Mayor Tory calls for tightened gun controls.

This is just clipped and not to be taken as gospel despite being peer reviewed. However, for the most part it's more than what is usually trotted out by the pro registry crowd.


ARIMA analysis also failed tofind gradual permanent effects that might have occurred after 1998 with thereplacement of the FAC by the PAL/POL and the implementation of the long-gun registry (firearm homicide: ARIMA[1,1,0] 86.21% increase, B = 0.27,p = .94; long gun: ARIMA[1,1,0] 77.61% reduction, B = –0.65, p = .60).

To adjust for the effects of previous legislation on subsequent legislation, amodel combining all legislation was produced (Figure 2, SupplementaryFigures B and C). A trend of increasing firearms homicide was noted post C-68(year 1998: Btrend = +0.06, p = .05, % change = +14.8%) but no significant stepeffects were discovered suggesting the step noted in 1998 is not significant.Late effects of C-68 coming into effect in 2001, such as the PAL/POL, was also



2314 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27(12)


[IMG]file:///page12image1032[/IMG] tested with this model, and no statistically significant effects of the legislationwere noted (year 2001: Bstep = –0.06, p = .70, Btrend = 0.079, p = .07).

Spousal homicide by firearm was also examined using interrupted regres-sion and ARIMA. No associations were found after C-17 was passed and upto 4 years afterward (Figure 2; Table 2; Spousal Firearm Homicide:ARIMA[0,1,1] 2.1% reduction, B = –.009, p = .75). C-68 also produced noassociation either immediately after passage or after the implementation ofthe PAL/POL (2001) or long-gun registry (2003; Figure 2; Table 2; SpousalFirearm Homicide: ARIMA[0,1,1], 1996, 0.9% reduction, B = –0.004, p =.89; 2001, 2.5% reduction, B = –0.01, p = .72; 2003, 2.8% increase, B = 0.01,p = .69; spousal long-gun homicide, ARIMA[2,1,0], 1996, 1.1% reduction,B = –0.005, p = .82; 2003, 1.9% increase, B = 0.01, p = .74). "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Gilroy, there is nothing, read that again, nothing that shows it made you or johny Q, or battered Susie Q

any safer.

I as well Terry. Most of the cops I know likewise thought it was a waste.
Curious Gilroy as we both walked the same streets at night. How did the registry make you any safer in RP?

---

Well not in RP because nobody would have qualified for a PAL or at least nobody I knew.LOL

The registry did make me feel safer but of course I used the normal precautions as well. I like the idea the long gun owners are held somewhat responsible for where there guns are at any given time.

The waste only came after it was dismantled.

Lmao lol, :)

Funny I had reason to think of the old haunts the other day, which reminded of a certain case involving a certain mechanical room. :(
Time flies and we still haven't gone for the beer.

Re the registry or GC.
I honestly have no issues with GC, nor future as yet un named measures. All I ask is that "lets identify actual problems", and/or "actual weaknesses" and then find measures that make sense, ( without too much argument) that address that problem, or weakness.

Shotgun approaches rarely work with anything in life, they usually miss the "actual" target. But they sure do make the politicians appear to be doing something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

In no way did it make your life safer.
If it did tell us how.

---

That,s an easy one, I get a call to a domestic and already know there are guns registered to the home.First question to the complainant where are the guns? They get secured first.

If its important to register handguns, I ask you why is it not important to register long guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Lmao lol, :)

Funny I had reason to think of the old haunts the other day, which reminded of a certain case involving a certain mechanical room. :(
Time flies and we still haven't gone for the beer.

Re the registry or GC.
I honestly have no issues with GC, nor future as yet un named measures. All I ask is that "lets identify actual problems", and/or "actual weaknesses" and then find measures the make sense, ( without too much argument) that address that problem, or weakness.

Shotgun approaches rarely work with anything in life, they usually miss the "actual" target. But they sure do make the politicians appear to be doing something.

---

Can,t disagree with that thinking.


P.S. I need to get you up to the camp its about time you actually shot a deer.LOL

LMAO again :)
Been a couple years now of uncooperative weather and snakebites.
This year I have a huge and I do mean huge bodied 10 pointer that was at 30 yards giving me nightmares, was waltzing right into my lane when the little puke of a spike in front of him froze for some inexplicable reason. It wasn't the wind, and given I hadn't moved or made a sound, just no reason for it. I could have taken the spiker with eyes closed. 20 yards in my lane standing still as a statue for a good 2 minutes, never once looked at me. I don't know anyone that would have played it differently and in hindsight once turned and started walking back towards the brute I should have put meat in the freezer but there was still a chance they'd take the trail to my left lane.
/sigh

Do you head up in winter? Im right on your way if Im not mistaken.

Tory is a jellyfish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Well not in RP because nobody would have qualified for a PAL or at least nobody I knew.LOL

The registry did make me feel safer but of course I used the normal precautions as well. I like the idea the long gun owners are held somewhat responsible for where there guns are at any given time.

The waste only came after it was dismantled.

---

You were no less in danger if the registry told you there were firearms in the house. The registry only accounted for firearms which were in it's system; not unregistered ones or illegal ones. It is a false safety which you were extremely fortuneate didn't blow up in your face. Long gun owners are responsible for their guns because of the storage restrictions in the firearms act, not because of a registry. You used normal precautions because you knew the registry wasn't a complete picture of what potential firearms are in the house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

That,s an easy one, I get a call to a domestic and already know there are guns registered to the home.First question to the complainant where are the guns? They get secured first.

If its important to register handguns, I ask you why is it not important to register long guns.

---

You get a call to a domestic and you should already prepare for firearms to be in the house (whether the owners have a firearms license or not or if the registry says there is one there or not). First questions to the complaints should be are there any firearms in the house and if so, are they secure and may I see your firearms license.

Handguns aren't the only firearms which need to be registered with the government. Any restricted and prohibited firearms are required to be registered with the government because it has been determined by parliament that a higher level of operator care must be used and enforced when using those firearms coupled with the insane requirement that a special authorization to transport is necessary for the gun itself. Long guns have been determined to be the group of firearms which require the least supervision and enforcement and so aren't required to have any more special government "oversight".

As a police officer for the number of years which you claim to be and a hunter, I fail to understand how you are so misinformed about the firearm laws in this country.

The LGR wasn't around when I was in law enforcement,but,we had the FAC system that served us very well,although,we country coppers always assumed firearms were present because every farm,cottage or home in the rural areas had at least one. It was just a "given". Mostly,we knew who the "players" were as soon as we were given the complainant names/addresses,but,sometimes there were people that we'd never dealt with. Dispatchers were very good at getting information to us regarding subjects who were "refused" or "revoked",so,we knew what we could possibly be dealing with and governed ourselves accordingly. Colleagues later told me they largely ignored the LGR because it was just superfluous information they didn't need. Knowing who was and who was NOT licensed was all they needed to know.

Gilroy having a gun in the registry did that tell you where it was located at that very moment in time?if not it was even more usless. Looking to see if a person had a PAL would give you all the information you need. You know that the person likely owns a gun.