Monday, April 04, 2011

John Weston and the Gun Registry

John Weston:
"We all support the licensing of people who own firearms and the registration of prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns). That's not going to change; this Conservative government is unwavering in that. We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective,"


http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

Criminals can not register their guns. Being able to register a gun presupposes that one has a Possession and Acquisition Licence and a criminal record is grounds for being denied a PAL and for a PAL being revoked. However, this does not mean that some criminals do not try to register their guns. "More than 1,500 Canadians were refused licences for their guns from 2006-2009, on the basis of background checks triggered when they went to register the weapons." The most common reason for denying these gun owners a license was that they were a risk to others. "The program revoked another 6,093 licences in the same period as a result of continuous screening, court orders and complaints to its public safety line. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1

Semantics aside, Weston's argument does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with ICBC either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse for Weston, it is impossible for him to on the one hand throw his support behind registering "prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns)" and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason he gives for the latter is that criminals do not register their guns. So, he should be calling for the entire registry to be abolished. Weston can not have his cake and eat it too.


Weston:
"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.


The Conservatives like to hammer the Liberals over the cost of the gun registry and rightly so. That said, the gun registry's 1 billion dollar price tag does not have any baring on whether long guns should be registered. What matters is whether the annual cost (between 1.5 and 4 million dollars) of registering long guns is worth it. Implying that the initial cost over runs justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference . http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-staffer-accuses-tories-of-trying-to-discredit-auditor-general/article1667099/ It makes no sense.

Now as for the justifications the Liberals have given for continuing to register long guns, other than to point out that the fact that the gun registry is used x number of times each day by the police, the Liberals have said remarkably little about the gun registry over the years. Their refusal to say much more has hurt them. They would have been in much better place had the continually come up with justifications.

Moving on, it is rich of Weston to imply that the Liberals have politicized the issue more than other parties. Not only have the Liberals not continually come up with justifications, they have spent a fraction of the Conservatives have on the issue. The Conservatives have spent money on radio ads and billboards. The Liberals have not. Not much has changed since Weston made these comments. The Conservatives were first ones to raise the issue this election and seem to be the only party wanting to talk about it.



Weston:
"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.
There's an Angus Reid poll that says 72 per cent of Canadians want the registry scrapped. There was a nationwide survey of rank-and-file police officers that said 92 per cent of them thought the registry was ineffective."


In 2006 Conservative candidate form Ajax Pickering famously said “The facts don’t matter.” I see John Weston is of the same mindset.

The auditor general put the cost of the gun registry at just under 1 billion, no Angus Reid poll ever showed those numbers and and this so called nationwide survey of rank and file police officers was chat room poll and so was no more scientific than Ted White's many "polls". My hat goes off to the North shore News for pointing this out.

"Setting up the registry ran notoriously over budget, reaching nearly $1 billion, according to the federal auditor general."


"In fact, the Aug. 24 Angus Reid poll of 1,005 Canadians reported that 44 per cent favoured scrapping the registry, with 35 per cent opposed and 21 per cent unsure. The police survey was an unscientific online poll conducted by an Edmonton officer on a police chat forum. The forum's operator later disavowed the survey, calling the results "mixed and inconclusive."


http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

By the way, one of the most recent poll showed this.

"Overall, 48 per cent of those surveyed believe it's a bad idea to abolish the registry, with 38 per cent supporting its abolition. (Harris/Decima interviewed just over 1000 Canadians. A sample of this size has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.)"


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1

John Weston:
"The answer remains that we don't have any documented cases -- that I know of -- where the registry has performed its avowed purpose," he said. "In each case, if you look closely the registry would not have saved the victim. It's not doing its job. All it's doing is intruding on the liberties of Canadian farmers, duck hunters, and other law-abiding gun owners."


The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people who should no longer have them. I doubt even Weston would deny that it makes the seizure of guns easier. This was the thrust of what West Vancouver police chief Lepine said.

"Having a detailed inventory of the 4,029 registered firearms in West Vancouver helps police with court-ordered seizures of weapons from convicted offenders, said Lepine. If legally held weapons are stolen and eventually surface somewhere in the criminal economy, the registry records give officers a place to start in their investigation, he said.

"The next one is public safety. We get calls from mental-health providers saying 'We're concerned about a particular individual.' We'll do that check and go and seize (their firearms) so they don't harm themselves or someone else."


http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

The problem is that Weston refuses to acknowledge that sometimes legally registered weapons need to be seized because the owner has, for example, been convicted of a crime. In this he is not alone; I have yet to hear a Conservative acknowledge that there have been thousands of "Canadian farmers, duck hunters", who acquired a criminal record over the last 12 years and over the next 12 years there will be thousands more.

As for specific examples, Weston must not have looked very hard.

“I think we've probably prevented some major events,” says Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist in Prince George, B.C. The RCMP has called Kane asking whether she is concerned about certain individuals applying to register a gun. She believes such a call prevented tragedy after a millworker was fired.

“He could easily have gone into one of the mills and done something bad,” she says. “But we were able to get his guns away from him.”


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1

57 comments:

Griffin said...

Koby, you are a blog hog - why post such a rant?

John Sharpe said...

Koby,

Please be reminded that in fairness blog guidelines suggest main posts to be 500 words or less.

~J.S.

Donahue said...

blog hog doesn't even begin to describe it!

Anonymous said...

Show a little respect for the regulars here, Koby, and keep your posts brief and succinct. I suspect that you're trying to show us all how smart you are, but in reality you're coming off as a bit of a prat.

Signed,

A Liberal who isn't afraid to call out other Liberals for being annoying.

Koby said...

Once the again, Conservative posters have proved themselves incable or unwilling to debate the issues.

This is as close as they come

"Results talk. BS walks"

"I hope that the Liberals and NDP have the poop kicked out of them - ditto the Bloc."

Hogging the blog: one blog post every 10 days hardly qualifies as "hogging he blog"

Length of the post: there was a Weston non sequiturs to point out.

Anonymous said...

Well you're right. The Conservative posters certainly are an "incable" bunch.

They're succinct, (ie "BS walks"), and tend not to rant on. How annoying.

(Better get walkin')

Koby said...

What do you know. Yet a another comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It find it amazing that Conservative posters would rather talk about me than defend a policy that dear leader clearly thinks is important.

Anonymous said...

Cons don't need to "defend" a policy. The long gun registry is a Lib policy with costs that spiraled insanely out of control.

So how best to repair their mess?

Let the people who pay the freight decide if the registry benefits support it's cost. Vote for the party that will continue to fund the registry - or not.

Koby said...

"Cons don't need to "defend" a policy."


That sums up the Conservatives fairly nicely. Ask them a question and they get angry, question your motives, and amazingly proclaim that the only measure of a policy's worth is its popularity. Their anti-intellectualism knows no bounds and apparently neither does yours. I amazed that you are not troubled by Weston's inability to articulate anything resembling a coherent argument for no longer registering long guns. His performance was embarrassing.


"The long gun registry is a Lib policy with costs that spiraled insanely out of control."


The cost of many bridges spiraled insanely out of control. Do you want to blow up each one of them? What matters is how much the registry costs to maintain and what benefit, if any, it provides. Of course I already said all this. "Implying that the initial cost over runs justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference. It makes no sense."


As to your appeal to the public's right to decide, it is a red herring. We a debating policy -- at least that is what I am hoping to do -- not holding a vote.

Anonymous said...

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=88317&sid=53debf676d4aac7099c9fd065af71dbd

Anonymous said...

Good grief Koby, you are so twisted on so many levels it's almost impossible to follow your train of thought.

Firstly your classic liberal switcheroo. The liberals create a policy, implement it, foul it up, get booted from office and then blame the conservatives for the mess. Really.

Blowing up bridges??!! It's hard to imagine any adult taking such histrionics seriously.

Voting for the party that represents the voter's view of fiscal responsibility is a "red herring?" Only an arrogant apologist for the natural ruling party could come up with such a description. (Newsflash - the French Revolution is over and the aristos do what the people want now). If the people decide that the costs of a programme exceed it's benefits then they can vote in the party that reflects their views. I know, tough to swallow but there it is.

The last time that the libs did something sensible was when they stole the ultra-conservative Reform party financial platform and eliminated the debt.

You can rightly crow about that accomplishment but it does underscore that the libs are only useful when they act like cons.

Griffin said...

John, as moderator of this blog, you have the authority to remove this post, especially as it does not even relate to North Vancouver (Weston being the MP For West Vancouver!!!)

Anonymous said...

John, Koby has always ignored the word limit on this blog. Why can't he just provide a link to his own blog for people to read his pearls of wisdom?

John, please enforce the rules of the blog.

Koby said...

It seems I have really touched a nerve. Riddler, I am worried you going to stroke - just not as worried as I am about John Baird. I know mediation is little new age and not in keeping with your macho persona, but it could do you some good. Now. Take a Deep breath .... .

"Firstly your classic liberal switcheroo. The liberals create a policy, implement it, foul it up, get booted from office and then blame the conservatives for the mess. Really."

Ha ha. And down the the rabbit hole we go again.

I write "The Conservatives like to hammer the Liberals over the cost of the gun registry and rightly so." and you want people believe I am blaming the Conservatives for the cost overruns.

All I ask is to debate the issue, but Conservatives slavishly tow the party line and Stephen Harper says no debate. That said, can you give me a rain check. How is 2015 for you?

Andrew Saxton and John Weston are drones too. They faithfully repeat the talking points the PMO tells them to repeat no matter how ill suited the talking point to the riding. Hence, both Weston and Saxton drone on about "law abiding duck hunters" and Andrew Saxton faithfully accuses Ignatieff of "just visiting". By the way, I really I hope Saxton accuses Igantieff of "just visiting' this election. He went to Upper Canada college. He lived abroad for years. He is from a rich well connected family. He is not in it for you.

Koby said...

Andrew Saxton: "The long gun registry puts an unfair burden on farmers and duck hunters and law-abiding citizens."

http://www.nsnews.com/news/North+Shore+would+registry/3141658/story.html#ixzz0z9pydePI

The number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (just over 2 million) and as with any large population certain predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a sizable number of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" in absolute terms will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and a large number will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership. Between 1999 and 2008 22,523 licenses refused or revoked. The most common reason given for a fire license being revoked had to do with the license owner having being convicted of a crime and the number of guns is seized is not insignificant. Between November 2008 and April 2009, for example, the police seized about 3600 registered guns. Based on their rhetoric, the registry is therefore something Conservatives should support not oppose. It helps keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

Physicians can also recommend that police temporarily remove a firearm or firearms.

Andrew Saxton "owners will still be required to have firearm licences, so police will still know which households have guns because they know who has the firearm licences."

By having "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" register their firearms, authorities can ensure that guns, owned by "duck hunters and farmers" who are no longer fit to own a gun, are properly disposed of. A gun license only indicates that person has the right to own a firearm. It does not tell the cops whether someone actually owns a gun or how many guns they might have.
Furthermore, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets."

http://www.aspq.org/DL/Declarationang.pdf

Andrew Sazton "the reality is that criminals don't register their guns, nor do they advise us when they move,"

Criminals advise us when they move all the time. It is a condition of parole. Anyway, to speak only about crime is ignore the fact that 80% of gun deaths in Canada are suicides.

Suicide is at the center of the academic debate about gun control and one can not ignore it and still remain credible.

John Sharpe said...

To Griffin 12:50 Pm and Anon 2:10 pm,

Sign up as a poster and post over Koby. :)

Koby,

Anon has a point, this is supposed to stay on North Vancouver topics. And in future, if you could please provide a link when the post is over 500 words.


Thank you.

Don McBain said...

It was more like 5000

Anonymous said...

Koby, what does a gun registry do that the Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) does not? Get rid of the registry, it's just more government waste that overlaps and existing program. You don't need to be a conservative to understand that.

Koby said...

Again

"By having "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" register their firearms, authorities can ensure that guns, owned by "duck hunters and farmers" who are no longer fit to own a gun, are properly disposed of. A gun license only indicates that person has the right to own a firearm. It does not tell the cops whether someone actually owns a gun or how many guns they might have.
Furthermore, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets."

Even a Conservative should be able to understand that.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Koby, but with a PAL, the government already knows who has purchased a gun. Why a registry on top of that? It's like double dipping. By the way, I'm not a conservative. Just never understood for two programs covering the same bases.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info re PAL. Don't bother trying to talk sense to Koby. He fits facts into the conclusions that he had already jumped to. No debate, just regurgitatioin of his party's line.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that Koby is a hired gun for the Libs sitting in some eastern berg churning out bullshit and rhetoric and posting it across the country at election-time and when someone dares to challenge his logic or conclusion, they become his next target. Classic sociopathic behaviour. Ignore him if you can.

Anonymous said...

Yo Kobe - how are things in the Big Smoke these days? Nice to see you're still concerned about things here on the North Shore. Thanks for the in-put. BTW - nasty bit of work with your boy Forbes there today. Oh well - all we can do is try.

Colin said...

I read your post and can see why you can’t understand why the registry is an issue. First of all you don’t understand the difference between licensing and registration, two very different things. Currently there are about 7 million registered guns and 1.8 million licensed Canadians to carry guns. Under the old FAC system there were 4 million licensed Canadians, approx 2 million did not comply with the new regulations. We can estimate at least 3 million Canadians currently own guns for lawful purposes. People who have studied the records estimate approximately 33 million legal guns were made or imported into Canada, therefore less than 25% of the legal guns that could be in Canada are registered. Considering the system was only supposed to cost 200 million and has cost close to 2 billion (AG report) with a yearly cost of approx. 58 million (spare me the 4 million BS) that is the shining example of failure.

As for the car analogy, it doe not work at all. You can own all the cars you want without registering them and alter them all you want as long as you don’t drive them on public roads and insure them. The VIN system is to protect against theft and that is all. The gun registry is much more insidious. If you don’t register you are a criminal, regardless of your status in the community or lack of record. The purpose is not clear until you understand the intent of it’s authors. People like Allan Rock are completely against personal ownership of firearm, any firearms and believe only the police and army should have them (because that worked so well in places like Germany, Russia, Poland, China, Rwanda, etc, etc). The main purpose of the registry is to allow the eventually confiscation of all firearms. They realize they can’t afford the political fallout of a complete sweep or the cost of compensation ($1500x 7 million) so they go on a one by one basis. How this works is through the FRT numbers. Each type of gun has a FRT number, if they withdraw that number from the system then you can’t buy, sell or transfer that type of firearm. They can also change the classification on a whim making it prohibited and forcing you to surrender it or be a criminal, without compensation. This has happened numerous times and there are pending court actions against the RCMP for this right now. The other main purpose of the registry is let them know where the guns are so they can seize whenever they so choose, regardless of cause. The police routinely trick older people into surrendering their firearms or spouses firearms for destruction, rather than allowing them to dispose of them through sales and recoup their investment (Some antique guns taken this way could have fetched $4,000-10,000 for the widow)

You can also bet that if the police chiefs had to pay for the registry out of their budgets or for every use of it, they would ditch it quickly. Stats show that 75-95% of the crime guns are smuggled in (customs seizes 1500 guns a year from 3% of the cargo searched) Legal gun owners are 2-3 times less likely to be involved in violent crime and 85% of the homicides are committed by people with assault related criminal records. (therefore excluding any change of getting a gun licence). As for the rank and file police, speaking out against the registry is a career ending move, what they say in public and what they say over a beer is to different things. Also Barbara Kane is committed anti-firearm advocate and any comments from her have to take in account her position. I hope this helps you understand why this is an important issue for us gun owners.

Colin said...

Also some light reading on the failures of the registry

http://epicfailuresgunregistry.blogspot.com/

Koby said...

Colin: "Considering the system was only supposed to cost 200 million and has cost close to 2 billion (AG report) with a yearly cost of approx. 58 million (spare me the 4 million BS) that is the shining example of failure."

It was not 2 billion. AG put the figure at just under a billion, but whatever. We can agree that there were large cost overruns. As for the 58 million figure, you are running licensing and registration costs together and 4 million dollar figure is listed as top end figure, 1.7 million the bottom end.

Colin: "First of all you don’t understand the difference between licensing and registration, two very different things."

What are talking about? Again. "A gun license only indicates that person has the right to own a firearm. It does not tell the cops whether someone actually owns a gun or how many guns they might have." My response to buddy was premised on their being a difference between licensing and registration.

Colin: "The main purpose of the registry is to allow the eventually confiscation of all firearms"
Do you believe 911 was inside job too? This is tin foil hat material.

Colin: "The other main purpose of the registry is let them know where the guns are so they can seize whenever they so choose,"

At last we are getting somewhere. The main purpose of the registry is to make it easier for the police to seize guns of people who should no longer have them.
I said this already. "The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people who should no longer have them. I doubt even Weston would deny that it makes the seizure of guns easier."

Colin: "85% of the homicides are committed by people with assault related criminal records. (therefore excluding any change of getting a gun licence)."

I presume you mean accused. Anyway, no where near 85% of accused have a criminal assault conviction. On average about two thirds have a criminal conviction. For example, in 2003, 69% did, 2004 68% did and in 2005 64% did. In 2003, 45% of accused had violent criminal record (e.g., assault, robbery), 2004 48% did and 2005 62% did.

Koby said...

Colin: "As for the car analogy, it does not work at all."

Weston "criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective,"

Koby "Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with ICBC either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars."

I was not making that analogy. I just pointing out that the fact that criminals can not register their guns no more makes "the registry wasteful and ineffective" than the inability of car thieves to insurance their cars makes car insurance pointless. Weston was condemning the gun registry for failing to do something it was obviously never designed to do.

Look the issue is this. The number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (1.85 million) and you acknowledge this. But what you fail is grasp is that as with any large population certain very accurate predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a small percentage of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that a small percentage will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership at least for period of time. Now, even though this number is small in percentage terms, in absolute terms the numbers are quite large, in the 10s of thousands. Enter the gun registry. You and I both agree that it makes it easier for authorities to seize the guns of people who should no longer have them.

Anonymous said...

Koby, you are a windbag and using much more than your allotted amount of oxygen. You never use one word when nobody is stopping you from using ten. Give it a rest.

John Sharpe said...

I'm just hoping for a Harper minority government after May 5th because I believe that will mean the Conservative party will have a leadership review and Harper will be gone.

Anonymous said...

Funny, I feel the same way about the Liberals.....and Mr. Ignatieff!

Anonymous said...

I won't be sad to see a Con minority either. Harper's been effective through one of the worst financial meltdowns in our lifetime while in minority so I'm happy to see him stick around.

Koby said...

What utter clap trap.

1) The Conservatives do not deserve credit for 10% growth in China and more than anything else that is what has kept the Canadian economy relatively strong by keeping the price of commodities up.

2) As for the stimulus package, the opposition parties forced the Conservatives into passing it. They were able to do that because Michael Igantieff was at 36% in the Spring 2009. Ever since the Conservatives have spent tens of millions of dollars celebrating "Canada's action plan".

3) The Conservatives have shown a similar degree of chutzpah in celebrating a conservative lending culture in Canada that they had begun to undermine prior to the downturn.

4) The cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006 and the main reason for that is the Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. The Conservatives extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extended it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extended it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence. Ever since the down turn, Jim Flaherty has been scrabbling to undo the damage his past actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties in October 2008 and on March 18th he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. Never once acknowledging that it was he who raised the amortization period to begin with, Jim Flaherty has repeatedly over the course of the last 2 and half years that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do. "In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and Conservatives can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.

Anonymous said...

Yawn.............

Anonymous said...

Claptrap, Koby?

Canada has weathered the financial storm and proved to be the strongest economy of the G8.

Our stock market is booming.

Our dollar is still accelerating in value.

Our housing market, unlike our sothern neighbours, is robust.

If that's claptrap, then "more of the same please!"

Steady hand on the tiller, Cons.

Janice said...

I'm so sick of everything absolutely everything political.
We are so lucky here in Canada, but somehow Stephen Harper is more evil than a north African dictator and he mostly seems to have simply been avoiding changing anything Paul Martin had accomplished. I'd call that prudent and pragmatic, if it were totally true.

It doesn't hels to read Koby's dire partisan desperation. For the continuity of Canada's collective health, and my sanity, I desire a Conservative majority, over to Koby.

Koby said...

"Our housing market, unlike our southern neighbours, is robust."

ha ha Sure and that is why Flaherty has spent the last two and half years telling people how prudent it was to undo what he did during the Conservatives first year in power.

"In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," from the great damage he did in 2006.

"Canada has weathered the financial storm and proved to be the strongest economy of the G8."

1) Many economists are very worried about personal debt levels and housing costs. 2) It was not that Canada performed particularly well; it was that the other G-8 countries were particularly hard it. Compare us against other OCED countries and the picture is not nearly as Rosy. For example, we rank 18th out 30 in terms of unemployment. 3) There are two things that explain Canada's relatively good performance as compared to other G-8 countries, viz., our banks Conservative lending practices and the fact that a good chunk of the economy is resource based. The Conservatives can not take credit for either.

"Our dollar is still accelerating in value"

So! You do not know a high dollar is not great for exports and Fed is worried that it could get too strong. Anyway, there are major questions about the long term viability of the Euro, the US economy is still weak and the US introduced another round of quantitative easy. Presto the dollar has gone up against each.

All that being said, this is a post about the gun registry and more specifically what John Weston had to say about it. Colin trotted had a go, but the rest of Con bots have not bothered and non one has bothered to defend the hapless Weston.

Anonymous said...

My comment to Koby. March 31,12:40 on this blog's previous thread...
"He (Koby) exhibited the same lib rhetoric when the hapless Dion was running..."

Love the libs.

They are so adept at borrowing from others, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

Koby, let's discuss guns, how many guns do you own?

Colin said...

Koby
This will help explain cost of the registry, taken from a quote by a CPC politican:
The confusion appears to come from a poorly written line on page 54 of the RCMP’s 2010 report on the federal long-gun registry: “ … the gun registration portion of the CFP has been determined, by independent sources, in terms of cost savings to the CFP, at a range of $1.195-$3.65 million for the initial year, and subsequent years will range from $1.57-$4.03 million …” The key phrase is $1-million to $4-million a year in cost savings.
That same report goes on to say that the annual cost of the long-gun registry for 2010/2011 is $66.4-million (found on page 15 of the report). The RCMP, which now runs the long-gun registry, prepared the report which was tabled in Parliament last fall. The report can be found at: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-...l/eval-eng.pdf
The long-gun registry has now cost well over $1 billion dollars to date, and will cost an additional $650 million dollars over the next 10 years.

Anonymous said...

C'mon Koby. Man up and fill us in.

You're a verbose expert on virtually everything so let's just get down to brass tacks.

You're dying to talk guns so let's go for it. How many have you got and what calibre? What's your ammo preference? What's your favourite piece?

Let's get into it and I'll respond by telling you about the interesting guns we've got.

Don't be such a clam.

Anonymous said...

Koby's post of April 09 is bang on with reference to the Canadian Economy.
If the Lib or NDP can get the truth out to the electorate there goes one of the Cons main planks.
The gun registry has just become another divisive subject, in the Cons tool box of divide and conquer, to keep us from the real issues.

Anonymous said...

"Bang on?" - Wendy, are you back?

Anonymous said...

Don't think it's Wendy. She voted Conservative in the last election.

Anonymous said...

It would be consistent for Wendy to be inconsistent and she would make a perfect pairing with Koby.

Anonymous said...

In some ways, yes, but to be sure, Koby is probably a bit more intelligent and a lot more stable, in spite of what we think of his diatribes. Imagine what he could do with his talents if he wasn't so off the wall? Then again....

Anonymous said...

They'd be the ideal couple. Wendy thinks she's smarter than she is but likes to take instruction from men that think they're smarter than everyone else.

Koby could pontificate by the hour while she laps it up and then passionately and publicly regurgitates her version of his views.

Koby gets an unquestioning disciple, Wendy gets a mentor and those more grounded in reality can view them with the same disdain we reserve for telephone solicitors.

Perfect.

Koby said...

"C'mon Koby. Man up and fill us in"

"Results talk. BS walks"

"I hope that the Liberals and NDP have the poop kicked out of them - ditto the Bloc."

Oh go in peace rabid squirrel and take the nuts with you.


Colin: "That same report goes on to say that the annual cost of the long-gun registry for 2010/2011 is $66.4-million (found on page 15 of the report). That same report goes on to say that the annual cost of the long-gun registry for 2010/2011 is $66.4-million (found on page 15 of the report)."

No!

It says the cost of the Canadian Firearms Program was 68.4 million in 2008 2009 and planned costs in 2009 2010 was 66.5 in 2011 2012 66.4 million.

This was the header. "Direct and Indirect costs incurred by the CFP/RCMP and federal partners in the administration of the CFP"

CFP includes licensing, fire arm registration, safety training, etc

Anonymous said...

Whatcha smokin' Koby???

Anonymous said...

Actually Koby, when you think about it results do speak more loudly than words.

Bram Well said...

This is an excellent post I seen thanks to share it. It is really what I wanted to see hope in future you will continue for sharing such a excellent post.www.businessillustrator.net |

Callie Darla said...

I am really enjoying reading your well written articles. It looks like you spend a lot of effort and time on your blog. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles.http://www.ecocarsservice.net |

Edu Denley said...

Τhere is definately a great deal to learn ɑbout this issue. Ι love all of the points you've madе.http://www.homebuilders-fl.net |

Elvin Farrin said...

I bumped into your post. I don't usually post in blogs but your blog forced me to. Awesome work! Thank you for sharing!http://www.tagsoftware.net |

Aiken Barlow said...

I am very happy to discover your post as it will become on top in my collection of favorite blogs to visit.http://www.5accuhealth.net |

Ashton Belton said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.homeostatin.org |

Bowie Callan said...

I think this is definitely an amazing project here. So much good will be coming from this project. The ideas and the work behind this will pay off so much.womaninbusiness.org |

Cecilia Dean said...

Dear, I am very like your website and all post. it is great and usefull for us. i will often come here,and support any post which your push. Tks.miami-travel.org |

Presely Preston said...

Things are very open and intensely clear explanation of issues. Was truly information. Your website is very beneficial. Appreciate your sharing.jtownrealestate.org |