The Great Gun Control Debate

[Fishbone Jones]

“People have a significant amount of money invested in firearms ... so we put them in a place that we control and that they’re safe.”

So I wonder how much jewelry, art, etc they picked up and catalogued for safe keeping on the behalf of the owners?

After all “People have a significant amount of money invested in (choose your expensive collectible) ... so we put them in a place that we control and that they’re safe.”

 

[Teager]

I can just imagine the look on a lawyers face after reading that article. His eyes probably became big with $$ $$. It will be an easy case for them to win on behalf of the residents. (hopefully)

 

[ballz]

And sadly, many Canadians will not see a problem with this move... Either because they see firearms as its own beast with its own mind, or they simply don't care because they aren't firearm owners ("first they came for the Jews...").

I do not foresee anyone getting in any real trouble for this.

 

[Jarnhamar]

As good a reason as any for a hidden safe and a dummy safe.

 

[my72jeep]

How did the Mounties know which homes had guns?

This is the $64,000 question. If the LGR was destroyed how did they know where to look?

 

[Teager]

This is the $64,000 question. If the LGR was destroyed how did they know where to look?

Todays police don't work off of evidence or proof they go off on another thing called assumption. They assumed every home had a gun thus searched every residence.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Todays police don't work off of evidence or proof they go off on another thing called assumption. They assumed every home had a gun thus searched every residence.

That's quite the assumption yourself.

 

[Teager]

That's quite the assumption yourself.

In this case I beleive they used the assumption each home could have a firearm in it. I'm pro police my dad is a retired police officer but in this case police have crossed a line and then some. The least they could do is say ya we made a bad decision here's your stuff back it won't happen again. IMO the police are no different then a burgalar going into my home and taking something of mine. In this case you know what was taken and the who.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They'll more than likely say that they were looking to ensure that no one remained inside, dead or injured, unable to evacuate. There would also be abandoned pets to take care of  :

Once inside, searching room to room, for the above, would have yielded what they now have. 

 

[ballz]

I just spoke to a friend of mine about this who is a Pl Comd and was in High River for this. A couple points he told me...

"If a firearm was in the open they took it. If it was properly stored, or no bolt inside they left it where it was. This at least was my experience with the RCMP, although not all teams operated the same way."

So deductions...

1. The RCMP team he was with only confiscated firearms if they were improperly stored and were in plain sight.

2. The RCMP team he was with only confiscated "a few" firearms.

Of course, my questions are...

1. I have a hard time believing that a "substantial amount" (the word used in the article) of people leave their firearms out in the open and improperly stored.

2. If these firearms WERE improperly stored, then can we expect to see a "substantial amount" of charges laid for improper storage of firearms?

He also thought it was pretty weird that they were doing it, and made note that "military guys didn't force entry or take or touch anything btw, this was an RCMP call."

 

[Container]

I just spoke to a friend of mine about this who is a Pl Comd and was in High River for this. A couple points he told me...

"If a firearm was in the open they took it. If it was properly stored, or no bolt inside they left it where it was. This at least was my experience with the RCMP, although not all teams operated the same way."

So deductions...

1. The RCMP team he was with only confiscated firearms if they were improperly stored and were in plain sight.

2. The RCMP team he was with only confiscated "a few" firearms.

Of course, my questions are...

1. I have a hard time believing that a "substantial amount" (the word used in the article) of people leave their firearms out in the open and improperly stored.

2. If these firearms WERE improperly stored, then can we expect to see a "substantial amount" of charges laid for improper storage of firearms?

He also thought it was pretty weird that they were doing it, and made note that "military guys didn't force entry or take or touch anything btw, this was an RCMP call."

People leave an enormous amount of improperly stored, non secured firearms lying about. It is a normal everyday occurrence to across one or more during a shift if you wind up in a few houses.

During the initial response to the evacuation they would have had to search the houses where they would have observed the firearms lying about. They wouldnt have been going through people gun lockers. There wont be any charges. @edit@ Although some RCMP dumbassery may result- I shouldnt say there will be no charges. There should be none. There will be no convictions@ The reason this is done is because people use these opportunities to loot small arsenals amongst other things. There is a public safety concern to walk by a functional firearm lying around.

If you came across a loaded rifle in the forest would you leave it for the next person to find?

There is an intense amount of speculation going on here. Especially regarding "assumptions". Complete and utter garbage Teager. You are at best mistaken and at worst making things up.

This is the $64,000 question. If the LGR was destroyed how did they know where to look?

I just went through this on a series of firearms warrants the other day. There is no LGR info the police have access to now- take off the tin foil hat. They searched all the residences either under mandatory evac or where people were missing.

Because if you dont you wind up taking boats out at 4am to retrieve people who ignored the order- putting everyone at risk. Like happened last night.

Todays police don't work off of evidence or proof they go off on another thing called assumption. They assumed every home had a gun thus searched every residence.

complete horsecrap. I woulde be shocked to see someone allowed to spew complete nonsense on a military topic around here. You are so far outside of your lanes its ridiculous.

You guys......geez. The uninformed indignation in this thread is amazing. How the hell are you guys ever going to make headway with the government and the public if you react like this everytime a newspaper and a terrible articulating mountie get together? Criticism and questions sure. But the answers aren't hard to find- we dont need to let the horse run off.

 

[ballz]

During the initial response to the evacuation they would have had to search the houses where they would have observed the firearms lying about. They wouldnt have been going through people gun lockers. There wont be any charges. The reason this is done is because people use these opportunities to loot small arsenals amongst other things. There is a public safety concern to walk by a functional firearm lying around.

I'm tracking that they were not entering homes for the sole purpose of seizing firearms. It's questionable to me that a "substantial amount" of firearms were apparently left out in the open though, especially since there was 4-5 feet of water in these houses and a whole other bunch of destruction. I guess they'd have to be a lot more specific about numbers to be sure.

I don't buy the "its a public safety concern" stuff. I think that's overblown. I'm not buying into this whole "looting" thing and especially not with the intent to get a "small arsenal" of shotguns and bolt-action rifles. But that's all debateable I suppose. However, the RCMP did not state public safety as a concern at all. They tried to use this BS line of "protecting people's valuables."

If you came across a loaded rifle in the forest would you leave it for the next person to find?

Sorry but there's a big difference between finding a loaded firearm in a public area and finding an unloaded firearm in someone's house.

There is an intense amount of speculation going on here.

Indeed, and I admit I'm one to speculate more than I should. As I explained to someone though, if this kind of disregard for firearm owners was a one-time deal during an emergency like this, it would not be a big deal. However, it's much more the rule than it is the exception, so my level of understanding for the RCMP's side of coin has ran out.

 

[Container]

I'm tracking that they were not entering homes for the sole purpose of seizing firearms. It's questionable to me that a "substantial amount" of firearms were apparently left out in the open though, especially since there was 4-5 feet of water in these houses and a whole other bunch of destruction. I guess they'd have to be a lot more specific about numbers to be sure.

I don't buy the "its a public safety concern" stuff. I think that's overblown. I'm not buying into this whole "looting" thing and especially not with the intent to get a "small arsenal" of shotguns and bolt-action rifles. But that's all debateable I suppose. However, the RCMP did not state public safety as a concern at all. They tried to use this BS line of "protecting people's valuables."


Sorry but there's a big difference between finding a loaded firearm in a public area and finding an unloaded firearm in someone's house.

Indeed, and I admit I'm one to speculate more than I should. As I explained to someone though, if this kind of disregard for firearm owners was a one-time deal during an emergency like this, it would not be a big deal. However, it's much more the rule than it is the exception, so my level of understanding for the RCMP's side of coin has ran out.

Where Im at when someone dies we have to get the firearms within hours. If we dont the house will be broken into and all the guns and cash removed. Nothing else. This is a regular everyday occurrence. It doesnt matter what you believe- this is reality. People use the opportunities to steal things like guns, and move things they wouldnt normally be able to move. Im currently looking for a gang banger who has around thirty bolt action rifles hidden away somewhere- that one bad guy. All these rifles are from breaking into houses and the firearms where just shoved under the coats. Whats he planning on doing with them? Probably nothing but stupid facebook photos.

You read five lines from a newspaper with two quotes from a tired detachment commander and assumed you know everything about the operation.

