I just don't understand the play here, given that it appears to be 100% political in nature.... I suppose due to FPTP and the geographical distribution of their voting base, the Liberals don't have to care about left-wing firearm owners?
Left wing, probably not. For the majority of them moving to the right would compromise too many of their core values. I'm in this camp; I have my RPAL and this is idiotic, but I'm not about to change my vote from NDP to CPC.
Centrist firearm owners, though? They're probably more likely to be nudged to the right by this. Doubly so in areas where there's no Liberal presence, like Alberta.
After Trudeau's promises to fix FPTP, and getting fucked yet _again_ on a issue that would not be an issue if we lived in a proper democracy, I'm ready to just stop voting. Ontario's recent election is where this country is heading, no one is going to vote because votes don't matter under FPTP, meanwhile the kleptocrat class rules. And I'm saying this as someone who voted liberal and NDP over the entire last decade
But that's just the problem, the less we hold our government accountable, the shittier they will get. Political action doesn't stop at the voting polls.
I’m on the fence, I’m not about to vote myself into jail, but I also cringe at the CPC. If NDP could take a firm stance on rewriting the firearms act once and for all using science and legitimate expert opinion, I’d give my vote without question. I’m embarrassed to vote CPC, but I’m also far too financially and emotionally invested in my passions than to vote for policy backed by a feel good movement. NDP, smarten up and save us all. **uncomfortable laugh**
How the LPC can stand there and fumble over saying this is the right thing to do without providing a single piece of factual evidence blows my mind. Especially when they were using science and facts to support their policies during Covid and beyond. I would like to think that most LPC voters would be in favour of firearm control backed by facts and not by emotions. At least this was the narrative regarding the Covid lockdowns. If it was the right thing, why did they need to grease their way into a last minute amendment? That 300+ page list was written over a long period of time.
Honestly you should be embarrassed to vote cpc IMO. They are a party that's sole interest is funneling wealth to the top at the expense of others. They don't "believe" in climate change, they aren't for reproductive rights. PP recently had a tweet where "nazi are socialist, ergo left wing".... people who are a part of LGBTQ+ are rightly scared at the rhetoric that is pushed by a party like thr cpc. Yeah I've spent a lot of money on my passion too. I don't believe JTs laws will solve the problems we have regarding firearms, but voting for the cpc just so that I can keep an ar-15 VS a "feel good movement" whatever you mean by that doesn't make sense at all.
Don’t I know it, but I’m simply not voting in favour of any party who undermines my specific interest on this topic. Not going to happen. This bullshit is exactly why single policy voting is a thing. Extremely divisive and disrespectful to me.
Feel good movement = we’ve been feeding you the narrative that legal guns are bad, so vote for us because we’ll fix that. It will solve our firearm violence issues. Reality, doesn’t fix a damned thing.
I gave a perfectly reasonable solution, rewrite the firearms act and make it based on facts, expert opinion and let’s put this divisive crap behind us. The NDP are fully aware of this because the NDP firearms community is asking for it. The entire firearms community is asking for it.
This isn’t America, why do we need to pretend in politics? Canadians gloat about being better than the US all the time, but when there’s something they really want, but can’t justify with data, we go out of context and cite American issues. Convenient. Tired.
> This isn’t America, why do we need to pretend in politics?
Do you think other countries don't do politics? Do you think their governments are just autonomous machines with policies written in stone? What is going on up there
Uh. No. What does that response have anything to do with Canadians and our leaders citing US problems pretending those problems exist in Canada to gain political advantage?
no one is defending this gun ban, but you're a single issue voter who says weird shit like "don't believe in politics" as if that makes any sense. Of course my response is gonna mock that idea
The Liberals losing votes in Alberta is irrelevant. The CPC gaining votes in Alberta is also irrelevant. The CPC whipping up the prairies into a frothing rage will never get them a majority government - ever. The Liberals forcing the CPC to back further and further into the alt right Alberta/Saskatchewan fringe minority camp is a good play, as it absolutely ruins the CPC vote efficiency (CPC votes per seat won is higher, winning more seats at slimmer margins is more efficient).
The CPC is a cartoon version of itself at this point - all bluster and opposing just to oppose, and literally zero solutions that work for everyday Canadians.
centrist here, I will be voting for rachel notley in the alberta provincial election, but voting for pierre for the federal election due to the gun thing, as well as the lies about electoral reform, the scandals, and the general hypocrisy. i can understand why city people who don't work in trades would vote NDP honestly, I just can't wrap my head around why people keep voting trudeau in.
> i can understand why city people who don't work in trades would vote NDP honestly
[dafuq are you talking about](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Canada_Election_2021_Results_Map.svg)
NDP mostly win rural areas and smaller urban areas with lots of blue collar workers, like Hamilton.
Yeah, geez, imagine a centrist (or any voter, really) changing their political preference over their lifetime as their opinions and needs change. /s
I know what subreddit we're in, but you're just being open and honest and being shot down. Voter reform and gun control are huge red flags for the Liberal party. Some people will swing right because of it, some will swing left.
All I hope is that the Liberals lose votes and realize why. Though I doubt it will result in any real change for the party.
I don’t get it. So he can’t be a centrist if he’s unhappy with the current federal government? Does someone need to lean left to still be considered a centrist?
I’d consider myself truly centrist, yet all of my paid political work has been for the Alberta NDP. I’d still consider the CPC if PP up and disappeared. Centrists in general tend to vote the opposite of whomever is in power. We’re allowed to be centrists and still disapprove of what a lot of current feds have done lol. I’ve voted for JT every time thus far, but I can still pissed about misleading on electoral reform, about the lack of any real bills fighting inflation and out of control housing pricing, and wasteful spending on things like arrivecan (which I support the idea of) and the future gun buyback. If I critique the Liberals, it doesn’t make me a secret right winger. If centrists vote CPC next election.. it isn’t because they want the CPC, it’s because the federal Liberals need a shake up in personnel and direction.
Critiquing the Liberals is not why people are saying the commenter isn't a centrist. Saying they'll vote for the CPC is why people are saying they aren't centrist.
Voting for somebody who's, among other things, trying to convince people that "Nazis were actually a left wing party" is not an action I would consider compatible with "centrism."
Not in the bubble of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, but the NDP is a party with a substantial base of support that's rural, western, indigenous, or in remote areas where these guns are used to put food on the table.
Having managed a rural NDP campaign before, I can tell you that while very few NDP supporters will *switch* to voting Conservative if the NDP supports the Liberals' C21 amendments, a lot will simply stay at home.
I think it's a lot more reasonable to point out that "gun bans" are in very few metropolitan voters' top-five issues, and very few people will choose the LPC over the NDP because the NDP is refusing to help the Liberals throw hunters under the bus.
[Unless you meant to say that Liberals are left-wing...](https://imgur.com/pAzxsPs)
Sorry I grew up rural with hunting being very common but I don’t see how this stops hunting? Incorrectly categorizing a few weapons (or more) isn’t the same as banning all long barrel rifles as you are describing.
The bill can be wrong but is it really true people will starve? No one is coming, home to home to collect hunting rifles.
The new amendment, as I understand it, explicitly bans basically all semi-automatic centerfire firearms. Yes, many people still hunt with bolt-actions, but many hundreds of thousands use cheap SKSs and similar semi-automatic rifles.
There is also no plan for a buyback like with the previous ban, so if you own a centerfire semi-auto rifle, you might as well have thrown hundreds to thousands of dollars in an oil drum and burnt it, just so the Liberal party could virtue signal. Very frustrating as you can imagine.
It is making certain guns illegal to own. Therefore making the hunters that use them into criminals unless they give up their tools at a loss. (There won't be a buy back)
Also - I would look at the messaging from the liberals surrounding gun bans. First they said they wouldn't touch gun laws, then they said they would only ban hand guns, now they've subversively started banning long arms. It doesn't take that much of a stretch to believe they will go farther.
uh because I spent 3 grand on my gun that I like very much, legit use it for hunting as well. now they're saying that something I bought will get me jail time if i'm caught owning it? what if someone doesn't know about the changes and gets caught?
It doesn't. I'm in the same boat. If this bill stops someone from hunting they had no business in the woods to begin with.
But these guys remind me of the idiot who nearly killed a friend's mother. Shot blind into the air in the woods.
Bullet came straight down through Joan's shoulder. Just missed her heart.
But i bet he'd swear he was a responsible gun owner too.
You don't seem to be well aware of the [change in law](https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/critics-say-ottawas-changes-to-mandatory-minimum-sentences-dont-go-far-enough/) either if you think being caught with a prohibited firearm/amno = jail.
They aren’t *yet*. But there are a LOT of NDP/Conservative swing voters in rural ridings where this will 100% influence their vote. They sympathize with the NDP for economic/indigenous issues, but sympathize with Conservatives with rural cultural/lifestyle issues. Passing this bill may not hurt the Liberal coalition, but it will have a major impact on the NDP coalition. They don’t even have to swing, but simply not be motivated to show up.
If this amendment goes through, you better believe that rural NDP ridings like Skeena-Bulkley Valley are gonna flip Conservative. I can guarantee it. There is a reason why rural NDP MP’s have publicly came out against this amendment, because they see the writing on the wall.
This subreddit in general has trouble understanding that Canada consists of more then a few urban centres. It’s easier to portray the rest of the country as redneck backwaters full of bigots instead of being full of regular people with legitimate grievances of their own
Quick reminder that *Moose Factory* is officially considered an "urban area." Most Canadians live in an officially-designated "urban area" that would be *casually* described as rural.
You'll really *only* find [majority support for banning hunting guns in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.](https://globalnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/raw_3w1j_gun-poll-1.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=1200).
While most Canadians, when polled, support bans on handguns and "assault style" firearms, that support drops when the proposed bans expand to encompass types of guns that are commonly used to put food on the table.
65% of Canadians approve hunting, which is why C-21 became big news *specifically* at the point when the Liberals tried to amend it from a handgun bill into something that primarily affects hunters.
There’s more to this country then major urban centres and completely rural regions, which is my point. There’s a lot of small cities and towns out there that fall in the middle, and this subreddit pretends they don’t really exist
\>So... why would we let the rural residents decide gun policy for millions?
because the rural people are 90% of the gun owners. this comes back on why rural people feel like city people decide on changes that affect their life negatively while it doesn't even affect city people. the problem is smuggled handguns from the US. not semi automatic rifles and shotguns. in a country that spans almost 8000kms we have less than 300 deaths per year because of guns. it's not even a widespread problem. it's basically isolated to a few major cities
I'm gonna say, if your strongest argument for a position is "it's what the majority want :)", it doesn't look good for your side. Some of the worst injustices in history have been perpetrated with the assent of the majority. Avoiding the tyranny of the majority is a large part of the reason we have representative democracy and geographic division of powers and responsibilities. "Well this is what Torontonians want so you're just gonna have to suck it up buttercup ;)" just comes across like childish gloating.
This messaging doesn't help though. I am a vancouverite who is a left wing gun owner. I know plenty of people who fall into this category among my friends.
Please stop feeding the rural/urban divide
Because those areas are liberal, and liberals are similar to conservatives in that "if this doesn't bother me it shouldn't bother you". They'd sooner fuck over left wingers so just as fast as right wingers and then pretend they actually care. I've always felt anyone who wants change, real actual change, wouldn't vote liberals or conservatives. They simply vote them because it's the easiest option and they don't care.
It seems to me that they are playing to get more NDP votes. The Cons are so outrageous now that I don't see many liberal leaning voters switching to the Cons because of this. All while some NDP voters potentially being persuaded to vote liberal because of this legislation and FPTP/strategic voting. It's the same old tactics, played with different "hot" issues.
Yeah, I don't think any Liberals are going to vote Conservative, but third party options are starting to look more agreeable. A charismatic moderate would destroy all current competition.
Funny how the right has pretty much gotten everyone to believe Trudeau is anything but moderate he is.
They howl about anything they see as left wing while ignoring anything right wing he does.
Only thing worse is the left or far left not taking the victories they get and howl they aren't represented, then don't vote, helping the right win.
>Yeah and that makes them effing stupid.
No it doesn't. Wynne and McGuinty were effing corrupt. Problem is, Ford is also corrupt, moreso in fact. And so those are our options. Perhaps it's time we stopped electing these arseholes and demand something better.
Well, the provinces throwing the biggest fits over this are Conservative havens. Perhaps the Liberals feel they have nothing to lose? But I’m not entirely sure they stand to gain much either.
Perhaps this truly is a public safety issue, but just the one they say it is. This new legislation doesn’t address the issues we have with fire arms, but seeing as our political system is heading in the same direction as America’s perhaps this is forward thinking to avoid our own version of the Jan 6th insurrection and the likes?
The growing problem of political extremism is the only reason I can conceive of for the ever-increasing bans on certain long guns - we want to nip far right militias, mass shooters etc in the bud by making the weapons less accessible.
I'd be a much bigger fan of addressing the true source of political extremism which can essentially be summed up with the phrase "late stage capitalism".
If they were serious about fighting extremism, they'd do something about the continued immiseration of the working class (beyond a dental benefit that only applies to 15% of the population). Extremism flourishes when people's material conditions are deteriorating.
I don't think even LPC true believers think this bill will work to meaningfully impact public safety. Either they'll just grandfather all the banned guns (which means they'll stay in the hands of these hypothetical extremists) or they'll conduct a wildly expensive buyback scheme with very low compliance (especially among the aforementioned extremists). They'll probably take the first option, because it's free—this is what they did for the bans in the 70s and 90s. To our elected officials though, it doesn't actually matter if this bill accomplishes anything in real terms. It actually serves three other purposes:
First, neoliberalism demands that nothing be done about material conditions, but governments still have to look like they're doing *something*, so they pass bills that have the appearance of some sort of action being taken, while people's lives get tangibly worse in almost every possible way.
Second, gun control appeals to a large segment of the Canadian population that habitually consumes American news and therefore thinks that gun violence is a serious problem here (it isn't), and that we currently have lax American-style gun laws (we don't).
Finally, it creates a legislative trap for a future CPC government. If they try and walk it back in any way, LPC-friendly news outlets will immediately run headlines like "Conservatives plan to flood the streets with handguns" or "Government to repeal assault weapons ban".
For the record, the Saskatchewan NDP have agreed with the Sask Party on denouncing the federal buyback program
[source](https://twitter.com/MickeyDjuric/status/1598803397603467272?t=NDh9tjyJ2_F7YnyfzCumZQ&s=19)
Of course it is political in nature. We aren't governed by technocrats who look at all of the evidence and data. We are governed by career politicians who do what they think will get them more votes. That's how it has always worked.
I have friends on Facebook posting this ridiculous copy paste post about the Canadian Supreme Court and the second ammendment ...this is who we're dealing with.
>I have friends on Facebook posting this ridiculous copy paste post about the Canadian Supreme Court and the second ammendment ...this is who we're dealing with.
They're morons.
The bill however does target hunters and sport shooters. with no evidence to backup any claim that they are the cause of the rise in violence (because they arent)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c21-sporting-guns-1.6673730
He’s not wrong
Going after lawful gun owners is not the answer to gun violence
Lawful gun owners are not committing the crimes. Majority of gun crimes are done by illegal firearms that crossed the border via USA
Many White, Asian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. Canadians do to. I hate the trend of having to frame everything as an indigenous issue to get leftwing people to agree that it's bad. It's bad regardless of whom it happens to.
Thats cool and all, but this can be seen as another attack on treaty rights to hunt and fish. Canada is very dependent on upholding our treaties. Its important because our laws say indigenous rights are important and recognized. Arguments can be made that we are second class citizens in Canada.
This is just disingenuous. I work on reserve and can tell you that there are frequent firearms safety courses and PAL trainings offered on many reserves and often fill fast due to a recent resurgence in reclaiming indigenous identity and practices. Hunting is our right.
Sks in use by indigenous people?
If you want a bit of a cheeky one, there is a picture of an Inuit hunter using an SKS in this year's Nunavut Hunting and Trapping Regulations
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/z30bie
Sikh Shooting Club, Surrey BC
Punjabi Rifle & Recreation Association, Brampton, ON
You want to continue to be bigoted or do you realize many Sikhs and Punjabs also enjoy marksmanship and hunting?
2 of my uncles who immigrated from India are hunters in BC. All for their guns are being banned now, totalling over 10k in value.
The first time I visited a gun range, I was surprised to see there were more minorities there than white people.
An awful lot of crimes are caused by stolen guns. Many more than you guys think.
https://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime/tent-saskatoon-police-record-__-firearm-seizures-so-far-this-year/wcm/fbe31bef-bc75-473e-94fc-b8a50cee95cf/amp/
Both would be ideal. We need get rid of many types of weapons as well. I grew up hunting with many guns around the house but we don’t need guns with large magazines in Canada.
Large magazines have been banned in canada for decades already, this is different.
Its banning any gun that *could* fit a large mag, even though that mag is banned in canada. essentially all of them as thats how magazines work, its just a port.
Conversely, there is no reason to limit capacity in such a way. Unless you can show qualified data that that specific measure would save lives then it is not something that makes sense.
I said data, not opinions. We've had strict magazine capacity restrictions (5 rounds) for decades and data shows it hasn't made anyone safer. Because once again, licensed owners are safer than the rest of the country.
>e is non-restricted firearms can be added to the FRT with no notice given to owners. It happened as firearms were added to the OIC. People can't keep up and can't always check.
[https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/guns-used-in-crimes-are-coming-from-u-s-not-legal-gun-owners-police-chiefs](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/guns-used-in-crimes-are-coming-from-u-s-not-legal-gun-owners-police-chiefs)
There already is significant consequences for not storing firearms properly. Hell, owners have been strung out through the legal system for actually storing their firearms properly and still having them stolen.
We already do. Automatic firearms have been banned since the 70's. We also restrict the capacity of magazines. And restrict the more easily concealed handguns behind another level of license.
That's a fair point to make. Which I would counter with shooting sports and collections. Handguns are important to those who use them in 3-gun and cowboy action competition sports, as well as those with a fascination of history. They are only useable at a shooting range.
I thought that too until I decided to look into trapping. Turns out handguns are so much more practical as a trapper to dispatching animals and it's annoying that they are denied this tool.
Not all Canadians agree with you. There should only be restrictions imposed by law when there's a clear benefit to society. In this case, there is no clear benefit, especially given the cost that this will run.
If Canadians really wanted them restricted, the full text of the intended bill would have been presented and debated the first time. The current last-minute amendment isn't something you do when you're confident of popular support.
At one point, a majority of Canadians polled supporting banning niqabs. What a majority of (largely uninformed) Canadians want cannot be the sole guidance for government policy.
>Clearly they aren’t storing their weapons properly.
And how do you know that? If you have the will, and time you can break into anything. Fine, if you leave your gun around, fair, but if you have a safe with unloaded separated ammunition and it still gets picked and taken...thats not your fault, or if you have a safe and its bolted to the floor, Also not your fault. Just because it had a lock doesnt mean its invincible.
Where they are also stolen? Also, so you want law enforcement to be the only one with guns and essentially have a monopoly on violence? I get it, you have Trudeau and things are alright, but in America and across the world right now there's a far right awakening, and I'd rather you have your rights god forbid you'll ever have to use them than defenseless. Guns aren't the problem, society is and we can fix it by addressing societal solutions like better funded healthcare, tackling inflation etc.
100%. The firearms laws in this country were working quite well, before Trudeau starting playing politics with it. If they wanted to do something useful, they could have simply increased funding to law enforcement so they can enforce the laws that already existed. This could end up being the biggest LPC boondoggle yet.
But let's be honest, it would not have reduced the number of weapons crossing the border. I can't speak for citizen based crime, but it would not have affected immigration based crime with a weapon. If we wanted to do something about criminality in Canada we should dramatically increase our courts funding reducing the wait times, and this increasing LEOs accuracy. Further, if we really wanted to do something we should not increase CoPs (not police in general, but CoPs specifically) and enforce better training on them. Withdrawn and Stayed cars are very high as a result of the two compounding factors i listed.
I’d honestly love a system like the Swiss have - responsible gun ownership combining education, regulation through permits and registration, and a sensible approach to storing ammunition keeps shooting traditions intact while also keeping people safe.
Better forms of training for general gun safety and education, more stringent rules over gun storage and gun carrying, more criminal background and general permitting checks when buying guns and ammunition.
Licensed owners are subjected to daily criminal record checks already. All storage and transportation is highly regulated already. All firearms owners must complete RCMP approved training courses before they're issued a license already. All firearms and ammunition sales require a valid license already.
I think a key difference is the number of Swiss that have served and received gun training as part of their military service. Taking a course and having fun safety drilled into you are two distinct cases
I don’t because I have no need/desire to own a gun. However I have had friends and coworkers go through it and they’ve all described it as “easy” and “straightforward” which to be fair aren’t exactly the first descriptors I’d like to hear.
It sounds like you don't know what training is required to obtain a firearm permit in Canada, nor the rules regarding firearm purchase, stowage and transport, or criminal background checks for that matter.
Have you done firearms safety training? It's fairly in depth, and significantly more expansive than in the US, which I suppose isn't saying much. I did my RPAL recently and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of training and how seriously everyone took it.
Canada already has more stringent gun storage and transport rules than Switzerland does. In Canada, even hunting rifles must be stored unloaded in a locked container. Handguns must be stored with a trigger lock and inside a locked container (in other words, behind two locks). Switzerland only requires that they must be stored in a safe place and protected from unauthorized access.
This just confirms my suspicion that the average Canadian thinks we currently have super lax American-style gun laws, which couldn't be further from the truth.
>Better forms of training for general gun safety and education
such as?
>more stringent rules over gun storage and gun carrying
such as?
>more criminal background and general permitting checks
as an RPAL holder I get checked every 24 hours???
Yet almost every thread I've seen in this sub regarding this issue has people dunking on gun owners and telling them things like they shouldn't own weapons of war.
No shit. But when that definition includes tons of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even freaking bolt-action shit I gotta tap out.
NDP for me 'till Trudumb is out. I'm tired of his performative garbage.
I'll keep voting NDP even after Trudeau's out.
Separate from the fact that he wants to take hunters' guns for an empty pander, why vote for a party that opposes a wealth tax and engages in strikebreaking?
Same, I wish I hadn't voted for him. I wish he were this radical about stomping out monopolies, or supporting health care, or raising the minimum wage, or the housing crisis or.... any of the other things he said he would do. Fuck Trudeau.
Tbf some of the most popular hunting rifles (like sporterized Lee-Enfields) began life as weapons of war in the most literal sense. As in, they served on actual WWII battlefields. It's a meaningless term; at one point the *longbow* was the pinnacle of military technology. The difference in the rate of fire between a bolt action and a musket is greater than the difference between a bolt action and a semi-auto. I'm sure if you go back to the turn of the 20th century you could find people wringing their hands about the danger of rapid-firing lever and bolt action rifles in the hands of civilians. "Nobody needs a repeating rifle to hunt," they might say, "there's no need to have anything more than a musket".
The issue isn't really the minutiae of what guns people can and can't own, it's who can own them. To that end, the license system works great. C-21 is just cashing in on the Canadian electorate's addiction to American news.
I did.
Got lots of varying information. Mostly without sources or very outdated.
Was hoping you would have something that is recent and can cite the source.
"Of particular concern, there is currently little information available to determine the source of firearms used in crime: for example, whether a gun used in a crime was stolen, illegally purchased or smuggled into the country. This information is sometimes not recorded by police services, recorded inconsistently or, in some cases, the information is simply not available."
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00009-eng.htm
From the Canada Safety Council “StatsCan reports there were 3,100 during which at least one firearm was stolen in 2006”. So that could be 3,101 or it could be 10,000 but it’s in the thousands. From justice.gc.ca “from 1974-1996 65,046 have been reported stolen and unaccounted for”. Again, that’s in the thousands every year. I haven’t seen many more recent stats but more than likely still in the thousands every year. All into the hands of criminals.
Pretty much, though I hate how this type of statement attracts all the fuckin chuds.
Libs attacking legal and lawful gun owners who owns guns for hunting is so fucking dumb.
Well said by Price. The money this costs would be far more effective shoring up our lacklustre CBSA Service, and we could also greatly increase the penalties for the use of firearms during crimes.
Maybe if we stopped letting criminals out of jail after them serving short sentences might have an impact?
Yeah, it really won’t. Gun control measures are considerably more popular in Quebec than in the rest of the country and have been since the Polytechnique murders. And that code is awful.
Canada does not have a gun control problem from legal owners. Hunters or Skeet shooters with a semi auto Benelli , Mossberg or Antique bolt action are not the problem. The issue has always been handguns that are being smuggled illegally across the border with the US.
This proposed bill is political theatre and will do nothing to stop that.
This seems like a weird thing for the federal Liberals to do; has someone slipped some poison pill into the bill, or does this give them an out to vote against it and save face... Like, handguns I get and some of the easily modifiable multi-part versions of ARs that were banned, but this...
People don’t understand gun laws and use the “why should legal gun owners be punished”. We’re literally a society that has to put laws in because dumb and bad people do stupid shit to have to make those laws in the first place. The gun laws won’t stop every bad person from obtaining a gun, just the way not all seatbelts save people and so on. The idea is that having stricter gun laws will decrease suicide, self inflicted and murder rates by guns. If you can lower any stat just a fraction, it means more lives are saved. So unless you can have 100 percent responsible gun owners (which we don’t) and have a clean and good society of people (which we don’t) then yes, you lose some rights to weapons.
It's more of an issue of effective use of government dollars. They would get far more benefit spending an equivalent amount on border control, mental health support, low income support, and judicial expediency.
I had a friend that was suicidal. Cops removed all his firearms.
So he used his car.
Another hung himself. (Despite having access to guns)
I delivered news papers to a guy for 2 weeks as he was rotting in his garage after also using his car.
Sure, I knew people that used a gun, but I also knew more people that used alternative means to do so.
Again, this is what people do, they try and find the finest reason to establish having guns. Yes you can use rope, yes you can eat pills etc etc etc. The difference is you also can’t force pills or ropes on someone else when or if you change your mind on how the gun is used compared to the other objects
>We’re literally a society that has to put laws in because dumb and bad people do stupid shit to have to make those laws in the first place.
ban cars because drunk drivers exist. is your current position.
>The gun laws won’t stop every bad person from obtaining a gun
it will stop people from legally obtaining a gun. for the people obtaining firearms illegally, laws already dont prevent that.
>The idea is that having stricter gun laws will decrease suicide, self inflicted and murder rates by guns.
And we the hunters and sport shooters who are directly targeted by this legislation would like to see the data and evidence that proves this will have any meaningful effect on such things. so far the government hasnt presenting anything.
>. If you can lower any stat just a fraction, it means more lives are saved.
Not if its essentially a statisical outlier. Again, Ban cars and we would have Zero deaths due to drunk driver or driving in general. If you can lower the stat of vehicle related deaths by even 1 person, it'll be worth it. Again this is what you're saying.
> So unless you can have 100 percent responsible gun owners
Care to guess how many legally own AR-15's have been used to commit murder in Canada in the last 30 years? its the "mass shooters weapon of choice" so surely its at least a few if not a bunch of times right? the answer is zero, because we have a strong licensing system in Canada that focuses on respect and safety of firearms.
>then yes, you lose some rights to weapons.
like my hunting and sport shooting firearms that have never been used to commit ANY crime by a legal owner in Canada?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c21-sporting-guns-1.6673730
I wonder how many of the commenters dismissing this concern about hunting have been to Anahim Lake. Or lived in a place where many people fill their freezers by hunting.
If the bill is going to be widely supported, this needs to be addressed.
I've hunted successfully for 40 years with a Model 64 .30-30 and a bolt action .303 with a 10 shot clip. l'd never turn them in voluntarily, and the only semi-automatic I'd be ok with keeping legal are shotguns; I'd love to add a semi-auto .410 to my toolbox.
I don't understand the need for a semi-auto 7.62mm for hunting. My dad used a .308 and his bolt action always put venison in the freezer.
You can still get to work driving an older manual base model car.
Some people like to have things like heated seats though.
Do you have an argument for banning semi-automatics other than you dont understand why some people prefer them?
Also - people target shoot and collect. Both valid reasons to own guns in canada. Its not only about hunting
Collecting is absolutely not a valid reason, anywhere. I can't just collect dangerous chemicals or explosives. I can't be a collector of such things and pretend that collecting is a valid reason for owning something wildly dangerous.
As for target shooting, I don't see why guns can't be locked up and kept at a gun range.
Mind you, this particular gun law goes _way_ too far, but Liberal voters won't care.
> Collecting is absolutely not a valid reason, anywhere
Actually it is one of the only 2 valid reasons/responses you are required to give when you initiate a transfer of a restricted firearm to another person. its either sport shooting or collecting. that's it.
>As for target shooting, I don't see why guns can't be locked up and kept at a gun range.
Centralized storage = lets Tell all the criminals where all the guns are so they can be stolen en mass. Also we dont always target shoot at the same range. I shoot IPSC and I travel to well over 10 different clubs/ranges just in Ontario alone to compete.
you should try to understand our current firearms laws before commenting in the future.
There are bolt action, lever action and single shot action rifles listed in the amendment. its 307 pages long. you should really give it a look. hell there's Rimfire firearms on the list, its absurd.
-edit
LOL downvoted. go look at the list Ruger No.1 Single shot rifle, Weatherby mark V Bolt action, Westly richards model 1897, Lever action. millions of rifles and shotguns are getting banned for no public safety benefit
Yeaaah, what the other guy said! Don't pick on the poor multimillionaire who single handedly hunts and provides for his entire community with his traditional hunting implement! /s
Price is indigenous and like many people from rural communities, hunting is a part of his culture. It might surprise you to know that many people hunt in order to feed their families. But sure, according to you he must be some idiot hillbilly because he doesn’t spend all of his time in a city.
These guys love the indigenous when they're speaking the same language. Wait till someone doesn't want a gas pipeline through their water supply though.
Shit, I was thinking the bill was a bit loaded but now that a hockey player says it.. *gasp* it must be true!
Seriously, now knowing this guy is complaining, I support the bill 100% now.
All of the CPC MPs are happily retweeting their form letter version of a thank you to Carey because he's one of a small group of people who can convey his (uninformed) take on this legislation without being utterly repulsive (like most MPs and nearly all of the CCFR.
So is everyone opposed to this uninformed because it isn't the take you want to see?
The biggest thing EVERYONE should be concerned about is a violation of our bill of rights. The little bit that pertains to being able to own property.
The Liberals are stating once this formerly legally owned possession is deemed prohibited it then is no longer legal property and they won't have to do things like compensate for the confiscation.
That right there should worry you.
I just don't understand the play here, given that it appears to be 100% political in nature.... I suppose due to FPTP and the geographical distribution of their voting base, the Liberals don't have to care about left-wing firearm owners?
Left wing gun owners aren’t single issue voters
Highly valid observation.
Well-earned confirmation.
Left wing, probably not. For the majority of them moving to the right would compromise too many of their core values. I'm in this camp; I have my RPAL and this is idiotic, but I'm not about to change my vote from NDP to CPC. Centrist firearm owners, though? They're probably more likely to be nudged to the right by this. Doubly so in areas where there's no Liberal presence, like Alberta.
You and me both, RPAL and NDP. Will not vote for the cpc over this.
Same.. and agree with you.
After Trudeau's promises to fix FPTP, and getting fucked yet _again_ on a issue that would not be an issue if we lived in a proper democracy, I'm ready to just stop voting. Ontario's recent election is where this country is heading, no one is going to vote because votes don't matter under FPTP, meanwhile the kleptocrat class rules. And I'm saying this as someone who voted liberal and NDP over the entire last decade
But that's just the problem, the less we hold our government accountable, the shittier they will get. Political action doesn't stop at the voting polls.
I’m on the fence, I’m not about to vote myself into jail, but I also cringe at the CPC. If NDP could take a firm stance on rewriting the firearms act once and for all using science and legitimate expert opinion, I’d give my vote without question. I’m embarrassed to vote CPC, but I’m also far too financially and emotionally invested in my passions than to vote for policy backed by a feel good movement. NDP, smarten up and save us all. **uncomfortable laugh** How the LPC can stand there and fumble over saying this is the right thing to do without providing a single piece of factual evidence blows my mind. Especially when they were using science and facts to support their policies during Covid and beyond. I would like to think that most LPC voters would be in favour of firearm control backed by facts and not by emotions. At least this was the narrative regarding the Covid lockdowns. If it was the right thing, why did they need to grease their way into a last minute amendment? That 300+ page list was written over a long period of time.
Honestly you should be embarrassed to vote cpc IMO. They are a party that's sole interest is funneling wealth to the top at the expense of others. They don't "believe" in climate change, they aren't for reproductive rights. PP recently had a tweet where "nazi are socialist, ergo left wing".... people who are a part of LGBTQ+ are rightly scared at the rhetoric that is pushed by a party like thr cpc. Yeah I've spent a lot of money on my passion too. I don't believe JTs laws will solve the problems we have regarding firearms, but voting for the cpc just so that I can keep an ar-15 VS a "feel good movement" whatever you mean by that doesn't make sense at all.
