The Great Gun Control Debate

[cupper]

We have a long thread discussing whether the sentries should be armed, and the overwhelming conclusion was that arming them would have not stopped the incident from occurring, prevented the death of the member, and could well have created other problems such as providing another weapon to the shooter.

In the other prominent incident, the victim was run down by a vehicle.

Both cases it appears the presence of a firearm in the possession of the CF members would not have been of any use.

And why allow it for off duty personnel who presumably would not be in uniform and otherwise be identified as such (except when traveling to and from work)?

I can't really say that this is an idea worth supporting on my part.

 

[dangerboy]

I don't think that having a pistol would have made any difference in regard to the murder of the two soldiers.  If you are basically ambushed and don't have time to react it makes no difference if you have a weapon or not.  Also the points PuckChaser makes about the training. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If we're going to do it, make it the same for every citizen. Get the boxes checked, you get your permit on your own dime.

 

[Leeworthy]

While the person creating this petition has the right mind set, I don't think  the way of execution is on track. Like you said before, who pays for all these courses we have to then take to be able to carry concealed or open carry? The CF would then have to pay for this, and in turn affect the tax payers.

I am all for Concealed or open-carry permits, as an avid shooter of both restricted and non, holding my black badge course for the local range to shoot IPSC and other shooting sports, I don't see this option as helping in the situations described.

If the government decides to go a route for concealed carry, I think it should be open to everyone who holds a restricted firearms licence and not just military personnel.

 

[PuckChaser]

And on that same token, it shouldn't be automatic for restricted firearms holders either. There would have to be a well-designed course covering a lot of legal aspects and scenario based training before I'd be comfortable with Joe-Blow walking around my family and I with CCW.

 

[jollyjacktar]

No thanks.

 

[Haggis]

There would have to be a well-designed course covering a lot of legal aspects and scenario based training before I'd be comfortable with Joe-Blow walking around my family and I with CCW.

I have several American friends with CCW permits from different states.  Overwhelmingly, the one common thread that links them all is the astoundingly little training (if any) they require to carry a concealed firearm.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If we're going to do it, make it the same for every citizen. Get the boxes checked, you get your permit on your own dime.

I think I'm sure that recceguy is right on this: if, and it's a BIG IF, we want to do this sort of thing then make it for everyone and ensure that everyone gets all "the boxes checked," i.e. training, permits, etc.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Security guards are permitted to carry guns to defend themselves. I'm guessing it's because it was recognized that bags of money are huge targets and the pistols are to defend themselves.

Soldiers are now huge targets for terrorists. Especially unarmed ones.  Sure being armed may not have stopped Nathan Cirillo from being murdered, but his partner could have nailed the shooter. And if not his partner than someone in the crowd.

We should allow CCW permits for all Canadians and not just soldiers.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And on that same token, it shouldn't be automatic for restricted firearms holders either. There would have to be a well-designed course covering a lot of legal aspects and scenario based training before I'd be comfortable with Joe-Blow walking around my family and I with CCW.

No one is talking about a free pass. You pay your money. Get your training. Get the boxes checked and get issued your permit.

I expect the same for military people. I've seen some pretty atrocious weapon handling, at all levels, in the CF.

Last thing. This discussion can only progress if we stick to relevant fact and ideas and leave the personal emotion out of it.

 

[George Wallace]

Security guards are permitted to carry guns to defend themselves. I'm guessing it's because it was recognized that bags of money are huge targets and the pistols are to defend themselves.

Soldiers are now huge targets for terrorists. Especially unarmed ones.  Sure being armed may not have stopped Nathan Cirillo from being murdered, but his partner could have nailed the shooter. And if not his partner than someone in the crowd.

We should allow CCW permits for all Canadians and not just soldiers.

Really!  Just what we need.  A soldier with a high power assault rifle wacking away at the shooter, then some unidentified CCW people in the crowd wacking away at God knows what, and we have a situation with people shooting everywhere, and a case that may appear to have escalated from one shooter to dozens of unidentified shooters.....Now the soldier turns on the CCW crowd and any collateral persons in the area.  Now we have not only an assailant, but a massive Blue on Blue.....and we haven't even mentioned the arrival of the Police, who will now have multiple unidentified shooters.  That is quite the scenario.  Would you really want to be within ten city blocks of such a fiasco?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Really!  Just what we need.  A soldier with a high power assault rifle wacking away at the shooter, then some unidentified CCW people in the crowd wacking away at God knows what, and we have a situation with people shooting everywhere, and a case that may appear to have escalated from one shooter to dozens of unidentified shooters.....Now the soldier turns on the CCW crowd and any collateral persons in the area.  Now we have not only an assailant, but a massive Blue on Blue.....and we haven't even mentioned the arrival of the Police, who will now have multiple unidentified shooters.  That is quite the scenario.  Would you really want to be within ten city blocks of such a fiasco?

This is just the kind of stupid, chicken little, hysterical emotion I was talking about above. If you have no idea what you are talking about, stay out of the conversation.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Really!  Just what we need.  A soldier with a high power assault rifle wacking away at the shooter, then some unidentified CCW people in the crowd wacking away at God knows what, and we have a situation with people shooting everywhere, and a case that may appear to have escalated from one shooter to dozens of unidentified shooters.....Now the soldier turns on the CCW crowd and any collateral persons in the area.  Now we have not only an assailant, but a massive Blue on Blue.....and we haven't even mentioned the arrival of the Police, who will now have multiple unidentified shooters.  That is quite the scenario.  Would you really want to be within ten city blocks of such a fiasco?

Assault rifles use an intermediate cartridge, like the 5.56. "High power assault rifle" is a media scare term, just like "assault weapons".

I know the mentality of people like you that think CCW permits are going to turn the streets into a blood bath. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't. CCW permit holders in the states have stopped numerous crimes. From attempted kidnappings to robberies to  school shootings.

Your scenario is silly and based in imagination  and not historical examples.  If you want to be a victim that's your business. I shouldn't be a victim because guns scare you.

 

[George Wallace]

Assault rifles use an intermediate cartridge, like the 5.56. "High power assault rifle" is a media scare term, just like "assault weapons".

I know the mentality of people like you that think CCW permits are going to turn the streets into a blood bath. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't. CCW permit holders in the states have stopped numerous crimes. From attempted kidnappings to robberies to  school shootings.

Your scenario is silly and based in imagination  and not historical examples.  If you want to be a victim that's your business. I shouldn't be a victim because guns scare you.

LOL

I agree with recceguy's version of how it should be done if such a time comes.  I also see instances where Police have enough problems identifying persons, even their own at times.  My scenario is silly, but not any more silly than some of the statements for CCW that have been posted here that would permit anyone to carry.  recceguy has it closest to right, that we can get, as I see it. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

LOL

I agree with recceguy's version of how it should be done if such a time comes.  I also see instances where Police have enough problems identifying persons, even their own at times. My scenario is silly, but not any more silly than some of the statements for CCW that have been posted here that would permit anyone to carry.  recceguy has it closest to right, that we can get, as I see it.

Every CCW course goes into detail of what the holders responsibilities are when LEO comes to the scene. Seldom is there an ongoing gunfight when they arrive.

Once again, George, no one is advocating for everyone being allowed to carry. There are hoops that would be required to jump through first. Lastly, it's not just for CCW but also for open carry.

 

[Haggis]

If this idea were to become policy/law (and that's a pretty freakin' big IF given how hard private CCW permits are to obtain already), then it should be up to the individual service member to decide if they WANT to carry off duty and, if so, they should do so at their own expense.

Anyone required to carry on duty or while in uniform should be trained and equipped on the Queen's dime and the Queen's time.

 

[Old Sweat]

I apologize for wandering off the lane, but if it was important enough, members could be issued a weapon to be carried in a manner determined by regulations and of course with a multi-paged ROE. It has been done before, and for all I know still is being done. I am not talking about MPs.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I apologize for wandering off the lane, but if it was important enough, members could be issued a weapon to be carried in a manner determined by regulations and of course with a multi-paged ROE. It has been done before, and for all I know still is being done. I am not talking about MPs.

That's true OS. However, we're talking about someone's daily, personal, activities, going shopping, getting the car fixed, going to the mall. Not a national emergency or such.

That, and carry rules are a lot less onerous than any ROE I've ever seen.

 

[Jarnhamar]

CCW or open carry of personal weapons on a CF base would be a nightmare I think. From storage regulations like locking their firearms up in a vault if they go on ex to carrying live ammo inside buildings (which you currently need headache waivers and shit for).
In Petawawa and one other base you need dangerous goods and a 1.4S placard to transport any small arms ammunition (base policy) does that mean me carrying a mag of 9 mill I'll need dangerous goods and placards on my vehicle? 

There's some goofy ammo nazi's out there, I had a civi ammo tech (equivalent?) threaten to get me charged for bringing a live 25mm shell to the ammo compound to turn in to amnesty (wouldn't fit in the box's) because I wasn't DG qualified and I didn't transport it in a separate compartment  :

There's a whole bunch of rules and policies that would need to be re-written for soldiers carrying pers weapons on base.

 

[Old Sweat]

That's true OS. However, we're talking about someone's daily, personal, activities, going shopping, getting the car fixed, going to the mall. Not a national emergency or such.

That, and carry rules are a lot less onerous than any ROE I've ever seen.

Indeed, but it has been done and on duty or off duty. it could apply. Many years ago, I came across an instruction on it, but don't want to get into details as it still may be valid.