Over the last decade, gun murders have jumped by nearly 90 percent in Canada. This increase is fuelled by a never-ending stream of illegal weapons acquired a...
It’s always funny seeing how stories like this get the gun nuts out of the woodwork to start complaining about local gun control. The problem will always be twofold. Local guns need to be controlled, and the traffic of contraband needs to be controlled. The end result we want is to avoid becoming a gun infested shithole like the US. NRA talking points can go take a hike off a cliff.
These people can’t conceive the idea that people own firearms safely, and will do anything to bury their heads in the sand.
They don’t understand that this is ultimately an erosion of property rights and the just rule of law, and they don’t want to. It’ll only be when something they love is arbitrarily banned without justification or compensation that they’ll finally realize it wasn’t really about the guns.
That’s why they’re running around down voting all of our posts like the mature adults they are.
I can’t wait for the government to announce a ban on ICE vehicles and only offer $2 in compensation to the first unlucky sucker who finds out that the FOMO money pool wasn’t big enough to provide fair market value for their once-lawfully owned property.
They can’t argue without demanding we fuck off to a foreign nation or without churlish mockery.
Edit: It only took 4 minutes for those down votes! 🙄
That guy I responded to (I blocked him now) said the measures of Bill C-21 are too lenient and the OIC ban (which has been expanded many times over) in 2020 is is also too weak. He didn’t say OIC or C-21, because I don’t think he knows what they are. Most people who claim we need more gun control have no fucking idea what the laws are. Like I said before in other posts. I remember talking to people in the mid-90s as a kid (before I immigrated to Canada and became naturalized) and their assumption was ALWAYS measuring the US the only country where private firearms ownership is a thing, and that the sole cause of violence is firearm ownership. In 1996 I had someone tell me that Toronto fully banned firearms and only has 30 murders, and was the murder capital of Canada, while New York City had 2000 (in the late 80s and early 90s, NYC really was that violent. Now NYC is one of the safest cities in the country despite a massive amount of loosening of firearms laws throughout most of the US).
The assumption was that Canada was a gun control haven with zero handguns, only bolt-action rifles (and stored centrally), and extremely tight controls on everything, with major cities banning firearms within limits. They were saying this in the 90s. Nothing could have been farther than the truth.
Truth of the matter is, the PAL system didn’t come online until 2000 or so, meaning before then there was no license required to own any long-gun and ammunition was uncontrolled as well.
Even with their obsessions of ‘assault weapons’ or ‘assault style weapons’ or ‘military style weapons’ their shit was never true. That term was invented in the 80s when the first ever civilian rifles and shotguns with polymer parts and adjustable stocks and such started becoming a thing. Their definition is stupid. A threaded barrel? They put in muzzle breaks and flash hiders so you don’t blind yourself. Suppressors have been illegal in Canada since 1969. Even in the US were regulations regarding suppressors have been loosened up considerably, you almost never see them in happen in crime. You know the Brian Thompson shooting in 2024? NYC’s police chief said that in the decades of his police service in the city this was the FIRST time he actually saw a confirmed case of a silence being used in a firearms related murder.
it is really fucking expensive, and despite their own claims of ‘we need to monitor things coming in from the US’ they really aren’t proposing anything other than the one time they raised the maximum penalty for arms trafficking from 10 years to 14 years. this is stupid and highly ineffective. Why? I am going to use Saudi Arabia as an example. Saudi Arabia has the highest rate of executions on Earth, and most of their death penalties are given to drug smugglers and traffickers. Despite the sheer rate of executions, they haven’t deterred any dealer from trying. You think just making the penalty a few years more (and there’s no guarantee they will be given the maximum) is going to deter them from smuggling firearms? Especially no additional detection equipment and a massive diversion onto local guns and local gun owners.
I could go on forever about how they look at other country’s gun laws wrong, too. For example the UK does not allow semi-auto centerfire rifles, but they do get those models and make them manually operated. There is no mention of ‘assault weapon’ in their laws either. I saw a video of a British target shooter with a manually operated AR-15 with a 100 round drum firing at a range. This is legal. Also the bans do not effect rimfire rifles. when the OIC gave the list of 15,000 rifle models, they did not care if they were rimfire or centralfire. They just banned them. Those rifles are legal in the UK. not easy to get, but they’re not treated as anything special.
Basically they would have a harsher regime than Japan at this point and still say it is not good enough.
Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about without telling me you don’t know what you are talking about other than ‘I do not like firearms as a principle and nothing more’.
They have had every opportunity to outright ban firearms via Act of Parliament, but didn’t. Why is that? They still went ahead with the OIC, but when they passed C-21, did they ban firearms? No, they just made up more rules to de-facto ban new ones, and that didn’t even work because “new” semi-auto rifles have recently entered the market as non-restricted like the IWI Carmel and the Makasi.
That was all done under the Trudeau admin, but Carney’s government didn’t even hold debates for their assault on strong cryptography, so they could’ve banned them at any time before leaving for summer break, but they didn’t. Why?
If it’s really such a problem, why can’t they do things the legally appropriate way and come right out to ban all firearms?
It’s always funny seeing how stories like this get the gun nuts out of the woodwork to start complaining about local gun control. The problem will always be twofold. Local guns need to be controlled, and the traffic of contraband needs to be controlled. The end result we want is to avoid becoming a gun infested shithole like the US. NRA talking points can go take a hike off a cliff.
No one is saying that local guns must not be controlled. The disagreement is to the extent and the method.
These people can’t conceive the idea that people own firearms safely, and will do anything to bury their heads in the sand.
They don’t understand that this is ultimately an erosion of property rights and the just rule of law, and they don’t want to. It’ll only be when something they love is arbitrarily banned without justification or compensation that they’ll finally realize it wasn’t really about the guns.
That’s why they’re running around down voting all of our posts like the mature adults they are.
I can’t wait for the government to announce a ban on ICE vehicles and only offer $2 in compensation to the first unlucky sucker who finds out that the FOMO money pool wasn’t big enough to provide fair market value for their once-lawfully owned property.
They can’t argue without demanding we fuck off to a foreign nation or without churlish mockery.
Edit: It only took 4 minutes for those down votes! 🙄
That guy I responded to (I blocked him now) said the measures of Bill C-21 are too lenient and the OIC ban (which has been expanded many times over) in 2020 is is also too weak. He didn’t say OIC or C-21, because I don’t think he knows what they are. Most people who claim we need more gun control have no fucking idea what the laws are. Like I said before in other posts. I remember talking to people in the mid-90s as a kid (before I immigrated to Canada and became naturalized) and their assumption was ALWAYS measuring the US the only country where private firearms ownership is a thing, and that the sole cause of violence is firearm ownership. In 1996 I had someone tell me that Toronto fully banned firearms and only has 30 murders, and was the murder capital of Canada, while New York City had 2000 (in the late 80s and early 90s, NYC really was that violent. Now NYC is one of the safest cities in the country despite a massive amount of loosening of firearms laws throughout most of the US).
The assumption was that Canada was a gun control haven with zero handguns, only bolt-action rifles (and stored centrally), and extremely tight controls on everything, with major cities banning firearms within limits. They were saying this in the 90s. Nothing could have been farther than the truth.
Truth of the matter is, the PAL system didn’t come online until 2000 or so, meaning before then there was no license required to own any long-gun and ammunition was uncontrolled as well.
Even with their obsessions of ‘assault weapons’ or ‘assault style weapons’ or ‘military style weapons’ their shit was never true. That term was invented in the 80s when the first ever civilian rifles and shotguns with polymer parts and adjustable stocks and such started becoming a thing. Their definition is stupid. A threaded barrel? They put in muzzle breaks and flash hiders so you don’t blind yourself. Suppressors have been illegal in Canada since 1969. Even in the US were regulations regarding suppressors have been loosened up considerably, you almost never see them in happen in crime. You know the Brian Thompson shooting in 2024? NYC’s police chief said that in the decades of his police service in the city this was the FIRST time he actually saw a confirmed case of a silence being used in a firearms related murder.
it is really fucking expensive, and despite their own claims of ‘we need to monitor things coming in from the US’ they really aren’t proposing anything other than the one time they raised the maximum penalty for arms trafficking from 10 years to 14 years. this is stupid and highly ineffective. Why? I am going to use Saudi Arabia as an example. Saudi Arabia has the highest rate of executions on Earth, and most of their death penalties are given to drug smugglers and traffickers. Despite the sheer rate of executions, they haven’t deterred any dealer from trying. You think just making the penalty a few years more (and there’s no guarantee they will be given the maximum) is going to deter them from smuggling firearms? Especially no additional detection equipment and a massive diversion onto local guns and local gun owners.
I could go on forever about how they look at other country’s gun laws wrong, too. For example the UK does not allow semi-auto centerfire rifles, but they do get those models and make them manually operated. There is no mention of ‘assault weapon’ in their laws either. I saw a video of a British target shooter with a manually operated AR-15 with a 100 round drum firing at a range. This is legal. Also the bans do not effect rimfire rifles. when the OIC gave the list of 15,000 rifle models, they did not care if they were rimfire or centralfire. They just banned them. Those rifles are legal in the UK. not easy to get, but they’re not treated as anything special.
Basically they would have a harsher regime than Japan at this point and still say it is not good enough.
Nothing wrong with the methods. If anything they are not harsh enough.
Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about without telling me you don’t know what you are talking about other than ‘I do not like firearms as a principle and nothing more’.
They have had every opportunity to outright ban firearms via Act of Parliament, but didn’t. Why is that? They still went ahead with the OIC, but when they passed C-21, did they ban firearms? No, they just made up more rules to de-facto ban new ones, and that didn’t even work because “new” semi-auto rifles have recently entered the market as non-restricted like the IWI Carmel and the Makasi.
That was all done under the Trudeau admin, but Carney’s government didn’t even hold debates for their assault on strong cryptography, so they could’ve banned them at any time before leaving for summer break, but they didn’t. Why?
If it’s really such a problem, why can’t they do things the legally appropriate way and come right out to ban all firearms?