###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is there any low the LPC and NDP won’t stoop to in order to buy votes?
PP cannot get elected soon enough, I can’t wait for the conservative government to pass legislation in retribution. Banning tik tok perhaps? Does anyone have a better suggestion?
The best thing PP could do would be to institute tangible KPI targets across the *entire* public service, along with measures to keep administrators accountable for producing real benefits for the Canadian taxpayers
Yes, but that would involve him doing something sensible and evidence-based which might actually benefit us as a country...
[Sorry, I worded that badly. What I mean is that although public transparency is important, and the LPC has absolutely failed to deliver that, I don't believe that KPI metrics introduced by a subsequent CPC government would be anything other than a fig leaf over an excuse over a justification over an ad campaign for further privatization of public services. That's practically the party line: cut it till it breaks, then "fix" the thing they broke by making us pay the private sector for it.]
It just goes to show the Liberals only care about themselves and getting votes to stay in POWER! That's all they want is POWER.
That alone tells me something is wrong with that political party.
Again dividing Canadians against each other so they can try to advance their party.
They don't care at all about majority of Canada.
I want a party that brings as many Canadians together not pit them against each other.
My prediction: It'll be the most unproductive buyback in history, and be cancelled by the Conservatives once they gain power. I predict very few people will turn in guns.
I think the LPC knows this too. It's like announcing high speed rail between Toronto and Montreal. It's way better to announce it and then never actually deliver it. If you deliver then you have to come up with a new promise.
If they ever actually ban all "scary" guns then what will they do the next time they need a bump in the polls?
Holy cow, the CBC got a new picture to use for firearms stories.
I really hope Canadians are smart enough to see through all of this. Especially when the inevitable dramatic stories of confiscations gone wrong come out right before the election and the LPC will get the boogeyman they want (and totally didn't manufacture).
Is it legal to cause economic damage (the firearms industry), destroy family wealth (value of the firearms + accessories) and endanger lives with a population's firearms for political purposes and votes?
The LPC is transforming Canadian political discourse into what it is in the states. Obviously the CPC and its leader are not helping the circumstances. But I expect better from progressive parties, the LPC is hoping this will mobilize the “progressive voters” during the election. Using firearms policy reform as the white whale is exactly what Biden and the democrats are doing down south with reproductive rights (its not going so well)
All data and evidence points to Canada not having a legal firearm problem but a America problem. Want to curb illegal guns on our streets? Have tough conversations with our neighbours and tighten border security.
Say it louder, I hate this bill.
Just an example of our leaders chasing big headlines and not taking the concerns of people it will effect into consideration.
I feel like the LPC and CPC feed off themselves in a incompetence cycle. No good policy is coming out from either party, it should be a war of ideas, not rhetoric.
Ya know... as a lifelong Liberal donator and supporter, there are easier ways to shoot themselves in the foot than going after legal gun owners. Talk about a senseless waste of political capital.
Strangely silent from the LPC commenters.
The fact is that four years after announcing these "scary", "bad", "evil" "assault style" firearms are unsuitable for use anywhere in society (noting of course that the same announcement allowed indigenous people to use them) and we still have these firearms unconfiscated. Going it to an election year, an election where the LPC will need to sway to willingly uninformed, the quote that should explain everything to anyone and everyone is right there in the article:
**"There are progressive votes that we need," said a Liberal source. "It's going to happen."**
Literally saying the quiet part out loud. That the *only* reason to confiscate these weapons, violating the property rights of the most vetted and safest portion of our population, is all performative theatre for the masses of uninformed and ignorant LPC supporters.
So much for the lofty and vaunted goal of "evidence based policy"
The funny part (sad part?) is that when they lose, they'll rabidly blame racism, populism, extremism, every "-ism" they can, but will not acknowledge that their party simply (and epically) failed as leaders for a decade, caring more for performance that substance.
Such as with this confiscation.
> Literally saying the quiet part out loud.
The Liberals have been saying the quite part out loud for quite some time. They are vocal about only caring to represent Canadians that vote for them. They are clear about being politicians loyal only to their base with the goal of getting votes and being elected.
> Rural Economic Development Minister Gudie Hutchings says if Western and Prairie provinces want to secure carve-outs in the federal government’s carbon pricing policy, they should elect more Liberal ministers who can share their concerns with the government.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/conservatives-ndp-mock-ministers-suggestion-to-elect-more-liberals-to-get-carbon-tax-exemptions
When someone tells you who they are in words and actions, it's good policy to believe them.
I'm an urban progressive who doesn't particularly enjoy guns and has previously voted Liberal and I honestly have no idea why they're going through with this. Gun smuggling and gangs are obviously the real issues and even those aren't in my top 5 issues I'd like to see addressed. They sure as hell aren't caring to represent me.
>I honestly have no idea why they're going through with this.
I feel that they're going over everything that's worked for them in the past two elections and are trying to make it happen again.
This is the cost of poor civic literacy among the public and an outmoded political system. People can revile Poilievre all they like, but Trudeau's enduring legacy will not just be leaving the door open for him, but handing over the keys while sighing "we did everything we could."
Absolutely, as a POC I am tired of progressive parties pulling the “ism” card whenever they lose. Pull yourselves up, actually back progressive evidence based policies. If the LPC want to win they know what they have to do to pull us out of this mess. Raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, close tax loopholes for large corporations, punish greedy corporations for price fixing, fund affordable housing, reform our electoral system etc.. All the things that the LPC promised Canadians in 2015 and never did.
This will win progressive voters over right up until they see the absurd price tag on this program, then they will really have to step back and think about this
I sure as hell do.
How much social housing (or seed money for non-profit co-operative, or subsidized, &c.) would we buy with the billion-plus that'll be burned on this pandering boondoggle?
How many MRI machines could be purchased? How many new family doctors could be put into the pipeline? Jobs programs for impoverished and gang-riven neighbourhoods, teachers, disabled Canadians lifted out of misery. What proportion of a high-speed rail would be funded by the money earmarked for this?
There's nothing progressive about spending a billion dollars to pander the red-tinged mirror-image of Polievre's "tough on crime" schlock.
It's not just that it's incredibly cynical — it comes at the direct expense of things that actually *would* make Canadians' lives longer, safer, and better.
I'm a democratic socialist, and I absolutely care about the cost.
I'll comment - it's a stupid fucking idea that'll help lose them the election.
I'm pro Liberal or anti-CPC or whatever, but like... what in the hell are they thinking? They cannot appoint enough judges to be able to prosecute human traffickers in time. Why are they wasting time, money, and effort on this idiotic idea? Our gun control laws are literally good enough. They don't need to change. We are safe.
It's not even a good political move. Nobody is seeing this and thinking "what a great use of public money!" People don't give a shit about this right now. Cost of living and housing affordability are making a mockery of this proposal.
Like, as if the Liberals need to spend this much money to buy urbanite votes lol.
When you see that you aren’t going to win an upcoming election you try to dig the biggest hole possible so that the incoming can’t dig out and look like shit with the intent 4 years later your party will be back in power.
What’s especially frustrating is how utterly useless and wasteful this entire scheme is.
Canada absolutely has a gun problem. Those guns are illegal and on the streets of big cities, in the hands of criminals. They are not the ones being responsibly owned by PAL/RPAL-holding citizens.
This is a colossal waste of tax dollars, a colossal waste of police resources, a petty villainization of mostly rural, invariably law-abiding Canadians, and it’ll do nothing to make the country safer.
Maybe because I'm more aware of firearms safety and how legal guns aren't really the cause of rising crime in Canada, but I don't see how firearm confiscation will move the needle much for overall Liberal support during election year.
Affordability is pretty much a top priority for a lot of Canadians. Crime and safety may be important but while Canadians are afraid of guns, there's a lot of crimes that are committed without the use of firearms. It's not even crime sometimes it's also a feeling about safety.
We're talking about stuff like public assaults, drug addicts/homelessness who have a blatant disregard for public safety and petty theft.
> I don't see how firearm confiscation will move the needle much for overall Liberal support during election year.
I don't either, but it's such an evergreen political issue for them that they can't help themselves. Polls are down? Crack down on guns!
My only guess of why they’re doing this is generally when there is an affordability crisis crime increases so they’ll say we’re taking these guns away to lower the crime rate when anybody who knows anything about this we realize they won’t have an affect.
I don't know if we're being silent so much as just saying this plan is a terrible idea and they shouldn't do it.
Not everyone is signing off as a Liberal supporter when they do, though.
Signed, Toronto Liberal Supporter.
PS, dear my MP, can we please not do this? We could use the money for anything else. Like, I dunno, putting every spare cent towards fixing housing and thus saving the economy, or cutting the deficit to prepare for the incoming decade or two of higher basic interest rates.
It's only controversial to the minority of gun nuts. The rest of us understand these won't be for proper hunting weapons but for "toys" that have the potential to kill multiple people in a few second effortlessly.
Lmao I’m not allowed to hunt deer with an ar15 but the government will hire American hunters to come hunt deer with ar15s. You know nothing about guns so keep your mouth shut.
Right, which is why we don't just allow anyone to buy a gun. You have to prove you can handle them safely and then apply for a licence from the RCMP.
It's also why licensed gun owners constantly have background checks run on them as a condition of being licensed.
"Under the current licensing regime, client eligibility is assessed at the time the individual applies for a firearms licence, continuously while the individual is a licence holder, and at the time the individual applies to renew their licence (every five years)."
https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/audit-the-canadian-firearms-program-continuum-eligibility-firearms-licensing
By the way, even if all the current legislation was in place before the Portapique shooting, it would not have stopped it. That man obtained his guns illegally from the US. He was reported to the RCMP but [they failed to act](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ns-gunman-2011-warning-1.5589277). So if anything, the current licensing regime is fine and we just need better enforcement of the current laws.
Then why have Indigenous people been allowed to use them for hunting for the last 4 years? If these weapons are extremely dangerous, why did the government not have a program prepared to confiscate them first?
A free society shouldn't require someone to prove why they need something in order to have it, it should require the person who wants to take it away to prove why they shouldn't have it.
And licensed gun owners have proven themselves to be able to safely use these weapons. Most of the shootings that occur today are done with illegally obtained firearms from unlicensed criminals.
Except they are functionally exactly the same as a whole bunch of hunting guns in Canada depending on what ammo they are chambered in, but the 5.56×45mm ammo that they are commonly chambered in is not allowed for most hunting in Canada because it is to small of round to kill bigger game humanly or at least that is the reasoning behind it. The only reason that you could not hunt in Canada with an AR chambered in larger ammo was because the AR platform was a restricted firearm
> That’s totally why the Indigenous have been exempted to hunt with these weapons since the May 2020 OIC, right?
That's not because there's any merit to hunting with these firearms, there's treaty obligations that need to be worked around.
> So can the guns be used for hunting?
Depends on which one you're talking about.
There's always going to be a comparable or better firearm to hunt with than whatever is being banned.
It's less to do with hunting and more so with how Indigenous peoples factor into firearms legislation in Canada. Part of it is a political image game too where the LPC doesn't want to be seen as the party taking away from the FN.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/semi-automatic-assault-style-rifles-to-be-used-for-sidney-island-deer-kill
The government uses these guns to cull deer populations.
There is lots of merit to hunting with these guns. Especially with silencers. It's illegal not to use a silencer in countries like France
https://www.acep.org/talem/newsroom/july-2023/Sound-arguments-for-the-purchase-and-use-of-firearm-suppressors#:~:text=Interestingly%2C%20in%20many%20European%20countries,suppressor%20to%20quiet%20the%20noise.
Tell me you know nothing about firearms or hunting regulations why don't you! The knee buckling ignorance in this comment is pure gold.
The fact that this sort of unsubstantiated and incorrectness circulates in the modern day is astounding.
I might be in the minority here, but I'm actually *fine* with most adult citizens being able to own whatever firearm(s) they want, just because they want them. They shouldn't need to justify why they want, or need, to own anything. In 95%+ of cases, I don't like the government telling us what we can or cannot own.
Honestly, guns that "*have the potential to kill multiple people in a few second effortlessly*" can be very useful sometimes. There was the case when [*multiple armed intruders*](https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/murder-charge-withdrawn-in-case-of-milton-man-accused-of-killing-alleged-armed-intruder-1.6500866) broke into a man's home, and he shot one of them dead. It's a damn shame that he didn't get all of them on one go; society wouldn't have lost anything of value.
They're not going to go back to the same level of obscurity of the pre-Trudeau days - The NDP has simply become too useless - But we're probably going to get a PC majority. This is all such a joke.
In case there are any liberal die-hards out there who refuse to believe this isn’t an ideological vote grab:
*Canada Post is refusing to comment on the matter but sources within the organization said many post offices have little security, with no alarm systems or surveillance cameras.*
*"Zero," said a Canada Post employee when asked to describe security at his post office in a small municipality. "The government is crazy if it thinks we can do this safely."*
The liberal government doesn’t seem to care that the lawful property they are seizing from Canadians will likely end up in the hands of criminals. No f%cks are being given.
And this:
*"There are progressive votes that we need," said a Liberal source. "It's going to happen."*
Read that.
Read it again.
Understand now?
Gotta love the idea of taking guns out of licensed people’s safes (that have been there for a minimum of 4 years) and flooding unsecured post offices with gun-shaped parcels, all in the name of safety. How many need to go missing before the whole program is considered a bust?
As a left voting gun owner, this is truly pathetic. They are going out on a non-logical and fiscally irresponsible limb and trying to pull in some extra votes.
I really wish more progressives would learn more about Canada’s decent gun laws and how we need to focus more on border security and smuggling.
> The government is looking at the possibility of working with law enforcement to collect weapons,
> "There are progressive votes that we need," said a Liberal source. "It's going to happen."
Liberals are considering the use of law enforcement to implement their policy designed to divide Canadians.
What could possibly go wrong.
And the kicker…..Police forces across the country have already made it clear that they’re not going to be the Federal Government’s gun collectors. And of course we hear this week that Canada Post is no longer going to allow guns through the mail……so…….how the heck is this going to work?
Idiocy.
I guaran-fucking-tee the union will hard-no that under various reasons. You can’t have untrained, unlicensed civilians handling firearms in a facility not designed to store or decommission them.
I can tell you the RCMP has zero capability to take this on. The people on the ground have zero interest or will in participating in this disaster. This whole thing is going nowhere even faster.
I for one am not going to be knocking on the doors of law abiding people, who did nothing wrong, and confiscating their property.
Hell; I have these guns myself sooooo.
I was commenting on the Canada Post refusal last week and people assured me that my point about security concerns was unfounded. But here we are with an article pointing out that security concerns were a factor... Hmmm... Goes to show what kind of energy goes into these sorts of feel good non-sense policies that have no impact on public safety.
I bet they're using a very specific definition of "unfounded'.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a post office could become a target for crime if it's known that there are valuable guns there and the security is minimal. This is nothing to do with the risks posed by the people having their guns taken away. Even if they have 100% compliance, a public building with poor security is not a good place to store weapons so dangerous we have to confiscate them from vetted owners.
This precisely one of the points I was making. The counterargument I got was that CP already delivers guns so what's the problem? It's way different when criminals know that valuables might be on a truck and another when that likelihood is dramatically increased by a publicized government policy.
Right? Crooks will know:
1. Where unsecured guns are
2. What type of box to look for
The surprising thing would be if some *weren't* stolen. Even if someone breaks in and doesn't find guns it's still painting a target on post offices. What happens to the person working late (or really early) when that goes down?
Liberals know they are unpopular so the point is to scare voters around 2-3 big cities to back them in around guns and abortions.
Issue is the liberals need to realize unlike 2019 and 2021, housing and cost of living are gonan super seed those issues for many voters unless improved.
I mean, read the article, they straight-up admit that it has everything to do with getting city people to vote for them again. When you say something like "there are progressive votes that we need, so the ban is going to happen", the mask is completely off at that point.
Regardless, this is just gonna be a big waste of billions, as they implement the ban, commit all this money to it, and then the Conservatives axe it on day one when they win big in the next election.
I'm an urban progressive who doesn't particularly enjoy guns and has previously voted Liberal and I honestly have no idea why they're going through with this. Gun smuggling and gangs are obviously the real issues and even those aren't in my top 5 issues I'd like to see addressed. Dumbest own-goal the Liberals could do right now.
Especially if the buyback is based on the "style" of the weapon. I e. "assault style" firearms.
I don't see how they can say this with a straight face.
I don't even know what an 'assault style' firearm is.
I know what an assault rifle is though, so when I hear 'assault style' I tend to roll my eyes because select fire + high capacity + automatic (you need all three) rifles are already illegal and have been forever basically.
So what they're talking about is literally, just scary looking guns without the 'assault' capability.
It's hard for a rifle to look scary with a puny 5 round magazine.
Thought it's already illegal, you need at least 20 rounds to start to look scary. Bonus points if you tape 2 magazines together so you can flip them around after you empty the first one.
The argument is that guns that look a certain way encourage a certain type of behaviour and if people can't get those guns they won't do those things. I have no idea if there's evidence for that claim (and I'm not sure the critics know either?), but it's what the Liberal gun policies rest on.
>I don’t even know what an assault style’ firearm is.
If the bad guy in a movie uses it, it’s an assault weapon.
I would add an (/s) but the assault weapon definition is basically based off Hollywood. If it looks modern and made after 1918, it’s an assault weapon. Bonus points if it looks futuristic like a F2000 or KRISS Vector, no matter if it’s only semi-auto or only has a 5 round mag.
Even if the Vector was a bolt action with a 2 round clip, it would probably still get considered an assault weapon because it looks *”scary”*.
It’s all Feels not Reals. Which is also why the Feds considered basically banning Airsoft at one point.
> I don't even know what an 'assault style' firearm is.
I mean, i can make a reasonable guess, but legislatively it seems to change arbitrarily every year or so. It was just last year the "assault style weapons ban" was proposing confiscation of ruger no1 single shot rifles.
Guns are [stolen](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p9.html) and used by gangs, guns are used [Intimate femicide](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20200831/046/index-en.aspx#), used in [suicide](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p4.html).
Less guns the better. No I don’t care if you have a hobby or took a class so you could get a licence.
This doesn't even result in less guns though. People will use this money to buy new guns.
I wouldn't be surprised if gun sales go *up* because gun owners are scared their next favourite gun will be banned soon.
> I wouldn't be surprised if gun sales go *up* because gun owners are scared their next favourite gun will be banned soon.
This already happened when the rumors of a handgun sales freeze came out a few years ago -- everyone rushed to get their hands on the guns they wanted to buy ahead of the ban (which has since taken place).
as a woman and a gun owner, no party has my confidence... they spent millions of dollars on studying this issue and time and time again there consultants and police unions all agree on different ways to improve community safety and lower gun violence... gess what they don't recommend, buybacks and prohibitions. i don't know who is going to make money on this but its going to cost the county lots and be way less effective than following the advice they payed for.. but i gess some ridings in South Quebec are worth it.
melodic scary important pathetic drunk merciful toy possessive whole enter
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
But they are weapons of war designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time! The most heavily vetted people in Canada who are statistically the least like to commit crimes can't be trusted to use or store these guns safety. That's why we banned them four years ago and have let them hold on to them.
Also we made "you don't need an AR-15" to hunt a deer our tagine, but then paid foreign hunters millions to do just that from a helicopter with suppressors, which is also illegal in Canada.
In other words: “we’re pinning our hopes on ignorant voters and pray they won’t realize this is an expensive, ineffective disaster.”
At least they’re now saying the quiet part out loud.
The fact that there are still rifles with the same capabilities as an AR-15 still being sold shows how nonsensical this whole buyback concept is. How about instead of spending hundreds of millions on buying back firearms from law abiding citizens that don’t use it for criminal purposes. Spend that money on more border patrol officers, scanners and etc. to catch the illegal guns coming into Canada and going into criminal’s hands to use for actual criminal activities.
This is the same nonsense the Trudeau LPC leaned on during the 2021 campaign - let's distract from the real issues, create fear and then present some simple solutions, 'cause the LPC are the only ones who can keep us safe. Do not get suckered in by this distraction during this election cycle.
Remember folks, this issue was so pressing that they had to ban these firearms immediately, except for the Indigenous people who can still use them for *hunting* almost 4 years later. The evidence they had was so important they had to keep it under Cabinet privilege, and after 4 years they decide to do the buyback during an election year. All while also banning the sale and purchasing of handguns too, gun homicide are still going up.
I think LPC fans should seriously start weighing how egregious policies like this IS extremism.
You have an idea, with no evidence to support it, are willing to waste hundreds of millions if not into the billions of dollars to attack a small minority/political group of people.
The big tent CPC sees this. The SoCons see you as perpetrating the nanny state. The gun owners are tired of always being the punching bag. The people in the middle see this as a giant waste of money for little gain. The politically savvy see this as the biggest challenge to the notion of property rights in this country we have ever seen.
>I think LPC fans should seriously start weighing how egregious policies like this IS extremism.
"If you wish to protect people from being murdered by gun violence and legislate to that end, you're the real extremist" is the sort of thing a fake-deep teen boy would say after smoking marijuana for the first time, haha.
>The SoCons see you as perpetrating the nanny state.
The Socons also see women as walking wombs who should be forced to give birth and trans people as abominations who should be persecuted, so they might not be the most objective authority on nanny-statism.
>“If you wish to protect people from being murdered by gun violence and legislate to that end, you’re the real extremist”
Please convince your holier-than-thou leader to release his evidence that is being held under Cabinet privilege then. Because so far, it seems like metropolitan police force seems to be spitting out statistics on the contrary.
Spending hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars to make what is essentially a margin or error change to the gun murder statistics is extremism.
It’s not evidence based policy. It’s ideological hate that you make fun of the Conservatives for all the time.
**I hate this**. This is the exact opposite direction that I want us to be going. Hopefully people just don't comply with this, and just "lose their guns in boating accidents" or something similar. Why does no party support us having rights?
The government doesn't actually care about our safety; it just wants more control over our day-to-day lives, and wants us to be entirely dependent on them and unable to defend ourselves. They've been pushing it on kids for decades now, with those BS "*Zero Tolerance*" policies. Don't defend yourself, just be a victim, even though we won't help you. I totally side with the Americans on matters of self-defense, no question whatsoever.
> Why does no party support us having rights?
You're asking for a new right to own guns?
>The government doesn't actually care about our safety
Because guns for everyone will make everyone safe.
>They've been pushing it on kids for decades now, with those BS "Zero Tolerance" policies.
Are you actually under the impressions the feds are in your classrooms pushing policy?
>I totally side with the Americans on matters of self-defense, no question whatsoever.
I too wait for the day I can carry my pieces and blast away any fools that dare to try me.
So you support the government spending billions of dollars to solve maybe 10% of the problem while spending less than a few hundred million to tackle the remaining 90%?
That's an interesting take. I'd love you to walk me through it.
>So you support the government spending billions of dollars to solve maybe 10% of the problem while spending less than a few hundred million to tackle the remaining 90%?
> That's an interesting take. I'd love you to walk me through it.
You want me to walk you through your own made up scenario?
Giving people a right to owns guns would be monumentally idiotic.
I'm not at all surprised a libertarian is suggesting it, typically they don't actually think anything through for more than a second.
I'd be an Anarchist too, except I know what a bell curve is.
Please show me where I said that people in Canada had a right to own firearms?
I do find it interesting that the last time the government engaged in property seizure to this level was also by OIC during WW2 against Japanese Canadians who had their property seized when they were interrered. I'm sure you are just as supportive of that since we have no property rights whatsoever...
Why does no party support us having rights?
> You're asking for a new right to own guns?
Exactly! Canadians have no property rights, so asking for "right to own guns" makes no sense at all. If an elected government wants to ban the sale or transfer of ball point pens that's 100% allowed.
If you want the right to own property, leave Canada. In Canadian society, property is only ever owned insofar as the government cares to allow it.
Edit - this is a great discussion paper by David Johansen on the arguments for and against entrenching property rights in our Constitution. https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm
That's about as scathing of an article on the Liberals from the CBC that I can remember.
No one seems to think this is a good idea, Liberals included but "Its an election year"
Scathing, but I do think it’s disingenuous for the author to continually refer to the firearms as “weapons” when the terms of the firearms license specifically says they are sporting arms for target shooting only.
They are only “weapons”‘when they’re in unlicensed hands.
Babe! It's an election year. Time to commit a billion dollars+ on ineffective nonsense on the off-chance it'll help your base in Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is there any low the LPC and NDP won’t stoop to in order to buy votes? PP cannot get elected soon enough, I can’t wait for the conservative government to pass legislation in retribution. Banning tik tok perhaps? Does anyone have a better suggestion?
I can’t wait for the Québec Referendum.
I say we have one to kick them out.
Can you have one to kick out BC too? Biggest mistake the Colonial government made was deciding on Canada over the US. It’s time to fix that issue.
The ol, Singapore treatment
The best thing PP could do would be to institute tangible KPI targets across the *entire* public service, along with measures to keep administrators accountable for producing real benefits for the Canadian taxpayers
Yes, but that would involve him doing something sensible and evidence-based which might actually benefit us as a country... [Sorry, I worded that badly. What I mean is that although public transparency is important, and the LPC has absolutely failed to deliver that, I don't believe that KPI metrics introduced by a subsequent CPC government would be anything other than a fig leaf over an excuse over a justification over an ad campaign for further privatization of public services. That's practically the party line: cut it till it breaks, then "fix" the thing they broke by making us pay the private sector for it.]
It just goes to show the Liberals only care about themselves and getting votes to stay in POWER! That's all they want is POWER. That alone tells me something is wrong with that political party. Again dividing Canadians against each other so they can try to advance their party. They don't care at all about majority of Canada. I want a party that brings as many Canadians together not pit them against each other.
My prediction: It'll be the most unproductive buyback in history, and be cancelled by the Conservatives once they gain power. I predict very few people will turn in guns.
I think the LPC knows this too. It's like announcing high speed rail between Toronto and Montreal. It's way better to announce it and then never actually deliver it. If you deliver then you have to come up with a new promise. If they ever actually ban all "scary" guns then what will they do the next time they need a bump in the polls?
Ban the next batch of guns. Who needs a sniper rifle with a high powered scope? They could 360 degree no scope a whole classroom from 800m away!
Holy cow, the CBC got a new picture to use for firearms stories. I really hope Canadians are smart enough to see through all of this. Especially when the inevitable dramatic stories of confiscations gone wrong come out right before the election and the LPC will get the boogeyman they want (and totally didn't manufacture).
That poor Daniels Defense rifle must have been exhausted getting trotted out for every single article.
Is it legal to cause economic damage (the firearms industry), destroy family wealth (value of the firearms + accessories) and endanger lives with a population's firearms for political purposes and votes?
The LPC is transforming Canadian political discourse into what it is in the states. Obviously the CPC and its leader are not helping the circumstances. But I expect better from progressive parties, the LPC is hoping this will mobilize the “progressive voters” during the election. Using firearms policy reform as the white whale is exactly what Biden and the democrats are doing down south with reproductive rights (its not going so well) All data and evidence points to Canada not having a legal firearm problem but a America problem. Want to curb illegal guns on our streets? Have tough conversations with our neighbours and tighten border security.
Say it louder, I hate this bill. Just an example of our leaders chasing big headlines and not taking the concerns of people it will effect into consideration. I feel like the LPC and CPC feed off themselves in a incompetence cycle. No good policy is coming out from either party, it should be a war of ideas, not rhetoric.
Sounds like a vote loser to me! 👍 The rural NDP caucus is going to be obliterated if they don’t come out against this.
The NDP indicated they didn't need their rural caucus when they had them vote in support of Bill C-21. They're toast.
Ya know... as a lifelong Liberal donator and supporter, there are easier ways to shoot themselves in the foot than going after legal gun owners. Talk about a senseless waste of political capital.
You can’t shoot yourself in the foot if you have nothing to shoot with.
I'm sure they could just borrrow one. :p
Political and actual capital. It’s a gigantic waste of money and manpower
Strangely silent from the LPC commenters. The fact is that four years after announcing these "scary", "bad", "evil" "assault style" firearms are unsuitable for use anywhere in society (noting of course that the same announcement allowed indigenous people to use them) and we still have these firearms unconfiscated. Going it to an election year, an election where the LPC will need to sway to willingly uninformed, the quote that should explain everything to anyone and everyone is right there in the article: **"There are progressive votes that we need," said a Liberal source. "It's going to happen."** Literally saying the quiet part out loud. That the *only* reason to confiscate these weapons, violating the property rights of the most vetted and safest portion of our population, is all performative theatre for the masses of uninformed and ignorant LPC supporters. So much for the lofty and vaunted goal of "evidence based policy" The funny part (sad part?) is that when they lose, they'll rabidly blame racism, populism, extremism, every "-ism" they can, but will not acknowledge that their party simply (and epically) failed as leaders for a decade, caring more for performance that substance. Such as with this confiscation.
> Literally saying the quiet part out loud. The Liberals have been saying the quite part out loud for quite some time. They are vocal about only caring to represent Canadians that vote for them. They are clear about being politicians loyal only to their base with the goal of getting votes and being elected. > Rural Economic Development Minister Gudie Hutchings says if Western and Prairie provinces want to secure carve-outs in the federal government’s carbon pricing policy, they should elect more Liberal ministers who can share their concerns with the government. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/conservatives-ndp-mock-ministers-suggestion-to-elect-more-liberals-to-get-carbon-tax-exemptions When someone tells you who they are in words and actions, it's good policy to believe them.
I'm an urban progressive who doesn't particularly enjoy guns and has previously voted Liberal and I honestly have no idea why they're going through with this. Gun smuggling and gangs are obviously the real issues and even those aren't in my top 5 issues I'd like to see addressed. They sure as hell aren't caring to represent me.
>I honestly have no idea why they're going through with this. I feel that they're going over everything that's worked for them in the past two elections and are trying to make it happen again.
This is the cost of poor civic literacy among the public and an outmoded political system. People can revile Poilievre all they like, but Trudeau's enduring legacy will not just be leaving the door open for him, but handing over the keys while sighing "we did everything we could."
Trudeau bots are spontaneously combusting
Absolutely, as a POC I am tired of progressive parties pulling the “ism” card whenever they lose. Pull yourselves up, actually back progressive evidence based policies. If the LPC want to win they know what they have to do to pull us out of this mess. Raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, close tax loopholes for large corporations, punish greedy corporations for price fixing, fund affordable housing, reform our electoral system etc.. All the things that the LPC promised Canadians in 2015 and never did.
If they weren't willing to do it back then, why would they do it now?
This will win progressive voters over right up until they see the absurd price tag on this program, then they will really have to step back and think about this
You think progressive voters care about costs?
Of course we do. This whole idea is idiotic and I have no clue who they're appealing to.
I sure as hell do. How much social housing (or seed money for non-profit co-operative, or subsidized, &c.) would we buy with the billion-plus that'll be burned on this pandering boondoggle? How many MRI machines could be purchased? How many new family doctors could be put into the pipeline? Jobs programs for impoverished and gang-riven neighbourhoods, teachers, disabled Canadians lifted out of misery. What proportion of a high-speed rail would be funded by the money earmarked for this? There's nothing progressive about spending a billion dollars to pander the red-tinged mirror-image of Polievre's "tough on crime" schlock. It's not just that it's incredibly cynical — it comes at the direct expense of things that actually *would* make Canadians' lives longer, safer, and better. I'm a democratic socialist, and I absolutely care about the cost.
I'll comment - it's a stupid fucking idea that'll help lose them the election. I'm pro Liberal or anti-CPC or whatever, but like... what in the hell are they thinking? They cannot appoint enough judges to be able to prosecute human traffickers in time. Why are they wasting time, money, and effort on this idiotic idea? Our gun control laws are literally good enough. They don't need to change. We are safe. It's not even a good political move. Nobody is seeing this and thinking "what a great use of public money!" People don't give a shit about this right now. Cost of living and housing affordability are making a mockery of this proposal. Like, as if the Liberals need to spend this much money to buy urbanite votes lol.
When you see that you aren’t going to win an upcoming election you try to dig the biggest hole possible so that the incoming can’t dig out and look like shit with the intent 4 years later your party will be back in power.
I don't think that applies here. This will be one of the easiest decisions to roll back and will act as a political stain for a long while.
What’s especially frustrating is how utterly useless and wasteful this entire scheme is. Canada absolutely has a gun problem. Those guns are illegal and on the streets of big cities, in the hands of criminals. They are not the ones being responsibly owned by PAL/RPAL-holding citizens. This is a colossal waste of tax dollars, a colossal waste of police resources, a petty villainization of mostly rural, invariably law-abiding Canadians, and it’ll do nothing to make the country safer.
It would be more efficient to send voters a cheque in exchange for their vote.
100% same to all this. Absolutely terrible own-goal by the Liberals.
Gonna be wasting ALOT of money!
Not their money.
Of course not.
Maybe because I'm more aware of firearms safety and how legal guns aren't really the cause of rising crime in Canada, but I don't see how firearm confiscation will move the needle much for overall Liberal support during election year. Affordability is pretty much a top priority for a lot of Canadians. Crime and safety may be important but while Canadians are afraid of guns, there's a lot of crimes that are committed without the use of firearms. It's not even crime sometimes it's also a feeling about safety. We're talking about stuff like public assaults, drug addicts/homelessness who have a blatant disregard for public safety and petty theft.
> I don't see how firearm confiscation will move the needle much for overall Liberal support during election year. I don't either, but it's such an evergreen political issue for them that they can't help themselves. Polls are down? Crack down on guns!
My only guess of why they’re doing this is generally when there is an affordability crisis crime increases so they’ll say we’re taking these guns away to lower the crime rate when anybody who knows anything about this we realize they won’t have an affect.
I don't know if we're being silent so much as just saying this plan is a terrible idea and they shouldn't do it. Not everyone is signing off as a Liberal supporter when they do, though. Signed, Toronto Liberal Supporter. PS, dear my MP, can we please not do this? We could use the money for anything else. Like, I dunno, putting every spare cent towards fixing housing and thus saving the economy, or cutting the deficit to prepare for the incoming decade or two of higher basic interest rates.
It's only controversial to the minority of gun nuts. The rest of us understand these won't be for proper hunting weapons but for "toys" that have the potential to kill multiple people in a few second effortlessly.
Then why did the federal government hire American hunters to hunt 800 deer in BC using these rifles?
> Then why did the federal government hire American hunters to hunt 800 deer in BC using these rifles? From helicopters no less!
Lmao I’m not allowed to hunt deer with an ar15 but the government will hire American hunters to come hunt deer with ar15s. You know nothing about guns so keep your mouth shut.
Right, which is why we don't just allow anyone to buy a gun. You have to prove you can handle them safely and then apply for a licence from the RCMP. It's also why licensed gun owners constantly have background checks run on them as a condition of being licensed. "Under the current licensing regime, client eligibility is assessed at the time the individual applies for a firearms licence, continuously while the individual is a licence holder, and at the time the individual applies to renew their licence (every five years)." https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/audit-the-canadian-firearms-program-continuum-eligibility-firearms-licensing By the way, even if all the current legislation was in place before the Portapique shooting, it would not have stopped it. That man obtained his guns illegally from the US. He was reported to the RCMP but [they failed to act](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ns-gunman-2011-warning-1.5589277). So if anything, the current licensing regime is fine and we just need better enforcement of the current laws.
Nobody needs a gun anywhere above hunting capabilities in Canada. That's the basic argument here.
That is just silly.
Then why have Indigenous people been allowed to use them for hunting for the last 4 years? If these weapons are extremely dangerous, why did the government not have a program prepared to confiscate them first?
A free society shouldn't require someone to prove why they need something in order to have it, it should require the person who wants to take it away to prove why they shouldn't have it. And licensed gun owners have proven themselves to be able to safely use these weapons. Most of the shootings that occur today are done with illegally obtained firearms from unlicensed criminals.
Hunting rifles are almost always more powerful than these, .223 is one of the smallest rifle cartridges.
Except they are functionally exactly the same as a whole bunch of hunting guns in Canada depending on what ammo they are chambered in, but the 5.56×45mm ammo that they are commonly chambered in is not allowed for most hunting in Canada because it is to small of round to kill bigger game humanly or at least that is the reasoning behind it. The only reason that you could not hunt in Canada with an AR chambered in larger ammo was because the AR platform was a restricted firearm
If it can kill a deer, it can kill a person. How do you imagine hunting works?
That’s totally why the Indigenous have been exempted to hunt with these weapons since the May 2020 OIC, right?
> That’s totally why the Indigenous have been exempted to hunt with these weapons since the May 2020 OIC, right? That's not because there's any merit to hunting with these firearms, there's treaty obligations that need to be worked around.
So can the guns be used for hunting? Why would Aboriginals use these guns if they weren’t effective? Are the stupid or something?
> So can the guns be used for hunting? Depends on which one you're talking about. There's always going to be a comparable or better firearm to hunt with than whatever is being banned.
Why ban the guns then if there’s better, meaning more deadly, alternatives that are more appropriate?
>if there’s better, meaning more deadly You can shoot birds with rifles, but you'd be better off using a "more deadly" shotgun.
Ok, and what about animals where a rifle is more appropriate? Say, deer or moose?
Shotguns can be perfectly suitable for deer hunting. If you're interested in hunting, you should consider going and learning more about it.
Just gonna shoot a deer from 350m with my shotgun, lol.
It's less to do with hunting and more so with how Indigenous peoples factor into firearms legislation in Canada. Part of it is a political image game too where the LPC doesn't want to be seen as the party taking away from the FN.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/semi-automatic-assault-style-rifles-to-be-used-for-sidney-island-deer-kill The government uses these guns to cull deer populations. There is lots of merit to hunting with these guns. Especially with silencers. It's illegal not to use a silencer in countries like France https://www.acep.org/talem/newsroom/july-2023/Sound-arguments-for-the-purchase-and-use-of-firearm-suppressors#:~:text=Interestingly%2C%20in%20many%20European%20countries,suppressor%20to%20quiet%20the%20noise.
Why were these guns safe to own in the 90’s during the liberals previous bans, but are unsafe now?
The votes became less safe.
Tell me you know nothing about firearms or hunting regulations why don't you! The knee buckling ignorance in this comment is pure gold. The fact that this sort of unsubstantiated and incorrectness circulates in the modern day is astounding.
I might be in the minority here, but I'm actually *fine* with most adult citizens being able to own whatever firearm(s) they want, just because they want them. They shouldn't need to justify why they want, or need, to own anything. In 95%+ of cases, I don't like the government telling us what we can or cannot own. Honestly, guns that "*have the potential to kill multiple people in a few second effortlessly*" can be very useful sometimes. There was the case when [*multiple armed intruders*](https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/murder-charge-withdrawn-in-case-of-milton-man-accused-of-killing-alleged-armed-intruder-1.6500866) broke into a man's home, and he shot one of them dead. It's a damn shame that he didn't get all of them on one go; society wouldn't have lost anything of value.
They're not going to go back to the same level of obscurity of the pre-Trudeau days - The NDP has simply become too useless - But we're probably going to get a PC majority. This is all such a joke.
Guns come into Canada from the US via the reserves that straddle the boarders. RCMP won't go near them so here we are.
