OCTOBER 2016 AMNESTY - BC - Help spread the information!

[sewktbk]

Do you consider grade school to be coercive?

No, because grade school students are not responsible adults.

What about instruction on sky diving?

What about it?

Without writing a full dissertation on the subject, when it comes to the ownership and use of equipment potentially deadly to the public with minimal misuse, yes.

Ok, so I guess you'll be campaigning your local MP to change the laws to require a licensing scheme for car ownership and possession then.

As Foxer pointed out, children could injure themselves or each other with a "sharp object", but that misuse won't extend to my neighbour across the street or someone miles away, very much unlike a firearm can.

Try as hard as you want - you won't be able to throw that kitchen knife through your wall.

Yeah, but thats not the point. We're not comparing the dangerousness of two objects here. We're only exploring your hypothesis that because something is important and effective, it should be mandatory. Those were the criterias you wanted to base it on, so I simply provided an example of things that are important and effective yet for which we do not expect mandatory training. I could've chosen many other things/situations/activities that have nothing to do with guns. I'm not comparing objects, but merely showing that importance and effectiveness of something doesn't and shouldn't equate mandatory.

And if I leave sharp objects around and a child was injured by it, I may be liable to child endangerment charges. As a parent I'm obligated to make sure the space I raise my children in is safe for that purpose. We have laws for that.

...and those same laws apply to gun ownership. Not sure what your point is there.

We are also glossing over another aspect of firearm training that is of equal importance to safe handling - and that is understanding the laws. Of course with our current laws that's damn near impossible..

As citizens we are already required to know the law. Thats a responsibility each of us have, and not only when it comes to guns. So still no reason to make it mandatory "twice".

 

[DanN]

Yeah, but thats not the point. We're not comparing the dangerousness of two objects here. We're only exploring your hypothesis that because something is important and effective, it should be mandatory. Those were the criterias you wanted to base it on, so I simply provided an example of things that are important and effective yet for which we do not expect mandatory training. I could've chosen many other things/situations/activities that have nothing to do with guns. I'm not comparing objects.

No, I didn't specify that it should be limited to important and effective; only you said that. I believe that the level of danger it presents should also be a factor.

As citizens we are already required to know the law. Thats a responsibility each of us have, and not only when it comes to guns. So still no reason to make it mandatory "twice".

We aren't required to know the law, it's just in our best interest. And to know it would require being taught it. I'll bet there is some aspect of the law you know nothing about, but you probably don't need to know about it given your lifestyle. If your lifestyle is to include guns, you should get some good insight to those laws (as terrible and convoluted as they are today). But if you're not into corporate tax law, you probably don't need to know that. Thankfully.

 

[sewktbk]

No, I didn't specify that it should be limited to important and effective; only you said that. I believe that the level of danger it presents should also be a factor.

OK. What other objects represent in your opinion the same level of danger as guns, then? Lets start there.
I will state though that statistically, a lot of the objects you probably consider to not be as dangerous as guns are actually responsible for more accidental deaths and injuries than guns each year. Food for thought for when you're going to determine which ones make the cut and which don't.

ust in our best interest. And to know it would require being taught it. I'll bet there is some aspect of the law you know nothing about, but you probably don't need to know about it given your lifestyle. If your lifestyle is to include guns, you should get some good insight to those laws (as terrible and convoluted as they are today). But if you're not into corporate tax law, you probably don't need to know that. Thankfully.

Well on that subject, you should know that the current mandatory training not only doesn't explain a lot of the laws, but is also often completely innacurate when it does so. The number of PAL holders who have been taught flat out untrue claims about gun laws during their mandatory training is actually embarassing. So not exactly a good example of efficiency.

And when I say "required" to know the law...I mean it in the sense that ignorance of the law can't be given as an excuse for breaking it.

 

[sewktbk]

You know DanN, i'm happy to keep discussing this with you. You're level-headed and able to have a calm discussion even in the face of disagreement...but if you want, we can also just agree to disagree and save the time, since it appears that we might both have our minds made up already.

But I'm leaving the choice up to you, again, i'm happy to carry on with the discussion.

 

[DanN]

You know DanN, i'm happy to keep discussing this with you. You're level-headed and able to have a calm discussion even in the face of disagreement...but if you want, we can also just agree to disagree and save the time, since it appears that we might both have our minds made up already.

But I'm leaving the choice up to you, again, i'm happy to carry on with the discussion.

Oh, I'm good with the conversation. I like to challenge my beliefs to either debunk or reinforce them. That said, I'll be out for a bit, so - probably not back to this till tomorrow.

And call me Dan; no need to be so formal here.

 

[sewktbk]

Oh, I'm good with the conversation. I like to challenge my beliefs to either debunk or reinforce them. That said, I'll be out for a bit, so - probably not back to this till tomorrow.

And call me Dan; no need to be so formal here.

Cool, lets pick it up tommorow Dan!

Cheers,

G.

 

[RangeBob]

Although the mandatory training includes the law,
the law and regulations and their interpretation changes every day,
but that's irrelevant to accidents/negligence.
Accidents are reduced by a variety of things, such as the four rules of firearms safety.
Only in Canada is ACTS & PROVE taught, as opposed to the shorter easier to learn versions that accomplish the same in a better way.
Regardless, four rules or ACTS&PROVE, neither are Law nor Regulation.

 

[Foxer]

It's not a "rejected" ('deny'), it's a "delayed".
The criteria for "rejected" and "delayed" are EXACTLY what we have now. No change whatsoever.


If no one has made any complaint, it's "approved".
If someone complained yesterday, then yes "delayed" while an investigation happens -- but that's the SAME as what happens now.
If there's a complaint then with either system (today or proposed) you don't lose your at home firearms while the investigation of the entry into Firearms Interest Police happens.
If you're purchasing a firearm with either system, you're not going to get an approval until the investigation into the Firearms Interest Police is finished.
No difference.

