Another example of how well criminals follow firearms law

[u/Standard_Custard2338]

https://globalnews.ca/news/12008352/calgary-man-charged-ctrain-station-shooting/

He had a prohibition order and we made the transfer of handguns prohibited. There's no way this can be true... this must be fake news.

[u/itsjehmun]

Okay but did anyone remind this guy that the gun was illegal? Don't talk to me or my son again.

[u/ScorpionRox → u/itsjehmun]

Doesn't work that way man, its our fault that we own legally acquired guns that allowed this tragedy to happen..... wait... that doesn't sound right either...

[u/itsjehmun → u/ScorpionRox]

Unfortunately there's no scenario that sounds right, unless it's criminals don't give a shit about the law and that's why they're criminals.

[u/Newfie-Decker → u/itsjehmun]

Hmmmmm that sounds right, but yet, you're wrong 🤔 it must be aliens

[u/TheRandomCanuck]

As a Canadian cop, I can easily tell you the amount of times I've attended to a shooting and the gun was legally obtained, and used by a licensed owner.

Exactly 0.

[u/rastamasta45 → u/TheRandomCanuck]

Ah so you’re a maple maga spreading misinformation that our deal leaders warned us about, you’re committing speech and thought crimes!

How dare you state facts and statistics from your direct experience, don you know the LPC and (checks notes) the Secretary of State for nature know more about gun violence than you??? 😡

[u/Intelligent_Chard_10 → u/rastamasta45]

/sarcasm

[u/WALRUS1902033 → u/rastamasta45]

Wooosh

[u/rastamasta45 → u/WALRUS1902033]

Didn’t think I needed to add the s/

[u/Doc911 → u/TheRandomCanuck]

Careful. Under the LPC, you may need to arrest yourself for saying that. The Party might decide it constitutes “hate” once it has finished defining the permissible limits of public thought ... set by liberals thinkers of course with zero bias and complete impartiality.

[u/Suspicious-Prompt200]

Its just like when we banned drugs and alchohol, how everyone stopped using drugs and alchohol.

[u/HoldingThunder → u/Suspicious-Prompt200]

Pepperidge Farm Remembers! Wait....that's not right.

[u/Parking_Media]

Should take away his rpal

[u/Comfortable_Bit_4816 → u/Parking_Media]

lol

[u/Receedus]

Obviously we have not punished the lawful enough!

[u/Mercrantos2]

We should just make it illegal to kill people so that way nobody dies

[u/Emotional-Disaster76]

It’s as if criminals don’t care about firearm laws.

[u/ShinyRainier → u/Emotional-Disaster76]

https://giphy.com/gifs/P8gqZQp6fG111SJmEn

[u/under_hunter82376 → u/Emotional-Disaster76]

WAIT WHAT ?

[u/julienjj]

Government use double block.

[u/NeoNova9]

Holy fuck they actually are keeping him locked up until court. Are we starting to heal ?

[u/Newfie-Decker → u/NeoNova9]

Aaahhhhh man, you probably jinxed it now!

[u/barthammer]

What if they make it super duper triple dog dare illegal?

Surely that will help!

[u/Newfie-Decker → u/barthammer]

This should be the one time you can triple stamp a double stamp

[u/Doc911 → u/barthammer]

For those who need to hear this, particularly at Poly and in my home province of Quebec, the French-Canadian equivalent of “super triple-dog-dare illegal” is: « Faudrait que ça soit illégal super-méga-turbo, avec une triple interdiction pis une cerise dessus. »

Because further restrictions on lawful gun owners will surely prevent this, as virtually every Canadian police chief has apparently agreed … /s

[u/HoldingThunder]

You know who doesnt follow the law? Criminals. I think by definition.

[u/International_Mud367]

I think what's interesting is the aggravated assault charges rather than attempted murder. 

Seems they're trying to downplay quite a bit of his actions since the same actions in other countries would be a far longer list of charges.

Perhaps I'm ignorant to the laws but where's the charge for pointing a firearm at a person that we get told about during rpal courses? What about the charge for having ammo on them without heading to a range? 

[u/artificialsnow → u/International_Mud367]

They didn't charge attempted murder because it is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had an intention to kill when the parties aren't known to one another prior to the incident (in which case you'll usually have outside evidence of motive and often pre-assault threats) and there's no gratuitous continuation of the assault beyond the point where the one person is obviously wounded/disabled. "Discharge with intent" (s. 244.1) is the big brother of the pointing charge (s. 87). If the prohibited weapon charge is under s. 95, which I expect it is, then charging the unsafe handling/storage of ammo (s. 86) would be duplicative and the Crown would be required to stay the charge, even if they proved it at trial, under the principles from the SCC's decision in Kienapple - and either they succeed on the gun or they wouldn't have succeeded on the ammo anyway. Completely appropriate set of charges IMO.

[u/International_Mud367 → u/artificialsnow]

Thanks for explaining! 

[u/canadaguns-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:

[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments

Civility, courtesy, and politeness, is expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's RULES, Reddiquette, and User Agreement.

Using negative generalizations on persons based upon their backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, or appearance is subject to comment removal and a possible ban from the subreddit. Keep comments directed at actions, not at individuals.

Racism, bigotry, intolerance, or otherwise extremist posts/comments/behaviour WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in this subreddit. Users doing so will be permanently banned from the subreddit.

[u/scottsuplol]

You think by now we would have learned that prohibition does nothing

[u/22GageEnthusiast]

The LPC and Poly trying to explain how this is the fault of law abiding Canadian gun owners:

https://giphy.com/gifs/aXz9g8gGTsyHSjQQVd

[u/canadaguns-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:

[2] Illegal Activity/Statement of Violence

Posts or comments that promote or suggest the breaking of Firearms laws or Criminal Code of Canada, WILL be removed.

Posts/comments calling for, suggesting, blatant/veiled threats of violence towards Government/Provincial officials, individuals, groups, etc, WILL NOT be tolerated. Users doing so will be banned from the subreddit.

This may include posts/comments asking: "How many laws would I be breaking if…”, "Is it legal if…”, or “Regardless of legality, what if hypothetically I…" , or any other similarly worded questions.

[u/giraffevomitfacts]

I don’t think anyone has claimed strict gun laws will prevent people from using illegal firearms to commit crimes, but that it will reduce the lethality and possibly the frequency of crimes committed with legally purchased firearms. Obviously you can disagree with this or argue that those benefits are not proportionate.

[u/giraffevomitfacts → u/[deleted]]

I’m not doing or advocating doing any of these things and I’m not defending the new laws. I’m just pointing out that the laws were never construed to be able to reduce crimes committed with illegal firearms and these stupid gotchas we run to post every time such a crime takes place completely miss the point. If you want to object to the laws based on their actual merit, intent and effect, go ahead — it’s easy, because they aren’t particularly effective laws.