[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Awesome!

[Jonny_C]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Huh. Well, so the guy supports in principle but won't support a divisive public policy that cost a lot but sis not work all that well. Fair enough.

No, I don't think that's "fair enough". The "divisive" part is just obfuscation and needs to be discarded. Then you arrive at the kernel of the matter --- He would still support a policy that he characterizes as a failure.

Doesn't make much sense, does it.

[Lemmy]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

No, I don't think that's "fair enough". The "divisive" part is just obfuscation and needs to be discarded. Then you arrive at the kernel of the matter --- He would still support a policy that he characterizes as a failure.

No, that's not it at all. The failure has already happened. Keeping the registry doesn't further the failure. That failure is in the past. If Quebeckers want to keep it, Trudeau says he'd support that. That's a very different thing from supporting a policy that he characterizes as a failure.

[Gunnair]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Huh. Well, so the guy supports in principle but won't support a divisive public policy that cost a lot but sis not work all that well. Fair enough.

No, I don't think that's "fair enough". The "divisive" part is just obfuscation and needs to be discarded. Then you arrive at the kernel of the matter --- He would still support a policy that he characterizes as a failure.

Doesn't make much sense, does it.

To me the kernel of the matter is that he will not resurrect it irrespective of his regional musing.

I'll take that from a politician and be content.

[Jonny_C]

Continuing his "musing" ways may well be a trap he falls into...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... n-remarks/

[joantack]

The pretty pony rides again!

[Jonny_C]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

No, that's not it at all. The failure has already happened. Keeping the registry doesn't further the failure. That failure is in the past. If Quebeckers want to keep it, Trudeau says he'd support that. That's a very different thing from supporting a policy that he characterizes as a failure.

Trudeau said that the long-gun registry was a failure, and that there are better ways to keep Canadians safe.

Oh, I forgot, Quebeckers aren't Canadians.

[Lemmy]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Trudeau said that the long-gun registry was a failure, and that there are better ways to keep Canadians safe.

Yes, and he's right. So what?

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Oh, I forgot, Quebeckers aren't Canadians.

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

What we need is a shorter long gun registry and a longer short gun registry.

Funny!

[Jonny_C]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Trudeau said that the long-gun registry was a failure, and that there are better ways to keep Canadians safe.

Yes, and he's right. So what?

So in Quebec he says that he would support what in the rest of Canada he calls a failed policy. I'm not getting why this is so hard for you to understand. It must be some "Liberal" filter getting in the way.

I, on the other hand, don't think the proclivity for talking so blatantly out of both sides of your mouth is a good recommendation for an aspiring PM.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[RUEZ]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

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.

Wait a minute, what? But Lemmy just said those costs were in the past?

[andyt]

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