recceguy said:
The incident was in Florida, not Canada. Canada has strict licensing laws and stringent background checks.
And the US has its "strict and stringent" instant background check system. We essentially do that too, but have the licence as well. If the licence itself is not good enough without its validation by CFC for each and every transaction, why not dump it and just keep the validation? I have seen no indication that the US system is any weaker than ours, or that ours provides any real benefit beyond theirs.
recceguy said:
Thousands of licenses are revoked and suspended yearly in Canada, for various reasons, including mental deficiencies.
Thousands are denied the ability to legally purchase firearms in the US for the same reasons, without the need to revoke or suspend licences.
recceguy said:
The chances of someone in Canada passing the licensing check and being issued a PAL, with a record of assault on a police officer, are near nil.
According to the article, he had been arrested for that. There was no indication, however, that he had been convicted. If he had been tried and found not guilty, or the charges had been dropped, there would be no reason to prevent him from buying a firearm legally - and that is the same here.
Infanteer said:
It can likely prevent a neighbourhood watch guy who was previously convicted of assaulting a police officer
Arrested for, not convicted of, according to the article.
Infanteer said:
If he chooses to get one illegally, then it is a different issue.
Yes, and he may have done that, although he would be rather unlikely to call 911 if that was the case. Regardless, the result would have been the same.
Infanteer said:
Driver's Licences don't stop car thieves from stealing cars and killing pedestrians in high-speed chases, but that isn't an argument to get rid of driver's licences.
Driver's licences are only required if one chooses to drive on public roads. They are not required if one drives only on one's own property. Driver's licences are not required in order to simply possess a vehicle, or any number of vehicles. Lack of a driver's licence will not get one tossed in jail and a criminal record if one drives on a public road anyway.
Driver's licences are an indication of qualification and competency, and a means of generating funds to pay for public roads. Our earlier Firearms Acquisition Certificate system was quite capable of assuring some minimal level of competency, without criminalizing owners.
Training is far from infallible either - witness the CF ND rate.
Infanteer said:
I don't find in unreasonable to demand that an individual be qualified and possess a licence to bomb around in an automobile
Only on public roads.
Infanteer said:
I find the current PAL to be a reasonable thing for society to demand of anyone wishing to take care and control of a firearm.
I do not. Please explain to me why the lack of a piece of paper should warrant several years in jail and a criminal record. What is the crime?
The training aspects were - and still are - largely covered by more effective requirements for hunting licences and range regulations. Other than those external firearms uses, why should a person need a licence merely to possess something - car or firearm - within the bounds of their own property?
recceguy said:
I don't see anyone arguing Canadian PAL requirements at all.
I am. I'm not the only firearms owner in Canada doing that, either.
Infanteer said:
That's not what I gathered from Loachman saying there were "no such thing as "effective control measures".
And I stand by that.
The US Center for Disease Control - hardly a cheerleader for the much-maligned NRA, failed to find any proof that any of the firearms control means that it studied in http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
And, just yesterday, I received:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/27/0886260511433515
Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008
Caillin Langmann, MD, PhD langmann@alumni.sfu.ca
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament-Bill C-51 (1977),C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)-nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.
It costs $25.00 to view the whole study for a day. A tab at the top of the web page says "Institution: CF HEALTH SERVICES GP HQ". I am unsure of the significance of that - was a "gun control" study bankrolled by the CF?
Infanteer said:
My post was to highlight that our system of licensing in Canada catches guys like the Florida story from legally owning a firearm.
Most. Gamil Gharbi (aka Marc Lepine), Kimveer Gill, and Valery Fabrikant are notable exceptions, and there have been other, less publicized cases.
Most such people are stopped from legally purchasing firearms in the US as well, via their background check system.
And it takes a huge leap of faith to believe that merely preventing them from legally acquiring firearms would have had any real effect at all, beyond simply influencing the means of committing their crimes.
Infanteer said:
It looks like we agree that our system is stringent for all the right reasons. So we agree that there are good control measures in effect.
I do not so agree. Our legislation "controls" those least likely to need any control. Penalties for non-compliance are excessive. Whether through intentional design, incompetence, or a combination of both, the laws are so convoluted, confused, and contradictory that few judges, lawyers, and police can understand them - let alone average firearms owners. Criminals are ignored by our firearms legislation.
