segnosaur

As I pointed out in another post, there's probably no need for that. Scientists aren't prevented from discussing their findings in various academic forums. No information is completely "hidden". They just can't talk directly to the mainstream media. Not sure if that's a practical solution. In many cases, scientists work on subjects that may not have immediate economic benefits (even if it is in the public interest), so private money may not be practical.

Ummmm... after reading through the article you referred to, it appears that scientists are not bared from freely exchanging information with other scientists. They can publish papers, attend conferences, etc. (And, of course, any informed journalist writing for the mainstream press has every right to publish that information in newspapers, or talk about them on TV.) The rules only appear to apply to situations where the scientists are talking directly to the media (which, of course, is not the way scientists exchange information.) It may or may not be a bad idea (while it does limit the spread of information to the public, it also prevents a scientist holding a minority position from being seen as "representing the government"). Just don't suggest its something that its not.

Ummm... who said Lepine is no longer an issue? Yes, what he did was tragic. But then tragedies happen on a regular basis with those who drive drunk/irresponsibly, or who have swimming pools where people drown. You can't eliminate all risks; there will always be a trade off between risk and enjoyment/convenience. Why does the death of (for example) David Hudson or Alexa Middelaer (both killed by drunk drivers) matter less than the individuals killed by Lepine? I've asked this before, and you have avoided answering the question....Why the double standard? Why are you so worried about the relatively small risk that comes from firearms stored at home, yet you have not called for private ownership/storage of automobiles and residential pools to be banned (since in both cases, 'safer' alternatives exist.) Oh, and before you try repeating the same debunked argument about how you want "self driving cars", once again that technology is years if not decades away... yet we can help those killed or injured by drunk drivers, by those who use cars in the commission of crimes, or those who drown in unsupervised backyard pools now. So, why the double standard? Edited to add:... One other question... how exactly is your plan to 'keep all guns in a central armory' supposed to stop things like the Montreal shootings? After all, Lepine could have gone and signed out his firearms, claiming he was going for target practice.

There's no double standard here, just the irrelevant leap you're making that 100% of everything that is dangerous will now have to be controlled like it was a gun. Actually, there is a double standard here, even if you don't want to recognize it. The issue is not whether my examples (of eliminating residential swimming pools/storage of cars) is "making everything 100% safe"... it is why you think that private storage of guns is an issue which demands immediate action, whereas other items that also pose a danger to the public shouldn't likewise require immediate action. Which is clearly not the same as calling for their outright elimination. You're right, its not. And I never claimed that you were in favor of elimination. But requiring all firearms to be kept at a central armory, while not 'eliminating' private gun ownership, is still something detrimental to people's enjoyment of firearms. Your only response to that in a previous post was to dismiss it with a sarcastic "too bad". Again, there is no double standard. Yes there is, even if you don't want to acknowledge it. Which of course is irrelevant. Even if we did attempt to automate transportation, it would take decades to accomplish. We can eliminate private ownership of cars now, and save all those lives between now and when we do create reliable automatic transportation. And to anyone who gets enjoyment out of having their own personal transportation we can say "too bad sucks to be you". So, once again, why the double standard? Why must we tell firearm owners "too bad we don't care if you're unhappy but its safer if you don't have guns at home", but you don't want to tell pool owners and car owners "too bad, we don't care if you're unhappy but you don't need a personal car/swimming pool". All of the rest of your post (regarding the political manipulations by various parties over gun issues) I won't bother responding to because they are not relevant to the question I am posting to you: Why do you feel one 'dangerous' object should be treated different than other similarly dangerous objects.

It wouldn't eliminate it. Never said it would eliminate it. I said it would 'detract' from their enjoyment. Because pools cannot be used to go postal. Irrelevant. I've pointed that pools can contribute to unnecessary deaths. Alternatives to pools exist (i.e. public pools). So why the double standards? Or do you only consider a death as 'significant' if its committed as part of a rampaging murderer? "Sorry your kid drown in the pool. He would have been safe had he gone to the local YMCA, but his death is unimportant." I didn't say eliminate, I said control... Ummm... you're really splitting hairs here. You ARE calling for the elimination of at-home storage of firearms to make things safer. Ummm.... Cars are used as weapons.... 30 seconds of google found the following: http://www.news.com.au/national/driver-sarah-ward-found-guilty-of-murdering-pedestrian-eli-westlake/story-e6frfkvr-1225846057476 http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22481451/detail.html This is in addition to the multitude of deaths caused by things like drunk driving (where they were not deliberate attempts to kill/injure). Many of those deaths could have been stopped if we eliminated private car ownership, or required people to store their cars at central controlled lots. So once again, why the double standard? Ummmm... First of all, I pointed out that the issue is not necessarily one of violent deaths... its a case of avoidable deaths, ones that could have been prevented if people had to use public swimming pools rather than private pools. Secondly, pools ARE used in many deaths, either suicides or murder. http://drowningprevention.ilsf.org/node/19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmeet_Singh_Sodhi#Death So, again, why the double standard?

I already debunked many of the arguments made by Visionseeker back in post 116 of this thread. Yet he continues to repeat many of the same responses. If this is typical, perhaps the reason the supporters of the registry do a terrible job at pointing out its usefulness is because that usefulness is pretty, well, useless. (Especially if all he can do is repeat points that have been debunked.) Ummmm... if there is spousal abuse, the police should already have the right to seize firearms. I'm sure the victim would be more than willing to provide a list of guns. Already pointed out that in such cases, it is not the registration of individual guns which was 'useful', it is the presence or absence of an acquisition permit (which, of course, would likely be removed if there was a prohibition order.) As I've already pointed out... if a weapon is stolen, the owners will likely report the theft (including little details like the serial number of whatever firearms were taken.) There is little or no benefit to registering the guns prior to the theft. Well, you are right in that it may be a but much to say its 'useless'. But you can say that in many (perhaps almost all) cases where the gun registry has been used, alternative methods to accomplish the same goals exist. For example, in your example where a registered gun helped crack a theft ring, the police might have gotten the same information by simply going to a database of crime details (rather than the gun registry). So, the registry was used, but wasn't essential/critical. Its already been pointed out to you that the police chiefs may not be representing the opinions of front line officers. Unscientific 'straw polls' have suggested that. (And there are plenty of reasons why the chiefs might claim effectiveness even when it is not.)

A public armoury would do a lot more to deter the ability of people who lose it to reach for a shotgun and go postal. It would also detract from the enjoyment many people get from owning and using guns (the majority of which are not used in any crimes). There are many risks in the world. Yes, firearms are a problem. Why are they being singled out? No, I'd pretty much restrict it's use to things like guns. Why the double standard? No, that would be silly. But why? Pools are dangerous. We could cut down the danger by eliminating private pools. So, why the double standard? Why must 99% of the responsible gun owners have their enjoyment limited yet pool owners be unaffected? I'm appalled that we haven't made any moves whatsoever to even try to develop automated driving systems. I think some work has been done (but its in the very early stages). Of course, I think that even if we had automated driving systems, people would still prefer being "in control". But you still haven't answered the question... given today's available technology, do you think we should either eliminate private cars, or force drivers to store them in a registered parking lot? And if not, why the double standard? Swimming Pools, Cars, and Guns are similar... they provide enjoyment/pleasure for the vast majority of people, or they somehow bring some enhancement to our lives. In each case there are alternatives (public pools, public transit, and 'armories') which would reduce those pleasures but make us safer. Why are you singling out guns as the only potential danger that must be eliminated?

I can think of several reasons: - Pride (i.e. hate to admit that a registry previously supported is somehow 'worthless') - Politics (i.e. either looks like you're "doing something" to the public, especially those in big cities, or to gain influence with the previous Liberal government who originally brought in the registry.) - No significant "harm" to them or their budgets (i.e. funding comes from the federal government, so they don't have to see existing, more effective programs cut to affect them) - Don't want to jeprodize "useful" parts of the program (for example, having a central database of acquisition licenses may actually have some benefit) by criticizing the "useless" parts of the program, in case everything gets cut - They do indeed think that it "helps" (although it only does so in such a tiny minority of cases, but they have to hide the fact.) Whether it is one of those, several of those, or something else entirely I don't know, but I feel all are possibly valid reasons.

