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

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
293
Points
1,130
Emotions still percolating in High River ....
The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP previously reported that firearms were improperly seized by officers during High River's flood response, but for those still up in arms about the search and seizure process, a recent town hall provided them a voice.

A small gathering of concerned residents met in Little Bow Park on July 19 to listen to four speakers, many of whom continue to speak out against RCMP actions during the flood crisis.

In a document provided to the Times, organizers Richard Miller and Bobbe Cummins addressed why they felt it was necessary to host the town hall.

“What has happened here in High River sets precedent for what will be done in the future in emergency situations right across this country,” as written in the letter.

“We owe it to the rest of Canada to make sure that we don't just move on or just hope that things will be done differently in the next situation.”

Dennis Young, a member of the Calgary RCMP Veterans Association and honorary life member of the National Firearms Association (NFA), was among the guests invited to speak.

“Something went horribly wrong in High River,” he said. “I am so upset by what happened because in a state of emergency, if it happens in Airdrie, is it going to happen to me?”

RCMP officers entered 4,666 homes and forced their way into more than 754 of those homes, according to the commission's findings. Some 38 people were found and 700 pets were rescued.

“Don't hold the 273 Mounties that kicked in your doors, entered your homes, searched your homes and took your property, don't hold those people as a standard for Mounties across Canada,” Young said.

He shared admiration for the RCMP, who protect individuals each and every day, but noted he has zero respect for those who called for these actions or the Alberta government ministers who supported it.

Young thanked Sun News for their coverage of the incident and thanked Brian Lilley, former host of that network's Byline television show, and columnist Lorne Gunter for their efforts.

Lilley, who co-founded Rebel Media, attended as event master of ceremonies. He said a section in the Alberta Emergency Management Act says nothing shall trump the charter or Alberta's Bill of Rights ....
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
617
Points
910
In Canada it is not CCW - it is ATC (Authorization to Carry).
  Unit CO's used to have the power to give those (unsure if that changed).

ATC's used to be common from what I have heard for trappers, gold/mineral folks and such out of town.  I knew a few folks who still get them for that.
  ATC's where issued in the 50-60's much easier in urban areas that now (but still never close to common).  Several Politicians, Judges, and Crowns have been issued ATC's in the last two decades.


I hold a VA CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit) - and I also have a 50 state (as well as Territory and Protectorate) carry permit due to LEOSA.  Concealed Carry is not the end of the world, nor will blood flow in the streets - as Criminals are the source of gun violence.



 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,475
Points
940
I find if I talk about ATC's no one know what I am talking about, so I use CCW, which is technically more accurate, as ATC's 1 & 2 are open carry with permit and ATC 3 is concealed carry with permit.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
280
Points
910
KevinB said:
In Canada it is not CCW - it is ATC (Authorization to Carry).
  Unit CO's used to have the power to give those (unsure if that changed).

ATC's used to be common from what I have heard for trappers, gold/mineral folks and such out of town.  I knew a few folks who still get them for that.
  ATC's where issued in the 50-60's much easier in urban areas that now (but still never close to common).  Several Politicians, Judges, and Crowns have been issued ATC's in the last two decades.


I hold a VA CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit) - and I also have a 50 state (as well as Territory and Protectorate) carry permit due to LEOSA.  Concealed Carry is not the end of the world, nor will blood flow in the streets - as Criminals are the source of gun violence.


And they, criminals, are the source of 99% of all gun related problems. Yes, now and again, a deranged farmer shoots his wife or neighbour; yes, now and again, a careless hunter shoots himself; but most gun related problems involve people who need to be "corrected," one way or another. regulating the guns of farmers and hunters is just busy work for more useless bureaucrats and a pacifier for foolish, timid women. :)sorry:  that was a rude, sexist remark, but some men are "foolish, timid women," too.)
 

Rocky Mountains

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
At one time Alberta Forestry Officers could get permission to carry, usually a privately owned .44 magnum as a bear banger but no more.  Now they often pack a 12 gauge and slugs so as not to be bear kibble or they mostly just take their chances.  The fish cops, however, get issued 9mms. for bipedal targets.

