The Great Gun Control Debate

[Eaglelord17]

Maybe it is not quantities of firearms available rather more that criminals are willing to use them. I bet if you looked into it you would find that they are being done by handguns not long guns (the preferred weapon of choice for criminals). Those handguns will be illegally sourced (either by bringing illegally into Canada from places like the USA or stolen from legitimate owners by criminals, most likely the former than the latter). Our handgun controls as a nation are actually pretty strong and about as effective as you really can get well still allowing people to legally possess their property (and I don't think banning would actually have any effect on criminals getting access to handguns).

What I personally am very supportive of is something like the death penalty for those found with illegal possession of firearms. It sends a strong message that we as a nation will not tolerate criminals willing to put the lives of our citizens at risk for whatever petty games they are playing. I know to many that is unacceptable, but I feel that is something that might actually wield results.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In my mind, pointing to isolated cities suffering from laxer fire arms controls in neighbouring districts is not proof that regulation does not work; it is proof that patchwork regulation does not work.

Ottawa, a single city's rates were used by the OP. I used Chicago as a single isolated city for the same purposes of the other end of the scale. I said not a thing about cities and provinces setting up their own gun laws. For purposes of this discussion, the amount of firearms and where they are from is a tiny small part that really has no weight. You will not make a single bit of difference, ever, if you stay on guns and ignore the people that are making those guns shoot.

What I suggested was that it's the criminals that are at fault. My suggestion of tightening the fortress laws works. We did it here and none of the gangs could meet the conditions with their clubhouses, meeting places, etc. They moved out of the city. Major, set term laws for unlawful carry, unlawful possession/ use of a firearm need high term incarceration, no parole and held in custody until trial with no 2 or 3 to 1 time. No good behaviour. A full 25(?)  years would be a good start.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In the US, hardly anyone gets convicted of straw purchases, they don't bother to enforce or improve existing laws.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am with Recceguy on this one: Punish the gun owners with very high penalty whenever a gun is used in the commission of a crime. That's been used in other countries, like the UK (it was one of the reason the perpetrators of the 1963 great train robbery used no guns: they wanted to have reasonable sentences should they be caught, as they suspected they would be).

For anyone interested, I suggest you consult the last research on the subject in Canada by Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm

Interestingly, the main conclusions:
; only 2% use of firearms in committing violent crimes in Canada; most gun violence involves (1) gangs and (2) handguns.

Since handguns are already restricted weapons - and few Canadians get the permit to have one - any government truly seeking to reduce gun violence in Canada would invest in (1) better border protection from handgun smuggling and (2) gang busting policing.

 

[captloadie]

I listened to a program on the CBC this weekend, interviewing I believe the Guns and Gangs TF in Toronto. They discussed how they took over a weapon once it had been booked in after a crime, and began the real forensic work of determining the history of the weapon. Checking for other crimes it matched to, finding serial numbers, and matching weapons back to the original owners. In their work, it was determined that the many of the guns coming to them, were once legal firearms in Canada, not ones being illegally imported into Canada. They are seeing a growing number of "legal gun owners" selling their guns on the black market. They spoke of a case where they tracked a gun back to a its original 67 year old owner who never reported it missing. Upon further investigation, it was revealed he was "missing" nearly two dozen guns. He had no previous criminal history, nor any indications that would cause someone to consider revoking his RPAL.

Now, I'm not anti-gun. I think that anyone who wants one, for any legal reason, should be allowed to get one. I just think we need to have some better checks and balances in place. I don't care if you have 100 different rifles, pistols, shotguns at your home that you have acquired legally. I would like to know you have them, and do care if you can't prove you still have all of them. It would be nice if there was some system in place that automatically updated a registry somewhere (especially for restricted weapons) upon purchase. The registry could run set algorithms to pick up on unusual purchase activity, and then maybe send a real person out to check that nothing fishy is going on. I mean, if you have a valid reason to purchase 7 various pistols over a three month period, is it a big deal if someone asks you every once in awhile "Hey, you still have those seven, and could you prove it to me?"

