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

[Tortorella's Rant]

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

There's a lot of tubby gun owners down there. Though that country does struggle with obesity. 

 

I'm not one for usually making fun of someones appearance but if you are trying to look tough. Maybe skip the deep fried food and do a sit up now and again.

If a civil war broke out, half these dudes would be out of breath after the arduous task of loading their symbols of freedom. 

They love to pretend to be soldiers but few of them actually are. When $&!# hits the fan, they won't be playing hero.

[JM_]

52 minutes ago, greenbean said:

I have an issue with one a year for sure. When I first got my PAL I bought 4 guns within the year, 2 shotguns, a .22 LR, and a .270, and my girlfriend bought 2. So between the 2 of us, we bought 6 guns in that year, which if that was being tracked then we would be on the cops radar even though we are law abiding citizens who have never had any issues with the law. If we did, we wouldn't have been approved for our PAL and Restricted PAL.

 

I'm not some gun nut at all, they are tools for me and that's it. But I'm not big into the government tracking what I have, but mostly it's due to the cost to the country. But I do see where some people have issues with it.

but so what? I mean really who cares if they build a database from purchasing records? if it helped to stop even one of these psycho's, isn't it worth it? 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

If I purchase a pick up it is not tracked by the government. 

I'm not a criminal and I have no money left so we are good.

 

Again if I use a credit it isn't tracked unless I break a law.

everyone is law abiding, until they're not. The "I'm a law abiding citizen being punished" thing just doesn't hold water.

 

Of course credit card and other bank data is looked at, thats why they call it an investigation. You don't have to break a law for those records to be looked at, just suspected. You may not even know if a transaction is inspected. 

[Ryan Strome]

17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

everyone is law abiding, until they're not. The "I'm a law abiding citizen being punished" thing just doesn't hold water.

 

Of course credit card and other bank data is looked at, thats why they call it an investigation. You don't have to break a law for those records to be looked at, just suspected. You may not even know if a transaction is inspected. 

Law enforcement or government can not look at credit card info without a judge signing off on it.

[Lancaster]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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? 

 

Regulations opened for abuse means it's a bad regulation.  Any criteria set is completely arbitrary.  Who says what is too much?  Who should be the one directing who to target?  Unless there are mechanisms in place to prevent such abuse, any database is a bad bad idea.  I have yet to hear any legitimate reasons to actually have a database either than some oft-chance that it may catch the odd potential offender.  If that's the case, might as well just make this into an all out surveillance state with cameras in the home... you can guarantee no more shootings will occur.  That is obviously excessive... but what you are proposing is just down the lane from that.  

 

I don't know the exact numbers, but lots of avid firearms enthusiasts probably have multiple firearms.... and 99.999+% of all legal gun owners are not the one committing crime.  

So to start the trend of enacting more draconian measures against the 99%+ group just to crack down on a handful (not to mention the amount of resources required) is just a very asinine way to promote public safety.  How many billions were spend on the long gun registry?  The police themselves said it solved no crime whatsoever.  Imagine all those billions spent to help the victims of domestic violence.... how many actual lives could have been saved?

 

I don't doubt that you mean well... I believe we both want the same thing... safer and more respectful communities.... but I just believe more emphasis should be placed on the actual problem groups not the easier-to-target groups.  

[greenbean]

9 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but so what? I mean really who cares if they build a database from purchasing records? if it helped to stop even one of these psycho's, isn't it worth it? 

But it wouldn't stop anybody. Having a database on what I own or what any other legal gun owner owns wouldn't stop anything.

The only way it stops anything is if the government and police monitor people who have guns constantly all because they are gun owners, and I'm sorry I'm not okay with that. That's basically giving up my rights and freedoms for not doing anything wrong.

 

The government and RCMP already know I have my PAL and Restricted PAL, so they can make the assumption that I own some guns. They know I don't own any legal restricted firearms (ie. Handguns) because I haven't applied to purchase one. (I don't own any illegal guns either fyi).

 

The gun registry that Canada used to have, cost so much money and there was no significant change in crime. Most gun violence is done with illegal guns, so tracking the legal firearms in your country isn't going to really change the amount of gun violence.

 

For the record, I don't really care if anybody knows what I own, government or otherwise. I'm a law abiding citizen who owns guns for hunting and shooting because they are some of my hobbies.

I just don't think it's worth the amount of money it would cost tax payers for something that isn't really beneficial.

[Canuck Surfer]

12 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

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

Did I ask you to give up any liberty? That gun owners are inherently criminal. Neither,

 

I did suggest the circumstance of people wanting no accountability in owning a gun? Is cause for concern. Pervaisive with those who abuse guns.

 

Registration is just a means of tracking. Controlling some. I have met many who abuse a drivers license? And that liberty is taken away. 

 

Why are guns any different?

[thedestroyerofworlds]

I don't want law enforcement/government able to track me and check a database of the guns I own.  Goes to register/insure their car and puts a number plate that said law enforcement/government can check against a database.   

 

Abuse of laws while driving,  lose ability to drive legally.   Suggesting guns should be treated the same.  No, you cannot take away my liberties/ freedoms.

 

(Not anti-gun, just pro responsible regulated gun ownership)

[JM_]

13 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Law enforcement or government can not look at credit card info without a judge signing off on it.

and? if you've done something worthy of that, don't you think its a good idea if we check and see if you have a gun stockpile too?

[JM_]

3 hours ago, greenbean said:

But it wouldn't stop anybody. Having a database on what I own or what any other legal gun owner owns wouldn't stop anything.

you don't know that though. It looks like the psycho in this case did have a run in with the RCMP at one point. If he also had a history of stockpiling weapons than they may have put more resources into investigating him. 

 

Its just another piece of information about the risk profile. No one is claiming you're going to stop 100% of these things but you can't say it doesn't have the potential to help. 

[JM_]

11 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Regulations opened for abuse means it's a bad regulation.  Any criteria set is completely arbitrary.  Who says what is too much?  Who should be the one directing who to target?  Unless there are mechanisms in place to prevent such abuse, any database is a bad bad idea.  I have yet to hear any legitimate reasons to actually have a database either than some oft-chance that it may catch the odd potential offender.  If that's the case, might as well just make this into an all out surveillance state with cameras in the home... you can guarantee no more shootings will occur.  That is obviously excessive... but what you are proposing is just down the lane from that.  

 

I don't know the exact numbers, but lots of avid firearms enthusiasts probably have multiple firearms.... and 99.999+% of all legal gun owners are not the one committing crime.  

So to start the trend of enacting more draconian measures against the 99%+ group just to crack down on a handful (not to mention the amount of resources required) is just a very asinine way to promote public safety.  How many billions were spend on the long gun registry?  The police themselves said it solved no crime whatsoever.  Imagine all those billions spent to help the victims of domestic violence.... how many actual lives could have been saved?

 

I don't doubt that you mean well... I believe we both want the same thing... safer and more respectful communities.... but I just believe more emphasis should be placed on the actual problem groups not the easier-to-target groups.  

Here's the problem with the argument that most gun owners are law abiding as a reason to not do anything: most of us are law abiding in every area of life. Why have investment fraud regulations? aren't we just "targeting" law abiding citizens? we can do that all day for every area we have criminal law.

 

You don't get special status as a gun owner because you didn't break the law. Keeping a purchasing database just aggregates the info thats already out there. The store you bought the gun at has your information already, its not like some new information is created, its just put in one spot.

 

A database gives police another tool in the box to try to get ahead of an incident. If someone e.g., is arrested for a physical altercation or acting odd in some other way where the police were alerted, and the RCMP were able to also find out this person also has a gun stockpile, do you really not see that as valuable information?

 

The pattern with these shooters seems to be a record of incidents leading up to the final big act. We need ways of finding them sooner.

 

If you can think of a more effective way to figure out who fits the profile of these guys I'd like to hear it, but many of these guys do stockpile weapons.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[JM_]

15 hours ago, greenbean said:

But I'm not big into the government tracking what I have, but mostly it's due to the cost to the country. But I do see where some people have issues with it.

I guess this is the part I find hard to understand. Information about you is already in dozens of data bases around the world. Using the argument that a database of info on you is somehow an imposition just doesn't wash anymore in todays world. Your credit card company, where you buy groceries, Amazon, your web browser - all of these collect, maintain, and sell your information. 

 

How would a gun purchase database be any different, particularly if you as the purchaser didn't have to do anything? 

[Lancaster]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Here's the problem with the argument that most gun owners are law abiding as a reason to not do anything: most of us are law abiding in every area of life. Why have investment fraud regulations? aren't we just "targeting" law abiding citizens? we can do that all day for every area we have criminal law.

 

You don't get special status as a gun owner because you didn't break the law. Keeping a purchasing database just aggregates the info thats already out there. The store you bought the gun at has your information already, its not like some new information is created, its just put in one spot.

 

A database gives police another tool in the box to try to get ahead of an incident. If someone e.g., is arrested for a physical altercation or acting odd in some other way where the police were alerted, and the RCMP were able to also find out this person also has a gun stockpile, do you really not see that as valuable information?

 

The pattern with these shooters seems to be a record of incidents leading up to the final big act. We need ways of finding them sooner.

 

If you can think of a more effective way to figure out who fits the profile of these guys I'd like to hear it, but many of these guys do stockpile weapons.

 

 

Investment fraud means someone is going out of their way to commit an illegal act.  Some shady individuals selling fake investment products, setting up a ponzi scheme, etc.

Their intent is already malicious, no way around that.

 

But someone just buying stuff because of a passion or maybe the store just happens to have some wicked deal.  Maybe vast quantity of surplus guns/ammo entered the market and those low low prices won't last forever, hence people load up on them.  There is nothing malicious about that.  

In your opinion, if I went out to buy 7+ different guns, each with different calibres, types, purposes, etc..... should I be flagged in your database proposal?

 

 

According to firearms regulations in Canada, being convicted of a violent crime means you will lose access to firearms.  Eg. some d-bag constantly committing domestic abuse, picking fights at the bar, etc.... they can't legally own firearms anyways.  So your concerns about habitually violent individuals accessing firearms should be alleviated with current rules.

 

If any database has helped before, it would have been the long-gun registry, but it was a total failure.  $2.7 billion wasted and it solved 0 murders.  
It appears that you are more than willing to spend billions of dollars to take down maybe less than 5 potential criminals?  Sorry, but that money could be better allocated to actual issues like stopping kids from joining gangs (majority of gun crimes), helping the reserves, providing greater access to mental health, etc.  

 

This is a good research paper written by a criminologist at SFU.... 

https://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/StatsCan/BN58-Final.pdf

Legal gun owners are generally less likely to commit crime compared to the general population.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

and? if you've done something worthy of that, don't you think its a good idea if we check and see if you have a gun stockpile too?

Tracking innocent people, no thanks. This vehicle information others are making is ridiculous. Vehicle registration and insurance is a business. 

[JM_]

37 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Investment fraud means someone is going out of their way to commit an illegal act.  Some shady individuals selling fake investment products, setting up a ponzi scheme, etc.

Their intent is already malicious, no way around that.

 

But someone just buying stuff because of a passion or maybe the store just happens to have some wicked deal.  Maybe vast quantity of surplus guns/ammo entered the market and those low low prices won't last forever, hence people load up on them.  There is nothing malicious about that.  

In your opinion, if I went out to buy 7+ different guns, each with different calibres, types, purposes, etc..... should I be flagged in your database proposal?

 

 

According to firearms regulations in Canada, being convicted of a violent crime means you will lose access to firearms.  Eg. some d-bag constantly committing domestic abuse, picking fights at the bar, etc.... they can't legally own firearms anyways.  So your concerns about habitually violent individuals accessing firearms should be alleviated with current rules.

 

If any database has helped before, it would have been the long-gun registry, but it was a total failure.  $2.7 billion wasted and it solved 0 murders.  
It appears that you are more than willing to spend billions of dollars to take down maybe less than 5 potential criminals?  Sorry, but that money could be better allocated to actual issues like stopping kids from joining gangs (majority of gun crimes), helping the reserves, providing greater access to mental health, etc.  

 

This is a good research paper written by a criminologist at SFU.... 

https://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/StatsCan/BN58-Final.pdf

Legal gun owners are generally less likely to commit crime compared to the general population.

 

people who get questioned or arrested in altercations often don't get to a conviction stage. So waiting for a conviction to help us misses the point of trying new preventative measures. This guy in NS had a run with with police that wasn't a conviction, e.g.

 

I actually am advocating for a much simpler database system than the way the long gun one was produced that wouldn't be anything like that level of cost.

 

Legal gun owners are also more likely to commit mass killings. We're talking about rare events here. 

 

A purchasing database puts no extra burden on gun owners. It doesn't inflict any new harms on your freedoms, you're already in multiple databases by purchasing it. 

 

If that 2.7 billion could have saved this incident I'd be just fine with that cost. But the way databases are made now is far cheaper than when the long gun registry was conceived. 

[JM_]

16 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Tracking innocent people, no thanks. This vehicle information others are making is ridiculous. Vehicle registration and insurance is a business. 

You're already tracked. Every purchase you make is tracked, stored and sold multiple times. Unless you are planning to go off-grid this argument isn't valid. 

[greenbean]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I guess this is the part I find hard to understand. Information about you is already in dozens of data bases around the world. Using the argument that a database of info on you is somehow an imposition just doesn't wash anymore in todays world. Your credit card company, where you buy groceries, Amazon, your web browser - all of these collect, maintain, and sell your information. 

 

How would a gun purchase database be any different, particularly if you as the purchaser didn't have to do anything? 

As I said, my main issue with the database is how much it costs the government.

 

The government and police already know every person who has a PAL, so if that person commits a crime, then they can investigate further. This doesn't cost any extra to the tax payers for a database that won't pertain to 99.9% of legal gun owners.

 

And I shouldn't be investigated because I have a bunch of guns. I currently have 4 guns, and I will end up getting more. Why? Because each one is used for different things in hunting. My 20 gauge is good for small upland birds and rabbit, my 12 gauge is for ducks and geese. My .22LR is good for rabbit, upland birds, small animals, my .270 is my deer gun, it's okay for moose but not what I would use. I will end up getting a bigger caliber rifle for moose and elk. Plus I might eventually get higher end guns, so I could realistically have 10 guns just that I own. Include my girlfriend who could have around the same, and then when I have kids they might get a gun or two for themselves.

I've gone through the background check to get my PAL and Restricted PAL. They check your medical history to see that there hasn't been any signs of mental health issues, as well as your criminal background history. It's not like you just take a course and get a license to purchase firearms.

 

[J-Dizzle]

15 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but so what? I mean really who cares if they build a database from purchasing records? if it helped to stop even one of these psycho's, isn't it worth it? 

Jimmy, the 'if it stops even one of these psycho's' comment is nice rhetoric until you apply that logic across the board instead of just one situation.  (I get where it's coming from, but it just doesn't hold up).

 

consider alcohol:  If banning alcoholic beverages stops one person from getting behind the wheel drunk and taking out a family on their way home from watching a hockey game shouldn't we do it?  

 

Gun restrictions on top of what we already have in Canada is aiming at the wrong target.  If you're not familiar with the process (and it is rigorous), in order to legally acquire a firearm in Canada you have to pass a course, go through a vetting process to receive a possession license and have that license updated every five years (if I remember correctly).  You are required to carry that possession license and present it any time you purchase a firearm new or used and I have yet to find anyone who isn't very careful to follow those rules as it's just not worth it to dink around with them in Canada because there's too much to lose for those of us who own guns legally.... I could become a 'paper' criminal very quickly just by making a mistake let alone purposefully trying to circumvent the rules.  

 

I honestly don't know if there's any way to stop these things from happening (take away guns and a van is just as effective - see Toronto two short years ago).  The problem is that there are people out there who are willing to - whether as a result of mental illness or just plain wickedness - do everything they can to take as many people with them as quickly as possible when they snap and you can't regulate that.... as far as what you can regulate there's not a lot more you can reasonably do with firearms in our country.  You could try flat out banning them but you're kidding yourself if you think that's going to keep guns out of the hands of the people you want to keep them out of.  

 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, greenbean said:

As I said, my main issue with the database is how much it costs the government.

 

The government and police already know every person who has a PAL, so if that person commits a crime, then they can investigate further. This doesn't cost any extra to the tax payers for a database that won't pertain to 99.9% of legal gun owners.

 

And I shouldn't be investigated because I have a bunch of guns. I currently have 4 guns, and I will end up getting more. Why? Because each one is used for different things in hunting. My 20 gauge is good for small upland birds and rabbit, my 12 gauge is for ducks and geese. My .22LR is good for rabbit, upland birds, small animals, my .270 is my deer gun, it's okay for moose but not what I would use. I will end up getting a bigger caliber rifle for moose and elk. Plus I might eventually get higher end guns, so I could realistically have 10 guns just that I own. Include my girlfriend who could have around the same, and then when I have kids they might get a gun or two for themselves.

I've gone through the background check to get my PAL and Restricted PAL. They check your medical history to see that there hasn't been any signs of mental health issues, as well as your criminal background history. It's not like you just take a course and get a license to purchase firearms.

 

OK so lets go with cost. What I'm talking about is a simple purchasing database. When you buy a gun, the store owner sends in your name and type of gun purchased. Thats it. That info is already stored, bought and stored by Mastercard or your debit card. 

 

With that, you can know who might be sitting of a large pile of guns. You'd also get to know, e.g., if someone went out and bought 12 shotguns at Cabella's this afternoon and that would be a red flag for domestic terrorism, e.g.

 

Gun owners have been told to get their backs up over the idea of being "tracked." But you've already submitted to being tracked by making the purchase. The only difference is Mastercard is making money off you, vs. the police having another potential tool for getting ahead of a mass killing or terrorism event.

 

And you're not being investigated. The information that already exists is simply being aggregated to help create a possible prevention tool. 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

Jimmy, the 'if it stops even one of these psycho's' comment is nice rhetoric until you apply that logic across the board instead of just one situation.  (I get where it's coming from, but it just doesn't hold up).

 

consider alcohol:  If banning alcoholic beverages stops one person from getting behind the wheel drunk and taking out a family on their way home from watching a hockey game shouldn't we do it?  

 

Gun restrictions on top of what we already have in Canada is aiming at the wrong target.  If you're not familiar with the process (and it is rigorous), in order to legally acquire a firearm in Canada you have to pass a course, go through a vetting process to receive a possession license and have that license updated every five years (if I remember correctly).  You are required to carry that possession license and present it any time you purchase a firearm new or used and I have yet to find anyone who isn't very careful to follow those rules as it's just not worth it to dink around with them in Canada because there's too much to lose for those of us who own guns legally.... I could become a 'paper' criminal very quickly just by making a mistake let alone purposefully trying to circumvent the rules.  

 

I honestly don't know if there's any way to stop these things from happening (take away guns and a van is just as effective - see Toronto two short years ago).  The problem is that there are people out there who are willing to - whether as a result of mental illness or just plain wickedness - do everything they can to take as many people with them as quickly as possible when they snap and you can't regulate that.... as far as what you can regulate there's not a lot more you can reasonably do with firearms in our country.  You could try flat out banning them but you're kidding yourself if you think that's going to keep guns out of the hands of the people you want to keep them out of.  

 

I'm not talking about restrictions. I'm talking about using information thats already generated when you bought your gun. There's no extra burden on you as a gun owner, at all, and it might be a useful tool in tracking bulk purchases.