Nova Scotia shooter dead after killing 22 people/CDN Govt "assault style" weapons ban.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Wtf country do you want to live in? The police and government do not know my purchases. Also what does it matter how many guns I own?

don't be obtuse. Of course your credit card receipts are fair game for law enforcement. 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, BPA said:

I am not a gun advocate but I'm not sure that such a database would be of any help.  They currently have to take a PAL (I think that's what it is called), have written consent from spouse or significant other, and a police background check.  The only other thing I can think of adding is a psychiatric test (if that is at all possible without infringing on the person's rights).

it would help because you would know who had stockpiles. I'm sure most of them do start out legitimately as collections, but its just another tool in the box. If the police e.g., got a report that the guy was acting weird (e.g,. say a store altercation or with a client) a quick check of the database shows you he's a guy to take a further look at in the interest of public safety. I'm not saying people cant have them, but we should know if you do have them. 

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

don't be obtuse. Of course your credit card receipts are fair game for law enforcement. 

Only if I have committed a crime. Legally owning firearms is not a crime. So again, what kind of dictatorship do you want to live in?

[JM_]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Only if I have committed a crime. Legally owning firearms is not a crime. So again, what kind of dictatorship do you want to live in?

well, one that heads off mass killings if possible. 

 

Would you really care if the RCMP knows you have 30+ AR15 type weapons? how does that effect your life? say god forbid you had a mental breakdown some day (I truly hope not) wouldn't you want to be stopped? I'm being serious now, not trying to tweak you. 

[24K PureCool]

A database is pretty pointless unless restrictions are in place to limit number of gun a a person can own. 

 

But why not, the more hassel someone has to go through, the more likely one would re think their actions. Never underestimate human laziness. 

 

That is the problem in the US, gun shows and trade make it so easy to bypass their gun regulations. Banning these shows with the established laws their would at least curb some of these attacks. 

[Lancaster]

44 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well, one that heads off mass killings if possible. 

 

Would you really care if the RCMP knows you have 30+ AR15 type weapons? how does that effect your life? say god forbid you had a mental breakdown some day (I truly hope not) wouldn't you want to be stopped? I'm being serious now, not trying to tweak you. 

You have to first answer the question...

Do you want to save just lives or just wary about mass shootings?

 

If you strip away all the emotions, all the political theatrics, etc... legal firearm ownership is only making the smallest fraction of violent crimes.  

Mass shooting and such attacks are very disturbing, but the chance of it happening to you (with all due respect to those who are impacted by them) are still relatively low.  Whereas if you were say... an aboriginal woman living on a reserve, your chances of being the victim of gun violence is way higher.  Does it mean guns are the issues?  Nope.  There's are some major flaws in our societies that needs to be addressed.

 

You could probably curtail violence gun crimes by just replacing all lead pipes in this country (and especially in the US)... but good luck running on that platform.  

As I have always stated, someone using a firearm to commit murder is just the final domino.  There were plenty of other opportunities for such tragedy to have been avoided.  

[DADDYROCK]

My heart goes out to the familys over this senseless loss of lives.

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

You have to first answer the question...

Do you want to save just lives or just wary about mass shootings? 

thats a false argument tho, there's no reason we can't do both.

 

5 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

 

As I have always stated, someone using a firearm to commit murder is just the final domino.  There were plenty of other opportunities for such tragedy to have been avoided.  

but this reasoning ^ is why a database can be useful. It helps us focus on people who have a very high ability to cause harm. 

[Lancaster]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats a false argument tho, there's no reason we can't do both.

 

but this reasoning ^ is why a database can be useful. It helps us focus on people who have a very high ability to cause harm. 

It's two very different causes for either and very different in terms of numbers.

 

Most violent criminals with access to firearms will like commit violence crimes with firearms.... but the vast majority of legal gun owners will not be committing any violent crimes.  

One sub-sets of the population deserves to be target, the other population group doesn't warrant being under more scrutiny that it already is under.

 

Database is useless because the criteria are subjective.  So what if some guy wants to own 100 guys?  What if they're all antique blunderbuss?  What if someone just wants one different gun for different types of ammo?  I personally have a list of guns I wish to purchase.... 

Mosin-Nagant - old fashion bolt-action rifle from the USSR, in those WW2 COD games.

vz58 - good solid semi-auto that uses cheap surplus ammo

AR-15 - sometimes you just want to customize a piece to your own personal specificity.  

Shotgun - I haven't decided on which one, but I do want to take up skeet shooting someday.

Revolver - I just want to collect them, since they're just very beautiful pieces of craftmanship.

Walther PPQ - because times you just want to shoot a handgun and you want something a bit more less common

Some Berretta - they make beautiful firearms.

I probably want to have a few courses of ammo for each of them when they are on sale.  I still want to take advantage of a good deal if there's a sale.

 

Suddenly the total is already 7+ pieces with a few thousand rounds of ammo.  

Excessive?  Maybe for some, but it makes perfect sense to me... and I'm not even what people consider as a gun nut.  I just like collecting stuff.... alongside my Magic The Gathering cards, my Gundams, and fine Italian shoes.  

 

 

The problem with database is that it's very open for abuse.  Are they going to target those who lives in a more socio-economically depressed area?  How about those who live on Aboriginal reserves?  Will the rich guy in the British Properties be ignored more?  What about those who belong to the Indo-Canadian community?  What about the rural white farmer with a gun vault?  Will the database be used to harass those residing in Quebec?  Will 2 guns deemed excessive for someone who is Black?

It's very easy to target people or sets of people with any database.  

[greenbean]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it would help because you would know who had stockpiles. I'm sure most of them do start out legitimately as collections, but its just another tool in the box. If the police e.g., got a report that the guy was acting weird (e.g,. say a store altercation or with a client) a quick check of the database shows you he's a guy to take a further look at in the interest of public safety. I'm not saying people cant have them, but we should know if you do have them. 

What would you consider as stockpiles or an excessive amount of guns? I'm just curious, and not attacking your idea at all.

[DonLever]

15 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Agree with the others. Yes this qualifies as terror.

New details has emerged that the shooter knew some of the victims, so this crime should not be considered an Act of Terrorism but rather as a Mass Murder.

[RUPERTKBD]

6 minutes ago, DonLever said:

New details has emerged that the shooter knew some of the victims, so this crime should not be considered an Act of Terrorism but rather as a Mass Murder.

The article I read this morning quoted a neighbor who said that he was a nice guy, but seemed extremely defensive and possessive on the topic of his girlfriend.

 

I'm thinking that this might be at the root of the whole thing....

[Canuck Surfer]

5 hours ago, Lancaster said:

The problem is the definition of a "stockpile".

Someone who is an avid shooter a variety of guns (eg. 1 shotgun for duck hunting, a couple of handguns, 1 bolt-action for long distance at the range, a couple of semi-auto for just some fun in the bushes) may seem excessive for some, but it's just different guns for different purposes.  Or if someone has purchased a few thousands rounds because they have a bunch of different guns with different ammo types and the store was having a massive sale or something.  

It may (not) shock you to know that many people do not see that as reasonable?

 

And not just because guys really do deserve to have six ways to shoot a duck.

5 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

So the gun debate has arrived. No need for the info to be on a rcmp database. More gun crime in Canada is from illegal guns or people illegally in possession of a firearm. So a gun ban is the dumbest idea as the criminals are not abiding by the law anyway, in fact all it does is make things less safe. Australia is proof of this. Gun laws in Canada go far enough imo.

Disagree.

 

If a gun owner were truly a law abiding citizen? There would be substantially less objection to having their guns recorded / tracked as they are.

 

And please explain why Australia proves your case? I live here now. One of ours went over and wracked up dozens of bodies in Christchurch. 

 

So while we are drawing parallels? Look at the US. Plenty of whacko factions. In every direction imaginable. Right wing, left wing, hispanic, KKK, Mafia, dudes in the hood. Who argue they need guns for their own protection. They dont trust the law, feel entitled to take the law into their own hands. ''I need a gun because I dont trust the cops.'' ''Because they don't have the right to search warrant mah shed on mah property?'' 

 

I have witnessed the same attitude in numerous places in Canada. Then they start drinking, snortin. See who can shoot an apple from a tree. Get all worked up, raise hell!

 

Seen that abuse with my own eyes. And I'm going to say it, its just my opinion though. Within that stereotype, partners go missing. Daughter or son ends up on the street in the big city. Someone else feels they are a target. Its cyclical almost. Guns just escalate the intimidation if you are being naive. Violence if your being realistic.

 

It should not. But it does end up there because guys have guns.  

 

This guy sounds like that. A little more sophisticated maybe. Fixated on cops. Burned a shed on his property, full of stuff owned by his neighbor. Neighbor too scared to confront or report that he had taken their dispute into his own hands.  Had jealous rage confrontations & altercations. Himself would complain to authorities about locals he had issues with. Felt they did not side with him. All of these sorts of reports have started to surface. And now he has certainly gone off  the deep end.

 

To me it is disappointing, maybe unfortunate is a better word, that a guy with a track record of intimidation. Was not at least penciled in as a potential problem. And as he is / was becoming flagged? I think its perfectly rationale that the RCMP would feel it necessary to understand what weapons a potential offender has.    

 

I do agree serial criminals take the effort to have weapons that are harder to trace.    

 

But I also have seen way too much abuse to believe guns should not be registered. 

 

Way too much.

[nuckin_futz]

9 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Doesn't a terrorist act have a underlying political basis? What I have heard is this individual initially killed people he knew and then went on to indiscriminate killing. I guess more info will tell the tale. I am assuming mental issues. 

I don't subscribe to any dictionary definition of a "terrorist". There was as much planning into this series of attacks as anything done by ISIS.

 

Who cares what the reason was? If I was being chased by this a**hole, running for my life his ideology would mean zip to me. He wasn't just some jilted lover who snapped. When that happens you go down to the local Wal-Mart and dust off as many as you can. This guy planned this out rationally for at least as long as it takes to get a uniform and a lookalike vehicle.

 

His acts were designed to terrorize. He's a terrorist.

[Ryan Strome]

20 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

It may (not) shock you to know that many people do not see that as reasonable?

 

And not just because guys really do deserve to have six ways to shoot a duck.

Disagree.

 

If a gun owner were truly a law abiding citizen? There would be substantially less objection to having their guns recorded / tracked as they are.

 

And please explain why Australia proves your case? I live here now. One of ours went over and wracked up dozens of bodies in Christchurch. 

 

So while we are drawing parallels? Look at the US. Plenty of whacko factions. In every direction imaginable. Right wing, left wing, hispanic, KKK, Mafia, dudes in the hood. Who argue they need guns for their own protection. They dont trust the law, feel entitled to take the law into their own hands. ''I need a gun because I dont trust the cops.'' ''Because they don't have the right to search warrant mah shed on mah property?'' 

 

I have witnessed the same attitude in numerous places in Canada. Then they start drinking, snortin. See who can shoot an apple from a tree. Get all worked up, raise hell!

 

Seen that abuse with my own eyes. And I'm going to say it, its just my opinion though. Within that stereotype, partners go missing. Daughter or son ends up on the street in the big city. Someone else feels they are a target. Its cyclical almost. Guns just escalate the intimidation if you are being naive. Violence if your being realistic.

 

It should not. But it does end up there because guys have guns.  

 

This guy sounds like that. A little more sophisticated maybe. Fixated on cops. Burned a shed on his property, full of stuff owned by his neighbor. Neighbor too scared to confront or report that he had taken their dispute into his own hands.  Had jealous rage confrontations & altercations. Himself would complain to authorities about locals he had issues with. Felt they did not side with him. All of these sorts of reports have started to surface. And now he has certainly gone off  the deep end.

 

To me it is disappointing, maybe unfortunate is a better word, that a guy with a track record of intimidation. Was not at least penciled in as a potential problem. And as he is / was becoming flagged? I think its perfectly rationale that the RCMP would feel it necessary to understand what weapons a potential offender has.    

 

I do agree serial criminals take the effort to have weapons that are harder to trace.    

 

But I also have seen way too much abuse to believe guns should not be registered. 

 

Way too much.

So now I have to give up my liberties to prove I'm innocent? Not a chance.

Look at Australia stats.

[JM_]

3 hours ago, Lancaster said:

You have to first answer the question...

Do you want to save just lives or just wary about mass shootings?

 

If you strip away all the emotions, all the political theatrics, etc... legal firearm ownership is only making the smallest fraction of violent crimes.  

Mass shooting and such attacks are very disturbing, but the chance of it happening to you (with all due respect to those who are impacted by them) are still relatively low.  Whereas if you were say... an aboriginal woman living on a reserve, your chances of being the victim of gun violence is way higher.  Does it mean guns are the issues?  Nope.  There's are some major flaws in our societies that needs to be addressed.

 

You could probably curtail violence gun crimes by just replacing all lead pipes in this country (and especially in the US)... but good luck running on that platform.  

As I have always stated, someone using a firearm to commit murder is just the final domino.  There were plenty of other opportunities for such tragedy to have been avoided.  

I did answer the question, but its not an either-or scenario like you suggest. I don't need to choose. 

 

I'm for any measures that reduce gun crimes. 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

So now I have to give up my liberties to prove I'm innocent? Not a chance.

Look at Australia stats.

My feelings on guns are well documented, so I won't get too deep into this and derail the thread even further, but how is a database an infringement on your liberties? Or anyone else's?

 

I get the slippery slope argument, (although I don't agree with it) but how would it change your life in any meaningful way?

[JM_]

3 hours ago, Lancaster said:

It's two very different causes for either and very different in terms of numbers.

 

Most violent criminals with access to firearms will like commit violence crimes with firearms.... but the vast majority of legal gun owners will not be committing any violent crimes.  

One sub-sets of the population deserves to be target, the other population group doesn't warrant being under more scrutiny that it already is under.

 

Database is useless because the criteria are subjective.  So what if some guy wants to own 100 guys?  What if they're all antique blunderbuss?  What if someone just wants one different gun for different types of ammo?  I personally have a list of guns I wish to purchase.... 

Mosin-Nagant - old fashion bolt-action rifle from the USSR, in those WW2 COD games.

vz58 - good solid semi-auto that uses cheap surplus ammo

AR-15 - sometimes you just want to customize a piece to your own personal specificity.  

Shotgun - I haven't decided on which one, but I do want to take up skeet shooting someday.

Revolver - I just want to collect them, since they're just very beautiful pieces of craftmanship.

Walther PPQ - because times you just want to shoot a handgun and you want something a bit more less common

Some Berretta - they make beautiful firearms.

I probably want to have a few courses of ammo for each of them when they are on sale.  I still want to take advantage of a good deal if there's a sale.

 

Suddenly the total is already 7+ pieces with a few thousand rounds of ammo.  

Excessive?  Maybe for some, but it makes perfect sense to me... and I'm not even what people consider as a gun nut.  I just like collecting stuff.... alongside my Magic The Gathering cards, my Gundams, and fine Italian shoes.  

 

 

The problem with database is that it's very open for abuse.  Are they going to target those who lives in a more socio-economically depressed area?  How about those who live on Aboriginal reserves?  Will the rich guy in the British Properties be ignored more?  What about those who belong to the Indo-Canadian community?  What about the rural white farmer with a gun vault?  Will the database be used to harass those residing in Quebec?  Will 2 guns deemed excessive for someone who is Black?

It's very easy to target people or sets of people with any database.  

so lets take these two ideas - subjectivity and potential for abuse. Those aren't legitimate reasons for not bringing in new laws and/or systems. You can say that about all policing efforts. 

 

As for the number of guns and amount of ammo, how often are these incidents related to people that have a lot of them? how much damage can these guys do? 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

So now I have to give up my liberties to prove I'm innocent? Not a chance.

Look at Australia stats.

you have a false sense of what your "liberties" are in Canada. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Right off the hop you can't make a "liberties" argument. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[CBH1926]

After surviving Vegas shooting, these people live nearby of the latest massacre.
 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-shootings-las-vegas-survivor-1.5538491