News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.4K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 580     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.2K     1 

Toronto shootings

chicu1981 said:
- The RCMP uses serial numbers to trace guns to their sources (domestic/US/other)

- In 2014, the RCMP managed to trace only 29% of the guns used in crime. Others had the serial number filed-off or were untraceable

- Out of the 29% of the guns that were traced, 50% of them were domestically sourced.

- Out of the 29% of the guns that were traced, 48% were deemed to be smuggled from the US. And 82% of those smuggled guns were handguns.

- In reality, only 14.5% of guns used in crime were domestically sourced (29% x 50% =14.5%)

The Liberals and anti-gunners are twisting the statistics and omitting the important facts.
Click to expand...

That is an incorrect assertion - you do not know if those 70% of unidentifiable guns are domestic or not. In fact, for your assertion to be true requires ALL of that 70% to be sourced outside Canada - which is extremely unlikely, to say the least.

Also, if legal gun owners are re-selling them illegally - then guess what, it is illegal. There are no ifs-and-or-buts about that.

AoD
 
Last edited:
1. This is not Japan. These test do not make any sense at all whatsoever. If you are as knowledgeable as you claim to be, All ranges in Canada where you can discharege a restricted firearms, require you to pass multiple live fire tests, before they would apply for an ATT (authorization to transport your restrcietd firearms to your range) for you. So without that you can only sit at home and admire your new toy. Again pride got the better of you.

2. Of the 2m+ gunowners, you found a single example, and now using that to make drnaconian extrapolation to ban it All. Truck driver who killed 20+ hockey players or pysco who killed 10+ on yonge st, i dont see you making the same arguement on numbers of cars / trucks you can own. It free country and you should be allowed to blow your money to please your heart. Surely no one needs a lambo or ferrari. Its a want vs need.

The question should be how did that person got his 1st firearm? The question should not be why the person got his 47th firearm. System failed when he got his first gun.

3. They can visit your residence in practise. Again its a question of cost. This was another bad policy conceived by an arm chair policy guru, now in practise. Bad policy bad outcome.

Northern Light said:
I don't wish to engage in a flame war, however, your exuberant and misplaced arrogance must be checked.

I am very familiar w/firearms tests and laws, PAL, Restricted Weapons, and ATC.

You should not draw ill informed assumptions.

In answer to your questions:

Marksmanship tests are a part of getting a firearms license in Japan and several other countries, the method of administration could vary, depending on volume, but the likely choice would be to administer the test at ranges than now offer the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.

The applicant would cover the cost of the test. Hardly complicated.

****
In respect of the number of guns, let's be clear CBC just did a story this morning, informed by the police that multiple valid PAL and/or Restricted Weapons license holders have been illegally dealing weapons, one person having done so 47 times.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/guns-domestic-danforth-shooting-toronto-1.4759159

The issue is not one of banning anything, nor of undue hardship on someone with a hobby, we could reasonably debate what number of hand guns (and I'm only discussing those, not long guns) would be reasonable for a hobbyist, but at some point, there is such a thing as an unreasonable number, and I'm certain 47 is well past it. Aside from avoiding intentional misconduct, one would have to be concerned that if someone has an arsenal of weapons at home, you will be a target for gun theft, and even a gun safe is not impregnable.

****

Your description of the inspection rights is Incorrect:

The Firearms Act provides that a firearms officer may inspect any premises where there is suspicion of more than 10 guns existing.


Who can do this and how can it be done? Who can enter to inspect? This is a firearms officer only (no other officers or helpers). Under C-68, firearms officers are restricted to designated offices. Not every police officer is a firearms officer. At the present time this should include your local firearms officer who assists in issuing transport permits and registration applications for restricted firearms. In Ontario there are less than 200 such officers. This number may shrink considerably.


The procedure is begun by a firearms officer contacting you to arrange for a date and time to inspect. You are obligated to make the arrangement within a reasonable time. That is when the firearms officer contacts you, you get back to him or her in a reasonable time to set the appointment some time in the future when it is convenient for both of you. Then the officer will attend and inspect your building. If you consent to this, the officer can stay until you revoke consent or until he/she is finished.

Per

https://cssa-cila.org/legals/inspections-and-warrants/

***

Don't be insulting. Ask around here, I do my homework before posting.
Click to expand...
On
 
Again an extrapoltaion without proof.


AlvinofDiaspar said:
That is an incorrect assertion - you do not know if those 70% of unidentifiable guns are domestic or not. In fact, for your assertion to be true requires ALL of that 70% to be sourced outside Canada - which is extremely unlikely, to say the least.

Also, if legal gun owners are re-selling them illegally - then guess what, it is illegal. There are no ifs-and-or-buts about that.

AoD
Click to expand...
gain
 
chicu1981 said:
No lets ignore 85.5% of the problem and hammer the legal gun owners.
Click to expand...
So if a driver has a clean record, and genuinely owns his car, he shouldn't be tested or meet criteria to own and operate his car?

The assertions you're making are beyond desperate. I was just reading up on Scheer's stance, and he's slippery. He very carefully obfuscates "handgun" with "rifle". As any ex-military will tell you (and I'm one) a rifle isn't a gun. And vice versa, with extremely few exceptions.

Edit to Add: Yes, and I see I'm in good company:
Andrew Scheer’s gun policies include firearms ombudsman, taking power from RCMP

LAURA STONEPARLIAMENTARY REPORTER
OTTAWA
INCLUDES CLARIFICATION
PUBLISHED MARCH 12, 2018UPDATED MARCH 14, 2018
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer says he wants to create a firearms ombudsman to advocate for gun owners and that the RCMP should no longer have the power to reclassify guns – a proposal being dismissed as “nonsense” by the country’s former top cop.

Mr. Scheer, the only federal party leader who owns guns, stands by the firearms policies he made during last year’s Conservative leadership race, his spokesman Jake Enwright said.

Mr. Enwright refused repeated interview requests with Mr. Scheer, and said he couldn’t discuss what guns Mr. Scheer owns, what they’re used for or where they are kept. Mr. Scheer, who represents a Saskatchewan riding, lives at the Official Opposition residence Stornoway when he is in Ottawa.


“Unfortunately for public safety reasons, I cannot disclose to you the types of firearms or where they’re located,” Mr. Enwright said.

Mr. Scheer’s proposals include a sweeping pledge to review the Criminal Code and repeal all federal regulations on gun ownership, usage and transportation, which do not “ensure that Canada’s firearms laws respect the rights of honest firearms owners, recognize the fact that hunting and sports shooting are an important part of Canadian culture and history, and empower police to concentrate on real criminals who are a threat to the public.”


But former RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson said one of Mr. Scheer’s promises, which takes aim at the Mounties for reclassifying guns based on aesthetics, is “nonsense, nonsense and a little bit more nonsense.”

“There is a rabid firearms lobby that has their hooks into the Conservatives, and they’re aggressive, and the only way that, in my view, the political folks can keep them at bay, is to blame the RCMP,” Mr. Paulson, who retired last June after 32 years in the force, told The Globe.

“In truth, the elected officials have all the power in the world right now. It’s not a discretionary call that the RCMP make, it is the application of the laws that those elected officials make.”
[...]
Click to expand...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...cies-include-firearms-ombudsman-taking-power/

Well tell ya wot there Scheer genius and sycophants. Put it to a plebiscite...and beyond that, since you love decentralized power-making so much, give the *provinces* the right to determine this.

That's only democratic, right? Or does someone want to bring in The Constitution? Be my guest...
 
Last edited:
chicu1981 said:
Again an extrapoltaion without proof.

gain
Click to expand...

You just make an assertion "-In reality, only 14.5% of guns used in crime were domestically sourced (29% x 50% =14.5%)" that the numbers from the report you've quoted didn't allow you to make. It isn't an extrapolation - it is merely observing and pointing out a flaw in your logic.

steveintoronto said:
So if a driver has a clean record, and genuinely owns his car, he shouldn't be tested or meet criteria to own and operate his car?

The assertions you're making are beyond desperate. I was just reading up on Scheer's stance, and he's slippery. He very carefully obfuscates "handgun" with "rifle". As any ex-military will tell you (and I'm one) a rifle isn't a gun. And vice versa, with extremely few exceptions.
Click to expand...

And, if a gun (nevermind long gun) is a car, the owner will already have to get it registered by law and pay a yearly registration fee, and subjected to potential spot checks all the time using it. And somehow that is more onerous and intolerable for a tool that is far less useful and universal than a car?

AoD
 
Last edited:
chicu1981 said:
1. This is not Japan. These test do not make any sense at all whatsoever. If you are as knowledgeable as you claim to be, All ranges in Canada where you can discharege a restricted firearms, require you to pass multiple live fire tests, before they would apply for an ATT (authorization to transport your restrcietd firearms to your range) for you. So without that you can only sit at home and admire your new toy. Again pride got the better of you.

2. Of the 2m+ gunowners, you found a single example, and now using that to make drnaconian extrapolation to ban it All. Truck driver who killed 20+ hockey players or pysco who killed 10+ on yonge st, i dont see you making the same arguement on numbers of cars / trucks you can own. It free country and you should be allowed to blow your money to please your heart. Surely no one needs a lambo or ferrari. Its a want vs need.

The question should be how did that person got his 1st firearm? The question should not be why the person got his 47th firearm. System failed when he got his first gun.

3. They can visit your residence in practise. Again its a question of cost. This was another bad policy conceived by an arm chair policy guru, now in practise. Bad policy bad outcome.


On
Click to expand...

I am as knowledgeable as I say.

I will not engage in a flame war. I am not your source of entertainment or instruction.

The article affords evidence of far more than 'one example' you clearly didn't bother to read it.

I know more than one legal fire arms owner. I have never once heard of their premise being inspected.

The number of fire arms officers in Ontario makes that an impracticality as a matter of mathematics.
 
Northern Light said:
I am as knowledgeable as I say.

I will not engage in a flame war. I am not your source of entertainment or instruction.

The article affords evidence of far more than 'one example' you clearly didn't bother to read it.

I know more than one legal fire arms owner. I have never once heard of their premise being inspected.

The number of fire arms officers in Ontario makes that an impracticality as a matter of mathematics.
Click to expand...
If it’s impractical , it’s bad policy.
 
Last edited:
Here are some policy proposals from Toronto city

Di4VfGJXsAAGI-Y.jpg


As if the all the bad guys buy their ammo from Legal gun store.

As you can see city government does not have a clue on where to begin.

There is nothing city of Toronto can do wrt to gun sales. It’s a federal issue.

There is only a single gun store in the city of Toronto. I am very sure that they don’t sell it to suspicious characters.
 
They can’t do anything to impede the illegal sales. But surely blocking legal sales makes a lot of political sense.

I wonder what happens after they have banned all these sales ? Does anyone really think the gun crime in the troubled parts of Toronto would stop.

This here is a master class in reactive politics and bad policy making.
 
Places that have banned hand guns have seen drops in gun crimes.

Really nobody that lives in the city of Toronto NEEDS to own a hand gun.

We should still be tackling the illegal gun trade as well. But that would mean going after organized crime harder and our authorities don't seem too interested in that for whatever reason.
 
Nothing riles up Conservatives more than the gun file. I say bring it on.

Trudueau is already on very thin ice. This file will bring this Era of Liberal government to conclusion in 2019.

RCMP is not expert. They are certainly not impartial. No body from the 2m+ gun owners community trusts them.

Hence we need an independent authority who reports to political leadership. But most people here and the Liberals prefer a nanny Police state, hence they tend to defer all decision making to RCMP and call them experts.

Look High River, CZ-858/ Swiss arms as these are the recent fiascos caused by RCMP.

steveintoronto said:
So if a driver has a clean record, and genuinely owns his car, he shouldn't be tested or meet criteria to own and operate his car?

The assertions you're making are beyond desperate. I was just reading up on Scheer's stance, and he's slippery. He very carefully obfuscates "handgun" with "rifle". As any ex-military will tell you (and I'm one) a rifle isn't a gun. And vice versa, with extremely few exceptions.

Edit to Add: Yes, and I see I'm in good company:
Andrew Scheer’s gun policies include firearms ombudsman, taking power from RCMP

LAURA STONEPARLIAMENTARY REPORTER
OTTAWA
INCLUDES CLARIFICATION
PUBLISHED MARCH 12, 2018UPDATED MARCH 14, 2018

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...cies-include-firearms-ombudsman-taking-power/

Well tell ya wot there Scheer genius and sycophants. Put it to a plebiscite...and beyond that, since you love decentralized power-making so much, give the *provinces* the right to determine this.

That's only democratic, right? Or does someone want to bring in The Constitution? Be my guest...
Click to expand...
 
chicu1981 said:
Nothing riles up Conservatives more than the gun file. I say bring it on.
Trudueau is already on very thin ice. This file will bring this Era of Liberal government to conclusion in 2019.
RCMP is not expert. They are certainly not impartial. No body from the 2m+ gun owners community trusts them.
Hence we need an independent authority who reports to political leadership. But most people here and the Liberals prefer a nanny Police state, hence they tend to defer all decision making to RCMP and call them experts.
Look High River, CZ-858/ Swiss arms as these are the recent fiascos caused by RCMP.
Click to expand...

I'd say, bring it on. What are law abiding citizens going to do - ignore the law they didn't like because it's special? Car owners have to register their vehicles, and somehow having to do so for weaponry is an unconscionable hassle. There is no need to be punitive about the process, but the need for registration there should be.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top