The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

Right so even more reason not to take a a side while they sit on that advisory board.  See the terms of reference.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/cfac/tor-en.aspx

Wasn't one of the women who was present at the Polytechnique  shooting on the advisory board and continued to  advocate against firearms even though she wasn't supposed to do any advocating?

 

[Haggis]

Wasn't one of the women who was present at the Polytechnique  shooting on the advisory board and continued to  advocate against firearms even though she wasn't supposed to do any advocating?

  Quite true. And when Liberal gun control proposals weren't draconian enough or implemented swiftly enough for her she stepped down.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Right so even more reason not to take a a side while they sit on that advisory board.  See the terms of reference.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/cfac/tor-en.aspx

That was not the reason they gave and now it's biting them. They are about to take a major hit in the wallet for their virtue signalling.

 

[Jarnhamar]

  Quite true. And when Liberal gun control proposals weren't draconian enough or implemented swiftly enough for her she stepped down.

Ah yes, and she didn't just quit. She went for the Facebook style "I'm leaving this group!" public announcement.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Tangentially,

I seem to recall having at look at stats like these during a criminology course many years ago... and it always amazed me (and made me thankful to live in Canada):


Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/

 

[Jed]

Tangentially,

I seem to recall having at look at stats like these during a criminology course many years ago... and it always amazed me (and made me thankful to live in Canada):


Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/

I don't have the link for it but recently I have viewed a youtube video that disputes the validity of most of this US Mass shooting stats due to a very flawed report that did not adequately cover non English reports and stats from countries around the world.

 

[Remius]

That was not the reason they gave and now it's biting them. They are about to take a major hit in the wallet for their virtue signalling.

What was the reason they gave?

All I see is their statement that is essentially the same statement DU USA has made as well.

At any rate, gun owners that support DUC can do what they like but a weaker DUC isn’t going to help their cause at all. 

 

[Jed]

Correct me if I am wrong, but, Gun Owners are by far the majority supporters of DUC.

I have supported them for decades, my relatives have been top tier supporters gifting significant land holdings etc.

I am pissed off enough that it will effect my support for DUC. I'm sure this will hit them in the pocketbook.

 

[Haggis]

I am pissed off enough that it will effect my support for DUC. I'm sure this will hit them in the pocketbook.

  Rest assured that whatever financial losses DUC suffers as a result of this "principled decision" will be offset by Liberal "conservation initiative funding".

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't have the link for it but recently I have viewed a youtube video that disputes the validity of most of this US Mass shooting stats due to a very flawed report that did not adequately cover non English reports and stats from countries around the world.

When people think "Mass shootings" they don't think to include 4 people killed in a drug hit gone wrong, but it does get included. Average people in the US killed by long guns is about 375 on average per year. Not exactly a crisis.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The Liberals have proposed a "new" law (which pretty much already exists) to allow medical professionals and educators to call their local police to report persons at risk of harm to themselves or others and as that the police seize their legally owned firearms.  This "Red Flag Law" is already on the books, but those doctors and teachers must call their CFOs, not the local police.  Not even the most strident of the anti-gun groups thinks this law is needed.

This is a terrible idea. I can think of educators I have had over the years that would likely call the police if they found out the parents owned guns just because of their own personal bias.

Not to mention, have they ever considered the fact that taking away someone's firearms if they are suicidal is more of a reason not to report mental health issues? I personally think that laws like this help cause mental illness as if you are suffering your not going to report it due to the consequences. I know you can't really get statistics on that as those people who are suffering wouldn't report it for the obvious reasons (its hard enough to get information on depression as is), but I do think it is a factor.

When people think "Mass shootings" they don't think to include 4 people killed in a drug hit gone wrong, but it does get included. Average people in the US killed by long guns is about 375 on average per year. Not exactly a crisis.

Canada and the USA have basically the same long gun death rate per capita despite the differences in our laws. Its the handgun death rate that the rates separate fast.

 

[Cloud Cover]

This should be banned just on principle:

 

[NavyShooter]

I shared that photo in a Canadian firearms group the other day...it's...an interesting mash-together.

Personally, if they'd added a wood stock and wooden pistol grip, it'd be almost elegant!

I would honestly consider doing this, but I would not cut apart a No1 Mark 3 rifle to do so.

NS

 

[Cloud Cover]

https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2020/2020ONCA0151.htm

Pay attention to the storage of the shot gun, and the supposed use of military training. Bear in mind, please, that a person is dead and the reason given is the accused only sought to protect his spouse while a crime was committed on his property.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Was this self defence: https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1234518575106248705?s=20

 

[Haggis]

Was this self defence: https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1234518575106248705?s=20

in order to make that determination from a legal standpoint you have to look at the incident in the context of where it happened and who was involved.  This is said to have occurred in Brazil and the female was allegedly an off-duty police officer. If not clearly 'self defence", definitely "defence of others".

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2020/2020ONCA0151.htm

Pay attention to the storage of the shot gun, and the supposed use of military training. Bear in mind, please, that a person is dead and the reason given is the accused only sought to protect his spouse while a crime was committed on his property.

His shotgun was possibly stored contrary to the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations. According to the Court of Appeal's summary of the facts, "Mr. Khill kept a shotgun in the closet of his bedroom". If that closet had a lock on it and "kept securely locked", then the storage would be in conformity with the regulations. It was not stored loaded, I assume, as it says he got ammunition from elsewhere in the bedroom and loaded the shotgun.

As for the use of Mr. Khill's military training, it appears that his defence lawyer used this in much the same way that police use their training as favouring a finding that their actions "are reasonable in the circumstances" when they've been involved in a shooting. As the Court of Appeal noted "[c]ounsel for Mr. Khill stressed that the training triggered a mindset in dangerous situations that emphasized proactive responses intended to gain control of the situation." Frustratingly (to me), this seems to result in police being held to a lower (rather than higher) standard than untrained citizens ... i.e. they are taught to see threats and therefore are more likely to feel the need to use deadly force. But it makes complete sense that his lawyer would use it this way since the exact same reasoning is used for police frequently (and is usually used before charges are even laid to decide not to charge -- I have seen this several times in SIU reports to this effect).

Going back to the overall "gun debate" from what is outlined by the Court of Appeal, it sounds like the jury made the right decision. A man should have the right to arm himself to defend his home in uncertain/dangerous circumstances. When the guy he's approaching spins around and looks like he's going for a gun, you have to make a split second decision which should get every benefit of a doubt IMO. It's unfortunate the Court of Appeal gave the Crown a second crack (especially since they granted the appeal on a ground that was never objected to the prosecutor at trial).

EDITED TO ADD: I want to be clear -- when I express frustration at my perception of a double standard for police and civilians, I'm not saying police should be held to higher standard necessarily. Everyone she be held to a lower standard when it comes to self defence IMO, than is often the case.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Was this self defence: https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1234518575106248705?s=20

I'd say yes. Should have used more shots though and not backed up.

*rubs armchair*

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Was this self defence: https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1234518575106248705?s=20

It's a bit difficult to say for sure because some of the action is off-camera or very near the edge, but this looks like defence of others rather than self defence.

For Canadian context, in section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the self defence section), one is justified if "defending or protecting themselves or [another] person from [the] use or threat of force". Self and defence of others are essentially the same thing in Canadian criminal law. So under Canadian law that lady would avail herself of s. 34 either way and I think she'd be justified.

In my view she should not even be charged. As an undercover police office in Canada she almost certainly wouldn't. As a civilian ... well, we don't have carry conceal laws so she'd probably be in a heap of trouble for other reasons even if not charged for the actual use of the firearm!

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'd say yes. Should have used more shots though and not backed up.

*rubs armchair*

You’re so right!!

What we had in the video was damned near a calm and cold execution followed by some kicking, verbal threatening and probably some offensive body language.

Multiple shots is an expression of real fear. One in the foot, one in gut and one in schnoz, then kick, stomp, swear. And use that little red car for something creative ....