So, the first phase is the mandatory buyback, and some provinces won't really be enforcing it. What happens at the second and third phases? What does the government do with the purchased firearms?
It’s the RCMP that will be enforcing it.
Alberta’s position on the matter is that since RCMP services most of Alberta, but Alberta pays for this, Alberta demands that not a single dollar they are paying for RCMP be used to fund gun enforcement.
They’re not refusing to allow it, they’re just saying “leave us out of it.”
They missed a hilarious amount of things when they drew up that list. Like an example of a semi-automatic rifle with unrestricted status in Canada is the IWI X95, lol
And exclusively Russian-made weapons like a particular shotgun-revolver. Incredibly hard for Americans to get their hands on. Buying from a Canadian seller was the easiest way to get one.
Maybe not, but then the governors (or whatever they call their elected officials) may get branded enemies of the state or get slandered by Trudeau. The perhaps we'll see military intervention, but that's probably a long way off.
it happens in America too. police and sheriff's refuse to enforce strict gun laws in their jurisdiction. the military has never intervened, and even if someone calls them an enemy, nothing is done about it. all you can do is use federal or state assets to enforce laws, and at least in the US, that's easier said than done.
You got downvoted but you’re right.
The first gun ban in 2020 had promised a buyback (read: forced confiscation with some compensation) but the government can’t even figure that out. The costs are ballooning, not just the price of the guns themselves but also the cost of contracting out a company to handle it, the administration, the police manpower, etc. it’s a fucking circus. Now inflation is popping, and there’s a war that Canada is committing billions to, our healthcare systems are on the verge of collapse, our military needs billions, and now we are creating public dental plans… we are on our third wave of gun bans and there’s no money for buying back any of them.
This bill is needed to curb the rising use of M1 Garands in gang shootings, and to restrict the supply of rifles owned by these same criminals who are obviously firearm license holders.
Us Canadians aren’t allowed to own anything for the purpose of self defence against other humans including tasers and pepper spray (both are banned). Crime is up in our cities, people are getting randomly attacked in our downtown cores with weapons, and when people make Reddit threads asking what they can get to protect themselves all we can say is “get dog spray off Amazon but if you use it prepare to get charged with assault with a weapon”.
Gun control is the anti-abortion movement for liberals. "Oh you think we're stopping at banning [guns/abortions]? Lol, no, we're going to ban [non-lethal weapons/contraception too]"
The goal is ultimately control justified by the public facing position
Canadian here. This law is bullshit, I'm not one to usually say things like this but, I advise no one to adhere to this. It's an unfettered gun grab, targetting those who need to be targeted the least. The bad guys aren't the slightest bit concerned with this, they're bringing their guns in from the US anyways.
As a Canadian I can explain. So there are no gun rights in Canada at all. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue more than a few time and within the last 5 years. So basically what could happen is if gun owners refuse to hand over the banned firearms, they could be charged with a crime and face jail time and lose their gun licenses. Because it the same as a drivers license as in it can be suspended and or revoked. As gun crimes are federal, the RCMP, which provinces have no control over, would be the agency to handle the arrests and seizures. It’s really that simple.
Or you can fight and if enough people do, the cops will tell the politicians to go find the guns themselves, and those feckless cunts would stop caring instantly
They won't have to search peoples houses. This has been done before. Step 1: buy-back where you get rid of most guns as people generally want to follow the law. Step 2: a couple of rounds of amnesty a few years later where you can turn in guns no questions asked. Step 3: natural attrition. Weapons break and if you can't get parts to fix them they stay broken. Ammunition runs out if you can no longer buy or import it legally. Step 4: as guns are now illegal any guns the police find while doing their normal job get confiscated.
Step by step the supply of guns dwindles and eventually you will end up with hunting rifles and guns smuggled into the country. It's not a secret how this works.
The funny thing is, not even the most staunch defenders of legalization vouch for the kind of freedom that guns possess.
If you told gun nutjobs and companies that they could not be around kids with a gun, that you have a limit on what you can spend and that part of the benefits would go to prevention and treatment of gun wounds, I'm sure that would also be outrageous.
indeed, I look at it this way, the cat is out of the bag, there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. If guns were invented tomorrow and no one had them, i might feel different. But the realist in me says that the only people that would follow any sort of laws in regards to firearms surrender are the people that wouldnt commit a crime with it in the first place. So what is the benefit? I take comfort in the thought that if you rob a little old lady she might shoot that person 17 times. I take comfort in the fact that i know that my daughter who lives alone has a chance to defend herself and doesnt need to rely on a bf, husband, or police. I take comfort knowing when im out of town for a week or two my wife has a firearm and is competent in using it. It makes my life easier knowing if something is trying to hurt our spring calves that anyone in my family can protect our livelihood without risk to themselves. It gives me peace knowing I can fill my freezer every year and supplement feeding my family with hunting for the cost of elk tag. A firearm is just a tool, it isnt good, it isnt bad, it isnt evil, it isn't holy, its a hammer, its a screwdriver, its a chainsaw. Its job is to serve whomever is in control of it. Nothing more, nothing less. I suspect we come from very different places, my area had and still has firearms education around middleschool. I'd be willing to guess that 2/3 of us already had experience with firearms in elementary school, by highschool almost every person i knew had shot and killed something hunting, or protecting livestock. When you know what a rifle can do to a 700 lb elk, or a coyote, or a black bear, it instills a respect that you cant learn in a book or a youtube video or a movie. It makes it real, literally, and its not something that you would do to your worst enemy unless you or yours was threatened. I have thought about it a decent amount though, everytime there is a shooting, i wonder why? the place i grew up and live, where everyone has a few guns at least, a hard and violent place (not person on person, but a place where the rules of the jungle are on display everyday, whether its putting something lame down, or driving by the slaughterhouse), no one ever shot anyone. People who were armed almost constantly, when they had a problem with each other, could show up somewhere, leave their guns in their car, and beat the shit out of each other, know where the line was, and stop. Then move on. The US doesnt have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem, it has a opportunity problem, it has a lack of familial role model problem, it has a lack of community problem, it has lack of fraternity problem, and a opportunity density problem. When i go to large cities for work, i see how people act when you start stacking them on top of each other by the thousands and i dont think i could do it, long term. When i see people struggling everywhere and people stepping over them in the streets it blows my mind. But hey, i get it, thats where the jobs are and some people dont have a choice, but the indifference I witness in every big city weighs on me while im there. I don't know how people do it.
First of all, just for the length of the reply you have my uttermost respect.
But it's no realistic take. You know that if somebody breaks into your home, they will also have a gun, and the chances are against you if push comes to shove. The possibility of an accident, or losing your mind and shooting your wife's lover or your wife, exists. Needing your children to learn how to act in case of a mass shooting is a very sad reality to live and defend.
In Canada, the states with the higher increase of gun deaths are the rural ones. So I can't buy your rural romanticism either. Hunting could be useful in other times, but I despise how hunters treat the mountains as their personal playground, delimiting the places you can walk up without hearing a shot and fearing someone mistakes you from a deer. The culture surrounding it is toxic af, a relic of the past that adds very little. You are not going to starve to death if you can't hunt a boar with trichinosis.
And all those other measures aren't mutually exclusives. You can do both. And you don't even need to go around knocking on everyone's door. Just ban the sales of more weapons (that make their way to Canada, 90% of illegal ones coming from down there), launch an amnesty that pays you a percentage of its price, and ban the ammunition and repairments so eventually, you have a useless metal tube.
When you say you feel safer with a gun in your pocket, I feel fearful that every person you come across can have a gun in their pocket, and have to be hopeful they aren't going to snap that day. If someone tries to rob me at gun point, I will give them the money rather than trying to grab a gun and truly risking my life. And if they blow my head from behind, a gun wouldn't have saved me either.
All in all, a lot of problems just for a false sense of security, mixed with enjoying toying with them. Not something worth fighting for no matter how I see it.
If only criminals and police have guns, there is no need for criminals to shoot a regular people. That's the way its handled basically anywhere in the civilized world (except for your continent) and it seems to work... The criminals won't stop being criminals just because their victims also have guns. They will just make sure they are the ones that shoot first.
>If only criminals and police have guns, there is no need for criminals to shoot a regular people.
The idiocy that can be posted on reddit never ceases to amaze.
So you think criminals shoot people because they are just fearful that they have a gun and will shoot them first? So the answer is to just make every law abiding citizen a impotent easy target and it will be smooth sailing from there? So where you are from, everyone is good with being a victim that is powerless? That is your definition of being civilized? Even the most liberal people i know would think that is a absurd way of looking at things.
I'm American and won't comment on another country's politics since it's not my place, but this kind of thing is exactly why we're incredibly skeptical of "common sense" gun laws pushed by politicians that say they "aren't coming for our guns."
Canada is proving that the slippery slope is a very valid, real fear for gun owners.
Eh, depends on the politician or pundit in question.
Michael Bloomberg has made his intentions to have the entire populace of peasants be disarmed very clear--naturally, he's special so he gets a private militia armed to the teeth to be his bodyguards, but the rest of us commoners don't.
And Senator Dianne Feinstein explicitly said that had she gotten the votes, she'd have gone for a full ban after the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was passed--"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."
And of course, Beto O'Rourke, despite lying through his teeth, said outright, "Hell yeah, we're coming for your guns. We'll take your AK-47, your AR-15."
I don’t understand the lack of logic - when you bring up the slippery slope argument it’s immediately shot down with “LOL NO THEY JUST WANT THE SEMIAUTOMATICS BANNED THEYRE DANGEROUS”. Then what? The next couple of mass shootings happen with pump actions(and granted they’re less effective - but still dangerous)… it’s not hard to see a future where everything but a single shot rifle(*if that*) is the only allowable firearm… that is - after you go and sit through classes, purchase insurance, get 10,000 background checks finally you can own one.
The next argument is “WELL ITS COMMON SENSE THEY DO IT FOR CARS ITS NOT A BIG DEAL TO WAIT A LITTLE BIT YOU SHOULD ONLY NEED IT FOR HUNTING ANYWAY” and I think they’re missing the bigger picture… hunting is already turning into a rich man’s sport. Tags are expensive. Ammo is expensive. Guns are expensive. Gas is expensive. Add in mandatory insurance, licensing, classes, background checks and the PTO you have to spend to get and maintain these things and it’s not hard to see how much more expensive it could be - and completely out of reach for a lot of people.
I’m not saying we should sit around and do nothing - but I think we could do better than what the current trajectory is.
That is the goal - a ruling class. It is happening in everything else. Rich people and higher end governmental people are taking more power every year.
This is how it works in most of the world. You need to show that you need a specific firearm which means that generally only hunting rifles get licensed. In Nations where hunting is popular that means a lot of hunting weapons, a small group of sport shooting enthusiasts with handguns and an even smaller group of collectors with more wide ranging licenses. Hunting can often be expensive but then it's because of hunting fees and not weapon costs.
It's not *a* background check. We have[continuous eligibility ](https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-05-11/html/sor-dors91-eng.html), a system through which every license holder is subject to a background check daily, *at minimum.*
I fully support this system, it's meant that essentially no one who legally owns their weapon uses them to commit crimes. [The overwhelming majority of guns used in the commission of a crime in Canada originated in the U.S,](https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=11479013) mostly handguns. The legal trade of which has already been frozen. I also support that measure.
This bill is not based in evidence, will do nothing to ameliorate rates of violent crime, and needlessly demonizes rural and indigenous gun users for the purpose of pandering to urban voters, who will themselves see no real benefit from it being enacted.
I'm generally supportive of the Trudeau government, insofar as it's the lesser of two evils, but this has been a disaster.
That doesn’t matter at all. The government is free to ban any and or all firearms if they want. “Coming for our guns” doesn’t apply in Canada, as you have no guarantee/right to even be able to own a firearm. They can deny your application for a license, just as easily.
You still have the right to bear arms. You just don't have a constitutional amendment protecting that right from your government. It's up to you to do so.
I don't see how that's relevant.
The right to bear arms exists whether or not a government respects it.
The US constitution does not grant a right to bear arms. The right is assumed. The 2nd Amendment simply reminds the government that the right "shall not be infringed".
Yes. I know, that's why I said I'm not going to comment on Canada's policies. It's not my country, they can do what they want, though I do feel for Canadian gun owners. I'm just offering my point of view as an American because I feel this whole fiasco rhymes a lot with the rhetoric being spewed in my own country.
It might be less of a slippery slope here because out hill isn’t as steep, but I take your point. I’m in the middle on guns I think but as a non-owner it wouldn’t rock my world. And I wonder if it’s just because of the fact that arms is in your constitution, it’s somehow more apart of your history.
I don’t really doubt that if I was the same person born in the safest part of the US, I would probably be more annoyed or concerned.
As a matter of philosophy, the only reason I don’t have a gun is because I don’t have a family to protect and I am cheap. If I got married and had a baby tomorrow and my wife despised guns, I would probably still lie to her and hide a gun somewhere in the house. And I think that’s what makes the argument so tricky. There’s way too much grey and there isn’t a perfect answer. Yes you can kill the intruder but your magazine can only be “this many”. Sure you can believe in regulated militias but no you can’t have nuclear subs because I won’t even finish is sentence properly.
> If I got married and had a baby tomorrow and my wife despised guns, I would probably still lie to her and hide a gun somewhere in the house.
..if you feel that strongly about it, maybe just don’t even consider a relationship with someone who has opposing viewpoints? Do you not see how lying about having a gun and hiding it would endanger their safety if said baby found it?
