Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate  (Read 885610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 488,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,876
    • The job.
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3775 on: October 18, 2017, 17:48:30 »
Murderers without guns can rent large trucks.

Airplanes too!

Milpoints inbound.  :)
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 17:57:46 by mariomike »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,937
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3776 on: October 19, 2017, 12:30:20 »
Yup. They should crucify this guy, figuratively speaking.  6 years seems light to me, 1 year per gun feels about right.


With technology where it's at machineguns can be made at little machine shops.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/weapons-trafficking-edmonton-machine-guns-1.4258821

Just reading some stuff on the Malay Emergency, machine shops were closed down or restricted to reduce the flow of weapons or repairs to weapons to the CT's. 

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 269,521
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,353
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3777 on: November 25, 2017, 08:04:02 »
Texans Who Carry Have a Lower Murder Rate Than Brits

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2017/11/13/texans-who-carry-have-lower-murder-rate-than-brits/

Quote
Gun violence has been in the news lately, which has some Americans advocating British-style gun laws. The UK bans handguns, and in 2016 its per capita homicide rate was only 0.99 per 100,000 people. But while it’s true that Brits commit relatively few murders, there’s another group that commits even fewer. Who are they? 

Legally-armed Texans.

Over a million people in Texas are licensed to carry a firearm, and the state publishes a report on the crimes they commit. In 2016, two were convicted of murder and another two were convicted of manslaughter. If they formed their own country, its per capita homicide rate would be about 0.4 per 100,000 residents. In other words, Britain’s homicide rate would drop by more than half if it were populated by nothing but Texans with concealed handgun permits. Texas isn’t unique: across the country, it’s rare for people who carry guns legally to commit crimes. They do stop them, however.

Sheriff’s Deputy Dylan Dorris discovered that when he was rescued by an armed motorist. Dorris was overpowered during a traffic stop, and the officer says he’s “alive today” because Marine Corps veteran Scott Perkins intervened. You can find many similar cases of individuals defending themselves and others. 

While the stats show most people who carry are male, women actually have the most to gain from a concealed handgun. Unlike other weapons, the efficacy of a firearm depends on its user’s skill–not her size and strength. That’s why an armed Minnesota woman was able to fend off a gang of men. It’s the same reason a 91 year-old man in Michigan could defend himself in a drugstore parking lot. 

And there’s an additional benefit: the presence of guns creates a deterrent. In a survey of convicts funded by the Department of Justice, 81 percent agreed, “A smart criminal always tries to find out if his potential victim is armed.” Seventy four percent concurred that, “One reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is they fear being shot.” 

It’s true that the United States has a problem with violent crime, and that problem has many components. Law abiding gun owners aren’t one of them though. They’re part of the answer.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Bzzliteyr

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,089
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3778 on: November 29, 2017, 14:55:59 »
So, how about that proposed protest in Montreal at the memorial for the PolyTech murders?

Not a bright move by whoever planned it.
Adsum

UNPROFOR, CPSM, Canadian Forces Commander Land Force Command Commendation (Bosnia 1993), Canadian Decoration, General Campaign Star - ISAF

Offline Shrek1985

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 321
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3779 on: November 29, 2017, 15:40:41 »
So, how about that proposed protest in Montreal at the memorial for the PolyTech murders?

Not a bright move by whoever planned it.

I totally get what they're going for, but you'd need the CBC on YOUR SIDE to make that come across as you intend it, in Canada.

I get it; "Don't hold us responsible for the actions of some lone crazy Person." Not how I'd have done it, but it's frankly the minimum standard of treatment we should expect as gun owners in a Nation where the government bleats at us about accepting Muslims after every Jihadi terror attack.

Also; Freaking *Montreal*?! *Just Montreal*?!

Sometimes, I wonder; "Does anyone in this country ever look at a map before they plan or propose anything?

It was supposed to be a "National Rally" and they're like; "Hey, come to Montreal"...Who's able to travel across the country for that?

