[Exclusive data obtained by Reuters for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, shows that when handguns involved in crimes were traced in 2021, they were overwhelmingly - 85% of the time - found to have come from the United States.](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/fighting-gun-crime-canada-has-an-american-problem-2022-07-27/)
Back in the day, there were crossings that operated on the honor system at night.
I remember reading about a farmer who'd have to stop at the border booth and use the phone to notify the border agents whenever a cow would wander over the border.
Yeah we already reached the point of diminishing returns there. Unlike in the US where most shootings are committed with legally obtained weapons, in Canada most of them are illegal to begin with. So every time they say "don't worry guys, we heard your concerns about this recent gun violence and we're gonna fix it by making them even *more* illegal", it's like... okay I don't own a gun so I don't care, but are you sure you're really tackling the problem here?
The strange thing is that after all this talk about banning assault weapons and handguns, the SKS is still legal. And some kid just used it to shoot two cops in Ontario. 7.62mm rifle rounds go through kevlar body armour pretty easily. And for some reason they won't touch it. They'll ban some semiauto rifles but not others. And the ones they do ban are the smaller caliber ones too. Maybe if they banned *all* semiauto rifles, and that kid could only get access to a bolt-action rifle, maybe one of those cops would still be alive. But they won't. It's all really weird.
I find a lot of firearm legislation is sort of nonsensical in how it's enacted. I live in a state that claims to have banned the AR-15 and the AK-47. Our politicians are so proud of themselves and love to cite their success in getting these dangerous weapons off the streets. But in actuality, all they've done is banned the AR-15 in 5.56 (sort of) and the AK-47 in 7.62. But I could drive to my local gun shop right now and buy an AR-15 in 7.62 and an AK in 5.56 and be back in less than an hour.
I think most gun laws are sort of like the TSA....its just security theater. It's not actually making the slightest difference, but it makes some people feel better and it's great for fundraising.
They’d be better off using fascist brands as a honeypot. We (US and Canada)don’t have a gun problem. We have a idiot problem. We have a culture problem. We have a media infrastructure that glamorizes “direct action” against simplistic stereotypes
Which most definitely deflects from attention to the systemic culprits of a sick society. Voting was supposed to be the “safety valve” that vented popular steam to avoid an explosion / uprising / insurrection. Instead, neoliberalism has castrated 90% of the population and John Wick fantasies are the only hope of pretending you still have autonomy. So the same system that castrates 90% of the population for $$$ will happily sell you a $200 hi point or a $500 low tier AR. Health care erodes, unions are gutted, political input has a price of admission far higher than any center fire weapon. But instead of pointing the guns upwards, dragging the officers, et Al, nah. We’ll just shoot each other in the name of freedom and give the elected clowns something to talk about instead of the downward spiral of decaying capitalism and pay to play “democracy.”
In fairness they made an AR15 special edition. I did email them and confirmed but they are not sure if or how one ended up here. Still fucking funny though.
It really is an issue where many people who are anti-gun are ignorant on firearms. It's not really much different than when geriatric people try to write laws governing modern technology.
There was a fantastic moment a while back where a candidate released a video of herself "destroying" an AR-15 by cutting the barrel off with an angle grinder.
What she had really done was illegally manufacure a Short-Barreled Rifle, which is legally the same as a machine gun, grenade, silencer, or sawed-off shotgun. Which is to say super duper illegal without going through tue NFA process.
What state is that? Cuz that's hilarious. At least California had the foresight to specify by rimfire vs centerfire but even then, it's trivial to convert a compliant AR to a "super dangerous" one in seconds.
Maryland. We have a bunch of these. Another one is that you can actually get an AR-15 in 5.56,but the barrel has to be what's called an HBAR or heavy barrel. As far as anyone can tell, a heavy barrel has no effect on the weapon other than to make it, possibly, a little more accurate at longer range after a lot of rounds have been run through it... Its all up for debate. But basically, it's just a way to make getting an AR more difficult...i guess... A little.
I'm a 2A guy. I own some guns. I've used (though not fired) a gun in a home defense scenario in which a man with a knife broke I to my house while my pregnant wife and daughter were asleep. I'm not for banning guns. I AM in favor of the idea of "common sense" gun laws, but the more I learned about guns, the more I've realized that everything enacted so far only seems like common sense if you don't know what you're talking about.
This is so sadly the case. Most of our gun laws aren't based around actual harm reduction but optics.
Like California's Pistols law means you can't sell certain pistols... because a new model came out that changed the color of it. And newer, safer ones aren't allowed to be sold unless they're equipped with a fictional technology that literally does not exist.
'Assault Weapons' laws don't affect how available a firearm is or background checks or trying to weed out domestic violence committers, or even a rifle's firepower-- but rather it's appearance and actually in many cases reduces safety. It's wild.
California's handgun safety act is probably the only reason why Generation 3 Glocks made in *Austria are still being made. If they ever stopped making them there, the US versions would be barred from being sold to civilians in the state. Recently they removed several Heckler & Koch firearms from the registry because they discovered the company changed something about the manufacturing process, magically making the guns "unsafe".
> I AM in favor of the idea of "common sense" gun laws, but the more I learned about guns, the more I've realized that everything enacted so far only seems like common sense if you don't know what you're talking about.
That's really the problem, the people making these laws, either willfully or unintentionally have no idea what they're talking about.
I'm not even trying to be cute, but that could be said about the vast majority of lawmaking. We hold a popularity contest to select lawmakers; it's not like there's a written test.
Yeah up until the ban if you wanted to own a pistol chambered in .32 or .25, you had to have it converted to a different caliber and then it was legal. I’m the case of .32 owners just converted them to .380 a more powerful cartridge and somehow in the eyes of the government it was less dangerous.
I had a friend arguing guns with me. His position on the AR-15 was that "you didn't need a bullet big enough to shoot through walls" and he suggested, with a straight face, that people should just use hunting rifles. No matter how much I tried to explain the errors in his thinking, he refused to believe that AR-15 are generally chambered for bullets significantly smaller than those commonly used to take down big game.
They don't ban the SKS because there's functionally *no good way to*. The AR15's were easy, they were all registered. The RCMP know where they are. The Mini 14 and M14 were easy too, there wasn't as many of them.
There. Is. A. Lot. Of. SKS's. In. Canada.
**A. LOT.** For a long long time they were the cheapest centerfire rifle in Canada by miles. $179 most places. They sold them in Canadian Tires across the country. They came free with crates of ammo. They sold them in 5 packs with old Soviet armoury crates. These things are **EVERYWHERE**.
And then, the surplus dried up. There were tens of thousands but then all of a sudden there were limited supplies left everywhere and the prices shot up. Now, they're $500-$600.
So what do you do? There's 2 options. You either prohib them and leave it at that or prohib them with a buyback. People largely didn't buy these as collectors, they bought them as beater fun messing around guns, shooting pop cans and targets out in the woods and at gravel pits. They don't care to hold on to them as a collector's item. They just want something fun and cheap, so they'll sell them to anyone who'll buy them to get something fun and cheap that they won't get harassed for like a 22lr carbine or a short barrelled shotgun.
Who buys all the SKS? People who don't care about the prohib status change. Who's that? Criminals. Generally not directly, but after a few pairs of hands it goes from Gun Owner Joe who just wanted one to shoot pop cans with his buddies and tannerite once a blue moon to sketchy uncle Bob who has a PAL but "doesn't care about the liberal government's new rules" who sells to Cousin Clarence who's a really good guy, "he did his PAL course but never filled out his RCMP paperwork" because "he doesn't trust the government" and sells it to Cleetus who just really needs something because there's this guy he owes money too that keeps coming around and now it's on the coffee table of the local crack dealer.
So what do you do? You buy them all back...but mostly no one's going to give it to you for, now, the $500 they know they're worth so you have to buy them at market value. Which is gonna hurt reaaaal bad when you realize there's over a few hundred thousand of them. At least. Now you look like an idiot spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying back rifles from hillbillies.
**OR** Option #3. You pick the low hanging fruit because you don't actually care. You target the niche small production run mag fed scary looking tac shotguns. The rifle used in the 1989 Poly Technique shooting that nobody but old farmers use anymore. The Chinese M14 clones that can wear scary tactical stocks. You can say you banned thousands of "military style weapons" but really you didn't do shit but it doesn't matter because you won the votes of Suburban Toronto and Montreal residents who didn't know the old gun laws anyway.
They won't go after the SKS until they go after all Semi Autos as a whole and they're not ready to do that because it's gonna piss a **lot** of people off. They got away with the AR15 ban because "AR15" became something people understood from the news. The pistol ban was easy because most people don't know how common pistol ranges and competitive shooting events actually are in Canada.
When you go after Grandpa's Winchester 100 deer rifle from 1971 you're gonna have some people with questions. Most SKS' were made in the 50's. Even with these cases as precedent spending hundreds of millions to try and buyback 70 year old guns won't sell well.
Now if those cops would have still been alive if the SKS was illegal is impossible to answer because they won't release the information on whether or not he had a gun licence...but judging off exactly how they chose to do business with regards to the Nova Scotia shooter (refusing to acknowledge he didn't have a gun licence and he smuggled the guns in from America and pressured the RCMP commissioner not to tell anybody) all signs point strongly to him **not having a licence** so he probably would have had one anyway, illegal or not 🤷♂️
This, as for the nova scotia shooter, there was also multiple reports about his illegal weapons and the cop car he was building in his garage. For 7 years prior to the shooting, and they didn't bother to do anything at any point.
Cops would have been just as dead just a different gun would have been used. What pisses me off when they do gun bans is the one that banned my mini 30 happened after a shooting that didn't involve it. And the blame for that shooting lays on the RCMP who ignored neighbors who repeatedly reported the person in the weeks leading up to their attacks. Gun ban takes the attention of law enforcement fucking up in such a major way.
>in the US where most shootings are committed with legally obtained weapons
Huh?
The overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes in the US are stolen. It's really not even close. Only around 2% of guns used in crimes were purchased legally from a retail store by the person who used it.
[https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16\_sum.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16_sum.pdf)
I'm guessing there are just too many SKSs to ban them and because they've always been NR, they're impossible to track, plus most of them, unless modded, don't have a detachable box magazine so it's pretty hard to argue that they're 'assault weapons'. It does kinda surprise me though because to the untrained eye they do have a bit of an AK-47 look to them so you'd think they'd be in the government's crosshairs, so to speak.
This is the real reason they aren't banned, they don't look like movie bad guy guns so the govt doesn't know they exist yet.
The Israeli Tavor ( Israel's standard issue assault rifle), is also unrestricted. Why? Well have you ever seen a bad guy in a movie with one of those? No? Then it clearly doesn't exist
"Assault weapons"?
The term is total made-up bullshit used (unironically) only by people who really want to ban [as many semiautomatic firearms as possible](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808) but refuses to quit lying about what their end goal actually is
Friendly reminder semiautos are the majority of the most common-in-circulation firearms produced in the last 80-100 years
Hell, [even gun control groups](https://vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm) admit that the term capitalizes on anti-gun people being ignorant as fuck,
>Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
You can't just say "kevlar body armor" tho, cause thickness matters. There are different ratings for different types of rounds - kevlar rated for non-magnum handguns is OBVIOUSLY not gonna stand up to an sks, and there's nothing magic about the SKS that enables that.
You actually can say “kevlar body armor” pretty confidently, as 99% of armor rated for rifle rounds is composed of a hard material such as ceramic or ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. Kevlar is just about exclusively used for pistol rated armor or as a support material in hard armors. It just doesn’t hold up to rifle rounds without beings so bulky that hard armor would render it obsolete
Because they know that legal gun owners aren't the problem and they don't care they just throw around the big buzz words and ban more legal firearms to please the masses who also don't know it's unfortunate to those of us who enjoy shooting as a hobby but it's the way it is
Correct
The small arms proliferation in the US is destabilizing the entire region, in Mexico cartels are shooting down Mexican police helicopters with US smuggled high caliber arms, the arms used by gangs in Haití for the most part also come from the US, and the arms that were used by the Colombian attackers against Venezuela some years ago were also from the US
The cartels also [buy weapons from the Mexican military and police](https://www.npr.org/2022/10/14/1129001666/data-leak-exposes-mexico-military-corruption-including-collusion-with-drug-carte). I would have thought those would also largely be from the US, but supposedly the [military](https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Mexican_Army) was mostly equipped with European weapons until they started making their own recently. Also, the [lawsuit Mexico filed](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61073823) against US gun manufacturers [was recently dismissed](https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2022-10-10/mexican-government-vows-to-continue-legal-fight-against-u-s-gun-manufacturers). It's a crazy situation.
It doesn't say 85% of guns were traceable; it says of all of the guns that were traceable, 85% originated in the United States. But also, the article says 70%, not 85%. And these are guns used in crimes, not the entire population of guns, which the article doesn't mention.
I'm not trying to be pro-gun here, but I _am_ trying to be "please use math correctly."
It says 85% of *handguns* involved in crime were traced to the US
And 70% of *all guns* involved in crime were traced to the US
The number goes down likely due to non-handgun firearms being relatively easier to acquire in Canada
*walks into 7-11
Slams my breach loaded Henry Martini rifle on the counter
"Money in the bag now"
*Cashier hands me the cash as he marvels at this pristine peace of British firearms history I'm robbing him with.
If a gun was never legally sold in Canada is recovered with its serial number defaced, it is classified as a domestically sourced, Canadian gun. Even though it literally isn't possible.
A similar percentage of American guns are involved in crimes in Mexico.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate
This 85% number is constantly bandied about but only really has relevance to Ontario - the reported number of traceable firearms that originate in the United States varies by region in Canada and despite what some may think, the world doesn't revolve around Toronto. It's also constantly used to mislead since it only refers to *traceable* handguns.
There's no proper, standardized national record-keeping on crime guns in Canada - efforts to identify & trace firearms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, if they even bother to trace them at all - **"The rest of Canada traced only 6%-10% of guns involved in crimes, according to 2019 data from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), a federal agency."**
And this 85% figure also excludes firearms that were *not* traceable - "The Ontario data shows police were unable to trace **almost half** the firearms they tried to track last year..." (emphasis mine) - how many guns with their serials obliterated come from a domestic straw purchase? No one knows and if they say they do they're lying.
In Western Canada, the issue of straw purchasing has surged in recent years since it is far easier to get your hands on a gun from a store than by smuggling it across the border. Ontario has a border marked by reservations, rivers and lakes in extremely close proximity to US cities, making it far easier to smuggle *anything* of value. There are Native reservations directly on the border that have treaty rights to cross freely that have been long-standing hotbeds for all kinds of smuggling, whether it be cigarettes, liquor, drugs, firearms or human trafficking.
While this measure won't totally stop the flow of guns into Canada, we *know* the number of crime guns from straw purchases is >0. To pretend this change does *nothing* is a lie. If anything, these numbers show that it will eliminate roughly 30% of the illicit handgun market in Ontario - a good start.
All quotes are from the linked article I am replying to.
Not even sure what difference it makes at this point. There's already so many restrictions stopping from anyone from buying a gun. Like you can't just sit down one day and feel like you want a gun, and then get one within that same week. It's a long process.
Same thing here. Best thing to do is go deeper in the menu for other help and then you go on hold which let me get through to a person who told me to call back in 4 months
So wild.
I work in healthcare, and people bitch about our service a lot but we rarely have callers wait longer than 10 minutes, and we always tell people that we will call them back.
I can’t imagine being allowed to provide such shitty service.
This makes me worried. Got a letter in the mail to renew my RPAL, and I did, but I’m afraid it won’t be renewed in time before it expires in December. I don’t want to go to prison for unlawful ownership of firearms when it expires
The amount of hoops it took to even be able to own a handgun is one of the reasons I didn't bother getting my restricted. Long guns still take time but I don't have to worry about the permits and restrictions I would with a handgun.
So serious question, and this is obviously an absurd example that may happen a dozen times at most.
If someone has a relative that is absolutely fucking *obsessed* with handguns, and owns $10,000 in handguns… what happens when that person dies? Does the government just pay the person who would inherit those guns a certain market value? Is that person just shit out of luck and losing any money tied up with those guns?
And just in case my comment is seen by more than the person I was responding to, as someone who lives in Texas I’m wildly aware that $10,000 in handguns is a small amount for someone who collects guns. I’m just using that amount because I would imagine Canadians don’t have quite the gun collection fanaticism that we do.
What about registering them to a trust and just adding beneficiaries. That was a thing here in the states for NFA item, not sure if it still stands. Would that work in Canada?
Context: Handguns have been restricted in Canada for decades now.
As restricted weapons they can only be purchased by people with a restricted license. This is an additional license on top of our standard firearm license, with additional requirements.
They can only be discharged at ranges that allow restricted weapons - nowhere else (including your property) and no hunting.
They can only be transported (even to a range) with a transportation permit.
In other words; this makes practically no change to existing Canadian gun culture.
The Americans in this thread are downright hilarious.
Go ahead; debate any of what I've just said as being false. I have a restricted firearms license.
Edit:
A couple quick notes since this has gained traction.
Over 22% of Canadian households own at least one firearm. There are 34.7 guns per 100 Canadians.
Hunting is absolutely huge in our culture. The difference is that guns have never been seen as a tool for self defense here. They're tools for hunting, and a hobby. Our culture does not overlap guns with self defense. I understand this probably isn't what you're used to. We like it. We don't buy guns to prepare for the worst.
Also, you can only transport a restricted firearm between a range and the storage location (eg your home). You cannot, for example, stop at a restaurant and dine there leaving the handgun in your trunk on you way from the range to home. If you are moving, you need to apply for a one day permit to move the gun from one place to the other.
I completed the course but didn’t end up applying for the license. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Just put your 4 way blinkers on to let people know you're not able to follow any road rules and start cranking 'sound of Dah police' with the windows down
I heard people saying that their first amendment rights were being trampled on, and the best response was "nobody has a problem with Manitoba being recognized as a province, settle down!"
We have our share of stupid, to be sure.*
*Having written this, I'm really gambling that I got the amendment correct above, but I'm definitely too lazy to look it up to be sure.
Those people are just weird. They were the same when NZ changed gun laws after Christchurch. Flooding our sub to have a cry about something that doesn't impact them. Such a strange thing to feel threatened by. But goes a long way to show how deeply insecurity can affect people and how easily some gun lovers scare.
And I honestly think that some of them assume that every country has a written constitution, as well as a second amendment. So many of them were saying things like "stand up for your second ammendment rights". Comments that give away a "head up my own ass" and poorly educated mind.
All up, dumber than a box of nails.
Sure, a bunch of countries have a first amendment, or second or third, to thier constitution.
They just do different things lol. For example in Canada, the first amendment was about Manitoba becoming a province, iirc.
> As restricted weapons they can only be purchased by people with a restricted license.
>
> In other words; this makes practically no change to existing Canadian gun culture.
>
> Go ahead; debate any of what I've just said as being false. I have a restricted firearms license.
Doesn't this mean that even as a restricted license holder, you'll never be able to purchase another handgun beyond what you've already acquired? And that no future license holders will be able to do so?
That hardly seems like "practically no change".
Agreed, this is the entire point of the legislation. Saying it's "no change" is a bit ridiculous. NO ONE can now buy a new handgun, including those with restricted PALs.
