[Manic!]

If you don't want a conservative winning your riding check out this site:
http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/

It tells you who has the best chance in your riding to beat the conservative running in your area.


from the site:

"More than 60 percent of Canadians do not support Harper and his government's contempt for democracy. Yet, he could win a majority with as little as 35 percent of the popular vote."

[Hondaracer]

Only reason why I don't support Nina grewal as a conservative is she hasn't done shit for my riding and with another term she's going to get a fat pention for doing nothing
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Manic!]

Only reason why I don't support Nina grewal as a conservative is she hasn't done shit for my riding and with another term she's going to get a fat pention for doing nothing
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/4268796.bin?size=620x400


Her son was the one who was originally going to run, but got a dui. So her husband threw her in.

[optiblue]

NDP all the way!
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[belka]

Isn't there a HUGE election thread on this already?

[classified]

hmm increase spending do get out of a deficit, sounds like a good idea. i guess conservatives arnt the way to go then...

[darkfroggy]

If you don't want a conservative winning your riding check out this site:
http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/

It tells you who has the best chance in your riding to beat the conservative running in your area.


from the site:

"More than 60 percent of Canadians do not support Harper and his government's contempt for democracy. Yet, he could win a majority with as little as 35 percent of the popular vote."

75% of Canadians do not support the Liberals, 90% do not support the BQ, 82% do not support the NDP.

Problem, statistics?

[MelonBoy]

Unless someone cole notes the pro/cons of each party.. I probably not gonna vote lol.. I dont know shit about politics and I might as well not randomly pick someone LOL

[TheNewGirl]

Unless someone cole notes the pro/cons of each party.. I probably not gonna vote lol.. I dont know shit about politics and I might as well not randomly pick someone LOL

I would highly recommend you go look at the party pages and find out what they offer. (You're already on the internet!)

If you can't do that, then at least go down on election day and scratch your vote (just draw a line through it, or drop it into the ballot box blank).

Politicians base their platforms on the demographics of people who come down to the polls (Your age and gender is recorded and reported) and until young people start coming out they're not going to start actively promoting platforms that benefit you.

[Manic!]

75% of Canadians do not support the Liberals, 90% do not support the BQ, 82% do not support the NDP.

Problem, statistics?

Many people including myself think the NDP and Liberals should merge. Also the BQ are not a national party.

[Manic!]

Another good site: http://www.votepair.ca/

Allows you to trade votes.

[Manic!]

Unless someone cole notes the pro/cons of each party.. I probably not gonna vote lol.. I dont know shit about politics and I might as well not randomly pick someone LOL

Start here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

[MoBettah]

There's only one party i really want to Vote for and I don't even have the option to since they only have candidates in one province.

[Manic!]

There's only one party i really want to Vote for and I don't even have the option to since they only have candidates in one province.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[TheKingdom2000]

75% of Canadians do not support the Liberals, 90% do not support the BQ, 82% do not support the NDP.

Problem, statistics?

that just means a lot of people do not like the Liberals, bloc, and NDP..

ie.
75/100 people surveyed do not support the liberals
In that same group of people 90/100 people do not support the bloc
and again in that same group of people 82/100 do not support the NDP.

where is the problem?

[belka]

Start here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

Biggest crock that "vote compass" is. 95% of the time your results will be Liberal. I just hope the CPC get a majority and ax the fucking useless CBC news.

[El Bastardo]

Forget the Marijuana Party... I want to vote for the Cocaine Party

[dangonay]

I love how a website named "Project Democracy" is pushing people away from one specific party. Isn't that a little contradictory?

[Manic!]

Biggest crock that "vote compass" is. 95% of the time your results will be Liberal. I just hope the CPC get a majority and ax the fucking useless CBC news.

What no hockey night in Canada!!!!

[geeknerd]

that just means a lot of people do not like the Liberals, bloc, and NDP..

ie.
75/100 people surveyed do not support the liberals
In that same group of people 90/100 people do not support the bloc
and again in that same group of people 82/100 do not support the NDP.

where is the problem?

i think he knew that hence the 'problem?' with a question mark.

[belka]

What no hockey night in Canada!!!!

I said news, not sports. :D

[Harvey Specter]

Nina and her husband are the biggest jokes in the EI community.

[Hondaracer]

and from doing absolutely nothing for her riding, if she wins again she'll be getting a 100k per year pension for the rest of her life

federally i'm all conservative, but i'm not supporting her for doing shit all

[quasi]

that just means a lot of people do not like the Liberals, bloc, and NDP..

ie.
75/100 people surveyed do not support the liberals
In that same group of people 90/100 people do not support the bloc
and again in that same group of people 82/100 do not support the NDP.

where is the problem?

He's just proving a point that you can use statistics to say whatever you want. If you're going to say that more then 60 percent of Canadians don't support the Conservatives you should tell the other side of thee story that they also show that 75% don't support libs, 90% don't support bloc and 82% don't support NDP.

Edit: I should also add that those are according to that particular poll.

[TheNewGirl]

I love how a website named "Project Democracy" is pushing people away from one specific party. Isn't that a little contradictory?

It's called Project Democracy because they feel that Stephen Harper is actively hindering democracy and feel that if he were to win a majority, Canadians would lose some of their rights, freedoms and most importantly their say in the future of their country.

For more information see the article below and decide what you think for yourself:

http://federalelectionblog.ca/2011/04/27/harpers-attack-on-democracy-itemized-by-lawrence-martin/

[Manic!]

and from doing absolutely nothing for her riding, if she wins again she'll be getting a 100k per year pension for the rest of her life

federally i'm all conservative, but i'm not supporting her for doing shit all

Check out http://www.votepair.ca/ maybe you can trade with someone.

[darkfroggy]

Unless someone cole notes the pro/cons of each party.. I probably not gonna vote lol.. I dont know shit about politics and I might as well not randomly pick someone LOL

Don't complain when the government raises/lowers taxes and spends/cuts money.

EDIT: Also, isn't this thread a BLATANT attempt at advertising/soliciting, which is against the TOS?

[sky52]

It's called Project Democracy because they feel that Stephen Harper is actively hindering democracy and feel that if he were to win a majority, Canadians would lose some of their rights, freedoms and most importantly their say in the future of their country.

For more information see the article below and decide what you think for yourself:

http://federalelectionblog.ca/2011/04/27/harpers-attack-on-democracy-itemized-by-lawrence-martin/

Canadian would lose their freedom and right??? Last i check it was the Liberal court ruling that put law-abiding citizen in jail and letting the criminal(s) walk away scott free. Conservative wants to bring in harsher sentencing for everything else. They are the one who wanted to grant citizen arrest for all the civilian ( in the states its call stand your ground status).

Liberal also wants to slowly disarm canadians, elimanating the RIGHT to own firearm(s) for sporting purposes, where conservative wants to make it easier for those who wish to.

[TheNewGirl]

Sky... harsher sentencing actually doesn't solve crime problems. In fact the only thing it does is create better criminals. And until we get that through our thick skulls the criminal problems we have will never be addressed in any effective way.

Also we don't have a constitutional right to own fire arms.

You've been viewing WAY too much American media.

NOW, I agree that the current long arm registry is a buracratic nightmare and I grew up on a farm where we needed to have guns (there were friggen wolves!). I grew up around hunting and fishing. I'm not unsympathetic at all to the firearms issue. BUT I think scrapping the system entirely and replacing it with nothing is the worst option.

I would support a longer term registry so rather then having to pay and renew your license every year (which can get extremely costly if you have a couple hunting rifles), I would suggest a longer term, every 4 years at the same rate. Then we could have the advantage of having the registry for legal and police purposes (and they do use it, though typically not for the reasons you would think), while being less of a burden to responsible gun owners.

Write to your MP about it though. I did.

BUT again, and I repeat. You have no such RIGHT to bear arms. If you want that. Go move south.

[darkfroggy]

How does the gun registry help when criminals almost never register their handguns? The money could be better spent somewhere else. Has the gun registry been proven to drastically lower rates of crime with handguns?

Of course the police would want it. Even if it made their job 1-2% easier, they would take it. But at what cost to the public?

[TheNewGirl]

The police most commonly use the gun registry when responding to calls at house holds, particularly disturbance and domestic violence calls to ascertain if there's weapons potentially in the house hold. This allows them to be prepared with non lethal interventions upon arrival.

They use this in other emergancy response situations as well. I know someone who's father was suicidal and manic and the police responded to a call at his house. Because they knew that he had a weapon in the house they were ready and tasered him when he was found waving around a rifle. Otherwise the police officer said he probably would have been shot if they hadn't had the warning.

Later they used the registry to get a list of all his firearms and make sure they were all removed from the house while he was getting treatment.

This is the shit that doesn't get on the news. But the police and other emergency services utilitize the gun registry often and generally it's to protect the gun owners and those in their households, not to harm them.

Like I said, it's not a perfect system, I think it can be made better for everyone, but I do believe it is important to have.

And I don't think the gun registry generally prevents "crime" at least not in the way you're thinking about it, as in gang violence. I think it DOES prevent deaths and accidents.

[Manic!]

How does the gun registry help when criminals almost never register their handguns? The money could be better spent somewhere else. Has the gun registry been proven to drastically lower rates of crime with handguns?

Of course the police would want it. Even if it made their job 1-2% easier, they would take it. But at what cost to the public?

So how much does the gun registry cost the public per year?

[sky52]

2 billion dollars so far.

Plus PAL gets renew every 5 years not every year.

[taylor192]

Many people including myself think the NDP and Liberals should merge. Also the BQ are not a national party.

Even if they merge, they only represent < 50% of Canadians, while the Conservatives were polling as high as 41% recently.

So lets not pretend like a vote for the Libs or NDP is "democratic" as they don't represent most Canadians either.

[StylinRed]

Even if they merge, they only represent < 50% of Canadians, while the Conservatives were polling as high as 41% recently.

So lets not pretend like a vote for the Libs or NDP is "democratic" as they don't represent most Canadians either.

Latest Ekos poll actually shows Cons @ 35% NDP 28% LIB 22% Grn 7% Bloc 6% (rounded off #s btw)

so ndp/libs = 50%

include the bloc that'd represent 56% of the country
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html
http://www.ekospolitics.com/

[MindBomber]

How does the gun registry help when criminals almost never register their handguns? The money could be better spent somewhere else. Has the gun registry been proven to drastically lower rates of crime with handguns?

Of course the police would want it. Even if it made their job 1-2% easier, they would take it. But at what cost to the public?

Of course criminals don't register their hand guns, the only practical thing that will make a significant reduction in hand gun related crimes in Canada is simply banning their sale to private individuals. If hand gun sales to private individuals were banned and only gun clubs and law enforcement agencies were allowed to own them that would make progress in decreasing hand gun crime, even then, the progress would be limited considering what country we border.


2 billion dollars so far.

Plus PAL gets renew every 5 years not every year.

2 billion dollars so far, correct, there was a significant initial investment in establishing the long gun registry. The registry costs only a few million dollars a year to maintain, eliminating it effectively throws away that investment.

So how much does the gun registry cost the public per year?

It's less than 10 million a year IIRC.


Even if they merge, they only represent < 50% of Canadians, while the Conservatives were polling as high as 41% recently.

So lets not pretend like a vote for the Libs or NDP is "democratic" as they don't represent most Canadians either.

The key word is as high as 41%, let's keep in mind that they generally sit around 35% support and that is a pretty small fraction of the population. If we wanted to make our system more democratic then it would need to be changed to proportional representation.

[StylinRed]

Latest Ekos poll actually shows Cons @ 35% NDP 28% LIB 22% Grn 7% Bloc 6% (rounded off #s btw)

so ndp/libs = 50%

include the bloc that'd represent 56% of the country
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html
http://www.ekospolitics.com/

IPSOS Reid has the polls @

38% Cons
33% NDP
18% Libs
7% BQ

NDP+Libs= 51%

[HonestTea]

Whens the last day to vote for our cities?

[Manic!]

Whens the last day to vote for our cities?

Voting takes place on Monday May 2nd.


http://www.elections.ca/home.aspx

[CanadaGoose]

The police most commonly use the gun registry when responding to calls at house holds, particularly disturbance and domestic violence calls to ascertain if there's weapons potentially in the house hold. This allows them to be prepared with non lethal interventions upon arrival.

If what you say is true, then their system is dangerously flawed. The registry provides no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the household actually contains a firearm, and whether or not someone inside is going to use it. No cop will stroll into a grow-op because the system shows no firearms registered to the address, likewise I would find it completely unreasonable for a SWAT team to show up at grandpa joe's house because he has a world war 1 rifle registered, and he got mad and was yelling at the tv and spooked a neighbor.

I understand it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to things like firearms, but in actuality, it's only being done because there's a stigma attached to them. Realistically a car (3000lb bullet) can inflict way more damage then any firearm can, and is practically concealable in plain sight; can often be bought for a fraction of the cost of a firearm, and driven by ANYBODY, licensed or not....should there not be stricter regulations on them? What about knives? Knives are entwined in more violence then firearms are, why are they not subject to a registry?:troll:

With the amount of money wasted on the long gun registry, Canada could've sent a man to the moon. Now that would've been something we could all admire. Absolutely nobody is amazed or impressed by our stellar gun registry here....

[CanadaGoose]

Also we don't have a constitutional right to own fire arms.


BUT again, and I repeat. You have no such RIGHT to bear arms. If you want that. Go move south.

I promise I'm not trying to push your buttons, but we don't have a constitutional right to own a car either. Or a toaster. So the fact that it's not of our constitutional right is of little relevance imo



I would support a longer term registry so rather then having to pay and renew your license every year (which can get extremely costly if you have a couple hunting rifles), I would suggest a longer term, every 4 years at the same rate. Then we could have the advantage of having the registry for legal and police purposes (and they do use it, though typically not for the reasons you would think), while being less of a burden to responsible gun owners.

Write to your MP about it though. I did.

I'm not sure where you got this from - The current term is already at 5 yrs. I recently renewed my license and authorization to transport.... the only cost to me was getting my pretty picture taken again :D

At the end of the day I can understand where supporters of the registry are coming from (not implying you are one of them either), it just boggles my mind how much money they've dumped into such a shitty mickey mouse system. It's nothing more then a tangled web of bureaucratic shit to give the illusion of control and safety, completely at the expense of people like my convenience.

[taylor192]

At the end of the day I can understand where supporters of the registry are coming from (not implying you are one of them either), it just boggles my mind how much money they've dumped into such a shitty mickey mouse system. It's nothing more then a tangled web of bureaucratic shit to give the illusion of control and safety, completely at the expense of people like my convenience.

~$100M a year wasted on what should be a glorified DB.

The police use figures are very much skewed since querying the gun registry is now standard procedure for most actions. The stats that showed how often the gun registry resulted in a hit was ridiculously low, to the point where any officer has a better chance of winning the lottery than encountering a registered gun - and the lottery still doesn't pay out as much as the registry costs each year. :(

I am against the current state of the registry. If it was just a website with a DB behind it and minimal tech support to keep going I'd be fine with a couple $M wasted each year, yet ~$100M is dumb.

[taylor192]

The key word is as high as 41%, let's keep in mind that they generally sit around 35% support and that is a pretty small fraction of the population. If we wanted to make our system more democratic then it would need to be changed to proportional representation.

Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? 51% is still very low to be deciding what every Canadian wants.

For the Conservatives to win a majority they have to be > 40% and that would just barely squeak one out. Realistically they'll need > 45% and then it'd be closer to the magic 50% you want for "democracy". :p

[TheNewGirl]

I promise I'm not trying to push your buttons, but we don't have a constitutional right to own a car either. Or a toaster. So the fact that it's not of our constitutional right is of little relevance imo


.

Oh I know we don't. I was responding to someone saying the Libs were trying to take away their right to own a fire arm (which we don't have).

We register our cars too, and renew our registration every year when we renew our insurance. We aren't allowed to use our cars if we don't have them properly insured and I'm all for taking away cars from people who use them recklessly.

But like I said, I think there's ways to still have the Database but have it streamlined to be WAY more cost effective and friendly to those who have to register their weapons. I 100% agree that the current state of it is not effective from a cost or interface perspective.

As for the term, I understood you had to renew every year, but yeah if it's changed that's great. It's been a long long long long ass time since I lived in a house with a hunting rifle in it.

[MindBomber]

Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? 51% is still very low to be deciding what every Canadian wants.

For the Conservatives to win a majority they have to be > 40% and that would just barely squeak one out. Realistically they'll need > 45% and then it'd be closer to the magic 50% you want for "democracy". :p

I have heard of the tyranny of the majority, which is why I hope even the party I support doesn't win a majority. In my eyes a minority government is the most "democratic" arrangement, which would be the indefinite result of every federal election with proportional representation.

[Manic!]

~$100M a year wasted on what should be a glorified DB.



Are you sure on that number?

[carisear]

Are you sure on that number?

as a rough estimate, from all accounts i've seen that's pretty accurate. it started off 40mil, then went to 60mil, and has been expected to be 80-100mil now.

and yes, it's just a glorified db. the implementation is complete CRAP.

[Manic!]

as a rough estimate, from all accounts i've seen that's pretty accurate. it started off 40mil, then went to 60mil, and has been expected to be 80-100mil now.

and yes, it's just a glorified db. the implementation is complete CRAP.

Those were initial costs. If costs around 4 million to run per year. Harper talks about cost savings buy canceling it but at the ave time wants to reduce the fee's associated in getting a gun.

A 100 mill is drop in the bucket compared to what the G8 summit cost.

[carisear]

Those were initial costs. If costs around 4 million to run per year. Harper talks about cost savings buy canceling it but at the ave time wants to reduce the fee's associated in getting a gun.

A 100 mill is drop in the bucket compared to what the G8 summit cost.

no. that is YEARLY cost. as in, every year, the cost keeps going up. that's how screwed up the implementation is. if it only cost $4 mil / year people like me wouldn't give 2 shits about it. that's nothing at all.

[MindBomber]

The long gun registry does not cost $60-100 million dollars per year, the entire Canadian Firearms registry currently costs $66.4 million dollars per year, the long gun registry is a single component of that system.

Conservatives claim that the long gun registry makes up the majority of the Canadian Firearms registry expenses, so eliminating that component would save $65 million dollars per year. Liberals claim that eliminating the long gun registry would save $2-4 million dollars per year. The reality is that long guns don't make up 97.8% of the gun registries expenses like Conservatives claim, that's ridiculous, but it probably isn't as low as the Liberals claim either.

[darkfroggy]

Those were initial costs. If costs around 4 million to run per year. Harper talks about cost savings buy canceling it but at the ave time wants to reduce the fee's associated in getting a gun.

A 100 mill is drop in the bucket compared to what the G8 summit cost.

The G8 is necessary to enhance our global prestige. Say what you want, but the leaders of the most developed countries in the world DO deserve special attention.

The gun registry in its current state is horribly implemented and ineffective. Of course law enforcement want to it stay, they'll take anything that makes their job a little bit easier. 60 million can go a long way towards funding education and childrens' sports programs.

[MindBomber]

The G8 is necessary to enhance our global prestige. Say what you want, but the leaders of the most developed countries in the world DO deserve special attention.

The gun registry in its current state is horribly implemented and ineffective. Of course law enforcement want to it stay, they'll take anything that makes their job a little bit easier. 60 million can go a long way towards funding education and childrens' sports programs.

Why are people holding onto the political propaganda issued by the conservative party that the long gun registry costs $60 million dollars a year, it doesn't, the entire gun registry only costs $66.4 million. I pointed that out in the post above yours.

If Canadian's can't look past the partisan statements that obviously aren't based in fact, how can we expect our politicians too and make reasonable informed decisions on our behalf. That statement is directed towards not just Conservatives, but Liberals, Bloq, NDP, Green and I don't think the marijuana party has a platform more advanced than hot boxing the house of commons but their supporters too.

[Manic!]

The G8 is necessary to enhance our global prestige. Say what you want, but the leaders of the most developed countries in the world DO deserve special attention.



Yep they deserve a fake lake. :rolleyes: and global prestige the only people it's impressing is a bunch of politicians. There is a lot of better ways to improve our global image with a billion dollars.

[darkfroggy]

Why are people holding onto the political propaganda issued by the conservative party that the long gun registry costs $60 million dollars a year, it doesn't, the entire gun registry only costs $66.4 million. I pointed that out in the post above yours.

If Canadian's can't look past the partisan statements that obviously aren't based in fact, how can we expect our politicians too and make reasonable informed decisions on our behalf. That statement is dedicated towards not just Conservatives, but Liberals, Bloq, NDP, Green and I don't think the marijuana party has a platform more advanced than hot boxing the house of commons but their supporters too.

Why are you assuming that I'm holding onto political propaganda?

I think the entire gun registry is a waste of money, which could be better spent elsewhere. Where has it been proven that the gun registry has significantly reduced rates of crime, or made it easier to investigate such instances?

[MindBomber]

Why are you assuming that I'm holding onto political propaganda?

I think the entire gun registry is a waste of money, which could be better spent elsewhere. Where has it been proven that the gun registry has significantly reduced rates of crime, or made it easier to investigate such instances?

As I said, that statement is directed towards everyone of every political affiliation. Conservatives cling to the idea that the long gun registry costs $60 million+ a year and site it as their reason for wanting to scrap it. If you want to scrap the entire registry you can understand my confusing you as a member of the stream of conservatives who preach scrapping just the long gun registry and leaving the hand gun registry in tact, that's an entirely different debate that hasn't been actively pursued.

I haven't seen the hard figures that show the gun registry has reduced crime rates and I agree with your point that it's not the most effective system possible, and I would agree with scrapping it if there was a better system planned to replace it. Although no one has hard numbers on the effectiveness of the gun registry and the only measure we have is opinions of the officers who use it, gun control of any sort is proven to reduce crime.

[CanadaGoose]

Why are people holding onto the political propaganda issued by the conservative party that the long gun registry costs $60 million dollars a year, it doesn't, the entire gun registry only costs $66.4 million. I pointed that out in the post above yours.


No, it is not propaganda: it cost approx. $60 million PER YEAR in tax payers dollars to operate ($66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year)

By 2005 it was already at 1 billion dollars, from the original $2 million the entire program was slated to cost when it was first proposed in 1995.

Total cost to date is nearly fifty times the amount you posted, it is in the billions. Enough to fund a space program and send a man to the moon and plant a Canadian flag on it.

[CanadaGoose]

I haven't seen the hard figures that show the gun registry has reduced crime rates

It's because no one uses a firearm registered in their name to commit a crime.

So the registry effectively targets the wrong people; the law abiding citizen.

It's no suprise gun laws in Canada will have no effect on crime whatsoever, because outlaws do not care about the law, and as long as their is BC Bud going south to our American neighbors, coke and a shitload of guns will be coming north regardless of what system or registry is in place. So like I said, the firearms registry is effectively targeting the wrong people; the law abiding citizen and ONLY the law abiding citizen.

It's a nuisance, and HUGE waste of tax money on all Canadian citizens. Literally everyone who pays taxes is having a portion of their contribution thrown into the wind just to keep something alive that should've been axed a loooooong time ago. It's no secret the system has proven to do jack shit, yet here we are, still being forced to throw money at it. It's bureaucracy at it's finest.

I can understand why it's not such a straightforward decision to axe it though.... they know once it's gone, good luck EVER getting it back - everyone is going to be so opposed to ANY kind of system after witnessing this shit, you know? It's like fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....

[MindBomber]

It is not propaganda: it cost approx. $60 million PER YEAR to operate ($66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year)

Total cost to date is nearly fifty times the amount you posted, it is in the billions.



The entire gun registry costs $66.4 million dollars for the 2010-2011 fiscal year; the conservative government claims the long gun registry costs $65 million per year and thus should be scraped. A huge component of the argument for scrapping it is the cost, but claiming that long guns make up 97.8% of the gun registries total cost is ridiculous. What's wrong with this statement?

The total cost to date is irrelevant, scrapping it now won't make the money come back, it's not like we can sell it to someone.


It's because no one uses a firearm registered in their name to commit a crime.

So the registry is effectively targeting the wrong people; the law abiding citizen.

It's no suprise gun laws in Canada will have no effect on crime whatsoever, because outlaws do not care about the law, and no matter what system the government implements, as long as their is BC Bud going south to our American neighbors, coke and a shitload of guns will be coming north regardless of what the registry is in place. So like I said, the firearms registry is effectively targeting the wrong people; the law abiding citizen and ONLY the law abiding citizen.

It's a nuisance, needless tax and HUGE waste of money on all Canadian citizens. Literally everyone who pays taxes is having a portion of their contribution thrown into the wind just to keep something alive that should've been axed a loooooong time ago. The system has proven to do jack shit. It's bureaucracy at it's finest.

If the gun registry was scrapped, then when a fire arm is sold it would disappear into oblivion and it would become easier for it to find it's way into a criminals hands and tracking ownership prevents that, am I wrong? That's my understanding and it's really hard to sort through the tide of partisan bull shit and find solid answers.

I'm not a big supporter or the gun registry in it's current form, I'm sure the money could be used in a more effective way, I'm just a supporter of gun control. If a system were proposed where the registry were scrapped and the money directed towards a more effective system then I would be hugely in support of that.

[dangonay]

If the gun registry was scrapped, then when a fire arm is sold it would disappear into oblivion and it would become easier for it to find it's way into a criminals hands and tracking ownership prevents that, am I wrong? That's my understanding

Any criminal who wants a gun can get one as easy as you or I going to the corner store to buy a pack of gum.

Smugglers can get anything they want into Canada - cocaine, heroin, cigarettes, black market/knockoff brand name products - you name it. Why is it that people seem to think guns would be any more difficult to bring in?

[Manic!]

It's because no one uses a firearm registered in their name to commit a crime.



That's B.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6, 1989 at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot twenty-eight people before killing himself.


Any criminal who wants a gun can get one as easy as you or I going to the corner store to buy a pack of gum.

Smugglers can get anything they want into Canada - cocaine, heroin, cigarettes, black market/knockoff brand name products - you name it. Why is it that people seem to think guns would be any more difficult to bring in?

If you can get a gun in 15 minutes prove it because that's B.S.

Why not legalize everything since we cant stop it.

[MindBomber]

Any criminal who wants a gun can get one as easy as you or I going to the corner store to buy a pack of gum.

Smugglers can get anything they want into Canada - cocaine, heroin, cigarettes, black market/knockoff brand name products - you name it. Why is it that people seem to think guns would be any more difficult to bring in?

I don't think a gun would be more difficult to bring in, I've said in my posts above that the effectiveness of any gun control in Canada is severely limited by the Americans complete lack of it. Mexico actually has extremely strict gun control policies within their own country, but that doesn't matter when someone can go to a gun store in Texas, have fifty guns thrown in a duffle bag and then they just wander across the border. I assume that a gun smuggled into Canada from the states would be more expensive though and that makes it a bit more difficult for low level criminals to get them compared to a gun that could potentially be sourced from within Canada.

Maybe we should do like Chris Rock suggests, forget gun control and just control the bullets lol.

[dangonay]

If you can get a gun in 15 minutes prove it because that's B.S.

Why not legalize everything since we cant stop it.

I know several ways to get a gun, largely due to relatives being Status Indians. I'm not going to post them up on a public forum. If you choose to believe guns are hard to get, then so be it. I suppose you think it's hard to buy heroin too.

Another weak-ass argument. That's about as stupid as saying "since murders happen anyway, why make murder a crime?" Maybe you should study up on why laws exist and what their purpose is - totally eliminating something from happening is NOT the purpose of a law.

[apple_cutie]

The entire gun registry costs $66.4 million dollars for the 2010-2011 fiscal year; the conservative government claims the long gun registry costs $65 million per year and thus should be scraped. A huge component of the argument for scrapping it is the cost, but claiming that long guns make up 97.8% of the gun registries total cost is ridiculous. What's wrong with this statement?

The total cost to date is irrelevant, scrapping it now won't make the money come back, it's not like we can sell it to someone.




If the gun registry was scrapped, then when a fire arm is sold it would disappear into oblivion and it would become easier for it to find it's way into a criminals hands and tracking ownership prevents that, am I wrong? That's my understanding and it's really hard to sort through the tide of partisan bull shit and find solid answers.

I'm not a big supporter or the gun registry in it's current form, I'm sure the money could be used in a more effective way, I'm just a supporter of gun control. If a system were proposed where the registry were scrapped and the money directed towards a more effective system then I would be hugely in support of that.

The Gun registry is a total waste of money and time, here is a prime example of how useless it is, a Manitoba man registered his soldering gun/heat gun as a firearm and received a registration certificate in the mail. Shows you that none of the applications get even reviewed and checked before being processed.

http://www.rangebob.com/OttawaCitizenRapidFire/SolderingGunRegistrationCertificate.pdf


Also Gun control doesn't work, show me any statistics that prove it works, don't just spew emotional bullshit that you thought up "oh if we limit guns, there would be less violence"

Also a Quebec man managed to register his Fuller Screwdriver as a firearm and was issued a registration certificate as well.

[MindBomber]

The Gun registry is a total waste of money and time, here is a prime example of how useless it is, a Manitoba man registered his soldering gun/heat gun as a firearm and received a registration certificate in the mail. Shows you that none of the applications get even reviewed and checked before being processed.

http://www.rangebob.com/OttawaCitize...ertificate.pdf


Also Gun control doesn't work, show me any statistics that prove it works, don't just spew emotional bullshit that you thought up "oh if we limit guns, there would be less violence"

Also a Quebec man managed to register his Fuller Screwdriver as a firearm and was issued a registration certificate as well.


Pointing out that there are flaws in a automated system isn't going to prove anything, the point of the gun registry isn't to review whether people should own guns, it's to track who owns guns. I have no idea what people were trying to prove by registering a soldering gun, fill me in as to what it proves?

The debate isn't on whether gun control is effective, it's on the long gun registry and the election tomorrow. If you want to evidence of the effectiveness of gun control look at rates of gun violence compared to gun control in various countries. I'm not anti-gun, I come from a family that hunts and owns guns on our farms, I just believe that their ownership should be controlled.

[apple_cutie]

Pointing out that there are flaws in a automated system isn't going to prove anything, the point of the gun registry isn't to review whether people should own guns, it's to track who owns guns. I have no idea what people were trying to prove by registering a soldering gun, fill me in as to what it proves?

The debate isn't on whether gun control is effective, it's on the long gun registry and the election tomorrow. If you want to evidence of the effectiveness of gun control look at rates of gun violence compared to gun control in various countries. I'm not anti-gun, I come from a family that hunts and owns guns on our farms, I just believe that their ownership should be controlled.

Gun violence in gun controlled countries are lower versus countries with no gun control, however the overall rate of violent crimes are still the same before and after gun control laws were enacted. A prime example of this is Washington DC after they banned guns.

I agree with you that gun ownership needs to be controlled, but targeting law abiding citizens who rightfully register their guns, apply for transportation permits, go through all the hoops to obtain their license is not the way to go.

The only way to truly stop the amount of gun violence is to enforce stricter smuggling laws and provide the border patrol with more power in confiscating and prosecuting illegal firearms that are being brought into the country.

As with gun control, a key saying goes "if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have them" sleep on that quote.

[Nightwalker]

Long gun registry is probably the -only- thing I really agree with the Conservatives on. But all the other issues are bigger, so screw the Conservatives.

[Manic!]

I know several ways to get a gun, largely due to relatives being Status Indians.

And what are you doing about it?

[MindBomber]

I know several ways to get a gun, largely due to relatives being Status Indians. I'm not going to post them up on a public forum. If you choose to believe guns are hard to get, then so be it. I suppose you think it's hard to buy heroin too.

Another weak-ass argument. That's about as stupid as saying "since murders happen anyway, why make murder a crime?" Maybe you should study up on why laws exist and what their purpose is - totally eliminating something from happening is NOT the purpose of a law.

The key word is relatives, that's not something the majority of the population has access too and I don't know anyone with their card actively selling illegal guns.

[StylinRed]

^^^ getting a gun license is insanely easy.. i actually don't know why people are in an uproar

It's actually easier than a gangster smuggling in a gun... which doesn't make sense..

[dangonay]

And what are you doing about it?
Why should I do anything about it? I'm not the police. Why don't you head on to the downtown eastside and do something about the drug dealers there?

The key word is relatives, that's not something the majority of the population has access too and I don't know anyone with their card actively selling illegal guns.
I never said my relatives smuggled guns - I said I knew of ways to smuggle guns because of my relatives. No diffferent than saying I know how to smuggle guns because I have an uncle who works for the RCMP. People in other industries (like shipping or trucking) can also probably think of numerous ways to easily smuggle anything they want into Canada. Just seeing all the illicit drugs that come in shows it's not that difficult to do.

^^^ getting a gun license is insanely easy.. i actually don't know why people are in an uproar

It's actually easier than a gangster smuggling in a gun... which doesn't make sense..
Getting a license is easy for a law abiding citizen. Try getting a license if you're a gangster, have a record or are even associated with people that do.

If you buy a gun legally it can be traced. A smuggled gun can be bought, used to kill someone and dumped without fear of it being traced to anyone even if it is found. That alone is worth the extra couple hundred you might have to pay for a gun.

[taylor192]

Those were initial costs. If costs around 4 million to run per year. Harper talks about cost savings buy canceling it but at the ave time wants to reduce the fee's associated in getting a gun.