Nonono; "National"? Okay; then there needs to be a rally in at least one major city of every province. Don't ask folks to get on planes and drive ten hours to be heckled and possibly attacked by Antifa and arrested. I can do that at home just fine, without even being part of a protest.

Offline Bzzliteyr

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,089
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3780 on: November 29, 2017, 15:45:20 »
Yeah. that's one thing I noticed as well. You're trying to claim this is a National event? I mean Quebec is recognized as a nation so maybe that's who they were aiming this at? They're worried about that new legislation with registration and serial numbers, I can totally understand that.

Go on r/Canadguns on reddit, there's some pretty butthurt guy in the thread about the event. Most others are smart enough to see how this was a bad idea from the get go. It's actually scary to see how that guy is thinking. Makes me realize we're not immune against Trump like zombies in Canada.
Adsum

UNPROFOR, CPSM, Canadian Forces Commander Land Force Command Commendation (Bosnia 1993), Canadian Decoration, General Campaign Star - ISAF

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,489
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3781 on: November 29, 2017, 16:36:10 »
Shrek, you got your "National" confused.

This group is trying to rally against the proposed Quebec government gun registry that the provincial government wants to introduce as a replacement for the extinct Federal one, even though the Supreme Court said they had no right to the Federal data, Harper destroyed it and as a result they would have to build it from scratch (Yeah! That's gonna be cheap!).

Anyway, you should know by now that in Quebec, "national" is used to refer to the provincial government, while the one in Ottawa is referred to as the "Federal" government. That is why, for instance, Quebec City refers to itself as the National Capital.

Quebec must be a Nation, because PM Harper said so.


Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 269,521
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,353
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3782 on: November 29, 2017, 16:45:05 »
Except the information from the gun registry wasn't destroyed like the government ordered. High river Alberta is an example of how the information was secretly kept by the RCMP.


The timing and location of the protest was pretty stupid. So stupid in fact that I'd almost think it was a "Medusa magazine" style move by antigun proponents.

I've read that during the last long gun registry less than 50% of Quebecers were estimated to have registered their firearms, I can't see it being more effective this time around.

I've read brilliant idea that gun owners were trying to get off the ground.. An open carry protest with non-restricted firearms at parliament Hill. Glad that fizzled out.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Bzzliteyr

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,089
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3783 on: November 29, 2017, 16:51:26 »
I've read brilliant idea that gun owners were trying to get off the ground.. An open carry protest with non-restricted firearms at parliament Hill. Glad that fizzled out.

And we wonder why they don't take some of us seriously...
Adsum

UNPROFOR, CPSM, Canadian Forces Commander Land Force Command Commendation (Bosnia 1993), Canadian Decoration, General Campaign Star - ISAF

Offline coyote489

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 50
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3784 on: December 03, 2017, 15:10:38 »
https://ipolitics.ca/2017/12/03/poll-suggests-canadians-back-urban-gun-ban/

Came across this today. Seems like a pretty inaccurate poll to me, only reaching out to just over 2000 Canadians... how does that even come close to a representation of what we really think. Just another group trying to take the good gun owners rights away.
"Audi, Vide, Tace"

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 912,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,012
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3785 on: December 03, 2017, 15:39:37 »
2000 is a typical poll number, hard to get more than that to answer the phone.

Offline coyote489

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 50
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3786 on: December 03, 2017, 16:37:42 »
2000 is a typical poll number, hard to get more than that to answer the phone.

Yah I understand that, I just find it comical when the media gets hold of polls like this then state "most" Canadians agree with said statement asked in that poll. I understand that polls are nearly impossible to execute at larger scales. A total ban on firearms in urban areas would be an extremely difficult task, being that a lot of Canadian gun owners live in urban areas. Let's just hope this topic stays at being a poll and does not turn into legislation in the future.
"Audi, Vide, Tace"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,937
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3787 on: December 04, 2017, 10:51:56 »
Not to mention:

Statistics Canada has defined urban areas using the same methodology based on population size and density since the 1971 Census. An urban area was defined as having a population of at least 1,000 and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometre. All territory outside an urban area was defined as rural area. Together, urban and rural areas covered the entire nation.

So the person on the phone is unlikely to know the legal definition of Urban area and likely thinks city.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3788 on: January 25, 2018, 13:59:55 »
Not to mention:

Statistics Canada has defined urban areas using the same methodology based on population size and density since the 1971 Census. An urban area was defined as having a population of at least 1,000 and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometre. All territory outside an urban area was defined as rural area. Together, urban and rural areas covered the entire nation.

So the person on the phone is unlikely to know the legal definition of Urban area and likely thinks city.

That strikes me as an almost random and somewhat irrelevant definition that StatsCan is using. It would result in small towns and villages being called "urban" which by any other definition I doubt they would.

In my opinion, something like 100,000 population is a truer definition of "urban". Which would still probably produce very similar results in terms of opinion polling, since (for example) if you add up all the municipalities in Ontario with 100,000 or more population, you will come to a total that represents the overwhelming majority of the population.  In Manitoba, as another example, Winnipeg at over 700,000 represents easily more than half of the provincial population of about 1,200,000.  Edmonton and Calgary are probably similar in Alberta.  The end result is the same: most Canadians live in cities.

So, properly conducted polls in those centres would likely reveal what "most people" in that province feel about something, if that is a valid basis for policy.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline Bzzliteyr

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,089
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3789 on: January 26, 2018, 13:13:07 »
Not sure if you've been tracking but they have/are going to change the definition of "crime guns" which should skew the results of future stats in regards to guns related to crimes.

Adsum

UNPROFOR, CPSM, Canadian Forces Commander Land Force Command Commendation (Bosnia 1993), Canadian Decoration, General Campaign Star - ISAF

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 269,521
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,353
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3790 on: January 26, 2018, 13:29:08 »
What's a crime gun?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Kat Stevens

    Quando omni flunkus moritati.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 214,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,692
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3791 on: January 26, 2018, 14:32:49 »
One where the bullets come out of the skinny end.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,489
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3792 on: January 26, 2018, 15:08:04 »
That strikes me as an almost random and somewhat irrelevant definition that StatsCan is using. It would result in small towns and villages being called "urban" which by any other definition I doubt they would.

In my opinion, something like 100,000 population is a truer definition of "urban". Which would still probably produce very similar results in terms of opinion polling, since (for example) if you add up all the municipalities in Ontario with 100,000 or more population, you will come to a total that represents the overwhelming majority of the population.  In Manitoba, as another example, Winnipeg at over 700,000 represents easily more than half of the provincial population of about 1,200,000.  Edmonton and Calgary are probably similar in Alberta.  The end result is the same: most Canadians live in cities.

So, properly conducted polls in those centres would likely reveal what "most people" in that province feel about something, if that is a valid basis for policy.

I live in a village that splits the StatsCan definition perfectly PBI: Total population: 1600. The "village" (i.e. the urban portion) has about 1100 people over almost exactly 2 square Kms, the rest of us live in the country part, which is more than 26 square Kms. The difference between "urban" or "rural" for us? (1) 50 Kph vs 80 Kph  ;D, and (2) Pick your mail in the community box or at the Post Office vs Get it in you roadside mailbox on your Rural Route delivery. Again  ;D

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 269,521
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,353
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3793 on: February 09, 2018, 15:20:25 »
Canadians love guns.

WolverineSupplies got an order in of WK180-C rifles (never even heard of it before) and they sold out. 1,000 of them in 75 hours.



Despite the liberals stance on firearms it's nice that they haven't made any sweeping decisions on guns, so far. The RCMP is still approving a surprising number of "scary looking military style firearms" as non-restricted.

There are no wolves on Fenris

angus555

  • Guest
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3794 on: February 09, 2018, 15:39:35 »
Canadians love guns.

WolverineSupplies got an order in of WK180-C rifles (never even heard of it before) and they sold out. 1,000 of them in 75 hours.

Despite the liberals stance on firearms it's nice that they haven't made any sweeping decisions on guns, so far. The RCMP is still approving a surprising number of "scary looking military style firearms" as non-restricted.

Wow..and it's gas piston with many ar-15 parts. Extra-scary looking :nod:

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 208,787
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,227

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 180,321
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3796 on: February 09, 2018, 17:37:27 »
Note - from my readings (only a few) on this rifle.  It is NOT approved by the RCMP....it is simply a Made in Canada AR-180B with some local flavour to let you add more standard AR-15 parts and bits to it.

It was never submitted for inspection, because it is not a new rifle.  Or so they say.

I think it's great, and if I hadn't just pulled the trigger on a new lathe, I might have been tempted to get in on the first 1K.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3797 on: February 16, 2018, 10:42:27 »
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/would-canadian-gun-laws-have-stopped-americas-worst-mass-shooters

Interesting look on how if America had Canadas gun laws how many people wouldn't be dead right now.

Quote
Virtually every gun used in an American mass shooting is legally available for purchase in Canada. Despite this, Canada doesn’t come close to suffering the same rate of mass shootings as the United States.

Whenever Americans discuss gun control, it’s only natural that they look to the policies of their much less bullet-riddled northern neighbour. But even Canadian law can only do so much.

Below, an analysis of just what Canadian firearms policies could have done to stop some of America’s worst mass shootings.

First, some basics

Nobody legally buys a gun in Canada without first taking the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. Then, they have to submit an application for a Personal Acquisition License (PAL), where they’re screened by the RCMP for risk factors such as criminal history and mental health. All of the shootings in this list involve what Canada classifies as “restricted firearms”: Handguns and many types of semi-automatic rifles that can only be legally owned for the purposes of target shooting. With very few exceptions, private firearms are not sold as “weapons” in Canada. The only legal reason for owning a firearm in Canada is as a tool to kill animals or as a piece of sporting equipment to shoot paper targets. This is in sharp contrast to the United States, where gun ownership is closely correlated with self-defence.


Quote
Columbine High School massacre (1999)

Victims: 13 killed
Could it have happened in Canada? Likely not.

There were four firearms used in the massacre: An Intratec TEC-DC9 semiautomatic pistol, a Hi-Point 9mm Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Savage 311-D 12-gauge shotgun. The semi-automatic pistol is prohibited in Canada, which means it cannot be legally owned except under special conditions. Nevertheless, it’s still possible to buy restricted firearms in Canada that have the same capability as a TEC-DC9, albeit with a smaller magazine. At first glance, gun laws would seem to be a moot point in the Columbine massacre because the shooters obtained their guns illegally from friends. Notably, the man who sold them the TEC-DC9 was later convicted and jailed for selling a handgun to minors. However, before they were given to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, all four firearms were originally purchased anonymously from unlicensed sellers at Colorado gun shows. These types of sales are not permitted in Canada.


Quote
Virginia Tech massacre (2007)

Victims: 32 killed, excluding perpetrator
Could it have happened in Canada? Likely not.

This shooting involved two handguns; a Walther P22 and a Glock 19. Both guns are available as restricted firearms in Canada, and it wouldn’t be too difficult for a licence-holder to buy sufficient quantities of ammunition. But shooter Seung-Hui Cho showed a clear history of mental illness, including diagnoses of severe anxiety disorder and severe depressive disorder. As a student at Virginia Tech, he often submitted course work that contained explicit references to violence. It is reasonable to assume these would have made him ineligible for a PAL. The Canadian screening process is not airtight, of course. Filing a PAL is much like submitting a tax return: A criminal can simply lie and cross their fingers that nobody notices. Organized crime already knows this, which is why Canada has a documented problem with “straw man” purchases: A criminal successfully obtains a restricted PAL and proceeds to buy up scores of handguns for distribution to criminal networks. Notably, of 402,138 new or renewed PALs granted in 2016, only 336 were rejected due to factors that would have described Cho

Quote
Fort Hood shooting (2009)

Victims: 13 killed
Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe not.