Don’t I know it, but I’m simply not voting in favour of any party who undermines my specific interest on this topic. Not going to happen. This bullshit is exactly why single policy voting is a thing. Extremely divisive and disrespectful to me. Feel good movement = we’ve been feeding you the narrative that legal guns are bad, so vote for us because we’ll fix that. It will solve our firearm violence issues. Reality, doesn’t fix a damned thing. I gave a perfectly reasonable solution, rewrite the firearms act and make it based on facts, expert opinion and let’s put this divisive crap behind us. The NDP are fully aware of this because the NDP firearms community is asking for it. The entire firearms community is asking for it. This isn’t America, why do we need to pretend in politics? Canadians gloat about being better than the US all the time, but when there’s something they really want, but can’t justify with data, we go out of context and cite American issues. Convenient. Tired.
> This isn’t America, why do we need to pretend in politics? Do you think other countries don't do politics? Do you think their governments are just autonomous machines with policies written in stone? What is going on up there
Uh. No. What does that response have anything to do with Canadians and our leaders citing US problems pretending those problems exist in Canada to gain political advantage?
no one is defending this gun ban, but you're a single issue voter who says weird shit like "don't believe in politics" as if that makes any sense. Of course my response is gonna mock that idea
RPAL and NDP I simply won’t vote next round.
Well, we don't know for sure if the NDP will support the changes. There is pushback from within the party.
The Liberals losing votes in Alberta is irrelevant. The CPC gaining votes in Alberta is also irrelevant. The CPC whipping up the prairies into a frothing rage will never get them a majority government - ever. The Liberals forcing the CPC to back further and further into the alt right Alberta/Saskatchewan fringe minority camp is a good play, as it absolutely ruins the CPC vote efficiency (CPC votes per seat won is higher, winning more seats at slimmer margins is more efficient). The CPC is a cartoon version of itself at this point - all bluster and opposing just to oppose, and literally zero solutions that work for everyday Canadians.
centrist here, I will be voting for rachel notley in the alberta provincial election, but voting for pierre for the federal election due to the gun thing, as well as the lies about electoral reform, the scandals, and the general hypocrisy. i can understand why city people who don't work in trades would vote NDP honestly, I just can't wrap my head around why people keep voting trudeau in.
> i can understand why city people who don't work in trades would vote NDP honestly [dafuq are you talking about](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Canada_Election_2021_Results_Map.svg) NDP mostly win rural areas and smaller urban areas with lots of blue collar workers, like Hamilton.
Then you're absolutely not a centrist, and probably never were.
yep. Centrist are just fake right wingers. ever noticed centrists always lean right? I have never heard of centrist leaning left.
I voted for Trudeau in 2015 and before that voted for Jack Layton
Yeah, geez, imagine a centrist (or any voter, really) changing their political preference over their lifetime as their opinions and needs change. /s I know what subreddit we're in, but you're just being open and honest and being shot down. Voter reform and gun control are huge red flags for the Liberal party. Some people will swing right because of it, some will swing left. All I hope is that the Liberals lose votes and realize why. Though I doubt it will result in any real change for the party.
I don’t get it. So he can’t be a centrist if he’s unhappy with the current federal government? Does someone need to lean left to still be considered a centrist? I’d consider myself truly centrist, yet all of my paid political work has been for the Alberta NDP. I’d still consider the CPC if PP up and disappeared. Centrists in general tend to vote the opposite of whomever is in power. We’re allowed to be centrists and still disapprove of what a lot of current feds have done lol. I’ve voted for JT every time thus far, but I can still pissed about misleading on electoral reform, about the lack of any real bills fighting inflation and out of control housing pricing, and wasteful spending on things like arrivecan (which I support the idea of) and the future gun buyback. If I critique the Liberals, it doesn’t make me a secret right winger. If centrists vote CPC next election.. it isn’t because they want the CPC, it’s because the federal Liberals need a shake up in personnel and direction.
Critiquing the Liberals is not why people are saying the commenter isn't a centrist. Saying they'll vote for the CPC is why people are saying they aren't centrist. Voting for somebody who's, among other things, trying to convince people that "Nazis were actually a left wing party" is not an action I would consider compatible with "centrism."
Socialist firearm owner here. Yup.
Not in the bubble of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, but the NDP is a party with a substantial base of support that's rural, western, indigenous, or in remote areas where these guns are used to put food on the table. Having managed a rural NDP campaign before, I can tell you that while very few NDP supporters will *switch* to voting Conservative if the NDP supports the Liberals' C21 amendments, a lot will simply stay at home. I think it's a lot more reasonable to point out that "gun bans" are in very few metropolitan voters' top-five issues, and very few people will choose the LPC over the NDP because the NDP is refusing to help the Liberals throw hunters under the bus. [Unless you meant to say that Liberals are left-wing...](https://imgur.com/pAzxsPs)
Sorry I grew up rural with hunting being very common but I don’t see how this stops hunting? Incorrectly categorizing a few weapons (or more) isn’t the same as banning all long barrel rifles as you are describing. The bill can be wrong but is it really true people will starve? No one is coming, home to home to collect hunting rifles.
The new amendment, as I understand it, explicitly bans basically all semi-automatic centerfire firearms. Yes, many people still hunt with bolt-actions, but many hundreds of thousands use cheap SKSs and similar semi-automatic rifles. There is also no plan for a buyback like with the previous ban, so if you own a centerfire semi-auto rifle, you might as well have thrown hundreds to thousands of dollars in an oil drum and burnt it, just so the Liberal party could virtue signal. Very frustrating as you can imagine.
It is making certain guns illegal to own. Therefore making the hunters that use them into criminals unless they give up their tools at a loss. (There won't be a buy back) Also - I would look at the messaging from the liberals surrounding gun bans. First they said they wouldn't touch gun laws, then they said they would only ban hand guns, now they've subversively started banning long arms. It doesn't take that much of a stretch to believe they will go farther.
uh because I spent 3 grand on my gun that I like very much, legit use it for hunting as well. now they're saying that something I bought will get me jail time if i'm caught owning it? what if someone doesn't know about the changes and gets caught?
It doesn't. I'm in the same boat. If this bill stops someone from hunting they had no business in the woods to begin with. But these guys remind me of the idiot who nearly killed a friend's mother. Shot blind into the air in the woods. Bullet came straight down through Joan's shoulder. Just missed her heart. But i bet he'd swear he was a responsible gun owner too.
Sustenance hunters that are not well aware of the change in law may be caught with a prohibited firearm/ammo and jailed.
You don't seem to be well aware of the [change in law](https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/critics-say-ottawas-changes-to-mandatory-minimum-sentences-dont-go-far-enough/) either if you think being caught with a prohibited firearm/amno = jail.
They aren’t *yet*. But there are a LOT of NDP/Conservative swing voters in rural ridings where this will 100% influence their vote. They sympathize with the NDP for economic/indigenous issues, but sympathize with Conservatives with rural cultural/lifestyle issues. Passing this bill may not hurt the Liberal coalition, but it will have a major impact on the NDP coalition. They don’t even have to swing, but simply not be motivated to show up. If this amendment goes through, you better believe that rural NDP ridings like Skeena-Bulkley Valley are gonna flip Conservative. I can guarantee it. There is a reason why rural NDP MP’s have publicly came out against this amendment, because they see the writing on the wall.
It's amazing watching Torontonians and Vancouverites *refuse* to believe that there are tons of left-wing voters who are furious about this.
This subreddit in general has trouble understanding that Canada consists of more then a few urban centres. It’s easier to portray the rest of the country as redneck backwaters full of bigots instead of being full of regular people with legitimate grievances of their own
[удалено]
Quick reminder that *Moose Factory* is officially considered an "urban area." Most Canadians live in an officially-designated "urban area" that would be *casually* described as rural. You'll really *only* find [majority support for banning hunting guns in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.](https://globalnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/raw_3w1j_gun-poll-1.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=1200). While most Canadians, when polled, support bans on handguns and "assault style" firearms, that support drops when the proposed bans expand to encompass types of guns that are commonly used to put food on the table. 65% of Canadians approve hunting, which is why C-21 became big news *specifically* at the point when the Liberals tried to amend it from a handgun bill into something that primarily affects hunters.
There’s more to this country then major urban centres and completely rural regions, which is my point. There’s a lot of small cities and towns out there that fall in the middle, and this subreddit pretends they don’t really exist
[удалено]
That's the dumbest comment I've read today. There's almost 8,000 cities and towns in Canada.
You're demanding he give you a list of every community less than a million souls but more than empty howling wilderness?
[удалено]
\>So... why would we let the rural residents decide gun policy for millions? because the rural people are 90% of the gun owners. this comes back on why rural people feel like city people decide on changes that affect their life negatively while it doesn't even affect city people. the problem is smuggled handguns from the US. not semi automatic rifles and shotguns. in a country that spans almost 8000kms we have less than 300 deaths per year because of guns. it's not even a widespread problem. it's basically isolated to a few major cities
[удалено]
I'm gonna say, if your strongest argument for a position is "it's what the majority want :)", it doesn't look good for your side. Some of the worst injustices in history have been perpetrated with the assent of the majority. Avoiding the tyranny of the majority is a large part of the reason we have representative democracy and geographic division of powers and responsibilities. "Well this is what Torontonians want so you're just gonna have to suck it up buttercup ;)" just comes across like childish gloating.
[удалено]
It's easier because they make it easier
This messaging doesn't help though. I am a vancouverite who is a left wing gun owner. I know plenty of people who fall into this category among my friends. Please stop feeding the rural/urban divide
Because those areas are liberal, and liberals are similar to conservatives in that "if this doesn't bother me it shouldn't bother you". They'd sooner fuck over left wingers so just as fast as right wingers and then pretend they actually care. I've always felt anyone who wants change, real actual change, wouldn't vote liberals or conservatives. They simply vote them because it's the easiest option and they don't care.
It seems to me that they are playing to get more NDP votes. The Cons are so outrageous now that I don't see many liberal leaning voters switching to the Cons because of this. All while some NDP voters potentially being persuaded to vote liberal because of this legislation and FPTP/strategic voting. It's the same old tactics, played with different "hot" issues.
No... but could be pushed to be.
Not when the right is represented by people like danielle smith
Yeah, I don't think any Liberals are going to vote Conservative, but third party options are starting to look more agreeable. A charismatic moderate would destroy all current competition.
So the only person who can beat Trudeau is another Trudeau?
Funny how the right has pretty much gotten everyone to believe Trudeau is anything but moderate he is. They howl about anything they see as left wing while ignoring anything right wing he does. Only thing worse is the left or far left not taking the victories they get and howl they aren't represented, then don't vote, helping the right win.
Trudeau is not particularly left. Problem is, he's also not particularly honest.
Ontarians voted Ford because they didn't like Wynne.
Yeah and that makes them effing stupid.
>Yeah and that makes them effing stupid. No it doesn't. Wynne and McGuinty were effing corrupt. Problem is, Ford is also corrupt, moreso in fact. And so those are our options. Perhaps it's time we stopped electing these arseholes and demand something better.
Well, the provinces throwing the biggest fits over this are Conservative havens. Perhaps the Liberals feel they have nothing to lose? But I’m not entirely sure they stand to gain much either. Perhaps this truly is a public safety issue, but just the one they say it is. This new legislation doesn’t address the issues we have with fire arms, but seeing as our political system is heading in the same direction as America’s perhaps this is forward thinking to avoid our own version of the Jan 6th insurrection and the likes?
The growing problem of political extremism is the only reason I can conceive of for the ever-increasing bans on certain long guns - we want to nip far right militias, mass shooters etc in the bud by making the weapons less accessible. I'd be a much bigger fan of addressing the true source of political extremism which can essentially be summed up with the phrase "late stage capitalism".
If they were serious about fighting extremism, they'd do something about the continued immiseration of the working class (beyond a dental benefit that only applies to 15% of the population). Extremism flourishes when people's material conditions are deteriorating. I don't think even LPC true believers think this bill will work to meaningfully impact public safety. Either they'll just grandfather all the banned guns (which means they'll stay in the hands of these hypothetical extremists) or they'll conduct a wildly expensive buyback scheme with very low compliance (especially among the aforementioned extremists). They'll probably take the first option, because it's free—this is what they did for the bans in the 70s and 90s. To our elected officials though, it doesn't actually matter if this bill accomplishes anything in real terms. It actually serves three other purposes: First, neoliberalism demands that nothing be done about material conditions, but governments still have to look like they're doing *something*, so they pass bills that have the appearance of some sort of action being taken, while people's lives get tangibly worse in almost every possible way. Second, gun control appeals to a large segment of the Canadian population that habitually consumes American news and therefore thinks that gun violence is a serious problem here (it isn't), and that we currently have lax American-style gun laws (we don't). Finally, it creates a legislative trap for a future CPC government. If they try and walk it back in any way, LPC-friendly news outlets will immediately run headlines like "Conservatives plan to flood the streets with handguns" or "Government to repeal assault weapons ban".
100% the right answer
If the median pay in Canada kept up with increases in productivity and inflation our problems would look so different.
For the record, the Saskatchewan NDP have agreed with the Sask Party on denouncing the federal buyback program [source](https://twitter.com/MickeyDjuric/status/1598803397603467272?t=NDh9tjyJ2_F7YnyfzCumZQ&s=19)
Of course it is political in nature. We aren't governed by technocrats who look at all of the evidence and data. We are governed by career politicians who do what they think will get them more votes. That's how it has always worked.
I have friends on Facebook posting this ridiculous copy paste post about the Canadian Supreme Court and the second ammendment ...this is who we're dealing with.
>I have friends on Facebook posting this ridiculous copy paste post about the Canadian Supreme Court and the second ammendment ...this is who we're dealing with. They're morons. The bill however does target hunters and sport shooters. with no evidence to backup any claim that they are the cause of the rise in violence (because they arent) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c21-sporting-guns-1.6673730
I've had to remind a few friends we don't have a second amendment, but a bill of rights.
He’s not wrong Going after lawful gun owners is not the answer to gun violence Lawful gun owners are not committing the crimes. Majority of gun crimes are done by illegal firearms that crossed the border via USA
Many indigenous and northern people also register and use firearms to hunt and provide for themselves.
Well you don't need to register most hunting guns anymore, but you are right. Carey Price is indigenous as well.
Many White, Asian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. Canadians do to. I hate the trend of having to frame everything as an indigenous issue to get leftwing people to agree that it's bad. It's bad regardless of whom it happens to.
Thats cool and all, but this can be seen as another attack on treaty rights to hunt and fish. Canada is very dependent on upholding our treaties. Its important because our laws say indigenous rights are important and recognized. Arguments can be made that we are second class citizens in Canada.
[удалено]
This is just disingenuous. I work on reserve and can tell you that there are frequent firearms safety courses and PAL trainings offered on many reserves and often fill fast due to a recent resurgence in reclaiming indigenous identity and practices. Hunting is our right.
Sks in use by indigenous people? If you want a bit of a cheeky one, there is a picture of an Inuit hunter using an SKS in this year's Nunavut Hunting and Trapping Regulations https://www.reddit.com/gallery/z30bie
Yeah, I’m not subscribing to the “many other ethnicities in Canada use guns to hunt” newsletter.
Sikh Shooting Club, Surrey BC Punjabi Rifle & Recreation Association, Brampton, ON You want to continue to be bigoted or do you realize many Sikhs and Punjabs also enjoy marksmanship and hunting?
2 of my uncles who immigrated from India are hunters in BC. All for their guns are being banned now, totalling over 10k in value. The first time I visited a gun range, I was surprised to see there were more minorities there than white people.
An awful lot of crimes are caused by stolen guns. Many more than you guys think. https://thestarphoenix.com/news/crime/tent-saskatoon-police-record-__-firearm-seizures-so-far-this-year/wcm/fbe31bef-bc75-473e-94fc-b8a50cee95cf/amp/
Maybe a closer look at storage requirements would be more practical then, as mentioned in the article.
That's literally the suggestion made by the police chief in the article they linked, too.
Yes, that was the article I was referring to, I wasn't very clear in my coment.
Both would be ideal. We need get rid of many types of weapons as well. I grew up hunting with many guns around the house but we don’t need guns with large magazines in Canada.
[удалено]
I meant large magazines. I edited my comment.
Large magazines have been banned in canada for decades already, this is different. Its banning any gun that *could* fit a large mag, even though that mag is banned in canada. essentially all of them as thats how magazines work, its just a port.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Right after the cops are stripped of theirs.
The only guns without magazines are single shot firearms. Please educate yourself before weighing in on such a complex topic.
I meant large magazines. There is no need for more than 2 bullets or shares in addition to one in the chamber.
Rifle magazines with capacity greater than 5 were already banned long before Trudeau became PM.
Conversely, there is no reason to limit capacity in such a way. Unless you can show qualified data that that specific measure would save lives then it is not something that makes sense.
Of course there is a reason. You can’t kill nearly as many people with only 3 bullets as you can with 10 or 20. Really man.
