RCMP Budget Cut by $4.2M

[Donald G]

To lakevixen ...

Safety is completely relative. You could never have enough police to keep society completely safe from harm. Often becoming a victim is simply the luck of the draw.

The number of police officers can lower your odds of becoming a victim and solving the crime after it takes place but that too is often the luck of the draw.

[Partmanpartfish]

Safety is completely relative. You could never have enough police to keep society completely safe from harm. Often becoming a victim is simply the luck of the draw.

The number of police officers can lower your odds of becoming a victim and solving the crime after it takes place but that too is often the luck of the draw.

Oh but wait, what's next?!

More than 20 school districts in the United States have been equipped with military-grade equipment through the federal program that provides such gear to local and state authorities free of charge, according to civil rights groups.

TKPBS in Sand Diego reported that the city's school district had received a mine-resistant vehicle. KTLA in Los Angeles reported that the district there had also received its own mine-resistant vehicle as well as grenade launchers. KHOU in Houston reported that local school districts had received military firearms.

A school district in Edinburg, Texas, has employed a full SWAT unit, according to the letter, which is equipped through the 1033 program. The groups pointed to a news image that showed officers in military fatigues standing in front of school buses.

Never mind . . .

[Partmanpartfish]

Thanks to that pesky little thing they like to call "The Constitution" saying we can't use the military to police our own people.

I think they use the military to police the people of North Korea. Maybe ask around to see how that's working out.

Perhaps there was a reason those folks who gave us The Constitution didn't want the military with its military hardware going up against citizens.

Glad the police are finding workarounds.

[Donald G]

The only politician who has used the Canadian Armed Forces against the citizens, other than in wartime, was Pierre Elliot Trudeau during the FLQ crisis when he re-enacted the Canadian War Measures Act. An interesting part of our Canadian History.

At Gustafson lake several pieces of armed forces equipment was used after a police officer was shot in the back. Those it was used to protect themselves against and their similar thinking sympathisers raised so much of a public outcry and distortion of the the information (fully aided by the media of course) that the police apparently decided to obtain their own equipment in order to destroy any suggesting that "the Canadian Army was being used against citizens".

Some people get very blind and stupid when the police make any changes, even if those changes are in the interest of the safety of everyone involved and society as a whole. Especially those prone to VIOLENT civil disobedience.

[Donald G]

The Canadian War Measures Act

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/e ... sures-act/


Replaced by the Canadian Emergency Measures Act

The Emergencies Act is an Act of the Parliament of Canada to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.

It received Royal Assent on July 21, 1988, replacing the War Measures Act.

The Emergencies Act differs from the War Measures Act in two important ways:

A declaration of an emergency by the Cabinet must be reviewed by Parliament
Any temporary laws made under the Act are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thus any attempt by the government to suspend the civil rights of Canadians, even in an emergency, will be subject to the "reasonable and justified" test under section 1 of the Charter.[1]

[Partmanpartfish]

Some people get very blind and stupid when the police make any changes, even if those changes are in the interest of the safety of everyone involved and society as a whole. Especially those prone to VIOLENT civil disobedience.

Well, if this is all about keeping society as a whole safe, perhaps we should have the police round up all the privately owned firearms. Because privately owned firearms kill a lot more folks than hockey game rioters.

[dogspoiler]

Illegal drugs kill more than guns, maybe we should outlaw illegal drugs.

[Smurf]

Actually I believe cars kill away more than either one of them. Maybe we should round up all the automobiles. But wait maybe in all these cases it is people that actually cause the problem. What should we do round up all the people.

[Partmanpartfish]

Both of you are missing the point. Please go back and read again.

[Donald G]

To Smurf ...

I agree that we did better than "rounding up the people".

What our ancestors did was to create a place that balanced individual desires with the need for public safety and called the place Canada. With all of our real and imagined problems Canada is still one of the safest places on earth. And offers some of the widest freedoms ever given a society on earth.

People like partmanpartfish have trouble accepting that macro concept and get preoccupied with changing the balance with something more to their own liking.

The quality of our Canadian Police Officers and the Legislated rules that we have adopted are a large part of that balance

[Partmanpartfish]

T

People like partmanpartfish have trouble accepting that macro concept and get preoccupied with changing the balance with something more to their own liking.

Nope. Just saying any additional powers we give politicians OR police, we never get back.

You didn't answer my question. If 'changes are in the interest of the safety of everyone involved and society as a whole,' why don't we let police confiscate all privately owned firearms?

[Donald G]

To partmanpartfish ...

We do not confiscate ALL firearms because;

1. Trade off between hunting weapons and target shooters and complete safety;

a) long guns are harder to hide if being used for non safe purposes,
b) people with handguns are limited as to use,
c) all persons with handguns or long guns are security checked

2. Banning all guns would be unacceptable to the majority of people.

3. Guns are only one of several types of weapons used for ulterior purposes so banning all guns would not make that much difference compared to the present situation.

4. If all guns were banned in Canada they would still be available just across the border in the USA.

[maryjane48]

3. Guns are only one of several types of weapons used for ulterior purposes so banning all guns would not make that much difference compared to the present situation.

marijuanna is just one of several drugs used for medicine or fun, so banning all drugs would not make that much difference compared to present situation :P

[Partmanpartfish]

So, Donald, you still didn't answer the question. Let me put it a different way:

Let's say some future government decides to send out the RCMP to confiscate all privately owned firearms because such changes are, as you say, 'in the interest of the safety of everyone involved and society as a whole,' you'd be OK with that?

[Donald G]

To partmanpartfish ...

I support the balance that we presently have. Not as safe as possible but relatively safe given all of the other inherent possibilities necessary to a relatively free society. You completely overlooked the word "balanced" in my comments.

Given the outcry when the Government attempted to confiscate long guns I think that the majority of people have a similar opinion.