What's going on Canada?
๐ Meta
๐บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories
๐๏ธ Cities / Local Communities
๐ Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown๐ป Universities
๐ต Finance / Shopping
๐ฃ๏ธ Politics
๐ Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
"Assault rifles" are already restricted for legal owners. Crack down on illegal firearms โ you know, the actual source of guns used in most of these crimes.
Ban all guns you pussys
I donโt think the Liberals need to re-visit the gun laws.
They are pretty good and itโs political suicide.
The already strict gun laws in Canada are effective at preventing the wrong people from getting access to firearms on the legal and regulated market. There are significant legal hoops that you must jump through to get licensed and further regulations and controls you must comply with to legally own a firearm in this country.
Those who can't or don't want to comply with these regulations have to pay a significantly marked up price for a firearm that was smuggled in from the US completely independently from the legal market. The vast majority of the people you hear about getting into shootouts in the major cities got their firearm through that black market. They are not affected by gun bans. They de facto already own their firearms illegally and trying to make firearms more illegal won't change anything for them.
The authorities have dismantled firearms smuggling networks over and over again and there is no reason to believe it will stop anytime soon because as long as there is a demand on the streets for those guns, someone will make money supplying them. We share the longest undefended border with a country where it is easy for just about anyone to buy a firearm and it in unreasonable to think we will be able to stop the smuggling by border enforcement alone.
The only gun problem Canada has is America's gun problem. It also has a street gang violence problem that fuels the demand for the influx of illegal firearms. The latter should be the main focus of a government that actually cares about reducing gun violence in the country, and not just virtue signaling for votes, like the liberals have been doing for the last two decades when it come to gun regulation. Mind you, the conservative's go-to solution of just increasing jail sentences for everything isn't really that effective either.
Canada firearm homicides: 0.6/100,000 (2016)
Canada vehicular fatalities: 5.0/100,000 (2022)
You can absolutely care about multiple things, but there's an order of magnitude difference in these two things.
I'm pleasantly surprised this is the main type of response in this thread.
It really, really isn't our biggest problem right now, and the kind of laws they do put in about it are ridiculous showboating.
The LPC feels so ineffectual right now. It's disheartening. Our political and next election situation seems pretty similar to the one south of the border except that our election isn't for another year
They are the conservative (little c) party. They're not interested in changing who actually owns things, and are willing to make a few pro forma social justice nods to keep the urban proles happy, but not actually take real systemic action.
Seriously? Gen Z isn't even dreaming of buying a house and we're talking about this non issue? Gun violence in Canada is only a symptom.
It wonโt matter. The liberals will be out in the next election. Just a matter of who wins and if itโs a majority or not.
But tougher gun laws in Canada are a nothing argument. From the gun fatalities every year Iโd love a real report on how many are by licensed gun owners storing their equipment per regulations. Maybe one or two shooters across a country of almost 43 million? Laughable excuse for regulations. Crack down on illegal firearms instead.
Anyone in a vehicle or residence with illegal firearms in them gets the exact same penalty (jail for Canadians and deportation for everyone if not) if they need to use nonwithstanding to beat bleeding heart lawyers so be it.
boosted it in mastodon and sharing this post on facebook . i think this needs attention. there was 2 instances of gun violence in my building in the last few months. 1 resulted in serious injuries. a death outside my complex from bludgeoning .
Did they involve assault style rifles?
Wrong question. You should be asking if it involved someone with a firearms license. The type of firearm used is irrelevant, despite what the Liberals would like us to believe.
I'm only asking that question because the article is about assault-style firearms, and OP said they are pushing the article based on shootings that may, or may not, involve assault-style weapons.
I wasn't implying anything about general firearms issues or licensing.
Yeah, I understand why you asked what you did, but the issue is that it accepts the premise that guns are the issue in the first place. That's how the Liberals have been able to push gun control (and other policies, such as their justice reforms in favour of criminals): by placing the blame on things rather than people.
the injury incident , a shot to the groin, was due to a glock style handgun. to me they are the same as assault style rifles. the 2 nd incident, a homicide aas bludgeoning by what appeared to be an assault rifle. cant xomment on much more as these acases are vefore the King's Bench.
