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

[RUPERTKBD]

9 minutes ago, greenbean said:

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

How much would it cost?

 

And no-one seems to want to answer my question from yesterday: How would this database change your life in any meaningful way?

[J-Dizzle]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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. 

already there man.  The PAL approves you to be able to buy as many guns as you would like because you've already been vetted.  

[JM_]

1 minute ago, J-Dizzle said:

already there man.  The PAL approves you to be able to buy as many guns as you would like because you've already been vetted.  

Oh come on. The PAL isn't a prevention tool for someone going off the rails. 

 

Straw buying by legal gun owners happens all the time: https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/winnipeg-man-charged-with-weapons-trafficking-after-gun-found-in-ontario-vehicle-1.4521803?cache=yes%3Fclipid%3D104056%3FclipId%3D89619

[J-Dizzle]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

How much would it cost?

 

And no-one seems to want to answer my question from yesterday: How would this database change your life in any meaningful way?

A better question is how would it change anyone else's life in a meaningful way?  You're either approved by the government to be a gun owner or you're not.  The reason gun owners get their backs up about this is because we're constantly in the crosshairs of public opinion every time someone does something beyond what's comprehensible to a rational mind.  There's so much push for 'more accountability' when - especially in Canada - gun owners are already the most accountable people in the Country.  At some point we need to accept 'accountability' for what you own - which isn't a terrible thing on some level - isn't the answer to the problem.  

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

A better question is how would it change anyone else's life in a meaningful way?  You're either approved by the government to be a gun owner or you're not.  The reason gun owners get their backs up about this is because we're constantly in the crosshairs of public opinion every time someone does something beyond what's comprehensible to a rational mind.  There's so much push for 'more accountability' when - especially in Canada - gun owners are already the most accountable people in the Country.  At some point we need to accept 'accountability' for what you own - which isn't a terrible thing on some level - isn't the answer to the problem.  

you're suggesting that its impossible for someone who holds a PAL to not do something illegal, how is that logical?

 

What extra burden is put on you if Canada has a cost-effective purchasing database? 

[Lancaster]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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. 

That was what the long-gun registry was.... and it was $2.7 billion back then.  

This is the government, they'll probably spend at least $5 billion now on pretty much the same thing. 

 

Also, you haven't define what is considered as a "large pile".  

30 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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. 

I hate to sound callous... but $2.7 billion could have saved more lives than the 19 that died in NS.  

If your purpose is just to save lives, then you're going about this the wrong way.  

 

$2.7 billion to tackle the fentanyl crisis would save more than 19.  $2.7 billion towards youth initiatives would save more than 19.  $2.7 billion spent on replacing lead pipes would potentially save hundreds of lives.   

 

Just to put numbers into perspective.... $2.7 billion is roughly 10% of the Canadian national defense budget.  

 

I understand you're fearful of guns and you don't want anymore mass killings (no one is disagreeing with you on that part), but the notion that you are more than willing to throw billions to target a smaller portion of the population who are more generally law abiding and the commits the least amount of firearm offensives.... and all the meanwhile individuals rights be damned..... it appears you are more guided by your emotions than actual logic and facts.  

It's like targeting martial artists, just because a bunch of random drunks get into fights at the clubs.  

 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, J-Dizzle said:

A better question is how would it change anyone else's life in a meaningful way?  You're either approved by the government to be a gun owner or you're not.  The reason gun owners get their backs up about this is because we're constantly in the crosshairs of public opinion every time someone does something beyond what's comprehensible to a rational mind.  There's so much push for 'more accountability' when - especially in Canada - gun owners are already the most accountable people in the Country.  At some point we need to accept 'accountability' for what you own - which isn't a terrible thing on some level - isn't the answer to the problem.  

That's already been answered by Jimmy. If this guy in Nova Scotia had been flagged, there could very well have been a meaningful change for at least 19 people.

 

How about you answer the question instead of dodging by asking a counter question.......or is your answer just that you're tired of poor gun owners being "persecuted"?

[J-Dizzle]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

Oh come on. The PAL isn't a prevention tool for someone going off the rails. 

