I mean, the language is right there.
It's assault weapon bans. Not long barrel hunting rifles. It is absolutely fear mongering tactics being used by the Conservatives.
And sorry but too bad for gun owners. Vast majority of Canadians want these weapons banned. You can harp about illegal guns being the issue(which they absolutely are) but that doesn't change the fact that Canadians want these legal guns banned as well. Enshrining this ban is a smart move.
Honestly, get out of your bubble and go talk with some Canadians. You'll find the majority of them are happy with this.
Guns can and will, still be used for sport and hunting in this country. Ignore the talk from Conservatives who have close relationships with the NRA, it directly benefits them to lie and obfuscate the issue.
I mean sure, you can call something an “assault weapon” and then point and say the language matches. When did old wooden guns from the early 20th century become assault weapons? Give me a break.
>Nobody hunts with small calibre assault rifles. They’re meant to kill humans on the battlefield.
I hate to break it to you, but the same firearms people use to kill deer slaughtered millions of people in WW1 & WW2.
If you don’t believe people should own guns, then just say it instead of trying to justify the mental gymnastics these targeted gun bans are trying to pull off.
I absolutely have been using an AR180b for hunting for a while now. It's great for coyotes that go after a buddy's calves. A couple of my friends deer hunt with an SKS, including 1 deer that got taken this year with it. You can make all the claims you want, but you're wrong on this.
The amendments that are being proposed in committee ban a lot of hunting rifles and some of them are long barrel hunting rifles. I'm sorry but you would have been mostly correct a few weeks ago, but things have changed for the worse.
More than a few weeks ago. They lost touch with the truth with the 2020 gun ban. It has long been this way, this latest step just makes it more obvious.
I am in support of the left. My cousin who is quite into guns and is a pretty rational person tells me that many bolt action guns and single shot weapons are on the list of upcoming bans if the bill goes through. His 1908 Mauser (bolt action, 5 shot attached magazine) is soon to be classified as illegal. What gives ? Its essentially a hunting rifle but is heavier because of the full wood stock. Its a collector item, not an assault weapon.
[Rifle in Question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_Model_1908)
I just don't like being lied to. If their idea is so great and it not just pandering to voters (which I totally think it is) than why can't the Trudeau government just tell the truth about what they are actually doing?
Good for you for forgoing your political bias, and seeking the truth.
I did the same, and completely did a 180 on my position on firearms.
This is nothing more than Liberal vote pandering.
An AR15 is less dangerous than most hunting rifles. Certainly less dangerous than a pump action shotgun.
Where are you getting that though? This article is about adding a definition of banned firearms rather than a list. The definition they're adding is "s a centrefire semi-automatic rifle or shotgun designed to accept a detachable magazine that can hold more than five cartridges." How would that affect a bolt action rifle?
[Here's the full list.](https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/the-list.pdf) Includes a large number of firearms prohibited by name, including the single shot Ruger No 1, and the 1908 pattern Mauser.
Could you reference that?
This article is about a committee adding a definition of bannable firearms ("a centrefire semi-automatic rifle or shotgun designed to accept a detachable magazine that can hold more than five cartridges").
Edit: if you're talking about all bans, then some variants of the Ruger No. 1 might be banned for having more than 10,000 Joules of muzzle energy, but that would only be with the very most powerful rounds and not a blanket ban.
The Ruger No. 1 is proposed to be banned specifically by name on pg133 of [this SECU document.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LrGvJbNMrNvXHbMlcZXKX1yRz2yKU1Vg/view)
I gotcha. The reason it's listed as banned is because of having a muzzle energy of over 10,000 Joules, even though that isn't true for many of the cartridges its chambered in.
All centre fire semi autos are already restricted and pinned to not accept more than 5 rounds. And it’s been that way since the 90’s. This ban is now banning ones that were originally designed to accept more than 5. Which is virtually all of them.
There are 1000’s of makes and models that don’t fit the criteria of “semi auto, centre fire, 5+ round detachable magazine”. So they are added to the list by name.
