Brickbat: Not a Worthwhile Canadian Imitative


Jiri Hera /

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has asked government ministers to study a full ban on handguns and assault weapons. The move comes months after a deadly shooting in Toronto in which the shooter used a stolen handgun.

NEXT: Judging Kavanaugh

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Will his security detail also be disarmed, or is he a hypocritical piece of shit, ay?

    1. Do you even need to ask?

    2. Dude, you’ll still have cars and knives which I’m told are just like guns.

      1. Don’t forget bare hands. How many murders are commited globally each year directly by the human hand? Chilling.

  2. If a prime minister’s job is to make his country easier to invade and conquer, he might be on to something.

    1. Funny, my comment was going to be something along the lines of: “So, after they’ve rendered themselves helpless, do we get to take over?”

      1. who, in their right mind, would want to?

        1. I’d consider it, just for the maple syrup. Throw in some Crown Royal and we have a deal.

        2. I bet Canadians can be tax farmed.

  3. Over/under on the “ministers” coming back and saying, “Actually, this is a terrible idea”?

  4. “You should lead an examination of a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada, while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians”

    “You should lead an examination on how to starve people to death without impeding their access to food.”

    1. If guns could only be cleansed of impure morality to better conform to societal norms, that would be super.

      If we could do it to humans… no. No, that’s highly impractical…. Never mind. Apres moi, le deluge.

      Semi-unrelated: I think it’s amazing that poutine can be translated as ‘hot mess’.

      1. poutine (hot mess) = most everything in CN, including the native dancers of Montreal!

  5. He uses maple syrup to glue his eyebrows on. Trudeau being someone to listen to cannot end well.

  6. I am a bit surprised that a Canadian politician would try this. I guess the vote outside the major cities isn’t really needed to get elected.

    I suppose I shouldn’t be though, after all, they still bow to the queen. And mother England doesn’t allow the peasants to own weapons of any kind.

    Not even a point-ed stick.

    1. Why would you bring a pointed stick to a tiger fight?

  7. There’s an election coming up next year and it’s looking like Trudeau won’t get re-elected. Other than being seen as a pretty boy by some Canadian women (who are probably the best-looking of any country), he seems to be mostly regarded as a lightweight and a disappointment.

    The main problem is the rival Conservatives are in something of a disarray. They had one potential leader, Bernier, who is pretty much libertarian. (Imagine a sort of French Canadian Ron Paul.) He got out-maneuvered by this guy named Andrew Scheer who seems to be a standard party hack. Still, if enough people feel fed up with the dumb male bimbo PM, Scheer might just win.

    (Meanwhile, the leader of the Candian Libertarian Party, Tim Moen, actually offered to step aside if Bernier wanted to ditch the Conservatives and go officially Libertarian. But that hasn’t happened.)

    1. Bernier should have gotten the nod.

      Scheer has no charm but he comes from a modest, middle-class background and *could* be seen as the anti-Trudeau who is a trust-fund socialist millionaire.

      1. So what to make of this? Trudeau ordered Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister Bill Blair to conduct the study with Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale in a mandate letter, as reported by CBC News. Can you translate that into American? I know Trudeau = Obama and CBC = CNN but who are Blair and Goodale? Does this thing actually have any chance of going anywhere? Is it busywork for paper-shufflers or just PR-speak for “we’re strongly considering the possibility of perhaps looking into the matter. Until after the election.”

    2. Canadian women in the border patrol make body armor look hot.

    3. Imagine a sort of French Canadian Ron Paul.

      Wait, lemme get some padding first because when I do, I’m gonna laugh so hard I might hurt myself.

  8. The shooter used a 0.40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun, which he obtained illegally by allegedly breaking-and-entering into a gun store.

    How about investigating a ban on breaking-and-entering, eh? Then move on to looking into a ban on shooting people. And then do a study on how many extra guns it will take to enforce these bans.

    1. A gun store?

      They can’t even make this about safe storage by permit holders.

    2. ^ a chuckle of admiration

    3. ^ a chuckle of admiration

  9. These are the Liberals. They’re idiots run by Overlord of the Idiots Poptart Lasagne.

    There’s literally NO REASON for this and to waste money *studying* this just shows you where this ideological piece of shit stands. He keeps harping about ‘saving the middle-class’ but enacts policies that hurt them.

    There’s an election coming up. He needs to pander to the domestic base. He’s going to play the Canadian nationalist card including acting *tough* with Trump on a trade deal and wasteful things like gun control which Canadians seem to eat up for some reason. Mostly because they completely misread what goes on in the USA.

    Reading the CBC does that to you.

    1. I saw the trade deal talks and this study on banning guns this morning and thought that’s what he was doing.

    2. “Mostly because they misread what goes on in the USA.”

      Yes, and they also obsess over it for some reason. I estimate that both Trump and his predecessor get talked about 50x to 100x more often than Trudeau or his predecessor Harper. It’s pretty weird.

  10. “Imitiative”? At first blush, I thought this headline was a play on words that would be explained in the article. Nope, just a typo.

    C’mon internet pedants… It takes us nearly four hours to get all over this?! We’re slipping!


    1. Meh. Why should we care more than the ranks of editors?

      1. Imagine if there were no editors.
        Oh, it looks just the same. Never mind!

  11. A handgun/”assault weapon” ban would be a failure and a waste of taxpayer money.

    There, Justin. Your study is done. Perhaps you can move on to something useful now.

    1. More useful? You mean like dressing up in a traditional Indian costume to meet the leader of India? And then wondering if, should the Indian PM come to visit Canada, he will return the gesture by wearing a hockey jersey, Roots jeans, and Sorel boots?

  12. Canadians proposing a comprehensive gun ban are every bit as bad as American gun nuts.


      Now that you have the information, we can do an empirical test to see if the cure to stupid is education. See, if you still believe that gun bans will reduce violent crime after reading this, you prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you can’t fix stupid.

  13. No one is coming for your guns. Promise.

    1. No one will ever take my guns. Promise.

      A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
      – Frederick Douglass

  14. Yup, no slippery slope in gun control. They just want “common sense” limits. They don’t want to take your guns…right Australia?

  15. I love politicians who claim eliminating guns will stop shootings. This claim is based on the false pretense that police and security prevents crime. Have police or security prevented a single Presidential assassination? Did police prevent Gabby Giffords from being shot? The harsh truth is police do not prevent or even deter crime, they investigate it. Until we force gun control zealots to admit this truth, we are actually wasting our time.

    1. The Secret Service has prevented several Presidential assassinations, including attempts on FDR and Ford, and must have deterred many more from even trying. They aren’t perfect. You really can’t protect someone who insists on riding past skyscrapers in an open car, like JFK. In the 1972 election campaign, a would-be assassin gave up on getting through the security surrounding both major party candidates and shot 3rd party candidate George Wallace instead. (I think Wallace made it easy for him by going into the crowd and shaking hands.) Reagan was wounded when the Secret Service made a mistake and walked his party past a small group that hadn’t been screened – and just by luck, one of that group was armed and looking for a chance to get famous, while the agents were watching another guy… And they saved Reagan by putting their own bodies in the line of fire. But the Secret Service learned from their mistakes. There could have been a dozen more fame-seekers like Hinckley that never even got within sight of their target.

      BUT the Secret Service provides that protection by creating the worst police state ever around every public appearance of the President. There are hundreds of agents in a small area, all selected and trained to higher standards than most police, and they also call on large numbers of local police to guard barricades and control the crowds. They check out everyone who could get within range, and exclude many people from going about their lives in that zone.

    2. It’s impossible to provide that much security for everyone. It’s not just the police state aspect of it – you can’t have that level of police coverage everywhere. I have been in only two cities where I was within sight of a uniformed cop half the time: Chicago and Seoul. But that was only one or two cops, not hundreds of them. (And some people consider the Chicago PD to be the worst criminal gang operating in the Midwest…)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.