The Great Gun Control Debate

[Brad Sallows]

"The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership."

Absent a withdrawal of that remark and unconditional return of firearms to the places from which they were confiscated, what happened is someone's (several someone's, in all likelihood) personal firearm seizure initiative.

If the aim were "public safety", then all accessible firearms and firearm parts would have been taken into custody.  If any were left where a looter could access them simply because they were "properly stored", the "public safety" excuse dies.

But the "public safety" excuse is hogwash, regardless.  The risk doesn't merit the response.  You first have to assume that the sudden availability of a firearm is going to provoke a thief into shooting someone, which is a very thin assumption.

This is why agents of the government don't belong uninvited in homes or non-governmental databases.  There is no such thing as someone "who does nothing wrong, so has nothing to fear".

 

[Kat Stevens]

And will the recorded information on the serial numbers and addresses these firearms were rescued from also be destroyed?

 

[Container]

But the "public safety" excuse is hogwash, regardless.  The risk doesn't merit the response.  You first have to assume that the sudden availability of a firearm is going to provoke a thief into shooting someone, which is a very thin assumption.

Every rifle I take from a banger was stolen from someones house. How is it hogwash again? Where is it that gang members around the prairies are getting guns? They are getting them by stealing them....

AH! I m not looking again! You guys can have your thread back. I swear im done!  PM me if you feel the need to hash it out.

 

[JorgSlice]

Every rifle I take from a banger was stolen from someones house. How is it hogwash again? Where is it that gang members around the prairies are getting guns? They are getting them by stealing them....

and with the growing threat of the recent murders in Gleichen, Sylvan Lake from First Nations gangs, and Hells Angels and their associated clubs which are moving into places like High River... I too agree with Container.

"The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership."

Absent a withdrawal of that remark and unconditional return of firearms to the places from which they were confiscated, what happened is someone's (several someone's, in all likelihood) personal firearm seizure initiative.

If the aim were "public safety", then all accessible firearms and firearm parts would have been taken into custody.  If any were left where a looter could access them simply because they were "properly stored", the "public safety" excuse dies.

But the "public safety" excuse is hogwash, regardless.  The risk doesn't merit the response.  You first have to assume that the sudden availability of a firearm is going to provoke a thief into shooting someone, which is a very thin assumption.

This is why agents of the government don't belong uninvited in homes or non-governmental databases.  There is no such thing as someone "who does nothing wrong, so has nothing to fear".

In case you're not aware, when a municipality in Alberta declares a State of Emergency, much of the rules (not that we have any property rights as it is) become nullified and emergency services and their supporting organisations can enter a home without notice. As such, during the recovery of these firearms which was done in good intentions to protect the community and their expensive and in some cases irreplaceable and priceless firearms (heirlooms); the mission was to make sure there were no casualties in the homes and during the checks one of them said "Hey let's take these back and put them somewhere safe until people can start coming back to their homes".

 

[Container]

And will the recorded information on the serial numbers and addresses these firearms were rescued from also be destroyed?

??? They wont go on a national database. Im now outside my lane- but I would assume they wont be linked to an address but will be listed as "disposed of" once returned to the owner. And that persons name isn't attached to the movement of the firearm "entity".

So the info will exist in a paper ledger used to record what was taken from where when.....and when and who it was returned. That will be filed away in a closet until "purged" in a few years.

 

[Container]

As such, during the recovery of these firearms which was done in good intentions to protect the community and their expensive and in some cases irreplaceable and priceless firearms (heirlooms);

Obviously this leads us back to "why not their gold?" Because firearms are highly desirable, valuable, and pose a safety risk once they are stolen to everyone that shares our society (not BEFORE they are stolen). It is in everyones interest to make sure sensitive items are looked after- there is one owner but many stakeholders?

 

[Kat Stevens]

??? They wont go on a national database. Im now outside my lane- but I would assume they wont be linked to an address but will be listed as "disposed of" once returned to the owner. And that persons name isn't attached to the movement of the firearm "entity".

So the info will exist in a paper ledger used to record what was taken from where when.....and when and who it was returned. That will be filed away in a closet until "purged" in a few years.

Just pissing about with you (a little)  but does that not meet the requirement to called a *gasp!*  "registry"?  Regardless of if it's kept on a spreadsheet in the Great Central Police Information Super Brain, or in a three ring binder that ends up propping up a wobbly table in the detachment lunch room, it exists, and is accessible, and is therefore a nono....no?

 

[ballz]

As such, during the recovery of these firearms which was done in good intentions to protect the community and their expensive and in some cases irreplaceable and priceless firearms (heirlooms); the mission was to make sure there were no casualties in the homes and during the checks one of them said "Hey let's take these back and put them somewhere safe until people can start coming back to their homes".

If this were not just the latest in a long history of trampling on firearm owners, some people might be willing to chalk it up to "done in good intentions, no harm no foul." However, it is simply the latest in a long history of trampling on firearm owners, so "good intentions" doesn't hold any weight.

We have laws, passed democratically, for a reason. Firearm owners are law-abiding adults that don't need a babysitter until proven otherwise. Brad Sallows already said it better than I can...

This is why agents of the government don't belong uninvited in homes or non-governmental databases.  There is no such thing as someone "who does nothing wrong, so has nothing to fear".

 

[JorgSlice]

If this were not just the latest in a long history of trampling on firearm owners, some people might be willing to chalk it up to "done in good intentions, no harm no foul." However, it is simply the latest in a long history of trampling on firearm owners, so "good intentions" doesn't hold any weight.

We have laws, passed democratically, for a reason. Firearm owners are law-abiding adults that don't need a babysitter until proven otherwise. Brad Sallows already said it better than I can...

Firearms owners were not and will not be penalized. Its not the law-abiding that need babysitting but when the law abiding aren't there to protect their property, someone has to make sure they don't fall into criminal hands. It is proven time and time again that criminals use stolen firearms, and with the growing Hells Angels in Southern Alberta, I wouldn't take my chances.

However ballz, something you don't seem to understand is this: The initial mission was checking for casualties as people were reported missing (which were later found, and deceased) and in the process of doing these checks someone said "Hey, let's grab these and put them somewhere safe until people can come back to their homes."

The whole cop-hating population are the ones that continue to echo your statement that there were no good intentions to this.

 

[ballz]

Firearms owners were not and will not be penalized. Its not the law-abiding that need babysitting but when the law abiding aren't there to protect their property, someone has to make sure they don't fall into criminal hands. It is proven time and time again that criminals use stolen firearms, and with the growing Hells Angels in Southern Alberta, I wouldn't take my chances.

So then, you think people should deliver their firearms to the RCMP when they go on vacation? Whether you would "take your chances" is not the point. You are free to do what you like within the law. Please, go ahead, deliver your firearms to the RCMP every time you go to the grocery store, I don't care.

Actually, the only statistic I've seen about criminals using firearms during a crime is that it is usually smuggled across the border from the US. I have never seen any of this "proof" that criminals steal a firearm every time they want to commit a crime. But that is all a sideshow, your argument appears to be that this was a good idea with the public's safety in mind, but that's not what I am debating at all.

However ballz, something you don't seem to understand is this: The initial mission was checking for casualties as people were reported missing (which were later found, and deceased) and in the process of doing these checks someone said "Hey, let's grab these and put them somewhere safe until people can come back to their homes."

I understand, quite well, as stated below...

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.

What you don't seem to understand is that a good idea or some good intentions do not give the police the authority to confiscate a legally stored firearm.

The whole cop-hating population are the ones that continue to echo your statement that there were no good intentions to this.

Sorry, where is my statement that there were not any good intentions?

 

[JorgSlice]

So then, you think people should deliver their firearms to the RCMP when they go on vacation? Whether you would "take your chances" is not the point. You are free to do what you like within the law. Please, go ahead, deliver your firearms to the RCMP every time you go to the grocery store, I don't care.

Actually, the only statistic I've seen about criminals using firearms during a crime is that it is usually smuggled across the border from the US. I have never seen any of this "proof" that criminals steal a firearm every time they want to commit a crime. But that is all a sideshow, your argument appears to be that this was a good idea with the public's safety in mind, but that's not what I am debating at all.


I understand, quite well, as stated below...

What you don't seem to understand is that a good idea or some good intentions do not give the police the authority to confiscate a legally stored firearm.

Sorry, where is my statement that there were not any good intentions?

Have you worked in a Law Enforcement capacity within Canada? Most firearms used by criminals are stolen locally, the second largest pool of firearms used in crimes are smuggled over the border.

 

[jpjohnsn]

A looter comes across an abandoned street in High River.  The houses have been checked by emergency workers and police and are no longer locked tight.  He walks into the first house and finds a cable-locked rifle behind a bedroom door.  "Oh gosh" says he "I can't take that, it's properly secured!"

He enters the second house and sees a trigger-locked shotgun displayed on a gun rack on the  wall.  He says to himself "Dearie me, I can't steal that, it's properly secured!"

He enters the third home and finds a gun safe in the back of a closet.  He checks the door and says "I don't have time for this crap, but I'll take that laptop."

In theory, leaving "properly secured" firearms in your house while on vacation is perfectly legal and there is no reason to turn them in while you're away but this is not going on vacation and someone walking to your home,  a now more easily accessible home, isn't going to care if you are obeying the letter of the law or not.

So, why didn't the police secure the jewellry and other valuables?  When was the last time someone robbed a bank with a charm bracelet or a plasma TV?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This is why agents of the government don't belong uninvited in homes or non-governmental databases.  There is no such thing as someone "who does nothing wrong, so has nothing to fear".

Gawd you can be a friggin moron,.........I'll bet you'd be screaming a different tune had someone in your family been incapacitated in one of those homes and only survived because "government" went uninvited into a home that was in a danger area.

I sure hoped they grabbed a couple of crossbows also because at least those owners may have something besides children tantrums to add.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A looter comes across an abandoned street in High River.  The houses have been checked by emergency workers and police and are no longer locked tight.  He walks into the first house and finds a cable-locked rifle behind a bedroom door.  "Oh gosh" says he "I can't take that, it's properly secured!"

He enters the second house and sees a trigger-locked shotgun displayed on a gun rack on the  wall.  He says to himself "Dearie me, I can't steal that, it's properly secured!"

He enters the third home and finds a gun safe in the back of a closet.  He checks the door and says "I don't have time for this crap, but I'll take that laptop."

In theory, leaving "properly secured" firearms in your house while on vacation is perfectly legal and there is no reason to turn them in while you're away but this is not going on vacation and someone walking to your home,  a now more easily accessible home, isn't going to care if you are obeying the letter of the law or not.

So, why didn't the police secure the jewellry and other valuables?  When was the last time someone robbed a bank with a charm bracelet or a plasma TV?

That's twice you've posted crap just to hear yourself talk.

Either contribute with factual information and discuss it like an adult or leave the thread to people that know what they are talking about.

Your emotional babbling makes you sound like a thirteen year old girl with too much candy in her system.

 

[Old Sweat]

One may also ask, when faced with an evacuated  town where large areas are at least knee deep in water and access is blocked by police barricades, what is the likliehood of some looters deciding to go on a cross country march to collect goodies? Even if the enterprising criminals would do so, what are they apt to carry off, considering the weight and bulk, bling or long guns?

 

[George Wallace]

100% security is impossible.  The resourcefulness of said looters could be quite extensive.  I am sure some enterprising lowlife would have no problems circumventing security points. 

Just saying.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Gawd you can be a friggin moron,.........I'll bet you'd be screaming a different tune had someone in your family been incapacitated in one of those homes and only survived because "government" went uninvited into a home that was in a danger area.

I doubt it.  My beliefs about liberty and security (liberty vs security) are straightforward, skewed heavily in favour of the former.  The Allan Rock justification of nannyism and enforcement (to paraphrase, "if it might save a life, it's worth it") is dead air space and generally the last resort of someone who has no tangible arguments to muster.  Unsolicited invasive safety checks are an infringement of privacy too great to justify an occasional (and highly improbably) loss of life.  When people are saved, it is generally because they asked for it or someone else who knew they were imperiled notified authorities and requested intervention.

The role of police is not to harass ordinary people in order to make life slightly more difficult for azzholes.  If looters are a problem, we pay police to search for, arrest, and detain looters.  If gangs are a problem, we fund a system of justice to break up gangs and take away their toys.

We don't have any evidence whatsoever of "good intentions".  What we do have as a matter of public record is the hard-on that prominent members of police chains of command have for gun control.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

. If looters are a problem, we pay police to search for, arrest, and detain looters.  If gangs are a problem, we fund a system of justice to break up gangs and take away their toys.

HAHAHAHA,...........Hope you like paying a shit-load more in taxes then..........no wait, you're Mr. Anti-tax, civil servant hater.....

[and just in case you didn't know, since looters probably don't wear signs saying "looters" I'm sure innocent people got [gasp] stopped and asked for ID and reason for being there]

 

[ballz]

Have you worked in a Law Enforcement capacity within Canada? Most firearms used by criminals are stolen locally, the second largest pool of firearms used in crimes are smuggled over the border.

You can't just make a claim, be asked to support it, and support it by making the claim again. I asked for some evidence.

Here's some to suggest that you're wrong... (from a 2005 National Post article http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-138185.html)

"Illegal smuggling by organized crime is by far the principal source of firearms on our streets. Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime"

- Vancouver Police, Strategic plan 2004-08

 

[Teager]

I'm wondering why the parts of Calgary that were evacuated never had any firearms taken by police? (Maybe they did) As for looters taking guns it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a looter or criminal to take a rifle especialy if the option of other valuables is there such as gold, jewlery, cash ect. If I was a looter I'd be more interested in a handgun something I could easily conceal otherwise I'm going for the valueables because they can be turned into cash or traded for drugs or even guns. Now I live closer to Toronto but majority of crimes seem to happen with weapons that are easy to conceal carrying a rifle or even shotgun around is likely to get you noticed. Just my thoughts from a looter/criminal point of view.