Yes, there is a difference. Once 'approved' currently, you can't be disapproved without the revocation of your license for cause. Not 'delay because someone complained' yesterday. It's a big difference.

How do you fake the data (name and birthdate and photo and address) in the government database?

I don't need to fake the database, i just need to fake being that person. Which is pretty easy with drivers licenses.

If you find someone who looks like you, and are buying in face-to-face (not on-line where this wouldn't work because it's shipped to the government database's address), you could steal their ID. And if you got to buying a firearm before that person reported the ID stolen, you would get a firearm. And if you were slower than the person reporting the stolen ID then you'd get a {delayed} while they investigate, and possibly get arrested.
But that's not much different in terms of frequency/numbers than someone who fakes a PAL today.

Well it is different. First off it's very easy to identify someone who has a drivers' license. They're pretty common. A pal is not. and second off - there's a lot of people who may live at a given address as far as shipping goes.

A decent Minister Of Public Safety would take care of that.

Yeah, By banning guns if history is any indicator.

Today, with restricted we have to provide lots of information to do a verify.
But for a non-restricted, we only have to provide information about the buyer, and a statement that you're selling a firearm. Occasionally they ask for other information, the seller's PAL, the make/model/serial of the firearm(s) being sold, but not always.

Today - but yesterday was quite different and tomorrow can be as well. I know several people who gave up because the cops kept asking for more information and refused to confirm the license without it. The cops gave up because people were just saying 'screw you i won't bother then', but if it were manditory instead of optional as it would be under your system, we'd see it again.

Seriously rangebob - you are the LAST person i should have to tell about how often the cops have twisted and turned the law to screw us like that.

Print it out and file it

yeah - more paper you have to have with you.

Provide an optional email address, and the system could email it to you and you could keep it forever electronically.

Unless there's a problem with your email or god knows what.

Or throw it away if you want -- same as today.

Then you couldn't prove that you got the required check.

When you sell a non-restricted today, do you keep the buyer's information forever?
When you buy a non-restricted today, do you keep the receipt forever? (I do, but I keep/file a lot of receipts)

No, because there is no requirement to do a check on them when i sell, so i don't have to prove anything later. As long as i have reason to believe they're licensed that's fine, But under your system it WOULD be manditory to check and if i couldn't prove that i did, that might be a pretty major issue.

Yes, that part. I added it JUST FOR YOU. The first edit of that post had your name on it.
Currently the Canadian Firearms Program tracks who takes the CRSC. So no difference.

So - you're saying a whole lot of 'no differences', and it kind of seems your right here - we'd still have the expensive databases we do now, you'd still have to register your course results, etc etc etc. So what's the point here.

I added that instead of the CFSC, a hunter safety or other course would suffice. That would cost more, but again it's something YOU requested/approved earlier in this thread as an acceptable alternative.

In another thread months ago, you suggested that the government is really really good at keeping lists that people believe -- and would be the perfect place to keep track of who had been trained by any means.

Yeah - they are, but again that's right back to where we are today so what have you achieved? Except that you basically are suggesting we should do what amounts to the current licensing system every time we buy a gun.

No it would not be more complex. It would track less data, making it simpler.

No, we would be tracking exactly the same amount of data. We apparently would need to track who is 'approved' after the same background check we have now, we would have to track who's been thru their safety training, we would have to track the addresses of all approved people because that's the only place we can send a gun, and we have to make sure we have current id photo's for everyone. That's all the same crap we track now - you've changed absolutely nothing except now instead of one body doing the work who can be challenged, virtually any cop apperently can decide if we're approved or not every time we buy a gun.

No change in the ability for the 'cops to screw with us'.

There is EVERY chance - any cop could look over the data from last time and decide the last cop was too kind in giving you a license, or see a report from another cop and decide that it means you can't by a gun today. The only way to prevent that is to have only select cops in charge of saying someone is 'approved', and now you've recreated the CFO's.

It more secure because it's not tracking licencing and registration data. (no 'licencing leads to confiscation'. No one worrying about 'breaches' or organized crime getting a list of where all the guns are for targeted home invasions)

It is precisely the SAME data being tracked but EVEN WORSE - because every time someone buys a gun that will be recorded. It's a shopping list for criminals and that's what we hated about the registry we just killed, which is what you're creating this time. Unless people are 'pre-approved', which is basically licensing.

All I've done is recreate the American NICS system, without the NICS's system's flaws.

This is NOTHING like the nics - all you've done is create our current licensing system without a 'paper' license - and given the cops the ability to track what we buy.

I've gotten rid of the problems of licencing as well (as a confiscation list, delays, taxpayer costs, compliance costs, criminal code penalties for paperwork offences, etc).

The costs would be almost identical. And as a confiscation list it would be 100 times worse - it would be nearly as bad as the old registry. And the criminal code stuff would be exactly the same - can't prove you had a proper 'check' done, you're a criminal, let your address lapse, criminal, don't have a current up to date picture - criminal. The only way to decriminalize that the same way it would be to decriminalize licensing.

Last but not least, when I described this to Garry Breitkreuz, he approved of it. Or at least he approved of it more than the current licencing/registration system. 'It' being an instant approval system based primarily upon the Weapons Prohibition Order list, rather than licencing.

That's nice, but gary isn't always right and frankly neither are you. This would be a disaster for gun owners at LEAST as bad as our current licensing system.

You want easy and cheap - it's this simple. You send in proof of training and they do a background check and you're issued a 'firearms number' along with a card. To use it you must show both that and a picture id. Anyone can enter the number if they doubt you're legit and verify it's valid, include a PID number on the back for security just like a visa. You can acquire and posess any guns that the gov't will let people acquire and possess, and if a cop finds you with guns it takes him 2 seconds to verify your number. It cannot be revoked without cause.

No licensing, no reissuing no nothing, no databases taht aren't included already in your plan, no chance for cops to make a decision about whether or not your trustworthy every time you buy a gun, no tracking your guns, not even mandatory to call in and verify that the number is valid if you don't want to. just real simple and easy and you can't have it cancelled without cause. Boom - done and a million times simpler and it is more secure.

 

[RangeBob]

Yes, there is a difference. Once 'approved' currently, you can't be disapproved without the revocation of your license for cause. Not 'delay because someone complained' yesterday. It's a big difference.

The whole point of the Firearms Interest Police database that we have today, was to take care of the 'because someone complained' problem. It's what makes 'continuous eligibility' possible.

April 5, 1996 - In Vernon, BC Rajwar Gakhal and 8 members of her family are murdered by her estranged husband, who then commits suicide. Chahal, 30, locked in a bitter divorce fight with Rajwar, obtained two guns -- despite allegations of domestic violence. Rajwar had told the RCMP about Chahal's threats against her after the couple's nine-month arranged marriage failed but, in fear of retribution, she asked police not to press charges. RCMP said Chahal's gun permit was approved because he had no criminal record.
The Coalition For Gun Control raised a number of questions about the way in which the RCMP processed the murderer's gun application. An inquest and inquiry are called. That one case dramatically altered the Canadian Firearms Program's scope, because it highlighted a flaw in the planned licensing and registry system.
The Canadian Firearms Program then decided to include all violent incidents reported to police, whether they resulted in a criminal conviction or not, as grounds for further reviewing a license application (as well as adding spousal permission to applications and renewals, and references, and telephone interviews). This involved tapping into the computer records of every police agency in the country and having information on any reported threats, domestic violence or related incidents pushed out to a new central database, the Firearm Interest Police System (FIPS). This database in turn would be integrated with CPIC and the new firearm registry in Ottawa. Instead of a simple database where citizens registered their
firearms, the scope of the initiative had been expanded to that of a large computer networking project. According to the Justice Department, that cost $60.9-million for network communications and some advertising, not including software, training, or ongoing federal and municipal costs.

Every time your name appears in the FIP, someone at the Canadian Firearms Program evaluates if your PAL is to be revoked because of it.
If you're in the process of purchasing a restricted firearm, or a PAL renewal, and there's a new FIP that shows up -- you will be delayed until the FIP is processed.

No difference.

You want easy and cheap - it's this simple. You send in proof of training and they do a background check and you're issued a 'firearms number' along with a card. To use it you must show both that and a picture id. Anyone can enter the number if they doubt you're legit and verify it's valid, include a PID number on the back for security just like a visa. You can acquire and posess any guns that the gov't will let people acquire and possess, and if a cop finds you with guns it takes him 2 seconds to verify your number. It cannot be revoked without cause.

You've been proposing variations on that for years (sometimes without the 'background check' and sometimes without any 'revoke'),
but it doesn't handle the Gakhal situation.
Unless of course you've completely recreated what we have now for licencing, background checks, spousal notification, investigations, FIP, the works. And that won't cost any less, or be any simpler.

With mine it also takes the cop two seconds to verify you.

First off it's very easy to identify someone who has a drivers' license. They're pretty common. A pal is not.

If we include the training database as part of the authorization, then identifying someone with that is precisely as hard as identifying someone with a PAL.

With mine if someone steals your wallet they won't find a PAL.
With mine if you report your wallet stolen, that will land in FIP until you get new ID (driver's licence) and your old ID is revoked.

Yeah, By banning guns if history is any indicator.

They could do that anytime even with no system.

With mine there is no list of who owns anything. Not just no registration, but no list of licencees either.
If training were included, and if the training were done in high school, then the training would not indicate that a firearm had been purchased.

if it were manditory instead of optional as it would be under your system,

I made no statement about when it would be mandatory.

Presumably one would want to avoid the recent Washington State problems (check on handing a rifle for the day to a hunting partner who is with you, check on family transfers).

With my system you have a choice
a) if you don't want a PAL, you can be checked whenever you make a purchase
b) if you make a lot of purchases and don't want to be checked whenever that happens, you can get a card (PAL-like, PAL-lite, same as you suggested here -> )

You want easy and cheap - it's this simple. You send in proof of training and they do a background check and you're issued a 'firearms number' along with a card. To use it you must show both that and a picture id. Anyone can enter the number if they doubt you're legit and verify it's valid, include a PID number on the back for security just like a visa. You can acquire and posess any guns that the gov't will let people acquire and possess, and if a cop finds you with guns it takes him 2 seconds to verify your number. It cannot be revoked without cause.

You're free to choose, based upon your own situation, which of the two you want to deal with.
And if you're in a hurry, you use (a).
If you're not in a hurry, (b) might be better for you.

As for when it's mandatory, and what the onus of proof is, that's yet to be determined.

Today's verification of PAL, they don't give an authorization number as was proposed in Bill C-391 I think. The notion that you've done a phone verification is deleted. Why couldn't the proposed system work the same way.
If you feel a need to check, then check.
Because the information needed to be provided is smaller, according to your observations more sellers would be willing to check -- that's a good thing even in the eyes of Wendy.


The point of mine is that it tracks criminals, not the law abiding citizens.
If you include training, then because there's no 'criminal' aspect of that data, it wouldn't be maintained by police.
Police would have databases on criminals, not on the law abiding.
It would not be possible for police to print out a list of all firearms owners because that data simply wouldn't exist.

If police see someone with a firearm, or if someone is purchasing a firearm, they can then-and-only-then check to see if it's ok for them to possess one. That's massively different than having a list of everyone currently pre-approved for possession and acquisition.

(I am of course assuming for the purposes of discussion in this thread that: (1) background checks serve a net noble purpose, and (2) training serves a net noble purpose. Those would be discussions for another thread, and another month. That we've had before.)

 

[RangeBob]

BTW,
mine is lousy at the notion of 'revoke and confiscate'.

Because there is no notion of a list of owners,
entries into the FIP aren't compared against anyone in the following days.

The only time FIP is used, the only (reduced) manpower needed to do those investigations, would occur in the two situations:
- police find you with a firearm and do the query, and a 'delay' results in the investigation of a possibly years old FIP, or
- you are purchasing a new firearm, and a 'delay' results in the investigation of a possibly years old FIP


It's not obvious, on balance, if that's a good thing or a bad thing. And if bad, if it's solvable by some other means. Certainly in the case of 'bad' there are other Laws that cover it -- it's a question of procedure.
If someone were to newly appear on a Weapons Prohibition Order list (such as a bail condition), if a firearm had been seen then a police search and confiscate would happen as it does now, and if a firearm had not been seen then some other means could be utilized to determine if a search and confiscate were required/warranted probably similar to what happens now with non-restricted-only PALers and known-to-police individuals.

 

[sewktbk]

I don't need to fake the database, i just need to fake being that person. Which is pretty easy with drivers licenses.

The database shows a picture of the individual, as rangebob explained. So you have to either fake the database to look like you (because showing up with a fake license with your photo on it would not match the database), or fake your appearance into looking exactly like the database + drivers license photo. And even if that could be "easily" done, it would still be a problem with the current PAL licenses. Its in fact easier with the PAL system, because if someone can so easily fake a drivers license, then they can do so with a PAL too...but without the added security of being compared with a database at time of purchase.

This whole identity theft thing just isn't even an argument. All it is, is grasping at straws.

 

[sewktbk]

Dan, just to start our discussion going again...

I've been thinking about this and what you said, and there are two things I'd like to discuss.

The first I already asked, which was to know which objects/equipment you'd consider equally dangerous as guns, for which mandatory training and licensing should exist.

The second is your mention that "if you can expect it for one, you must expect it for all".
I find there is a real problem with that approach, because it suggests that introducing legislation is a good thing if you can demonstrate, even with just a hypothetical, that there must be a single individual out there that is irresponsible or stupid enough to need mandatory training, and that this individual should become the common denominator.

This is the reverse equivalent of using the "if it saves just one life" statement to justify legislation. And when you enter that territory, you're innevitably going to face what we are facing now, which is knee-jerk measures that target and criminalize a vast majority for the actions, or hypothetical actions, of a single, sometimes unnamed person. This is precisely why down the line, statistics are able to show insignificance and ineffectiveness.

 

[DanN]

Dan, just to start our discussion going again...

I might be a little s l o w this morning.. silly employment getting in the way of thought processes.

I've been thinking about this and what you said, and there are two things I'd like to discuss.

Thinking is good.

The first I already asked, which was to know which objects/equipment you'd consider equally dangerous as guns, for which mandatory training and licensing should exist.

As I said at the beginning, it's been a tad difficult to get a good thought process going given work interruptions, so, expect the following to be worded fairly loosely.

Basically, anything you could do that could directly cause sever injury or death to another person without their .. um .. "participation"?

So, like getting shot while watching TV in your living room.

Operating motor vehicles on public roadways (some exception could be made for off-road applications like dirt bikes, quads, etc)

As an electrician I am opposed to "homeowners" doing their own electrical work (I've been zapped too many times by homeowner wiring, so I admit some bias here.) Poor electrical practices could prove to be hazardous to not only people in your immediate vicinity (via electrocution or fire), but in certain cases even your neighbours (fire in an apartment or condo for example) or electrical utility crews (Back feeding a dead grid unintentionally with a generator during power outages for example).

The second is your mention that "if you can expect it for one, you must expect it for all".
I find there is a real problem with that approach, because it suggests that introducing legislation is a good thing if you can demonstrate, even with just a hypothetical, that there must be a single individual out there that is irresponsible or stupid enough to need mandatory training, and that this individual should become the common denominator.

That's why I said mandatory training OR test challenge. The idea should be that you need to show proficiency somehow.

This is the reverse equivalent of using the "if it saves just one life" statement to justify legislation. And when you enter that territory, you're innevitably going to face what we are facing now, which is knee-jerk measures that target and criminalize a vast majority for the actions, or hypothetical actions, of a single, sometimes unnamed person. This is precisely why down the line, statistics are able to show insignificance and ineffectiveness.

Training is a good thing; proficiency is an acceptable level. It also has the added benefit that right now the anti crowd can't raise the "gun owners aren't even trained!" argument in Canada, which is low hanging fruit the general non-gun-owning population would rally behind.

[Largely irrelevant observations on training]
I have to say also that I thoroughly enjoyed the CFSC and restricted courses. I previously held an FAC, then a POL and then upgraded to RPAL; going into the course I already felt I knew enough, and probably could have challenged the test, but I took it with friends instead. And it turned out maybe I did learn a thing or two - especially when it came to the laws. This is likely where I get my sense of value in people taking the course in general because for me it was a positive experience.
[/Largely irrelevant observations on training]

 

[sewktbk]

I might be a little s l o w this morning.. silly employment getting in the way of thought processes.

Thinking is good.

As I said at the beginning, it's been a tad difficult to get a good thought process going given work interruptions, so, expect the following to be worded fairly loosely.

Basically, anything you could do that could directly cause sever injury or death to another person without their .. um .. "participation"?

So, like getting shot while watching TV in your living room.

