Canadian Cops, a thread for policing in Canada

[Lancaster]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

just wanted to address this one on its own, and get away from covid for a moment.

 

I would like to see the RCMP have even more power to seise guns. Look at the Nova Scotia shooter - the RCMP were informed my multiple credible sources that there was an angry dude with multiple firearms. Don't you think that should have triggered a search?

The guy was unlicensed, so they didn't even need any extra power.  It is already illegal for anyone without a license to possess firearms.  

More rules wouldn't have made any difference since it's up to the police to actually enforce the laws they do have.  

 

The RCMP dropped the ball and instead of admitting any error, they and the government decide to twist the narrative to espouse the dangers of firearms or something.  Even though the 99.9999% of legal firearms owner hasn't committed any crime.  Banning guns that has never been used for criminal activities, banning one gun just based on esthetics or name.  Regardless of opinions on gun, rules got to be based on actual fact and logic, not just "I don't know anything about guns, I don't like guns, therefore you shouldn't have guns".  

[JM_]

56 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

The guy was unlicensed, so they didn't even need any extra power.  It is already illegal for anyone without a license to possess firearms.  

More rules wouldn't have made any difference since it's up to the police to actually enforce the laws they do have.  

I don't believe this is accurate. I've tried to look into this, and I think the issue is there isn't a clear mandate for the RCMP to conduct a search for firearms just based on a tip. We need to set a legal avenue for the RCMP to be able to. quickly conduct a search if a reasonable person comes in with information about dangerous people with a firearms cache.

 

More rules would help if there was a clear mandate to act on this kind of information. 

 

56 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

 

The RCMP dropped the ball and instead of admitting any error, they and the government decide to twist the narrative to espouse the dangers of firearms or something.  Even though the 99.9999% of legal firearms owner hasn't committed any crime. 

 

the legal firearms owner thing is not a good argument. Most of us haven't committed murder and likely won't, does that mean we don't want murder to be illegal? 

 

56 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

 

Banning guns that has never been used for criminal activities, banning one gun just based on esthetics or name.  Regardless of opinions on gun, rules got to be based on actual fact and logic, not just "I don't know anything about guns, I don't like guns, therefore you shouldn't have guns".  

 

is the actually a gun type never used in a crime? biathlon maybe?

[Lancaster]

58 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't believe this is accurate. I've tried to look into this, and I think the issue is there isn't a clear mandate for the RCMP to conduct a search for firearms just based on a tip. We need to set a legal avenue for the RCMP to be able to. quickly conduct a search if a reasonable person comes in with information about dangerous people with a firearms cache.

 

More rules would help if there was a clear mandate to act on this kind of information. 

 

the legal firearms owner thing is not a good argument. Most of us haven't committed murder and likely won't, does that mean we don't want murder to be illegal? 

 

 

is the actually a gun type never used in a crime? biathlon maybe?

It becomes a gap where the police has unverified info, but they can't just search on a whim.  I know that since I have a firearms license, the firearms officer and/or police can decide to drop by to search my place, although they will give warning first.  

For someone who isn't even supposed to have a firearm, you'd assume the threshold should be easier to contact a quick check.  I mean if it was a meth lab or house making child porn, you'd bet the police will be sending in the entire force to check.  

That being said, it would really suck if you really don't have firearms and someone with malicious intent keeps telling the police you do.  Supposedly public safety vs the rights of the individuals.  Not fair if the police just decides to drop by every single day to search your place based on an anonymous tip.

 

Guns is just a tool, you wouldn't ban those military style knives simply because someone might do something with it.  Considering that the vast majority of gun violence are committed by people who shouldn't even be in possession of it, targeting people who are currently obeying the law isn't the wrong way to go.  The drug dealer with a pistol, a d-bag gangbanger with a sawed-off shotgun, or the crazy guy in NS who smuggled in guns from the US.... all the above are already illegal.  So to go, "Hey Lancaster.... I know you're a legal and licensed gun owner, with no history of crime, domestic violence or anything.... but since some gang member shot some drug dealer with an illegally modified rifle smuggled in from the United States..... we're going to punish you for their actions..." that's just crazy.

 

All guns are essentially the same.  Just usually the size, exterior and the action that's different.  A biathlon rifle is functionally the same as those hunting rifles or "sniper" rifle.  Just for biathlon athletes, they have to modify their rifle to be more lightweight and stuff.  

When it comes down to it... only the receiver is legally a gun....

[JM_]

12 hours ago, Lancaster said:

It becomes a gap where the police has unverified info, but they can't just search on a whim.  I know that since I have a firearms license, the firearms officer and/or police can decide to drop by to search my place, although they will give warning first.  

For someone who isn't even supposed to have a firearm, you'd assume the threshold should be easier to contact a quick check.  I mean if it was a meth lab or house making child porn, you'd bet the police will be sending in the entire force to check.  

That being said, it would really suck if you really don't have firearms and someone with malicious intent keeps telling the police you do.  Supposedly public safety vs the rights of the individuals.  Not fair if the police just decides to drop by every single day to search your place based on an anonymous tip.

this kind of thing wouldn't be tolerated, sure it could happen once but then there could be consequences for the person making up the information. 

 

The NS thing is really troubling to me, how can more than one person, both credible people, tell the RCMP about this guy and they don't even check on it? brutal. We need a very clear mandate that they can't just whiff on this kind of statement. 

 

As you've said he was outside of the licensing system, so this would be the only way to catch him before his rampage. 

 

12 hours ago, Lancaster said:

 

Guns is just a tool, you wouldn't ban those military style knives simply because someone might do something with it.  Considering that the vast majority of gun violence are committed by people who shouldn't even be in possession of it, targeting people who are currently obeying the law isn't the wrong way to go.  The drug dealer with a pistol, a d-bag gangbanger with a sawed-off shotgun, or the crazy guy in NS who smuggled in guns from the US.... all the above are already illegal.  So to go, "Hey Lancaster.... I know you're a legal and licensed gun owner, with no history of crime, domestic violence or anything.... but since some gang member shot some drug dealer with an illegally modified rifle smuggled in from the United States..... we're going to punish you for their actions..." that's just crazy.

but guns aren't like a knife, come on thats silly. All I'm advocating for is the ability to act more quickly and decisively on information from credible people. 

 

12 hours ago, Lancaster said:

 

All guns are essentially the same.  Just usually the size, exterior and the action that's different.  A biathlon rifle is functionally the same as those hunting rifles or "sniper" rifle.  Just for biathlon athletes, they have to modify their rifle to be more lightweight and stuff.  

When it comes down to it... only the receiver is legally a gun....

clearly we need a better approach 

[Lancaster]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

this kind of thing wouldn't be tolerated, sure it could happen once but then there could be consequences for the person making up the information. 

 

The NS thing is really troubling to me, how can more than one person, both credible people, tell the RCMP about this guy and they don't even check on it? brutal. We need a very clear mandate that they can't just whiff on this kind of statement. 

 

As you've said he was outside of the licensing system, so this would be the only way to catch him before his rampage. 

 

but guns aren't like a knife, come on thats silly. All I'm advocating for is the ability to act more quickly and decisively on information from credible people. 

 

clearly we need a better approach 

I still don't know why they didn't follow up.  

If I said I saw someone with a gun, usually an officer would show up to investigate.  If someone mentioned that the shooter had a hoard of guns, you'd assume someone would take notice.

The police already have the power to check and they have the tip... not a law or regulation, just an enforcement issue.  

[Davathor]

On 4/21/2021 at 11:50 AM, PhillipBlunt said:

On Friday, April 16, Premier Doug Ford announced new anti-COVID measures that allowed Ontario police to stop pedestrians and vehicles to ask why they’re outside and for their home address.

 

This to me, is the most alarming portion of the article. What next?

 

We already know what's next, police checkstops on the highways entering other health units, asking your business and if its not deemed "essential" you'll be fined.

