‘Disgraceful' gun registry quip sends Tory aide packing

it might not be politically correct to say, but I have to agree with most of his comments. Police do not make policy in Canada, but they like to think they do.

I agree with the comment. There is no evidence whatsoever that the CDN$2 billion registry has had a measurable effect on crime so the irrational belief that it does can only be described as religious, cultish, or delusional.

Well you need to be careful when trying to draw such conclusions as the dismantling of John Lotts analysis showed.

Here in Toronto the gun registry is in operation and Toronto is cracking down on handguns. At the same time crime is going down.

Can we therefore draw the conclusion that their gun approach is working?

not really, because Toronto police are cracking down on gun owners. Not the criminals. They are going after people who's license has expired and then confiscating their property and claiming they got the guns off the streets. I don't see how that is fighting crime. It is simply a good photo op.

True but that is the point. You cannot make a conclusion that gun bans make crime go up when they go down.

It is as I have been saying. Crime rates cannot be linked to a factor like CCW laws and gun ownership rates.

Uhm, no. You're trying to make the case in this thread that crime rates ARE linked to gun ownership. Or, as you're presenting it, the Toronto police taking people's guns away from them is supposedly reducing crime.

Uhm, no. You're trying to make the case in this thread that crime rates ARE linked to gun ownership. Or, as you're presenting it, the Toronto police taking people's guns away from them is supposedly reducing crime.

Nope, hence the question mark. Its a counter point to uwish's previous post with graphs and stats and the conclusion "more guns = less crime".

It was a "well if that is true then why is this happening ....."

Actually, something scared the shit outta me when researching CCW and other similar permit States. There are at LEAST 2 US States that have CCW or similar that do NOT require ANY sort of training before you carry that thing around in public. NONE!
Now, when you stop and consider the significant the number of injuries and deaths that have resulted from an accidental discharge, it seems to be just a li'l irresponsible to say, "Who cares if you don't know how to use it, clean it, maintain it? It's your right to carry one around and we're gonna let you, dammit."

Yes Vermont and Alaska, and what is funny about Vermont, it has the lowest crime rates in the Union! followed by....Alaska.

hum...

And in about 90 days Arizona will no longer require a permit for a law abiding citizen to carry concealed.

Yes Vermont and Alaska, and what is funny about Vermont, it has the lowest crime rates in the Union! followed by....Alaska.

hum...
Hum...pay attention for a second here k? Those two states require no or similar to carry. This is what I was referring to: Not all states require training, or hands-on training. For example, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington have no training/safety certification requirement whatsoever. Virginia only requires applicants to view a video and pass a 20-question multiple-choice test online. Great.
And I wasn't referring to crime rates when I made that post, I was referring to the rate of injury and death due to accidental discharge when people that don't know what the hell they are doing, handle a gun. Get off the self defence soapbox and quit thinking about "rights" for a change.
The hell with proficiency, people in those states don't even have to show competency ffs. Think about it, are you gonna give a pilot's licence to someone that can't show you they know how to fly the damn thing first?

It does not surprise me that the Liberals are trying to discredit Garry. Garry has played a large role in the fight to dismantled the gun registry.

imo, he knows more about the issues than the police chiefs do.

Police chiefs are usually politically obligated to say certain things publically that they probably don't really believe in privately. And, considering that most municipalities (even out here in Hitler's Satanist Alberta) tend towards being dominated by liberals, the chiefs have to adopt liberal talking points, even if it goes against the natural grain of what the police rank-and-file most likely believe in themselves. I suspect this police "support" for the gun registry travesty of a joke of an abomination is one of those things where the police find it a political necessity to voice their approval.

Here's a to an LAPD cop who writes an anonymous blog for National Review. Very compelling stuff, especially in how it illustrates how often and quickly police management will throw their own men under the bus in order to ingratiate themselves even further with the hard leftists who dominate the LA city council. The disconnect between police brass and the guys on the street is clear to see. It might not be as bad in Canada as it is in LA (except maybe for Toronto where they love to lynch their cops anytime some gun-packing minority criminals have their precious human "rights" offended), but I imagine that dealing with civic politics is something that almost every real cop absolutely hates doing. At least the criminals will just shoot a cop in the face as opposed to the local politicians who prefer to go for the stab in the back.

(And, yes, I absolutely promise to never ever again link to anything from the National Review cesspool ever again. "Jack Dunphy" is the only one there who deals in reality. Which probably explains why the Palin-bots at NRO haven't published anything new from him since last fall.)

in Calgary our Chief of Police just publically slammed the registry today. He said it is a useless tool full of holes for little benefit. He would like the resources diverted to more police and better equipment.