4 ms·

AFAIK If you have PAL license, RCMP runs background checks on you daily and revoke the license as soon as anything comes up.

by yarosv 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago
That kind of background checking would not have stopped many of the mass shooters.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  And yet it did and continues to. Let’s not be defeatist and actually try instead.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    And yet it did and continues to. Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold up. You said, "Probably because most guns are illegal so we don’t need them." Since Canada has ready availability of semi-auto long guns, has relatively relaxed gun laws, and even licensing and daily background checks would not have stopped all mass shooters, your logic that such drills are therefore not necessary is empty and illogical. You cannot prove a negative. I hope for your sake, you're just trolling with deliberately faulty logic.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      There are licensing requirements with continuous daily background checks. The results speak for themselves. Throwing up your hands and saying it’ll never work without trying it is tantamount to accepting the status quo. None of that is okay.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        There are licensing requirements with continuous daily background checks. The results speak for themselves. California has pretty much this, and in implementation is much stricter than Canada. The result? There are mass shootings here as well as lots of urban gun violence. New Zealand already has stricter gun laws than many places in the US. Throwing up your hands and saying it’ll never work without trying it is tantamount to accepting the status quo. None of that is okay. The government unilaterally taking away the rights of innocent people shouldn't be okay. If it's okay with someone, then it means they're okay with stomping on the human rights of people they don't like. I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship.
        arcticbull 8y ago
        >>> California. It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries. >>> I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship. Horrifying. So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. That’s the problem, life is always trade offs. I don’t feel comfortable with everyone armed, that infringed on my rights. Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I do however want to live. And I want my children to grow up in a country without mass shooter drills and metal detectors so you can pursue your hobby, because 300 years ago a few people thought everyone should have muskets and slaves. Constitutions are amendable for a reason. Sounds like that trade off is just better.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries. You haven't heard the tales of Minnesota bootleggers and mobsters. (Directly relevant to Canada.) National borders don't mean that much to criminals. This includes illegal firearms trafficking. Horrifying. My family has direct experience with Leftists who take away individual rights for the sake of the group. My mother and oldest uncle had to be smuggled for hours in a pitch black compartment of a freighter to escape. That's horrifying. War is horrifying, because that's what came soon after. It's orders of magnitude more likely you'll die in a car crash than die from an active shooter scenario. So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. Sorry, but none of that makes sense. Many of the states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest levels of violence. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I dialed 911 once. It malfunctioned. I called from a neighbor's. I wound up with a bloody face and stitches. The police in their SUV drove past my house to the wrong address, driving right past me waving my arms with blood streaming down my face. This was in addition to their arriving way too late. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." One of my housemates had a direct experience with preventing a mugging, because the potential assailant figured out he had a weapon. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#772ff9ce5edc https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-... Sounds like that trade off is just better. Restricting the guns won't take the means to kill away from determined nutjobs and criminals. However, every day it's in action, it will take away the means for tens of thousands of innocent law abiding citizens to protect themselves, while creating the precedent of the government stomping on their property and 2nd amendment rights. Sorry, but your "logic" sounds like something ignorant kids would write.
- yarosv 8y ago
  I was replying to the comment implying that you can buy rifle without background check. To be fair no amount of government restrictions and bans will stop the mass shooter who really wants to become one. There are a lot of illegal guns getting to Canada from US.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    There is no background check at the time of sale for non restricted rifles or shotguns. This is compares to restricted firearms (handguns and some types of rifles) that do require background checks at the time of sale. The "background check every day" statement is somewhat correct in that someone's PAL is invalidated if the commit a crime, or get divorced. As far as I know that's what's referred to by daily background checks. I am almost certain that background checks are not actually peformed every day, that would be a massive amount of labor. This in contrast to California where all firearms sales other than black powder muzzle loader have backgry checks run every time someone buys them.
yarosv 8y ago
Confirmed daily checks. Source: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/apph-eng.htm http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/apph-eng.htm
manfredo 8y ago
You have to pass a background check to get a PAL. There's no background check at the time of sale for non restricted guns. "Runs background checks daily" is kind of correct. Your PAL is revoked if you commit a crime that would disqualify you from getting a PAL. This is distinct from restricted firearms (mostly handguns) where a new background check is performed each time you buy a restricted firearms. In California, all firearms save for some really old ones are treated like restricted rifles in Canada. You have to get a background check and wait 10 days for every purchase even if you already own a dozen guns. Plus there are a bunch of rules about the shape of the grip, whether it has a for grip, the shape of the muzzle brake, and whether or not the stock folds that can make guns felonies to possess. All guns (save for the aforementioned muzzle loader) are registered in California. Well, technically not registered because to do so is a violation of Federal law. But the State does log every firearm brought into the state, every firearm bought, and every firearm transferred. So basically a registry in everything but name.

AFAIK If you have PAL license, RCMP runs background checks on you daily and revoke the license as soon as anything comes up.

by yarosv 8y ago

AFAIK If you have PAL license, RCMP runs background checks on you daily and revoke the license as soon as anything comes up.

stcredzero 8y ago

That kind of background checking would not have stopped many of the mass shooters.

arcticbull 8y ago
And yet it did and continues to. Let’s not be defeatist and actually try instead.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  And yet it did and continues to. Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold up. You said, "Probably because most guns are illegal so we don’t need them." Since Canada has ready availability of semi-auto long guns, has relatively relaxed gun laws, and even licensing and daily background checks would not have stopped all mass shooters, your logic that such drills are therefore not necessary is empty and illogical. You cannot prove a negative. I hope for your sake, you're just trolling with deliberately faulty logic.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    There are licensing requirements with continuous daily background checks. The results speak for themselves. Throwing up your hands and saying it’ll never work without trying it is tantamount to accepting the status quo. None of that is okay.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      There are licensing requirements with continuous daily background checks. The results speak for themselves. California has pretty much this, and in implementation is much stricter than Canada. The result? There are mass shootings here as well as lots of urban gun violence. New Zealand already has stricter gun laws than many places in the US. Throwing up your hands and saying it’ll never work without trying it is tantamount to accepting the status quo. None of that is okay. The government unilaterally taking away the rights of innocent people shouldn't be okay. If it's okay with someone, then it means they're okay with stomping on the human rights of people they don't like. I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship.
      - arcticbull 8y ago
        >>> California. It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries. >>> I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship. Horrifying. So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. That’s the problem, life is always trade offs. I don’t feel comfortable with everyone armed, that infringed on my rights. Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I do however want to live. And I want my children to grow up in a country without mass shooter drills and metal detectors so you can pursue your hobby, because 300 years ago a few people thought everyone should have muskets and slaves. Constitutions are amendable for a reason. Sounds like that trade off is just better.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries. You haven't heard the tales of Minnesota bootleggers and mobsters. (Directly relevant to Canada.) National borders don't mean that much to criminals. This includes illegal firearms trafficking. Horrifying. My family has direct experience with Leftists who take away individual rights for the sake of the group. My mother and oldest uncle had to be smuggled for hours in a pitch black compartment of a freighter to escape. That's horrifying. War is horrifying, because that's what came soon after. It's orders of magnitude more likely you'll die in a car crash than die from an active shooter scenario. So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. Sorry, but none of that makes sense. Many of the states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest levels of violence. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I dialed 911 once. It malfunctioned. I called from a neighbor's. I wound up with a bloody face and stitches. The police in their SUV drove past my house to the wrong address, driving right past me waving my arms with blood streaming down my face. This was in addition to their arriving way too late. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." One of my housemates had a direct experience with preventing a mugging, because the potential assailant figured out he had a weapon. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#772ff9ce5edc https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-... Sounds like that trade off is just better. Restricting the guns won't take the means to kill away from determined nutjobs and criminals. However, every day it's in action, it will take away the means for tens of thousands of innocent law abiding citizens to protect themselves, while creating the precedent of the government stomping on their property and 2nd amendment rights. Sorry, but your "logic" sounds like something ignorant kids would write.
yarosv 8y ago
I was replying to the comment implying that you can buy rifle without background check. To be fair no amount of government restrictions and bans will stop the mass shooter who really wants to become one. There are a lot of illegal guns getting to Canada from US.
- manfredo 8y ago
  There is no background check at the time of sale for non restricted rifles or shotguns. This is compares to restricted firearms (handguns and some types of rifles) that do require background checks at the time of sale. The "background check every day" statement is somewhat correct in that someone's PAL is invalidated if the commit a crime, or get divorced. As far as I know that's what's referred to by daily background checks. I am almost certain that background checks are not actually peformed every day, that would be a massive amount of labor. This in contrast to California where all firearms sales other than black powder muzzle loader have backgry checks run every time someone buys them.

yarosv 8y ago

Confirmed daily checks. Source: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/apph-eng.htm http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/apph-eng.htm

manfredo 8y ago

You have to pass a background check to get a PAL. There's no background check at the time of sale for non restricted guns. "Runs background checks daily" is kind of correct. Your PAL is revoked if you commit a crime that would disqualify you from getting a PAL. This is distinct from restricted firearms (mostly handguns) where a new background check is performed each time you buy a restricted firearms. In California, all firearms save for some really old ones are treated like restricted rifles in Canada. You have to get a background check and wait 10 days for every purchase even if you already own a dozen guns. Plus there are a bunch of rules about the shape of the grip, whether it has a for grip, the shape of the muzzle brake, and whether or not the stock folds that can make guns felonies to possess. All guns (save for the aforementioned muzzle loader) are registered in California. Well, technically not registered because to do so is a violation of Federal law. But the State does log every firearm brought into the state, every firearm bought, and every firearm transferred. So basically a registry in everything but name.