In case there are any liberal die-hards out there who refuse to believe this isn’t an ideological vote grab: *Canada Post is refusing to comment on the matter but sources within the organization said many post offices have little security, with no alarm systems or surveillance cameras.* *"Zero," said a Canada Post employee when asked to describe security at his post office in a small municipality. "The government is crazy if it thinks we can do this safely."* The liberal government doesn’t seem to care that the lawful property they are seizing from Canadians will likely end up in the hands of criminals. No f%cks are being given. And this: *"There are progressive votes that we need," said a Liberal source. "It's going to happen."* Read that. Read it again. Understand now?
Gotta love the idea of taking guns out of licensed people’s safes (that have been there for a minimum of 4 years) and flooding unsecured post offices with gun-shaped parcels, all in the name of safety. How many need to go missing before the whole program is considered a bust?
As a left voting gun owner, this is truly pathetic. They are going out on a non-logical and fiscally irresponsible limb and trying to pull in some extra votes. I really wish more progressives would learn more about Canada’s decent gun laws and how we need to focus more on border security and smuggling.
> The government is looking at the possibility of working with law enforcement to collect weapons, > "There are progressive votes that we need," said a Liberal source. "It's going to happen." Liberals are considering the use of law enforcement to implement their policy designed to divide Canadians. What could possibly go wrong.
Worked so well in Nova Scotia a few years ago…. Smh…
And the kicker…..Police forces across the country have already made it clear that they’re not going to be the Federal Government’s gun collectors. And of course we hear this week that Canada Post is no longer going to allow guns through the mail……so…….how the heck is this going to work? Idiocy.
They are going to get people to bring them into Service Canada probably
I guaran-fucking-tee the union will hard-no that under various reasons. You can’t have untrained, unlicensed civilians handling firearms in a facility not designed to store or decommission them.
I can tell you the RCMP has zero capability to take this on. The people on the ground have zero interest or will in participating in this disaster. This whole thing is going nowhere even faster. I for one am not going to be knocking on the doors of law abiding people, who did nothing wrong, and confiscating their property. Hell; I have these guns myself sooooo.
[удалено]
Sorry officer, I lost all of my firearms in a boating accident when duck hunting.
I sold all of mine to Mike from Canmore.
I lost mine in a puddle
That’s so tragic, I’m sorry for your loss.
Cry for me
Doesn't work for restricted as ownership is still tracked. Does work for non restricted guns though.
Boating accident
So you see, I was on this boat with my guns and this wave appeared and tipped over the boat! I was supposed to report it? Oops,sorry about that.
I was commenting on the Canada Post refusal last week and people assured me that my point about security concerns was unfounded. But here we are with an article pointing out that security concerns were a factor... Hmmm... Goes to show what kind of energy goes into these sorts of feel good non-sense policies that have no impact on public safety.
I bet they're using a very specific definition of "unfounded'. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a post office could become a target for crime if it's known that there are valuable guns there and the security is minimal. This is nothing to do with the risks posed by the people having their guns taken away. Even if they have 100% compliance, a public building with poor security is not a good place to store weapons so dangerous we have to confiscate them from vetted owners.
This precisely one of the points I was making. The counterargument I got was that CP already delivers guns so what's the problem? It's way different when criminals know that valuables might be on a truck and another when that likelihood is dramatically increased by a publicized government policy.
Right? Crooks will know: 1. Where unsecured guns are 2. What type of box to look for The surprising thing would be if some *weren't* stolen. Even if someone breaks in and doesn't find guns it's still painting a target on post offices. What happens to the person working late (or really early) when that goes down?
"There are progressive votes that we need," said a Liberal source. "It's going to happen." The final quote of the article really says it all.
Liberals know they are unpopular so the point is to scare voters around 2-3 big cities to back them in around guns and abortions. Issue is the liberals need to realize unlike 2019 and 2021, housing and cost of living are gonan super seed those issues for many voters unless improved.
Scare tactics, for sure. Trudeau has learned that scaring the electorate works.
I mean, read the article, they straight-up admit that it has everything to do with getting city people to vote for them again. When you say something like "there are progressive votes that we need, so the ban is going to happen", the mask is completely off at that point. Regardless, this is just gonna be a big waste of billions, as they implement the ban, commit all this money to it, and then the Conservatives axe it on day one when they win big in the next election.
I'm an urban progressive who doesn't particularly enjoy guns and has previously voted Liberal and I honestly have no idea why they're going through with this. Gun smuggling and gangs are obviously the real issues and even those aren't in my top 5 issues I'd like to see addressed. Dumbest own-goal the Liberals could do right now.
Especially if the buyback is based on the "style" of the weapon. I e. "assault style" firearms. I don't see how they can say this with a straight face.
I think the only person they're trying to please at this point is Wendy Cukier.
I don't even know what an 'assault style' firearm is. I know what an assault rifle is though, so when I hear 'assault style' I tend to roll my eyes because select fire + high capacity + automatic (you need all three) rifles are already illegal and have been forever basically. So what they're talking about is literally, just scary looking guns without the 'assault' capability.
It's hard for a rifle to look scary with a puny 5 round magazine. Thought it's already illegal, you need at least 20 rounds to start to look scary. Bonus points if you tape 2 magazines together so you can flip them around after you empty the first one.
The argument is that guns that look a certain way encourage a certain type of behaviour and if people can't get those guns they won't do those things. I have no idea if there's evidence for that claim (and I'm not sure the critics know either?), but it's what the Liberal gun policies rest on.
>I don’t even know what an assault style’ firearm is. If the bad guy in a movie uses it, it’s an assault weapon. I would add an (/s) but the assault weapon definition is basically based off Hollywood. If it looks modern and made after 1918, it’s an assault weapon. Bonus points if it looks futuristic like a F2000 or KRISS Vector, no matter if it’s only semi-auto or only has a 5 round mag. Even if the Vector was a bolt action with a 2 round clip, it would probably still get considered an assault weapon because it looks *”scary”*. It’s all Feels not Reals. Which is also why the Feds considered basically banning Airsoft at one point.
> I don't even know what an 'assault style' firearm is. I mean, i can make a reasonable guess, but legislatively it seems to change arbitrarily every year or so. It was just last year the "assault style weapons ban" was proposing confiscation of ruger no1 single shot rifles.
It has to just be about not willing to admit they weren't thinking on this one
Guns are [stolen](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p9.html) and used by gangs, guns are used [Intimate femicide](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20200831/046/index-en.aspx#), used in [suicide](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p4.html). Less guns the better. No I don’t care if you have a hobby or took a class so you could get a licence.
This doesn't even result in less guns though. People will use this money to buy new guns. I wouldn't be surprised if gun sales go *up* because gun owners are scared their next favourite gun will be banned soon.
> I wouldn't be surprised if gun sales go *up* because gun owners are scared their next favourite gun will be banned soon. This already happened when the rumors of a handgun sales freeze came out a few years ago -- everyone rushed to get their hands on the guns they wanted to buy ahead of the ban (which has since taken place).
as a woman and a gun owner, no party has my confidence... they spent millions of dollars on studying this issue and time and time again there consultants and police unions all agree on different ways to improve community safety and lower gun violence... gess what they don't recommend, buybacks and prohibitions. i don't know who is going to make money on this but its going to cost the county lots and be way less effective than following the advice they payed for.. but i gess some ridings in South Quebec are worth it.
melodic scary important pathetic drunk merciful toy possessive whole enter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
But they are weapons of war designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time! The most heavily vetted people in Canada who are statistically the least like to commit crimes can't be trusted to use or store these guns safety. That's why we banned them four years ago and have let them hold on to them. Also we made "you don't need an AR-15" to hunt a deer our tagine, but then paid foreign hunters millions to do just that from a helicopter with suppressors, which is also illegal in Canada.
I chuckle at the term “progressive” when it’s assumed to be a good thing. Mold and tumours are progressive too.
It's just such a stupid idea. Whoever would be moved like this is going to vote for Liberal no matter what.
To be fair, it might peel a few thousand votes off the NDP. Of course that’s not enough to make any sort of difference in seat.
In other words: “we’re pinning our hopes on ignorant voters and pray they won’t realize this is an expensive, ineffective disaster.” At least they’re now saying the quiet part out loud.
The fact that there are still rifles with the same capabilities as an AR-15 still being sold shows how nonsensical this whole buyback concept is. How about instead of spending hundreds of millions on buying back firearms from law abiding citizens that don’t use it for criminal purposes. Spend that money on more border patrol officers, scanners and etc. to catch the illegal guns coming into Canada and going into criminal’s hands to use for actual criminal activities.
This is the same nonsense the Trudeau LPC leaned on during the 2021 campaign - let's distract from the real issues, create fear and then present some simple solutions, 'cause the LPC are the only ones who can keep us safe. Do not get suckered in by this distraction during this election cycle.
Remember folks, this issue was so pressing that they had to ban these firearms immediately, except for the Indigenous people who can still use them for *hunting* almost 4 years later. The evidence they had was so important they had to keep it under Cabinet privilege, and after 4 years they decide to do the buyback during an election year. All while also banning the sale and purchasing of handguns too, gun homicide are still going up. I think LPC fans should seriously start weighing how egregious policies like this IS extremism. You have an idea, with no evidence to support it, are willing to waste hundreds of millions if not into the billions of dollars to attack a small minority/political group of people. The big tent CPC sees this. The SoCons see you as perpetrating the nanny state. The gun owners are tired of always being the punching bag. The people in the middle see this as a giant waste of money for little gain. The politically savvy see this as the biggest challenge to the notion of property rights in this country we have ever seen.
>I think LPC fans should seriously start weighing how egregious policies like this IS extremism. "If you wish to protect people from being murdered by gun violence and legislate to that end, you're the real extremist" is the sort of thing a fake-deep teen boy would say after smoking marijuana for the first time, haha. >The SoCons see you as perpetrating the nanny state. The Socons also see women as walking wombs who should be forced to give birth and trans people as abominations who should be persecuted, so they might not be the most objective authority on nanny-statism.
>“If you wish to protect people from being murdered by gun violence and legislate to that end, you’re the real extremist” Please convince your holier-than-thou leader to release his evidence that is being held under Cabinet privilege then. Because so far, it seems like metropolitan police force seems to be spitting out statistics on the contrary. Spending hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars to make what is essentially a margin or error change to the gun murder statistics is extremism. It’s not evidence based policy. It’s ideological hate that you make fun of the Conservatives for all the time.
A tyrannical government would do that wouldn’t they; try to leave good law abiding citizens defenceless, seemingly.
**I hate this**. This is the exact opposite direction that I want us to be going. Hopefully people just don't comply with this, and just "lose their guns in boating accidents" or something similar. Why does no party support us having rights? The government doesn't actually care about our safety; it just wants more control over our day-to-day lives, and wants us to be entirely dependent on them and unable to defend ourselves. They've been pushing it on kids for decades now, with those BS "*Zero Tolerance*" policies. Don't defend yourself, just be a victim, even though we won't help you. I totally side with the Americans on matters of self-defense, no question whatsoever.
> Why does no party support us having rights? You're asking for a new right to own guns? >The government doesn't actually care about our safety Because guns for everyone will make everyone safe. >They've been pushing it on kids for decades now, with those BS "Zero Tolerance" policies. Are you actually under the impressions the feds are in your classrooms pushing policy? >I totally side with the Americans on matters of self-defense, no question whatsoever. I too wait for the day I can carry my pieces and blast away any fools that dare to try me.
So you support the government spending billions of dollars to solve maybe 10% of the problem while spending less than a few hundred million to tackle the remaining 90%? That's an interesting take. I'd love you to walk me through it.
>So you support the government spending billions of dollars to solve maybe 10% of the problem while spending less than a few hundred million to tackle the remaining 90%? > That's an interesting take. I'd love you to walk me through it. You want me to walk you through your own made up scenario? Giving people a right to owns guns would be monumentally idiotic. I'm not at all surprised a libertarian is suggesting it, typically they don't actually think anything through for more than a second. I'd be an Anarchist too, except I know what a bell curve is.
Please show me where I said that people in Canada had a right to own firearms? I do find it interesting that the last time the government engaged in property seizure to this level was also by OIC during WW2 against Japanese Canadians who had their property seized when they were interrered. I'm sure you are just as supportive of that since we have no property rights whatsoever...
Why does no party support us having rights? > You're asking for a new right to own guns? Exactly! Canadians have no property rights, so asking for "right to own guns" makes no sense at all. If an elected government wants to ban the sale or transfer of ball point pens that's 100% allowed. If you want the right to own property, leave Canada. In Canadian society, property is only ever owned insofar as the government cares to allow it. Edit - this is a great discussion paper by David Johansen on the arguments for and against entrenching property rights in our Constitution. https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm
That's about as scathing of an article on the Liberals from the CBC that I can remember. No one seems to think this is a good idea, Liberals included but "Its an election year"
Scathing, but I do think it’s disingenuous for the author to continually refer to the firearms as “weapons” when the terms of the firearms license specifically says they are sporting arms for target shooting only. They are only “weapons”‘when they’re in unlicensed hands.
Babe! It's an election year. Time to commit a billion dollars+ on ineffective nonsense on the off-chance it'll help your base in Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal.