Nova Scotia Active Shooter Dead

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jayswin

God I hate that this turns to a gun debate so quickly, but our worst enemy is having America as a neighbour. Any new gun restrictions are okay in my books as anything helps (I should note this excludes ****ty laws that cost taxpayers lots of money) and I don't really care about shooting guns as a hobby as any reason for gun "freedoms".

But man, we are so screwed in the future by being the US's neighbour.

I've always been torn on gun control, because frankly I don't know if I see the need for a lot of fire arms in terms of private ownership.


However, I will state that Canada already has very stringent and strict gun control and ownership laws. The whole mystical ban assault style weapons makes the government look stupid because they don't seem to know what assault style weapons are, and they're already pretty much prohibited.


The bottom line is that governments that talk about gun control don't do enough about one of the more significant gun issues which is illegal guns smuggled in over the border. And as much as we want to blame the Americans, its essential to look at the Chinese connection and other nations as well.



Also in terms of stopping border smuggling and port smuggling where pretty much all of these guns are coming in, the government would have to look hard after groups like the Mohawk warriors and other groups criminal or not who make a ton of money bringing in illegal fire arms.


but instead we bounce the rubble by going after legal gun ownership. Its stupid and lazy.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I've always been torn on gun control, because frankly I don't know if I see the need for a lot of fire arms in terms of private ownership.


However, I will state that Canada already has very stringent and strict gun control and ownership laws. The whole mystical ban assault style weapons makes the government look stupid because they don't seem to know what assault style weapons are, and they're already pretty much prohibited.


The bottom line is that governments that talk about gun control don't do enough about one of the more significant gun issues which is illegal guns smuggled in over the border. And as much as we want to blame the Americans, its essential to look at the Chinese connection and other nations as well.



Also in terms of stopping border smuggling and port smuggling where pretty much all of these guns are coming in, the government would have to look hard after groups like the Mohawk warriors and other groups criminal or not who make a ton of money bringing in illegal fire arms.


but instead we bounce the rubble by going after legal gun ownership. Its stupid and lazy.

That's exactly it. I like guns, I've made that clear here over the years, I own several, but I'm also pro gun control and am glad we're not like the US in that regard.

However banning weapons, or a class of weapon, for legal private ownership for no reason other than to do it is dumb, lazy, and punishes the wrong people. It isn't the guys like me going out, getting licensed, buying guns legally, that are causing the issues. It's the people that get them illegally. Yet instead, the Government is going to punish people like myself because someone unlicensed got illegal firearms. I don't get it. It's a lazy expensive way of making anti-gun people feel good about themselves without actually accomplishing anything.

[greyshep]

Ugh, please dont let this thread end up going down the gun debate rabbit hole.

[Mickey76]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Anniversary of the storming of the Waco compound as well. Between that and Oklahoma City it's pretty much a far-right national holiday. That said, it would be very dangerous to draw that as a conclusion without more evidence.

As far as the warning systems goes, definitely a big fail. But I think that was more an inertia thing than anything else. Officials have used Twitter as their go-to source for mass communication for years - and look at pretty much any mass shooting in the US. It's the same thing: twitter alerts. The SMS alert system is still new enough in Canada that it was likely still represented just a little to out of the box thinking for whomever would have had the capability to use it. Unfortunately, it is always so common that lessons such as this are learned in blood.

And yes, suggesting criminal charges for failing to utilize the system IS too extreme. Sorry Mickey76, but what you want isn't justice, but vengeance. And since you can't take it out on the killer, you're just flailing about for someone else to suffer in proxy.

You are probably right but I really don’t intend this to be vengeance. I am extremely tolerant, forgiving for any decision made in the heat of the moment. Even with high levels of training situations like Las Vegas and Columbine must be nearly impossible to react to properly. But if I reading the reports right they had 9 hours. 9 Hours. This is way past heat of the moment, this is pure incompetence. How many Covid alerts have you had on your phone? And no one over 9 hours tbought “hey we should send an alert out?” This is not some technology that no one has ever heard of before. I don’t think I have resorted to Biblical eye for eye philosophy when I think this looks like criminal negligence.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by btimbit

That's exactly it. I like guns, I've made that clear here over the years, I own several, but I'm also pro gun control and am glad we're not like the US in that regard.

However banning weapons, or a class of weapon, for legal private ownership for no reason other than to do it is dumb, lazy, and punishes the wrong people. It isn't the guys like me going out, getting licensed, buying guns legally, that are causing the issues. It's the people that get them illegally. Yet instead, the Government is going to punish people like myself because someone unlicensed got illegal firearms. I don't get it. It's a lazy expensive way of making anti-gun people feel good about themselves without actually accomplishing anything.

This sounds like a quote from the NRA playbook.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

This sounds like a quote from the NRA playbook.

This sounds like a cheap shot that is needlessly dismissive considering that btimbit took the time to articulate that he is pro gun control.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by btimbit

That's exactly it. I like guns, I've made that clear here over the years, I own several, but I'm also pro gun control and am glad we're not like the US in that regard.

However banning weapons, or a class of weapon, for legal private ownership for no reason other than to do it is dumb, lazy, and punishes the wrong people. It isn't the guys like me going out, getting licensed, buying guns legally, that are causing the issues. It's the people that get them illegally. Yet instead, the Government is going to punish people like myself because someone unlicensed got illegal firearms. I don't get it. It's a lazy expensive way of making anti-gun people feel good about themselves without actually accomplishing anything.

Trouble is at one point he was a guy like you, who went out and got his FAC and bought a gun, probably went hunting and was in general a poster boy for legal gun ownership

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Trouble is at one point he was a guy like you, who went out and got his FAC and bought a gun, probably went hunting and was in general a poster boy for legal gun ownership

FACs havnt been around for 30 years. He didnt have a PAL.
You dont know if he hunted or not. Stop assuming and trying to associate legal, lawful firearm ownership with the acts of mass murderers.
"Guy like you" eat #### dude.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

FACs havnt been around for 30 years. He didnt have a PAL.
You dont know if he hunted or not. Stop assuming and trying to associate legal, lawful firearm ownership with the acts of mass murderers.
"Guy like you" eat #### dude.

Regardless of the terminology as of a couple of years ago this guy was a legal gun owner, as of two days ago he is Canada's single greatest mass murderer

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Regardless of the terminology as of a couple of years ago this guy was a legal gun owner, as of two days ago he is Canada's single greatest mass murderer

Until the RCMP announce how he got them or even what type they are there's no way you can say this. All we know right now is he got them illegally. You can't make something double illegal, banning more doesn't fix anything here

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

This sounds like a quote from the NRA playbook.

No, that would be "Hurr durr need mah freedom to protect my family from the Government!"

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Until the RCMP announce how he got them or even what type they are there's no way you can say this. All we know right now is he got them illegally. You can't make something double illegal, banning more doesn't fix anything here



No, that would be "Hurr durr need mah freedom to protect my family from the Government!"

I made no comment on his guns, I just pointed out the reality that this guy was a legal gun owner originally, that the largest mass killer in Canada was, until a couple of years ago, deemed to be perfectly ok to have legal firearms.

I point this out because maybe Canada should be less concerned with what type of guns people have and way, way, more concerned with who is allowed to have a gun of any type.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I made no comment on his guns, I just pointed out the reality that this guy was a legal gun owner originally, that the largest mass killer in Canada was, until a couple of years ago, deemed to be perfectly ok to have legal firearms.

I point this out because maybe Canada should be less concerned with what type of guns people have and way, way, more concerned with who is allowed to have a gun of any type.

I have no argument there. I've said for a long time further limiting firearms themselves I don't like, but further limiting who has access would be a big thumbs up from me.

It would be a real shame if it's true that he was a PAL holder and when he lost it, somehow kept some firearms. Pretty damning of the RCMP if that turns out to be the case.

If that was the case though I think/hope they'd have said so by now rather than still investigating where he got them

[stang]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Regardless of the terminology as of a couple of years ago this guy was a legal gun owner, as of two days ago he is Canada's single greatest mass murderer

Actually there’s a post in this thread which states he wasn’t a legal gun owner, and because of possible past offences probably was banned from becoming one.

So illegal guns he had.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by stang

Actually there’s a post in this thread which states he wasn’t a legal gun owner, and because of possible past offences probably was banned from becoming one.

So illegal guns he had.

Indeed. RCMP still pretty tight-lipped but what we know on the topic so far

-He did not have a firearms license
-He had an assault charge in 2002 or 2003 so I seriously doubt he's had a firearms license since then, if ever (I've never read anything saying he had one at all)
-Police say he got the firearms illegally

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Indeed. RCMP still pretty tight-lipped but what we know on the topic so far

-He did not have a firearms license
-He had an assault charge in 2002 or 2003 so I seriously doubt he's had a firearms license since then, if ever (I've never read anything saying he had one at all)
-Police say he got the firearms illegally

I had read or heard he lost his license due to the assault charge, trying to track down the article

[CaptainCrunch]

I can back you up on that AFC, I read the article this morning on CTV. I'm just too lazy to dig it up.



He wasn't a legal firearm owner.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I can back you up on that AFC, I read the article this morning on CTV. I'm just too lazy to dig it up.



He wasn't a legal firearm owner.

Thanks, I was starting to think I had misheard or misread it, which is not something I want to do on this topic ever!!!

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I can back you up on that AFC, I read the article this morning on CTV. I'm just too lazy to dig it up.



He wasn't a legal firearm owner.

We know he wasn't a legal firearms owner but can you remember if it said he did have a license at one point? If that's the case I'm really curious if the weapons used were his own that he purchased with a license that he lost 18 years ago. That'd be a pretty damning oversight of the system and I'd be pretty pissed to hear it

[transplant99]

RCMP in Nova Scotia say the man who went on a deadly rampage throughout the province this weekend, leaving at least 22 people dead, did not have a criminal record.

But 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman had previously pleaded guilty to a crime.

He received a conditional discharge, meaning that he would be discharged by the court if he completed nine months of probation and paid a $50 victim fine surcharge.

During those nine months, Wortman was ordered to follow several conditions. Those included not having any contact with the victim and not having "any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, any kind of ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...cord-1.5541176

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by btimbit

We know he wasn't a legal firearms owner but can you remember if it said he did have a license at one point? If that's the case I'm really curious if the weapons used were his own that he purchased with a license that he lost 18 years ago. That'd be a pretty damning oversight of the system and I'd be pretty pissed to hear it

They didn't say anything about that. But that would be a law enforcement issue instead of a legislative issue.


I always thought that if the courts imposed a no fire arms condition, that there would be an enforcement order to take the guns into custody. If the police failed to do that, or the courts failed to do that, yeah, I'll be really upset at that.