# When mass killers meet armed resistance.



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2007)

I suspect if more people were to adopt this point of view, not only would random mass murder be more rare than it is, but external agression from all sources; crime, alien ideologies and foreign agression would also be less willing to confront us either as individuals or a society. This is the same theme (although unspoken) in United 93; the passengers did not sit back and wait passively, but took matters into their own hands:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/



> *When mass killers meet armed resistance.*
> 
> It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn’t Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mike Baker (18 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I suspect if more people were to adopt this point of view, not only would random mass murder be more rare than it is, but external aggression from all sources; crime, alien ideologies and foreign aggression would also be less willing to confront us either as individuals or a society.


I wish more people had that view at VT. Perhaps it may not have escalated into what it became, a bloodbath. I see no problem with gun control, or guns. Guns do nothing persay, it is the person who points it and pulls the trigger who does the killing.


----------



## rz350 (18 Apr 2007)

But not in Canada! Imagine the horror if good, upstanding citizens who took a training course and had though back ground checks could carry a concealed hand gun! It would be mass chaos! </sarcasm>

I think it would be a good idea, and would reduce crime. I even wrote a letter to PM harper saying so. Maybe everyone who agrees should do the same.


----------



## Roy Harding (18 Apr 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> But not in Canada! Imagine the horror if good, upstanding citizens who took a training course and had though back ground checks could carry a concealed hand gun! It would be mass chaos! </sarcasm>
> 
> I think it would be a good idea, and would reduce crime. I even wrote a letter to PM harper saying so. Maybe everyone who agrees should do the same.



I have always thought that currently serving and retired LEO's and Soldiers should be permitted to carry concealed weapons.  These folks have spent their life learning and applying the correct techniques regarding application/escalation of force in the defense of their fellow citizens - why not make the streets safer by using their training??

If you want to include psychological testing of some kind prior to granting the license, I'm fine with that too.

I'm not comfortable with the thought of ALL persons being legally allowed to carried a concealed (or other) weapon - I draw the line somewhere on the left side of the NRA - but not THAT far left.

I suppose this point of view makes me a "red-neck gun-supporter" in Canada, and a "left wing, freedom hating gun suppressor" in the United States - but it remains my point of view.


Roy

Edited to make the third paragraph somewhat more clear.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (18 Apr 2007)

The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Apr 2007)

> The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
> Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
> If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.



I think you need to do a little more research, all the way around....


----------



## midget-boyd91 (18 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
> Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
> If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.



Well now, If you had read almost anything or watched any of the news that has been on 24/7 since the shooting, you would have noticed that he was in fact NOT an upstanding citizen. He was placed (non-voluntary) into centers for mental problems and deemed _a threat to himself and others._ This was stemmed after calls were made to the police from women he was stalking at the time.
  What would lead you to believe that ONLY police/military/security should be permitted to have a handgun? In each one of these incidents mentioned in the article, an otherwise normal citizen armed with a gun stopped the shooters from shooting anyone further. 
  If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
> Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
> If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.



The killer was NOT a good upstanding citizen...he had been taken in for mental evaluation shortly before the shooting and they let him go. He had numerous stalking complaints against him. There is more....listen to the news!!

If America disarmed their population their murder rate would at best stay the same, if not go up. Stop living like a sheep!!


----------



## JasonSkald (18 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.



A la Britain?


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (18 Apr 2007)

Something similar happened in the Pearl, Missouri school shooting where the assistant principal stopped the shooting by retrieving his pistol from his car and holding the shooter for police.  There was very little media coverage of his actions as well.  If one student would have been carrying a concealed weapon the shooter could have been stopped, however Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone" 

I found this:








Planes


----------



## midget-boyd91 (18 Apr 2007)

I_Drive_Planes said:
			
		

> Something similar happened in the Pearl, Missouri school shooting where the assistant principal stopped the shooting by retrieving his pistol from his car and holding the shooter for police.  There was very little media coverage of his actions as well.  If one student would have been carrying a concealed weapon the shooter could have been stopped, however Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone"
> 
> 
> Planes



This was mentioned inside the article... I know it was a long read, but still


----------



## NL_engineer (18 Apr 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> But not in Canada! Imagine the horror if good, upstanding citizens who took a training course and had though back ground checks could carry a concealed hand gun! It would be mass chaos! </sarcasm>
> 
> I think it would be a good idea, and would reduce crime. I even wrote a letter to PM harper saying so. Maybe everyone who agrees should do the same.



but then you would have to get a transport permit (restricted weapons) every time you take it anywhere  :


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (18 Apr 2007)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> but then you would have to get a transport permit (restricted weapons) every time you take it anywhere  :



There is a permit, called a type 3 ATC that does exist within Canadian Law.  It is essentially a concealed carry weapon permit (type 1 is for armoured car drivers etc. and type 2 is for people working in the wilderness).  They type 3 is not even on the ATC form, but it does exist.  Unfortunately you really have no chance of getting it unless you are a judge or other person with power who feels "threatened".

Planes


----------



## rz350 (18 Apr 2007)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> but then you would have to get a transport permit (restricted weapons) every time you take it anywhere  :



Well, in a logical world (OMFG think of that!...politicians using logic) we would make it easier to get the permit to carry. Not dumb easy, but not basically impossible, somewhere in the middle, so as was said, LEO and Soldiers can carry right off the bat, and civilians can at their own expense, pay for training and testing and back ground checks to be allowed to as well.


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2007)

My concern is not with people being able to conceal weapons or not.  It's how this yahoo was able to get a gun in the first place.  Virginia has some of the most lax gun control laws in the US. Go have a look at them.  They are ridiculous. He was able to legally purchase two pistols despite having a mental history.  The article in this thread makes a good point about armed resistance though.  I think it's a good thing given the gun culture in the US.  Good citizens rarely commit crimes the criminals do and they use guns whether they have them legally or not.  Citizens should be able to protect themselves accordingly.

One small thing though that that article fails to mention.  The two "students" who apprehended and stopped Odighizuwa were both former LEOs.  they knew what they were doing and were trained for it.  Something the pro gun camp doesn't mention too often when proving their point using this case.  They only mention how two students who had legal guns stopped him.


----------



## NL_engineer (18 Apr 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> Well, in a logical world (OMFG think of that!...politicians using logic) we would make it easier to get the permit to carry. Not dumb easy, but not basically impossible, somewhere in the middle, so as was said, LEO and Soldiers can carry right off the bat, and civilians can at their own expense, pay for training and testing and back ground checks to be allowed to as well.



I like the idea, but I will have to take the company line on lobbying the government.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (18 Apr 2007)

The only CRIMINAL problems he had was a speeding ticket...... He (very likely) had some kinda of psychological problem, I could be wrong but I do not think that is a factor in getting a gun in Virgina. He got the gun LEGALLY.

Countries which ban handguns have lower murder rates. 
Over half of all murders in the US involve guns, nothing else even goes over 20% (knives are the next highest). 
Edit: US Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report 1996 

The US has +10,000 handgun murders a year (doesnt need citing) 

In the US people with guns in their house are 2.7 times as likely to be murdered (usually by someone they know) than those without guns 
Edit: Kellermann 1993 Gun ownership as a risk factor for homocide in the home. New England Journal of Medicine 329, 198401991 p347 
ibid 1997 Comment: gunsmoke- changing public attitudes towards smoking and firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 910-912 p345 

Canada has less murders than the US per capita and our murders using guns is about 25% of all murders (slightly more people are killed with knives, slightly less with blunt objects). 
Edit: Statisitcs Canada Iniform Crime Report 1996 

Draw your own conclusions.

more hand guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means also means more people killing themselves... 
Houses with guns have x5 higher sucide rates than houses without guns. 
One study found that amoung over 200,000 people who bouggt guns, sucide by gun was the elading cause of death (25%) in the next year. 
(Taubes G (1992) in Science 258, 213-215 pp 346 "Violence: epidemiologists tests of hazards of gun ownership") 

Bottem line, people having guns makes it easier to kill. In the data you cited at no time did the crime rates become lower in the US than in countries which heavily restrict gun access. 
The killer here only had a speeding ticket before he shot up the place, he was a law abiding citizen. By the logic there was nothing wrong with him buying 2 guns.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2007)

(Sigh)

In Switzerland, every able bodied male is required to have an assault rifle and 200 rounds in his home, yet there are very few recorded instances of gun crime in Switzerland.

The message in the article is very clear that citizens who are able and willing to take action are the primary means of nipping events like this in the bud; if you or I were confronted with a gun weilding assailent our options would be very limited (to say the least) if we did not have some means to take action.

The availability of guns is a moot point, my home town of London ON has seen an explosion of gun crime in the past five years despite being in Southwestern Ontario (where all Canadian restrictions apply). Indeed I have seen an overlay map which shows the availabilty of firearms in Ontario vs the gun crime occurances in Ontario; there is a virtual overlap of gun crime over the areas of least/most restricted gun ownership.

What the argument then is becomes:

Should we take action against threats?

How best should we take action?

I certainly would not advocate for wide ownership of guns, indeed based on observation I could make a strong case to restrict CAR ownership! What I am advocating is developing a culture which encourages responsiblity and self sufficiency.


----------



## FredDaHead (18 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> The only CRIMINAL problems he had was a speeding ticket...... He (very likely) had some kinda of psychological problem, I could be wrong but I do not think that is a factor in getting a gun in Virgina. He got the gun LEGALLY.



Oh yeah, stalking complaints are totally not a criminal problem. Right.  :



> more hand guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means also means more people killing themselves...
> Houses with guns have x5 higher sucide rates than houses without guns.
> One study found that amoung over 200,000 people who bouggt guns, sucide by gun was the elading cause of death (25%) in the next year.
> (Taubes G (1992) in Science 258, 213-215 pp 346 "Violence: epidemiologists tests of hazards of gun ownership")



There is NO causal link whatsoever. If anything, it proves that people who want to kill themselves go out and buy guns. Yay, totally made your point. NOT.



> Bottem line, people having guns makes it easier to kill. In the data you cited at no time did the crime rates become lower in the US than in countries which heavily restrict gun access.



Again, you bring no causal link. Maybe countries that are likely to ban guns also have more peaceful people; it would not prove that guns have any impact with any of that. Maybe if you outlaw guns in the US, people will kill each other and themselves with knives instead.

Both ideas are equally as valid as yours, because all you can prove with the data _you_ cited, is that countries that have less murders have banned guns. Maybe they banned guns because they had no murder, too?



> The killer here only had a speeding ticket before he shot up the place, he was a law abiding citizen. By the logic there was nothing wrong with him buying 2 guns.



As I've said, the guy had complaints for stalking against him; however, the women had decided not to push charges. He was still put in a mental institution and was deemed a risk. Hardly "a law abiding citizen."

Aaaaaaand +1 Mr. Majoor


----------



## Mike Baker (18 Apr 2007)

a_majoor, +1.


----------



## Inch (18 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian  

You cannot compare country to country, demographics differ too much. How about you compare the violent crime rate in the UK before and after the handgun ban. 

From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

So even after an outright ban on handguns, handgun crime actually rose and by a considerable percentage. How did the ban help?

Time and time again, the anti-gun lobbyists point to differences between the countries, with no consideration whatsoever for the difference in demographics.

Also, why attack the pro-gun side? More people are killed in car accidents every year in both countries than by handgun shootings, maybe we should ban cars, or at least make it a ridiculously tedious  process to get a driver's licence, like it is to get a firearms licence.


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2007)

Fred, the guy wasn't placed in a mental institution.  He was assessed as having mental problems.  In virginia, if he's been institutionalised he would not have been able to buy the guns he did.

A-Majoor brings up an awsome point about responsibility and self sufficience.  I like that approach.  In Canada that might actually work given the culture.  In the US...I don't know.

The point is that we have to look at this event and the factors that contributed to it.  I think Virginia's lax gun laws, the school administration's inexcusable actions after the first shooting and the will off the shooter himself are all to blame here.

The fact that this guy after being taken into police custody for fear of him commiting suicide couldn't be flagged as a risk, the fact that the school's security and response protocols sucked and the fact that psycho boy had the will and the plan, requires a review of Virginia's gun control laws and the school's policies.  To make a broad sweep of gun control as a whole is like shooting in the dark.  Pin point the problems and deal with them.  Gun control issues in the US are not necessarily the same ones in Canada due to culture, economic factors etc etc.  So to compare them all in one big cauldron isn't going to be very effective.


----------



## FredDaHead (18 Apr 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Fred, the guy wasn't placed in a mental institution.  He was assessed as having mental problems.  In virginia, if he's been institutionalised he would not have been able to buy the guns he did.



The few media I've been paying attention to said he was temporarily placed in an institution and then released as being relatively okay.




> The point is that we have to look at this event and the factors that contributed to it.  I think Virginia's lax gun laws, the school administration's inexcusable actions after the first shooting and the will off the shooter himself are all to blame here.
> 
> The fact that this guy after being taken into police custody for fear of him commiting suicide couldn't be flagged as a risk, the fact that the school's security and response protocols sucked and the fact that psycho boy had the will and the plan, requires a review of Virginia's gun control laws and the school's policies.



How were the school admin's actions "inexcusable"? Because they didn't close down the school and tell everyone to get away from there after what appeared to be a random murder? Should we close down whole areas in big cities when there's a murder?


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2007)

Fred, Cho received a temporary dentention order by the district court.  He wasn't actually institutionalised.

As for the campus' actions after the first shooting, maybe I'm being a little hasty in my judgement as all the facts are not out.  However were talking about  a school campus not a big city.  And correct me if I'm wrong but when police respond to a 911 call in say a suburban neighbourhood and the shooting just happens, and the shooter is possibly still in the area do the police not cordon off the area, tell residents to stay indoors and conduct their search?  Also given that it was a shooting on a school campus would that not raise alarm bells? (asking, don't know).  Seems that 2hrs is a long time before warning students isn't it?  Again I'm sure an investigation will bring more facts to light.


----------



## ronnychoi (19 Apr 2007)

It would almost seem prudent to start approving some well trained male or female students to carry firearms in a Concealed form. I believe the Israelis apply this tactic in numerous areas.

As a side note, why did LEO's not seal off the whole campus initially, are they completely inept?


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Apr 2007)

ronnychoi said:
			
		

> As a side note, why did LEO's not seal off the whole campus initially, are they completely inept?



http://www.rushprnews.com/press/archives/123401


> Tragedy at Virginia Tech - Timeline of Events



What evidence, in your opinion, do you think this decision should have been based on?  How could they have expected the gunman to attack elsewhere on campus after the first incident?

http://www.vt.edu/about/


> #  25,000+ full-time students
> # Main campus includes more than 100 buildings, 2,600 acres, and an airport



When a murder happens in a town (or neighbourhood) of 25,000 people, is it normal for the town to be "sealed off"?

Where would the students have gone?  Back to their dorms, where he might have had a captive audience for his second attack anyway?


----------



## Hollywog (19 Apr 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> But not in Canada! Imagine the horror if good, upstanding citizens who took a training course and had though back ground checks could carry a concealed hand gun! It would be mass chaos! </sarcasm>
> 
> I think it would be a good idea, and would reduce crime. I even wrote a letter to PM harper saying so. Maybe everyone who agrees should do the same.




A student was disciplined at Virginia Tech for carrying a legally registered concealed gun on campus.

Better they fill the place with bodies than allow a legally registered gun on campus,
 :

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=162

I wonder if any one from CNN will ask admin how they feel about that.  I'm guessing the MSM's don't hurry to interview the admin types about it.  Wonder if they are thinking about it at 3:00 in the morning.

Plus the students should have tried to jump him even withoput weapons better he gets 5 than shoots 50  I wonder how many rounds he fired to do that? 100?  

The hiding in lockdowns mentality doesn't work.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Apr 2007)

ronnychoi said:
			
		

> As a side note, why did LEO's not seal off the whole campus initially, are they completely inept?



Tread carefully young man................you weren't there or privy to the thoughts of those who were there at the time.
I grow weary of those who would armchair quarterback the local LEO's without knowing.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Apr 2007)

Arthur and Michael - your patience is commendable.  Just to be clear to the rest - I support right to carry laws, for responsible, trained adults.

Having said that and at the risk of adding fuel to the fire - rather than allowing 18 year olds to carry handguns to class maybe the school could consider shelling out some of the tuition fees on some more armed (and trained) guards.

Even a few more would probably result in reaction times at least equivalent to those where the respondents had to run back to their cars to retrieve their weapons then find the shooters.

As to sealing off the Campus and securing 25,000 people in a 2600 acre area - consider how much planning would go into such an exercise in Afghanistan and the resources necessary and available the armchair quarterbacks might want to reconsider the concept of competence.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> In Switzerland, every able bodied male is required to have an assault rifle and 200 rounds in his home, yet there are very few recorded instances of gun crime in Switzerland.



Not quite exact with that statement.  Though Switzerland does have liberal gun ownership laws and a relatively low violent crime rate, they are not without incident or controversy.  However we are talking about the Swiss, not generally known for being wild and demonstrative.  The most recent random shooting (by an individual using his service rifle) occurred last week and brought back up the debate on gun availability.  

Gun debate sets sights on army ammo
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Gun_debate_sets_sights_on_army_ammo.html?siteSect=105&sid=7724489&cKey=1176835838000


> swissinfo April 17, 2007 - 3:44 PM
> 
> A Senate committee has taken a first step towards banning the country's 120,000-strong militia army from storing ammunition at home.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Apr 2007)

I cannot vouch for the quality of these statistics, but for what they are worth.  I have added the UK, with its stricter gun control regulations to the shown four stats in each case for comparison.

Murders (per capita) by country

#24 United States
#44 Canada
#46 United Kingdom
#56 Switzerland

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

#8 United States
#19 Switzerland
#20 Canada
#32 United Kingdom


----------



## observor 69 (19 Apr 2007)

The New York Times

April 19, 2007

The Silence of Politicians 
There are myriad questions from the evolving tragedy at Virginia Tech. One is how such a gravely disturbed student as this killer could raise heightened concern among the authorities over a year ago, yet manage to proceed unhindered to take 32 lives. But no less pertinent is the question of how, after detailed tracking of the guns purchased for the ghastly spree, the lethal empowerment of such a troubled individual can somehow be pronounced entirely legal under the laws of a civilized nation.

But it certainly seems legal. 

The guns wielded by Cho Seung-Hui were traced through the laissez-faire weapons marts of Virginia and found to be legitimately obtained. So, case closed. At least according to most of the nation’s political leadership, so studiously ducking the morning-after question of whether anything serious can be done, or least proposed, about such an appalling situation. The victims at Virginia Tech represent a mere tenth of 1 percent of the 30,000 gunshot deaths each year. 

Yet the implicit, hardly sorrow-free lesson for the nation is that beyond the usual calls for prayers and closure, there’s no sense these days for a politician, particularly one running for president, to get into the risky business of even talking about the runaway gun problem.

No one who tracked the last headline-consuming gun tragedies — the Columbine high school massacre and the Washington, D.C., sniper murders — can be surprised as political leaders slide off their obligation to propose answers, or at least candidly discuss the woeful status quo of gun violence. 

After those two sprees, possible remedies were proposed. But none were passed as the gun lobby cracked its whip in Washington. The most that happened were delays in the passage of an egregious proposal, signed a safe time afterward by President Bush, that brazenly denied gunshot victims and plagued cities the right to sue the gun industry for negligence.

Politicians should at least have the guts to tell the nation that retrogression is the state of gun control in America. But Congress’s new Democratic majority is a study in caginess, its leaders obviously mindful of the warning — issued by Terry McAuliffe, the former party chairman who is now a principal in Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — to avoid the subject as a third-rail loser. The question in the ’08 campaign is whether major candidates will dare to speak of Virginia Tech as anything more than an occasion to express grief.

http://tinyurl.com/23fp5q


----------



## Hollywog (19 Apr 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I cannot vouch for the quality of these statistics, but for what they are worth.  I have added the UK, with its stricter gun control regulations to the shown four stats in each case for comparison.
> 
> Murders (per capita) by country
> 
> ...



In Canada in the last few years the rate has gone up I contend because of the registry, it let criminals know they had job security.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (19 Apr 2007)

People having guns makes it more likely guns will be used.
Comparing guns to cars makes no sense, sure cars kill (i could be wrong here) 40,000 Americans yearly but they are not murders done with intent (wellk drunk driving should be called murders not "accidents").
If the US banned guns it would take a long time for the crime rate to drop, as they have a gun for almost every American, you would have to make the whole country a gun free zone and clear city blocks by sealing them off and searching while at the same time having many people with guns legally (doesnt really seem like it could work unless the US brought all their troops back and conducted the mother of all counter insurgencies).
The ease with which many people who shoot up the place are able to get guns makes me sick.......


----------



## cplcaldwell (19 Apr 2007)

Banning hand guns doesn't even work here. How would it work in the States?

The Virginia Tech incident is at the front of the issue now...

It seems to me that if the court he appeared in front of had of had the presence of mind to say "you are a potential menace to yourself and others.. so no guns for you. " things would have been different.

Isn't it often the case that persons convicted of violent crime or who are at risk to commit violence are banned from having weapons in this country? Isn't it almost routine now for magistrates in Canada to make such a ruling?

Why wouldn't the Americans follow suit?

I mean the right to bear arms for a sensible and stable person seems okay. For a time bomb ..mehhh.

The wider (public) debate seems to have devolved into polemic arguments. But hey, it sells newspapers....


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> People having guns makes it more likely guns will be used.
> Comparing guns to cars makes no sense, sure cars kill (i could be wrong here) 40,000 Americans yearly but they are not murders done with intent (wellk drunk driving should be called murders not "accidents").
> If the US banned guns it would take a long time for the crime rate to drop, as they have a gun for almost every American, you would have to make the whole country a gun free zone and clear city blocks by sealing them off and searching while at the same time having many people with guns legally (doesnt really seem like it could work unless the US brought all their troops back and conducted the mother of all counter insurgencies).
> The ease with which many people who shoot up the place are able to get guns makes me sick.......



England has very restrictive gun laws.  I could land at Gatwick, get to East London where I was raised, and probably acquire a fairly decent, clean arsenal within 24 hours, and that's including a night of pubbing with about 350 cousins.  Shooters will always find a way to get guns, legal or not.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian

In one of your earlier posts you state that the ownership of firearms is dangerous and you quote various statistics and reports. You have to be careful about quoting statistics without putting them into context, especially when there are different factors that may affect the overall numbers. For instance, your first statement about the high number of homicides committed in the US by firearms, mainly handguns.1  Your statement is true, but here are some factors that throw these figures into a different context. 

-First off, population. When quoting statistics like this, most people forget to mention that there are _more than 300 million Americans living in the US_.  This does not include millions of illegal aliens living there. _That’s 10 times the population of Canada! _ Another example, up until fairly recently, _that was more than the total population of the EU_!   If you added all the murders in the EU, you would get a horrendous figure, maybe not as high as the US, but pretty high nonetheless. 

- Who’s committing the murders? This going to be politically incorrect but young, black, males are the main victims (and offenders) of violent crime in the US 2.  From the report “From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 49% of homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but 12% of the U.S. population.” I’ve only had a chance to do a quick browse of the report but one other thing that I gleaned from the report is that most victims of firearm crimes in the US are black, young, male and from low incomes backgrounds. This report doesn’t mention impact the drug trade has on the murder rate, but I have read articles from other commentators (such as Mark Steyn) who states that a majority of young, black, males killed were involved in the drug trade and street gangs. So, for the ordinary US citizen your chances of being a victim of violent crime is low. Unfortunately, Stats Canada doesn’t provide a breakdown of crime stats based on income or ethnic background. However, from someone who reads the papers a lot I get the impression that the murder rate in Canada is spread out across all backgrounds and that he average Canadian has a more likely chance of being a crime victim than in the U.S. 

- Actual murder rates. Here is where we get into the actual murder rates between Canada and the US. The murder rate in the US is 6.0 per 100,000, while in the rate in Canada is 2.0.3 So in other words, even though the number of murders in the US is way higher than Canada, the overall murder rate in the US is only three times higher than in Canada. One other thing that may be relevance; the murder rate in the US refers to those offenders that have been charged with a crime, not those who have actually been convicted. In Canada (and possibly other countries) the murder rate refers to those convicted of homicide. If this is the case than the actual murder rate may be lower in the US than actually reported.4 

- In your report you mention Arthur Kellerman who wrote an article that states that those who own guns are more likely to be victims of gun violence. Since then, other commentators have taken Kellerman to task for using faulty statistics. For instance, Kellerman included a large number of  blacks as his study subjects. As I’ve stated above, there is higher rate of violence among blacks, which would skew his findings. These two reports5 6dissect Kellerman’s work and point out the some of the faulty logic that invalidates his findings. 

- Finally, you make the following statement, “at no time did the crime rates become lower in the US than in countries which heavily restrict gun access.” I would suggest that you read the report produced by Mr Perkins where you will find this little gem: “From 1993 through 2001 the
number of murders declined 36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.” That's a much greater drop in the murder rate than in Canada!

Well, that all I have for now. Fortunately, I’ve been studying this kind of thing for a few years and while I’m in no way an expert, I know where to find the relevant info. Having said that, as I mentioned above, I’ve only did a quick study on the reports I listed - I just don’t have the time to sit down and read them in detail. The Cross-National Studies for instance is over 300 pages long. However, I think I’ve made my point. Constructive criticism is welcomed.  There are some other comments that I could make, but I have things to do, the sun is shining and there’s a Hefe Weissbier out there calling my name. I must go!

Footnotes:

1.   U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Weapons used the U.S. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
2.   U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs; Special Report. National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993-2001: Weapon Use and Violent Crime, By Craig Perkins. September 2003. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf
3.   U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs;  Cross-National Studies in Crime and Justice.  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf This report looks at crime statistics between several different countries, including Canada, US, England and Wales and Australia. Note that the last year for the survey was 1999. The rate for the US is on P.82 and Canada on p.151. Numbers rounded off to the next highest for ease of use. 
4.  I don’t have a source for this, but is something I remember reading somewhere in my travels around the internet. 
5.  When Doctors Call for Gun Seizures, It's Grand Malpractice. Excerpted from STOPPING POWER: The Humanistic Case For Civilian Arms, by J. Neil Schulman (Synapse/Centurion Books, 1994) http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Schulman/doctors.html 
6.  Comments on Kellerman -  Guns in the home. Some Methodological Problems in "Gun Ownership and Homicide in the Home - (Kellermann et. al., New England Journal of Medicine. Oct 7, 1993) by H. Taylor Buckner. Associate Professor of Sociology, Concordia University. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-buckner.html. Besides these two reports, two other critiques (that I have not read) can be found here:   http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/read5.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
> Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
> If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.



Their murder rate has gone down by roughly 36% if I recall correctly, at the same time gun sales are way up and the states with the most liberal laws for CCW have the lowest rates. So your point is???????
By the way, the most people ever killed by a rampaging killer was 55 done by a policeman….
Fascist libertarian aren’t these term mutual exclusive?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2007)

The simple fact of the matter is that reflexive responses like "Ban all guns!" will have virtually zero effect on the behavior of criminals and  madmen. If you were motivated to commit mass murder and unable to get a handgun, you could steal a car and drive at high speed into crowded bus shelters on a rainly or snowy day. Like I pointed out, London ON is suffering a dramatic spike in gun crime despite the long standing restrictions on gun ownership in Canada.

We need the cultural tools to make good decisions and to protect ourselves form threats, not reflexive actions which look good but have   no meaningful impact on things. It is long past time when we started to ask "how" and "why" proposals are supposed to work, and monitor the metrics to see if they really are doing what they are supposed to. If not, then "why not?" and change things for projects, proposals and ideas which do.


----------



## redleafjumper (19 Apr 2007)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when someone chooses to "run amok" with a firearm, then the first thing that anyone does is get someone else with a firearm to stop that person.  I teach at a community college and the only option presented for defence is duck and cover, that is if you are in your office, close your door, turn off your lights and stay quiet and hope that you are not the target or noticed.  Quite frankly that just isn't enough to stop the problem.  I would much rather be packing something more significant than a 3" blade on a folding knife.


----------



## time expired (19 Apr 2007)

This guy was a bit wobbly judging by the video tapes I have just been watching. But if anyone would
have tried to do a little preventive crime action by restricting him in any way I guarantee that some left
wing  lawyer would have been in court screaming about denial of human rights and alluding to the fact
he belongs to a non white minority.
                                            Regards


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (20 Apr 2007)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Shooters will always find a way to get guns, legal or not.



This is very true, I recently got my Restricted licence (after having my non-restricted licence for several years), I applied November 28th last year, and didn't get my first restricted firearm until last week (I ordered it the day I had my licence in my hand).  If I were the criminal sort I could make one phone call and have just about any sort of illegal weapon in maybe an hour or two.

I have always liked this quote, and I think it's pertinient:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-Robert A. Heinlein

Planes


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Apr 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Banning hand guns doesn't even work here. How would it work in the States?
> 
> The Virginia Tech incident is at the front of the issue now...
> 
> It seems to me that if the court he appeared in front of had of had the presence of mind to say "you are a potential menace to yourself and others.. so no guns for you. " things would have been different.


  

Maybe, maybe not.  He could have attempted to acquire illegal weapons, or he could have improvised and used something else, like a car, axe, machete, explosives etc.  If he was as disturbed as they say he was, and had the intention of killing many people, I don't think there was much that could have stop him.



> Isn't it often the case that persons convicted of violent crime or who are at risk to commit violence are banned from having weapons in this country? Isn't it almost routine now for magistrates in Canada to make such a ruling?



Sure it is, but the problem with criminals, is their overwhelming tendancy to BREAK THE LAW, especially when penalties are weak or non-existant.  Ask a police officer in Toronto the number of times they (Toronto Police, not the individual officer) have arrested people for firearms/weapons offences, who are already under conditions prohibiting them from using/owning/carrying firearms/weapons offences.



> Why wouldn't the Americans follow suit?



See above. 



> I mean the right to bear arms for a sensible and stable person seems okay. For a time bomb ..mehhh.
> 
> The wider (public) debate seems to have devolved into polemic arguments. But hey, it sells newspapers....



Not picking on you, but the arguement that imposing more restrictions/conditions on lawbiding people will have any impact is a little asinine, because criminals and those intent upon inflicting harm upon others will do what they please regardless of what the laws about gun ownership say.  If you truly want to determine some of these clowns (because you can never really deter the ones with mental issues like this fellow or Kimveer Gill), you need to make the penalities for USING a weapon illegally so harsh, that they will twice about it.  I can't speak for the US because every state has its own laws, however up here in Canada, the prospect of spending 20-40 years in a remote northern Gulag, would be a very big deterent, (so long as they actually did the whole sentence).  The promblem I see (Both here and in the States) is the same bleeding heart whiners who rally against gun ownership, would be the first in line to decry any harh sentences that are handed down for the irresponsible use of said guns.


----------



## cplcaldwell (20 Apr 2007)

Perhaps I'm being a bit misinterpreted here.

Like I said I have _no problem _ with law abiding people having guns. I'm law abiding and I have guns. Respectfully, I did say '
I mean the right to bear arms for a sensible and stable person seems okay '. 

I think in certain societies people carrying weapons on the street seems plausible. Perhaps we should start to look at places where mass violent crime sometimes occurs, perhaps (certain) people at colleges should be given 'carry' permits.

I guess what I'm saying is that that right (...privilege ??)  must be _very carefully defined_. Any sign of illness or violence and one should lose the right. (Lose it for a while lose it forever, I'm not sure).

As for the point on how many people who are under orders and still have weapons, I think there is good evidence to support the theory that people flaunt the orders... that doesn't mean that making such orders is bad (IMHO) but I do agree with the point that if people violate the order its 'off to the big house' ...making the argument stick in court would probably be a bit sticky ... but still make the order.

I think at the end of the day, no amount of laws or orders will absolutely solve the problem. We'll always have criminals and/or the violently unstable we'll always have guns _sooner or later the two will meet up._

I guess I'm saying putting restrictions on criminals or the unstable _does_ help, but I do agree it is not a solution,


----------



## Remius (20 Apr 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Not picking on you, but the arguement that imposing more restrictions/conditions on lawbiding people will have any impact is a little asinine, because criminals and those intent upon inflicting harm upon others will do what they please regardless of what the laws about gun ownership say.  If you truly want to determine some of these clowns (because you can never really deter the ones with mental issues like this fellow or Kimveer Gill), you need to make the penalities for USING a weapon illegally so harsh, that they will twice about it.  I can't speak for the US because every state has its own laws, however up here in Canada, the prospect of spending 20-40 years in a remote northern Gulag, would be a very big deterent, (so long as they actually did the whole sentence).  The promblem I see (Both here and in the States) is the same bleeding heart whiners who rally against gun ownership, would be the first in line to decry any harh sentences that are handed down for the irresponsible use of said guns.



I agree that laws need to be strenghthened to punish people who use guns in crimes and those that have illegal firearms should be severely dealt with.  And we must target criminals as opposed to law abiding citizens.  However Cho wasn't a a criminal.  He was a law abiding citizen (for the most part) who was able to legally purchase a gun despite having a mental health issues, and those laws still permitted him to get said weapons.  And I doubt that any harsh laws or repercussions would disuade a man like that.  he had a death wish, who cares if he would get life in prison?  he wasn't planning on staying around to see what that would be like.  Somebody wondered if this guy could have even been stopped or not.  There are issues that go beyond just plain gun control with this case.  Sure, Virginia needs to take a hard look at its lax gun rules (more specifically red flagging nut jobs like him) but there are more issues at hand about how this freak fell through the cracks.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Apr 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> I think in certain societies people carrying weapons on the street seems plausible. Perhaps we should start to look at places where mass violent crime sometimes occurs, perhaps *(certain*) people at colleges should be given 'carry' permits.



There already are.  They are called police officers.


----------



## cplcaldwell (20 Apr 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> there are more issues at hand about how this freak fell through the cracks.


  

_Yes,_ I really think in this case the problem was that 'the system' failed the guy (and eventually society). Gun control was not the central issue here, IMHO, getting access to mental health care and/or forcing the individual to take that care, even if it meant institutionalization _was central_. Of course I do not know all the issues here, but it seems the root cause was the individual's mental health and that the individual's problems were not adequately treated.

That's what I meant in my first post about how the wider public debate has devolved into yet another debate on gun control. There are gun control aspects to it, but they are not central, (once again IMHO), in this case.



			
				balckadder1916 said:
			
		

> There already are.  They are called police officers.



_Excellent point._ To what degree does a society want to leave the means to violence in the hands of the state_* or*_, conversely, allow the people access to means to violence? The liberals made it quite clear that there goal was to disarm the people. Lloyd Axworthy said as much. 

As for me, I think the best solution is a mix of the two. With reasonable limits and tough sanctions imposed on all offenders.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2007)

blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> There already are.  They are called police officers.



So how many colleges in Canada have their own armed police?

Having police at Dawson was just plain luck.


----------



## time expired (20 Apr 2007)

CPLCALDWELL
                Good post, I think thats the point I was trying to make in my somewhat obtuse way.
                                         Regards


----------



## redleafjumper (20 Apr 2007)

I am not aware of any Canadian colleges or university having their own armed police.  UBC has an RCMP station and presence on campus.  At most places there are Security Guards, but management philosophy tends to be that these are a sort of glorified fire picket or night watchman service.  Their instructions are similar to those given to most staff - call 911 and then duck and cover.  Conversely many (most?) campuses in the US have armed dedicated police forces, even at some very small colleges.  At one that I attended in Idaho, the campus cowboys are also appointed deputy sheriffs so as to enhance their jurisdiction if needed and to better build integration, coordination and communication with the local police services.

This sort of proactive arrangement is difficult if not impossible in the Canadian model - in Canada you only get an armed guard to protect money, not people.

In Canada our philosophy is much more reactive and relies completely on local law enforcement.  As was stated, the Dawson College incident could have easily been much worse if local police had not actually been on site at the time of the incident.  Fortunately those officers reacted very well and their presence forced an early end to what could have been an even bigger tragedy than it was.


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Apr 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I agree that laws need to be strenghthened to punish people who use guns in crimes and those that have illegal firearms should be severely dealt with.  And we must target criminals as opposed to law abiding citizens.  However Cho wasn't a a criminal.  He was a law abiding citizen (for the most part) who was able to legally purchase a gun despite having a mental health issues, and those laws still permitted him to get said weapons.  And I doubt that any harsh laws or repercussions would disuade a man like that.  he had a death wish, who cares if he would get life in prison?  he wasn't planning on staying around to see what that would be like.  Somebody wondered if this guy could have even been stopped or not.  There are issues that go beyond just plain gun control with this case.  Sure, Virginia needs to take a hard look at its lax gun rules (more specifically red flagging nut jobs like him) but there are more issues at hand about how this freak fell through the cracks.



If you read the first sentence I wrote, in that section you quoted, you will note that I mentioned that no amount of gun controls/restrictions are going to stop everyone, especially those who are intent on killing/injury innocents.  They will find a way in one fashion or another.  We can try and identify people like Cho before hand, and make them seek counselling, we can try and dissuade criminals and the like with tough restrictions and harsh sentencing, but in the there WILL ALWAYS be those tiny few who simply just don't care.  Period.  Fullstop.  Until we can start reading peoples minds, there is no 100% way to fully prevent these incidents.  Our only option is stopping them (by any means necessary) as quickly as possible, when they do have their meltdown.



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> I am not aware of any Canadian colleges or university having their own armed police.  UBC has an RCMP station and presence on campus.  At most places there are Security Guards, but management philosophy tends to be that these are a sort of glorified fire picket or night watchman service.  Their instructions are similar to those given to most staff - call 911 and then duck and cover.  Conversely many (most?) campuses in the US have armed dedicated police forces, even at some very small colleges.  At one that I attended in Idaho, the campus cowboys are also appointed deputy sheriffs so as to enhance their jurisdiction if needed and to better build integration, coordination and communication with the local police services.
> 
> This sort of proactive arrangement is difficult if not impossible in the Canadian model - in Canada you only get an armed guard to protect money, not people.
> 
> In Canada our philosophy is much more reactive and relies completely on local law enforcement.  As was stated, the Dawson College incident could have easily been much worse if local police had not actually been on site at the time of the incident.  Fortunately those officers reacted very well and their presence forced an early end to what could have been an even bigger tragedy than it was.



Armed police no, unarmed police yes.  The majority of Universities employ unarmed Special Constable in some fashion.  They are fully sworn Peace Officers and have authority of the police on thier campuses.  In Ontario (each province is different) Special Constables can carry firearms (The Niagra Park Police are perhaps the only Special Constable Service that do), if the local police service and the Ministry of Community Safety agree.  However even if the local police and ministry were to agree to a request to carry firearms by a University Special Constable service, it is very unlikely that the University would make such a request in the first place.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> The liberals made it quite clear that there goal was to disarm the people. Lloyd Axworthy said as much.



And from Hatchet Man:


> However even if the local police and ministry were to agree to a request to carry firearms by a University Special Constable service, it is very unlikely that the University would make such a request in the first place.



The problem here is that these two groups are one and the same - check those ridings that voted Liberal and notice how many of them have Universities in close proximity.

The Liberals not only didn't want citizens to have guns they also didn't want either a "Police State" or a "Military State".  They truly believe in the "Peaceable Kingdom" and "the lion shall lie down with the lamb".  Marvellous philosophically but somewhat lacking in practice.

Some form of defence has to be provided and to be effective it has to be readily available.  If the State provides evidence of its efforts in that regard by putting armed police on the streets, with reasonable rules of engagement, then citizens will feel less need to take matters into their own hands and provide for their own protection.   The State, however, should never deny the citizen the right and the means to protect themselves, just like it should never deny the citizen the right and the means to provide for their own healing.  In both instances we are talking about the fundamental right to security of the person.

So if the State doesn't want the individual to do it for themselves then the correct remedy is to offer a better alternative, not to apply more sanctions.  Personally, as noted, I prefer armed Campus Police to an armed, drunken, sleep-deprived and lecherous student body - Just speaking from my own experience  ;D.


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Apr 2007)

Its sad but your right Kirkhill, University of Toronto Police only started carrying ASP batons within the last 3-4 years.  It wasn't the Toronto Police Service that held them back, it was their own administrators who dilly dallied to put in the request.  York University is even worse, they are one of the largest (size wise) campuses in the country and they don't even use Special Constables, they use regular security and they forbid them from taking any form of an active role (they don't even carry handcuffs), prefering they stand back, watch, and call the police.  I have know serveral people who went to York and the complaints about the security doing nothing are ignored by the Admin, even when fights break out and security don't intervene.  In fact I think the security situation at York was brought up before during the Montreal shooting, god help them if anything were to happen, and it is amazing nothing has, considering its location.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Apr 2007)

And now, this on a news wire where companies pay to get their information out....

*Attention News Editors:  Media Advisory - Preparing Universities for High-Risk Incidents*
Canada NewsWire news release, 21 Apr 07
Article link

"TORONTO, April 21 /CNW/ - Following the deadliest school shooting in North American history at Virginia Tech this week, there is a serious need for Canadian universities to find ways to improve campus security. Efforts must focus on proper training for students and staff on how to respond to threats to personal security, say senior security specialists with the world's leading provider of security solutions.

    Who: Steve Davies and Derek Humble, senior security specialists with the
    Corporate Security Group at Group 4 Securicor (G4S) who specialize in
    high-risk security threats

    What: Interview availability to discuss how to prepare for a security
    threat on a Canadian university campus and professional insights on how
    universities can implement security measures without installing metal
    detectors or placing armed guards at every door.

    About: The Corporate Security Group at G4S has an elite internal team of
    multi-skilled risk managers with ex-police and special military
    experience in disaster management and high risk security scenarios. One
    in 10 Canadian companies are effectively prepared for what G4S refers to
    as "ruinous events". The G4S team identifies these core threats and will
    move to protect against those threats quickly and effectively.

For further information ...."

Here's their web page.


----------



## TCBF (21 Apr 2007)

blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> There already are.  They are called police officers.



- The guns the police carry are to protect THEM - not you.  You are responsible for your own defence, and always have been.  That's why you can - as a PERSON - use force up to and including lethal force to protect yourself and, under certain circumstaces, others.  Will you be charged? YES.  If ACTUAL self defence, will you be convicted?  NO.

- Gun free zones make it easy to find all of the un-armed victims in one place, which is why mass-murderers love schools and churches.  The authorities like all of the victims in one place as well, to simplify emergency response.  They also like disarmed victims - easier to tell who the bad guy is - he is the one left alive with the gun.  Naturally, ALL those left alive are considered potential perps at first contact.

"Call 1911A1 for emergency, call 9-1-1 for clean up." has never been more poignant.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2007)

"Ban guns" and "disarm the people" are two different things.  The former disarms only the habitually law-abiding.  Disarming the people (specifically, including the criminals) has proven to be effectively impossible.  Whichever way it is sliced, the net effect is to render defenceless those who might otherwise opt to provide themselves with means (arms) and methods (training) of self-defence and to provide criminals with useful risk mitigation information.

>Countries which ban handguns have lower murder rates.

That alone tells us nothing.  Information of interest would derive from this question: how many legitimate owners of firearms use them to assault others?

Self-defence and collective defence (when warranted) are inherent powers of the person which follow from the inherent rights of securities of the person (eg. right to life).  Conventionally we delegate those powers to enforcement authorities.  That does not mean we renounce the powers.  When enforcement authorities can not or will not act effectively in a timely manner, the powers of defence still lie with the person.  To those who believe we can require renunciation of those powers by simply writing laws, I respond that it would be a curious thing indeed if the delegated authorities had the power to usurp the delegator with the law-making authority which he delegated in the first place.  That leaves only the tyranny of the majority as the force behind the law.  Such laws are, in effect, nullities.

Aside: ask yourself whether you feel the American Revolution was immoral.  Arms were taken up in against the legitimate government of the time over what were essentially grievances of the governed as to their powers, representation, and taxation (aka "tyranny").  How different are those grievances from any some among us might have today?  Should we have the power to arm ourselves against the contingency we might wish to overthrow that sort of "tyranny"?


----------



## TCBF (21 Apr 2007)

The 'Classic liberal' (Note the small 'L') will say that we have evolved past that point and revolution is no longer necessary on the planet - nor will it ever be again - now that 'colonialism' has been eradicated and only 'progressive' regimes prevail.

Obviously, they believe that rising up against a 'progressive' oppressor is 
'counter-revolutionary' ...Oooops! Sorry!  I mean 'regressive.'

 ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Apr 2007)

I think anyone who truly believes guns are bad, and that the "average" person shouldn't own them - should stand up for their convictions and post signs on their property stating "There are no guns in this house".


----------



## ronnychoi (21 Apr 2007)

Sorry for the delayed response, my message didn't go through because of my comp. I also posted this on the Radio Chatter post about VT. 

I was stating that the BPD and the VT PD could have issued much more aggressive orders to their subordinates. Such as very aggressive patrols with assault rifles on the whole campus as soon as the forces responded on site. They ONLY established a perimeter and no go zone on one building in the whole area as a response to Cho's initial decoy killings.

I know they had the means, but, my biggest concern is..why didn't they get LEO's to secure the WHOLE campus, including dorms. That's what they did in Montreal, and that bastard was cornered because of the procedures taken.

Although, this tactic may not have worked as there were 25,000 students, and the gunman could have gone on a rampage whether there was police presence or not.

Hired guns (Group 4) that would be in uniforms would also be inneffectual as they are too easy of a target and students/killers would be aware of their presence. Group 4 undercover would also be rooted out by the killer. 

As for trained guns on the campus, you'd need well trained (Gunsite, Sigarms academy, IPSC) trustworthy students that are enthusiastic with the thought of being a guard with a noble cause. The only thing about this like stated previously is that, it wouldn't happen because of bureaucracy's within our two countries system.
For now, we need in the USA and Canada, kids that carry illegally who are well versed. 

I for one will not feel secure with my life in somebody's hands...unless they are my trained buddy's hands of course.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2007)

More perspective:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton042007.html



> *Imminent Danger*
> Madness at massacre will not result in sound gun laws.
> by Bruce Thornton
> Private Papers
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Apr 2007)

ronnychoi said:
			
		

> Sorry for the delayed response, my message didn't go through because of my comp. I also posted this on the Radio Chatter post about VT.
> 
> I was stating that the BPD and the VT PD could have issued much more aggressive orders to their subordinates. Such as very aggressive patrols with assault rifles on the whole campus as soon as the forces responded on site. They ONLY established a perimeter and no go zone on one building in the whole area as a response to Cho's initial decoy killings.
> 
> ...



And was stated previously here, the Virginia Tech Campus was quite large, (literally the size of a small town), much larger then the school in Montreal.  Securing the WHOLE campus would have been quite impossible. Consider also, as stated previously, intially the police did not know the first murders were anything other than a "normal" murder.  Police are not in the habit of shutting town whole towns (which essentially this campus was), for what they consider isolated incidents.


----------



## nULL (22 Apr 2007)

What a nightmare scenario that would be; the police respond to an emergency such as VT, only to find a large group of civilians equally as well armed, just as confused as to what the situation is, and all looking to be the hero; to me, it sounds like an effective impediment to the legal authorities to do their jobs properly and safely. Some of you guys need to wipe the romanticized versions of this sort of scenario out of your minds; having a gun doesn't make you mature enough not to use it, nor equip you with the training to react effectively to that sort of calamitous event. 

Edited to correct typo.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Apr 2007)

> Some of your guys need to wipe the romanticized versions of this sort of scenario out of your minds



Is that like the romanticized vision of the police arriving "just in the nick of time" to save everybody? Yeah - that worked well, didn't it?

That's not to slam the LE Agencies - that is just pointing out that they can't be everywhere at once, and as a citizen, I should have the opportunity (right) to defend myself with the same amount of force that the bad guy wields.


----------



## nULL (22 Apr 2007)

Sure, as long as you accept the right of everyone else to the same - perhaps people who aren't as disciplined nor as trained in CQB or weapons handling as you are. Wait, was that _your_ daughter the well-meaning gentleman just shot because he was nervous and, well, he'd bought it for his wife actually, he hadn't used the damn thing in _months_ and...

...or the police officer who shows up and shoots the first college kid who, not thinking in his terrorized and stressed mental state, accidently points his gun at him...
...or the killer who uses the delays to slaughter more innocent people...
...or the victims who lie dying while police try and secure the area, try and determine the number of hostile gunmen...

We could debate this for days, your nightmare scenario and mine; the common truth, neither is ideal.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Apr 2007)

The reality is (here in the US), people wanting a Concealed Carry permit have to undergo some pretty extensive training which includes range time, legal use of deadly force, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc. Generally, people don't just go to Cabela's and buy a .44 magnum to lug around.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Apr 2007)

JAMES Q. WILSON: "Gun control isn't the answer." Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Wilson observes:

    AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply.

    Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence have also occurred in Europe. In recent years, 17 students and teachers were killed by a shooter in one incident at a German public school; 14 legislators were shot to death in Switzerland, and eight city council members were shot to death near Paris.

    The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities.

    It is a problem for Europeans as well as Americans, one for which there are no easy solutions — such as passing more gun control laws.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wilson20apr20,0,4514008.story?coll=la-opinion-center


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2007)

>What a nightmare scenario that would be; the police respond to an emergency such as VT, only to find a large group of civilians equally as well armed, just as confused as to what the situation is, and all looking to be the hero

Given the average response times one reads about - five minutes at best, usually more - an exchange of gunfire would be resolved by the time the police show up.  Few people carry enough ammo for a five-minute long "mad minute".  Either the shooter would be dead, or at least we can say the respondents died trying rather than pleading for their lives.

>having a gun doesn't make you mature enough not to use it, nor equip you with the training to react effectively to that sort of calamitous event.

Strangely, the media haven't been reporting all those gunfights that must take place after the good old boys who carry in various US states get all liquored up in bars and fights break out.  Perhaps your imagined fear is all in your imagination.

The reason there isn't a rash of gunfights and murders by people authorized to carry firearms is simple: most people have to overcome substantial inhibitions in order to fire on another person at close range.  They haven't all been through special training to dehumanize them and remove their inhibitions.  In any event, I suppose that just unloading a couple of clips over the head of a shooter would put him off his game and tempt him to at least flee even if he doesn't drop his weapons and sh!t himself.  At the least it might spoil his aim.

>We could debate this for days, your nightmare scenario and mine; the common truth, neither is ideal. 

But we're not debating; we're speculating.  Fortunately, we have real evidence to consider: the experiment is already under way in the US, and none of the alarmist predictions have come to pass.  But don't let yourself be convinced by the way the real world is working out.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable *personalities*.


[sarcasm] Of course, by "personalities" you mean guns, right?  Because guns kill people, people don't kill people [/sarcasm]


Very good point.  

I also note that the "warning signs" given by Kim Suk Oh (or whatever the frig his name was) are probably currently display by thousands of Americans, Canadians, Europeans, etc and so forth.  So, lock them all up?  LOL

Sorry, it was a tragedy.  Too bad not ONE of those students was similarly armed.  I mean, of all the registered gun owners in the US, how many committed mass-media-covered killings last week?  Two.  

Oh, I suppose Jack Layton et al are calling for the withdrawal of students from VT for taking part in "Bushite" education   :


----------



## nULL (22 Apr 2007)

Ok, an event that comes to mind is the North Hollywood bank-robbery shootout, an event where none of the hostages offered resistance, and as a result, none were killed. I wonder how such a scenario would have played out had they done something other than "plead for their lives." 

Or...is your solution only good for mass murderers, and not other types of desperate criminal...? What about a guy who robs a convenience store with a weapon, not intending to _murder_ anyone, when he is suddenly confronted by an armed customer? Wouldn't you agree that the situation has become more deadly for _everyone_ involved? 



> Strangely, the media haven't been reporting all those gunfights that must take place after the good old boys who carry in various US states get all liquored up in bars and fights break out.  Perhaps your imagined fear is all in your imagination.
> 
> The reason there isn't a rash of gunfights and murders by people authorized to carry firearms is simple: most people have to overcome substantial inhibitions in order to fire on another person at close range.  They haven't all been through special training to dehumanize them and remove their inhibitions.  In any event, I suppose that just unloading a couple of clips over the head of a shooter would put him off his game and tempt him to at least flee even if he doesn't drop his weapons and sh!t himself.  At the least it might spoil his aim.



I'm not sure what your point is; one could argue that the reason the media doesn't report every gun-related homicide are because there are too _many._ As to the idea of unloading a magazine over the head of a shooter - right. A crowded university campus, people running in terror in every direction, and you are going to start firing rounds "in the general direction of a shooter" at the very _least?_ 

It's ideas like _that_ that make me glad that the "good guys" - yes, when they show up - at least have the training to deal with these sorts of situations.



> But we're not debating; we're speculating.  Fortunately, we have real evidence to consider: the experiment is already under way in the US, and none of the alarmist predictions have come to pass.  But don't let yourself be convinced by the way the real world is working out.



What alarmist predictions are these? it's ironic that you should point out "The Real World" - what kind of movie are you living in?


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Apr 2007)

Whoa, slow down.  Firing for the sake of firing at a mass murderer in a crowded classroom is NOT what is advocated.  What IS advocated is the simple confrontation of a mass murderer by an armed citizen.  Simply rolling over and "non-resistance" is what gets people killed.

I don't know about you, but currently the colour in my sky is blue.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2007)

Maybe the problem is "excessive" fear of guns.  Perhaps if the movies and video games portrayed the effect of weapons as described by some of you guys coming back from Afghanistan people wouldn't be expecting to die as soon as they hear a gun shot.  

What was it you were talking about?  Terrs taking multiple 9mm and 5.56mm hits and still coming? Similar tales from WW1 and 2 with .303 and 7.92mm.

The issue that gets me on these incidents is how many people just freeze up and wait to be executed rather than taking a chance at acting.  Things may need to be presented a little more starkly as on that Pennsylvania Flight on 9/11: Do nothing and be guaranteed of dying or act and maybe die.  Your chances of survival seem to increase if you act, armed or not.  Even getting hit doesn't guarantee death.

Crikey - that's a sanctimonious, and morbid, post.


----------



## TCBF (22 Apr 2007)

nULL said:
			
		

> What a nightmare scenario that would be; the police respond to an emergency such as VT, only to find a large group of civilians equally as well armed, just as confused as to what the situation is, and all looking to be the hero; to me, it sounds like an effective impediment to the legal authorities to do their jobs properly and safely. Some of you guys need to wipe the romanticized versions of this sort of scenario out of your minds; having a gun doesn't make you mature enough not to use it, nor equip you with the training to react effectively to that sort of calamitous event.
> 
> Edited to correct typo.



- You may recall the Chales Whitman shootings:

"By now word of what was happening had spread, and police began returning fire toward the Tower, trying to pick off Charlie as he rose up over the parapet to take aim.  Citizens went home and got their own guns, and hundreds of shots chipped away at the Tower in the next hour. "

"As more victims fell, police officers made their various ways to the Tower.  Austin Police Officers Jerry Day, Houston McCoy, and Ramiro Martinez, Department of Public Safety Officer W.A. Cowan, civilian Allen Crum and others converged on the 27th floor."

-http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/tower_6.html


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2007)

JasonSkald said:
			
		

> A la Britain?




An article with the British point of view. Basically, they think that the US is crazy not to ban all handguns, like the UK did after the Dunblane massacre. They've got a  point, but as we all know that's likely a pipe dream.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/29093/dusty-bibles-dirty-thoughts.thtml


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Apr 2007)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> What IS advocated is the simple confrontation of a mass murderer by an armed citizen.  Simply rolling over and "non-resistance" is what gets people killed.



A little simplistic?  Many factors are involved and not all incidents can end in a satisfactory manner simply by force of arms.  An example here in Alberta is Mayerthorpe.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2007)

>Or...is your solution only good for mass murderers, and not other types of desperate criminal...?

You're trying very hard to overcomplicate this.  It's all very well to sit tight while the bad guys are just brandishing weapons and uttering threats.  My point is that once rounds start to fly, it's fair to try to minimize the body count.  To do that, one has to be prepared with the means.

>A crowded university campus, people running in terror in every direction, and you are going to start firing rounds "in the general direction of a shooter" at the very least?

You misunderstand.  I observe that the reason we don't see much gunplay from people who haven't already made up their minds to kill someone is because of our cultured inhibition against killing.  That, plus any number of stress factors, might throw off the aim of people who elect to shoot back.  Suppressing fire is still better than nothing.

>It's ideas like that that make me glad that the "good guys" - yes, when they show up - at least have the training to deal with these sorts of situations.

Some people are sheep by nature, and some are not.

>What alarmist predictions are these? it's ironic that you should point out "The Real World" - what kind of movie are you living in? 

Pardon me for mistaking you for someone who might have even a casual acquaintance with developments in various US states over the past few years, such as the changes to Florida self-defence laws.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2007)

>Many factors are involved and not all incidents can end in a satisfactory manner simply by force of arms.

That's true, but irrelevant.  Perfection is not a requirement.  The idea is to reduce some of the body count, not all of it.  Only a very foolish person would expect the latter, or raise incompleteness as an objection to doing anything at all.


----------



## NL_engineer (24 Apr 2007)

nULL said:
			
		

> Ok, an event that comes to mind is the North Hollywood bank-robbery shootout, an event where none of the hostages offered resistance, and as a result, none were killed. I wonder how such a scenario would have played out had they done something other than "plead for their lives."
> 
> Or...is your solution only good for mass murderers, and not other types of desperate criminal...? What about a guy who robs a convenience store with a weapon, not intending to _murder_ anyone, when he is suddenly confronted by an armed customer? Wouldn't you agree that the situation has become more deadly for _everyone_ involved?



1. The robbers in North Hollywood were equipped with AK's, a s&*^ load of ammo, and body armor.  Even if there were armed costumers in the bank, they could see that confronting them would be their death.  Look at the trouble the police had with these guys (having to go to a local gun shop to mack the fire power, etc.).

2. It happens, there are videos of costumers confronting (and sometimes shooting) the criminal; I've seen a number of similar videos  worlds wildest police videos, of off duty cops, or Jo-Blow civy  confronting the robber.

Back on topic, in your examples the intent is different.  In VT the assailant went in with the intent to kill, in your examples, the criminal's intent is to rob the store/bank/etc. we might as well compair apples to oranges.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2007)

And how many times has a North Hollywood bank scenario happen????

This is the minority of events and yes very few CCW holders would take on two heavily armed & armoured bank robbers for insured money.

Most CCW holders deal with small store hold ups, assaults and break in's


----------



## observor 69 (24 Apr 2007)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> [sarcasm] Of course, by "personalities" you mean guns, right?  Because guns kill people, people don't kill people [/sarcasm]
> 
> 
> Very good point.
> ...



Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?
 How would the Emergency Response Team tell the good guys from the bad guys?

Scary


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?
> How would the Emergency Response Team tell the good guys from the bad guys?
> Scary


True, scary, but I imagine that you envision a sort of VTech-ish situation.  OK, so Kim Jung Il goes berserk on campus, say at the UC on the hill.  He runs into a room, screaming that the Film Actors Guild and Alec Baldwin let him down.  He pulls out his gun and begins to fire.  Within moments, he is gunned down.  The ERT arrives to find first aid being applied to Kim's victims and plenty of students ready to give statements.

Yes, very scary indeed.


(PS: The bad guys are all dead and/or dying from gunshot wounds.  The good guys are standing around, complying to the ERT orders, perhaps with smoking guns lying on the ground next to them)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?
> How would the Emergency Response Team tell the good guys from the bad guys?
> 
> Scary



Almost as scary as letting Army guys carry guns, when they should be handing out candy to kids on UN missions, right? Both this statements and yours come from the same mindset. Right now there are students and staff carrying concealed firearms on various campuses and school in the US, you never hear about it, because nothing  happens. There are at least 3 incidents in the US where school shootings were interupted by staff or students armed with legal firearms, you rarely hear about it because the facts don't fit the MSM's and F.A.G.'s  opinion on the matter.


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Almost as scary as letting Army guys carry guns, when they should be handing out candy to kids on UN missions, right? Both this statements and yours come from the same mindset. Right now there are students and staff carrying concealed firearms on various campuses and school in the US, you never hear about it, because nothing  happens. There are at least 3 incidents in the US where school shootings were interupted by staff or students armed with legal firearms, you rarely hear about it because the facts don't fit the MSM's and F.A.G.'s  opinion on the matter.



Yup and the most notable one being two "students".  One was a serving police officer with the local sheriff's department.  The other was a former police officer from north carolina who used to be a marine.  These were not your average citizen defending themselves as some pro-gun organisation's would have you believe.   

And I believe the other incident was a one on one confrontation with  a particular teacher (granted him having  a gun saved his life, thus proving that carrying a weapon to defend can save one's life).  maybe those two in the dorm could have stopped cho on the spot, maybe not.

I don't think we can solve this debate with a black and white argument for or against.  Too many factors in this case need to be considered to have knee jerk reactions from both sides of the gun debate


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2007)

Kneejerk????  : I have been advocating self-defense and firearm permitting for years. I can also confirm that my pistol handling training as a civilian is light years ahead of anything I learned about pistols as a soldier. I also have shot with and watched many LEO’s shoot who have dismal training, most don’t even know how their pistol works, some didn’t even know the name of the pistol they carried. Civilian handgun training in the US can equal anything given by either the forces or police, granted not all goes to those levels, but any law abiding gun owner that shoots once a month is likely on par with the majority of LEO, the only advantage the LEO’s sometimes get is more force on force training and encounters. Yes I do also know some LEO's who are incrediable gun handlers also. 

The only way to prevent mass murders like this is fast and decisive action on the spot. Either you make all the schools post armed guards in every major building or you allow lawful CCW. As the former will cost billions, you are left with the latter. Any of the concerns brought by the anti’s can be dealt with by asking the CCW permits holders to take some extra training, which could be done through the campuses. But the reason they won’t go down this path is not for practical reasons. The gun ban on the campus was purely for ideologue reasons and is fatally flawed. 

Lawful firearm ownership and CCW works and gives an added tool to prevent nutcases such as these murderers. Gun control is pretty much a dead issue in the US and for good reason.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Apr 2007)

I despise guns.........but Colin is 100% correct in my gun-hating opinion.


----------



## observor 69 (24 Apr 2007)

OK let's agree this is a grey topic. I have owned guns for years, rifles that is. I like weapons as objects of interest, how they are designed, mechanical methods to improve performance etc. My first years in the military were as a gun plumber.
But I also spent four years in Houston, Texas. Now that was scary. Man you had to see it to believe it. Homes armed to the teeth to protect the "homestead."  Kids blowing their playmates away cause Daddy hide his loaded gun under the mattress.
Yes weapons handling training ala military or civy is great, but it was pretty thin on the ground in Texas.
The one case that still makes me smile is the lady on TV who said she " just had a little gun that fit in her purse." 
Trouble imagining that stopping a bad guy. I remember one cop told me he considered our 9 mill a waste of time, get a 45.


----------



## Remius (24 Apr 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Kneejerk????  : I have been advocating self-defense and firearm permitting for years.



Sorry Colin, my comment about kneejerk reactions wasn't so much aimed at you as it is aimed at the overall debate and the media.  Both sides are using this incident to further their own agendas about gun control.  Nothing wrong with that but I just think this incident has more facets to it than just plain gun arguments (for or against).  Look what's happening here and abroad, people are comparing what happens in the US to here, there etc etc.  People want to ban handguns outright in the US others want to arm the population.  I think we need to sit back take a deep breath and examine the incident itself and everything that affected it.  I think that a determined suicidal psycho is hard stop on location.  I'm not so sure there is "the" solution for it.

Nothing against your pistol training (you are probably still the exception to the general rule).  While allowing the population to carry concealed weapons for self defense might  be "a" solution it still leaves security to the average person.  If someone chooses not to carry a weapon and goes to class, how do we know who has a weapon or not.  Cho could have walked into a class full of non armed students or shot the armed one first leaving the others to their fate.  Ypur option of armed security and presence seems a better option as a more pro-active method.  You can still allow concealed weapons but professional security should be in place, trained to react (active shooter training comes to mind).

Also though, as someone mentioned our cultural restrictions need to be addressed.  We don't show our youth or the average person how to take initiative, how to act.  We see too many sheep, when something bad happens people don't want to act, they hope someone else will do it.  That mindset needs to change as well.  So you can allow someone to carry a weapon, but until the overall mentality changes to a more take action kind of midframe, more of these incidents will occur.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2007)

Talking to some guys on a US CCW forum, there is a possibility that 3 of the victims had their CCW license. If this the case (and I can’t confirm it yet) then the poop will really hit the fan for the campus and they will likely be sued by the families and you can bet that a lot of BS will be flung by the administration to cover their own goofs.

Legally you are the only person responsible for your own safety. Both the courts in Canada and the US have made it clear that the Police and the state have no legal obligation to protect you from this type of harm, unless they specifically tell you they will. (If they promise to guard your house and fail to provide security and something happens, then they can be sued) The difference in the US and Canada is that they US allows people the tools to protect themselves and this right is protected by the Constitution. In Canada we are allowed the right of self defense but the Government actively blocks the ability to do so, despite the fact that Concealed carry is allowed in Canada (for Judges, Politicians & criminals turned informers) 
ATC level one- For people working in remote areas where a long gun is not practical, must not be concealed.
ATC Level Two- Security guards on armoured cars (funny how insured money is more important)
ATC level three- Concealed carry by authorized individuals who are in imminent danger (Of course if you live long enough to see the process through, likely they will decide you really don’t need it!) They are very cagey on these, even refusing to release the number issued or their existence, despite being clearly defined in the Firearms Act.