You're right, you can't necessarily keep statistics on "prevented crime". But the difference between the gun registry and the examples you gave is that the examples you give actually make sense. In other words, there's a logical reason taking a drink to the bathroom prevents it from being spiked... the drink is physically isolated. The problem with the registry is that most of the benefit is already covered by A: the need for an acquisition license, B: the need for proper safety training, and C: other laws (such as those that resolve around safely securing weapons). As has been pointed out before, any officer going into a potentially dangerous domestic situation will probably always expect the worst, even if the gun registry says "all clear". And whatever benefit is gained, a similar benefit will result in knowing about the existence of an acquisition license. People will still probably snitch because: - Robbery suspects probably won't have acquisition licenses, so even if there's no central registry for a particular firearm, it will still be illegal for them to have any gun - If/when a gun is reported stolen, most owners will probably be willing to provide whatever information needed to identify which guns are theirs - Others have pointed out that those selling firearms record the guns that they sell. So, anyone with firearms should be able to identify the seller. A thief obvously wouldn't be able to do that Ummmm.. how does the gun registry help there? I agree its a good thing to check before lending weapons; however, if there is a weapons prohibition order, then simply calling the OPP would have revealed that (and I assume any acquisition license would have been revoked). There would be no need to register each and every firearm to reveal that fact.

Mental instability can strike anyone any time, sometimes even after they've acquired a license to purchase guns. But even if we dropped the registry, the fact that the firearms license would still exist in that person's name would give the police justifiable cause to search for firearms in their possession. (i.e. there is limited need to pre-register the firearms.) I see... Does that idea extend to anything that can be considered "dangerous"? What about outdoor swimming pools (where people can drown)... should we ban those? Granted, people find them 'fun', but anyone wanting to go swimming can use a public pool. What about cars (where thousands of people die every year from accidents). Should we force people to use 'safer' public transit? Should all cars be kept in a special 'registered' lot, only to be signed out until needed (and we can check them for intoxication, etc.)?

You don't need to be an 'expert'. But in a complex issue like this, there are differences amongst those that are experts. I do have to wonder though, if all you seem to do is parrot various statements issued by the police chiefs/RCMP, why exactly do you bother to post on this issue? After all, I've posted some reasons (both logical and evidence-based) about why the registry is a bad idea, and you've never addressed any of those points. (Frankly, I'd love to bring them up with actual police officers/police chiefs, but since they don't post here, you are kind of their proxy.) Already pointed out how any officer should expect that unsafe situations can occur at any time, and that putting absolute faith in the gun registry would be a mistake. Why don't you try addressing that argument, rather than parroting more press releases from the RCMP/chiefs of police? And I've posted the results from a 'straw poll' that indicates that most front line police officers consider the registry of no value. Why don't you address that point? It doesn't matter how 'efficient' a particular program is, if the end result of the program is worthless. As an analogy, the government can build a very good road. It can be the best designed road, built at the lowest cost. But if the road doesn't go anywhere where people are going to drive, then that money was not well spent (even if there was no 'waste' during the building of the road.) I'm sure there are plenty of other useless programs that can be cut that cost more money. But the fact that there are some huge wastes of money doesn't mean that we should be happy to waste smaller sums. After all, murder is one of the worst crimes out there; however, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect robberies to be dealt with too. Deal with the gun registry on its own merits (or lack of them). If its not worth it, suggest it should be cut (rather than say its not worth it but there are worse things out there so we won't bother cutting it.)

I've already pointed out that officers should expect that every situation may turn violent, even if the gun registry suggests that there are no firearms present. Not to mention the fact that they could get the same effect if they just kept a list of people with possession licenses (something that was already required) without having to register each and every firearm. If the weapon that was stolen was valuable, the owner would have issued a police report for the theft. If the owner didn't care enough to report it stolen, then the ability to trace it is pretty pointless. Mentally unstable people would not be able to acquire a license to purchase guns in the first place.

Not sure if that's a fair question. In the past, it may have been that the local police didn't have access to PAL (or FAC) information, but they probably do now, since that access would probably be part of the current gun registry system (and provided with any information on individual weapons.) Its probably quite possible to remove the gun registry, yet still maintain a system that allows easy access to PAL information. That way, should an officer do a search, they could tell if a registered gun owner lives at a particular address (and thus likely has guns), without the cost/obtrusiveness of registering each individual firearm. The assumption of course is that an officer will trust the information provided by any gun registry system. I rather suspect officers are trained to expect the worst (meaning unregistered firearms) in all situations, regardless of what the gun registry says.

Well you should... because that's the way you actually find out if there's actually support for an issue. Your definition of "common sense" may not be the same as what the average policeman sees as "common sense". Police want information, but they want it to be accurate. They can and should expect that the registry will always be incomplete and as such they should assume that every time they enter a house there is the possibility they will be confronted with firearms. Or do you really think the police will walk into a situation thinking "everything is fine" just because the gun registry told them so? How about because the people whom he has to deal with (the legal gun owners) might respect him more if they don't view him as exerting unnecessary authority. Except for the cost (which yes, is greatly reduced from before, but is certainly not non-zero). And a destruction of good will between police and citizens as people see the cops/government "harrassing" law abiding citizens. And the loss of privacy that may result if/when such searches are used by individuals who are not authorized.

Ummm... Iran? I think you managed to debunk your own opening post in your first sentence. Because being a 'republic' does not guarantee that your country is a true democracy which respects human rights (See: People's republic of Korea). Because while being a 'republic' would give us more options at the ballot box, our democratic traditions still allow people to exert enough control over their government Because opening up the constitution to make the necessary changes into a "republic" would be probably cause more problems that its worth (see: Meech Lake).

Ummm... proof? As I have stated, I do not have any knowledge of any survey of front line police officers about their opinions of the registry. Unless you have such a survey at hand, nobody can say with any certainty how the "real cops" feel about it. The closest thing we have to a survey is a "straw poll" which shows over 90% of police consider the registry "worthless". (This may not be considered definitive proof because of the self-selecting nature of such polls. But it certainly indicates that support for the registry is not universal.) http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/08/23/15116956.html

The cost of those summits has been discussed quite extensively in other threads. (Typically, it involves people who dislike the conservatives claiming "overspending" without pointing to what exactly they overspent on., and the pro-conservatives pointing out that its just the cost of doing business in a globalized world.) When you consider the cost, consider this: When Canada hosted the G8 conference in Alberta (when Chretien was the leader), the cost of the summit was around $200 million. The 2010 conference A: lasted longer and B: involved more countries (it was a combined G8/G20 summit). So, relatively speaking, the costs don't seem to be that far out of line. Perhaps we should wait to see if there are any real cost overruns before condemning the conservatives. Yes we should. We should also be concerned about security issues. (Or do you think that no document should ever be considered "top secret"?

Depends on how long they expect any recession to last. Ideally they'd want to get power when the economy is at a low point, so they can claim any improvements occurred under "their watch" (whether it was due to a natural economic rebound, policies put in place by the previous government, or their own policies). Now, Canada was in a recession for about a year (and most of the decline took about 6 months.) If it takes approximately 3-4 months to arrange the defeat of the government, call and run the election, and turn over power, then the Liberals would be taking power at near the low point of the economic cycle, and even if things stayed bad for the first part of their reign, they'd still be seen as saviors when the economy did pick up.

No, I don't have anything else, I don't imagine they would deliberately fabricate something like that so publicly. They may not have necessarily fabricated the story. But, it could be possible that it was an idea that the Police Chiefs contemplated but already dismissed that the Firearms association picked up on. Or it could be a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of existing policy. Like I said, I think there are valid reasons registry should be scrapped; I just don't want those opposed to the registry to have their voice lost in a bunch of conspiracy theories.

That number is per year. Yes I know. But then, the Canadian population base and the GDP are also expanding as well. There are approximately 1-2 million Canadians on Welfare. We accept around 20,000 refugees per year. 20k/2 million=1%. Now, since that time I've found that the number of people on welfare is actually closer to 1.6 million. But then, not all of those 20,000 refugees are going to go on welfare. No, I don't. I have no problem with some sort of welfare reform. But pointing to the refugees only as something that might 'bankrupt' us is something that's not supportable. Handle welfare reform as a separate issue. I have no problem with reforms to the refugee system. (Heck, if nothing else we should be doing proper criminal background checks.) I just have to question the suggestion that we'll be "bankrupted" by accepting too many.

Sounds more to me like hyperbole/rhetoric than actual policy plans. Yet the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has stated: ...the vast majority of stimulus projects are on schedule and municipalities are working hard to make it happen. (From: http://www.fcm.ca/English/View.asp?mp=1320&x=1470 ) Probably not something that matters to the majority of Canadians. Plus there is a little issue of the need to keep some documents confidential for security purposes. You DO realize that the conservatives eventually did make a deal with the other parties to have documents released, after they had been examined by arbiters to ensure that security is not compromised. (See: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/809483--all-party-deal-reached-on-afghan-detainee-files?bn=1 ) What exactly is your complaint, that they were running the Chalk River reactor against certain recommendations? Remember, some of the opposition parties voted to restart the reactor during one of its shutdowns as well. Yes, and the Liberals offered a cabinet position to Stronach which allowed them to avoid loosing a budget vote. The ability to suspend parliament is something that has been used regularly for quite a while. Chretien and Martin both prorogued parliament. (And not only that, Chretien also called early elections far earlier than he needed to, for no other reason than to take advantage of a divided opposition. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/11/12/liberals031112.html You mean the same fighter purchase that Liberal Senator Dallaire said we should actually purchase more of? Or the one that former Liberal MP Saada said that there was already a competitive bidding process years ago when development of the fighter began? http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/21/14785521.html

Uhhhh... no. The Economic update of 2008 that the Liberals and NDP complained about initially had no stimulus spending. The extra spending was added only after they threatened to bring the government down. From: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/27/question-period.html The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois said they would not support the update introduced by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty because it contained no stimulus package to spur Canada's slumping economy and protect Canadian workers during the crisis. I rather suspect that the average Canadian feels that, even if they don't like possible cuts to vet benefits, probably consider funding the active military to be a much greater concern. First of all, as I have pointed out, it is the population itself that wants the registry scrapped (44% want it scraped, only 35% want it kept. See: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/need+know+long+registry+works/3448969/story.html ) Secondly, a lot of people might consider it a bit suspicious to accept the finding of an organization such as the RCMP that may not exactly be unbiased in this issue. Lastly, there is also the possibility that support for the registry is only coming from the 'top' of the police hierarchy, and front line officers do not share the opinion. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any proper poll of front line officers; however, there has been a straw poll where it was found >90% were against the registry. (Unfortunately, such polls are not scientific because of selection bias.) I see... so you're suggesting he has some sort of "hidden agenda" where he's planning on turning Canada into Taliban North? Sorry, I'd rather deal with actual real politics and issues, rather than dealing with conspiracy theories. (I always wonder about people who make those types of accusations... does it ever occur to you that any political party who decides to enact such legislation would find themselves turfed out at the next election, probably never to regain power, and as such it would be stupid to even attempt such changes?)

Just out of curiosity, is there any sort of independent verification for that? The reference given points to a National Firearms Association web site (not that I'm saying they are necessarily a deceptive organization; I'd just like an unbiased opinion.) There are some valid reasons to oppose the gun registry. I just don't want any valid reasons to be lost amongst a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theories.

And what exactly is he doing? Is he spending money/increasing the deficit? Yeah, he is. But then, the Liberals/NDP were demanding huge spending increases at the start of the recession. Is he increasing spending on the military? Yeah, but many of those purchases were necessary. Did he spend a whole bunch on the G8/G20 conference? Yeah, but then, that's just the cost of being involved in international organizations. Is he working to cut the gun registry? Yeah, but a recent poll shows that most Canadians want it scrapped. Is he working to ban gay marriage? No, that's not on their agenda anymore. Is he working to ban abortion? No, that's not on the agenda at all. Is he working to turn our health care more 'American'? No, not really. Haven't seen any sort of large scale private reforms from them.

There may be a need to reform our refugee system. However, its a little extreme to suggest that our refugee program will turn us into a '3rd world country'. We currently accept around 200,000 immigrants and refugees into this country. Only a small portion of those (around 10%) are refugees, and even if many of those claims are false, the vast majority of people coming into this country are doing so properly as immigrants or genuine refugees (and many have needed skills, others have an interest in working, etc.) Even if every one of those refugee claimants was bogus and they went directly on welfare, it would add less than 1% to the number of people already on welfare.