The Great Gun Control Debate

[Sythen]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18288430

Looks like Venezuela is trying gun control.

Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition.

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

The ban is the latest attempt by the government to improve security and cut crime ahead of elections in October

Venezuela saw more than 18,000 murders last year and the capital, Caracas, is thought to be one of the most dangerous cities in Latin America.

I believe this will end up much like the Canadian registry, but with much worse consequences for ordinary citizens. As it states in the article:

opponents say the police and government may not have the capacity or the will to enforce the new law.

So basically the regular, honest, law abiding citizens will turn in their guns and all the criminals will keep theirs. There is nothing to deter someone from robbing your store or breaking in to your house now. They know you won't be armed.

 

[Ex-SHAD]

I don't understand why Canadians tolerate draconian and restrictive gun laws. I can personally say, that having lived in states where CCDW and the Castle Doctrine were law of the land, I've never felt insecure, and never once have I ever flinched when seeing someone carrying openly(whether it be at my local Kroger or late at night while getting gas at Valero) however when I've gone up to Canada, I always feel a little anxious, in that not only am I limited in my ability to defend myself, but I know that I am disarmed, while the criminal that may assail me is probably armed.

 

[The_Falcon]

I don't understand why Canadians tolerate draconian and restrictive gun laws. I can personally say, that having lived in states where CCDW and the Castle Doctrine were law of the land, I've never felt insecure, and never once have I ever flinched when seeing someone carrying openly(whether it be at my local Kroger or late at night while getting gas at Valero) however when I've gone up to Canada, I always feel a little anxious, in that not only am I limited in my ability to defend myself, but I know that I am disarmed, while the criminal that may assail me is probably armed.

Guns are evil, and only evil neer do wells carry them.  Thats from my experience living in Toronto.  After yesterday's shooting/rampage at the Eaton Centre in Toronto, I posted hypothetically on my facebook wall, that perhaps the situation could have ended sooner and the shooter would not have been able to flee, if there was a possibility for CCW here in Canada (And when asked I did say, that we should study how it works in the various US jurisdictions, to ensure some of the mistakes and problems encountered there would be mitigated here).  Predictably a bunch of my friends chimed in how that would be a bad idea, and only the police should carry since they are trained for this stuff, and their would be little accountablility etc.  It was quite easy and fun tearing them apart, since the police here in Toronto only get 3 hours of range of time a year (info provided to my discussion by a friend and serving officer), which isn't nearly enough to prevent skill fade, that we already allow civilians to carry if they work for Brinks etc. with little more than a CPIC and Credit check  (no thorough background/psych checks), that there are plenty of civilians out there who have way more experience with firearms, than a large majority of police, and that in particular I know a couple of officers (former members of the regiment) who I wouldn't trust with a cap gun, and have demonstrated their incompetence on the job. 

To sum up, Canadians have been brainwashed by decades of Lib-Left, hug a thug, anti-gun rhetoric,, and aided by Senior Police Officers, who take issue with anyone outside of their own membership, owning/using firearms, even other LEO's (example TPS vs TTC Special Constables).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My friend is a Sheriff here in BC, took him to a IPSC range practice, he said he fired more rounds with us in one night then in 3 years at work. I have noted the LEO's who are good with their guns are very good, the rest are well....

the scary part is that those who know little aren't even aware of how little they know. I asked a Vancouver cop how he liked the DAK triiger compare to the DA/SA, hell he didn't even know the name of his new gun he had.  :

 

[cupper]

I don't understand why Canadians tolerate draconian and restrictive gun laws. I can personally say, that having lived in states where CCDW and the Castle Doctrine were law of the land, I've never felt insecure, and never once have I ever flinched when seeing someone carrying openly(whether it be at my local Kroger or late at night while getting gas at Valero) however when I've gone up to Canada, I always feel a little anxious, in that not only am I limited in my ability to defend myself, but I know that I am disarmed, while the criminal that may assail me is probably armed.

I preface this post by stating that I am neither pro nor anti gun. I am simply playing Devil's Advocate.

There are two problems which are overlooked in the premise that more liberal CCW laws would have prevented or reduced the impact a shooting such as that which took place at the Eaton Centre.