It would be very easy to expand the CCW here, the laws exist and the requirements laid out. People used to be able to carry openly in Rural areas and hunt with handguns. Both of those rights here have been whittled away. I have lived and breathed gun laws for the last 29 years, they suck at what they are supposed to do and where brought about by people with a social agenda (which also included neutering the Forces) so you will forgive me when I won’t accept anymore compromises or grey areas. The firearm community went down the reasonable route once before and got screwed, last election we barely missed getting totally F****d, never again will we be reasonable, because we learned that our opponents intend to go for the kill. 

Cheers


----------



## NL_engineer (24 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?
> How would the Emergency Response Team tell the good guys from the bad guys?
> 
> Scary



They would More the likely obey the orders of the ERT; IE "with your left/right hand lay the gun down, put your hands on your head, and walk backwords to my voice"

After statements, video, etc. student X will released


----------



## TCBF (25 Apr 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yup and the most notable one being two "students".  One was a serving police officer with the local sheriff's department.  The other was a former police officer from north carolina who used to be a marine.  These were not your average citizen defending themselves as some pro-gun organisation's would have you believe.



- But they ARE normal citizens.  Just like us.  Just think of the amount (1,000,000+) "ex-military" in Canada 's(pop 14,000,000 after WW2) population in 1946.  Even today, many are ex cadets, ex-LE community, ex 1970s SSEP, ex-hunter ed instructors etc.  That's what CCW does.  It empowers all of the 'Ex's'(among others)  to project the power of the citizenry.

"We are the police and the police are us."


----------



## redleafjumper (25 Apr 2007)

+1 TCBF for raising Peel's principle #7, it really is the point of CCW.  Perhaps it might be useful to review Peel's principles of policing:

"Peel's Nine Principles of Policing

1.  The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. 

2.  The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions. 

3.  Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. 

4.  The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. 

5.  Police 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.  Police 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.  Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and 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.  Police must 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.  The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. "

Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the British Police (aka Bobbies or Peelers) in 1822 and his principles were taken from A Short History of the British Police, (London: Oxford University Press, 1948). 


It might also be useful to remember that all citizens have the right and lawful authority to arrest those who they find committing an offence - see section 494 of the Criminal Code of Canada.


----------



## ex-Sup (1 May 2007)

*Teen in custody after school lockdown in Thunder Bay*
Police in Thunder Bay, Ont., took a teenager into custody late Tuesday morning after issuing a public safety warning that led to the *lockdown of all city schools*.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/05/01/tbarrest.html

I know I'm probably de-railing this thread, but given the events of the last few weeks...
This is the first time I've ever been involved in something like this, and to have every school in a town of 115,000 locked down is unbelievable. At first I thought it was a drill, but I followed procedure (lock the door, get the kids to the back of the room). When the lock down went on for more than 20 minutes I realized that this was the real thing. It was interesting having my students in the room for over 3 hours with no breaks; good thing I teach history and have a good stock of AV material (by this point the lockdown had become precautionary). The ironic thing was that were are in the middle of WWII and I was showing the movie Memphis Belle when the lockdown went into effect, complete with gunfire and explosions.  :-\



			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?


How about a bunch of high school kids? I can't envision some of them getting a job.


----------



## TCBF (3 May 2007)

Not EVERYONE would qualify as CCW - so the "all of my students armed!" alarmist thinking is a bit overwrought.

However: Out of 31,000,000 Canadians, about 2,000,000 are licensed holders of about 7,000,000 firearms  (which means about 40% of the guns are registered, more or less).

Now, assume everyone who could pass our regulatory, background and testing regimen went out and bought a PAL, then a .22 rifle, we would have over 20,000,000 registered and licensed firearm owners in Canada - vice 2,000,000.

No requirement for any change of laws or regulations, just people applying to do what they are lawfully allowed to do, then doing what they are lawfully allowed to do.

How would that affect the debate, if at all?


----------



## FascistLibertarian (4 May 2007)

would not most of them have rifles stored in their cars locked up?
Just saying, that would not do much good if someone came into a school with handguns.
I could be way off base here or missing the point......


----------



## Foxhound (4 May 2007)

Last year, in September, I was debating the school shooting issue with some co-workers and I brought up the notion that L-Col. Dave Grossman expressed in the preface to his excellent book, “On Killing.”  I reproduce that section here below:

“They [productive citizens – “sheep”] do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial.”

I was challenged by the person I was speaking with to prove that such was the case in Canada, because as everybody knows, this kind of stuff only happens south of the border.  So I looked it up online.  My source is Stats Can. and the figures are for 2001.

Fires in schools 2001:  420
Injuries:  19
Deaths:  0

Crime in schools 2001:
Homicide:  2
Sexual assault:  475
Assault:  6075
Kidnapping/Hostage taking:  21
Abduction:  17
Robbery:  435
Criminal harassment:  229

So:  victims in school fires 2001 = 19
Victims of school violence 2001 = 7254

FWIW


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> would not most of them have rifles stored in their cars locked up?



Of course they would. Carpenters lock their tools in the trunk of their cars when they are not using them, bankers put away their laptops, bakers turn off their ovens etc.

The origional point of this thread is that we, as a society need to cast off the passive mind-set that allows people to cower in the corner and become victims, and be prepared to take action on our own to counter bad situations. Naturally, you have a much better chance of taking efffecctive action if you have legal access to the right tools for the job. Perhaps a martial artist "could" have taken on a gun weilding maniac (and the passengers and crew of United 93 showed that action is possible even without special training), but the outcome where people could access firearms (even by running back to the car and getting them as in the first example) was far better, since the responder had the proper tools for the job. (This is like attending a car accident without your first aid kit in your car; how much help can you really provide?)

To me, the real solution is for people to start getting off their asses rather than this sterile debate over firearms.


----------



## kierankyllo (9 Jun 2007)

"All guns are capable of being used in crime. All guns pose a threat to public safety."
-The Supreme Court of Canada, June 15, 2000

In my opinion the above statement is true.  On the other side of the coin, weapons (including guns) have practical uses in maintaining public safety based on the use of controlled and measured escalation of force.  The question therefore becomes how do we determine who is qualified to apply "controlled and measured escalation of force" and who is not?  Which weapons are to be considered most likely to pose a threat to public safety / which weapons are best qualified to enforce public safety.  

I would argue that concealable weapons (i.e. handguns) are both most likely to pose a threat to public safety and are highly suitable for protecting public safety (assault weapons are the next step up on the escalation of force ladder, a role almost exclusively filled by military as opposed to civilian public servants).  Therefore, concealable weapons should only carried by those who have been deemed qualified to apply the use of controlled and measured escalation of force with the goal of public safety held paramount at all times.  This has traditionally been the role of law enforcement, security, and other civilian public servants.

Furthermore, concealment has not been adopted Canada by our public servants, I would argue because the display of the weapon serves as a constant reminder to any would be criminals of where the escalation of force ultimately ends.  Also, it makes it easy to distinguish “bad guys” from “good guys”.  Anyone with a gun who doesn’t have a uniform on (or displayed credentials) is a bad guy, easy threat identification and i would guess, a reduction in “friendly fire” an advantage to the public servant.

Although there may be a need for armed and identifiable campus security on our university campuses, the events at Virginia tech do not (in my opinion) serve as strong enough evidence in support of an armed population, and certainly not in favor of concealed weapons in the hands of private citizens.  It is not a matter of “rights” to bear arms but a matter of public safety and maintaining the systems that we have in place to ensure public safety.  There are reasons why the general public are not allowed to carry handguns and we should respect the rule of law and as Canadians yield the responsibility to those identifiable individuals who have been trained in public safety and the application of measured and controlled escalation of force.  It may be that we require more of these individuals and it may be that we need to arm and train those who occupy public safety roles who are not currently armed but arming the general public is not a solution to gun crime in Canada.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2007)

kierankyllo said:
			
		

> "All guns steak knives are capable of being used in crime. All guns steak knives pose a threat to public safety."
> -The Supreme Court of Canada, June 15, 2000



The statement is 100% true, but also completely illogical. Would you support seizing every steak knife in Canada on those grounds? A gun, a steak knife or anything else is an inert object or mechanism. What matters is _intent_. Consider again the initial article on page one of this thread. In each instance there are multiple people with firearms, one who's intent is random murder and one or more who use their firearms to subdue the attacker. In each case only *one* person carrying firearms is a danger to the public.

Going up the scale, the 9/11 hijackers used Boeing jetliners as cruise missiles. In flight United 93, the passengers took action with bare hands and whatever they could get their hands on and prevented the attackers from carrying out their intent. 

The entire point is that people with intent to kill will find a way to do it, using guns, knives, poison, driving a car into a crowd of people, setting fire to a building etc. Only people willing to take action can stop this, and people who have the appropriate tools will (generally) be more successful than those who do not.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2008)

What a surprise:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/11/on_stopping_sch.php



> *On stopping schoolground killers*
> Posted by David Hardy · 17 November 2008 06:29 PM
> 
> An interesting piece on changes to police tactics. The traditional response was bring up the SWAT team, plan it out carefully, then go in. As the matter was better understood, this switched to whoever gets there first goes in immediately -- seconds passing means people dying. To my mind, this is a powerful argument for allowing teachers to be armed. The article ends:
> ...


----------



## twistedcables (21 Nov 2008)

And the role of video games?  A kid who is already set apart from the rest due to either mental imbalance or just plain unable to fit in - could easily see his world through the lens of the video game controllers that he lives in.

We are going to see many more incidents like this - just you watch.  Unfortunately, because weapons are so readily available without proper scrutiny, the result is a series just waiting to occur.  I AGREE that specially trained people SHOULD be able to carry concealed in public but it is a VERY tricky subject.  Not anytime soon here that is for sure!


----------



## redleafjumper (22 Nov 2008)

Any firearm is concealable - the debate about concealing firearms is a red hearing intended to distract from the utility of small, convenient firearms that could be used for protection.
I remember having the discussion once when golfing with a typical anti-handgun twit who blathered on about how handguns were bad because they could be concealed.  I asked him what was in my golf bag, and he of course replied "golf clubs?"  As the bag was zipped up his answer was uncertain and I responded "Is it possible that I have a scoped high powered rifle and 60 rounds of ammunition for it in that golf bag?"  The answer was of course and the question is what would be more dangerous?  The answer is that it depends on the person and not the firearm.

Cheers,

Redleafjumper


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Nov 2008)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Any firearm is concealable - the debate about concealing firearms is a red hearing intended to distract from the utility of small, convenient firearms that could be used for protection.
> I remember having the discussion once when golfing with a typical anti-handgun twit who blathered on about how handguns were bad because they could be concealed.  I asked him what was in my golf bag, and he of course replied "golf clubs?"  As the bag was zipped up his answer was uncertain and I responded "Is it possible that I have a scoped high powered rifle and 60 rounds of ammunition for it in that golf bag?"  The answer was of course and the question is what would be more dangerous?  The answer is that it depends on the person and not the firearm.
> 
> Cheers,
> ...



Good one RLJ. I trust you are well these days. 

I am sure even a gold club has been used as a weapon, and is responsible for many deaths from time to time. So perhaps you had a concealable weapon(s) in the first place. I would almost argue that golf clubs used in anger in the USA kill more people than guns Canada wide annually.

Those anti-gun types always seem to have the answers don't they.

Warm regards,

Wes


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2008)

I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.

I know a guy from Texas (how cliche haha) that always tells this story about a guy going nuts in a bar. He ends up killing I think 7 people, most of whom had firearms in their vehicles but weren't allowed to have them concealed and on them in the bar... He was all worked up about how 7 people wouldn't have died if they were only allowed to carry their firearms on them.

Personally, I'll take my chances on the streets without a gun anyday, knowing that no one else has a gun, or maybe 1 person out of 1000 or more has one, then if everybody, including myself has one.... I think I'd also rather those bullets that killed 7 people coming from one gun and one direction and one person, then coming from everybody in the funkin bar's gun from all directions cause everybody panicks to protect themselves.. Call me crazy, but I don't play at casinos cause I don't like the odds.

Any time guns are made more easily accessible in any way, then that's going to lead to more gun crime. Any time there's something that makes it harder for your average joe to get his hands on a gun, then that's going to lead to less gun crime. I know that's probably hard for some people on here to accept, since most of you are trained, and trained well, with a firearm, but that's your profession, and you're a minority in the civilian world. I'll trust you with a weapon, and wouldn't mind if CF personnel were permitted to carry a weapon, or an RCMP be permitted to carry his weapon on him even when he's off-duty, and stuff like that. But I don't see how you can justify making people take a few bs courses (like the PAL.... I challenged that thing without EVER having shot a centre-fire... I should NOT have been able to pass that exam) and pass a medical exam and be able to conceal a weapon.


----------



## observor 69 (22 Nov 2008)

balz I spent some time in Texas, a country unto it's own, and no I didn't like the thought of any idot walking around packin'.

When they have to put up special signs telling people they can't bring their gun into church then you gotta shake your head.

I remember one lady said she just carried a small gun cause it was pretty.

The NRA one of the most powerful lobby groups in the USA.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Nov 2008)

You guys need to read the crime stats in the US. In Washington DC where handguns are basically banned, you are 4.9 times more likely to be a Homicide victim than in Texas. The Stats from Florida indicate that only 1.7% of CCW permit holders have been charged with weapon related offenses. The guys with the CCW permits are the least of your worries.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.



Then I can justify putting you on ignore, since there are many pages of facts and statistics in the thread that refute your rather simple "analysis" based on *one* story.

Read, then post.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Nov 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You guys need to read the crime stats in the US. In Washington DC where handguns are basically banned, you are 4.9 times more likely to be a Homicide victim than in Texas. The Stats from Florida indicate that only 1.7% of CCW permit holders have been charged with weapon related offenses. The guys with the CCW permits are the least of your worries.



There you go again, letting facts get in the way.


----------



## Loachman (22 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.



Then perhaps you should read through it. The justification that you lack is called education. Until you actually gain some knowledge, said stated opinion is merely an uninformed one, and therefore valueless.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I know a guy from Texas (how cliche haha) that always tells this story about a guy going nuts in a bar. He ends up killing I think 7 people, most of whom had firearms in their vehicles but weren't allowed to have them concealed and on them in the bar... He was all worked up about how 7 people wouldn't have died if they were only allowed to carry their firearms on them.



Read the articles about the Killeen Massacre - twenty-four dead - in these articles, and then watch the video in the last link.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1001214.html

http://www.search.com/reference/George_Hennard

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1446

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v37/ai_12634747

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog-sl



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Personally, I'll take my chances on the streets without a gun anyday,



And this generally works just fine.

But would you take your chances living in a house with no smoke detectors or fire extinguishers?

Would you risk not wearing seatbelts while driving?

Would you be willing to go through life with no insurance?

The vast majority of people would get through life perfectly well without taking such precautions, but they would be considered unwise and foolish by most people.

Similarly, the risk of violent crime is remote, especially if one is not a member of a high-risk group, such as drug-dealing, visible-minority, gang members, but it would be prudent to be prepared just in case, would it not?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> knowing that no one else has a gun, or maybe 1 person out of 1000 or more has one,



But you don't, can't, know that. You cannot tell who is or is not carrying concealed, or what their intent is.

Chances are that you come in close proximity to quite a few more than you realize, and, in Canada, few of those would be the law-abiding variety.

And that is a fact. There are more criminals carrying concealed here than law-abiding citizens. Are you really happy with that situation? Really?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I think I'd also rather those bullets that killed 7 people coming from one gun and one direction and one person,



Well, it wasn't seven, it was twenty-four.

And I'd rather that the killer was stopped by a bullet or bullets going in the opposite direction before he killed more than two or three people.

Wouldn't you? Really?

Or do you think that it's better that twenty-four die at the hands of a killer than one killer dies at the hands of his intended victims?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> then coming from everybody in the funkin bar's gun from all directions cause everybody panicks to protect themselves..



Most will panic, as few people are mentally prepared for such situations.

And very few present will be legally carrying concealed.

In those jurisdictions in the US - the vast majority of the states - where concealed carry is permitted, only about 2% to 3% of the eligible populace takes the time and effort to acquire a licence to do so, and not every one of them will carry all of the time, either.

One would expect, then, only two or three out of a crowd of a hundred at best to be actually returning fire. Most people will drop to the ground and seek cover, paralyzed with fear as the killer walks among them, shooting at will as they do nothing. This leaves him the sole upright target in the place, relatively easy to hit while at the same time making it most likely that any rounds that miss him pass well over his intended victims.

And even if some of them are struck by defenders' bullets, the death count is still going to be much, much lower than it would be if he were unopposed.

And isn't that a good thing?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Call me crazy,



I would not do that, as I have insufficient evidence upon which to base such an assessment. I have more than enough, however, to assess you as ignorant and illogical.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> but I don't play at casinos cause I don't like the odds.



I don't either, and I carry plenty of insurance, have numerous smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in my house, and always wear a seatbelt and whatever other protective equipment is advisable for whatever I am doing. And, were it lawful in Canada, I would carry concealed as well, for precisely the same reason.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Any time guns are made more easily accessible in any way, then that's going to lead to more gun crime.



Completely wrong.

It is only true when criminals have easier access than law-abiding citizens, which is the case in Canada. Most murderers already have criminal records, usually including convictions for numerous violent crimes often already including murder, and a high percentage of their victims also have criminal convictions. As gun control laws have no effect on criminals (who ignore all laws as a matter of course anyway, which is what makes them criminals), criminal access to firearms will always remain unimpeded. All that they do is raise the ratio of firearm-armed thug to law-abiding citizen.

And you _*like*_ that?

Easier access by law-abiding citizens will not increase gun or any other crime, as those people, by definition, do not commit crimes in the first place. They are not out beating people senseless with baseball bats, stabbing them with kitchen knives, boiling up crystal meth in their garages, or knocking over little old ladies on street corners and stealing their purses.

"Gun crime" is a red-herring term cooked up by the anti-gun lobby, who cannot produce any evidence that their precious laws save any lives at all. They can, occasionally, find some slim evidence of a reduction in "gun deaths", usually within the range of statistical error, but they have to ignore and conceal the fact that violent crime and suicide are both means independent. No matter how they attempt to portray the criminal/suicide chain of thought and act as "I have a gun, therefore I shall kill someone/myself", it just isn't so. The absence of a firearm, even if such would have been the murderer/suicide's implement of first choice, does not end the process - it just causes something else to be used instead.

Suicide by firearm has decreased in Canada, but other means are substituted. The Coalition for Gun Control can crow all that they want about reducing "gun deaths", but the overall suicide rate has remained unchanged, and the same number of people are dead. We have blown $2 billion on the Lieberals' Firearms Programme, and all that we have done is increase the sale of rope.

To believe that "gun control" works, one has to ignore all of the stabbing, beating, strangulation, poisoning, and "other means" deaths. Dead or not, those people just do not count.

And by the way, for all of its guns, the US has a lower overall suicide rate than Canada.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Any time there's something that makes it harder for your average joe to get his hands on a gun, then that's going to lead to less gun crime.



You could not be more wrong. It will have - as has been proven in various jurisdictions - exactly the opposite effect.

"Average Joe" is not pimping teenage girls that he's hooked on crack or blowing away rival gang members. Denying him access to firearms is not going to reduce the crimes that he is not committing.

Allowing criminals better armament than "Average Joe", however, is a recipe for disaster, and I offer Washinton DC, Chicago, and a number of other major US cities as prime examples. They have extremely restrictive firearms laws, yet their murder rates are far higher than the US national murder rate. Their surrounding jurisdictions, with far more "lax" (which US firearms laws really aren't) restrictions, enjoy far lower murder and other violent crime rates.

The UK (my homeland) made it "harder for your average joe to get his hands on a gun" - almost impossible, in fact - and both gun crime and every other form of violent crime have soared.

One is far more likely to be beaten, robbed, or raped in Jolly Olde England these days than in the Wild West US.

The US murder rate is higher, but it is dropping while that of the UK is increasing.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I know that's probably hard for some people on here to accept, since most of you are trained, and trained well, with a firearm, but that's your profession, and you're a minority in the civilian world. I'll trust you with a weapon, and wouldn't mind if CF personnel were permitted to carry a weapon, or an RCMP be permitted to carry his weapon on him even when he's off-duty, and stuff like that. But I don't see how you can justify making people take a few bs courses (like the PAL.... I challenged that thing without EVER having shot a centre-fire... I should NOT have been able to pass that exam) and pass a medical exam and be able to conceal a weapon.



And who said that a PAL would be the standard for concealed carry?

The NFA proposed that the standard would be the RCMP firearms training programme.

If it's good enough for the RCMP, then it's good enough for your "Joe Average".

If it's not, then it's inadequate for the RCMP too.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Personally, I'll take my chances on the streets without a gun anyday, knowing that no one else has a gun, or maybe 1 person out of 1000 or more has one, then if everybody, including myself has one....



So your desire to "feel" safe trumps my right to carry a firearm on the basis that I may or may not use it to commit a crime?  The logic of your statement is absurd - we could extend it to automobiles, as one is more likely to be killed by a car than a gun.



> Any time guns are made more easily accessible in any way, then that's going to lead to more gun crime. Any time there's something that makes it harder for your average joe to get his hands on a gun, then that's going to lead to less gun crime.



What is important?  The gun or the crime?  If a child is murdered in the street, what is more important, the fact that the child was a victim of a homicide or the fact that a gun was used to commit the offence?  Is a crime any less of a crime if it is not committed by a firearm.  Would that crime have been committed without a firearm?  Probably - we see it everyday in Canada.  "Gun Crime" is just term used to make an illogical, emotive political statement out of the misfortune of another.


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> But would you take your chances living in a house with no smoke detectors or fire extinguishers?
> 
> Would you risk not wearing seatbelts while driving?
> 
> ...



You're calling me ILLOGICAL and yet you're comparing a smoke detector to a firearm?  The last time I checked, none of those things were meant to be lethal weapons, and very efficient lethal weapons at that. The only way a smoke detector ever killed anybody was if the batteries were dead...

I don't know why suicide is getting brought into this. You're right, guns have no effect on suicide. If someone wants to do themselves in, they could use almost anything. But what about MASS MURDER, since that's what this topic is about.... Would you be just as effecient at killing 15-20 people with a rope as you would be with an assault rifle? or a hand gun? 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> So your desire to "feel" safe trumps my right to carry a firearm on the basis that I may or may not use it to commit a crime?



Does Canada's (not sure of your nationality but this is "Canadian Politics") constitution outline a "right" to bear arms? I just read it, and can't find anything of the sort. Anyway, it's not about my desire to feel safe, but if you or anybody else carrying a gun has the potential to endanger myself or anybody else, then the Charter of Right's and Freedoms is made to protect US against THEM and not the other way around.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> What is important?  The gun or the crime?  If a child is murdered in the street, what is more important, the fact that the child was a victim of a homicide or the fact that a gun was used to commit the offence?  Is a crime any less of a crime if it is not committed by a firearm.  Would that crime have been committed without a firearm?  Probably - we see it everyday in Canada.  "Gun Crime" is just term used to make an illogical, emotive political statement out of the misfortune of another.



No, no it is not any less of a crime... But if someone randomly stabs a baby in the head, a gun probably couldn't have prevented it either. And sure, it would be nice to be able to pop that guy off right there in the middle of the street if he killed your kid, no doubt, but the fact is its too late to save your kid. All these "one kill" scenarios are null and void... If I have a gun, I'm not any safer if I'm the specific target. If someone has a knife, and they want to kill me and me only, then the gun isn't going to save me. I'll be bleeding out of 5 or 6 stab wounds in my back long before I get a grasp on my gun. This whole firearm stuff is only related to mass murders, since that's what guns allow for over knives and bats and stuff.

Would a firearm, in the hands of a properly trained individual such as many of you on here, being on hand when somebody goes postal be able to neutralize them and save a few lives? Yes, absolutely.

Would making more firearms available and more accessible to the general population for these reasons, probably cause more of these incidents that require some...intervention? In my opinion, yes.




Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it. I've seen the facts and stats for both sides, I've heard the arguments for both sides and IMO making guns available to the general public is not going to make anybody any safer. In the hands of our off-garrison personnel, off-duty RCMP, absolutely it would make the general public safer.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it. .



Maybe I'm just stupid but when I'm "sick" of something I don't go aimlessly butting in,......maybe thats just me though.


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm just stupid but when I'm "sick" of something I don't go aimlessly butting in,......maybe thats just me though.



For f**k sakes... I stated my opinion on the matter after many other thorough discussions on the topic, another 7 pages seemed harmless compared to the probably 30-40 I've already been through plus many articles I'm running out of places to store them. It's only "aimless" to you because you disagree with my opinion.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Nov 2008)

Hmm, I HATE guns.....what was that again?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it. I've seen the facts and stats for both sides, I've heard the arguments for both sides and IMO making guns available to the general public is not going to make anybody any safer. In the hands of our off-garrison personnel, off-duty RCMP, absolutely it would make the general public safer.



As this seems to be a common complaint with your posts, your being too lazy to read the topic from the beginning, we should just ignore your outbursts.  You burst into a discussion, as Bruce pointed out, and bring up points that have already been discussed.  The discussion has moved on and you only create disruption and chaos.  

Let this be a WARNING.  Your lack of respect for this forum, in not reading the whole topic, and disruptive behavior adds nothing to the forums.  If you insist on continuing along with this lazy behavior, we will gladly allow you the freedom to be even more lazy and ban you from posting.

George
Staff


----------



## aesop081 (22 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> but if you or anybody else carrying a gun has the potential to endanger myself or anybody else, then the Charter of Right's and Freedoms is made to protect US against THEM and not the other way around.



You driving a car has the potential of endangering myself or anyone else around.


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You driving a car has the potential of endangering myself or anyone else around.



 : You're right. Now that you mention it, we shouldn't allow scissors in school anymore, or even glue for that matter cause some people are actually stupid enough to eat that stuff.

Forgive me for not being able to take the analogies in this post seriously. I suppose that warrants a warning too.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> : You're right. Now that you mention it, we shouldn't allow scissors in school anymore, or even glue for that matter cause some people are actually stupid enough to eat that stuff.



Roll your eyes at me all you want. You know damned well that your position makes no sense at all. Its people who think like you who are driving what i call"over regulation" in thsi country. Its an undeniable fact, that has already been shown to you, that the statistics on the subject show that regulation has had no effect other than to waste billions of dollars.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> You're calling me ILLOGICAL and yet you're comparing a smoke detector to a firearm?  The last time I checked, none of those things were meant to be lethal weapons, and very efficient lethal weapons at that. The only way a smoke detector ever killed anybody was if the batteries were dead...
> 
> I don't know why suicide is getting brought into this. You're right, guns have no effect on suicide. If someone wants to do themselves in, they could use almost anything. But what about MASS MURDER, since that's what this topic is about.... Would you be just as effecient at killing 15-20 people with a rope as you would be with an assault rifle? or a hand gun?
> 
> ...




Edit for spelling


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2008)

Over regulation? I'm not crying for more regulation. In fact, I'm totally against the registry program. I don't think we have much of a gun problem, and so I'm arguing against slackening them. They're fine as they are, there's no need to start handing out guns to citizes so that they feel safe. EDIT: This would answer your concern there too Recce. I'm not lobbying to have all your household firearms stripped from you and melted down into spoons and forks.

George: I just read the last 1/3rd of my posts, and I fail to see where having to read has been a "common complaint." But hey, I'll take you're word for it.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Nov 2008)

Crikey, for somebody that is fed up with this debate you sure seem to be taking up a lot of bandwidth.


----------



## ballz (22 Nov 2008)

Sigh... I'll stop haha... Once you get the wheels rolling it's hard to put on the brakes. It's a colorful issue, what can I say.


----------



## Loachman (23 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> You're calling me ILLOGICAL and yet you're comparing a smoke detector to a firearm?  The last time I checked, none of those things were meant to be lethal weapons, and very efficient lethal weapons at that. The only way a smoke detector ever killed anybody was if the batteries were dead...



They are all safety implements, specific to the circumstances for which they were designed.

A firearms would be valueless in a housefire, however, just as a fire extinguisher would be valueless in a self-defence situation.

If you have the misfortune to be attacked, the most effective means of assuring that you come through alive and unscathed is to have and use a firearm.

"Use" does not necessarily mean fire, however. In most self-defence situations, simply displaying a firearm is enough to discourage an attacker and send them looking for easier prey - like Lieberal and NDP supporters.

The fact is that firearms are merely tools. Like anything, they can be misused and abused for criminal purposes, but in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens be they police, military, or civilians, they can be lifesavers.

And that is why the police carry them.

Police are not imbued with magical powers, however - and neither are we in the Armed forces - so I do not see why you differentiate between these two groups and ordinary citizens screened and trained to a suitable standard, the one that I suggested being the RCMP fireaarms training programme. Police, military, and civilians are all bound by the same laws. Trained to the same standard, they are all equally effective and safe in a defensive situation. The difference is that there are very few police and military around, even if we were permitted to carry concealed, and we are not responsible for your safety, morally or legally.

The only people guaranteed to be present during a criminal attack are the predator and prey, the thug and you. The criminal will have armed himself as he wishes. You are prevented by law. Who is likely to win? If you feel comfortable in such a situation, fine. Your choice. Others do not.

Do you think that there is something wrong with civilians, ttrained to the RCMP standard, being granted the means to exercise their "right to life, liberty and security of the person"?

If so, what exactly is it, and why?

Again, I point out that the very citizens that you seem to fear are already in possession of far more firearms than all of the police and military personnel in this country, yet they commit virtually no crime despite having the means to do so. There is no bar to them taking their firearms out of their houses for any reason, except their tendency to follow the law, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Granting them permits to carry concealed after appropriate training - such as the RCMP standard - is not going to make them more dangerous, is it?

Credible research in the US proves this: every state in the US that has adopted "shall-issue" concealed carry laws has seen significant drops in all categories of violent crime. The deterrent value of a relatively small number of armed citizens is tremendous, as criminals can never know who is carrying and who is not. They do not like that uncertainty. Concealed-carry permit holders shoot more criminals per capita than do the police, as they are present during crimes while police are not and they generally spend far more time on the range, and they shoot far fewer innocent bystanders per capita than do the police, because they have more time to assess a situation and determine who an assailant is, and also because they spend far more time on the range. They are also less likely to be arrested for and convicted of crimes than police are, as they are unscrupulously law-abiding. In most states, any infraction, even non-firearms-related ones, will cost them their permit.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I don't know why suicide is getting brought into this.



Because it is another side of the same coin.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> You're right, guns have no effect on suicide.



Thank-you.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> If someone wants to do themselves in, they could use almost anything.



And by extension, should they wish to do somebody else in, they could use almost anything else as well.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> But what about MASS MURDER, since that's what this topic is about....



Car driven into a crowd and high speed. Home-made explosives (Oaklahoma City). Fire (Bluebird cafe in Montreal, Canada's worst mass murder committed purely on Canadian soil)...

Society has developed such an unreasonable and unhealthy fear of firearms over other equally effective means of mass murder that the mental defectives responsible overwhelmingly choose firearms as they know that they will garner more headlines and notoriety.

And mass-murder is merely a variation on a theme.

Serial killers are just as dangerous.

But back to the mass-variety...

Gamil Gharbi (Marc Lepine's real name) could just as easily have hidden in a women's washroom and bashed in heads as they entered one or two at a time.

A significant fact in mass-murder incidents is that the killers specifically select locations where they know that large numbers of defenceless victims will be gathered: schools (US-federally mandated "gun-free" - except for the murderer's of course - zones), US Postal facilities ("gun-free" zones), and malls and other businesses in the US displaying "gun-free" zone signs. Areas with high rates of gun possession are relatively immune - police stations, gun shows and gun shops, ranges etcetera. Mass murderers tend to kill themselves when confronted by armed resistance, especially when wounded. Immediate armed response is the only means of limiting casualties in a mass-murder incident where the killer is shooting.

In the absence of such a a response, large numbers of casualties are guaranteed. The only deciding factor in that number is the killer himself. We have been most fortunate that all such murderers who have not been stopped by armed resistance have stopped shooting and killed themselves before they ran out of ammunition or we'd have seen cases with hundreds dead. Perhaps their trigger fingers grew tired. We'll never know, but sooner or later one is going to be more persistent.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Does Canada's (not sure of your nationality but this is "Canadian Politics") constitution outline a "right" to bear arms? I just read it, and can't find anything of the sort.



That is a defect in the Charter.

