XPost: can.politics, can.rec.hunting, can.talk.guns
XPost: kingston.general, talk.politics.guns, van.general
From: klunk@theothershoe.org
"Larry" wrote in message
news:NTPzg.91502$hp.58942@read2.cgocable.net...
> Yes, unfortunately it does come down to dollars and cents at some point.
> Contrary to what you deliberately close your eyes to, there isn't a
> bottomless pit of money and to keep this registry going.
exactly... and contrary to your own blindness... the registry is NOT the
ONLY expense we have in our fight against crime.
> Not only were we deliberately lied to and misled from the very beginning
> about the cost of the registry, they now want millions more on top of that
> to keep it going. That means they will have to cut some from the law
> enforcement funds, which will result in decreasing the number of police
> officers, or perhaps already stretched too thin prison guards, maybe
> getting rid of the police helicopters, or cutting public services, such as
> health care.
ya... you sure demonstrated an insider's view of the budgeting process...
nimrod.
> There is a reason the Alan Rocks' of this country want to pour money into
> a registry even they know is worthless, they think it might lead to
no... YOU think it's worthless... not everyone else does
> confiscation. But there's millions of us they're going to have a problem
> with coming into our homes to steal our firearms. Because once a
> government forces their way into our homes and tells us what we can own or
> not, you have just become a communist state.
and here you go... crowing the same ol' loony toon by gun loons.... yes, the
government is secretly conspiring to convert us all into communists... is
that after they convert us into homosexuals?
> Besides that, we have had the handgun registry for 72 years, but still the
> crime rate involving handguns continues to rise. Surely after 72 years,
> according to your logic, crimes should have decreased, significantly.
no... that's not my logic... only your inept interpretation of it.
> But, lets apply your logic to a scenario. Lets say I go away on vacation.
> All my guns are registered, and correctly stored in a gun safe with my
> ammo also locked away in a separate place, thus I've taken every
> precaution and legally responsible. Then professional thieves break into
> my home, crack my gun safe and steal a shotgun. (I have always had a
> picture of every gun I own, with serial numbers logged, since I got my
> first gun.) A few weeks later, they commit a murder using my stolen
> shotgun and leave it behind when fleeing the scene. The police track it
> back to me and discover I reported it stolen, because I called the police
> as soon as I got home and discovered I had been burglarized, so I can be
> compensated for damages through my insurance. However, the criminals are
> never apprehended because they left no evidence.
> According to you, the police being able to track a gun used in a crime
> back to the owner is going to assist them in solving the crime. How???
actually... according to me... if you actually read anything i wrote... the
benefit you get is to not be falsely accused and imprisoned.... seems to
make registration look like a small price to pay.... wouldn't you
say...?.... of course not, cause you don't give a shit.
> Or are you going to charge me for the murder because it was my shotgun,
> though they illegally entered and burglarized my home, were illegally in
> possession of a firearm, and ultimately committed the crime???
if you had not taken the steps you indicated above to protect your weapons
from being stolen, then my view is that you should be held legally liable
for those deaths... and if you had a conscience, you would also feel
emotionally liable.
> What if the criminals grind off the serial number, how do they trace it
> then?
good question.... and what is the point of it?
> And the obvious, criminals don't register their guns, especially if they
> intend to use them to commit crimes. That's why they're called
> "criminals"!!!!
yes, when law-abiding citizens commit crimes, they are then referred to as
"criminals".
> So, since the registry is "only" a decade old, and all guns had to be
> registered by 2003, and you say that's not long enough to be able to
> produce any efficiency data, **how about giving us an analogy** of how the
> registry is going to assist the police enough to justify the inconceivable
> amount of money it's costing, rather than scrapping it and put any
> available monies into resources that will get the real criminals and
> illegal guns off the streets?
i've already provided ample descriptions of the value such data has... but
since that's not enough for you... why don't you buy the series "Numbers" on
dvd and watch it several times over, with someone whom can translate the
"complicated" concepts to you.... eventually, it will sink in.
> After all, wouldn't achieving that reduce crime and keep us safer than
> knowing what guns law abiding citizens own?
you still don't get it... re-read my last paragraph and take my advice to
heart... one day... you may understand.
> Here is a cost/benefit study I posted earlier. It gives rather compelling
> figures even though the author, whenever estimating, did so favouring the
> registry.
look... cost/benefit analysis in this case, as i've already stated to you is
a completely worthless exercise... and further to that it provides a
misleading view of the purpose and function of such a system... such an
analysis holds as much value as performing one on bottled water while
arguing it will extend life...
and even by your own admission, the author views the results in a manner
which is favourable to the registry.... so what the fuck is the point of
pasting this crap, which i've now snipped...
you want to argue the merits of the registry, then explain why such a system
does not and can not contribute toward the overall problems our criminal
justice system faces.... otherwise, just stfu.... ok?...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