They may the same to you, but there is a massive difference in handguns and rifles. A ban on assault style rifles wouldn't even impact handguns, they are a completely different type of gun and have very strict regulations. Handguns already have strict rules and it is incredibly rare a legal one is used in a gun crime.
The illegal guns are the problem. No amount of regulation on legal gun owners will stop illegal gun activity.
The thing is that the vast majority of those who commit gun violence in the cities already own their firearms illegally and got them from a supply chain that is completely independent from the legal and heavily regulated market in the country.
Even though Trudeau's gun ban isn't fully implemented yet, the sale of those firearms has been banned for years now so they are already practically banned. And clearly that ban didn't stop the violence from happening in your building.
To me, that is a very weak excuse. this is canada. we don't have "gun rights". that is a privilege just like having a pilot's licence. that is not a licence to go on social media and blather about rights for "law abiding gun owners". that is simply a veiled threat to those of us who dont own guns or may have a different skin tone or religious or gender affiliation.
secondly, when i see a vehicle with f*trudeau stickers and "2a rights" near my place when a firearms related incident happens, i am the good citizen who writes down the plate and description of the vehicle then reports to the authorities. there are DEI people in my building.
And i find its the same sore loser whiney crybababy conservatives who decry the presence of a kirpan (ceremonial knife) on a Sikh. hypocracy in the face of the deputy Consrvative party leader. I would vote for Tim S Uppal if i was in his riding.
This didn't start with Trudeau the younger. This was Hard work by Allen Rock and the Rt Hon Jean Chretien. If you dont like it , say it to Mr Chretien's face and see if he doesnt give you the Shawinnigan handshake lol!
And if you still dont like it,: i hear there are no gun laws nor even any carbon tax in Haiti. you can go there while a few Haitiens are waiting at Roxham Rd that would replace you in a heartbeat and be happy to live under Canada's gun laws and grateful to pay carbon tax.
ROFL! the lame arguments some of you bring up
That was completely unhinged.
All I said is that the relatively recent gun ban that the article is talking about did absolutely nothing to prevent the incidence of gun violence in your building. From there you made up a strawman of what you think, through pure prejudice, of what my political positions are and went on a wild rant about them, including on completely unrelated subjects.
If you want a more detailed explanation of my position on the subject, all you have to do is scroll up to my other post where I explained it in full detail. From that you will see that: 1: I never portrayed gun ownership as a right 2: I actually praise the effective gun control measures that were already in place. 3: I criticize the Conservative's approach to the problem as well.
I am an advocate for pragmatic measures against violence in the cities without the political and ideological nonsense that has been surrounding it for decades. I am sick of politicians continuing to use the same cheap distractions from the problem while it keeps getting worse. We have a cost of living and poverty problem in our cities and social environments in which kids don't have much future to look to for themselves. This is what promotes crime and gang violence and therefore fuels a demand for illegal guns that end up in the wrong hands.
Lol! i know i bark louder than the taco bell chihuawa when i see virtue signalling for the right .
On the other hand, i personally see very little open gang violence from our youth here in the Chi. the most open threats come exactly from the middle aged crisis far right around this place. mostly a generation or so younger than me. I'm senior enough to know i keep my wheelchair close by so i can jump in it at the first indication there might be a benefits inspector around. and I have bottle kids under my command to carry out my acts of "civil disobedience" . i dont see as far and cant aim as well.
Hows that for unhinged ?
Very unhinged.
Clearly you're more interested in fighting a strawman than the main point. You can do that on your own.
a death outside my complex from bludgeoning .
So, ban blunt objects?
hasnt been confirmed yet as the accused is before the King's Bench. but it was bludgeoning possibly by an assault style firearm. maybe the accused did not have or jnow how to use a batonet. it wasnt pretty and its nothing to joke about
Can't tell if serious.
Liberals breaking a promise that wasn't rooted in a sincere vision of what this country should look like, and instead was made to secure votes from a specific demographic group :shocked pikachu: