The Great Gun Control Debate

[zipperhead_cop]

Is their a possibility that a CCW holder may go bad? Yes there is, but the same applies to police officers, yet I don’t see the need to disarm them. Sad to say but most Police Officers have very poor gun handling skills and no interest in improving them beyond the basic requirements. I also believe that Police Officers should have to get their PAL, so they will at least have a basic knowledge of the Firearms Act. (I have met Officers who incredibility good with their firearms, but they seem to be the minority)

I'm not really sure where you are going with this.  I have seen many a gun thread turn into an anti-police rant, so I'm not going to bother with that.  All I can say is many police are not Lieberal supporters and many of us disagreed with the way the registry was set up as well.  That is where discresion comes in, and just because we can charge someone doesn't mean we will charge someone. 
As for an officers weapon proficiencey or knowledge of the Firearms Act, it is unfortunate that you have only encountered bumpty officers in your travels.  Hopefully other juristictions are more competent than the one you are stuck in. 
We don't have to have a PAL because the law doesn't require us to.  And frankly, it would be a waste of time.  I needed one and wrote the test and did the handling without any lessons and got a 94 percent.  Those lessons are pretty easy and have almost nothing to do with firearms as they apply to policing on the street. 
As for the "shouldn't you treat every call as a gun call" that is fine in theory.  Nobody should ever be complacent on a call and should always have a heads up.  It isn't always "need to have" but it is always "nice to have".  Knowledge is our biggest weapon. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I not trying to slag police officers, but I do find Police Officers in general have some poor attitudes to lawful gunowners. I suspect the rather political senior management of the police forces and the Liberals encouraged this. My understanding is that the Police firearms were supposed to be registered under the same system, but they have been able to avoid this so far, although I think the requirement is still there.

Making police officer take the PAL would have several benefits:

Breakdown the them against us attitudes
Give the Officers a better understanding of the Act
Give them a rudimentary background in other firearms other than their issued ones.

I understand it is not currently required under the law, but I think the law should be changed so that applies to everyone. Part of my reasoning is that the stunningly lack of logic displayed in the Firearms Act becomes evident to anyone who takes the course. The anti’s like to use the Police Forces (mainly their chiefs) as supporters for more restrictive firearm laws so we all get screwed because the majority of Police Officers who think the current system sucks are to afraid for their careers to speak up. If every Officer (especially the police chiefs) had to take the course support would evaporate. 

 

[Greymatters]

I'm not really sure where you are going with this.  I have seen many a gun thread turn into an anti-police rant, so I'm not going to bother with that.  All I can say is many police are not Lieberal supporters and many of us disagreed with the way the registry was set up as well. 

Zipperhead, I believe you, and I know associates from diverse police forces would agree with you, but unfortunately many are influenced by what news articles have said in the past.  When gun control first came out a lot of police chiefs publicly supported it, which for most people translates into 'all police support it'.  (Not to mention some posts Ive read here refering to blueline.ca where apparently most of the membership there also still supports gun control). 

 

[Inch]

Ah the Great Gun Control Debate.

I've purposely stayed out of this one for a while.

Where I stand... I'm a gun enthusiast, I believe in CCW, I disagree with the gun registry in any form (I'll elaborate), and I think that all citizens that are qualified and competent should be able to conceal and carry a gun wherever they want, whenever they want.

http://gunfacts.info/

Good read, it debunks most gun myths. For example, the availability of guns leading to higher crime rates when in fact the State of Vermont has absolutely no gun control, not even a requirement for a CCW permit. It's just allowed, yet does anyone think of Vermont as a harem of violence, lawlessness and gun fights in the streets? Nope, it's one of the safer places to live.

Also, the myth that only Texas allows CCW. Truth of the matter is that 40 states allow CCW, with only 10 states restricting or not allowing CCW. How safe is Washington DC? Anyone think that's a super-safe city to live in? CCW is not allowed there either, yet it's got one of the highest crime rates in the entire country.

Also, the crime rates have steadily fallen across the 40 states that allow CCW, yet gun ownership has increased. If I were to believe Wendy Cukier and her band of gun-haters, a rise in gun ownership should mean an equal rise in the crime rate. Why isn't that the case? I'm no psychologist, but I'll tell you that criminals are lazy. That's why they don't make an honest living, they look for the easy score. Would they think break and enters would be easy knowing that they're likely to get two shots to the centre of mass? Nope, they'll look elsewhere which is why you see lower crime rates in the 40 states that allow concealed carry.

I think the comment should be made regarding the school shootings in Colorado and Virginia. While both states allow CCW with few restrictions, schools are designated "Gun-free Zones". Which means that no one but the shooters had guns and no one but the police could intervene but only after a tragic loss of life that could have been prevented if only one student or teacher had a concealed pistol and could return fire and stop the killer.

Peaceful negotiation doesn't stop madmen, bullets do.

As for our resident police officer, when I have a police officer assigned to me to protect me, I'll give up my right of self defence. Until that time, I'll keep my guns and protect myself. I'm quite proficient at shooting, so don't worry about collateral damage.

Now, as for the registry, all handguns have been registered in this country since 1934, yet handgun crime has increased. What exactly did that registry do to prevent Ecole Polytechnique or Dawson College? Nothing. All it allowed the government to do was confiscate a large number of guns that had barrels that were under 105mm. This did what to prevent the 16 year old from being shot on Boxing Day in Toronto? Sadly, nothing, again.

So, whether you like guns or think they're icky, the truth of the matter is that no amount of gun control will prevent crime. We've already proven this as have the British and a number of other countries with gun registries or bans.

Only crime control will prevent crime and only law abiding citizens with a will to protect themselves can protect themselves, provided they have the right (and training) to have the proper tools for the job.

Just my dos pesos.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What I would like to see:

Cancel the long gun registry

Cancel the SAP for Prohibs, treat them the same as restricted.

Move all rimfires that are restricted to non restricted including handguns

Expand the ATC I to “Rural carry” Basically anyone with a restricted license could have Rural carry added to their ATT where the holder can carry in plain sight a sidearm in any area that is outside a municipality and in a area where it is lawful to shoot. Upon returning to town the firearm owner transports the firearm as per the existing regs. This would not require any real changes in the law, perhaps a regulation change.

Remove the requirement of “imminent threat” as part of the ATC III application and solidify the training requirements using something similar to Black badge, plus a section on the laws and consequences, required range time and a basic force on force. Applicant must not have a criminal record. Require the holder to provide proof that they have met a annual standard (a course of fire conducted under a R.O. at a range.)

All of the above are quite doable under our existing laws.   

 

[Loachman]

 
As for the "lawful gun owners get picked on because they are easy to find" comment by GreyMatter, I disagree.  I personally know of many people whose permits expired, or moved without notifying the Registry and didn't get charged or lose their weapons.

And I know of many who were screwed over completely. A firearms owner in the Toronto area suffered a break-in during an absence a year or two ago. It took the thieves almost two days to cut into his safe, which exceeded the minimum requirements by far. His treatment by the police was abysmal. Jonathan Login was hunting groundhog with a .22 near his rural home in the Barrie area a couple of years ago. Somebody spotted him and phoned the OPP to inquire if it was legal to be carrying a gun in the area. The dispatcher merely passed this on as a gun call, rather than providing all of the information available to her. Mr Login was met in his driveway by the OPP and arrested at gunpoint. He was strip-searched in his driveway in front of his family and in full view of passersby. One of his young children suffers from a significant chronic illness and requires hourly medication. The whole family were denied access to their home, even for the purpose of retrieving required medication, until he consented to a search of his home. He was subsequently cleared of all charges and the arresting officers and their detachment (Alliston, I believe) were heavily criticized by the judge for their conduct.

An expired licence does not mean that one can simply renew and carry on. If one's licence expires, all of one's registrations are revoked. For those grandfathered to own certain categories of firearms, that ends that grandfathering and the firearms are stolen by the government with no compensation.

It's not so much the police picking on firearms owners, although there are numerous examples of that happening across the country, but the legislation and many of the bureaucrats running its various organs, and governments at all levels as a whole.

Many of my friends have been police officers, I have worked with RCMP, OPP, and other police forces in my military career in a variety of capacities, and I have flown in two six-month police helicopter trials. While I personally and professionally support police, I no longer trust them because of our current firearms legislation and their duty to enforce it. Millions of other firearms feel the same. Whereas we used to invite police to shoot on our ranges with us and just plain hang out together, that now happens way less than it used to. This legislation and its predecessors has driven a wedge between the recreational firearms community and the police. We do not trust you any more, and that is not good for anybody.

However, it is nice when I am en route to a violent domestic to be able to run a quick check and see if I'm going into a firearm equipped home.  
So far as my opinion on the registry, I can't see any reason to not be able to find out who owns a gun from its serialized information.

Do you REALLY believe that? REALLY?

A check of the registry will show one of two results for a particular address: there are firearms registered to somebody there or there are not. If it shows that firearms are registered there, this means that either there are legally-owned firearms present, there are no firearms present, and/or there are illegally-owned firearms present. If it shows that there are no firearms registered there, this means that either there are legally-owned firearms present, there are no firearms present, and/or there are illegally-owned firearms present.

Huh? Same thing, either way.

An owner of non-restricted firearms may possess them at home. He may be away on a hunting trip with all of his non-restricted firearms, or travelling to a competition on the other side of the country. He could have lent, rented, or leased any or all of his non-restricted firearms to somebody else with a PAL or POL for an indefinite period, and that person could have lent, rented, or leased them onward ad infinitum. There is no obligation or legal requirement to inform the police of CFC in any transfer of possession, just for a change of ownership. Possession and ownership are not the same thing.

An owner could be visiting the target address, with his firearms, so even if no licensed owner resides at that address and no  firearms are registered to any occupant at that address, legally-owned firearms could legally be present and the registry would neither know nor be able to tell you.

And then there are the illegally-owned and unregistered firearms that may or may not be present.

As far as the serial number claim goes, firearms do not necessarily have unique serial numbers similar to VINs (Vehicle Identification Numbers). They were/are applied at the whim of the manufacturer or in accordance with blocks assigned by the purchasing agency in the case of many military or police organisations, and have been frequently duplicated. German military practice, for example, was to assign a simple four- or five-digit serial number, starting at 0001 or 00001 each new year. Each factory did exactly that, so every year a dozen or more factories would stamp "0001" on the first K98K coming off of the line. To uniquely identify each individual weapon of each type, the factory code and year of manufacture has to be considered as well. Only serial numbers on the "frame or receiver" count, as that is what legally constitutes the firearm according to law. Many have them stamped into the barrel, which is an uncontrolled spare part and can be changed without having to notify the CFC, and many completely lack a "frame or receiver". The system can only ignore Cyrillic and Chinese markings. Many older firearms have no serial number at all on any part. The Lieberal government's solution was to issue sticky labels with a Firearms Identification Number - they were oblivious to the existence of such things as cleaning solvents and oil.

The registry tells you nothing useful at all, cannot, and never will be able to.

If a check of an address shows nothing, do you relax more when you go in, or maintain the same level of caution?

At the ranges within a home, is a gun-wielding crazy any more dangerous than a knife-wielding one? Not from what I've heard, from many, many coppers.

And that's not even accounting for the horrendous error rate within it. Registering firearms accurately is virtually impossible no matter how much effort and money is thrown at the problem.

None of the claimed reasons for maintaining an incomplete and inaccurate registry make any sense when examined logically and thoroughly. They wouldn't even if the abomination was complete and accurate, either.

A licensing system will tell you if a resident is a lawful firearms owner, and that is far simpler than a registry. It still doesn't tell you where any given licence-holder happens to be, though - just like a driver's licence cannot tell you where its holder is at any given moment.

I used to support licensing of firearms owners, but no longer do for a variety of reasons.

There are currently about 186,000 people in this country currently under firearms prohibitions or who have had licences denied or revoked. The system makes no attempt to track them. It focusses, instead, upon almost three million licenced owners and a further two to four million otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for whatever reason, chose not to comply. None of these people are a threat, including the paper criminals, yet the proven threats are not tracked. They are exempt from the system, and invisible to it. They do not have to report a change of address or open their homes to warrantless searches or face jail time as we do. They can acquire firearms far more easily and quickly than any of us can, and frequently do. I've read so many articles in newspapers over the last few years wherein it was reported that the murderer, robber, or rapist was armed with a firearm despite a prohibition order.

