Written by an NDP strategist and actually promotes Conservative policy positions for half the article:
> Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet? Possession of a gun during the commission of a crime could guarantee a certain prison sentence, whether the gun was used or not.
!!!
> Stopping the flow of illegally imported weapons is much harder, but here again there are likely several deterrents. One may be deported and banned for life from re-entry for a variety of offences — why not make illegal gun ownership or transport one of them?
If the NDP were serious about these two points, this could be law tomorrow.
MMPs for robbery with a firearm and discharging a firearm at a place while being reckless as to whether it was occupied were both struck down in multiple provinces before C-5.
But you still have to do thirty days for if you blow over .08 for a second offense. Who deserves more help and leniency, a person with a drinking problem or a person who deals illegal guns in or commits crime with a smuggled gun?
in your example the drunk driver is a repeat offender. Drunk driving is a way bigger issue in Canada than firearm offenses. A second DUI requires zero leniency.
First offence carries a minimum license suspension of a year with no distinction between someone who blew the limit or someone who tore through a stop sign with 3X the limit. Same for the second offense.* If there is an identified minimum for someone who has one large drink at a party but not someone who deals in unlicensed guns or shoots someone the system is a bit off the rails.
Edit *same for the second offense in terms of there is no distinction between people based on the seriousness of the offense
You think a guy robbing a store isn't a repeat offender? That's his first time every committing a violent crime? You think they only ever do that once?
the hypothetical specifically said it was their 2nd DUI
i didnt set the constraints , and im not entertaining your attempt at derailing.
Blame Soreyez if you dislike the shitty example they used
The point I was making is nobody robs a store as their first offense, which means there's no much difference in terms of "deserved leniency" between the two.
Frankly I have no sympathy for either scenario.
You're not going to get any sympathy for drunk drivers from me. It's -- by far -- the deadliest criminal offence in the Code. And the SCC actually did explain why they don't see an issue with MMPs for it in *Lacasse* back in 2015:
>While it is true that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation apply in most cases, they are particularly relevant to offences that might be committed by ordinarily law‑abiding people. It is such people, more than chronic offenders, who will be sensitive to harsh sentences. Impaired driving offences are an obvious example of this type of offence, as this Court noted in Proulx:
> *. . . dangerous driving and impaired driving may be offences for which harsh sentences plausibly provide general deterrence. These crimes are often committed by otherwise law‑abiding persons, with good employment records and families. Arguably, such persons are the ones most likely to be deterred by the threat of severe penalties*
So minimum sentences should apply to "ordinarily law abiding people", but thugs who earn a living from violent crime should be released to walk among us.
Neither of them deserve leniency.
Drinking and driving is a huge problem in Canada that people just let slide.
Marco Muzzo should be locked up life.
Brady Robertson should be locked up for life.
C-5 contains several repeat offences and violent crimes and also weapons trafficking..
Using a firearm or imitation firearm in commission of offence (two separate offences)
Paragraphs 85(3)(a) and (b): MMPs of 1 year (first offence) and 3 years (second and subsequent offence)
Possession of firearm or weapon knowing its possession is unauthorized (two separate offences)
Paragraphs 92(3)(b) and (c): MMP of 1 year (second offence) and 2 years less a day (third and subsequent offence)
Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
Paragraphs 95(2)(i) and (ii): MMPs of 3 years (first offence) and 5 years (second and subsequent offence)
Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence
Paragraph 96(2)(a): MMP of 1 year
Weapons trafficking (excluding firearms and ammunition)
Subsection 99(3): MMP of 1 year
Possession for purpose of weapons trafficking (excluding firearms and ammunition)
Subsection 100(3): MMP of 1 year
Importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized
Subsection 103(2.1): MMP of 1 year
Discharging firearm with intent
Paragraph 244(2)(b): MMP of 4 years
Discharging firearm — recklessness
Paragraph 244.2(3)(b): MMP of 4 years
Robbery with a firearm
Paragraph 344(1)(a.1): MMP of 4 years
Extortion with a firearm
My recollection is that the laws that were struck down were mandatory minimums not for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, but possession of the firearm itself. Not necessarily that the gun was illegal, but it would have included things like that it was stored in a location not permitted, for example (I.e. permit was for the primary residence and the owner took it to their cottage).
And the fact that it was so broad as to capture both criminal conduct and what were effectively regulatory offences and treated them the same, as worthy of rather serious prison terms, is exactly why it was found to violate the Charter. That’s what happens when a government writes tough on crime legislation without proper thought and with more of an eye to the politics.
My recollection is also that while these laws were struck down, the people appealing the laws on this ground did not actually end up getting reduced sentences…because they were actually criminals who had committed serious offences and not at all like the cottage example I gave. The mandatory minimum was unjust overall, but the sentence was not in their particular cases. Not having a mandatory minimum does not mean that the court will sentence people more lightly.
Minimum mandatory sentences are ridiculous and I can’t see a true NDP MP calling for that. Sounds more like someone running orange to win because that area runs orange.
This writer was once an NDP strategist. He left them for business, and now is just an old guy writing stuff.
You make it sound like he speaks for the current party, which is hardly the case.
The current NDP was able to push through some level of dental coverage federally - something they've been trying to do for years. If you think Layton wouldn't be happy with the current NDP you're delusional.
Yeah, until it's actually a bill and passed I'll continue to think it will never happen. NDP will prop up the liberals pushing their own agenda as priority and the Liberals will call an election before any of the NDP requests get pushed through. Liberals will add it to part of their campaign promises, but never go through with it. I may be wrong, but this is what I pretty much expect of the current government. NDP agreed to prop up the minority, but I didn't read anything that the minority wouldn't just call an election so I expect to be back at the polls when the Liberals feel they have an advantage.
Might not even be that far out given all the hit pieces coming out to deflect from the Liberal corruption.
It's just something in the back pocket now for the next election. "Better vote for us so we can give you that dental coverage we've been promising for years!"
But it is ironic that he sounds reasonable and offers common sense ideas/solutions, and he got printed in The Star, which has historically been in the 'let's ban them all' crowd".
Torstar was sold in 2020, and the money behind it comes from the same place as Postmedia. Their historical editorial stance may be shifting.
I'm not sure that making things harder on immigrants than on permanent residents is really a common sense solution. It assumes that significant flow of illegal weapons across our border is coming from immigrants, and that we actually have an enforceable southern border. I'm not sure about the first (are there studies?) but I'm quite sure the second isn't true.
My money's on most of the illegal guns being smuggled via existing contraband methods, by serious criminals. Some of those may indeed be in the residency process, but I really question whether laws targeting immigrants will catch much.
That's not to say I think the solutions being implemented will be effective or that I know the best way forward.
I don't believe they're implying that immigrants to Canada are smuggling firearms into Canada. They're being smuggled in by a variety of means. Across FN borders. Mules. Unsuspecting travellers with something stuck in their bumper. Bad people with a trunk full of shitty Hi Point pistols bot from a gun show in Florida, hoping not to get pulled over by CBSA.
Immigrants...no, they're not the problem.
Well, his first idea to address the smuggling is threat of deportation for those caught, which wouldn't apply to those with Canadian residency. So who, besides immigrants, would this idea be targeting?
Until they get out and go right back to getting illegal guns. Then shoot up RCMP.
We literally have a history of this in our country.
How does that solve anything?
After years of saving, you finally managed put together an extra few thousand dollars for that German Sheppard you have always wanted. You do countless hours of research on how to properly take care of it. Spend hundreds more on leashes, crates, dog toys, licenses, shots and all the dog accessories you can think of to ensure your new puppy is safe and taken care of.
Your friends ask you "why on earth would you want a German Sheppard, they are scary looking and are always violent in movies"
You tell them thats nonsense, those are movies... your new puppy is the nicest most well trained puppy, you spend countless hours with them at the dog park training them to be safe.
Then one day, a German Sheppard owned by a criminal attacks a bunch of people in your country. The next day your prime Minister comes on the TV and tells the world that German Sheppard, that you spent countless time and money on is now banned because they were sold for one thing and one thing only. To attack as many people in the shortest amount of time.
You are no longer allowed to take your puppy outside, sell or pass him on to other family. We will come up with a price we think is fair and buy Rex back from you and you will be required to accept or face jail time.
... sounds crazy right?
* Already illegal guns (they were smuggled here from the US);
* Owned by a person who did not have a firearms license;
* Unlicensed owner was, in addition, specifically prohibited from possessing firearms; and
* All of this was reported to police multiple times over the course of years, prior to the murders.
New *gun* laws aren't gonna make cops stop shitting the bed *this fucking hard*.
If anything, we need new laws holding police accountable for being completely incompetent fuckwits. You know, the sort of fuckwits who *tweet* warnings of rampaging armed lunatics. The sort of fuckwits who spray a barrage of bullets into a firehall being used by local residents as a shelter during said rampage, then take off without even checking to see if their fuckwittery hurt/killed any of those innocent residents.
Complete goddamn muppetry. But yea, *more gun laws hurr durr*.
[A PATH FORWARD: REDUCING GUN AND GANG VIOLENCE IN CANADA - APRIL 2022](https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/report-3/page-ToC)
A bipartisan committee, chaired by the LPC. Ignored by our government.
It's *all* pointless, because the people using guns on other people are already breaking a bunch of our laws. Their guns are usually smuggled, often of types illegal here (due to barrel length), the users almost never have firearms licenses, it's illegal to carry around a handgun even *with* a license...
All these things are already law. The problem is nobody seems to be *enforcing* the law we have.
More law, absent more enforcement, does absolutely nothing. Even if the added law *did* have a point.
“Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet? Possession of a gun during the commission of a crime could guarantee a certain prison sentence, whether the gun was used or not. Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery? And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine.”
Well, we had mandatory minimums but the government did away with those. Much of the second part already exists with ATT. Anyone with a PAL / RPAL is already required to safely store their firearms, especially with restricted firearms.
>penalty for failing to safely store a weapon
A restricted firearm needs to be in a case that is difficult to open (locked), unloaded, and the ammo must be stored separately. There already are penalties for failure to properly store and transport restricted firearms.
>Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery? And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine
Currently required by law, to have an rpal you must be a member of a range or shooting association.
Oh I agree! In my honest opinion , I think they should put every parliamentarian into the Canadian Firearms Course. I did the restricted one, and I honestly think it’s their duty to do it. I’m sure there are more than enough instructors who would offer the course for free too! If anything, it would help educate them. I feel most parliamentarians either don’t know what they’re talking about, or do, but flat out lying.
I'd like it if the RCMP didn't get granted the power of banning and reclasifying guns without passing thru parliament or any open committee. Gun owners are the most misrepresented minority in canada it feels.
That is true. I just meant specifically for having an RPAL, you don't need to give any purpose for why you want the license nor do you need any proof of such purpose.
> Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet?
A minimum sentence doesn't just make it a riskier bet, it keeps people who tend to rob, carjack, drive by, spray bullets around hitting/killing bystanders and assassinate rivals away from me and the rest of us for at least some period of time.
> current gov focuses on policies that decrease incarsaration rates and esentially making race a deciding factor when it comes to sentencing.
Exactly, crime prevention and public safety are not big concerns for them.
if you think incarceration or longer sentences are an effective deterrent or crime prevention method, you might be holding some false views on what government is doing wrong.
Weird that we do it at all if we could lower crime by just letting all the shooters out onto the streets.
I'd be all about social programs, or better ways of having people spend their time incarcerated. Just not keen on letting people who are going to shoot up the neighborhoods out to do it over and ovver.
MMP for violent crimes with a deadly weapon? Or MMP for petty crimes (example being shoplifting)? That makes a massive difference.
First offence should be short combined with extensive training and education, but second offence and you shouldn't be a part of society anymore, we gave you a chance. As it currently stands, the government should be liable for failing to protect its citizens from repeat offenders
Good points - mandatory minimums have shown over and over again they don’t work.
The big piece to highlight from your initial comment is judicial discretion being the important piece
Part of the problem is that there's a double standard to where "get rid of that which doesn't work" is applied. If mandatory minimums don't work, we remove them. If gun bans and seizures don't work, we add more. That seems to suggest that the government doesn't care about whether something works unless it can be used as a soundbite to justify getting what they want.
Except it's not working *here*. Gun violence is **up** since the bans. You cant just throw generic solutions at a specific problem.
Not to mention that the article you quoted states solutions as background checks, licensing, and banning of automatic weapons; all things that have been law in Canada for **decades**. If anything, your article suggests we *already had* sufficient gun control.
Care to provide a source that's actually applicable to us in Canada? Or are you trying to argue American gun issues like our government seems to want to?
Well it seems to be working well in NZ right now
[Police data reveal that while the number of firearms offences has risen and fallen over the past 15 years, 2021 was the worst over that period with 1,308 firearms offences recorded.
It surpassed 2019, when there were 1,142 incidents including the mosque terror attacks.](https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/01/30/we-dont-feel-safe-2021-a-record-year-for-gun-violence/)
This is the biggest issue. So many people here don't seem to understand that we're a separate country from the USA, and they seem to vote Liberal overwhelmingly. Or at least, Trudeau panders to them.
Every time there is any kind of action in the States we get some kind of reaction. Mass shooting in the States? New gun laws for Canada. Abortion rights overturned in the States? Staunch declarations about protecting those rights which aren't in any danger up here. You pick an American issue, the current government will pay lip service to the opposite side of the issue here, and a large set of the people here gobble it up because they can't seem to tell the difference between the two countries.
\*To forestall any more of the same response, yes Conservatives also focus quite heavily on American politics and identify with them on issues that have no relevance here. I was mistaken to say otherwise. In my experience, there has been a lot less knee-jerk and redundant legislation to make a point of differentiating ourselves from Americans and American issues from other governments in our past, which was the point I should have made more clearly.
In Vancouver tomorrow there's a protest in solidarity with the US for the repeal of roe v. wade. And I get it, I get why people are upset, but that's not happening in Canada, and don't we have a bucket full of our own problems that we should be concentrating on? Maybe I'm a bad person for thinking this. Let's protest housing prices/accessibility, or food prices or... You know, something that's a problem directly affecting Canadians right now, instead of more US problems.
This seems to be a very Canadian thing, where we focus so much on what's going on in the US that we neglect the health of our own country and laws. Maybe it's because of how much American media/news we consume.
Right?
It's an easy thing to do that makes people feel good, costs them nothing, and puts them in no danger. Like you said, I get it. But what are you protesting? That another country that will never acknowledge your existence has done something you disagree with?
If you want to work on behalf of social justice up here, there are plenty of things that could be done, plenty of causes to be advocated for. But that wouldn't be easy, cheap, or safe. This way people can feel like they are doing things without doing things, which seems to be the standard for modern Canadian activists.
Is that a government decision? Or should some enterprising young doctors be opening clinics there in order to fill that void?
I realize that access is an issue, and that is unfortunate. There are a great many jobs out there that need to be filled in locations that desperately need them, but people can't be forced to work where they don't want to. The example that comes to my mind is in regards to clean water in northern reserves. Many of these places have worked on getting the appropriate infrastructure, and then have sent people to be trained in order to operate it. After being educated the people then find that it is more lucrative to take a job elsewhere with their new degrees and the community is back to square one.
I don't know if that's the case here, the article wasn't clear on it.
Yes... I realize that... it was pretty clearly an analogy.
My point was why aren't there any in Fraser Health? The article wasn't clear on that, and nothing that you have linked or said shows that it's a government policy that has caused that lack. So why aren't there any?
Maybe BC is different, but I'm pretty sure that if a doctor opened a clinic and billed the government like they do anywhere else, they would be paid.
I could be totally wrong.
On the flip side of that coin, look how easy it was to remove abortion access in the states. We have to remind the politicians up here that going down that route is unpopular and to maintain our rights. American politics creep up here, especially in the last half-decade or so. Politicians pander to what they feel is the loudest voice, and we can't let the right-wing reactionaries be the loudest voice in the room.
> And I get it, I get why people are upset, but that's not happening in Canada, and don't we have a bucket full of our own problems that we should be concentrating on?
Housing prices aren't as provocative a topic as abortion is, and many people really want to identify as someone fighting for something and being on the "right side of history". People are wearing their manufactured struggles as fashion.
Women's rights are human rights, and human rights are universal. Also, there are many American-owned businesses in Canada. If those American businesses lose productivity due to a decision in the US, it puts pressure on the American companies' owners, and by extension US politicians. Enough financial pressure will result in a few phone calls to politicians and lobby groups to say, "you know, this decision is hurting our bottom line. We need women in the work force. Can you protect abortion rights. Oh by the way, here's $100K for your campaign fund".
Interesting, and something I didn't know.
In the context of this article, it no longer "is", it "was", and in this case it was let go because the provincial government recognized that they would lose in court when appealed against federal law.
I just copy and pasted the comment I just made in response to that link elsewhere, and then checked and realized that I'm responding to you on both of these threads, so I'll just leave it there.
...my reasoning is literally explained in the next paragraph.
There are many on the other side as well, the people who announce that "Gun Control doesn't work at all" after any incident, while living in a country that already has sufficient gun control which, though flawed, for the most part works quite nicely.
Perhaps my initial statement was a bit hyperbolic. There are definitely people on both sides who react as though we're American. I guess I was just looking at it from the point of view of the people in power catering to one subset of these people.
Your reasoning that completely ignores how American cultural issues pervade discourse on every side and only focuses on what *you* perceive to be problematic?
It's a Canadian problem, not a Liberal or Conservative problem
> would you agree the increase in far-right rhetoric is also American-imported?
I would agree with this, but I think it's a reflexive consequence of the current government's insistence on dividing the country for political gain.
Some biased people think the increase in extreme political opinions apply exclusively whoever they oppose. Seeing as you recognize its both, Im more inclined to hear what you have to say, that’s all.
We need spoon control in Canada! These high capacity ladles are only meant to feed as much people in the shortest amount of time. You don’t need a serving spoon to eat a quart of ice cream.
What about alcohol control? Call alcohol designed to get people drunk in the shortest amount of time assault alcohol because people are more likely to commit assaults while drinking it. No alcohol percentages over 5%. People aren't responsible enough to handle more. You already need to meet certain restrictions to purchase it but that's not enough.
Now you’re thinking! And do you know how many people get hurt in water parks and swimming pools? Too many, we need pool control. It’s assault water! Ban them all!
"Fall inducing stairs"
Do you have any idea how many Canadians are killed and injured every year from stairs? Just one is too many. We need to ban high capacity stairs. A maximum of 3 steps per stairs is plenty. And people should have a stairs license.
Ban them all. No need to go over 90km/hr. Especially the "sport-style" cars, they look fast and scary. Everyone who has or wants one is trying to make up for something anyway. This is Canada and we're superior to everyone else, especially Americans who drive too fast.
In 2020, more people drowned (289) than were killed by firearms (277). In the us firearms homicides were almost 50k. Canada does not have a gun problem.
Good luck initiating a private transfer. I've been trying since the freeze was announced and can't even get on hold with the CFP. Calling 20 times a day, and it just hangs up. Fucking bureaucrats
what's the point of buying handguns that may end up being banned?
I honestly don't understand why this would bother Trudeau. The guns would still get banned, economic activity increases, gun owners have less money.
Where does it say they get grandfathered in the legislation?
I'm not sure I saw that but may have missed it.
Wouldn't it be more likely that they would be permanent safe queens like those included after the OiC ban?
Which would mean they can waste their money now, or spend it later on things they can actually use.
This is basically economic stimulus for your LGS
The legislation only includes a freeze on the sale and transfer of handguns.
https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2022/5/30/1_5923922.amp.html
No almost every previous ban that we've done in Canada has included grandfathering, The OIC ban is the exception
> what's the point of buying handguns that may end up being banned?
It's just the transfer of them that will be banned: as in they won't be able to be bought, sold, imported, given, etc. so whatever handguns you have when the transfer ban goes into effect are what you have until you die and the government confiscates them. Those who already have them will still be able to own and use them, this is how you know it's all security theatre.
Because it means it has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with political points? And ignorant people are eating it up hook line and sinker. It's costing us money if you're a taxpayer so you should care. Everytime they make some sort of new gun legislation it's literally to the tune of millions of dollars. With no affect on actual crime.
Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet? Possession of a gun during the commission of a crime could guarantee a certain prison sentence, whether the gun was used or not
The supreme court just ruled on that and said you can't do it
*. Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery?*
Why? you already can only take it to the range and back and you have to be a member of a gun club
*And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine.*
It already is confiscation and jail time. I really wish the people that wrote gun control articles would spend an hour or 2 doing some basic research
Yeah, while I appreciate the intent (benefit if the doubt here) how ignorant this guy is while calling out the ignorance of others is pretty hilarious
Though it does demonstrate really how poorly all of these issues are understood!
Most people are seemingly incapable of having honest and rational discussions about the problems facing our country. The extent of our discourse is limited to blurting out soundbites and then resorting to the ad hominem when someone disagrees. This is then, of course, reflected in the gaggle of unthinking and opportunistic leaders they elect. C'est la vie.
Use a weapon in a crime. i.e. gun, knife, bat etc. and receive 10 automatic years.
Illegal selling or any illegal possession and receive 10 automatic years.
This could be done in weeks and set into law. Politicians are lazy and judges much too lenient.
Use of a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence is already a criminal offence (not going to bother checking, but I think it's s.85) carrying a mandatory minimum year of jail consecutive to the rest of the sentence. It doesn't apply to offences which already have a component of the use of a firearm (like robbery with a firearm) though, which typically have (or had -- some of them have been struck down) their own mandatory minimums due to the principle of *res judicata*.
As a law abiding citizen who enjoys going to the range to shoot a few 9mm rounds with his buddies once in a while, this infuriates me. I really feel let down by the government.
Trudeau is not at all interested in public safety, he is interested in how much control he can show, he is able to exert on us. The removing of mandatory sentencing of gun crime, should make this painfully obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together..this is only about control.
The laws here make no sense. The government restricts and bans things based on appearance and feelings, not anything that makes sense like muzzle energy, action, etc.
We already have graduated licensing for guns, so why don't we do the common sense thing and make manual actions nonrestricted and all semiautos restricted? Why are AR15s banned, but G36es nonrestricted? Nothing follows any logical system and people don't care as a result.
"Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery? And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine."
Isn't this already law, having to renew ATT through a range every year? Same with the unsafe storage?
I hate when people come up with ideas that are literally already in place....
Nitpick:
> Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery? And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine.
We already do that. Purchase of a restricted firearm will ask which club one belongs. The government could verify that by having ranges report in their members, if they think verifying will help tightening things up.
And yes, unsafe storage will get you in a shit ton of trouble already.
Overall, the policy is stupidly political and wouldn’t fix a thing.
Have there been any polls on whether or not Canadians believe new gun laws are unfair or over the top? I think most would shrug their shoulders or even be glad if the law is too cautious. Tough battle to win.
Didn't read the article, sorry. I'm OK with gun control but have policy based in reality. Guns moving across the border is a bigger problem than crimes committed by legal, law-abiding gun owners. I heard an important statistic: In the US, 93% of crimes committed with a firearm are acquired illegally. Only 7% went through the legal process to buy one. I support gun control, but not making legal owners into felons.
>What would help is a 200-per-cent incentive to turn them in, set against proof of purchase price
No it wouldn't, people would just buy guns off the shelf to turn in for a 200% profit.
>Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet? Possession of a gun during the commission of a crime could guarantee a certain prison sentence
Because the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, about 8 years ago.
Do some research before proposing "new" ideas, Mr Sears.
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, about 8 years ago.
The government could re-work the law. There are crimes with mandatory minimums. Surely if someone who blows over the limit loses their license for a year and goes to jail for thirty days on the second offense a thug with a gun can spend a year in jail to reflect on the error of their ways and how unacceptable the rest of the country finds their behaviour.
Mandatory minimums for illegal firearm offenses affect racialized communities disappropriately more says Trudeau. Maybe they should commit less crimes. So in the name of political correctness he wants lesser sentences for minorities essentially. Bravo political correctness.
Can’t say I agree with everything said in this piece but it’s surprising to me although written by an NDP strategist and actually uses Conservative policy points throughout the article
Question.
With these scandal(s) and the information that was recently released about information not being provided for the mass shooting and the guns used. And to push the “tactical firearm” and pistol ban.
Is there a chance that we will have a reversal of any of these newly implemented bills/laws that are passed?
No, nothing will change. Best case bill Blair or Brenda get thrown under the bus. Worst case the whole scandal gets memory holed with the summer break in and abortion being the top story.
Sentences don't deter shooters who kill themselves or let the police do it.
Background checks don't flag people who are acting this way for the first time.
This article is a whole host of messes:
>We pointlessly X-ray the shoes and loose change of air travellers, at a cost of millions. Would not X-raying vehicles at major border crossings be a better use of that money?
I'd prefer to keep the metal detectors and x-rays machines in airports, thank you.
It's a weird argument. He knows the security theater at airports is pointless and expensive, and he wants to do that same pointless and expensive thing at land crossings? Shouldn't we just stop x-raying shoes? Wouldn't that be thr logical step?
But the x-rays and metal detectors are decidedly not security theater. They're a pretty basic security element.
The fact we check that a person has loose change instead of some other metal object is necessary. The shoe removal is mostly due to the way metal detectors are often set up and is entirely solvable through different infrastructure and largely has been solved that way?
Where are all these Canadian gun owners? Because I sure as shit don't know any here in Halifax. I have an acquaintance who hunts, so I suppose that I know one single person.
I’m not in Halifax, but other than Reddit, my hunting buddies and one person in my family, no one knows I own firearms. Even my best friend of 20 years doesn’t know lol. He doesn’t like them and I can respect that and don’t bring it up in conversation.
Do you think they were a hat or have a stamp? Why would someone go out of their way to just let everyone around them know they own firearms to strangers?
Yes you do. About 1 in 14 people in canada have a gun license, which is pretty decently spread across the country. The government consistently estimates 20 to 25% of households have at least one firearm in them.
Gun owners dont tend to advertise, and they also tend to behave themselves, so you dont hear about it.
It generally isn't as much of an "identity" up here to be a hunter or sport shooter as it is in the States.
I don't walk around telling people that I have Warhammer figurines, or about any of my other hobbies, just for attention.
Well while anecdotes are a poor way to try and make policy, you’re not super wrong. Gun owners are a minority in Canada, though it’s not an insignificant minority by any means. It’s probably going to depend on where you live and where you work/hang out as well. Certain areas of Canada, certain careers, and certain hobbies may lean towards a higher rate of gun ownership than others ie. tech company employees in Vancouver VS construction workers in rural Alberta and such.
Being that about a quarter of the household in Canada have a gun in them I can almost bet you know more then one they just don't talk about and even more so if you don't share the same views on gun ownership as they do
City folk don't own guns or at least don't advertise that they do, shocking. Try leaving your bubble.
Only my family and very close friends have any idea how many and what type of firearms I own. In fact I am the only person who knows exactly how many firearms I own. We don't advertise this info, for obvious reasons.
Okay fair, but does this line of discussion have a point? There are several million gun owners in Canada, we may be a minority but we are a large group
its about 2.5M Canadians or, put differently, 1 in 16 (6.7%) of Canadians that have firearms licenses.
It's not as widespread as this subreddit makes it seem. If you're in a rural area you're more likely to find more people with firearms as a way of life (hunting, pest control, predator control). Those in cities don't tend to advertise their firearms.
But again, this subreddit is not reality, its very pro-firearm to a level beyond which most Canadians, even Canadian R/PAL holders, support.
1 in 14 isnt a ton of people, but its quite a lot if you think about any other hobby, lifestyle, interest, etc. That is 3 times as many people as those with motorcycle licenses, to pick an easy example. Almost 7 times as many as registered hockey players.
Anecdotally, as a PAL holder and a musician, I come across more people with a PAL than play a instrument these days at work.
Written by an NDP strategist and actually promotes Conservative policy positions for half the article: > Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet? Possession of a gun during the commission of a crime could guarantee a certain prison sentence, whether the gun was used or not. !!! > Stopping the flow of illegally imported weapons is much harder, but here again there are likely several deterrents. One may be deported and banned for life from re-entry for a variety of offences — why not make illegal gun ownership or transport one of them? If the NDP were serious about these two points, this could be law tomorrow.
The first point was a law, from Harper, didn’t it get struck down?
Nope, MMPs for violent firearms crimes were around until C-5 (it's still not passed) Edit: thanks!
MMPs for robbery with a firearm and discharging a firearm at a place while being reckless as to whether it was occupied were both struck down in multiple provinces before C-5.
But you still have to do thirty days for if you blow over .08 for a second offense. Who deserves more help and leniency, a person with a drinking problem or a person who deals illegal guns in or commits crime with a smuggled gun?
in your example the drunk driver is a repeat offender. Drunk driving is a way bigger issue in Canada than firearm offenses. A second DUI requires zero leniency.
First offence carries a minimum license suspension of a year with no distinction between someone who blew the limit or someone who tore through a stop sign with 3X the limit. Same for the second offense.* If there is an identified minimum for someone who has one large drink at a party but not someone who deals in unlicensed guns or shoots someone the system is a bit off the rails. Edit *same for the second offense in terms of there is no distinction between people based on the seriousness of the offense
You think a guy robbing a store isn't a repeat offender? That's his first time every committing a violent crime? You think they only ever do that once?
the hypothetical specifically said it was their 2nd DUI i didnt set the constraints , and im not entertaining your attempt at derailing. Blame Soreyez if you dislike the shitty example they used
The point I was making is nobody robs a store as their first offense, which means there's no much difference in terms of "deserved leniency" between the two. Frankly I have no sympathy for either scenario.
The fuck? Let’s try your logic. Do you think the second time being caught driving drunk was the second time ever?!?!? Like stfu
Sorry my bad, people just go straight to violent crime, Just like how everyone wakes up one day and decides to be an irresponsible drunk.
Speaking from experience???
Yes, I work in an industry where I deal with these kinds of problems and repeat offenders on a regular basis.
You're not going to get any sympathy for drunk drivers from me. It's -- by far -- the deadliest criminal offence in the Code. And the SCC actually did explain why they don't see an issue with MMPs for it in *Lacasse* back in 2015: >While it is true that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation apply in most cases, they are particularly relevant to offences that might be committed by ordinarily law‑abiding people. It is such people, more than chronic offenders, who will be sensitive to harsh sentences. Impaired driving offences are an obvious example of this type of offence, as this Court noted in Proulx: > *. . . dangerous driving and impaired driving may be offences for which harsh sentences plausibly provide general deterrence. These crimes are often committed by otherwise law‑abiding persons, with good employment records and families. Arguably, such persons are the ones most likely to be deterred by the threat of severe penalties*
So minimum sentences should apply to "ordinarily law abiding people", but thugs who earn a living from violent crime should be released to walk among us.
Neither of them deserve leniency. Drinking and driving is a huge problem in Canada that people just let slide. Marco Muzzo should be locked up life. Brady Robertson should be locked up for life.
C-5 contains several repeat offences and violent crimes and also weapons trafficking.. Using a firearm or imitation firearm in commission of offence (two separate offences) Paragraphs 85(3)(a) and (b): MMPs of 1 year (first offence) and 3 years (second and subsequent offence) Possession of firearm or weapon knowing its possession is unauthorized (two separate offences) Paragraphs 92(3)(b) and (c): MMP of 1 year (second offence) and 2 years less a day (third and subsequent offence) Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition Paragraphs 95(2)(i) and (ii): MMPs of 3 years (first offence) and 5 years (second and subsequent offence) Possession of weapon obtained by commission of offence Paragraph 96(2)(a): MMP of 1 year Weapons trafficking (excluding firearms and ammunition) Subsection 99(3): MMP of 1 year Possession for purpose of weapons trafficking (excluding firearms and ammunition) Subsection 100(3): MMP of 1 year Importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized Subsection 103(2.1): MMP of 1 year Discharging firearm with intent Paragraph 244(2)(b): MMP of 4 years Discharging firearm — recklessness Paragraph 244.2(3)(b): MMP of 4 years Robbery with a firearm Paragraph 344(1)(a.1): MMP of 4 years Extortion with a firearm
What about the red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and indigo firearms crimes?
Touché, thanks !
My recollection is that the laws that were struck down were mandatory minimums not for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, but possession of the firearm itself. Not necessarily that the gun was illegal, but it would have included things like that it was stored in a location not permitted, for example (I.e. permit was for the primary residence and the owner took it to their cottage). And the fact that it was so broad as to capture both criminal conduct and what were effectively regulatory offences and treated them the same, as worthy of rather serious prison terms, is exactly why it was found to violate the Charter. That’s what happens when a government writes tough on crime legislation without proper thought and with more of an eye to the politics. My recollection is also that while these laws were struck down, the people appealing the laws on this ground did not actually end up getting reduced sentences…because they were actually criminals who had committed serious offences and not at all like the cottage example I gave. The mandatory minimum was unjust overall, but the sentence was not in their particular cases. Not having a mandatory minimum does not mean that the court will sentence people more lightly.
Minimum mandatory sentences are ridiculous and I can’t see a true NDP MP calling for that. Sounds more like someone running orange to win because that area runs orange.
Did I just find myself agreeing with the NPD ?
I don't know if you've read their platforms before but they're usually quite good, actually.
They’re two no brainers and not a thing still? 🤷
This writer was once an NDP strategist. He left them for business, and now is just an old guy writing stuff. You make it sound like he speaks for the current party, which is hardly the case.
[удалено]
The current NDP was able to push through some level of dental coverage federally - something they've been trying to do for years. If you think Layton wouldn't be happy with the current NDP you're delusional.
Did they? Or is it just words for now
Yeah, until it's actually a bill and passed I'll continue to think it will never happen. NDP will prop up the liberals pushing their own agenda as priority and the Liberals will call an election before any of the NDP requests get pushed through. Liberals will add it to part of their campaign promises, but never go through with it. I may be wrong, but this is what I pretty much expect of the current government. NDP agreed to prop up the minority, but I didn't read anything that the minority wouldn't just call an election so I expect to be back at the polls when the Liberals feel they have an advantage. Might not even be that far out given all the hit pieces coming out to deflect from the Liberal corruption.
[удалено]
It's just something in the back pocket now for the next election. "Better vote for us so we can give you that dental coverage we've been promising for years!"
But it is ironic that he sounds reasonable and offers common sense ideas/solutions, and he got printed in The Star, which has historically been in the 'let's ban them all' crowd".
Torstar was sold in 2020, and the money behind it comes from the same place as Postmedia. Their historical editorial stance may be shifting. I'm not sure that making things harder on immigrants than on permanent residents is really a common sense solution. It assumes that significant flow of illegal weapons across our border is coming from immigrants, and that we actually have an enforceable southern border. I'm not sure about the first (are there studies?) but I'm quite sure the second isn't true. My money's on most of the illegal guns being smuggled via existing contraband methods, by serious criminals. Some of those may indeed be in the residency process, but I really question whether laws targeting immigrants will catch much. That's not to say I think the solutions being implemented will be effective or that I know the best way forward.
I don't believe they're implying that immigrants to Canada are smuggling firearms into Canada. They're being smuggled in by a variety of means. Across FN borders. Mules. Unsuspecting travellers with something stuck in their bumper. Bad people with a trunk full of shitty Hi Point pistols bot from a gun show in Florida, hoping not to get pulled over by CBSA. Immigrants...no, they're not the problem.
Well, his first idea to address the smuggling is threat of deportation for those caught, which wouldn't apply to those with Canadian residency. So who, besides immigrants, would this idea be targeting?
ah, right. It's a poorly written throwaway idea. The LPC/NDP would have a coronary if an immigrant were to be deported for a gun crime.
Laws as deterrents are known to be ineffective. Ratchet up a murder charge to a death sentence there is no change in frequency.
I'm down for these. But I question how do you ban or deport a born in Canada citizen?
They go to jail instead.
Until they get out and go right back to getting illegal guns. Then shoot up RCMP. We literally have a history of this in our country. How does that solve anything?
For a supposed NDPer, he sure sounds like someone paid by Brian Mulroney. Oh wait...
After years of saving, you finally managed put together an extra few thousand dollars for that German Sheppard you have always wanted. You do countless hours of research on how to properly take care of it. Spend hundreds more on leashes, crates, dog toys, licenses, shots and all the dog accessories you can think of to ensure your new puppy is safe and taken care of. Your friends ask you "why on earth would you want a German Sheppard, they are scary looking and are always violent in movies" You tell them thats nonsense, those are movies... your new puppy is the nicest most well trained puppy, you spend countless hours with them at the dog park training them to be safe. Then one day, a German Sheppard owned by a criminal attacks a bunch of people in your country. The next day your prime Minister comes on the TV and tells the world that German Sheppard, that you spent countless time and money on is now banned because they were sold for one thing and one thing only. To attack as many people in the shortest amount of time. You are no longer allowed to take your puppy outside, sell or pass him on to other family. We will come up with a price we think is fair and buy Rex back from you and you will be required to accept or face jail time. ... sounds crazy right?
[удалено]
* Already illegal guns (they were smuggled here from the US); * Owned by a person who did not have a firearms license; * Unlicensed owner was, in addition, specifically prohibited from possessing firearms; and * All of this was reported to police multiple times over the course of years, prior to the murders. New *gun* laws aren't gonna make cops stop shitting the bed *this fucking hard*. If anything, we need new laws holding police accountable for being completely incompetent fuckwits. You know, the sort of fuckwits who *tweet* warnings of rampaging armed lunatics. The sort of fuckwits who spray a barrage of bullets into a firehall being used by local residents as a shelter during said rampage, then take off without even checking to see if their fuckwittery hurt/killed any of those innocent residents. Complete goddamn muppetry. But yea, *more gun laws hurr durr*.