Operating motor vehicles on public roadways (some exception could be made for off-road applications like dirt bikes, quads, etc)

As an electrician I am opposed to "homeowners" doing their own electrical work (I've been zapped too many times by homeowner wiring, so I admit some bias here.) Poor electrical practices could prove to be hazardous to not only people in your immediate vicinity (via electrocution or fire), but in certain cases even your neighbours (fire in an apartment or condo for example) or electrical utility crews (Back feeding a dead grid unintentionally with a generator during power outages for example).

OK good. I like these examples. Judging by their nature, I suppose you'd include in that list owning and operating airplanes, even small ones, because well, they can drop on people and kill them. Fair assumption?

Now, since those are equally dangerous as guns, we have to be philosophically consistent in how we want to tailor and apply the mandatory training + licensing measures for their mere ownership/possession.

So. Do you think that like guns, it should be a criminal offense to own or operate cars and planes (or do homemade electrical work) without proper mandatory training and licensing?

That's why I said mandatory training OR test challenge. The idea should be that you need to show proficiency somehow.

Training is a good thing; proficiency is an acceptable level. It also has the added benefit that right now the anti crowd can't raise the "gun owners aren't even trained!" argument in Canada, which is low hanging fruit the general non-gun-owning population would rally behind.

I guess. But there are two things here.

First is that this all has to do with how guns are demonized, which is a direct result of ignorance and the "deresponsiblization" of individuals...which in my view is the true problem. I would suggest that this is a much larger educationnal issue that needs to be addressed way earlier in life and within perhaps the school system. This of course has greater, evidently more complex implications in terms of how it can be solved, since they have to do with societal values. But ya, that might be the true hard part. Its also why in my view gun-control laws always have been and can only be bandaid solutions for a problem that requires surgery.

Second is that I still can't bring myself to seeing validity in the implementation of legislation just so people can feel better. It encourages and enables simplemindedness and the dumbing down of a people.

[Largely irrelevant observations on training]
I have to say also that I thoroughly enjoyed the CFSC and restricted courses. I previously held an FAC, then a POL and then upgraded to RPAL; going into the course I already felt I knew enough, and probably could have challenged the test, but I took it with friends instead. And it turned out maybe I did learn a thing or two - especially when it came to the laws. This is likely where I get my sense of value in people taking the course in general because for me it was a positive experience.
[/Largely irrelevant observations on training]

I hear you. These observations aren't necessarily irrelevant on the validity and effectiveness of training itself though, but rather irrelevant for what should be the criterias for making it mandatory. Glad you enjoyed it though. I personally didn't. The trainer was at times ignorant, didn't have a good pedagogical approach, and made unfactual + flat out anti-gun statements throughout. But thats a different discussion!

 

[Foxer]

The database shows a picture of the individual, as rangebob explained. So you have to either fake the database to look like you (because showing up with a fake license with your photo on it would not match the database), or fake your appearance into looking exactly like the database + drivers license photo. And even if that could be "easily" done, it would still be a problem with the current PAL licenses. Its in fact easier with the PAL system, because if someone can so easily fake a drivers license, then they can do so with a PAL too...but without the added security of being compared with a database at time of purchase.

This whole identity theft thing just isn't even an argument. All it is, is grasping at straws.

This is something that happens right now with regular driver's license pictures. The pictures don't really look the same as people do in real life and right now people use other people's driver's licenses with rather shocking regularity. You don't have to look anything even remotely close to 'exact' for it to work. What you're doing there is pinning the whole thing on a low paid or minimum wage employee and hoping that works out Cops are a little different but cops aren't the ones selling the guns. And if a cop is checking someone at the side of the road - they have to go back to their car to access the computer so all they can look at is the photo id they've taken from the driver, so now they're comparing a picture and a picture.

We haven't even gotten into falsified drivers licenses yet. A few years back, 2000 forms went mission from the richmond driver's licensing center and it turned out that they'd also been giving licenses to people for money without any tests or anything like that (chinese mostly). Even without someone on the 'inside', its not that hard to do. But at least all of that is a LITTLE complicated.

Now you're quite correct, this can happen with the current pal's as well. But the thing is - if i'm trying to pretend i have a pal, i have to actually know someone who's got one that i can fake being. I have to have very specific information on that person. Under the plan RB is proposing, I just have to pretend to be anybody else other than me. That is an order of magnitude easier.

It's not grasping at straws at all. Saying draino was as dangerous as a gun was grasping at straws but this is not. And it's just one of the problems with the proposed system. If it were the ONLY issue and the rest was way better then i'd say we'll figure a way around it, criminals will tend go get guns anyway.

 

[sewktbk]

Now you're quite correct, this can happen with the current pal's as well. But the thing is - if i'm trying to pretend i have a pal, i have to actually know someone who's got one that i can fake being. I have to have very specific information on that person. Under the plan RB is proposing, I just have to pretend to be anybody else other than me. That is an order of magnitude easier.

Not quite right.
1- You have to pretend to be someone you at the very least somewhat resemble in phyisical appearance (because their photo would show up at time of purchase for comparison), which in itself is not some sort of easy peasy task
2- you have to know this person would show up as "allowed" in the system, which you don't (unlike a PAL, that tells you right then and there that this person can buy guns, which is argueably a way bigger problem)
3- you have to get a hold of this person's driver's license/info

So no, not exactly easier at all. The two systems require identification of the purchaser with a government-issued card. But only one system provides the security of comparing that ID with official/judicial information, that has to match at the time of purchase.

Saying draino was as dangerous as a gun was grasping at straws but this is not.

Refer to post #134. I'd gladly continue the debate using any example you like. But I'm already doing that with DanN, and debate is more constructive and calm with him.

And it's just one of the problems with the proposed system. If it were the ONLY issue and the rest was way better then i'd say we'll figure a way around it, criminals will tend go get guns anyway.

So why even bring it up if you know there are ways to solve those issues? That seems highly disingenuous. Which in turn makes me question that you migh in fact know that RB's system could be made to work, but refuse to acknowledge in order to not have to admit
the plausibility of a system that would prove your intial beliefs wrong.

 

[Foxer]

You've been proposing variations on that for years (sometimes without the 'background check' and sometimes without any 'revoke'),

No variations. About the same thing, perhaps worded differently.

but it doesn't handle the Gakhal situation.

It handles it exactly the same as yours. And no it's not really different than the current licensing system, it just guarnatees that if you've bought a gun you own it for life without anything expiring, it firms up 'shall issue' a little, and removes the whole thing from the criminal code.

If we include the training database as part of the authorization, then identifying someone with that is precisely as hard as identifying someone with a PAL.

With mine if someone steals your wallet they won't find a PAL.
With mine if you report your wallet stolen, that will land in FIP until you get new ID (driver's licence) and your old ID is revoked.

Don't need a pal with yours - just need the driver's license. That's the beauty of your system for the criminal, i don't have to pretend to be someone specific, just someone other than myself.

With my system you have a choice
a) if you don't want a PAL, you can be checked whenever you make a purchase
b) if you make a lot of purchases and don't want to be checked whenever that happens, you can get a card (PAL-like, PAL-lite, same as you suggested here -> )

Ok. Lets stop and reveiw here.

Your system requires the police to actually do the same thing as licensing, which is to make a determination that someone is 'accepted' or 'rejected', and has whatever other requirements the gov't has, just like our current licensing. The only difference is that it will be in one database instead of another. It does require that the address information be up to date just like our current requirements so that this information can be verified each time and given to whomever you're buying the gun from (nice btw - handy list for sellers as to what your address is, no potential for issues there). A picture must be maintained now in this database that's up to date (presumably if you let it get older you wouldn't be allowed to buy a gun) so one way or another you have to make sure the gov't has a picture of you every few years, just like we do now. And somewhere there has to be a training database but it won't be on the police system but if for some reason those two systems aren't talking then you can't even own a gun, because the police can't verify you're eligible.

And because it tracks every purchase, it's basically a registry for the cops.

So how is your system any different at all from licensing as far as what happens to us? How would this be any better?

And as far as the 'accepted' or 'rejected' thing goes, once again who decides that? Because your statement that the only time anyone would access it would be when a gun is purchased or a cop checks you cannot be true - at some point whether there's a list of licensees OR a list of bad guys, someone had to create that list. Unless you've explained it wrong and a cop basically has to actually check all the information and 'pass' you on the spot reading thru the reports himself. Which obviously will take hours. So - without that someone has to make a list of all people who have 'firearms questionable' criminal records or the like or flag the people or so on, As you say it's a list of criminals - someone still has to compile that. And then we have the issues of abuse where some cop decides this report from a neighbour has more weight than the last cop thought and you should have your guns seized while we work this out.

I don't see any difference in costs at all.

And to top it all off, now you've got the ADDED Complication that some people will be using a certificate, others will not, etc etc.

This is all basically some twisted effort attempting for reasons other than practical ones to 'track criminals not gun owners', even tho we'd still need to track who's actually bought guns and who had safety training etc etc.

this doesn't make anything better for us, it sure as hell doesn't make us any safer, and it has a much higher potential for abuse by the cops. And i'm still not quite sure how it works with private sellers, so i have to sell you a gun in front of a computer to properly check who you are?

It's a mess - and it would quickly become an expensive mess as they tried to 'fix' problems. And if for some reason a cop couldn't verify your info (system down, too far away from coverage, etc) they could seize your guns till it got 'sorted'.

Why bother with that kind of insane complicated mess? Just make it simple, no 20 page questionares etc etc, just "have you passed your test" and "is their a background problem" (you tell me that can be found out in 'seconds'), there you go it's processed. 5 minutes tops. Print that card, get it in the mail.

Now - the problem you're going to run into is that right now they do 'references'. And people really like the idea of 'references' when it comes to gun owners. And your system could incorporate that the same way it does 'saftey training' but really now you're NO different than licensing. My system would also be slowed down by it but it wouldn't be a 'criminal' issue so at least we still keep the certification process out of the hands of the law.

But other than that all you've done is create a 'paperless' license system that's arguably worse than what we have now.

 

[DanN]

OK good. I like these examples. Judging by their nature, I suppose you'd include in that list owning and operating airplanes, even small ones, because well, they can drop on people and kill them. Fair assumption?

Well, given that we already have mandatory training and licensing to operate an airplane, yes. But to to simply own (as a collector, or the "mobility van" example), no.

Now, since those are equally dangerous as guns, we have to be philosophically consistent in how we want to tailor and apply the mandatory training + licensing measures for ownership.

I thought we excluded basic ownership earlier (If you're going to collect firearms with no intent to use them, you should have no requirement for ammunition).

So. Do you think that like guns, it should be a criminal offense to own or operate cars and planes (or do homemade electrical work) without proper mandatory training and licensing?

Criminal - generally not, unless used in the commission of another criminal offence, or certain other prescribed criminal offences, much like cars are handled now. (Careless driving is not a criminal offence, but dangerous driving is, for example)

I guess. But there are two things here.

First is that this all has to do with how guns are demonized, which is a direct result of ignorance and the "deresponsiblization" of individuals...which in my view is the true problem. I would suggest that this is a much larger educationnal issue that needs to be addressed way earlier in life and within perhaps the school system. This of course has greater, maybe more complex implications in terms of how it can be solved, since they have to do with societal values. But ya, that might be the true hard part. Its also why in my view gun-control laws always have been and can only be bandaid solutions for a problem that requires surgery.

