Wild Bill Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) I have no more use for Liberal's than you do, its just that I have no more use for the Conservatives for the very same reason you despise the Liberals.I'd say scrap the current gun registry too but the reason I don't is that so many scrap-the-registry types are also staunch WOD hawks. There can be little doubt that the war on drugs is closely and deeply related to the proliferation and fear of guns. Advocates for guns and the WOD are their own worst enemies. Why are you still clinging to the Conservatives Bill? Because to me they smell the least! I see no point in casting my vote for a fringe party that could never achieve power in my lifetime, if ever. As for the NDP, the best I could say is that many of them have good hearts. They just don't seem to me to have good brains! The typical NDP person to me would be Marilyn Churley, an extremely nice lady but the last one I'd call to build a bridge that wouldn't fall down the first time it was used. It would be a pretty bridge, I'm sure but the NDP has never attracted the engineering and scientific crowd in any significant numbers. I've always found NDP arguments to be totally emotional and not logical. Many things that they champion actually seem hurtful, if not immoral to me. Not by intent, of course. Just for not having the consequences well thought out. As I've said many times, I make my living as a techie. By philosophy, I'm a Utilitarian! I won't accept blue sky dreams and I won't accept BS. I understand that in the real world you usually have to choose from a bad bunch. So for me at this time it's Conservatives, but only by default. Edited March 23, 2009 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Topaz Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 How about making law that you have to registry yourself on a list, for free, to buy the bullets???? Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 in your best mindful antithesis, could ya help a brother out here... why, year after year, has the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police come out in favour of the registry? Why MontyBurns... inquiring minds are conflicted - please advise - thank you in advance Once you get up to that level you're a politician, not a cop, a bureacrat. The opinion of chiefs is largely based on political expediency. The registry is there. There's nothing much to be gained by lobbying or arguing for it to be removed. On the other hand, speaking out against it could alienate liberals, and the city mayors and councils who are largely left of centre and actively support anything which even sounds like gun control. Would the likes of Dalton Mcguinty be happy with Fantino if he said it was a piece of crap and should be scrapped? Would Toronto mayor David Miller be happy with his chief if he came out against the registry? Nope. Are the chiefs enthusiastic about this thing? Nope. But it's there, and it's not likely going away any time soon, and like I said, they're politicians. I see – you’ll discount the pro-gun registry Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police… because they’re “politicians”. Interesting that when it suits your purpose, you seem to have no qualms in vigorously accepting and espousing the views of a certain category of (Harper) Conservative politicians. I believe that’s called selective… some might say… hypocritical. how about the Canadian Police Association… or the Canadian Medical Association… or the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians… or the Canadian Paediatric Society… or the more than 40 national women’s associations… or the Centre for Suicide Prevention… etc., etc., etc. “No” politicians there… would you care to be any more selective in assessing their support for the gun registry? Quote
wulf42 Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Only $ 100.00. Far too cheap. Anyone needing two guns should have to undergo psychiatric assessment and have a sign on their door that reads 'Enter at Your Own Risk."Registering guns and gang violence are two totally separate issues. Gang violence is escalating and will continue to escalate so long as we have prohibition. We are putting the money into the criminals' hands and out of law enforcement's. Drugs and prostitution are the lure of gangs. But back to the registry. It's working: Gun deaths cut in half, StatsCan says June 2005: The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says. In a study issued on Monday, the federal agency notes that Canadian gun-control laws have been stiffened in recent decades and gun registration has been made compulsory... It says that 816 people — 767 males and 49 females — died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002, the most recent year examined in the study. This represented 2.6 deaths per 100,000 population, down from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1979. Some Facts About Guns Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate". Data on suicide and firearms from other countries can be viewed as a warning to us in the UK of some of the effects of firearm possession. Most articles show that the storage of a firearm in the home predicts an increased rate of a violent death. The Case For Gun Control Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. ALL GUNS SHOULD BE REGISTERED. Nonsense............people can kill just as easy with a knife ! Gun registry is a farce always was and always will be just silly weed smoking sissy Liberal thinking.....gun control will never stop gun violence in fact it fuels a whole underground operation give a person a hundred dollars and i bet a person could go downtown and get a .38 in about an hour! Gun control was a failed experiment from the beginning............living next to the largest gun exporter in the world you can forget it! Edited March 23, 2009 by wulf42 Quote
Smallc Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 Nonsense............people can kill just as easy with a knife I don't like the registry all that much, but that's still Quote
waldo Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 Gun registry is a farce always was and always will bejust silly weed smoking sissy Liberal thinking..... more facts and less disparagement might improve your ability to influence or positively contribute to the discussion otherwise... some might just discount you as some ole red-neck hillbilly gun-toting right-wing Conservative non-thinking type. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Posted March 23, 2009 bush_cheney2004, clearly your ‘management-by-magazine’ is profound. That you would single out IT, in isolation of all other sponsors, stakeholders and contributors is telling… far be it from you to articulate a more representative accounting of the gun registry project. It’s clear you have no practical working knowledge of project methodologies and the influences at play. Duh! It wasn't intended as a "representative accounting".....it was intended as a mocking reminder of how so much was spent for so little in return, regardless of methodology, architecture, database, platform integrations, or change control employed. the deficient business case was not ITs responsibility – the politics & the suspect (competing) relationships between the Federal and (some) Provincial governments was not ITs responsibility – defining governance and accountability between Federal government departments was not ITs responsibility – deciding to shelve multi-years past work in favour of outsourcing was not ITs responsibility – that the business stakeholders failed to accept/align with standard gated funding & milestone practices was not ITs responsibility – that the project was dramatically influenced by lobbying and special interest groups was not ITs responsibility, etc., etc., etc. If you say so....I didn't say it was "ITs responsibility. the overwhelming IT “failure” in the registry project was to not hold the scope and not freeze specifications, particularly in consideration of, ultimately, thousands of change requests. Being able to even attempt to manage scope creep in the face of a highly motivated client is a discussion on its own. Your curt dismissive assessment summarized to “half-assed requirements definition” shows your dismal lack of credibility. NO...you just proved my point...and amazingly...implicated IT at the same time. but thanks for the chuckle… I actually know a business flunkie who regularly offers bizarro-world technical solutions (like your Oracle dB instance reference) as the end-all/be-all project life-lines – I expect he reads the same management magazines you do. You're welcome....and good luck on your next project where development failures are always somebody else's fault. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wulf42 Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Posted March 24, 2009 Here is some good reading how much of a failure the gun registry is! http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/registrat...te22104.ppt.pdf Quote
wulf42 Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Posted March 24, 2009 more facts and less disparagement might improve your ability to influence or positively contribute to the discussionotherwise... some might just discount you as some ole red-neck hillbilly gun-toting right-wing Conservative non-thinking type. Okay here are some facts for you! http://www.leonbenoit.ca/EN/4148/82102 Quote
waldo Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Actually...the intent of your Gun Registry was to demonstrate collossal mismanagement of an IT project. It is still used to this day to teach project managers around the world, particularly when requirements are defined in a half-assed manner.Fear not...the Liberals will safe you with yet another Oracle database instance. Hooray!! bush_cheney2004, clearly your ‘management-by-magazine’ is profound. That you would single out IT, in isolation of all other sponsors, stakeholders and contributors is telling… far be it from you to articulate a more representative accounting of the gun registry project. It’s clear you have no practical working knowledge of project methodologies and the influences at play. Duh! It wasn't intended as a "representative accounting".....it was intended as a mocking reminder of how so much was spent for so little in return, regardless of methodology, architecture, database, platform integrations, or change control employed. nice back peddle – you assigned the singular intent of the gun registry to IT… as you said, “to demonstrate colossal mismanagement of an IT project”. I easily rattled off a half-dozen non-IT related cost factors that over-shadow by nth degrees any costs that could be directly attributed to IT. Yet in this your latest reply you fall back to, again, directly target IT with your narrow focus on architecture, database, platform integrations, etc.. Apparently, in your narrow focus/limited understanding, IT systems management is the only facet of a project… not atypical coming from a non-technical ‘management-by-magazine’ business type. the deficient business case was not ITs responsibility – the politics & the suspect (competing) relationships between the Federal and (some) Provincial governments was not ITs responsibility – defining governance and accountability between Federal government departments was not ITs responsibility – deciding to shelve multi-years past work in favour of outsourcing was not ITs responsibility – that the business stakeholders failed to accept/align with standard gated funding & milestone practices was not ITs responsibility – that the project was dramatically influenced by lobbying and special interest groups was not ITs responsibility, etc., etc., etc. If you say so....I didn't say it was "ITs responsibility. why, yes you did when you labelled it “an IT project”… and you reinforced it again with this your latest reply with your narrow focus on IT project facets (as you stated, “methodology, architecture, database, platform integrations, or change control employed.”). the overwhelming IT “failure” in the registry project was to not hold the scope and not freeze specifications, particularly in consideration of, ultimately, thousands of change requests. Being able to even attempt to manage scope creep in the face of a highly motivated client is a discussion on its own. Your curt dismissive assessment summarized to “half-assed requirements definition” shows your dismal lack of credibility. NO...you just proved my point...and amazingly...implicated IT at the same time. why yes, I proved your narrow focus/limited understanding with another reinforcement on your part… glad to help your implication if only to emphasis your narrow focus/limited understanding even more. but thanks for the chuckle… I actually know a business flunkie who regularly offers bizarro-world technical solutions (like your Oracle dB instance reference) as the end-all/be-all project life-lines – I expect he reads the same management magazines you do. You're welcome....and good luck on your next project where development failures are always somebody else's fault. no, typically project failures have many assignees that run through the ranks of all stakeholders. I highlighted the 2 contributing IT related aspects generally recognized – and accepted – within the gun registry project. Quote
Argus Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 merde!the infringement... the inconvenience... the effort... involved in registering a car!!! ya ya - all you anti-gun registry types seem to have no qualms in your acceptance of car registrations... apparently, it would seem... yet, seem to come all unglued at the so-called "intrusion" you suffer in registering your guns. So sad. Do you think we should register knives and baseball bats, too? It would be about as effective. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 nice back peddle – you assigned the singular intent of the gun registry to IT… as you said, “to demonstrate colossal mismanagement of an IT project”. I easily rattled off a half-dozen non-IT related cost factors I agree...you rattled off a lot of excuses for collossal failure and cost overruns....this just makes for a longer and funnier story in "magazines". why, yes you did when you labelled it “an IT project”… and you reinforced it again with this your latest reply with your narrow focus on IT project facets (as you stated, “methodology, architecture, database, platform integrations, or change control employed.”). If you can't manage change...it will manage your project. why yes, I proved your narrow focus/limited understanding with another reinforcement on your part… glad to help your implication if only to emphasis your narrow focus/limited understanding even more. why, no, you only reinforced the project management incompetence. But it's never IT's fault (laughing). no, typically project failures have many assignees that run through the ranks of all stakeholders. I highlighted the 2 contributing IT related aspects generally recognized – and accepted – within the gun registry project. There is no typically for the Gun Registry project...it is an industry hallmark for (expensive) lessons learned. Bravo! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Progressive Tory Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) If "Harper" was going to scrap the Gun Registry it wouldn't be a "private members bill". Harper has no intention of scrapping the gun registry as it is a problem that he can milk every election.The Gun Registry is to the CPC what Child Care is to the LPC. An issue to campaign on year in, year out, and never do anything about it. And why would he campaign on the Gun Registry when the majority of Canadians don't want it scrapped. It might give him creds with the redneck crowd but he never mentions it during major political campaigns because he'd lose more votes than gain. Show me one campaign ad during the last election where he touted getting rid of the Gun Registry, or even since becoming a 'Conservative'. Edited March 24, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Argus Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 I see – you’ll discount the pro-gun registry Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police… because they’re “politicians”. I'm not "discounting" them because they're politicians. I'm pointing out to you that their position is based on political expediency. I discounted the pro gun registry years ago due to this little thing called 'critical thinking' which none of you who support it seem to have much familiarity with. Interesting that when it suits your purpose, you seem to have no qualms in vigorously accepting and espousing the views of a certain category of (Harper) Conservative politicians. I believe that’s called selective… some might say… hypocritical. Agreeing with politicians when they're right is not hypocritical. it's maturity, it's intelligence. how about the Canadian Police Association… or the Canadian Medical Association… or the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians… or the Canadian Paediatric Society… or the more than 40 national women’s associations… or the Centre for Suicide Prevention… etc., etc., etc. “No” politicians there… would you care to be any more selective in assessing their support for the gun registry? As I said, my asssesment of the gun registry is based on fact and critical thinking. I could not, and I say this in all honesty, possibly care less what a bunch of brainless "womens associations" have to say about its value. Few of them even have the intellectual capacity for critical thought and fewer still have ever bothered to actually consider what the registry was, what it is supposed to do, the cost, and the value. I mean, honestly, you take the input of the Canadian Paediatric Society into consideration on this subject? I mean, really!? Have you checked with the Canadian Chiropractor's Association too? As for cops, like I said, it cost them nothing. It's not much use but (shrug) I guess it's somewhat better than nothing. But just see how far their support goes if you suggest they start paying for it. Believe me, they'll back away fast, then. Or propose diverting the money to hire cops for sting operations and to put gun trafficers in prison and i think you'll see their support for the registry dwindle pretty fast. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Progressive Tory Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 ----Both Copps and this former prime minster where not fit for office - let alone talk about how to curb violence in society> They were violent barbarians! Harper kicks over chairs and swears like a truck driver. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Argus Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 more facts and less disparagement might improve your ability to influence or positively contribute to the discussionotherwise... some might just discount you as some ole red-neck hillbilly gun-toting right-wing Conservative non-thinking type. Only the stupid ones. And who really cares what stupid people think? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Progressive Tory Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 I could not, and I say this in all honesty, possibly care less what a bunch of brainless "womens associations" have to say about its value. Few of them even have the intellectual capacity for critical thought More exclusion. Good to know. Not surprised after listening a yet another vintage Harper speech when he was leader of the Reform Party and claimed the Reform was against all 'g' words: 'Gays', 'Girls' and 'Government Grants'. Some things never change. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Argus Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff said Sunday on CTV's Question Period that he wants to see the "fine print" of what the Tories are proposing before making a decision. Nonetheless, he was quick to say that he would not support a bill that proposes getting rid of the registry altogether, saying it does the police a great service. "We've got to keep control of these firearms," he said. "I'm not going to vote for anything that guts the gun registry, because I think when I look at my own riding in Toronto and I talk to my police superintendent, he uses the gun registry every day," Ignatieff said. "He checks out every address he sends his cops to, to make sure that there are no guns in that house. In other words, the gun registry plays a crucial role in making our police safer." "And I think Canadians don't want to gut any registry that makes our cops safer and makes, I think, on balance, makes our streets safer," he added.[/i] If any cop thinks that checking the registry will let him know whether there are guns in the house he should be out delivering newspapers or waiting on tables. At best, it may (the registry is filled with errors) let him know if there is supposed to be a legally registered firearm there - but so what? He has to act as though there could be a gun in the house at all times anyway. If any cop thinks he doesn't need to concern himself with that because the registry doesn't have one listed he's a blithering imbecile. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Progressive Tory Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Here is some good reading how much of a failure the gun registry is!http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/registrat...te22104.ppt.pdf Not the Fraser Institute. Please say it isn't so. They are a Conservative think tank with the emphasis on conservative, with very little thinking involved; though they probably are a little tanked. Part of their philosophy includes "... the freedom to own and acquire firearms without controls... Gee, and they criticize the Gun Registry. I'm shocked. Mike Harris writes for them. Enough said. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 I agree...you rattled off a lot of excuses for collossal failure and cost overruns....this just makes for a longer and funnier story in "magazines". ... it is an industry hallmark for (expensive) lessons learned. Bravo! Are you talking about the War in Afghanistan that is so riddled with cost overruns and government incompetence that our own Prime Minister has told Canadians that we can't win, and our leading general claims we need a 'time out' from. That's not stopping them from throwing more money at it, or risking more lifes though, or still pretending that tons of scrap metal (that have so far cost us 1.3 billion dollars) will someday be tanks. Just not in our lifetime. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Wild Bill Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 More exclusion. Good to know. Not surprised after listening a yet another vintage Harper speech when he was leader of the Reform Party and claimed the Reform was against all 'g' words: 'Gays', 'Girls' and 'Government Grants'. Some things never change. Are you serious? Did you pull that out of your butt? Can you back up that claim with a cite or a link? I never heard such a thing. What's more, with Deb Gray in the Reform Party if anyone let alone Harper had said such a foolish thing he would have instantly become a soprano! It's becoming obvious that you were never a Reform supporter. At least not one who actually read the literature and/or attended meetings. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Progressive Tory Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 It's becoming obvious that you were never a Reform supporter. At least not one who actually read the literature and/or attended meetings. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Someone posted it on facebook. I'll try to find it for you. Harper in the 90's with a 70's haircut. The video was a little grainy but clearly Stephen Harper. We never had a Reform candidate in Kingston, and even it we did, I probably wouldn't have voted for them. However, I have always said that I liked the 'common sense' of Preston Manning and he's still on my list of favourite politicians. I also have an old NCC Bulldog magazine where Harper writes about why women shouldn't get wage parity and suggesting that the only reason we are underpaid is because we've taken time off to have babies. Classic stuff. Don't forget that most of the Reform Party believed that a woman's place is in the home. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Argus Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Are you talking about the War in Afghanistan that is so riddled with cost overruns and government incompetence that our own Prime Minister has told Canadians that we can't win, and our leading general claims we need a 'time out' from. That's not stopping them from throwing more money at it, or risking more lifes though, or still pretending that tons of scrap metal (that have so far cost us 1.3 billion dollars) will someday be tanks. Just not in our lifetime. You mean the war your party started and continues to support? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 I also have an old NCC Bulldog magazine where Harper writes about why women shouldn't get wage parity and suggesting that the only reason we are underpaid is because we've taken time off to have babies. Classic stuff. Generally speaking - the main differential between men and women and salaries IS related to them taking time off, either for pregnancy, or to look after kids, or their not wanting to work overtime because of the kids. I know facts are frustrating, but sometimes you just can't escape them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wild Bill Posted March 24, 2009 Report Posted March 24, 2009 Someone posted it on facebook. I'll try to find it for you. Harper in the 90's with a 70's haircut. The video was a little grainy but clearly Stephen Harper. We never had a Reform candidate in Kingston, and even it we did, I probably wouldn't have voted for them. However, I have always said that I liked the 'common sense' of Preston Manning and he's still on my list of favourite politicians. I also have an old NCC Bulldog magazine where Harper writes about why women shouldn't get wage parity and suggesting that the only reason we are underpaid is because we've taken time off to have babies. Classic stuff. Don't forget that most of the Reform Party believed that a woman's place is in the home. Well, a post on Facebook! How can I argue with that? As for most of the party believing such a thing about women, I'm struck by how you can say that with such authority. You never were part of Reform, never even having a local candidate, or so you claim. Yet I was perhaps their first membership card in Ontario, served a few terms as a Riding Director, met personally hundreds of fellow members but never once met anyone who believed as you say! I'm forced to conclude that you could not possibly be so illogical as to believe what you wrote. You must be simply trolling, hoping to yank my chain and get a good laugh. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.