If isnt different at all. The police arent allowed to walk by something that could cause somebody injury and just say- "probably no one will come through here". The police are legally there under emergency management and they see  an offence taking place. One that could lead to- another damn sawed off .22 and shotgun under the drivers seat, or someone getting hurt. So they lock it up. Not only that but youre assuming they re unloaded. You'd come out broke betting on unloaded insecure firearms. People are irresponsible. 

I get it. I own firearms. I know about the dumb rules and the laws made by people that dont use firearms. So do alot of other mounties. But Im not arguing the political forces of the RCMP with firearms. Im arguing that the police locked up illegally stored firearms in an evacuated area. Firearms that they found in the legal course of their duties. Dont like the law- write your MP.

 

[Container]

I should add- I had to explain that LGR info thing to a mountie. He was under the impression we could still get all that info. And there was some resistance when it all came down that the guns didn't need to be registered to be returned to their rightful owners. There is alot of education required for the police- and its not a priority. The reality is- responsible gun owners account for zero percent of our work. So getting educated on keeping things smooth for responsible gun owners- and their rights- is not going to happen. Its a cycle of screw up and apologize- because our limited education has to be spent on other things.

I was the first emergency responder on scene not too long ago for another natural disaster. Due to immediate danger I had to start getting people to evac and kicking in doors to clear houses to make sure people inside were not injured- had I saw a firearm laying in the porch I probably would have returned to the house after clearing the block and secure the firearm to be returned to the owner. I can guarantee you- in this case Im referring to, that had I come across something like that it would have been gone in the morning. We had looters within hours trying to run the perimeter. And that was nowhere near this scale.

In particular- within me finishing the block and starting access control, minutes, I had a group of "clients" showup- who had to travel to this area from a town over, with a camera and start slipping into peoples yards and past tapes etc. And they weren't taking golly gee social media photos. Photos of houses and contents. Minutes.

I should qualify this- I dont have specific information about high river. I have been involved in flood evacs and natural disasters. I was also briefed because Im on standby for a couple things. I COULD be wrong about them not taking gun lockers- etc. Never say never. Never say always. I can't ever bet 100% when it comes to all my coworkers.

Anyways- sorry to ambush your thread. I said my piece. Done! Respectfully submitted for consideration or PM.

 

[ballz]

Where Im at when someone dies we have to get the firearms within hours. If we dont the house will be broken into and all the guns and cash removed. Nothing else. This is a regular everyday occurrence. It doesnt matter what you believe- this is reality. People use the opportunities to steal things like guns, and move things they wouldnt normally be able to move. Im currently looking for a gang banger who has around thirty bolt action rifles hidden away somewhere- that one bad guy. All these rifles are from breaking into houses and the firearms where just shoved under the coats. Whats he planning on doing with them? Probably nothing but stupid facebook photos.

You read five lines from a newspaper with two quotes from a tired detachment commander and assumed you know everything about the operation.

No, I didn't, that's why I went asking for more info and am still open to receiving more.

It doesn't say anything about the criteria for these firearms being confiscated. In fact, the officer said "simply because they were left by residents in their places" which actually indicates that it did not matter if it was stored properly.

I understand that, during the course of an officer's duty he is obligated not to overlook any potential public safety threats. I understand they had the right to force entry into the homes, and that if a loaded shotgun was coincidentally on the kitchen table they had to remove it. Got it. But, and what I'm really waiting to see is, what if it was stored properly? Because the indications from that article are that it didn't matter whether it was stored properly or not.

You'd come out broke betting on unloaded insecure firearms. People are irresponsible. 

In your line of work you may see lots of improperly secured firearms, but do you really think that is the norm? Look at the LGR data that existed before it's demise, 99%+ of firearm owners in this country have a proven track record of being responsible firearm owners. I can see why the homes you visit might have that problem, but like you said, responsible gun owners represent 0% of your work. In any case, I'd like to see the actual data on this. I hope the media at least follows up on it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

But I'm sure they wouldn't think of taking the left out guns........

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2013/06/26/20934226.html
Squatters invade evacuated homes

CALGARY - Lucky to live on an upper level of a Mission condo building, far from devastating flood waters, she missed the wrath of Mother Nature.

But when Sophie, not her real name, returned to her home, looters left her with a nightmare of her own.
The entire place, she left days earlier when residents were asked to evacuate, was trashed.

Cigarette burns on the sofa, discarded bottles of booze on the floor, drawers dumped, puddles of urine and even baseboards ripped from walls — it wasn’t just a break-in, Sophie’s “sanctuary” was torn apart and her precious cat left traumatized and hiding in a closet where it stayed for days.

“I just couldn’t believe it, everything was overturned and it reeked of urine,” she said.

Sophie is pretty sure the culprits, who left clothes behind, slept in her bed and said they stole many valuables including her alarm clock, ate her food and even left some of her journals on the floor in the middle of unbelievable mess



MORE ON LINK

 

[Container]

No, I didn't, that's why I went asking for more info and am still open to receiving more.

It doesn't say anything about the criteria for these firearms being confiscated. In fact, the officer said "simply because they were left by residents in their places" which actually indicates that it did not matter if it was stored properly.

I understand that, during the course of an officer's duty he is obligated not to overlook any potential public safety threats. I understand they had the right to force entry into the homes, and that if a loaded shotgun was coincidentally on the kitchen table they had to remove it. Got it. But, and what I'm really waiting to see is, what if it was stored properly? Because the indications from that article are that it didn't matter whether it was stored properly or not.

In your line of work you may see lots of improperly secured firearms, but do you really think that is the norm? Look at the LGR data that existed before it's demise, 99%+ of firearm owners in this country have a proven track record of being responsible firearm owners. I can see why the homes you visit might have that problem, but like you said, responsible gun owners represent 0% of your work. In any case, I'd like to see the actual data on this. I hope the media at least follows up on it.

Id be curious for more info as well- I can admit that my own perception of reality is unusual due to what im exposed to. I dont ever see people at their best thats for sure. So I dont come across resposible gun owners outside of ranges and gun shops. But really how woujld I know? Its not like I search every house.

Id bet dollars to doughnuts it was insecure firearms only. There just wouldnt be time for all the guns- or room in the detachment exhibit locker. But now im speculating. It is possible im going to be all "wtf?" when more facts come out. Never under estimate the buffalo squad.

And for an rcmp "manager" a substantial amount of firearms is different than for you or I. Thats a terrible choice of words. It would have been nice to have an actual number.

Lets put it this way when you are considering these stories-

The RCMP are undermanned in best case scenario. The teams are stretched thin here- does it really seem plausible that the RCMP with everything else going on decided to use the guise of public safety to break doors they'll pay for to seize rifles and firearms they'll have to return? (and if you dont believe they'll return all of them- the 95% of them? Because there is some licence issue?) It doesnt stand up to scrutiny. I can understand being mad- but the suggestions being made don't follow all the way through.

 

[Container]

also "proof of ownership" isnt defined. Serial number and a firearms licence. Etc. They dont want to hang on to firearms- they are a burden. And we need to keep track of them at several levels. They would all be ledgered by residence but mistakes are made so having serial numbers is important

Also-- the Sgt said he "isnt at liberty" to give specific numbers. Thats garbage. Theres no right infringed on by saying a number- that expression is terrible media relations. We sound like Dark Helmet when we talk like that.

 

[Container]

AND! Before the suggestion comes out that they searched houses with PAL etc more than others. It isnt feasible the way the system is designed in this type of situation to track down that info at the ready and get it to the hasty teams. That suggestion would be dumb. Lots of people on boards are using anecdotal "scanner" evidence to suggest we still have access to who has guns and how many. It is not from the LGR- there are other sources of this info. If you listen on a scanner and here the dispatcher say something about "no firearms or weapons indicated" that in the dispatch- like the person calling said there wasn't. Its not a super secret database check.

And the guys that are saying that the RCMP cut open their safes as well are full of crap and stirring the pot. There are very few with the ability to do that in the RCMP- certainly in an official capacity. They are not going to be sidelined using a cutter during the flooding. Be wary of these types of accounts on the outrage boards.

 

[chrisf]

I'm not sure if it's funny or sad... but it's almost always the same with you guys...

Every time the media reports on anything military related, it's torn apart because the media never gets their facts straight on anything...

Every time the media reports on somthing controversial, but not military related, it gets taken as gospel, and sends people into a spin...

It's the same media reportnig on both though...