J-Dizzle

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.

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).

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?

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.

@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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Horvat Hamhuis

How freaking dare you. Sundstrom Hamhuis.

Sundstrom Hamhuis

Why are people talking about Gaudette giving up his number? This is Nikita Tryamkin we’re talking about not Patrick Kane.....

I mean that’s a little bit dramatic but.....I don’t love him as a player but he’s still capable of contributing as a middle six player in the right situation. I don’t think this team is the right situation but if he was making 2.5 a year I highly doubt people would be as annoyed with him.

Louie’s still capable of being an NHL player.... he’s just being paid about four million too much :p

Doesn’t look that out of place to me....

Getting rid of Meyers makes no sense. Elder isn’t going to be around for ever and while we have a lot of potentials in the system they’re just that. If someone comes in and pushes him out fine, trade him there’s no way there isn’t a team interested in a hulking defensemen who can skate and move the puck.

Hughes is the epitome of what people generally mean when they talk about a saviour in sports..... we’ve never had someone like him on the back end. Butttttttt I’d like to see what big Tree could do as well, think he could really help solidify the back end and has the potential to be a very impactful player.

I mean......

Apparently Dan Hamhuis is playing until he's 50 :D

Late to the party here but.... 1.) as has been pointed out Delorme was the one who pushed Petey from the start. 2.) where did you hear the Hayton rumour??? I have trouble believing Benning viewed him as anything close to Hughes considering he told Quinn he wouldn’t get past them AND the response he had when Quinn fell. I have no problem with liking Judd and hoping he sticks around but I’m really curious about some of the narrative surrounding him.

Changed my vote from last round voted Brodeur nominate Hamhuis

That's fair.... maybe they don't see Brackett as having had as much impact as the fan base thinks he has or conversely maybe the 'value' came in the contract offer rather than the position as we don't know what the offer is/was.

What does Gear getting a promotion have to do with Bracket not getting one? Two completely different departments....