Lancaster

Why are you so adamant on pushing forth a system that does not help with public safety, meanwhile knowing that it's going to cost taxpayers billions of dollars? Handguns are always registered 100% (if they are from a legal source), fully automatic rifles are 100% illegal, weapons that are sawed-off are also 100% illegal, and the categories doesn't provide enough info... but probably illegal. So you're only dealing with the category that's rifle and shotguns.... which some may be already registered anyways. Assuming half are restricted and already registered and another quarter are illegally sourced... then that leaves about 5% of all firearms related homicide which your traceability might be useful for. Of course, once you factor in context like maybe the crime was domestic violence/abuse that escalated, guns were stolen, etc.... so it's just literally a handful of licensed gun owners who are bad apples. Maybe like 5 people.... and there are 2+ million licensed firearms owner in Canada.... like 0.00025%.

You're trying to implement some sort of soft-cap on ownership. What does it matter if someone buys 5 guns over a course of 2 years or someone buys 5 guns at once? I know you are throwing out the potential terrorist angle.... but here's some useful information for you... This is essentially what the government considers as the actual gun, where the serial numbers are, the receiver: The barrel, the trigger, the scope/cross-hairs, the grip handle, the guards, the stock, magazines, etc.... those are more or less just accessories that could be swapped/customized (note there are regulations regarding size of magazine and length of barrel). To use a car analogy.... it's like saying the engine is the "car".... but stuff like the doors, wheels, windshield, etc... are not essentially a car... just accessories which you can customize with. Stuff like magazines, stocks, etc.... they can be purchased without any license, without any barriers. Much like you can just buy a new exhaust for your car without anyone questioning anything. I could hypothetically just buy all the components (sans receiver) from amazon, eBay, Canadian Tire, etc... and then just drill my own receiver (if I have the skills/equipment), find some shady individual to do it, or..... just 3D print it, which has been done and is getting better than better. Many in the US already 3D print their magazines and some have even printed carbon fibre receivers. So now, I can easily just manufacture my own AR model rifles off-the-grid. To take it a step further, some enthusiasts also make their own ammo. All you need is to buy metal casing, gun powder and have a manual machine to press it together.

Sometimes I wonder if that is the reason some anti-Republican/Democrats spew such vitriol..... sometimes people just can't stand looking at their own reflection. Instead of actually trying to rationalize and understand things... some just compartmentalize and cherry-pick what they demonize as some sort of twisted way to lie to themselves to feel morally superior.

Most guns used in the proceed of a crime are illegally sourced to begin with (smuggled from the US). It's not like guns are tagged with a GPS tracker. It's like a stolen bike... even if you register it, the only way it will ever be returned to you is if the police are able to retrieve it. For guns, the only way the police are retrieving an illegal acquired firearm is if it has been used in a crime or taken off a criminal. Either way it wouldn't have stopped this shooting or stopped a gangster from using it against a rival. A registry has never solved any murder and it is only potentially useful after a crime as been committed. It doesn't help with public safety, it just creates bureaucracy and make people feel good about "doing something". Once again you have used the "flagging usual sales", but you're leaving that vague. So what if I want to buy 5 guns today? There's a sale going on and I want to save money. Why should suddenly the RCMP, VPD, CSIS, whatever come by my house or call me up asking about it? If someone was really trying to create as much destruction as possible, they could just easily bypass your suggestion by just purchasing guns over a longer period of time, thus wouldn't get red flagged. It does not make anything safer, either than hindering people like me.... people who aren't going out murdering others. Any buying more guns doesn't really mean anything.... a person can only use 2 guns max at any time. This isn't Call of Duty were someone can just run around with like 10 guns, with thousands of rounds of ammo and switching instantly between weapons. Unless somehow 2-3 guns is deemed excessive now.

A good chart to check out.... The Saudi and other oil states are the ones taking the biggest economic hits. Sucks for the USA and Canadian energy, but the energy sector only makes up a part of the overall economy.

Incomplete data for prospective draft eligible players. Their stock can rise or fall by their CHL playoff performances too.

Well, he was always a Democrat, up until he ran to be POTUS. I mean weren't the Clintons sitting front row at his wedding or something?

Well... if they suddenly decided my little squirrel shooter looks "dangerous" and thus becomes prohibited with no allowance to be grandfathered in, that would mean it would be. There has been previous precedence of similar actions done already. When things get prohibited, it basically still means confiscation... just delayed. If the powers-that-be are willing to be engaged with the the firearms community and not just pass legislation by rolling dices, most firearms owners wouldn't be so antagonistic at times. But almost all previous cases has been shown that either they are incompetent, or at worst, insidious. I am by no means an expert... just happen to research and follow the firearms debate more than most. There's been more than enough actions done by the government, police, courts etc.... where you go "what the ----?" where you can easily become skeptical whenever government enact more stuff against firearms owner. You can have some druggie shooting a gun and go off scott-free... but a responsible owner with his own bank vault being broken into being charged with prison time.... you just simply can't put too faith into the authorities.

The photo I posted are all the same gun. No difference save for the aesthetics. The one that more resembles an AK-47, called the Blaze-47 (marketing) is banned in Canada. The more "girlish" pink version is non-registered, thus it is a very good entry gun for first timers and for kids. It really do not make any sense why one is banned and one is not. It's like saying a Silver Honda Civic is perfectly legit, but the Red Civic is illegal as it "resembles" a Ferrari. When you go hunting, you can only use non-restricted firearms. So no AR15 or handguns.... but you're more than allowed to bring along the majority of bolt-action rifles (you have to yank back to reload), many other semi-auto rifles (vz58, SKS, etc). I don't hunt, so maybe other can give better info on it. You can make your gun look like the old stuff people used in the Old West pioneering days... or you can change your gun to look like you're trying to be Rambo. Most of the time... it's probably the same gun. For the range, you can bring along your restricted stuff (AR15, handguns, etc).... but you can only give from your house directly to the range. No stopping by the bar with your buddies to catch the game, no stopping by Superstore to pick up milk, etc. You can shoot smaller calibre guns or even stuff that can shoot down helicopters if you want... it's really up to the range and whether it is designed for those guns. All the firearms... you can just buy at your local gun store, online from Cabelas, at Canadian Tire, etc. With the grandfather policy... it's case specific. For the CZ858, I do not believe they allowed people to be "grandfathered" in. But some stuff from way back when, like when the AK47 was still legal in Canada.... some people got grandfathered in. But that pretty much killed all value for your guns, since you can't even let your estate to inherit them after your passing. I think some vets had their service weapons from WW1, WW2, etc... and they couldn't let their family hold onto them after the vets died as those weapons were classified as prohibited and are non-transferable.

The problem with classification is that may be misconstrued that it may be more dangerous than non-restricted, but it's actually more or less random. This guy explains it pretty well.

Kind of pointless though. Most magazines are just set to 5 rounds due to a flimsy piece of plastic you can just snap right off. Or you can probably drill the ones that are metal. Then there's 3D printing of magazine which some do in the USA. Doesn't promote actual safety as anyone with ill intention would just snap off that piece. All it does it make it a figurative pain in the posterior for gun owners who don't want to end up in prison and receive actual pain in the posterior.

When you have decision makers who ban some guns in this photo and then have some of them as non-restricted.... that is really messed up. They're all the same gun.... shooting the smallest calibre bullet out there.

Except there will be additional costs. I mean what you are proposing is more or less the same long-gun registry from years past and that was $2.7 billion. They're not just going to set up a spreadsheet on Google Docs. Setting up a new department... they'll need to hire someone to head the department, lots of brand new computers and other server equipment, renting out a very secured facility to store said information, a bit of clerical staff to pull out requests, supervisors to supervise, managers to manage, consultants brought in to consult, misc office supplies, security clearance and background checks, etc. $2.7 billion might not even be enough nowadays.

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.

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.

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?

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". 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.

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.

Unfortunately, it's been far from perfect. West Germany was perhaps even more economically powerful compared to the modern Germany even. The East still suffer from a brain drain with many still going to the West. People in Western Canada complaining about equalization.... it's even larger when it comes to East Germany. South Korea unifying with the North.... I don't think the South can even afford it. Plus their society are completely different.... would probably take over a century before it gets better. Think of how much effort would it be to unite families and reconnecting with relatives. Lots of my South Korean friends mention that they probably have relatives in the North... but that's pretty much all the info they do have. With Japan, many Koreans are still ingrained to dislike or even hate the Japanese. A hard position for them for sure. Help to much and they will be accused of Neo-colonialism. Don't send enough help, get blamed for not doing more.

They'll go in due to "humanitarian" reasons. Knowing some of the media, they'll be printing lots of the CCP narratives.

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.

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.

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 wonder what's the percentage of lead pipes in those area.

The majority of violent firearm crimes are usually done by those not even licensed.... The Law only applies to those already obeying the law. A bit off-track... but there was a shooting at Oppenheimer park and a illegal gun was seized by the police. No arrests were made, no charges were laid. If myself, a Law-abiding Gun Owner, went to the gun range and accidentally left my gun license in the wrong jacket, I would be massively fined and perhaps ending up in jail with a criminal record. If the law and courts were a bit less convoluted and evenly applied, and regulations used with facts instead of emotions/politics... most firearms owners wouldn't be as antagonistic to lawmakers at time.