Censoring is forbidding anyone from publicizing the name.
It’s quite common to not release sensitive data, like the names of rape victims. If a government doesnt release them, that is a good thing. If later, someone does release that name of the rape victim, arresting them for that would be censorship.
You really cant see the difference?
I can’t see the difference between suppressing the name as unacceptable information and not releasing the name as unacceptable information, no.
But apparently you have your own special definition of censoring; that’s why I asked you about it.
No, my definition is the same. Not releasing is not “suppress or delete”. Other, private individuals are free to let the info out. They will not be arrested for doing so.
So, let me get this clear- we dont release the names of rape victims or juvenile suspects- you consider that censorship?
is it Ok to release the names of rape victims or juvenile suspects? Or not?
They’re being weirdly coy about the weapons he used. Which, cynically, is pretty good evidence the evil piece of filth didn’t use an Ugly Black Rifle. From The Globe and Mail (Warning: annoying paywall), comes a story with this quote:
.
I would have guessed he’d have used a hunting rifle of some sort to incapacitate RCMP Constable Stevenson with the reported chest wounds she suffered, before he eventually killed her. Perhaps she wasn’t wearing her bulletproof vest? Or the bullets could have gone in an armhole, I guess. She was very brave in her attempt to stop him. I wish she could have been successful.
The wiki for the shootings claims the killer did not possess a firearms licence. Seems easy to prove one way or the other.
The bulletproof vests worn by police officers will not necessarily stop a rifle round. I don’t know what kind of vest Const. Stevenson was wearing, of course, and while heavier Level III and IV armor is provided, it’s often not worn unless a tactical situation comes up.
Yeah, a medium to large game hunting rifle bullet will go through the vast majority of soft armor like it’s not even there. Most soft police body armor should stop most handgun bullets or buckshot though. Might even stop a shotgun slug. If witnesses to the shooting, plus that guy quoted in the Globe, only saw the guy with handguns or a shotgun, then he might not’ve had a rifle.
Northern Piper, his prior for assaulting that kid outside his shop, would it have prohibited the killer from possessing a firearms licence or a handgun possession licence? (Those handguns that wouldn’t be ‘prohibited weapons’ per that Crown code section you cited earlier in this thread.)
But a shotgun slug goes thru almost all body armor.
Canada gun laws are what “gun grabbers” in the uSA dream about:
No small pistols, no guns that we would call assault weapons, no large magazines, and in order to own ANY pistol you have a restricted possession and acquisition licence (RPAL) for restricted firearms.
Why is this the first time in my life I’m encountering the word “denturist”? Do we not have such things here?
Not automatically, no, but it was possible; depending on the judge’s decision.
Since the offence of assault involves personal violence, the judge would be required to consider whether to make a prohibition order as a term of the conditional discharge, but it wouldn’t be mandatory. All i konw is what I read in the papers, and I’ve not seen any reference to a prohibition order.
Your first comment is surprising, and not what I’ve seen elsewhere. (e.g., The Box O Truth playing with ballistic polymer “shoot packs”: The Box O' Truth #16 - Level IIIA Armor | Firearms and Ammuni Forum) Speed kills when it comes to getting through ballistic armor, and slugs (absent certain saboted offerings) don’t go very fast compared to rifle bullets, or oddballs like 5.7 or 7.62 x 25. Certainly has gobs and then some of momentum. No idea how it would do against NIJ Level II.
Anyway, NP’s cite was great about specifying the differences in allowed v. prohibited handguns, the 100 mm minimum barrel length, the odd carveout for competition. 32s. So, a Canadian would legally have to have an RPAL before possessing a non-prohibited handgun? Is it likely that the killer had one?
If he didn’t, how did he obtain the handguns he was witnessed with, that weren’t Constable Stevenson’s? And is black market purchasing of a handgun by someone not in organized crime, something that’s typical?
My understanding is that they are the dental equivalent to an optician, who fills your prescription for spectacles based on what the optometrist prescribed. The dentist says what kind of dentures, and the denturist actually makes them.
What do you call a person who makes dentures?
For those just joining us, I think the quote that you’re referring to is over in the “How’s Trudeau doing, Canada?” thread in Politics and Elections.
Yes, he would have had to get first a PAL “Possession and Acquisition Licence”, which includes background checks by the Mounties, interviews with spouses and former spouses, and so on, and complete a general gun safety course. Then to get a handgun, which is a restricted weapon, he would have to apply for the restricted version of a PAL, and go through more background checks and a gun safety course designed specially for handguns. Only then would he be able to actually get the handgun.
Over in the other thread, Sam Stone and Dancer Flight are telling about the actual process to get one. People might find that interesting.
As for how he got a handgun without complying with the laws: black market. I don’t know how prevalent that is.
Hmm, interesting, we were told it would kill you- but then I see the huge hole it punched in the stuff- and reading further:
The shot would cause tremendous blunt trauma to the underlying Organs. The Heart could be Ruptured or damaged, Liver or Spleen ruptured.
*Level IIIA armor should stop most shotgun rounds, including slugs and buckshot. The impact would be utterly disabling, though, and would almost certainly take the armor-wearer out of the fight.
I say most because there is a very wide variety of shotgun loads, including a variety of armor-piercing slugs, some of which are designed to penetrate and disable engine blocks. There’s hardened steel slugs, saboted .50 AP bullets, etc. It is quite possible that these types of shells will penetrate even level IV armor with ease.*
Slug ammunition is a different story. It’s a large heavy round with actually decent pen; You COULD clear L2, but L3A is guaranteed to eat anything that’s not dedicated to AP. Fiocchi slugs can clear L4, but are rare at best. Moreover, L5 and STRed L4s can stand it pretty easily.
So, maybe they wore the lighter lvl 2, or it ruptured the heart or whatever.
Looks like a slug is a maybe, depending on the slug and level of armor.
The carve-out for small calibre pistols is because there is apparently a very active competition community which specialises in .22 and .25 pistols. However, those small calibre pistols are very handy if you’re a crook, because they are so easily concealed, but pack enough of a punch to do a stick-up.
When the Chretien government introduced the Firearms Act back in 1995, they prohibited all small calibre pistols, which caused an ungodly row with the competition group. Frankly, individuals who spend gobs o’money to travel internationally to shoot a special small calibre of pistol aren’t likely to be using it to hold up a liquor store, so the compromise was to include the carve-out and tie it to the international regulatory body for that competition group.
However, every time I read about the special carve-out, I remember the Doonesbury cartoon where Roland Burton Hedley III is interviewing Nancy Reagan about her .22 pistol that “Ronnie gave to me back when Hollywood was crawling with Communists”. She explains that it shoots “teeny-weeny lady-like bullets”. 
I think .32 not .25, since .22 and .32 are the Olympic calibers, arent they?
So far as I know, we get all our dental accessories from our dentists.
I cannot speak for .32 calibre, but as a shooter of .22 calibre who tried out for Canada’s Olympic rifle team, I can attest that .22 calibre is indeed an Olympic calibre.
Nancy Reagan did not say, “Ronnie gave to me back when Hollywood was crawling with Communists”.
32 S&W Long isn’t an Olympic caliber—the non-shotgun competitions all use .22 LR or 4.5 mm air rifle pellets, until the shooting sports abandon projectiles entirely—but it’s often used in other international center fire pistol competitions. E.g., ISSF 25 meter center-fire pistol - Wikipedia
From that cite, you can use any caliber between 7.62 mm and 9.65 mm (.38), but .32 S&W Long is predominant for a few reasons. Militaries haven’t historically used that cartridge, and a lot of countries ban the possession of cartridges that have historically been used by a military, like 9mm, .45 ACP, and I’m guessing, .38 Special, which otherwise can be a quite accurate cartridge. I guess .38 Super isn’t as inherently accurate or recoils too much.
Thanks, NP. I was confused about where I saw your very informative post. Thanks again, for clarifying the firearms licencing process for those of us who aren’t Canadian. It’s a lot easier in the States.