PM rejects calls to keep registry(Canada)

[CHIMO]

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper today rejected calls to keep the gun registry in the week of last week’s Montreal school shooting.

The prime minister was peppered with opposition questions about his plans for the registry when Parliament resumed this afternoon.

“The events at Dawson college tell us precisely that today’s laws did not protect us,” Harper responded.

“This government is determined to have more effective laws that would prevent such a tragedy in the future.”

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1158573725547&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

Hmm... So killers will not be allowed to commit suicide so that they may be punished.

All who want a gun must promise that they will not become unstable.

Seems like more of a negative proof to me.

[slackmaster]

1. “If we can only save one life..."

One billion Canadian dollars is a lot of money to maybe, hopefully save one life.

[CHIMO]

2. It's Spent

And the system has been set up. So it is not a billion a year. The computers, systems, training and all the phone books that were sent in to the account of the system have been disposed. Now that the system has been set up destroy it because it cost too much.

Guess that you would have a lot of buildings that would now have to be torn down because they went over budget.

[slackmaster]

3. The problem is it hasn't delivered what was promised

So it doesn't make fiscal sense to keep it running.

Now that the system has been set up destroy it because it cost too much.

That works for me, but it's Canada's money and Canada's problem, and if they keep it running and it continues to fail to deliver the promised reduction in violent crime it will serve as a warning to those who will propose a similar system for the USA.

Guess that you would have a lot of buildings that would now have to be torn down because they went over budget.

That doesn't follow logically from what I have posted here.

[CHIMO]

4. It Is

Delivering.

[sandnsea]

6. Let's end all cops and courts and prisons then

Since there's still crime and all.

Can we call this George Bush stupid, I just don't know any other way to look at it.

[CHIMO]

7. No

Let's minimize tools of violence.

Let's leave aggressiveness to words and thoughts after a good sleep.

Criminals will still be pursued and the courts will still judge the cases on our rules.

It is not a case of law and order by individuals. It is a case of law and order by society.

Nothing in the incident that happened indicated that law and order was an issue.

Excuse me Sandnsea. I was following along the line of the poster and didn't realize that you were setting up a ridiculous scenario.

I agree with the position that you put forth and I personally think that the reliance on gun powder is passe in the world that we live in today.

[slackmaster]

12. Red Herring

Nice try.

[sandnsea]

13. One's as dumb as the other

To say gun restrictions don't work at all because of one gun assault is as stupid as saying cops and courts don't work because there's crime every day. It's clear that an absence of a punitive shoot 'em up mentality is what reduces crime and violence, all around the world. Some day our knuckle draggers will catch up. It's too bad tens of thousands have to die on our streets, and tens of thousands more in our wars, until we figure out what the rest of the world already knows.

[slackmaster]

14. Now you're completely off track

To say gun restrictions don't work at all because of one gun assault...

Big problem sandnsea - I've never said that.

[sandnsea]

15. "it hasn't delivered what was promised"

Are those your words??

[slackmaster]

16. Yes, and "gun restrictions don't work at all" was NOT my words

Get a grip on it.

[sandnsea]

17. You're arguing against THIS restriction

On the basis that it doesn't work at all because of ONE crime. Those are your words in post #3, that's what you said. Assume a gun restriction program doesn't work at all because of one crime. If that's the criteria for criminal justice, that one crime indicates total failure, then it logically follows that we should dump the whole shebang because it's damned expensive.

[slackmaster]

18. A registry isn't a restriction

:dunce:

A gun registry is effectively a tax, and it's supposed to provide a crime-fighting tool in exchange for the expense.

And at no point in the discussion have I ever pointed to one particular crime as a reason the Canadian long-gun registry hasn't lived up to its promise.

If the Canadians want to keep pouring bad money down a hole, that's perfectly fine with me.

[sandnsea]

19. How many people will die

while you play your cute little word games.

[slackmaster]

20. Clearly YOU have no idea whatsoever

Thanks for making my point.

Here are some suggestions for sharpening your debate skills:

1. DON'T respond to things your opponent DIDN'T say.

2. DO respond to things your opponent DID say.

3. Keep track of the threads, so you know who you are responding to.

4. DON'T use frivolous arguments, like accusing your opponent of playing "word games", or couched ad hominem attacks like suggesting your opponent doesn't care about needless deaths.

5. Lighten up.

[sandnsea]

21. Oh horseshit - you said what you said

You responded to a post about ONE incident with the argument that it's proof that a gun restriction tool - the registry - didn't work and should be abolished. Now you can dance around and dress it up any way you want to - but the reality is you've chosen to engage in a word game instead of actually debate your argument which is proof enough of its weakness.

And NO I will not lighten up when lives are at stake.

[slackmaster]

22. Each successive post of yours makes less sense than the previous one

You responded to a post about ONE incident...

I responded to a post about comments made by the Canadian Prime Minister. He was talking about the long gun registry, not about one shooting incident - He only used that as an example of why the registry hasn't lived up to its expectations.

...with the argument that it's proof that a gun restriction tool - the registry - didn't work and should be abolished.

I've said that it hasn't met expectations and that it isn't worth the money that's been spent on it, NOT that it "didn't work". STOP MAKING STUFF UP!

Now you can dance around and dress it up any way you want to - but the reality is you've chosen to engage in a word game instead of actually debate your argument which is proof enough of its weakness.

Farther and farther off track with every statement.

And NO I will not lighten up when lives are at stake.

Appeal to Emotion. You have not provided any evidence that lives will be jeapordized if Canada abandons its long gun registry.

[sandnsea]

23. YOU are the one proposing Canada abandon the registry

YOU are the one that needs to back up your argument because it's YOUR argument. You choose to play word games because there's no basis in your argument and you know it.

[slackmaster]

24. Actually it was Prime Minister Harper who is proposing that

More accurately, he is rejecting calls to KEEP the registry. I'm saying it seems like it may make economic sense to stop funding it. I think he may be right, but I really don't care what Canada does.

Stop putting words in my mouth. It's rude.

YOU are the one that needs to back up your argument because it's YOUR argument.

Null hypothesis is that the registry has no effect on public safety. That is my position. Burden of proof is on anyone who says it does have an effect. Your move, if you want to play.

You choose to play word games because there's no basis in your argument and you know it.

Burden of proof fallacy. See my previous comment.

[sandnsea]

25. Reality is what you say it is

Riiight. I know exactly who creates "their own reality".

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Goodby

[slackmaster]

26. Yet another argumentum ad hominem

Take a logic course. You need it.

[Redstone]

5. Funny how an event like this is so rare in Canada, and not so rare here.

Gee, I wonder why?

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

* 373 people in Germany
* 151 people in Canada
* 57 people in Australia
* 19 people in Japan
* 54 people in England and Wales, and
* 11,789 people in the United States

Source: http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

Redstone

[T Roosevelt]

8. To be more accurate

(it's the engineer in me) ;)

Per million population (approx):
US: 40.7
Germany: 4.6
Canada: 4.6
Australia: 2.9
Japan: 0.2
England/Wales: 1.0

[Redstone]

9. appreciate precision, too. Thank you SO much for defusing an

inevitable retort from the Gun Nuts...I am positive that one of them was going to say "Hey, American has a larger population than those other countries!"

Good work. Thanks again.

Redstone

[daleo]

10. Harper must have given up on Quebec

Everything he has done in the past few months seems almost calculated to alienate Quebecers.

- his blase attitude to the Montreal family killed in Lebanon by an Israeli bomb.
- his cheerleading for Canadian combat in Afghanistan.
- now, his rejection of gun control.

[Ediacara]

11. Maybe he's upset he outlasted Kim Campbell?

Perhaps they'll have another election soon :-)

[Telly Savalas]

27. Steve's plan to reduce gun violence is to offer a $4/month tax credit

to every Canadian who doesn't shoot somebody.

[Lisa]

28. shh! He'd steal that for their party platform! (n/t)

[u4ic]

29. Lol

:thumbsup: