How can she possibly square these allegations with what the report actually says? The report says of the registry that it is a "useful tool," that it ensures "police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status.” It also said that there is an "“ongoing need” for the regulation of firearms.
Opponents of the long gun registry can believe what they want, but it would be nice if, in such an important debate, they did not twist the facts so blatantly. If their position is tenable, then surely they do not resort to such tactics. Unless, of course, if their position is untenable. Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
It's the Joseph Goebbels approach to politics, lie often enough and with enough conviction and people will believe you no matter what you say.
ReplyDeleteI prefer Sheila Fraser's report on the registry.
ReplyDelete@ the last conbot response: yeah, the 'we don't need no stinkin' evidence' crowd _would_ prefer the report that says there's been no proper evaluation of the Firearms Program's outcomes, yet, over the first one that starts to do that.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the reports the RCMP produced on InSite. After all, if we are going to accept the RCMP's word shouldn't we take it for all their reports? Or are you only interested in reports you agree with?
ReplyDeletewho said i disagreed with their report on InSite?
ReplyDeleteSecondly I'm interested in Hoeppner not lying about what is in the report and misleading her supporters. That was the point of the post.