CTV News | Coroner seeks ban on gun used in Dawson shooting

Top Stories -   

Coroner seeks ban on gun used in Dawson shooting

Viewer

CTV News Video

Canada AM: Quebec Coroner Dr. Jacques Ramsay on his report on the Dawson College shootings
CTV News: Genevieve Beauchemin reports
CTV Montreal: Correspondents cover the findings
CTV Newsnet: Quebec coroner Jacques Ramsey speaks about the Dawson College shootings, part one

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(134)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Thu. Sep. 4 2008 1:14 PM ET

The coroner probing the deadly 2006 Dawson College shooting is calling for a ban on semi-automatic weapons like the one used by the gunman.

Coroner Jacques Ramsay released his findings at a news conference in Montreal on Thursday.

Nearly two years earlier, on Sept. 13, 2006, Kimveer Gill went on a shooting spree at the English-language college in Montreal, killing student Anastasia De Sousa and wounding 20.

Gill was then wounded by police, but managed to take his own life before they could make an arrest.

Gill used a Beretta CX4 Storm semi-automatic carbine, and a handgun in the violent rampage -- weapons he acquired legally.

In his report, Ramsay called on the government to ban the semi-automatic weapon, saying the gun should be subject to laws restricting sales of paramilitary-style firearms which are lighter, more accurate and more easily handled.

Ramsay also said in the report that federal and provincial gun registries should be more accessible to some health and education officials. He said a school principal could use the list to determine whether a student owns a gun.

New details

In the news conference, Ramsay provided details about the events on Sept. 13. He said Gill had taken a few drinks before he stormed the school, but was not drunk.

Gill fired 72 times with the semi-automatic rifle and six times with a handgun, Ramsay said.

De Sousa was riddled with bullets, Ramsay said, sustaining 10 shots to the front and the back.

Since the tragedy, Dawson College has worked to improve its emergency preparedness plan to prevent future incidents.

Ramsay said in his report that police should work with schools to help them fine-tune emergency plans and set up an effective communication plan for crisis situations..

He also called for police cruisers to be equipped with GPS systems to improve deployment and tracking during emergencies.

'Anastasia's Law'

On the same day the coroner released his report, Quebec Public Security Minister Jacques Dupuis announced further additions to the bill named after Anastasia De Sousa that came into effect on Sept. 1.

The bill bans guns from schools, daycare centres and public transit, and requires professionals such as doctors and psychologists to report signs of high risk behavior

Under the proposed additions to the bill, anyone applying for a gun licence will be required to make application to local police first.

"Often, local police know their citizens better, so they might say 'listen, we have to investigate this request because maybe this person could present problems eventually,'" Dupuis said.

"The public interest commands that we address these questions seriously."

Dupuis indicated he plans to introduce the amendments in the fall.

Under existing legislation, said CTV Montreal's John Grant, gun licence applicants submit their completed application to a gun shop. It is then forwarded to police.

Dupuis' proposed amendments would require personal contact between police and applicants.

"He says the advantage now is your first contact with the system is your local police station, and they're not looking at a piece of paper, they're looking at a person. He thinks that's going to bring an extra bit of security to the system, and to all of us," Grant said. 

Comments are now closed for this story

Todd - Edmonton
said

Why is the typical response to a tragedy like this to punish law-abiding citizens by imposing a ban? It will not reduce violent incidents. That's what the gun registry was supposed to do, right?


D in Calgary
said

That's right, ban the gun, cause it's the guns fault. Drunk driving is the number one criminal killer in Canada, but no one is talking about prohibition to end drunk driving. That's because for every moron who can't drink responsibly there are several who can. It's the same with firearms. There are millions of hunters and target shooters in Canada who are responsible firearm owners, why should the responsible pay the price for the irresponsible? If the answer is "the one life it would save", I refer to my earlier point and recommend we go after the elephant and leave the mouse alone.


Marcel
said

I agree with the recommendations of the coroner that their should be a ban on semi-automatic rifles. Unfortunately, Mr. Harper and his extreme right-wing government will not follow up on this recommendation because they do not believe in the gun registry. I willing to bet that all police forces in this country will be pushing hard that this ban come into effect. Thank you


Frank in Winnipeg
said

I have to agree that Semi-Automatic weapons should NOT be allowed in any college, except at RMC (Royal Military College), where they are training our Canadian troops.


D Snider
said

Yet again another inquiry that reccomends measures that dont work. When will it become clear that laws only regulate the lawful. Criminals and the criminally insane do not obey laws. The real lesson of Dawson is that the immediate presence of armed and trained protectors saved many lives. Perhaps if the young man who had to watch miss DeSousa die in his arms was so trained, or Ms DeSousa herself, were so armed Gill may have been stopped before anyone lost their life to his criminal violence.


Ryan Nova Scotia
said

There have been many deaths over the years that can be attributed to driving, lets ban cars!


Bee
said

Banning guns will do nothing. You'll just end up with the same situation in the UK where they are now experiencing an epidemic of knife killings. Shall we ban kitchen knives too?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080711/britain_knife_080711/20080712?hub=World

If someone is hell-bent on committing this type of crime, they will find the weapons to do so (ie. on the street). Banning them from law-biding citizens solves nothing.


bunny
said

You can ban all you want.But sadly if someone wants it badly enough, they will manage to get it. Gun smuggling is huge all over the world.Law abiding citizens don't carry weapons,thugs do


Kevin
said

Semi-auto firearms are used by average citizens millions of times a year without any problems. Perhaps concentrating on the person and not the tool would be a wiser decision.



A farmer's view
said

Please ban these weapons. They are not needed to shoot the groundhogs that are eating my crops. They are for one purpose only and that is to kill. If we do not ban them we are in fact supporting their use. This is not the message we should promoting.


Jasper
said

Knives should be banned too. There have been a number of fatal stabbings in our city in the past couple years. People will just have to learn to chew their food better.


David in Toronto
said

Banning semi-autos is just smoke and mirrors. It won't do a thing to protect anybody and will only affect people like me who've actually gone out of their ways to obey our currently repressive firearms laws. Perhaps allowing law abiding citizens to properly protect themselves should be the real debate.


E. Joudrey.
said

The Anistasia law is a joke!
It would not have prevented Dawson from happeing! we just had a nutter kill 8 people with a car.

you can't ban nut bars nor can one legislate every human ill out of existence. these goof balls will always find away to take life
the only thing that prevented Dawson from becoming worse was another gun why not armed security trained to handle such crisis .....oh wait that might actually deter something.
gun bannes prevent Nothing look at Jamaica and the UK
The only reason the coroner want guns banned is to improve business.


Robert Brise
said

Gun bans don't work!!!
Instead of trying to ban guns why don't we allow the educators of these schools carry a gun? I believe that these wackos would think twice about entering a place that would have people that could shoot back. They never try that at a police station!!!


Lart from Above
said

Typical gun-nut comments: Laws don't work. Let's get rid of all laws.

The reality is that we need to change our culture to not accept private gun ownership as a social norm, and banning the worst weapons in law is a first step. Many weapons are stolen; take away the source of stolen weapons, and fewer criminals will have guns. This is obvious. Canada's existing gun laws are the main reason the level of gun-related violence in Canada is much lower than in the United States.

Kimveer Gill was obsessed with guns, he went to gun clubs, he took three legal weapons to shoot random bystanders and then killed himself. No after-the-fact "tough on crime" legislation could have stopped him. The way to stop shooters from shooting people is to take away their guns. There's no benefit to society that justifies this kind of violence.


A law abiding, tax paying Canadian gun owner
said

Silly knee jerk reactionary thinking from uniformed leftist dolts.

Why don't we just ban murder.

Wait...what?

The UK and Austrailia effectively banned civilian ownership of firearms and they can't keep the illegal guns out...and they are both ISLANDS! How do you think we would fair considering we share the worlds longest undefended border in the world with the US?

If they do ban guns in Canada, I am coming after your golf culbs. After all people are needlessly killed on the links every year, not to mention the huge waste of prime real estate that could be used for subsidised housing. Besides you don't NEED to play golf. If it saves just one life!

Be careful what freedoms you are willing to deal off, idiots.


Ian
said

If the shooter wasn't able to legally obtain a semi-automatic handgun, he might have settled for a manually-reloading handgun. It might have changed the outcome of events, and it might not.

The question is not "What would the shooter have wanted to use?" The question should be "Why is it legal to purchase a semi-automatic handgun?"


dulak
said

Marcel,

The gun registry does not work. The weapons used in the Dawson shooting were registered firearms. A criminal is not going to say, "Oh, I have a registered firearm...I can't commit this crime."

Anyhow, if all these recommendations were followed, we'd all have to live in bubbles.


Erik In Ontario
said

It would make sense to legislate the size of the clips to hold ammunition. No reason that a clip for ANY new gun should hold more than three bullets. It won't solve the problem but it will make it more difficult when a maniac decides try to harm innocent people.


Shaun
said

All typical responses from people that have never fired a semi-automatic gun.
Please tell me what the purpose of a semi-automatic is besides military use.
There's a purpose for knives, cars, and of course beer.
If I snapped one day and decided to go on a killing spree do you think that it may be tougher or even more expensive to acquire a semi automatic if there was a ban?
Why make it easier to kill?




Steve
said

The problem here is the term "semi-automatic weapons". If you get some legislator from the GTA who has never seen a gun in their lives, you could end up with a law that bans every semi-automatic gun. That would include many of the shotguns and rifles used by hunters and farmers across the country.



Edb
said

By this joker's logic, every lawful firearms owner is a potential murderer. If so, then every lawful driver must be a potential drunk driver. Therefore ban all vehicles with a maximum speed over 5 mph.
This nonsense has to stop. How about banning CRIMINALS.
What can I say comrades....don't register your gun, register your vote!


Jack M., Calgary
said

Semi-automatic weapons have absolutely no purpose other than to kill. To have them available to other than law enforcement and military is ludicrous. Gun control is the 'law of the land' and should be fully enforced. The battle over gun control is over!


Raj
said

"Ramsay also said health and education professionals, such as a school principal, should be able to have access to the federal and Quebec gun registries to see whether a student or patient, for example, has a gun."


Great Idea make the registry accessible so criminals have a shopping list to choose from. I own Knives should doctors be notified about them. Its about time we scrap the registry and its 2 BILLION dollar price tag with that money effective solutions could have been implemented. Gun control does not work Jamaica banned all civilian guns in 1976 and now has the second highest crime rate in the world.


Mike Thomlinson
said

What difference does it make whether he used a semi-auto, a bolt action or a large pointy stick? It's already illegal to transport this restricted firearm to a school, it's illegal to discharge it outside a range, and it's certainly illegal to kill people. What is one more law going to matter to an unbalanced criminal?


The only legislation that has a proven track record of detering violent crime is CCW. Get some.


Mark
said

In history, internationally speaking, some of the worst and most horrific school massacres in the past 80 years were committed with explosives, a knife, and a home made flame thrower.

The worst attack in a school in the US was when a man blew up a chool in the 1930s.

One of, if not the worst school attack in Germany was in the early 1960s and was done with an improvised flamethrower.

The worst school massacre in Japan was just a few years ago and was done with one man with a knife.

A semi auto ban will not stop school massacres and is a feel good measure that is the wrong approach to the problem.
The three largest massacres in the Unitied States did not involve a gun. Oklahoma city was done with imrpovised explosives. 9/11 was done with planes and box cutters. And the nightclub murder in New York City in 1990 killed 87 people with legally bought, seventy five cents of gasoline and a paper match.

Should we ban gasoline as a preemptive measure too? After all a liter or two of gasoline has the potential of killing a building full of students.


Tim
said

Why are people protesting the ban of semi-automatics? You don't need them to hunt. Civilians should not have the right to use semi-automatics. You right wingers are wrong in saying this is a bad thing. We aren't outlawing all guns, we're outlawing the ones that tend to be more devastating in the wrong hands. It's like saying we should allow people the right to buy hand grenades because, hell, there's a whole lot of people out there who won't use them to kill people. The only use of a gun is to kill or injure. Knives are used in the kitchen. Cars are a mode of transportation. Thus, a ban on guns (especially semi-automatics)is an appropriate response.


Reece
said

Here we go again, the gun lobby is claiming it's not the gun but the person - much like the pitbull society claiming it's the owners not the dog. Let's get one thing straight...guns & pitbulls attract a certain species of human beings. If they aren't dying from self-inflicted wounds from a semi-automatic, they are getting mauled by their own dogs; it goes with the territory. The rest of us have to hope we don't get victimized in the process. Right now there is no law banning a mentally unstable person from owning such weapons as evident with Mr Gill.

I agree with Mr Ramsey...the registry should be fully accessable to mental health workers, employers or school officials. The pro-weapons lobby will argue against it because it's not the weapon that kills, it's the psycopaths that are allowed to own them that kill - okay then.


Joel - Calgary
said

We have been so disarmed in this country by bleeding heart liberal politicians the citizenry is helpless. What if someone at the shooting could have defended themselves with a handgun and stopped Kimveer Gill? Yet instead of looking at all the potential options for safety, the only reaction is to try to take guns away from law abiding people. Wake up liberals!!! Banning things does not stop their use or violence in society. Street drugs are illegal, that ban has really been effective.


Michel
said

Talk about clueless politicians... it's always been illegal to bring a firearm to school to threaten/hurt/kill someone, making it doubly illegal won't change anything!!!

How many more innocent death will it take for our elected officials to address the real problems, there are lots of sick and disturbed individuals out there and what they need is help... not another futile piece of legislation.


Peace at last
said

Think of the world we would live in if we all carried guns. We could quickly settle any disagreement. Heck we wouldn't wouldn't have to be civilized at all. I could shoot a stranger at my door if he frightened me. If everyone was armed we could all sleep well at night knowing we could shoot anyone that just might cross us. Whew, peace at last.


W Hunt - Toronto
said

Why does a law abiding citizen need a semi-automatic gun? As noted in earlier posts criminals will get guns whether they are banned or not, but why make it easy for them to get. Semi-automatic weapons are not needed for hunting or self-protection.


Scott
said

Since when is a medical doctor an expert on firearms?

" paramilitary-style firearms which are lighter, more accurate and more easily handled" he says.

Semi-autos are typically heavier than other firearms due to more moving parts, are inherently LESS accurate for the same reason. There is a reason that deer hunters typically use bolt action rifles instead of semiautos. Bolt actions shoot more accurately, are very easy to handle, and are typically light weight for carrying. Plus most hunting rifles are far more powerful than any "paramilitary" style rifle (whatever that means).


MHR
said

Agreeable - I personally don't see the reason to use machine gun or these guns at all.

Most of the time guns doesn't help you defend yourself in many case.

That is my opinion based on what I see so far that everyperson has gun end up dead.

Why not BAN them and it will limited numberous of guns coming into country and we can focus on tracking guns to dealer when crime occur because we've banned all guns so police won't waste time going to gun store!!!!

BAN THEM! Mark my word it will help alot.


Reid
said

Since "ban guns" seems to be the solution to gun violence for some why not go a step further? Don't those same people realize we can end all crime by simply putting in place a ban on all criminals?


MHR
said

After reading these comment, I have a brillant plan since nobody seem to think ban is going to work. I have a idea, we should keep Gun resistry and we should start charge anybody buying firearm 50 times. We will have billions dollars income and we can use them on educating people & change our society into not accepting firearms.

That idea could actually work! More money to increase police at gun owner's expense. That could work.

I think if I am Harper, I should go for that and I'd vote for him.


Buck
said

Its comical (yet scary) to watch people who understand nothing about firearms talk about what should be banned and what shouldn't.
The difference between emptying the clip of a semi-auto vs a bolt, lever or pump action is a matter of seconds. So, please explain how this incident would have ended any differently if semi-autos where banned.


Jason C
said

Absolutely ridiculous, to say that the only reason semi-automatics exist is to kill is like saying the only reason automatic transmissions exist is to make it easier to drive while drunk, where is the logic? Should we ban automatic transmissions in a car because it makes it easier to drive drunk, while talking on a phone or while eating? None of these activities contribute to safer roads, but nobody is talking about this. Get realistic people, banning semi-automatics is like banning automatic can openers, just because it opens the can faster does not mean that you cannot open your can without it. Knee jerk reaction, that is all this is...again. Legal firearms owners (target shooters and sportsmen) are not the culprits. Guns do not kill people, people kill people, and they could do that just as easy with a pointy stick (quickly, lets ban ski poles, and trees, they can be made into pointy sticks).

The only thing you would be doing by banning firearms is just making the lives of criminals easier, knowing that they are the only ones with them. You do not hear about the school shootings that were stopped as a result of responsible gun owners taking swift action to end or prevent a rampage.


James in New Brunswick
said

Wow! I can't believe the recommendations being made!

As far as I know there are no "provincial gun registries", only the federal gun registry so how would a "health and education official" access this data. And WHY does a school principal have a need to access this info "to determine whether a student owns a gun"!!!!

There are already strict requirements in terms of training and background checks before a licence to own or purchase a firearm will be granted; requirements that are even stricter for those who are authorized to own or purchase restricted weapons. This system is wildly successful, judging by the low incidence of criminal activity by persons who have been screened.

