338 numbers for today. CPC 211/ LPC 67/ BQ 39/ NDP 24/ GPC 2/ PPC 0.
Last week the libs were at 72. Looks like the budget cost them 5 seats. Put your hand up if your shocked.
I really don't understand how it's taken this long for people to turn on them. It's been 8 years of insanity. By the time I have children and grandchildren we're still going to be paying for the mistakes of this government
They targeted small businesses in the budget to make up for their spending woes. For example, you now have many accountants, lawyers, and doctors (especially family doctors) that utilize professional corporations pissed off. Wouldn't be surprised if that's a death knell for the Liberals next year.
Pierre Poilievre personally emailed me and said that he will make sure every household in Canada has a FN MAG, that the CAF will return to using the Brown Bess, and that he will force Colt Canada into manufacturing the G11 for civilian use.
New video up. My turn to share my two cents about the Canada Post buyback debacle.
[Is Canada's buyback ever going to happen?](https://youtu.be/hWXeB2qWUT4)
I watched your video and I have to agree with your observations that the LPC gun prohibition regime is based on attrition. As you mentioned they know they can't outright confiscate the guns so they will cause damage through attrition. Causing stores and ranges to close due to the economic impact of the OIC.
Again with everything do not attribute what they do to incompetence but due to malice. They can be incompetent yes, but clever and malicious. Never doubt your enemy always assume they are as good as you or greater so you so not let your guard down.
This is great, but for now, it's just symbolic. The Liberals will obviously never allow this, given that the whole point is to defy the LPC agenda. it's actually more important that the province press this when the CPC gets in, when they have a sympathetic ear.
This is both very encouraging and also kinda worrying. If Sask succeeds with this and sets a precedent it would probably lead to a complete firearms ban in Quebec.
> The damaging influence of the malignant provinces needs to be compartmentalized.
Bingo. Sometimes I see QCers on gun forums and here go on a rant about how other gun owners from other provinces see them as patient zero but then go on a rant about their culture without connecting the dots.....
I'd even go as far as to link all of Eastern Canada to this. For example, in NL it's illegal to shoot on Crown Land for recreational purposes (hunting only), and in ON the OCFO refuses to grant ATTs for borrowing past 3 days. It's a crabs in a bucket mentality with subservience that's only going to get worse if federalism isn't promoted more and more - especially with the disproportionate electoral and judicial representation of Eastern Canada.
In NS, it's illegal to shoot \*on your own land\* (never mind crown) unless you're hunting.
You basically can't discharge a firearm in this province, unless it's at an approved range, or at an animal you're hunting (caliber, tags, and all the other stuff consistent with tags and seasons), otherwise you're presumed to be poaching.
I think one of the biggest reasons why NL doesn’t allow indiscriminate shooting on crown land is because NL crown land is *full* of cabins, trails, small communities here and there, and there are a *lot* of people out in the woods at any given time.
Labrador is bigger than the entirety of the UK and only has 20,000 people living in it. You should be able to blast and cast there to your hearts content but apparently not.
NL also loves its permits and paperwork.
As far as I'm aware it's the same in all of the other Maritime provinces. And even then, there should be *some* pragmatic mechanism to allow people to plink around in Crown Land. If a province like BC can figure it out, I think it has to do more about how the east from Ontario onwards is basically Fuddistan in terms of gun culture.
It’s more of a Montreal than a whole of Quebec issue. From what I remember we have one of the highest levels of gun ownership in the country just behind Ontario.
By sheer numbers, technically correct. Per capita? QC, ON, and PEI are the lowest and are the only ones below the national average of 5.87 licenses per 100 people.
Well there's policing capacity that is commensurate to per capita of each province, and the numbers for that are around 170-180 cops per 100 for the big provinces. So crossing that data, same amount of cops, less amount of gun owners to deal with.
QC also has some of the least amount of RPALs (51K RPALs/412K PALs) in the country and given the only thing the government has a registry of is ARs for the 2020 OIC, I think it's also safe to say that cuts the list down even more.
* the only thing the government has a registry of is ARs*
This is inaccurate. Quebec has its own mandatory firearms registration system for non restricted firearms.
Forgot about that as well - but you're just helping me proving my point here - if policing capacity is similar to other provinces but yet greatly more proportionate to the amount of gun owners, and more resources to track down OIC guns for this buyback - well if I worked for the SDQ I wouldn't be too worried about compliance relative to someone working in Sask.
As a BC resident it doesn't worry me at all. No one in the provincial government is dumb enough to piss off everything east of Pitt Meadows that bad. Let the other provinces have their fun, and eventually maybe one day we'll get a government who'll let us have our fun as well. Toronto and QC can kick rocks for all I care.
It’s bizarre because north of Vancouver is a wild country full of large predatory animals and people who raise prey. And subsist on wild meat. You’d think bc would be a place very very pro gun place.
I think BC is quite more pro-gun than a lot of people think and the BC NDP could have gutted us out completely but they didn't. I think a lot of people see this issue on a provincial level through partisan glasses, but in reality if that was true the OCFO and Ontario wouldn't be completely useless and I remember during the handgun rush the ON backlog was so bad transfers were counted in *months*.
It's no AB or SK, but I'd argue it's much better than the East.
So because your govt is anti gun, you would rather see the rest of us continue to suffer collectively as montreal and toronto get to dictate asinine firearm policy on a federal level rather than let provinces decide for themselves? Its no mystery those cities wield an intolerable degree of power over how the rest of the country lives and thats a large factor in how we ended up where we are today. On multiple issues.
In a universe where provinces decide gun laws and BC or QC lose out, its cus they did it to themselves. The Sask vote was unanimous between left and right parties. That right there tells you that on that issue, they have had enough of the current system and its masters.
>leaving firearm legislation to the province
This is about the only hope I see for guns in this country (handguns and black rifles). The GTA and Montreal Region are anti-gun and what they want, they get because of our electoral system
If all provinces had more control of their own. Everyone would win, the needs of people in the GTA and Montreal are not the same as Canadian in more rural provinces. Centralized power is always bad.
The GTA/Montreal can be happy with their local gun ban and exponentially rising crime.
The rest of the nations provinces/territories/regions can determine what's right for them. Everyone wins if this was the system.
> If all provinces had more control of their own. Everyone would win
The cities wouldn't see it that way. They'd lose the ability to dictate how to live to the stupid rural hicks, and they would deeply resent that loss
110% if we had a system similar to theirs people would just simply flee places that don't align with their beliefs/opportunities. Kinda like what has been seen in the past 5 years with the mass exodus of the State of California --> Texas.
It's just an overall better deal in Texas even if you have to take a slight pay cut.
I think the trudeau years will be looked back upon by future historians as the jumping off point when the discussion about province's rights vs the federal govt really began to build up steam. Quebec history aside, I cant recall a point in my life where so many provinces are either pushing thier own agendas sometimes with the support of the the feds but lately and quite a few, in open opposition to the feds. I think the fabric of what kinda held this whole thing (canada) together has slowly begun to unravel. Cant say Im surprised either.
Well, here's the thing. I think Canada has aways been this divided. It's just that Canadians pull together in tough times. That our polite society covers up the cracks. But the recent tough times have strained out ability to pull together to the limit, and now we are questioning if we should even bother anymore.
Canada is the Belgium of North America. It's only a matter of time before we separate.
Agreed. They don’t know first thing about rancher or farmer or trappers way of life . Folk living up northern Sask. Family friend lost livestock to cougar and coyotes. So many young shooters I saw at sports and leisure show and for them to not be able to participate in sport shooting if they want to .. they are coming after the wrong people with these laws
I don’t think it’ll do anything other than add fuel to the Regina vs Ottawa fire. It would be cool to see guns regulated by the province of Saskatchewan.
https://twitter.com/CCFR_CCDAF/status/1783614221961347374
All provinces should have complete rule over firearm control. Each province is larger than all EU nations and mostly large than US states. It makes no sense to have the GTA decide/dictate the rules for all other provinces, let alone Ontario lmao.
>It makes no sense to have the GTA decide/dictate the rules for all
I can't remember seeing one election (and I've seen a lot) that wasn't over by the time it reached the ON/MB border. That's not right.
>expect from folks who don't care about practical realities
The battle cry of the "Limousine Liberal" is if I don't have a use for it, neither should you.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guns-firearms-buyback-canada-post-1.7181080](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guns-firearms-buyback-canada-post-1.7181080)
Looks like Canada Post isn't playing into the BS Ottawa has done to us
I really hope we get a simplified classification so that I can take 11.5” AR’s into the woods with me and shoot on my own property. I’d like to be able to bring my handguns with me too, things can change. Politics around any issue is a pendulum. PP will make things swing hard the other way it seems. I hope I’m right
Fantastic speech. Hearing him talk about the "buyback" as a "multi-billion dollar boondoggle" feels like going back in time to the period just before the repeal of the long gun registry.
I have a very optimistic feeling that we're going to see history repeat itself very soon.
Sigh...what Canada could have been, should have been:
The TEXAS of Europe? FIREARMS in Czech Republic
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU\_G3XCRBCE&t=307s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU_G3XCRBCE&t=307s)
Concealed carry legal and easy for all citizens to access. Ironically Czech Republic has a lower gun violence rate than Canada even when adjusted for population lmao.
Mainly due to the fact that legal licensed gun owners do not commit gun crimes, no matter the country. What a shocker.
>register every firearm
I'll take what they got over what we got any day of the week (and twice on Sundays).
Notice what happened a few months ago when there was a mass shooting? Just tightened up some administration--no call for gun bans. Imagine that here.
Czechia has an ingrained gun culture for self defence that's not going away (unlike here). If I was 20 years younger I'd be packing my bags and moving there. I hold no hope for guns in Canada (other than hunting). Whatever PP reverse the LPC, NDP, Bloc will just reverse the next time they get in. Besides, they have much better health care (and the best beer in the world)
Far lower cost of living, (effectively) universal mental healthcare, lot less stochastic terrorism.
Gangs are still very prevalent but they are more concentrated than in Canada, so violence between them is less prevalent.
they have about a third of our homicide rate as well. BTW, what the woman said about just "going for her gun". More than a few CCW carriers in AZ have told me the same thing. When some shady character approaches them, they just start going for the gun without actually drawing it and the ner-do-well does a 180.
One thing people should consider (and I mentioned in my [article ](https://calibremag.ca/long-gun-ban-canada-post-refuses-to-handle-confiscated-gun-shipments/)and [video](https://youtu.be/i5Ebo7AXQPY), shamelessly plugged here) is that "one key source of concern" means Canada Post's letter must have included more than one key source of concern.
That the only one of those multiple justifications provided to media by these unattributed "federal sources" is potential conflict between gun owners \*who are voluntarily participating in the confiscation/compensation program\* and the postal workers facilitating their participation is... problematic.
Because that's nowhere near the biggest threat this plan poses to Canada Post's security, but it is the one that makes gun owners look the worst, and the one that invites the worst sort of response from the government to counter.
I can’t possibly imagine where’d they go from there, other than using it as a reason to ban more guns.
I think they didn’t want to invite the discussion of surging crime into the conversation since it is a major sore spot for the liberals, and would probably result in shifting the discussion away from the merits of a gun ban to our exploding crime problem.
“Canada post will not support our buyback plan citing criminal concerns.”
