[RUEZ]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It doesn't "do nothing for public safety". Police chiefs unanimously support keeping it because it is of some value. Not enough to justify the total cost, but certainly enough to justify the up-keep, at least among Quebeckers who seem willing to pay to keep it.

Quebec should probably start a corruption registry at the same time.

[RUEZ]

andyt andyt:

2010-2011 is in the past. What calendar are you using?

Can you tell me what the cost of the registry was in 2012? I didn't think so.

[Lemmy]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Lemmy Lemmy:

It doesn't "do nothing for public safety". Police chiefs unanimously support keeping it because it is of some value. Not enough to justify the total cost, but certainly enough to justify the up-keep, at least among Quebeckers who seem willing to pay to keep it.

Quebec should probably start a corruption registry at the same time.

that'd be funny if it weren't also likely true.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The gun registry isn't revenue neutral.

Where's the sense keeping a program that costs money and does nothing for public safety? We paid 66.4 million from 2010-2011 to maintain this program.

I wonder where Vic Toews got his $22 million a year figure from?

$1:

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said on Oct. 25 that the government's best estimate is that it costs about $22 million a year to operate. That's for the entire registry, not just the long-gun portion, but he noted most of the guns in the registry are long guns.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... nswer.html

Is your figure the total cost (after revenues), or just the cost itself? If it's just the absolute cost, the figure is meaningless with also noting the revenues it generated.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It doesn't "do nothing for public safety". Police chiefs unanimously support keeping it because it is of some value. Not enough to justify the total cost, but certainly enough to justify the up-keep, at least among Quebeckers who seem willing to pay to keep it.

Yet another myth from the pro-registry crowd.

Police Chiefs did not unanimously support the registry. Police chiefs in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba came out against the program.

[quote=bootlegga]I wonder where Vic Toews got his $22 million a year figure from? [/quote]

As the number is labelled an "estimate" he may have pulled the number from his ass.

The number I posted was from the RCMP:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu ... al-eng.pdf

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

You must be dim. The policy is failed not becuase it's useless but because its costs do not justify its benefits. But those costs, being sunk costs are in the past, so at this point, there's no reason not to keep it, if a certain region chooses to do so. Get your head out of your ass.

The gun registry isn't revenue neutral.

Where's the sense keeping a program that costs money and does nothing for public safety? We paid 66.4 million from 2010-2011 to maintain this program.

The government spent twice that amount last year on advertising about it's plan for the economy.

I hereby judge this thread: silly.

[Lemmy]

Curtman Curtman:

I hereby judge this thread: silly.

I got there a while back.

[uwish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It doesn't "do nothing for public safety". Police chiefs unanimously support keeping it because it is of some value. Not enough to justify the total cost, but certainly enough to justify the up-keep, at least among Quebeckers who seem willing to pay to keep it.

that statement is complete and utter BS.

[Unsound]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It's a failure. But if Quebeckers want it, they should be able to keep it. It's seems to me that he's saying "It's paid for anyway, so if you want it, you'll be allowed to keep it and I'll support your desire to do so."

Is that what he said? Or is it what you want him to have said?

[quote="Lemmy"The only pattern emerging is that the hacks will ferret out anything the other side says in an attempt to disturb shit.[/quote]

Terrible terrible people going around pointing out inconsistancies in the things a politician says or does. Don't they know to just shut up and let the annointed one do his thing?

[Unsound]

Unsound Unsound:

Seems to me it's his supporters are doing most of the spinning. I tend to think that anytime someone has to explain what they really meant... it usually means they're trying to establish some kind of consistency after the fact.

Lemmy Lemmy:

And I find that a lot of the time smart people have to dumb things down to dumb people who didn't get it the first time.

i apologize for forcing you to dumb yourself down to the level of us mere mortals who just can't seem to understand that we're supposed to interpret Trudeau's word in the way that's most favourable to him, rather than just taking them at face value. We can't all be as smart as astrology professors, I suppose.

[Gunnair]

Partisans everywhere will do what they do best as we move to 2015.

[Lemmy]

uwish uwish:

that statement is complete and utter BS.

Take it up with the chiefs of police. It's their position, not mine.

[Lemmy]

Unsound Unsound:

We can't all be as smart as astrology professors, I suppose.

So that's where you want to go with this, eh?

[Unsound]

I considered just igonoring it when you called me dumb, but decided I wasn't in the mood for turning the other cheek.

[Lemmy]

Unsound Unsound:

I considered just igonoring it when you called me dumb, but decided I wasn't in the mood for turning the other cheek.

I actually didn't call you anything. I'm sorry you took ownership of it, but that's on you, not me. Inferiority complex?