News Sections
Coroner seeks ban on gun used in Dawson shooting
CTV News Video
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
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.
User Tools
Related Stories
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(134)-
Feedback
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.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
Todd - Edmonton
said
D in Calgary
said
Marcel
said
Frank in Winnipeg
said
D Snider
said
Ryan Nova Scotia
said
Bee
said
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
Kevin
said
A farmer's view
said
Jasper
said
David in Toronto
said
E. Joudrey.
said
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
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
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
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
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
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
Shaun
said
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
Edb
said
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
Raj
said
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
The only legislation that has a proven track record of detering violent crime is CCW. Get some.
Mark
said
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
Reece
said
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
Michel
said
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
W Hunt - Toronto
said
Scott
said
" 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
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
MHR
said
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
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
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
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
Banning every item that may inflict harm is impossible another unenforcable law?
Eric
said
'cause this guy, and other people like him, CLEARLY care about not violating laws.
Keith, Halifax
said
DB
said
Civilized Gun Owner
said
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
Freedom Ain't Free
said
Paul in BC
said
DB
said
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
Jack R.
said
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
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
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
MAX
said
...that'd help, right?
Sure..
A bodyguard for everyone?
said
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
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
Frank Buchan
said
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
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
Grimly
said
Shawn - Kettleby
said
Mark5
said
Seth
said
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
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
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
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
EricB
said
Jason Daniel Baker
said
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
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
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
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 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
On the defense what do you possibly need a semi-automatic gun for?
RRC
said
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
Lisa G
said
Kenny
said
Dan
said
Jen - Vancouver
said
M. Kaufmann
said
Dustin in Vancouver
said
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
Pete in NS
said
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
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
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
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
Rick in NB
said
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ryan in Vancouver
said
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
Jason
said
Carbon Rod
said
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
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
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
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
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
Elizabeth M
said
Ben of BC
said
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
Janie, BC
said
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
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
Geoff in Lethbridge
said
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
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
Jon Gun Owner - Edmonton
said
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
Vince, Red Deer
said
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
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
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
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
Shawn
said
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
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
Robert Supper
said
Ban them it will make it harder for the mass murderers.
Andy
said
Ray, Pontiex
said