Shootings and Knifings

[blues deville 572]

Unfortunately I think veterans from every war (I,II, Korea, Vietnam) in the last century had similar problems. Perhaps not as well publicized. 

[mo32a 352]

On 1/7/2017 at 0:26 PM, deicer said:

We were talking about the same thing at work today. 

They should have to go to Special Services to check in the weapon, at which point it would be locked in a case provided by the airline, and the key then taken and given to the Flight Crew.  On arrival, the Flight Crew hands over the key to the arrival agent, who then takes it to a special retrieval area.  It is only at this point that the Agent manning the arrival area opens the case and the weapon is returned to the owner.  As well, a police officer should be present when the handover occurs.

As well, all other luggage is scanned at check in and any ammunition has to be tendered with the weapon. 

 

How is that going to provide any different outcome than what occurred? The guy retrieved his checked bag went into the washroom took his gun and ammo out, loaded the gun and came out and started shooting. All your scenario has done is add 3 more people into the mix with the same result. The number of guns in checked luggage and would preclude this ever being put into place.

[deicer 582]

Every bag is scanned these days at major airports.  Any that are suspicious get kicked out and inspected before loading.  Call down the pax if they are checking in an undeclared weapon, make them miss their flight, then process through proper channels.

Simple...

[Say Again, Over! 61]

DEFCON,

I've heard the argument about arming everybody before and I cringe every time.  Adding more guns to a gun fight will more than likely dramatically increase the numbers of deaths or injuries.  Sure, one or more trained police officers might be a good defence to an armed attacker but a bunch of untrained yahoos with pistols shooting in a crowded area will create a deadly crossfire with a bunch of innocent bystanders in the middle.  They might be good shots and be able to shoot pop cans from wherever but for a combat situation (which this becomes) even our soldiers spend a lot of time just learning how not to shoot each other.

[boestar 888]

The ability to shoot is a teachable skill.  Training someone WHEN to shoot, while also teachable, becomes very subjective.  Police officers face this dilema all the time and recently have erred on the side of shooting when not necessary.  Why does this happen?  because even a trained officer does not know when an individual or group is armed.  They have no idea because so many people ARE armed and there are many guns on the street.  It is true that there any many law abiding citizens on the street packing iron but there are likely a number that a packing illegally as well.  How do you tell which is which?  TRAINING

Many civilians with perfectly valid carry permits have never had any formal training that details when it is ok to shoot and when it is not.  I have read thousands of comments on forum threads and Facebook comments that leads me to believe that the majority do NOT know when it is appropriate to pull the trigger to stop a crime in progress.  Even in a stand your ground state you or someone else must be in immediate danger of severe physical harm or death to allow you to take the perpetrator down with deadly force.  Many think (and it has happened here in Canada) that you can shoot someone stealing your car.  This is not true and is actually committing homicide. 

It is not the gun that does the killing it is the person.  Just like my keyboard does not make spelling mistakes.

 

[mo32a 352]

7 hours ago, deicer said:

Every bag is scanned these days at major airports.  Any that are suspicious get kicked out and inspected before loading.  Call down the pax if they are checking in an undeclared weapon, make them miss their flight, then process through proper channels.

Simple...

You seem to be missing the point. The gun in his checked baggage was perfectly legal, he did declare it, he did nothing wrong up until the point he started shooting people.

Your non-solution would just add three more people into the mix with no change in result.

The only thing that would change this is a change in the US law that allows people to arm themselves. Believe me that is not going to change.

[mo32a 352]

5 hours ago, Say Again, Over! said:

DEFCON,

I've heard the argument about arming everybody before and I cringe every time.  Adding more guns to a gun fight will more than likely dramatically increase the numbers of deaths or injuries.  Sure, one or more trained police officers might be a good defence to an armed attacker but a bunch of untrained yahoos with pistols shooting in a crowded area will create a deadly crossfire with a bunch of innocent bystanders in the middle.  They might be good shots and be able to shoot pop cans from wherever but for a combat situation (which this becomes) even our soldiers spend a lot of time just learning how not to shoot each other.

In all the time I have spent in the US the only case I have heard of where an armed bystander stepped in was in a Home Depot parking lot. She shot at a guy who was being chased for shoplifting. Nobody was in danger but she took it upon herself to intervene. She was charged with dangerous use of a fireamr.

Anyone know of other instances where an armed bystander saved the day?

All I know that if somebody started shooting, somebody else would presume that they were a bad guy and start shooting at them, until everybody is shooting at everybody.

[boestar 888]

Most cases in the US are Trespassing cases.  "Get off my lawn or I'll shoot" kind of stuff.  Until a life is in imminent danger there is no lawful reason or need to discharge a firearm at another person.

 

[Malcolm 1,009]

Re guns in checked luggage, every hunting season there are a lot of guns declared in checked luggage, domestic and transborder but none have ever been used to shoot people at an airport. 

[Fido 538]

1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

none have ever been used to shoot people at an airport. 

There have been one or two instances where improper handling caused a gun to go off.

Part of the procedure was and still likely is for the gun owner to show to the checkin agent that the shotgun or rifle was not loaded.  I know of a few cases where it came about that the gun was in fact loaded. 

[Malcolm 1,009]

14 minutes ago, Fido said:

There have been one or two instances where improper handling caused a gun to go off.

Part of the procedure was and still likely is for the gun owner to show to the checkin agent that the shotgun or rifle was not loaded.  I know of a few cases where it came about that the gun was in fact loaded. 

Perhaps but sloppy handling vs intent is quite different. Mind you that is exactly why I don't like the US "Sloppy" gun ownership laws. 

[J.O. 946]

Golfers often use shipsticks.com to send their clubs to their destination rather than go through the process of checking them with the airline (often for a much higher fee than the courier). Maybe someone needs to start a new service for gun owners. I've been trying to come up with a catchy name but alas, I am drawing a blank (no pun intended). 

Edited January 10, 2017 by J.O.

[boestar 888]

US Post or Canada Post ship guns on a regular basis.  Just mail it.

 

[Kip Powick 1,247]

7 minutes ago, boestar said:

US Post or Canada Post ship guns on a regular basis.  Just mail it.

 

Canada Post = no firearms (x border/internationally)

                      = check with govt sources for inter Province mail requirements

US Post = Long guns only - no hand guns.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Kip Powick
no firearms cross border added

[boestar 888]

Tell that to the mail man that delivers guns here.  Gun by Canada Past but Ammo by courier only.  Both handguns and Long guns 

[boestar 888]

39 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

Canada Post = no firearms (x border/internationally)

                      = check with govt sources for inter Province mail requirements

US Post = Long guns only - no hand guns.

Delivery from Quebec to Ontario for any firearm (except prohibited) via Canada Post is not an issue.  The party in Quebec is the importer and point of entry for international firearms.  At least in this case. I am sure there are others that people deal with.

 

[Malcolm 1,009]

 

3.3	Firearms (including imitation and replica firearms)

International destinations:

Under no circumstances can Firearms be mailed as defined by the Firearms Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-209/FullText.html (Section 16 - non-contract) or http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-210/FullText.html (Section 15 - contract).

Canada:

Please contact the Canadian Firearms Centre at cfc-cafc.gc.ca or by calling 1-800-731-4000 to determine whether it is permissible to ship your firearms.

When it is determined permissible to ship firearms, they must be shipped as follows:

Customer Type	Service To Be Used
Non-contract customer	Regular Parcel with Signature option.
Contract customer	Expedited Parcel with the Proof of Age (18 or 19) option using EST. Visit Section 4.3.2 Mail addressed to children of Policies for an age of majority by province or territory listing.

There cannot be any ammunition in the firearm or in the package. Bullets, cartridges and other ammunition are dangerous goods and cannot be mailed. These items fall under Class 1 (Explosives) of the Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations.

Customers who wish to ship firearms must:

• unload the firearms
• attach a secure locking device to the firearms
• lock the firearms in a sturdy, non-transparent container, and
• remove the bolt or bolt carrier from any automatic firearms (if removable).

Firearms cannot be shipped via air and cannot have any markings on the outside of the packaging. The customer is solely responsible for meeting all Canadian Firearms Centre regulations.

NOTE:

For more packaging tips, refer to Section 3.2.2 Suggestions for how to package and wrap items of ABCs of Mailing.

 

 

[DEFCON 975]

Hi SAO

I couldn't agree more; armed citizens are generally dangerous to themselves as well as everyone and everything around them.

If a peaceful form of civic order is going to be re-established, the leadership is going to have to ask and address some difficult questions. I think it all begins with; why do people increasingly feel there's a 'need' to arm themselves when leaving the house?

  

[DEFCON 975]

Boestar

"Until a life is in imminent danger there is no lawful reason or need to discharge a firearm at another person."

I can think of one reason right off ... If a peace office believes an assailant is fleeing a murder scene for example and no possibility of arrest will be available following, he can shoot the bad guy, and in the back too.

[DEFCON 975]

mo32a

 

"In all the time I have spent in the US the only case I have heard of where an armed bystander stepped in was in a Home Depot parking lot. She shot at a guy who was being chased for shoplifting. Nobody was in danger but she took it upon herself to intervene. She was charged with dangerous use of a fireamr."

A perfect demonstration of the 'what can go wrong when guns are in the wrong hands' theory.

 

"Anyone know of other instances where an armed bystander saved the day?"

I recall an incident that occurred in an American mall not so long ago. The shooter was taken out early in his rampage by an armed citizen. Had the good guy not been there, the police's only role, which is the usual standard, would be to conduct an 'after the fact' investigation.

 

 

[boestar 888]

1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

Boestar

"Until a life is in imminent danger there is no lawful reason or need to discharge a firearm at another person."

I can think of one reason right off ... If a peace office believes an assailant is fleeing a murder scene for example and no possibility of arrest will be available following, he can shoot the bad guy, and in the back too.

If he wants to be charged with murder then yes.  If no ones life is in immediate and imminent danger then shooting is NOT justified.  Fleeing a murder scene is not imminent danger.  TV would have us all believe otherwise.

 

[DEFCON 975]

Well ... I was authorized to carry one and use it; how about you?

[Malcolm 1,009]

2 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Hi SAO

I couldn't agree more; armed citizens are generally dangerous to themselves as well as everyone and everything around them.

If a peaceful form of civic order is going to be re-established, the leadership is going to have to ask and address some difficult questions. I think it all begins with; why do people increasingly feel there's a 'need' to arm themselves when leaving the house?

  

Based on my many visits to Dallas 15+ years ago when I saw all of my rides had a gun in their glove compartment, most folks in Texas seemed to feel that need even then.  

[DEFCON 975]

And your point is?

[Malcolm 1,009]

18 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

And your point is?

Poorly stated but the need was there many years ago in some states (Texas being one) but there is no doubt, at least based on what we see in the media that there does appear to be an increased fear in other areas of the US.