arma virumque cano (et alia)
"In October 2010, with support from the Joyce Foundation, 10 law enforcement organizations created The National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, which aims to bring the collective voice of law enforcement organizations to bear on policies impacting public safety and gun violence."http://www.joycefdn.org/working-together-to-prevent-gun-violence/ Interesting that there don't seem to be ANY law enforcement groups endorsing Washington's initiative 594. In fact this groups seem to oppose it,"Washington Council of Police and SheriffsWashington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor Association (WSLEFIA)" Especially since one of the groups that are part of the Joyce Foundation group claims to represent all of the Sheriffs in the nation. Lets look at the official statement from the Washington state law enforcement group,http://wacops.org/Initiative%20Endorsements/gun%20initiatives%20statement.pdf In fact, there seems to be a larger amount of law enforcement support for the opposing initiative, #591. The list of supporters for 591 is too long to paste in here, but please check it out here,http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Gun_Rights_Measure,_Initiative_591_(2014)
We'll see in a couple weeks.
So it's your position that no law enforcement group, or gun related group supports background checks, SS?
"So it's your position that no law enforcement group, or gun related group supports background checks, SS?" I'm saying that the impartial source I used only seems to mention single law enforcement leaders and politicians, but no large law enforcement organizations such as will be found either opposing I-594 or supporting I-591. And even in that regard, the number of individual Sheriffs and elected officials in Washington supporting 591 outnumber those supporting 594. For example, the President of the Washington State Trooper's Association is supporting 594, but only as an individual. He only speaks for himself. Perhaps you could contribute some state law enforcement groups that support 594.
Amazing! Your sources are ALWAYS impartial, but Mike's sources are ALWAYS wrong. Thanks for the laugh.
Nonsense Anon. There have been times where I've agreed with Mike. However, this is the way debate works. Someone advocates for their side and the other person can challenge what the first side said, hopefully based on facts. Which is what I did. We can pretty safely assume that this group that Mike has brought up supports Initiative 594, but the National Sheriff's organization which supports it apparently has a conflict with the state level Sheriffs and police organization. Again, you're free to contribute your opinion using either facts or emotional rhetoric. One will get you farther than the other.
You don't PROVE facts wrong you just show other facts, or simply deny facts. Just like the school shootings facts the other post. And I guess your debate tactics of being dishonest and outright lying (which I proved) is what you consider correct debate tactics. On to your next lie SS.....
And I guess we went with the emotional rhetoric not based on facts choice. A shame.....
"A majority of Washington State’s 39 sheriffs have come out in opposition to anti-gun Washington State Ballot Initiative 594.The sheriffs oppose I-594 because it will not make anyone safer, will strain scarce law enforcement resources, will criminalize the lawful behavior of millions of law-abiding gun owners in Washington and will be unenforceable. Instead, I-594 would vastly expand the state’s handgun registry and force law-abiding gun owners to pay fees and get the government’s permission to sell or even loan a firearm to a friend or family member.To date, 27 of the 39 sheriffs have publicly opposed I-594."http://www.ammoland.com/2014/10/27-of-39-washington-sheriffs-now-oppose-initiative-594/#axzz3HdsKjfsmThat comes to just over two thirds of the Sheriffs in the state.
Thanks for proving me correct. Many law enforcement do not agree.
The support for stricter gun laws among the polls also seems to be declining. "Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict.""Bottom LinePublic demand for stricter gun sale laws is returning to levels seen throughout the past decade. After seeing a spike in support for stricter laws following the Newtown school shooting in 2012, the call for more stringent laws has settled to near-record lows. The percentage of Americans who say that handguns should not be banned is at a near-record high as well. This suggests that while shootings may still occur with disturbing regularity in the U.S., there is a disconnect between those events and support for making gun laws stricter."http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
This from the gun loon crowd that have said they would take arms against the government because they disagree with a law like the AWB. Right, real law abiding citizens that honor a majority vote process, laughable.
Is that the same firearms instructor group that included the instructor that was teaching the 9 year old when he got killed from the recoil a 9 year old could not physically handle?
"Is that the same firearms instructor group that included the instructor that was teaching the 9 year old when he got killed from the recoil a 9 year old could not physically handle?" You need to work on your geography skills there Anon. Or maybe your reading skills. Note the word Washington in the name. Pretty close though, only 1,400 miles off.
You need to work on being a human being.