Conservative Lies!

[Greg]

Cut the insults out please.

Lets all make sure to treat everyone with respect,

Greg

Admin

[Digby]

Is there any liberals left after tonights news?

Cageratler?

[Pateris]

Cagerattler,

We have lots of evidence that the gun registry computer system and database could have been provided by IBM or Oracle for less than $2 MILLION dollars. So why did it cost $400 MILLION?

Because the civil service and the Liberal government decided to buy the parts twice, train civil servants to be programmers, write their own database software from the ground up (TWICE) and still failed to recognize that the database should keep track of the various manufacturers..

All this for a system that doesn't actually do anything to reduce gun crime.

As far as I'm concerned - ALL WASTED

[waynej625]

It did not cost 2 billion dollars just to register guns in the country. The gun registry is only one part of the gun control program. The biggest expense was the start up which required new computers and a computer program,plus the licensing of gun owners. The whole gun control program cost a billion as of this year and that is a TEN YEAR TOTAL.

Cagerattler; you are quibbling over semantics, since in the first place the gun registry was supposed to cost no more than $2 million in start-up costs, and was supposed to be self-supporting by registration fees, andthe prime rationale stated by the Lieberal's for instituting the program in the first place was to prevent gun related deaths, and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Everytime I pick up the paper or read the news online, I am reading stories of robberies, murders, taking place by criminals using unregistered weapons. In fact in many drig raids, unregistered weapons are being seized. Not just rifles but handguns, in the possession of criminals. Now I wonder how that happened with all of the money being wasted on this failed gun registry? Maybe the criminals need another slap on the wrist from our efficient justice system, and have them be told that it is not nice to carry unregistered, restricted weapons.

Give your head a shake, criminals are not about to register weapons they are not supposed to possess in the first place, and all the failed gun registries in the world is not ging to change that fact. This is a failed Liberal initiative that even they do not have brains enough to admit that it simple cannot work, unless all of the Charter rights being granted to our criminal element is suddenly going to cause them to have a change of heart, and they are going to follow the straight and narrow. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

[CAGERATTLER]

Give your head a shake, criminals are not about to register weapons

You seem unaware that a guy or a gal with a criminal record cannot register a gun!

Our gun control program at work!!!!

So in order to get a gun they have to go to the black market same for the ammo!

Guns on the black market cost a lot more!!!!

Anything that makes a criminals life harder and more expensive I'm all for it!

Seems you on the otherhand want to make things easier for them.

Oh and btw no one ever said gun control would put an end to all crime. Name me one law that has stopped all crime! You're expectations of what gun control SHOULD do are very unreasonable to say the least but hey I've come across this attitude before!

andthe prime rationale stated by the Lieberal's for instituting the program in the first place was to prevent gun related deaths, and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

I really think you need to go check the stats! If you did you'll find both gun homicides and gun robberies are way down in this country!

But hey don't give our gun control program any credit you right wingers just cannot bring yourselves to do that!

So you actually think it has cost 2 billion just to register long guns in this country?

[Guest eureka]

The critics don't want to be confused by the facts, do they.

The Gun Registry was not supposed to cost only 2 million dollars. We have been through all that.

The Computer system could not have been supplied for less than $2 million. The sustem that Ontario had put in for the far lesser task of tracking welfare cost $250 million to an American company.

13,00 licenses have been refused under gun control and, CageRattler is quite correct in that the programs cannot be separated.

Gun Registries wherever they have been instituted have proven, statistically, to reduce gun crimes. I have cited the British experience on that.

Time will give the evidence for Canada where the Association of Police Chiefs has said that it is working.

But, of course, a few dozen lives a year is an acceptable cost if they serve the purposes of the critics.

[kimmy]

But, of course, a few dozen lives a year is an acceptable cost if they serve the purposes of the critics.

A few dozen lives a year... lives are priceless, after all, so if the registry can save a few dozen lives a year then it's worth any amount of money, right?

Well, not really. There are lots of things the government could spend money on that would probably save lives. A partial list would include things like:

-medical services

-mental health services

-more policing

-public housing

-programs for low-income Canadians

-programs for prostitutes

-programs for drug addicts

-more funding for disease control and prevention. (The doctors keep telling us we're in for more and more epidemics like SARS and Avian Flu. And they keep telling us we're not adequately prepared...)

The question in spending all this money on the gun registry isn't just "would it save lives?" it's "would it save more lives than other things that could be done with that money?" I'm skeptical that it would.

-kimmy

[CAGERATTLER]

I know how you Conservatives love to rant about not enough money for healthcare!

Well read up about just how the Ontario Conservatives under Ernie Eves Spent some of the Healthcare money from Ottawa!

Deny this happened!!!!:::::

http://www.web.net/~ohc/docs/030204.htm

[Chimera]

Of course, you do realise that had the federal government kept up their part of the healthcare bargain (50% funding), they would have been able to control where the money goes. Liberals have no moral leg to stand on regarding healthcare. They are akin to the vikings on that subject.

[CAGERATTLER]

Of course, you do realise that had the federal government kept up their part of the healthcare bargain (50% funding), they would have been able to control where the money goes.

Yeah right! A few years back Jean Chretien gave a billion dollars to the provinces to buy equipment for heathcare and he wanted proof it went for new equipment!

You should have heard the damn uproar coming from the premiers!

You need to take a look at the big picture!

The provinces are not totally innocent here when it comes to healthcare!

[Chimera]

If The feds were still funding 50%, they would have had every right to that information as it would then be a joint partnership, instead of a minority shareholder, to use business terms.

BTW, a billion dollars, divided by ten provinces and three territories. How many billions did the Liberals slash the healthcare budget by again???

Sorry, I guess I was wrong. The liberals have been very good for health care.

[CAGERATTLER]

Sorry, I guess I was wrong. The liberals have been very good for health care.

Well I don't hear the provinces complaining too much about the latest handout they got for healthcare!

[Chimera]

Do you complain to your mother when she increases your allowance??

Does this bring healthcare spending back up to a 50/50 split. No. It does not. This is just another political party doing everything it can to try and stay in power. I am glad that their is more money going to health care now. You'll have to forgive me my cynicism though, as it is too little too late. The cuts made in the 90's have done their damage. Many more will die because of it. We all sleep in the bed we make.

[willy]

CAGERATTLER, the amount of money BC will receive through the fix for a generation will run our health care system for 3 days each year.

Our annual budget for BC health cost is approaching $14 billion annually. Our total budget for the province is only $31 billion. This is the fiscal imbalance that you may have heard about. We still have to fund transportation, education, environment, etc.

[Argus]

.

The critics don't want to be confused by the facts, do they.

Well, you certainly don't.

13,00 licenses have been refused under gun control and, CageRattler is quite correct in that the programs cannot be separated.

1. The goal of the program is not measured in how many licences were refused. For all we know none of those people whose licence was refused was dangerous anyway, and they got guns illegally anyway.

2. You shouldn't make statements when you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The programs can't be seperated, eh? And you know this because.... ?

Gun Registries wherever they have been instituted have proven, statistically, to reduce gun crimes.

More BS

But, of course, a few dozen lives a year is an acceptable cost if they serve the purposes of the critics.

You have no evidence the long gun registry has saved one single life. But we can be fairly certain that if the two billion dollars had been diverted into, say, MRI machines and faster access to cancer treatment it would have saved a lot of lives.

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy, those are "as well as" issues, not "instead of." Provided it can be shown that they do need the extra funding. Some are not neglected areas. Some are also provincial, not federal responsibilities.

[Guest eureka]

Chimers, there is no requirement for a 50/50 split and has not for a long time. It was at the insistence of the provinces that that split was ended in favour of a block transfer.

The provinces were given what they asked for and also tax points were transferred to them. Put the blame where it belongson the incompetence of the provinces in not being able to forecast their needs AND in misapplying the tax points.

[Guest eureka]

Argus, you have no evidence for anything you say: you nevr do. Yet, you make a great show of demanding evidence from others.

I, long ago, posted some figures from the British experience after their Gun Registry came into force. I am not looking them up again.

If the goal was not to refuse licenses, then what was it? That, as should be clear even to you, was a significant part of the goal: to keep guns out of the hands of undesirables.

Certainly I have no evidence that the Registry has saved a single life: as you have no evidence to deny that it has. The smallest application of intelligence and logic, though, would tell you that it must. I am quite sure that all those 13,000 did not then get illegal guns. It is more likely that they have now gone on a "watch" list as potentially dangerous people.

[Bro]

I thought we were going to act grown up and stop with the immature name calling.

Jean the puke Chretien

What is the problem with you Conservatives; do you have nothing positive to say about the party that you support that you have to resort to name calling. so sad

It's in the charter stupid! Was that not a liberal quote to the rest of Canadians who do not support one of their views? The liberals insult most people who are not of the liberal view quite often.

[Argus]

Argus, you have no evidence for anything you say: you nevr do. Yet, you make a great show of demanding evidence from others.

Untrue. I have already explained in a very logical fashion, why your idiotic gun control registry is a waste of time and money. Nor has anyone managed to contradict me or argue against that logic.

I, long ago, posted some figures from the British experience after their Gun Registry came into force. I am not looking them up again.

Then I'll take it as a given that they are irrelevent to our particular situation.

If the goal was not to refuse licenses, then what was it? That, as should be clear even to you, was a significant part of the goal: to keep guns out of the hands of undesirables.

Which, as I have already explained to you, it has utterly, utterly failed to do. The primary problem is restricted weapons, anyway, and they are readily available to anyone who wants them.

Certainly I have no evidence that the Registry has saved a single life: as you have no evidence to deny that it has. The smallest application of intelligence and logic, though, would tell you that it must. I am quite sure that all those 13,000 did not then get illegal guns. It is more likely that they have now gone on a "watch" list as potentially dangerous people.

This is one of your problems. You are "sure" of things without the slightest evidence. Two billion dollars could do a lot to hinder gun smugglers, and those who sell illegal firearms. That would keep a lot more dangerous weapons out of the hands of a lot more dangerous people than a long gun registry.

[Guest eureka]

Thankyou for having "explained" this to us at some time. Why we cannot follow your logic must be irksome to you.

Next post, try some argument, if you can think of one.