Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime.

The report says:

"Among incidents in which the firearm had initially been obtained legally, the accused was the legal firearm owner in 44% of cases (24 of 54 homicides)."

44% is not rare!! That's alarming.

Even more damning is:

"Among the incidents in which the firearm had not initially been obtained legally, or in which the firearm was not legally owned at the time of the homicide, and for which this information was known (49 homicides), the firearm had been stolen from the legal Canadian owner in eight cases, and in five other cases, it had been purchased illegally from the legal Canadian owner.

Furthermore, Stats Canada also states that, "rifle or shotgun" represent 30% of firearm-related homicides, so the number is significant.

I think we do have a problem that needs to be examined deeply by our elected officials.

I claimed that legal gun owners rarely commit the crime, i made no claims on the origins of those guns.

The fact that you're trying to bring legal ownership to this discussions means that you are claiming that the origin of guns is an important detail. But at this point we already know that reducing the presence of guns in this world is good, and we already know that making it harder and harder to acquire guns helps reducing the presence of guns. So while true that legality matters in crime statistics, the main point still stands: gun laws can and should be more strict. There's never going to be a point in time where this sentence is not true, unless guns stop existing.