Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 9/5/2001 3:13:29 PM EST
Look at this what I found in the frasier institute! [url]http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/pps/48/s3_firearm.html[/url]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 3:29:15 PM EST
I found this in the article. Very interesting. Table 1: PEEL’S NINE PRINCIPLES OF POLICING: Sir Robert Peel, England (1822) [list=1] [*]1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and by severity of legal punishment. [/*] [*]2. To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. [/*] [*]3. To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. [/*] [*]4. To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. [/*] [*]5. To seek and to preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustices of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. [/*] [*]6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. [/*] [*]7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence. [/*] [*]8. To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. [/*] [*]9. To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.[/*] [/list=1] Source: Charles Reith, A Short History of the British Police, London: Oxford University Press, 1948.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 3:39:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2001 3:39:29 PM EST by Bat21]
I just recently got through working with a Canadian and a Norweigian for 12 days. Gun control came up (initiated by me of course). The Canadian is from Alberta and stated that he has not "registered" his guns and has no intentions of doing so. He did not have nice things to say about the whole fiasco. The Norweigian works in the states and our discussion was more on Norweigian gun laws.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 4:18:21 PM EST
You ever see gun death figures? most years the number of deaths caused by guns legally owned in Canada is less than 5% most of the Guns used in murders here are from other places (maybe this big country south of here, i dunno) Either way, they shouldn't have enacted that FAC shit
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 6:10:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By BCBUD: You ever see gun death figures? most years the number of deaths caused by guns legally owned in Canada is less than 5% most of the Guns used in murders here are from other places (maybe this big country south of here, i dunno) Either way, they shouldn't have enacted that FAC shit
View Quote
Less than 5%? Way less than that. On average Canada experiences about 200 firearm homicides per year, typically involving young men involved with gangs who make it their business to sell things that are already illegal. Compare that figure to the 60,000-odd Canadians who die of cancer each year. They apparently don't matter as much though - the government spends more on the Firearms Act than it spends seeking a cure for cancer. That might change now that Mr Rock has experienced prostate cancer firsthand...
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 3:55:03 PM EST
Lives dont matter, votes do. sick people dont vote.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 8:56:06 PM EST
The Canadian government doesn't need to spend money on curing cancer -- America will lead the way as usual. Those bastards are so full of it with their "free healthcare", but they won't admit that they pay more (through taxes) and get worse service than we do in the U.S. Which is amazing, considering how lousy the healthcare system in the U.S. has become. . . .
Top Top