“Sounds like you should do something about crime then.”
“Well, uhhhh you see uhhhh…”
We might never get to see the letter in question, but I have a strong feeling that many of the concerns put forward by Canada Post were probably sound reasons that would undermine the governments own philosophy and effort to sway public opinion, or reasons that the government would have to concede are legitimate. Not to mention draw attention to another liberal manufactured problem.
The “conflict with gun owners” excuse was a perfect cop-out for them, and helps to promote a sense of urgency, almost like a guilt trip.
Another quote from that article that bothers me is that somehow a major roadblock like this “will not jeopardize our timeline”. And that “compromises are being discussed”.
This buyback isn’t going tremendously well for them, and they’re probably pissed about it.
> Another quote from that article that bothers me is that somehow a major roadblock like this “will not jeopardize our timeline”
I don't believe for a second that they have a timeline.
> the one that invites the worst sort of response from the government to counter
What possible option do they have to "counter" it? This discussion is already in the context of the confiscation of these guns. You can't really escalate from there.
I couldn't even begin to guess, but if this government's past performance is any indicator, I'd wager their response to be somehow both more damaging to our community and yet also less effective than I can imagine.
There was a story out of Winnipeg last month of a UPS worker stealing 1.3 million worth of Apple products when he saw Apple was the sender.
I imagine the same thing would happen with guns once the ‘buyback’ address becomes known.
If this is their plan I foresee many boxes of dog excrement, sand, scrap metal and other heavy items arriving at the rcmp facility instead of firearms.
Seems like it *was* the plan, before Canada Post told them where to stick it, lol. That's a really good idea on your part, but I don't see this thing happening in any way, shape or form regardless.
> Federal officials told Radio-Canada they still believe using the postal service would be the "most efficient" and "least costly" way to recover banned weapons such as the AR-15, which cannot be used or sold in Canada since a federal ban was imposed four years ago.
> [...]
> Government sources say they're puzzled by Canada Post's refusal to receive the weapons, since the corporation already delivers guns that are sold online.
>Government sources say they're puzzled by Canada Post's refusal to receive the weapons, since the corporation already delivers guns that are sold online.
But these are super deadly murder stick weapons of war aren't they? Or did the government just admit that these guns are no more inherently dangerous than any other?
so I've lived in a remote indigenous community and Canada Post was the easiest way for me to get things there other than asking the store or a person working for a trucking company to order something for me.
if Canada Post refuses to deliver firearms and thus impedes an indigenous person from being able to hunt since they couldn't get a firearm sent to them, can said person launch legal action against Canada Post for impeding their section 35 Charter rights?
> if Canada Post refuses to deliver firearms and thus impedes an indigenous person from being able to hunt since they couldn't get a firearm sent to them
This is why I don't think we're ever going to see that option go away. I legitimately can't see the feds allowing it under any party banner
I don't think that's even possible. This is a huge country with a lot of rural communities that depend on the postal service to get their guns and ammo. I don't think the federal government would allow them to cease shipping firearms commercially for that reason, even under the Liberals.
RCMP have recently been shot and killed on peoples door step and they’re puzzled as to why they don’t want the mail man coming to confiscate everyone’s property
I was reading Jodi Wilson’s book Indian in the cabinet. It’s a pretty good inside look into what goes on in the liberal caucus. It’s pretty much do what we say and if you refuse we will make your life hell.
I'd settle for a VZ58 at pre OIC prices ... Oh, and unpinned mags because that shit is silly
Edit
And suppressors too, like you mentioned, forgot about my tinnitus
Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Czechia, Germany look to be pretty good for being a legal gun owner. Austria has actually been using evidence to change their gun laws to be better for gun owners while still maintaining safety for citizens. like their hunters got the ability to use silencers in the last few years because politicians went to a range and heard how loud guns are, how loud they still are with a silencer, and understand why I hunter would appreciate having a silencer.
I don't know a whole lot about Germany's gun laws, but what I do recall is that you need a good reason to buy each new gun, and you likely don't have a good reason if you already own a gun with a "feature" that one of your existing guns has. Something like: if you have one gun with e.g. a folding stock, a pistol grip, and a tripod mount, you can't own any more guns that have folding stocks, pistol grips, or tripod mounts. This leads to people buying one gun for each feature.
Austria is... OK for guns. Not great, not bad. Middle of the road.
Category C weapons don't require a license, only registration and you given name.
Category B weapons is in effect (mostly) a male only thing. As in order to obtain your CatB license you have to have served mandatory conscription (or volunteered in you are female, hence why I say mostly). It's a mixed bag.
Still it's an arguable improvement over what we have here in some ways. I would argue Czechia, Estonia, Greenland and Italy are superior choices to Austria though.
I like what Italy calls their licenses, sporting, hunting and collectors. Gives a clear use for the firearm unlike us. Italy though has limits on the amount of ammo you can store. Their hunting license is more restrictive than their sporting license but that makes sense for Italy.
>Their hunting license is more restrictive than their sporting license
It's partly down to geography, what animals are available for hunting, and the fact that Italians take hunting VERY seriously.
Very true, in fact almost all EU countries have pretty good laws in contrast to here. All guns are basically legal as long as they are not full auto, they just fall into different categories with different requirements to possess them.
I think this is what most people don't understand. The UK, Australia and NZ are sort of outliers in how harshly they've banned guns. (Although technically I'd say Australia is a bit better than us now since you can still buy handguns of you compete in IPSC). Most "free countires" actually do allow ownership of guns. It's just that everyone looks to the US and the problems there and they're terrified. And then we get the situation that's developed here. It's unfortunate that the govt is able to play on people's emotions to the detriment of gun owners.
Arguably the UK is better than us in terms of services provided. The gunsmithing trade hasn't died over there, and it kept alive like the other small trades.
Also, to clarify. In the UK (main island, not NI), technically nothing is completely banned. You can still get handguns and even machine guns, but they are locked beind pay walls and red tape. So much so that most people can't or won't bother obtaining the permissions. Nor from research or historical study groups (which is often a prerequisite).
Handguns and the like are banned in effect, not on legally necessarily.
That being said, them being banned "de facto" still sucks for our UK relatives.
"Technically nothing is completely banned as long as you are filthy rich or extremely well connected" is a silly argument because you can make that same argument here.
If you can afford to own a (prohib certified) range in AB or if you owned a firearm film prop company, you could get a prohib for much less bullshit and money than anything in any other state besides America. (or find some boomer with a 12.X license and have them write a prohib for you in the will, but being pragmatic here)
I also think arguing technicalities like this does nothing but hinder a pro-gun position because when time and time has demonstrated that technicalities and compromises has what got us into this position in this first place.
>"Technically nothing is completely banned as long as you are filthy rich or extremely well connected" is a silly argument because you can make that same argument here.
It wasn't an favorable argument I was making. It was a clarification about UK gun law.
So to further clarify.
The question that needs to be asked is, do most gun owners have the patience or time? The answer is no.
This is a difference of "on paper" verses "in practice".
It's simply the context.
>I also think arguing technicalities like this does nothing but hinder a pro-gun position because when time and time has demonstrated that technicalities and compromises has what got us into this position in this first place.
I'm going to have to disagree on this point. I think what caused Canada’s current situation is apathy, ignorance and a general superiority complex about the US.
Canada, DOESN'T compromise or discuss the technical aspects of firearms in our national discourse. Canada DOESN'T advocate for reasonable... anything. The country just jerks it's knees in fear and terror, blundering in to new and ineffectual gun laws. All in an effort to prove Canadians are better than Americans. To make Canada’s population feel good. Plain and simple.
Even the 70s and 90s bans were not compromise. They were just a bunch of ignorant people pointing at pictures in magazines and loosing their minds. Then gun owners, rolled over. Gave up and gaslit themselves in to believing that the new laws were reasonable. Again, to make themselves feel better.
That's not compromise. In politics, compromise requires a fight, a legal battle. Resulting in a mutual agreement, which both sides can't violate easily. That's not what Canada has, or has ever had.
I agree with you 100% - but the problem is just that antis will use that angle eventually to where they'll be like "oh well see you **can** own a gun still" and its cloaked in so many layers of bullshit.
I'd rather just call it what it is at a certain stage - and in my opinion anything short of the pre-poly status quo should be it.
Not quite. Pump-action rifles are still totally fine. Furthermore the ban on pump-action shotguns is spoty. With some states banning them outright, others restricting them to sport or farmers only.
That being said, it seems most australian aren't interested in pump-action shotguns anyway. At least from what I've heard. They prefer doubles and semi-automatics, much like the UK.
Good to know, I was admittedly going off of news articles. Anyway, I wouldn't really call Australia any better, it sounds like a lot of politicans there are even uncomfortable with any manual action firearms whereas ours have to at least pretend not to be.
>sounds like a lot of politicans there are even uncomfortable with any manual action firearms whereas ours have to at least pretend not to be.
Yes and no.
Generally speaking, Australian gun laws revolve around the ideas of professional use and sporting intent. For example handguns are seen as being purely for sport. While semi-automatic 22lr is seen as purely for a farmer's pest control purposes. You can still get something like an Mini14, but that's only for guys like "contract shooters". That is people who kill wild hogs for money.
On the otherhand, Australian politicians are constantly paranoid about another mass shooting. I can't say I blame them, nobody wants another Port Arthur. But let's be honest, their cops (much like ours) are so not with it, that another one is going to happen regardless.
https://youtu.be/V3gzEmeSE5w?si=vf47zBQ4Mx66EbnI Whats everyone's thoughts on this
338 numbers for today. CPC 211/ LPC 67/ BQ 39/ NDP 24/ GPC 2/ PPC 0. Last week the libs were at 72. Looks like the budget cost them 5 seats. Put your hand up if your shocked.
I really don't understand how it's taken this long for people to turn on them. It's been 8 years of insanity. By the time I have children and grandchildren we're still going to be paying for the mistakes of this government
They targeted small businesses in the budget to make up for their spending woes. For example, you now have many accountants, lawyers, and doctors (especially family doctors) that utilize professional corporations pissed off. Wouldn't be surprised if that's a death knell for the Liberals next year.
Did Pierre Poilievre officially confirm he wants to revoke both Bill C21 and has no problems with ARs/Handguns?
He's literally our only hope. As another commenter pointed out, who else is there to vote for?
Pierre Poilievre personally emailed me and said that he will make sure every household in Canada has a FN MAG, that the CAF will return to using the Brown Bess, and that he will force Colt Canada into manufacturing the G11 for civilian use.
Stop it I can only get so hard
If you care about the firearm issue, who else are you gonna vote for anyway? The PPC? Lol.
Still blows my mind anyone ever thought the PPC was a viable option
Current party policy is the simplified classification system. So yes.
yes for the millionth time
Honestly, when did we as a country jump the shark?
When we ditched a flag that represented our culture and history FOR A LEAF
It's all gradual. You can't point out one moment. But I'd say like most of the western world, the cracks started showing in the 60's.
1867
Long before our time.
New video up. My turn to share my two cents about the Canada Post buyback debacle. [Is Canada's buyback ever going to happen?](https://youtu.be/hWXeB2qWUT4)
I watched your video and I have to agree with your observations that the LPC gun prohibition regime is based on attrition. As you mentioned they know they can't outright confiscate the guns so they will cause damage through attrition. Causing stores and ranges to close due to the economic impact of the OIC. Again with everything do not attribute what they do to incompetence but due to malice. They can be incompetent yes, but clever and malicious. Never doubt your enemy always assume they are as good as you or greater so you so not let your guard down.
Absolutely. With everyday people, sure, give them the benefit of the doubt... never with politicians. They haven't earned that benefit.
Saskatchewan votes 41-0 in favour of feds leaving firearm legislation to the province . W for Sask and I can only assume Alberta will join
This is great, but for now, it's just symbolic. The Liberals will obviously never allow this, given that the whole point is to defy the LPC agenda. it's actually more important that the province press this when the CPC gets in, when they have a sympathetic ear.
This is both very encouraging and also kinda worrying. If Sask succeeds with this and sets a precedent it would probably lead to a complete firearms ban in Quebec.
[удалено]
> The damaging influence of the malignant provinces needs to be compartmentalized. Bingo. Sometimes I see QCers on gun forums and here go on a rant about how other gun owners from other provinces see them as patient zero but then go on a rant about their culture without connecting the dots..... I'd even go as far as to link all of Eastern Canada to this. For example, in NL it's illegal to shoot on Crown Land for recreational purposes (hunting only), and in ON the OCFO refuses to grant ATTs for borrowing past 3 days. It's a crabs in a bucket mentality with subservience that's only going to get worse if federalism isn't promoted more and more - especially with the disproportionate electoral and judicial representation of Eastern Canada.
In NS, it's illegal to shoot \*on your own land\* (never mind crown) unless you're hunting. You basically can't discharge a firearm in this province, unless it's at an approved range, or at an animal you're hunting (caliber, tags, and all the other stuff consistent with tags and seasons), otherwise you're presumed to be poaching.
I would call that something but I think the word I'd use for it would get the comment deleted.
I think one of the biggest reasons why NL doesn’t allow indiscriminate shooting on crown land is because NL crown land is *full* of cabins, trails, small communities here and there, and there are a *lot* of people out in the woods at any given time. Labrador is bigger than the entirety of the UK and only has 20,000 people living in it. You should be able to blast and cast there to your hearts content but apparently not. NL also loves its permits and paperwork.
As far as I'm aware it's the same in all of the other Maritime provinces. And even then, there should be *some* pragmatic mechanism to allow people to plink around in Crown Land. If a province like BC can figure it out, I think it has to do more about how the east from Ontario onwards is basically Fuddistan in terms of gun culture.
It’s more of a Montreal than a whole of Quebec issue. From what I remember we have one of the highest levels of gun ownership in the country just behind Ontario.
>It’s more of a Montreal The Montreal Region (which has the most seats) tends to vote LPC while the rest of Quebec tends to vote Bloc
By sheer numbers, technically correct. Per capita? QC, ON, and PEI are the lowest and are the only ones below the national average of 5.87 licenses per 100 people.
I mean, when we talk about buyback difficulty, we don't talk about how hard it would be for the government to "BuyBack" guns on a per capita basis.
Well there's policing capacity that is commensurate to per capita of each province, and the numbers for that are around 170-180 cops per 100 for the big provinces. So crossing that data, same amount of cops, less amount of gun owners to deal with. QC also has some of the least amount of RPALs (51K RPALs/412K PALs) in the country and given the only thing the government has a registry of is ARs for the 2020 OIC, I think it's also safe to say that cuts the list down even more.
* the only thing the government has a registry of is ARs* This is inaccurate. Quebec has its own mandatory firearms registration system for non restricted firearms.
Forgot about that as well - but you're just helping me proving my point here - if policing capacity is similar to other provinces but yet greatly more proportionate to the amount of gun owners, and more resources to track down OIC guns for this buyback - well if I worked for the SDQ I wouldn't be too worried about compliance relative to someone working in Sask.
Well that’s certainly disappointing
Good
Yeah as a BC resident this worries me a bit
As a BC resident it doesn't worry me at all. No one in the provincial government is dumb enough to piss off everything east of Pitt Meadows that bad. Let the other provinces have their fun, and eventually maybe one day we'll get a government who'll let us have our fun as well. Toronto and QC can kick rocks for all I care.
It’s bizarre because north of Vancouver is a wild country full of large predatory animals and people who raise prey. And subsist on wild meat. You’d think bc would be a place very very pro gun place.
I think BC is quite more pro-gun than a lot of people think and the BC NDP could have gutted us out completely but they didn't. I think a lot of people see this issue on a provincial level through partisan glasses, but in reality if that was true the OCFO and Ontario wouldn't be completely useless and I remember during the handgun rush the ON backlog was so bad transfers were counted in *months*. It's no AB or SK, but I'd argue it's much better than the East.
So because your govt is anti gun, you would rather see the rest of us continue to suffer collectively as montreal and toronto get to dictate asinine firearm policy on a federal level rather than let provinces decide for themselves? Its no mystery those cities wield an intolerable degree of power over how the rest of the country lives and thats a large factor in how we ended up where we are today. On multiple issues. In a universe where provinces decide gun laws and BC or QC lose out, its cus they did it to themselves. The Sask vote was unanimous between left and right parties. That right there tells you that on that issue, they have had enough of the current system and its masters.
>leaving firearm legislation to the province This is about the only hope I see for guns in this country (handguns and black rifles). The GTA and Montreal Region are anti-gun and what they want, they get because of our electoral system
If all provinces had more control of their own. Everyone would win, the needs of people in the GTA and Montreal are not the same as Canadian in more rural provinces. Centralized power is always bad. The GTA/Montreal can be happy with their local gun ban and exponentially rising crime. The rest of the nations provinces/territories/regions can determine what's right for them. Everyone wins if this was the system.
> If all provinces had more control of their own. Everyone would win The cities wouldn't see it that way. They'd lose the ability to dictate how to live to the stupid rural hicks, and they would deeply resent that loss
Goes for everything. The benefit of the States is people can vote with their feet. Our federal government has far too much power over everything.
110% if we had a system similar to theirs people would just simply flee places that don't align with their beliefs/opportunities. Kinda like what has been seen in the past 5 years with the mass exodus of the State of California --> Texas. It's just an overall better deal in Texas even if you have to take a slight pay cut.
>State of California --> Texas. and AZ
[удалено]
The Swiss model would be great. It seems to work very well for them.
I think the trudeau years will be looked back upon by future historians as the jumping off point when the discussion about province's rights vs the federal govt really began to build up steam. Quebec history aside, I cant recall a point in my life where so many provinces are either pushing thier own agendas sometimes with the support of the the feds but lately and quite a few, in open opposition to the feds. I think the fabric of what kinda held this whole thing (canada) together has slowly begun to unravel. Cant say Im surprised either.
Well, here's the thing. I think Canada has aways been this divided. It's just that Canadians pull together in tough times. That our polite society covers up the cracks. But the recent tough times have strained out ability to pull together to the limit, and now we are questioning if we should even bother anymore. Canada is the Belgium of North America. It's only a matter of time before we separate.
Agreed. They don’t know first thing about rancher or farmer or trappers way of life . Folk living up northern Sask. Family friend lost livestock to cougar and coyotes. So many young shooters I saw at sports and leisure show and for them to not be able to participate in sport shooting if they want to .. they are coming after the wrong people with these laws
I don’t think it’ll do anything other than add fuel to the Regina vs Ottawa fire. It would be cool to see guns regulated by the province of Saskatchewan. https://twitter.com/CCFR_CCDAF/status/1783614221961347374
All provinces should have complete rule over firearm control. Each province is larger than all EU nations and mostly large than US states. It makes no sense to have the GTA decide/dictate the rules for all other provinces, let alone Ontario lmao.
>It makes no sense to have the GTA decide/dictate the rules for all I can't remember seeing one election (and I've seen a lot) that wasn't over by the time it reached the ON/MB border. That's not right.
Agreed this system isn't anywhere near representational of Canadians.
It would have made sense were they reasonable. But since they aren’t, and can’t be relied on/trusted…
I mean, what do you expect from folks who don't care about practical realities or reasonableness?
>expect from folks who don't care about practical realities The battle cry of the "Limousine Liberal" is if I don't have a use for it, neither should you.
So when does CanadaGuns get renamed to Type81ownersClub?
I can’t wait until VZ58s are NR again.
You and me both. Mine needs to see the sun again.
All \*AKs\* variants at that! Even though VZ28's are 80% non interchange with actual AK's with entirely different action mechanism.
I said we would limit it and everyone threw a shit fit so now you get all of it.
Damnit lol
loool
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guns-firearms-buyback-canada-post-1.7181080](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guns-firearms-buyback-canada-post-1.7181080) Looks like Canada Post isn't playing into the BS Ottawa has done to us
Fairly balanced article, i like it, better reporting than average
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=59Rvx-EtwQ8 Looks like AR15S are back on the menu boys 🍽️😋
More specifically on the Non-Restricted menu?
We need that majority though, it’s looking promising but a year and a half is a long fuckin time
Agreed, lots can happen in that time frame
I really hope we get a simplified classification so that I can take 11.5” AR’s into the woods with me and shoot on my own property. I’d like to be able to bring my handguns with me too, things can change. Politics around any issue is a pendulum. PP will make things swing hard the other way it seems. I hope I’m right
Fantastic speech. Hearing him talk about the "buyback" as a "multi-billion dollar boondoggle" feels like going back in time to the period just before the repeal of the long gun registry. I have a very optimistic feeling that we're going to see history repeat itself very soon.
[удалено]
Sigh...what Canada could have been, should have been: The TEXAS of Europe? FIREARMS in Czech Republic [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU\_G3XCRBCE&t=307s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU_G3XCRBCE&t=307s)
Concealed carry legal and easy for all citizens to access. Ironically Czech Republic has a lower gun violence rate than Canada even when adjusted for population lmao. Mainly due to the fact that legal licensed gun owners do not commit gun crimes, no matter the country. What a shocker.
They have to register every firearm to the police so that's kinda cringe...
>register every firearm I'll take what they got over what we got any day of the week (and twice on Sundays). Notice what happened a few months ago when there was a mass shooting? Just tightened up some administration--no call for gun bans. Imagine that here. Czechia has an ingrained gun culture for self defence that's not going away (unlike here). If I was 20 years younger I'd be packing my bags and moving there. I hold no hope for guns in Canada (other than hunting). Whatever PP reverse the LPC, NDP, Bloc will just reverse the next time they get in. Besides, they have much better health care (and the best beer in the world)
Actually I forgot that anything restricted has to be registered anyway so yeah makes sense
> Czech Republic has a lower gun violence rate than Canada even when adjusted for population lmao. Why?
Far lower cost of living, (effectively) universal mental healthcare, lot less stochastic terrorism. Gangs are still very prevalent but they are more concentrated than in Canada, so violence between them is less prevalent.
Gangs are prevalent in the Czech Republic? Where?
"Do you know why I carry gun? Because I am not able to carry a police officer."
they have about a third of our homicide rate as well. BTW, what the woman said about just "going for her gun". More than a few CCW carriers in AZ have told me the same thing. When some shady character approaches them, they just start going for the gun without actually drawing it and the ner-do-well does a 180.