A 100 mill is drop in the bucket compared to what the G8 summit cost.
I see what you're doing, you're splitting hairs. The majority of guns in Canada are long guns. This is the most recent stat I can find, yet I am going to assume i has not dramatically changed:

1974 – 11,186,000 FIREARMS IN CANADA – STATISTICS CANADA

TABLE 1 – FIREARMS STOCK

Table 1(a) Proportional Breakdown of Estimated Total Firearms Stock, 1974

Comment: there are approximately 11 million firearms in Canada. This total is broken down as follows:

Handguns - 717,000 (6%)
Rifles - 6,652,000 (60%)
Shotguns - 3,817,000 (34%)
Total - 11,186,000

The program costs $65M to run, yet I round up to $100M cause not all costs are eaten directly by the agency running it.

As others said, if it cost a couple $M to run I'd be all for it - yet instead its bloated - and I do not trust any government to run it better for less - so get rid of it before the NDP waste money researching how to improve it.

[taylor192]

That's B.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6, 1989 at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot twenty-eight people before killing himself.
and would a gun registry have prevented that crime? Criminals don't register their guns, and good citizens who buy guns don't suspect they'll turn out to be criminals eventually.

There was a study that showed many assaults/killings are actually done by family/friends/acquaintances of the victim. All the gun registry does is eliminate a bit of policing to find the obvious suspect - at a huge expense to the tax payer.

[johny]

The police most commonly use the gun registry when responding to calls at house holds, particularly disturbance and domestic violence calls to ascertain if there's weapons potentially in the house hold. This allows them to be prepared with non lethal interventions upon arrival.

They use this in other emergancy response situations as well. I know someone who's father was suicidal and manic and the police responded to a call at his house. Because they knew that he had a weapon in the house they were ready and tasered him when he was found waving around a rifle. Otherwise the police officer said he probably would have been shot if they hadn't had the warning.

Later they used the registry to get a list of all his firearms and make sure they were all removed from the house while he was getting treatment.

This is the shit that doesn't get on the news. But the police and other emergency services utilitize the gun registry often and generally it's to protect the gun owners and those in their households, not to harm them.

Like I said, it's not a perfect system, I think it can be made better for everyone, but I do believe it is important to have.

And I don't think the gun registry generally prevents "crime" at least not in the way you're thinking about it, as in gang violence. I think it DOES prevent deaths and accidents.

4 police were killed in Alberta a few years ago because they walked onto a farm without proper backup, no proper "swat" gear etc because the gun registry told them no guns on site. they were shot.

this is not the only time the police have been in trouble by assuming what they see in the registry is correct. they should always assume weapons are on site everywhere they go. for this purpose the registry is useless. they are more likly to run into trouble with weapons in places were no weapons are listed, then in places where law abiding people have filled in their paper work.

the gun registery has so many flaws. the first being that when it came into effect, customs inport documents estimated there were 24 million legal guns had been sold into Canada over the past ~50 years. 9 million have since been registered. yet they now claim over 90% of guns are registeried. what happened to the other 15 million?... they are in Farmers barns, grampa's attic etc. millions of guns in houses all across the county not on that list.

2nd gun owners have no requirment to store firarms at their house. they can borrow, lend, store them anywhere they want. if their is a domestic abuse call. and he happens to legally own say 3 guns. he might have 0 guns in the house, he might have 3, or he might have 300. if the police walked in and removed the 3 guns listed on the registery and walked out they have failed to do their job. becasuse their could be more legal guns in the house, or even illegal guns in the house too. a full search of the house should take place no matter what the registery says. once again making the registery useless. it doesn't matter how many a list says he owns, it only matters how many are in the house.

gun licences would remain intact, and were in place long before the registery was. so police would still know if houses had gun owners or not. and can then assume guns are in the house.

how does the gun registery prevent deaths and accidents? there is licence training and testing. there are laws on storage, use, transportation etc of firearms. these help prevent deaths and accidents. the registry is just a list of numbers on peices of paper.

[Manic!]

I see what you're doing, you're splitting hairs. The majority of guns in Canada are long guns. This is the most recent stat I can find, yet I am going to assume i has not dramatically changed:



The program costs $65M to run, yet I round up to $100M cause not all costs are eaten directly by the agency running it.

As others said, if it cost a couple $M to run I'd be all for it - yet instead its bloated - and I do not trust any government to run it better for less - so get rid of it before the NDP waste money researching how to improve it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/08/25/long-gun-registry-report-rcmp.html

The report found that the cost of the program is in the range of $1.1 million to $3.6 million per year and that the Canadian Firearms Program is operating efficiently.

[johny]

Oh I know we don't. I was responding to someone saying the Libs were trying to take away their right to own a fire arm (which we don't have).

We register our cars too, and renew our registration every year when we renew our insurance. We aren't allowed to use our cars if we don't have them properly insured and I'm all for taking away cars from people who use them recklessly.

.


you can't use cars in public property if they are not registered. however you can own them, store them at your house, drive them on your own property, or private property (IE a farm), without insurance or registration.

so you can not compare car registration to gun registration.


and no you can't take away cars or car registration from reckless drivers. you take away their licence.

there is a big difference.

[Manic!]

the gun registery has so many flaws. the first being that when it came into effect, customs inport documents estimated there were 24 million legal guns had been sold into Canada over the past ~50 years.


50 years is a long time to keep a gun. How many things does your family have that they bought 50, 40, 30, even 20 years ago?


and no you can't take away cars or car registration from reckless drivers. you take away their licence.

there is a big difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWkVmt9lIB8

at a huge expense to the tax payer.

2010 Total expenditures C$280.5 billion

be 4 or 65 million the cost of the gun registry is chump change compared the over all budget.

An appointment to the Canadian Senate is like winning the cash for life lottery. Senators earn $132,300 a year as a base salary, serve until age 75, and last year sat in the Senate for only 69 days. The total cost for Canadian taxpayers to maintain the Senate in 2008-2009 was $90,232,000.


Get rid of the senate. that will pay for the gun registry and have money left over.

[Manic!]

put everything in one post.

[johny]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/08/25/long-gun-registry-report-rcmp.html

The report found that the cost of the program is in the range of $1.1 million to $3.6 million per year and that the Canadian Firearms Program is operating efficiently.

the firearms registery is run by the RCMP. so this is an RCMP report saying they are going good?...

the cost of running the entire firearms center itself (long gun registery + licences + restricted registry etc) has been estimated at 65 mill a year (by the RCMP...). to break down what only the long gun portion of that would likly be impossible. but just the cost of the stamps of mailing letters to long gun owners every year is over 1.5 million. if they kept every staff member, every peice of IT equiment, the entire office etc. and only got rid of doing the paper work. then maybe your number is right. but that would be a wrong number, many would be laid off, and lots of other costs could be cut. making the number alot more then 4 million

also that 65mill that doesn't include many other costs such as police costs and time to enforce it (raiding peoples houses who forgot to renew they licence), judges, crown lawyers ect from all the appeals against the current laws and the 'criminals" in court from failing to renew them licences etc. all of this costs tax payers much more and is also wasted money. and a waste of police and court time and resources. dealing with "paper criminals"

when the auditer general tryed to do a cost report she couldn't compleate it because many cost documents were not availavable from the liberals. they had burried the costs and spending of the registery into other areas to hide the true costs.

[StylinRed]

Getting a license is easy for a law abiding citizen. Try getting a license if you're a gangster, have a record or are even associated with people that do.

If you buy a gun legally it can be traced. A smuggled gun can be bought, used to kill someone and dumped without fear of it being traced to anyone even if it is found. That alone is worth the extra couple hundred you might have to pay for a gun.

exactly my point... if you've never been convicted you'll have no problem in buying guns and then you can get "robbed" wah-la gangster has a gun traced to the owner who reported it stolen

[johny]

50 years is a long time to keep a gun. How many things does your family have that they bought 50, 40, 30, even 20 years ago?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWkVmt9lIB8



2010 Total expenditures C$280.5 billion

be 4 or 65 million the cost of the gun registry is chump change compared the over all budget.

An appointment to the Canadian Senate is like winning the cash for life lottery. Senators earn $132,300 a year as a base salary, serve until age 75, and last year sat in the Senate for only 69 days. The total cost for Canadian taxpayers to maintain the Senate in 2008-2009 was $90,232,000.


Get rid of the senate. that will pay for the gun registry and have money left over.

get rid of the senate, the gun registry, and the tax payer money to political parties. and lots of other things. the government spending is bloated everywhere.

or vote for the NDP. who want to tax and spend more

[MindBomber]

The role of tax payer funding to political parties isn't something that can be dropped without massive consequences like the gun registry, I agree with cutting out bloated government spending, but you need to do it logically. I don't want American style politics in Canada, that would be a tradgedy of epic proportions.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[taylor192]

The role of tax payer funding to political parties isn't something that can be dropped without massive consequences like the gun registry, I agree with cutting out bloated government spending, but you need to do it logically. I don't want American style politics in Canada, that would be a tradgedy of epic proportions.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
Logically long guns outnumber hand guns 15 to 1, so logically it cannot cost $4M of the $65M spent every year on the gun registry.

If you want to talk logically please bring some logic to the table. American style politics is an uneducated popularity contest - your, and many other Canadians, lack of understanding pushes us closer to that type of politics.

There was a report that showed that tax payer funding could be easily dropped. I'll see if I can find the statscan article again, yet they compiled a ratio of how much each party raises vs gets from tax payers. The Liberals were above 1:1, the Conservatives close to 2:1, and the NDP greater than 2:1. So those 3 parties are doing fine raising their own funds. There was no info on the Greens, yet last election they were raising > $100M/day which would put them > 2:1 as well.

Which party serves to lose hugely from abolishing the tax payer funding? The BQ. They were like 0.1:1, raising virtually nothing compared to what they get from the tax payer. Considering we all hate the fucking separatists - this would be the single best way to limit how effective they can be while barely affecting the other parties.

Yet I know this cause I don't believe in American style politics and educate myself :p

[Manic!]

Logically long guns outnumber hand guns 15 to 1, so logically it cannot cost $4M of the $65M spent every year on the gun registry.


You understand the process of getting a hand gun is a lot longer than getting a long gun and so it costs more?

[darkfroggy]

Logically long guns outnumber hand guns 15 to 1, so logically it cannot cost $4M of the $65M spent every year on the gun registry.

If you want to talk logically please bring some logic to the table. American style politics is an uneducated popularity contest - your, and many other Canadians, lack of understanding pushes us closer to that type of politics.

There was a report that showed that tax payer funding could be easily dropped. I'll see if I can find the statscan article again, yet they compiled a ratio of how much each party raises vs gets from tax payers. The Liberals were above 1:1, the Conservatives close to 2:1, and the NDP greater than 2:1. So those 3 parties are doing fine raising their own funds. There was no info on the Greens, yet last election they were raising > $100M/day which would put them > 2:1 as well.

Which party serves to lose hugely from abolishing the tax payer funding? The BQ. They were like 0.1:1, raising virtually nothing compared to what they get from the tax payer. Considering we all hate the fucking separatists - this would be the single best way to limit how effective they can be while barely affecting the other parties.

Yet I know this cause I don't believe in American style politics and educate myself :p

Tories would be least affected from the removal of party subsidies. This is because the Tories have an impressive grassroots program, which the other parties lack. The amount the NDP gets from donations pales in comparison to the Conservatives. If you looked at official statistics, Tories benefit much more from private donations than party subsidies and that's why they want to get rid of it.

Harper's excuse that he wanted to "save money" is BS. This was purely a move to get rid of his opposition, and nothing else. Party subsidies prevent American-style, corporate-dominated politics.

We want parties that appeal to all Canadians, not those that can pander to richer individuals and win with massive funding.

[MindBomber]

That's not cool, you have no reason to call my understanding uninformed and degrading the discussion to personal insults isn't something anyone benefits from. Even though I feel like some people with opposing views in the political discussions are uninformed idiots, you are not a member of the group Taylor, I bite my tongue to keep everything focused on what counts, the facts. I've repeatedly said that that $4 million per year for long guns is a figure way to low, I suggested earlier that the total annual cost of the gun registry could probably be cut in half by by dropping long guns. I don't think that's unreasonable considering there are a lot of fixed expenses that would not change if only the restricted registry were kept and that restricted weapons cost more per gun to track. My concern on dropping tax payer funding to political parties is that it opens the door to allowing corporate funding, that's what's made American politics such a glorified popularity contest based on who can afford more commercials. (I hate not being able to break my response down to seperate paragraphs on mobile) Logically long guns outnumber hand guns 15 to 1, so logically it cannot cost $4M of the $65M spent every year on the gun registry.

If you want to talk logically please bring some logic to the table. American style politics is an uneducated popularity contest - your, and many other Canadians, lack of understanding pushes us closer to that type of politics.

There was a report that showed that tax payer funding could be easily dropped. I'll see if I can find the statscan article again, yet they compiled a ratio of how much each party raises vs gets from tax payers. The Liberals were above 1:1, the Conservatives close to 2:1, and the NDP greater than 2:1. So those 3 parties are doing fine raising their own funds. There was no info on the Greens, yet last election they were raising > $100M/day which would put them > 2:1 as well.

Which party serves to lose hugely from abolishing the tax payer funding? The BQ. They were like 0.1:1, raising virtually nothing compared to what they get from the tax payer. Considering we all hate the fucking separatists - this would be the single best way to limit how effective they can be while barely affecting the other parties.

Yet I know this cause I don't believe in American style politics and educate myself :p
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[johny]

"American style politics" are you talking about iggy the american?

he'll be going back down there to live and work after he loses....

corperate funding was stoped a while ago.

[Manic!]

The long gun registry is here to stay because Harper will never get a majority. End discussion/

[johny]

it'll be gone soon because the liberal / NDP collialation will ban all guns, therefore no need for registery

although all the employees will be in charge of starting at the blank computer screens for the next years 30 years. because heaven forbird they lay off government workers. so it'll still cost us 65 mill a year.

[MindBomber]

No, we're not talking about iggy the American, who ironically ran the least American style campaign of any leader. I actually quite like Iggy, I met him when he was in BC once and you could tell he's an extremely intelligent and passionate man when talking to him. Also, whether or not he returns to the states is pure speculation, but a teaching position at Yale is a damn good reason to live in the states if he did go that route. "American style politics" are you talking about iggy the american?

he'll be going back down there to live and work after he loses....

corperate funding was stoped a while ago.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[MindBomber]

Please, state your reasoning on why the liberals or ndp would refuse to lay off government workers when a program is shut down... it'll be gone soon because the liberal / NDP collialation will ban all guns, therefore no need for registery

although all the employees will be in charge of starting at the blank computer screens for the next years 30 years. because heaven forbird they lay off government workers. so it'll still cost us 65 mill a year.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[quasi]

I'm on the gun registry is a complete waste of money bandwagon. All the reasons have already been stated but the bang for the buck is terrible. Criminals don't register their guns and those who do don't generally use them for crimes. There is always exceptions to the rules but overall in the grand scheme of things it's totally inefficient and a waste.

[TheNewGirl]

and no you can't take away cars or car registration from reckless drivers. you take away their licence.

there is a big difference.

We take away cars from reckless drivers. We do indeed. We impound them and if the drivers are really bad. Sometimes they take them away forever. In fact, the police have found taking away someone's car is a far more effective punishment for curbing shitty behavior then taking away their license, hence the new speeding and drunk driving laws.

[taylor192]

You understand the process of getting a hand gun is a lot longer than getting a long gun and so it costs more?

You understand that process has been around longer than the gun registry - right? :failed:

[taylor192]

Tories would be least affected from the removal of party subsidies. This is because the Tories have an impressive grassroots program, which the other parties lack. The amount the NDP gets from donations pales in comparison to the Conservatives. If you looked at official statistics, Tories benefit much more from private donations than party subsidies and that's why they want to get rid of it.

Harper's excuse that he wanted to "save money" is BS. This was purely a move to get rid of his opposition, and nothing else. Party subsidies prevent American-style, corporate-dominated politics.

We want parties that appeal to all Canadians, not those that can pander to richer individuals and win with massive funding.
You reply to my thread, yet you ignore what I wrote. Nice job.

The NDP actually have the best supporters. Compared to what the parties get from the vote subsidy, the NDP raises more than the Conservatives. Thus removing the vote subsidy hurts the Conservatives more than the NDP, or even the Greens.

Before you respond, please at least try to read and comprehend what I wrote.

[taylor192]

That's not cool, you have no reason to call my understanding uninformed and degrading the discussion to personal insults isn't something anyone benefits from.
Its only an insult if you feel insulted. I point out the truth, that you are very uninformed on the issue.

Fact: Long guns dominate registered firearms in Canada, 15 to 1, so anyone who believes it will only save $4M of $65M is very uninformed.

Even though I feel like some people with opposing views in the political discussions are uninformed idiots, you are not a member of the group Taylor, I bite my tongue to keep everything focused on what counts, the facts.
I did not call you an idiot, you assumed that. Not my fault you think you are an idiot. :p

I've repeatedly said that that $4 million per year for long guns is a figure way to low, I suggested earlier that the total annual cost of the gun registry could probably be cut in half by by dropping long guns. I don't think that's unreasonable considering there are a lot of fixed expenses that would not change if only the restricted registry were kept and that restricted weapons cost more per gun to track.
and how much would you like to spend researching how to better organize this government agency? This again, is why your opinion is uninformed and uneducated. There is a reason the gun registry bloated to $1B, and we don't need more non-sense of restructuring it.

My concern on dropping tax payer funding to political parties is that it opens the door to allowing corporate funding, that's what's made American politics such a glorified popularity contest based on who can afford more commercials. (I hate not being able to break my response down to seperate paragraphs on mobile)
Again you're uninformed and uneducated. The current laws are very strict in terms of donations. They were put in place by the Liberals ($5000 personal limit) and made stricter by the Conservatives (lowered to $1000 limit).

The Conservatives actually hurt the Liberals by lowering to $1000 since it is mostly corporations that support the Liberals and this lowered how much they could funnel to their party. Oh wait - you probably didn't know that either - that the Liberal party has historically been more funded by corporations, while the Conservatives are grassroot funded. So which party is the big bad party catering to corporations? Ya - egg on your face.

You may not like me talking down to you cause then you feel stupid, yet I am not calling you stupid. I am pointing out how very wrong you are, and if you continue to feel stupid you only have yourself to blame.

[taylor192]

Please, state your reasoning on why the liberals or ndp would refuse to lay off government workers when a program is shut down...
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

In this case Johnny is the uninformed one. :)

The Chretien Liberals cut the public service in the 90s when they had to drastically balance the budget - yet I do think the Iggy Liberals are not the same and would spend spend spend like the NDP.

[MindBomber]

Fact: Long guns dominate registered firearms in Canada, 15 to 1, so anyone who believes it will only save $4M of $65M is very uninformed.



Agreed, but you must agree that restricted registry costs more that $1.4 a year.



Not my fault you think you are an idiot. :p



I don't think I'm an idiot, I think most people on rs and most people involved in political discussions are though. I admit when my parties are wrong and when there are gaps in my knowledge; I'm not old enough to really remember the liberals being in power so I have a bit an excuse.



and how much would you like to spend researching how to better organize this government agency? This again, is why your opinion is uninformed and uneducated. There is a reason the gun registry bloated to $1B, and we don't need more non-sense of restructuring it.



It seems that it should be possible to have a non-government account analyze a compelte set of the gun registry expenses and determine what ones are fixed, what are divided between long and restricted, and what are exclusive to either and give us a real figure on the savings of scrapping long guns. I don't even care that much if the long gun registry is scrapped, I'd just like to make an informed decision based on realistic numbers.

Marco911 restructures failing businesses, maybe we should hire him to fix the long gun registry :troll:



Again you're uninformed and uneducated. The current laws are very strict in terms of donations. They were put in place by the Liberals ($5000 personal limit) and made stricter by the Conservatives (lowered to $1000 limit).

The Conservatives actually hurt the Liberals by lowering to $1000 since it is mostly corporations that support the Liberals and this lowered how much they could funnel to their party. Oh wait - you probably didn't know that either - that the Liberal party has historically been more funded by corporations, while the Conservatives are grassroot funded. So which party is the big bad party catering to corporations? Ya - egg on your face.



I learned something, thank you. Every article I find is so partisan it's hard to research something and find solid facts.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)