Just my  :2c:

 

[Jed]

I listened to a program on the CBC this weekend, interviewing I believe the Guns and Gangs TF in Toronto. They discussed how they took over a weapon once it had been booked in after a crime, and began the real forensic work of determining the history of the weapon. Checking for other crimes it matched to, finding serial numbers, and matching weapons back to the original owners. In their work, it was determined that the many of the guns coming to them, were once legal firearms in Canada, not ones being illegally imported into Canada. They are seeing a growing number of "legal gun owners" selling their guns on the black market. They spoke of a case where they tracked a gun back to a its original 67 year old owner who never reported it missing. Upon further investigation, it was revealed he was "missing" nearly two dozen guns. He had no previous criminal history, nor any indications that would cause someone to consider revoking his RPAL.

Now, I'm not anti-gun. I think that anyone who wants one, for any legal reason, should be allowed to get one. I just think we need to have some better checks and balances in place. I don't care if you have 100 different rifles, pistols, shotguns at your home that you have acquired legally. I would like to know you have them, and do care if you can't prove you still have all of them. It would be nice if there was some system in place that automatically updated a registry somewhere (especially for restricted weapons) upon purchase. The registry could run set algorithms to pick up on unusual purchase activity, and then maybe send a real person out to check that nothing fishy is going on. I mean, if you have a valid reason to purchase 7 various pistols over a three month period, is it a big deal if someone asks you every once in awhile "Hey, you still have those seven, and could you prove it to me?"

Just my  :2c:

Oh I see. You do not trust your fellow citizen enough to be law abiding.  What ever happened to Innocent until proven guilty?  You personally have no business being that intrusive on a law abiding citizen.  Very, very few legal gun owners knowingly break the law and sell their prohibited / restricted weapons.  For all I know you might be a closet pedofile because you have porn somewhere in your closet.

Bottom line is you have to have some faith in your fellow man if you want to get along in this world.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You cite one instance of a gun owner going bad and it is supposed to substantiate that huge intimation from the TPS? Both entities are extremely biased in their views and vocally against civilian ownership. Both are for full confiscation. I didn't look it up because, well, CBC and TPS makes it suspect just at the mention. The 'many' that they are describing is in fact a small percentage of the illegal guns on the street. And it goes both ways. I had a friend whose firearms were stolen and he got one pistol back about 15 years later after being found in the States. Many of the others were also returned at lesser intervals.

I'm also willing to bet, that if they know owners are selling their stuff on the black market, it would get nationwide coverage from the CBC as another excuse to disarm us, by showboating the arrests and court cases. I don't read newspapers much anymore, but I've yet to hear of a public case being prosecuted. I'm not denying it happens, but I think the TPS and CBC are just using their biased soapbox to push their agenda.

Most of the anti gun agenda has been beaten on fact. This is just another angle to explore and sink it the same way.

Your second paragraph just goes to more imposition on law abiding people.

You would like to know I have them? What business of yours is it, what I own? Want to know how many or type? Come knock on my door and you'll get your answer.

Police want to check? The CFO has already got that power. All they need is a warrant and I'll show them. That only includes officers from the CFO. No other police jurisdiction gets to see them unless they are seizing them for a reason. The system for buying and selling firearms already contains your not so new ideas. There is a registry already for restricted and prohibited firearms.

And guess what? With all the leaks in the registry. The Ottawa Citizen posting it online for everyone to see and more. The Grit registry became a shopping list for thieves. If they want to complain about stolen guns getting on the street, they can point that finger right at themselves for their stupid rules that they alone responsible for plus the billions it cost.


It's really too bd, that the people that complain most are the ones ignorant of the facts. Before police enforce the laws, before government changes those laws and before the RCMP are given that law making ability, they all need an education. Most of the people that are against guns and owners, don't even know the laws or how to interpret them. Everyone participating in these decisions should be required to take and pass both portions of the PAL training, including range practice. Only then are they qualified to talk about them.

The SME's in Canada on gun laws are the gun owners. Most police and government don't even know what they are bitching about or what is in it.

Proven by Goodale, Trudeau and Butts. Proposing changes to legislation that already exist, in the form they are proposing. Outright lies by Trudeau saying you don't need a license to purchase. They are making feel good rules without even looking at existing law.

