• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,634
Points
1,090
recceguy said:
Why do we keep coming back to the Cpl Cirillo incident? That incident doesn't really, if anything, have much to do with why some would like to carry.

I agree however the premise and reason for the petition that has led to this discussion is the Cpl Cirillo incident.  Whoever started the petition is using that as a reason to have CF members be permitted to carry.  that's likely why we keep coming back to it.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
So?  Debatable whether this should go here, or in Radio Chatter as part of the Darwin Awards.  Scenarios can be called silly and not relevant, until it really happens.  Here is the result of one such COA taking place:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
Man accidentally shoots self at military recruiting office
Posted: Jul 17, 2015 12:48 PM EDT Updated: Jul 17, 2015 7:47 PM EDT
By Wesley Goheen, Digital Producer

GAINESVILLE, GA (CBS46) -
A Navy recruiter is recovering in the hospital after accidentally shooting himself with his personal weapon that he brought to work Friday morning.

Gainsville Police said he accidentally shot himself in the upper thigh. No one else was injured.

The incident happened at a military recruiting office on Dawsonville Highway.

Police said they are looking into whether the recruiter brought the gun for protection in light of the events that occurred in Chattanooga.  As of Friday afternoon, the recruiter who shot himself did not make any statements to investigators.

The policy at the recruiting center is indicated on signs posted on the window of the facility. It clearly states that no guns are allowed. Not even for recruiters.

The man couldn't have his gun on his hip because of the policy, but other store owners tell CBS46 that they heard the recruiter may have been hiding the gun in his front pocket. They say it went off as he was sitting down.

CBS46 has been told that this incident prompted a visit from people in Washington D.C. The Navy spokesperson is expected to make a statement on the incident.

Copyright 2015 WGCL-TV (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.

Read more: http://www.cbs46.com/story/29573194/man-accidentally-shoots-self-at-military-recruiting-office#ixzz3gcmI5DQL

It is stupidity like this that will taint the discussion in favour of the non-CCW crowd. 
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
George Wallace said:
It is stupidity like this that will taint the discussion in favour of the non-CCW crowd.

And they will blithely overlook the fact that he was not legally, properly or safely carrying a concealed handgun (much like your average gang-banger).
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,359
Points
1,260
George Wallace said:
It is stupidity like this that will taint the discussion in favour of the non-CCW crowd.
Sadly, this happens in a lot of public debate (and policy development) - the many (generally silent) keeners are painted with the same brush as the few (hugely visible) weiners ....
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,827
Points
1,160
particularly when there are quite a number of "pocket holsters" out there and a whole bunch of armed civilians who are happy to guard you till the army can make up it's mind. This idiot just helped the people who are opposed to this idea with his stupidity.

The simplest way to do this would be to require the service personal to have a CCW permit already. Plus a short course based around the use of concealed holsters and a certified letter with target that they have fired at a range with X number of hits. The CCW instructors would have a course syllabus prepared in no time.   
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
452
Points
980
Except that rules vary from state to state. Some require no course or permit.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,827
Points
1,160
True it's very much a mish mash, hence the push for country wide for recognizing CCW permits across all states. The thing is that the DOD does not have to reinvent the wheel and could just select an existing civilian standard to have people train to. Of course that would be far to vastly simple.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
Navy Officer and Marine Reportedly Returned Fire at Chattanooga Gunman

Could this story, shared with the usual disclaimer, be more fodder for the anti-CCW crowd if this officer is disciplined?

 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
943
Points
1,060
Haggis said:
Navy Officer and Marine Reportedly Returned Fire at Chattanooga Gunman

Could this story, shared with the usual disclaimer, be more fodder for the anti-CCW crowd if this officer is disciplined?

I think it would be a huge PR problem for the US Military if he's disciplined.

Especially if he's the one that killed the terrorist and if it was, that just increases the pros of CCW and why it should be allowed.

 

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
George Wallace said:
Man accidentally shoots self at military recruiting office
Posted: Jul 17, 2015 12:48 PM EDT Updated: Jul 17, 2015 7:47 PM EDT
By Wesley Goheen, Digital Producer

GAINESVILLE, GA (CBS46) -
A Navy recruiter is recovering in the hospital after accidentally shooting himself with his personal weapon that he brought to work Friday morning.

This might be reflected on his next career evaluation.  ;D

I see remedial weapons training in someone's future.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
452
Points
980
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/StatsCan/BN58-Final.pdf seems interesting. I've only got a couple of pages into it, so far, but I thought that I'd share.
 

Thompson_JM

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
recceguy said:
Not true. There are city PDs that allow it.

Well that may be true, I have far greater concern that ALL armed LE agencies are not permitted to carry off duty, and even more concerned that there are so many wanting to prevent other LE agencies from carrying a duty firearm.

I feel like a good first hurdle would be to get transit, school police, Commercial Enforcement officers and more armed for their own safety. Most of them already go through the same vetting process as police departments, including the MMPI/16PF psych testing.

In the end, I'd just like to see all my brothers and sisters working LE able to have the same tools for protection and public safety.


I'm not totally convinced in the idea of all citizens being allowed a CCW, though I'm also not totally opposed to it either. I would like to see some relaxing on our gun laws though. But not to the point I have to worry about firearms at work the way US Police and LEO's do.... I do however belive that all canadians should have an inherent right to protect themselves and their families from harm, and especially so, when they are in their own homes. So I'm probably closer to the pro CCW than against.

I just don't see our society having the stomach to let such a thing pass in Gov't when there are so many aversions to firearms, as stated in my earlier post.

I've been following some threads on Blueline with the same idea and it's raised interesting debate on the concept of carrying intermediate tools in conjuction with a firearm.
 

fullflavor

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
10
There will always be baseball bat wielding evil men among the crowd. There will always be good hesitant shooters among the crowd. Murder is in the heart of the beholder. (My fraternity brother is now incarcerated for murder in the Philippine penitentiary for killing a rival fraternity member with a baseball bat.)
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,827
Points
1,160
Tommy
We had CCW and in that time few police officers had been shot. Here any CCW would require a Restricted PAL and likely some sort of training. Stats show these are not the people you will need to worry about. It will be the same people causing the problems that are doing it now.
 

Thompson_JM

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Colin P said:
Tommy
We had CCW and in that time few police officers had been shot. Here any CCW would require a Restricted PAL and likely some sort of training. Stats show these are not the people you will need to worry about. It will be the same people causing the problems that are doing it now.

I feel like an RPAL and several weeks of training should be required and a good start. In addition, the same Psych testing that we require of Law enforcement might not be a bad idea as well.

There may still be incidents, but I feel like that would be an effective risk mitigation, and hopefully weed out some the "yahoo's" and Yosemite Sam's I've run across at civilian ranges. (The few who give the many good firearm owners a bad name.)

I feel like as long as proper training and screening was implemented then I would be comfortable with the thought of CCW by any person wanting to do so here in Canada.

Like I said though, I think it bugs me more right now that we have uniformed law enforcement officers doing the policing or similar roles who are not allowed to carry firearms, or in some cases any defensive tools. I find that to be wrong.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
405
Points
880
Colin P said:
Tommy
We had CCW and in that time few police officers had been shot. Here any CCW would require a Restricted PAL and likely some sort of training. Stats show these are not the people you will need to worry about. It will be the same people causing the problems that are doing it now.

Colin, I am in my mid to late fifties and there has never been a time in my life when CCW has been allowed in Canada, save in the very limited circumstances still existing.

I think we are all missing the big picture by concentrating on individual cases. The point of CCW in Canada would be self-protection, that is the protection of LIFE, not property - we do not have the right to protection of property by force in Canada.

So the matter becomes: Are the rate of assaults and/or murders in countries with CCW (like the USA) statistically significantly lower than in countries that do not allow CCW (like Canada or Britain)? Only if the answer is yes does it warrant changing our laws to authorize it, regardless of all the individual, specific cases you can point at where it could have made a difference, though we'll never know for sure.

Otherwise (and I suggest it is the case, as rates of assaults and murder, even though coming down, are higher in the USA) there is no pressure felt in the population for changes to laws that are apparently working as they are intended to, and there will be no pressure on the government to institute CCW.

Please note that I have no dog in this fight as I would love to be able to have my own gun somewhere else than locked up at the gun club all the time.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,827
Points
1,160
When you start digging you realize CCW did exist in Canada far more widely than is realized and it started to get cut back with PET from my reading. The fact that there is so little literature on the subject makes it hard to pin down the facts and one has to rely heavily on statements from individuals and scans of old permits. People have been trying to pin down the number of recent permits, as I recall there is approx. 11 in Ontario or all of Canada, can't be sure.

I agree there is a difference in law protecting property and life. As for comparisons, it is such a can of worms. Terms like assault mean very different things in different countries, even homicides may have different meanings. Lott just published a study showing a 25% drop in crime in areas with expanded CCW. Also crime is only partial affected by legal gun ownership, other factors play into it including illegal immigration, drug trafficking, social breakdown, education, economy and age demographics. 

 

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
From what I can remember doing some research many years ago, CCW was limited to only those who could show a clear and credible threat to their own person. Usually someone who has had credible death threats made against them by specific persons or groups known to be willing to carry out those types of threats. And from what I can recall, it was usually prosecutors or others involved in cases against organized crime.

Wasn't there a former MP / Cabinet Minister from either Saskatchewan or Manitoba who had a CCW from his days as a crown prosecutor?
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
669
Points
1,260
cupper said:
From what I can remember doing some research many years ago, CCW was limited to only those who could show a clear and credible threat to their own person. Usually someone who has had credible death threats made against them by specific persons or groups known to be willing to carry out those types of threats. And from what I can recall, it was usually prosecutors or others involved in cases against organized crime.

Wasn't there a former MP / Cabinet Minister from either Saskatchewan or Manitoba who had a CCW from his days as a crown prosecutor?

Metro politician Norm Gardner had one.

Second term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Gardner#Second_term

"It was later revealed that Gardner had a special "protection-of-life" permit that allowed him to carry a loaded weapon."



 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
431
Points
810
PET after virtually taking away the ability of the average citizen to CCW managed to get a permit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top