XPost: can.politics, can.talk.guns, kingston.general   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, van.general   
   From: klunk@theothershoe.org   
      
   thanks for your reply... considering how many police there actually are out   
   there, and how many are likely members of some form of gun lobby... i'm   
   actually surprised that it's taken this long to get this little amount of   
   corroboration... (i will, for the purposes of this response, assume that the   
   info provided hasn't been altered).... and so, i see a couple of retirees   
   whom likely have a poor understanding of aggregate data analysis... and most   
   of their experience comes from a time when life was simpler....   
      
   and so, throughout all of this, i see frustrations with costs, as everyone   
   else in this country has echoed... and provides nothing in the form of   
   justification for the registry's existence... only a comment on its   
   efficiency...   
      
   Of all that you supplied, i find the following intriguing:   
      
   "We always knew that the vast majority of police on the street opposed the   
   gun registration scheme, now we have proof that the executive who represent   
   these rank-and-file officers are finally starting to get the message."   
      
   ...and i still haven't seen any evidence of this... a couple of testimonies   
   does NOT a vast majority make... in fact, your info clearly demonstrates   
   that the indicated "majority" does not exist and is only an example of a few   
   dissenting voices... and by two whom are no longer with the force...   
   following that, citing Gary Breitkreuz does not help further this discussion   
   since it's quite clear that his views are strongly biased.   
      
   again... a complaint about the cost of the registry does nothing to address   
   its justification for existence... it only brings attention to issues that   
   need fixing... no one seems to be complaining about the cost of registering   
   vehicles... only guns... and no one has offered any compelling reason why   
   they should get special treatment.   
      
      
      
      
      
   "Larry"  wrote in message   
   news:7Tswg.47039$Uy1.746@read1.cgocable.net...   
   > Well, this is interesting. Remember all that whoopla about the police   
   > chiefs and CACPs' supposedly in staunch support of the registry, that aint   
   > xactly true! Here is a little tidbit, which took me hours of reading to   
   > find, that sure wasn't suppose to be discovered. Seems they've been into   
   > some mind changin', but we sure weren't suppose to, and the Libs' didn't   
   > want us, ta find out!   
   > So, you armchair do-gooders, here's my proof, from da horses mouth so to   
   > speak, that this registry has absolutely no positive effect in keeping YOU   
   > safe from guns.   
   > Now, where is your proof it does?????   
   >   
   > "POLICE SAY: GUN REGISTRY IS "DEEPLY, AND POSSIBLY, FATALLY FLAWED"   
   > Police Association letter: "To think criminals will be affected by   
   > this legislation is asinine."   
   >   
   > Ottawa - Today, Garry Breitkreuz, Official Opposition Firearms Critic   
   > and MP for Yorkton-Melville, made public a copy of leaked letter that   
   > adds credence to his claims that the police associations are getting   
   > ready to withdraw their "official" support from the Liberal's useless   
   > $400 million gun registry. "We always knew that the vast majority of   
   > police on the street opposed the gun registration scheme, now we have   
   > proof that the executive who represent these rank-and-file officers   
   > are finally starting to get the message."   
   > Breitkreuz released a copy of a letter from the Ontario Senior   
   > Officers' Police Association to Solicitor General Lawrence MacAuley   
   > dated Friday, January 21, 2000. The 8-page letter provides even more   
   > evidence that the gun registry is in serious trouble and corroborates   
   > reports given to Justice Minister Anne McLellan by her own User Group   
   > on Firearms. The letter states, "There is little doubt that the   
   > legislation is deeply, and possibly fatally flawed. There was ample   
   > time to research and prepare appropriately for a feasible and workable   
   > act - this was not done, in our view."   
   > Here are a few more quotable quotes from the police association letter   
   > to the Liberal government:   
   > ·      This.has produced bitterness, acrimony, divisive bickering.and an   
   > act which, to be kind, is ineffective .   
   > ·      It has created a bureaucratic quagmire and its deterrent effect is   
   > questionable, at best.   
   > ·      A glance at Bill C68 is all that is required to realize that a law   
   > degree is required to understand and use it.   
   > ·      Several thousand FIP hits.because they have been extracted several   
   > times for the same incident.   
   > ·      The original matter has to be re-investigated. Surely, this is not   
   > how the system was designed to work.   
   > ·      Transfers now take up to three days to complete. The sale or   
   > purchase of a house can take less time.   
   > ·      Firearms businesses are closing because of the.legislation as it is   
   > presently constituted. This is outrageous.   
   > ·      The program still lacks the proper modules for Firearms Officers.   
   > ·      It does not store information, and never will, back to the CFRS   
   > system, which was supposed to be the case.   
   > ·      The system is extremely slow (licence applications take seven   
   > minutes on average each to open and approve).   
   > ·      The computers are as slow now as at the outset of the program.   
   > ·      The CFRS system is not user friendly. It is cumbersome and awkward.   
   > It is slow and painful.   
   > ·      This training had to be conducted throughout the province at a   
   > substantial cost to the taxpayer.   
   > ·      The question is why does Quebec have their own site at all!   
   > ·      The implementation of the act should be halted, or funded and   
   > staffed to appropriate levels.   
   > ·      They all recognize a disastrously flawed piece of legislation,   
   > which   
   > is a bureaucratic miasma.   
   > The police association letter to the Solicitor General ended like   
   > this, "It is never too late to correct a situation, provided the   
   > political will exists." I couldn't have put it better myself,"   
   > concluded Breitkreuz.   
      
      
   This first example is probably the most comprehensive listing of concerns   
   I've read with the registry... and all of them are descriptions of systemic   
   problems that are no different than practically EVERY major IT endeavour...   
   particularly when such systems are so deeply affected by business rules   
   (politics, legalities and interest group lobbying)... nothing listed above   
   constitutes an "unfixable" problem... and if these things were fixed, i'm   
   quite certain by the complaints listed here... every one of them would be   
   satisfied...   
      
   again... this does not constitute proof that the registry is an unwarranted   
   system... only that it is poorly designed and implemented.   
      
      
      
      
   > "Larry"  wrote in message   
   > news:pMjwg.82381$hp.52933@read2.cgocable.net...   
   >> Snip   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)