The Darkest Canuck Wrote:at the risk of sounding like a 10-year-old...
quit bein such a dink! or is that too much to ask?
Holy shit......are you saying that you dont like when people make meaningless posts and act like a 4 year old on the board. You should buy a mirror.
If I may I would like to post my own thoughts. This is not the right thread to argue the issue of pot and juvenile posts. There are more appropriate threads that can accommodate those.
I will say, as the sister of a former RCMP officer (retired because of medical reasons and has now gone into private security), I never really worried about my brother dying in the line of duty. It's true that everytime someone puts on a police uniform, technically they are putting their lives at risk. But more often than not, it is a pretty routine job. When something of this magnitude happens, it is shocking and devastating for the loved ones. It really is completely unexpected. They may have kissed their wives goodbye and left home thinking about the mortgage payment and how they would spend their holiday time, all the time expecting to see their family again at the end of their shift.
I think it should be about the grieving families right now, not the government policies.
My two cents.....
Well said. Keep the families they left behind in our thoughts and prayers.
The mother of one of the victims was speaking directly to editors and such (Not sure if she was accepting calls or making them herself) yesterday.
A VERY heartfelt and at times angry appeal to Paul Martin to do something, anything to make sure the Mounties are better able to do their job.
This will certainly bring up a bunch of issues including gun control (The killer had an automatic weapon as was mentioned before) stiffer sentencing (Why was he only in for two years after a sexual assault rap?) police jurisdiction and funding (already talks of establishing provincial police forces in all provinces) as well as pot policy itself.
This is an area where "gun control" as Canada practices it doesn't work. I am a fairly conservative-minded person, however, gun regulation is an idea of which I am very much in favour. However, the gun registry system that Canada has adopted does not stop things like this automatic weapon from getting into civilians' hands. This weapon was probably purchased illegally so he wasn't about to register it with the government. It is the law-abiding citizens who, most likely, aren't about to shoot anybody that register their guns. What good does this do us?
fingernailsonhull Wrote:This is an area where "gun control" as Canada practices it doesn't work. I am a fairly conservative-minded person, however, gun regulation is an idea of which I am very much in favour. However, the gun registry system that Canada has adopted does not stop things like this automatic weapon from getting into civilians' hands. This weapon was probably purchased illegally so he wasn't about to register it with the government. It is the law-abiding citizens who, most likely, aren't about to shoot anybody that register their guns. What good does this do us?
I'm missing your point.
If he could have got the gun anyway, what difference would stiffer gun laws make?
Likewise, I take back what I said about this incident being the result of a failed drug policy (although I still think the policy futile and stupid), this incident was the result of one person with SERIOUS problems.
You can't stop people from being crazy, unless you want to lock up the majority of the citizenry.
The United States has the largest percent of its citizens incarcerated of any nation on earth...has that changed a thing when it comes to crazies with guns?
Gov'tMule Wrote:I'm missing your point.
If he could have got the gun anyway, what difference would stiffer gun laws make?
I think that was Jeff's point.
The weapon was a semi-automatic version of an assault rifle. This weapon is legal under Canada's gun laws (although the magazine he had attached to it probably was not), but it has to be registered. The registration process is supposed to prevent crazies from getting guns, but the registry is seriously flawed. At the moment, whether the weapon was legal, i.e. registered, is a big question.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Gov'tMule Wrote:I'm missing your point.
If he could have got the gun anyway, what difference would stiffer gun laws make?
I think that was Jeff's point.
The weapon was a semi-automatic version of an assault rifle. This weapon is legal under Canada's gun laws (although the magazine he had attached to it probably was not), but it has to be registered. The registration process is supposed to prevent crazies from getting guns, but the registry is seriously flawed. At the moment, whether the weapon was legal, i.e. registered, is a big question.
Precisely. My point was mainly that our current gun registry system does nothing to prevent crime. It is largely a waste of our money.
fingernailsonhull Wrote:skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Gov'tMule Wrote:I'm missing your point.
If he could have got the gun anyway, what difference would stiffer gun laws make?
I think that was Jeff's point.
The weapon was a semi-automatic version of an assault rifle. This weapon is legal under Canada's gun laws (although the magazine he had attached to it probably was not), but it has to be registered. The registration process is supposed to prevent crazies from getting guns, but the registry is seriously flawed. At the moment, whether the weapon was legal, i.e. registered, is a big question.
Precisely. My point was mainly that our current gun registry system does nothing to prevent crime. It is largely a waste of our money.
It's a benefit to inner city cops (Who write letters on a weekly basis to the dailies in support) and it will, if carried out as the policy intends, keep weapons like these out of the hands of quacks like this guy. It also has the added plus of reducing the number of those types of guns in Canada... but you're right, it is intended to control lawful, registered weapons, it won't do anything for those intent on breaking the law and subverting the system. But that's not what the policy was intended to do. Crooks and their behaviour is a whole other box of wrenches.
So I can't agree that it's a waste of money.
The new registry covers shotguns and rifles. Most "inner city" gun crime involves weapons that are either already illegal or that were already required to be registered before the current registry was created, i.e., handguns. The registry provides no benefit here.
Also, the registry will not prevent weapons like the one used in the RCMP killings -- a weapon which was, I remind you, legal -- out of the hands of criminals. It is ridiculous to suggest that a man who was running a grow op and a chop shop would be deterred from obtaining a gun by his inability to get an FAC.
You seem to be trying to have it both ways, Stephen. You acknowledge that criminals will still be able to get guns, but suggest that the registry could keep guns away from "quacks like this guy," who was, um, a criminal.
The registry isn't aimed at criminals? You need to be clearer on the benefit you're proposing -- you seem to be suggesting that reducing the number of legally held guns in Canada is a benefit. What harm are those legally held guns, in the hands of law-abiding hunters, trap shooters, and so on, actually doing?
The police may support the registry, but they also want to be able to get DNA samples from you on demand, without reasonable or probable grounds. The police aren't on your side, Stephen; they're on their side. Ask first how the registry benefits the public.
I'm in favor of gun control, Stephen, but to steal a line from Mackenzie King: registries if necessary, but not necessarily registries.