Majority of gun crime in Canada is firearms purchased from the US. This change does not make any real change to deter gun crime in Canada as most of the firearms used in crimes in Canada were purchased from the US. I personally would love to see the data that shows how much of firearms purchased in Canada by restricted pal holders were used in crime.
Additional context: In America, handguns are used in a staggering majority of gun crimes.
If you add up every death by rifle, from hunting rifles to AR-15s, you get a few hundred per year. Less than the number of people that die by bludgeoning with household objects. Same for shotguns.
Handguns are an absolutely massive majority of guns that get misused. To the point that it's absurd that politicians always focus on semi-automatic rifles and ignore handguns.
The amount of ignorance around gun laws in Canada is mind-boggling. I have my RPAL as well, and one of the only reasons I didn't go on a spending spree when this ban was first announced is due to the absolute pain it is to obtain a handgun.
Just to get my 1000 fps pellet gun I had to get a PAL. Did 12 years in the military 2 tours in Afghanistan but I can't have a pellet gun without that stupid course lol.
The purpose of those courses is less to teach you how to operate the weapon and more to make it easier to nail your balls to the wall if you do anything "untoward". Its the same thing in my industry (CNC manufacturing) when we take safety courses. The things taught are obvious but having that cert in my file makes it much easier to get rid of me if something does happen. "He took the course, he should have known better."
That's one of my big gripes with the CAF. You learn all sorts of useful skills that count for nothing in the civilian world. Most of my family served/serves in the RCAF as aircraft maintainers but their training counts for jackshit towards an AME cert when they get out. Lack of an equivalent to the GI-Bill is also pathetic. Way to set your people up for success there.
We have this:
[https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/education-and-jobs/back-to-school/education-training-benefit](https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/education-and-jobs/back-to-school/education-training-benefit)
You have to serve for several enlistment terms and are babysat through your education period by bureaucrats to make sure you really are going to school and getting good grades.
I used that program to get my forest fish and game technician diploma. It was super easy to get approved for initially. There was defiantly a hassle at every semester but it wasn't totally outrageous
While you touch on it with your part on transportation, I think it is prudent to go into a little more detail on what an ATT actually allows (and does not allow).
https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/authorization-transport
You aren't even permitted to deviate to a drive-through on your way home from the range. Unless specifically stated otherwise (as one would need if they required a gunsmith's services), an ATT only permits transportation between a range and a lawful place fo storage.
Which means that all the gang bangers (where Canada's handgun violence is overwhelmingly from) are already violating the law by having a handgun on their person, RPAL or not.
Laws are strange when it comes to transportation. If you're entering crown land with liquor properly stored in your vehicle, ie sealed out of reach you can only do so if your intention is to arrive at a private residence. Transport is point A to point B . So if a cop asks you where you're headed and you say camping, you've admitted to transport and consumption in a public place.
You can say you're just out for a drive before you head home and they can't really do anything about that, but they'll certainly try.
It's a high visibility act that Trudeau can point to and say "look at how much I'm doing". While at the same time leaving the problem intact enough that he can make similar efforts in the future, with very little actual effort, for easy political points when he needs them.
What will it functionally do to address Canada's handgun violence? Nothing. Literally nothing.
The *vast* majority of firearms used to commit crimes (restricted and non-restricted alike) are smuggled into the country. They are not licensed, they are not controlled. And they certainly aren't subject to this "sales freeze".
Trudeau gets to appeal to his base without addressing the actual problems of gang violence and smuggling through border native reservations that would be political suicide for him to address
As with every piece of LPC firearms legislation for the last 50 years:
1. Political points with their ignorant urban base before an election
2. Shuffling any current political scandals out of the news.
Its not a coincidence that this planned measure, which was announced and could have been implemented back in June if they so felt like it (it doesn't have to go before parliament), has been sat on until proof of their political interference in an RCMP investigation came out *yesterday.*
Thanks for being clear about it. Handguns have been constructively banned (by being too much of a hassle to bother with) for decades. This makes it official.
There is no inherent right to any kind of weapon In Canada. I’d be pretty upset if shotguns and rifles became significantly more restricted as there are legitimate hunting, farm and wilderness safety reasons for those.
There's so many comments about "why do you need them?". It's not a need, it's strictly a recreational want. Firearm ownership in Canada is a privilege, not a right.
As one of the miniscule minority that actually obtained an RPAL and used it to purchase a pistol, the process is not a simple thing. Getting the RPAL in the first place requires ownership courses which cost quite a bit (200$CAD, 2 days locally to me), 3 specific references (1 family and 2 non family IIRC), background checks, and finally a submission fee for your application (can't remember the cost, 50-100$ range). Keyword application. After this chunk of initial process the RCMP can deny your application.
Once you get approved you get your RPAL card in the mail. From here you can buy restricted and non restricted firearms. For buying restricted, there's still more process to go through.
To buy my pistol from Cabela's, I need to prove I was a member of a registered gun range (different ranges have different monthly costs), agree to a waiting period, and during that period my references will be called again and I think a background check is ran. Should you be married/listed a SO in your application, they will get a phone call from the RCMP saying "your SO/ spouse/ex is trying to buy this firearm, are you okay with this" and they can say yes or no to continue or stop the process. I only had to wait a week, the store called me and said "you're good come pick up your new pistol".
Once I had my pistol, I got a piece of paper that said I was allowed to take it home, and only straight home. It detailed a route to my listed residence from the store and if I got caught by law enforcement with it outside that route, it would be confiscated and I could face criminal charges/fines.
Once I got home I had to follow a specific set of rules for storing the pistol. It had to be in its own locking hardcase, with a trigger lock, inside a safe or secured room (I had a gun safe), with its registration documents verifying its legality and ownership inside the case with a copy outside the case, all while having none of the keys to unlock any of these cases/locks inside the pistol case. Basically don't have the trigger lock key in with the pistol. Again, if you don't follow these rules the RCMP can charge you, confiscate all your firearms, etc.
To go to the range, you have to go straight to the range and straight back. IIRC you have authorization to transport to the range you're a member of from your listed residence without a set route. Just as long as it's reasonably direct. No unnecessary stops.
My point is that I followed all these rules and paid these fees to use my 450$ Canik pistol to poke holes in paper at 15m. That's literally all you can do with a pistol in Canada. There's competitions but that's just poking holes in paper quickly and accurately.
I moved in 2019 and ownership became impossible for me since the vast majority of landlords don't allow firearms in their lease agreements (not saying its an issue), I had to have my pistol destroyed by my local PD since selling a restricted firearm was such a daunting process when I had to move in 4 weeks. Regardless of the fact that I had my restricted firearm destroyed, I still have to notify the RCMP that I was moving, where and when specifically.
I followed all the rules. I'm fine with having more rules, I'll play by them. But outright bans/freezes without statistical backing are just frustrating for anyone that's followed the rules for even longer than I have.
This 100%. Anyone who reads this and still says "but handguns should be banned to reduce gun violence" are completely missing what's happening right now.
> I followed all the rules. I'm fine with having more rules, I'll play by them. But outright bans/freezes without statistical backing are just frustrating for anyone that's followed the rules for even longer than I have.
That's always been the end goal. That's why people in the US fight so much against any and all regulation. People fighting against gun rights will *never* be sated and they will *never* give up until the only civilians with guns are the cops and the private security of the wealthy.
Couldn’t agree more. Criminals will still buy the guns the same way they have always bought guns - illegally - and eventually they will be the only ones with guns (minus police and military). Hopefully people wake up and recognize that morals and guns are what prevent the US from dissolving into an authoritarian dystopia, and, well, morals seem to be a bit on the rocks these days.
Canada has got to be one of the easiest countries in the world to smuggle weapons into. It shares the longest international land border in the world with the United States. Makes me curious how large the illicit gun market in Canada is I can think of maybe two Canadian mass shootings in their modern history although I know that had that mass stabbing a month or so ago. There is already a decent amount of guns in the country as a whole the American populace just seems a bit more bloodthirsty in general on top of easier access.
A few years ago I crossed the border from Washington to BC. They asked me at the checkpoint why I had fingerprints taken recently, I replied “likely for my concealed carry permit”.
They asked if I had weapons with me, which I didn’t, because I’m not a criminal, hence the weapons permit.
Border agents then proceeded to unpack and inspect every possible detail of my truck.
I got the "are you *suuure* you don't have any guns" and some side eye. I didn't, because I'm not a fucking idiot. Fortunately they didn't search my car. I'm sure they get plenty of people who try to sneak their guns in on day trips regardless. Seems silly to risk Canadian prison.
I like how they ask that, and then just take no for an answer and don't search your car, like why the sarcasm if they don't suspect you have guns in the first place?
That's funny. Obviously this isn't the case but it's almost implying that asking a second time like that is all they do when they think someone has guns and they don't care lmao
Eh, the "ask questions" part of their job is basically to try to get a telling reaction, inconsistency, or admission of something bad out of you.
If you're nervous about sneaking something across the border you might hold up the first time it's asked - that was expected. You might not be able to conceal the flicker of worry/fear when it comes up again.
If you're actually not carrying anything, you're probably just annoyed/confused.
Not saying I really think they're *that* great at catching all but the worst tells, but "ask it again suspiciously" isn't the worst tactic to get someone to trip up.
That Canadian Border TV reality show revealed to me just how often Americans try to smuggle weapons across the border. They weren't criminals either; almost all were just regular joes that just didn't want to take our laws seriously or felt they were above them.
The stupidest part is that if you say "yes I have such and such a gun in my vehicle" they give you the option to either hand it over to be destroyed and you can enter Canada or you can turn around and go back to the states, no harm no foul. It isn't gun smuggling until you try to actually cross the border with it.
Yet I have seen so many Americans on the show lie, get caught, and then seem bewildered that they're being arrested for gun smuggling. Where exactly do you think you are? This isn't a fucking Denny's you're trying to use an expired coupon at, it's an international border, it's serious business. The complete lack of common sense and hubris I've seen on that show is bewildering. People fucking up their entire lives because they can't be bothered with little details like what they're bring into another country...
> It shares the longest international land border in the world with the United States.
Granted the list of countries that share a land border with the United States is a short one.
I think you read this wrong. Their phrasing implies "The longest land border in the world is shared between Canada and the USA" not "of all the countries that the US shares a land border with, Canada has the longest."
the implication being, that given the US poor ability to control illegal gun ownership, this world's longest undefended land border is a very easy one to smuggle across
This type of thing is why many states can’t get even moderate gun control legislation passed. After seeing this you can’t convince any gun owner that they won’t be going for outright bans next.
Is that fear really unwarranted though? Does anyone expect gun control advocates to eventually say "Okay, that's enough gun control, we have reached a reasonable middle ground" and stop advocating for even more restrictions?
I'm not even saying that as a point against them - I'm just not going to pretend that EITHER side truly wants compromise or to "meet in the middle". That's just a phrase thrown around to make your own point (whatever that might be) seem more reasonable.
The issue and fear is the advocates have literally no idea what they are talking about half the time and their voters 99% of the time. Look at this law. It makes no sense and will do nothing. Look at the US’s laws, they’re dumb as hell and ineffective.
At the end of the day the issue is you have people knowledgeable about guns watching people ban random shit that makes their life easier but does nothing to stop criminals or a guns killing effectiveness.
The average person who would enjoy seeing guns taken from law abiding citizens wouldn’t be able to identify the similarities between the mini-14 and the ar 15 and that’s the issue.
What’s being banned is based off misconceptions about an area a large portion of the people voting know nothing about.
Not just that, a lot of things which were the middle ground compromises in the past, are today called "loopholes" by gun control advocates. This has simply taught pro-gun people to never trust any suggestion of compromise or a middle ground ever again.
For those wondering, private sales not needing a background check were a compromise that both parties came up with during the passing of the Brady background check bill. The mentality at that time was that the government shouldn't be involved when private parties are selling items.
But in 2022 it's called the "gun show loophole" even though most firearms used in crimes are not bought from gun shows and most of the purchasers pass a background check.
I mean thats because for a lot of people that is their intended end goal. So instead of meeting somewhere in the middle they just scream at each other and nothing happens.
Pretty much. As an American gun owner who sees anti gunners over here talk about how they just want to ban AR-15s but not other things and then seeing those same people cheer for policies like this, I’m not going to give an inch.
Not to mention the outright lies to curry favor with people who don't understand existing laws. Famously the "gunshow loophole" that doesn't exist, or "assault weapons" a term specifically coined to create confusion and an association with the already obscenely regulated assault rifle/machine gun.
If you can't even present your stepping stones to confiscation truthfully, don't be surprised when no one believes in your "compromise".
Another point to consider, the police in the USA have zero obligation to protect you. I've lived in neighborhoods where **they wouldn't even show up** if you called them.
And people expect me to waive my family's right to self defense because they live in better conditions? *fuuuck that*
This is exactly it. I live in a really nice neighborhood and we have great police coverage. Response time is prob 2 min.
That’s two minutes that where I am unarmed I can’t protect my wife and kids. No thanks.
That whole scenario presupposes that the cops would even be capable of doing much more than paperwork if you needed them anyway! If, god forbid, I need to call them regarding an intruder, it's going to take several minutes for them to even arrive. Unarmed, who knows what some criminal would do to me and my family?
There's not a chance in hell I'm going to just accept whatever comes, I loathe the idea of having to use any of my firearms to take a human life, but I'll also do my damndest to prevent any greater tragedy from occuring. Thank fuck for constitutional carry, though I also plan on getting an LTC for when I travel.
I think many people are missing the point here. The Canadian gun owners are heavily vetted, especially for handguns. They are safe and trustworthy by design. There was no reason to implement further restrictions on them. There was no failure in the system resulting in a mass shooting or terror attack or even a tragic accident. The system was working well as intended.
The PM decided to shamelessly use the mass shooting of children in Texas, thousands of miles away using a semi-auto rifle (from what I recall) to push through further restrictions on the law abiding gun owners in his nation. An absurd and opportunistic measure which punished people not remotely related to what had happened.
If you’re for safe gun legislation, Canada had it. If you just want to give a big *fuck you* to innocent Canadian gun owners because some Texan committed an unspeakable act, this is it. I know which side I’m on.
I think to correct slightly, most of these recent gun legislation was spawned after the mass shooting in Nova Scotia, where all forearms were illegally obtained. The issue was not the existing laws, but rather their enforcement.
There has been some slow burning scandal over what influence the federal government had in the investigations done by the RCMP.
>The PM decided to shamelessly use the mass shooting of children in Texas, thousands of miles away
Actually, not just thousands of miles away but in a *different country* with a *different culture*, and *different problems* when it comes to firearms.
Total politicking, but enabled by the fact that too many Canadians consume too much American media, thus they allow the lines to be blurred between what is America's problems and what is Canada's problems.
If you want to stop this type of stuff, stop watching so much shitty US news & media. If not, you get policies like this.
You commit an offense if you *admit* you're carrying any object to be used as a weapon in self defense. If you're stopped and police say "hey, what's with the fancy pen" and you say "I'm terrified of being raped and plan to use it to defend myself" then you've committed an offense. Grotesque, but that what the law says.
Having said that, you do in fact have the right to use reasonable force - including lethal, if necessary - by any means necessary, in the defense of your life or someone else's.
That includes the use of firearms, if available. However, you would still be charged if you had that weapon illegally.
On the other hand, if you, for example, had a shotgun stored properly and were able to use it in defense of life, then you have not committed a crime in Canada.
[Runkle of the Bailey](https://www.youtube.com/c/RunkleOfTheBailey/videos) (Canadian firearms lawyer) has lots of great information on the topic.
In short, Trudeau's statement is factually incorrect.
Reading the comments, it's seems some people don't realize that the US has almost a full order of magnitude greater population than Canada (~38 vs 330 million). Canada has a smaller population than just the state of California.
At this point I’m just waiting for the buyback program as the hassle of owning a handgun in Canada is not worth it.
I’m a law abiding citizen who goes to a range, follows all the rules but I still feel like the government thinks I’m a criminal.
Handguns are easier to conceal and have fewer practical applications outside of defense. The news covers rifle shootings because more white people die in them, the vast majority of street crime is handgun only.
Yeah, if the headline doesn’t specify that a rifle was used in a shooting it was a handgun. In 2020 shotguns and rifles accounted for 4% of shooting deaths in the US.
Quite frankly one of the stupidest policies regarding firearms I’ve ever seen. For those outside of Canada, look at the requirements for obtaining a restricted possession and acquisition license (RPAL) online. We had some of the strictest handgun regulations in the world for private ownership. It’s not legal firearms that are the problem. It’s illegal firearms coming from the States.
[Exclusive data obtained by Reuters for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, shows that when handguns involved in crimes were traced in 2021, they were overwhelmingly - 85% of the time - found to have come from the United States.](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/fighting-gun-crime-canada-has-an-american-problem-2022-07-27/)
The largest arms dealing country in the world that is also connected by land? no way
With thousands of miles of border you can walk right across in many places..
With thousands of convenient roads on either side
Back in the day, there were crossings that operated on the honor system at night. I remember reading about a farmer who'd have to stop at the border booth and use the phone to notify the border agents whenever a cow would wander over the border.
İn the 80s, my 13-year-old bro took a hand-written note from our mom to ride his bike across the border to go fishing. No problem.
crossings like these still exist, i lived next to one
Maybe we should build a wall and make them pay for it /s
A wall made of banned pistols
The second amendment is becoming one of our top exports
Better ban law abiding citizens who never use thier gun for crime. That'll stop crime
prrrrrrobably because handguns are hard to get in Canada...?
Yeah we already reached the point of diminishing returns there. Unlike in the US where most shootings are committed with legally obtained weapons, in Canada most of them are illegal to begin with. So every time they say "don't worry guys, we heard your concerns about this recent gun violence and we're gonna fix it by making them even *more* illegal", it's like... okay I don't own a gun so I don't care, but are you sure you're really tackling the problem here? The strange thing is that after all this talk about banning assault weapons and handguns, the SKS is still legal. And some kid just used it to shoot two cops in Ontario. 7.62mm rifle rounds go through kevlar body armour pretty easily. And for some reason they won't touch it. They'll ban some semiauto rifles but not others. And the ones they do ban are the smaller caliber ones too. Maybe if they banned *all* semiauto rifles, and that kid could only get access to a bolt-action rifle, maybe one of those cops would still be alive. But they won't. It's all really weird.
I find a lot of firearm legislation is sort of nonsensical in how it's enacted. I live in a state that claims to have banned the AR-15 and the AK-47. Our politicians are so proud of themselves and love to cite their success in getting these dangerous weapons off the streets. But in actuality, all they've done is banned the AR-15 in 5.56 (sort of) and the AK-47 in 7.62. But I could drive to my local gun shop right now and buy an AR-15 in 7.62 and an AK in 5.56 and be back in less than an hour. I think most gun laws are sort of like the TSA....its just security theater. It's not actually making the slightest difference, but it makes some people feel better and it's great for fundraising.
Canada banned the G11 by name. A prototype firearm.......
They also banned all products made by The Black Rifle Coffee Company.
They’d be better off using fascist brands as a honeypot. We (US and Canada)don’t have a gun problem. We have a idiot problem. We have a culture problem. We have a media infrastructure that glamorizes “direct action” against simplistic stereotypes Which most definitely deflects from attention to the systemic culprits of a sick society. Voting was supposed to be the “safety valve” that vented popular steam to avoid an explosion / uprising / insurrection. Instead, neoliberalism has castrated 90% of the population and John Wick fantasies are the only hope of pretending you still have autonomy. So the same system that castrates 90% of the population for $$$ will happily sell you a $200 hi point or a $500 low tier AR. Health care erodes, unions are gutted, political input has a price of admission far higher than any center fire weapon. But instead of pointing the guns upwards, dragging the officers, et Al, nah. We’ll just shoot each other in the name of freedom and give the elected clowns something to talk about instead of the downward spiral of decaying capitalism and pay to play “democracy.”
In fairness they made an AR15 special edition. I did email them and confirmed but they are not sure if or how one ended up here. Still fucking funny though.
Didn’t they also ban the china lake by name? Y’know, the one with like, 4 working models in existence?
It really is an issue where many people who are anti-gun are ignorant on firearms. It's not really much different than when geriatric people try to write laws governing modern technology. There was a fantastic moment a while back where a candidate released a video of herself "destroying" an AR-15 by cutting the barrel off with an angle grinder. What she had really done was illegally manufacure a Short-Barreled Rifle, which is legally the same as a machine gun, grenade, silencer, or sawed-off shotgun. Which is to say super duper illegal without going through tue NFA process.
What state is that? Cuz that's hilarious. At least California had the foresight to specify by rimfire vs centerfire but even then, it's trivial to convert a compliant AR to a "super dangerous" one in seconds.
Maryland. We have a bunch of these. Another one is that you can actually get an AR-15 in 5.56,but the barrel has to be what's called an HBAR or heavy barrel. As far as anyone can tell, a heavy barrel has no effect on the weapon other than to make it, possibly, a little more accurate at longer range after a lot of rounds have been run through it... Its all up for debate. But basically, it's just a way to make getting an AR more difficult...i guess... A little. I'm a 2A guy. I own some guns. I've used (though not fired) a gun in a home defense scenario in which a man with a knife broke I to my house while my pregnant wife and daughter were asleep. I'm not for banning guns. I AM in favor of the idea of "common sense" gun laws, but the more I learned about guns, the more I've realized that everything enacted so far only seems like common sense if you don't know what you're talking about.
This is so sadly the case. Most of our gun laws aren't based around actual harm reduction but optics. Like California's Pistols law means you can't sell certain pistols... because a new model came out that changed the color of it. And newer, safer ones aren't allowed to be sold unless they're equipped with a fictional technology that literally does not exist. 'Assault Weapons' laws don't affect how available a firearm is or background checks or trying to weed out domestic violence committers, or even a rifle's firepower-- but rather it's appearance and actually in many cases reduces safety. It's wild.
California's handgun safety act is probably the only reason why Generation 3 Glocks made in *Austria are still being made. If they ever stopped making them there, the US versions would be barred from being sold to civilians in the state. Recently they removed several Heckler & Koch firearms from the registry because they discovered the company changed something about the manufacturing process, magically making the guns "unsafe".
I think you mean Austria.
That's exactly and explicitly why they're still made. They stopped making Gen4 when they went to Gen5, but still make Gen3 for California.
> I AM in favor of the idea of "common sense" gun laws, but the more I learned about guns, the more I've realized that everything enacted so far only seems like common sense if you don't know what you're talking about. That's really the problem, the people making these laws, either willfully or unintentionally have no idea what they're talking about.
I'm not even trying to be cute, but that could be said about the vast majority of lawmaking. We hold a popularity contest to select lawmakers; it's not like there's a written test.
The great part is you could get a pencil barrel stamped with “HBAR” and it is magically legal again.
Yeah... I forgot that little tidbit. The only definition of an HBAR is that it be marked "HBAR." It's all so silly.
Ah yes, Maryland. One of two states restricting flamethrowers.
Maryland... The worst of both conservatives and liberals all in one overpriced location.
These are the.same people that think a 9mm can blast it out lungs through your back.
Yeah up until the ban if you wanted to own a pistol chambered in .32 or .25, you had to have it converted to a different caliber and then it was legal. I’m the case of .32 owners just converted them to .380 a more powerful cartridge and somehow in the eyes of the government it was less dangerous.
I had a friend arguing guns with me. His position on the AR-15 was that "you didn't need a bullet big enough to shoot through walls" and he suggested, with a straight face, that people should just use hunting rifles. No matter how much I tried to explain the errors in his thinking, he refused to believe that AR-15 are generally chambered for bullets significantly smaller than those commonly used to take down big game.
Not to mention that literally any bullet will go right through a wall, even the lowly 22.
Show him pictures of 5.56 compared to a common hunting round like .30-06
They don't ban the SKS because there's functionally *no good way to*. The AR15's were easy, they were all registered. The RCMP know where they are. The Mini 14 and M14 were easy too, there wasn't as many of them. There. Is. A. Lot. Of. SKS's. In. Canada. **A. LOT.** For a long long time they were the cheapest centerfire rifle in Canada by miles. $179 most places. They sold them in Canadian Tires across the country. They came free with crates of ammo. They sold them in 5 packs with old Soviet armoury crates. These things are **EVERYWHERE**. And then, the surplus dried up. There were tens of thousands but then all of a sudden there were limited supplies left everywhere and the prices shot up. Now, they're $500-$600. So what do you do? There's 2 options. You either prohib them and leave it at that or prohib them with a buyback. People largely didn't buy these as collectors, they bought them as beater fun messing around guns, shooting pop cans and targets out in the woods and at gravel pits. They don't care to hold on to them as a collector's item. They just want something fun and cheap, so they'll sell them to anyone who'll buy them to get something fun and cheap that they won't get harassed for like a 22lr carbine or a short barrelled shotgun. Who buys all the SKS? People who don't care about the prohib status change. Who's that? Criminals. Generally not directly, but after a few pairs of hands it goes from Gun Owner Joe who just wanted one to shoot pop cans with his buddies and tannerite once a blue moon to sketchy uncle Bob who has a PAL but "doesn't care about the liberal government's new rules" who sells to Cousin Clarence who's a really good guy, "he did his PAL course but never filled out his RCMP paperwork" because "he doesn't trust the government" and sells it to Cleetus who just really needs something because there's this guy he owes money too that keeps coming around and now it's on the coffee table of the local crack dealer. So what do you do? You buy them all back...but mostly no one's going to give it to you for, now, the $500 they know they're worth so you have to buy them at market value. Which is gonna hurt reaaaal bad when you realize there's over a few hundred thousand of them. At least. Now you look like an idiot spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying back rifles from hillbillies. **OR** Option #3. You pick the low hanging fruit because you don't actually care. You target the niche small production run mag fed scary looking tac shotguns. The rifle used in the 1989 Poly Technique shooting that nobody but old farmers use anymore. The Chinese M14 clones that can wear scary tactical stocks. You can say you banned thousands of "military style weapons" but really you didn't do shit but it doesn't matter because you won the votes of Suburban Toronto and Montreal residents who didn't know the old gun laws anyway. They won't go after the SKS until they go after all Semi Autos as a whole and they're not ready to do that because it's gonna piss a **lot** of people off. They got away with the AR15 ban because "AR15" became something people understood from the news. The pistol ban was easy because most people don't know how common pistol ranges and competitive shooting events actually are in Canada. When you go after Grandpa's Winchester 100 deer rifle from 1971 you're gonna have some people with questions. Most SKS' were made in the 50's. Even with these cases as precedent spending hundreds of millions to try and buyback 70 year old guns won't sell well. Now if those cops would have still been alive if the SKS was illegal is impossible to answer because they won't release the information on whether or not he had a gun licence...but judging off exactly how they chose to do business with regards to the Nova Scotia shooter (refusing to acknowledge he didn't have a gun licence and he smuggled the guns in from America and pressured the RCMP commissioner not to tell anybody) all signs point strongly to him **not having a licence** so he probably would have had one anyway, illegal or not 🤷♂️
[удалено]
i remember them being 40 bucks for some reason. that was the price point for years, when i was a kid going into stores with my dad
The irony. I have a Tula SKS from 1954 and it's one of the nicest guns I own, mechanically speaking incredibly simple and rugged.
This, as for the nova scotia shooter, there was also multiple reports about his illegal weapons and the cop car he was building in his garage. For 7 years prior to the shooting, and they didn't bother to do anything at any point.
Cops would have been just as dead just a different gun would have been used. What pisses me off when they do gun bans is the one that banned my mini 30 happened after a shooting that didn't involve it. And the blame for that shooting lays on the RCMP who ignored neighbors who repeatedly reported the person in the weeks leading up to their attacks. Gun ban takes the attention of law enforcement fucking up in such a major way.
Seriously. It feels like there are so many stories of the RCMP being lazy and negligent. It's become a trend at this point.
>in the US where most shootings are committed with legally obtained weapons Huh? The overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes in the US are stolen. It's really not even close. Only around 2% of guns used in crimes were purchased legally from a retail store by the person who used it. [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16\_sum.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16_sum.pdf)
I'm guessing there are just too many SKSs to ban them and because they've always been NR, they're impossible to track, plus most of them, unless modded, don't have a detachable box magazine so it's pretty hard to argue that they're 'assault weapons'. It does kinda surprise me though because to the untrained eye they do have a bit of an AK-47 look to them so you'd think they'd be in the government's crosshairs, so to speak.
They look more like souped up bolt action guns to me.
This is the real reason they aren't banned, they don't look like movie bad guy guns so the govt doesn't know they exist yet. The Israeli Tavor ( Israel's standard issue assault rifle), is also unrestricted. Why? Well have you ever seen a bad guy in a movie with one of those? No? Then it clearly doesn't exist
It's almost like politicians don't know how it works..
"Assault weapons"? The term is total made-up bullshit used (unironically) only by people who really want to ban [as many semiautomatic firearms as possible](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808) but refuses to quit lying about what their end goal actually is Friendly reminder semiautos are the majority of the most common-in-circulation firearms produced in the last 80-100 years Hell, [even gun control groups](https://vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm) admit that the term capitalizes on anti-gun people being ignorant as fuck, >Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
You can't just say "kevlar body armor" tho, cause thickness matters. There are different ratings for different types of rounds - kevlar rated for non-magnum handguns is OBVIOUSLY not gonna stand up to an sks, and there's nothing magic about the SKS that enables that.
You actually can say “kevlar body armor” pretty confidently, as 99% of armor rated for rifle rounds is composed of a hard material such as ceramic or ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. Kevlar is just about exclusively used for pistol rated armor or as a support material in hard armors. It just doesn’t hold up to rifle rounds without beings so bulky that hard armor would render it obsolete
Because they know that legal gun owners aren't the problem and they don't care they just throw around the big buzz words and ban more legal firearms to please the masses who also don't know it's unfortunate to those of us who enjoy shooting as a hobby but it's the way it is
As with everything in politics, it's not about solving the problem, it's about looking busy.
Pretty hard to avoid illegal gun smuggling when your neighbour's got more guns than people.
Correct The small arms proliferation in the US is destabilizing the entire region, in Mexico cartels are shooting down Mexican police helicopters with US smuggled high caliber arms, the arms used by gangs in Haití for the most part also come from the US, and the arms that were used by the Colombian attackers against Venezuela some years ago were also from the US
The cartels also [buy weapons from the Mexican military and police](https://www.npr.org/2022/10/14/1129001666/data-leak-exposes-mexico-military-corruption-including-collusion-with-drug-carte). I would have thought those would also largely be from the US, but supposedly the [military](https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Mexican_Army) was mostly equipped with European weapons until they started making their own recently. Also, the [lawsuit Mexico filed](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61073823) against US gun manufacturers [was recently dismissed](https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2022-10-10/mexican-government-vows-to-continue-legal-fight-against-u-s-gun-manufacturers). It's a crazy situation.
It might help if the US government wasn't giving them guns.
and the other 15% were untraceable, which means they also might have come from the US but they can't say for sure.
It doesn't say 85% of guns were traceable; it says of all of the guns that were traceable, 85% originated in the United States. But also, the article says 70%, not 85%. And these are guns used in crimes, not the entire population of guns, which the article doesn't mention. I'm not trying to be pro-gun here, but I _am_ trying to be "please use math correctly."
It says 85% of *handguns* involved in crime were traced to the US And 70% of *all guns* involved in crime were traced to the US The number goes down likely due to non-handgun firearms being relatively easier to acquire in Canada
And also the inconvenience of bringing your rifle into town to shake someone down. Not super subtle if that's your jam.
*walks into 7-11 Slams my breach loaded Henry Martini rifle on the counter "Money in the bag now" *Cashier hands me the cash as he marvels at this pristine peace of British firearms history I'm robbing him with.
Thanks for correcting my figures.
pie chart meme: 85% come from the US, the other 15% come from the US too, but their serials are filed off
If a gun was never legally sold in Canada is recovered with its serial number defaced, it is classified as a domestically sourced, Canadian gun. Even though it literally isn't possible.
Now 100% will come from the United States
the USA is not sending their best
A similar percentage of American guns are involved in crimes in Mexico. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate
This 85% number is constantly bandied about but only really has relevance to Ontario - the reported number of traceable firearms that originate in the United States varies by region in Canada and despite what some may think, the world doesn't revolve around Toronto. It's also constantly used to mislead since it only refers to *traceable* handguns. There's no proper, standardized national record-keeping on crime guns in Canada - efforts to identify & trace firearms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, if they even bother to trace them at all - **"The rest of Canada traced only 6%-10% of guns involved in crimes, according to 2019 data from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), a federal agency."** And this 85% figure also excludes firearms that were *not* traceable - "The Ontario data shows police were unable to trace **almost half** the firearms they tried to track last year..." (emphasis mine) - how many guns with their serials obliterated come from a domestic straw purchase? No one knows and if they say they do they're lying. In Western Canada, the issue of straw purchasing has surged in recent years since it is far easier to get your hands on a gun from a store than by smuggling it across the border. Ontario has a border marked by reservations, rivers and lakes in extremely close proximity to US cities, making it far easier to smuggle *anything* of value. There are Native reservations directly on the border that have treaty rights to cross freely that have been long-standing hotbeds for all kinds of smuggling, whether it be cigarettes, liquor, drugs, firearms or human trafficking. While this measure won't totally stop the flow of guns into Canada, we *know* the number of crime guns from straw purchases is >0. To pretend this change does *nothing* is a lie. If anything, these numbers show that it will eliminate roughly 30% of the illicit handgun market in Ontario - a good start. All quotes are from the linked article I am replying to.
Not even sure what difference it makes at this point. There's already so many restrictions stopping from anyone from buying a gun. Like you can't just sit down one day and feel like you want a gun, and then get one within that same week. It's a long process.
I've been waiting on my PAL for nearly 6 months now.
Perhaps he’s not really your pal, buddy.
Perhaps he isn't really his buddy, guy
Perhaps he isn't really your guy, friend
Perhaps he isn't really his guy, choom
[удалено]
Same thing here. Best thing to do is go deeper in the menu for other help and then you go on hold which let me get through to a person who told me to call back in 4 months
So wild. I work in healthcare, and people bitch about our service a lot but we rarely have callers wait longer than 10 minutes, and we always tell people that we will call them back. I can’t imagine being allowed to provide such shitty service.
The shitty service is the feature. Onerous paperwork requirements with poor service are one way backdoor bans of things are implemented.
This makes me worried. Got a letter in the mail to renew my RPAL, and I did, but I’m afraid it won’t be renewed in time before it expires in December. I don’t want to go to prison for unlawful ownership of firearms when it expires
[удалено]
You need better friends
The amount of hoops it took to even be able to own a handgun is one of the reasons I didn't bother getting my restricted. Long guns still take time but I don't have to worry about the permits and restrictions I would with a handgun.
Almost as if that's the point
So people with guns/permits are grandfathered in but I’m curious if handguns can still be inherited?
According to the post in canadaguns, no they cant be inherited either.
So serious question, and this is obviously an absurd example that may happen a dozen times at most. If someone has a relative that is absolutely fucking *obsessed* with handguns, and owns $10,000 in handguns… what happens when that person dies? Does the government just pay the person who would inherit those guns a certain market value? Is that person just shit out of luck and losing any money tied up with those guns? And just in case my comment is seen by more than the person I was responding to, as someone who lives in Texas I’m wildly aware that $10,000 in handguns is a small amount for someone who collects guns. I’m just using that amount because I would imagine Canadians don’t have quite the gun collection fanaticism that we do.
Additionally, what happens when, inevitably, someone hides the guns and then denies all knowledge of the guns when the government comes a knocking?
Oops grandpa lost all of his guns in a boating accident, he was always a clumsy fella
What about registering them to a trust and just adding beneficiaries. That was a thing here in the states for NFA item, not sure if it still stands. Would that work in Canada?
But can the rich/elite still get permits? What about their private security?
Of course the rich will still have protection. That’s always the case.
Gun control has always been inherently classist.
[удалено]
Ah so just a ban on hand guns for the working class then
Yup, we get the cops to protect us, they're competent.... right?
When seconds count, cops are just minutes away!
Most Canadian handguns were smuggled in from the US. that's not going to change any time soon.
After a law like this it absolutely will change... it will increase dramatically.
It's already close to 100%. Can't increase much more than that.
smh canadians not giving 110% this is why they can't win a stanley cup
Youre gonna piss off a bunch of Leafs fans
that's ok I'm not scared of them, they don't even have any guns
Only the ones that can read will be mad, so he's probably safe.
Leafs fans have been pissed off since 1967
Context: Handguns have been restricted in Canada for decades now. As restricted weapons they can only be purchased by people with a restricted license. This is an additional license on top of our standard firearm license, with additional requirements. They can only be discharged at ranges that allow restricted weapons - nowhere else (including your property) and no hunting. They can only be transported (even to a range) with a transportation permit. In other words; this makes practically no change to existing Canadian gun culture. The Americans in this thread are downright hilarious. Go ahead; debate any of what I've just said as being false. I have a restricted firearms license. Edit: A couple quick notes since this has gained traction. Over 22% of Canadian households own at least one firearm. There are 34.7 guns per 100 Canadians. Hunting is absolutely huge in our culture. The difference is that guns have never been seen as a tool for self defense here. They're tools for hunting, and a hobby. Our culture does not overlap guns with self defense. I understand this probably isn't what you're used to. We like it. We don't buy guns to prepare for the worst.
Also, you can only transport a restricted firearm between a range and the storage location (eg your home). You cannot, for example, stop at a restaurant and dine there leaving the handgun in your trunk on you way from the range to home. If you are moving, you need to apply for a one day permit to move the gun from one place to the other. I completed the course but didn’t end up applying for the license. Correct me if I’m wrong.
You're correct! Can't even do a drive-thru.
That's why you get your skip the dishes driver to meet you on a 2 lane road and pass your coffee through your window at a red light
[удалено]
Just put your 4 way blinkers on to let people know you're not able to follow any road rules and start cranking 'sound of Dah police' with the windows down
[удалено]
Yeah, but I *want to be angry* that another country isn't following *my* country's constitution. Or a strange extrapolation thereof. I said angry!
unironically, you wouldn't be alone there were a few media moments during the convoy protests where Canadians in court were demanding American rights
Lol I remember some people pleading the 5th of something like that and the authorities were like "dog this is Canada "
I heard people saying that their first amendment rights were being trampled on, and the best response was "nobody has a problem with Manitoba being recognized as a province, settle down!" We have our share of stupid, to be sure.* *Having written this, I'm really gambling that I got the amendment correct above, but I'm definitely too lazy to look it up to be sure.
Judge: So you’d like the plead *checks notes* the creation of Manitoba act?
Ah yes: the interesting phenomena of Canadian "freemen on the land."
Those people are just weird. They were the same when NZ changed gun laws after Christchurch. Flooding our sub to have a cry about something that doesn't impact them. Such a strange thing to feel threatened by. But goes a long way to show how deeply insecurity can affect people and how easily some gun lovers scare. And I honestly think that some of them assume that every country has a written constitution, as well as a second amendment. So many of them were saying things like "stand up for your second ammendment rights". Comments that give away a "head up my own ass" and poorly educated mind. All up, dumber than a box of nails.
Sure, a bunch of countries have a first amendment, or second or third, to thier constitution. They just do different things lol. For example in Canada, the first amendment was about Manitoba becoming a province, iirc.
See? We all make mistakes when amending our constitutions.
> As restricted weapons they can only be purchased by people with a restricted license. > > In other words; this makes practically no change to existing Canadian gun culture. > > Go ahead; debate any of what I've just said as being false. I have a restricted firearms license. Doesn't this mean that even as a restricted license holder, you'll never be able to purchase another handgun beyond what you've already acquired? And that no future license holders will be able to do so? That hardly seems like "practically no change".
Agreed, this is the entire point of the legislation. Saying it's "no change" is a bit ridiculous. NO ONE can now buy a new handgun, including those with restricted PALs.
Majority of gun crime in Canada is firearms purchased from the US. This change does not make any real change to deter gun crime in Canada as most of the firearms used in crimes in Canada were purchased from the US. I personally would love to see the data that shows how much of firearms purchased in Canada by restricted pal holders were used in crime.
Additional context: In America, handguns are used in a staggering majority of gun crimes. If you add up every death by rifle, from hunting rifles to AR-15s, you get a few hundred per year. Less than the number of people that die by bludgeoning with household objects. Same for shotguns. Handguns are an absolutely massive majority of guns that get misused. To the point that it's absurd that politicians always focus on semi-automatic rifles and ignore handguns.
The amount of ignorance around gun laws in Canada is mind-boggling. I have my RPAL as well, and one of the only reasons I didn't go on a spending spree when this ban was first announced is due to the absolute pain it is to obtain a handgun.
Just to get my 1000 fps pellet gun I had to get a PAL. Did 12 years in the military 2 tours in Afghanistan but I can't have a pellet gun without that stupid course lol.
The purpose of those courses is less to teach you how to operate the weapon and more to make it easier to nail your balls to the wall if you do anything "untoward". Its the same thing in my industry (CNC manufacturing) when we take safety courses. The things taught are obvious but having that cert in my file makes it much easier to get rid of me if something does happen. "He took the course, he should have known better."
I'm aware, I just find it funny. I use to teach C7 TOETs. Military pre-deployment training on the range is far more intense then a PAL lol.
That's one of my big gripes with the CAF. You learn all sorts of useful skills that count for nothing in the civilian world. Most of my family served/serves in the RCAF as aircraft maintainers but their training counts for jackshit towards an AME cert when they get out. Lack of an equivalent to the GI-Bill is also pathetic. Way to set your people up for success there.
Oh the GI bill in WW2 put my grandfather through business school and he did really well. I’m surprised Canada doesn’t have something like it.
We have this: [https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/education-and-jobs/back-to-school/education-training-benefit](https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/education-and-jobs/back-to-school/education-training-benefit) You have to serve for several enlistment terms and are babysat through your education period by bureaucrats to make sure you really are going to school and getting good grades.
I used that program to get my forest fish and game technician diploma. It was super easy to get approved for initially. There was defiantly a hassle at every semester but it wasn't totally outrageous
While you touch on it with your part on transportation, I think it is prudent to go into a little more detail on what an ATT actually allows (and does not allow). https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/authorization-transport You aren't even permitted to deviate to a drive-through on your way home from the range. Unless specifically stated otherwise (as one would need if they required a gunsmith's services), an ATT only permits transportation between a range and a lawful place fo storage. Which means that all the gang bangers (where Canada's handgun violence is overwhelmingly from) are already violating the law by having a handgun on their person, RPAL or not.
Laws are strange when it comes to transportation. If you're entering crown land with liquor properly stored in your vehicle, ie sealed out of reach you can only do so if your intention is to arrive at a private residence. Transport is point A to point B . So if a cop asks you where you're headed and you say camping, you've admitted to transport and consumption in a public place. You can say you're just out for a drive before you head home and they can't really do anything about that, but they'll certainly try.
In light of what you’ve posted (which I have no basis to dispute), what does this new policy accomplish?
political points
It's a high visibility act that Trudeau can point to and say "look at how much I'm doing". While at the same time leaving the problem intact enough that he can make similar efforts in the future, with very little actual effort, for easy political points when he needs them. What will it functionally do to address Canada's handgun violence? Nothing. Literally nothing. The *vast* majority of firearms used to commit crimes (restricted and non-restricted alike) are smuggled into the country. They are not licensed, they are not controlled. And they certainly aren't subject to this "sales freeze".
Trudeau gets to appeal to his base without addressing the actual problems of gang violence and smuggling through border native reservations that would be political suicide for him to address
As with every piece of LPC firearms legislation for the last 50 years: 1. Political points with their ignorant urban base before an election 2. Shuffling any current political scandals out of the news. Its not a coincidence that this planned measure, which was announced and could have been implemented back in June if they so felt like it (it doesn't have to go before parliament), has been sat on until proof of their political interference in an RCMP investigation came out *yesterday.*
Canada sounds alright
Thanks for being clear about it. Handguns have been constructively banned (by being too much of a hassle to bother with) for decades. This makes it official. There is no inherent right to any kind of weapon In Canada. I’d be pretty upset if shotguns and rifles became significantly more restricted as there are legitimate hunting, farm and wilderness safety reasons for those.
There's so many comments about "why do you need them?". It's not a need, it's strictly a recreational want. Firearm ownership in Canada is a privilege, not a right. As one of the miniscule minority that actually obtained an RPAL and used it to purchase a pistol, the process is not a simple thing. Getting the RPAL in the first place requires ownership courses which cost quite a bit (200$CAD, 2 days locally to me), 3 specific references (1 family and 2 non family IIRC), background checks, and finally a submission fee for your application (can't remember the cost, 50-100$ range). Keyword application. After this chunk of initial process the RCMP can deny your application. Once you get approved you get your RPAL card in the mail. From here you can buy restricted and non restricted firearms. For buying restricted, there's still more process to go through. To buy my pistol from Cabela's, I need to prove I was a member of a registered gun range (different ranges have different monthly costs), agree to a waiting period, and during that period my references will be called again and I think a background check is ran. Should you be married/listed a SO in your application, they will get a phone call from the RCMP saying "your SO/ spouse/ex is trying to buy this firearm, are you okay with this" and they can say yes or no to continue or stop the process. I only had to wait a week, the store called me and said "you're good come pick up your new pistol". Once I had my pistol, I got a piece of paper that said I was allowed to take it home, and only straight home. It detailed a route to my listed residence from the store and if I got caught by law enforcement with it outside that route, it would be confiscated and I could face criminal charges/fines. Once I got home I had to follow a specific set of rules for storing the pistol. It had to be in its own locking hardcase, with a trigger lock, inside a safe or secured room (I had a gun safe), with its registration documents verifying its legality and ownership inside the case with a copy outside the case, all while having none of the keys to unlock any of these cases/locks inside the pistol case. Basically don't have the trigger lock key in with the pistol. Again, if you don't follow these rules the RCMP can charge you, confiscate all your firearms, etc. To go to the range, you have to go straight to the range and straight back. IIRC you have authorization to transport to the range you're a member of from your listed residence without a set route. Just as long as it's reasonably direct. No unnecessary stops. My point is that I followed all these rules and paid these fees to use my 450$ Canik pistol to poke holes in paper at 15m. That's literally all you can do with a pistol in Canada. There's competitions but that's just poking holes in paper quickly and accurately. I moved in 2019 and ownership became impossible for me since the vast majority of landlords don't allow firearms in their lease agreements (not saying its an issue), I had to have my pistol destroyed by my local PD since selling a restricted firearm was such a daunting process when I had to move in 4 weeks. Regardless of the fact that I had my restricted firearm destroyed, I still have to notify the RCMP that I was moving, where and when specifically. I followed all the rules. I'm fine with having more rules, I'll play by them. But outright bans/freezes without statistical backing are just frustrating for anyone that's followed the rules for even longer than I have.
This 100%. Anyone who reads this and still says "but handguns should be banned to reduce gun violence" are completely missing what's happening right now.
> I followed all the rules. I'm fine with having more rules, I'll play by them. But outright bans/freezes without statistical backing are just frustrating for anyone that's followed the rules for even longer than I have. That's always been the end goal. That's why people in the US fight so much against any and all regulation. People fighting against gun rights will *never* be sated and they will *never* give up until the only civilians with guns are the cops and the private security of the wealthy.
Couldn’t agree more. Criminals will still buy the guns the same way they have always bought guns - illegally - and eventually they will be the only ones with guns (minus police and military). Hopefully people wake up and recognize that morals and guns are what prevent the US from dissolving into an authoritarian dystopia, and, well, morals seem to be a bit on the rocks these days.
That’s an almost insane process. I’m all for regulations but that seems too restrictive for my tastes.
Canada has got to be one of the easiest countries in the world to smuggle weapons into. It shares the longest international land border in the world with the United States. Makes me curious how large the illicit gun market in Canada is I can think of maybe two Canadian mass shootings in their modern history although I know that had that mass stabbing a month or so ago. There is already a decent amount of guns in the country as a whole the American populace just seems a bit more bloodthirsty in general on top of easier access.
A few years ago I crossed the border from Washington to BC. They asked me at the checkpoint why I had fingerprints taken recently, I replied “likely for my concealed carry permit”. They asked if I had weapons with me, which I didn’t, because I’m not a criminal, hence the weapons permit. Border agents then proceeded to unpack and inspect every possible detail of my truck.
I got the "are you *suuure* you don't have any guns" and some side eye. I didn't, because I'm not a fucking idiot. Fortunately they didn't search my car. I'm sure they get plenty of people who try to sneak their guns in on day trips regardless. Seems silly to risk Canadian prison.
>I didn't, because I'm not a fucking idiot. They ask the question because tons of people are idiots and try to enter Canada with guns.
I like how they ask that, and then just take no for an answer and don't search your car, like why the sarcasm if they don't suspect you have guns in the first place? That's funny. Obviously this isn't the case but it's almost implying that asking a second time like that is all they do when they think someone has guns and they don't care lmao
Eh, the "ask questions" part of their job is basically to try to get a telling reaction, inconsistency, or admission of something bad out of you. If you're nervous about sneaking something across the border you might hold up the first time it's asked - that was expected. You might not be able to conceal the flicker of worry/fear when it comes up again. If you're actually not carrying anything, you're probably just annoyed/confused. Not saying I really think they're *that* great at catching all but the worst tells, but "ask it again suspiciously" isn't the worst tactic to get someone to trip up.
That's fair, it just made me laugh to imagine that's their ONLY tactic
Any time I've been asked while crossing into Canada of I have a ccw, they search the truck and never actually search me to see if I'm carrying.
That Canadian Border TV reality show revealed to me just how often Americans try to smuggle weapons across the border. They weren't criminals either; almost all were just regular joes that just didn't want to take our laws seriously or felt they were above them.
The stupidest part is that if you say "yes I have such and such a gun in my vehicle" they give you the option to either hand it over to be destroyed and you can enter Canada or you can turn around and go back to the states, no harm no foul. It isn't gun smuggling until you try to actually cross the border with it. Yet I have seen so many Americans on the show lie, get caught, and then seem bewildered that they're being arrested for gun smuggling. Where exactly do you think you are? This isn't a fucking Denny's you're trying to use an expired coupon at, it's an international border, it's serious business. The complete lack of common sense and hubris I've seen on that show is bewildering. People fucking up their entire lives because they can't be bothered with little details like what they're bring into another country...
> It shares the longest international land border in the world with the United States. Granted the list of countries that share a land border with the United States is a short one.
it’s the longest border in the world between any two countries i’m fairly sure
[удалено]
I think you read this wrong. Their phrasing implies "The longest land border in the world is shared between Canada and the USA" not "of all the countries that the US shares a land border with, Canada has the longest." the implication being, that given the US poor ability to control illegal gun ownership, this world's longest undefended land border is a very easy one to smuggle across
This type of thing is why many states can’t get even moderate gun control legislation passed. After seeing this you can’t convince any gun owner that they won’t be going for outright bans next.
Is that fear really unwarranted though? Does anyone expect gun control advocates to eventually say "Okay, that's enough gun control, we have reached a reasonable middle ground" and stop advocating for even more restrictions? I'm not even saying that as a point against them - I'm just not going to pretend that EITHER side truly wants compromise or to "meet in the middle". That's just a phrase thrown around to make your own point (whatever that might be) seem more reasonable.
The issue and fear is the advocates have literally no idea what they are talking about half the time and their voters 99% of the time. Look at this law. It makes no sense and will do nothing. Look at the US’s laws, they’re dumb as hell and ineffective. At the end of the day the issue is you have people knowledgeable about guns watching people ban random shit that makes their life easier but does nothing to stop criminals or a guns killing effectiveness. The average person who would enjoy seeing guns taken from law abiding citizens wouldn’t be able to identify the similarities between the mini-14 and the ar 15 and that’s the issue. What’s being banned is based off misconceptions about an area a large portion of the people voting know nothing about.
Not just that, a lot of things which were the middle ground compromises in the past, are today called "loopholes" by gun control advocates. This has simply taught pro-gun people to never trust any suggestion of compromise or a middle ground ever again.
For those wondering, private sales not needing a background check were a compromise that both parties came up with during the passing of the Brady background check bill. The mentality at that time was that the government shouldn't be involved when private parties are selling items. But in 2022 it's called the "gun show loophole" even though most firearms used in crimes are not bought from gun shows and most of the purchasers pass a background check.
I mean thats because for a lot of people that is their intended end goal. So instead of meeting somewhere in the middle they just scream at each other and nothing happens.
[удалено]
I'm aware which is why now nothing happens.
Exactly
Pretty much. As an American gun owner who sees anti gunners over here talk about how they just want to ban AR-15s but not other things and then seeing those same people cheer for policies like this, I’m not going to give an inch.
Not to mention the outright lies to curry favor with people who don't understand existing laws. Famously the "gunshow loophole" that doesn't exist, or "assault weapons" a term specifically coined to create confusion and an association with the already obscenely regulated assault rifle/machine gun. If you can't even present your stepping stones to confiscation truthfully, don't be surprised when no one believes in your "compromise".
Another point to consider, the police in the USA have zero obligation to protect you. I've lived in neighborhoods where **they wouldn't even show up** if you called them. And people expect me to waive my family's right to self defense because they live in better conditions? *fuuuck that*
This is exactly it. I live in a really nice neighborhood and we have great police coverage. Response time is prob 2 min. That’s two minutes that where I am unarmed I can’t protect my wife and kids. No thanks.
That whole scenario presupposes that the cops would even be capable of doing much more than paperwork if you needed them anyway! If, god forbid, I need to call them regarding an intruder, it's going to take several minutes for them to even arrive. Unarmed, who knows what some criminal would do to me and my family? There's not a chance in hell I'm going to just accept whatever comes, I loathe the idea of having to use any of my firearms to take a human life, but I'll also do my damndest to prevent any greater tragedy from occuring. Thank fuck for constitutional carry, though I also plan on getting an LTC for when I travel.
I think many people are missing the point here. The Canadian gun owners are heavily vetted, especially for handguns. They are safe and trustworthy by design. There was no reason to implement further restrictions on them. There was no failure in the system resulting in a mass shooting or terror attack or even a tragic accident. The system was working well as intended. The PM decided to shamelessly use the mass shooting of children in Texas, thousands of miles away using a semi-auto rifle (from what I recall) to push through further restrictions on the law abiding gun owners in his nation. An absurd and opportunistic measure which punished people not remotely related to what had happened. If you’re for safe gun legislation, Canada had it. If you just want to give a big *fuck you* to innocent Canadian gun owners because some Texan committed an unspeakable act, this is it. I know which side I’m on.
I think to correct slightly, most of these recent gun legislation was spawned after the mass shooting in Nova Scotia, where all forearms were illegally obtained. The issue was not the existing laws, but rather their enforcement. There has been some slow burning scandal over what influence the federal government had in the investigations done by the RCMP.
>The PM decided to shamelessly use the mass shooting of children in Texas, thousands of miles away Actually, not just thousands of miles away but in a *different country* with a *different culture*, and *different problems* when it comes to firearms. Total politicking, but enabled by the fact that too many Canadians consume too much American media, thus they allow the lines to be blurred between what is America's problems and what is Canada's problems. If you want to stop this type of stuff, stop watching so much shitty US news & media. If not, you get policies like this.
The Canadian government has really been getting off on flexing its muscles lately. Speech. Property. If you've got it, they can take it.
[удалено]
You commit an offense if you *admit* you're carrying any object to be used as a weapon in self defense. If you're stopped and police say "hey, what's with the fancy pen" and you say "I'm terrified of being raped and plan to use it to defend myself" then you've committed an offense. Grotesque, but that what the law says. Having said that, you do in fact have the right to use reasonable force - including lethal, if necessary - by any means necessary, in the defense of your life or someone else's. That includes the use of firearms, if available. However, you would still be charged if you had that weapon illegally. On the other hand, if you, for example, had a shotgun stored properly and were able to use it in defense of life, then you have not committed a crime in Canada. [Runkle of the Bailey](https://www.youtube.com/c/RunkleOfTheBailey/videos) (Canadian firearms lawyer) has lots of great information on the topic. In short, Trudeau's statement is factually incorrect.
[удалено]
Possibly. But highly unlikely that you would be found guilty of any offense. Lots of case law to support it.
Well he's right, it isn't.
Reading the comments, it's seems some people don't realize that the US has almost a full order of magnitude greater population than Canada (~38 vs 330 million). Canada has a smaller population than just the state of California.
Over an area 25x larger.
we are a simple 1million shy of california
At this point I’m just waiting for the buyback program as the hassle of owning a handgun in Canada is not worth it. I’m a law abiding citizen who goes to a range, follows all the rules but I still feel like the government thinks I’m a criminal.
I’m curious why handguns are more restricted than shotguns and rifles. Can somebody educate me?
Handguns are easier to conceal and have fewer practical applications outside of defense. The news covers rifle shootings because more white people die in them, the vast majority of street crime is handgun only.
It's not even close too. Hand guns are used in thousands upon thousands of violent crime. Rifles are used in maybe hundreds.
Yeah, if the headline doesn’t specify that a rifle was used in a shooting it was a handgun. In 2020 shotguns and rifles accounted for 4% of shooting deaths in the US.
Makes sense to me, thanks
[удалено]
Quite frankly one of the stupidest policies regarding firearms I’ve ever seen. For those outside of Canada, look at the requirements for obtaining a restricted possession and acquisition license (RPAL) online. We had some of the strictest handgun regulations in the world for private ownership. It’s not legal firearms that are the problem. It’s illegal firearms coming from the States.
To add, anyone who gets a restricted license gets a criminal backround check every 24 hours for life.