Gun Registry Retardation

Ok, that made even less sense than usual.

Facts? More like 3 simple conjectures.
1. The gun registry does not prevent gun deaths, and here's one single case that proves it all!

Conversely, the lack of a gun registry also does not prevent gun deaths, since the l'ecole polytechnique shootings occurred before the gun registry was in place.

So does the gun registry help? Who knows, would have to look at overall firearms deaths, which I can't be bothered to right now. Overall, the registry is probably a giant waste of money though. How about just banning all firearms that fall into the restricted category (like the beretta that mr crazy at dawson college used) and leaving everyone else the hell alone.

2. The gun registry is not helpful to police. Why? Umm.. because I said so.
The gun registry can and likely is somewhat helpful, not because the police use it to be idiots about not executing due care, but because in some cases they know what to expect when going into a place.

3.

John Gray is actually talking about how the opposition will most likely not vote to abolish the gun registry, so even though it might be a toss up as to whether it is useful, the conservatives might not be able to get rid of it. He doesn't really imply a bias in either direction.

As for Rex Murphy, his arguments sound reasonable at first, but anyone that writes, "The science is contentious, regardless of what the propagandists of global warning will tell you. It is advocacy-driven and as much a lobby as General Motors." is pretty misinformed. The Kyoto accord may be just a PR stunt, but the science is not. The only scientists disagreeing with the consensus are those sponsored by groups with a competing interest. And no, it's not just the big oil companies, it's also everyone's other favourite evil companies, big tobacco. Read why here: [Link]

1. The Gun registry will not prevent gun deaths.

If you can envision a scenario where the gun registry WOULD prevent a death, please enlighten me.

2. I've seen numbers police queries of the registry, and people claimed that since it numbered in the thousands it was a crazy awesome success story.

However, you read between the lines and find out that the queries were done implicitly - for example, you ask the computer about Leo and the computer says Leo has this criminal record and registered this type of rifle last year.

So whether they fucking wanted/needed/cared, they were shoved the data. Information is only useful when its needed and accurate, and if you did have a criminal record I'd doubt you were actually acting lawfully and using the gun registry.

3.

John Gray is a fucking moron. When you use sentences like "But is it rational to think that one could avert the danger of further shootings in the future by abolishing the registry? Clearly not." you are saying "Well it might work, I don't know how, but the Liberal Party is never wrong so let's spend some money". Sure I'm reading into it a little, but he basically avoids saying anything critical about the registry even though there is obvious logical flaws in the entire idea.

As for Kyoto, have you ever thought that maybe the protocol is supported by commercial interests? Science aside (if a consensus was reached, I surely didn't get the memo) what the Kyoto protocol would do to support the environment is NOTHING compared to what it would do for anybody that has invested in a green technology. Suddenly it doesn't matter how much your product costs, the government has mandated that your process include it to meet emissions goals.

And for what? The difference in global temperature would be minimal (if that, I have doubts that the protocol could even be followed) meanwhile the smart investors that funded the kyoto lobby groups would be fat cats.

Also, trading intangible emissions credits between countries leaves politicians and political interests awesome ways to move money around. It would be the sponsorship program * oil for food program * a million = the public gets fucked. So fuck Kyoto and fuck the gun registry.

... you know I almost always agree with you (and I do here, too). But you really like destroying your own cause when you include "fuck Kyoto and fuck the gun registry", "union of dope smoking idealists" and "who ... honestly don't give a fuck about the country" in your arguments.

I say it like it is!

But yeah, I include that to try and generate some response. It does end up a little extreme, but sometimes you can't screw around with a subject.

Like, one could say "Kyoto is well meaning" but I equate that with saying "Well slavery and genocide have their good points".

When there is obviously nothing redeeming about something, let it be known.

TRANSPLANTS 2002 BABY!!!

>> If you can envision a scenario where the gun registry WOULD prevent a death, please enlighten me.

Where did I say it would? I said it's most likely a waste of money, since it seems to have had no big effect on anything in either direction. But to support that statement, you'd have to actually prove it.

>> "But is it rational to think that one could avert the danger of further shootings in the future by abolishing the registry? Clearly not."

Well think about it. That statement is completely correct. Would abolishing the gun registry prevent future shootings? Absolutely not. There's no arguing that point. That doesn't mean that the gun registry is helping, but the lack of a gun registry also wouldn't help.

What he's saying is that the argument of "The gun registry didn't prevent this shooting, so we should scrap it" is a logical fallacy. The existance of event A which law B was meant to reduce, does not imply that removing B will prevent A.

>> Science aside (if a consensus was reached, I surely didn't get the memo)

Here's the memo:
http://en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/Scie ntific_opinion_on_cl imate_change

And here's a list of scientists opposing the consensus:
http://e n.wikipedia.org/wiki /List_of_scientists_ opposing_global_warm ing_consensus

Sma ll list eh? Nobody is arguing that the earth is not warming. Only 3 scientists argue that the cause is not known. That means everyone else agrees that the earth is warming, and that greenhouse gasses are contributing to that. Except for a handful (listed in the third section), they also agree that human produced greenhouse gases are a factor.

>> As for Kyoto, have you ever thought that maybe the protocol is supported by commercial interests?

Of course. People investing in green technology stand to benefit. But think about how many companies have invested in non-green technology. Hmm, basically every single company in existance, either directly or indirectly.
Either a company is directly involved in non-green energy (fossil fuels, coal, etc), or they take advantage of it in their manufacturing. Non-green energy is cheaper, and clean manufacturing processes are expensive to implement, so just about every company that produces anything has an interest in keeping things like Kyoto out.
The idea that there's a huge, commercially suppported lobby out there supporting Kyoto is pretty weak. Common sense speaks against it. Lets see if you can name 10 companies that might have an interest in green tech, and are large enough to finance a powerful lobby group.

did the migration work? oh yeah.

As for the gun registry - it was created to prevent gun deaths. Nobody is saying scrapping it will prevent gun deaths.

But just because the absence of the gun registry does not help does not lead us to believe that the existence of one MAY. Supporting the registry costs money.

Its success and failure depends on its ability to actually make a visible difference - otherwise you're throwing individual freedom and money out the window for no good reason.

How the fuck is something supposed to work in PRACTICE when we have not actually figured out how it is supposed to do its job in THEORY?

So, scrapping the registry might not prevent gun deaths, but it will save us money by NOT employing otherwise useful people to itemize all the weaponry owned by honest people in this country.

To not support its scrap is to support the notion of throwing shit at the walls with poorly thought out legislation and money and seeing what sticks.

Now for Kyoto

Wheres the list of scientists that think Kyoto will do fuck all? I also find it hard to believe that Big Oil is making money by manipulating politics and not by the extreme usefulness of the shit they got. It's like saying the coke dealers of the world have a subliminal ad campaign.

I do not doubt that the world is warming, however I do not think that running funny money around the world is not going to stop it. Global one child policy! Now that's an idea.

aaa