🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dave" <dave128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g9_R9.4562$Hs3.536822@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> DNA evidence allows you to determine who committed a crime by using
evidence
> left behind at some crimes to help identify the participants. In order
that
> this is easier you want to establish a DNA fingerprint of the populace.
> Please keep in mind that this will cost way more than 1 billion dollars.

Why would you say that?  Want to receive health care?  You must provide a
sample.  In jail?  Provide a sample.  Want any government service?  Provide
a sample.  Etc.

>
> It could be misused in this way, many genetic predictors for disease and
> other expensive health issues can be identified with DNA profiling.
> Insurance companies would love to be able to get this information and use
it
> to determine their risk in covering you. Laws have already been drafted to
> prevent this, I'm pretty sure they have not reached the point of
> consideration for law.

And since when should someone else be responsible for your health?  Why an
insurance company?  Why do people always use this excuse?  If you want
insurance, they request a blood sample.  Not sure who you get yours from,
but I know some very unhealthy people that would love to get in touch with
them.

>
> In the same manner a gun registry which catalogued information on evidence
> which would be left behind in some crimes could be of use in solving those
> crimes, the information collected so far could be useful if it is accurate
> and the additional information were added. Before the screaming starts I

The only thing the registry does is tells us who is registered to a
registered weapon, if the weapon, and serial number are left behind.  It
says nothing else about a crime.  I have NO IDEA where you think other
evidence may come from.  Anything forensic or ballistic would not come from
the registry, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

> don't think it would be worthwhile as it would cost too much and the
problem
> is not large enough to demand the expenditure in my opinion. BUT, under
> those circumstances, a gun registry could help solve (not prevent) SOME
> crimes.

It would solve nothing, ever.  It would only say who had the gun, and the
individual who is registered (if they found the weapon with serial number
still attached) would simply have nothing to do with the crime, unless the
proved it was that individual.  So, if they found a gun had been used, and
the gun used was so rare that only one person in Canada had it registered,
this would not be evidence for the court to issue a warrant to search the
home of where the gun is registered.  So your point is useless, and
impossible.
>
> I think that the DNA registry of citizens such as you propose would be
such
> an incredible violation of any right to privacy and personal security that
> the gun reg. issue pales in comparison.

Another boo hoo whiner who is ready to send someone to die in another
country, yet cannot put up with 'an invasion of privacy' to protect their
own neighbors.

>
> In any case I have been drawn back into this too much for my liking
already,
> and will not comment further. The dead horse lays before you gentlemen,
> clubs at the ready!! GO!!


See you liberal, go back to your home in Ottawa, paid for by us westerners.

--

Calgary Rob
calgaryrob@shaw.ca
I like Gravy