It would be better then the current gun registry...

But in the end, it is still nothing more then a list, and as far as I know, list do not me you or me any safer.

If the government is going to spend money on something, I want it to have a positive impact on the lives of someone. If we want to reduce violence, we should do something to help the individuals with violent and aggressive behaviors.

Something should also be done to help the victims of violence... As an example, one single additional place in a women shelter would have a bigger impact on Canadian society then all the registration certificates (guns or criminals) put togheter.

Just my 2 cents.

I would feel perfectly safe under this plan. No holes.
Of course I feel perfectly safe with my concealed .45 ACP too, so there's not much of a difference.

I am going to go way of topic on this one.
As a Libertarian I view many of the laws we have in this country as a direct infringement of the liberty and freedom of its Citizens. For example as much as it pains me and I see absolutely no good in “illegal” drugs nor do I have an desire to use “illegal” drugs they should not be “illegal” but heavily controlled and taxed in such a way as to mitigate the social and person damages caused by them on society as a whole and the users. The evidence is very clear the “illegal” trade of drugs both directly and indirectly funds organized crime and terrorism along with a whole host of other problems which extends from someone getting shot during a drug deal to the window of a car getting smashed and CD’s stolen. To be frank the risk vs reward of the illegal drug trade makes it a very lucrative and profitable source of income for some of those that participate in it. If a pound of cocaine cost the same a pound of sugar how much crime could that support. Even if we take liberty and freedom out of the equation can we actually win the war on drugs is it even possible? If it can be done at what cost in terms of human damage, money and the erosion of freedoms that would be needed to actually catch and prosecute offenders.
Why should someone with a mental illness have to register with the government? That is not to say the people responsible for firearms licenses should not be informed as they should be informed. With this way of though we should register people who are HIV + and force them to inform the government every time they move. If anything this kind of thinking leads to people not getting tested and not seeking the help they need.
As to domestic abuse the main issue as I understand it is the cycle of violence which is very hard to break. It appears from what I know on the topic is children from abusive homes tend to become abusers or abused later in there life. The cycle is harsh, but it really has nothing to do with items be it firearms or alcohol. The focus on inanimate object in an abuse situation does nothing to address the cycle of violence.
We can even look at suicide. Gun control has been shown to directly affect the rate of suicide by firearm, but the overall rates of suicide in the population remain statistically the same or at least that is the case in Canada.
When it comes down to the wire we have to evaluate Citizenship. Should a violent offender remain a citizen with all the rights of a citizen? How does one go from being a criminal back to being a citizen again or even should they be able to be citizens again? What rights should a criminal (subject) retain?
I don’t think most firearms owners are against licensing or even against fines for unlawful use of firearms. Regardless fines and control of otherwise honest citizens the question becomes is it a reasonable control. The problem is the federal government lead by a vocal minority and the need to be viewed as tough on crime and big on safety while riding a wave of emotion took a huge bump on millions of otherwise honest law-abiding Canadians and made then the focus of the problem and the new solution. Those citizens then reacted by organizing themselves and threw many different acts of civil disobedience made there will known. Other acts of protest especially with the new access to information the internet it has become much easier to write letters to the editor comment on news stories contact both there federal and provincial members. This access to information has also lead to the normal citizen to access information that has been used to debunk the bulk of the reasons to implement gun control schemes. Even then the governments of the day choose to ignore those citizens and arrogantly even put more proposed controls into there party platforms. This makes it very difficult for the government to implement any initiative around gun control or even to keep what they have now.
Now we hear words from the Liberal party of wanting to re-evaluate gun control to make the divide between rural and urban better to make the system work for all Canadians. Where were those words 6 months ago when C-301 was put forth nowhere because that bill was doomed to fail we could even look at all the other times in various ways the Conservatives have tried to kill the long gun registry. The reality is this is not even a rural urban issue it is much deeper then that and it goes to the core rights of a citizen. It is to late the wheel has been set into motion and the momentum has been building for the last 15 years. As much as pro-gun people disagree with anti-gun people we can thank them because they made us much stronger and failed to close the deal by wiping us out like firearms owners in the UK.

This is indeed an interesting concept, and the links you placed counter balance the argument. Who knows, perhaps the fact that we are Peaceful Canadians just might make something like this a viable alternative to what is in effect currently.

You wrote:
“Violent criminals, including criminals under firearms prohibitions for drug trafficking offenses, and people that have been put under firearms prohibitions for psychiatric reasons, would have to advise the Crown whenever they move, subject themselves to periodic inspection, background psychiatric checks and spousal reviews.”
- - - - -
This premise is too Utopian for me. If such a society were to be a reality, then I LOVE that “It forces criminals to conform to societal behavior, rather than forcing society to accommodate criminal behavior.” And I think, this is what the argument on the gun control laws and gun registry, in essence, has been !

Here is where I see a hole. I am not so certain if this would deal with, what you refer to as, “the two-billion-dollar elephant in the room”.

Let me explain why.

You wrote:
“Offenders would have to carry a violent offender card which expires every year, with requirements to renew and repeat all reviews and checks annually, they would also be forced to submit to inspection, search and possible seizure whenever the Crown shows up at the door. Failure to comply will result in further jail time/psych evaluations, etc.”
- - - - -

I apologize if I sound too simplistic, judgmental or have missed the point altogether; however, what kind of checks and measures would have to be in place to ensure and enforce that “violent criminals” and people under probation for domestic violence, drug and arms trafficking or psychiatric reasons etc., would care to carry or renew a violent offender card? This, either by virtue of their marginal nature and/or an inherent lack of responsibly. Wouldn't follow up with “further jail time/psych evaluations, etc.” cost just as much if not more, if it is the white elephant in question?

Added:
In case it was not clear, my response was to Euproxsaphor's post. It is also rated.

I wonder what kind of a pause and re-thinking today's Fort Hood tragedy might shed on the recent Canadian Gun Registry discussions.

Personally, I cannot help but see a bizarre irony, that I cannot yet verbalize in this human drama, except turn to my original instinct that the issues we argue don't always have clear-cut answers..

Mass shootings cannot be prevented by making lists of objects. You won't find any place that has more lists of things than the military. The only real solutions to mass shootings is to limit the damage as much as possible. The most effective way to do that is to allow properly trained law-abiding citizens to carry firearms anywhere they wish. Anytime one of these events is stopped quickly it is because a good person with a gun is there or is nearby.

FusunA:

The Fort Hood incident is a tragic event, but the registration of firearms would have has no effect on this event.

The only thing that could possible stop a mass shooting is the un-invention of firearms. Even this would not be able to stop mass killings.

The simple reality is someone who is set on doing harm will.

Thanks for input everyone. I need to digest and think a bit before responding.

On the Fort Hood tragedy:

Off the top of my head, I can't see how an armed murderer making short work of soldiers who were disarmed by Fort hood policy, who were lucky to be rescued by an armed traffic cop passing by, makes a solid case for disarmament. Were those soldiers disarmed to prevent things like this from happening? Again we have a mass murder in a gun-free zone.

The psychiatrist being the murderer is particularly ironic.

"The psychiatrist being the murderer is particularly ironic."

Most murders often are. Another irony for me is the concept of an armed traffic cop. But that may be a culture thing.