Do you have a source for your referenced latest report because I was under the impression that there is actually no such data and that these #s and %s were all guesses by interested parties.
|
|
|
RCMP officer's gun stolen at mall
- Thread starter Roadghost
- Start date
Do you have a source for your referenced latest report because I was under the impression that there is actually no such data and that these #s and %s were all guesses by interested parties.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/national-gun-trafficking-straw-buying-smuggling-firearms-1.5126228
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/guns-domestic-danforth-shooting-toronto-1.4759159
If you look at the corrections in the first article, they originally noted 50% nationally, when the 50% is for Toronto only and they do not have a national number yet.
very few convictions for this because these guys cover their tracks of course...
Well straw purchases should be easier to deal with than a complete ban. Something like curbsider legislation. If you buy more than X guns per year (five??), you need to register. I can't imagine the problem is hundreds of people buying one gun and then selling it. I suspect it is a handful of people buying dozens of guns and then selling them. If a store got volume from a client that approached the limit, they would report to a central database (like the ill-fated registry, but only for high-volume buyers). It's still possible for one person to buy many guns without getting flagged, but it made it much harder and more likely to get you pinched as now you need to go to many different stores to buy one or two guns from each store. I doubt this would have much effect on law-abiding citizens as most aren't buying large quantities of guns.
I entirely agree that a ban is not the right answer but it would be a way to stem the flow by cutting off a huge portion of the new supply. I do not agree with a ban but it would have an impact.
One problem, many gun shops are complacent, they have a pretty good idea what is going on with volume unrestricted purchases. Many also know because the average person who purchases a gun for their own legal use will usually also buy assories (trigger lock, ammo, holster, case, whatever) etc. at the same time, just buy a gun and nothing else also raises a flag. As long as they are complacent (and some obviously are) or are turning a bling eye (for profit) they cannot be trusted to be a voluntary part of a solution.
In the end, by law, if I buy a car I have to "register" it (put it the ownership in my name) even if I do not ever put it on the road. Yes, many don't, like curbsiders and scrappers, driving/riding dirty crowd but it is the law. Sure it is just about sales taxes but it is the law. If a dealer sells me a car they also need to transfer title, AND you would be hard pressed to find a legit dealer that does not require this. so why not for all firearms? Maybe it was not such a bad idea after all???
If you read some more on those claims, most other sources say the claims have no validity. That they can say that there has been an increase in domestic sourced weapons but that any other type of characterization is unsupported.
We’ve got a long way to go before we ever catch up to Chicago. I don’t know what the solution is. Better draft picks?
It still means the majority of guns on the streets come from smuggled or stolen items and then add to this that there’s not that many guns on the streets as a total anyway compared to the US. Straw purchasers is an issue but the RCMP have purchase details for every legal handgun in Canada. It really shouldn’t be too difficult to do something about this if the manpower is available.
Punch out? ffs , as long as their agency permits it , they can carry on or off duty, usually in relation to their assignments.
Carried my P226 24 hours a day and a short shotty or mp-5 in the vehicle while assigned to tac and intell units. Permission from the Chief.
imo they should just ban guns country wide and have special forces that are trained with guns and to kill (not disarm or de-escalate, just kill) This way the roles are clear:
Cops > enforce the law and protect civilians, no chance of being stupid, having bad judgment calls, blah blah
Special forces > execution of anyone with a gun that's not a special force, no remorse, no pity, not their job
Problem solved. Hell, make the SF robots!
Cops > enforce the law and protect civilians, no chance of being stupid, having bad judgment calls, blah blah
Special forces > execution of anyone with a gun that's not a special force, no remorse, no pity, not their job
Problem solved. Hell, make the SF robots!
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
Like in the Philippines?
When have cops ever been tasked with protecting civilians?
|
|
|
|
|