A far simpler, cheaper, and more effective solution would be a firearms-prohibited persons registry combined with a certificate of competency similar to the old Firearms Acquisition Certificate for prospective owners. Instead of "inspections" (the Firearms Act's term for a warrantless search of the residence of a law-abiding firearms owner) of honest citizens' homes, "inspections" can be made at the homes of people prohibited from possessing firearms. I'd bet real money that might have more of an effect on crime as well as officer safety than the current abortion - which is zero at best.

I'm sure when a gun owners home gets broken in to they appreciate getting their weapons back when a bad guy gets caught with it.

We know of no cases where a firearm was returned to its rightful owner under such circumstances. Usually, the owner is charged regardless of the measures taken to secure his firearms and has his collection seized and put on public display, and his name and address splashed all over the newspapers. A central registry is not required in order to return other forms of stolen property either. This is an enormously expensive method of even trying to do so. Occasionally, owners have been successful at getting their property returned to them, usually in damaged condition thanks to lack of care by the police, through lengthy and expensive court action following an unjustified seizure.

As I said earlier, none of the stated/claimed reasons for blowing huge sums of money on a registry make any sense when thoroughly examined. The only remaining (and unstated) reason is to facilitate mass confiscation. That is not paranoia. It has occurred in many other countries, and it has occurred here on several occasions. The pattern is to move previously non-restricted firearms into the restricted category and require them to be registered. At some later date, some of those are then declared prohibited. Sometimes these firearms are confiscated outright with no compensation, and sometimes owners are grandfathered. As those owners cannot pass these firearms on to their children and, as there is a steadily reduced market as the grandfathered pool ages and dies, they cannot sell them, their value has essentially been reduced to zero and ultimate confiscation is assured. There is no justification for any of this. Theft is theft, whether done through government whim backed up by police, or non-uniformed thugs acting for themselves. The personal violation is exactly the same.

This is why universal registration is so alarming, and why approximately half of all firearms owners in this country refused to comply: the government can only take what it knows about, and it will only dare to attempt universal confiscation if all firearms are in the system. The kind of mass non-compliance that we have seen virtually guarantees that no such thing will happen for at least many years to come.

I do not want the government to know what I own. I don't trust it.

 
FYI, we don't need stronger penalties for firearm offences.  They are pretty harsh now.  What we need are judges that are willing to give them out (or even abide by the mandatory minimum sentences) and that would be a nice start.

On that we completely agree. A criminal in jail can harm nobody, and his guns, knives, and poisons become irrelevant.

Punish the crooked, and let the honest citizen actually enjoy the rights and freedoms that he/she thinks that he/she has and should have.

 
Also IMO there is no reason for the general population to be permitted to carry concealed weapons.

Nor is there any reason NOT to.

There is only one reason required in a truly free society to own or do anything, up to the point where it infringes upon the rights of others: "because I want to". You don't have to do so if you do not wish to, but nobody should be telling anybody who is not a threat and who demonstrates competency what they can and cannot do so long as they present no danger to others.

In the case of concealed carry, the standard suggested by the NFA is the same standard applied to the RCMP: if a citizen meets the same standard of firearms competency and is screened to the same level as an RCMP member, then an ATC should be issued.

If that standard is adequate for the RCMP, who are nothing more than citizens with training and special clothes when it comes right down to it, then it is adequate for John Q Public. If it's not good enough for John Q Public, then it's not really good enough for the RCMP either.

 
Again, nothing against the legit gun owners.

Nothing against cops, either. You are, however, an agent of the government. I have learned not to trust the latter, and unfortunately that therefore extends to the former, ie you, in certain matters.

 
But imagine a situation where bad guy sees legit gun owner with a piece strapped to his hip.  He waits until buddy goes to the parking lot, smashes him over the head from behind with a bottle and steals his piece.  Now I have yet another gun on the street to worry about.

Which is one of the beauties of CONCEALED carry - "bad guy" cannot tell whose head to smash.

The other beauty is that "bad guy" doesn't know whom he can murder, rob, or rape with impunity either. This is why, even only with the average 2-3% of eligible US citizens carrying concealed, violent confrontational crime drops when jurisdictions allow concealed carry. Anybody could be a threat to the criminal, not just the handful of special citizens in uniform who can be easily avoided.

And you have more than enough guns "on the street" (I'm really tired of that cliche) anyway. A couple more, presuming that this would happen, would not really make a difference. The vast majority of handguns recovered in crimes have never been registered.

It's simple supply and demand. Supply is awfully hard to choke off. We haven't done it with drugs, which are consumable and smell interesting to trained dogs, and we'll never do it with guns that last forever with a minimum of care and smell like any other lump of metal. Demand can be reduced: jail violent criminals and drug traffickers for lengthy periods.

It's the CROOKS "on the street" on whom we should be focussing, and not inanimate objects and honest folk.

 
If your day to day life is so off the rails that you need a gun to defend yourself, perhaps review your life choices or apply for one through the existing laws (ACT III as mentioned).

My life circumstances, beyond the fact that I own a variety of property and a small amount of money and credit cards that may be attractive to robbers, have a wife and daughter, and may at some point happen to be in a place where a crime might be committed regardless of what I do, are immaterial. I don't have open vats of gasoline scattered about my house, yet I have smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and insurance against  fire and other perils. I also wear and/or use a variety of other forms of protective equipment when appropriate, and carry life insurance.

A firearm is merely another form of protective equipment - or else why do you carry one?

And if YOU can carry one, why, given the same training and screening, can I not?

Do you not trust your fellow citizen? Why not, deep down?

The answer to that says more about you than it does me. Examine your prejudices, please.

What other equipment commonly used by police should we not be trusted with?

Cars? Far more complex a piece of machinery than a simple firearm, and far more deadly "on the street" in the "wrong hands" (another tired cliche), yet the peasantry are permitted to own as many as they want and can afford and use them in public with no more than basic and usually sensible rules.

 

[Greymatters]

I'll have to make it plain here that I am somewhere in the middle between Loachman and Zipperhead.  Avoid lumpng me in with either side. 