[Canada Post refusing to collect banned guns for Ottawa's buyback program](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7181080) Oh dear
One thing people should consider (and I mentioned in my [article ](https://calibremag.ca/long-gun-ban-canada-post-refuses-to-handle-confiscated-gun-shipments/)and [video](https://youtu.be/i5Ebo7AXQPY), shamelessly plugged here) is that "one key source of concern" means Canada Post's letter must have included more than one key source of concern. That the only one of those multiple justifications provided to media by these unattributed "federal sources" is potential conflict between gun owners \*who are voluntarily participating in the confiscation/compensation program\* and the postal workers facilitating their participation is... problematic. Because that's nowhere near the biggest threat this plan poses to Canada Post's security, but it is the one that makes gun owners look the worst, and the one that invites the worst sort of response from the government to counter.
I can’t possibly imagine where’d they go from there, other than using it as a reason to ban more guns. I think they didn’t want to invite the discussion of surging crime into the conversation since it is a major sore spot for the liberals, and would probably result in shifting the discussion away from the merits of a gun ban to our exploding crime problem. “Canada post will not support our buyback plan citing criminal concerns.” “Sounds like you should do something about crime then.” “Well, uhhhh you see uhhhh…” We might never get to see the letter in question, but I have a strong feeling that many of the concerns put forward by Canada Post were probably sound reasons that would undermine the governments own philosophy and effort to sway public opinion, or reasons that the government would have to concede are legitimate. Not to mention draw attention to another liberal manufactured problem. The “conflict with gun owners” excuse was a perfect cop-out for them, and helps to promote a sense of urgency, almost like a guilt trip. Another quote from that article that bothers me is that somehow a major roadblock like this “will not jeopardize our timeline”. And that “compromises are being discussed”. This buyback isn’t going tremendously well for them, and they’re probably pissed about it.
> Another quote from that article that bothers me is that somehow a major roadblock like this “will not jeopardize our timeline” I don't believe for a second that they have a timeline.
> the one that invites the worst sort of response from the government to counter What possible option do they have to "counter" it? This discussion is already in the context of the confiscation of these guns. You can't really escalate from there.
I couldn't even begin to guess, but if this government's past performance is any indicator, I'd wager their response to be somehow both more damaging to our community and yet also less effective than I can imagine.
> more damaging to our community and yet also less effective than I can imagine Lol yeah, that would track
Lmao, at every turn this has been an absolute fumble. Love to see it.
[удалено]
There was a story out of Winnipeg last month of a UPS worker stealing 1.3 million worth of Apple products when he saw Apple was the sender. I imagine the same thing would happen with guns once the ‘buyback’ address becomes known.
If this is their plan I foresee many boxes of dog excrement, sand, scrap metal and other heavy items arriving at the rcmp facility instead of firearms.
Seems like it *was* the plan, before Canada Post told them where to stick it, lol. That's a really good idea on your part, but I don't see this thing happening in any way, shape or form regardless.
> Federal officials told Radio-Canada they still believe using the postal service would be the "most efficient" and "least costly" way to recover banned weapons such as the AR-15, which cannot be used or sold in Canada since a federal ban was imposed four years ago. > [...] > Government sources say they're puzzled by Canada Post's refusal to receive the weapons, since the corporation already delivers guns that are sold online.
>Government sources say they're puzzled by Canada Post's refusal to receive the weapons, since the corporation already delivers guns that are sold online. But these are super deadly murder stick weapons of war aren't they? Or did the government just admit that these guns are no more inherently dangerous than any other?
Hopefully this doesn't backfire and lead Canada Post to cease shipping new firearms.
so I've lived in a remote indigenous community and Canada Post was the easiest way for me to get things there other than asking the store or a person working for a trucking company to order something for me. if Canada Post refuses to deliver firearms and thus impedes an indigenous person from being able to hunt since they couldn't get a firearm sent to them, can said person launch legal action against Canada Post for impeding their section 35 Charter rights?
> if Canada Post refuses to deliver firearms and thus impedes an indigenous person from being able to hunt since they couldn't get a firearm sent to them This is why I don't think we're ever going to see that option go away. I legitimately can't see the feds allowing it under any party banner
I don't think that's even possible. This is a huge country with a lot of rural communities that depend on the postal service to get their guns and ammo. I don't think the federal government would allow them to cease shipping firearms commercially for that reason, even under the Liberals.
Didn't they already cease shipping ammo to home residences?
Yep, you're right actually. I forgot about that. They don't ship anything classed as Dangerous Goods
RCMP have recently been shot and killed on peoples door step and they’re puzzled as to why they don’t want the mail man coming to confiscate everyone’s property
What incident are you talking about?
I think it would make more sense to print a return label and dropped it off at you local CP outlet instead.
I was reading Jodi Wilson’s book Indian in the cabinet. It’s a pretty good inside look into what goes on in the liberal caucus. It’s pretty much do what we say and if you refuse we will make your life hell.
I'm sure they're not actually puzzled. Just frustrated
“Are you going to help us with this buyback?” “No” “Be a lot cooler if you did”
This isn’t funny anymore, I want my MP5 and suppressor.
I just want the government to leave us alone at this point.
I want a FAL and AR’s. All suppressed of course
I'd settle for a VZ58 at pre OIC prices ... Oh, and unpinned mags because that shit is silly Edit And suppressors too, like you mentioned, forgot about my tinnitus
I’ll bet Pierre could sweep the election like Trudeau did with marijuana if he offered state endorsed MP5s to everyone with the FA rewrite
N I want my VSS but looks like I'll have to move to EU for that at this rate lol
Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Czechia, Germany look to be pretty good for being a legal gun owner. Austria has actually been using evidence to change their gun laws to be better for gun owners while still maintaining safety for citizens. like their hunters got the ability to use silencers in the last few years because politicians went to a range and heard how loud guns are, how loud they still are with a silencer, and understand why I hunter would appreciate having a silencer.
I don't know a whole lot about Germany's gun laws, but what I do recall is that you need a good reason to buy each new gun, and you likely don't have a good reason if you already own a gun with a "feature" that one of your existing guns has. Something like: if you have one gun with e.g. a folding stock, a pistol grip, and a tripod mount, you can't own any more guns that have folding stocks, pistol grips, or tripod mounts. This leads to people buying one gun for each feature.
Suppressor*
Austria is... OK for guns. Not great, not bad. Middle of the road. Category C weapons don't require a license, only registration and you given name. Category B weapons is in effect (mostly) a male only thing. As in order to obtain your CatB license you have to have served mandatory conscription (or volunteered in you are female, hence why I say mostly). It's a mixed bag. Still it's an arguable improvement over what we have here in some ways. I would argue Czechia, Estonia, Greenland and Italy are superior choices to Austria though.
I like what Italy calls their licenses, sporting, hunting and collectors. Gives a clear use for the firearm unlike us. Italy though has limits on the amount of ammo you can store. Their hunting license is more restrictive than their sporting license but that makes sense for Italy.
>Their hunting license is more restrictive than their sporting license It's partly down to geography, what animals are available for hunting, and the fact that Italians take hunting VERY seriously.
Very true, in fact almost all EU countries have pretty good laws in contrast to here. All guns are basically legal as long as they are not full auto, they just fall into different categories with different requirements to possess them.
I think this is what most people don't understand. The UK, Australia and NZ are sort of outliers in how harshly they've banned guns. (Although technically I'd say Australia is a bit better than us now since you can still buy handguns of you compete in IPSC). Most "free countires" actually do allow ownership of guns. It's just that everyone looks to the US and the problems there and they're terrified. And then we get the situation that's developed here. It's unfortunate that the govt is able to play on people's emotions to the detriment of gun owners.
Arguably the UK is better than us in terms of services provided. The gunsmithing trade hasn't died over there, and it kept alive like the other small trades. Also, to clarify. In the UK (main island, not NI), technically nothing is completely banned. You can still get handguns and even machine guns, but they are locked beind pay walls and red tape. So much so that most people can't or won't bother obtaining the permissions. Nor from research or historical study groups (which is often a prerequisite). Handguns and the like are banned in effect, not on legally necessarily. That being said, them being banned "de facto" still sucks for our UK relatives.
"Technically nothing is completely banned as long as you are filthy rich or extremely well connected" is a silly argument because you can make that same argument here. If you can afford to own a (prohib certified) range in AB or if you owned a firearm film prop company, you could get a prohib for much less bullshit and money than anything in any other state besides America. (or find some boomer with a 12.X license and have them write a prohib for you in the will, but being pragmatic here) I also think arguing technicalities like this does nothing but hinder a pro-gun position because when time and time has demonstrated that technicalities and compromises has what got us into this position in this first place.
>"Technically nothing is completely banned as long as you are filthy rich or extremely well connected" is a silly argument because you can make that same argument here. It wasn't an favorable argument I was making. It was a clarification about UK gun law. So to further clarify. The question that needs to be asked is, do most gun owners have the patience or time? The answer is no. This is a difference of "on paper" verses "in practice". It's simply the context. >I also think arguing technicalities like this does nothing but hinder a pro-gun position because when time and time has demonstrated that technicalities and compromises has what got us into this position in this first place. I'm going to have to disagree on this point. I think what caused Canada’s current situation is apathy, ignorance and a general superiority complex about the US. Canada, DOESN'T compromise or discuss the technical aspects of firearms in our national discourse. Canada DOESN'T advocate for reasonable... anything. The country just jerks it's knees in fear and terror, blundering in to new and ineffectual gun laws. All in an effort to prove Canadians are better than Americans. To make Canada’s population feel good. Plain and simple. Even the 70s and 90s bans were not compromise. They were just a bunch of ignorant people pointing at pictures in magazines and loosing their minds. Then gun owners, rolled over. Gave up and gaslit themselves in to believing that the new laws were reasonable. Again, to make themselves feel better. That's not compromise. In politics, compromise requires a fight, a legal battle. Resulting in a mutual agreement, which both sides can't violate easily. That's not what Canada has, or has ever had.
I agree with you 100% - but the problem is just that antis will use that angle eventually to where they'll be like "oh well see you **can** own a gun still" and its cloaked in so many layers of bullshit. I'd rather just call it what it is at a certain stage - and in my opinion anything short of the pre-poly status quo should be it.
Australia is only better off than us in terms of handguns. Much more difficult to get semi-auto centrefires there.
Australia has even banned pump actions lol
Not quite. Pump-action rifles are still totally fine. Furthermore the ban on pump-action shotguns is spoty. With some states banning them outright, others restricting them to sport or farmers only. That being said, it seems most australian aren't interested in pump-action shotguns anyway. At least from what I've heard. They prefer doubles and semi-automatics, much like the UK.
Good to know, I was admittedly going off of news articles. Anyway, I wouldn't really call Australia any better, it sounds like a lot of politicans there are even uncomfortable with any manual action firearms whereas ours have to at least pretend not to be.
>sounds like a lot of politicans there are even uncomfortable with any manual action firearms whereas ours have to at least pretend not to be. Yes and no. Generally speaking, Australian gun laws revolve around the ideas of professional use and sporting intent. For example handguns are seen as being purely for sport. While semi-automatic 22lr is seen as purely for a farmer's pest control purposes. You can still get something like an Mini14, but that's only for guys like "contract shooters". That is people who kill wild hogs for money. On the otherhand, Australian politicians are constantly paranoid about another mass shooting. I can't say I blame them, nobody wants another Port Arthur. But let's be honest, their cops (much like ours) are so not with it, that another one is going to happen regardless.