Define "criminal." Nikolas Cruz, for example, wasn't a criminal until after he bought the gun.
Your rather simplistic view of "criminals" as career, full time criminals is one of the "facts" I was warning you about.
And whatever the government has done in the past, it will necessarily and inevitably do again, right?
See if this helps. That the government (I assume you mean the Canadian government) required registration of automatic weapons, and later prohibited them, is a fact. It's objectively demonstrable. It happened.
That the government will in the future ban any registered weapons is a conclusion, an opinion, or speculation. It is not objectively demonstrable. It has not happened.
See? There's your difference.
Actually I never considered Cruz a criminal. There were many, many indications he was mentally unstable and under stress. That can't make him a criminal , only sick.
Gun laws of restrictions on mental, underage, or criminals do not exist and/or are not enforced in your country. Not having such a law and/or making it impossible to implement them makes it a societal failure of all voters. So in my opinion it is your laws and how they are enforced that are criminal.
As for taking away the right to own a weapon of war, may have something to do with our election laws.
"Summary
Contribution and spending limits are regulated by the Canada Elections Act. The Law places limits on contributions to political parties and political candidates. Only individuals or natural persons (not corporations or trade unions) who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents may make contributions. Election expenses are subject to limits for candidates and registered political parties. These limits are calculated according to a formula based on the number of names on the preliminary or revised lists of electors for each electoral district, and on the length of the election period. Candidates and parties may be able to claim publicly-funded reimbursements for some of their election expenses.
Under the Canada Elections Act, only certain networks (not all broadcasters) are required to allocate free time to political parties. Two minutes are allocated to each registered and newly eligible party that did not want any paid broadcasting time, and the remainder of free time is allocated among political parties proportionally to their paid-time allocation. The minimum amount of broadcasting time that a network operator makes available cannot be less than the amount of free broadcasting time that it made available during the last general election.'
It is not a perfect solution but it does mean an individual vote does count more than an entity with a lot of money and no conscience to completely control a government.