Gun owners, again, are already run through a daily check with CPIC to look for unusual activity and changes. Every friggin' day! The mob doesn't even get that scrutiny.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I listened to a program on the CBC this weekend, interviewing I believe the Guns and Gangs TF in Toronto. They discussed how they took over a weapon once it had been booked in after a crime, and began the real forensic work of determining the history of the weapon. Checking for other crimes it matched to, finding serial numbers, and matching weapons back to the original owners. In their work, it was determined that the many of the guns coming to them, were once legal firearms in Canada, not ones being illegally imported into Canada. They are seeing a growing number of "legal gun owners" selling their guns on the black market. They spoke of a case where they tracked a gun back to a its original 67 year old owner who never reported it missing. Upon further investigation, it was revealed he was "missing" nearly two dozen guns. He had no previous criminal history, nor any indications that would cause someone to consider revoking his RPAL.

I'd be interested in listening to that program. I recently spoke with a cop in Toronto that deals with gangs and guns and it was his view that most of the illegal guns they found in gangs were smuggeled in from the US. Mostly they are shitty beat up pistols that have a tendency to jam or break. He thinks that gang members in Canada still have a much harder time finding pistols than they do in the US as demonstrated by the shitty condition of the pistols and that we don't see every gang member with a gun but rather 1 or 2 of them shared by a community of 20-30 gang members. They're passed around. He said handguns are also quite expensive (even for the shitty ones) on the black market and black market ammunition in Canada is likewise expensive and hard to get.

From my own research cases where Canadian firearm owners who sell restricted guns (handguns) to criminals are few and far between. I think I came across 3 or 4?  Have you seen the number of guns that disappear out of Toronto and Toronto area police lock ups? I'd be more concerned about that for a number of reasons. Maybe old men do sell them, I'm not sure.

I just think we need to have some better checks and balances in place. I don't care if you have 100 different rifles, pistols, shotguns at your home that you have acquired legally. I would like to know you have them, and do care if you can't prove you still have all of them. It would be nice if there was some system in place that automatically updated a registry somewhere (especially for restricted weapons) upon purchase. The registry could run set algorithms to pick up on unusual purchase activity, and then maybe send a real person out to check that nothing fishy is going on. I mean, if you have a valid reason to purchase 7 various pistols over a three month period, is it a big deal if someone asks you every once in awhile "Hey, you still have those seven, and could you prove it to me?"

Just my  :2c:

That system is already in place. The CFO flags stuff like that and sometimes contacts firearm owners to see whats going on. The CFO can also inspect someones restricted firearms storage (and firearms) at anytime if they have over 10 restricted guns and under 10 guns they'll call to set up a meeting time when they're legally allowed to come and inspect.

It's unfortunate rapists, child molesters, murderers and drug dealers aren't subjected to the same level of scrutiny.

 

[McG]

When I looked into Chicago and where the guns came from police records indicated 60% of the firearms came from out of state, so likely states with weaker gun control?  40% of the handguns still came from Illinois.

And if you eliminated most of that 60% from out of state, what would be the impact on Chicago crime?  Really, we can only assume.  But it is possible that the impact would be to bring crime in line with neighbouring jurisdictions.  Too bad this is exactly one of the areas for which Rand has identified there is insufficient evidence for conclusion:  https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html

Ottawa, a single city's rates were used by the OP. I used Chicago as a single isolated city for the same purposes of the other end of the scale. I said not a thing about cities and provinces setting up their own gun laws.

You are absolutely correct.  A reference was made to Ottawa and you countered with Chicago as an analogy, looking at both cities as isolated systems.  But they are not, are they.  You are not comparing apples to apples when you compare a Canadian city, which is exists within a relatively uniform primarily federally regulated system, to a US city, which exists within a patchwork of varying state and municipal laws, restrictions, and prohibitions.  Looking again:

Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the States. They  have a gun murder rate that outstrips countries and small wars. The majority of murders are not committed with legal firearms. I'll bet if you want to look it up, that the increase in murders with and without guns, has increased according to police, from gang activity. Imposing more laws on lawful gun owners and reclassifying and/ or confiscating their property will not make criminals with illegal firearms start obeying the law.

Recognizing that this post was made in response to a raised concern over gun crime in Ottawa, your thesis appears to be that "Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the States" [this conjecture could be debated] yet still has a gun murder rate that outstrips "small wars" and so therefore gun laws are ineffective and not worth consideration. Except, you cannot make that conclusion with same easy leap when the city is not looked upon as an isolated system but instead as a node with in a geographically variable collective of systems.

For purposes of this discussion, the amount of firearms and where they are from is a tiny small part that really has no weight.

When we fought IEDs in Afghanistan, one of the critical elements was "attack the network."  That is going after the supply chain.  If criminals are getting illegally guns or getting guns illegally, that is absolutely critical to the discussion.  Hell, it's even relevant if the criminals are getting their guns legally.  If a tiny regulatory adjustment can have a significant impact on gun supply to criminals, then it could be worth considering.  Or avoid the discussion & avoid the analysis, and someone will come along on a whim and impose intrusive regulatory changes that may have no impact on gun supply to criminals (as may be happening in the government's current legislation).

You will not make a single bit of difference, ever, if you stay on guns and ignore the people that are making those guns shoot.

Sure, but the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.  "We cannot do A because we must to B" is a false dichotomy when we should be doing a little of both.

What I suggested was that it's the criminals that are at fault. My suggestion of tightening the fortress laws works. We did it here and none of the gangs could meet the conditions with their clubhouses, meeting places, etc. They moved out of the city. Major, set term laws for unlawful carry, unlawful possession/ use of a firearm need high term incarceration, no parole and held in custody until trial with no 2 or 3 to 1 time. No good behaviour. A full 25(?)  years would be a good start.

If your murder rate in Ottawa, is out of whack with the national norm, then you have a problem and its not guns. It's your municipal government that's to blame. Get them to tighten and enforce fortress laws. Let the police do their jobs, if someone or thing doesn't seem right, they can't even ask the person anything, including for ID. The person can just turn and walk away, like a belligerent on a UN mission.

Again, sure.  But I would suggest that fault does not rest at the municipal level for gangs that are often inter-provincial if not trans national.  And if you do really crack-down locally, are you solving the problem or displacing it to somewhere with less resources to fight it?  Much as I have suggested that patchwork solutions to firearms regulations in the US may be part of their problem, I would be cautious about patchwork solutions to gangs in Canada.

 

[Jed]

When we fought IEDs in Afghanistan, one of the critical elements was "attack the network."  That is going after the supply chain.  If criminals are getting illegally guns or getting guns illegally, that is absolutely critical to the discussion.  Hell, it's even relevant if the criminals are getting their guns legally.  If a tiny regulatory adjustment can have a significant impact on gun supply to criminals, then it could be worth considering.  Or avoid the discussion & avoid the analysis, and someone will come along on a whim and impose intrusive regulatory changes that may have no impact on gun supply to criminals (as may be happening in the government's current legislatio



You say this above:  So by attackingthe network you wish to treat law abiding citizens in a largely peaceful country as you would in a failed state territory just for peace of mind? 

Not in my Canada, at least not without me doing all I can to resist such a police state approach.

 

[McG]

So by attackingthe network you wish to treat law abiding citizens in a largely peaceful country as you would in a failed state territory just for peace of mind? 

I did not say such hyperbole. But is suppose you found any easy strawman if you just want to lash-out at (shut down) any rational discussion. I was talking about cutting the supply to criminals. Should I assume from your retort that you would oppose anything that would impede the supply of firearms to criminals?

 

[Jed]

I did not say such hyperbole. But is suppose you found any easy strawman if you just want to lash-out at (shut down) any rational discussion. I was talking about cutting the supply to criminals. Should I assume from your retort that you would oppose anything that would impede the supply of firearms to criminals?

No that would be a ridiculous assumption as you well know.

Lash out ???  I just feel strongly about people who from a position of authority talk down to the unwashed masses, especially when it is implied that they some how can not formulate an articulate response to a disagreement.

 

[McG]

No that would be a ridiculous assumption as you well know.

Less ridiculous than your previous spin on my comment. But you must know that too. Perhaps you want to skip the ridiculous hyperbole and contribute constructively?

 

[Jed]

Less ridiculous than your previous spin on my comment. But you must know that too. Perhaps you want to skip the ridiculous hyperbole and contribute constructively?

Well I admit I have side swiped you due to the complete frustration and gut ache I feel because of the Government response with Bill C-71.

One of my biggest concerns is the power driving of this disaster of a Bill through the parliamentary system without any proper debate or analysis.

There are several serious issues with this Bill which unfairly affect some of the most law abiding citizens of this country.

One of the most significant is the government abdicating their responsibility to provide overwatch on laws regarding firearms for the RCMP. This sets up a future  ‘Police state’ type move. 

There are other major issues as well that will come out in a few days time. It is my desire to live in a free Canada and not import the BS we see happening in Europe and elsewhere.

 

[McG]

Now I think we have found some common ground.

When it comes to letting the police classify fire arms, I don’t understand why the government does not take this in the direction of just about every other technical regulatory system.  A board of experts examines the problem, reports findings, and cabinet decides ... or keep it simple and just leave the cabinet override on the RCMP process.

The alternative could be to very prescriptively & completely describe in legislation the combination of performance and technical characteristics that make a fire arm non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited. There would be no more regulatory lists classifying firearms (or “prescribing” firearms as is the language actually found in the Criminal Code).  But this idea could prove to be too inflexible to please any interested parties.

Also, there should be a way to become a licensed prohibited owner without having been grandfathered.

 

[Jed]

Now I think we have found some common ground.

When it comes to letting the police classify fire arms, I don’t understand why the government does not take this in the direction of just about every other technical regulatory system.  A board of experts examines the problem, reports findings, and cabinet decides ... or keep it simple and just leave the cabinet override on the RCMP process.

The alternative could be to very prescriptively & completely describe in legislation the combination of performance and technical characteristics that make a fire arm non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited. There would be no more regulatory lists classifying firearms (or “prescribing” firearms as is the language actually found in the Criminal Code).  But this idea could prove to be too inflexible to please any interested parties.

Also, there should be a way to become a licensed prohibited owner without having been grandfathered.

I agree with all that.

 

[Good2Golf]

...One of the most significant is the government abdicating their responsibility to provide overwatch on laws regarding firearms for the RCMP. This sets up a future  ‘Police state’ type move...

Jed, this is an excellent point you make, and one that similarly concerns many of us.  Without too much of a tin-foil hat, one could then consider the Government’s recent appointment of the RCMP’s new Commissioner, particularly mindful by many familiar with the Force about junior experience compared even to other female candidates, and wonder what influence is still happening between PMO and the Force, yet in a manner that isn’t open to public (Legislative) oversight/awareness?

Regards
G2G

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Jed, this is an excellent point you make, and one that similarly concerns many of us.  Without too much of a tin-foil hat, one could then consider the Government’s recent appointment of the RCMP’s new Commissioner, particularly mindful by many familiar with the Force about junior experience compared even to other female candidates, and wonder what influence is still happening between PMO and the Force, yet in a manner that isn’t open to public (Legislative) oversight/awareness?

Regards
G2G

The RCMP having complete and final control of firearms classification, without any appeal or oversight mechanism is my largest complaint with C71. The decisions they make can and will have Criminal Code implications for gun owners. They will then turn around and enforce their own decisions. In no other area of law in Canada is a police force allowed such power and that should concern all Canadians.

If it was up to me, I would set up a separate, standalone agency or laboratory staffed with experts whose sole job was to research and classify firearms according to the criteria laid down by Parliament.

The rest of the bill amounts to petty harassment of both legal gun owners and gun vendors, but will likely do little if anything to impact gang violence, which is the stated purpose of this whole exercise.

 

[Jarnhamar]

By the Liberals putting the RCMP in a position to make these rules on their own the Liberals can step back and say it's not them making the rules when people are angry.

Money towards  border protection and anti gang stuff is great  but remains to be seen if the money is actually allocated effectively.  The remainder just annoys and harasses people who have no intention of breaking the law.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I would add one further small step to what SKT proposes: The independent expert agency would do the research and classification of firearms based on the criteria laid down in the law by Parliament, but it would be for the purpose of advising the Government, with the coming into force of any classification for any given firearm still requiring adoption through regulation - duly published, publicized and entering into force according to the law applicable to adoption of regulations.