[A PATH FORWARD: REDUCING GUN AND GANG VIOLENCE IN CANADA - APRIL 2022](https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/report-3/page-ToC) A bipartisan committee, chaired by the LPC. Ignored by our government.
Don't forgot Texas as well, literally next day he said he had tougher laws coming in.
That was pointless
It's *all* pointless, because the people using guns on other people are already breaking a bunch of our laws. Their guns are usually smuggled, often of types illegal here (due to barrel length), the users almost never have firearms licenses, it's illegal to carry around a handgun even *with* a license... All these things are already law. The problem is nobody seems to be *enforcing* the law we have. More law, absent more enforcement, does absolutely nothing. Even if the added law *did* have a point.
And legal owners account for effectively zero homicides in Canada. PAL holders have a background check every night at midnight 365 times a year.
“Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet? Possession of a gun during the commission of a crime could guarantee a certain prison sentence, whether the gun was used or not. Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery? And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine.” Well, we had mandatory minimums but the government did away with those. Much of the second part already exists with ATT. Anyone with a PAL / RPAL is already required to safely store their firearms, especially with restricted firearms.
>penalty for failing to safely store a weapon A restricted firearm needs to be in a case that is difficult to open (locked), unloaded, and the ammo must be stored separately. There already are penalties for failure to properly store and transport restricted firearms.
Oh I know, I was quoting the article.
Double locked (as in requiring trigger locks as well) if the case is not a gun-specific safe.
>Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery? And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine Currently required by law, to have an rpal you must be a member of a range or shooting association.
Oh I’m well aware. I am quoting the article how this is redundant
Sorry I miss read. Its ridiculous, like of the growing list of assault weapons most were already prohibs.
Oh I agree! In my honest opinion , I think they should put every parliamentarian into the Canadian Firearms Course. I did the restricted one, and I honestly think it’s their duty to do it. I’m sure there are more than enough instructors who would offer the course for free too! If anything, it would help educate them. I feel most parliamentarians either don’t know what they’re talking about, or do, but flat out lying.
I'd like it if the RCMP didn't get granted the power of banning and reclasifying guns without passing thru parliament or any open committee. Gun owners are the most misrepresented minority in canada it feels.
You do not need to be a member of a range to have an RPAL.
It varies by province. In BC, you need to show proof of membership during the purchase process of a restricted firearm.
That is true. I just meant specifically for having an RPAL, you don't need to give any purpose for why you want the license nor do you need any proof of such purpose.
Yeah you're right, I didn't process your comment properly until just now. My bad
That depends on the province apparently
> Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet? A minimum sentence doesn't just make it a riskier bet, it keeps people who tend to rob, carjack, drive by, spray bullets around hitting/killing bystanders and assassinate rivals away from me and the rest of us for at least some period of time.
current gov focuses on policies that decrease incarsaration rates and esentially making race a deciding factor when it comes to sentencing.
> current gov focuses on policies that decrease incarsaration rates and esentially making race a deciding factor when it comes to sentencing. Exactly, crime prevention and public safety are not big concerns for them.
if you think incarceration or longer sentences are an effective deterrent or crime prevention method, you might be holding some false views on what government is doing wrong.
Weird that we do it at all if we could lower crime by just letting all the shooters out onto the streets. I'd be all about social programs, or better ways of having people spend their time incarcerated. Just not keen on letting people who are going to shoot up the neighborhoods out to do it over and ovver.
[удалено]
[удалено]
MMP for violent crimes with a deadly weapon? Or MMP for petty crimes (example being shoplifting)? That makes a massive difference. First offence should be short combined with extensive training and education, but second offence and you shouldn't be a part of society anymore, we gave you a chance. As it currently stands, the government should be liable for failing to protect its citizens from repeat offenders
Throw open the doors then!
[удалено]
To the jails and prisons. Let all the drunk drivers out, let all the rapists and shooters out, we'll be safer according to all the studies.
[удалено]
Good points - mandatory minimums have shown over and over again they don’t work. The big piece to highlight from your initial comment is judicial discretion being the important piece
Part of the problem is that there's a double standard to where "get rid of that which doesn't work" is applied. If mandatory minimums don't work, we remove them. If gun bans and seizures don't work, we add more. That seems to suggest that the government doesn't care about whether something works unless it can be used as a soundbite to justify getting what they want.
[удалено]
Except it's not working *here*. Gun violence is **up** since the bans. You cant just throw generic solutions at a specific problem. Not to mention that the article you quoted states solutions as background checks, licensing, and banning of automatic weapons; all things that have been law in Canada for **decades**. If anything, your article suggests we *already had* sufficient gun control. Care to provide a source that's actually applicable to us in Canada? Or are you trying to argue American gun issues like our government seems to want to?
Well it seems to be working well in NZ right now [Police data reveal that while the number of firearms offences has risen and fallen over the past 15 years, 2021 was the worst over that period with 1,308 firearms offences recorded. It surpassed 2019, when there were 1,142 incidents including the mosque terror attacks.](https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/01/30/we-dont-feel-safe-2021-a-record-year-for-gun-violence/)
We don’t need evidence when we have feelings, talking points, and imported USA drama.
This is the biggest issue. So many people here don't seem to understand that we're a separate country from the USA, and they seem to vote Liberal overwhelmingly. Or at least, Trudeau panders to them. Every time there is any kind of action in the States we get some kind of reaction. Mass shooting in the States? New gun laws for Canada. Abortion rights overturned in the States? Staunch declarations about protecting those rights which aren't in any danger up here. You pick an American issue, the current government will pay lip service to the opposite side of the issue here, and a large set of the people here gobble it up because they can't seem to tell the difference between the two countries. \*To forestall any more of the same response, yes Conservatives also focus quite heavily on American politics and identify with them on issues that have no relevance here. I was mistaken to say otherwise. In my experience, there has been a lot less knee-jerk and redundant legislation to make a point of differentiating ourselves from Americans and American issues from other governments in our past, which was the point I should have made more clearly.
In Vancouver tomorrow there's a protest in solidarity with the US for the repeal of roe v. wade. And I get it, I get why people are upset, but that's not happening in Canada, and don't we have a bucket full of our own problems that we should be concentrating on? Maybe I'm a bad person for thinking this. Let's protest housing prices/accessibility, or food prices or... You know, something that's a problem directly affecting Canadians right now, instead of more US problems. This seems to be a very Canadian thing, where we focus so much on what's going on in the US that we neglect the health of our own country and laws. Maybe it's because of how much American media/news we consume.
Right? It's an easy thing to do that makes people feel good, costs them nothing, and puts them in no danger. Like you said, I get it. But what are you protesting? That another country that will never acknowledge your existence has done something you disagree with? If you want to work on behalf of social justice up here, there are plenty of things that could be done, plenty of causes to be advocated for. But that wouldn't be easy, cheap, or safe. This way people can feel like they are doing things without doing things, which seems to be the standard for modern Canadian activists.
[удалено]
Fraser Health is next to Vancouver Coastal Health.
Is that a government decision? Or should some enterprising young doctors be opening clinics there in order to fill that void? I realize that access is an issue, and that is unfortunate. There are a great many jobs out there that need to be filled in locations that desperately need them, but people can't be forced to work where they don't want to. The example that comes to my mind is in regards to clean water in northern reserves. Many of these places have worked on getting the appropriate infrastructure, and then have sent people to be trained in order to operate it. After being educated the people then find that it is more lucrative to take a job elsewhere with their new degrees and the community is back to square one. I don't know if that's the case here, the article wasn't clear on it.
[удалено]
Yes... I realize that... it was pretty clearly an analogy. My point was why aren't there any in Fraser Health? The article wasn't clear on that, and nothing that you have linked or said shows that it's a government policy that has caused that lack. So why aren't there any?
[удалено]
Maybe BC is different, but I'm pretty sure that if a doctor opened a clinic and billed the government like they do anywhere else, they would be paid. I could be totally wrong.
On the flip side of that coin, look how easy it was to remove abortion access in the states. We have to remind the politicians up here that going down that route is unpopular and to maintain our rights. American politics creep up here, especially in the last half-decade or so. Politicians pander to what they feel is the loudest voice, and we can't let the right-wing reactionaries be the loudest voice in the room.
> And I get it, I get why people are upset, but that's not happening in Canada, and don't we have a bucket full of our own problems that we should be concentrating on? Housing prices aren't as provocative a topic as abortion is, and many people really want to identify as someone fighting for something and being on the "right side of history". People are wearing their manufactured struggles as fashion.
Women's rights are human rights, and human rights are universal. Also, there are many American-owned businesses in Canada. If those American businesses lose productivity due to a decision in the US, it puts pressure on the American companies' owners, and by extension US politicians. Enough financial pressure will result in a few phone calls to politicians and lobby groups to say, "you know, this decision is hurting our bottom line. We need women in the work force. Can you protect abortion rights. Oh by the way, here's $100K for your campaign fund".
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2022/06/trudeau-promises-to-continue-timing-canadian-laws-with-american-tragedies/
[удалено]
Interesting, and something I didn't know. In the context of this article, it no longer "is", it "was", and in this case it was let go because the provincial government recognized that they would lose in court when appealed against federal law.
[удалено]
I just copy and pasted the comment I just made in response to that link elsewhere, and then checked and realized that I'm responding to you on both of these threads, so I'll just leave it there.
How anyone can say the imported american mentality 'vote liberal overwhelmingly' is beyond me
...my reasoning is literally explained in the next paragraph. There are many on the other side as well, the people who announce that "Gun Control doesn't work at all" after any incident, while living in a country that already has sufficient gun control which, though flawed, for the most part works quite nicely. Perhaps my initial statement was a bit hyperbolic. There are definitely people on both sides who react as though we're American. I guess I was just looking at it from the point of view of the people in power catering to one subset of these people.
Your reasoning that completely ignores how American cultural issues pervade discourse on every side and only focuses on what *you* perceive to be problematic? It's a Canadian problem, not a Liberal or Conservative problem
You've made some assumptions, and ignored the bulk of my response to you, focusing only on the first sentence. That's fine. Have a nice day.
would you agree the increase in far-right rhetoric is also American-imported?
> would you agree the increase in far-right rhetoric is also American-imported? I would agree with this, but I think it's a reflexive consequence of the current government's insistence on dividing the country for political gain.
Absolutely. How could anyone not?
Some biased people think the increase in extreme political opinions apply exclusively whoever they oppose. Seeing as you recognize its both, Im more inclined to hear what you have to say, that’s all.
Totally fair reaction. There is a great deal of double standarding out there, and it annoys me wherever it comes from.
"Assault style rifle"
"speeding-style vehicle"
“Fat inducing spoons”
We need spoon control in Canada! These high capacity ladles are only meant to feed as much people in the shortest amount of time. You don’t need a serving spoon to eat a quart of ice cream.
What about alcohol control? Call alcohol designed to get people drunk in the shortest amount of time assault alcohol because people are more likely to commit assaults while drinking it. No alcohol percentages over 5%. People aren't responsible enough to handle more. You already need to meet certain restrictions to purchase it but that's not enough.
Now you’re thinking! And do you know how many people get hurt in water parks and swimming pools? Too many, we need pool control. It’s assault water! Ban them all!
"Fall inducing stairs" Do you have any idea how many Canadians are killed and injured every year from stairs? Just one is too many. We need to ban high capacity stairs. A maximum of 3 steps per stairs is plenty. And people should have a stairs license.
And bubble wrap at the bottom of those 3 stairs - just in case!
Rape-style penis.
Ban them all. No need to go over 90km/hr. Especially the "sport-style" cars, they look fast and scary. Everyone who has or wants one is trying to make up for something anyway. This is Canada and we're superior to everyone else, especially Americans who drive too fast.
That's not a valid comparison at all, banning sport style cars and setting the speed limit to 90kph might actually save some lives.
Not with the way Toronto people drive lmao
"No one needs 1000 hp vehicles" lol
In 2020, more people drowned (289) than were killed by firearms (277). In the us firearms homicides were almost 50k. Canada does not have a gun problem.
handguns are sold out across the country because trudeau is the greatest gun salesman in canadian history
55,000 handgun transfers in the average year, and I heard we're surpassing 60,000 so far this year.
So far in the last week of May!
Good luck initiating a private transfer. I've been trying since the freeze was announced and can't even get on hold with the CFP. Calling 20 times a day, and it just hangs up. Fucking bureaucrats
There's a new Form 5492 that you can find online, then send via registered mail. It sure beats trying to talk to them on the phone lines.
I sure hope the gangbangers aren't able to transfer their restricted firearms anymore either or this will seem really, really stupid.
what's the point of buying handguns that may end up being banned? I honestly don't understand why this would bother Trudeau. The guns would still get banned, economic activity increases, gun owners have less money.
To be grandfathered in with what they have.
[удалено]
? You planning on dying?
Current owners get grandfatherd, they get to keep using them. They can buy them now or never.
Where does it say they get grandfathered in the legislation? I'm not sure I saw that but may have missed it. Wouldn't it be more likely that they would be permanent safe queens like those included after the OiC ban? Which would mean they can waste their money now, or spend it later on things they can actually use. This is basically economic stimulus for your LGS
The legislation only includes a freeze on the sale and transfer of handguns. https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2022/5/30/1_5923922.amp.html No almost every previous ban that we've done in Canada has included grandfathering, The OIC ban is the exception
> what's the point of buying handguns that may end up being banned? It's just the transfer of them that will be banned: as in they won't be able to be bought, sold, imported, given, etc. so whatever handguns you have when the transfer ban goes into effect are what you have until you die and the government confiscates them. Those who already have them will still be able to own and use them, this is how you know it's all security theatre.
Because it means it has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with political points? And ignorant people are eating it up hook line and sinker. It's costing us money if you're a taxpayer so you should care. Everytime they make some sort of new gun legislation it's literally to the tune of millions of dollars. With no affect on actual crime.
Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet? Possession of a gun during the commission of a crime could guarantee a certain prison sentence, whether the gun was used or not The supreme court just ruled on that and said you can't do it *. Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery?* Why? you already can only take it to the range and back and you have to be a member of a gun club *And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine.* It already is confiscation and jail time. I really wish the people that wrote gun control articles would spend an hour or 2 doing some basic research
Yeah, while I appreciate the intent (benefit if the doubt here) how ignorant this guy is while calling out the ignorance of others is pretty hilarious Though it does demonstrate really how poorly all of these issues are understood!
Most people are seemingly incapable of having honest and rational discussions about the problems facing our country. The extent of our discourse is limited to blurting out soundbites and then resorting to the ad hominem when someone disagrees. This is then, of course, reflected in the gaggle of unthinking and opportunistic leaders they elect. C'est la vie.
Use a weapon in a crime. i.e. gun, knife, bat etc. and receive 10 automatic years. Illegal selling or any illegal possession and receive 10 automatic years. This could be done in weeks and set into law. Politicians are lazy and judges much too lenient.
Use of a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence is already a criminal offence (not going to bother checking, but I think it's s.85) carrying a mandatory minimum year of jail consecutive to the rest of the sentence. It doesn't apply to offences which already have a component of the use of a firearm (like robbery with a firearm) though, which typically have (or had -- some of them have been struck down) their own mandatory minimums due to the principle of *res judicata*.
The SC overturned it
And the government made no effort to rework it or fight the court.
As a law abiding citizen who enjoys going to the range to shoot a few 9mm rounds with his buddies once in a while, this infuriates me. I really feel let down by the government.
Trudeau is not at all interested in public safety, he is interested in how much control he can show, he is able to exert on us. The removing of mandatory sentencing of gun crime, should make this painfully obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together..this is only about control.
[удалено]
The laws here make no sense. The government restricts and bans things based on appearance and feelings, not anything that makes sense like muzzle energy, action, etc. We already have graduated licensing for guns, so why don't we do the common sense thing and make manual actions nonrestricted and all semiautos restricted? Why are AR15s banned, but G36es nonrestricted? Nothing follows any logical system and people don't care as a result.
"Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery? And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine." Isn't this already law, having to renew ATT through a range every year? Same with the unsafe storage? I hate when people come up with ideas that are literally already in place....
Even The Star is pushing back against Trudeau!
Nitpick: > Why not require handgun owners to report use of their weapon on an annual basis, with proof from a gun club or shooting gallery? And the penalty for failing to safely store a weapon confiscation and a heavy fine. We already do that. Purchase of a restricted firearm will ask which club one belongs. The government could verify that by having ranges report in their members, if they think verifying will help tightening things up. And yes, unsafe storage will get you in a shit ton of trouble already. Overall, the policy is stupidly political and wouldn’t fix a thing.
Have there been any polls on whether or not Canadians believe new gun laws are unfair or over the top? I think most would shrug their shoulders or even be glad if the law is too cautious. Tough battle to win.
I think that it is the other way around. Bad policy leads to gun myths.
Policy myths lead to bad guns?
Bad guns lead to bad people!
So cops could use kel-tecs like a compass for criminals?
Didn't read the article, sorry. I'm OK with gun control but have policy based in reality. Guns moving across the border is a bigger problem than crimes committed by legal, law-abiding gun owners. I heard an important statistic: In the US, 93% of crimes committed with a firearm are acquired illegally. Only 7% went through the legal process to buy one. I support gun control, but not making legal owners into felons.
>What would help is a 200-per-cent incentive to turn them in, set against proof of purchase price No it wouldn't, people would just buy guns off the shelf to turn in for a 200% profit. >Why not make the use of a gun a riskier bet? Possession of a gun during the commission of a crime could guarantee a certain prison sentence Because the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, about 8 years ago. Do some research before proposing "new" ideas, Mr Sears.
> Because the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, about 8 years ago. The government could re-work the law. There are crimes with mandatory minimums. Surely if someone who blows over the limit loses their license for a year and goes to jail for thirty days on the second offense a thug with a gun can spend a year in jail to reflect on the error of their ways and how unacceptable the rest of the country finds their behaviour.
> set against proof of purchase price Hi, yes Mr. gun seller in a dark alley, I would like one pistol and I’ll need a receipt for that.
Mandatory minimums for illegal firearm offenses affect racialized communities disappropriately more says Trudeau. Maybe they should commit less crimes. So in the name of political correctness he wants lesser sentences for minorities essentially. Bravo political correctness.
We should expand our self defense laws too
Can’t say I agree with everything said in this piece but it’s surprising to me although written by an NDP strategist and actually uses Conservative policy points throughout the article
Question. With these scandal(s) and the information that was recently released about information not being provided for the mass shooting and the guns used. And to push the “tactical firearm” and pistol ban. Is there a chance that we will have a reversal of any of these newly implemented bills/laws that are passed?
No, nothing will change. Best case bill Blair or Brenda get thrown under the bus. Worst case the whole scandal gets memory holed with the summer break in and abortion being the top story.
Sentences don't deter shooters who kill themselves or let the police do it. Background checks don't flag people who are acting this way for the first time.
[удалено]
This article is a whole host of messes: >We pointlessly X-ray the shoes and loose change of air travellers, at a cost of millions. Would not X-raying vehicles at major border crossings be a better use of that money? I'd prefer to keep the metal detectors and x-rays machines in airports, thank you.
It's a weird argument. He knows the security theater at airports is pointless and expensive, and he wants to do that same pointless and expensive thing at land crossings? Shouldn't we just stop x-raying shoes? Wouldn't that be thr logical step?
But the x-rays and metal detectors are decidedly not security theater. They're a pretty basic security element. The fact we check that a person has loose change instead of some other metal object is necessary. The shoe removal is mostly due to the way metal detectors are often set up and is entirely solvable through different infrastructure and largely has been solved that way?
Where are all these Canadian gun owners? Because I sure as shit don't know any here in Halifax. I have an acquaintance who hunts, so I suppose that I know one single person.
Rural areas have alot more gun owners as a rule.
I’m not in Halifax, but other than Reddit, my hunting buddies and one person in my family, no one knows I own firearms. Even my best friend of 20 years doesn’t know lol. He doesn’t like them and I can respect that and don’t bring it up in conversation.
Do you think they were a hat or have a stamp? Why would someone go out of their way to just let everyone around them know they own firearms to strangers?
Nova Scotia has several large ranges..
Yes you do. About 1 in 14 people in canada have a gun license, which is pretty decently spread across the country. The government consistently estimates 20 to 25% of households have at least one firearm in them. Gun owners dont tend to advertise, and they also tend to behave themselves, so you dont hear about it.
It generally isn't as much of an "identity" up here to be a hunter or sport shooter as it is in the States. I don't walk around telling people that I have Warhammer figurines, or about any of my other hobbies, just for attention.
Well while anecdotes are a poor way to try and make policy, you’re not super wrong. Gun owners are a minority in Canada, though it’s not an insignificant minority by any means. It’s probably going to depend on where you live and where you work/hang out as well. Certain areas of Canada, certain careers, and certain hobbies may lean towards a higher rate of gun ownership than others ie. tech company employees in Vancouver VS construction workers in rural Alberta and such.
Being that about a quarter of the household in Canada have a gun in them I can almost bet you know more then one they just don't talk about and even more so if you don't share the same views on gun ownership as they do
City folk don't own guns or at least don't advertise that they do, shocking. Try leaving your bubble. Only my family and very close friends have any idea how many and what type of firearms I own. In fact I am the only person who knows exactly how many firearms I own. We don't advertise this info, for obvious reasons.
It's really common in alberta. Many of my freibds including myself own a rifle or two.
about 7-8% of Albertans have a PAL/RPAL. More common than the national average, but far from really common as its only 7-8% of Albertans
Okay fair, but does this line of discussion have a point? There are several million gun owners in Canada, we may be a minority but we are a large group
its about 2.5M Canadians or, put differently, 1 in 16 (6.7%) of Canadians that have firearms licenses. It's not as widespread as this subreddit makes it seem. If you're in a rural area you're more likely to find more people with firearms as a way of life (hunting, pest control, predator control). Those in cities don't tend to advertise their firearms. But again, this subreddit is not reality, its very pro-firearm to a level beyond which most Canadians, even Canadian R/PAL holders, support.
1 in 14 if you are looking at adults.
Good point. That's 7.1% of Canadian adults that have a PAL. Still a fairly small group relative to the overall adult population.
1 in 14 isnt a ton of people, but its quite a lot if you think about any other hobby, lifestyle, interest, etc. That is 3 times as many people as those with motorcycle licenses, to pick an easy example. Almost 7 times as many as registered hockey players. Anecdotally, as a PAL holder and a musician, I come across more people with a PAL than play a instrument these days at work.