Canadian Cops, a thread for policing in Canada

[Ilunga]

42 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

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"?

Does being shot by a firearm qualify as having some knowledge about them ? 

 

Does growing up on a farm and being taught how to handle and use a firearm safely by the age of 7 qualify as as having some knowledge about them.

 

Does being a hunter in my "youth" whose group of hunters carried a firearm just in case things got out of hand when hunting wild boars with knifes-we preferred to look our quarry in the eye when killing it - qualify as having some knowledge of firearms ?

 

I have already defined an assualt rifle for you.

 

As for the car it has nothing to do with firearms so I deem your question irrelevant to the discussion we are having about firearms.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Ilunga

[Lancaster]

16 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

Does being shot by a firearm qualify as having some knowledge about them ? 

 

Does growing up on a farm and being taught how to handle and use a firearm safely by the age of 7 qualify as as having some knowledge about them.

 

Does being a hunter in my "youth" whose group of hunters carried a firearm just in case things got out of hand when hunting wild boars with knifes-we preferred to look our quarry in the eye when killing it - qualify as having some knowledge of firearms ?

 

I have already defined an assualt rifle for you.

 

As for the car it has nothing to do with firearms so I deem your question irrelevant to the discussion we are having about firearms.

Partially, but you have to view firearm in context of the laws and regulations in place.  Then you have to view firearms in the greater context of criminal activities.  

Look at the actual data instead of rhetoric and you should realize that banning guns or heavy gun restrict is pointless and ineffective.

 

Actually, you haven't defined "assault rifle" yourself.  You just said, refer to a dictionary.  

But sure, lets play your games....

Merriam-Webster: "any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire."

 

Sure... but that means military rifles.... so an AR-15 is not a military rifles since it's not used in the military, XCR is not a military rifle either, that any rifles that shoots with .22lr should not be classified as an "assault rifle" either.

If you still think an AR-15 is an "assault rifle", then either means the definition is being stretched or it's being used improperly.  

 

The reason I used "sports car", because I know you probably wouldn't be able to answer it anyways.  Whether or not it's related, it's more to point out the absurdity of the term "assault rifle" and how broad it is.  If you can't even answer what a "sports car" is... how can you possible define as an "assault rifle" is?

[Ilunga]

4 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Partially, but you have to view firearm in context of the laws and regulations in place.  Then you have to view firearms in the greater context of criminal activities.  

Look at the actual data instead of rhetoric and you should realize that banning guns or heavy gun restrict is pointless and ineffective.

 

Actually, you haven't defined "assault rifle" yourself.  You just said, refer to a dictionary.  

But sure, lets play your games....

Merriam-Webster: "any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire."

 

Sure... but that means military rifles.... so an AR-15 is not a military rifles since it's not used in the military, XCR is not a military rifle either, that any rifles that shoots with .22lr should not be classified as an "assault rifle" either.

If you still think an AR-15 is an "assault rifle", then either means the definition is being stretched or it's being used improperly.  

 

The reason I used "sports car", because I know you probably wouldn't be able to answer it anyways.  Whether or not it's related, it's more to point out the absurdity of the term "assault rifle" and how broad it is.  If you can't even answer what a "sports car" is... how can you possible define as an "assault rifle" is?

I have been around and handled firearms before you were born.

 so there is no partially about it.

I certainly do not "parrot" others beliefs on this subject,I have my own and they are well informed.

 

You are entitled to your beliefs as I am mine.

 

Guns are not "games" to me they are instruments designed to kill.

 

On this we will have to agree to disagree since neither of us seems to want to change our opinion

[Bad_BOI_pete]

39 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

I have been around and handled firearms before you were born.

 so there is no partially about it.

I certainly do not "parrot" others beliefs on this subject,I have my own and they are well informed.

 

You are entitled to your beliefs as I am mine.

 

Guns are not "games" to me they are instruments designed to kill.

 

On this we will have to agree to disagree since neither of us seems to want to change our opinion

without guns, you might get a chance to escape a drive-by cross bowing

[Patel Bure]

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?

Why is it alarming?   People who are outside and not wearing double masks *should* be questioned by police right now.

[Patel Bure]

On 4/21/2021 at 12:14 PM, RUPERTKBD said:

We're kidding ourselves if we don't believe we also have issues with policing.

 

The difference is, we don't have the gun culture that the US does, so our "incidents" usually involve something like what we see in the story above, rather than people being shot and killed.

 

I could totally see a Derek Chauvin situation happen in Canada, though....just replace the African American with a First Nations Canadian....

Those kids were at a park that had been closed (Covid protocols) and also were not wearing masks (failure to follow protocol).  I don’t find the police’s behavior to be offensive at all.  I’m actually more surprised that more people aren’t upset with those kids for their blatant disregard of following Covid protocols.

[Gurn]

17 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

 I don’t find the police’s behavior to be offensive at all.

You are ok with the cop shoving that kid around?

[Patel Bure]

49 minutes ago, gurn said:

You are ok with the cop shoving that kid around?

You are ok with kids,

 

1) blatantly violating a provincial law that says this public park is currently closed.

2) blatantly violating Covid protocol by not wearing a double mask (or in their case, any mask) and in effect, endangering the lives of both others and themselves

3) attempting to flee police officers

 

???

 

So yes - I’m this case I am absolutely ok with the police sending a message to these kids.   Entitled spoiled brats.
 

The way Canadians have handled Covid is an embarrassment and we are right up there with Americans, Indians, and Brazilians as far as reckless Covid behavior goes.  Look at what Adam Gaudette and his wife did to the Canucks.   As Canuck fans, you and I should know better than most as to what kind of things can happen when certain people blatantly disregard Covid protocols.

Edited April 24, 2021 by DarkIndianRises

[Gurn]

30 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

You are ok with kids,

1) blatantly violating a provincial law that says this public park is currently closed.

2) blatantly violating Covid protocol by not wearing a double mask (or in their case, any mask) and in effect, endangering the lives of both others and themselves

3) attempting to flee police officers

Were did I say that?

 

30 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

So yes - I’m this case I am absolutely ok with the police sending a message to these kids.   Entitled spoiled brats.

Condoning senseless violence, that even the police force involved is getting reviewd, not  a great look.

 

As Canadians you and I should both know how wrong it is to allow the police to break the rules. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by gurn

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

As Canadians you and I should both know how wrong it is to allow the police to break the rules.

I think most people wold agree with this, but for some reason professional mistakes with police seem more and more to be leading to people actually thinking things like defunding the police is a good idea. Heck, you may even need to say that now during an election if you're going for the left side vote.

 

Its odd to me, because we don't say that for other professions we rely on. We don't say defund doctors when malpractice happens. 

 

I also find the dystopian fear talk very strange. Canadians alive today are arguably some of the most privileged people to have ever lived on the planet, and people are scared of government? why because we have developed amazing systems that give us a lifestyle second to almost no one? I don't get it. 

[Gurn]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

also find the dystopian fear talk very strange. Canadians alive today are arguably some of the most privileged people to have ever lived on the planet, and people are scared of government? why because we have developed amazing systems that give us a lifestyle second to almost no one? I don't get it. 

Because most of us had relatives die in multiple wars to get us the sytems, lifestyle and rights, we have today, and don't want to see them vanish?

[Gurn]

How far a slide is it from pushing a kid around, to taking him 5 miles out of town and leaving him there on a winter night?

[JM_]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

Because most of us had relatives die in multiple wars to get us the sytems, lifestyle and rights, we have today, and don't want to see them vanish?

OK... but that fear is being based on trying to stop crowds during covid? Its a massive leap, and not based in our lived reality. 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

How far a slide is it from pushing a kid around, to taking him 5 miles out of town and leaving him there on a winter night?

for some cops, probably not that far, not that long ago. 

 

But that doesn't mean ideas like defunding the police is the answer, or that that bad cop is the thin edge of some kind of slippery slope. It just means he's a creep who should have been weeded out of the system. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[Gurn]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

We don't say defund doctors when malpractice happens. 

Doctors can't shoot  or taze me  "in the line of duty". Nor are they allowed to stop me in the street and handcuff me. 

[JM_]

Just now, gurn said:

Doctors can't shoot  or taze me  "in the line of duty". Nor are they allowed to stop me in the street and handcuff me. 

true, but they can inflict massive harm in other self-serving ways, and you almost certainly interact with them more often. 

[Gurn]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

true, but they can inflict massive harm in other self-serving ways, and you almost certainly interact with them more often. 

Most people probably do, I'm not one of them though.

"Defund" can mean different things to different people though.

To me in the states "defund" would mean getting rid of all the military surplus gear that has become almost standard police equipment.

Also would mean rather than hiring more cops, that money gets spent on mental health support. etc.

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, gurn said:

Most people probably do, I'm not one of them though.

"Defund" can mean different things to different people though.

To me in the states "defund" would mean getting rid of all the military surplus gear that has become almost standard police equipment.

Also would mean rather than hiring more cops, that money gets spent on mental health support. etc.

I'm not against re-appropriating funds from gear into a better approach to things like wellness checks, e.g. 

 

I do think we're not spending enough on training and oversight tho. Look at the knob in your OP, I mean there had to be other signals about that guy.

 

We may actually need to put more money into our policing to get a better system. 

[RUPERTKBD]

2 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Those kids were at a park that had been closed (Covid protocols) and also were not wearing masks (failure to follow protocol).  I don’t find the police’s behavior to be offensive at all.  I’m actually more surprised that more people aren’t upset with those kids for their blatant disregard of following Covid protocols.

Agreed. My comments were directed more at policing in general, rather than this particular incident. I posted a story about a run in I had with police back in the 80's but as a former bar manager, I can tell you from experience that we have more than out share of bad apples in Canada.

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think most people wold agree with this, but for some reason professional mistakes with police seem more and more to be leading to people actually thinking things like defunding the police is a good idea. Heck, you may even need to say that now during an election if you're going for the left side vote.

 

Its odd to me, because we don't say that for other professions we rely on. We don't say defund doctors when malpractice happens. 

 

I also find the dystopian fear talk very strange. Canadians alive today are arguably some of the most privileged people to have ever lived on the planet, and people are scared of government? why because we have developed amazing systems that give us a lifestyle second to almost no one? I don't get it. 

Defunding the police is a good idea.....abolishing the police is not...

 

The reason we don't talk about defunding doctors for malpractice is because medicine is what they are trained to do. If we were paying them to practice medicine as well as engineering, but their building kept collapsing, then yes, defunding might be something to consider.

 

Defunding police is basically a good idea with a serious PR problem. People hear it and interpret it as abolishing police, which it is not.

 

I completely agree with your last paragraph however....It's always made me shake my head at how much people love to blame government for how their lives are going.