Millroy: Gun Control Measures… Go All Out

65

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said this week that the Liberals will be promising more gun-control measures during the upcoming election campaign but he declined to get into details.

I don’t see why.

Because it should be relatively simple – go all out.

Ban the sale and possession of automatic weapons, and by this I mean all automatic weapons, not just the kind used by the military, and at the same time ban large ammunition clips.

I thought the government made a good start this year when it expanded the scope of background checks on those wanting to require guns to cover an applicant’s entire lifetime, rather than just the five years preceding a licence application.

But as well as the background checks and a ban on automatic weapons, our legislators should now also be pushing for something similar to the “red flag laws” in use in some states and which U.S. President Donald Trump says he would support federally, although he may, considering how flighty he is at the best of times, have changed his mind by the time you read this.

A red flag law, according to information gleaned from the Internet, enables those who have seen warning signs to seek a court order to intervene and temporarily prevent someone who is in crisis from having access to a firearm. For example, under California’s red flag law, it’s legal for family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat.

Red flag laws at the moment exist in only 17 states plus Washington, DC, Critics of the “Red Flag” measure say it won’t prevent all shootings and that is true. But the thing is, it may prevent some. The same can be said of background checks. To me that means they are worthwhile.

Critics also say that banning automatic weapons, the military types often referred to as assault weapons, won’t prevent any mass shootings, that it is the shooter, not the gun, that does the damage. Again, that is true, but the point is that it could decrease the carnage.

The shooter, if armed only with a bolt-action weapon, will not get off near as many shots as compared to what he would with an automatic.

Again, critics say that even with a ban automatic weapons will be available through the black market to those who really want them.

Yes, that will indeed be the case, but again, it will be much harder for these people to do so and we have to do something. The status quo is not acceptable.

There are those why say instituting any ban on guns will lead to a slippery slope, the banning of automatic weapons eventually leading to a ban on all guns..

I think this is a ridiculous thought but a lot of people believe it, especially in the United States.

There they believe the Second Amendment to the constitution gives them the right to carry the fire-power of their choice.

The Second Amendment, ratified on Dec. 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This was written in 1791. Muskets were in the hands of the infantry, which meant they probably got off three rounds in a minute or so. Also, when it talks about militia, it probably means the army of the state, considering it just won independence from Britain, not of a group of armed citizens ready to make war against the new state.

In any event, I see no need for automatic weapons in the hands of any citizen of any country, other than possibly those attempting to throw off the yoke imposed on them by a dictator.

I believe all we need are bolt-action guns for hunters to engage in their sport, and I use the term “sport” loosely because I see no sport in hunting.

Sport to me means two people or two groups of people battling it out on equal terms and equal rules.

There is nothing equal in hunting.

The prey is unarmed. I would only term hunting a sport if the prey could shoot back.
Anyway, I digress.

My point in this piece is that instead of pussy-footing around, our politicians better throw off their ideological cloaks and get down to the business of making things as safe as possible for the people who elected them to office.

65 COMMENTS

  1. Disgusting opinion piece done with zero fact checking at all prior to posting. I can’t believe the nonsense people get away with publishing.

    In other news, dinosaurs are back from extinction!

    🙄

  2. What the highly uneducated academics and other luminaries conviniently omit is that throughout history societies went from democracy to tyranny in very little time and that any guarantees of freedom are not worth the paper that they written on. To think that the atrocities committed elsewhere could not happen here is to have a huge hubris. One has to look at Hong Kong and Venezuela as recent examples (albeit fairly mild in the historical context) of what power sttrugle looks like. Yes giving access to guns to the populace increases your risks of being shot. Forbidding their access virtually guarantees it.

  3. Good journalism must provide proven facts….not the author’s personal opinions. It seems Doug got caught up in what is going on in the USA which is totally different than what is going on here. Gather the facts Doug and let the readers express opinions.

  4. Fully automatic weapons in Canada are banned. Only the military is permitted to have these type of weapons. As for magazine sizes, any large capacity magazines are completely banned in Canada we are only allowed to have five rounds and any type of rifle magazine.

    This is such an ill-informed unresearched article. Please get your facts straight and visit the rcmp’s website for the laws concerning the types of firearms that are permitted in Canada, Transportation, storage, and any other information that you might like to know about.

  5. An editor that has not even attempted to gather the barest amount of knowledge concerning Canada’s Firearm Laws… Yet manages to allude to the US’ chaotic system, to fear monger for results to questions that do not even exist in our land?

    Colour me shocked.

    When passion overrides research, it is collectively known as fiction.

    How droll.

    I can only wonder at how many ignorant individuals treat this as gospel.

  6. Usually when someone writes an article they try to do at least a little bit of research…
    One.. Automatic firearms have been prohibited in Canada for 40 years or so…
    Two.. Large capacity magazines for all centre fire (medium to large calibre) semi auto rifles are also prohibited, we have a max of 5 rounds allowable…
    Three.. What evidence is there that the existing background checks were insufficient?
    Four.. Additional red flag laws aren’t needed, we ALREADY have this, call the CFO and you get an option to report a public safety risk. (They didn’t even call the firearms office? Wow)
    Five.. Why start talking about the US in an article about Canada? Fear mongering? There’s no logical purpose.

    So why? Why write an article without doing any research at all?
    Like none.. Ziltch.. Nadda?
    Someone has no understanding of journalistic ethics…

  7. I agree totally Doug. There are too many guns and too many nutcases that have easy access to them especially in the USA. . No one needs autimatic weapons. Their is no purpose for them except to kill.

  8. Any chance the author could at least look up the information for his article from the actual criminal code and or at least the RCMP website lol. Instead of his feelings and actual lack of knowledge on the topic. 😂

  9. After reading this steaming pantload of anti firearm propaganda I have come to the conclusion that you should retire from writing, Doug. You didn’t do any sort of research or due diligence before you laid your fingers on the keyboard and churned out this pathetic attempt at undermining the firearms community in Canada. After 61 years of journalism you should know how to research before publishing absolute nonsense that seems to be aimed at the ignorant readers who prefer emotional rhetoric over truth and facts. Maybe you should take up writing speeches for liberal party candidates since you have a lot in common with them. You all have contempt for law abiding citizens, a tendency to lie rather than tell uncomfortable truths, and a willingness to step on the rights and freedoms of real Canadians.

  10. You realize both of these things you are asking for are already banned in Canada correct? It’s ignorance like this that plagued you leftists. As a reporter you should be ashamed that you didn’t even take the time to research Canadian gun laws before writing this article, shame on you!

  11. Just last night on an american channel it was mentioned that CANADA has the best gun control situation in the world. The commentator was suggesting the USA follow the lead on this put forth by Canada. We do not have the same problems the Americans have.

  12. “Ban the sale and possession of automatic weapons, and by this I mean all automatic weapons, not just the kind used by the military, and at the same time ban large ammunition clips.”

    Millroy may have been in the news business for much of his life but he hasn’t learned much, especially regarding firearms. Automatic Weapons, AKA select fire, are not available to mere citizens in Canada and perhaps only to collectors in the US. Large clips are outlawed in Canada.

    The writer of this article displays symptoms of hoplophobia (fear of guns) and like many with this disorder will resort to untruths either through deliberate measures or an inability to do proper research. Canada does not have a long gun problem nor does it have a handgun problem in the hands of legal owners. It has a problem with illegal handguns smuggled in from the US in the hands of criminals. Millroy is like a lot of hoplophobic left wingers and his wanting to ban non-existent legal automatic weapons in Canada should never have been published.

  13. Wow, Mr. Millroy. I have never seen such an ill informed article written by you, it seems more like an off the cuff rant. It is so bad it should be retracted and re written after you research the facts.

  14. “Ban the sale and possession of automatic weapons, and by this I mean all automatic weapons, not just the kind used by the military, and at the same time ban large ammunition clips.”

    Millroy may have been in the news business for much of his life but he hasn’t learned much, especially regarding firearms. Automatic Weapons, AKA select fire, are not available to mere citizens in Canada and perhaps only to collectors in the US. Large clips are outlawed in Canada.

    The writer of this article displays symptoms of hoplophobia (fear of guns) and like many with this disorder will resort to untruths either through deliberate measures or an inability to do proper research. Canada does not have a long gun problem nor does it have a handgun problem in the hands of legal owners. It has a problem with illegal handguns smuggled in from the US in the hands of criminals. Millroy is like a lot of hoplophobic left wingers and his wanting to ban non-existent automatic weapons in Canada should never have been published.

  15. Thanks for the info on all the laws Dave, Len, Shawn, and Steve, but I still don’t get why completely banning clips, magazines and everything except manual six-shooter handguns, double barrelled shotguns, and one-shot rifles is something which is sooooo outrageous?

    Why does anyone need an automatic or semi-automatic firearm with a clip or magazine?

    Maybe you Dave, Len, Shawn or Steve can answer that simple question for us law biding folks who are sick to death seeing and hearing about innocent human beings being mown down by crazies with those types of firearms and munitions.

    Who needs those firearms of massacre Dave, Len, Shawn or Steve?

    • You would have to be a hunter to really understand. Fast moving game sometimes requires follow up shots that you may never get if you have to manually reload and could mean the difference between a clean kill or an animal escaping wounded, especially big game.

    • Sory there is no need for anyone to explain there need for owning anything in Canada as of yet we are not fully socialist perhaps if you’re so willing to demand someone explain need for owning something you’d be willing to allow other to examine what you own to establish your needs

    • I apologize for not explaining myself well enough David.

      My question wasn’t asking you why you, David, own a device manufactured solely for mass killing. My question was why anyone needs a device manufactured solely for mass killing.

      Len said hunters need them for clean kills when hunting big game.

      You are free to offer reasons for firearms and munitions of mass killing based on personal experience, which you seem loathe to do David, or based on things you know about the use of these somewhat legal devices that facilitate massacres in the ever increasing numbers of wrong hands.

      I just thought that since you knew the laws and political arguments about these firearms so well that you might have an inkling about the necessity of their use David. Clearly they’re not only used to guard against the tyranny of the state in 2019.

      Of course we want licensed people to possess these things in highly secure places (so no unlicensed crazies can get at them) in case they have to use them as a member of a militia to fight against a tyrannical government (and for no other reason not even for hunting big game), but outside of that is there any other use that you know of David where these weapons of mass killing are absolutely required?

      Any information anyone can offer on the required use of these weapons of massacre for the benefit of people would be very helpful.

      • Right off the bat it’s clear your view is skewed and manipulated by the main stream media by using the term “killing machines”. I can also tell from the wording that you have limited knowledge of firearms and the community at whole. However, to your question, millions of law abiding firearms use semi automatic firearms for hunting and sport shooting daily. The laws surrounding the storage, transportation and use of them are vast so I will leave it do you do some research on that if you so choose. They are used everyday by thousands of people from all walks of life, age, sex or physical ability in sporting competitions around the world. Do some research into The International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC). It’s the world’s second largest shooting sport association with competitions being held in numerous countries. There has never once been a serious incident or death associated with any of these competitions.
        So no, we don’t have to explain to you why we need these types of guns. Frankly, you want to punish the many for the actions of the few. Those many being millions of the most highly vetted, law abiding and trusted people in Canada. You want to take away one of the fastest growing sports with women leading that charge that brings families together, is open to everyone regardless of age, sex or physical ability so you feel better. No sir, we do not have to explain to you why. YOU need to do some research just like Mr Millroy so you can better understand both sides of the argument.

  16. There is so much wrong with how you view the sports (many sports beyond hunting), and interests of the 2.2 million law abiding Canadian gun owners, how you think they are simply disposable in the wake of criminal actions of criminals. Lawful Canadian firearms owners forgo the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty every day, we have to be proven innocent in a daily process of continuous eligibility screening, our homes can be searched without a warrant, we have to give the government a list of our conjugal partners… You should really investigate the state of Canada’s gun laws before you call for more restrictions on the lawful. The status quo for Canada’s trained, vetted, licenced, permitted, CPIC monitored firearms owners is that we are safer and more law abiding than the general public, the changes that are required to make us safer are not more gun control but in how our justice system deals with violent criminals and how our society prevents people from becoming criminals. If there is a threat made with a firearm there are already many laws at the police’s disposal to remove firearms from peoples possession, adding “Red Flag” laws serves only to legalize the vindictive and very dangerous act of SWATing. And I am not sure why you bring the American experience into the Canadian debate we have considerably different laws here. But you did. If you some how believe the Second Amendment of the US Constitution only applies to 1700’s technology, get off the internet, the First Amendment should not apply, the framers of the Constitution could not have imagined the ability of Free Speech to be abused in such an open, world reaching manner. The Second Amendment was to prevent installing the yoke of oppression by dictators not to invoke to try and remove it. It was for then, today and tomorrow. Without the 2ndA the Bill of Rights is just a list of suggestions on a 200year old scrap of paper.

  17. The author is an idiot. Automatic weapons are banned in Canada. Centre fire magazines are allowed a max of 5. More gun control on the law abiding firearms owners snd honest taxpaying citizens of this country will do nothing to mitigate crime. We have strict laws already in place if a crime is committed using a firearm. It would simply require enforcing the punishments.

  18. Simply mitigate the mechanics of murder. Remove semi-automatic, high round capacity weapons. Legislating what is inside someone’s head is near impossible, but do away with that which makes killing and mangling large numbers of people so easy.

    • Let’s see murder is already illegal, carrying a loaded firearms is already illegal, carrying a concealed firearm is already illegal, owning a firearm without a license is already illegal, transporting a restricted firearm to anyplace other the range, border or gunsmith is already illegal, magazines that hold more than 5 rounds are already illegal…shall I go on?…and you think adding more laws with help?
      The problem with gun violence is not the tool, it goes much deeper than that. This video will explain a lot easier and quicker than I can. I hope you take the time to watch it. Feel free to look around at other things on this website, there’s a lot of factual information there.
      https://gundebate.ca/do-more-guns-equal-more-death/

    • Steve Chlan Making an act illegal is hardly a deterent if the mechanism to carry out that act is still available, sometimes readily available. Remove the mechanism and the question of whether an individual decides to obey, or disobey a law is rendered moot. If the mechanism is not available, intention is irrelevant. Simple cause and effect. And yes, I hunt. Fudd rules. Winchester levers are my interest.

    • Ryan Menard You miss the point.Gun reference intended. It is not a question of laws. If the item does not exist, there is no problem. Why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to produce vast quantities of prescription drugs, knowing full well they are to be abused. Remove the item, or substance, and the possibility of misuse disappears.

    • Sean MacDonald well you better ban Moose and Lightning too Your chances of getting killed by a Moose are better then being shot in Canada.
      Being hit by lightning is just as likely.

      Didn’t watch my video did you? I understand, you have your own opinion, but if you’re not willing to be open minded and look into really solving the problem at it’s roots then your argument is moot.

    • Dave Ostrowski-Gallant Absoluteky, the are “more” deaths from other events than gun related deaths. Knives, drowning, cars accidents, etc. Did watch the video, and have seen it, and others like it before. Lawyer mimicking, specific language, and focus of statistics, to support a particular position. Social, economic, institutional, psychological issues abound as underlying causes in committing crimes and violence. None of that excuses the ease with which the existence of semi-automatic, high round capacity weapons facillate, beyond all other mechanisms, creating large numbers of casualties in violent events. Mitigate the capacity to do harm. Make it harder to kill, and by all means work on the underlying cause of social problems. Logic and open mindedness at work.

    • So you’re for getting rid of alcohol, motor vehicles, medications, swimming pools and medical malpractice??? All of these kill magnitudes more every year than firearms. How about gasoline diesel fuel, fertilizer, rope, matches…. the list goes on…

      I wonder if all of those protesters in Hong Kong wish they had a Second Amendment?? When the people fear the government you have tyranny – when the government fears the people you have freedom…

    • Scott Blair I take it by your colloquialisms that you’re from, or have connections to the UK. And how do they manage all the semi-automatic, high round capacity weapons in the UK??? Oh, that’s right. There are virtually none in private hands.

    • Sean MacDonald pretty certain the parliament hill shooter used a lever action. An 1894 no? Who needs a high powered rifle like that that never needs an empty chamber and can be continuously reloaded? Last I checked they had an unlimited mag capacity unlike AR-15s.

    • Nick Brown And how many casualties were in that event? Two, if you include the shooter. The availability and use of semi-automatic, high round capacity weapons exponentially increases the number of casualties. That is my point. I am not anti-gun. I am for mitigating the ease with which mayhem can be inflicted upon the public by a relatively untrained perpetrator with little effort, fatigue or skill.

    • Marc Jampolsky How many “sniping” incidents can you name, but one. Not a single concern about anybody wanting my iron. After all, they are mechanical action, Fudd guns. Not much mass lethality. That is the point…..

    • Sean MacDonald a lever action can “easily” match the firing rate of a semi auto AND there are no magazine limits….
      So you’re full of it.
      How many mass shootings have you heard of in canada… By legal owners?
      You realize there have already been calls from the anti-firearm side calling yo ban “sniper rifles” right? This is where the fudd ignorance comes in… You are no more safe than another legal owner… You are no better… Your firearms are no safer
      What is preventing you from killing people with your lever guns? Why are you looking down upon other owners who have gone through the same checks?

    • Maybe a lever can match semi-auto rate of fire and reload, if you are Jerry Miculek on speed. Not looking down, just looking out. Some want to have firepower, rather than hunting power. That might be a source of todays problems. And these problems are recent.

    • Sean MacDonald if they’re both aimed… Similar rate of fire.. If neither are aimed… Similar rate of fire…
      Granted, this is an expert but they’re also on target…
      https://youtu.be/fG4wNhVaAfc
      Even a slow shooter could do 1/5 this speed with some practice.
      Now get one with a box magazine, with no magazine limits vs a semi auto with a 5 round magazine and the semi gets crushed for speed.
      Hell, a lever with a 10 round magazine vs a semi with 2, 5 round mags the lever wins

  19. Mr Millroy,

    I challenge you to actually look up the Canadian firearms Act to see that, automatic firearms are already prohibited. The same goes with large ammunition “clips” or magazines as they are actually called, are also prohibited.

    Firearms owners receive a backround check every single day by the RCMP, and are the safest demographic in Canada. Do not confuse our issues with those of our neighbors to the south. Our laws are different, our issues are different. Our gun violence is different.

    I feel what you have written here is more of a rant, rather then a display of facts and knowledge. For the future, please research your facts of our system. A good start would be to undergo training for a firearms licence, which would teach you all you need to know about our ownership, storage, safe practises and basic laws.

  20. Soooo…. if the founding fathers meant muskets, does that mean the first amendment only protects hand wedge printing presses and hand settable type, delivered by courier, coach or ship? Give your head a shake man! Also, look into the puckle gun whilst doing some research into this topic, which you have strayed into with a paucity of education.

  21. Fully automatic weapons are already prohibited. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are owned by a large number of law abiding responsible hunters and recreational shooters, they have a 5 round capacity with the exception of shotguns which are plugged for three rounds for hunting.
    You need to do a little more research on what a fully automatic weapon is compared to a semi-automatic weapon before making statements like this. Semi-automatic weapons have small magazines, are not restricted at all and they shouldn’t be.

  22. This column exemplifies the problem with the lack of knowledge people have about firearms and the current laws. Automatic weapons are already banned in Canada and have been for decades. They are heavily regulated in the U.S. and banned in almost all states.
    Just from the wording of this article it is clear Mr Millroy has absolutely no knowledge of firearms and the laws surrounding them but feels he has the right to voice his opinion in a public forum.
    I could read a few articles on the internet about how to do brain surgery but until I take the schooling and become licensed I am in no position to express my opinion about how it should be done.
    I challenge you Mr Millroy to go take the course for your PAL (Possession and Acquisition License), then take the additional course to acquire your Restricted license. You will have to study the current laws that are already in place, learn the safe handling of all firearms then pass both a written and practical test with at least 80%. This is just the first part. Then come back and rewrite this. I assure you you will have a completely different perspective because then and only then will you have actual real knowledge and understanding on the topic.
    Here’s a little insight of what you will learn. Everyday Restricted firearms license holders in Canada are run through a RCMP database to be sure we have not committed and serious crimes. Who know who’s names are not; parolees, murderers, rapists, child molesters etc. Firearms owners are statistically the safest, most vetted, law abiding people in Canada. Don’t believe me, do some research, which you should have done before writing this.

    • Dave Ostrowski-Gallant he has the right to express his opinion and that’s why we have dumb laws and regulations because people who think they know the right thing are elected to do so! As well as him saying ban large magazines, they already are Doug, so are automatic weapons in Canada. As for outright banning all firearms, your seriously an idiot okay. We also have very extensive background checks in Canada! The four fathers were talking about a tyrannical government, that’s why the people should have the right to bear arms, not to mention to protect themselves, family or others. It’s happened in so many countries already, genocide, mass government killings. Keep in mind when the government made the amendment, right to bear arms, They did on grounds knowing the government would eventually have guns the same as the people not just muskets. Anyone who thinks they’re safe at night better think again. With the way our politicians are running the world, it won’t be long before murder, break and enters, theft etc get worse and you can quote me on that now, they have and already are getting worse. Or when the government starts invoking your rights and doing whatever they want, kind of like the way they are now. People always find a way to do what they want, like Britain. You take away the guns and they start fighting with knives. People don’t realize how much of a slippery slope it is taking guns away, or an all out ban on guns. People also don’t just want guns for hunting purposes, but for sport shooting. Just remember they’re are plenty of people out there that have weapons and respect them, they use them for protection, they use them for sport and hunting. Not ever gun owner is a bad guy looking to kill, Just like not every car owner is a bad person looking to kill because if that’s the case we should ban fast cars, not everybody should be able to own one or they should be very hard to get ahold of.

    • Mike Premo I have absolutely no problem with him expressing his opinion, as long as it’s based on facts and sound knowledge of the subject. In this case, he has neither and with the ability to influence his readers that is very dangerous.
      As for them not taking away all our guns one only has to look to history to see what has happened when governments have disarmed it’s citizens. Most recently, Venezuela.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here