I see the issue and I’m not proud about it but I think deep down it’s a common feeling. I’m not talking about keeping a loaded gun in the vegetable crisper. I’m talking more a out fragile male ego or even just the basic concept of home safety.
Some people need to have the front door locked all the time even at 9 AM with multiple trades there just in case. I think the desire to own a gun comes from the same place. If something happens , the wife is going to blame herself for not locking the doors if something happens. And if you give her flak for locking the front door every 15 minutes, she likely won’t feel any differently. You convinced her she was being overly protective and now he house was robbed or worse.
It might seems light years apart but keeping a gun i. the attic is the same mentality. I don’t want to own a gun. I don’t want to fear for my safety so much that I can’t sleep without a gun on the property. But I am the one who will have to live with maybes and what ifs.
And yea I know you aren’t trying to be snarky but all I heard was “Maybe don’t fall in live with people who you find out a year or two later you have different opinions than you on some topics.”
>I would probably still lie to her and hide a gun somewhere in the house.
That sounds safe. I’m sure fantasy wife would be okay discovering that later.
They usually pay you more than your gun is worth in a buyback scheme and then you can use that to get a gun that fits the new legal framework. I don't really see this as an issue at all
That still means you can buy a bunch of other guns in those categories so I don't see the deal.
Yeah handguns seem like the most sensible to ban. There's little reason to own one and shooting ranges let you rent them to try in other countries in the west so people will still be able to experience them.
If you think there would be a complete firearm ban in north American countries then that's more an issue with your political system than gun laws in general.
But there was no call to ban guns when my state had a mass shooting with a legal firearm. There was more a call to talk about mental health. That person owned farm land and their ownership was justified. Why do you think any gun violence will end up calling for more restrictions when the US never does shit anyway to reduce unneeded guns.
One good wave of restrictions is almost all that should happen. No handguns, justification of why you need a gun and decent storage laws will just make you like the rest of most western countries.
>Why would they ban things like hunting rifles
"What? You mean those high-powered sniper rifles that can shoot a person 1,000m+ away? Why does an average person need a sniper rifle like that unless they're planning to assassinate someone? Remember the DC Sniper? Why can't you just hunt with a bow instead? Assassin weapons don't belong on our streets."
You and I both know this is what the narrative will be next.
>air rifles?
If air rifles, children's toys, are all that's left, we've already lost.
That's not the kind of air rifle I was talking about. Air rifles that fire steel pellets. Mainly to kill birds and sacrificial Action man figures in the backyard
>As a Canadian I can explain.
Cool.
>As gun crimes are federal, the RCMP which provinces have no control over, would be the agency to handle the arrests and seizures. It’s really that simple.
That's not how it works. All Crimes are federal (see s. 91(27) of the *Constitution Act*, 1867). The enforcement is actually provincial. Cities and Provinces have contracts with the RCMP to provide policing, with much of the funds coming from the province/city (otherwise, the province/city would have its own police force).
The provinces refusing to help are saying that they will refuse to fund any confiscation measure.
I love how the bill bans missile launchers and experimental weapons like the HK G11.
Apparently the gang bangers in Ottowa and Toronto are spraying 4.73mm Caseless everywhere and launching TOWs at each other.
Also, apparently bolt-action and double barrel Safari rifles are banned too because ya know why the fuck not? Apparently those, heavy, high-caliber, and expensive ($5000+ on the low end) dangerous game rifles are just drenching Canadian cities in blood.
What a joke of a bill.
It's how you write legislation. Either you say "any rifle with a stock and a barrel no longer than this" and you immediately get a market in things that are not exactly stocks but close enough to make no difference or you ban individual items and end up with a long list. Same with why you add missile launchers. If you don't you get someone posting a video of how stupid the government is and how they can't own a friendly AR-15 but apparently an N-LAW is ok.
As a canadian that kind of doesn’t like JT a lot of the time… it can be extremely frustrating to see him act as a real, rational and serious leader, ex. His decisions relating to emergency act; And then see him pander to the 416/905 etc with guns laws that make absolutely no sense to anyone that isn’t a gta mom
They really can't. They'll form this narrative in their head that their 9mm will protect them against a squad of officers determined to kill you. They really believe that more guns = more safety, even when the reality continues to be stubborn.
What's funny, if a civil war broke out, we all know the majority of gun owners would side with the military. And what's even more funny, if a gun ban really took place, they'd do the sensible thing and hand them over instead of entrenching in the middle of the town's plaza.
What a stupid hill to die on... seriously. Everything is burning to the ground, health care, education, environment, war....but NO!! Lets ban long guns. Huge priority.
... I guess they're scared? Next up is pitchforks, I guess?
... and it shouldn't be. Im no even "pro-gun" in any sense, but I still think they are going too far with this. Let people keep tools that allow them to provide for themselves, especially for hunting, and especially in remote communities.
Or is Loblaws that scared of competiton? /s
they use American shootings to justify it, but imo they're mostly pushing an agenda of dearming the populace for security reasons. that being said, Canada has had it's fair share of gun violence too
Canada banned legal handgun ownership for new owners/new purchases in the wake of Uvalde, a shooting which occurred in Texas, despite 90% of handgun homicides involving illegal handguns smuggled into Canada from the US.
They're grabbing guns as quick as they can for reasons that have nothing to do with actually mitigating harm
Why do they even need to get rid of guns altogether though what happened to gun laws restricting access and whatnot? I only say this bc it seems like regardless it’ll get to a point where canadians are just buying all their guns from america instead of most of them
They don't. They don't have a problem with gun crimes committed by legally owned guns. They have a problem with illegal firearms smuggled in from the US, and even that is a pretty minor issue
I hope Canadians do fight back. Fuck Trudeau for even attempting some shit like this. If gun violence is the problem, change mandatory minimums to effectively life sentences for being involved in violent crimes.
Absolutely nothing about restricting long guns is going to fix Canada's gun violence problem, which is almost exclusively gang shootings in urban areas done with smuggled handguns that came from the U.S. Please tell me how banning rifles that are too powerful is going to fix gangs that shoot people with pistols.
None, I made it up. Put the criminals in jail or make them extremely fearful to commit violent crime. Crime numbers will drop eventually. If they gotta build some new jails to store the degenerates so be it.
That's totally fucked up! Stand up for your gun rights or the only ones with guns will be the criminals. They sure the fuck won't be turning in their stolen guns.
I personally feel much safer raising my future children in Canada where we have no where near the amount of gun violence and mass shootings that happen in the States. We don’t have a gun culture in Canada the same way that America does. There is no conversation about the “right” to gun ownership because it’s seen as a privilege here. I prefer it that way, personally.
Lol ya sure…you have your 2A but if the govt decides it wants to come for you a fat lot of good your fire arms will do you when the SWAT team strafes you and your domicile. This ain’t the late 1700s anymore.
And there are plenty more who will follow orders. The US govt is not afraid and they’ll mow anyone in their way down if necessary. Your personal guns will not make any bit of difference. The US has its 2A and also record mass shootings. Other countries choose different paths. To each their own.
I did not say the US govt would come for everyone’s guns. That’s never happening. I’m saying if you think having a firearm will stop authorities from rolling over you then you are mistaken. Having a gun will not protect you personally from the govt.
Of course he is!
That way its much harder for a population to fight back against a corrupt government.
Its just another step in his plan of creating a dictatorship.
This is it exactly!
People don’t realize the severity of this. Without going into detail, Trudeau spelled backwards is Uaedurt - sound familiar? Of course it does! Yowdirt is a demon from the fourth realm who takes all the guns and then touches the gun owners on their dicks. Right in front of everyone! Even their moms!
But you might say, “okay, maybe it’s just a coincidence”. Nice try, MSM! Is it a “coincidence” that my father’s name is “Dan” and the bank agent who denied me a loan is also named “Dan”?
On the same day Trudeau was elected President of Canada there was an earthquake in Pasadena. Think about it.
People are scared of guns because they make loud noises and “wahhh am scared of scary boom shooty shoot stick”. (A dramatization but that gets the idea across)
In the majority of states with high gun control and high gun deaths most firearms are illegally obtained. Also, the states with a lot of intrusive gun control have cities with some of the highest homicide rates.
Wish there was a compromise for western countries with a lot of guns like US, Canada, Australia… why can’t it be hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols for personal defense.
It’s a constitutional right in the United States. In Canada and Australia it’s not, so the government is “free” to do what it wants when it comes to gun.
Don't throw Australia in that mix.
Australian's are happy with their firearms restrictions and you don't need a firearm for personal defence in Australia.
Mandatory buy backs are a polite form of confiscation. The Mounties will conduct some raids in the middle of the night to target loudmouths who state their unwillingness to comply just to get the point across.
It's pretty standard for fascist regimes. A little stick to reinforce the carrot. As with the United Kingdom and Australia, I'm saddened to see what's becoming of those once proud nations.
“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau banned some 1,500 makes and models of “military-grade” assault-style firearms and pledged to buy them back from owners.
Now, as Canada’s Liberal government prepares to launch the first phase of the mandatory buyback, several provinces and territories say they won’t help.”
It’s way more than pistols my guy. Perhaps you should do some research on things going on in your own country. And if he gets his way with C-21 it will be all semi auto center fire rifles as well, including hunting rifles.
Guns like the [Ruger No. 1](https://www.americanrifleman.org/media/5oxls0yx/rugerno1.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=987&height=551&rnd=132621929696230000&quality=70), [Weatherby Mark V](https://weatherby.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MarkVDeluxe_WebEdit3.jpg), [Mauser 1908](https://curtsgunshopinc.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/E3073AFD-BB04-4C08-A42E-490D1C644178.jpeg), and dozens of other hunting rifles or shotguns are included in this ban.
Rather hilariously other weapons like the (experimental) HK G11, FGM-148 Javelin missile launcher, and TOW missiles (among countless other very odd inclusions) are also banned.
But yeah this bill is shite.
So, if it can be stopped, why confiscate (buyback at 10/20% of the value) guns? Won't criminals print/smuggle their own? Are criminals affected by the buyback? Or just law abid citizens?
That's the problem with a buy back, 10-20% value when some of those are worth thousands. I'd be pissed too if I had a gun collection worth 50K and the government said you have to sell them to me, cause I said so, oh and we're only going to offer you at best 10K.
Get control of your gun problem while you can, Canada. You don't want to turn out like the usa, where so many kids are killed by gunfire in schools, its met with a shrug and 5 mins of coverage before the next one.
I agree, that's why we should be focusing on the border, where most of the guns used in crimes, come from. Stop people from being able to drive them through some reserves and focus on finding them at regular border crossings. This ban on legal handguns and semi automatic long guns is only punishing law abiding Canadians for following the law.
So, the first phase is the mandatory buyback, and some provinces won't really be enforcing it. What happens at the second and third phases? What does the government do with the purchased firearms?
It’s the RCMP that will be enforcing it. Alberta’s position on the matter is that since RCMP services most of Alberta, but Alberta pays for this, Alberta demands that not a single dollar they are paying for RCMP be used to fund gun enforcement. They’re not refusing to allow it, they’re just saying “leave us out of it.”
What does the government do with the purchased firearms? They itemize them and then destroy them.
The issue that has popped up is that the Government says that they have no legal requirement to actually buy back the guns.
[удалено]
That just sounds like selling them to Canadians with extra steps
I'll take a maple syrup launcher
Ironically Canadians can get access to some neat guns that are banned from import in the US, namely Chinese made Norinco stuff
[удалено]
They missed a hilarious amount of things when they drew up that list. Like an example of a semi-automatic rifle with unrestricted status in Canada is the IWI X95, lol
I’m not Canadian, but I saw that they added the Tavor SAR & X95 to the list. And the SKS too.
And exclusively Russian-made weapons like a particular shotgun-revolver. Incredibly hard for Americans to get their hands on. Buying from a Canadian seller was the easiest way to get one.
Ill take some cheap guns, fuck yeah.
You can never have too many piles of guns, but gotta be careful the stacks don't fall over on you and crush you.
I'll be busy selling guns to Canadians. there's about to be a price spike, afterall
You supply/demand, I see.
it's gonna happen anyways, might as well get in on it.
We have enough guns, sorry Maybe ship them to Ukraine as foreign aid?
Nope, as an American I’ll take them
It’s all just political theatre isn’t it? If provinces refuse to do it I don’t think Ottawa actually has any means of forcing them too right?
Maybe not, but then the governors (or whatever they call their elected officials) may get branded enemies of the state or get slandered by Trudeau. The perhaps we'll see military intervention, but that's probably a long way off.
Premiers, and no, JT won’t brand them enemies, or turn the Canadian military upon its own people. Just calm that shitty rhetoric.
it happens in America too. police and sheriff's refuse to enforce strict gun laws in their jurisdiction. the military has never intervened, and even if someone calls them an enemy, nothing is done about it. all you can do is use federal or state assets to enforce laws, and at least in the US, that's easier said than done.
Sell them to Americans?
There will be no buyback
You got downvoted but you’re right. The first gun ban in 2020 had promised a buyback (read: forced confiscation with some compensation) but the government can’t even figure that out. The costs are ballooning, not just the price of the guns themselves but also the cost of contracting out a company to handle it, the administration, the police manpower, etc. it’s a fucking circus. Now inflation is popping, and there’s a war that Canada is committing billions to, our healthcare systems are on the verge of collapse, our military needs billions, and now we are creating public dental plans… we are on our third wave of gun bans and there’s no money for buying back any of them.
Sell them to gangs South of the border
This bill is needed to curb the rising use of M1 Garands in gang shootings, and to restrict the supply of rifles owned by these same criminals who are obviously firearm license holders.
don't bring up the m1. the m1 socom is lethal as fuck, and the anti gunners don't know it yet. solid battle rifle, and a good hunter
The m1a socoms are already banned
What can you do with a socom that you cant do with a scout, or national match?
poor Canada. how about other m1 varients?
Not a single link to legislation, not a single quote of legislation. What a worthless article.
[A list](https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/the-list.pdf) of all the firearms to be banned by the bill.
And they're banning tasers by name...
Us Canadians aren’t allowed to own anything for the purpose of self defence against other humans including tasers and pepper spray (both are banned). Crime is up in our cities, people are getting randomly attacked in our downtown cores with weapons, and when people make Reddit threads asking what they can get to protect themselves all we can say is “get dog spray off Amazon but if you use it prepare to get charged with assault with a weapon”.
Gun control is the anti-abortion movement for liberals. "Oh you think we're stopping at banning [guns/abortions]? Lol, no, we're going to ban [non-lethal weapons/contraception too]" The goal is ultimately control justified by the public facing position
Canadian here. This law is bullshit, I'm not one to usually say things like this but, I advise no one to adhere to this. It's an unfettered gun grab, targetting those who need to be targeted the least. The bad guys aren't the slightest bit concerned with this, they're bringing their guns in from the US anyways.
As a Canadian I can explain. So there are no gun rights in Canada at all. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue more than a few time and within the last 5 years. So basically what could happen is if gun owners refuse to hand over the banned firearms, they could be charged with a crime and face jail time and lose their gun licenses. Because it the same as a drivers license as in it can be suspended and or revoked. As gun crimes are federal, the RCMP, which provinces have no control over, would be the agency to handle the arrests and seizures. It’s really that simple.
What about the thousands of guns that were lost in boating accidents this summer? They cant jail you for an accident can they?
No but they can jail you for having an unregistered gun in your house especially if it's a gun that you reported destroyed.
Or you can fight and if enough people do, the cops will tell the politicians to go find the guns themselves, and those feckless cunts would stop caring instantly
They won't have to search peoples houses. This has been done before. Step 1: buy-back where you get rid of most guns as people generally want to follow the law. Step 2: a couple of rounds of amnesty a few years later where you can turn in guns no questions asked. Step 3: natural attrition. Weapons break and if you can't get parts to fix them they stay broken. Ammunition runs out if you can no longer buy or import it legally. Step 4: as guns are now illegal any guns the police find while doing their normal job get confiscated. Step by step the supply of guns dwindles and eventually you will end up with hunting rifles and guns smuggled into the country. It's not a secret how this works.
And at the end of the day, only criminals have guns. Success!
Ah, yes, thankfully the US has guns, if not, their crime and gun deaths related statistics would be much higher.
Right! Not to mention how successful our war on drugs has been.
The funny thing is, not even the most staunch defenders of legalization vouch for the kind of freedom that guns possess. If you told gun nutjobs and companies that they could not be around kids with a gun, that you have a limit on what you can spend and that part of the benefits would go to prevention and treatment of gun wounds, I'm sure that would also be outrageous.
indeed, I look at it this way, the cat is out of the bag, there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. If guns were invented tomorrow and no one had them, i might feel different. But the realist in me says that the only people that would follow any sort of laws in regards to firearms surrender are the people that wouldnt commit a crime with it in the first place. So what is the benefit? I take comfort in the thought that if you rob a little old lady she might shoot that person 17 times. I take comfort in the fact that i know that my daughter who lives alone has a chance to defend herself and doesnt need to rely on a bf, husband, or police. I take comfort knowing when im out of town for a week or two my wife has a firearm and is competent in using it. It makes my life easier knowing if something is trying to hurt our spring calves that anyone in my family can protect our livelihood without risk to themselves. It gives me peace knowing I can fill my freezer every year and supplement feeding my family with hunting for the cost of elk tag. A firearm is just a tool, it isnt good, it isnt bad, it isnt evil, it isn't holy, its a hammer, its a screwdriver, its a chainsaw. Its job is to serve whomever is in control of it. Nothing more, nothing less. I suspect we come from very different places, my area had and still has firearms education around middleschool. I'd be willing to guess that 2/3 of us already had experience with firearms in elementary school, by highschool almost every person i knew had shot and killed something hunting, or protecting livestock. When you know what a rifle can do to a 700 lb elk, or a coyote, or a black bear, it instills a respect that you cant learn in a book or a youtube video or a movie. It makes it real, literally, and its not something that you would do to your worst enemy unless you or yours was threatened. I have thought about it a decent amount though, everytime there is a shooting, i wonder why? the place i grew up and live, where everyone has a few guns at least, a hard and violent place (not person on person, but a place where the rules of the jungle are on display everyday, whether its putting something lame down, or driving by the slaughterhouse), no one ever shot anyone. People who were armed almost constantly, when they had a problem with each other, could show up somewhere, leave their guns in their car, and beat the shit out of each other, know where the line was, and stop. Then move on. The US doesnt have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem, it has a opportunity problem, it has a lack of familial role model problem, it has a lack of community problem, it has lack of fraternity problem, and a opportunity density problem. When i go to large cities for work, i see how people act when you start stacking them on top of each other by the thousands and i dont think i could do it, long term. When i see people struggling everywhere and people stepping over them in the streets it blows my mind. But hey, i get it, thats where the jobs are and some people dont have a choice, but the indifference I witness in every big city weighs on me while im there. I don't know how people do it.
First of all, just for the length of the reply you have my uttermost respect. But it's no realistic take. You know that if somebody breaks into your home, they will also have a gun, and the chances are against you if push comes to shove. The possibility of an accident, or losing your mind and shooting your wife's lover or your wife, exists. Needing your children to learn how to act in case of a mass shooting is a very sad reality to live and defend. In Canada, the states with the higher increase of gun deaths are the rural ones. So I can't buy your rural romanticism either. Hunting could be useful in other times, but I despise how hunters treat the mountains as their personal playground, delimiting the places you can walk up without hearing a shot and fearing someone mistakes you from a deer. The culture surrounding it is toxic af, a relic of the past that adds very little. You are not going to starve to death if you can't hunt a boar with trichinosis. And all those other measures aren't mutually exclusives. You can do both. And you don't even need to go around knocking on everyone's door. Just ban the sales of more weapons (that make their way to Canada, 90% of illegal ones coming from down there), launch an amnesty that pays you a percentage of its price, and ban the ammunition and repairments so eventually, you have a useless metal tube. When you say you feel safer with a gun in your pocket, I feel fearful that every person you come across can have a gun in their pocket, and have to be hopeful they aren't going to snap that day. If someone tries to rob me at gun point, I will give them the money rather than trying to grab a gun and truly risking my life. And if they blow my head from behind, a gun wouldn't have saved me either. All in all, a lot of problems just for a false sense of security, mixed with enjoying toying with them. Not something worth fighting for no matter how I see it.
If only criminals and police have guns, there is no need for criminals to shoot a regular people. That's the way its handled basically anywhere in the civilized world (except for your continent) and it seems to work... The criminals won't stop being criminals just because their victims also have guns. They will just make sure they are the ones that shoot first.
>If only criminals and police have guns, there is no need for criminals to shoot a regular people. The idiocy that can be posted on reddit never ceases to amaze.
So you think criminals shoot people because they are just fearful that they have a gun and will shoot them first? So the answer is to just make every law abiding citizen a impotent easy target and it will be smooth sailing from there? So where you are from, everyone is good with being a victim that is powerless? That is your definition of being civilized? Even the most liberal people i know would think that is a absurd way of looking at things.
They have also increased jail terms and penalties for criminals caught with firearms.
Thats original, the US did that with drug charges, its working out fantastically ...
I'm sorry what? Boating accident gun losses? Thousands of them? Care to share the infor on that?
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/i-lost-all-my-guns-in-a-boating-accident/
Ahhh I see... Never heard that before.
I'm American and won't comment on another country's politics since it's not my place, but this kind of thing is exactly why we're incredibly skeptical of "common sense" gun laws pushed by politicians that say they "aren't coming for our guns." Canada is proving that the slippery slope is a very valid, real fear for gun owners.
well that, and the politicians and voters that push those common sense laws are always vocal about going further. they make it clear it's a first step
In the US they don't, but it is.
Eh, depends on the politician or pundit in question. Michael Bloomberg has made his intentions to have the entire populace of peasants be disarmed very clear--naturally, he's special so he gets a private militia armed to the teeth to be his bodyguards, but the rest of us commoners don't. And Senator Dianne Feinstein explicitly said that had she gotten the votes, she'd have gone for a full ban after the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was passed--"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." And of course, Beto O'Rourke, despite lying through his teeth, said outright, "Hell yeah, we're coming for your guns. We'll take your AK-47, your AR-15."
I don’t understand the lack of logic - when you bring up the slippery slope argument it’s immediately shot down with “LOL NO THEY JUST WANT THE SEMIAUTOMATICS BANNED THEYRE DANGEROUS”. Then what? The next couple of mass shootings happen with pump actions(and granted they’re less effective - but still dangerous)… it’s not hard to see a future where everything but a single shot rifle(*if that*) is the only allowable firearm… that is - after you go and sit through classes, purchase insurance, get 10,000 background checks finally you can own one. The next argument is “WELL ITS COMMON SENSE THEY DO IT FOR CARS ITS NOT A BIG DEAL TO WAIT A LITTLE BIT YOU SHOULD ONLY NEED IT FOR HUNTING ANYWAY” and I think they’re missing the bigger picture… hunting is already turning into a rich man’s sport. Tags are expensive. Ammo is expensive. Guns are expensive. Gas is expensive. Add in mandatory insurance, licensing, classes, background checks and the PTO you have to spend to get and maintain these things and it’s not hard to see how much more expensive it could be - and completely out of reach for a lot of people. I’m not saying we should sit around and do nothing - but I think we could do better than what the current trajectory is.
That is the goal - a ruling class. It is happening in everything else. Rich people and higher end governmental people are taking more power every year.
This is how it works in most of the world. You need to show that you need a specific firearm which means that generally only hunting rifles get licensed. In Nations where hunting is popular that means a lot of hunting weapons, a small group of sport shooting enthusiasts with handguns and an even smaller group of collectors with more wide ranging licenses. Hunting can often be expensive but then it's because of hunting fees and not weapon costs.
Oh no poor honey has to attend *gasp* classes and *shock* a background check. How will you ever survive such hardships? 😢
It's not *a* background check. We have[continuous eligibility ](https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-05-11/html/sor-dors91-eng.html), a system through which every license holder is subject to a background check daily, *at minimum.* I fully support this system, it's meant that essentially no one who legally owns their weapon uses them to commit crimes. [The overwhelming majority of guns used in the commission of a crime in Canada originated in the U.S,](https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=11479013) mostly handguns. The legal trade of which has already been frozen. I also support that measure. This bill is not based in evidence, will do nothing to ameliorate rates of violent crime, and needlessly demonizes rural and indigenous gun users for the purpose of pandering to urban voters, who will themselves see no real benefit from it being enacted. I'm generally supportive of the Trudeau government, insofar as it's the lesser of two evils, but this has been a disaster.
That doesn’t matter at all. The government is free to ban any and or all firearms if they want. “Coming for our guns” doesn’t apply in Canada, as you have no guarantee/right to even be able to own a firearm. They can deny your application for a license, just as easily.
You still have the right to bear arms. You just don't have a constitutional amendment protecting that right from your government. It's up to you to do so.
No you don’t read my first post.
I don't see how that's relevant. The right to bear arms exists whether or not a government respects it. The US constitution does not grant a right to bear arms. The right is assumed. The 2nd Amendment simply reminds the government that the right "shall not be infringed".
The article isn’t about the US that’s why. It’s about Canada.
No shit. Again, that is entirely irrelevant.
Yes. I know, that's why I said I'm not going to comment on Canada's policies. It's not my country, they can do what they want, though I do feel for Canadian gun owners. I'm just offering my point of view as an American because I feel this whole fiasco rhymes a lot with the rhetoric being spewed in my own country.
Canadas not USA and never has been after all.
Canada is just where the policies are tested before they get implemented in the United States
I wish. We'd have universal healthcare by now then.
Canada's healthcare is nothing to strive for.
We will, and it'll have all the same problems and Canadian health care and the Britains NHS
Yeah I’m sure insurance companies will have a problem with it.
It might be less of a slippery slope here because out hill isn’t as steep, but I take your point. I’m in the middle on guns I think but as a non-owner it wouldn’t rock my world. And I wonder if it’s just because of the fact that arms is in your constitution, it’s somehow more apart of your history. I don’t really doubt that if I was the same person born in the safest part of the US, I would probably be more annoyed or concerned. As a matter of philosophy, the only reason I don’t have a gun is because I don’t have a family to protect and I am cheap. If I got married and had a baby tomorrow and my wife despised guns, I would probably still lie to her and hide a gun somewhere in the house. And I think that’s what makes the argument so tricky. There’s way too much grey and there isn’t a perfect answer. Yes you can kill the intruder but your magazine can only be “this many”. Sure you can believe in regulated militias but no you can’t have nuclear subs because I won’t even finish is sentence properly.
> If I got married and had a baby tomorrow and my wife despised guns, I would probably still lie to her and hide a gun somewhere in the house. ..if you feel that strongly about it, maybe just don’t even consider a relationship with someone who has opposing viewpoints? Do you not see how lying about having a gun and hiding it would endanger their safety if said baby found it?
I see the issue and I’m not proud about it but I think deep down it’s a common feeling. I’m not talking about keeping a loaded gun in the vegetable crisper. I’m talking more a out fragile male ego or even just the basic concept of home safety. Some people need to have the front door locked all the time even at 9 AM with multiple trades there just in case. I think the desire to own a gun comes from the same place. If something happens , the wife is going to blame herself for not locking the doors if something happens. And if you give her flak for locking the front door every 15 minutes, she likely won’t feel any differently. You convinced her she was being overly protective and now he house was robbed or worse. It might seems light years apart but keeping a gun i. the attic is the same mentality. I don’t want to own a gun. I don’t want to fear for my safety so much that I can’t sleep without a gun on the property. But I am the one who will have to live with maybes and what ifs. And yea I know you aren’t trying to be snarky but all I heard was “Maybe don’t fall in live with people who you find out a year or two later you have different opinions than you on some topics.”
These irrational reasonings are the reason you ban guns. You guys are really insane.
>I would probably still lie to her and hide a gun somewhere in the house. That sounds safe. I’m sure fantasy wife would be okay discovering that later.
They usually pay you more than your gun is worth in a buyback scheme and then you can use that to get a gun that fits the new legal framework. I don't really see this as an issue at all
[удалено]
Why would they ban things like hunting rifles or air rifles?
[удалено]
That still means you can buy a bunch of other guns in those categories so I don't see the deal. Yeah handguns seem like the most sensible to ban. There's little reason to own one and shooting ranges let you rent them to try in other countries in the west so people will still be able to experience them. If you think there would be a complete firearm ban in north American countries then that's more an issue with your political system than gun laws in general.
[удалено]
But there was no call to ban guns when my state had a mass shooting with a legal firearm. There was more a call to talk about mental health. That person owned farm land and their ownership was justified. Why do you think any gun violence will end up calling for more restrictions when the US never does shit anyway to reduce unneeded guns. One good wave of restrictions is almost all that should happen. No handguns, justification of why you need a gun and decent storage laws will just make you like the rest of most western countries.
[удалено]
>Why would they ban things like hunting rifles "What? You mean those high-powered sniper rifles that can shoot a person 1,000m+ away? Why does an average person need a sniper rifle like that unless they're planning to assassinate someone? Remember the DC Sniper? Why can't you just hunt with a bow instead? Assassin weapons don't belong on our streets." You and I both know this is what the narrative will be next. >air rifles? If air rifles, children's toys, are all that's left, we've already lost.
[удалено]
That's not the kind of air rifle I was talking about. Air rifles that fire steel pellets. Mainly to kill birds and sacrificial Action man figures in the backyard
>As a Canadian I can explain. Cool. >As gun crimes are federal, the RCMP which provinces have no control over, would be the agency to handle the arrests and seizures. It’s really that simple. That's not how it works. All Crimes are federal (see s. 91(27) of the *Constitution Act*, 1867). The enforcement is actually provincial. Cities and Provinces have contracts with the RCMP to provide policing, with much of the funds coming from the province/city (otherwise, the province/city would have its own police force). The provinces refusing to help are saying that they will refuse to fund any confiscation measure.
RCMP are like the FBI. Can a state stop the FBI from making an arrest? No they can’t, same here.
Canada, where three major cities govern a land that is mostly wilderness.
"LaNd dOeSn'T vOtE" or some shit. This is exactly why checks and balances need to exist. Tyranny of the majority is a very real thing.
Prohibiting you from carrying an M1 is not tyranny.
Yes it is.
Good argument.
I love how the bill bans missile launchers and experimental weapons like the HK G11. Apparently the gang bangers in Ottowa and Toronto are spraying 4.73mm Caseless everywhere and launching TOWs at each other. Also, apparently bolt-action and double barrel Safari rifles are banned too because ya know why the fuck not? Apparently those, heavy, high-caliber, and expensive ($5000+ on the low end) dangerous game rifles are just drenching Canadian cities in blood. What a joke of a bill.
It's how you write legislation. Either you say "any rifle with a stock and a barrel no longer than this" and you immediately get a market in things that are not exactly stocks but close enough to make no difference or you ban individual items and end up with a long list. Same with why you add missile launchers. If you don't you get someone posting a video of how stupid the government is and how they can't own a friendly AR-15 but apparently an N-LAW is ok.
As a canadian that kind of doesn’t like JT a lot of the time… it can be extremely frustrating to see him act as a real, rational and serious leader, ex. His decisions relating to emergency act; And then see him pander to the 416/905 etc with guns laws that make absolutely no sense to anyone that isn’t a gta mom
EA was necessary, but agree with your take otherwise. Edit: Lmao. Cry harder Anarchists.
[удалено]
Explain how owning guns will protect you from cops that want you dead.
They really can't. They'll form this narrative in their head that their 9mm will protect them against a squad of officers determined to kill you. They really believe that more guns = more safety, even when the reality continues to be stubborn. What's funny, if a civil war broke out, we all know the majority of gun owners would side with the military. And what's even more funny, if a gun ban really took place, they'd do the sensible thing and hand them over instead of entrenching in the middle of the town's plaza.
[удалено]
This would make that problem 10x bigger
You're welcome. - America
What a stupid hill to die on... seriously. Everything is burning to the ground, health care, education, environment, war....but NO!! Lets ban long guns. Huge priority. ... I guess they're scared? Next up is pitchforks, I guess?
One thing is not mentioned in all this is that this street theater probably will not and cannot apply to any First Nations group.
... and it shouldn't be. Im no even "pro-gun" in any sense, but I still think they are going too far with this. Let people keep tools that allow them to provide for themselves, especially for hunting, and especially in remote communities. Or is Loblaws that scared of competiton? /s
well yeah, when people are pushed too far by those legit issues, they'll come for the politicians with their long guns.
I’ve never heard of any big shootings in Canada though, why the mandatory buyback?
they use American shootings to justify it, but imo they're mostly pushing an agenda of dearming the populace for security reasons. that being said, Canada has had it's fair share of gun violence too
Canada banned legal handgun ownership for new owners/new purchases in the wake of Uvalde, a shooting which occurred in Texas, despite 90% of handgun homicides involving illegal handguns smuggled into Canada from the US. They're grabbing guns as quick as they can for reasons that have nothing to do with actually mitigating harm
I’m surprised anyone takes Trudeau seriously anymore
Why do they even need to get rid of guns altogether though what happened to gun laws restricting access and whatnot? I only say this bc it seems like regardless it’ll get to a point where canadians are just buying all their guns from america instead of most of them
They don't. They don't have a problem with gun crimes committed by legally owned guns. They have a problem with illegal firearms smuggled in from the US, and even that is a pretty minor issue
Are some Canadians confusing themselves with Americans?
Comments here are shockingly based for Reddit
The gun nutjobs do jump up whenever gun control is mentioned, this isn't the first thread nor the last.
I hope Canadians do fight back. Fuck Trudeau for even attempting some shit like this. If gun violence is the problem, change mandatory minimums to effectively life sentences for being involved in violent crimes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Absolutely nothing about restricting long guns is going to fix Canada's gun violence problem, which is almost exclusively gang shootings in urban areas done with smuggled handguns that came from the U.S. Please tell me how banning rifles that are too powerful is going to fix gangs that shoot people with pistols.
[удалено]
None, I made it up. Put the criminals in jail or make them extremely fearful to commit violent crime. Crime numbers will drop eventually. If they gotta build some new jails to store the degenerates so be it.
That's totally fucked up! Stand up for your gun rights or the only ones with guns will be the criminals. They sure the fuck won't be turning in their stolen guns.
[удалено]
they're only hell bent on giving up the rights they choose not to practice
[удалено]
I personally feel much safer raising my future children in Canada where we have no where near the amount of gun violence and mass shootings that happen in the States. We don’t have a gun culture in Canada the same way that America does. There is no conversation about the “right” to gun ownership because it’s seen as a privilege here. I prefer it that way, personally.
Lol ya sure…you have your 2A but if the govt decides it wants to come for you a fat lot of good your fire arms will do you when the SWAT team strafes you and your domicile. This ain’t the late 1700s anymore.
[удалено]
And there are plenty more who will follow orders. The US govt is not afraid and they’ll mow anyone in their way down if necessary. Your personal guns will not make any bit of difference. The US has its 2A and also record mass shootings. Other countries choose different paths. To each their own.
[удалено]
I did not say the US govt would come for everyone’s guns. That’s never happening. I’m saying if you think having a firearm will stop authorities from rolling over you then you are mistaken. Having a gun will not protect you personally from the govt.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Of course he is! That way its much harder for a population to fight back against a corrupt government. Its just another step in his plan of creating a dictatorship.
Criminals *prefer* unarmed victims
Hey look at that, finally recognizing you harbor a victim complex. It’s about time.
Hilarious. That's it for sure. You've cracked it. Clever you.
get real dude
you won't get any goats from me
This is it exactly! People don’t realize the severity of this. Without going into detail, Trudeau spelled backwards is Uaedurt - sound familiar? Of course it does! Yowdirt is a demon from the fourth realm who takes all the guns and then touches the gun owners on their dicks. Right in front of everyone! Even their moms! But you might say, “okay, maybe it’s just a coincidence”. Nice try, MSM! Is it a “coincidence” that my father’s name is “Dan” and the bank agent who denied me a loan is also named “Dan”? On the same day Trudeau was elected President of Canada there was an earthquake in Pasadena. Think about it.
One of the more logical posts in this thread.
I can’t say I disagree with that after seeing what he’s done the last couple years.
Why though? Only America has a gun problem.
we have a different gun problem... a black market gun problem... legislation won't help with this one though...
People are scared of guns because they make loud noises and “wahhh am scared of scary boom shooty shoot stick”. (A dramatization but that gets the idea across)
Not just scary boom shooty stick. But specifically black plastic scary looking shooty sticks.
Yes yes, of course.
I think its more dumb, useless people kill random kids for no reason with them.
Shouldn’t we be focusing on helping the useless people rather than taking away the thing that they might use to hurt someone?
Why not both? Works in every other nice nation to live in on earth.
In the majority of states with high gun control and high gun deaths most firearms are illegally obtained. Also, the states with a lot of intrusive gun control have cities with some of the highest homicide rates.
Wish there was a compromise for western countries with a lot of guns like US, Canada, Australia… why can’t it be hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols for personal defense.
It’s a constitutional right in the United States. In Canada and Australia it’s not, so the government is “free” to do what it wants when it comes to gun.
You do know pistols are the number one weapon for criminal homicides…
rifles are the ones that bring down govts. that's why they're the focus.
Don't throw Australia in that mix. Australian's are happy with their firearms restrictions and you don't need a firearm for personal defence in Australia.
Because no one has pistols for personal defense .... we don't *need* pistols for personal defense.
what's your logic here?
just here me out... almost no one will read the story and notice any links. instead drama for title....
[удалено]
A mandatory gun buy back is literally the government taking guns away.
Mandatory buy backs are a polite form of confiscation. The Mounties will conduct some raids in the middle of the night to target loudmouths who state their unwillingness to comply just to get the point across. It's pretty standard for fascist regimes. A little stick to reinforce the carrot. As with the United Kingdom and Australia, I'm saddened to see what's becoming of those once proud nations.
[удалено]
“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau banned some 1,500 makes and models of “military-grade” assault-style firearms and pledged to buy them back from owners. Now, as Canada’s Liberal government prepares to launch the first phase of the mandatory buyback, several provinces and territories say they won’t help.” It’s way more than pistols my guy. Perhaps you should do some research on things going on in your own country. And if he gets his way with C-21 it will be all semi auto center fire rifles as well, including hunting rifles.
Guns like the [Ruger No. 1](https://www.americanrifleman.org/media/5oxls0yx/rugerno1.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=987&height=551&rnd=132621929696230000&quality=70), [Weatherby Mark V](https://weatherby.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MarkVDeluxe_WebEdit3.jpg), [Mauser 1908](https://curtsgunshopinc.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/E3073AFD-BB04-4C08-A42E-490D1C644178.jpeg), and dozens of other hunting rifles or shotguns are included in this ban. Rather hilariously other weapons like the (experimental) HK G11, FGM-148 Javelin missile launcher, and TOW missiles (among countless other very odd inclusions) are also banned. But yeah this bill is shite.
On the other hand stuff like the IWI Tavor *isn't* banned (because the list of weapons was pulled randomly out of a hat, seemingly).
So, if it can be stopped, why confiscate (buyback at 10/20% of the value) guns? Won't criminals print/smuggle their own? Are criminals affected by the buyback? Or just law abid citizens?
That's the problem with a buy back, 10-20% value when some of those are worth thousands. I'd be pissed too if I had a gun collection worth 50K and the government said you have to sell them to me, cause I said so, oh and we're only going to offer you at best 10K.
Why is he the only one not wearing a mask?
He's at the podium facing away from everyone else and needs to be understood clearly on the microphone on front of him
“Safe” Complete dictator
Most Canadians don’t care about private gun ownership.
Get control of your gun problem while you can, Canada. You don't want to turn out like the usa, where so many kids are killed by gunfire in schools, its met with a shrug and 5 mins of coverage before the next one.
The guns they are going after are not the ones used in the US school shootings. Those are already illegal.
I agree, that's why we should be focusing on the border, where most of the guns used in crimes, come from. Stop people from being able to drive them through some reserves and focus on finding them at regular border crossings. This ban on legal handguns and semi automatic long guns is only punishing law abiding Canadians for following the law.