All the gun legislation is irrelevant because criminals will always find whatever gun they need, probably quicker and for less money than an honest person.  As stated above, honest people kill very few people.  All the gun legislation is meaningless, feel good, garbage.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,475
Points
940
Food for thought:

CBC reports that all homicides are down and firearm-related homicides were also down, now 131 homicides tied to guns in 2013. Meanwhile Last year, 300 people died from illegal drug overdoses in B.C., according to the Coroners Service of British Columbia, and it appears 25 per cent of those deaths involved fentanyl. In Alberta, 120 people died last year after ingesting fentanyl, according to Alberta Health, compared to only six in 2011.
Between 2005-09, 210 people in Ontario died at least in part as a result of fentanyl overdoses, according to an annual report from the office of Ontario's chief coroner.
http://www.cbc.ca/…/fentanyl-deaths-are-a-canada-wide-disas…
 

TCBF

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
At the risk of repeating myself again, but here goes...

PET might have been issued a pistol during the October Crisis, and he might have neglected to return it.

My source? Gawd only knows. Years ago.

Might have been from Laycock and the original NFA.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
622
Points
910
E.R. Campbell said:
And they, criminals, are the source of 99% of all gun related problems.

Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!  Gun control advocates have proven time and again that GUNS kill people.  They are so dangerous that NO ONE should have them (except for police officers and soldiers, of course).
 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Haggis said:
Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong! Gun control advocates have proven time and again that GUNS kill people.  They are so dangerous that NO ONE should have them (except for police officers and soldiers, of course).

People kill people. With Guns, knives, cars, poison, their bare hands. As much as I support police officers and soldiers (In our western developed countries only) I do not want these organizations to be the sole ownership and control of firearms. After they get the guns it will be all knives then all box cutters, all screwdrivers, all shovels, etc.

I do not have that much faith in our governmental organizations to justly manage things.  And no, I am not some right wing, or left wing nut case.

What gives you the audacity to force your opinion over my opinion?

 

Rocky Mountains

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Haggis said:
Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!  Gun control advocates have proven time and again that GUNS kill people.  They are so dangerous that NO ONE should have them (except for police officers and soldiers, of course).

The constant in North America seems to be that areas of low crime rate have the highest gun ownership rate.  In most of the cities with brutally high murder rates , it is almost totally prohibited for anyone to purchase a gun.

The Detroit Police Chief recommends buying a gun to prevent being a victim.

Yep - missed it.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/17/police-guns-detroit-crime-race-cost-issues
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
226
Points
710
People, Haggis was being sarcastic with his post.

Haggis said:
Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!  Gun control advocates have proven time and again that GUNS kill people.  They are so dangerous that NO ONE should have them (except for police officers and soldiers, of course).

Can we stop addressing it as if he was serious?
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
New data shows a direct correlation between mass shootings and gun ownership.

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

The research looked at data provided by the New York City Police Department's 2012 active shooter report, the FBI's 2014 active shooter report and a series of sources from around the globe, not taking into account domestic or gang killings, or deaths that were part of other crimes. Lankford found stark correlations between the United States, Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, and Serbia -- the top five countries based on firearms owned per capita -- and public mass shooters per capita. "That is not a coincidence," he said, ahead of a presentation of his data at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).



A few interesting disparities appeared when American mass shootings were compared with those that took place elsewhere in the world. Lankford found shooters abroad were 3.6 times less likely to use multiple weapons, something he attributed to the vast number of weapons in circulation in the US compared with any other country (200 million more). He also found that victim numbers were lower in the US, at 6.87 percent per incident rather than 8.81 in other nations -- this, he attributed to the fact US police are more used to responding to such tragedies and therefore are better prepared. US shootings were more likely to take place in schools, factories and office buildings, however, versus military posts where incidents occur more frequently abroad.

"The most obvious implication is that the United States could likely reduce its number of school shootings, workplace shootings, and public mass shootings in other places if it reduced the number of guns in circulation."
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rocky Mountains said:
The constant in North America seems to be that areas of low crime rate have the highest gun ownership rate.  In most of the cities with brutally high murder rates , it is almost totally prohibited for anyone to purchase a gun.

The Detroit Police Chief recommends buying a gun to prevent being a victim.

Yep - missed it.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/17/police-guns-detroit-crime-race-cost-issues

Detroit is a city in which many neighbourhoods don't have any form of emergency services, never mind a police a presence. So yes, in a post-apocalyptic scenario where society no lonver can provide essential services, owning a firearm might be a good idea.  You might also want to get your own fire truck and train as a paramedic. However, most North American cities aren't in the same position as Detroit (for now at least. Oshawa and anywhere else that relies on good manufacturing jobs might someday be there), so the idea that arming the citizenry to protect themselves is a terribly dangerous idea. As the link I posted above points out, more guns means more mass shootings.
 

Kilo_302

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Crantor said:
It also seems to point to societal issues.  Maybe those should be adressed as opposed to going for the guns.  I suspect those people would still find a way to mass kill if they could using cars, knives or whatever.

I would agree that inequality contributes to violence in the US (the example above of Detroit bears this out), however it doesn't explain that the study shows that other countries where people have relatively easy access to guns also experience a higher instance of mass shootings. Inequality contributes, so the US has the highest rate of shootings, but it doesn't tell the whole story. People want the freedom to own guns, I get it. But the price seems to be a proportionately higher instance of gun violence.

The idea that more guns make us secure is simply not borne out in the data. And this link shows us that even political conservatives who claim this nonsense don't seem to believe it...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/08/25/3694369/conservative-gun-free-zones/

 

Here is a list of some of those conservative places that ban loaded guns:

  Republican Conventions- Firearms were banned at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, even as delegates inside passed language into the party platform affirming that Republicans “acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense.” State Republican conventions also regularly forbid guns. Indiana Republicans recently enacted legislation allowing guns in school parking lots, but held their 2014 convention in a facility that forbid firearms.

    Trump Hotels And Golf Courses- Despite Trump’s vociferous opposition to gun-free zones, numerous Trump hotels and golf courses, from Chicago to Los Angeles to Honolulu, do not allow firearms on the premises, even for concealed-carry permitholders.

  NRA Events- Though the National Rifle Association said gun-free zones “encourage criminals and psychopaths,” the group held some of its annual meeting events in Nashville’s Bridgestone Arena, which bans weapons. The year prior, the NRA held events in Indianapolis’ Lucas Oil Stadium, another gun-free zone.

    Town Halls- Guns are frequently prohibited at GOP congressional town hall meetings, especially after the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in 2011. Even stalwart conservatives like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) opted to ban firearms at their town halls.

    Presidential Campaign Stops- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), a prominent gun advocate who has signed legislation expanding gun rights, prohibited “guns, ammunition, fireworks, electric stun guns, mace, selfie-sticks, martial arts weapons/devices, or knives of any size” from his presidential campaign kick-off event. Other GOPers, like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) in 2012, have also banned concealed firearms at their events.

    GOP Debates- Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena, which hosted the first Republican presidential debate earlier this month, declared that “firearms and other weapons of any kind are strictly forbidden.” Guns will also be forbidden in the upcoming GOP debate held in Colorado.

    Congress- Republicans enjoy a majority in both wings of Congress and could change the rules to permit firearms on Capitol grounds if they wished. It would not be without precedent; until 1967, there was no rule prohibiting guns in or around Congress. However, strict security was implemented in the early 1980s after a series of high-profile shootings and bombings.

Of course, there’s a good reason why many conservatives don’t actually want to have guns in their own areas or events. Contrary the NRA’s claims, the vast majority of mass shootings don’t happen in gun-free zones. There’s also no evidence that a mass shooter ever chose his target because it prohibited firearms.

Instead, study after study has shown that more guns leads to more killings. In addition, even armed civilian bystanders with good intentions of stopping a shooter can wind up exacerbating already violent situations, as nearly happened in the Giffords shooting.

 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
226
Points
710
Kilo_302 said:
Detroit is a city in which many neighbourhoods don't have any form of emergency services, never mind a police a presence. So yes, in a post-apocalyptic scenario where society no lonver can provide essential services, owning a firearm might be a good idea.  You might also want to get your own fire truck and train as a paramedic. However, most North American cities aren't in the same position as Detroit (for now at least. Oshawa and anywhere else that relies on good manufacturing jobs might someday be there), so the idea that arming the citizenry to protect themselves is a terribly dangerous idea. As the link I posted above points out, more guns means more mass shootings.

I'm sorry, but this post of yours is just so full of shit. I am very intimate with Detroit and what you are trying to espouse as some sort of expert is pure bovine scatology. Your simply parroting what the rest of the ignorant people of this continent believe. You, obviously, know nothing about Detroit and should hold your tongue until you, at least, have a passing knowledge of how the city works.

Not surprised by your comments though. Everything you've posted in this thread is agenda driven and of as much a dubious nature as your understanding of Detroit.
 

KJK

Jr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
60
recceguy said:
I'm sorry, but this post of yours is just so full of crap. I am very intimate with Detroit and what you are trying to espouse as some sort of expert is pure bovine scatology. Your simply parroting what the rest of the ignorant people of this continent believe. You, obviously, know nothing about Detroit and should hold your tongue until you, at least, have a passing knowledge of how the city works.

Not surprised by your comments though. Everything you've posted in this thread is agenda driven and of as much a dubious nature as your understanding of Detroit.

Thank you Recceguy. I couldn't have said half as well.

KJK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top