It does not eliminate that right either, though. It is just too vague and open to interpretation.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> but if you or anybody else carrying a gun has the potential to endanger myself or anybody else, then the Charter of Right's and Freedoms is made to protect US against THEM and not the other way around.



It does not do that.

Neither do laws which prohibit rape, robbery, and murder.

The only method of protecting "US" against "THEM" - and by "THEM", I mean the real threat, you know, the ones who ignore prohibitions against rape, robbery, and murder as well as idiotic "gun control" laws - is by being at least as well armed and constantly aware of one's surroundings. Expecting the "law" to protect you is naive and unrealistic.

In any case, the Charter is there to limit government interference in the rights of citizens. You might want to study it a bit further before misusing it.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> No, no it is not any less of a crime... But if someone randomly stabs a baby in the head, a gun probably couldn't have prevented it either.



Firstly, guns themselves do not protect. Humans with guns protect. But, as you say, there are no guarantees - just as there are no guarantees that fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, and sprinklers will guarantee that nobody's house will not burn down or that they will not die in such a fire. Those other safety devices will, however, reduce the likelihood of such things happening, and reduce the overall losses.

In a mass-murder situation, immediate armed response is the ONLY way of limiting casualties.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> And sure, it would be nice to be able to pop that guy off right there in the middle of the street if he killed your kid, no doubt,



It would be highly illegal. You have the lawful authority to use up to deadly force to protect yourself and others, and this is clearly defined, but not to use it in revenge. If the act is in progress, you may use it; once it's over, you may not. You may arrest the attacker, and you may use force to do so, and again this is clearly defined.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> All these "one kill" scenarios are null and void...



The evidence is against you. Thousands of people successfully defend themselves against criminal attack annually across North America, usually without firing a shot (which is why you never hearing about these cases: "Rapist Ran Away" is less of an attractive headline for newspapers as "Woman Raped and Shot; in both cases a firearm is used, but guns get blamed for crime purely because of the second incident).



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> If I have a gun, I'm not any safer if I'm the specific target.



Yes, you are, because of the deterrent value (most criminals like to avoid death and injury as much as anybody) and because of your ability to use it effectively. Again, this does not give a guarantee, but it ups the odds in your favour.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> If someone has a knife, and they want to kill me and me only, then the gun isn't going to save me.



No, it won't - ever. It has no autonomous capability. Your effective use of it, or the deterrent value provided by that, could quite likely however.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I'll be bleeding out of 5 or 6 stab wounds in my back long before I get a grasp on my gun.



Presuming, of course, that you are attacked from behind and this attack remains undetected until it is too late. Not all atacks conform to that scenario. You are narrowly limiting the nature of such things in a vain attempt to bolster an indefensible position.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> This whole firearm stuff is only related to mass murders, since that's what guns allow for over knives and bats and stuff.



No, it isn't, or else the police would have no justification for carrying firearms given the extremely low statistical probability of their ever being confronted with a mass-murder situation.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Would a firearm, in the hands of a properly trained individual such as many of you on here, being on hand when somebody goes postal be able to neutralize them and save a few lives? Yes, absolutely.



_*Then why are you arguing to limit that capability to react effectively and save lives?*_

You are not only illogical and ignorant of fact, but inconsistent.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Would making more firearms available and more accessible to the general population for these reasons, probably cause more of these incidents that require some...intervention? In my
> opinion, yes.



Your opinion is not based upon fact and evidence, and is therefore of no value.

Such opinion forms no valid reason or justification for public policy.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that



You prefer to operate from a position of ignorance.

Did you view the links that I provided?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I've had the firearms discussion with so many people on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it.



Then why are you arguing about it here?

I am re-evaluating the evidence being presented for a "crazy" assessment.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I've seen the facts and stats for both sides, I've heard the arguments for both sides



Apparently not, or at least not enough, or expended insufficient effort to properly evaluate them.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> IMO making guns available to the general public is not going to make anybody any safer.



They are already available to the general public. There are, based upon reliable estimates, about five million Canadian citizens who own firearms yet do not shoot up schools, malls, and Jane-Finch neighbourhoods, and collectively they own fifteen to twenty million firearms with which they do not shoot up schools, malls, and Jane-Finch neighbourhoods.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> In the hands of our off-garrison personnel, off-duty RCMP, absolutely it would make the general public safer.



Why? What magical powers do we possess?


----------



## DBA (23 Nov 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Your opinion is not based upon fact and evidence, and is therefore of no value.
> 
> Such opinion forms no valid reason or justification for public policy.



In a democracy it sure does. Right or wrong, foolish or wise the opinions of Canadians matter in crafting public policy. Although you dismiss it, "Would making more firearms available and more accessible to the general population for these reasons, probably cause more of these incidents that require some... intervention? In my opinion, yes." is a very commonly held viewpoint. The fear a lot of people feel of firearms due to the efficiency they exhibit in killing is also very real. Some are fearful to the point of being irrational. 

It would be nice if Canadians had the same rights as Americans in regards to firearms but without such constitutional protections gun advocates are left to the mercy of the irrational fears of the majority.


----------



## Foxhound (23 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.



On the very same page that you posted this, I posted actual data from Stats. Can. that I, a simple citizen, found online in a simple half-hour search showing the dichotomy in mindset that exists when it comes to protecting our school children from fires and from violence.

Further, I would add this study from Harvard University, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf.  This study looks at firearm crime and suicide figures worldwide.  I encourage you to read this if you want the facts.  The authors of the study themselves were surprised by the findings.

Some excerpts:

"...two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.  The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then extant studies."

"In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns.  Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.  Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, *far surpassing even the United States*."

"The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly involve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, *but the available data provides no such correlation*."

 * "...if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime." * 

And the conclusion...

"This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources.  Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences.  Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.  To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).  But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.  Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence.  When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] findings, so [are we]. [We] did
not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns,
*but there it is—a negative finding*, to be sure, but a negative
finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where *not* to aim public health resources."

*emphasis my own.


----------



## ballz (23 Nov 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why? What magical powers do we possess?



TRAINING



			
				DBA said:
			
		

> The fear a lot of people feel of firearms due to the efficiency they exhibit in killing is also very real. Some are fearful to the point of being irrational.



Man I am one misunderstood sob... I don't fear firearms. I myself will soon do the PAL restricted course and purchase a handgun. If there's any changes I'd support, technically they'd be the ones that slacken gun control (such as allowing certain "magical" people more leeway and whatnot... that is being more lenient than current policy no?). I just don't support letting it go to the extent of the US, I wouldn't want to go to school where the teachers are carrying guns (there is a district in Texas that has approved this)... at that point I'd start to want my own. And when you want to be carrying around a gun at school "for your own protection," that's a bit of a problem in my opinion.

Now I know I said I would let it go, but this time I hope I can keep that promise. I'm not a God-fearing man but if he is real, he's pissed after all the words I've been muttering. This stuff isn't good for my blood pressure.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Nov 2008)

Frankly, I find it almost impossible to understand what your point is, then.

The availability of firearms for responsible citizens to protect themselves and others seems pretty well established both through positive evidence (i.e. comparative crime statistics from US states that have concealed carry laws vs those that don't) and negative evidence (jurisdictions and nations that restrict firearms access to law abiding citizens [Washington DC and the UK being two extreme examples]). Switzerland, with universal gun ownership, has about the lowest firearms related crime rate anywhere: are you really going to mess around in a place where every male citizen has an assault rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition at home _by law_?

Firearms are inanimate objects and can be used for a multiplicity of purposes; so can swords, golf clubs, chemicals, drugs, cars, steak knives etc. It is the intent of the user that counts (just watch CSI to see the insanely clever ways people use all sorts of inanimate objects to kill people). As always, the issue is not the object but rather the intent of the user.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Nov 2008)

> I wouldn't want to go to school where the teachers are carrying guns (there is a district in Texas that has approved this)... at that point I'd start to want my own. And when you want to be carrying around a gun at school "for your own protection," that's a bit of a problem in my opinion.



But why not?  You yourself admitted that the teacher in questioned would be trained to carry.  So what then is the problem?  Do you also object to Police School Liaison Officers attending educational institutions armed?

Would properly trained and armed teachers not prevent idiots or crazies (who do not care about gun control laws, one iota) from walking through a school with impunity until the cops arrive in (5-8 minutes) shooting the place up?  How many kids can die in 5-8 minutes?

Your argument is riddled with breath-taking illogic.  Despite your protestations to the contrary, you do appear to be afraid of guns- if not the specific  object, then the idea.


----------



## Loachman (23 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> TRAINING



And I discussed that, several times. Apparently, you did not read very well, which seems to be your general custom.

The National Firearms Association's proposed standard for civilian concealed carry in this country is the RCMP firearms training programme, ie, the same training given to RCMP candidates.

Do you believe that that is adequate or not, and why, if not?

Weapons training in the CF, by the way, is completely inadequate as a qualification for self-defence concealed carry.


----------



## Loachman (23 Nov 2008)

DBA said:
			
		

> In a democracy it sure does. Right or wrong, foolish or wise the opinions of Canadians matter in crafting public policy. Although you dismiss it, "Would making more firearms available and more accessible to the general population for these reasons, probably cause more of these incidents that require some... intervention? In my opinion, yes." is a very commonly held viewpoint. The fear a lot of people feel of firearms due to the efficiency they exhibit in killing is also very real. Some are fearful to the point of being irrational.



I stand by my statement of "no valid reason or justification".

I did not say that opinions did not matter in crafting public policy, or that ballz' opinion was not commonly held. Such opinions are indeed commonly held, but that does make them valid or justify bad law.

Laws need to be grounded in fact, which the Canadian firearms legislation clearly is not, which is why it is failing miserably and costing so much.

Bad laws tend to be ignored, which is why over three million firearms owners refused or did not bother to obtain licenses and hundreds of thousands more have not bothered to renew, or register over eight million firearms.

Bad laws also get picked to pieces or destroyed outright by the courts as well. This one has yet to be properly tested, but that is coming.


----------



## ballz (23 Nov 2008)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> But why not?  You yourself admitted that the teacher in questioned would be trained to carry.  So what then is the problem?  Do you also object to Police School Liaison Officers attending educational institutions armed?
> 
> Would properly trained and armed teachers not prevent idiots or crazies (who do not care about gun control laws, one iota) from walking through a school with impunity until the cops arrive in (5-8 minutes) shooting the place up?  How many kids can die in 5-8 minutes?
> 
> Your argument is riddled with breath-taking illogic.  Despite your protestations to the contrary, you do appear to be afraid of guns- if not the specific  object, then the idea.



Properly trained is what's in question... Trained to use a firearm is not trained to be a hero when trouble arises. Most people, whether they have a gun or not, are going to get the hell out of their and save their own ass. That is human nature, so what's the good of them having a gun anyway?

How do you set the standards for properly trained? I don't know, but I think a 1-2 week course that's as easy to pass as CPR is not adequate. An RCMP is trained to deal with a crisis, as is CF personnel (ok Loachman.. you want to get specific about it... maybe only certain trades should be able to carry it? I haven't gone through my courses yet, so I don't know the details... Maybe only the infantry? Maybe the Combat Arms?)

You are absolutely right, a properly trained and armed person in a given scenario could save a lot of lives. Try and find somewhere that I argued that it's better to let the shooter run out of bullets than to shoot him. You won't. That is why at our high school, we had an RCMP officer at our school at all times. He had his own office and everything. Did I feel unsafe with him walking around with his gun? No, not at all. I felt safer.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> And I discussed that, several times. Apparently, you did not read very well, which seems to be your general custom.
> 
> The National Firearms Association's proposed standard for civilian concealed carry in this country is the RCMP firearms training programme, ie, the same training given to RCMP candidates.
> 
> ...



My general custom? Says who? George? Big effin deal, like I said to him, I can't find anymore of these "frequent" complaints that I'm accused of.

Would RCMP training be sufficient? Hell yes... But that's an intense 6 month course with a lot of prior screening... You're making it sound like its a weekend course or something. It wouldn't be very practical to try and put my should-be-retired, going-through-menapause teacher through that course now would it? There's not a whole lot of adequate training that she'd be able to partake...Perhaps it would be safer if she just WASN'T able to have a gun on her then? Yes that sounds about right.



Perhaps now, finally, you'll see where I'm standing... I'm not anti-firearm at all, I'm pro-adequate training, and anti-"arm everybody and let them protect themselves against their own shadow"

Or maybe you still think I'm afraid of guns... Well you can think that if you want, but to me you're all coming across as if you're afraid of your own shadow.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2008)

> Well you can think that if you want, but to me you're all coming across as if you're afraid of your own shadow.



Again, nothing but your own uneducated opinion. Nothing is further from the truth. I won't be one of your sheep. I'll protect me and mine, as I see fit, with the tools I choose because I can, not because you don't like it, or agree with it. And I pray, for the sake of your loved ones, you never have to make that decision. Rolling up in the fetal position waiting for a 911 response normally doesn't end well for the victims.

It's about time another mod locked this. It's going nowhere, a couple of times.


----------



## ballz (23 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And I pray, for the sake of your loved ones, you never have to make that decision. Rolling up in the fetal position waiting for a 911 response normally doesn't end well for the victims.



Yes because that is clearly what I'm all for... For everybody to roll up in the fetal position and just take it.

You're as rediculous as your exaggerations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Yes because that is clearly what I'm all for... For everybody to roll up in the fetal position and just take it.
> 
> You're as rediculous as your exaggerations.



Just trying hard to match your own 

PS - Try the spell check once in a while, will ya?


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Properly trained is what's in question... Trained to use a firearm is not trained to be a hero when trouble arises.



This would be the first I have ever heard of there being some sort of training to be a hero.  I always thought that it came about when a person reacted with extremely extraordinary courage to an extremely extraordinary set of circumstances.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Nov 2008)

And I would point out that Cops, Firefighters and members of the Military receive no such "hero training".  It does not exist.

We are all, however, well trained and familiar with both drills and our various tools of trade.  Which allows first responders and military personnel to (generally) maintain their wits in really bad situations.

CCW training in Canada would not take 6 months like RCMP Depot, because the actual firearms handling/shooting/law associated therein forms only a relatively short part of the course.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Properly trained is what's in question... Trained to use a firearm is not trained to be a hero when trouble arises. Most people, whether they have a gun or not, are going to get the hell out of My general custom? Says who? George? Big effin deal, like I said to him, I can't find anymore of these "frequent" complaints that I'm accused of.



You do know how to make an A_____ of yourself don't you.  



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I can't possibly justify reading 7 pages of this before stating my opinion, no matter how ignorant of me it is to do so.





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Look I didn't read the 7 pages prior for the reason that I've had the firearms discussion with so many people  on so many occassions on another site I'm sick of it. I've seen the facts and stats for both sides, I've heard the arguments for both sides and IMO making guns available to the general public is not going to make anybody any safer. In the hands of our off-garrison personnel, off-duty RCMP, absolutely it would make the general public safer.


 


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I can't say I read all 18 pages of this thread, I can't say I read all of the first page. I pretty much only read the initial post. But, I thought I would point out something about this paragraph:




You can't even read all the way through your own posts:



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> George: I just read the last 1/3rd of my posts, and I fail to see where having to read has been a "common complaint." But hey, I'll take you're word for it.




I, and I suppose many others, question your future success in your current endeavors.  I would suggest a major overhaul of your attitude.


----------



## NL_engineer (23 Nov 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Would RCMP training be sufficient? Hell yes... But that's an intense 6 month course with a lot of prior screening... You're making it sound like its a weekend course or something. It wouldn't be very practical to try and put my should-be-retired, going-through-menapause teacher through that course now would it? There's not a whole lot of adequate training that she'd be able to partake...Perhaps it would be safer if she just WASN'T able to have a gun on her then? Yes that sounds about right.



Lochman is saying the RCMP firearm training be the minimum standard.  He is not saying everyone needs to do a police course, but the weapon handling part of it.


O and ballz I took the time to read everthing that has gone on in this thread (actually the 4+ pages since I looked at it last).  It is not that hard.


_Edited for spelling_


----------



## Burrows (24 Nov 2008)

Aaaaand I'm pretty sure we're done here.  Things are just getting repetitive and abraisive.

Locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Loachman (24 Nov 2008)

http://blog.nj.com/njv_publicblog/2008/11/weve_been_brainwashed.html

We've been brainwashed
Posted by mjm0771, November 17, 2008 9:22AM

There are a lot of people in New Jersey with open minds and open eyes, but the majority of us have been mentally conditioned to be afraid of guns.
The Media in general have done an excellent job of demonizing firearms and the law-abiding citizens who own them.

A two-year study by the Media Research Center concluded that television reporters are overwhelmingly opposed to Second Amendment rights.
Broadcasts from major networks from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1997, covering 244 gun policy stories, the ratio of anti-gun to pro-gun bias was
16 to 1. That means, for every one story of someone using their firearm in self defense or to save the live of another, they aired 16 stories of criminals using their guns to hurt the innocent. That ratio still remains the same today. It seems one sided and unfair, does it not?

Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than shootings. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, and other bizarre injuries as compared with students who were murdered by firearms during that same time period. (Source:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm )

Why do majority of our lawmakers think that making it more difficult to own and carry a concealed firearm is going to help quell the rate of violent crime in New Jersey? It's been proven time and time again that criminals in New Jersey do not care about strict gun restrictions or outright bans. The vast majority of the illegal guns used in crimes come from a few corrupt gun dealers outside the borders of the Garden State .

It seems most of our legislators have this unfounded fear that if Bill
A1282 is enacted, everyone will rush to get their concealed carry permit and there will be millions of guns on our streets which will result in a bloodbath the likes we have never seen. History shows since concealed carry legislation was passed in Florida in 1987 only an estimated 3% of the Floridian population has chosen to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Now, let's return to New Jersey. The latest Census estimate the population of NJ is 8.7 million. If two percent of citizens are granted a concealed carry permit, that would be approximately 174,000 people. That also means there will only be 2 people per square mile who would have their permit to legally carry their weapon. There are 10 times more criminals and street gang members in our cities that are illegally carrying concealed right at this very moment! So what exactly are we afraid of???

The majority of us who live in and around urbanized areas in New Jersey believe guns are the problem. We seem to believe this because the mainstream media has trained us to think that way. The truth is there is an estimated 50.6 million households having at least one gun in the United States , totaling approximately 228 million firearms. The total number of firearms that are used by criminals to commit their violent acts is approximately 450,000 nationwide. That equates to 0.09% of all guns that are involved in crimes. (Source: http://www.gunfacts.info)

97% of people in Florida have not chosen to obtain their concealed carry permits, but they are getting a huge benefit from the 3% who do. Since Florida passed concealed carry legislation crime has dropped to 4% below the national average from 36% above the national average before 1987. This is why most of us in NJ will choose not apply for one because we have been convinced by our government and the media that guns are evil. But for those upstanding law-abiding citizens that feel differently, they should not be denied their constitutional right to defend themselves, if they feel the need to do so.


----------



## Scratch_043 (24 Nov 2008)

Okay, I've been lurking in the shadows for a while, sifting through the previous posters, and evaluating (to the best of my ability) both sides of the issue. From what I can figure, both sides are trying to persuade the other to abandon their own view, and 'cross the line'. That simply won't happen, what's needed here is co-operation from *both* sides to make it work.

Let me start out by stating that I am not a gun owner, or even a PAL holder. I have however, written both examinations, and have had my paperwork in a file for the past 3 years, for when I do intend to apply. I say this to make it clear that I do tend to lean towards the gun owners side of the issue, and make that position clear.

I have the distinct pleasure of being somewhere in the middle, and as such, neither completely liked, or disliked by either side. I do not advocate complete freedom of 'joe public' to go out and buy as many guns as he can get a hold of, to use as he sees fit. But on the other hand, I also do not wish to see a society in which trained, law-abiding citizens are denied the capability to defend themselves or others from those who would do them harm.

I am not going to call it gun control, as that is not really main issue here, I am simply going to call the groups of people represented here Group A and Group B, since the aim of each is the same, so they are, in fact, not on opposite sides of the issue, but have a different viewpoint on the same side of the public safety issue.

From what I have seen, what the posters from both sides want, is a compromise, of sorts. Group A want the strict laws governing the sale and possession of firearms and ammunition, which we currently have in place, in order to prevent 'gun crime'. Group B want a system put in place that allows them the right to defend themselves in a situation which could result in the loss of life.

What I am proposing, is scrapping the current legislation, and replacing it with one more agreeable to BOTH groups, or failing that, a dramatic re-drafting of the current legislation.

First off, all that stuff about having to be licensed, registering your firearms, and follow strict guidelines on safe transportation and storage *when not in use*. And we all know, that if a firearm is kept on the person, with proper ATC, then it is in fact 'in use. That stays.

as a matter of fact, most of the core of the bill could still be saved, just adjusted slightly.

Magazine and barrel length limitations.... In my opinion, it's bullshit. The only difference in a 5rd magazine and a 20rd magazine is a couple of 2 second magazine changes. Same goes for barrel length, 4" of barrel length on a rifle or shotgun is NOT going to make a difference. if anything, having a shorter barrel, as most hunters will tell you, is a *disadvantage* because of the loss of accuracy and muzzle control.

I do believe that *properly trained and licensed by the government* individuals should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm. Those individuals should also be subject to extreme scrutiny by the regulating authority, whoever that may be. In addition to that, under the current legislation, it is also very difficult for an individual to obtain a wilderness ATC for the purpose of protection from wildlife during the conduct of their duties or recreation in areas where you can't just dial 911 and wait for help, because help is not 10 minutes away, not even 30 minutes away under most conditions.

I realize that this position does not make me particularily popular with either the pro or anti gun control people out there, but it is my meager first attempt at trying to sort through the issue and present a suggestion for compromise from my own little viewpoint.

Back to the shadows I go.
Nic


----------



## Loachman (24 Nov 2008)

Firstly, sorry Kyle, I didn't see your lock as I was posting my last. Now that it appears to have gone by the wayside...

ToRN - I'm going to start with one of your last sentences first:



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> I realize that this position does not make me particularily popular with either the pro or anti gun control people out there, but it is my meager first attempt at trying to sort through the issue and present a suggestion for compromise from my own little viewpoint.



Not so meager - and a useful post.

Firstly, "gun control" has become too loaded a term, and meaningless.

What all sides wish to see, or at least *should* wish to see, is a reduction in overall violence, accident, and suicide.

The approaches taken and/or proposed vary, however.

There are many on the anti-gun side who are driven by ideology and/or an irrational fear of something with which they are unfamiliar, and see nothing but inanimate objects as the root of all human evil. They, combined with politicians seeking cheap and easy votes, have driven much of public policy to date in many countries. Despite demonstrated failure everywhere, and no success anywhere, at reducing violence they continue to push for more of the same. Their concepts are, literally, killing people.

As I said before, they do not seem to care about violent crime committed by other means, which, here in Canada, ignores approximately two-thirds of all murders and similar proportions of all other violent crime and suicide.

Even if they could eliminate all firearms, including those in criminal hands (which the Liberal's Firearms Act completely ignored), the murder and other violent crime and suicide rates would remain unchanged as other methods would be substituted. Private ownership of firearms is almost completely non-existent in Japan, for example, yet the overall suicide rate is far higher than ours, which is, in turn, higher than that of the US. In Japan, swords figure highly in suicides. Murder is also means-independent, and successive waves of "gun control" in this country and others have consistently failed to reduce murder and other crime rates.

Something is not working, and people are dying.

These people ignore the constant factor in all crime and suicide: the human one.

The majority of firearms owners see the other two-thirds as well, and are far more aware of that human factor.

We feel the pain of those other victims and their families and friends, and wish to see all violence, accident, and suicide reduced to the maximum extent possible.

This is why we believe in punishing the criminal for the crime committed, regardless of the implement used, and increasing public safety by removing proven threats from circulation for as long as possible rather than attacking, scapegoating, overly restricting, and criminalizing honest citizens who are highly unlikely to commit misdeeds.

We will happily support any measures which are likely to actually improve public safety, based upon logic and evidence. Call that "good gun contol".

We will not support that which is blatantly stupid, such as the specific things that you mentioned (mag restrictions, arbitrary barrel length restrictions, etcetera). Call that "bad gun control".



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> I do not advocate complete freedom of 'joe public' to go out and buy as many guns as he can get a hold of, to use as he sees fit.



Yet this seemed to work fairly well in the not so distant past, before the rise of drug gangs, who are unaffected by the lack of "complete freedom of 'joe public'. "Gun control" has absolutely no effect on them at all, and they are the ones about whom we should be worrying, and taking meaningful and effective action against, not 'joe public'.

That aside, and despite evidence that government-mandated training courses and screening has extremely little real value, we tend to support reasonable screening and safety awareness as a condition of lawful acquisition anyway. It is relatively inexpensive, and serves as a useful public-perception CYA measure.

I am describing the old Firearms Acquisition Certificate here, except that it should be granted for life rather than require renewal, subject to revocation under appropriate circumstances.

I am most definitely against the current requirement to have a valid licence as a condition to continue to possess one's lawfully-acquired property under pain of lengthy jail sentences. It proves nothing, and is extremely heavy-handed.

Violent criminals are generally given firearms prohibitions as part of their sentencing. All that is required, then, is to confirm whether or not anybody in possession of a firearm in questionable circumstances is under such a court-ordered prohibition. A requirement for law-abiding citizens to continually prove their law-abidingness is repugnant to a free society, especially when it is only a segment of that society which is singled out.

A prohibited-persons list is far simpler and cheaper to maintain, and far more effective, than a huge database of the law-abiding. It's also more in keeping with the nature of the society that we think that we have, ie free.



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> I am not going to call it gun control, as that is not really main issue here, I am simply going to call the groups of people represented here Group A and Group B, since the aim of each is the same, so they are, in fact, not on opposite sides of the issue, but have a different viewpoint on the same side of the public safety issue.



I got a bit ahead of this above...



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> From what I have seen, what the posters from both sides want, is a compromise, of sorts.



Barring the extreme idealogues on the anti-gun side, yes, although firearms owners have been compromised to death by creeping waves of "bad gun control".

Our demands are not inconsistent with public safety, however, and, based upon evidence seen elsewhere, would enhance it.



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> Group A want the strict laws governing the sale and possession of firearms and ammunition, which we currently have in place, in order to prevent 'gun crime'.



Which it clearly does not and cannot, as criminals do not require safety courses, licences, and registrations etcetera.



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> , as, surprisingly, we are not criminals
> Group B want a system put in place that allows them the right to defend themselves in a situation which could result in the loss of life.



That, and measures which will actually reduce crime, and not just "gun crime". Such measures are not inconsistent with our wants and needs as, surprisingly, we are not criminals.



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> What I am proposing, is scrapping the current legislation, and replacing it with one more agreeable to BOTH groups, or failing that, a dramatic re-drafting of the current legislation.



The flaw, unfortunately, is that those pushing "gun control" are driven more by a hatred of guns than anything and refuse to see any other way. This is why any legislation has to be strictly evidence-based in order to be fair and effective.



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> First off, all that stuff about having to be licensed, registering your firearms, and follow strict guidelines on safe transportation and storage *when not in use*. And we all know, that if a firearm is kept on the person, with proper ATC, then it is in fact 'in use. That stays.



No, no, no, no, no. Licensing, as it currrently exists, and registration are evil, and must end. They are useless as crime prevention tools and serve only to criminalize the law-abiding. The only purpose that registration serves is to provide a handy list whenever governments decide to go on the banned-wagon again. It puts everybody's hard-earned property at risk of theft by government decree. Safe storage is a red-herring. Enforcement can only be done through "inspection" as contained and described in the legislation, which is nothing more than thinly-veiled warrantless search where no crime has been committed or reasonably presumed to have been committed - and is therefore contrary to our Constitution. Should a crime or accident occur where safe storage may have been a factor, then that is covered quite adequately under negligence charges.

I _*used*_ to be an advocate of licensing, by the way, but changed my mind several years ago as I learned more.



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> as a matter of fact, most of the core of the bill could still be saved, just adjusted slightly.



Have you read it, and tried to actually comprehend it?

If you had, you would not say that.

It has been criticized by many judges, and rightfully so, as confusing, convoluted, and contradictory. It was written by people with no knowledge of firearms whatsoever, but tons of prejudice in compensation.



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> Back to the shadows I go.



No - stay out in the sunlight. You're not doing too badly, and are "salvagable".

You are attempting to get it right, and are keeping an open mind.

Thanks.


----------



## Scratch_043 (24 Nov 2008)

Thanks for the vote of confidence Loachman, I feel that in an attempt to get through it, and get back to other pursuits, some of my language may not have been entirely clear. I do not mean to say that I support licensing and registration. It would be far more acceptable to me to return to the old FAC (a system that, unfortunately, I am too young to have seen the benefit of).

I was specifically attempting to keep the term 'gun control' out of my post, but it is quite difficult when every conversation on the subject inevitably turns to it.

What you say about C-68 being wholly indecipherable is absolutely true. I have attempted a few times to sort through it, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss it further with you, as you seem that you have been in the position I now find myself in, and might provide some guidance.

Nic


----------



## Loachman (24 Nov 2008)

ToRN said:
			
		

> Thanks for the vote of confidence Loachman,



You're welcome, but I don't give it if it isn't earned, and it was.



			
				ToRN said:
			
		

> I feel that in an attempt to get through it, and get back to other pursuits, some of my language may not have been entirely clear. I do not mean to say that I support licensing and registration. It would be far more acceptable to me to return to the old FAC (a system that, unfortunately, I am too young to have seen the benefit of).
> 
> I was specifically attempting to keep the term 'gun control' out of my post, but it is quite difficult when every conversation on the subject inevitably turns to it.



Seen, and understood.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Nov 2008)

ToRan
The problem with your approach is that the anti-firearm people are not interested in a reasonable compromise, they have one goal and that is the eventual ban on almost every gun. No matter what you offer them it won't be enough, the gun owners went down that route previous and are still trying to sew our butthole back together.


----------



## observor 69 (27 Nov 2008)

Speaking as a resident of the Toronto area I see a great rural urban split across the country on this issue. 
Very strong feelings generated in the Greater Toronto Area by the near daily gun deaths.
Every evening news cast starts with coverage of the days violence, shooting, stabbings (couldn't afford a gun) and other forms of violence.


----------



## Loachman (28 Nov 2008)

Yet Toronto has one of the lowest rates of legal firearms ownership in the country...

And that pattern is constant everywhere: High rate of legal firearms ownership, and few artificial restrictions = low violent crime rate, low rate of legal firearms ownership = high violent crime rate, all other things being equal.

Banning drug gangs helps, too.


----------



## TCBF (29 Nov 2008)

- A lot of the gang violence in our urban centres involves youth who have not been properly inculcated into our Canadian culture, but yet are no longer under the influence of their traditional homeland cultures either.  Unfortunate, as we all need one or the other.  Without the moral compass passed on along our 'tribal' lines, we start looking for acceptance, approval and security from non-traditional sources.  Gangs will seek out those off course and weak individuals looking for an anchor point in their lives.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2008)

And an armed citizenry is a deterrent to this as well:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1002827



> *A landmark attack in the annals of modern terrorism*
> 
> John C. Thompson, National Post  Published: Friday, November 28, 2008
> Related Topics
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2008)

With only approx. 10 gunmen, if 3 of them had met up with CCW holders and at least 2 terrorist were killed, wounded or stopped, it would mean approx 40 lives would have been saved on average. The problem in the US is that most of the target rich areas are also "gun free zones" which reduces the chances of bumping into a CCW holder considerable. On the other hand the average US cop is likely far better trained the average Indian Police Officer and likely has more firearms training and experience.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> With only approx. 10 gunmen, if 3 of them had met up with CCW holders and at least 2 terrorist were killed, wounded or stopped, it would mean approx 40 lives would have been saved on average. The problem in the US is that most of the target rich areas are also "gun free zones" which reduces the chances of bumping into a CCW holder considerable. On the other hand the average US cop is likely far better trained the average Indian Police Officer and likely has more firearms training and experience.



Hey, if it discouraged Yamamoto.....


----------



## TCBF (30 Nov 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... On the other hand the average US cop is likely far better trained the average Indian Police Officer and likely has more firearms training and experience.



- I would not be too sure about that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Dec 2008)

Considering the strict laws in India re gun ownership I would say it is a safe bet that most Indian cops have limited exposure to firearm before joining and that their departments budget per officer is much less. There will be exceptions to this on both sides, but I am confident that my statement is true.

thoughts on the subject
http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2008)

A view of gun ownership and the right to self defense:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/129992.html



> *Four Decades of Defending Self-Defense*
> 
> Brian Doherty | December 2008 Print Edition
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2008)

It wasn't so long ago that any respectable gentleman went out armed (in a much more peaceful time):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece



> *Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .. . . we could help to combat terrorism*
> Richard Munday
> 
> The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.
> ...


----------

