• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kilo_302 said:
Bruce your experience working in a jail might colour your perceptions a bit. Are you denying that socioeconomic factors play a role in crime? I'm sure you have day to day experiences that most if not all of us have NEVER experienced, but that doesn't mean inequality and economic conditions have no bearing on crime. It also doesn't mean you can dismiss decades of evidence-basedmoney flowing public policy. I mean, really.

Fixed that for you........

Kilo_302 said:
Are you denying that socioeconomic factors play a role in crime?

Well not totally............when the habit [whatever it is] starts to outstrip the available income then bad things can get worse.
I'm going to say, just based on years of seeing what I see, less then 1% were the guy/girl they portray on TV as stealing to feed their kids.......and some of that group because they spent the cash on a habit.

And that's my last off-topic post here..........sorry about my intrusion you mangy gun-lovers. :-*
 
RoyalDrew said:
TFTFY

I like some of the laws, specifically the requirement for a firearms safety course and the need to be be licensed and provide references although this isn't fool proof as a "don't tread on me" moron like Justin Bourque was still able to get a firearms license.

I supported mandatory firearms safety courses too but here's the trick.

We just passed a law that requires firearm safety courses.  I'm looking for it to post, I seen an article from the CFO stating they will not be training or hiring any new safety course instructors for the foreseeable future.

No one qualified to teach means no courses. No safety course no gun license.
(and a nice cash cow if they do decide to open it up)

Edit: found it.

How do I become an Instructor?
http://www.fseso.org/how-do-i-become-an-instructor
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT EFFECTIVE MARCH 12, 2015, THE FSESO WILL NOT BE ACCEPTING ANY FURTHER INSTRUCTOR APPLICATIONS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

Applications will be held for one year from the date of submission. If the need should arise for an Instructor Appointment, only qualified applicants will be contacted for an interview. Please note that the  application fee which is required with your application submission is non-refundable.
Course Fee:

For those applicants who have been selected to participate in the training course program, there is a course fee of $500.00 plus HST.
 
Jarnhamar said:
No one qualified to teach means no courses. No safety course no gun license.
(and a nice cash cow if they do decide to open it up)

Looking at the list of available instructors shows there are about 300 in Ontario today.  I don't think there's need to panic just yet.
 
I have been reading this discussion with some interest for awhile now.
My opinion based on my personal and professional experience:

I like that there is a requirement for firearms training to get a PAL. I wish that for people without other formal firearms training that the course to get a PAL was more in depth. Many people I have encountered who don't have more extensive firearms training - positive experience than the basic course for a PAL are not as confident and-or as professional in their handling (storage) of firearms. My experience in a large number of accidental shootings, fatal, injury and other.

I think that our firearms regulations (from my experience enforcing them) are overly complicated.

The vast majority of Canadians (if given proper training) can be trusted with a firearm. We are inherently good. At home, in their truck (car if you are from vancouver or TO) and generally, well around other Canadians. The very small remainder are most often just plain bad people or stupid. Nothing, yes nothing will change that.

Some people are afraid of firearms in their own hands or anyone else's. This doesn't mean everyone else should have to bend to their will. Many activities can be or are dangerous (atving, boating, heli skiing, climbing, driving, and a huge list of others) but most risks can be mitigated by common sense and a level of proficiency training.

Do I get paranoid when I see Joe citizen with a firearm. No. At high risk calls I use officer safety and risk mitigation. In routine circumstances I do the same. Every scenario is different and acting professionally is key. I have been as scared at physical confrontations without firearms as with. All depends on circumstances.

I have been posted at locations where due to on call or member safety issues I have had my pistol with me 24/7. It is a tool, you get used to it and if you are proficient with it there are no issues. Would I want to have to carry it all the time like some U.S. Police. No. Some times it is a pain.

I have had a number of firearms pointed at me in my service (and knives drawn, and hit with objects, and punched, kicked, spit on - this I actual hate the most, and struck by a pickup once, etc). I have also been shot at on a number of occasions here in Canada (plus of course the tour stuff that isn't important to this discussion). Most of the time it was decent enough people who made a bad decision for whatever reason that day. Once was a 15 yr old due to family issues, fathers suicide, he apologized some years later. Does any of that mean that I think we need to ban firearms no. Nor atvs, pickups, etc.

In my experience most Canadians ( again, with proper training and proper storage) can be trusted. For the other few, well stupid is stupid and we are never going to eliminate that. 

Again, just my opinion.

 
I should have also said that do all police feel this way. Of course not. Their opinion is based on their experience. My experience is that those with little or no firearms experience before getting into policing are more apt to feel that Joe Q Public shouldn't have firearms, or need more regulation, etc.

