Remember, when a victim is ready to leave, they're in the most danger. Be careful out there.
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
101 points (96.3% liked)
Canada
7287 readers
327 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
π Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 44 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
They should have left 2 years ago when they first felt unsafe. I get wanting to stay together for the kids, but if they are a threat to you, they are a threat to the kids as well. Getting the kids away from the abuser and getting restraining orders would have been a good course of action at that point.
We need more resources available for people in her position, so they don't feel forced to stay with an abuser for the sake of the kids. Those resources need to keep the victims safe, help care for the victims, provide a safe place for victims, and maybe even provide safe ways to get the victims away from abusers.
We need more resources available for people in her position, so they don't feel forced to stay with an abuser for the sake of the kids. Those resources need to keep the victims safe, help care for the victims, provide a safe place for victims, and maybe even provide safe ways to get the victims away from abusers.
You are expecting this from a government that is unwilling provide adequate housing stock to the population overall.
While I agree that these resources must be provided to victims we are ruled by people who hate us and refuse to run proper socio economic policy. This is just one example of this disdain for the common people.
The crook murdered the only decent parent those poor 3 kids had.
Police said Kaminski legally owned at least one firearm, with his brother-in-law saying he owned a .22-calibre firearm.
We need to ban guns completely from civilians and the police in Canada.
Legal gun owner violence is incredibly rare in Canada. I'd rather focus more resources on illegal firearms.
In a case like this with domestic abuse, the abuser would have been able to assault them just as easily with a kitchen knife. The gun isn't the problem here, the abuser is the problem.
Edit: many firearms traning courses instruct firearm owners to notify police of potential violent or abusive firearm owners. The police can then do a follow up to check in on the gun owners and determine if they are safe enough to continue owning firearms. Many training courses also recomend both partners aquire training and a lisence even if just 1 intends on owning firearms. This increases safety for both partners as they are both aware of the laws and safe handling of firearms.
The family had been worried for years about the abuse and behavior of the abuser. We need more awareness that you can ask the police to check in on someone who you believe to be a danger with firearms.
Legal gun owner violence is incredibly rare in Canada. Iβd rather focus more resources on illegal firearms.
FYI:
"But if we look at the studies on this, we find that the vast majority of firearms that are used in shootings both fatal and non-fatal are being purchased legally at one point in time. And then they're diverted." (SOURCE)
The same interview also said:
"One of the core findings that they came away with was that gun bans tend to have a very good effect in terms of reducing gun violence rates. So this is not political posturing. This is social science at work. This is researchers surveying 130 peer-reviewed articles and coming away with this conclusion."
In a case like this with domestic abuse, the abuser would have been able to assault them just as easily with a kitchen knife. The gun isnβt the problem here, the abuser is the problem.
This is not true.
Justice Canada wrote in a report that:
"According to Reiss and Roth (1993: 262), the choice of a weapon in violent domestic disputes may well be "the nearest available object that can project force." In contrast to other types of homicide, the authors concluded, it would seem likely that in domestic disputes "the instrumentality rather than intent contributes most of the firearmβs lethal effect" (Ibidem)." (SOURCE)
It's been studied and known for decades that guns in the home increases the risk of homicide towards women.
You can come to your own conclusions, but I think the data is quite clear, and public safety should come above all other considerations when it comes to firearms.
This Source clears up that the majority of gun crime is commited with hand guns, which have now been banned. About half the hand guns were originally obtained legally, but very very rarely used by their legal owner. I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.
Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime. Banning rifles is unlikely to significantly reduce gun crime. The guns being used are already banned. A legal firearm in the hands of someone without a lisence becomes an illegal firearm. Just like a restricted weapon is illegal for a PAL holder but not for RPAL holders. The focus needs to be on illegal firearms and the flow of firearms from legal sources to illegal sources (theft and black market sales).
Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime.
The report says:
"Among incidents in which the firearm had initially been obtained legally, the accused was the legal firearm owner in 44% of cases (24 of 54 homicides)."
44% is not rare!! That's alarming.
Even more damning is:
"Among the incidents in which the firearm had not initially been obtained legally, or in which the firearm was not legally owned at the time of the homicide, and for which this information was known (49 homicides), the firearm had been stolen from the legal Canadian owner in eight cases, and in five other cases, it had been purchased illegally from the legal Canadian owner.
Furthermore, Stats Canada also states that, "rifle or shotgun" represent 30% of firearm-related homicides, so the number is significant.
I think we do have a problem that needs to be examined deeply by our elected officials.
I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.
The fact that you're trying to bring legal ownership to this discussions means that you are claiming that the origin of guns is an important detail. But at this point we already know that reducing the presence of guns in this world is good, and we already know that making it harder and harder to acquire guns helps reducing the presence of guns. So while true that legality matters in crime statistics, the main point still stands: gun laws can and should be more strict. There's never going to be a point in time where this sentence is not true, unless guns stop existing.
the abuser would have been able to assault them just as easily
That is not true as shooting at someone is just the pull of a trigger where assaulting with a knife is much more involved and difficult to do.
Edit: That the checkup clearly failed here and the best you can do to prevent the murders is by restricting guns further.
The gun owners are always quick to be in damage control trying to downplay the consequences of having guns in society.
People drink and drive killing innocent people as well. We haven't banned all cars and alcohol. It is impossible to stop all deaths but villifying the gun as the worst part of this is disingenuous. This victim was scared for years but never left or searched for help. We need more resources to protect the victims and make help available to them. We can ban guns all we want, it wont stop abusers from being violent. More resources for victims will save more lives and prevent more abuse than just banning guns.
We haven't banned all cars and alcohol.
We should move away from cars and alcohol by building up the public transit and active transport while also informing people about the effects of drinking.
A lot of people from the bars drive home drunk because they cannot easily catch a bus or walk home with the car infrastructure we have here.
Banning guns will make murder much more difficult and force the potential perpetrators to reconsider their actions before acting out on them.
A person could just grab their legally acquired gun and shoot anyone they donβt like without a struggle.
I mean...sometimes city people need to stop staring at their crotch and being useless. Go outside, get out in the country, drive to the fucking NW Territories and think about what you just said.
angry at the idea of not drinking and catching the bus... lol damn these useless city people, subsidizing fuel for everyone
Let's ban cars too, and knives, and bleach, and umm, anything that can hurt someone if misused. Yeah!
Letβs ban cars too and replace them with bike lanes, buses and trains. But those other things mentioned are bad comparisons.
Any competent redneck/welder/machinist(especially him, his isn't ever gonna jam and will be more accurate)/mechanic/plumber can build a functioning AK 47 in an afternoon. It's not hard. basic welding skills, knowing how to rivet, and also very few moving parts. They're literally folded sheet metal and rivets plus a barrel. I am not exaggerating. https://imgur.com/gallery/old-gold-build-own-ak-47-from-shovel-TspVw here's how
We need to ban guns completely from civilians and the police in Canada.
If you do that, your government will never respect you. I don't understand why people have so much blind faith in regimes run by and for the benefit of the owner class.
If you do that, your government will never respect you
What does this even mean? Are countries with high gun ownership examples of societies high in "respect"? Like Japan, South Korea... no wait
Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Swede, Austria
? Yes Switzerland and a few others have high gun ownership, but how does that help the thesis?
Their government is based on the principle that you have adult people who own their piece of land, will defend it with force, and government represents their interest along with capital class.
Moreso, US has no gun culture. I don't give a fuck a what all of the sharp shooter wanna be got to say.
Until, the gun culture holds idiots accountable for the gun ownership, we won't stop gun shootings.
That's includes the state that enforces its own laws but also 2a enthusiasts. There is a serious lack of respect for gun ownership in US. These people should not own guns and that takes culture and law.
There is also the point that if the police don't have guns, who can safely respond to gun crime? The majority of gun crime in Canada is committed with illegal handguns.
if the police donβt have guns, who can safely respond to gun crime?
Police, with non-lethal weapons. Though I agree this is a very unbalanced scenario, so of course the police should have some gun availability until gun crime becomes very rare.
People who say shit like that think guns are some magical mystery technology that no one understands. I built my first gun when I was 12, a single shot .22 bolt action. My dad was quite impressed and then cut it up. That was 20 years ago, at this point I can build anything I want, and so can anyone knows how to weld and do simple fabrication. (And personally i don't think anyone that ill informed should be allowed to vote)
Ah yes, ban guns right as governments and corporations are going full fascist again. What could ever go wrong? That would stop all crime. It's not like someone could drive a truck into a crowd of people in New Orleans on NYE and kill 15 people in half a second. That's just impossible.
government and corporations have been going full fascist for decades and you havenβt done shit. You donβt need your gun, because if you did you would have already used it.
You just like to indulge in your little killing fantasy while bobbing on the boot.
The problems I see with banning guns are 1) people in remote regions who hunt to eat (they should be able to have guns, and 2) if Trump decides he's gonna try to invade Canada (then all of us need guns).
Other than that a zero-gun nation sounds good to me.
Youβre Ignorant. Gotcha. Donβt bother replying.
Actually just gonna block you now. Youβre wierd.
Unless it's a 22LR you could get shot by it and still take it from him. I'm only half kidding.
I half agree.
This is Canada. Our (national) cops are actually trained.
LOL. ok buddy. Trained in what exactly, being fucking assholes to everyone they meet?
Mostly just brown and black people 'cause they're easier pickings.
I mean, I lived in Canada long enough to realize the RCMP just hate everyone. You see that chart the other day that listed how white every province was 20 years ago, and it was all above 95 percent, and now it's like 50 percent except some of the Maritimes? I'm more than old enough to remember when the RCMP's favourite target was poor whites (and treaty indians if they could find them)
I'm over 65 and have lived all over Canada. What I've seen is Black and Brown people get treated a LOT worse than white people are.
Yes, poor white people get treated like shit too, but they aren't gunned down or jailed at the astronomical rate POCs are.
lie some more.
oh man, you two agree that the RCMP are assholes, why die on this hill
Apparently the splitting issue was if whites or blacks got fucked harder by the fed...
Very America of them!
Poor you, thinking that because you disagree with me that makes me a liar.
Too young to be wise I guess.
Too old to buy your bullshit (mostly about the living all over I meant, but the rest sounds specious too)