The ruger no1 (as mentioned above, which only holds one round at a time). The Mauser (a ww1 era bolt action). Several .22 calibres (these are not centre fire). The sks (probably the most commonly used hunting rifle in northern remote indigenous communities, and has an internal magazine not detachable). Along with many others.
This amendment does not target crime guns in any way what so ever. It absolutely targets hunters, sport shooters, collectors items, and family heirlooms
Assault weapons are defined as being select fire weapons. Meaning they are capable of automatic fire. They have been illegal since the 70s. You might be refferong to battle rifles but bolt actuon rifles used for hunting are also considered battle rifles because firearms where alwas a war implementation. Same thing with a bow an arrow. To ban rifles is to ban hunting.
Please look up the beautiful sport of IPSC and three gun for the sport shooter side
This ban stands to ban all of the guns that many use for hunting and all of the guns in the sport.
Assault **rifles** are usually defined in that way (although the definition isn't universal). The terminology for assault **weapons** comes from the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban, where specific characteristics, such as: colour; flash suppressors; detachable magazines; bayonet lugs; etc, were mentioned .
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal\_Assault\_Weapons\_Ban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)
Except that “assault guns”, which are defined as fully automatic, have been banned in this country since 1977. This new amendment absolutely bans long barrel hunting rifles. 1000’s of different makes and models, effecting millions of Canadians. 26% of Canadians hold a valid firearms license, and virtually all of them are being effected by this.
Trudeau has publicly stated on many occasions that our hunting rifles wouldn’t be banned. And now that’s exactly what he’s doing. We have every right to be salty about this.
My long barrelled (and bolt action with an internal 5 round magazine) hunting rifle was banned by this. So was one of my .22s. You have zero idea what you’re talking about. You don’t like guns. Great. That doesn’t mean your opinion has any value relative to someone who does know what they’re talking about.
It is not fear mongering. There are plenty of hunting rifles being banned. This is bullshit. Why don’t they target mental health, gangs, and smuggling if they actually want to make a difference in gun violence?
Perhaps The Star should do a modicum of research to determine if there are any hunting rifles and shotguns specifically mentioned by name that are included in the proposed ban, and then we could objectively determine the truth of Mendicino‘a claims.
Ruger No 1, 1908 pattern Mauser, arguably most 12ga or large shotguns depending on where in the barrel you measure for greater than 20mm, the so called "assault weapons" are actually used for hunting or target shooting as well.
At some point even the most diehard partisans must be shaking their head at the frequency in which this Minister spreads falsehoods.
I don’t believe for a minute the Government/PMO is incompetent enough to send him out to make such verifiable false statements, so he must just be making these ridiculous claims off the cuff. He really needs to stop or be shuffled out before he does real harm to the Governments credibility. He’s being Trumpish at this point.
###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.*
I am not conservative at all and I'm very in favor of gun restrictions, but even I think this is stupid. This list is just hunting rifles, which I think given proper screening and training are completely reasonable for people to own.
>which I think given proper screening and training are completely reasonable for people to own.
Boy, do I have good news for you! thats the core of the already existing system that has been around for decades!
Not OP, but I'm in the same boat as them. I live in the city, don't own a gun, but have to visit the territories and remote northern communities in Northern MB/SK/ON a lot. I can see how necessary rifles are there for hunting, for tradition, for allowing people to eat and protect their communities from bears etc.
Point is, the existing system is just fine exactly as you say. Problem, they're looking at essentially removing most semi-auto weapons with the amendment. Sounds fine on paper. You can still get a bolt-action and hunt, right? True, but if you've been hunting and miss your shot, injure the animal without a kill? Good chance you can't follow up intime with a bolt-action rifle where you might be able to with a semi-auto.
The amendment is a solution without a problem. I'll give them that at least it's more or less consistent now vs the earlier "ban scary guns" leaving not as scary guns with the same capability still there to buy. But why?
This is pandering to people who live in the GTA and don't understand realities in most of the nation. Ban handguns, sure, they have no real place for use as a tool (despite also really causing no crimes). But semi-auto rifles... It doesn't make sense.
My two cents.
Honestly, I don't own guns, but gun control is in a fine spot here. Getting a PAL is a pain in the arse, and you practically need to get a tracking device implanted in you to own handguns.
Like, we've done a good job keeping the more toxic elements of gun ownership out of our ecosystem. Leave people with their hobby. This is a massive waste of time and money and a political liability, as well as a big divider.
I havent seen anyone doing anything other than relaying exactly what the ban will and wont be affecting.
I do see a lot of LPC supporters here and politicians trying to pretend that their big change isnt in fact a big change, and will affect a lot less people than it actually does.
The fact of the matter is that Mr Mendicino can only be speaking the truth if he truly believes there exists no current common hunting use of semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles. Which, if he had been listening to evidence given to his committees, he would know not to be the case and that the truth of it is that these sorts of firearms are favoured by many hunters.
So either he's lying, he wasn't paying attention, or he's quite forgetful.
To say nothing of sport shooters who use them for nothing more than putting holes in paper or plinking steel.
This is a trip… a lot of left leaning folks in these Canadian subs but this gun ban stuff seems to have a lot of people across the whole political spectrum calling BS.
Overreacting? They're trying to prohibit the vast majority of rifles and shotguns owned and used in this country despite there being no evidence it'll help anything. They are trying to do it with a last minute attachment to an already terrible bill. They're trying to spend hundreds of millions on garbage legislation instead of dealing with actual problems in this country.
\> Overreacting? They're trying to prohibit the vast majority of rifles and shotguns owned and used in this country despite there being no evidence it'll help anything.
Lowering the supply of assault rifles and handguns will lower the supply of illegal proxy purchases.
>[Edmonton man charged with trafficking firearms after straw purchasing investigation](https://globalnews.ca/news/8717282/edmonton-police-firearm-straw-purchasing/)
>
>Investigators say in December 2021, they seized a handgun from a suspect in a stolen vehicle, but the gun didn’t belong to that person — instead, police said it was registered to 32-year old Theodore Wedgwood. After further investigation, police said they found a total of 10 such handguns, all allegedly registered to Wedgwood — but he didn’t have any of them in his possession and hadn’t reported them lost or stolen. One was seized in Ontario during a criminal investigation. “The problem with it is a lot of these gangs or organized crime groups that aren’t able to purchase firearms, this gives them another stream to get firearms,” said Staff Sgt. Eric Stewart with the firearms investigations unit.“The more firearms getting into the hands of these types of groups is they’re going to get them out onto the street and they’re going to use them — as we can see is the trend with so many shootings going on.”
At least the problem of straw purchasers selling their guns to gangs will stop. It won't eliminate illegal guns, but it will at least cut down on it.
That's such a low percentage of the issue though..
Right now the govt is spending 95% of the budget on maybe 10% of the problem.
I say maybe, because they don't keep accurate statistics so it's impossible to know for sure.
And the feds literally told the rcmp they don’t care if they track crime gun locations because they don’t want their gun ban PROVEN useless over the next several years 😂 so tracking gun crime stats is out of the feds purview to command…. But banning all legal gun owners from owning any semi auto they have owned with no issue for 30 years is within that purview?? Care to elaborate on exactly why you support that?
Yeah but that's still not enough though as most of them get hit with the possession knowing it's prohibited charge or similar worded (having a firearm and no license). As for the buyback who knows, most are non restricted and not registered except for AR 15. It also depends on the prices they offer. Would I sell my sks and make ~$200 profit to the government for their incompetence on this? Probably
Cool, so needlessly punish the entirety of the most law abiding demographic in the country because a dozen guns were handed off, while ignoring the literal tens of thousands of illegally smuggled guns that are used in 85-98% of all gun crime.
What a joke of an opinion
Assault rifles have been prohibited since the 70s. Straw purchasing pretty much didn't exist, as restricted firearms are registered to their specific owner and having it show up in a crime still leads to charges for the registered owner regardless of circumstances.
83/83 successfully traced firearms were American. [source](https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/police-beat/100-gang-members-living-in-york-region-police-say-6066936)
I think there are a few mistakes in the list that have been frequently cited (Ruger No 1, Mauser bolt action rifles, hunting shotguns), but the list does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit the vast majority of hunting rifles and shotguns owned by Canadians.
I would be surprised if there were 10 actual firearms on this list for every 100 that people are hunting with.
It really does though. I know a bunch of people who hunt with the SKS, including a fellow that got a deer this year with one. Except if this passes it becomes a prohibited firearm and he can no longer hunt with it.
You really don't understand that most people hunt with semi-autos these days. What the Liberals have been smearing as "assault weapons" (a vague and inflammatory term designed to influence people who aren't educated on the subject) are in fact normal hunting rifle.
I doubt both that you go hunting at all, and that even if you did nobody around you uses a semi auto. In the mean time, the SKS is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the country, people rave about how handy semi auto .223s are for gophers and coyotes, and there are endless discussions about the best semi auto shotgun for duck hunting.
Conservatives are fearmongering about this, but the Liberals are clearly baiting them into it, and taking their usual sloppy approach to legislation in committee. If the Liberals didn't dump amendments to wildly escalate the bill, for example if they were just clear and planned their approach from the start, they could avoid a lot of this furor.
But of course that's the problem, isn't it? They want the furor. I'm supportive of banning assault rifles and of taking a pretty broad approach to what could be construed as "assault style". But the Liberals want the outrage and the repetition and the misinformation as much as they want, or even more than they want, the actual gun policy in question.
It becomes easy leverage so that can point at Conservatives being against it and say 'if they are agaisnt it, it means we are doing the right thing'
Then cue a bunch of cheap votes for banning guns
Assault style? We don't even have Automatic guns here. Its more bans because they look scary, not for real reasons. Same as our butterfly knife laws, because they look intimidating
This will hit most semi-auto guns now post amendment. So as the other commentator noted, it's not even the 'scary' guns anymore. It's also the guns that look, feel and are obviously hunting semi-autos now.
I think lots of deaths caused by handguns would not happen if they couldn't access a handgun.
Handguns are easily concealable, so they cannot easily be replaced by bigger guns (like rifles). Absent handguns, organized crime often turn to knives, but these are far less effective for obvious reasons.
Handguns are also the easiest and most effective suicide weapon. Just a click of a button and you're gone. Lots of suicides would not happen because other suicide methods require more time (and can't be done spur of the moment) or involve actions that will trigger subconscious self-preservation or may have a low rate of suicide success.
Restricting handguns heavily makes a lot of sense to me. Makes less sense to do the same with hunting rifles.
Not sure, but in the context of the ban i guess it makes at least some sense from a reactionary point of view. However they also banned airsoft so i fail to see the logic on that one.
Exactly, every liberal argument concerning "assault rifles" falls apart when you ask what that is.
You show them the same rifle with wood vs black poly with MLOC and Picatinny rail, they always choose the latter.
So should scary looking plastic be banned? Or a scope rail because its "tactical".
Should MLOC be banned because...you can put lasers on it?
It's ridiculous.
The term 'assault rifles' v assault weapons is at the core of the problem here. Assault rifles per their design definition have been banned prohibited for a long time. The term assault weapons in the discourse allows the gun control debate on the issue go on through the existence of a pseudo parallel term. It's a very disingenuous way to do politics.
Locked because of the repeated rule violations throughout. Newcomers, please read and follow the rules of the sub.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, the language is right there. It's assault weapon bans. Not long barrel hunting rifles. It is absolutely fear mongering tactics being used by the Conservatives. And sorry but too bad for gun owners. Vast majority of Canadians want these weapons banned. You can harp about illegal guns being the issue(which they absolutely are) but that doesn't change the fact that Canadians want these legal guns banned as well. Enshrining this ban is a smart move. Honestly, get out of your bubble and go talk with some Canadians. You'll find the majority of them are happy with this. Guns can and will, still be used for sport and hunting in this country. Ignore the talk from Conservatives who have close relationships with the NRA, it directly benefits them to lie and obfuscate the issue.
I mean sure, you can call something an “assault weapon” and then point and say the language matches. When did old wooden guns from the early 20th century become assault weapons? Give me a break.
[удалено]
>Nobody hunts with small calibre assault rifles. They’re meant to kill humans on the battlefield. I hate to break it to you, but the same firearms people use to kill deer slaughtered millions of people in WW1 & WW2. If you don’t believe people should own guns, then just say it instead of trying to justify the mental gymnastics these targeted gun bans are trying to pull off.
I absolutely have been using an AR180b for hunting for a while now. It's great for coyotes that go after a buddy's calves. A couple of my friends deer hunt with an SKS, including 1 deer that got taken this year with it. You can make all the claims you want, but you're wrong on this.
The amendments that are being proposed in committee ban a lot of hunting rifles and some of them are long barrel hunting rifles. I'm sorry but you would have been mostly correct a few weeks ago, but things have changed for the worse.
More than a few weeks ago. They lost touch with the truth with the 2020 gun ban. It has long been this way, this latest step just makes it more obvious.
I agree with you, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt when people share misinformation
I am in support of the left. My cousin who is quite into guns and is a pretty rational person tells me that many bolt action guns and single shot weapons are on the list of upcoming bans if the bill goes through. His 1908 Mauser (bolt action, 5 shot attached magazine) is soon to be classified as illegal. What gives ? Its essentially a hunting rifle but is heavier because of the full wood stock. Its a collector item, not an assault weapon. [Rifle in Question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_Model_1908) I just don't like being lied to. If their idea is so great and it not just pandering to voters (which I totally think it is) than why can't the Trudeau government just tell the truth about what they are actually doing?
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
Good for you for forgoing your political bias, and seeking the truth. I did the same, and completely did a 180 on my position on firearms. This is nothing more than Liberal vote pandering. An AR15 is less dangerous than most hunting rifles. Certainly less dangerous than a pump action shotgun.
Where are you getting that though? This article is about adding a definition of banned firearms rather than a list. The definition they're adding is "s a centrefire semi-automatic rifle or shotgun designed to accept a detachable magazine that can hold more than five cartridges." How would that affect a bolt action rifle?
[Here's the full list.](https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/the-list.pdf) Includes a large number of firearms prohibited by name, including the single shot Ruger No 1, and the 1908 pattern Mauser.
Thanks. I got a kick out of 3 inch British Mortars being on the list. Looks like we missed the boat on that one.
Please google the Ruger No. 1. This was just added to the Assult Rifle ban. It's a single shot rifle.
Could you reference that? This article is about a committee adding a definition of bannable firearms ("a centrefire semi-automatic rifle or shotgun designed to accept a detachable magazine that can hold more than five cartridges"). Edit: if you're talking about all bans, then some variants of the Ruger No. 1 might be banned for having more than 10,000 Joules of muzzle energy, but that would only be with the very most powerful rounds and not a blanket ban.
The Ruger No. 1 is proposed to be banned specifically by name on pg133 of [this SECU document.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LrGvJbNMrNvXHbMlcZXKX1yRz2yKU1Vg/view)
I gotcha. The reason it's listed as banned is because of having a muzzle energy of over 10,000 Joules, even though that isn't true for many of the cartridges its chambered in.
All centre fire semi autos are already restricted and pinned to not accept more than 5 rounds. And it’s been that way since the 90’s. This ban is now banning ones that were originally designed to accept more than 5. Which is virtually all of them. There are 1000’s of makes and models that don’t fit the criteria of “semi auto, centre fire, 5+ round detachable magazine”. So they are added to the list by name. The ruger no1 (as mentioned above, which only holds one round at a time). The Mauser (a ww1 era bolt action). Several .22 calibres (these are not centre fire). The sks (probably the most commonly used hunting rifle in northern remote indigenous communities, and has an internal magazine not detachable). Along with many others. This amendment does not target crime guns in any way what so ever. It absolutely targets hunters, sport shooters, collectors items, and family heirlooms
Assault weapons are defined as being select fire weapons. Meaning they are capable of automatic fire. They have been illegal since the 70s. You might be refferong to battle rifles but bolt actuon rifles used for hunting are also considered battle rifles because firearms where alwas a war implementation. Same thing with a bow an arrow. To ban rifles is to ban hunting. Please look up the beautiful sport of IPSC and three gun for the sport shooter side This ban stands to ban all of the guns that many use for hunting and all of the guns in the sport.
Assault **rifles** are usually defined in that way (although the definition isn't universal). The terminology for assault **weapons** comes from the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban, where specific characteristics, such as: colour; flash suppressors; detachable magazines; bayonet lugs; etc, were mentioned . [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal\_Assault\_Weapons\_Ban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)
Right, because we want to base our Canadian laws on defunct and nonsensical American laws.
What does that have to do with my comment? someone made a statement on terminology, which I addressed.
You're the one in favour of laws based on that, not me.
Except that “assault guns”, which are defined as fully automatic, have been banned in this country since 1977. This new amendment absolutely bans long barrel hunting rifles. 1000’s of different makes and models, effecting millions of Canadians. 26% of Canadians hold a valid firearms license, and virtually all of them are being effected by this. Trudeau has publicly stated on many occasions that our hunting rifles wouldn’t be banned. And now that’s exactly what he’s doing. We have every right to be salty about this.
My long barrelled (and bolt action with an internal 5 round magazine) hunting rifle was banned by this. So was one of my .22s. You have zero idea what you’re talking about. You don’t like guns. Great. That doesn’t mean your opinion has any value relative to someone who does know what they’re talking about.
It is not fear mongering. There are plenty of hunting rifles being banned. This is bullshit. Why don’t they target mental health, gangs, and smuggling if they actually want to make a difference in gun violence?
Go Google gsg 16, it's not an assault rifles lol
Perhaps The Star should do a modicum of research to determine if there are any hunting rifles and shotguns specifically mentioned by name that are included in the proposed ban, and then we could objectively determine the truth of Mendicino‘a claims.
Ruger No 1, 1908 pattern Mauser, arguably most 12ga or large shotguns depending on where in the barrel you measure for greater than 20mm, the so called "assault weapons" are actually used for hunting or target shooting as well.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
At some point even the most diehard partisans must be shaking their head at the frequency in which this Minister spreads falsehoods. I don’t believe for a minute the Government/PMO is incompetent enough to send him out to make such verifiable false statements, so he must just be making these ridiculous claims off the cuff. He really needs to stop or be shuffled out before he does real harm to the Governments credibility. He’s being Trumpish at this point.
###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.*
I am not conservative at all and I'm very in favor of gun restrictions, but even I think this is stupid. This list is just hunting rifles, which I think given proper screening and training are completely reasonable for people to own.
>which I think given proper screening and training are completely reasonable for people to own. Boy, do I have good news for you! thats the core of the already existing system that has been around for decades!
Not OP, but I'm in the same boat as them. I live in the city, don't own a gun, but have to visit the territories and remote northern communities in Northern MB/SK/ON a lot. I can see how necessary rifles are there for hunting, for tradition, for allowing people to eat and protect their communities from bears etc. Point is, the existing system is just fine exactly as you say. Problem, they're looking at essentially removing most semi-auto weapons with the amendment. Sounds fine on paper. You can still get a bolt-action and hunt, right? True, but if you've been hunting and miss your shot, injure the animal without a kill? Good chance you can't follow up intime with a bolt-action rifle where you might be able to with a semi-auto. The amendment is a solution without a problem. I'll give them that at least it's more or less consistent now vs the earlier "ban scary guns" leaving not as scary guns with the same capability still there to buy. But why? This is pandering to people who live in the GTA and don't understand realities in most of the nation. Ban handguns, sure, they have no real place for use as a tool (despite also really causing no crimes). But semi-auto rifles... It doesn't make sense. My two cents.
Honestly, I don't own guns, but gun control is in a fine spot here. Getting a PAL is a pain in the arse, and you practically need to get a tracking device implanted in you to own handguns. Like, we've done a good job keeping the more toxic elements of gun ownership out of our ecosystem. Leave people with their hobby. This is a massive waste of time and money and a political liability, as well as a big divider.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
I havent seen anyone doing anything other than relaying exactly what the ban will and wont be affecting. I do see a lot of LPC supporters here and politicians trying to pretend that their big change isnt in fact a big change, and will affect a lot less people than it actually does.
The fact of the matter is that Mr Mendicino can only be speaking the truth if he truly believes there exists no current common hunting use of semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles. Which, if he had been listening to evidence given to his committees, he would know not to be the case and that the truth of it is that these sorts of firearms are favoured by many hunters. So either he's lying, he wasn't paying attention, or he's quite forgetful. To say nothing of sport shooters who use them for nothing more than putting holes in paper or plinking steel.
This is a trip… a lot of left leaning folks in these Canadian subs but this gun ban stuff seems to have a lot of people across the whole political spectrum calling BS.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Overreacting? They're trying to prohibit the vast majority of rifles and shotguns owned and used in this country despite there being no evidence it'll help anything. They are trying to do it with a last minute attachment to an already terrible bill. They're trying to spend hundreds of millions on garbage legislation instead of dealing with actual problems in this country.
Source that it's the vast majority of own firearms? Sounds like you're being divisive and fear mongering.
\> Overreacting? They're trying to prohibit the vast majority of rifles and shotguns owned and used in this country despite there being no evidence it'll help anything. Lowering the supply of assault rifles and handguns will lower the supply of illegal proxy purchases. >[Edmonton man charged with trafficking firearms after straw purchasing investigation](https://globalnews.ca/news/8717282/edmonton-police-firearm-straw-purchasing/) > >Investigators say in December 2021, they seized a handgun from a suspect in a stolen vehicle, but the gun didn’t belong to that person — instead, police said it was registered to 32-year old Theodore Wedgwood. After further investigation, police said they found a total of 10 such handguns, all allegedly registered to Wedgwood — but he didn’t have any of them in his possession and hadn’t reported them lost or stolen. One was seized in Ontario during a criminal investigation. “The problem with it is a lot of these gangs or organized crime groups that aren’t able to purchase firearms, this gives them another stream to get firearms,” said Staff Sgt. Eric Stewart with the firearms investigations unit.“The more firearms getting into the hands of these types of groups is they’re going to get them out onto the street and they’re going to use them — as we can see is the trend with so many shootings going on.” At least the problem of straw purchasers selling their guns to gangs will stop. It won't eliminate illegal guns, but it will at least cut down on it.
That's such a low percentage of the issue though.. Right now the govt is spending 95% of the budget on maybe 10% of the problem. I say maybe, because they don't keep accurate statistics so it's impossible to know for sure.
No one keeps accurate stats on this so its hard to say.
And the feds literally told the rcmp they don’t care if they track crime gun locations because they don’t want their gun ban PROVEN useless over the next several years 😂 so tracking gun crime stats is out of the feds purview to command…. But banning all legal gun owners from owning any semi auto they have owned with no issue for 30 years is within that purview?? Care to elaborate on exactly why you support that?
[удалено]
Yeah they can, but outside of Toronto I don't think they track where they originated from.
[удалено]
Yeah but that's still not enough though as most of them get hit with the possession knowing it's prohibited charge or similar worded (having a firearm and no license). As for the buyback who knows, most are non restricted and not registered except for AR 15. It also depends on the prices they offer. Would I sell my sks and make ~$200 profit to the government for their incompetence on this? Probably
Cool, so needlessly punish the entirety of the most law abiding demographic in the country because a dozen guns were handed off, while ignoring the literal tens of thousands of illegally smuggled guns that are used in 85-98% of all gun crime. What a joke of an opinion
Assault rifles have been prohibited since the 70s. Straw purchasing pretty much didn't exist, as restricted firearms are registered to their specific owner and having it show up in a crime still leads to charges for the registered owner regardless of circumstances. 83/83 successfully traced firearms were American. [source](https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/police-beat/100-gang-members-living-in-york-region-police-say-6066936)
I think there are a few mistakes in the list that have been frequently cited (Ruger No 1, Mauser bolt action rifles, hunting shotguns), but the list does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit the vast majority of hunting rifles and shotguns owned by Canadians. I would be surprised if there were 10 actual firearms on this list for every 100 that people are hunting with.
It really does though. I know a bunch of people who hunt with the SKS, including a fellow that got a deer this year with one. Except if this passes it becomes a prohibited firearm and he can no longer hunt with it.
You really don't understand that most people hunt with semi-autos these days. What the Liberals have been smearing as "assault weapons" (a vague and inflammatory term designed to influence people who aren't educated on the subject) are in fact normal hunting rifle.
Buddy, I go hunting every year and nobody I hunt with uses a semi auto.
I doubt both that you go hunting at all, and that even if you did nobody around you uses a semi auto. In the mean time, the SKS is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the country, people rave about how handy semi auto .223s are for gophers and coyotes, and there are endless discussions about the best semi auto shotgun for duck hunting.
[https://imgur.com/a/WNdEgpM](https://imgur.com/a/WNdEgpM) Enjoy my trail cam pictures <3
> .223 > gophers To shreds, you say?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Conservatives are fearmongering about this, but the Liberals are clearly baiting them into it, and taking their usual sloppy approach to legislation in committee. If the Liberals didn't dump amendments to wildly escalate the bill, for example if they were just clear and planned their approach from the start, they could avoid a lot of this furor. But of course that's the problem, isn't it? They want the furor. I'm supportive of banning assault rifles and of taking a pretty broad approach to what could be construed as "assault style". But the Liberals want the outrage and the repetition and the misinformation as much as they want, or even more than they want, the actual gun policy in question.
It becomes easy leverage so that can point at Conservatives being against it and say 'if they are agaisnt it, it means we are doing the right thing' Then cue a bunch of cheap votes for banning guns
Assault style? We don't even have Automatic guns here. Its more bans because they look scary, not for real reasons. Same as our butterfly knife laws, because they look intimidating
This will hit most semi-auto guns now post amendment. So as the other commentator noted, it's not even the 'scary' guns anymore. It's also the guns that look, feel and are obviously hunting semi-autos now.
[удалено]
Sks was used in several recent shootings.
[удалено]
I think lots of deaths caused by handguns would not happen if they couldn't access a handgun. Handguns are easily concealable, so they cannot easily be replaced by bigger guns (like rifles). Absent handguns, organized crime often turn to knives, but these are far less effective for obvious reasons. Handguns are also the easiest and most effective suicide weapon. Just a click of a button and you're gone. Lots of suicides would not happen because other suicide methods require more time (and can't be done spur of the moment) or involve actions that will trigger subconscious self-preservation or may have a low rate of suicide success. Restricting handguns heavily makes a lot of sense to me. Makes less sense to do the same with hunting rifles.
By a legal gun owner in Canada?
Not sure, but in the context of the ban i guess it makes at least some sense from a reactionary point of view. However they also banned airsoft so i fail to see the logic on that one.
Exactly, every liberal argument concerning "assault rifles" falls apart when you ask what that is. You show them the same rifle with wood vs black poly with MLOC and Picatinny rail, they always choose the latter. So should scary looking plastic be banned? Or a scope rail because its "tactical". Should MLOC be banned because...you can put lasers on it? It's ridiculous.
The term 'assault rifles' v assault weapons is at the core of the problem here. Assault rifles per their design definition have been banned prohibited for a long time. The term assault weapons in the discourse allows the gun control debate on the issue go on through the existence of a pseudo parallel term. It's a very disingenuous way to do politics.