 

It's turning dystopian real fast. My biggest issue is the Liberals already made up a term for "assault-style" guns in a blanket ban, I don't trust them to define essential either.

[JM_]

7 hours ago, Lancaster said:

I still don't know why they didn't follow up.  

If I said I saw someone with a gun, usually an officer would show up to investigate.  If someone mentioned that the shooter had a hoard of guns, you'd assume someone would take notice.

The police already have the power to check and they have the tip... not a law or regulation, just an enforcement issue.  

the best I can figure it has something to do with still having to get a search warrant and there may be issues around that, e.g. if a person can't give an accurate description of the guns. So we may not need new laws as much has we need clear enforcement and making it clear to judges what the guidelines are for this kind of information. Not everyone is a gun expert, but if they were shown a stash of guns that should be enough for a reasonable person to bring it forward. 

 

 

[Ilunga]

10 hours ago, Davathor said:

 

We already know what's next, police checkstops on the highways entering other health units, asking your business and if its not deemed "essential" you'll be fined.

 

It's turning dystopian real fast. My biggest issue is the Liberals already made up a term for "assault-style" guns in a blanket ban, I don't trust them to define essential either.

Can you please tell me about these people you define as "liberals" and how they have made up a term for assault rifles.

 

Just so we are clear the Miriam Webster dictionary defines the word liberal as "one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional,or established form of ways.

An advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights.

The Miriam Webster definition of an assault rifle is "any of various intermediate range magazine fed military rifles that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire also.

A rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow semiautomatic fire only".

[drummer4now]

25 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

Can you please tell me about these people you define as "liberals" and how they have made up a term for assault rifles.

 

Just so we are clear the Miriam Webster dictionary defines the word liberal as "one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional,or established form of ways.

An advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights.

The Miriam Webster definition of an assault rifle is "any of various intermediate range magazine fed military rifles that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire also.

A rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow semiautomatic fire only".

I will save you the trouble because you're from Australia and that may not be used as a name for a major political party.. 

 

But in Canada our major political party are called the "Liberals" due to their policies and placement on the political spectrum. 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by drummer4now

[Ilunga]

5 minutes ago, drummer4now said:

I will save you the trouble because you're from Australia and that may not be used for a major political party.. 

 

But in Canada our major political party are called the "Liberals" due to their policies and placement on the political spectrum. 

 

 

Actually if you had bothered to do a little research you would have discovered that the governing party here in Australia is the liberal party who are in coalition with the national party.

A major faction of that party is so far on the right of the political spectrum it makes some American Republicans look almost progressive.

Our PM is a member of a church that has been described by some as a cult,the Hillsong church.

 

These examples illustrate how people twist the factual meanings of words to suit their own ends.

 

The purpose of my original post was to demonstrate this.

 

 

[Lancaster]

18 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

Can you please tell me about these people you define as "liberals" and how they have made up a term for assault rifles.

 

Just so we are clear the Miriam Webster dictionary defines the word liberal as "one who is open minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional,or established form of ways.

An advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights.

The Miriam Webster definition of an assault rifle is "any of various intermediate range magazine fed military rifles that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire also.

A rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow semiautomatic fire only".

Assault rifle/weapon is a made up term. 

To simplify things... firearms are usually either handguns or rifles. 

Handguns are usually either the pistol variety or revolvers.  There are more sub-categories, but no really important now, except you need a Restricted PAL and gun has to be registered.  

 

For rifles, there's usually just bolt-action, semi-automatic, or fully-automatic.  I mean there are technically less common variety like lever-action or even old fashion muskets... but for simplicity.... just 3 for now.

Bolt-action are the ones you see in those old war movies like Enemy at the Gate, or in Saving Private Ryan and those sniper rifles.  Where you need to manually pull back the bolt and push forward to load the next bullet... then fire, and then manually re-do the loading.  For Canada, only a regular license (PAL) is required.  Firearm does not need to be registered.

 

Semi-auto... you don't need to pull or manually do anything.  Just when you pull the trigger, the gun automatically loads the next bullet.  What is "semi" is that you need to pull the trigger every single shot.  Some require a Restricted License, some do not.  Some needs to be registered, some do not.  No real rhyme or reason to whether why one is restricted, banned or registration not required.

 

For fully-automatic rifle, when you hold down the trigger, it keeps firing until you are out of bullets or release the trigger.  100% banned in Canada.  The only people who has them are people who owned such weapon prior to being banned.  

 

 

When someone use terms like "assault rifle/weapon"... there's nothing definitive about that.  It's a very vague and broad term that has been applied to every single firearm, from those used in the military to firearms minors used to hunt squirrels.  

Those who are less knowledgeable about firearms would usually describe an "assault rifle" with the follow: large magazine, black, non-wooden, looks like stuff the military would use. 

The main issue with those attributes is that all those are just pure esthetics.  A large magazine does not mean it 100% will carry more bullets, since it can be pinned to hold less.  In Canada, your semi-auto can only hold 5 rounds of bullets, regardless of magazine size.  The magazine 100% has to be pinned or modified to hold up to 5 bullets.... get caught with one that can hold more than 5.... be prepared to go to jail.  

As for being made with polymer instead of wood or how it looks "military-style"... how the gun operates actually remains the same.  It doesn't make the gun shoot faster or deadlier.

I like to use a car analogy.... it would be if you purchased a Silver Honda Civic coupe.  It has a 160hp engine.  By all metric, it's not a sports car like a Ferrari, a BMW, etc.  Now you decided you are going to modified your car to look like those from the Fast and the Furious... you put a spoiler at the back, you use a soup-can muffler, you change the rims to those of alloy, you tint the windows, you put swap the hood to one that is made of carbon fibre (or maybe just put a sticker to look like it), you swap out to have blindly headlights, added skirts and changed bumpers and even paint is red like a Ferrari..... but your engine didn't change.  Is your now esthetically modified 160hp Honda Civic a sports car... or just a car that has now been made to look sportier?  It's the latter.  Same with most firearms.... a "hunting" rifle that has been made to look like those used by the Navy Seals isn't the same gun the Navy Seals would use.... it's just look like it.  

[Ilunga]

10 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Assault rifle/weapon is a made up term. 

To simplify things... firearms are usually either handguns or rifles. 

Handguns are usually either the pistol variety or revolvers.  There are more sub-categories, but no really important now, except you need a Restricted PAL and gun has to be registered.  

 

For rifles, there's usually just bolt-action, semi-automatic, or fully-automatic.  I mean there are technically less common variety like lever-action or even old fashion muskets... but for simplicity.... just 3 for now.

Bolt-action are the ones you see in those old war movies like Enemy at the Gate, or in Saving Private Ryan and those sniper rifles.  Where you need to manually pull back the bolt and push forward to load the next bullet... then fire, and then manually re-do the loading.  For Canada, only a regular license (PAL) is required.  Firearm does not need to be registered.

 

Semi-auto... you don't need to pull or manually do anything.  Just when you pull the trigger, the gun automatically loads the next bullet.  What is "semi" is that you need to pull the trigger every single shot.  Some require a Restricted License, some do not.  Some needs to be registered, some do not.  No real rhyme or reason to whether why one is restricted, banned or registration not required.

 

For fully-automatic rifle, when you hold down the trigger, it keeps firing until you are out of bullets or release the trigger.  100% banned in Canada.  The only people who has them are people who owned such weapon prior to being banned.  

 

 

When someone use terms like "assault rifle/weapon"... there's nothing definitive about that.  It's a very vague and broad term that has been applied to every single firearm, from those used in the military to firearms minors used to hunt squirrels.  

Those who are less knowledgeable about firearms would usually describe an "assault rifle" with the follow: large magazine, black, non-wooden, looks like stuff the military would use. 

The main issue with those attributes is that all those are just pure esthetics.  A large magazine does not mean it 100% will carry more bullets, since it can be pinned to hold less.  In Canada, your semi-auto can only hold 5 rounds of bullets, regardless of magazine size.  The magazine 100% has to be pinned or modified to hold up to 5 bullets.... get caught with one that can hold more than 5.... be prepared to go to jail.  

As for being made with polymer instead of wood or how it looks "military-style"... how the gun operates actually remains the same.  It doesn't make the gun shoot faster or deadlier.

I like to use a car analogy.... it would be if you purchased a Silver Honda Civic coupe.  It has a 160hp engine.  By all metric, it's not a sports car like a Ferrari, a BMW, etc.  Now you decided you are going to modified your car to look like those from the Fast and the Furious... you put a spoiler at the back, you use a soup-can muffler, you change the rims to those of alloy, you tint the windows, you put swap the hood to one that is made of carbon fibre (or maybe just put a sticker to look like it), you swap out to have blindly headlights, added skirts and changed bumpers and even paint is red like a Ferrari..... but your engine didn't change.  Is your now esthetically modified 160hp Honda Civic a sports car... or just a car that has now been made to look sportier?  It's the latter.  Same with most firearms.... a "hunting" rifle that has been made to look like those used by the Navy Seals isn't the same gun the Navy Seals would use.... it's just look like it.  

Please do not take offence I have a great deal of respect for you and your posting history however I will stick with the dictionary-a well respected one- definition of whatever defines an assault rifle.

 

As I have stated people want to twist the meanings of words to suit their own ends.

 

Words have definite meanings.

[Lancaster]

33 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

Please do not take offence I have a great deal of respect for you and your posting history however I will stick with the dictionary-a well respected one- definition of whatever defines an assault rifle.

 

As I have stated people want to twist the meanings of words to suit their own ends.

 

Words have definite meanings.

Just because people repeat it often enough that it's included into the dictionary doesn't mean it's a good word to use.  There's no defined characteristic, there's no specific formula used to label what is an "assault rifle" from a regular rifle.  

 

It's as vague as the term "sports car".  How would you define a sports car from an economy car or a family vehicle?

 

[4petesake]

1 hour ago, Lancaster said:

Assault rifle/weapon is a made up term. 

To simplify things... firearms are usually either handguns or rifles. 

Handguns are usually either the pistol variety or revolvers.  There are more sub-categories, but no really important now, except you need a Restricted PAL and gun has to be registered.  

 

For rifles, there's usually just bolt-action, semi-automatic, or fully-automatic.  I mean there are technically less common variety like lever-action or even old fashion muskets... but for simplicity.... just 3 for now.

Bolt-action are the ones you see in those old war movies like Enemy at the Gate, or in Saving Private Ryan and those sniper rifles.  Where you need to manually pull back the bolt and push forward to load the next bullet... then fire, and then manually re-do the loading.  For Canada, only a regular license (PAL) is required.  Firearm does not need to be registered.

 

Semi-auto... you don't need to pull or manually do anything.  Just when you pull the trigger, the gun automatically loads the next bullet.  What is "semi" is that you need to pull the trigger every single shot.  Some require a Restricted License, some do not.  Some needs to be registered, some do not.  No real rhyme or reason to whether why one is restricted, banned or registration not required.

 

For fully-automatic rifle, when you hold down the trigger, it keeps firing until you are out of bullets or release the trigger.  100% banned in Canada.  The only people who has them are people who owned such weapon prior to being banned.  

 

 

When someone use terms like "assault rifle/weapon"... there's nothing definitive about that.  It's a very vague and broad term that has been applied to every single firearm, from those used in the military to firearms minors used to hunt squirrels.  

Those who are less knowledgeable about firearms would usually describe an "assault rifle" with the follow: large magazine, black, non-wooden, looks like stuff the military would use. 

The main issue with those attributes is that all those are just pure esthetics.  A large magazine does not mean it 100% will carry more bullets, since it can be pinned to hold less.  In Canada, your semi-auto can only hold 5 rounds of bullets, regardless of magazine size.  The magazine 100% has to be pinned or modified to hold up to 5 bullets.... get caught with one that can hold more than 5.... be prepared to go to jail.  

As for being made with polymer instead of wood or how it looks "military-style"... how the gun operates actually remains the same.  It doesn't make the gun shoot faster or deadlier.

I like to use a car analogy.... it would be if you purchased a Silver Honda Civic coupe.  It has a 160hp engine.  By all metric, it's not a sports car like a Ferrari, a BMW, etc.  Now you decided you are going to modified your car to look like those from the Fast and the Furious... you put a spoiler at the back, you use a soup-can muffler, you change the rims to those of alloy, you tint the windows, you put swap the hood to one that is made of carbon fibre (or maybe just put a sticker to look like it), you swap out to have blindly headlights, added skirts and changed bumpers and even paint is red like a Ferrari..... but your engine didn't change.  Is your now esthetically modified 160hp Honda Civic a sports car... or just a car that has now been made to look sportier?  It's the latter.  Same with most firearms.... a "hunting" rifle that has been made to look like those used by the Navy Seals isn't the same gun the Navy Seals would use.... it's just look like it.  

Thanks for the information Lancaster.  I am not a gun owner/enthusiast and do believe in stricter gun laws, particularly in the US but I do appreciate you taking the time to educate me. 

[Davathor]

2 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Please do not take offence I have a great deal of respect for you and your posting history however I will stick with the dictionary-a well respected one- definition of whatever defines an assault rifle.

 

As I have stated people want to twist the meanings of words to suit their own ends.

 

Words have definite meanings.

 

Thanks for adding so much to the conversation

 

Look up sarcasm in your dictionary, I'm sure the meaning is the same in Australia

[Ilunga]

2 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Just because people repeat it often enough that it's included into the dictionary doesn't mean it's a good word to use.  There's no defined characteristic, there's no specific formula used to label what is an "assault rifle" from a regular rifle.  

 

It's as vague as the term "sports car".  How would you define a sports car from an economy car or a family vehicle?

 

When a word is used by governments to pass legislation as well as being included in the general lexicon of our species that gives that word a great deal of credibility.

 

I find the dictionaries description of the gun involved in our discussion an accurate one.

I am glad I live in a society where these weapons are banned,where I feel safe and mass shootings are extremely rare.

 

 

[Ilunga]

30 minutes ago, Davathor said:

 

Thanks for adding so much to the conversation

 

Look up sarcasm in your dictionary, I'm sure the meaning is the same in Australia

It's my pleasure to cure ignorance.

[Davathor]

5 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

It's my pleasure to cure ignorance.

 

Try curing your own arrogance and conceit next, maybe someone in here will care about your opinion, especially on Canadian politics and laws, mate

[Ilunga]

Just now, Davathor said:

 

Try curing your own arrogance and conceit next, maybe someone in here will care about your opinion, especially on Canadian politics and laws, mate

I am sorry if my post offended you.

 

You talked about dystopian futures,the liberals and them defining things for you.

I find these ideas to be stupid and in the realm of tinfoil hat wearers.

 

I do not want to offend anyone however I will always speak my mind if that makes you angry so be it brother.

 

 

 

[Lancaster]

Just now, Ilunga said:

When a word is used by governments to pass legislation as well as being included in the general lexicon of our species that gives that word a great deal of credibility.

 

I find the dictionaries description of the gun involved in our discussion an accurate one.

I am glad I live in a society where these weapons are banned,where I feel safe and mass shootings are extremely rare.

 

 

A bunch of people who don't know about a particular subject and assigning a catchy word/phrase that becomes part of everyday language.... doesn't mean it's credible or useful.  

It's like if everyone suddenly labelled sports cars as "Danger Cars".... and eventually it catches on.  Does it automatically means it's really dangerous?

 

From what I gather from your responses, you seem to have minimal knowledge about firearms and you not willing to educate yourself on the topic.  Yet you are more than willing to just listen to whatever is popular and use their bias to pass judgement.  

 

I'm just going to ask you some simple questions.  What is your definition of an assault rifle?  What do you think is different between an "assault rifle" and one a hunter uses?  Can you define a "sports car"?