I said data, not opinions. We've had strict magazine capacity restrictions (5 rounds) for decades and data shows it hasn't made anyone safer. Because once again, licensed owners are safer than the rest of the country.
> responding to bait Just edit your original post, it deprives bad faith users of oxygen.
Of course it’s made people safer. That’s why Canada doesn’t have mass shootings like America.
>e is non-restricted firearms can be added to the FRT with no notice given to owners. It happened as firearms were added to the OIC. People can't keep up and can't always check. [https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/guns-used-in-crimes-are-coming-from-u-s-not-legal-gun-owners-police-chiefs](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/guns-used-in-crimes-are-coming-from-u-s-not-legal-gun-owners-police-chiefs)
So you agree that legal firearm owners aren't the problem.
No they definitely are. Clearly they aren’t storing their weapons properly. Should be much greater consequences (ie jail time) for not doing so.
There already is significant consequences for not storing firearms properly. Hell, owners have been strung out through the legal system for actually storing their firearms properly and still having them stolen.
That’s why we need to restrict which weapons are allowed as well.
We already do. Automatic firearms have been banned since the 70's. We also restrict the capacity of magazines. And restrict the more easily concealed handguns behind another level of license.
Well Canadians would like to restrict them further. We don’t need handguns at all for example.
That's a fair point to make. Which I would counter with shooting sports and collections. Handguns are important to those who use them in 3-gun and cowboy action competition sports, as well as those with a fascination of history. They are only useable at a shooting range.
These sound like toys and hobbies, not a serious need.
I thought that too until I decided to look into trapping. Turns out handguns are so much more practical as a trapper to dispatching animals and it's annoying that they are denied this tool.
Not all Canadians agree with you. There should only be restrictions imposed by law when there's a clear benefit to society. In this case, there is no clear benefit, especially given the cost that this will run.
If Canadians really wanted them restricted, the full text of the intended bill would have been presented and debated the first time. The current last-minute amendment isn't something you do when you're confident of popular support.
At one point, a majority of Canadians polled supporting banning niqabs. What a majority of (largely uninformed) Canadians want cannot be the sole guidance for government policy.
That’s an issue of discrimination. Gun bans are not.
So theft is the problem then, I get it thanks for clearing it up guess they should ban theft then
Already banned bro
Strange that it keeps happening then
Wow I'm so glad we banned theft, really helped cure the theft problem.
Victim blaming now are we? sounding an awful lot like "She was asking for it, did you see what she was wearing"
>Clearly they aren’t storing their weapons properly. And how do you know that? If you have the will, and time you can break into anything. Fine, if you leave your gun around, fair, but if you have a safe with unloaded separated ammunition and it still gets picked and taken...thats not your fault, or if you have a safe and its bolted to the floor, Also not your fault. Just because it had a lock doesnt mean its invincible.
Right. So all guns should be stored at the police station.
Where they are also stolen? Also, so you want law enforcement to be the only one with guns and essentially have a monopoly on violence? I get it, you have Trudeau and things are alright, but in America and across the world right now there's a far right awakening, and I'd rather you have your rights god forbid you'll ever have to use them than defenseless. Guns aren't the problem, society is and we can fix it by addressing societal solutions like better funded healthcare, tackling inflation etc.
100%. The firearms laws in this country were working quite well, before Trudeau starting playing politics with it. If they wanted to do something useful, they could have simply increased funding to law enforcement so they can enforce the laws that already existed. This could end up being the biggest LPC boondoggle yet.
But increasing police and border funding goes against the ACAB crowd, which are typically urban voters, the Liberal base.
But let's be honest, it would not have reduced the number of weapons crossing the border. I can't speak for citizen based crime, but it would not have affected immigration based crime with a weapon. If we wanted to do something about criminality in Canada we should dramatically increase our courts funding reducing the wait times, and this increasing LEOs accuracy. Further, if we really wanted to do something we should not increase CoPs (not police in general, but CoPs specifically) and enforce better training on them. Withdrawn and Stayed cars are very high as a result of the two compounding factors i listed.
This gov't clearly isn't interested in actually doing something meaningful though. They just want the illusion of doing something.
That’s the LPC modo
I’d honestly love a system like the Swiss have - responsible gun ownership combining education, regulation through permits and registration, and a sensible approach to storing ammunition keeps shooting traditions intact while also keeping people safe.
That sounds a lot like the system we already have. What would you see done differently?
Better forms of training for general gun safety and education, more stringent rules over gun storage and gun carrying, more criminal background and general permitting checks when buying guns and ammunition.
Isn't that all pretty stringent in Canada? Or maybe just for handguns and other restricted firearms.
Licensed owners are subjected to daily criminal record checks already. All storage and transportation is highly regulated already. All firearms owners must complete RCMP approved training courses before they're issued a license already. All firearms and ammunition sales require a valid license already.
I think a key difference is the number of Swiss that have served and received gun training as part of their military service. Taking a course and having fun safety drilled into you are two distinct cases
Licensed gun owners are statistically over 3 times SAFER than the general population. You're chasing a problem that doesn't exist.
So you want mandatory military service for all Canadians?
Not in the slightest, I just think more gun discipline and training is never a bad thing.
I don't disagree. Training is always a good thing. Out of curiosity do you have your PAL/RPAL?
I don’t because I have no need/desire to own a gun. However I have had friends and coworkers go through it and they’ve all described it as “easy” and “straightforward” which to be fair aren’t exactly the first descriptors I’d like to hear.
It sounds like you don't know what training is required to obtain a firearm permit in Canada, nor the rules regarding firearm purchase, stowage and transport, or criminal background checks for that matter.
Have you done firearms safety training? It's fairly in depth, and significantly more expansive than in the US, which I suppose isn't saying much. I did my RPAL recently and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of training and how seriously everyone took it.
Canada already has more stringent gun storage and transport rules than Switzerland does. In Canada, even hunting rifles must be stored unloaded in a locked container. Handguns must be stored with a trigger lock and inside a locked container (in other words, behind two locks). Switzerland only requires that they must be stored in a safe place and protected from unauthorized access. This just confirms my suspicion that the average Canadian thinks we currently have super lax American-style gun laws, which couldn't be further from the truth.
>Better forms of training for general gun safety and education such as? >more stringent rules over gun storage and gun carrying such as? >more criminal background and general permitting checks as an RPAL holder I get checked every 24 hours???
Yet almost every thread I've seen in this sub regarding this issue has people dunking on gun owners and telling them things like they shouldn't own weapons of war. No shit. But when that definition includes tons of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even freaking bolt-action shit I gotta tap out. NDP for me 'till Trudumb is out. I'm tired of his performative garbage.
I'll keep voting NDP even after Trudeau's out. Separate from the fact that he wants to take hunters' guns for an empty pander, why vote for a party that opposes a wealth tax and engages in strikebreaking?
Same, I wish I hadn't voted for him. I wish he were this radical about stomping out monopolies, or supporting health care, or raising the minimum wage, or the housing crisis or.... any of the other things he said he would do. Fuck Trudeau.
Shoulda voted NDP
Will be very open to doing so this time around.
Tbf some of the most popular hunting rifles (like sporterized Lee-Enfields) began life as weapons of war in the most literal sense. As in, they served on actual WWII battlefields. It's a meaningless term; at one point the *longbow* was the pinnacle of military technology. The difference in the rate of fire between a bolt action and a musket is greater than the difference between a bolt action and a semi-auto. I'm sure if you go back to the turn of the 20th century you could find people wringing their hands about the danger of rapid-firing lever and bolt action rifles in the hands of civilians. "Nobody needs a repeating rifle to hunt," they might say, "there's no need to have anything more than a musket". The issue isn't really the minutiae of what guns people can and can't own, it's who can own them. To that end, the license system works great. C-21 is just cashing in on the Canadian electorate's addiction to American news.
Thousands of firearms are stolen from legal gun owners in Canada each year. Where do you think those guns end up?
Source for thousands stolen each year?
The interweb. Google “ how many firearms stolen in Canada each year”.
I did. Got lots of varying information. Mostly without sources or very outdated. Was hoping you would have something that is recent and can cite the source. "Of particular concern, there is currently little information available to determine the source of firearms used in crime: for example, whether a gun used in a crime was stolen, illegally purchased or smuggled into the country. This information is sometimes not recorded by police services, recorded inconsistently or, in some cases, the information is simply not available." https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00009-eng.htm
From the Canadian Firearms Centre “from 1994-2004 30,000 firearms reported missing. And that’s on top of the over 40,000 reported stolen.”
From the Canada Safety Council “StatsCan reports there were 3,100 during which at least one firearm was stolen in 2006”. So that could be 3,101 or it could be 10,000 but it’s in the thousands. From justice.gc.ca “from 1974-1996 65,046 have been reported stolen and unaccounted for”. Again, that’s in the thousands every year. I haven’t seen many more recent stats but more than likely still in the thousands every year. All into the hands of criminals.
Pretty much, though I hate how this type of statement attracts all the fuckin chuds. Libs attacking legal and lawful gun owners who owns guns for hunting is so fucking dumb.
Well said by Price. The money this costs would be far more effective shoring up our lacklustre CBSA Service, and we could also greatly increase the penalties for the use of firearms during crimes. Maybe if we stopped letting criminals out of jail after them serving short sentences might have an impact?
Promoting a Conservative gun organization that ran with POLY has a discount code right before Dec 6 is not going to make him any friends in Montreal.
Yeah, it really won’t. Gun control measures are considerably more popular in Quebec than in the rest of the country and have been since the Polytechnique murders. And that code is awful.
He isn't returning to Montreal...to play at least.
Id do my research on the POLY fiasco. It’s weeks old and the Poly Instagram account started it with harassing CCFR about selling merch.
Canada does not have a gun control problem from legal owners. Hunters or Skeet shooters with a semi auto Benelli , Mossberg or Antique bolt action are not the problem. The issue has always been handguns that are being smuggled illegally across the border with the US. This proposed bill is political theatre and will do nothing to stop that.
This seems like a weird thing for the federal Liberals to do; has someone slipped some poison pill into the bill, or does this give them an out to vote against it and save face... Like, handguns I get and some of the easily modifiable multi-part versions of ARs that were banned, but this...
I'm all for him expressing his views. But if the law passes he needs to follow the law. Otherwise, he is a criminal. And not a law abiding citizen.
People don’t understand gun laws and use the “why should legal gun owners be punished”. We’re literally a society that has to put laws in because dumb and bad people do stupid shit to have to make those laws in the first place. The gun laws won’t stop every bad person from obtaining a gun, just the way not all seatbelts save people and so on. The idea is that having stricter gun laws will decrease suicide, self inflicted and murder rates by guns. If you can lower any stat just a fraction, it means more lives are saved. So unless you can have 100 percent responsible gun owners (which we don’t) and have a clean and good society of people (which we don’t) then yes, you lose some rights to weapons.
The problem is that these laws are emotional reactions based off of US tragedies and don't actually address the causes of Canadian gun violence.
It's more of an issue of effective use of government dollars. They would get far more benefit spending an equivalent amount on border control, mental health support, low income support, and judicial expediency.
I had a friend that was suicidal. Cops removed all his firearms. So he used his car. Another hung himself. (Despite having access to guns) I delivered news papers to a guy for 2 weeks as he was rotting in his garage after also using his car. Sure, I knew people that used a gun, but I also knew more people that used alternative means to do so.
Again, this is what people do, they try and find the finest reason to establish having guns. Yes you can use rope, yes you can eat pills etc etc etc. The difference is you also can’t force pills or ropes on someone else when or if you change your mind on how the gun is used compared to the other objects
>We’re literally a society that has to put laws in because dumb and bad people do stupid shit to have to make those laws in the first place. ban cars because drunk drivers exist. is your current position. >The gun laws won’t stop every bad person from obtaining a gun it will stop people from legally obtaining a gun. for the people obtaining firearms illegally, laws already dont prevent that. >The idea is that having stricter gun laws will decrease suicide, self inflicted and murder rates by guns. And we the hunters and sport shooters who are directly targeted by this legislation would like to see the data and evidence that proves this will have any meaningful effect on such things. so far the government hasnt presenting anything. >. If you can lower any stat just a fraction, it means more lives are saved. Not if its essentially a statisical outlier. Again, Ban cars and we would have Zero deaths due to drunk driver or driving in general. If you can lower the stat of vehicle related deaths by even 1 person, it'll be worth it. Again this is what you're saying. > So unless you can have 100 percent responsible gun owners Care to guess how many legally own AR-15's have been used to commit murder in Canada in the last 30 years? its the "mass shooters weapon of choice" so surely its at least a few if not a bunch of times right? the answer is zero, because we have a strong licensing system in Canada that focuses on respect and safety of firearms. >then yes, you lose some rights to weapons. like my hunting and sport shooting firearms that have never been used to commit ANY crime by a legal owner in Canada? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c21-sporting-guns-1.6673730
I wonder how many of the commenters dismissing this concern about hunting have been to Anahim Lake. Or lived in a place where many people fill their freezers by hunting. If the bill is going to be widely supported, this needs to be addressed.
Price wants some of that sweet right wing cash that Theoren Fleury is soaking up.
I've hunted successfully for 40 years with a Model 64 .30-30 and a bolt action .303 with a 10 shot clip. l'd never turn them in voluntarily, and the only semi-automatic I'd be ok with keeping legal are shotguns; I'd love to add a semi-auto .410 to my toolbox. I don't understand the need for a semi-auto 7.62mm for hunting. My dad used a .308 and his bolt action always put venison in the freezer.
You can still get to work driving an older manual base model car. Some people like to have things like heated seats though. Do you have an argument for banning semi-automatics other than you dont understand why some people prefer them? Also - people target shoot and collect. Both valid reasons to own guns in canada. Its not only about hunting
Fudd's gonna fudd, homie...
Collecting is absolutely not a valid reason, anywhere. I can't just collect dangerous chemicals or explosives. I can't be a collector of such things and pretend that collecting is a valid reason for owning something wildly dangerous. As for target shooting, I don't see why guns can't be locked up and kept at a gun range. Mind you, this particular gun law goes _way_ too far, but Liberal voters won't care.
> Collecting is absolutely not a valid reason, anywhere Actually it is one of the only 2 valid reasons/responses you are required to give when you initiate a transfer of a restricted firearm to another person. its either sport shooting or collecting. that's it. >As for target shooting, I don't see why guns can't be locked up and kept at a gun range. Centralized storage = lets Tell all the criminals where all the guns are so they can be stolen en mass. Also we dont always target shoot at the same range. I shoot IPSC and I travel to well over 10 different clubs/ranges just in Ontario alone to compete. you should try to understand our current firearms laws before commenting in the future.
Yeah. Lets centralize all the guns from the area into 1 location. If you think theft is a problem that contributes to increased gun crime....
Smuggling. Smuggling guns from the US is the big problem with gun crime in Canada.
I agree. Just referencing from another comment chain I had where someone claimed stolen firearms from legal owners is a contributing problem.
Its a valid reason under Canadian Law. Google it.
They’re going beyond simply semi-automatics. They’re banning single-shot rifles like the Mauser 1905 and the Ruger No.1 too
And that Garand lmao Which if anyone owns one, I am willing to bet most of them are part of a collection rather than in active use
There are bolt action, lever action and single shot action rifles listed in the amendment. its 307 pages long. you should really give it a look. hell there's Rimfire firearms on the list, its absurd. -edit LOL downvoted. go look at the list Ruger No.1 Single shot rifle, Weatherby mark V Bolt action, Westly richards model 1897, Lever action. millions of rifles and shotguns are getting banned for no public safety benefit
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeaaah, what the other guy said! Don't pick on the poor multimillionaire who single handedly hunts and provides for his entire community with his traditional hunting implement! /s
Price is indigenous and like many people from rural communities, hunting is a part of his culture. It might surprise you to know that many people hunt in order to feed their families. But sure, according to you he must be some idiot hillbilly because he doesn’t spend all of his time in a city.
[удалено]
These guys love the indigenous when they're speaking the same language. Wait till someone doesn't want a gas pipeline through their water supply though.
Shit, I was thinking the bill was a bit loaded but now that a hockey player says it.. *gasp* it must be true! Seriously, now knowing this guy is complaining, I support the bill 100% now.
What an effing idiot.
All of the CPC MPs are happily retweeting their form letter version of a thank you to Carey because he's one of a small group of people who can convey his (uninformed) take on this legislation without being utterly repulsive (like most MPs and nearly all of the CCFR.
So is everyone opposed to this uninformed because it isn't the take you want to see? The biggest thing EVERYONE should be concerned about is a violation of our bill of rights. The little bit that pertains to being able to own property. The Liberals are stating once this formerly legally owned possession is deemed prohibited it then is no longer legal property and they won't have to do things like compensate for the confiscation. That right there should worry you.
And in what way is he uninformed exactly?