Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Canada Proposal to ban handguns & assault rifles

On this mornings news I saw that the Prime Minister has told one of his ministers (Bill Blair, former Toronto chief of police) to look into the possibility of banning all handguns and assault rifles. To begin with my understanding of a true assault rifle is one capable of full automatic fire. Such rifles are already prohibited here in Canada.

There have been rumours for some time that this has been the Prime Minister's intention for some time. Now he has finally come out into the open.

The handgun proposal can be laid at the feet of the numerous persons shooting others in Toronto this year. From the news reports I have seen both the victims and shooters seem to be predominantly black. Maybe we should ban blacks to take care of the problem.

I think the Prime Minister will find he has opened a huge can of worms with this proposal.

Thoughts?

Jim

Hope you guys have enough numbers on the left to get this shut down!

Sheesh....good luck Canadians!

We'll need it since we have a Liberal government (read Democrat light).

Jim

Yeah. Itll be a fight.

Someone will start going on about "the children"....

It's very difficult to own a handgun up there any way....isn't it?

Maybe this will be good?

Big can of worms and all....might just be something to hang round their necks and sink them.

[quote=Jim_Conrad ......

It's very difficult to own a handgun up there any way....isn't it?[/quote]

Yes we are very limited as to what we can do with a handgun. Basically limited to using them at a firing range. Transport is controlled. No hunting with them. Concealed carry is almost non-existent. Anyone coming here from the US would go nuts.

Personally I no longer own handguns (I got out of them about 35 years ago) primarily due to the restrictions on their use.

These days the only ones who seem to freely use handguns are the gang bangers in Toronto. I don't know what the problem is since they seem to primarily be culling their own numbers or those who associate with them. Comments from police acquaintances lay a lot of blame on judges who treat criminal violators too lightly.

Jim

It actually shows just how smart the politicians are....

Laws already covering, Licensing, transportation, dangerous use, murder, possession of restricted or prohibited firearm etc so why would a criminal give 2 [bleep] about another law? Stupid is rampant here....

They just want to disarm us, period.

Bingo!

It's a hassle to own a handgun here. Legal owners have to pass safety courses (PAL & RPAL), jump background check hoops and their guns registered. AR rifles are the same.

I have owned handguns continually since 1971. Gotta follow the rules but it is easy to buy restricted and prohibited handguns with the right licence.

Trudeau has botched almost everything he has touched, and his popularity has gone downhill in the polls. So he trots this out about a year in front of the next election because voters in the big cities are very concerned about all the gun violence in the cities and may be willing to forget his incompetencies to get rid of handguns. This completely overlooks the fact that 82% of gun crimes are with illegal weapons ( from last gun debates) and there are apparently no plans to do anything about that only to take guns away from law abiding citizens. This move also boxes in or aligns the conservative party with gun owners and will likely assure the liberals a lot of support in the big cites. The liberals sure know how to win elections, but in my opinion sure don't know how to govern a country.

The worst part is, you can show them past history of gun control not working, they don't care!!!!!!???????? It's all about votes!!!! They don't want facts, which boils down to, ( I don't reallycare about the country) I just want to get voted in again!!$$$$ if I was younger I'd move so far north no one could find me, great now I'm pissed for the night, sorry I'm out, 🐾👣🐾👣

Sorry to hear this.

Gee, there too?

who'd a thunk it.

Speaking from your Provincial Cousin, California, where we also have such judges.

Geno

Very much like the USA...it all has NOTHING to do with crime, its about controlling the populace.

I would like very much to think that when the time comes, we will just say "no"......there are 370 million known guns in circulation in the states...amongst 317 million people. Who exactly are they going to send after us to enforce it, should it come to that. Out of that, there will be a tiny percentage ( Yet still numbering in the millions) who would fight to the death...knowing well the consequence of a disarmed citizenry.

I only hope our Canadian brothers would for once quit being so obliging, and do the same.


Historically in other countries gun registration leads to confiscation, almost invariably.

Confiscation leads to genocide,almost invariably.

Do not allow it to happen.

As long as citizens are armed in any way, politicians aren't free to safely go forward with their real agenda. Just banning and confiscating your weapons won't fly, so you get this drip drip drip approach. We've pretty much stopped that here and actually rolled back a lot of stuff, but they never quit, hence the need to pack our courts with good judges, support pro-gun organizations, and stay on top of what they're up to. Once you get on that slippery slope, you end up like Britain with licenses for airguns and bans on sales of kitchen knives, while criminals run amok because citizens are forbidden to resist crime. Total lunacy.

Here in WV, anyone legally allowed to possess firearms can carry, open or concealed, with or without a permit, yet for some reason we haven't had any mass shootings, or knife or acid attacks on our streets. Must be all that Oxy we take!

ingwe, I have always thought the underlying premise to disarm us is.....So that we will be more compliant when they get rid of borders and allow scumbags/Muslims to roam freely through our homeland taking liberties with all we have here. It would be a mistake to think that many Canadians would be so compliant, I wont, and I know of many that know the truth behind disarming us, mostly due to our cousins down south giving the heads up for why the need to disarm us in the first place.
Its this UN driven agenda under the guise of peace, nothing peaceful about it, and the government we have here now is the best puppet that the enemies of freedom could want, lol, foreigners are now proposing and making up laws in our country,, and they weren't even born here!

The second amendment to our constitution is there to allow citizens to protect themselves from a corrupt and over reaching government. Once they have your firearms they can do what they want to you. If we allow the left to water down the second amendment with left leaning judges we have lost the country. Just a matter of time. Socialist left wingers want power. Anything they say regarding the good of the people is B.S.

I wish. We have something like 557,000 RPAL holders (people with a licence to possess "restricted" firearms, ie mostly handguns). Indeed, if all of us said, "No deal- we're not turning them in" it would create an enormous logistical hassle which would likely tie the government up for ages. But it won't happen.

In our case, it's not so much about defending ourselves, as our level of personal crime-violence is fairly low. It's about retaining a privilege (we don't have a "right") to pursue a sport many have enjoyed for decades. Somehow our idiot government thinks we are part of the "gun violence" problem. Bollocks!

Look at history. You can make no mistake about this. It has NOTHING to do with crime control. Its about controlling a subservient populace. Historically almost invariably registration ( which you have...) leads to confiscation. Confiscation leads to genocide. I can't believe so many havent noticed...

Ingwe, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to Canadian gun owners' needs, rather than our government's intentions, about which you may well be right, even in a Canadian context.

To be honest, I don't know if our gov't "fears an armed populace"; none of our founding fathers said anything like "...The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.". (From what I have read, that statement's veracity is not certain, unlike "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." We are not by nature very rebellious!)

My personal take on the government's thinking, especially this one's, is that they simply cannot reconcile the personal ownership of handguns with what they perceive as a modern, progressive, civilized society. We may "need" rifles and shotguns for hunting (which they don't seem to have much trouble with) but handguns serve no "need" (in their view), and target shooting isn't accepted as sufficient reason for civilians to own such dastardly devices, which, as some people insist, "were only designed to kill other human beings". (The implication being that we, too, are somehow complicit in killing our fellow men and women by having handguns, as if the guns possess some supernatural evil power within them that seeps into our psyches.)

Needless to say, I think this is an utter load of crap! But it will be a very real load of crap if our government succeeds in its delusional utopian aims in this regard. Most certainly it will have little, if any, positive impact on the criminal use of firearms.

Jordan,

There's a heck of an opportunity for some Photoshopping there. Just replace some faces and... voilà!

Again I say look at history. In every country where the populace was eventually disarmed, then subjected to genocide, crime was used as the excuse.I don't believe you'll find any exceptions to this. No offense intended but you have wayyyyy too much trust in your government...

I spoke with the secretary for a prominent Conservative MP at a recent gun show. She indicated that those calling the office regarding Liberal's Bill C-71 which is now in the senate are grossly uninformed as to it's true consequences. This problem has been caused by the mass media which has continually minimized any potential damage to firearm ownership.
Now we can add a potential ban on many other firearms, (government now conducting a survey to determine how many they can ban).
A significant part of our "Canadian" problem is that most firearm owners simply do not take part in the fight to protect their rights and firearms. They will wake up after damage is done and ask the age old question "Why didn't someone do something?"

BillR,

You are absolutely right. I have two neighbours up the street, one a hunter, the other an ex-RCMP (but who owns handguns and is as staunch a Conservative as anyone I know.) I've sent both newsletters from the CSSA etc. and copies of letters I've sent to MPs, Goodale, etc. Neither has done squat. I also e-mailed the President and Pistol Chair of the local R&G Club to ask of the club had sent any letters to the government. Two weeks on and I've yet to get a reply from either.

Let your voice be heard:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/hndgn/index-en.aspx

The only people that would be effected would be law abiding gun owners WHO ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. The ones that would ignore the new laws already ignore the law.

EXACTLY . For some reason our government chooses to ignore this fact. They know the criminals aren't buying their guns by legal methods,taking the mandatory classes for owning a firearm,having a mandatory criminal record check done much less registering them which again is mandatory.

Good luck! It's a battle!

Precisely - almost word for word - what I said in a recent letter to Mssrs. Goodale & Blair. I also asked for precise numbers of handguns used in criminal acts for 2016-2017 (rather than media-friendly vague and varying percentages), the number of those guns actually traced back to registered Canadian owners (= "domestically-sourced"), and finally, since "obviously" such guns were stolen from people who hadn't taken the proper precautions to keep them secure, how many were actually charged with unsafe storage. Also, in the same period, how many people were charged with "straw sales", and finally, how all those numbers compared to the approx. 557,000 Canadians who are licenced to own handguns.

I also asked how a programme to prevent kids from getting into gsngs in the first place in a nearby community (Abbotsford), which has clearly shown success, could be allowed to lose federal funding because the federal accounting period ran out in September, something that surely could have been fixed in a few mouse clicks. At this point, they may see funding next April, after a "review" in Nov. "If it just saves one life..." This one aopparently has saved several.

I doubt I'll get the courtesy of an snswer.


@Jordan Smith- I've signed that poll. It is somewhat slanted to encourage the kind of responses they'd like to see, but there is the opportunity to leave comments as well, which I took full advantage of.

As did I.

"What is likely to be the most effective? What might the consequences be for law abiding Canadians?

"What is likely to be most effective, is to focus crime-reduction efforts on better enforcing laws involving violent crime that are already currently in place. A focus on organized crime, the illegal drug trade, mental health treatment, and opposing culturally-normalized violence would be more effective in reducing violent crime than diverting attention to tools used to commit said crimes. This is especially important, given that those same tools (firearms) are legally used by millions of Canadians every day, and the variety of tools (firearms, trucks, knives, baseball bats, improvised explosives, etc) that could potentially be used to commit violent crime are infinitely available to the resourceful criminal."

With respect to limiting handguns, assault weapons, and other firearms in the illicit market, in which of the following areas do you think efforts should be focused? [check all that apply]

Other
"The increased enforcement of current laws will reduce all of these listed sources of illicit firearms"

What strategies are likely to be most effective?

"- Dedicate more resources to enforcement
- Stiffer punishments for violent crime"

Are there any other comments you would like to share with respect to limiting firearms?

"Criminals do not respect our legislation. Restrictions on law-abiding citizens only hurts those citizens, while doing very little to reduce crime committed by those who ignore the restrictions.""

Hitler asked for gun control too. He did it for the children

There is an online petition that you could fill out. Takes a whole 2 minutes to do.

Which one? Likely the same one that Jordan Smith & I did. I've done a few. Getting Herren Goodale und Blair to READ them- or, as my HS Latin teacher used to say, "RMLAID = Read, Mark, Learn and Inwardly Digest" - is quite another matter, however Horse/water/drink,etc.

This is a new one.

I'll see if i can put up a link.


With all the talk going around about potential gun bans, it is more important than ever for everyone in the firearm community to do everything they can to make their voices heard.

Please take the time to sign the online petition and fill out the online consultation form. The links are below:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/hndgn/index-en.aspx

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-1883

Amen, dico, amen! Thanks for the links. (I've already signed both.)

Me too.

Acccording to a recent CBC article (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/gun-control-groups-question-federal-commitment-1.4877752)

(Heidi) Rathjen said she was surprised by how strong the gun lobby is in Canada.
"Most MPs, most senators have been drowned in letters and emails against gun control by the gun lobby," she said.

So maybe Goodale etc. aren't exactly unaware of us.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2881/untitled-post/


Things are looking up.

I think an information campaign might be the way to go. A recent report on a home invasion in Sicamous mentioned that the two assailants carried handguns. I can only assume these were registered because that is, after all, the law. It is plain though, these guys were not aware that they were not allowed to use handguns for this purpose. If they were aware, I'm sure they would not have misused their handguns in this manner. In addition, it is unlikely their transport permits listed that address. So, this is certainly one of those situations where a little clarification would go a long way. The alternative would be to ban the ownership of the particular guns used in this instance and assume that the perpetrators would recognise this ban and the crime would be nipped in the bud. Now, there are undoubtedly some who don't see the logic in this but most liberals do. More laws make better living; so they say. GD

Greydog how did you become so wise? Contact your local Liberal, I'm sure they will jump all over this idea.
Jim

Yeah...whoever came up with this just plain doesn't understand the concept. Just like the States, and elsewhere where it has been tried...it has NOTHING to do with crime.

It is all about subjugating the populace.

Yeah, but they convinced the populace to subject themselves based on the crime reduction argument.