 

Straw buying by legal gun owners happens all the time: https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/winnipeg-man-charged-with-weapons-trafficking-after-gun-found-in-ontario-vehicle-1.4521803?cache=yes%3Fclipid%3D104056%3FclipId%3D89619

All the time?  It happens, just like buying boos for underage kids happens (and probably accounts for far more injuries and deaths), BUT it's illegal.  You are not a legal gun owner if you're doing that and you'll lose your ability to own firearms... that can and should be shut down, just like any other illegal circumvention of a system (and it happens in every system).  

 

A database isn't going to solve that problem, it's just going to drive the few people who try to use a 'legal' cover underground.  

[Tre Mac]

God dam the lame ass arguments you gun nuts try and come up with is truly pitiful, it is along the lines as the people that protest social distancing.  You don't need to own a gun, period.    

[greenbean]

4 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

God dam the lame ass arguments you gun nuts try and come up with is truly pitiful, it is along the lines as the people that protest social distancing.  You don't need to own a gun, period.    

I'm not a gun nut at all, I don't collect them for the sake of having guns.

I own guns for the sole purpose of hunting and target shooting. Just because you don't feel like it's necessary doesn't mean every single person has to agree with you. It's a perfectly legal thing in this country that is never going away.

 

I do agree there are certain guns that people do not need to own, and guess what, we can't own those guns in Canada.

[J-Dizzle]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you're suggesting that its impossible for someone who holds a PAL to not do something illegal, how is that logical?

 

What extra burden is put on you if Canada has a cost-effective purchasing database? 

Again, what do you think that data base will achieve above what's already in place?  

 

@RUPERTKBD my question hasn't been answered, what is it going to change by having a database?  People who want more restrictions or monitoring of gun owners need to be able to show that what they're proposing would actually be effective in doing what they want it to do.  I'm not aware of any instances in Canada where a database would have stopped one of our two (I believe) mass shootings in the last two decades (luckily we're not the states in this regard).  

 

As far as extra burden, would you be interested in the government knowing how many bottles you bought and what kind at the liquor store?  It's just obtrusive AND wouldn't do anything useful.  

 

 

[J-Dizzle]

7 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

God dam the lame ass arguments you gun nuts try and come up with is truly pitiful, it is along the lines as the people that protest social distancing.  You don't need to own a gun, period.    

@Tre Mac you drink anything alcoholic ever?  Alcohol is responsible for FAR more deaths and injuries than guns ever will be... so if we're going to apply the 'you don't need to own a gun' logic - again - it's got to be applied across the board.  

[JM_]

15 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

All the time?  It happens, just like buying boos for underage kids happens (and probably accounts for far more injuries and deaths), BUT it's illegal.  You are not a legal gun owner if you're doing that and you'll lose your ability to own firearms... that can and should be shut down, just like any other illegal circumvention of a system (and it happens in every system).  

 

A database isn't going to solve that problem, it's just going to drive the few people who try to use a 'legal' cover underground.  

a database is the only way you're going to know its happening, unless the police get lucky as in the link I posted above. 

[J-Dizzle]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

a database is the only way you're going to know its happening, unless the police get lucky as in the link I posted above. 

You may know what's happening with me or jo blow down the street who buys a 30-06 to go moose hunting, but you're not going to know what's happening with someone who's planning on committing a crime with a firearm.  I'm aware you disagree on that point maybe give me an example of where a database would actually help???  The only 'hypothetical' I've seen thrown out is someone going to cabelas and loading up on 12 gauges and that hypothetical is incredibly unrealistic.  

[JM_]

17 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

 

 

I understand you're fearful of guns and you don't want anymore mass killings (no one is disagreeing with you on that part), but the notion that you are more than willing to throw billions to target a smaller portion of the population who are more generally law abiding and the commits the least amount of firearm offensives.... and all the meanwhile individuals rights be damned..... it appears you are more guided by your emotions than actual logic and facts.  

It's like targeting martial artists, just because a bunch of random drunks get into fights at the clubs.  

 

I'm not fearful of guns, but yes I do want to look at new prevention methods. And no, I'm not being emotional about it, I think gun owners are the ones getting their backs up tbh and driven more by ideology here. 

 

Here's the logic: you generate an purchasing record when you buy a gun. That record exists with the gun shop and your bank. Its then used by many agencies to make money off you. 

 

I'm saying lets also use that to track potentially suspicious purchases like stockpilers and e.g.,  people buying many guns on the same day from different stores. 

[RUPERTKBD]

4 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

Again, what do you think that data base will achieve above what's already in place?  

 

@RUPERTKBD my question hasn't been answered, what is it going to change by having a database?  People who want more restrictions or monitoring of gun owners need to be able to show that what they're proposing would actually be effective in doing what they want it to do.  I'm not aware of any instances in Canada where a database would have stopped one of our two (I believe) mass shootings in the last two decades (luckily we're not the states in this regard).  

 

As far as extra burden, would you be interested in the government knowing how many bottles you bought and what kind at the liquor store?  It's just obtrusive AND wouldn't do anything useful. 

Definitively? Impossible to say. Potentially? Lives.

[J-Dizzle]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Definitively? Impossible to say. Potentially? Lives.

Give me some examples of how that would work?  Maybe a few from the shootings that have happened in Canada in the last twenty years?

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

You may know what's happening with me or jo blow down the street who buys a 30-06 to go moose hunting, but you're not going to know what's happening with someone who's planning on committing a crime with a firearm.  I'm aware you disagree on that point maybe give me an example of where a database would actually help???  The only 'hypothetical' I've seen thrown out is someone going to cabelas and loading up on 12 gauges and that hypothetical is incredibly unrealistic.  

sure - right now there's no way of the RCMP knowing if a person goes out to 10 different Cabellas today and buys 20 shotguns. 

 

Now, it might be totally innocent, he might be buying for a gun club, or getting in on some sort of deal, who knows. But don't you think that the RCMP might want to be alerted to that kind of behaviour, e.g., if you were looking at domestic terror or if a person had other red flags?

 

I understand the PAL argument, its a bigger commitment than many places have. But its by no means a prevention method. Many men hit depression in their 50s, like the NS shooter. If you got your PAL in your 20s or 30s its useless for prevention in this case. 

 

IF the NS shooter had e.g., bought 4 or 5 guns or a lot of ammo leading up to this, it could have led to a deeper investigation of him. Maybe someone notices his fake RCMP decal and uniform purchases and puts 2 and 2 together.

 

What I'm talking about is a zero-burden use of purchasing information. I fail to see how that hurts you as a responsible gun owner.  

 

Tell me any other way we can track rare cases of multiple gun purchases thats less of a burden on you. 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[laddie]

Quote

HALIFAX—The gunman in Nova Scotia’s massacre had an assault conviction in 2002, which led to a recommendation that he attend anger-management sessions and not own any firearms, ammunition or explosives.

Nineteen people have been confirmed dead following Gabriel Wortman’s weekend shooting rampage, which ended when he was shot in a confrontation with police. Police have said they expect the number of confirmed victims to increase.

Court records show Wortman was convicted but conditionally discharged over the Oct. 29, 2001 assault, which led him to be tasked with reporting to a probation officer for nine months.

He was also required “not to own, possess or carry a weapon, ammunition, or explosive substance,” according to court documents.

Wortman was further required to attend “for assessment and counselling in anger management” as directed by his probation officer.

 

Being reported by The Star and here is the link:

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/04/21/death-toll-could-rise-in-nova-scotia-as-investigation-into-mass-killing-continues.html?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMedia&utm_campaign=National&utm_content=novascotiagunman&fbclid=IwAR1AgsNUpVsz1CeKV39QFi1u3awWgmdcmRra_0s6YDCLJAu30z_BDeTVtZw

 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, J-Dizzle said:

Give me some examples of how that would work?  Maybe a few from the shootings that have happened in Canada in the last twenty years?

It's all hypothetical.....but say for instance, a guy is planning on shooting up a school, or his place of work and goes and buys a bunch of guns and ammo....

 

The system flags the purchase and the cops investigate, quite possibly saving several lives in the process..

 

And still, no-one has answered my question about how such a database would affect their daily lives.