The Fort Hood shooting was perpetrated with a single semi-automatic handgun with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds. Semiautomatic handguns with the same firepower are available in Canada, albeit with magazines containing a maximum of 10 rounds. The shooter, army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, had been investigated by federal authorities for links to terrorism. This would likely be enough for the RCMP to restrict his ability to possess restricted firearms. However, Hasan was in the military, which may have opened up avenues to obtaining firearms illegally. Notably, a 1984 mass shooting attack on Quebec’s National Assembly was conducted with stolen military firearms. Cpl. Denis Lortie, a Canadian Armed Forces supply technician, killed three people using two C-1 machine guns stolen from CFS Carp, site of the so-called Diefenbunker. The military has since reformed their weapons-handling protocols.

Quote
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012)

Victims: 26 at school, excluding shooter
Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe.

Shooter Adam Lanza had an established history of mental illness, in addition to a diagnosis for Asperger’s syndrome. This, coupled with Lanza’s extreme withdrawal from society, makes it extremely unlikely he would even decide to undergo the PAL screening process. However, the shooting was perpetrated entirely with firearms taken from the collection of his mother, an avid firearms enthusiast. The two guns used in the massacre, the Bushmaster XM-15 and a .22-caliber Savage Mark II rifle, are sold in Canada and would not be out of place in any respectable gun collection. However, if she were in Canada, Lanza’s mother would have been required to store her firearms in such a way that they were inaccessible to her son, whose age at death was 20. This isn’t the case in Connecticut, where there is nothing inherently illegal in storing loaded firearms within easy reach of an unlicensed co-habitant. Lanza also would have had a much lower rate of fire if he had been in Canada. The Bushmaster used by Lanza was equipped with 30-round magazines. In Canada, where semi-automatic rifle magazines are limited to five rounds, Lanza would have needed to reload six times as often during the massacre.

Quote
Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting (2012)


Victims: 12
Could it have happened in Canada? Likely not.

The three guns used to attack cinema-goers at a screening of The Dark Knight were a Smith & Wesson variant of an AR-15, a Remington 12-gauge 870 shotgun and a 40-caliber Glock handgun. All of these firearms are available for legal purchase in Canada. Shooter James Holmes had no criminal record but he was extremely withdrawn, anxious and told his psychiatrist that he had a preoccupation with killing others. It’s unlikely he would qualify to pass the PAL screening process, or even tried. One hard-to-quantify effect of Canadian firearms screening is how many unstable individuals simply never bother to apply. The application form asks applicants to specify their conjugal status, for instance, and implies that police will be calling up exes. “Anyone with an angry ex isn’t going to get a (possession licence) for example,”one firearms instructor told the National Post. Canada has anonymous hotlines by which friends or neighbours can call a Canadian’s firearms licence into question. Canadian Firearms Safety Course instructors are also told by RCMP to report any students in their classes who seem suspicious. A bit Orwellian, perhaps, but it’s one of several ways in which Canada is able collar the kinds of would-be mass murderers with clean criminal records that U.S. law finds so hard to stop.

Quote
Orlando nightclub shooting (2016)

Victims: 49 killed
Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe not.

The Sig Sauer .223 and Glock 17 used in the shooting are available in Canada, albeit with reduced magazine capacities. Shooter Omar Mateen also held a Florida Statewide Class G Firearms License for his work as a security guard, which requires attending a safety course. However, Mateen had previously been investigated for connections to terrorism, which in Canada should have sunk his PAL application. It’s also worth noting that Mateen only became a gun owner a week before the attack. In Canada, becoming a gun owner takes between two and eight months — far too long for an impatient ISIS-inspired mass murderer. Of course it’s always possible that if a shooter is planning an illegal act, they can simply obtain an illegal firearm. But it’s worth contrasting the Orlando shooting with Canada’s own worst example of a lone wolf Islamist shooting attack. When Michael Zehaf-Bibeau decided to storm parliament, the best illegal gun he could obtain was a lever-action Winchester that reloads about as slow as a revolver. This made it dramatically easier for law enforcement to shoot and kill Bibeau soon after he was inside parliament’s Centre Block.

Quote
Las Vegas shooting (2017)

Victims: 58 killed, excluding shooter
Could it have happened in Canada? Probably.

Canadian gun laws may have proved particularly powerless to stop the United States’ deadliest mass shooting. Perpetrator Stephen Paddock had no criminal record, no history of mental illness and investigators have still not found a single scrap of evidence that he was contemplating or planning a mass shooting. In the 12 months before the massacre, Paddock legally purchased 55 firearms as well as a variety of bump stocks, an accessory that speeds up the firing rate of a semiautomatic rifle. Throughout, he took calculated steps to evade suspicion and complicate any subsequent investigation of the crime. For a criminal as dedicated to mass murder as Paddock, it’s reasonable to assume that Canadian screening would have provided an obstacle, but not a barrier. The only real difference in Canada would be that Paddock’s arsenal would have had a much lower rate of fire: No bump stocks and much smaller magazines. For an experienced shooter, however, these technical limitations can ultimately make very little difference.

Quote
Sutherland Springs church shooting (2017)

Victims: 26 killed, excluding shooter
Could it have happened in Canada? No.

Shooter Devin Kelley was found guilty of domestic assault in a 2012 U.S. Air Force court martial. In Canada, this type of conviction would immediately strip him of any ability to purchase and own firearms. Indeed, it should have done so in the United States, but the military neglected to pass details of his conviction to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Investigation Services Division, where it should have turned up in a background check. A weakness of U.S. gun laws is that they’re overseen by a patchwork of law enforcement agencies. In Canada, all gun owners are uniformly monitored by the RCMP. And as most Canadian gun owners would agree, the Mounties require very few excuses to suspend a firearms licence. Uniformed police themselves are routinely written up for minor firearms charges, and one firearms instructor contacted by the Post told of a student who had his licence suspended simply for being at a party where an assault had occurred.

Quote
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School

Victims: 17
Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe not.

Shooter Nikolas Cruz did not have a criminal record at the time he purchased his firearms. However, Cruz has such a lengthy history of threatening behaviour that nobody who knew him has been particularly surprised at the events of this week. Cruz’s social media posts were particularly explicit about his wishes to become a school shooter and the FBI had been alerted to his behaviour. In Florida, even if authorities were aware of Cruz’s risk factors, none of it would have been a barrier to him acquiring a firearm. But in Canada, if PAL screeners find out, it’s plenty evidence to deny an application. Another factor in Canada is that law enforcement requires much less evidence to place citizens under a peace bond that can deny their access to weapons. In the U.S., this generally requires a conviction, which isn’t any help when so many mass shooters (including everyone on this list) do not have prior criminal records. There’s still no guarantee that Canada could have stopped a devoted school shooter such as Cruz, of course, but many more things would have needed to go wrong for it to happen.
TL;DR

Columbine, prevented.

Virginia Tech, prevented.

Fort Hood, maybe

Sandy Hook, maybe

Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting, prevented

Orlando nightclub shooting, prevented

Las Vegas shooting, not prevented

Sutherland Springs church shooting, prevented

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, prevented.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3798 on: February 16, 2018, 11:19:36 »
But, Ecole Polytechique was not prevented: 14 dead, more than a goodly number on that list. Nor was Mayerthorpe nor Moncton, in which armed police officers were gunned down.

I believe in reasonable gun control laws: they are part of a civilized society. We control the sale and use of automobiles and dynamite, so why not guns? But I think it's a mistake to say that gun laws alone are the answer, or their absence the cause. I would also ask:

-how well do we detect the signs of mental illness, and how much are we able to do about it?;

-how well do we control our borders? (I've heard, for example, that the percentage of sea containers actually inspected at Canadian ports of entry is about 20%-what's in the other 80%?)

-what is society's cultural view of lethal violence? Is it a terrible crime to shoot someone, or a casual action or "I'll shoot him if I bloody well feel like it"?; and

-is there some kind of political or social meaning attached to owning weapons?.

None of these hold all the answers, but neither does gun control alone.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 92,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,960
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3799 on: February 16, 2018, 16:29:58 »
So it seems that this latest event could have been prevented.  And not because of a lack of gun control.  The FBI effed up.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/parkland-shooting-fbi-tipster/index.html

Optio