RCMP Phone interview

Bronco Boy said:
PS Mocking me for a simply spelling error is petty and childish.
Click to expand...

It's not a spelling error Bronco. Inefficacy is a real term but with a different meaning than inefficiency (hence my suggestion to look it up.) Your post was quite well written and so I assumed you were well read and chose inefficacy purposely. No intent to be petty and/or childish, sorry if you took it that way.
 
Bergamascho said:
The application process for a PAL and the RCMP phone interviews. I'm assuming by your post you no likey?
Click to expand...

From a purely theoretical standpoint I am a Libertarian and support the smallest simplest system possible.

From: http://www.libertarian.ca/

11. Guns and Self-Defence Rights
•The government's role should be to assist ordinary people in defending
themselves, not to leave them defenceless to criminals and crazed gunmen.
•We support the rights of ordinary citizens to carry firearms for self-defence and
recreational purposes.
•Police who carry guns should not have more rights than the public they serve.
Neither should criminals be the only members of the public who carry guns.
•We would repeal gun registration laws, which are blatant attempts to supervise
and control members of the public - to whom the government is only a servant.
•Those who use guns in violent crimes should be punished severely, but those who
use guns to defend their lives and to deter aggressive criminals should never be punished for a proportional response.

From a practical standpoint I support nothing more than a mandatory course, the current one is fine, and then a quick criminal background check.

No phone calls
No references
No silly long waiting period
No Spousal checks.
No registrations (on any guns)
No ATT’s
No ATC’s
No mandatory range memberships.
No barrel length restrictions
No mag capacity restrictions
None of it…just a simple common sense system.

No criminal record? OK, here is your gun license. It expires the moment you are convicted of a crime and good for life otherwise.
 
No phones call here . My wife and myself took both courses together and received our cards in the mail . This is the first time I have heard about a phone interview . I also hope this gets your thread back on course .
 
@Bronco Boy

If only people could be trusted so well.

I know several people who don't have criminal records, but have absolutely no right to own a gun. Either for emotional issues (i.e. get angry VERY easily) or maturation issues (they would not treat a firearm with the respect it deserves).

I know that, personally, I would feel a lot safer in certain situations if I was allowed to CC my sidearm. Keep in mind that I'd never want to have to use it, but to know I have the ability to keep myself and others safe in a potentially dangerous situation is reassuring. However, as I mentioned, there are many people who just can't be trusted with this ENORMOUS responsibility and that's why I can't see what you suggested ever working.

It's unfortunate, but that's the way our society is. Some people just aren't cut out for responsible gun ownership.
 
Blurr[SOAR] said:
Some people just aren't cut out for responsible gun ownership.
Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more.

The simple fact is all the checks and phone calls don't do a damn thing.

There will always be armed robbery, spousal murders, school massacres and citizens & police shot down from time to time. Occasionally this is going to happen with legally acquired firearms, mostly not. All the rules and systems in the world won't stop this, they are 100% futile, as we know from the experiences in other countries.

Our current system is simply an attempt to appease and please an vocal and angry segment of the public by a government wishing to get reelected. It has nothing to do with public safety or keeping firearms out of the hands of unstable people; the law makers are smart enough to know such attempts would be completely futile. Think about it.
 
Wildbore said:
Yea, but crazy people still get guns and complete morons can pass the safety course.

This interview is wasteful and useless. Gun ownership is a right that shouldn't be impaired by courses and interviews.
Click to expand...

As much as I agree with most of your post, my mind can't get over how wrong you are on how gun ownership being a right.

1. If it was then, how come the government forces us to apply and denies various applications for a PAL? There's a mandatory exam for a reason.

2. Our rights are outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms and last I checked, gun ownership is not listed in there.

3. If was a right then every damn person walking the streets would have a gun.

Gun ownership is a privilege not a right, a privilege can be taken away, a right cannot (legally at least).

We're Canadians, not Americans.
 
Vince910 said:
Gun ownership is a privilege not a right, a privilege can be taken away, a right cannot (legally at least).
Click to expand...

A privilege granted by whom?

Many would argue that gun ownership and self defense is an inherit right and one that no government or group can take away from anyone else morally end/or ethically.
 
Bronco Boy said:
A privilege granted by whom?

Many would argue that gun ownership and self defense is an inherit right and one that no government or group can take away from anyone else morally end/or ethically.
Click to expand...

The Canadian government, so long as anyone resides within Canadian boundaries, they agree to abide by Canadian laws.

While I do agree with you on self defense being an inherit right I still disagree with gun ownership being a right. Self-defense is obviously used for self-preservation when one's life is in potential danger. However, the argument people use for gun ownership being a method of self-defense is silly because there are many other more reasonable alternatives for self-defense than having to resort to a firearm for self-defense. Why do you think the government restricts the issuing of gun licenses on the basis of "self-defense"?
 
Last edited:
I got my PAL & RPAL in 2007, and never got a phonecall from the CFC or RCMP. If I would've I would've been %*$#@!~ pissed off at the operator for asking me questions I had already answered on my application. "Refer to my application" would've been my answer to ever single one of their questions.
 
Vince910 said:
The Canadian government, so long as anyone resides within Canadian boundaries, they agree to abide by Canadian laws.

While I do agree with you on self defense being an inherit right I still disagree with gun ownership being a right. Self-defense is obviously used for self-preservation when one's life is in potential danger. However, the argument you use for gun ownership being a method of self-defense is silly because there are many other more reasonable alternatives for self-defense than having to resort to a firearm for self-defense. Why do you think the government restricts the issuing of gun licenses on the basis of "self-defense"?
Click to expand...

I used to think like this once. CGN has helped enlighten me a lot...it might you as well. I hope you stick around and participate in these forums.
 
Vince910 said:
The Canadian government, so long as anyone resides within Canadian boundaries, they agree to abide by Canadian laws.

While I do agree with you on self defense being an inherit right I still disagree with gun ownership being a right. Self-defense is obviously used for self-preservation when one's life is in potential danger. However, the argument people use for gun ownership being a method of self-defense is silly because there are many other more reasonable alternatives for self-defense than having to resort to a firearm for self-defense. Why do you think the government restricts the issuing of gun licenses on the basis of "self-defense"?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to disagree with you, but tell me which reasonable alternative for self-defense are you going to use if the person attacking you is armed with a firearm? I suppose you could say CQC disarmament (which is a part of martial arts I believe, or a type of anyways) but that is something that would take years of training and only works in close quarters. At least with both of you being armed, the playing field is leveled and it comes down to who is a more practiced shooter.

Again, this is a highly hypothetical situation and one I'm sure no one would want to be placed in. I simply use this as an example because when a firearm is involved, I don't believe there is any reasonable alternative to self-preservation besides another firearm (used in a defensive role only).

However, this is something that I don't think will ever happen. What I mean is, I don't think Canadians will ever be given the right to CC. But hey, stranger things have happened and you can always dream, right?
 
Myself and all my references recieved a call when I applied for my RPAL in 2008, and yeah, I got asked a lot of the questions I'd already filled out on my application.

"Are you a maniac"
"No."
"Are you planning on killing your spouse"
"No."

And so on. I'm paraphrasing of course, but not by that much.
 
The RCMP lady only asked me questions which I filled out in the form, except one where she asked me why I would apply for the restricted PAL. She asked my 2 references different questions which mostly related to my personality and if they would think that I am a danger. One of my references was a woman and the RCMP lady played a bit more the fear factor: "Aren't you afraid if he has a gun".

I think it's getting more tougher and you should prime your references.

Just got my M14-305 and shot it today. WOW.


./
 
Dillinger022 said:
I got my PAL & RPAL in 2007, and never got a phonecall from the CFC or RCMP. If I would've I would've been %*$#@!~ pissed off at the operator for asking me questions I had already answered on my application. "Refer to my application" would've been my answer to ever single one of their questions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, their questions are identical to the ones in the application. Two possible reasons. 1) just verifying what you filled out and 2) listening to your voice for any clues that you are possibly bonkers even though answering no to all the vital questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom