Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
It’s all probably suspicious & probable cause depending of who’s the judge of what’s suspicious, etc…
The three defining characteristics are:
1. Black or OD green or camo.
2. High-capacity magazine.
3. Makes a Canadian Conservative feel like he's a ruff, tuff commando type.
In Canada, a “high capacity” magazine is (for rifles) limited to a maximum of 5 rounds. True story.
Not only do they frown on that up here, but there’s a bit of a pee-pee whack for those that bring in larger capacity magazines from what I understand.
More than half of provinces and territories reject role in federal gun 'buyback' — National Post
Wakeham added that 'hunting is part of our life' in the province, saying he does not want to see that 'impeded in any way'
Sask. gun shop in 'limbo' over banned merchandise as feds' buyback enters new phase — Leader Post
“Those bans affected guns that we had on our walls. So as soon as those were announced, they had to be taken off the wall, boxed up and they’re sitting in the back in limbo right now.”
I always wondered about that one as well. As it happens, neither of my rifles take clips. Never found it to be a problem. The best I can come up with is those that think they need more than 5 rounds, are more in need of a visit to the optometrist.
I use clips to save time at the range, but my hunting rifle holds 4, which is one more than the law allows in most states.
Canada is currently carrying out the most expensive and complex gun control push ever mounted, with all of it done for the explicit purpose of preventing mass shootings.
And yet, the entire campaign ignored the one safeguard that would likely have prevented the Tumbler Ridge massacre: Removing firearms from the home of a mentally ill individual.
This safeguard is already a longstanding feature of Canadian firearms law, and is arguably the one policy that most differentiates Canadian gun control from its U.S. equivalent.
The RCMP, distinct from any single U.S. law enforcement agency, retains extraordinary powers to unilaterally confiscate firearms even upon the barest suspicion that an individual within a gun-owning household is a risk to themselves or others.
As is emerging now, this safeguard actually appears to have kicked in in the case of the Tumbler Ridge killer, only to be reversed before the massacre? At a Wednesday press conference, RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dwayne McDonald said that police had attended the home of the alleged shooter on “multiple occasions” for mental health calls. This included more than one instance in which the suspect was taken into custody under the terms of the Mental Health Act.
“Police have attended that residence in the past, approximately a couple of years ago, where firearms were seized,” said McDonald. He added, “I can say that at a later point in time the lawful owner of those firearms petitions for those firearms to be returned and they were.” According to other media accounts, the petitioner was someone in the shooter’s family and the guns were returned just weeks before the massacre.
Under the Criminal Code of Canada, Canadian law enforcement can seize legal firearms without a warrant, provided that an officer believes that it’s in the “interests of the safety of the person or any other person” to do so. It’s a uniquely robust version of what U.S. gun control advocates would call a “red flag law.” And even watered-down versions of the Canadian system have been linked to thwarted mass-shootings in the U.S.
So instead of enforcing the existing laws, after 2020 the singular gun control focus of the Liberal government became a series of mass-bans of specific models of firearms. The federal government imposed an overnight ban on thousands of previously legal firearms on May 1, 2020, framing it as a direct reaction to the Nova Scotia mass shooting that had happened two weeks prior…not using legally owned firearms but weapons smuggled in from the US.
This would be followed up with additional firearm bans, and a 2022 “freeze” on the sale or transfer of legal handguns.
The Tumbler Ridge shooting occurred just weeks after the formal kickoff of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program, the long-delayed federal program attempting to “buy back” firearms covered by the 2020 ban.
A leading criticism of the bans was that the Nova Scotia shooting was committed with illegal firearms, and thus could not have been prevented with curbs on legal ownership, but this wasn’t about stopping actual real gun crime, but creating criminals out of legal gun owners.
The “assault-style” definition also primarily targeted firearms based on appearance, rather than functionality, meaning that multiple firearms made the list despite having the same caliber and firing ability as firearms that remained legal, but that’s the Liberal way.
apple.news
And yet, the entire campaign ignored the one safeguard that would likely have prevented the Tumbler Ridge massacre: Removing firearms from the home of a mentally ill individual.
This safeguard is already a longstanding feature of Canadian firearms law, and is arguably the one policy that most differentiates Canadian gun control from its U.S. equivalent.
The RCMP, distinct from any single U.S. law enforcement agency, retains extraordinary powers to unilaterally confiscate firearms even upon the barest suspicion that an individual within a gun-owning household is a risk to themselves or others.
As is emerging now, this safeguard actually appears to have kicked in in the case of the Tumbler Ridge killer, only to be reversed before the massacre? At a Wednesday press conference, RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dwayne McDonald said that police had attended the home of the alleged shooter on “multiple occasions” for mental health calls. This included more than one instance in which the suspect was taken into custody under the terms of the Mental Health Act.
“Police have attended that residence in the past, approximately a couple of years ago, where firearms were seized,” said McDonald. He added, “I can say that at a later point in time the lawful owner of those firearms petitions for those firearms to be returned and they were.” According to other media accounts, the petitioner was someone in the shooter’s family and the guns were returned just weeks before the massacre.
Under the Criminal Code of Canada, Canadian law enforcement can seize legal firearms without a warrant, provided that an officer believes that it’s in the “interests of the safety of the person or any other person” to do so. It’s a uniquely robust version of what U.S. gun control advocates would call a “red flag law.” And even watered-down versions of the Canadian system have been linked to thwarted mass-shootings in the U.S.
So instead of enforcing the existing laws, after 2020 the singular gun control focus of the Liberal government became a series of mass-bans of specific models of firearms. The federal government imposed an overnight ban on thousands of previously legal firearms on May 1, 2020, framing it as a direct reaction to the Nova Scotia mass shooting that had happened two weeks prior…not using legally owned firearms but weapons smuggled in from the US.
This would be followed up with additional firearm bans, and a 2022 “freeze” on the sale or transfer of legal handguns.
The Tumbler Ridge shooting occurred just weeks after the formal kickoff of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program, the long-delayed federal program attempting to “buy back” firearms covered by the 2020 ban.
A leading criticism of the bans was that the Nova Scotia shooting was committed with illegal firearms, and thus could not have been prevented with curbs on legal ownership, but this wasn’t about stopping actual real gun crime, but creating criminals out of legal gun owners.
The “assault-style” definition also primarily targeted firearms based on appearance, rather than functionality, meaning that multiple firearms made the list despite having the same caliber and firing ability as firearms that remained legal, but that’s the Liberal way.
FIRST READING: Liberals overlooked the one gun control measure that could have prevented Tumbler Ridge — National Post
Firearms were removed by police from the shooter's house, only to be returned just before the massacre
No idea. I hope he's well and happy. Steady kinda guy, Colpy.
It’s been nearly six years since the government of then prime minister Justin Trudeau issued a surprise order-in-council declaring that more than 1,500 models of previously legal Canadian firearms were now classified as “prohibited.”
Overnight, tens of thousands of guns that had been legally acquired for hunting or sports shooting were now subject to Canada’s strictest firearms laws. They could not be sold, transferred or removed from storage, with any violators risking jail time and the complete seizure of their firearms.
As to what qualified a gun for prohibition, the terms were somewhat arbitrary, with the ban targeting firearms that look like they could be assault rifles — even if they have the exact same calibre, capacity and rate of fire as firearms that remain non-restricted.
The “Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program,” which officially began on Jan. 19, is the long-delayed federal program to collect these prohibited arms in exchange for financial compensation.
As of the latest count from Public Safety Canada, “more than 32,000” firearms have been collected in the first six weeks of the program. But this is against the $779.8 million in costs that the program has incurred to date.
This works out to roughly $24,370 per firearm, most of which is sunk administrative costs that the original owner will never see.
The government has not announced which firearms they have collected thus far, but the maximum listed compensation amount is $9,945 for a rare precision rifle, with most falling between $500 and $3,500.
apple.news
In terms of what that kind of money could buy in any other law enforcement context, it’s equivalent to half the annual budget of the Toronto Police, which currently ranks as the fourth largest police service in North America. And it’s significantly larger than the $497 million spent each year to run the Vancouver Police. In Montreal, it could cover the entire police budget for about 11 months.
The Liberals’ plan to “buy back” thousands of once-legal firearms has experienced so many cost overruns that it has so far more than $24,000 for every gun collected.
This means that for just three firearms turned over as part of the program, the federal government could have instead paid the starting salary of a full-time RCMP officer ($71,191). For every two guns, the government could have purchased a new fully-equipped patrol car.
For some reason, the ASFCP has proved wildly unpopular with Canadian police forces, with more than a dozen major Canadian police agencies publicly refusing to participate in the buyback or enforce its terms. Police cited the program as a drain on law enforcement resources, with some pointing out that most of their gun crime was due to smuggled firearms already existing beyond the boundaries of legal firearm ownership.
“With limited resources and increased public safety demands, DRPS must focus on initiatives that have the greatest impact on community safety — reducing violent crime, targeting repeat offenders, and removing illegal firearms from our streets,” reads a Jan. 26 statement from Ontario’s Durham Regional Police Service Chief Peter Moreira that matches many of the main points made by others.
apple.news
Overnight, tens of thousands of guns that had been legally acquired for hunting or sports shooting were now subject to Canada’s strictest firearms laws. They could not be sold, transferred or removed from storage, with any violators risking jail time and the complete seizure of their firearms.
As to what qualified a gun for prohibition, the terms were somewhat arbitrary, with the ban targeting firearms that look like they could be assault rifles — even if they have the exact same calibre, capacity and rate of fire as firearms that remain non-restricted.
The “Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program,” which officially began on Jan. 19, is the long-delayed federal program to collect these prohibited arms in exchange for financial compensation.
As of the latest count from Public Safety Canada, “more than 32,000” firearms have been collected in the first six weeks of the program. But this is against the $779.8 million in costs that the program has incurred to date.
This works out to roughly $24,370 per firearm, most of which is sunk administrative costs that the original owner will never see.
The government has not announced which firearms they have collected thus far, but the maximum listed compensation amount is $9,945 for a rare precision rifle, with most falling between $500 and $3,500.
FIRST READING: Gun 'buy back' has cost $24,000 per gun — National Post
For every three guns taken in, the government could have instead hired another police officer
The Liberals’ plan to “buy back” thousands of once-legal firearms has experienced so many cost overruns that it has so far more than $24,000 for every gun collected.
This means that for just three firearms turned over as part of the program, the federal government could have instead paid the starting salary of a full-time RCMP officer ($71,191). For every two guns, the government could have purchased a new fully-equipped patrol car.
For some reason, the ASFCP has proved wildly unpopular with Canadian police forces, with more than a dozen major Canadian police agencies publicly refusing to participate in the buyback or enforce its terms. Police cited the program as a drain on law enforcement resources, with some pointing out that most of their gun crime was due to smuggled firearms already existing beyond the boundaries of legal firearm ownership.
“With limited resources and increased public safety demands, DRPS must focus on initiatives that have the greatest impact on community safety — reducing violent crime, targeting repeat offenders, and removing illegal firearms from our streets,” reads a Jan. 26 statement from Ontario’s Durham Regional Police Service Chief Peter Moreira that matches many of the main points made by others.
FIRST READING: Gun 'buy back' has cost $24,000 per gun — National Post
For every three guns taken in, the government could have instead hired another police officer
Never been to a range. There is a shot gun only range about 2k as the crow flies from my house. We just go toa gravel pit somewhere. Much more relaxed environment.