 
Haggis said:
Looking at the list of available instructors shows there are about 300 in Ontario today.  I don't think there's need to panic just yet.

Fair point but looks like can be deceiving.  I've tried to set a handful of people up with this course and I ran into  numbers that were no longer working, instructors who no longer doing the safety course instruction and some who were either unavailable to further notice or had weirdo dates and times they were available.
 
Jarnhamar said:
... I ran into  numbers that were no longer working, instructors who no longer doing the safety course instruction and some who were either unavailable to further notice or had weirdo dates and times they were available.

And the same thing happens when booking car/doctor/hair etc. appointments.  But the roads are not littered with wrecks and sickly, dying people with bad hair don't aimlessly wander Canada on foot.

This is only a snapshot of Ontario.  WMMV in other provinces.
 
To me the gun regulations are a little all over the place, based on looks and perception versus functionality. The same with some of the calibre restrictions in southern Ontario. The safety course is probably useful for people with no gun experience and reinforcing proper habits. Since I am only interested in hunting, as long as I can have my shotgun and rifle I am happy. I wasn't even upset about the registry. I would like to keep a loaded firearm on my horse when in the bush...that's my major complaint right now.
 
Jarnhamar said:
I supported mandatory firearms safety courses too but here's the trick.

We just passed a law that requires firearm safety courses.  I'm looking for it to post, I seen an article from the CFO stating they will not be training or hiring any new safety course instructors for the foreseeable future.

No one qualified to teach means no courses. No safety course no gun license.
(and a nice cash cow if they do decide to open it up)

Edit: found it.

How do I become an Instructor?
http://www.fseso.org/how-do-i-become-an-instructor

This why the RCMP/police should never have been given this file back, they made a total mess of it last time and they are doing it again. The Coast Guard started the Boater Competency Card, they set a standard and published it and let the market play out https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp14692-menu-1373.htm

the RCMP meanwhile, plays favorites and manipulates people, access and likes to have a firm grip on peoples testicles so they can twist them if they become critical of their masters.
 
Haggis said:
And the same thing happens when booking car/doctor/hair etc. appointments.
Doctors also haven't been told to stop training  new doctors.
 
suffolkowner said:
To me the gun regulations are a little all over the place, based on looks and perception versus functionality. The same with some of the calibre restrictions in southern Ontario. The safety course is probably useful for people with no gun experience and reinforcing proper habits. Since I am only interested in hunting, as long as I can have my shotgun and rifle I am happy. I wasn't even upset about the registry. I would like to keep a loaded firearm on my horse when in the bush...that's my major complaint right now.

No offense meant, but the strategy of the gun control freaks is to eat the people like you last. The talk about not going after hunters and such is to divide and conquer. 
 
Jarnhamar said:
Doctors also haven't been told to stop training  new doctors.

Oh, yes they have, and, in the 1990s, there was a major cut in the enrolment limits at Ontario medical schools, aimed at cutting health care costs* ~ that changed in 2004.

_____
* Some one thinks that if you have fewer doctors you will have fewer sick people, I guess ... actually it's true, in a perverse sort of way: if you have fewer doctors then more sick people will die sooner ...
 
E.R. Campbell said:
* Some one thinks that if you have fewer doctors you will have fewer sick people, I guess ... actually it's true, in a perverse sort of way: if you have fewer doctors then more sick people will die sooner ...

[tangent]
It makes perfect economic reasons to "retire" people at 65 when they no longer work.  I anticipate that at some point, that will be the norm.... :/
 
Technoviking said:
[tangent]
It makes perfect economic reasons to "retire" people at 65 when they no longer work.  I anticipate that at some point, that will be the norm.... :/

In many cases you'd have to retire them at 20, if no longer working is the criteria. :p
 
Colin, I don't think that the RCMP did a bad job with the original restricted/prohibited firearms registry.  When the "all" firearms registry was formed it was taken away from the RCMP and was its own entity. Then when it was dissolved the registry was given back to the RCMP (in name). But the mechanism, people (except the OIC) were still those from the "all" firearms registry.

For real change you would need the will power to change those in senior positions who effects its day to day running.
 
My experience with that back in the 80's and early 90's was it was a "punishment posting" for the individuals who then turned their anger to the clients
 
Kilo_302 said:
New data shows a direct correlation between mass shootings and gun ownership.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-08/24/gun-ownership-mass-shootings-us-study

"school shootings, workplace shootings, and public mass shootings in other places".

Personal firearms are banned in schools, most government facilities, and many businesses.

That guarantees that there are no law-abiding people therein who will be armed and able to defend themselves or others from attack.

These "gun-free" zones are really government-guaranteed defenceless victim zones. As such, they are specifically targetted by mental defectives seeking notoriety.

The theatre in Aurora Colorado that was attacked during the premiere showing of Batman was a classic case. That was not the closest theatre to the killer's apartment. There were several others. It was, however, the only one that displayed "no guns allowed" signs. Had any of the others been so attacked, there would have most likely been several people who could have shot back. Insanity does not equal stupidity. These wretches know where they stand the least and best chances of success in their twisted endeavours.

There is one proven method, and one only, of stopping an active shooter: shooting him.

Nothing else works.

Nothing.

Signs don't.

"Gun control" laws don't - any more than laws banning murder don't.

Those jurisdictions in the US that have the highest rates of civilian firearms ownership and people exercising concealed carry rights have the lowest rates of murder and other violent crimes. It's the gang-ridden cities that skew the stats.

Many US states have lower murder rates than most Canadian provinces. Those are the ones with the least restrictive firearms laws and the highest rates of firearms ownership.
 
No Ottawa posting (as the old registry was) is a punishment posting for the hoardes of easterners wanting to get closer to home. Mon - Fri 9 - 5. Holidays off.  They loved it. Possibly you encountered some of the members directly posted from Depot back to HQ. They were a "different" breed. They didn't ( still don't) like the operational members, especially out west. 

Well, sorry for your experiences.

 
An interesting court decision here, with legal beagle commentary here:
An Ontario court has struck down yet another mandatory minimum sentence for a firearms offence as unconstitutional using the hypothetical approach used by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nur.

“It is in a way an illustration of the sad state of affairs which exists in criminal law now because of the imposition on judges of mandatory minimum sentences,” says Toronto defence lawyer Aaron Harnett of the judge’s use of a reasonable hypothetical analysis in R. v. Shobway to find a mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional despite his conclusions on the specific circumstances of the offender.

“It now is causing jurists to have to engage in some fairly esoteric exercises to undo the damage of mandatory minimum sentences.”

In considering the constitutional issue in Shobway on Aug. 18, Justice Grant Radley-Walters of the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that the minimum three-year prison sentence in the Criminal Code for transferring a firearm violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“I find that s. 99(2) like s. 95 (1) foreseeably catches licensing offences which involve little moral fault and little danger to the public,” he wrote, referencing both the offence considered in the case before him and the one at issue in Nur.

“I further agree that a three year term of imprisonment for a person who has essentially committed a licensing infraction is totally out of sync with the norms of criminal sentencing as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code,” he added. “I conclude that s. 99(2)(a) breaches s. 12 of the Charter.”

The Criminal Code’s s. 99 (2) (a) spells out a minimum sentence of three years for anyone convicted of transferring a firearm. The ruling concerned a Charter application by Arnold Shobway, a Petawawa, Ont., man who had pleaded guilty in June 2014 to transferring two restricted firearms the previous year.
According to the decision, Shobway, a 26-year-old Ojibway man, had grown up on the Walpole Island Reservation “in an environment of alcohol, drug abuse and poverty” and had drunk alcohol regularly since the age of 16. He has also taken OxyContin, cocaine and other street drugs, selling his property to “feed his addiction,” wrote Radley-Walters.

Eventually, Shobway, who had joined the Canadian Forces in about 2009, sold two handguns, including his service gun, to his drug dealer for money he owed him.

Upon his arrest in November 2013 on criminal charges, police required Shobway to surrender his handguns, but he was unable to do so because he had already sold them. “He admitted this to the police and was co-operative,” wrote Radley-Walters. Police then found the handguns at the home of the drug dealer.

In his decision, Radley-Walters referred to Nur, a case in which Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin concluded that courts in s. 12 Charter cases should take into account how the minimum sentence affects not only the offender in the particular instance but also “reasonably foreseeable situations” involving “other persons who might reasonably be caught up by it.”

While the decision is from a lower court, criminal defence lawyer Janani Shanmuganathan of Derstine Penman in Toronto says it’s an important one nevertheless. Shobway, she says, “is a perfect illustration of the expansive scope of mandatory minimum sentences, particularly in the firearms regime. Such sentences . . . not only capture behaviour at the true-crime end of the spectrum but also behaviour that is tantamount to licensing infractions. The latter simply do not warrant long sentences and judges agree.” ....
 
Alberta Bound said:
No Ottawa posting (as the old registry was) is a punishment posting for the hoardes of easterners wanting to get closer to home. Mon - Fri 9 - 5. Holidays off.  They loved it. Possibly you encountered some of the members directly posted from Depot back to HQ. They were a "different" breed. They didn't ( still don't) like the operational members, especially out west. 

Well, sorry for your experiences.

It was the individuals in the detachments that I am speaking of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top