Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 96
  1. #11
    RobertMcC
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmytro Bryushkov View Post
    My dear friend, I am married twice longer that you did. I think, it is normal for common lady to deny her husband has a gun. But it is NOT normal to accept it as the law!
    What does how long you been married has to do? It's required for a license, If you don't like it. Then no license for you. You lie, and If she find outs. And calls. It's not good for you. One of those things that its NOT better to ask for forgiveness, Then beg.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmytro Bryushkov View Post
    Spouses do not want us to be out of home (fishing, hunting, ext.). My wife does not want me to be out of home. I am already angler, and she does not want me to start hunting too. Try to guess, how many tackle shops gonna stay in business in 2 years, if a spousal consent is accepted to be mandatory for receiving a fishing licence. Probably, very few! Thus, such wird requirement (does not exists in firearm licensing system in any countries of the world, which still allows own citizens to have firearms, even in Russia and Korea) is unreasonable and must be abolished! If I am allowed to have a PAL, I may spend approximately $400.00 for the hunting/firearm license and much more for shotgun and rifle. What profit is missed by government, if I am not allowed to spend this money for my dream? And if I am dangerous for public (no history of mental illness, depression, substance abuse or criminal record), why I am still allowed to be Registered Health Care Professional?
    Like I said few posts above. My mom neighbors had NO history. He bought a gun and used it against himself when he killed himself. The family had NO idea he even owned a gun. Now getting upset because it's the law here. Sounds like your not mature enough to need a firearm.

    Well guess you need to start educating her and talking. Or find a new hobby.

    Hi honey how are you?
    Oh great I bought a gun and got my license.
    EEEEEKKKKKKK SHOCKING..

  2. #12
    Senior Member GTW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Canukistan
    Posts
    2,732
    My wife likes the fact I own firearms and fishing gear. She encouraged our sons to get their PALS/RPALS as soon as they could. She likes seeing her boys go out to hunt and fish and target shoot. She feels it’s time well spent. The only regret she has is the number of firearms keeps self-propagating to the point where any CBC & Liberals would have a heart attack if they came to our house.

    My youngest used her as a reference on his RPAL application and she was called by the CFO. It was a pretty entertaining discussion hearing her state in no uncertain terms that her son was an upstanding responsibile young man who was trained properly and brought up in a household where firearms were nothing more than tools and not weapons of mass destruction.
    Last edited by GTW; 06-10-2018 at 07:52 AM.
    "Mr. Speaker, we really could replace Justin Trudeau with a cardboard cutout, and his peanut gallery wouldn't know the difference"

  3. The Following User Liked This Post By GTW

    Tonsper (06-10-2018)

  4. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    22
    If anybody has real suicidal thoughts, does not matter the way this person decides to terminate his life. Usual rope or even a necktie will do this jub too. If your mom's neighbor had no gun, he would hang himself or choose something different. Besides, it is still possible to buy a gun illegally (quite OK for someone who is not going to hunt, but wants to kill himself).

  5. #14
    RobertMcC
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmytro Bryushkov View Post
    If anybody has real suicidal thoughts, does not matter the way this person decides to terminate his life. Usual rope or even a necktie will do this jub too. If your mom's neighbor had no gun, he would hang himself or choose something different. Besides, it is still possible to buy a gun illegally (quite OK for someone who is not going to hunt, but wants to kill himself).
    But its the law to require your spouse contact info on a firearm license application. You start denying, they start asking more questions.

  6. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    22
    I do not think your case is common. Try to guess, how many divorced women may allow their former husbands to have a gun. I can tell you: none! Also, the spousal consent may not be really truthful, if the woman depends on her husband and may be threatened by him if she refuses to sign up such consent. Alternative methods of evaluation must be allowed, and they are much accurate (as example, assessment by the appointed registered medical psychologist).
    It is an understandable desire to reduce number of firearm accidents, but the most reliable way to do it- simply to ban any ownership or possession of the forearms.
    As I found, number of spousal firearm related homicides was really reduced after 1995, when a spousal consent became required. But total number of family homicides was not really changed! Note, that Otello did not have a gun!

  7. #16
    RobertMcC
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmytro Bryushkov View Post
    I do not think your case is common. Try to guess, how many divorced women may allow their former husbands to have a gun. I can tell you: none! Also, the spousal consent may not be really truthful, if the woman depends on her husband and may be threatened by him if she refuses to sign up such consent. Alternative methods of evaluation must be allowed, and they are much accurate (as example, assessment by the appointed registered medical psychologist).
    It is an understandable desire to reduce number of firearm accidents, but the most reliable way to do it- simply to ban any ownership or possession of the forearms.
    As I found, number of spousal firearm related homicides was really reduced after 1995, when a spousal consent became required. But total number of family homicides was not really changed! Note, that Otello did not have a gun!
    I'm sorry you disagree. I had my license before I met my wife. And told her I'm not getting rid of them, you have to deal with it.

    We are not the ones you need to convince. Its required by the government. And lying to the government isn't a good idea esp on a firearm application. Just makes you suspicious on what else you maybe hiding.

  8. #17
    Senior Member LB303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    not far enough
    Posts
    5,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimlock View Post
    You married a Torontonian? Eeeeew.
    So did my wife. There _are_ a few of us with our heads screwed on right.
    We've made a life in calmer surroundings though. You couldn't pay me enough to go back there

  9. #18
    Senior Member GTW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Canukistan
    Posts
    2,732
    My brother was divorced just before having to renew his PAL. He had to state that he was no longer married on his renewal.
    The CFO talked to his ex, and there was no issue getting his renewal. Had he lied about marital status I believe the outcome would have been exactly the opposite.
    "Mr. Speaker, we really could replace Justin Trudeau with a cardboard cutout, and his peanut gallery wouldn't know the difference"

  10. #19
    Senior Member murph83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    BC- Region 3
    Posts
    731
    For whatever it is worth, I just had my RPAL renewal done..they never bothered to call my wife, not that she would have objected, but for whatever reason i guess they the RCMP did the usual checks and determinde that im not a crazy person.
    Liberal party of Canada-Useless since 1867

  11. #20
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    46,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Dmytro Bryushkov View Post
    Try to guess, how many divorced women may allow their former husbands to have a gun. I can tell you: none!
    None isn't true. But I take your point.
    Sometimes there's vengeance, sometimes there's lawyering tactics, and sometimes there's fear (the only reasonable one of the three).

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmytro Bryushkov View Post
    Also, the spousal consent may not be really truthful, if the woman depends on her husband and may be threatened by him if she refuses to sign up such consent.
    That came up in SECU. Liberal MP Pam Damoff mentioned a woman she knew that was like that -- that anecdote seemed to be her motivation for pushing C-71 through, although C-71 would have no effect on that. So it's a gut/vengeance decision, not a rational/statistics/causality decision.

    Lots of domestic violence happens in gangs. Lots more happens outside of gangs, but still with unregistered firearms held by unlicenced individuals. Tweaks to the Firearms Act aren't going to affect either of those.
    And of course hugely more without the use of firearms at all. Looking at the Ontario Coroner's reports, lots of spousal homicides happen without a gun, then subsequently the perpetrator commits suicide with a gun, or is killed by police with their guns -- all of these end up in the domestic homicide with firearm statistics.
    For those that are licenced, if you have a look at this 2008 study,
    http://www.legal-info-legale.nb.ca/e...imal_Abuse.pdf
    you'll come to the conclusion that in the case of domestic abusers, apparently they're the types who are willing to shirk the law's restrictions. That's the one paid for by the Canadian Firearms Program, where they surveyed about 300 victims of domestic abuse in PEI and New Brunswick, interviewed several, found about 65 who lived in a home with firearms, and 60% of the firearms were unregistered. It says that if the police took the guns, the abuser would get one from a friend.
    It also says "While we recognize that these interviews and focus groups looked at the experiences of relatively small sample of rural women and service providers, 72 in total, and because the sample was not randomly chosen, we make no attempt to generalize our findings to the entire population. "

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmytro Bryushkov View Post
    Alternative methods of evaluation must be allowed, and they are much accurate (as example, assessment by the appointed registered medical psychologist).
    The only people to push for that are anti-gunners and politicians. It's ended up in a couple of countries.

    As a psychiatrist, I've noticed that gun owners are some of the LEAST skittish people I have ever encountered. The same goes for individuals who are well trained to competently defend themselves.
    -- Gundoggy

    The CMA (Canadian Medical Association) has in the past rejected the idea of physicians reviewing and signing off on a person's capacity to possess firearms. The liability issues notwithstanding, it is relatively impossible for us to make a valid assessment on most people, and some of the mass murderers that have used firearms in Canada for nefarious purposes would have easily been able to lie to one of us. There are some people who are obviously either too mentally challenged or psychologically unfit to own firearms, but most of those people lack the initiative to obtain legal firearms anyway.
    What I am afraid of, as a physician, is a mandatory reporting of anyone who owns firearms who is ie: depressed - and I think the CMA would oppose that. Right now we only have to mandatory report someone who has an active intention of causing harm either on themself or someone else, excusing us, understandably, from respecting patient confidentiality.
    To be honest, it is a valid issue, both here and in the US regarding psychological fitness to own firearms. While it is extremely rare, having dealt with cases of patients who have had active intent to take firearms (or other weapons) and harm other people, it is difficult to prevent them from obtaining a firearm licence and purchasing firearms without attaching a criminal record to them. I think there has to be some process, not sure exactly what it is, but I think it would be a real disaster to some patients if they were placed on a list by an uneducated or lazy physician simply for manageable non dangerous psychological problems.
    ...
    Well I can look into it again. I remember the days of C-17, C-68 when they wanted to include in the application form for a PAL, a note from a physician stating you were competent to possess firearms. The CMA was very much against this, as is the AMA in the US, due to the liability it would place on physicians. To be quite honest, while I have caught a school shooter prior to the act, it was after hours of interviews with that patient and a good deal of investigative work and suspicion. Trying to predict someone's intention in a 10 minute office visit is impossible.
    What they may be referring to is input to the CFO after an assessment where we are immediately concerned regarding that person's competence in direct regards to firearms (ie. depressed patient who has active wish to kill self with gun, or patient with psychotic desire to shoot someone). Quite honestly, hard to know how it would work in overall mental illness especially in regards to patient confidentiality, ie. putting every depressed patient on a non-firearms list. Moreover it is quite a process in this country to obtain firearms. Most people on serious medication lack the initiative to go through the process, and those that have the initiative like Gill - well good luck figuring him out.
    I suspect most of it is just fancy thinking by the small but vocal contingent of physicians who for some reason think the 200 odd homicides in this country (while tragic) by firearms every year are a bigger tragedy than the thousands caused by automobiles, alcohol, and other more significant contributors, or that suicide by firearm is worse than by rope.
    -- langmann

    I've got lots more like that, but it's basically the same.
    - There's no way to figure this stuff out in a 15 minute assessment
    - even with months of interviews, there's no reliability
    - empirical studies done have shown that physiatrist evaluations about this are less accurate than guessing.

    The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) this month hasn't been asking for what you typed,
    but has been asking for the ability to be required to report to the CFO people they think shouldn't own firearms similar to the way they are required to report people they think shouldn't be allowed to drive. (although the 'not allowed to drive' is actually forwarded to a committee that takes 5 months to issue a determination)


    Quote Originally Posted by Dmytro Bryushkov View Post
    As I found, number of spousal firearm related homicides was really reduced after 1995, when a spousal consent became required. But total number of family homicides was not really changed!
    That doesn't sound right. Note that we've had handgun registration since 1934, so only long guns were affected by C68. Licencing didn't start at all until 1998, and didn't really get going until 2000-2001.


Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Brampton man sees donation given to Conservatives without his consent
    By Doug_M in forum 2015 Pre/Post Election Debate
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-27-2015, 05:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •