New Paragraph

Who needs assault rifles?
November 13, 2017

The most recent mass-shooting tragedy at a church in Texas has once again picked the scab off the U.S. gun-control wound. Some are touting the fact that a brave local man used his own assault-rifle type firearm to prevent the gunman from slaughtering even more innocent worshippers, while others are decrying the fact that the killer was allowed to possess such a weapon given his mental condition and previous convictions for violent offences. I certainly see the various sides of this debate – but one perspective looms much larger for me.

The AR-15 class of firearm is a high-powered rifle that is designed for one thing – killing people. Yes, some legitimate owners shoot paper targets or hunt with them, or simply like owning them out of some perceived personal security need, but let’s be serious: they are a military type weapon that shoot lots of bullets at a high velocity as quickly as one can pull the trigger. They can also be easily modified to shoot fully-automatic. That much firepower and the ability to shoot 90 rounds in 60 seconds might be quite appropriate in combat situations but is not required for target shooting or killing deer.


The firearms debate in the US is always an incendiary one. Die-hard “right to bear arms” supporters don’t want to hear that the Second Amendment was written before the Civil War and when Americans lived mostly in desolate surroundings without telephones, street lights, the ability to call 911, the police or the military. They had to arm themselves with single-shot muzzle-loaders for protection against attacks from foreign armies for the most part, but also from wild animals and bands of roaming fugitives. At that point in time, semi-automatic rifles with huge magazine capacities weren’t even imagined.


When I get into spirited debates with those that strongly believe “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” I love the vacant glare I receive when I say “and people would kill a lot less people if they didn’t have guns.” That particularly applies to rifles like those used in the Sutherland Springs church tragedy; in the Orlando night club massacre; and of course in Las Vegas just weeks ago.


Similarly, other gun advocates will point out the tragic reality that many innocent people around the globe – including recently in the US, have been slaughtered by ISIS inspired individuals driving cars and trucks. The question that often follows is, “So what are you going to do, ban cars?” Like arguments are made relative to the use of knives to commit murder.


Cars and trucks were designed for other valid and non-aggressive purposes but have undoubtedly been used recently as a weapon of choice to deliberately kill people. Many people in fact. But never 25 in a church. Or 58 at a concert venue. Nor can you walk into a building with one, hell-bent on killing members of the public.


Knives have and will kill as well. One, two – maybe three or four at a time. That is awful, tragic and so very wrong. But running into a public venue like a church and killing dozens of people with a knife is a very unlikely scenario. It will seldom be met with great success before the attacker is punched unconscious or hit over the head with a chair. But it’s much tougher for the general public to mount a defense from an individual with a high-powered semi-automatic rifle and dozens of rounds of ammunition.


President Trump and many others try to counter the gun control movement with the argument that a heroic man in Texas likely saved lives when he shot at the killer with his own assault rifle. That is true. But how often in all the mass shootings we have seen in the U.S. since 21 people were fatally shot in a California McDonald’s restaurant in 1984; through the horrors in Columbine in 1999; the Aurora theatre shooting; Orlando’s Pulse nightclub slaughter, and more – in a country where there are almost as many guns as people, have we seen such examples of armed citizens neutralizing the threat with any firearm, let alone an assault-rifle?


Following the horrific murder of 20 children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, some argued that teachers should be armed. Give me a break. What will they argue now – arming church pastors? Why is the answer for some to put more guns out there? I’m certainly not trying to make light of these senseless and heartbreaking murders, but there should be less guns in public places, not more. Does the public really want everyone in a church, theatre or concert drawing a weapon and firing hundreds of rounds at what they perceive as a threat?


I’m not against guns. I rather like them actually. I’ve owned many and carried one for 36 years of policing. But I owned shotguns and hunting rifles that could only carry three rounds. I owned firearms that were designed to kill wild game, not dozens of people, and I had no desire to take them with me to church.


Many have stated that if the U.S. did not take affirmative action to keep assault rifles out of the hands of unstable criminals and radicalized fanatics following the Sandy Hook shooting, it never will. I hope they were wrong. Partisan politics need to be pushed aside in the interest of American lives. Even with proper processes, checks and balances how can anyone but law enforcement and the military justify the need for an AR-15 type weapon?

Even if I bought into the theory that every sane and law-abiding American should have the right to carry handguns (and I don’t), a handgun and an assault-rifle are two different animals. Enough is enough. Ban them.

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

By Chris Lewis • March 28, 2026
Leadership is inundated with risk, every hour of every day, in all sectors. In policing, legislative authorities and established policy are the ever-present guideposts, but occasionally policy just doesn’t apply. At times someone has to just make a decision to do something, or not, or they will fail the public they serve and the personnel it is their duty to lead. If it goes bad, time to own up, do damage control, learn from it and move forward. It always frightened me when I saw some at the senior executive level in policing think that supervisors and managers operate in a pristine little bubble where nothing should ever go wrong. Then when it did because some supervisor tried their best to make something work for all the right reasons, they wanted to pigeon-hole the person that took the risk. There were times during my own career when executives were not encouraged to take any risk either. In fact, taking risk was career risk in itself. Despite the best of intentions, if it went bad, the one ‘responsible’ be forever labelled as having failed. Even if the gamble went well, the jaundiced eyes from above would still forever look at them as being a potential liability. It became the “Oh, him. He’s the one that...” At times the daily decision making of high-level commanders would be second-guessed by those in the executive suites – some of whom had never really commanded anything. My buddy retired Chief Wayne Frechette used to describe these folks as: “They’ve never been out after dark on company time.” I know this same concept was alive in many other police services. Some at executive levels actually did serve in operational roles at some point but they never took a risk. Somehow, they were fortunate to skate through difficult situations through sheer luck as opposed to good decision-making and never developed any scar tissue along the way. They didn’t learn from failure – they survived by luck. They also were viewed by weak executives above them as being golden because there was never a milli-second of negativity around them. They were Teflon. But those that worked under their “command” (for lack of a better word) had no respect for them. They simply watched them walk around with coffee in hand, never leaving the office or making a decision. It wasn’t leadership, but it did pave the way to stardom from on high, for some. True leaders do take risks at times. Many I worked with and for did it all and did it well. They did so in the best interests of those they served and those they led, because it wasn’t about themselves, but was done in the service of those that placed their trust in them. Policy simply doesn’t fit every situation. It is most often a guide that anticipates most circumstances that employees will face, particularly the more common (high-frequency) ones. But it cannot predict every possible scenario. When that happens in policing, it can occur in very unlikely situations (low-frequency) that are incredibly high-risk. Supervisors cannot say “Sorry folks, the book doesn’t cover this one” and run away crying. They also don’t have time to tell bad guys, “Hey big fella, sit tight. We need to take a pause here and get the whiteboard out so we can have a group-think about how to stop your murderous rampage.” I think that many pseudo-leaders – far too many, are afraid to make risky decisions out of fear that an error will jeopardize their career. Instead, they risk their careers by not making decisions. Or as I like to say: “their fear of career-risk, risks their careers.” This can be fatal in the policing world. When a police supervisor shirks their responsibilities or quivers, sucks their thumb, and prays for the situation to go away, thankfully constables will come forward and do their best to get their teammates through it. Sometimes that ends well and when the supervisor emerges from their fear-induced coma, they will more often than not take credit for the success. But when the situation goes to hell-in-a-handbasket – despite best efforts, the pseudo-leader will document the risk-taking employee and add another bullet-point to their list of things they’ve done to “hold people accountable.” The panel at their next promotional interview will likely hear the false rendition proudly told. I hear examples of this practise from serving police officers across North America on a much too frequent basis. True leaders develop a culture of trust among those they lead that their suggestions and feedback are encouraged and valued. Their confidence that the leader wants their input encourages them to constantly analyze situations and give thought to what policy says and the options available when policy says nothing. That is good for the employee’s development and may save the leader’s hind-end and the continuity of the team on occasion when an employee steps forward in a crisis. Having said that, there will clearly be situations where there isn’t time for the whiteboard, and a decision needs to be made by the responsible “leader.” When it doesn’t work out, the real leader will step forward and be accountable. But when it does go well, the true leader will allow the light to shine on the team they have the honour to lead. In my view, we’re not seeing enough of that in North American policing. We need more genuine leaders at all levels of law enforcement organizations. Developing and promoting real leaders that can manage risk effectively is a must. Anything less fails everyone.

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

By Chris Lewis • March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

By Chris Lewis • March 18, 2026
The March 17 th announcement by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into allegations by an Ontario Justice that three TPS officers colluded and lied during a 2024 murder trial against a man that ran over and killed TPS Constable Jeffrey Northrup in 2021, has further inflamed the debate over who should investigate alleged police wrongdoing. This instance combined with the recent arrests and ongoing police investigation into several TPS officers for their alleged involvement with organized crime, has brought this discussion to a boiling point. I appreciate the public perceptions around this investigative model given that the average citizen doesn’t necessarily understand the professionalism and commitment of police investigative teams like the recent OPP Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) group. I have all the confidence the world in that team, but I also personally know the ability and integrity of the OPP Detective Inspector in-charge. So, if these investigations aren’t carried out by police, who will do them? They do not fall under the mandate of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which by the way is largely comprised of former police criminal investigators and forensic identification experts, many of whom investigated homicides in police services. For SIU to assume a larger role, they would have to grow exponentially and expand their team of ‘former cops’. These cases generally do not fall under the purview of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing either. They would loosely fall under the oversight role of Ontario’s Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), who is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing public complaints against police, but frankly they don’t have mandate or the horsepower to conduct complex criminal investigations. They oversee the “public complaints” that may lead to a criminal investigation, but the investigation would be the responsibility of a police service to conduct. An expansion of the LECA would require a tremendous amount of funding and human resources, most of whom would also be former police officers. Hiring and training civilians to conduct such investigations is an option, but largely an incomprehensible one. Police criminal investigators are trained officers that generally start out as uniformed officers responding to occurrences and investigating more routine and less serious crimes, i.e. minor assaults and property crimes. They build investigative expertise over time, including in interviewing and interrogation; gathering and securing physical evidence; legal processes like obtaining judicial authorizations; presenting evidence in court; and various investigative strategies. They learn how to work with special police units that provide specific investigative skills, and more. All of this doesn’t happen overnight, but over a period of years and with the tutelage of more experienced investigators along that journey. Trying to turn a group of young and well-educated civilians – no matter how intelligent and well-intended, into a team of elite investigators, would be a complete disaster and unfair to the public or to the officers being investigated. Over my many years as a member or as the Director of the OPP CIB, my colleagues and I investigated criminal allegations against cops from other agencies. Before the SIU was formed, we investigated officers from many Ontario police services – large and small, who had used deadly force. Many were cleared and a number were arrested and charged. We also investigated criminal allegations against police chiefs in Ontario. Again, several were appropriately cleared, and some were brought before the courts. Municipal, provincial and federal elected officials were similarly investigated and some charged. Our members also investigated police officers in other provinces, including high-ranking ones. I personally investigated two Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers that were involved in an arrest that result in the death of a suspect. They were properly exonerated, but I would have charged them in a heartbeat if they had wrongfully killed than man. I arrested an OPP Sergeant for sexual assault. A CIB colleague investigated and arrested two different OPP officers for criminal offences. Both of those officers had been personal friends of mine and years later committed suicide. There are tons of similar examples that I can refer to over my career. All of these involved the oversight and legal analysis of a Crown Attorney, sometimes from another province. The interesting thing, and what most of the anti-police folks will never believe, is that in every single one of those investigations, the dialogue that I was involved in with other officers that I worked with or supervised, involved doing what was right. In other words, “If the allegation is substantiated, we will put the case together, arrest them and put them before the courts.” Not even once, did we think about or do anything that would give an officer a pass when they committed a criminal offence. Never. I have every confidence in the world that the vast majority of municipal and RCMP colleagues across Canada would operate under the same guiding principle. Has the occasional officer worked in conflict with that approach? Undoubtedly. Were some investigators not as committed or capable as they should be and perhaps did a poor investigation accidentally or deliberately? Quite likely so. But I truly believe those cases are the exception, not the rule in criminal investigations. Where I more often believe poor investigations or deliberate attempts to inappropriately give a colleague a break continues to occur, is in Police Act investigations, where policy or employee harassment wrongdoings are suspected. I like to think that the focus on that continues to improve, but not fast enough in some cases. Sadly, I know now that unbeknownst to me at the time, it happened under my watch. A focus for my next article. The public and police deserve the very best of investigators to ensure that bad cops are effectively put out of business and good officers are cleared. If there’s another effective option that would appease the doubting public – aside from using current officers from other agencies or creating a new and costly entity that would be staffed by former police officers, I’d like to hear it.