Mass shooting in Canada

[ronandannette]

It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction.

This horrid event accelerated the decision-making for sure. But the government has had the possibility of an impending ban on the table for quite some time.

Yes, as far as I know, revisions to our gun laws have always been part of the Liberal platform. Admittedly, I know very little about guns themselves and even less about what case can be made for the legitimate use of various types of guns. I don't know anybody that can inform me first-hand and I haven't studied-up on it but I'm hard-pressed to see why assault weapons are necessary outside law enforcement and the military.

Unfortunately, I also don't believe for a minute gun laws of any kind will prevent events like the one in Nova Scotia, which are extremely uncommon. (ETA: you did make a good point about the time factor though in a later post!) The much more common types of gun violence in Canada are domestic scenarios which seem to occur using legal hunting rifles and drug/gang related violence that's perpetrated with illegal hand guns. Getting serious about those incidents would require a complete overhaul of our mental-health, border-control and justice systems with draconian-type sentencing for gun violence. Gang-bangers should be put under the jail to start with; sentences like this are an affront to human decency and certainly not much of a deterrent: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/custody-ends-for-alberta-teen-who-shot-german-tourist-1.4908326

I have absolutely no problem with the ban and although the issue of imposition without a full debate in parliament is troubling, I can live with it. But I think the actual effect on reducing gun violence overall will be limited.

ETA: I'll reference your 2nd post here again because in this very specific incident, a different type of weapon would may well have delayed the perp long enough to have saved some of those lives. We do now know though that 9 of the victims weren't shot at all; they died in the fires he set and that process had to have been slow and deliberate.

 

[CdnCarrie]

People sometimes think that Canadians do not own guns. This is untrue.
What we do have up here is less of a gun culture.
You cannot have your handgun/rifle in public except hunting or a shooting range.
For example you can’t go from the gun range and stop in at a restaurant for lunch with your gun. It would need to be locked in your trunk.
You’re not going to have people legally carrying guns into government buildings, protests, Walmart, etc.
Gun violence unfortunately does happen here.

 

[ronandannette]

People sometimes think that Canadians do not own guns. This is untrue.
What we do have up here is less of a gun culture.
You cannot have your handgun/rifle in public except hunting or a shooting range.
For example you can’t go from the gun range and stop in at a restaurant for lunch with your gun. It would need to be locked in your trunk.
You’re not going to have people legally carrying guns into government buildings, protests, Walmart, etc.
Gun violence unfortunately does happen here.

Nor would anybody in their right mind even consider doing so (the guns-in-public thing I mean). It's almost laughable to imagine it; ordinary guy or lady walking into Tim Horton's with a sidearm (even if legal) would prompt so many instantaneous 911 calls that the lines would blow up. I think we're also extremely fortunate not to have an bred-in-the-bone sense of needing to protect ourselves from one another.

And I think because our "gun culture" or lack thereof is so different, it actually lessens the likelihood that bans (or gun-control as our American neighbours call it) will significantly reduce gun violence. What happens here is, by and large, not crimes of opportunity.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

People sometimes think that Canadians do not own guns. This is untrue.
What we do have up here is less of a gun culture.
You cannot have your handgun/rifle in public except hunting or a shooting range.
For example you can’t go from the gun range and stop in at a restaurant for lunch with your gun. It would need to be locked in your trunk.
You’re not going to have people legally carrying guns into government buildings, protests, Walmart, etc.
Gun violence unfortunately does happen here.

Many of our states are like this as well.

 

[lisaviolet]

Yes, as far as I know, revisions to our gun laws have always been part of the Liberal platform. Admittedly, I know very little about guns themselves and even less about what case can be made for the legitimate use of various types of guns. I don't know anybody that can inform me first-hand and I haven't studied-up on it but I'm hard-pressed to see why assault weapons are necessary outside law enforcement and the military.

Unfortunately, I also don't believe for a minute gun laws of any kind will prevent events like the one in Nova Scotia, which are extremely uncommon. (ETA: you did make a good point about the time factor though in a later post!) The much more common types of gun violence in Canada are domestic scenarios which seem to occur using legal hunting rifles and drug/gang related violence that's perpetrated with illegal hand guns. Getting serious about those incidents would require a complete overhaul of our mental-health, border-control and justice systems with draconian-type sentencing for gun violence. Gang-bangers should be put under the jail to start with; sentences like this are an affront to human decency and certainly not much of a deterrent: https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/custody-ends-for-alberta-teen-who-shot-german-tourist-1.4908326

I have absolutely no problem with the ban and although the issue of imposition without a full debate in parliament is troubling, I can live with it. But I think the actual effect on reducing gun violence overall will be limited.

ETA: I'll reference your 2nd post here again because in this very specific incident, a different type of weapon would may well have delayed the perp long enough to have saved some of those lives. We do now know though that 9 of the victims weren't shot at all; they died in the fires he set and that process had to have been slow and deliberate.

I do not think an earlier ban would have impacted the horrible outcome in Nova Scotia either Annette. I was going off topic. Although I can't imagine the horror of hiding in the woods if those victims knew his firing abilities - distance and number of rounds.

(In fairness I of course have no clue what he had in his hands in these moments
And as was disclosed, he didn't get his weapons legally.)

I simply get insanely angry about the argument for the need for some of these military type weapons. And the lack of thought of how they impact the number killed, the inability for the courageous to have any chance, the danger for law enforcement, the horrid damage to those who live; for both the physicians trying to save them and for their health outcome going forward. We often forget the impact on those who survive; mentally and physically.

---------

It's a start. All your other points of course should be looked at in tandem Annette, with this potential change. I know Ford is raring to go on some of your points. We can never have the same outcome of New Zealand's decision or the success Australia has had over the years. We are not an island. And we share a border with a country with a completely different mindset.

 

[ronandannette]

I do not think an earlier ban would have impacted the horrible outcome in Nova Scotia either Annette. I was going off topic. Although I can't imagine the horror of hiding in the woods if those victims knew his firing abilities - distance and number of rounds.

(In fairness I of course have no clue what he had in his hands in these moments
And as was disclosed, he didn't get his weapons legally.)

I simply get insanely angry about the argument for the need for some of these military type weapons. And the lack of thought of how they impact the number killed, the inability for the courageous to have any chance, the danger for law enforcement, the horrid damage to those who live; for both the physicians trying to save them and for their health outcome going forward. We often forget the impact on those who survive; mentally and physically.

---------

It's a start. All your other points of course should be looked at in tandem Annette, with this potential change. I know Ford is raring to go on some of your points. We can never have the same outcome of New Zealand's decision or the success Australia has had over the years. We are not an island. And we share a border with a country with a completely different mindset.

Your last sentence is pretty much the entire nut of it. After hearing something on the radio that surprised me, I did a little research (again coming from a place of having had very limited knowledge). Apparently what we refer to as military-grade and semi-automatic weapons here in Canada were already addressed once in legislation in response to Ecole Polytechnique. Since 1994 it has been illegal to possess any weapon with an ammunition capacity of more than 10 rounds (single-fire hand guns) or 5 rounds for semi-automatic. HIGH CAPACITY WEAPONS ARE ALREADY BANNED! There are none legally owned by legitimate sportsmen or collectors. Absolutely every one that are currently in the country are illegal and have come through holes in our border; ostensibly from the US.

Snipped from Wikipedia:

 

[RC Fan]

These new laws will do nothing to deter a criminal from committing a crime. Actual assault weapons have been prohibited in Canada since 1979.

These new laws may unfortunately raise the black market values of these rifles, which will likely increase the illegal importation of them.

Trudeau also unknowingly prohibited most 12 gauge shotguns.

I do have some technical firearms knowledge if anyone has questions.

 

[ronandannette]

These new laws will do nothing to deter a criminal from committing a crime. Actual assault weapons have been prohibited in Canada since 1979.

These new laws may unfortunately raise the black market values of these rifles, which will likely increase the illegal importation of them.

Trudeau also unknowingly prohibited most 12 gauge shotguns.

I do have some technical firearms knowledge if anyone has questions.

Yes, the picture is getting clearer, as we now obtain information many of us were previously ignorant of.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

These new laws will do nothing to deter a criminal from committing a crime. Actual assault weapons have been prohibited in Canada since 1979.

These new laws may unfortunately raise the black market values of these rifles, which will likely increase the illegal importation of them.

Trudeau also unknowingly prohibited most 12 gauge shotguns.

I do have some technical firearms knowledge if anyone has questions.

How do the "new laws" differ from the "old laws"?

 

[RC Fan]

Yes, the picture is getting clearer, as we now obtain information many of us were previously ignorant of.

At least you are open to new info! I do find you cannot rely on the news/internet, etc. You still need to do your own research about a lot of the headlines/trends today.

How do the "new laws" differ from the "old laws"?

They banned a bunch of guns that previously could only be legally shot at an approved shooting range. You had to jump through a lot of hoops to get the appropriate license, and your criminal record was checked daily.

The shotguns that they supposedly banned unknowingly included most 12 gauge shotguns—these firearms were used mainly for hunting.

 

[ronandannette]

At least you are open to new info! I do find you cannot rely on the news/internet, etc. You still need to do your own research about a lot of the headlines/trends today.



They banned a bunch of guns that previously could only be legally shot at an approved shooting range. You had to jump through a lot of hoops to get the appropriate license, and your criminal record was checked daily.

The shotguns that they supposedly banned unknowingly included most 12 gauge shotguns—these firearms were used mainly for hunting.

Don’t forget the part where they have given an exemption to all First Nations peoples who will still be able to legally own them for hunting purposes when they have previously been restricted to target shooting only. For further information google gun/contraband smuggling in Canada and Akwasasne organized crime.

 

[RC Fan]

Don’t forget the part where they have given an exemption to all First Nations peoples who will still be able to legally own them for hunting purposes when they have previously been restricted to target shooting only. For further information google gun/contraband smuggling in Canada and Akwasasne organized crime.

Yes, that part is problematic as well(not to mention unfair!).

 

[ronandannette]

Yes, that part is problematic as well(not to mention unfair!).

It's been very eyeopening, as well as humbling, to realize how very little I actually knew about our gun laws. I'd imagine there are literally millions of people like me, who aren't directly affected but yet we are, KWIM?

 

[bcla]

You cannot have your handgun/rifle in public except hunting or a shooting range.
For example you can’t go from the gun range and stop in at a restaurant for lunch with your gun. It would need to be locked in your trunk.
You’re not going to have people legally carrying guns into government buildings, protests, Walmart, etc.

That depends on the location. It's up to the business owner/operator. Many don't allow any firearms except by uniformed law enforcement or law enforcement there on official business. They can legally keep out people with permit to carry firearms.

In California we have a statewide law that doesn't allow the open carry of firearms without a permit of some kind, but it only applies to incorporated cities. It may be legal in unincorporated areas. It used to be legal to openly carry a firearm while unloaded, but some people chose to make a show of it and the law was changed. It's actually legal to openly carry a loaded firearm without a specific permit to do so in my state as long as it's not in a city.

Nobody is going to be allowed to carry a firearm into a government building unless it's law enforcement.

Also - in places where it's not legal to carry, a firearm is required to be in a container in a locked vehicle trunk. But that's in my state.

 

[ronandannette]

That depends on the location. It's up to the business owner/operator. Many don't allow any firearms except by uniformed law enforcement or law enforcement there on official business. They can legally keep out people with permit to carry firearms.

In California we have a statewide law that doesn't allow the open carry of firearms without a permit of some kind, but it only applies to incorporated cities. It may be legal in unincorporated areas. It used to be legal to openly carry a firearm while unloaded, but some people chose to make a show of it and the law was changed. It's actually legal to openly carry a loaded firearm without a specific permit to do so in my state as long as it's not in a city.

Nobody is going to be allowed to carry a firearm into a government building unless it's law enforcement.

Also - in places where it's not legal to carry, a firearm is required to be in a container in a locked vehicle trunk. But that's in my state.

No offence intended, but honestly, that all sounds insane. We vacation in California quite often and I just know that if I saw anybody but a police officer carrying a gun, I'd immediately duck-and-cover. It just wouldn't occur to me that it was OK on any level.

 

[bcla]

No offence intended, but honestly, that all sounds insane. We vacation in California quite often and I just know that if I saw anybody but a police officer carrying a gun, I'd immediately duck-and-cover. It just wouldn't occur to me that it was OK on any level.

I won't get into the early politics of it, but there was an infamous trip by member of the Black Panther Party into the California State Capitol Building . That's where the unloaded carry law went into effect. And it gets complicated because of the difference between incorporated cities. There were organized efforts to make a show out of unloaded open carry of handguns. It was legal but for some reason they wanted people to know. And it was really bizarre because according to state law any peace officer could ask on demand to see that the weapon is unloaded. So there's lots of images/video of people being asked to stand against the wall while their weapon is being checked. It looked a lot like someone being arrested and patted down. It was legal to carry ammunition, but it couldn't be immediately loaded. The basic premise was that if there was a situation where a firearm could be legally discharged in the defense of someone's life, it could be loaded then. Eventually that law was changed, and the same groups found a loophole that they could do the same thing carrying unloaded long guns. Then that was changed. It never really made much sense to me that anyone would want to make it a show to the point where the legislature would change the law.

Still - if one is in the countryside it's still legal - even fully loaded. I've heard of people who go hiking with a firearm.

Still - it's nothing quite like (let's say) Nevada where most people are legally entitled to open carry a loaded weapon on the street without a specific permit needed. I saw someone riding a motorcycle with a holstered firearm in the back of his waistband. Honestly - it covered what would have been his plumber's crack.

 

[ford family]

Don’t forget the part where they have given an exemption to all First Nations peoples who will still be able to legally own them for hunting purposes when they have previously been restricted to target shooting only. For further information google gun/contraband smuggling in Canada and Akwasasne organized crime.

If that was the other way round wouldn't someone be screaming racial discrimination and instructing lawyers?
It's not as though you could describe any firearm as part of their heritage.

ford family

 

[RC Fan]

It's been very eyeopening, as well as humbling, to realize how very little I actually knew about our gun laws. I'd imagine there are literally millions of people like me, who aren't directly affected but yet we are, KWIM?

We are losing our rights!

I will say your attitude is very refreshing. It is nice to see someone who admits they aren’t knowledgeable, but are nonetheless willing to learn.

If that was the other way round wouldn't someone be screaming racial discrimination and instructing lawyers?
It's not as though you could describe any firearm as part of their heritage.

ford family

It has been announced that there will be a legal challenge involving charter rights. I don’t know the details yet.

 

[ronandannette]

We are losing our rights!

I will say your attitude is very refreshing. It is nice to see someone who admits they aren’t knowledgeable, but are nonetheless willing to learn.




It has been announced that there will be a legal challenge involving charter rights. I don’t know the details yet.

I’m very circumspect about jumping on any “extreme” band wagon. I take things seriously and want to be settled in my own mind before I take a position. That’s been challenging here in the west over the past 6 months or so, given our plight within confederation and the real-life consequences of ideologies, but at least it’s been good practice in sorting out one’s thoughts, KWIM?

On this issue I’d be willing to overlook the edict passed without debate and the curtailment of certain liberties and the nonsensically uneven application of exemptions - IF - the result was apt to have one single iota of benefit toward a more civil society. That’s not what’s happening here, and that’s what makes this odd smoke and mirrors action such cause for alarm.

 

[lisaviolet]

It's been very eyeopening, as well as humbling, to realize how very little I actually knew about our gun laws. I'd imagine there are literally millions of people like me, who aren't directly affected but yet we are, KWIM?

Yes. Absolutely.

Here is a list of completely head hurting information that I have read over the last couple of years -

*some weapons used in mass murders in the States are completely legal here (one member here used to write that all time, and he was very knowledgeable about types of guns.) We just have tighter regulations. Argument that banning guns in the US won't do a thing. That there are so many more factors involved.

Yet there was a ban in Canada on these type of weapons in the seventies.

Insert huh?

*article about how most of our guns are now found to be stolen domestically. That our focus on thinking it is a border issue is false

Then our police chief releases stats that over 75% of our guns are smuggled in from the US.

Insert huh?

*a former Chief of Police is heading up the task force for our government on these new potential gun bans

Yes RC Fan lets us know that many on the list are simply regular hunting rifles and not military style - or whatever the correct term is - weapons.

But a former police chief is involved in the ban. How could so many erroneous additions be made? Not doubting you, RC Fan. Just perplexed.

Insert huh?

*I did read about the exemption for Native Canadians. I won't insert a huh? there yet until I understand/educate myself about the reasoning. Wouldn't that just be about respecting self-regulation?

We are losing our rights!

Here's a question on "We are losing our rights!" ----

How do these changes impact your gun usage?

I am simply assuming you hunt. Or is this about gun collecting for you?

If hunting, how does it impact your hunt specifically? (Or any other hunter reading, thank you)

If you don't mind sharing.