Extreme <--------------------------  Firm Opinions  -------------------------------->  Extreme
Loachman                                          ME                                                  Zipperhead

 

[Loachman]

I'll have to make it plain here that I am somewhere in the middle between Loachman and Zipperhead.  Avoid lumpng me in with either side. 

Extreme <--------------------------  Firm Opinions  -------------------------------->  Extreme
Loachman                                          ME                                                   Zipperhead

I was more in that middle at one point too, but thirty years of living under and fighting successive waves of increasingly stupid "gun control" laws has pushed me to what you describe as an "extreme" and I would call reasonable.

 

[Loachman]

A timely article, from a US newspaper:


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070701_238_A1_hTeny75637

Armed and Licensed: Concealed carry law hitting mark

By CLIFTON ADCOCK World Staff Writer
7/1/2007
Last Modified: 7/2/2007  6:07 PM

Ten years later, officials say gun-carrying citizens
responsible, deterring crime.

If the number of concealed-handgun license holders is
any indication, robbers may have to worry about
getting more than stolen goods during a heist.

With an increasing number of state residents legally
packing heat, more robbers may be taking away some hot
lead.

More than 54,000 Oklahomans are licensed to carry
concealed handguns under the Oklahoma Self-Defense
Act, said Jessica Brown, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma
State Bureau of Investigation. That number is up from
around 31,000 in 2000 and 15,081 in 1996, after the
first year of licensing. Once approved, applicants are
licensed to carry concealed weapons for five years.
After five years, they are required to renew their
application.

In the beginning, some people thought a wave of
shootings by license holders would occur, but those
fears have proved to be unfounded, Brown said.

"There's very little of that, quite frankly," she
said. "Most people don't want to hurt each other."

Former state Sen. Frank Shurden, who sponsored the
bill that led to the law, said he had tried to get the
bill
through the Legislature for several years but that
fears of more shootings and of a more dangerous work
environment for law enforcement officers held it back.

"They didn't have confidence in law-abiding citizens
like I did, but they do now," said Shurden, a Democrat
from Henryetta. "They claimed that every fender bender
would be a shootout."

Shurden said he is pleased with the law's results more
than 10 years after it went into effect.

"They (license holders) have to be good, upstanding
people. That's one reason it worked so well," he said.

"I've always been of the opinion that when good,
law-abiding citizens are armed, we're all safer. I'm
real satisfied with the way the law is working."

Robert Welch, a Tulsa concealed-weapon license
instructor, and Tulsa Police Officer Jason Willingham
both noted that there have been instances in which a
license holder has foiled a robbery or other crime.

Last November, a man who Tulsa police say had just
committed a burglary, stolen a car and fled from
police crashed the car and then accosted a bystander
with a knife. The victim, a concealed-handgun license
holder, pulled his weapon on the man, prompting him to
flee.

In March 2006, a customer with a concealed-handgun
license shot an armed man who was attempting to rob a
supermarket near 91st Street and Memorial Drive.

This year in the Tulsa area, there have been three
shootings -- one fatal -- by people who have
concealed-carry licenses. Police say the two shootings
in Tulsa were sparked by traffic altercations that
became physical and ended with the license holders
shooting people they said had physically assaulted
them.

In the first shooting, which occurred at 18th Street
and Boston Avenue in April, police say a motorist who
had to stop for a pedestrian shot the pedestrian's
friend during a resulting altercation. The man who was
shot was treated at a hospital and released. The
motorist was charged with recklessly handling a
firearm and has pleaded not guilty.

On June 10, police say a retired security guard
fatally shot a man during a road-rage-sparked
confrontation in a parking lot in the 1900 block of
Riverside Drive. The retired guard told police that he
feared for his life when the other man verbally and
physically assaulted him. He has not been charged with
any crime.

In Muskogee last weekend, police said a pastor who
holds a concealed-weapon license shot a man who, along
with some juveniles, tried to rob his church's
fireworks tent. The minister said he feared for his
life and that of the teenager who was watching the
tent with him.

The shooting victim was arrested in connection with
the burglary attempt after he was released from the
hospital, police said.

Willingham said that, in their duties, most police
officers rarely come across concealed-handgun license
holders.

"Most people who go through the trouble of getting a
concealed-carry permit are not committing crimes," he
said. "By and large, the people with concealed-carry
permits are not the ones we're coming in contact
with."

Welch agreed.

"Most goofballs and hot heads don't think to go and
get a permit," he said. "Mostly, it's people who are
law-abiding in nature."

Brown and Welch said increased exposure to terrorism,
war and violent crime through the media may play a
role in why more people are arming themselves.

During classes applicants must take before they can
obtain a license, they must show that they know how to
shoot and properly handle a firearm.

They also are instructed on how to tell a police
officer -- should they come into contact with one --
that they have a concealed weapon.

"Do we worry? No," Willingham said. "We know people
with concealed-carry permits are not the type of
people out there committing crimes. Your gang-bangers,
armed robbers -- they're not the ones going through
the class and paying the fee."


Clifton Adcock 581-8367
[email protected]


Who is getting the licenses?

In 2006, the state approved nearly twice as many
concealed-handgun licenses for people in Tulsa County
as in Oklahoma County, according to the Self Defense
Act Statistical Report, issued by the OSBI.

Among the increasing number of Oklahomans who are are
obtaining licenses are more elderly people and women
than in previous years.

“There’s been a great increase in elderly folks and
ladies,” said Robert Welch, a concealed-handgun
license instructor in Tulsa. “Before, it was about 90
percent middle-aged males. Now it’s at least 50
percent female and senior citizens.’’



What is the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act?

The law, which took effect Jan. 1, 1996, allows
applicants who have passed a background check and a
training class to carry concealed handguns in public.

By CLIFTON ADCOCK World Staff Writer

 

[Loachman]

As for Mr Fry, your young, inexperienced, and it shows. Personally Fry, you are appearing to me to have some type of a twisted obsession, and frankly, that scares me. I would not be feeling comfortable to give you a bananna to hold. No I am not having a go at you, just giving you a reality check, nothing more. Just remember, taking someone's life is not a movie or a TV show, and the trauma shockwave from doing such can last you the rest of your days, regardless if he had it coming or not. The macho-coolness of dropping a guy in your kitchen ends pretty bloody quick, and you life is changed forever ( as is your family's and all who know you, your neighbours and friends).

For the record, I agree completely with Fry. Whatever his age and experience level, he makes sense. I have only read a few of his posts on this thread, yet, unless I have missed something earlier, I see no indication of any "twisted obsession" nor any reason to be scared. I am perfectly confident that he realizes that "taking someone's life is not a movie or a TV show..." etcetera. If he has in fact made an irresponsible statement somewhere, please show me.

I am all for protecting ones life, the lives of others, but NOT his property,

Yet your property IS your life. You traded a measurable part of your existence for the various items of property that you have acquired. If it took you X number of hours at work to pay for your car and some bozo steals it, then said  bozo has in effect stolen that portion of your life.

By investing in a large, noisy dog, an alarm system, or having a firearm within easy reach in your home (which is most assuredly permissible under current law), one reduces the likelihood of being robbed of one's property and the portion of one's life that it represents. In any case, no victim can  ever know for certain that an assailant would in fact be satisfied with his/her wallet, purse, etcetera and does not intend bodily harm. Use of reasonable force against a robber, during such time as he constitutes a threat, is justified.

So what about your kids in the house, and safe storage? How does one access a pistol in a matter of seconds? Ya, there is concealed 'drop' safes' with easy access, but these must be considered, and this opens up a worms nest of both pros and cons.

There is a wide variety of suitable holster designs, and kids can be trained. This is a much smaller issue than it's made out to be. If you are present, and within reasonable proximity of the firearm, then it is not "in storage", it is in use.

You can't have a lever action .30-30, with 7 rds of 150gr KKSP in the mag, leaning behind the bedroom door.

Yes, you can, so long as you are present, and there are specific provisions for farmers etcetera who may need a firearm at short notice to dispatch a four-legged predator.

That is unsafe,

Not necessarily.

and could end up being used against you in the event of a break-in or home invasion.

So could any number of other things about your house. Padlock your kitchen knife drawer - most uninvited guests could find that in the dark in seconds if you stir in your sleep.

In a free society, you have the right to make decisions for yourself, but not for Fry, and not for me; nor do you have the right to tell us how we should live so long as we respect your rights. I know that I do, and I have no reason to believe that Fry does not, either.

 

[Rowshambow]

Wow Loach that was very long!
I like I said before don't like the idea of gun registry control, but I do have to agree with Wes, I def would not like someone carrying around a gun in a holster or not. I have lived in a few different parts of this great Country and I have to tell you I have seen some stupid people do stupid things! Take a look at driving, yes we register cars and quite a few people do take some type of proper driver training, but they still do very stupid things, drink and drive, show off  etc... now think if that was a weapon, some person starts to show off for his friends, and ends up hurting someone! Or someone has a bad day, could be the nicest and calmest guy in the world, say his kid gets hit by one of those drunk drivers, he snaps (as I would be pretty messed up) and decides to take his holstered gun and "scare" the guy, well it goes bad and now he has a dead kid and he is going to jail. Or how about this, as this has happened here in Edmonton (just the beginning), some guy gets drunk, crawls into his bedroom window cause he is so drunk he can't find his keys, well it turns out it's not his house, but yours, and you think he is trying to rob you! Blammo he is dead and you are going to jail! Now this one is in my lanes, When I was younger (allot of years ago) my sister was raped, by someone she knew (date rape), when she came home my dad LOST IT!! He left the house for about 2 hours looking for the kid, I know if he had of had a gun and found him, that kid would be VERY DEAD! Is it right? He spent some time in jail (kiddie jail) and from what I know now, he is still a loser and is in and out of jail, I am glad my dad did not have a gun, as I would have missed out on  allot of father son things! This guy should have been casterated, and I know if I ever run into him, I am not sure what I would do?
Now I don't agree with a total ban on guns, just tougher judges, but no way to CCW.

 

[1feral1]

Yet your property IS your life. You traded a measurable part of your existence for the various items of property that you have acquired. If it took you X number of hours at work to pay for your car and some bozo steals it, then said  bozo has in effect stolen that portion of your life.

There is a wide variety of suitable holster designs, and kids can be trained. This is a much smaller issue than it's made out to be. If you are present, and within reasonable proximity of the firearm, then it is not "in storage", it is in use.

Hey Loach, a few points....

Shoot someone for stealing your TV or your car and YOU will be charged with murder, not manslaughter, and you will go to gaol. One has to be in direct threat of his life being taken to use force necessary to stop the atttack, and someone with a TV over ther shoulder running away does not qualify.

So, you want to walk around your home holstered, and with a loaded pistol 24 hrs a day then, patrolling your halls awaiting for someone to break in? That alone is illegal in itself, is it not?? I would not have my kids near a loaded pistol indoors, yet alone wear one. Duty of care, remember that phrase. I would say if the above was encouraged, you would not be a fit parent. Walls don't stop bullets, and in the event of a UD, and a rd goes thru your wall, killing someone else, well, you gotta wear that and the police will make an example out of you.

I reckon if the police found out that a legal gun owner was parading around with a loaded pistol in his house, you'd have the ERT Team at your door.

Remember, commonsense prevails.

I once knew a kid named Ryan, a 3 rd yr Army Cadet, from Rural Saskatchewan. He and his friend were 'practicing' with a .270 bolt action, loading and unloading in the basement, he went forward to pick up some live rds off the carpet, and his friend, squeezed the trigger, blowing Ryan's head almost clean off, and sending the bullet out through the floor, and up through the ceiling out into the sky. He was unrecognisable even to his parents. Safe storage has its positives, and if this was the case here, Ryan would be almost 40 yrs old and alive. I would never leave any loaded rifle behind any door unattended. I do have a conscience.

As for Fry, he came off to me and others as a snotty nosed know-it-all, bragging gun-finatic with an attitude to boot, and what appears to 'live' for guns, and I will say no more in that matter.

As for me, I am as right winged as they come, very pro-gun, and even with that, I would never support general issue to the general public of CCW permits in Canada. I do support capital punnishment, and manditory sentancing for using a firearm in an office, and electing judges to office rather then appointing them.

At the end of the day, you can be in favour of such CCWs, but we all know its just never going to happen.

I hope you see where I am coming from over this topic.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Inch]

Wow Loach that was very long!
I like I said before don't like the idea of gun registry control, but I do have to agree with Wes, I def would not like someone carrying around a gun in a holster or not. I have lived in a few different parts of this great Country and I have to tell you I have seen some stupid people do stupid things! Take a look at driving, yes we register cars and quite a few people do take some type of proper driver training, but they still do very stupid things, drink and drive, show off  etc... now think if that was a weapon, some person starts to show off for his friends, and ends up hurting someone! Or someone has a bad day, could be the nicest and calmest guy in the world, say his kid gets hit by one of those drunk drivers, he snaps (as I would be pretty messed up) and decides to take his holstered gun and "scare" the guy, well it goes bad and now he has a dead kid and he is going to jail. Or how about this, as this has happened here in Edmonton (just the beginning), some guy gets drunk, crawls into his bedroom window cause he is so drunk he can't find his keys, well it turns out it's not his house, but yours, and you think he is trying to rob you! Blammo he is dead and you are going to jail! Now this one is in my lanes, When I was younger (allot of years ago) my sister was raped, by someone she knew (date rape), when she came home my dad LOST IT!! He left the house for about 2 hours looking for the kid, I know if he had of had a gun and found him, that kid would be VERY DEAD! Is it right? He spent some time in jail (kiddie jail) and from what I know now, he is still a loser and is in and out of jail, I am glad my dad did not have a gun, as I would have missed out on  allot of father son things! This guy should have been casterated, and I know if I ever run into him, I am not sure what I would do?
Now I don't agree with a total ban on guns, just tougher judges, but no way to CCW.

These "scenarios" are exactly what Americans said would happen 10+ years ago when CCW legislation was being tabled. These scenarios have NOT materialized in any way.

I show my guns to my friends all the time, no one is shot. There's a difference between responsible gun ownership and irresponsible gun ownership.

It's obvious that you don't have faith in your fellow man, I feel sorry for you. I trust my fellow man more than I trust my government to keep me as an individual safe. You didn't see mass numbers of people in the US getting their permits to carry, even in what we perceive as a "gun crazy" country. Only 2-3% of eligible Americans have exercised that right, to think that more than 2-3% of eligible Canadians would is just being paranoid with no grounds for that paranoia.

The drunk guy crawling into the window, too bad he was irresponsible and I thought he was putting my life in danger. If someone crawled into my bedroom window in the middle of the night, I don't care why they're there. They shouldn't be and if I feel they're a threat (and I would), they're going to get shot.

Your dad leaving your house with a gun to hunt down the date rapist, hey, that's murder. I'm not advocating murder, I'm advocating self defence. Your dad could have done that regardless of whether or not he had a concealed carry permit. And besides, that wouldn't be responsible gun ownership.

Question for you, re:

I like I said before don't like the idea of gun registry control, but I do have to agree with Wes, I def would not like someone carrying around a gun in a holster or not.

Have you ever travelled to the US? Did you fear for your life every time you were out in public? Knowing that 2-3% of the people you met were packing heat should have scared the shit out of you by you your assessment. Since they're concealed, you have no way of knowing who those people are, so maybe you're in a higher CCW concentration area (2-3% is a national average).  Are you going to totally avoid going skiing in Vermont knowing that their citizens don't even need a permit to CCW? Or how about heading to Florida for vacation? Regardless how many people are carrying in Florida, stats from the past 20 years have shown that you stand a better chance of getting eaten by an alligator than you do getting shot by a CCW.

Wes,

That's the great thing about self defence, it must be a sudden and overwhelming fear for your life or of serious injury or that of your family. You are correct, a guy leaving your place with a TV and shooting him in the back, that's murder. However, you confront him as he's leaving and he drops the TV and comes after you, that's self defence.

As for the loaded pistol, it is against Canadian law to load a gun anywhere that it cannot be legally discharged. So it is in fact illegal to have a mag in the gun anywhere in your house. Mag beside the gun however is perfectly legal.

If I had kids, they would be taught proper precautions, just as I was when I was a kid. Fear for their safety is a cop-out of having to properly educate and train them. Walls don't stop bullets, which is why one is never chambered. How can you have a UD if there isn't one in the chamber? Guns don't just load themselves, and don't say that it's easy to accidentally chamber one. You're a gun plumber, you know better. I'm sorry about your friend years ago, however that whole thing could have been avoided. I was taught at a young age that guns were not toys, ammo was kept separate (yes, that was the law even 15+ years ago), and never to go near the business end when someone else is holding onto it.

Growing up in a house with the many guns that my father collected, I survived, my sister survived and no one had a UD and put one through a wall. I think your fears are unfounded when talking about educated and responsible gun owners.

 

[1feral1]

I grew up in a house with over 90 firearms, so I am no stranger to them. Handguns, rifles, FNs AR-15s etc, CA's and antiques. All were stored well beyond their time.

At the end of the day nobody put a hole thru the wall, thats your family, same with mine, but its the others which are not that responsible or take their kids curiousity for granted which is a concern to me.

UD's always happen when the firearm is empty.

That we must both agree on.

If Ryan's father had his ammo secured or the gun secured, all would be well. He had been around firearms all his life, and shot competively with Cadets where firearms safety and education was foremost. It should be noted that his friend that shot him was also a Cadet and hunter.


Cheers,

Wes

 

[Inch]

I grew up in a house with over 90 firearms, so I am no stranger to them. Handguns, rifles, FNs AR-15s etc, CA's and antiques. All were stored well beyond their time.

At the end of the day nobody put a hole thru the wall, thats your family, same with mine, but its the others which are not that responsible or take their kids curiousity for granted which is a concern to me.

UD's always happen when the firearm is empty.

That we must both agree on.

If Ryan's father had his ammo secured or the gun secured, all would be well. He had been around firearms all his life, and shot competively with Cadets where firearms safety and education was foremost. It should be noted that his friend that shot him was also a Cadet and hunter.


Cheers,

Wes

If other people are careless with firearms, they shouldn't have them. Hence my position, money should be spent on training, education and a thorough background check vice an ineffective registry. If shooting and firearms safety was taught in schools like it once was, attitudes would be decidedly different. I don't think everyone should be forced to own guns, or even to like them, but if everyone knew how to handle them safely you would eliminate a lot of what I would call a fear of the unknown. IE People hating guns because their parents hated guns or because they don't know any better.

Now I'm guessing that this is a typo:

UD's always happen when the firearm is empty.

It's physically impossible for a UD (AD, ND, whatever you want to call it), to happen when the firearm is empty. I can pull the trigger all day long and as long as there isn't a round in the chamber (ie empty), it won't fire.

UD's only happen when the firearm is loaded, they cannot happen when the firearm is empty.

I'm absolutely baffled that two army cadets with firearms experience would even be messing around with a loaded gun in the basement, let alone heading "down range" while someone is handling the rifle, and ammo! That is the biggest no-no on any range, they should have known that, if they didn't then they weren't properly educated.

In the end though, life is life and bad things will happen. I, however, feel that more good will come from CCW than bad, just as statistics have shown in the 40 States that allow CCW.


One more point I thought of after I posted last,

Rowshambow,

Your father could have done just as much damage to that guy with a baseball bat. So don't try to tell me that your father not having guns prevented anything in this case. A gun is a tool, if he couldn't find one, or didn't have one to begin with, he'll find and use something he does have. Be it a baseball bat, steak knife, or 9-iron.

 

[GAP]

I think Wes was pointing out the wrong assumption people have when they pick up a weapon....that it's empty.

that's why the UDs happen when the gun is empty. Stupid assumption.

 

[Loachman]

Hey Loach, a few points....

Shoot someone for stealing your TV or your car and YOU will be charged with murder, not manslaughter, and you will go to gaol. One has to be in direct threat of his life being taken to use force necessary to stop the atttack, and someone with a TV over ther shoulder running away does not qualify.

Criminal Code of Canada

R.S., c. C-34, s. 26.

Use of force to prevent commission of offence

27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or

(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

Note that I did use words to the effect of "constitutes a threat" or some such. A criminal running away no longer does, however you may place him under arrest and that changes things somewhat. I'll look that up later. Use of a firearm does not require blowing the criminal away on first sight, either. That is clearly unreasonable and neither Fry nor I advocated that.

So, you want to walk around your home holstered, and with a loaded pistol 24 hrs a day then, patrolling your halls awaiting for someone to break in? That alone is illegal in itself, is it not??

I did not say that I wanted to (or even do), but, yes, I can wear a holstered pistol inside my home, or have one immediately available. The Firearms Act does attempt to limit where one may load a firearm, but the wording is vague and a charge is not likely to hold up in court. I am not even aware of one ever being laid, and I do follow these things reasonably closely.

I would not have my kids near a loaded pistol indoors, yet alone wear one. Duty of care, remember that phrase. I would say if the above was encouraged, you would not be a fit parent. Walls don't stop bullets, and in the event of a UD, and a rd goes thru your wall, killing someone else, well, you gotta wear that and the police will make an example out of you.

That is you, and it is your decision to make taking into account the circumstances of your life. Others circumstances may be different. You have no right to decide for them. Safe handling of firearms is not rocket science. More kids die in motor vehicle accidents than in firearms accidents. There are no more than a dozen or two accidental firearms deaths in all of Canada annually. I can get $5,000,000 worth of insurance to cover all legal firearms related activities for $7.95 - yes, a nickel shy of eight bucks. How much vehicle insurance can you get for the same price? Whatever your opinion, insurance companies are professional risk assessors and they have consistently rated firearms ownership and use as one of the lowest risks going. Any negligent act will make one liable for charges; firearms negligence is no different.

More kids drown in the bathtub or backyard pools than die from accidental/negligent firearms use as well. What fit parent would expose his/her child to a backyard pool?

The point is, that risk perception does not equate to real risk. We happily accept risk with which we are familiar, but have more fear for the unfamiliar.

I reckon if the police found out that a legal gun owner was parading around with a loaded pistol in his house, you'd have the ERT Team at your door.

And the police have over-reacted to many firearms related activities in the last few years. Such things happen. "Parading around" is another exaggeration, however. There is a clear difference between brandishing wildly and discreet concealed carry. Nobody need ever know that a homeowner in his own dwelling was even carrying. You would not be able to pick out people carrying concealed in public in the US, either. They're not attempting to hide suspicious lumps under their T-shirts as you might expect, but check out those innocent-looking fanny packs. The contents may surprise you. That's why it's called CONCEALED carry.

I once knew a kid named Ryan, a 3 rd yr Army Cadet, from Rural Saskatchewan. He and his friend were 'practicing' with a .270 bolt action, loading and unloading in the basement, he went forward to pick up some live rds off the carpet, and his friend, squeezed the trigger, blowing Ryan's head almost clean off, and sending the bullet out through the floor, and up through the ceiling out into the sky. He was unrecognisable even to his parents. Safe storage has its positives, and if this was the case here, Ryan would be almost 40 yrs old and alive. I would never leave any loaded rifle behind any door unattended. I do have a conscience.

Sure, tragedies happen. People die from all sorts of unintentional causes. Kids play with matches, jump into unsupervised backyard pools, crash their bikes. This is where training and other reasonable precautions come into place. None of us are advocating leaving a loaded firearm on the coffee table and wandering off while little Johnny decides to exercise his curiosity. As you said, common sense should prevail. A holstered handgun is as safe in private hands as it is in police hands. How many coppers blow themselves or others away with their sidearms? You don't seem to think that they present a danger.

And, for every anecdote that you use to advocate against home defence with firearms, there are many to show where lives were saved or could have been saved had a firearm been available.

As for me, I am as right winged as they come, very pro-gun, and even with that, I would never support general issue to the general public of CCW permits

Neither would we. Only to qualified and screened individuals, using the same standards that apply to the RCMP.

I do support capital punnishment,

I do not.

and manditory sentancing for using a firearm in an office,

I think that you mean "offence", and yes, I agree.

and electing judges to office rather then appointing them.

I do not, but recognize that each method has its strengths and weaknesses.

At the end of the day, you can be in favour of such CCWs, but we all know its just never going to happen.

I am not holding my breath.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As Loachman pointed out. It is perfectly legal for me to carry my pistol in a holster around my house and property as long as it is not loaded, I can have a full mag in my pocket and I have met the laws of this country. A Level II Holster is one of the safest places for a handgun, it will not go off on it’s own accord.

If you have young children around the house the quick opening safe are easy to get and install. Would I carry if I could get a ATC, absolutely! I have a family that deserves my best efforts to protect them. I have no desire to shoot anyone, but I have no desire to be a helpless victim either. Not to mention there are enough 4 legged threats to my kid to justify carrying alone, never mind the 2 legged threats.

I used to believe the Firearms laws were meant to prevent accidents and idiots, criminals from having guns. The more I learned about the Act and how it came to be, has shown me that common sense has nothing to with it, the Act and it’s administration is solely meant to prevent people from using firearms in self defense and to lay the groundwork for the eventual ban on all civilian firearms. Remember the Liberals promised no gun bans and then what did they do? 

The anti’s want to divide and conquer us. If you do not wish to carry a concealed firearm, that’s fine. Don’t try to stop others from doing so. I will happily defend your right to go duck hunting, I would ask that you defend my rights also. We are all targets of the anti's regardless of what type of gun(s) we own, only a fool would believe otherwise.

 

[canadianblue]

I promised myself I wasn't going to post in the politics section anymore, but I guess I'll throw in my 0.02 cents.

First things first, CCW laws have not been proven to reduce crime, and the study done by John Lott who said that CCW reduces crime was shown to be flawed.

Large statistical studies have confirmed that CCWs most likely cause more — rather than less — crime. A recent exhaustive study by Professor John Donohue of Stanford University examined crime data across the country. The study refuted the research that the oft-quoted gun rights advocate John Lott claimed showed concealed handgun laws reduced crime. Lott’s findings — based on his 1997 survey — covered only a short period of time, during which urban crime was already rising, whereas Professor Donohue studied the longer impact of CCW laws.

Lott had erroneously concluded from his survey that concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely few people ever report using their handgun as a means of self-defense. Professor David Mustard, who co-authored Lott’s work, conceded that there were critical flaws in their study — flaws that seriously undermined their conclusions. Mustard was deposed under oath in the Ohio concealed-handgun case Klein v. Leis. Mustard admitted that the study “omitted variables.” This could explain that changes in crime rate are due to reasons other than changes in CCW laws. Mustard also admitted that the study did not account for many of the major factors he believes affect crime, including crack cocaine, wealth, drugs, alcohol use, and police practices such as community policing

Second, the CCW permits have been issued to individuals who are not fit to carry and have gone on to commit firearms offenses, as well as other crimes.

Restricting the issuance of concealed weapons permits makes sense, despite Mr. Rankin’s assertions to the contrary. Lax issuance policies end up putting CCW permits in the hands of criminals, potential criminals, or disturbed individuals. Under pressure from the NRA, many states have relaxed CCW laws, and the results have not been good. According to the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, from April 30, 1997 through January 30, 2000, 1,041 Florida CCW license-holders had their licenses revoked for committing crimes after receiving their licenses. Data from the Texas Department of Public Safety found that Texas CCW license-holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000, including some very serious violent offenses. Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas. A Salt Lake Tribune article in April 2001 stated that “scores of Utahans are having their CCW licenses revoked for criminal violations — including felonies and firearms offenses,” since the state began running daily background checks on its CCW permit holders. In the first year of the daily checks, the state experienced a 241% increase in the number of revocations, with the single biggest reason for license revocations being the fact that the permit holder was wanted on an outstanding warrant.

Another popular notion is if one has a firearm in the house they are better able to protect themselves against criminals, this is false. Studies have shown that a firearm will not increase safety in the home, in fact it increases the chances one may have a family member use the gun against a fellow member or themselves. This was shown in a study by the American Medical Association. Having a firearm for personal protection is akin to wrapping oneself in bubble wrap to avoid possible injuries when encountering sharp corners.

The 22 million guns in America — in addition to new guns constantly being spewed into circulation and easily accessed — whether due to lax CCW issuance policies, or any other means, legal or illegal, constitute a major societal problem. In 2002, 30,242 people were killed by guns in America — 83 people a day — including 17,108 suicides, 11,829 homicides, and 762 unintentional or accidental shootings (Injury Mortality Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control).

Yet the illusion persists that a gun kept in the home confers automatic protection. In fact, it is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault, or an attempted or actual suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense (Kellerman, “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home,” Journal of Trauma, Infection, and Critical Care, August 1998). And when someone is home, a gun is used for protection in less than two percent of home invasion crimes (Kellerman, “Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes,” Journal of the American Medical Association, June 1995).

I am in favour of CCW, but only in cases when special circumstances are present. I actually agree with education on firearms in schools, and would support that, however I don't think their is much of a point to CCW laws similar to the states, and in the end it's a moot issue since very few Canadian's would ever support CCW.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Will I don't think Wiki is the greatest source, this will give you a bit of background, Sig guy I will respond to your post properly after I had a chance to dig up some stuff as I am at work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

Statistics published by the various states give some indication of what type, and how many people, acquire permits to carry concealed weapons. Permit-holders are predominantly male: for example, while 50,000 women were licensed in Florida as of 2005, 85% of permit holders were male in that state.[citation needed] Recently, the number of permit-holders has been growing: Michigan, for example, reports 30,000 applications in a one year period. Florida has issued over 800,000 permits since adopting the law,[citation needed] and had 289,644 currently-licensed permit holders as of October 2004.[citation needed]

Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the adult population. Florida reports 26% of permit-holders are in the 21–35 age group, 36% are 36–50, 27% are 51–65, and 11% are over age 65. The numbers of permit revocations are small; North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law — a lower proportion than the crime rate among North Carolina police officers.[citation needed] Revocation of license is for any criminal conviction and need not involve an illegal firearm usage. Revocations typically arise from DUI.[citation needed] Similarly, Of the 14,000 licenses issued in Oregon, only 4 individuals (0.03%) were convicted of criminal (though not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.[citation needed]

Consider Florida roughly 800,000 permits issued and .125% revoked. The link above also has a great map showing the increase in "Shall issue laws". Sigs guy I will suggest that the author of your data is cherry picking, which is what he accuse Lott of doing. Lott is not perfect, but he did actually state that his report did not and could not reflect all variables.