Education of the general public on firearms laws will help to reduce the demonization of guns and gun owners; this is what the CCFR is trying to do. Really though, there will always be people who flat out believe all guns are evil and no one should have them, no matter what you tell them; you'll never get rid of all the windy wendys of the world. Would be nice to limit their expansion, however. I really doubt that we could ever convince the general population that firearms safety should be taught in schools again; just too much stigma there. And around here they can barely keep the after-school basketball program alive, and that doesn't scare the left in the least.

As a gun owning parent I have taken it upon myself to educate my kids about guns and gun safety. My 13 YO daughter has recently discovered the joys of the Browning 1911-22, and my 11 YO son can split a playing card with my Dad's old single shot Winchester 22 at 15 yds every trigger pull on iron sights. Now when they talk to their friends about it, they do it with the point of view from a positive experience. Hopefully that will influence their friends positively, too.

Second is that I still can't bring myself to seeing validity in the implementation of legislation just so people can feel better. It encourages and enables simplemindedness and the dumbing down of a people.

I don't think you mean to try and argue that training doesn't improve performance, otherwise schools would be useless. The benefit of training gun owners has the side effect of making others feel better, and by "feel better" we really mean "feel safer". While it may be difficult to prove with data we have today whether or not firearms training really does improve safety, I don't think either of us could generate a reasonable argument that would posit that training makes people more dangerous or even less safe.

I hear you. These observations aren't necessarily irrelevant on the validity and effectiveness of training itself though, but rather irrelevant for what should be the criterias for making it mandatory. Glad you enjoyed it though. I personally didn't. The trainer was at times ignorant, didn't have a good pedagogical approach, and made unfactual + flat out anti-gun statements throughout.

Sounds like you got stuck with a dud. Sorry to hear that. Our instructor was an enthusiast, and quite passionate on the topic.

Having had the opportunity to sit down and have a few beers with Rod Giltaca (CCFR President), I can tell you that he is also very knowledgeable and passionate on the subject. He's well spoken and down to earth, and I'd love to take some of his more advanced courses through Civil Advantage. I didn't take his CFSC, but I have heard that he doesn't pull any punches when it comes to pointing at how ridiculous our current firearms law regime is. If you've seen any of his Civil Advantage youtube videos you'll know what I mean.

 

[sewktbk]

Well, given that we already have mandatory training and licensing to operate an airplane, yes. But to to simply own (as a collector, or the "mobility van" example), no.

I thought we excluded basic ownership earlier (If you're going to collect firearms with no intent to use them, you should have no requirement for ammunition).

We did? I was under the impression you still thought licensing was needed for acquisition since it would by default mean there was an intended use.
And about ammunition....are you suggesting then that perhaps only ammunition sales should be regulated? Because empty guns aren't really an issue?

Criminal - generally not, unless used in the commission of another criminal offence, or certain other prescribed criminal offences, much like cars are handled now. (Careless driving is not a criminal offence, but dangerous driving is, for example)

So can you propose a government-controlled licensing system that doesn't criminalize mere possession of a firearm, all while taking into account the realities of our current criminal code legislation?

Education of the general public on firearms laws will help to reduce the demonization of guns and gun owners; this is what the CCFR is trying to do. Really though, there will always be people who flat out believe all guns are evil and no one should have them, no matter what you tell them; you'll never get rid of all the windy wendys of the world. Would be nice to limit their expansion, however. I really doubt that we could ever convince the general population that firearms safety should be taught in schools again; just too much stigma there. And around here they can barely keep the after-school basketball program alive, and that doesn't scare the left in the least.

As a gun owning parent I have taken it upon myself to educate my kids about guns and gun safety. My 13 YO daughter has recently discovered the joys of the Browning 1911-22, and my 11 YO son can split a playing card with my Dad's old single shot Winchester 22 at 15 yds every trigger pull on iron sights. Now when they talk to their friends about it, they do it with the point of view from a positive experience. Hopefully that will influence their friends positively, too.

I don't think you mean to try and argue that training doesn't improve performance, otherwise schools would be useless. The benefit of training gun owners has the side effect of making others feel better, and by "feel better" we really mean "feel safer". While it may be difficult to prove with data we have today whether or not firearms training really does improve safety, I don't think either of us could generate a reasonable argument that would posit that training makes people more dangerous or even less safe.

Sounds like you got stuck with a dud. Sorry to hear that. Our instructor was an enthusiast, and quite passionate on the topic.

Having had the opportunity to sit down and have a few beers with Rod Giltaca (CCFR President), I can tell you that he is also very knowledgeable and passionate on the subject. He's well spoken and down to earth, and I'd love to take some of his more advanced courses through Civil Advantage. I didn't take his CFSC, but I have heard that he doesn't pull any punches when it comes to pointing at how ridiculous our current firearms law regime is. If you've seen any of his Civil Advantage youtube videos you'll know what I mean.

I've come to know Rod on a first name basis over the years and I've had food and drinks with him too some years back. As you can see I have trouble with some of the mission statements from the CCFR and disagree with their training/licensing stance. I've also been shocked by some comments they have made in the media not too long ago, which argueably were a big no-no if the goal was to educate people. But although I might disagree with Rod and the CCFR and have different beliefs than them on certain aspects, I've always had very pleasant interactions with Rod, do appreciate his peoples + communications skills, and I do think the mission of educating the non-gun owners and fence-sitters is a widely important one (if done correctly, which might require some work). But if there's a man for that job in the activism branch of the gun community in Canada, its definitely him for the moment, even if I wished some of his views were different.

 

[Foxer]

1- You have to pretend to be someone you at the very least somewhat resemble in phyisical appearance, which in itself is not some sort of easy peasy task

Well you would - but that actually is remarkably easy-peasy. It's something that happens all the time. It might shock you.

2- you have to know this person would show up as "allowed" in the system, which you don't (unlike a PAL that tells you right then and there that this person can buy guns, which is argueably a bigger problem)

Well thats true. Mind you the vast majority of people would show up 'allowed' and you could improve those odds radically with just a little observation. - unless of course there is a requirement for safety training, in which case you would never know who was 'qualified' unless you knew that person very very well, etc. But - really why are we bothering with the changes if we have to be 'pre-approved' anyway?

3- you have to get a hold of this person's driver's license/info

Well that's the easiest thing in the world. Again - that's a daily problem right now.

So no, not exactly easier at all.

Much much much easier. Unless there's pre-requirements like training or the like, then it would be very different. But if we're getting 'pre cleared' by the cops, then this is just paperless licensing and i have to ask what's the point?

Refer to post #134. I'd gladly continue the debate using any example you like.

so we have the examples there of people working on their own electrics, driving vehicles, and aircraft.

the problem is we've addressed most of those before. "electrical work" gets a little messy because some stuff is code controlled already and some isn't and it's kind of complex, but bottom line is there are rules governing it.

The others - We've been over that ground. You need a license to operate vehicles because that's when they're dangerous, and generally only when they're around other people, you can kill yourself on your own property at you leisure But it's actually very difficult to have a fatality occur with a vehicle that's not moving, or not out on public roads. Even if a kid gets into it there's only so much he can do. So the requirements are tailored to the nature of the threat.

A gun can be dangerous the moment someone picks it up. And anyone can pick it up. And it's not just dangerous to that person, but to all kinds of people in the immediate vicinity. And we know this is a threat because every year some kid will get ahold of a non secured gun and shoot someone. WE don't hear about the ones where they shoot by accident and miss but we do hear about the ones where some other person is injured or killed. That's a real issue.

I other words - while a vehicle has the potential to be as dangerous as a gun (and remember we're only taking 'accidentally', we're not discussing intentional misuse at this time), in reality when it's just sitting there it's 'threat level' is very low for accidental misuse causing serious injury.

Now. The legal expectation in Canada is that gov'ts and people will take "reasonable" steps to "minimize" threats. The legal principle also recognizes that there are legitimately times when it's necessary to accept slightly elevated risks for practical reasons as long as they're minimized.

An example would be with guns - you can't just grab a gun and starts shooting it without a license currently - EXCEPT - if you're with someone who's trained. It's the same gun, it's just as 'dangerous', but the danger is seriously mitigated by the presence of someone who can instruct you and while it's still arguably more dangerous than if you'd been trained yourself it's kind of necessary for practical reasons. Or sustinance hunters, where it's recognized that it's not practical to require them to have training and licensing because of their remote circumstances, so a higher level of danger is tolerated out of practical necessity.

So you can't just say something is 'as dangerous' as a gun. A car is - but only when it's on the road and interacting with other people so to speak. And licensing addresses that specific circumstance. A gun improperly stored is at high risk for accident and so licensing addresses the issue of simply having one in your posession.

Keeping that in mind - are there any examples of things that are not regulated that you can think of that are as 'dangerous' as guns?

So why even bring it up if you know there are ways to solve those issues? That seems highly disingenuous.

Ok. First off, you keep using the word 'disingenuous. To quote indigo - "I do not think this word means what you think it does".

And second - that's how you get people's back up and then they will tend to treat you with a lack of respect because you're being a d*nk. Watching you interact with Dan I'm inclined to give you a bit of a second chance, but don't blow it.

If you look closely at what I said - I said if this was the ONLY problem we could probably fix it good enough and all be happy. But - if we've still got a mess after we fix it, what is the point? If your car has a flat tire, you can probably fix the tire and have a good car again, but if the tire's gone, the engine is cracked, the tranny is shot and the string to your fuzzy size broke... There's not much point in just fixing the tire and maybe you need to be looking at a new car

Now we're kind of getting into two seperate general questions here - 1) do firearms represent enough of a threat to safety that it is reasonable and prudent to expect that people will have training and restrictions (like background checks) just to possess them even if they're not using them, and 2) if so, is 'licensing' an appropriate way to address that.

If we assume the answer to 1 is yes for the purposes of discussing 2, then I would suggest that licensing as we know it today is not really appropriate. I think in general we agree on that, what we have is really not a 'good' system. It works, more or less, sort of, but it's unnecessarily onerous, and it has several 'features' which I feel are not in keeping with established legal principles.

My problem with RB's proposal is that it essentially re creates the licensing system and removes only one of the problems I have with it while leaving all of the rest of the problems in place and in fact adding some new ones that we'd have to deal with. And I don't for a minute think it would be cheaper.

Which is why I would tend to favour a certification system administered under Civillian law which is lifetime and permenant unless revoked by cause which simply says 'have you passed your safety training and a background check?" If so - here's your certification and we need not speak to you again. The gov't can then pass criminal law addressing USE of guns, etc. And if someone makes a complaint that a judge feels is serious enough you must be notified and it cannot be revoked without cause and you are provided with the details and given a chance to fight it, but unless a judge actually orders you to turn over your guns you're not a criminal for possessing them.

this system is flexible, it's easy, we already do this for hunters and other groups, it's cheap, and it allows for the anti's to throw things on while they're in power while still making it easy to remove what they did later. Becasue that's going to happen. This is the real world. And it prevents any change in status without notification and due process.

So there you are. The answer to the first question is that guns tend to represent a higher level of danger just being in your posession than vehicles or other 'dangerous' things, and if we accept that its' reasonable and prudent to require that people mitigate that I think there's better systems than the one RB is proposing.