First, look at the number of wounded bystanders as a result of one person popping off rounds at his intended target (based on the available news reports). Now, add another weapon of someone present who, albeit with good intentions, decides to return fire at the gunman. There is a very good probability that the number of wounded would increase as shots are exchanged and people are caught in the cross fire. And he should not assume that his butt would not be in a sling as a result. And he should be fully prepared for victims injured or families of someone who died as a direct result of the good samaritan's efforts to come after him for everything they can get.

Second, once police arrive on site, how do they differentiate the samaritan from the gunman? Especially if there is still an exchange of gunfire going on?

(I had written more earlier, but I hit post just as the servers appear to have gone down, so it didn't get put up. I cannot remember half of it now. And it may have been somewhat irrelevant and partially smart assed anyway, so I'll just leave it at this.)

 

[Stoker]

I would think a CCW in Canada would overall be a good thing if there was a effective training course that required a live fire and re-qualification periodically to keep their status. I currently have a CCW for the US and have carried there, we are trained to know the consequences if we draw and fire. Simple presentation of the firearm will 99% of the time get you out of trouble, very rarely will the firearm be discharged.
The only thing about a Canadian CCW is the general public and law enforcement will never accept it here. In the US law enforcement have had many years of experience with the public being allowed to carry.

 

[Dissident]

First, look at the number of wounded bystanders as a result of one person popping off rounds at his intended target (based on the available news reports). Now, add another weapon of someone present who, albeit with good intentions, decides to return fire at the gunman. There is a very good probability that the number of wounded would increase as shots are exchanged and people are caught in the cross fire. And he should not assume that his butt would not be in a sling as a result. And he should be fully prepared for victims injured or families of someone who died as a direct result of the good samaritan's efforts to come after him for everything they can get.

Bad guy WILL continue to harm bystanders until stopped. Good guy MIGHT hit a bystander by accident, a very BIG "might". CCW/ATC3 Should/would require additional insurance IMHO. I bet you that the insurance cost would be minimal considering the remote possibility of the worst actually happening.

Second, once police arrive on site, how do they differentiate the samaritan from the gunman? Especially if there is still an exchange of gunfire going on?

Police show up and issue the standard police challenge. Good guy complies and ducks for cover. Bad guy points gun at cops or flees. Cops react accordingly. To put this argument to rest, should a plain clothes police officer not attempt to neutralize the threat?


ETA: How long does it take for the police to arrive on scene? 5-10 minutes? How long would it take a CCW/ATC3 person to draw, engage and neutralize the threat? Couple of minutes, tops? Either the bad guy moves on or is down. Good guy holsters back up, calls 911 or ensures the info is passed on for when cops arrive. The long drawn out shoot out are much more rare.

How many people died at Concordia from KG? How many people died on the island in Norway? The difference was the presence of armed people nearby. At Concordia cops happened to be on site at the time. Cops can't be everywhere you are all the time.

 

[cupper]

To put this argument to rest, should a plain clothes police officer not attempt to neutralize the threat?

Simply put, it is his job. So yes he should.

It is not the job of a civilian. He may choose to do what he feels is right, but must deal with the consequences of his actions regardless of outcome.

 

[Dissident]

Simply put, it is his job. So yes he should.

It is not the job of a civilian. He may choose to do what he feels is right, but must deal with the consequences of his actions regardless of outcome.

Police officers are tasked by the community to do what every person should be doing, but they do it full time and have specialized equipment and training. I despise the "not my problem" mentality. The welfare of the community should be everyone's responsibility.

And police officers are civilians (unless they happen to be MPs, but I digress).

Yes, police officer are better equipped and trained than people at large and applying force onto criminals should be their domain. Again, police officers can not be everywhere all the time. The public needs to take ownership of its protection.

 

[cupper]

Police officers are tasked by the community to do what every person should be doing, but they do it full time and have specialized equipment and training. I despise the "not my problem" mentality. The welfare of the community should be everyone's responsibility.

And police officers are civilians (unless they happen to be MPs, but I digress).

Yes, police officer are better equipped and trained than people at large and applying force onto criminals should be their domain. Again, police officers can not be everywhere all the time. The public needs to take ownership of its protection.

I won't drag this out debating what society expects individuals to do as part of the community.

However, to clarify, when I used the word civilian, it was meant as defined "a person not in the military of police force". I think you would be hard pressed to convince a police officer that he was a civilian. But all things are relative.

 

[Dissident]

I won't drag this out debating what society expects individuals to do as part of the community.

However, to clarify, when I used the word civilian, it was meant as defined "a person not in the military of police force". I think you would be hard pressed to convince a police officer that he was a civilian. But all things are relative.

While this has been debated somewhere else on here, I am a firm believer that police officers and other non military types who consider themselves non-civilian are doing themselves a disservice. FWIW I have found equal definition of civilian including and excluding police officers.

You might not want to drag the communities expectation into the debate, but you have not taken on my rebutals of your arguments either. So, good on you for playing the devils advocate, but your arguments have failed.

 

[cupper]

While this has been debated somewhere else on here, I am a firm believer that police officers and other non military types who consider themselves non-civilian are doing themselves a disservice. FWIW I have found equal definition of civilian including and excluding police officers.

You might not want to drag the communities expectation into the debate, but you have not taken on my rebutals of your arguments either. So, good on you for playing the devils advocate, but your arguments have failed.

I would take on your rebuttal, but you haven't rebutted anything I've said. You've only given hypotheticals to my hypotheticals.

 

[mariomike]

And police officers are civilians (unless they happen to be MPs, but I digress).

"Q: What is a Civilian member of the Toronto Police Service?

A: Civilian Member is a Toronto Police Service employee who is not a Police Officer.":
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/civ_faq.php#q01

 

[Fishbone Jones]

"Q: What is a Civilian member of the Toronto Police Service?

A: Civilian Member is a Toronto Police Service employee who is not a Police Officer.":
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/civ_faq.php#q01

:facepalm:

 

[cupper]

This is what I was trying to avoid. :dunno:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This is what I was trying to avoid. :dunno:

Then you shold've just dropped it.

You didn't post to become educated. You posted to create turmoil. You had no intention, in my view, of ever changing your mind from your original opinion, no matter the replies.

Let it go.

 

[cupper]

Then you shold've just dropped it.

You didn't post to become educated. You posted to create turmoil. You had no intention, in my view, of ever changing your mind from your original opinion, no matter the replies.

Let it go.

Huh?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Huh?

I'm talking your whole thread starting with your 'Devil's Advocate' sham.

It doesn't pass the sniff test and I'm not getting involved to give you a sounding board for your agenda.

You can continue to profess what you don't understand, but gun owner's are used to dealing with those that think they know, but clearly do not.

We've also become extremely good at ignoring them.

 

[cupper]

I'm talking your whole thread starting with your 'Devil's Advocate' sham.

It doesn't pass the sniff test and I'm not getting involved to give you a sounding board for your agenda.

You can continue to profess what you don't understand, but gun owner's are used to dealing with those that think they know, but clearly do not.

We've also become extremely good at ignoring them.

Thanks for the explanation. Disregard my PM

 

[KevinB]

IIRC most off duty LE in Canada cannot carry their service weapon.  Likewise they are not allowed to carry a personally owned weapon.


In the US, generally states that have shall issue CCW has seen reductions in violent crimes.  My wife is currently getting her CCW, as she just took up shooting, she figured she may as well also excersie her right (Florida is a shall issue CCW/CWP state).

Frankly folks make a great deal of nonsense about the 'dangers' of concealed weapons in the hands of the populace.  Generally in a study of civilians who used their carry gun, accuracy is much higher that Police - there are a variety of reasons for this, but its clear that when a CCW is used that the world does not explode.

  Secondly IF a CCW is used, the individual had best follow the instructions of the arriving LE - In Florida, if your MIL/LE or prior service you do not need to take a CCW Class (which I think is a mistake as about the only folks with worse gun handling skills than Mil are the Police, but on the other hand a 1 day class for CCW is not making anyone a gunfighter - its simple eductation on the responsibilities of excersising your right to bear an arm).

The main reason many folks in Fl get their CCW is so they can cash and carry handguns when bought.  I would say that a good 80% of my friends with CCW's do not actually carry them, but they have the legal authority to if they should desire.