Why is there no questions being asked or comments made regarding how in depth this particular individual's background check was and who signed off on it and why the screening process failed?


stephen
said

dihydrogen monoxide is also a deadly substance ban it too?

Banning every item that may inflict harm is impossible another unenforcable law?


Eric
said

Yeah, make the gun illegal!

'cause this guy, and other people like him, CLEARLY care about not violating laws.


Keith, Halifax
said

There is absolutely no reason for semi-automatic rifles to be available for sale in Canada. There is no better proof about the effectiveness of gun controls than comparing the murder rates in countries that have strong gun controls and those that don’t. Far fewer people are capable of committing murder with a knife so that is and absurd argument. If one really feels the need to express their machismo through a gun they can go play paintball.


DB
said

It's absolutely insane to facilitate these kinds of crimes by allowing people to possess semi-auto firearms. These guns are meant to kill people, not animals. How about letting people carry grenades and bazookas. I bet most would handle them responsibly, so I guess that makes it a good idea...


Civilized Gun Owner
said

As many of my gun owning colleagues have pointed out, "semi-automatic" firearms are not the issue. Other countries (Australia and others) have proven that banning firearms has no effect on murder and crime rates.

I would like to point out that if you choose to ban firearms, the government would legally have to spend billions of dollars reimbursing gun owners and firearms businesses for their investments and lost revenue.

One last point I would make; Hitler also put a firearms ban in place.

THINK ABOUT IT.


Steve in Fredericton
said

Banning S-A weapons is only half a solution. If we as a society are truely serious about ending this form of violence then we require "life-ending" legislation for those who are caught with hand guns or S-A weapons in their possession without the proper permits. It's simple; if you possess an illegal hand gun, you obviously intend to use it to kill. If you intend to kill then you should be prepared to be killed. The end result will either be less of a reliance by criminals on hand guns, or simply less criminals.


Freedom Ain't Free
said

If the government has all the guns, the people don't have freedom.


Paul in BC
said

There is only one purpose for a gun and that is to kill either another species or a human animal. Guns should be banned from cities and towns completely. There is no reason to have a gun, particularly in the city. If you own a farm, lock it up securely, if you target shoot or hunt it should be stored at a club. NO GUNS!


DB
said

Scott,

The point is that it's easier to fire off many rounds into a crowd with semi-auto firearms. Try doing that with a single bolt action hunting rifle.


Andy
said

Sure, ban semi-automatic weapons, it will keep them out of schools and society, just like the ban on drugs keeps cocaine and weed out of schools, bars and society in general


Jack R.
said

To answer some of the same question(s) over and over..
Why do you need a gun like that in the first place? Why shouldn't society limit your rights if it violates everyone else's right (Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Charter of Rights Canada). If the worst thing that will happen is you ban several types of firearms that are designed specifically for combat and human death, and leave other weapons available for hunting, I can't see what you're complaining about except to complain.


Sam Crawford
said

In this case, I agree with banning a particular type of gun. Is there REALLY any need for a semi-automatic rifle?

Any capable hunter can take down game with a bolt-action single-shot rifle; and can re-cock for a second shot, if necessary, in less than a second.

If semi-autos are banned they will be less available to those who will misuse them. A ban may not prevent a similr tragedy from occurring again, but it would reduce the likelihood.


jd_langridge@yahoo.com
said

I cannot understand the logic of some people in this country. And mad man goes on a rampage and kills innocent people, so we should ban guns. I feel for the victims and their families, but it’s not the gun to blame. It’s the psycho who did the killing.
If this psycho didn’t have access to a gun do you think he wouldn’t have done what he did? Of course he would have, he would have found another way to commit this act. Let it be with a knife, a pipe bomb or anything else he could get his hands on.

A gun is a tool nothing more nothing less. It’s no more dangerous than a hammer, or any other tool. It’s the intent of the person that has whatever tool in there hands that makes it dangerous.

So when a drunk driver kills himself and someone else with his car, why don’t we ban cars from the road? Or when someone is stabbed, should we ban knifes? Hell there was a guy killed here in Calgary with a lid from a toilet tank, should we ban bathrooms, and make everyone use outhouses?

Make it an automatic life sentence if someone smuggles illegial firearms into or around Canada. The same if someone uses a firearms for any other crime. Even go as far as the death penalty for a murder that is committed with ANY weapon.
Don't punish and label honest law abiding gun owners for tha ation of one disturbed indiviual.


Simon Shaw
said

Some of us hunt for our food. Listeria free food. Some eat bear, deer and moose. When an angry grizzly, black bear or moose is barreling down at you, breaking through trees as thick as your calf....a semi automatic hunting rifle is the perfect tool to protect your life. A bolt action is much more accurate but try reloading while a bear is a mere 3 meters away. Food for thought.


MAX
said

Maybe we should ban pot, cocaine and crack while we're at it...

...that'd help, right?

Sure..


A bodyguard for everyone?
said

I am sure people will respond with the usual ridiculous emotional overreaction, but what if the adult students had guns, legally licensed firearms, with them at the time the gunman went on a gunfire rampage? This was pointed out after the Virginia Tech shootings. What if one student of the 20 injured had a gun and fired back, then that student might have saved the others?
I understand the emotional response is to ban something, but if criminals have guns and law-abiding citizens don't, then we are relying on police to be everywhere to defend us, which is impractical. That's like demanding a bodyguard for everyone.
Instead, we prevent people from defending themselves and make them helpless in the face of a gunman. Is that reasonable?


DCR-Toronto
said

Banning guns DO NOTHNG to help. For some reason the FAR left would rather blame a tool than blame the person holding it. Registered or not, banned or not...criminals use guns. Sometimes people just snap. Sometimes people are just bad. This is what happens in life. And before you all jump all over me for saying that, do some research and see what banning guns did for England and Australia. CRIME WENT UP!!! We (society) cannot have these knee-jerk reactions to horrible crimes, or we give up our freedoms at the expense of criminals. And criminals will ALWAYS be around. Sometimes people are just bad and we do our best to protect ourseves from them, not the tools they use. IF it wasn't that gun it would be another, or a cross bow, or a hammer. By the way the FAR left is looking at this, we will be bannign baseballs bats, knives, hammers, spears, cars, ...they all kill right, extreme lefties??
I hate what he did and I hate all people like him, but to ban things because it was a criminals choice in a weapon is absurd. This guy was going to do whatever he wanted and kill himself no matter what.


D in Calgary
said

One of the statements I find frustrating from people who want a ban on firearms is "there is no reason/need for people to own semi-auto firearms". Why are target shooting and collecting not legitamite reasons? If it is the "potential" harm of the tool, that arguement should be applied to alchohol, cigarettes, vehicles that go faster than 110 kms/hr, fast food, rap music (heh heh) and so on.


Frank Buchan
said

I don't own a gun; I don't hunt; I am certain semi-automatic and automatic guns were designed for shooting people (as were handguns). Yet, I think the idea of a ban nonsense for two reasons: first, it won't prevent criminally minded people from killing massive loads of people at once; and second, it would be impossibly expensive to enforce.

Gun ownership isn't a right, but it is a privilege, and taking a privilege away from any free person who has not breeched a law is undemocratic. Creating laws that criminalise ownership of anything is difficult and unproductive. Having said that, if a gun ban is ever sought, it would be wise to do it democratically. Put it to a vote by the populace, with a simple yes/no answer. Majority rules. Until then, dictatorial impositions should never be considered.


Dennis L. Krahn
said

D in Calgary:

You are right, there is no talk of banning liquor or cigarettes because of the revenues generated from their sales.

Perhaps we should look at an attitude adjustment for people who do not know how to behave in a civilised country.

What does shooting ground hogs have to do with shooting a fellow human being?

Shawn: I have fired thousands of rounds through SA weapons; really enjoyed it, never felt the urge to shoot anyone though.


Lane
said

This gentleman may be a superb coroner, but he is obviously no expert on either firearms or crime prevention. The carbine used in this case was NOT "more accurate" than most. In fact, its short barrel and lack of an optical site or scope make it far less accurate than the average hunting rifle. That's probably why Gill fired 70 shots and only killed one person. The fact that it has a "paramilitary" appearance is irrelevant. Also, allowing school officials to access a registry of legally-owned firearms would be a gross violation of both security and privacy. Who else should know if a citizen legally owns a firearm? Our neighbours? Our employers? Our pastors? Our kids' teachers? Our local liquor store staff? Where does it end? And what would prevent those with access from abusing the privilege, or leaking the information to people who would then steal the firearms to commit crimes? Anyway, such information would be as useless as the registry itself, since most of the firearms in Canada are not registered.


Grimly
said

Instead of banning guns why not just ban criminals!! Good luck on that one.


Shawn - Kettleby
said

Increase and enforce mandatory sentences for firearms offenders and violent criminals. Do away with credits for pre-trial incarceration and send a message to criminals that society will not tolerate this type of behaviour. It is unfair that law abiding citizens have to bear the burden of criminal deviants by having our hard earned liberties (ie. firearm ownership)taken away to prevent future enigmatic tragedies.


Mark5
said

We could ban all guns tomorow and killing would still continue.Instead of guns they would use explosives like they do in the middle east, killing even more people.Or some nut case woiuld poison the water supply and kill many more.All this money wasted on feel-good red-herring recommendations and multi-billion dollar registry programs would be much better spent on setting up support agencies and getting marginilzed and depressed people real help.What if Gill had been able to get access to good counseling and to be able and get real help? Instead,millions are wasted on a witch-hunt against innocent gun-owners who have done nothing wrong.As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


Seth
said

Was the gun used during the Dawson College shooting modified?

There may be some websites where you can modify rifles to fire on semi or auto selection. I'm not sure if the shooter researched these websites, but they should be held accountable.

Also, you can try and ban handguns from getting into the country, the criminal will just try another method such as cargo ships.


Rod
said

Calling for a ban on guns is an ignorant and obviously uneducated response. The type of guns used are irrelevant. Banning an object doesn't stop the action from taking place.
If Gil wanted to die that badly, then he would have found a way. Point of fact, Gil was not obsessed with guns. He was obsessed with death.
To the folks who think the gun registry is here to stay... think again. Guess what's about to happen? An election. Guess who's Prime Minister again? You see my point. You're wrong to ban guns and wrong if you think the gun registry is here to stay.


Trent
said

Stop the press, did I read correctly that these firearms were purchased through legal means? Didn't the Liberals say that the Gun Registry was supposed to STOP this kind of crime? A prime example of the Gun Registry being nothing but a waste of money.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the avenues a person has to go through to own a handgun legally it is quite lengthy including various police check-ups. My question is why was nothing discovered or flagged about this man especially with the exotic guns (not your average semi-automatic rifles)he was purchasing.
In response to the anti-gun group on here, the reason why many people here are so adimantly against this is that if this came to law it would not make the streets any safer for the average person and that if they ban semi-auto's next year they may be after anything over a single shot, etc.
Man power and money should be put to a better place such as trying to get the illegal weapons that are aflood in our cities off the streets.


Jack
said

Go ahead and ban that weapon. There is no use for it other than killing people. It is not the type of rifle that a hunter would choose.
It may be the weapon of choice of enforcement agencies or those who work for them but it is not something we want in the hands of the deranged. Nor those members of our society that appear clean but slip back and forth law abiding and law disregarding.


John from Arnprior
said

I don't think it will be necessary to ban all cars. Just the ones that are involved with the majority of deaths. They must go.




EricB
said

The logical fallacies by the gun banning proponents, and indeed the coroner in his recommendations are staggering. It is a pitty when a civil servant puts his pet projects/political agenda ahead of science and facts. All guns in Canada could be banned tomorrow and it would make no difference whatsoever to criminal minds and their actions. Countries similar to Canada that have done this have seen violent crime rates escalate - not decrease. There is no evidence to point that extreme gun laws reduce homicides in general.


Jason Daniel Baker
said

You can forget gun control under this government.

As for gun crime in general all I can see that gun legislation is doing is leading to an increase in stabbings in Toronto and other major urban centres in Canada.


Will
said

An outright ban on all guns would ensure only the police and military have guns. THAT is scary. Banning semi-auto weapons will do nothing to keep Canadians safer. Banning handguns in Ontario will do nothing.
IF people were allowed to carry guns for defense, Mark Lepine and other such nut cases would have been stopped DEAD in thier tracks. The ONLY way to make our streets safer is for "sane" Canadians to arm themselves. Even a nut case won't walk into a mall or school if he knows some of the people or teachers are armed and know how to use thier weapons. This would be the only real deterrent. Why do you think these nut bars don't attack a police station or Military base.....because they don't want people shooting back. What fun would that be.??


Come on people
said

Gun bans have been proven useless in the countries that have enacted them. Whether someone NEEDS something, or if there is a point to having it is irrelevant.

If we were to ban firearms, that would affect alot of normal citizens. The people who want to kill WILL go to another method such as improvised flame throwers and explosives used in previous massacres.


D in Calgary
said

DB
It is not the action of the firearm, or the size of the magazine, but it is the knowledge of firearm and the intent to use it. My father-in-law was trained by the Canadian Forces using a bolt action .303, and because of that training he can put more rounds on target more accurately with a bolt action rifle than I can with a semi auto. It's intent that makes someone a killer.


Gilbert Gour
said

Almost 20 years later….

Almost 20 years ago, I was facing the same uninformed and emotional arguments about guns....

Two billion dollars later, haven't anybody learned something ?

You cannot prevent such terrible events with a prohibition of firearms, and guess what, for the same reason that you cannot prevent the use of illicit and illegal drugs, and the damages that they cause to our society.

So, basically, if I understand correctly, the logic behind the argument is …” If we restrain the availability of firearms, it will be more difficult for an insane individual to find one to do his evil deed…”…. Is that it ?

If firearms are banned, the same individual that sells you your marijuana will be more than happy to find one for you. Profits are profits, whether they sell illegal drugs or gun, the risk and rewards are the same.

Unfortunately, politicians like to waste people time and money as long as that makes them “look” as if they care about their constituents…. At the same time, there will always be people all too willing to sacrifice others liberty in order to “feel protected” by their rulers !

May I suggest to all those that favor firearms prohibition to read another coroner report, the one of Coroner Anne-Marie David.... It was released between 1993 and 1995, I do not remember exactly.

That one did not receive a lot of media coverage since it contradicted the common belief that gun registration could prevent such unthinkable events….

How long will it takes before people understand that the solution does not reside in the control/prohibition of a mechanical tool (that’s what firearms are, after all), but simply to be more aware of your community, of the people that are around you, and to offer help to those in need instead of simply looking away until they “snap”….

But then again, it required self-respect and self-reliance, and an inner sense of respect for others….

Unfortunately, as of September 5th 2008, I have to realize that in every society, some people simply refuse to take on their responsibilities, kneeling, offering their liberties in exchange of, what they perceive, is protection from their government….

Sad !



MM
said

When a shooter has made up his/her mind that they will not be coming out of their actions alive does it really matter what they use to inflict damage to the rest of society? Once a killer has made up their mind registered gun or not they will find a way to inflict damage.

On the defense what do you possibly need a semi-automatic gun for?


RRC
said

A ban on semi-automatic firearms is just the thin end of the wedge, which will ultimately lead to an outright ban on all firearms.

As seen in other jurisdictions banning specific categories of firearms doesn't reduce gun violence. Canadians should be made aware that despite a 10 year-old handgun ban in the UK, gun crime, according to official Home Office statistics, has more than doubled.




Brooke Vaughan
said

I will agree to give up my legally purchased and registered semi automatic shotgun when you agree to the following

1) Give up your vehicles that go over 50 km/hr because you don't need to speed in a city.

2) Give up your cigarettes because I am allergic to smoke.

3) Give up your Alcohol because unlike guns, Alcohol is involved in more spousal assualts, more spousal murders and more rapes and child abuse than another other device.

4) Give up your Alcohol ( again ) because the only purpose of alcohol is to inflat your ego and make you less likely to follow the law.

5) Ban murder because no one needs to commit murder and if we ban it no one will ever kill again.


Doug in Sudbury
said

Why Semi-autos, Same reason people have cars, motorcycles, snowmachines and ATVs. All can be dangerous. Ban guns OK but ban all the above vehicles that are capable of going faster than 100 KPH! Reduce accidents, road racing and while u are at it add a manitory breathalyzer lockout to be used every time the vehicle is started.
I am sure some where along the line someone had contact with this person and came to the conclusion that he was unstable. But to denign the firearms because of this would infringe upon his civil liberties. I have no problem with gun ownership as long as safety trg, safe storage and sanity prevail. I guess the government did not check out this persons references very well before issueing the required licenses.


Grant
said

This is knee-jerk nanny state reactionary garbage, like I'd expect to see out of these kind of people. I don't like gun registry, or invasion of privacy for obvious reasons, but I'll let the experts speak for me.

"Any government that fears guns in the hands of its citizens, should." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
--William Pitt

That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

-George Orwell

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”—Mahatma Gandhi (Autobiography, by M.K. Gandhi, p.446)


A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves. -Edward R. Murrow

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”—The Dalai Lama (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times),

And of course, the gun-control expert himself...

Our new laws restraining otherwise good people from owning and using firearms will be the envy of the civilized world...." -- Adolf Hitler 1938


Scott
said

DB

My point is that Gill only killed one person after firing 72 rounds through an inaccurate relatively low powered weapon. Had he taken a .30-06 bolt action deer rifle and only 10 rounds, he would have killed more people. Even being shot in the leg with that weapon would likely be fatal and hit to the head or torso would be instantly fatal. But because the bolt action is "prettier" and doesn't look "scary" it never gets mentioned ---- YET. If you gun grabbers get your way with semis then bolt actions will be next on the list.


Ian #2
said

I am surprised to see many people's comments regarding banning semi-automatic weapons. Frankly, I'm concerned about all of you who don't agree with this ban. What are your plans with these weapons? I hope you are simply a very loud minority and don't represent most Canadians view. No, banning guns will not prevent every maniac from acquiring a weapon and killing someone. But at least it's a start and it makes a point: guns are dangerous and shouldn't be in anyone's hands. Also, not all guns should be made available to anyone. Some laws don't prevent, they reduce harm/injury/death.
For those comparing this killing spree with drinking and driving and banning alcohol and/or cars, you are simply dim-witted. Drinking and driving is illegal, just like murder. Alcohol is not intended to kill. Neither are cars. Unfortunately, sometimes they do, but at least it's not their primary purpose. Guns are intended to kill and/or destroy. That's why some weapons should be restricted. I don't mind rifles intended for hunting, but as long as it's regulated and there is a mechanism for everyone to know who has one (ie a registry and easy access to it).
Of course a ban will not prevent the illegal purchase of a gun, but it will increase the chances that someone will get caught trying to get one. Most "quiet young men" whom no one would ever suspect to go on a killing spree may actually be deterred from buying a gun like that on the black market.
Yes, they could go on a killing spree with a knife-- but it's hard to conduct mass killing of 20 people with a knife.


Happy Canadian
said

First, I am a past gun owner, both handgun and rifles/shotgun. I am a firm supporter of the right to own and use firearms.
I just gave up the guns and went to a camera instead.

This coroner recommendations are a joke. He is pandering to the media and to the hypocritical masses. His statements show a gross lack of knowledge of the subject. Definitely one of those cases of keeping your mouth shut to prove yourself not a fool.

Comments so far on the board show that many do not understand or do not want anyone else to have anything they do not want.

Right to security and protection? So we give up our right to freedom? This has been done several times in different countries. Russia, Germany, pick a despot country.

This pandering was just shameful. The Libs must love it coming out at this time. Note that a very ineffective program introduced by the Libs failed in this case.

Ban pandering politicians and public servants!! Much more peace for the rest of us!


frederick ward
said

Are we gonna ask to ban cars that drive faster than 100 km h, ban alcool, ban knife, ban propane tank, ban ban gas, ban golf club, baseball bat, what else do you want to ban. a semi auto gun is not more dangereous than any other gun. it is not faster than any other gun.

i have learned at university that to solve a problem you have to find what caused it. in this case it is not gun, but insannity. In street gang criminal shooting is drugs oups is drug illegal in canada? and it is easily available. we should ban drug too.


C from Whitby
said

In response to the comment whereby education officials should be allowed access to information about students that own firearms lawfully. This should never be allowed the student who poses no threat would be recieving an unfair stigma due to a hobby that has nothing to do with their academic studies. It should always be remembered that guns don't kill people: people kill people. If education officials are doing there job properly this type of behavior would not happen.


Lisa G
said

Here's a question, what would a normal everyday citizen want or need to own a semi-automatic Gun? I don't think Deer or Rabbit run that fast. They should be banned from sale to the general public. Get real people these types of weapons do not need to be on our streets at all.


Kenny
said

Semi-automatic firearms are not designed "just to kill people". They are used safely in target shooting competitions every day. Furthermore, they are the only firearms that some disabled competitive shooters can comfortably operate.






Dan
said

The Dawson shootings were a tragedy. However simply banning semi-automatic guns isn't the answer. Who is going to compensate the tens of thousands of law abiding Canadians who currently own such guns when they have to be turned in? If the offender in the Dawson shootings had used a shot gun, would we be banning them as well? Should we be banning knives as well due to the large number of knife related crimes in Canada?


Jen - Vancouver
said

Guns cause crime as much as forks cause obesity. The statistics have shown that a ban will neither stop criminals from obtaining firearms nor reduce gun crimes. A complete ban would serve only to further diminish the rights of law-abiding responsible gun owners in this country. Harper and the CPC are absolutely correct to abolish the registry. It has accomplished none of it's stated goals, and it has cost the taxpayers over $2 billion. What responsible argument is there to keep it?


M. Kaufmann
said

Why would anyone protest the registry of a gun. In case you have all forgotten you do have to register your car and misuse of your car will result in a loss of licence. The police do use and like the registry. How can any person justify the ownership of semiautomatic weapons?


Dustin in Vancouver
said

A ban on these weapons will make them more difficult for the average person to acquire but a person with a pump shot gun could do just as much damage and not be effected by the ban on semi-automatic weapons. The real solution to violent situations in which some one means to do harm with a weapon is to give people the ability to defend themselves.
It is not feasible in to day's age, with our police forces shrinking, being over worked, under paid, and under equipped, for them to be able to respond in a timely and effective manner to situations like this. Educate the people and give them the tools that they need to protect them selves and they can protect them selves if need be. I guaranty that if their had been a few more trained and prepared people on hand this situation would have turned out different, and maybe no one would have been hurt, maybe even the knowledge that there are armed and capable people all throughout the city would be a deterrent for other violent crime and prevent it before it happens.

By the way people, a weapon is a weapon and a weapon has no other purpose than to hurt and kill. We have been making them since we could make tools. As a race we won't stop and to think that we may is total Idealism! The world is not a nice place and humans are not a nice race! We need to deal with that as a fact and move on. We can't stop it with applying more rules no mater what you think.



Fred - Trenton
said

What happened at Dawson was a true tragedy. What people dont relise is the firearms used in this violent act are "restricted" already with means you need training and a RCMP back ground check to even get a licence to buy one. If you even have one charge of a violent crime or history of abuse you will NOT get this licence. With that said it means the firearms used we allready BANNED and were obtained illegaly how would banning these firearms from law-abiding owners have stopped this tradedy?. Criminals will always be able to get gun either through robberys or fro south of the border the supply will always meet the demand. What we need to do is start taking an interest in our children. Lets start treating the problem right at the source weather it be gang related or a misguided teen we can solve this problem before it ever becomes a tragedy. Its a shame the liberal mentality is to wait till tragedy strikes before doing anything then instead of actually going after the issues they use fear to scare people in to banning things that wont help the situation only puinish the most truthfull and law abiding bunch here in Canada hunters, Framers and Target Shooters. They did not commit any crimes at Dawson criminals did so please dont punish innocent people just to make your self feel better. Go hug your child this is truely what will help this tragedy never happen again.


Pete in NS
said

You have got to be kidding me!
Do people in this country still thinking that a "ban" on something will fix the problem. What a naive though process.
If an individual decides he or she is going to randomly murder another person/s do you honestly think that the same individual will have any moral qualms in acquiring the questioned firearm illegally if it were to banned?? I don't think so! It is of the same thought process which would assume that because J-walking is illegal it will stop a theif from crossing the street to steal a car.
Stop with these stupid knee-jerk ideas that are truly insulting to those of us in Canada that really do strive for solid and strong gun control laws.
Enough with these archaic gun ban ideas that only punish the law abiding and prevent nothing.


SF
said

All firearms need to be strictly regulated - owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. This isn't the United States.

The only type of gun a citizen should have access to is a rifle, for hunting purposes. To argue that we should allow the sale of semi-automatic weapons because a minority of the population likes to collect guns and shoot targets is ludicrous! It's about as silly as refusing to give up any other kind of hobby for the greater good - my "right" to collect coins or stamps is not paramount to another person's right to life, and to argue otherwise is ignorant and crass.

Gun/crime lovers - please go play paintball or something and stop tormenting us with your ridiculous, ill-informed rhetoric.


Adrian from Ft St John
said

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Banning guns is not the answer- unless you are some kind of tree hugging, gun fearing leftie from eastern Canada.

Hitler and Stalin banned guns in their respective countries and look what happened.

The gun registry does not work. It never will.

In the UK, criminals are now modifying replica handguns in order to make workable. Guns are supposedly banned there. Look how well that has worked.

Are you going to ban my kitchen and hunting knives next?

Kids who grow up hunting and fishing do not mug little old ladies or shoot up the local school.


Keith
said

Interesting that most of the comments here are anti-ban, but CTV's poll is largely pro-ban.

I'm in favour of the ban. The only LEGITIMATE use for firearms by civilians is for hunting or target shooting - neither of which requires semi-auto. That feature is primarily for hunting humans.

No, banning semi-autos won't stop a killer - but why make it easier for said killer to rack up a large tally? It's kind of like giving drunk drivers bigger cars and lower insurance.

As for comments like "What if someone at the shooting could have defended themselves with a handgun and stopped Kimveer Gill?" I can only reply "What if that someone missed Kimveer and took out yet another innocent bystander?" If you want to play Shootout At The OK Corral, please move south.


Alberta Redneck
said

I am a right-wing gun collector & hunter, but I will also admit that a semi-auto rifle firing pistol ammunition is pretty useless for anything other than playing army guy. Is that a reason to ban the CX4? No, but I could care less if they do. Just don't confuse it with a legitimate hunting tool such as a Remington 7400 semi-auto.


Rick in NB
said

Hunters use semi-auto shotguns, 3 shot limit by law for water fowl. This is not excessive.
Hunters hunting large game use semi-auto rifles, most clips carry 5 shots. This is not excessive. Sometimes a second and even third shot is required to bring down their prey in a humane way.
I think that some posters are mistaking semi-autos with fully automatic guns. Assult weapons for military use.
To a hunter a semi-auto can
make the difference between a good hunt and a wasted trip.


Charles
said

The only purpose for semi-automatics and handguns is to kill PEOPLE! I think both of these weopons should be banned for civilians completely. I mean what next, people should have tanks in their driveways to defend themselves? What kind of society have we become?

A hunting rifle can protect just as well against a criminal in your home should you need it.

I must say I'm deeply surprised by the number of pro-gun freaks posting here. I guess we're right on track to becoming a clone of the USA.



Wynne
said

Looks like the gun registry did exactly what it is supposed to do. Absolutely nothing!!!!
When will people learn the gun did not pull its own trigger. The nut job behind the gun pulled the trigger.
Stop attacking legal gun owners. The type of firearm used whether it’s full auto, semi-auto or bolt action has got noting to do with anything. A semi-auto rifle is no more dangerous than a bolt action. People who call for a ban on guns are not smart enough to solve the real problems in society, look at Toronto Mayor David Miller. He is a perfect example. Instead of trying to stop illegal guns from entering his city he closed two gun ranges. I wonder where all the gangs will shoot there illegal guns now.

Someone wrote earlier that we have less gun crime than the US. Why dose the UK, Australia and Jamaica have higher gun crime rates than we do? Those countries banned the ownership of firearms.
Something must be wrong very. Or BANNING SIMPLY DOSE NOT WORK!!!!

“If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns”



Todd
said

Here's where I split from fellow conservatives...I totally support the ban on semi-auto's. As a hunter I can't imagine what anyone wants with these types of weapons. You kill an animal with one disciplined bullet, not a spray of low calibre lead.

Get these guns off the street, minimum sentences for crimes using handguns/semi-auto's, and scrap the registry of long guns...that's what I'd like to see!


Jonas
said

Again the debate about banning. Couple issues...

Some have brought up the "argument" that if guns are legal, so should bazookas and the such. The shooter can discriminate with a gun, while the shooter cannot with a grenade or bazooka. The gun fires a directed projectile while bazookas and grenades are radius weapons that kill/injure with shrapnel or explosion.

Ban semi-automatic weapons...again does not make sense. While semi-automatic weapons usually have a higher rate of fire, they usually lack in precision. A bolt-action rifle will usually be much more precise than a semi-automatic. Think Charles Whitman, SuccessTech Academy, the Washington Sniper... They used primarily non semi-automatic weapons. A determined person with a bolt action rifle can take a good position somewhere and cause as much damage as someone with a semi-auto. Others argue that semi-autos have no real use besides killing human beings. Well, there are other things out there that kill people that aren't necessary. Motorcycles for one...the crotch-rockets are not necessary, use a bicycle or car instead. Sports cars provide an adrenaline rush...but could be substituted with small cars with a max speed of 90kph...

Also, according to StatsCan (look up their web site), consistantly for the past 10 years or so firearms were used in less than a third of all murders. Even if, hypothetically, all guns were to be banned, it would have the potential of reducing murders by less than a third. Realistically, that doesn't make sense. A determined person will kill regardless of the means available. A man goes in a fit of rage and wants to injure/kill his wife: no gun, he won't shoot her. He'll choke her or beat her instead.


Marvin
said

When will people get it. It is not the Tool but the Person that commits crime.
Banning anything will only stop law abiding citizens from owning it the Criminals don't care if it is banned.
And if criminal cant get something that is banned no problem they will just find another tool to do the job.

Should we BAN lighters and matches to prevent arson?
Should we BAN cars and alcohol to prevent Drunk driving?
Should we BAN Tall buildings to prevent suicide?

People will always find ways to kill each other
And Until we start treating the problem and not the symptom nothing will change.

Also after reading some of the post I is clear that many people posting do know what a Semi-Auto is
Many Hunting and Sporting Rifles are Semi-Auto.
Some of you seam to think we are talking about FULL-Auto machineguns which we are not.
If you don't know the difference please educate you self before you start rambling on about something you know nothing about.
And if you can be bothered to learn the difference Go back to your bobble and keep your misguided nonsense to your self.


D. Fitzsimmons
said

The level of legal firearm ownership has little if any influence on how violent a society is. Social, cultural, political, economic and demographic factors have far more influence on the violent nature of a society. A few minutes of effective and unbias research will show that societies with low gun ownership have both higher and lower levels of homicide and violence than Canada. As well societies which have higher levels of gun ownership have higher and lower levels of violence than Canada. If simply gun ownership so clearly dictated how violent a country is than the statistics would bear this out and they don’t. It’s just not that simply.


Ryan in Vancouver
said

Wow.Lots of emotional arguments but few based on facts.Also lots people that haven't got a clue about current firearms regulations.
It is ALREADY currently illegal to have a restricted firearm ANYWHERE other than the range,your place of residence where it's stored or while transfering it to or from the range or a gunsmith.
The coroner should really learn a few things about the items he wants to ban.The CX4 Storm is neither a "paramilitary style" firearm ,nor is it lighter,more accurate or easier to handle.It is a cheap plastic carbine most often used for plinking pop cans and target shooting.

Perhaps if citizens were legally allowed to use the tools for proper self defence,this rampage by an insane man,and other instances of the same,could have been stopped before it started.



Sherry
said

Why not just make it harder to buy semi-automatics. Sure it won't stop all the "nutters" that's a given but it should be a lot harder to get a semi. We know that hunters do not need a semi to kill geese/deer whatever so it shouldn't bother them but the need to have a semi is usually with collectors and those that legally just like to be members of gun clubs and shoot non-human targets. At least make it a little bit harder to obtain semi autos - which are not really needed except by soldiers and police officers.


Jason
said

To all the people comparing these shootings to a drunk driving kills people so "lets ban all the cars" campaign, you're comparing apples to oranges. They're saying ban semi-automatic guns not ALL guns, that's an important distinction to make. A ban on semi-automatic guns makes sense just like a ban on cars that have cup holders that dispense hard liquor makes sense.


Carbon Rod
said

Banning anything is pointless. There is already a law against murder, and it did not stop this nutcase.

Semiauto rifles are used many times a day every day in Canada in sporting events completely without incident. They are also used in many types of hunting. Putting further restrictions on these outdoors events will only encourage people to live indoors, and further the health problems associated with that.


Martin
said

To the people that state that "guns (of any kind) have only one purpose which is to kill" I have this to say.

Ever heard of deterrence? Why do you think there was never a nuclear war?

The simple fact is that in civilized countries that allow private gun ownership the crime rates tend to drop or are simply lower as criminals are in fact deterred and even unarmed citizens benefit from this simple to understand effect.

And outlawing guns to date has not in fact resulted in lower gun crime anywhere; look to the UK, Jamaica, Russia, and Australia for proof. It simply served to disarm and victimize honest citizens.

SO if your goal is increased public safety lay off the guns or any kind of ban and start looking at the societal problems and in fact address them.


Shawn
said

While I feel that any death to a fiearm is too many and feel for the families who have suffered because of others stupidity and lack of ability to deal with life Stats Canada will show that of the 1400 people, on avg, per year that are killed to guns, 85% or 1200 or self inflicted. The remainder are intentional missue or neglingence. Approx 200 people per year in country of around 31 million are killed.

Take a read through the Firearms Act, both current and past and you will see that Canada is very tough on firearms. The types of firearms being described in the article ar already regulate. The size of the mag used etc is strictly regulated.

Banning a semi will not stop this problem. A person who is skilled on a shot gun can cause more damage then a semi-rifle.

Banning semi's will only make criminals out of law bidding citzens, same as the registry. We need to better train and educate firearms users and non users. How I don't know but banning will not stop this.


Jonas (Brockville)
said

Couple more issues...

The other thing is the psychiatric/psychological aspect. Law would require professionals to report and judge whether an individual can have a gun or not. Fine, medical professionals should report trouble cases and have access to the registry. What about those in a grey zone? Problem is, psychology and psychiatry are much more subjective than objective. Subjects who have shown aggressive or violent behavior ought to raise red flags. But some cases are subjective, and an overzealous health official could prevent someone from getting a gun even if they aren't a threat. Take bipolars...there are varying degrees, from very mild to psychotic. Should all bipolars lose the right to own a gun? The lower degrees of bipolar don't represent a threat. 30% of Canadians will suffer from depression at some point. Depression is linked to high rates of suicide and homicide. Should everyone who has ever been depressive be banned from owning a gun? What about substance abuse? Many acts of violence are committed by people under the influence. Should anyone who's every abused alcohol or drugs be banned from using a firearm? Clinically, more than about 10 drinks a week is "substance abuse". Every teen going through university would be disqualified...

If you're a farmer or hunter with a gun, but suffer from mild depression or other mental illness...would you go see a shrink knowing you'll likely lose your guns? No. Such people who have access to guns will avoid treatment so they don't lose their guns. You've just scared away someone who might have sought help...

Professional should report people who have shown a tendency for violence or suicide. All other mental illnesses should not be reported.


Jay - Kelowna BC
said

Personal experience for me is I spent time trying to get at risk youth off the streets in East Vancouver. I know people who have dealt drugs, been stabbed, associated themselves with organized crime, and worse. I also know those who are responsible and law abiding.

I personally don't like guns as they are a very well made device for making holes - after many years of refining guns and bullets do their job extremely well they put holes in things.

My brother does need to carry a gun as it is required for his public service job. Some are right there is a sense of security knowing he has a gun - for me, for the people he protects, and for him.

My suggestion:
First step is awareness - the awareness that the problem exists.

Next step and I think this is a crucial one - we need to all be accountable in providing a solution not just allowing politicians or other figure heads to do the work so we can all go back to being ignorant. We have all stopped being accountable which leaves the appointed protectors to do everything by themselves so they do what they can - laws, prohibition, media of single points of view etc.

Now here's an example: In WW2 German U boats were getting into the East shipping docks and sabotaging everything. The gov't passed laws & curfews saying no one was allowed in there after night. That didn't work. So the police went in. It wasn't until the mafia, citizens, and figure heads banning together did it stop. Everyone was accountable. This is how you clean tough streets - this is how you fix these issues - we all watch we all care we all are accountable - for the same common goal better society.


Ben R
said

If semi-automatic guns are used only for killing, then why do police carry them? Is it so they can kill people, or is it so they can protect themselves? Ordinary citizens are murdered more frequently than police, are our lives worth less? There are only two ways of looking at this issue, really. Either Canada is a dangerous place to live, and people need guns for protection, or Canada is a safe place to live and we've got enough gun laws already.


Elizabeth M
said

Sorry, I don't know a lot about guns, but I wonder if he shot that semi-automatic 72 times without reloading? If so, could someone please explain to me why you would argue that those guns should be legally obtainable... What/who, other than humans, would you hunt with that gun?


Ben of BC
said

What has happened to us as a people? Why are we all so afraid of fire arms? Ban them! Why? Because every other year some yahoo go's nuts and kills some one or shoots up his place of work/ school? Well what about that nut job down in the states that just got on a bus and cut some ones head off for no good reason? He didn't need a gun.
Truth is, you go back about 40 years or so and this stuff just didn't happen (at least as much as it dose now) and we as a people were not so squeamish about guns or violence for that matter. We have become soft! We have become far too sympathetic to the vocal minority that wants us to cover the world in bubble rap.
What is a gun for? Killing or injuring?! Yes it is! Let's not delude our selves on that point.
Can we stop people from getting them if they really want them? NO! Just look at Britain and other countries that have tried, they failed, big time.
I have no problem with registering weapons, by all means, restrict access to them, totally, and ban those that are for military or police use but don’t take them away from us just because you are scared of them. This isn't because I'm a gun nut, this is because I am a realist, I believe that every sole on the planet should have the right and ability to defend themselves if necessary with equal force when it comes to it. I grew up with guns and so have my kids, they are part of our culture, maybe not as much as in the US but still part of who we are (at least for us rednecks that grew up out side of the cities), lets not lose that.
Maybe that’s why you have so many people on here so passionate about this issue they don’t want to lose a part of themselves, they don’t want to lose a part of their freedom



Semi-automatic man
said

Well I own a semi-automatic rifle which is legal. It is a hunting rifle which fires 5 shots. I like my gun because I can shoot and keep both hands on my rifle while I look down the barrel at the game I am about to shoot. I can also shoot more than once if I miss or need to put the animal down if I have wounded it and not have to worry about taking my eyes off the game to reload another shot. Not all game shot stands still and deer do run very fast. This is why I own a semi-automatic rifle and another reason is because is was passed down to me by my father. It has sentimental value way beyond what I could ever be compensated for. I have never shot anyone and don't plan on it. This is just one of the guns people would like to ban which is unfair for me and thousands of other people who share in my appreciation for this beautiful mechanical device which has been around since WW1. Don't punish the lawful for the insane!! I could suggest that if your family member is caught drinking and driving that all of your relatives should also be banned because you could easily supply a vehicle for the person who was convicted!! Wouldn't that be fair?


Janie, BC
said

BANS DO NOT WORK!! The stats don't lie.

I'm disturbed by the number of people on here who support the ban, yet obviously know nothing about guns. There is no "spray" of bullets from a semi-automatic firearm. It still fires only one round per trigger pull. It is no more or less dangerous than any other type of firearm.

And please do tell our (aspiring)Olympic target shooters that they need to find a different sport, because they're not allowed to own the equipment they require to practice & compete.

As for a rifle protecting you in your home. Under the current laws, not only must the firearm be stored unloaded, rendering it almost useless for home defence, owning/carrying ANY weapon (not just firearms) to defend yourself is illegal. Yes, you read that correctly. Instead of allowing Canadians the right to defend themselves the Liberal government has made it a crime to do so. Just call 911 and the police will be there to take your statement AFTER the crime has been committed. This is nothing against our LEOs - it's just a sad fact that they can't be everywhere at once. As the saying goes "When seconds count, help is just minutes away."


Alberta Redneck
said

Charles & Todd:

You are both doing what I feared: lumping an assault type short barreled rifle firing pistol ammo with an autoloading hunting rifle. Until people can differentiate between the two and learn to direct their scorn at the former, supporters of the latter will be forced to defend both. In your eyes then Charles we become pro-gun freaks.


gibson
said

Ban ...Ban...Ban....School Principals to access firearm registrys. This guy has to be a Liberal. Murder is already banned and that didn't stop him. Why would anyone think a ban on any weapon would have stopped him. Sounds like the same thought process used by Toronto Mayor David Millar. IT WON'T WORK GUYS ! This guy was a nut....Why not ban nuts ?


Geoff in Lethbridge
said

At 101 comments above, I see 65 against firearm restrictions that hamstring law-abiding people, and 27 in favour of leaving us vulnerable to criminals who won't obey firearm laws any more than they obey bank-robbing or break-and-enter laws.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Are these 27 people willing to pay the taxes to hire 20 million cops to be stationed inside every home and business to protect us?


CC
said

A bit curious how a coroner is in a position to say that they should be banned. Is he in government as well? Is he an expert on firearm usage?
This guy is a Doctor! Thats like a dentist saying that fishermen shouldn't use nets. Banning guns only serves to leave us all vulnerable to the criminals who dont care if the guns are legal or not. Hitler was a fan of this. Amazing how people go full circle and forget the past so readily. I guess that's why the lefties don't like to teach our true history in school. Make the public ignorant and they will follow like sheep. Typical!


Rod
said

I’m a Canadian soldier currently fighting in Afghanistan and have been serving for 18 years. Reading most of these post makes me sick. I wonder why I am serving my country. Disarm Canadians so the only people with guns will be criminals and the government, over my dead body. The anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti everything liberals will destroy what is left of our once great nation. You can use any type of firearm, regardless of the type action to hunt or target shoot with. You can even use pistol, no not scary pistols. Just you people say we cant….. The uneducated uniformed among us, the ones that would rip everyone’s right and freedoms away, for there grater good, BAN EVERYTHING people need to be banned. I think we should ban liberals so we can have rational thought back in MY country. I have used guns for WORK , shooting sports, and hunting. What kind of country do I live in that will allow me to an inherent right of self defence but only when I’m doing the governments bidding, is my life worth less after work?



Jon Gun Owner - Edmonton
said

What is the purpose of owning a semi-auto? Really, other than being kinda cool, and possibly making hunting a little easier, there isnt much of a point. If all of us gun owners out there are so responsible (as nearly every gun owner here claims), then why can't we just agree that making semi-auto harder to obtain is better for our society.

Sure criminals, if they really want them, will get there hands on these types of guns. However, you can't honestly say that banning them would have no effect on there use in crime.

Now lets be honest, as a person who has always been fascinated by firearms, i know the feeling a person gets when holding one of these types of weapons. It is that feeling that makes gun ethusiasts vehemently oppose this type of thinking.

Gun owners, don't reel off arguments like "cars are dangerous, should we ban them?" but admit to yourself that the only reason you are defending the ownership of semi-autos is the pure adrenaline and feeling of power we get when firing these types of weapons.

Also, dont think that the enjoyment we get from these weapons comes close to the value of even one human life.


Ryan from MB.
said

I have to agree with those who feel bans are not the answer. Shifting our focus from the individual and behavior, to the whole of society and the tool, are counter productive. Today it's ban this object, tomorrow it's ban that object, and the entire time the common denominator sneaks away on us. Spot troubled behavior in people ahead of time, and offer help. Grand standing after tragedy, is for politicians.


Vince, Red Deer
said

Why would anyone ask a doctor his opinion on firearms and actually take his reccomendations seriously? I highly doubt that anyone would consult RCMP brass on heart disease.

Honestly, lets get real, banning guns is useless in preventing crime, and actually increases the number of criminals (non-compliance). This just bungs up our already overloaded and misguided legal system. This in turn creates a tax burden for all Canadians to bear. All because one whack-job walked into a school with vicious intent.

Go after the operator, not the equipment (do you blame the car or the driver whenever there is a traffic fatality?)


Brnedan Cote
said

I love how people who have no idea about guns or current gun laws are advocating for gun controls. If you post comments like " I dont think Canadians should have machine guns" or " If he would have had a manually operated pistol he would have done less damage", then please dont post here. You are clearly have no idea about guns/current gun laws.

The bottom line is that banning semi autos would not decrease crime rates. Its no secret that only about 2% of gun crimes are committed with legal ,registered guns. In stead of continually restricting the rights of legal,responsible gun owners, why dont you address the illegal gun problem. Spend your effort,money and time taking care of 98% of gun crime, not maing it harder for responsible gun owners to enjoy thier hobby/sport. Look what happened in Britian and Australia when handguns and semi-auto's were banned. Crime rates have gone up! The Canadian government put restrictions on semi-auto magazine capacities in the 90's, limiting centerfire semi-autos to 5 rounds. This useless restriction has done nothing to reduce gun crime and has merely upset us gun owners.

If people who are anti-gun were really concerned about people dying, they would advocate cigarette bans instead. Cigarettes kill thousands more than legally owned guns do.

Just my 2 cents.


allan b.
said

Switzerland had just about everyone owning a gun and very low gun crime.The gun laws are currently super strict. You need a near perfect record to even own a handgun or restricted rifle.
The odd crazy is going to slip thru the cracks. But this guy could have made a bomb with simple materials,he could easily have bought a gun on the street corner from the many many criminals in gangs ,etc that are already armed. You hope the police can protect you but you are helpless in your homes and when you are in bad area which is becoming everywhere or in your vehicles. I am not saying we should be like Texas where just about everyone carries guns everywhere but law abiding gun owners should not be penalized for this one crazy pycho.The right to bear arms was/is a fundamental right in the US. It should be a right here. Governments love for their citizens to not be allowed to have arms. It gives the government total power? Do you want the government to have total power?
And why shouldn't I have the right to protect my home and loved ones.Isn't that everyones right.Am I supposed to use some stupid martial arts training against armed assailants. Not sure where you people live but my city is getting worse not better. Government should spend its time increasing the sentences for gun crimes by criminals and keeping the dangerous ones behind bars. Registering weapons does nothing to stop criminals from getting them on the black market.


Rod from Cornwall
said

I'm not sure what a ban on the CX4 would accomplish. Other guns in its class would still be available. They're not frequently used in crime in Canada. They're not concealable like handguns. They're nowhere near as powerful as a shotgun or rifle (9mm is a pretty low-powered cartridge). They're basically just pistol-caliber carbines, useful for target shooting and not much else.

And if somebody wants to commit a murder, they won't really care if the CX4 is banned (or if all guns were banned, for that matter); they'd just get a gun illegally, or use a kitchen knife, or golf club, or car, or skipping rope, or homemade bombs, and so on. Banning the CX4 would just provide those of us who don't understand firearms and firearms-related issues an illusory feeling of safety and do nothing to stop the next school shooting.

Some of the coroner's recommendations make sense, but not this one. The Dawson shootings should inspire the Quebec government to restrict murderous madmen, not ordinary law-abiding sport shooters.


Rod from Cornwall
said

I'm surprised that some commenters think that the gun registry has anything to do with stopping crimes like the Dawson shootings. All of Kimveer Gill's guns were registered. How can a data entry corresponding to a gun on a computer server in Miramichi do anything at all to stop a madman like Gill from misusing a gun?



Shawn
said

Elizabeth,

The type of rifle used by this guy is effectively an assult rifle. Please excuse my ignorance as I am not aware if this particluar rifle is legal in Canada but if it is, it would more of a collectors piece or for the target shooter. I wouldn't bring it out in the bush.

Depending on the magizne, he could have either 10 or 30 rounds per mag. Large capaicty mags (30 rounder) are prohibited in Canada but are not hard to get through the US. It it wasn't for the mag, he would be able to only shot 1 round at a time, reloading manually after each round.

The round capaicity for guns is regulted. For example in ON, to go hunting, you can only be able to fit 3 rounds in the gun (1 in th chamber and two in the mag) even though it is possible for mst guns to fit 5 rounds.

To obtain a PAL (license) an applicant is required to take a test showing basic knowledge and comptent handling. Their background is suppose to be investigated before the license is issued and you must be able to keep the license to keep the guns.


Rod from Cornwall
said

Shaun: it's pretty clear that you don't know much about firearms or their many legitimate civilian applications, so let me clarify a couple of points.

I own several semi-automatic rifles of various calibers ranging from .22LR to .308 Winchester. I use them every chance I get for hunting and target practice, as do hundreds of thousands of your fellow Canadian civilians.

Semi-autos are not any more dangerous or intrinsically evil than other guns; they have some advantages for certain perfectly legitimate civilian activities like some kinds of hunting and certain shooting disciplines. And they aren't military weapons; with a few specialized exceptions, most military weapons are actually selective-fire, not semi-autos.

The semi-auto=military myth is just misinformation and scare propaganda. If you'd like to learn more, just contact your local shooting range or rod&gun club; they'll be happy to help you.


christine in saskatchewan
said

We don't need to prohibit the gun. It is not the gun that kills people. It is the person behind the gun. I have never heard of a gun all by itself point at someone and shot. We need to punish the person who uses the gun for a crime more serverly. Not punish law abiding citizens.


Robert Supper
said

I am a hunter and who needs a gun like this?

Ban them it will make it harder for the mass murderers.


Andy
said

England and Australia's violent crimes have been increasing since their firearms bans were imposed. It is hypocrytical to say ban firearms but my son can play Shooting games, and watch Die Hard movies..... My son and daughter have respect for firearms, and are well adjusted children. It is our society and breakdown in the social fabric that helps breed violence, bans will not deter, or reduce massacres. When a person puts their mind to carry out violent acts, the will find the resources to do it. Many Canadians fly south to Florida for vacation. No one is concerned that they have concealed carry and a stand and fight law..... There are no bloodbaths on the streets do to law abiding citizens. Alcohol killed 3 friends in my lifetime, and many fights very brought on by the liquid courage... I have no friends that have been killed by firearms. Alcohol is socially accepted, and the results caused from abuse are an excepted result? I enjoy a drink, and I enjoy firearms, why is one more acceptable than the other


Ray, Pontiex
said

here we go again, ban the gun , take the easy way out, why deal with the larger issue of supporting people with mental illness. Deal with the many law abiding citizens thats the easy way, looks good to the public but it never never works, criminals don't care.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz