Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Clackamas Town Center shooting
- CCW holder Nick Meli draws his firearm on shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts after Roberts has gunned down two bystanders. Meli does not shoot due to bystanders present behind Roberts. At this point Roberts disengages, flees and commits suicide minutes later within the service areas of the mall.

West Pullman, Chicago
- Denzel A. Mickeil opens fire on a group of party goers leaving a party. One of the party goers is active military and has a CCW permit. His returns fire, strikes Mickeil twice, allowing the victims to flee the scene. Mickeil is charged with attempted murder due to two of his shots that hit a 22 year old woman in the arm and back.

Golden Food Market, South Richmond
- Assailant enters the store and proceeds to shot and wound the clerk, he then fires several more shots at patrons before being shot and wounded by a CCW holder in the store. Patrons then urge the CCW holder to shot the assailant again, CCW holder declines and waits for police to show up.

Early, Texan trailer park
- Charles Connor shots two neighbors and their dogs in a dispute over the dogs barking. Conner then opens fire on the responding police officer with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle fitted with a scope. Vic Stacy fires on Connor with his .357 Magnum revolver, hitting him in the thigh. Connor then turns to Stacy and targets him, Stacy fire four more shots, killing Connor.

Appalachian School of Law
- Peter Odighizuwa returns to the school with a .380 semi-automatic pistol and executes the dean and a professor. He murders a student and injures threes more before being confronted leaving the building by two students who happen to be off-duty police officers who have retrieved their firearms from their vehicles. Odighizuwa is subdued and placed under arrest, he receives life sentences plus 28 years.

New Life Church
- Matthew Murray kills two and injures four at the Youth With A Mission training center before proceeding to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. He then kills two and injures five more before a volunteer security officer who had been allowed CCW by the church shoots him. Murray then commits suicide.

Shoney's restaurant, Anniston, Ala
- Two robbers armed with stolen handguns herd customers and staff into a walk-in cooler before beginning their collection of loot. Thomas Glenn Terry is found by one of the robber under the table where he had hidden. Terry fires five rounds from his .45 semi-auto into the robber's chest at point blank range, killing him instantly. The second gunman (who had been holding the manager at gunpoint) opens fire on Terry, grazing him, Terry returns fire and critically injures the second gunman.

Players Bar and Grill, Winnemucca NV
- Ernesto Villagomez opens fire inside the restaurant, killing two patrons and wounding three. CCW holder shoots him after he had reloaded and begun firing again.

New York Mills AT&T store
- Abraham Dickan, who had lost his firearms permit after repeated threats against the staff of the store, returns with a .357 Magnum and a hit list of six employees. His opens fire killing Seth Turk before being killed by Officer Donald Moore who was carrying his .40 calibre pistol concealed off-duty.

National Shooting Club, Santa Clara
- Richard Gable Stevens rents a firearm and after several minutes on the range, returns to the office where he turns the gun on three staff members. He herds them outside with the intent to kill them, at which point one of the employees who was carrying concealed fires several times and keeps Stevens at gun point until police arrive.

There are a bunch more, but this is a decent sample that shows CCW does have the ability to prevent incidents from growing in scale and severity.

12 dead and numerous wounded in 10 incidents, as a method of self defence guns suck.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

12 dead and numerous wounded in 10 incidents, as a method of self defence guns suck.

shhhh nobody cares


I wonder what would have happened if there wasn't so many guns...

[afc wimbledon]

Nm

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Ah yes good point.


Mod can you please change the title to the Neverending Americian Stupidity Thread?


Shnabdabber (#### that was hard to type correctly) are you in/from the US?

UCB, I'm sorry I dont want to come across as a prick and I apologize.

If we are talking about Canada (where both of us reside) then we DO have limited and controlled access to firearms. We also are lucky not have a firearm problem in Canada, even though we have one of the highest ownership rates per capita in the world.

If we are talking about the US then yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree and suggest that their unalienable rights supersede gun control legislation. We also have to look at the data and see, that regardless of how much we are bombarded by horrific stories in the media, gun crime has been on a very steady, predictable decline in the US for over 30 years now. Its been dropping at the same rate in Canada, however we have seen the decline start over 50 years ago.

Even in this thread I have been called a enabler for murderers simply because I have a licence to own firearms. Myself and every other PAL/RPAL holder in this country have a background check run every stinking day against our names because we are licensed and are doing things the right and legal way. We forfeit the right to a search warrant based on the ownership of firearms, we can/are subjugated to warrentless searches, the only class/division of people in this entire country to be in that situation. To even apply for a licence you must be vetted of personal information that no other govt form in the country will ask of you.

In other words, we go through enough BS, leave us alone.

The US struggles with social and economic issues, deep racial divide and all sorts of other crap that we thankfully dont see manifest into gun crime here in Canada. But banning an object that has no choice in the matter is repugnant and speaks against what a truly free society is.

[Shnabdabber]

I also get a kick out of how people seem to think that a gun only qualifies as sufficient defense if the guy carrying it has a badge.

I can promise you if you were an innocent bystander in those examples brought up by lilwhiteout you would not give a rats ass who it was that stopped the shooter.

Whats that saying, when seconds count police are only minutes away?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

UCB, I'm sorry I dont want to come across as a prick and I apologize.

If we are talking about Canada (where both of us reside) then we DO have limited and controlled access to firearms. We also are lucky not have a firearm problem in Canada, even though we have one of the highest ownership rates per capita in the world.

If we are talking about the US then yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree and suggest that their unalienable rights supersede gun control legislation. We also have to look at the data and see, that regardless of how much we are bombarded by horrific stories in the media, gun crime has been on a very steady, predictable decline in the US for over 30 years now. Its been dropping at the same rate in Canada, however we have seen the decline start over 50 years ago.

Even in this thread I have been called a enabler for murderers simply because I have a licence to own firearms. Myself and every other PAL/RPAL holder in this country have a background check run every stinking day against our names because we are licensed and are doing things the right and legal way. We forfeit the right to a search warrant based on the ownership of firearms, we can/are subjugated to warrentless searches, the only class/division of people in this entire country to be in that situation. To even apply for a licence you must be vetted of personal information that no other govt form in the country will ask of you.

In other words, we go through enough BS, leave us alone.

The US struggles with social and economic issues, deep racial divide and all sorts of other crap that we thankfully dont see manifest into gun crime here in Canada. But banning an object that has no choice in the matter is repugnant and speaks against what a truly free society is.

Shnab, but the object of a dangerous object, and that is the issue in my mind. While there are any number of objects that can be dangerous, a gun is dangerous by design.

As I have said before, I love shooting, and miss shooting it was one of my favourite things to do in the military (that and eat). That being said, I am accepting of restrictive gun ownership. I just don't see why certain weapons are needed, nor do I see the need for "open carry".

I look at it this way, if you want to own a weapon then that is the cost of doing business.

I am happy to talk about this, but some of the posts in this thread are outside good taste, on both sides.

I am not anti-gun, but I am anti-everyonethatwantsonegetsone. Gun ownership, IMO, should be difficult.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

12 dead and numerous wounded in 10 incidents, as a method of self defence guns suck.
None of these were 'prevented' by guns, they all took place, it was only the relative ineptitude or skills of all concerned that determined how many died.

I fully agree. All of these events had started to take place before someone took action. However, the presence of an individual who are carry a concealed firearm DID reduce the impact of all these events.

Does something need to be done in the US regarding guns? Definitely, and a lot of people will agree with this, even if they are gun owners.

Does it need to be done in a way that takes into account the 2nd Amendment? Of course. Also the fact that sport shooting is a multi-billion dollar industry in the US and one of the most popular sports should be considered.

Does it need to be done in a fashion that actually makes an impact? Of course. Gun crime is rampant in areas with some of the strictest gun control measures. What isn't working and how do we fix it? The laws that are enacted need to make sense and be straightforward, avoid creating paper criminals due to convoluted language.


Sorry if I come off as a prick on some of this, it's not my intention in the least. This is a subject that should have a dialogue involved, but needs to be supported by facts on both sides of the argument. I'm more than willing to discuss this topic in a reasonable way with anyone who wishes to.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Your victim complex is overwhelming Shnabdabber. I have enjoyed firing weapons in the past, I think that rifles and shotguns have a legitimate purpose for hunting as well as protecting farm animals and the like. A handgun however is statistically more likely to be used in an accident or lead to a negative outcome than the concealed weapons advocates like to admit.

It is about banning an object that has the only purpose of being easily concealed and shooting other people. Handguns serve little purpose in our society outside of target practice and as far as I am concerned, that is a very small sacrifice to make in exchange for one person's life.

You seem to complain that it is difficult to own a gun, that police can have a warrentless search (you fail to mention that if there is an imminent threat being posed though).. To apply for a license you are vetted is another complaint, of course you are, having anyone with a firearm would be absolutely ridiculous and I would feel less safe, not moreso.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Sorry if I come off as a prick on some of this, it's not my intention in the least. This is a subject that should have a dialogue involved, but needs to be supported by facts on both sides of the argument. I'm more than willing to discuss this topic in a reasonable way with anyone who wishes to.

Anticdotes make horrible evidence though.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Shnab, but the object of a dangerous object, and that is the issue in my mind. While there are any number of objects that can be dangerous, a gun is dangerous by design.

As I have said before, I love shooting, and miss shooting it was one of my favourite things to do in the military (that and eat). That being said, I am accepting of restrictive gun ownership. I just don't see why certain weapons are needed, nor do I see the need for "open carry".

I look at it this way, if you want to own a weapon then that is the cost of doing business.

I am happy to talk about this, but some of the posts in this thread are outside good taste, on both sides.

I am not anti-gun, but I am anti-everyonethatwantsonegetsone. Gun ownership, IMO, should be difficult.

Firearms are/can be dangerous, totally agree. Safe ownership should be 100% incumbent on the individual, and if he or she misuses their right that endangers or hurts someone else, then they should be dealt with according to laws that exist. Im all for making stiffer penalties to those that break those laws, I however do not believe that throwing more legislation at the problem is the answer.

Thats something else that bothers me. We have these rights, correct? Now Im not just talking about Americans and the 2nd amd. We all have rights. But I am concerned that more and more, the responsibilities that come with those rights are being ignored.

Example if you were to ask my grandfather (if he was still here) if firearm ownership was a right, he'd tell you damn straight! At the same time, I remember once when I was about 9 years old, hunting gophers out at grandpa an grannies with my old cooey .22, that after winging a gopher, I jogged over to investigate. Grandpa seen me jogging with the rifle from the yard, (keep in mind the cooey was a single shot, and of course it was unloaded, didnt matter) and when I got back to the yard I got my ass warmed BIG time, lectured, and wasn't able to hunt gophers on my own for quite some time. Point is grandpa believed that you dont jack around with guns. End of story. Then we see a 9 year old girl handed a full auto sub gun with notoriously bad recoil, and I wonder...

What would grandpa say?

You cant fix stupid, and we see it everyday, not just with firearms. What is the answer? I'm not so sure to be honest but I feel like stripping those that are being responsible and have shown to be good neighbours, do not deserve to be stripped of anything, let alone firearms.

UCB, if you are ever in southern alberta, near the Taber area, and want to have some fun shooting, shoot (hey-o) me a pm. I'd be more than happy to go. We have a awesome new range thats almost completed, however it only goes to 600 meters. *yawn*

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Your victim complex is overwhelming Shnabdabber. I have enjoyed firing weapons in the past, I think that rifles and shotguns have a legitimate purpose for hunting as well as protecting farm animals and the like. A handgun however is statistically more likely to be used in an accident or lead to a negative outcome than the concealed weapons advocates like to admit.

You've slung alot of lead down range hey? Victim complex, patronizing complex, whats the difference? I dont care if you liked it or not, the legitimacy of my ownership is not dependant on your past experiences and/or approval. I dont care.

It is about banning an object that has the only purpose of being easily concealed and shooting other people. Handguns serve little purpose in our society outside of target practice and as far as I am concerned, that is a very small sacrifice to make in exchange for one person's life.

So wrong. Many people in the US hunt with handguns, many are made specifically for hunting, but since our laws ban it, you have been conditioned to believe its not legitimate. It is/can be, yet lawful owners will not break the law to do so. It is what it is, but there are more uses for pistols than simple target practice.

You seem to complain that it is difficult to own a gun, that police can have a warrentless search (you fail to mention that if there is an imminent threat being posed though).. To apply for a license you are vetted is another complaint, of course you are, having anyone with a firearm would be absolutely ridiculous and I would feel less safe, not moreso.

Hey, I have no problems with being licenced. And yes, I dont think any Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to just get a gun from wherever they like. But if you have ever went through the process you would understand what intrusion of privacy is. Again, like I say we give up rights to enjoy this hobby. Do I think its fair? Not really, but then again I went though with it.

To the bolded part, you need to brush up on when and what they need in order to perform said search. Imminent threat is quite far down the list. Go read bill C-68.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Firearms are/can be dangerous, totally agree. Safe ownership should be 100% incumbent on the individual, and if he or she misuses their right that endangers or hurts someone else, then they should be dealt with according to laws that exist. Im all for making stiffer penalties to those that break those laws, I however do not believe that throwing more legislation at the problem is the answer.

Thats something else that bothers me. We have these rights, correct? Now Im not just talking about Americans and the 2nd amd. We all have rights. But I am concerned that more and more, the responsibilities that come with those rights are being ignored.

Example if you were to ask my grandfather (if he was still here) if firearm ownership was a right, he'd tell you damn straight! At the same time, I remember once when I was about 9 years old, hunting gophers out at grandpa an grannies with my old cooey .22, that after winging a gopher, I jogged over to investigate. Grandpa seen me jogging with the rifle from the yard, (keep in mind the cooey was a single shot, and of course it was unloaded, didnt matter) and when I got back to the yard I got my ass warmed BIG time, lectured, and wasn't able to hunt gophers on my own for quite some time. Point is grandpa believed that you dont jack around with guns. End of story. Then we see a 9 year old girl handed a full auto sub gun with notoriously bad recoil, and I wonder...

What would grandpa say?

You cant fix stupid, and we see it everyday, not just with firearms. What is the answer? I'm not so sure to be honest but I feel like stripping those that are being responsible and have shown to be good neighbours, do not deserve to be stripped of anything, let alone firearms.

UCB, if you are ever in southern alberta, near the Taber area, and want to have some fun shooting, shoot (hey-o) me a pm. I'd be more than happy to go. We have a awesome new range thats almost completed, however it only goes to 600 meters. *yawn*

But that's what reasonable gun control mandates look like. It's not about Taking Away Yer Guns! It's about "okay, if you're going to own guns, you need to follow these rules."

You want to own a weapon? Sure. Pass a background check. Pass a mental health examination. Pass a drug test. Pass an educational course that proves you know how to properly store, disarm, and responsibly fire said weapon. Register the weapon the same way I register my car every year.

Push for the production of smarter weapons, push for laws that punish irresponsible gun owners who don't properly lock up their weapons.

If you're honestly a responsible gun owner, reasonable gun control laws aren't even going to affect you, but it might take weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. And no, you're not to stop all gun crime--but if you save a few thousand lives a year, I'd say it's worth the effort.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

You want to own a weapon? Sure. Pass a background check. Pass a mental health examination. Pass a drug test. Pass an educational course that proves you know how to properly store, disarm, and responsibly fire said weapon. Register the weapon the same way I register my car every year.

Push for the production of smarter weapons, push for laws that punish irresponsible gun owners who don't properly lock up their weapons.

If you're honestly a responsible gun owner, reasonable gun control laws aren't even going to affect you, but it might take weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. And no, you're not to stop all gun crime--but if you save a few thousand lives a year, I'd say it's worth the effort.

In Canada, most of this already takes place, I think that lot of people just are not aware of what someone in Canada has to do in order to legally acquire a firearm.

Step 1: Decide if you want to have Non-Restricted or Restricted firearms. The classification system in Canada is so messed up and useless I'm not even going to get into that.

Step 2: Register for your Canadian Firearms Safety Course. This course is 8 hours long, costs about $200 and has both a 50 question written test and a practical examination. The pass mark for both is 80%. If you want to get your Restricted, that requires you take the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course. This is about $175, but most places offer a $300 bundle deal. Again, 50 question written and a practical exam, pass mark is 80%.

Step 3: You've passed the courses and now you have the licensing paperwork to fill out for the RCMP. Be honest, since lying on this application is a criminal offense. You'll be asked about any past criminal convictions, if you have a history of violence, history of mental illness. You also need to provide two references who have known you at least 3 years and provide a photo that is signed by a guarantor. Mail it off to the RCMP and it's another $100 once you factor in postage.

Step 4: The RCMP now does their background checks, calls your references and you wait the mandatory 28 days. Typically a license should be issued within 45 days of receipt. There are a few provinces where the process is slightly different. Mainly Quebec because of Loi 9 and any province with a provincially appoint Chief Firearms Officer will usually take longer.

Step 5: Now you have your nice new PAL or RPAL and want to buy a gun. Since the Long Gun Registry was abolished in 2012, you are no longer required to register a Non-Restricted firearm. In fact, the Canadian Firearms Program will not even let you try. Again, this is different in Quebec as they have been fighting the federal government for the registry data. Quebec residents who buy NR firearms are "encouraged" to register them, although it is not a legal requirement.

If you want to buy a restricted firearm, the process is a little bit different. Basically all the same up until the point of sale, but the clerk is going to record all you RPAL data, as well as address. This information is then sent to the CFP and a transfer is started. You then call in with your reference number and complete the transfer, this involves telling them what you plan on doing with it and proving you are a member of a gun club or range. This usually takes about a week for a first time purchase, all the while your gun is still at the store. Once the transfer is complete, you will be issue a Long Term Authorization To Transport (LTATT) to take your restricteds to the range and back to their place of storage. You also get a Short Term Authorization To Transport (STATT) to take your gun from the shop to it's place of storage ONLY. You still need to wait 2+ weeks for the registration certificate before you can transport at all.

A lot of the issues that come up surround the transport regulations which are convoluted and a lot of which does not have anything to do with safety. The other big one is the totally arbitrary classification system in Canada which is not fact based.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

This argument is contingent on criminals suddenly handing in their guns and not trying to source new ones.

Again with the emotionally charged but ultimately meaningless rhetoric.

Fewer guns in circulation means fewer guns in criminal hands.

It also means fewer guns in the hands of mentally disturbed/ill people.

It means fewer guns in the hands of "normal people" who snap during an argument with a spouse/friend/other and do something they can't take back.

It means fewer guns in the hands of children that kill their friends and siblings thinking they are playing with a toy.

It means fewer guns in the hands of people so frightened of the world outside that they are willing to shoot innocent teenagers through a door. Or to shoot friendly kids for asking if they've been to the Stampede yet.


Your attitude, quite frankly, is that since you can't remove all guns, we're better off doing absolutely nothing. Attitudes such as that is what enables the mass killing of thousands of children and innocents every year.

It would also require a massive joint crackdown on cross-border smuggling by US and Canadian law enforcement, which everyone you ask will support (gun owners included).

Yup. But the greatest challenge is that it would also require a significant change of thinking in the American mind. That is the biggest problem given how disturbed and unbalanced the American mindset is.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Clackamas Town Center shooting
- CCW holder Nick Meli draws his firearm on shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts after Roberts has gunned down two bystanders. Meli does not shoot due to bystanders present behind Roberts. At this point Roberts disengages, flees and commits suicide minutes later within the service areas of the mall.

This one happened where I used to live so I remember paying close attention to it. I thought the gunman fled because his weapon jammed not because an armed citizen stood him down.

Where did you get your list by the way? Does it come from a partisan website?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Again with the emotionally charged but ultimately meaningless rhetoric.

Fewer guns in circulation means fewer guns in criminal hands.

It also means fewer guns in the hands of mentally disturbed/ill people.

It means fewer guns in the hands of "normal people" who snap during an argument with a spouse/friend/other and do something they can't take back.

It means fewer guns in the hands of children that kill their friends and siblings thinking they are playing with a toy.

It means fewer guns in the hands of people so frightened of the world outside that they are willing to shoot innocent teenagers through a door. Or to shoot friendly kids for asking if they've been to the Stampede yet.


Your attitude, quite frankly, is that since you can't remove all guns, we're better off doing absolutely nothing. Attitudes such as that is what enables the mass killing of thousands of children and innocents every year.



Yup. But the greatest challenge is that it would also require a significant change of thinking in the American mind. That is the biggest problem given how disturbed and unbalanced the American mindset is.

This is the part that American's can't seem to grasp, it's like they think a gun is another form of antianxiety drug or something. Look at roadrage, you don't even have to know them to make to ultimate mistake and shoot someone to death because they cut you off in traffic

The AAA did a case study and said of the roughly 1500 roadrage deaths each year in the US, 37% were by firearm.

Are you kidding me? Each year 550 people shot to death because someone snapped at your driving or giving them the finger.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

This one happened where I used to live so I remember paying close attention to it. I thought the gunman fled because his weapon jammed not because an armed citizen stood him down.

Where did you get your list by the way? Does it come from a partisan website?

Sounds like it's open for interpretation from whatever side of the debate someone chooses to take.

"Out of all the interviews we conducted, there is nothing that would make me corroborate or deny that he did anything," Rhodes said. "We have no information that the suspect's -- Roberts' -- actions were ever influenced by anything Mr. Meli did. But I also can't deny it."

Link to Oregonian story and official report

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Your attitude, quite frankly, is that since you can't remove all guns, we're better off doing absolutely nothing. Attitudes such as that is what enables the mass killing of thousands of children and innocents every year.

That's not even close to my attitude. I fully support licensing for firearms owners, the applications weed out the ones who obviously have no business owning firearms and the training courses are a wonderful idea. I'm all for standardized training across the board, I like to know that the guy next to me at the range knows better than to get his finger on the trigger as soon as he picks up a gun. In fact, there is a good chance the ability to challenge the tests is going to be removed, which will make it mandatory for people applying for new licenses to take the full course.

I'd also love to see harsh sentences for people who use a firearm in the commission of a crime.

The current application process can be interpreted as successful since there have been 3,610 refusals from 2009 to present. These individuals never received their PAL or RPAL because of what the RCMP discovered during the vetting process. The safety courses have also been a big influence; of the 1.972 million holders of a valid (R)PAL in Canada, 1.167 million have taken one of the two safety courses or an acceptable alternative (numbers don't include Quebec). Through the courts and the Continuous Eligibility Program (where PAL & RPAL owners are continuously screened against CPIC), 12,900 licenses have been revoked since 2009.

What a lot of people want is for common sense and logic to be used when laws like the Firearms Act are being constructed and when the classification of firearms takes place. There are many laws on the books right now that will never make anyone safer or prevent a firearm from being used in an irresponsible manner. Same goes for the classification system, instead of following a defined set of rules, it is a largely emotional process and some of the guidelines that are in place are questionable.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It means fewer guns in the hands of "normal people" who snap during an argument with a spouse/friend/other and do something they can't take back.

Then you need to get knives, cars, poisons, fire, clubs and blunt instruments out of houses as well. Statistics Canada reported for 2010 that in all cases of intimate partner violence (spousal or dating violence), less than 1% (0.55%) of all cases involved guns. You'd be better off keeping knives (3.86%), poisons/fire/cars/explosives (5.53%) and blunt objects (1.69%) out of the hands of these people.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

That's not even close to my attitude. I fully support licensing for firearms owners, the applications weed out the ones who obviously have no business owning firearms and the training courses are a wonderful idea. I'm all for standardized training across the board, I like to know that the guy next to me at the range knows better than to get his finger on the trigger as soon as he picks up a gun. In fact, there is a good chance the ability to challenge the tests is going to be removed, which will make it mandatory for people applying for new licenses to take the full course.

I'd also love to see harsh sentences for people who use a firearm in the commission of a crime.

The current application process can be interpreted as successful since there have been 3,610 refusals from 2009 to present. These individuals never received their PAL or RPAL because of what the RCMP discovered during the vetting process. The safety courses have also been a big influence; of the 1.972 million holders of a valid (R)PAL in Canada, 1.167 million have taken one of the two safety courses or an acceptable alternative (numbers don't include Quebec). Through the courts and the Continuous Eligibility Program (where PAL & RPAL owners are continuously screened against CPIC), 12,900 licenses have been revoked since 2009.

What a lot of people want is for common sense and logic to be used when laws like the Firearms Act are being constructed and when the classification of firearms takes place. There are many laws on the books right now that will never make anyone safer or prevent a firearm from being used in an irresponsible manner. Same goes for the classification system, instead of following a defined set of rules, it is a largely emotional process and some of the guidelines that are in place are questionable.



Then you need to get knives, cars, poisons, fire, clubs and blunt instruments out of houses as well. Statistics Canada reported for 2010 that in all cases of intimate partner violence (spousal or dating violence), less than 1% (0.55%) of all cases involved guns. You'd be better off keeping knives (3.86%), poisons/fire/cars/explosives (5.53%) and blunt objects (1.69%) out of the hands of these people.

The thing about a gun is it has absolutely no use at all in a contempory civilian setting, it's a toy, no more.
knives, poisons, cars even most blunt objects (ie a hammer) are all essential tools for day to day life.
It's a simple cost benefit analysis, you can't prepare food without a knife, or get to work with a car therefore we have to live with the cost.
Remove every gun in Canada and there is no consequence, you don't even need one to hunt.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The thing about a gun is it has absolutely no use at all in a contempory civilian setting, it's a toy, no more.
knives, poisons, cars even most blunt objects (ie a hammer) are all essential tools for day to day life.
It's a simple cost benefit analysis, you can't prepare food without a knife, or get to work with a car therefore we have to live with the cost.
Remove every gun in Canada and there is no consequence, you don't even need one to hunt.

LOL
Tell that to farmers, ranchers, sustenance hunters,or anyone that lives north of Edmonton. You'll get laughed at.