Gun Control in Canada

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Can y'all handle one more essay?

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Robinson_Ian/2006/09/17/1852876.html
Ian Robinson
Sun, September 17, 2006
Gun control won't protect us from the losers
By Ian Robinson

Here he is again, the loser with a grudge and a gun slithering up from the basement of a middle-class home where he fermented his immaturity, anger and resentments to full and deadly potency "interacting" with like creatures on the Internet.

His mom says he was "a good son."

The neighbours' comments -- the banality of this would be screamingly funny were it not for the horror of the event -- amount to this: He was quiet and kept to himself.

Aren't they always.

His resentment and anger are perfectly understandable.

He's a loser and losers spend their lives being angry and resentful.

It's one of the reasons they're losers. Life is something that happens to them. They aren't something that happens to life.

They aren't achievers.

Worst of all, he knows he's a loser, but failing the courage or will to do something about it and actually change, he decides to write his name in the pages of our times with gunfire, and paint a final statement with the innocent blood of students -- young people working toward successful futures.

His victims are everything he is not.

The ultimate proof he's a loser: His final statement, his final moments in life are desperately unoriginal. Just another loser in a long list of losers. The perpetrators of Columbine and Taber and all the others.

He was 25 years old.

Who among us is still so much an angry adolescent at 25?

And thanks to him, yet again, every man or woman in this country who has ever offered up time and devotion to the mastery and pleasure of a rifle or pistol is suspect.

Wendy Cukier, the mastermind behind Canada's obscenely expensive and ineffective gun registry -- she's president of the Coalition for Gun Control -- along with her Liberal Party lapdogs promised us more gun control would make us safer.

Way to go, Wendy.

See, this loser jumped through all the hoops, complied with the gun legislation and guess what?

He passed. His firearms were legally owned.

When questioned in the aftermath of this event, Cukier told CBC that: "The argument for gun control has never been based on individual cases. (It) has always been based on the general principle that if you have adequate control on all guns, you reduce the chances that dangerous people will gain access to them. You don't eliminate them."

Her statement is disingenuous to say the least.

"Disingenuous" is a fancy word for "lie."

The entire gun control and registry debate in this country is, and always has been, based on an individual case, that of the slaughter of 14 female students at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique in 1989 by another loser with a grudge.

And it has been a debate that has demonstrated a barely concealed hostility toward men in general and male firearms owners in particular.

In Canada, gun control wasn't a public policy issue, it became -- thanks to the 1989 massacre with a male perpetrator and female victims -- part of the nation's ongoing gender wars and was framed in precisely those terms.

Anyone who objected to the content of the legislation -- citing practicality, lack of efficacy, civil rights -- was written off as some kind of psychopathic redneck whose idea of formal wear was to try to iron a crease in his army surplus fatigue pants before plunking himself down in front of Ted Nugent's hunting show on the Outdoor network while chowing down on a big ol' bag of deep-fried pork rinds with his arm around his sister.

That was a lie, too.

There is but a single lesson to be learned from this event.

The people who told you government regulation would protect you against monster losers with grudges were lying.

And when they tell us in the coming days that just a little bit more paperwork, just a few more tweaks to the legislation, that will make us safer, they're still lying.

What I said - nobody wants to "see the truth" as long as a person is quiet and keeps to himself - he is ok. While he was screaming out his rage on the website. His own private podium.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
Once again, from above:
Because every time we have registered a new class of weapons, the government has turned around and seized them. This has happened twice in the last 15 years.
Because the bloody system is such a complete mess that it is USELESS! The old handgun system was so full of holes that it was NOT ADMISIBLE in court as evidence, and this one is no better. Their computers still don't work correctly.
It was supposed to cost 2 million dollars, and has cost well over 1 BILLION heading rapidly towards 2 Billion, at a rate of about 125 million per YEAR!!!
And they still need to fix/replace that $250 million computer system.......
The Auditor-General IDed the biggest reason costs are way out of whack......THE ANT-GUN ATTITUDE OF THE SYSTEM'S ADMINISTRATORS

You are listing many very egregious errors. This is an abuse of democracy.

I would agree that the Firearms Act is an absolute "abuse of democracy" 8) ..........but I get the feeling that is NOT what you are trying to say..........and I'm not sure what you ARE trying to say.

If the protection for us all in these cases of abuse is an armed citizenry when do you begin to ride? Is there a rallying method where the armed population can rise as one, pack their bacon and spur their steeds in the direction of Ottawa?

It seems to me that our armed protectors are sitting at home or in pubs watching the mess unravel in Ottawa with the rest of us.

Hey, did you see anywhere in my posts a call to man the barricades?

Didn't think so.

This is still a democracy, and a reasonably free one, although I fear it is rapidly becoming less so.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Hey Colpy

I think the guy was writing for you.... glad you liked it....Except for the "ironing the fatigues bit".... I never iron fatigues...

Pass the pork rinds eh? :p
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
The trouble with perfect plans, is that they require perfect people. I wouldn't like to see at least half my neighbors with guns of any kind. The general public are just not qualified to have guns. You use guns in your work, as do policemen, but you are a small minority. I have a rifle and a shotgun in the basement but I don't use them for protection, and I've had firearm training. I prefer that only qualified people have guns. The horrible example of firearm reality is just below the 49th.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I agree that I would not want many of my neighbours , hell most of them (but a few in particular) having guns. I would also prefer they didn't smoke pot on their patio. But seeing as they have pot im willing to bet if they wanted guns they could have them too.

So while I would prefer nobody had guns, seeing as how there is no way to stop dangerous individuals from having guns, I would prefer myself to have a gun, legally, without having to stoop to their level.

Quite frankly if I wanted a gun bad enough I could build one myself with an inconspicous trip to a home depot or two.



So the real question is, seeing as how you can't keep people from having guns, why should people who wish to have guns and not break the law with them be penalized?

Unless you know of a magic way to keep anyone who wants a gun bad enough to spend a weekend on it from getting one.

I'd love to hear that plan.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I don't have any master plan. We all want our "perfect world" that we are unlikely to ever get. I think our gun control laws are probably a bit slack. Right now, one can buy just about any long gun. Hand guns are a little more difficult but they can be had. Maybe they should require a psychiatric evaluation for all guns. Colpy is gonna yell at me for that. :p
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Parents 'knew nothing'
Police told them of shooting spree 10 hours later
Son learned about guns during stint with army: Mother

Sep. 16, 2006. 07:04 AM
HUGO MEUNIER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

LAVAL, QUE.—On Wednesday, Kimveer Gill's parents were watching television, glued to the coverage of the carnage at Dawson College. By that time, their son had killed Anastasia De Sousa and wounded about 20 other people before turning his gun on himself.

But his parents had no inkling of his involvement until the police arrived at their bungalow in Laval at 11:30 p.m., more than 10 hours after the shooting spree.

Their son a killer? They were blown away, crushed.

"My husband cried all night and said, "If I only knew! If I only knew,'" Kimveer Gill's mother, Parvinder Sandhu, said in an interview.

"Tell everyone, it's really hard for the parents. It's the worst thing that can happen. We knew nothing.

"It was a shock, our legs buckled, then they became as hard as rock," she said of hearing the news about her 25-year-old son from police.

She is interviewed in the modest white brick house the family bought when her son was 6.

The curtains are closed. No lights are on. The father, who does not speak to reporters and asks that his first name not be used, is in the kitchen, adjacent to the living room. He makes funeral arrangements for his son. Their other sons, the twins, are up in their bedroom.

There is another room, Kimveer's — his lair where he played on the computer and kept his precious guns. His mother would not allow reporters into the room. But she said Kimveer left no note before he went on his killing spree.

Since the tragedy, the family has been prisoners in the house; they live on meals ordered for them by the police.

She agreed to the interview with La Presse yesterday hoping that it would somehow call off the pack of journalists who have been hounding them, knocking on their door, telephoning and even climbing up and looking at them through the windows.

They try hard to mourn — they have lost a son and become the parents of an assassin. "People forget that; they believe that perhaps we are criminals, too," she says.

She gives some sketchy biographical information: the family arrived in Canada 20 years ago. She worked in a store but quit her job when she got breast cancer. Her husband doesn't work any more, but according to a family friend, he was once a professor at Toronto university; he does not say which one.

She insists her son was not the solitary, taciturn person the media have portrayed.

"He had friends and everything," she said, but adds that he had changed lately.

"Since Christmas, he became more sad, more tranquil. He started to spend more time on his computer, playing video games."

Her son, she says, once suffered from depression, overwhelmed by her illness. He was treated at a local health clinic.

Yes, the parents were aware of the guns. Kimveer showed them his impressive Beretta. He was a member of a gun club in suburban Lachine.

"There was nothing illegal, otherwise we wouldn't have tolerated that." The guns were registered and kept in his room. "He showed us his big gun, the semi-automatic which he used for shooting, but he said it was for sport, for going to the training centre."

His mother insists he learned about guns during a four-week stint of basic training with the Canadian Forces in 1999.

The army denies this. Lieut. Carol Brown, a spokeswoman for the Forces, confirmed Gill did go through four weeks of basic training. But she said he did not carry arms — weapons training and drills take place later in training.

The Forces refuse to confirm his reasons for leaving.

His parents say they now know their son hid many things. They were stupefied to see pictures of him as an avenging angel on a violent goth website.

"Seeing (the pictures), I asked myself how a good boy could become like this. I never knew he went to this site. Perhaps it influenced him," his mother said.

If she and her husband had had the slightest hint of what was going on, they would have intervened. "We would have built a wall in front of him to prevent him from doing that." And if her son had survived? "I would be very angry with him. I would insist they give him the maximum penalty. No one deserves what just happened. I feel terrible when I see the other parents suffering," she said.

On saying that, her eyes fill with tears.

La Presse, with files from Sébastien Rodrigue

I wonder if the son did not get through basic training because he was found to have psychological issues which the military would find to be unacceptable - especially for one who is going to learn to fire weapons.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
That doesn't stop someone from building a gun in their garage though now does it?

Even if you couldn't buy a gun anywhere in Canada, even if you had land mines and sentry robots guarding our borders ironclad.

Give anybody with an internet connection and a garage hobby workshop a weekend or two alone and they can have a working gun.

It really is up there with trying to ban knives..they aren't that hard to build if you want to.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
Colpy said:
Hey, did you see anywhere in my posts a call to man the barricades?

Didn't think so.


Colpy wrote:

"We don't trust the government, and an armed population is the absolute cornerstone of a free society."

This seemed to be the preliminary step and a call to action would logically follow from this.

But I also wrote that you are just as likely to stay home and watch the telly when the government screws up and so this as a reason for arming the population is rather silly.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

Zzarchov said:
So the real question is, seeing as how you can't keep people from having guns, why should people who wish to have guns and not break the law with them be penalized?

It's interesting to me because that's the same argument used to advocate legalizing all drugs.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
And hasn't it been shown to work? Legalizing and regulating Alcohol cut down on the massive power of organized crime, generated money for the government, saved it oodles from having to bust up speak-easies and de-mystified liquer..actually reducing alcoholism.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
Marijuana should be legalized.

But most of the other drugs really are a problem. They should stay illegal.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

Zzarchov said:
And hasn't it been shown to work? Legalizing and regulating Alcohol cut down on the massive power of organized crime, generated money for the government, saved it oodles from having to bust up speak-easies and de-mystified liquer..actually reducing alcoholism.

I don't know if it reduced alcoholism or not. I don't think it's any more addictive than a lot of other legal substances.

I wonder though, would the same rationale apply to meth or heroin or crack?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
#juan said:
I don't have any master plan. We all want our "perfect world" that we are unlikely to ever get. I think our gun control laws are probably a bit slack. Right now, one can buy just about any long gun. Hand guns are a little more difficult but they can be had. Maybe they should require a psychiatric evaluation for all guns. Colpy is gonna yell at me for that. :p

Yeah.

I'll yell at you later. :)

Personally, however, I have such faith in the science of psychiatry and those who practise in the discipline that I am quite confident that you could get as accurate a diagnosis from some guy with a bone through his nose that guts a chicken and stirs the entails as a diagnostic tool.

In fact, the dude with the bone through his nose MIGHT be preferable.

Edited to say:

AND he wouldn't charge you $150 per hour.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Colpy

I have a neighbor who dreams of having a silver plated Colt Python 357 magnum That in itself is no big deal but if you leave him alone for a few minutes he draws detailed pictures of that gun. He figures it would be a good gun to combat road rage types in California. If he gets one I hope he takes it to California. They'll probably lock him up.

My comments about psychiatric evaluations was a reference to guys like Mr. Gill in Montreal.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
#juan said:
Colpy

I have a neighbor who dreams of having a silver plated Colt Python 357 magnum That in itself is no big deal but if you leave him alone for a few minutes he draws detailed pictures of that gun. He figures it would be a good gun to combat road rage types in California. If he gets one I hope he takes it to California. They'll probably lock him up.

My comments about psychiatric evaluations was a reference to guys like Mr. Gill in Montreal.

From the sounds of things, I hope he is drawing with crayons........
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Colpy said:
...the dude with the bone through his nose MIGHT be preferable.

Yep, gotta say I think Colpy has the truth of this issue. Any psycho moron who wants to kill a lot of people quickly and messily to make some kind of lunatic statement has lots of options, guns are only one of them, and not even the easiest one. Drive a car into a crowd. Make a bomb or nasty poisons from readily available products. Become a school bus driver, buy a big knife, and one morning lock all the doors and slaughter every kid on the bus with it. If ya really wanna wipe out a lot of folks and don't care about the consequences to yourself, it's not hard to do, and guns aren't the easiest way to do it. I think the focus on gun control is misguided. I certainly wouldn't agree that gun ownership should be unrestricted, gun ownership should be viewed as a privilege, not a right, same as driving is, so it's perfectly legitimate that there should be tests for knowledge and competency before you can get a license. But that isn't the issue.

I think the real issue with Canada's national gun registry is that it was never clear what its real purpose was. Is it to prevent psychos like Kimveer Gill from shooting up a school in Montreal? Obviously it's failed at that. He had three weapons with him, a pistol, a rifle, and a shotgun, all duly registered to him, which means somehow this guy fell through a lot of cracks in the system that's supposed to prevent people like him from obtaining firearms. "Life is a video game??" How does a 25-year old guy spout drivel like that? Apart from being a psycho, the guy's a shallow, peurile, ignorant idiot who never got past being 12 years old emotionally. Is it fair or reasonable to expect a gun registry system to identify people like that? Spend a little time in the blogosphere; for every guy like Gill you'll find a thousand false positives who sound like him but will never do anything about it. Most of it's just posing. How do you spot the real dangers? I have no idea.

Or is the gun registry similar to the vehicle registration system most of us deal with annually? Do the legal authorities just want to know where the guns are, so when the police get called to a domestic disturbance they can know whether or not there are guns in the home? That seems reasonable in principle, but without 100% compliance the database is useless.

I think the vehicle registration systems are much better models for whatever the gun registry is trying to do than whatever the Hell model it was they adopted. I own two vehicles, and every year I get a polite, factual notice from the licensing authorities telling me my registration expires on a certain date and I should take whatever steps are necessary to take care of that. Gun registrations last for five years and last spring my registrations expired. I got a letter from the gun registry folks that not only gave me the facts about my gun registrations, it also threatened me. It wasn't quite worded like this, but it might as well have been:

Your gun registrations expire on May 31st. You must re-register your weapons before then, or we'll send police to your home with a search warrant, they'll wreck your home to find your guns, confiscate them without compensation, beat the crap out of you, and fine you heavily.

Well, okay, I exaggerate a trifle. But not much. The letter did clearly state that if I failed to respond by a certain date, my guns would be confiscated and destroyed and I'd be heavily fined. The stink of fascism was unmistakeable.

And what is the issue? I think it's this: we cannot prevent the occasional psycho among us from trying to messily and noisily murder a whole bunch of us. We can prohibit all kinds of weapons and all kinds of behaviours, and the psychos will still find a way to do their dirty deeds. The bottom line is, what creates the psychos and how do we stop it? I don't know the answer to that, but I know that gun control is not the answer.

What is all the nonsense about banning semi-automatic weapons, for instance? What the Hell difference could that make? I've done enough bird hunting with a pump action shotgun to know that I could easily modify a standard "sporting" shotgun to hold 6 cartridges and that I could certainly get off all six shots in about six seconds. Not as fast as a semi-automatic perhaps, but certainly fast enough to kill a lot of people with 00 buckshot loads as Colpy explained above.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
If guns aren't the easiest way, then why does that always seem to be the way spree killers choose? You don't hear about kids killing a bunch of their classmates with cars or golf clubs or knives.

I don't know if the gun registry is a good idea or not, but I definitely don't get the whole "guns are just like cars" idea. That just doesn't ring true to me.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Re: RE: Gun Control in Canada

tracy said:
If guns aren't the easiest way, then why does that always seem to be the way spree killers choose? You don't hear about kids killing a bunch of their classmates with cars or golf clubs or knives.

I don't know if the gun registry is a good idea or not, but I definitely don't get the whole "guns are just like cars" idea. That just doesn't ring true to me.

Tracy

Good nomenclature - "spree killers" - forgot that and it applies here.
Guns may not be the "easiest way" to obtain but they are certainly the weapon of choice for this kind of killer, no matter how difficult it may be to obtain the weapon itself. It is part of the whole scenario - legitimizing the plan construct.

The psychopathology of this kind of angry outcast loner is impersonal killing - he cannot get close enough to feel any emotion - because his life is geared to protecting himself from emotion - in case he gets hurt by rejection from others.

Guns can kill from afar - no connection to the victim - other weaponry except for the bow and arrow are too up close and personal to be the weapon of choice. You don't want to feel the body heat, or smell the blood or see their eyes. Distance is the choice.

It is also the typical coward's way out - suicide by cop is often used to describe it - when the final explosive behavior is acted upon and the violence actually begins - the euphoria takes over knowing he is finally in control - no matter if it lasts only for minutes.

At the cost of his own desperate life, he dictates a one act play involving strangers for whom he has no empathy and under other circumstances would be nervous or fearful in their personal space under normal conditions.

If you don't get the connection about "training responsible use of guns" as part of their control system and registration - what would you suggest?

Ignore the possibility of it being replicated and hope for the best?

I don't see any alternatives being suggested for what we now call "gun control".