Thursday, August 02, 2007

True Confessions: JimBobby Contemplated Murder

Whooee! I been in a yammerin' gabfest on a coupla threads over to Scotty Tribe's DiaTribe boog. The topic is gun control, banned weapons and crime prevention. Some folks think anybody should be able to own any kinda weapon and should only be subject to legal intervention if they use that weapon in an illegal manner. I ain't on that side o' the argument.

I reckon we gotta make it tough fer people to get ahold of some weapons and impossible to get ahold of others. I ain't some sorta nanny-state socialist, though. I'm a left libertarian. I figger my rights extend to the point where I'm steppin' on somebody else's rights but I also figger society has a right to protect itself from deadly weaponry. I also understand that bans can create a black market in illegal weapons and can possibly increase crime.

Okay, let me tell you a true story of how gun control prevented a crime.

About 10 years ago, my then 25 year old son was viciously attacked by two men in Port Dover, Ontario. The attack was unprovoked. They "accused" my son of being gay and they beat him for that (mistaken) assumption. He was beaten unconscious and kicked in the face after he was out cold. We knew who did it and the assault was reported to police. The OPP investigated and during the investigation, the attackers threatened witnesses with death should they choose to testify. Eventually, reduced charges were laid and one of the attackers walked away uncharged while the other got probation and a $1000 fine.

Now, let's go back about 20 years.

Back then, I considered purchasing a rifle for target practice and perhaps for varmint shootin'. I looked into gettin' my Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC). I decided that I didn't wanna be bothered with takin' a course and I didn't really care that much about ownin' a gun. I brushed it off as a whim and didn't think about it much… until after my son was attacked.

For about a month after my son was beaten, while the bad guys were threatening everyone, I slept with a tire iron beside the bed.

But my thoughts were far from defensive. I secretly plotted to stalk and kill the guys who disfigured my boy. I kicked myself for failing to follow through and get my FAC. I longed for a high-powered sniper rifle so I could eliminate the scum from the community. BTW, this is the very first time I've admitted to my murderous intentions, even Ma don't know what I was plottin'.

Today, I'm still angry at the attackers. They got off easy. That said, I'm also relieved that I hadn't followed through with my original quest for gun ownership. I have almost no doubt that I would have lain in wait and shot those guys. I considered looking for an illegal weapon but I figgered I'd probably get caught if I went out right after my son got beat up and started lookin' fer a huntin' rifle. If I'd already had one, I'd have used it.

Today, I'm glad that I don't have murder on my conscience and the only reason I don't is that I didn't own a gun when murderous thoughts consumed me.

That's one example of crime prevention through gun control. I really don't think I'm the only Canajun who's ever contemplated murder (or suicide) and who's abandoned those thoughts after coolin' off.

JimBobby

PS - Most o' this here boog story was posted as a comment at Scott's boog.

30 comments:

Rosie said...

Thats a powerful and compelling story JimBobby. I am sorry for what happened to your son.

As for suicide-look whats happened, what, twice in the past month at an edmonton shooting range-2 people shot in the face-both considered suicides (one attempted I think?).

JimBobby said...

Whooee! Thanks, Rosie. We've mostly put this behind us but I have to admit that part of me still wants revenge, even after all these years. I should also say that I'm not prone to violence. Since my adolescence, I was never involved in any fist fights and have maintained a pacifist philosophy. I'm considered a law-abiding citizen, maybe even a pillar of the community.

Pacifism, non-violence and compliance with the law all took a backseat to a father's love. I was quite surprised, myself, at how easily I abandoned my lifelong beliefs when my family was victimized.

JB

Ron said...

JimBobby, with respect, if it was only gun control that stopped you from being a murderer then the problem didn't rest with the gun control laws, it rested with you, your ethics at that time, and your anger management skills.

I'm not sure how your immaturity or criminal mind-set (for lack of better words) at that time morphs into a reason to restrict the innocent.

I reckon we gotta make it tough fer people to get ahold of some weapons and impossible to get ahold of others.

It's already difficult to get nukes, and probably always will be. As for handguns and assualt rifles, a truly motivated murderer will do with what's available, so you'd have to ban all rifles too, and knives, and fertilizer, and gasoline, and insecticide...

JimBobby said...

Ron, the point I'm makin' is that at the time I thought about gun ownership, I would never in a million years have thought I would be capable of murderous thoughts. Had gun ownership been unrestricted, I would certainly have owned a gun. Had I owned one, I'm pretty sure I would have used it. As the days and weeks went by, my motivation waned but when the incident was fresh, believe me, I was awake nights thinking about how to do the deed.

You may not want to accept a true, personal account that challenges your anything-goes philosophy but I still contend that had gun ownership been just a little easier, I'd be a killer and your tax dollars would have paid for the police investigation, my trial and my prison stint.

Anger management had little to do with my not going after guys 30 years younger and 100 pounds heavier than me. I reasoned that the best way to get even and not get caught would be to work secretly and alone as a sniper. Not a lot of high ethics there, I'm afraid.

JB

JimBobby said...

Oh yeah... I'm not talkin' about bans wrt this incident. I'm talkin' about regulation and control.

The simple hoop that I was too lazy to jump through (the FAC course and test) was enough, in my case, to steer me away from gun ownership. My whim was not that strong and as a townie, I got no real need fer a gun in the house. If I was a farmer or lived in the sticks, it would be almost irresponsible not to own a gun.

JB

pale said...

Revenge....some say its a dish best served cold.

If Gun control helps people from acting rashly, and just acting on impulse even once. It has done it's job.
I think that is the point. You found it too much of a hassle to apply before so sheer...laziness? and you weren't able to go on a rampage. A crime of passion.
You still did have the checks and balances that kept you from purchasing one illegally.

I think that's something those who would scrap the gun laws keep missing.

I grew up in a house with guns, hunting rifles. I have fired guns.
I do not and will never own one myself.
And your story is not far off from a period in my own past. And that's where I will leave that. In the past.

Ron said...

I acept your story, JimBobby, certainly. I don't see how it translates to a reason to inflict restrictions on innocent folks, but I am glad it worked out for you.

I guess we can thank your lack of motivation and inventivenes, too ;-)

My point is that there are folks who access unrestricted kitchen knives and commit murders when angry. If your anger is a reason to restrict access, then why not the same-same with kitchen knives or hatchets. After all, we know someone's not gonna be able to control themselves.

JimBobby said...

I don't see how it translates to a reason to inflict restrictions on innocent folks,

I WAS innocent folk when the restrictions discouraged ownership.

The knives argument is specious. Would you bring a knife to a gunfight? Guns have a much better chance of killing than knives. If someone wants to kill me with a knife, they'll have to sneak up on me and even then, I'll maybe have a chance to fight. If they wanna kill me with a gun, they can stand across the room and I won't stand a chance. If they're using an automatic weapon, they can just spray and don't even have to aim. Maybe they'll kill some innocent bystanders while they're at it.

JB

Saskboy said...

"I don't see how it translates to a reason to inflict restrictions on innocent folk"

It doesn't have to translate, it relates directly. JB was an innocent person, through an act of victimization, was driven to consider using a weapon. He didn't have it because gun restrictions made it more of a process to obtain one.

We should keep in mind though, that this was pre-registry days, and so it really isn't an argument for the silly registry we have today.

Ron said...

pale: re

If Gun control helps people from acting rashly, and just acting on impulse even once. It has done it's job.

I could say something similar: if gun control has prevented one now dead peaceful citizen from protecting themselves, then it's a failure; it's an argument of equal weight.

JimBobby said...

Right Sasky. I ain't arguin' in favour of the dumbass waste of money the Grits created with the registry. I do wonder why a lotta people don't mind registerin' their boat, car, snowmobile and dog but they don't wanna register a deadly weapon. No, Ron, I don't advocate registering the kitchen cutlery.

JB

pale said...

Equal?

No, never equal. One does not excuse the other.
Collateral damage and all that?
What lives are precious, and which deaths are acceptable so that y'all can keep yer GUNS.
There are not too many stories where the homeowner shoots the "bad guy". Statistics do not bear your argument out.
They do however show that a lot of kids are shot playing with unsafely kept guns, and many people act on impulse before they get a hold of their rational side.
(road rage is a perfect example)

There's also the other laughable part of the pro-gun argument...

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people..." "I can kill you with a knife!"
Knives have other purposes like....making dinner They also require hand to hand, or face to face contact more often than not.
Not the same cowardice of a sniper.

Guns have no other purpose, except to maim or kill.
Target practice as an argument?
One can do that with a bow and arrow, or a paintball gun.
Or one could just start reading. Thats a great hobby.

Ron said...

What lives are precious, and which deaths are acceptable so that y'all can keep yer GUNS

What lives are precious, and which deaths are acceptable so that y'all can keep yer restrictions?

Same-same.

JB: When I refer to innocent folks I mean the innocent folks that had absolutely no involvement with your situation, JB; I mean innocents as in "the presumption of innocence" which I extend to all citizens until they have been proved to be guilty of a crime. Prior to that, they have done nothing to deserve restrictions on their choices.

Pale said...

Thats where we shall disagree till the planet implodes.

Like I said. Collateral damage.
Its not the same. Never will be.

What truly scares me about people with your mindset is the acceptance of innocent deaths for something that isnt even true.

Peace be.

Ron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron said...

Sorry--fixed the last post...

pale:

There are not too many stories where the homeowner shoots the "bad guy". Statistics do not bear your argument out.

Actually, you're wrong there.

Here and here and here. Two of these are academic papers, one is a running compilation of news stories.

Guns kill people like spoons make people fat.

Thats where we shall disagree till the planet implodes.

I commend you on your open mind.

JimBobby said...

Ron, those all look like Merkan sources. Things are different here, in case you hadn't noticed.

Where more people own guns,it stands to reason they will be used more -- for any number of reasons including self-defense. From what I saw, some of the incidents were more property defense than self-defense, though.

As for openmindedness, you've literally made dozens of posts on Scott's and this blog and you've never ceded a single point so whether you admit it or not, there's no openmindedness on your side, either.

You've had one position from the outset and nothing will make you change your mind.

Your position, as I'm pretty sure we all get, is that you feel victimized by restrictions placed on you by society.

You live in the wilderness, as far as I can tell, so you've managed to isolate yerself from most restrictions or at least the enforcement of 'em. I live 80 miles from Trawna. There's 100,000 people in my county and a couple thousand in my teeny town. You frontier folk have a more wildwest, anything goes attitude and with so few of you and so much space in between you, that probbly works fine. If Peace River folks wanna wear assauklt weapons strapped around their necks, go ahead.

I ain't heard of any 11 year olds gettin' caught in any gang gunfight crossfire in Peace River. Maybe it just wasn't reported but somehow, I don't think that sort of thing is a problem for you or your neighbours.

That 11 year old and the teenaged girl who was shot on Boxing Day could not have defended themselves with guns. They weren't even part of the gunfight. If dozens of bystanders were packin' guns, too, how many other innocents would be caught in the crossfire.

There are no civilized cities where residents are allowed to walk around carrying sidearms or any sort of firearms. That's because we gave up that wildwest justice centuries ago. It may work in the frontier but not in the cities and towns.

JB

Ron said...

As for openmindedness, you've literally made dozens of posts on
Scott's and this blog and you've never ceded a single point so whether you admit it or not, there's no openmindedness on your side, either
.

JB: I'm strongly arguing my case but you have never heard or seen me utter "I will never change my mind on this", which is essentially what pale said. I just haven't seen an argument compelling enough to make
me do so.

Where more people own guns,it stands to reason they will be used
more -- for any number of reasons including self-defense. From what I saw, some of the incidents were more property defense than self-defense, though.


I have nothing against property defense, but I do have something
against thieves. In any case, pale had said there weren't stories about people defending themselves; my point was that there are when
people are allowed to defend themselves--and further that gun control prevents some people from defending their lives and property--even thoughpale essentially said he didn't think those lost lives are as valuable as the ones he thinks his preferred regulations prevent. I prefer to defend the rights of the innocent to be left alone by the state, and for the right of victims to defend themselves according to their own best evidence--not according to the whims of third parties.

Ron said...

There are no civilized cities where residents are allowed to walk around carrying sidearms or any sort of firearms.

That's also not true--many cities are in states that have open and concealed carry laws that allow one or both; unless by "civilized" you mean the cities couldn't be civilized because they allowed the carrying of guns, which wouldn't be an argument, it'd just be a tautology.

Frank Frink said...

Ron,

I won't presume to speak for pale, I do know her and she's perfectly capable of speaking for herself. But what I got out of her comment was that she was referring to events in Canada. You rebutted with the use of incidents taking place in the USA.

Given the differences in both our laws and attitudes towards guns in general it is an apoples vs. oranges comparison.

On an anectdotal level, while I have had knives pulled out at me in both Canada and the United States it is only in the latter where I have ever been threatened with a gun. There were only two reasons for that gun being pulled out a t me - I was foreigner (i.e. car with Canadian plates) and a different ethnicity than the person with the gun. I know that for a fact because that is exactly what I was told by the person with the gun.

Question I always have for proponents of handgunsd and/or conceal and carry in Canada. What exactly do you think you need it for?

Ron said...

People are people, and there's no magic line at the Canada/US border where that ceases to be true.

The only place I ever had a handgun pulled on me--and it was a serious threat--was when I lived in Montreal. You'l have to take my word for it, but it was entirely unprovoked.

I lived for almost a year in Los Angeles with nothing like that even coming close to happening and, because I'm a musician, spent a number of years frequenting downtown Vancouver, mostly on the strip arounds Main & Hastings.

Anecdotal evidence is just that--which is why I referred to academic papers as well.

I don't need a gun. So far, anyways. I don't need a bicycle, either.

A couple of associated questions in reverse for gun control proponents: I could see why you might want to control proven criminals; why do you want to control me? Is my freedom just some sort of acceptable collateral damage in your pursuit of safety?

Frank Frink said...

Ron,

I repeat
Given the differences in both our laws and attitudes towards guns in general it is an apples vs. oranges comparison.

People may be people, and that's a big maybe, but yes there is a difference 'at the border'. I refer again to diffent upbringings and outlooks on the subjects of guns.

If we were really all so similar we would have the same insitutions and beliefs on both sides of the border. Simple fact is we don't. You compared apples to oranges. You did. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit it.

Funny you brought up 'musician'. So am I. In Vancouver. I've spent a lot of time Downtown Eastside, in fact our rehearsal/recording facility is there. Never had a gun pointed at me around there in 30 years. But, oddly enough being a 'foreign' musician, in a vehicle with 'foreign' plates and being the 'wrong' colour was a factor in my LA incident.

YMMV.

I don't want to 'control' you - first get over yourself with that comment. I just see no use or reason or purpose for handguns or the ability to conceal and carry in Canada.

Now, can you give me any real arguments for a reason, purpose or use of a handgun or conceal and carry? It's what I asked in the first place. Instead of answering with a clear, concise, rational answer you turned it on me (or 'us' or whatever you're assuming). If you don't want to be stereotyped don't play one. So far you're playing the stereotype.

Can you answer the question or not? Why exactly would you need a handgun or the ability to conceal and carry?

If you deflect once again then I'm done with you.

Ron said...

As for openmindedness, you've literally made dozens of posts on Scott's and this blog and you've never ceded a single point

Actaully, I ceded at least two points to KEvron at Scott's blog, and he one to me. I didn't notice anyone else ceding anything though, so perhaps you just missed it in the clutter.

Mike said...

Frank frink,

"Given the differences in both our laws and attitudes towards guns in general it is an apples vs. oranges comparison."

Yes, you are correct. Per capita, Canada has MORE guns than the US. And less crime. Tell me again how more guns == more crime?

"Now, can you give me any real arguments for a reason, purpose or use of a handgun or conceal and carry? "

Well as I answered over at Scott's place more than one how about these reasons:

1. Self-defense (yes, some people may feel the need)
2. I need to carry it to the gun range and I don't want to spook people.
3. While hunting, having a handgun is safer for bears than a rifle, since its a bit hard to swing a .308 at a bear that has surprised you ans has grabbed you.
4. I like the smell.
5. I need to counter balance my laptop slung over the other shoulder...

Yes, I'm being both a bit serious and a bit snarky. I do not own a handgun and if totally legal I probably wouldn't own or carry one then either. Because I don't agree with those reasons.

But my agreeing with them or not is irrelevant. As long as I do not use the gun to commit a crime, why should it bother you that I own one?

If you don't want one, don't get one.

A gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens. The bad guys will not follow the law anyway, and already don't.

As I have stated numerous times, prohibition will not make people safer, it will generate more crime and more violence. Just as alcohol prohibition did in the 20s and 30s, just as drug prohibition is doing now (in fact, most of those gangsters carry guns because they are IN the illegal drug business). Handgun prohibition will be the same, as automatic weapons prohibition has failed to stop the bad guys from having them (as a young lad working at the Blue Water Bridge in Sarnia, I observed an MP5 being interdicted while being smuggled across. That was the summer of 89, after automatic weapons had been illegal for 12 years. I also wondered how many more made it considering this was a lucky search during a random stop on the commercial side of the bridge).

As for your situation JB, let me say that gun control was likely your rationalization or excuse. If you really wanted to kill those guys (and I wouldn't blame you) you would have. You would have used that tire iron you slept with, you would have used a baseball bat, an ax, some piano wire or a can of gasoline. You didn't kill those guys because they were not an immediate threat to you and you are otherwise incapable of do that. It was because you are a good moral person.

That's why most people DON'T commit crime, even if they have the opportunity.

Ron and I are arguing that it wasn't the legal handgun owner in Vancouver or St. Johns that shot that 11 year old or that girl at Christmas. Why are they being consequenced for those actions? Go after the person who uses the gun illegally, by all means. Do everything you can to change the environment so that carrying a gun is not preferred or needed. But don't punish somebody for something they did not do. A for goodness sake, don't encourage an environment of MORE crime by resorting to prohibition.

Ron said...

Frank:

Pale said: There are not too many stories where the homeowner shoots the "bad guy". Statistics do not bear your argument out. That's all pale said, no mention of Canada. I live in the world, Frank, and so does pale--that's my assumption. In any case, I showed that there were many stories where the homeowner shoots the bad guy. In other words, I directly refuted her comment.

Now, in Canada, there are such stories, but they are certainly more readily available (and academically documented) from American sources. So what? Pale didn't mention Canada, and my understanding was only that pale was suggesting there is no need for handguns as if that would be proven by a lack of use, which it wouldn't (even very rare doesn't lead to not required). Which leads to:

When you say "But what I got out of her comment was that she was referring to events in Canada," you're maybe grasping at straws; you have no reason to assume that from her comment.

But in any case, that gets us to:

I repeat[:]
Given the differences in both our laws and attitudes towards guns in general it is an apples vs. oranges comparison...


I'll address your assertion anyways:

If we really were so different from Americans, we wouldn't have needed CRTC regs demanding a 30% share in radio music airplay; it woulda been happening anyways; actually, the more different we were, the more it woulda been happening. Same with TV; we pretty much watch the same shows; we have CSI and they have Trailer Park Boys. I know they don't sell Shreddies down there and their cigarettes taste like crap, but "so what?", so just because there's a border there does not make it an invalid comparison.

People may be people, and that's a big maybe...

(You've noticed people who aren't people? Interesting.)

...but yes there is a difference 'at the border'. I refer again to diffent upbringings and outlooks on the subjects of guns.

Then explain me. Am I not people? I don't share your outlook on the subject of guns. Neither does...uh...Mike. Is he not people? Are we not Devo?

If we were really all so similar we would have the same insitutions and beliefs on both sides of the border. Simple fact is we don't. You compared apples to oranges. You did. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit it.

You actually think we're more different than the same, Americans and some aggregate of humans you refer to as *Canadians*, as if you could speak for us? What would give you that position and insight? And then, what the heck differences are you talking about. They beat us at hockey, fer chrissakes.

Tell me, do we Canadians all share the same political beliefs, and are they all different than those of Americans? Is our national clothing different? I noticed both countries pretty much speak english. We share a belief in the flying spaghetti monster. The Beatles made a lot of money in both countries. Do we not both have elected officials and a legal system that flows from the same (essentially British) Common Law? We have provinces and they have states. We say tomatoes and they say...well, tomatoes.

Funny you brought up 'musician'. So am I. In Vancouver. I've spent a lot of time Downtown Eastside, in fact our rehearsal/recording facility is there.

There's every chance we know some of the same people, then, although I stopped playing in Vancouver a number of years ago, spending far more time on Vancouver Island or around Prince George.

Never had a gun pointed at me around there in 30 years. But, oddly enough being a 'foreign' musician, in a vehicle with 'foreign' plates and being the 'wrong' colour was a factor in my LA incident.

Criminals have their reasons wherever you go.

YMMV.

Mileage? That's an American institution. Kilometres here. We're different, them and us. You said. Being brought up so different, I don't understand how you coulda said mileage...

Ron said...

Frank: You wrote (from your high-horse) If you deflect once again then I'm done with you.

Well, Mike answered that "why would I need a handgun" question well enough (although "none of your business" would have done just as well), and I easily took apart your unjustified screed/accusation regarding "apples and oranges".

So there's been no deflecting--at least from me and Mike. So far, it's a bit different with you.

So now what? Or are you "done with me" anyways? I mean, you presume somehow to speak for Canadians in general, and then you talk about me "getting over myself"????

Get real.

As for your claim "I don't want to 'control' you":

Words mean things, Frank; "to restrict" is "to control". If you support restricting my ability to purchase something, then you *do* want to control me, all your deflecting notwithstanding.

Mike said...

FWIW, I discovered another reason to own a handgun last night. A good friend lives up in Chelsea QC, a short 20 minute drive from Parliament Hill (yes downtown Ottawa). Last week they had to have a bear captured and put down, after it attacked two people on his neighbour's property. And reports are coming in from the Rangers in Gatineau Park that one of them has sighted a mountain lion in the area (that would be a cougar, not a bob cat).

So it would be a good idea for him or his wife to have a handgun on their hip while walking to the river for a swim, or hanging the clothes on a the line or even just hanging out in their living room. To protect their kids and their dog from a rogue bear or cougar.

These people aren't rednecks either - they are civil servants that work in Ottawa, software engineers, sales people. Urban in every respect.

By banning handguns, you would require these people to carry a rifle, or have said loaded rifle easily available (which would be in violation of current safe storage laws).

This is one legitimate reason to have a handgun. There may be others.

To answer Frank's question.

UpMyKilt said...

"The knives argument is specious. Would you bring a knife to a gunfight? Guns have a much better chance of killing than knives"

No, it's not specious, and with all respect due to you, Jim Bo, your response is specious.

Indeed, what I'm left with at this time if a criminal with an illegally obtained gun comes to my door, are my fists and my knives, and anything else I might find.

Further, I don't know how many fights you've been in that involve knives; I've been in a few. I've also been shot at a couple of times.

The gun shots completely missed me. The knives didn't always miss. In any event, they were much closer to their intended target than the gun shots were.

You don't seem to know how dangerous a knife can be - even when wielded by someone not skilled in the use of a knife.

You might also want to check on some statistics comparing murder rates with knives and guns.

Then, talk to some victims of knife attacks who survived after suffering serious injuries.

Jimbo, knives are deadly. And survival after a serious knife attack can be quite limited.

I saw a guy once who was shot in the head; I was the first one at the scene. He was rushed to Sunnybrook and survived.

I also saw a woman's body in a stairwell. Dead. From bleeding to death after being attacked with a knife during a domestic conflict. She didn't have a chance to make it to the hospital.

Imagine! If knives were banned, it might have saved her life!

Karen said...

Well, JB, you know about me and my guns. It's a way of life in Texas. What happened to your son is truly horrid. I'm sorry, because no one deserves to have that happen. Several things occurred to me in reading the story:

1. If your son had been armed and trained in the use of a firearm or knife, the perps might have become the victims.

2. The police there did a piss-poor job. Please tell me it wasn't the RCMP. Your justice system totally let you down.

3. I'm not diputing your feelings, but I simply can't imagine you ever killing anyone except in extreme self-defense. I'm sure you wanted to (what parent wouldn't?). I'm sure you dreamed of it and plotted it. But you didn't. I think if you'd been really determined, you'd have found a way.

To Ron: please don't ever go into victims' advocacy.

JimBobby said...

Thankee fer chimin' in, Karen. I'd like to think I wouldn't have done anything even if I had a gun at the time but I ain't so sure.

More armed people just means more shot people, sez I. If it was easy fer my son to be packin' a gun, it'd have been just as easy fer the bad gauys -- more likely, too.

Yesterday afternoon, in downtown Toronto, a nutjob stabbed 4 strangers in random acts of violence. All the victims survived. First thing that occurred to me when I heard about it was I'm glad the nut didn't have a gun or we'd be buryin' 4 innocent victims.

OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) not RCMP. Yer right. Poor service.

JB