The Great Gun Control Debate
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 1,658
- Points
- 1,060
I don't see how you are going to identify firearm applicants with mental issues unless you are relying on their past behaviour something the present process already does. Is everyone going to have to undergo a psych evaluation?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Altair said:
Well said. This is pretty much how I see it. We need to get reasonable people (ie: those closer to the centre part of the political spectrum) to come together for a reasonable solution. As in most things, we need to tune out the pot-banging bumper-sticker thinkers who lie farther out on the wings of the political spectrum. I believe that for many of those people, guns are just an icon or a banner for more extreme views on life in general, "left" or "right".
- Reaction score
- 1,658
- Points
- 1,060
Altair said:
No they can't. They can only tell if someone has acted on those issues in specific ways.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,029
- Points
- 1,160
Altair said:
But in a society that thrives on norioty, YouTube vlogs, 1500 Instagram pictures of yourself and having your 15 minutes in the spotlight and social media it certainly can be attractive to nobodies who want their name spread across social media.
- Reaction score
- 1,658
- Points
- 1,060
Altair said:
I still don't see how the RCMP is going to know that you have mental issues unless you act on them or tell them. Although I am old I fairly recently had to reapply for my firearms license has something changed in the last few years
- Reaction score
- 27,400
- Points
- 1,090
Jarnhamar said:Anagrams
Lord Dampnut?
- Reaction score
- 6,059
- Points
- 1,160
OK, I'm also at fault for doing it this time also. We've tried to keep this a strictly Canadian thread, for the exact reason we're having now. There's too much confusion when speaking Canadian and American laws in the same thread. It muddies the waters too much and results in missed signals and wrong info. This whole thing has become a jumble.
If your really interested in US Firearms laws. Start it's own thread. I'd like to see us get back to strictly Canadian laws here. Especially, with Goodale getting ready to roll out more millions in useless programs. Ther ewon't be any room here for US stuff when our own starts boiling over. I think we have a pretty good system here, that doesn't require any tweaking. Canada certainly doesn't have a problem with 'bumper sticker' gun extremists although we have some crazies. Just like Wendy Cukier and ilk on the left. Advertising an opinion on a bumper sticker doesn't make one a moron. No more than having a firearm makes you a crazed killer.
Canadian content only, please. Let's try clean this up a bit. Start an new thread if you want to discuss US or other nations gun laws. Tanks!
If your really interested in US Firearms laws. Start it's own thread. I'd like to see us get back to strictly Canadian laws here. Especially, with Goodale getting ready to roll out more millions in useless programs. Ther ewon't be any room here for US stuff when our own starts boiling over. I think we have a pretty good system here, that doesn't require any tweaking. Canada certainly doesn't have a problem with 'bumper sticker' gun extremists although we have some crazies. Just like Wendy Cukier and ilk on the left. Advertising an opinion on a bumper sticker doesn't make one a moron. No more than having a firearm makes you a crazed killer.
Canadian content only, please. Let's try clean this up a bit. Start an new thread if you want to discuss US or other nations gun laws. Tanks!
- Reaction score
- 6,059
- Points
- 1,160
suffolkowner said:
Nothing has changed of consequence. Much the same as it was five years ago when you renewed.
Mental determination belongs with medical professionals. The RCMP cannot determine a medical condition on their own. Doctors can though. Just like when you go in and can't see or remember stuff. They have your driver's license suspended or removed in the interest of safety. The same could be done with firearms. I think the RCMP would have to resort to a court order to see your med file.
- Reaction score
- 1,658
- Points
- 1,060
recceguy said:
Yeah I just looked at the renewal form and the application form and it seems the same to me. It relies a lot on self reporting to me. Nothing especially wrong with that as it appears to work for the most part. I'm just not sure how you are going to pre-identify at risk individuals. The type of people involved in these mass shootings aren't necessarily your average depressed person.
- Reaction score
- 6,059
- Points
- 1,160
suffolkowner said:
We don't have those mass shootings in Canada. Our system is working.
Besides, in today's society, with our stresses and such, you could be Mother Teresa today and be the Exorsist monster the next day.
On that note though, Canadian firearms owners are checked, EVERY DAY, through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC).
There is not a criminal or other citizen in Canada that goes through a daily police check like gun owners do.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Here is what I was hoping to see: a chance for people to express what they are afraid of without being stereotyped as "racists" or "gun freaks".
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/rcmp-rural-crime-town-hall-purdue-saskatchewan-1.4570920
I don't agree with using deadly force to protect property alone (a very slippery slope), but I understand that people living in isolated places, where the police are too far away to be useful, may find themselves in situations in which they reasonably believe that their lives, or the lives of their families are in imminent danger. I also understand that the CCC does envision the use of reasonable and necessary force in the protection of a "dwelling place".
What is good, IMHO, is that First Nations people were present at that meeting. There are two parts to this discussion: neither parties are saints, but neither are they automatically devils, either. IMHO both parties are involved in a solution.
Maybe the answer is to establish a system of rural "special constables" or " police reserve" who are deputized to act as peace officers, and authorized to be armed in their duties. Still subject to CCC, but with more latitude in the use of firearms. I am NOT urging "vigilantes" here.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/rcmp-rural-crime-town-hall-purdue-saskatchewan-1.4570920
I don't agree with using deadly force to protect property alone (a very slippery slope), but I understand that people living in isolated places, where the police are too far away to be useful, may find themselves in situations in which they reasonably believe that their lives, or the lives of their families are in imminent danger. I also understand that the CCC does envision the use of reasonable and necessary force in the protection of a "dwelling place".
What is good, IMHO, is that First Nations people were present at that meeting. There are two parts to this discussion: neither parties are saints, but neither are they automatically devils, either. IMHO both parties are involved in a solution.
Maybe the answer is to establish a system of rural "special constables" or " police reserve" who are deputized to act as peace officers, and authorized to be armed in their duties. Still subject to CCC, but with more latitude in the use of firearms. I am NOT urging "vigilantes" here.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,029
- Points
- 1,160
[quote author=pbi]
What is good, IMHO, is that First Nations people were present at that meeting. There are two parts to this discussion: neither parties are saints, but neither are they automatically devils, either. IMHO both parties are involved in a solution.
[/quote]
Why are FN singled out? We're talking about two parties, are the majority of the people doing the theiving and assaults FN members?
What is good, IMHO, is that First Nations people were present at that meeting. There are two parts to this discussion: neither parties are saints, but neither are they automatically devils, either. IMHO both parties are involved in a solution.
[/quote]
Why are FN singled out? We're talking about two parties, are the majority of the people doing the theiving and assaults FN members?
- Reaction score
- 6,059
- Points
- 1,160
Deputize all the farmers 
I don't care who's doing the stealing. A person has the right to protect their property and families.
In situations like this, it takes seconds for it to go south from either side, in the middle of nowhere, no neighbours and the cops an hour away if they hurry.
Homeowners in those situations don't have the luxury of knowing whether the theives are violent or not and second guessing could well end in death for the family or the thieves. Shit happens. In that sort of situation I would never attempt an interaction without protection, either myself or from the vantage of the house. Go away quietly, I go back in the house and simply report it. Force however, should be met with only the force needed in order to stop the attack and if that means gunfire, so be it.
I don't care who's doing the stealing. A person has the right to protect their property and families.
In situations like this, it takes seconds for it to go south from either side, in the middle of nowhere, no neighbours and the cops an hour away if they hurry.
Homeowners in those situations don't have the luxury of knowing whether the theives are violent or not and second guessing could well end in death for the family or the thieves. Shit happens. In that sort of situation I would never attempt an interaction without protection, either myself or from the vantage of the house. Go away quietly, I go back in the house and simply report it. Force however, should be met with only the force needed in order to stop the attack and if that means gunfire, so be it.
- Status
Similar threads
