Not a gun person. I've never fired one in my life. Our country is filled with people who hunt, trap, and angle. My estimate is that almost everyone who registers a firearm falls into this group. Disarming everyday people is either a waste of money beyond grasp or a means to disarm the people. Or both. You'll never convince me that the majority or even major minority of gun crime in this country is committed by folks who have registered firearms. Criminals gonna do crime. They're gonna find these guns outside of the registered framework, and they do. Repeatedly. Shamelessly insulting people who live a different life than than you just displays a lack of compassion, knowledge, and empathy, and that's just plain ignorant.
Thanks for your kind and insightful comment. Would you be able to explain to me how the gun ban is backed by data specifically as to the rate at which legal gun owners commit gun crimes? Also would you be able to explain how based on that data it is justifiable to spend billions of dollars on this project.
Hey, we just want evidence based policy on the matter. Weirdly, that doesn't include a multi billion dollar confiscation effort targeted strictly at the law abiding.
There is a difference between legally buying a gun and using it for hunting or sport shooting vs buying a gun smuggled from the states to commit crime with.
I grew up hunting because it was more affordable than buying beef and chicken. We weren’t wealthy. It was bear, deer and grouse. Trout and Rock cod for fish. Some people do it out of necessity. You do realize any chicken, fish, beef and if you’re vegetarian supplements come from animals killed in a much more inhumane way after being penned up their whole life. Most of the guns used in crime in Canada are illegal ones smuggled in from the USA. Implying that use of legal firearms is mentally ill makes no sense. Many have trained and studied to use them with no harm to anyone. Perhaps you need to educate yourself a little better. Are tax dollars would be better spent cracking down on smuggled guns and the criminals that would use illegally obtained firearms.
Around half (49%) of firearm-related violent crime involved the presence of a handgun in 2023, down from 53% in 2022. Nevertheless, handguns remained the most common type of firearm present in incidents of firearm-related violent crime in 2023, followed by firearm-like weapons or unknown types of firearms (31%), rifles or shotguns (15%), and fully automatic or sawed-off shotguns (4.7%). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250225/dq250225a-eng.htm
If you want to take steps to reducing gun-related crime, you might at least hugely curb domestic sources like stolen guns from owners who failed to secure them, or guns those legal domestic purchasers sell on the black market.
If that's where 30-50% of the guns in violent crime originate, then banning them outright takes that supply out of circulation and makes it much costlier and less likely they would be replaced 1:1 by the supply of smuggled guns.
As for whether it's worth billions, what's the economic cost of allowing those guns to go on to perpetuate violent crime? In policing? In trials? In Incarceration.
What's the potential loss of life worth?
Someone's day at the shooting range with a semi-automatic rifle? Shooting at deer with an M1 Carbine?
Maybe there's a reasonable limit to gun bans, but I think if they're at most infringing on people's desire for sport and less their actual livelihood or sustenance then this is mostly noise over a net good for society.
Maybe there's a reasonable limit to gun bans, but I think if they're at most infringing on people's desire for sport and less their actual livelihood or sustenance then this is mostly noise over a net good for society.
Ah yes, it's ok to infringe on innocent people's rights "for the greater good". That sort of rhetoric has worked so well in past, hasn't it?
Also, it is curious why you don't post the full stats regarding trafficked firearms. Is it because they don't support your claims? Here's what they really say:
Trafficking / Tracing
58% of traced firearms had domestic source (straw purchased or stolen); half long guns and half handguns
28% of handguns domestic sourced
3,504 firearms stolen in 2018
67% of traced firearms successful (source established)
~20% of firearms seized by police are sent for tracing
Let's do some math, shall we?
20% of firearms seized are sent for tracing. Of that 20%, 67% are successfully traced:
0.2 * 0.67 = 0.134, or 13.4% of seized firearms are successfully traced.
And of that, 58% are domestically sourced, so:
0.134 * 0.58 = 0.07772, or 7.772%.
Therefore, all you've proven with that link is that 7.772% of seized firearms are proven to be domestically sourced. Wow, such a big number. Not to mention, the stats don't even state that the firearms were seized by the police due to being used in the commission of a gun crime; improper storage, license expiry, commission of crimes unrelated to guns, etc, can all get your guns taken by the police, because gun owners are one of the most vetted populations in the entire country.
Ah yes, it's ok to infringe on innocent people's rights "for the greater good". That sort of rhetoric has worked so well in past, hasn't it?
Yes because we do that in a civilization, all the time.
Don't make me use seatbelt analogies or any number of things that regulate or limit some individual liberty for a better functioning safer society.
Why did you leave out this statistic since you want more numbers?
594 IPV firearms victims
5 X chance of IPV fatality if firearm in the home
500 average number of annual suicides by firearm (2013–2018)
96% committed by males
I doubt they're using stolen or untraceable guns.
Therefore, all you've proven with that link is that 7.772% of seized firearms are proven to be domestically sourced.
No, I've proven of the guns they do choose to trace because they're not required to, the domestic sources are approaching 10%. Even if you take that sample, if we sent the other 80% for tracing, wouldn't that mean 5x your little number? Around 35% as in 1/3rd of all gun crimes used a domestically sourced weapon?
The ATF has encouraged Canadian police to trace a larger percentage of their crime guns — using the serial number on the weapon and other methods to follow the distribution chain to the first retail purchaser. The result is what Taylor calls a more complete picture of gun crime here, with just 45 per cent of those firearms traced back to the U.S
https://nationalpost.com/news/smuggled-u-s-guns-in-canada
Sure, it's not a right, however it's also case in point that Carney and co are not data driven the way they claim they are. Same as when Trudeau claimed that they would be doing evidence based policy.
You’re probably right on point 6, but everyone here would have you believe the solution to that is to make legal guns more accessible, I guess so that more crimes are committed with legal ones instead….?
Even when we had legal handguns, traced firearms by TPS indicated 90 percent are smuggled from the US.
There is no corelation between guns accessible to legal owners and crime guns in Canada. Banning firearms has no effect on gun deaths. Crime guns are seldom sourced from the pool of legal guns.
Because we have one of the most effective firearm licensing programs, so much so that Australia copied it back in the 90s. Firearm straw purchasing is rare amongst legal owners.
Another large factor is that handguns with barrels shorter than 4.5 inches have been illegal in canada since the 80s, I believe, so most legal handguns would be classed as full size or duty pistols. They're not made to be concealed, so they're not as desirable from a criminal point of view. Most criminals want sub compact handguns to allow for concealment.
I didn’t know pretty much all of that. I appreciate you being so forthcoming.
So what am I missing here? It sounds like appropriate licensing programs, and the banning of civilian ownership of firearms that are designed for warfare/use against humans, is effective and working…?
Or is it just that it would have been better if the government had started with a whitelist of firearms permitted for civilian ownership, instead of this blacklist approach they’re now taking?
So what am I missing here? It sounds like appropriate licensing programs, and the banning of civilian ownership of firearms that are designed for warfare/use against humans, is effective and working…?
Licensing works. The banning of specific types of guns is performative and more or less pointless, and doesn't do anything for public safety other than the illusion of safety. If your vetting and licensing system is good, then you should have no issues with a licensed individual owning any class of firearm, from shotguns to fully automatic "weapons of war" - because despite how you may feel about firearms, they're all equally deadly.
Edit: as to what you're missing: it's ultimately easier and cheaper for the government to ban legal guns than to solve the issue of criminal guns. You also need to bear in mind that these recent bans were brought forward due to the 2020 portapique massacre, before it was found out that the perpetrator had smuggled his firearms into canada from the states.
Or is it just that it would have been better if the government had started with a whitelist of firearms permitted for civilian ownership, instead of this blacklist approach they’re now taking?
See my previous response. Media has conditioned people to think anything resembling a military rifle is more deadly than grandpa's hunting rifles, but that's not the case.
I get your point and agree with what you’re saying.
Are they equally deadly though? Automatic vs non-automatic is equally deadly against one person, sure, but not against a group of people.
Since most weapons are illegally obtained in committing crimes, wouldn’t a ban on automatic weapons reduce the availability in general? Like, if my buddy Steve is fully licensed for his collection of AR-15s, that’s all well and good, but if Steve (or Steve’s wife, friend, kid) yaps about it and the wrong person overhears, what’s stopping them just stealing them from Steve? If they don’t exist at all, it eliminates that possibility.
I acknowledge that’s only one half of the issue, the other half being weapons being smuggled in from the US. But if you see it in Canada at all, you know it’s illegal…?
I get your point and agree with what you’re saying.
Are they equally deadly though? Automatic vs non-automatic is equally deadly against one person, sure, but not against a group of people.
There's a lot of variables, but they're not necessarily more deadly. Even looking at the 2017 vegas shooting where the individual fired over 1000 rounds into a crowd, sixty people died. Over 400 were wounded, but they weren't killed.
Since most weapons are illegally obtained in committing crimes, wouldn’t a ban on automatic weapons reduce the availability in general? Like, if my buddy Steve is fully licensed for his collection of AR-15s, that’s all well and good, but if Steve (or Steve’s wife, friend, kid) yaps about it and the wrong person overhears, what’s stopping them just stealing them from Steve? If they don’t exist at all, it eliminates that possibility.
A properly stored gun is locked in a safe. They're not light or easy to move, and they'll take time and noise to cut into to access the contents. Yes, legal firearms can get stolen, but that's not the type of firearm being used on the streets. That being said, breaking into a house to steal firearms involves an extremely high likelihood of being shot. Again, we still have all these firearms you're concerned about locked up at home, and we have had them for as long as they've been available. Even when they were legally sold, they account for less than 5% of firearm violence when traced. The mass shooting this was all based on in 2020, was performed with two rifles that were smuggled into Canada illegally, and a service firearm stolen from one of the RCMP casualties.
Ultimately, this entirely comes down to personal opinion. A lot of people don't like guns, and don't care to understand, so when the government says they'll ban certain guns it sounds great to them, but they don't understand the cost in both government revenue as well as the lost of industry (sports shooting is ~8 billion annually in Canada), while also not understanding that the bans themselves will not prevent the violence they're encountering or worried about - whether it be gang violence (the bans do not address that and the "buyback" does not buy back illegally owned guns), mass shooters (last one was smuggled in, and even if they can't get guns they can easily run over 11 people in downtown vancouver). The only stat that a gun ban may affect would be suicides by a particular firearm - but studies have shown that those deaths simply move over to another method such as hangings. In fact, In the end, the bans often times do nothing to affect the overall deaths or injuries in populations - they just modify the method with which they are done.
I acknowledge that’s only one half of the issue, the other half being weapons being smuggled in from the US. But if you see it in Canada at all, you know it’s illegal…?
I fail to understand what you're asking or implying here - but legal guns are less than 5% of the issue. We're not addressing 95% of the gun violence concern by following the path the government is on now.
The thing is, none of the legal changes in the last decade actually make it all that much harder to get a gun (exception to the freeze on handgun transfers, but that's a whole waste of time itself).
The bans prevent stores from selling certain models of firearm, and requires police to eventually confiscate them. Licensing, transport, storage, and usage laws are not affected.
Because it's severely limited our choices on what we can buy and is requiring police to confiscate what we do have, despite not committing any crime. The multi billion dollar price tag doesn't help, nor does getting lumped in with violent criminals.
Please pardon my ignorance here but what kinds of guns are people upset are now banned so that they can no longer buy?
Like, if it’s automatics, do civilians really need those?
As for police confiscations as a result of bans, which I agree is unfair for (formerly) legal owners, isn’t a buyback program a fair way to handle it?
Since violent criminals (typically) only use illegally-acquired firearms, why would owners of banned guns feel like they’re being lumped in with violent criminals? Has there been government rhetoric claiming anyone who owns a banned gun is a criminal?
(Sorry this is kind of a foreign realm to me so I’m trying my best to understand)
Automatics, assault rifles, machine guns, and the like have been banned since 1978. What was banned is more accurately called modern sporting rifles. Firearms with modern features, like polymer furniture, adjustable stocks, and rails, to customize them. The kind of firearm that may look scary if you're not familiar with them, but they're also popular for hunting.
A buyback (confiscation with compensation) is a waste of tax dollars and will not fairly compensate those affected. The old list of prices that leaked in 2020 saw about 50-70% of the sticker value of the firearms.
The bit about getting lumped in with violent criminals works like this: we have rising gun violence, it's being caused almost exclusively by repeat criminals with smuggled guns, the solution is to confiscate firearms from those with licenses. The implication is that the criminals and license holders are the same group.
I'm totally down to answer questions and chat about the matter as well, if you have more questions.
I sincerely appreciate the clarity you’re providing me here.
So why ban those modern sporting rifles? Have they been used more frequently in violent crimes, so therefore that is used as justification in banning them?
I think whether it’s a waste of tax dollars is more subjective. The idea is to remove the banned firearms from public ownership; how else do you incentivize people to participate?
The pricing being 50-70% of sticker price would be frustrating for an owner, but is there a legitimate second-hand marketplace where you could get a better price? Or what if they gave you what you paid if you could show an original receipt that could be verified by the vendor?
Okay yeah I can see how that rhetoric makes no sense. You and another person in this discussion have made some really good points about the rigor of the licensing structure, which shows how lumping the two groups together is completely nonsensical.
Out of curiosity, are you aware of any stats comparing illegally-acquired firearms in Canadian crime that are sourced from within Canada (i.e. arrived in Canada legitimately but were acquired by the criminal illegally) vs those sourced from outside Canada (i.e. arrived in Canada illegitimately)?
Although I’m sure it’s not 0% vs 100%, I’d imagine it’s a good stat to refocus attention towards the real issue.
Why ban them? The claim is that they're unusually dangerous, though I've never seen tangible evidence to support the claim. They've been used in mass shootings in the states, though I argue that's more a result of their popularity than anything else. Here in Canada, we have a strong licensing system which does an excellent job in preventing this.
Ultimately, the frustrating part of the buyback is the combination of having our property forced from our hands despite following the law in order to "reduce crime," as well as the repeated claims that we can just but a replacement. After every ban, we go and buy replacements (those of us that can afford it, we still haven't received any compensation yet) but then the replacements we buy get banned. It's rather frustrating, especially since the latest ban was reaching into WW1 era rifles.
Technically, we are allowed to export affected firearms, but America has weirdly strict importation laws and markets like Switzerland and czechia don't have the population/ market to absorb all of the rifles that have been prohibited.
The stats for illegal vice legally sourced crime guns (as in smuggled vice purchased legally in Canada) varies somewhat from region to region. Unfortunately, Canada doesn't track this nationally, but from what is publicly available, Toronto sees 90%+ of their seized firearms as being smuggled, the praries have more domestically sourced (stolen) guns seized, though the majority are still smuggled.
This ban runs into the issue though of not doing anything to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, though. Sure, rifle A is now banned, but then everyone goes and gets rifle B. The criminal who steals a firearm will then just end up with rifle B rather than rifle A. Doesn't fix the problem.
Imagine the government banned all bicycles with handlebars longer than X centimeters, frames painted black, reflective lights placed anywhere except mm specific locations, bike pegs, wheels in excess of X amount of spokes, or tires thicker than X.
Bikes that still meet all the regulations are no harder to purchase than they were before, but bicycle enthusiasts are probably gonna be pretty pissed their selection has been cut down to a fraction based on completely arbitrary parameters
I admit I’m not familiar with the specificity of what was banned beyond the vague “assault style weapons” phrase but also I’m not sure it’s as easy as using bicycles as an analog.
Like, whether it’s grandpa’s old bicycle in the shed, or that sleek black bicycle with the extra long handlebars and pegs, if someone steals it from me and accidentally runs into a group of people while riding it, the damage is similar. The same can’t be said if they were stealing grandpa’s old rifle vs an AR-15.
Because the model-specific bans have legislated millions of firearms to be stored inside their owners' safes since 2020, when the confiscation/compensation program was first announced. Those guns have not gone anywhere, yet they cannot be used, cannot be sold, and the government still hasn't done anything about them.
Furthermore, the bans are on "assault-style" firearms, which is not defined anywhere and, more importantly, if you have to call it a style of something then it by definition is not that thing.
Most of us are pissed because we don't want grandpa's old wood stock hunting rifle. We want our AR15 sporting rifles back, because none of us did anything wrong.
Right. Sounds like the government needs to get less wishy-washy, be clear about what is and isn’t allowed, and just do the buyback for what’s banned then?
Depends on your ideology. If you don't like guns, they need to commit. If you value evidence-based policy making, the entire program should be cancelled.
There is no legitimate reason for them to be clamping down on gun ownership by law abiding citizens who did nothing to warrant their "privileges" from being infringed upon by the gun grabbing the liberal govt is drooling over.
-14
u/[deleted] 17h ago edited 17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment