A Clear-Eyed View of Enacting More Gun Control Laws…From Canada, No Less

 

Sound familiar? Some Winnipeg city council members are calling for a national handgun ban. Because DO SOMETHING. A spokesman for the Winnipeg police was asked for his thoughts the effect on his city of adding even more gun control laws.

I can tell you that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have indicated that that won’t make any difference. When we seize handguns, the handguns are always, almost 100% in the possession of people who have no legal right to possess them. They’re almost always stolen or illegally obtained.

I simply don’t see, as a 27-year-veteran, how adding another layer of law will make any difference anywhere in this country.

When we stop somebody in this city — and police do this every single day — and they have a handgun, somehow saying that this jurisdiction, that Winnipeg is handgun-free — and I’ll use air quotes — is going to make it safer or easy for us, is just nonsense. It won’t make any difference whatsoever.

There are handguns all over, they’re all illegal, and they’re in the hands of criminals. And the people that legitimately own them, they’re in safes and being taken to gun clubs. The two sections don’t intersect.

So if someone owns a gun legitimately and it’s stolen and it’s brought into Winnipeg, somebody saying, “Oh, it’s illegal to have that gun in Winnipeg,” is just another layer of…I guess it might make some people feel good, but it will not change the threat level one iota.

– Winnipeg Police Service spokesman Const. Rob Carver

 

comments

  1. avatar No one of consequence says:

    I hope he has is resume polished.

    He’s right, but the pols won’t like the message one bit.

    1. avatar coagula says:

      He can come south… we need more like him in the states.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        Even a “conservative” Canadian is going to have radical ideas about gun control. You notice how he said law abiding Canadians keep their hand guns locked up and go to gun clubs? He didn’t say one thing about armed self defense, concealed/open carry, hunting, or anything to do with the inailiable rights of the citizenry. He still believes it’s the government’s role to determine what rights the subjects have…. he just has a different opinion regarding what rights should be permitted.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          AFAIK, there is a very limited ability to act in self-defense in Canada, similar to the laws in England. I watched a video of security cams where a man’s house was being firebombed by two men who had a beef with him, but the homeowner was arrested and charged with attempted murder when he started shooting at them with a shotgun. to me, it was very bizarre. I am guessing that you can’t shoot at anyone unless they are shooting at you–in other words, you cannot use a higher level of force than is being used against you (which makes no sense but…). Then again, I have never set foot in Canada, so what do I know?

        2. avatar Coolbreeze says:

          You and I have no idea what his thoughts on concealed or open carry are, let alone his thoughts on inalienable rights. He is pointing out the uselessness of a national handgun ban EVEN in conjunction with the current restrictive handgun laws in his country. Pretty clear message and more powerful given the Canadian restrictions.

  2. avatar Dude says:

    The answer is never to lock up violent criminals and keep them there. It’s always to punish lawful owners.

    Yet another example in Seattle recently. Gangbangers shooting at each other killed an innocent bystander. Let’s look at the criminals:

    Jamel Jackson, 21, had previously been involved in a violent incident at the same downtown intersection, when he allegedly punched and kicked a victim who got embroiled with a female gang member in the middle of a large crowd. He had in his possession a loaded 9-mm handgun. He avoided prosecution for the assault by pleading guilty to illegal firearm possession, for which he was sentenced to four months of home detention. According to the Times, he had been told by at least four superior court judges that he was not to possess firearms, a proscription that he apparently ignored with impunity.

    Marquis Tolbert and William Tolliver, both 24, had extensive criminal records when apprehended by police in Nevada on February 1. The Times reported that Tolbert had been arrested by Seattle-area police at least 50 times, while Tolliver had been arrested only around 25 times. Both were taken into custody in 2018 in connection with a drive-by shooting, but the charge against Tolliver was dismissed “in the interest of justice,” according to court documents that didn’t elaborate. Tolbert got the drive-by shooting charge dismissed, along with two other felony charges…

    So what was their solution to this? Predictable of course:

    And Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, while pledging to fight crime on many fronts, also emphasized the gun issue. “If this had been a fistfight eight people would not have ended up at the hospital,” she said. “There are too many guns in our country.” Former mayor Mike McGinn, meanwhile, lamely suggested that the problem of violent crime simply couldn’t be addressed effectively through greater police efforts. “We’ve tried more arrests,” he said. “That doesn’t actually work.”

    Got that? Too many guns, not too many criminals. Letting them go is “justice”.

    1. avatar RGP says:

      And Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan, while pledging to fight crime on many fronts, also emphasized the gun issue. “If this had been a fistfight eight people would not have ended up at the hospital,” she said.

      I’ve always wondered why people who have probably never been in a fight in their lives seem to believe they won’t get hurt by an unarmed creep who decides to beat the crap out of them.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I’ve wondered this too.

        How exactly someone arrives at the conclusion that losing a fight = not being hurt (potentially seriously or fatally) is one that suggests they’ve never seen a playground, much less been on one.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          I think it suggests that they’ve *only* been on playgrounds. Places where hard surfaces are padded, all toys are school-provided and approved, and authorities are always visible nearby.

          Kids may scuffle or even hurt each other, but not badly. For one thing, children aren’t strong enough to do structural damage in a fistfight. For another, see above, where adults/authorities are always there to intervene.

          You’re absolutely right in that “liberals” like these are among the most sheltered people this planet has ever seen. They operate with a childish level of whimsical virtue and magical belief. If it makes them feel virtuous, then it must be so, and because it is so, the world will somehow conform.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “Kids may scuffle or even hurt each other, but not badly. For one thing, children aren’t strong enough to do structural damage in a fistfight.”

          Generally speaking I’d agree but strictly speaking this isn’t true. Kids have killed each other on playgrounds, usually accidentally, but it has happened. A kid gets shoved off a jungle gym or something and falls the wrong way, broken neck or head injury.

          And kids can do structural damage to each other, they just generally don’t. When I was in 4th grade a kid got suspended for breaking another kid’s jaw in a fist-fight. They were 5th graders, so like what… 11 or so? By 6th grade kids in my school routinely hurt each other, black eyes, lost teeth, broken orbital socket etc. in hockey fights. Drop gloves, throw punches until the ref breaks it up.

          Either way the point remains: the objective of a fight is to hurt the other person. I’d think that was fucking obvious to anyone who’s ever heard the word “fight”. Fuck, I mean what’s the first question parents ask when told of kids fighting: “Did anyone get hurt!?”, so obviously they know that fighting carries with it a risk of injury.

        3. avatar burley says:

          Guys, please don’t be distracted. It’s not that the politicos actually believe what they say to the cameras. There one belief that keeps them up at night is that as long as law-abiding citizens have arms, they have the power to retain their liberty. The know full well that fist fights won’t stop government tyranny, that’s why they don’t care about them. Swimming pools kill more kids than guns, EVERY SINGLE YEAR, but no one is going to put down a rogue government with a swimming pool. They ONLY care about their own lives, and the plans thay have will get them killed by an armed populace. THAT is the ONLY reason they want to take the guns from citizens. Criminals doing crime is actually in their favor.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          Burley:

          There’s no distraction. Ing is perfectly capable of holding an adult conversation about general philosophy, which is what we’re doing here.

          The target audience here is the key, and politicians aren’t that audience. The views a politician publicly espouses are meant for public consumption, they’re an advertisement. It is that portion of the public to which these pols are appealing, and those folks irrational views on violent behavior in general, which we are discussing.

        5. avatar Coolbreeze says:

          That’s easy. Guys. It’s just like they see it on tv. Fist fights are like Roy Rogers beating up the Bad Guy in the black hat. Sure ya get her hair mussed up but the good guy always wins. B.S. Someone should explain what a STREET fight is to these IDIOTS.

        6. avatar SoBe says:

          As a facial trauma surgeon most of the broken bones I have treated were caused by a fist, motor vehicle accidents came in second followed by blunt weapons. My understanding that a deadly force attack is one capable of causing death and/or serious bodily injury, and it is generally accepted by the courts for broken bones to be considered as serious bodily injury. Thus, even though an attack with baseball bat, a pipe a large stone, a toilet seat? are generally recognized as deadly force attack, motor vehicles sometimes are considered deadly force, but fists are rarely considered deadly force.
          To a trauma surgeon, this makes no sense. (P.s., those of us who pay attention at work or who actually have or hands covered in blood, vs., keyboard quarterback doctors, have an appreciation for the 2nd).

      2. avatar guy says:

        They are just that out of touch they aren’t normal people like us.

        1. avatar Docduracoat says:

          I would actually like to reply to the person above you, Sobe.
          As an anesthesiologist I agree with you in regards to the mechanism mechanism of injury in trauma cases.
          However in the operating room we only see the cases where severe bodily injury actually happened.
          For every one broken orbital socket or fractured mandible, there are literally thousands of other fistfights where no serious bodily injury occurred.

          While plenty of people have died from a single punch, legally a blow from a fist is considered a non-deadly force attack and cannot be replied to with deadly force.
          This is actually an argument for carrying pepper spray or a Tayser, as you can reply with these non-deadly force weapons in that situation.

    2. avatar billy-bob says:

      “Well we can’t lock them up, that would be ‘raciss'”.

    3. avatar Joemoma says:

      Well she is gay which is not a problem but questioning anything of her leadership means you are obviously a homophobic pig.

      1. avatar P.M. says:

        This is what the world has come to, you must be accepting AND not criticize.

  3. avatar GS650G says:

    At some point the left will need to confront the actual people committing the crimes instead of pretending they can prevent crime by legislating the law abiding.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes of Trollsylvania says:

      The way it works:
      You don’t kill freedom outright, always leave something for tomorrow to blame and to have a next bite. Same with wealth, don’t kill the golden goose, draw blood every day instead. It’s called Fabian socialism.

    2. avatar Save a bite for tomorrow says:

      The way it works:
      You don’t kill freedom outright, always leave something for tomorrow to blame and to have a next bite. Same with wealth, don’t kill the golden goose, draw blood every day instead. It’s called Fabian socialism.

  4. avatar Taurus 4 Life says:

    What is James Campbell’s ‘learned’ take on this issue?

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      The “James Cambell” bullshit was boring a long time ago. Can’t you guys take your slap fight elsewhere?

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Then don’t read this section, and skip to something else. Sometimes the entertainment of trouncing an elitist troll is worth the price of admission. JC brought the criticism on herself.

        1. avatar Mike V says:

          I think the, “what is James Campbells opinion”
          actually shows up more than James Campbell.

          You guys can enjoy your whipping boy all you want, whatever, I get tired of having to wade through and around it.

          Whatever a James Campbell actually is, the comments are hardly stimulating or worthy of the focus it gets from the regulars.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Come to think of it, JC’s the only one currently out from under the bridge and wandering the landscape. The usual suspects (Vlad, Cisco, Other Planets, etc.) haven’t been seen in a while. They must be hibernating.

        1. avatar Defens says:

          After the SOTU addess and Trump’s acquittal, they’re too depressed to come of the basement.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Oh, they’ll be back, don’t you worry…

        3. avatar Dude says:

          They are (he is) around. Just trying a different strategy.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          The others you mention are the same guy. miner49er.

        5. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          …and 49’er was just here yesterday…

  5. avatar MouseGun says:

    Canada has a smaller population than the state of California. Take that as you will.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Pretty soon Mexico will have a smaller population than Canada. And eventually fewer Mexicans.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    That Canadian police Chief is echoing the mindset of most police in the United States, especially rank-and-file police.

    For anyone who is not familiar, the policeone website is a website dedicated to law enforcement officers in the United States. In 2013 they polled several thousand law enforcement officers about their mindset on firearms ownership and laws which restrict firearm ownership. The results were quite stunning in my opinion. In a nutshell a huge majority of law enforcement officers enthusiastically support the public having firearms for righteous self-defense.

    If you are interested, you can see a summary of the survey results at this link:
    https://www.policeone.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/policeones-gun-control-survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives-m4At3JUr9iHpA45K/

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      That is true for rural departments and the rank and file in urban areas, but most definitely NOT the leadership in the big cities. Being anti-gun is an important entry on their resume.

  7. avatar Prndll says:

    Legally owning, carrying, and using a firearm IS doing something.

    Training with it IS doing something.

    Helping other people protect themselves IS doing something.

  8. avatar Chiefton says:

    Canada does not have a Bill of Rights to protect the citizens so they are at the mercy of their government. In other words, they are enslaved and beholden to the government telling them what they can do and how they can protect themselves, if at all. The good thing is that if you are armed and have to defend yourself there is a ton of empty land out there to make your “problem” disappear.

  9. avatar possum and the Coons of Doom says:

    Canada’s gunm problems are actually Canadians subconscious gathered of the Cold

  10. avatar Tom Showalter says:

    The gun grabbing is NOT about safety, nor is it about crime reduction. If it were, liberals would be all in favor of “stop and frisk,” which took guns from criminals, reduced violent crime AND made NYC a safer city, much safer. Liberals are actually pushing gun control to take guns from law abiding citizens, which has no relation to safety or crime reduction.

    The liberal population cannot enact its very expensive socialist utopia without the ability to confiscate the assets of the citizenry; without that right socialism is simply unaffordable.

    Hence, they need the right to seize any and all assets and they cannot do that with an armed citizenry.

    Thus a head fake: we are not about disarming you; we are simply keeping you safe. Sadly, too many fall for it.

    Regards
    Tom

  11. avatar Hannibal says:

    Criminals steal guns from lawful citizens. If you manage to stop lawful citizens from owning guns, you will reduce the supply available to criminals as they are seized, destroyed, etc.

    There are two problems with this, however. First, Canada is not an island nation. It’s going to be much more difficult to make guns hard to get than in, say, Japan. Second, you have to be perfectly willing to punish the entire population in an effort to make it more difficult for a small minority to get guns (which they may anyway, just less of them).

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email