Gun Control is Completely Useless.

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
The latest mass shooting in Ill. was a 45 year old man being fired from his warehouse job. A carbon copy of many others - including one at a sawmill in Nanaimo 10 or so years ago.

The shooter was an ex felon who bought a gun with a state license. When he applied for a cc the background check turned up the previous out of state felony and he was refused the cc. They didn't confiscate the weapon.

One of the victims was an HR intern on a school break.


So.....the gun control bureaucracy failed in the simple task of checking a criminal record.


So.....the answer is more gun control bureaucracy????


The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
I like stories like this.
Andersson[ a police office] rolled onto his right side, shielding his weapon from the attacker.
"I knew if he got my gun it'd be all over right then," he said.
Then, Andersson heard a voice. And gunshots.
It was over. The attacker lay dead in front of him; Andersson was alive.
But who saved him?
A former felon, he would later learn. A man who turned his life around and found God. A lifelong hunter who begged a judge to reinstate his rights, allowing him to carry a gun again -- the one he just fired.
https://www.cnn.com/beyond-the-call-of-duty-arizona/
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Probably as much as you were when you hunted Soviets .
Alas, the Russians swarmed our Grand Banks fishery (... and our East Coast in general) and Pierre Elliot and his merry band of kumbayas just watched in stunned silence.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ship_Kosmonavt_Yuriy_Gagarin

This damned ship was tied up in Halifax WAAY too often. Why do you think it was sailing on the East coast of North America, all of the time? Bird watching over New England, I'll bet ...
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
Trudeau (against his own judgement) allowed the Canadian anti submarine mania run its course and purchase the frigates and the Aurora's that would allow us to fulfill our role as anti submarine specialists that could plug into US operations.

Because the very most expensive shit the Americans could sell us was anti submarine stuff

30 years of playing this silly role until now we all but admit that submarines are a non threat and that chasing them around is tragic waste of money.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Trudeau (against his own judgement) allowed the Canadian anti submarine mania run its course and purchase the frigates and the Aurora's that would allow us to fulfill our role as anti submarine specialists that could plug into US operations.
Because the very most expensive shit the Americans could sell us was anti submarine stuff
30 years of playing this silly role until now we all but admit that submarines are a non threat and that chasing them around is tragic waste of money.
The events that I described were long before either the frigates or Auroras were acquired. The Frigates were only a future concept of the Navy that did not yet involve to government. I know some of that because I knew one the Admirals the that conceived the Frigate project ... in spite of the Liberals, not because of them.

I sure remember the Argus (and smaller Trackers) roaring overhead.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
I remember when the canadian armed forces "decided" to become anti submarine warfare experts.

it resulted in tremendous waste.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
I remember when the canadian armed forces "decided" to become anti submarine warfare experts.
it resulted in tremendous waste.
They "decided" to become an anti-submarine specialist in 1940 at the beginning of the Battle of the Atlantic and the RCN took over the antisbmarine escorts for the entire Western Atlantic at the beginning of 1942 when the US Navy completely withdrew from the Atlantic after Pearl Harbor.

Whatever version that you remember is just plain wrong.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
We were not integrated into the US forces until well after the war.
Absolutely right ... except, at the beginning of the 2nd World War, the RCN escorts on this side of the Atlantc were under command of the US Navy for a short time early in the War.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
There's a big difference between being under someone's command and being integrated into a multi national force.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
There's a big difference between being under someone's command and being integrated into a multi national force.
That didn't happen until the Frigates came along in the 90s because it couldn't. The previous two generations of DDH and DDE destroyers did not have the same communications and control integration with US ships as they do not.

Prior to our being integrated into US fleets, we were integrated into RN fleets. If we had a bigger, more capable navy, we would be our own bosses. The same goes for the rest of our forces.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
The Aurora's were made to be integrated into US operations.

Same computers.

SO they were integrated at the planning stage.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
This is what it would look like if Canada banned all handguns

If history is any guide, Canadians could keep their handguns but wouldn't be allowed to buy any more

An unidentified man holds a Colt .45 semi-automatic pistol in Manassas, Virginia, 22 July, 2007.AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER/FILES

Tristin Hopper



September 5, 2018
At the end of last month it emerged that Bill Blair, the new minister of organized crime reduction, had been tasked by the Liberal government with examining a “full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada.” This follows weeks of calls from both Toronto and Montreal for a total handgun ban.
Handguns are indeed the primary weapon behind a well-publicized surge in Toronto gun violence. There are also more than one million Canadian handguns legally held in private hands, the vast majority of which will spend their entire lives cutting tiny holes in paper targets.
Canadian handgun bans have been proposed before, most notably by then prime minister Paul Martin in 2005. But what would it look like if a Canadian government ever did it for real?
Existing handguns would probably be grandfathered in
Canada bans guns relatively frequently. In 1998, the same federal law that introduced the gun registry also banned pistols with a muzzle length of less than 4.1 inches (105 mm). The RCMP also has unilateral power to immediately ban the sale of any firearm for any reason, such as in 2014
when it did so with a semi-automatic rifle called the Swiss Arms Classic Green, or in February when it did so with the CZ Bren. In all those cases, guns are simply reclassified as being “prohibited,” which means that they were banned for sale or import, but could still be possessed by people who already owned them. There are countries, most notably Australia, that have accompanied gun bans with massive government buyback schemes to immediately clear a class of firearms from the private market. But Canada almost always takes the less-controversial “grandfathering” route. Thus, if the federal government ever engineered a total handgun ban, the likely result is that handguns would disappear from store shelves while existing handgun owners would be able to hold on to their collections. As an example take the Walther PPK, the pistol famous as James Bond’s preferred sidearm. It was reclassified as prohibited by the 1998 ban on short-muzzled pistols, but any Canadian who was already registered to own a PPK was permitted to keep it. Now, when a Canadian PPK owner dies, the pistol must either be sold to someone else with a pre-1998 licence — or be surrendered to law enforcement for destruction.
A Walther PPK, effectively banned in Canada unless you owned one before 1998. File A ban wouldn’t make it any more or less illegal to carry a gun around
In the United States, municipal handgun bans have occasionally been proposed as an easy way to spot and bust armed criminals. With open or concealed carry legal across much of the United States, it’s difficult for American police to immediately determine if a man with a gun is simply an armed citizen or a criminal. But Canadian police don’t have that problem: Any handgun is a “restricted” firearm, which subjects it to way tougher rules than for a standard hunting rifle. The only legal place to fire a handgun in Canada is on a registered range — and the gun can’t be transported to the range unless it’s unloaded, fitted with a trigger lock and the owner has been granted an “Authorization to Transport” by the RCMP. Thus, ban or no ban, anybody walking around a Canadian city with a handgun on them is almost always a certifiable criminal. And if a gun owner so much as brings a pistol along on a hunting trip, they could be risking the seizure of their entire gun collection.
Story continues below


This is all very illegal in Canada. Photo by Erich Schlegel/Getty Images It would probably stop Canadian-origin handguns from being used in crimes
Right now, a criminal somewhere is carrying a firearm that began life in a Canadian gun shop. In 2017, Toronto Police numbers show that of 726 crime guns seized, 148 were “domestically sourced.” One of the going methods is that a criminal gang finds someone with a clean record to take a firearms safety course and acquire a gun possession licence. That person then buys up a small arsenal and has it “accidentally” cleaned out in a break-in. This particular loophole would obviously disappear in a Canada without retail sales of pistols. However, it’s reasonable to assume that smuggled U.S. guns could quickly flood any gap in the black market. A 2008 study commissioned by the Government of British Columbia found that the “vast majority” of the province’s guns were coming from just across the border in Washington State.
Crime could well be unaffected
Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association, is a vocal opponent of the recent push for a handgun ban, saying last week that it would have “no impact.” McCormack isn’t a gun nut by any means; he told the National Post he’s “not against banning or prohibiting firearms in a way that’s going to impact public safety.” But when most of Toronto’s shootings are obviously gang-related, McCormack said the more immediate and effective strategy is more preventive police paired with programs to steer youth out of gangs. “We can ban handguns for any number of reasons,” added Christian Leuprecht, a crime policy researcher at both Queen’s University and Royal Military College, “but if we think it’s going to do anything about the violence then it’s not the policy measure to implement.”
If it did drive down crime, it could take a while
In 1997, in response to the massacre of 16 children at a Scottish primary school, the U.K. effectively banned private ownership of firearms. The next year, crimes involving guns went up — and continued going up for the rest of the decade. In 1997/1998, there were 12,805 offences in England and Wales involving a firearm. By 2001/2002, it was up to 22,401. “The short-term impact strongly suggests that there is no direct link between the unlawful use of handguns and their lawful ownership,” read a 2001 report from the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College, London. Fortunately, the long-term rate of British gun crime did eventually go down, with handgun crime now sitting at roughly half what it once was. One particularly promising sign in recent years is that British criminals keep getting caught with antique firearms, such as the Sussex drug dealer arrested in 2014 with a Victorian-era revolver. These are not the actions of criminals with easy access to guns. Meanwhile, the textbook example of a gun ban gone wrong is in Venezuela. The country banned all private ownership of guns in 2012, only to see homicides continue to climb — particularly after the country’s economy began to completely unravel starting in 2015.
Cracking down on illegal firearms is always a little tricky when history’s largest weapons market is next door
Speaking of the U.K., it’s often cited alongside with Australia as a success story in gun control. Both those countries are also islands with famously strict border control policies. Canada, by contrast, shares a very long and very porous border with the most gun-saturated country in the history of human civilization. “All that’s going to happen is a displacement effect where we’re going to see more guns coming across the border,” said Leuprecht, who has studied U.S.-Canadian gun smuggling pipelines. He said a standard method of cross-border smuggling is to fill up a box with guns, equip it with a GPS tracker and strap it to the bottom of a car with a Canadian licence plate parked near the U.S. border. Then, once the unwitting Canadian drives home, criminals follow the GPS and snatch the box from their driveway. “It is so easy to bring guns into this country,” Leuprecht said. The problem of U.S. guns is particularly well-known to Mexico. Famously, the country’s sole gun store is located on a heavily guarded military base and can only be entered by citizens who have passed a detailed background check. Despite this, with as many as 250,000 U.S. guns crossing the Mexican border annually, criminal gangs have had no trouble arming themselves for the country’s bloody years-long drug war.


https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...QjEgnmh3zB68TAT6lp6tQdhtP7JzcZiMji-pTSuM2DKVE
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
A lifelong hunter who finally got the chance to hunt Human?
I'll bet that HE'S pumped!


The hunter didn't hunt human, it was the criminal that he stopped that was the predator.

The hunter merely used his civic rights to save the life of a law enforcement officer.

You clearly need to work on your reading skills.
Perhaps you understand but you have a problem with that?