaths", we actually have to live in the here and now. Waiting a half century for a possible pill to cure 'evil' is not exactly a winning idea. Oh, and here's something to consider: There is at least some evidence that attempts to "treat" psychopaths may actually be counterproductive. The "treatment", in certain individuals, may allow them to improve their skills (in things like deception) and thus make them more of a threat. http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/14/12/1235.abstract

The only consideration is not the protection of society... Sorry, but in your previous response you started to go off in a tangent stating it was "not necessary to protect society". I never stated that it was necessary, so it gets a little confusing when you bring up points that I was not debating. (Note: There have been cases where convicted criminals have escaped, and/or killed people in prison. Its statistically small however, but it does happen.) And I never tried to argue otherwise. I stated right from the start that it was an issue of ensuring that people were adequately punished for the crime. Ummm first of all, pretty much by definition execution is not "premeditated murder". Pretty much any definition I've seen for murder indicates that the death is something outside the bounds of the law. So something that is "state sanctioned" is, by definition, legal and therefore not murder. Secondly, I find it quite ironic that you would accuse people of "sugar coating" arguments for capital punishment, yet you do the exact same thing; you use false definitions/arguments (i.e. capital punishment=murder) in order to try to somehow justify your position. Once again, claiming "capital punishment=state sanctioned murder" is no more accurate than saying "arrest/incarceration=state sanctioned kidnapping", or saying "fines=state sanctioned theft". I believe you said "a little more final". Just pointing out that how little is a matter of perspective. Yes I did use "a little more final". Its called hyperbole.

The obvious difference being it is not necessary to kill someone to protect society from their actions. And in some cases, we jail people not because its necessary to "protect society", but because sentencing someone to jail is seen as "adequate punishment". Consider Bernie Maddow... Bilked billions of dollars out of people in a ponzi scheme. If the only consideration was the protection of society from further harm, then jail probably wouldn't be necessary. (House arrest would probably suffice). However, I believe that the scale of his crimes warranted incarceration as adequate punishment. Ummm... not sure what your point was here. I was pointing out that death is more final than incarceration. Not sure if you were trying to disagree, or whether you simply misread what I wrote. You are, of course, assuming that those principles are the only principles that we need to consider when we sentence someone to jail. The concept of justice (of ensuring proper punishment is administered for a particular crime) should also be considered. And no, I'm not suggesting "an eye for an eye"... etc. If we did have the death penalty (not that I'm suggesting we should; I think I've made it completely clear that the risk of executing an innocent person is a valid argument against it), I would want it reserved for only those convicted of extreme crimes (e.g. multiple murders, or ones with exceptional circumstances such as the involvement of torture). In fact, your "principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution" wouldn't necessarily apply in this case. For those convicted of (for example) multiple murders, they would likely never be released into society, so they'd never have the chance for restitution. And rehabilitation/redemption is irrelevant, since the individual would never be released. This is of course assuming it were even possible to rehabilitate someone like Bundy or Bernardo.

Well, is it right for you to say "I think someone who commits a crime should be arrested and incarcerated"? After all, that's really just legalized kidnapping and hostage taking. Or what about applying a fine? That's really just a type of legalized theft. Yes, death is a little more final than incarceration (and due to the risk of executing an innocent person I'm not pushing for the death penalty to be reinstated), but any sort of punishment will affect convicted people, in ways that might be cruel if done for other reasons. Neither will putting them in jail, or fining them. Yet we still do that.

Hate to sound too picky, but please define the word "necessary". It may not be "necessary" in order to prevent other innocent people from being killed. (Well, apart from any killed by escapees and/or killed in prison.) But some may feel it is necessary to ensure that adequate justice is done for crimes committed, even if I have no connection to the murderer or the victim.

Please define "a desire to get even". I have no moral objection to the concept of the death penalty. I believe that some people's actions are so abhorrent that they have forfeit their right to life. I believe it is a case of letting the "punishment fit the crime". I do have an objection to the death penalty from a pragmatic point of view (in particular the chance of executing an innocent person), but that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to assume that anyone who supports the death penalty is some bloodthirsty monster who's only out for blood.

If we did that, I'd suggest bringing back the electric chair. You know... so we can execute and cook them at the same time. It'll save us a step.

Then why wasn't it used during the trial? Section 16 of the criminal code states. No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong. Since one of the main criteria of being a psychopath is being unable to feel remorse of guilt, and because psychopathy is thought to have a biological origin than if Bernardo really was psychopathic than he wouldn't go to jail. The problem with your argument is that being "unable to feel remorse" (i.e. being a 'psychopath') is not the same as not "appreciating the nature of the act... or knowing it was wrong". Even if Bernardo didn't feel remorse about being involved in sexual assaults and/or murders, he was quite capable of understanding that his actions were wrong (or would be seen as wrong by society and were thus to be avoided). Section 16 deals with individuals who were actually incapable of understanding that what they did was wrong. (For example, a person who is mentally handicapped who doesn't understand the concept of death, or someone who is actually 'hears voices' that convince him that his neighbor is an evil alien and he needs to kill him to prevent an invasion from outer space.) One of the first attempts to characterize what should be considered 'insanity' (in terms of a legal defense) were the M'Haghten rules.) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_Rules Oh, and here's something else to consider... The American Psychiatric Association found that those found not guilty by reason of insanity actually spent twice as long (on average) in a mental hospital (which is not exactly a vacation...) as those who were found to be sane/guilty and got sentenced to a regular jail. (Probably wouldn't apply to Bernardo, just something interesting to ponder.) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html

Ummm... "opinion of experts" is still just an opinion. And lets take a look at what your "expert" said, shall we? So even the experts that you've contacted said they haven't done much to look into this issue. As for the 'facts and stats' you've provided... as I have said before, they are totally irrelevant. It is of no benefit to point to an increase in the number of elderly people unless you can also show those people are causing a greater per person risk. They are not.. No, what makes you feel confident is maintaining a bias, and finding irrelevant information and taking it out of context. First of all, I found data. And the data suggests there is no problem. Secondly, even if there was a problem (despite the fact that the data points to there being none), you should see evidence of problems now. We've had an aging population for a while. Why don't you just admit it... you are no better than those who claim "The world is going to end in 2012"? Once again, get this through your skull... The fact that there are more guns among seniors is not a problem if those people are less likely to use those guns violently than younger people. Got it? Do you need me to explain what I mean by the term 'less likely'? Your 'sense'? What, do you think that no old people live on their own now? And as I pointed out before, even if there were more older people living on their own, the proportion of death via firearm decreases as the person ages. This is actual real data. Available now. I provided the references myself. No need to wait for some mythical future data that may or may not come. If they've given so much thought to the issue, where is their data? Yet people can die through accidental deaths in swimming pools. Cars can be the cause of deaths too, either accidentally or through malicious intent. If you truly want to save lives, you need to consider these things. (Or do you really think kids who drown in swimming pools, or the nun who gets run over by a drunk driver on the way to help the orphans, is somehow less dead than someone who gets shot.) The only reason you want to consider them differently is because you don't have the ability to justify why one (guns) must be banned/controlled, but the others (pools/cars) have risks that are somehow acceptable.

Sorry, your argument fails big time. Claiming that the death penalty is somehow morally equivalent to murder is like claiming anyone who wants to arrest and sentence people to jail are also in favor of kidnapping, or wanting to charge people fines is also in favor of theft. They are not. The main difference between the death penalty and murder (or between imprisonment and kidnapping) is that the death penalty/imprisonment typically only happens after due process has been followed. Now, if you want to claim the death penalty is wrong because of the risk of accidentally killing an innocent person, I might agree with you. But if you're going to assume a moral equivalence between the death penalty and murder then I expect you to also condemn people who favor imprisonment and suggest that they are no better than 'kidnappers'.

The cops are giving lenient sentences? Maybe in Cuba. Actually, the cops may have been partly to blame for the sentence. The police executed a search warrant on the Bernardo home starting in February 1993. Despite having access to the house for many weeks, they were unable to recover the videos Bernardo had made that were stored above a light fixture. (That was done by his Lawyer in May 1993, the same month the plea agreement was made.) If the police were more through in their search, they would have found the tapes, and Karla would not have had the leverage to negotiate such a good deal. Apparently, a cop actually did search the light fixture, but just didn't stick his arm far enough into the hole. There were apparently other mistakes.... they could have used DNA to identify Bernardo earlier, and they may have messed up the questioning. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/16/f-bernardo-homolka-timeline.html

Ummm, mostly? How about changing that to only offered opinions. Well, first of all, relying on 'experts' is not always a valid way to enforce your point, given the fact that many of those 'experts' may have the same 'Guns are bad' bias that you do. Secondly, I find it rather strange that the experts admit "there isn't a lot of data". Heck, I managed to find references to information showing fewer accidental shootings among the elderly and a decrease in firearm suicides among the elderly in the age category when senile dementia is most prevalent, and that required only a few minutes of searching on google. You'd figure those who are 'expert' would be able to come up with their own data, especially if its a facet of their job. Depends on the context. If your method of debate is to say "Look at this particular case... see how tragic it is" as a basis for overriding the desires of a significant portion of the population, then yes, yes I will. The fact is, there will always be tragic incidents. Shooting deaths will always occur. Children will drown in backyard pools. Innocent people will get killed by drunk drivers. Yet pointing to a single shooting death and saying "We need to remove guns from private individuals hands" is no more valid than saying "We must ban private ownership of cars because a nun got run over by a car on her way to care for orphans". You made a very specific claim... an increase in the elderly population will lead to more gun deaths. Such a claim can only be proved by examining statistics. Individual stories in that context mean absolutely nothing. Perhaps these elderly cohorts you've mentioned to date are benefiting from having enough family members tuned into their conditions that they've been able to intervene and prevent them. Our population is growing older however and with fewer younger family members in the future to fill the role of conservator the situation you've cited could change. I see... more opinions I assume. So your argument is that "Well, you need at least 3 or 4 kids to stop adults from killing themselves and that 1 or 2 won't do". Of course, it ignores the fact that there is a higher incidence of firearm ownership among seniors. If the lower firearm accident rate is due to the kids getting involved, why aren't there fewer seniors with guns rather than more? Again, irrelevant unless you have proof that those elderly people actually pose a greater risk to themselves or society. That's funny I cited the same firearms survey to bolster my opinion that the high numbers of elderly gun owners, given the coming tsunami of dementia might cause a wee bit of concern but I guess not. The difference is, you took those numbers out of context and used them to support a conclusion with no real supporting evidence. I, on the other hand, used those numbers and compared them to, you know, actual risks (such as accidental deaths from fire arms) in order to determine actual real risks. While the whole "we need guns to prevent government oppression" is not a reason I normally give for supporting firearm rights. What I do believe is that firearms, cars, swimming pools, knives, and a host of other items make the lives of a large number of citizens more enjoyable, even though all of them contain an inherent risk. Any attempt to reduce the risk will ultimately reduce the enjoyment that many get from those items. If you are so concerned about "saving lives", then where is your call for greater control over private automobile usage? (After all, we don't need people to have their own cars... they can take buses or taxis.) And where is your call for the elimination of private swimming pools? After all, if people really want to swim they can go to the local community pool.

How about I deal with the gist of his argument, not his lame reasoning. You haven't really dealt with anything... Hint: Labeling something as "lame" and hand-waving away any arguments is not really "dealing with the gist of an argument". Ummm... you do realize that that database is not exactly free... money gets spent on maintaining the computers themselves, paying for data entry, updating the software, etc. Believe it or not, we do not have unlimited resources in this country. Every dollar spent on maintaining a registry that has little or no value means limited funds for things like additional officers, better equipment, etc. (things that actually could make a difference). Unless you think computers run on magical pixie dust and good intentions. A good analogy would be the cancer sufferer who decides to give up chemo and radiation treatments in favor of quack treatments like herbal treatments and homeopathy. Those other treatments may not necessarily be killing the patient directly, but using them means that the patient is not using treatments that are effective. There's also something called the Pelzman effect... a habit us humans have where we increase certain risky behavior after safety measures have been brought into effect. (e.g. drivers with ABS breaks may drive faster, and thus negate any safety benefit.)