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

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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. 

Not by the government and police.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, laddie said:

 

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

 

so begs the question, where did he get the gun(s) he used?

 

If the police had a record of what he purchased before 2001 they would have known what to go collect from him. 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Not by the government and police.

OK so you've got some libertarian paranoia thing going on. Sorry, but thats not a reason to not try new prevention methods.

 

Tell me how you'd actually be materially effected by a purchasing database. 

 

If we had one back in 2001, the police would have known what the NS gunman had purchased and they would know what to collect from him when he was convicted. 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[J-Dizzle]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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 altered 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.  

Again, it's a privacy issue.  IF your proposed 'zero-burden' system was going to work I personally - I can't speak for other gun owners - would be open to it.  The problem is 1. the zero burden system is a further imposition on personal privacy and gun owners are already giving up a ton of that (It's hard to explain what it's like without having experienced it) and 2. no one who knows the system would believe that it's going to work and there's no way to look at the few historical occurrences in Canada and project that it would have prevented what happened.  

 

One thing you've touched on - and I'm guessing we'll agree on this although I could be wrong - is we need a change of culture in regard to mental illness and men in Canada and that issue does need to be addressed (I think a lot more lives are lost because dude's with depression don't have access to or know how to tap into resources available to help).     

 

 

[J-Dizzle]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

so begs the question, where did he get the gun(s) he used?

 

If the police had a record of what he purchased before 2001 they would have known what to go collect from him. 

It will be interesting to see where he acquired them and I think it will give us a lot more context that would be useful for the conversation as a whole.  

[JM_]

1 minute ago, J-Dizzle said:

Again, it's a privacy issue.  IF your proposed 'zero-burden' system was going to work I personally - I can't speak for other gun owners - would be open to it.  The problem is 1. the zero burden system is a further imposition on personal privacy and gun owners are already giving up a ton of that (It's hard to explain what it's like without having experienced it) and 2. no one who knows the system would believe that it's going to work and there's no way to look at the few historical occurrences in Canada and project that it would have prevented what happened.  

 

One thing you've touched on - and I'm guessing we'll agree on this although I could be wrong - is we need a change of culture in regard to mental illness and men in Canada and that issue does need to be addressed (I think a lot more lives are lost because dude's with depression don't have access to or know how to tap into resources available to help).     

 

 

but you've already given up your privacy when you bought it, unless you paid cash which is a loophole that would have to be closed. You give up your privacy in our society every day. 

 

For sure we agree on needing more mental illness resources, no doubt about that. 

[JM_]

Just now, J-Dizzle said:

It will be interesting to see where he acquired them and I think it will give us a lot more context that would be useful for the conversation as a whole.  

yup for sure. But it would have been a good thing to know what he had at home. If he didn't hand them over at the time of a conviction then we know there's a real problem there. 

 

I don't want to put undue burdens on gun owners. I just want to use information that already exists, and to me thats a good system because it means there's nothing new for you to do as a gun owner but buy it legally. 

[J-Dizzle]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

but you've already given up your privacy when you bought it, unless you paid cash which is a loophole that would have to be closed. You give up your privacy in our society every day. 

 

For sure we agree on needing more mental illness resources, no doubt about that. 

Believe it or not, I do my best not to give up my privacy more than I need to.... I'm not one to agree to needless intrusion by the government and the rcmp.  IF it was shown convincingly that a database wasn't needless I'd be open to looking into it but I'm not close to convinced.

[JM_]

Just now, J-Dizzle said:

Believe it or not, I do my best not to give up my privacy more than I need to.... I'm not one to agree to needless intrusion by the government and the rcmp.  IF it was shown convincingly that a database wasn't needless I'd be open to looking into it but I'm not close to convinced.

fair enough. But a PAL system where we don't know what a convicted/mentally unstable person has stored in their home also leaves us open to potential harm. 

[CBH1926]

Trudeau promises gun-control legislation after deadliest shooting in Canadian history

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/nova-scotia-shootings-trudeau-gun-control-wortman-rcmp/2020/04/20/dbc54d40-829e-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html#comments-wrapper

[J-Dizzle]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yup for sure. But it would have been a good thing to know what he had at home. If he didn't hand them over at the time of a conviction then we know there's a real problem there. 

 

I don't want to put undue burdens on gun owners. I just want to use information that already exists, and to me thats a good system because it means there's nothing new for you to do as a gun owner but buy it legally. 

I think we'll be able to continue this convo as more information comes out.  I appreciate and believe your motives and desires there, I think one of the pieces that is missing - and I'm a bit younger so it's harder for me to weigh in on - is that there is a history of the government in Canada implementing much less then effective restrictive measures on firearms in the name of safety and the people generally impacted are law abiding citizens.  Add into that the fact that most individuals who own firearms are in favour of smaller government and more punitive measures in the justice system and I don't think it's surprising that gun owners get their backs up... as a community there is a general feeling of blame and intrusion.  

 

 

[Lancaster]

14 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

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.

Sure.... will the non-restricted firearms be now all classified as restricted?

What if the power-that-be suddenly decides my little squirrel hunting gun is now deemed to be a prohibitive piece and thus must be surrendered to the police without any compensation or else they will be sending a SWAT to my house?

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, Lancaster said:

Sure.... will the non-restricted firearms be now all classified as restricted?

What if the power-that-be suddenly decides my little squirrel hunting gun is now deemed to be a prohibitive piece and thus must be surrendered to the police without any compensation or else they will be sending a SWAT to my house?

So, you're going with "slippery slope" then?

 

I think your examples are pretty silly, but at least it's an answer.

[Lancaster]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

so begs the question, where did he get the gun(s) he used?

 

If the police had a record of what he purchased before 2001 they would have known what to go collect from him. 

Well, he's been breaking the law since 2001.  

Illegally possessing a firearms.... pretty like every single gangsters out there.  Don't you rather spend money/resource towards them?  I mean... there are probably thousands across this country.

[J-Dizzle]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

fair enough. But a PAL system where we don't know what a convicted/mentally unstable person has stored in their home also leaves us open to potential harm. 

I agree it would but I don't think the system leaves as much wiggle room there as you think it might.... it's FAR from perfect but I'd again suggest the issue isn't as much a system as it is a culture and personal one.

 

I've seen charts showing crime percentages before and after the implementation of the gun registry and the PAL and from what I remember that change was less than encouraging as to the impact of either quite honestly.... I really do think the big issues lie elsewhere.  I'll say this, we're lucky in Canada that this isn't nearly as much of an issue as it is with our neighbours to the south.   

[RUPERTKBD]

11 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

Trudeau promises gun-control legislation after deadliest shooting in Canadian history

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/nova-scotia-shootings-trudeau-gun-control-wortman-rcmp/2020/04/20/dbc54d40-829e-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html#comments-wrapper

Oooooo.....this is going to make him unpopular in Alberta.....

 

 

.....oh, wait....

[Lancaster]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

So, you're going with "slippery slope" then?

 

I think your examples are pretty silly, but at least it's an answer.

I've mentioned to you previously, it similar actions has been done previously.  

 

Just google up Swiss Arms and CZ858.  The powers-that-be just suddenly one day decided that they should be prohibited... even though they are non-restricted and has never been used in a crime in Canada before.  Pretty much it's scary looking... that's basically what it was.  

I'm just a bit disappointed that you're okay with the government just suddenly come knocking on my door and telling me my own personal property is not longer mine and I best give it up lest tactical officers come in with guns drawn and/or maybe I'll be throw in prison for about 2 years.  

 

That's not just being "slippery slope".... the laws and regulations to enforce that is already in the books.  Other firearms owners has been threatened and charged for even less.  

I mean... (IIRC) there's a case where a firearms owner has an actual safe room to keep his guns.  When he went on a long vacation, someone spent days breaking in and eventually took all his gun.  He was charged with unsafe and improper storage of firearms and could/would have been fined and even charged to go to prison for 2 years.  It was 11 years before the courts finally dropped the charges.

 

When the police and courts are behaving irrationally and arbitrary.... it should be clear why any firearms owner do not wish to give them more tools or powers to do whatever.  

[J-Dizzle]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Oooooo.....this is going to make him unpopular in Alberta.....

 

 

.....oh, wait....

You didn't buy the slippery slope from @Lancaster but this is what gun owners are used to any time someone does something stupid.

 

The fact that the first thing Trudeau pushes is a ban on military style assault rifles tells you everything you need to know.... you cannot own anything close to an assault rifle in Canada but it sounds quite reasonable to someone who's unfamiliar with firearms.  

 

@Jimmy McGill that kind of verbage is why gun owners have a tendency to get their backs up 

[RUPERTKBD]

Just now, J-Dizzle said:

You didn't buy the slippery slope from @Lancaster but this is what gun owners are used to any time someone does something stupid.

 

The fact that the first thing Trudeau pushes is a ban on military style assault rifles tells you everything you need to know.... you cannot own anything close to an assault rifle in Canada but it sounds quite reasonable to someone who's unfamiliar with firearms.  

 

@Jimmy McGill that kind of verbage is why gun owners have a tendency to get their backs up 

But this is different than having information in a database.....and if the database had caught this attack before it happened, we might not see this legislation.

 

And why does any "law abiding" citizen need access to an assault rifle?

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

 

 

@Jimmy McGill that kind of verbage is why gun owners have a tendency to get their backs up 

I know, he's not helping things. I dislike how politicized its become. Everyone should be interested in better  tools for a safer country.