The Great Gun Control Debate

[fullflavor]

The main reason why licenses are granted is to presume that the gun would ONLY be used for self-defense. Other than that, you face the full wrath of the law and nobody among the level-headed would like that. Why go for all the trouble?

 

[George Wallace]

To deny concealed carry is to assume or wishfully think that 'CF soldier would have been dead before the cops take over'. ..."those gruesome illwishes.." - Quran, Bible. ;D

The CAF soldier was in no condition to do anything after being shot in the back.  He was dying, plain and simple.  First to arrive on the scene within less than a couple minutes, were able to apply basic first aid and comfort him until Paramedics arrived.  To allude to him or his fellow guard as being any better off had they been allowed concealed carry, when the events tragically happened differently from what you assumed, is wrong.

The Police were on the scene within minutes. Confusion reigned for a few minutes due to: four police forces not having a common communications link; officers responding in uniform and plain clothes; and multiple 911 calls indicating the possibility of multiple shooters.  Looking at the events lasting only 45 minutes from first shot fired to the take down of the shooter, the response was relatively effective, even with the 'fog of war' that had ensued.

 

[PanaEng]

The CAF soldier was in no condition to do anything after being shot in the back.  He was dying, plain and simple.  First to arrive on the scene within less than a couple minutes, were able to apply basic first aid and comfort him until Paramedics arrived.  To allude to him or his fellow guard as being any better off had they been allowed concealed carry, when the events tragically happened differently from what you assumed, is wrong.

The Police were on the scene within minutes. Confusion reigned for a few minutes due to: four police forces not having a common communications link; officers responding in uniform and plain clothes; and multiple 911 calls indicating the possibility of multiple shooters.  Looking at the events lasting only 45 minutes from first shot fired to the take down of the shooter, the response was relatively effective, even with the 'fog of war' that had ensued.

Yes but (off topic but) the confusion lasted until about 1030hrs when all the calls/reports of other shooters/accomplices were looked into and xref. It still boggles the mind that after hearing shots no more than 150m away, a person with a long firearm could drive around the war memorial, park in front and jog the 50m or so past the bollards and hijack a car inside the grounds. I bet reaction to shots fired will be exercised thoroughly from now on.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Look what I just found:

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/allow-active-duty-military-personnel-military-retirees-and-veterans-ccw-permits-carry-weapons-military-bases-0

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:goodpost:  I'll second that as a former peace officer.  Well stated.

I'm also a Peace Officer and disagree.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm also a Peace Officer and disagree.

And I'm cool with that.  Each to their own opinions.  We shall have to agree to have differing views. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And I'm cool with that.  Each to their own opinions.  We shall have to agree to have differing views. 

Back atcha

 

[Jarnhamar]

The funny thing (or not) is that the confusion about the shooting on 22 Oct was exactly because undercover police or police not in uniform or properly identified wearing masks led some members of the public to to call in false information.  The Rideau Center being a prime example of that pandimonium.  The whole city turned into a fiasco. So George's example isn't that outlandish.

When we look south as we are so apt to do with firearms, they don't have this problem.  I think in the example of 22 Oct police all rushed to the scene heedless of the situation they were putting themselves in. As you say police not in uniform or properly identified and wearing masks. They're lucky they didn't get shot by their fellow police officers.  CCW permit holders in the US simply aren't diving behind cover and turning the streets into shooting galleries. They are stopping crime and preserving life before police are even on the scene. 

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'll throw it out there that the majority of CAF members aren't front line combat arms types.  I don't see why we would have concealed carry for CAF members only vice everyone that could meet whatever security and competency requirements needed to get the license.

 

[Loachman]

If I really wanted to live in a shooting gallery I'd move south.  As it stands now I don't see a need for any changes here, civilian side or military.

I spend a fair amount of time in the US, and I've never seen one of these "shooting galleries". And I much prefer to be in those jurisdictions where firearms legislation is the most liberal and concealed carry is common.

They are safer.

There are sections of major cities where one should not go, even in daylight. Funnily enough, those cities also have the most stringent "gun control" legislation. "Gun control", of course, has no effect whatsoever on criminal activity, which is what drives high murder rates and other violence in those cities. It merely limits the ability of honest citizens to defend themselves from such activities.

Those jurisdictions that have the least restriction on lawful ownership and carriage of defensive firearms also enjoy the lowest rates of murder and other forms of violence. Mass shootings tend not to occur where a significant number of ordinary citizens may be legally carrying concealed weapons. They generally happen in "gun free zones", like schools, Fort Hood, the theatre in Aurora Colorado that had "no guns allowed" signs on its doors, and US Marine Corps recruiting centres that are similarly decorated.

Mass-murderers bent on achieving notoriety by beating the last guy's body count love those areas. To them, they are government-guaranteed defenceless-victim zones.

Criminals gravitate to those places where they are likely to be least hampered and most likely to be successful, just like any other career-oriented individual. They move from areas whey they stand the greatest chance of being interrupted or actually shot by an intended victim, or passerby who comes to the aid of the intended victim, to places where such interruptions are least likely.

Concealed carry laws do not lead to wild shootings. They provide deterrence to crime. Most defensive hangun uses do not involve firing the weapon. Merely showing a would-be robber or rapist that one is armed usually causes a reconsideration on his part. There are, however, several cases where intended victims have saved their own lives by shooting attackers.

A much earlier proposal for citizen-carry in Canada was successful completion of a course following the RCMP firearms training programme. If that's good enough for RCMP personnel, it's good enough for ordinary citizens. If it's not good enough for ordinary citizens, then it's also, by extension, not good enough for RCMP members.

Badges and uniforms do not make people special. There are many ordinary citizens who can shoot better than most police personnel, and are at least as capable of understanding and following the pertinent laws.

Is there a need? Not really, for most people in most areas. Is there a need not to permit citizen carry? Not at all.

 

[Jed]

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me that we have so many service and ex service personnel in Canada that either are afraid of their own shadow when it comes to the use of a sidearm or that it can only be very restrictively and personally controlled to a ridiculous point.

How did we ever manage during 2 world wars, a major conflict and various world skirmishes?

I don't think we are that much different than the USA, except that as a people we seem to expect the USA to carry Canada's water when it comes to the defence of our country and we don't seem as inclined to self defence.

 

[Tibbson]

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me that we have so many service and ex service personnel in Canada that either are afraid of their own shadow when it comes to the use of a sidearm or that it can only be very restrictively and personally controlled to a ridiculous point.

How did we ever manage during 2 world wars, a major conflict and various world skirmishes?

I don't think we are that much different than the USA, except that as a people we seem to expect the USA to carry Canada's water when it comes to the defence of our country and we don't seem as inclined to self defence.

Our actions in war are a totally different topic then our gun policies at home.  Also, I can name plenty of ways in which we are different then the USA but that too is a topic for another thread on a different board.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canada used to have much more easily obtainable concealed carry licenses, that was limited by PET and company. Under the current pile of crap masquerading as the Firearms Act, there is 3 levels of "Authorizations to Carry". 1 is for "Wilderness Carry" in remote areas and only when working. 2 is for Armoured car guards and has accessible forms and clearly stated training requirements. 3 is for "Defense of a Person", it's not talked about, the form needs to be requested, there is no standardized training and no public documentation. From FOI requests there is about 13-20 people in Canada that have the the authorizations. The CFOs who issue them, do everything they can to block their issuance, basically you need around 3 direct threats on your life to qualify and if your not dead by then, you clearly don't need it as far as they are concerned. According to some leaked info, that "Inuit statue" that the PM's wife held the intruder at bay with came in .38spl. Also banks used to be required to have a gun on the premises.

Basically if you don't believe CCW is part of Canadian law and heritage, then you have been successfully lied to all your life. We had it, it worked. The US has it and it works quite well, with a indictment rate of CCW permit holders within 1%. I can hammer you with stats, but every fear mongering attempt to block CCW has been shown to be a crock.       

 

[daftandbarmy]

Hauling a pistol around is a pain in the ass. Sometimes literally... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2442_rmiidY

I always avoiding having to carry one if at all possible, even in a 'war zone', and I can't believe that arming your average soldier off duty will help make things better.

We have enough trouble with NDs etc 'at work' while under maximum supervision.

 

[George Wallace]

Hauling a pistol around is a pain in the ass. Sometimes literally... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2442_rmiidY

I always avoiding having to carry one if at all possible, even in a 'war zone', and I can't believe that arming your average soldier off duty will help make things better.

We have enough trouble with NDs etc 'at work' while under maximum supervision.

And realistically, when would you need it?  Pistols, for the average shooter, may be accurate to 25 m.  There is likely no way that a person on the street with a CCW would have been close enough and able to accurately hit the shooter who shot Cpl Cirillo before he was taken down by the police and Sergeant at Arms inside of Parliament. 

The arguments for "self-defence", although valid, would likely not come into play in what happened. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hauling a pistol around is a pain in the ***. Sometimes literally... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2442_rmiidY

I always avoiding having to carry one if at all possible, even in a 'war zone', and I can't believe that arming your average soldier off duty will help make things better.

We have enough trouble with NDs etc 'at work' while under maximum supervision.

Mind you if you stop unloading all the time and keep a loaded pistol in a good holsters all of the time, the likelhood of ND's drops dramatically. Under no circumstance allow the military to write the regs for CCW. The barrack box with lockable separate compartments for ROE's, ammo, mag, barrel and pistol strapped to the hip would be a dead giveaway.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why do we keep coming back to the Cpl Cirillo incident? That incident doesn't really, if anything, have much to do with why some would like to carry.

CCW or open carry is a means of immediate personal protection. The ranges are measured in feet, not 25 yards. If they are 25 yards, there is no threat and no reason to respond. Constantly using this situation is ludicrous. Nobody licenced for Defence of a Person, is going to start an OK Corral type gunfight. So please, stop inflaming the discussion with a ridiculous hypothetical.

Getting robbed at a gas pump or ATM is a threat. Being physically attacked is a threat. Protecting your family from physical harm is a threat. It is up to the permit holder to ensure those threats are sufficient to take action.

I have a legal Charter right, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." to personal protection.

It is impossible for the police to protect us in these situations.

You'll have to do it yourself.

Or become a victim.

 

[Loachman]

Personal defensive carry is the equivalent to knowing how to apply first aid and carrying a kit, or having a fire extinguisher handy and knowing how to use it. I've never had to use my first aid skills for real (good), or a fire extinguisher for anything serious either.

People learn traffic rules and drive cars. Yes, they sometimes have accidents - but so do police and military personnel.

And cars are much more complex machines, too.

 

[Brad Sallows]

1. The point of allowing carry isn't to have people armed to shoot evildoers.  It's so that evildoers know there are people armed and competent to shoot.  Unlike vaccination, a high rate of carry isn't required to improve herd safety.  Perfect deterrence is not required for the policy to have merit.

2. Often all that is needed to interrupt a developing situation is the appearance of a firearm in the hand of someone not manifestly an asshole.  This has been studied and shown.

3. All of the scenarios involving wild mass shootouts between citizens and police: the US has a much larger population, much more gang-based violent crime, much more liberal carry laws, and media seriously motivated to publicize anything that would move the dial on gun control to "more".  If there were real examples of wild mass shootouts, the US would have some of them, and we'd hear about them - repeatedly, in high def, and high volume.  The fearmongers are bullsh!tting.

 

[Loachman]

Precisely.