Guns

Canada Bans 'Assault Weapons' by Executive Order

Such bans have already proven to be essentially valueless for crime-fighting.

|

In response to a 22-victim shooting spree in Canada last month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced that he will—via executive order, with no new law required or requested—ban the ownership and sale of several guns he categorizes as "assault weapons."

The Canadian Globe and Mail has a list of some of the specific weapons affected, and it describes the generic qualities of weapons that Trudeau intends to bar from his country. (As is usually the case with assault weapon bans, most of the characterstics are cosmetic.) According to the paper's estimates, more than 130,000 such guns are currently owned legally in Canada.

Trudeau also intends to buy back banned weapons from their owners. That will require legislation, so the specifics aren't in place yet. The government thinks it will cost them $250 million, though the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association believes it will be a lot more than that. The Globe and Mail quotes anonymous officials saying some grandfathering provisions will probably allow Canadians to keep some of the weapons.

Trudeau make the familiar claim that these "weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time." This is almost laughably false, as the vast majority of people who own them in fact have never used them for the purpose of killing anyone, much less "the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time."

A U.S. assault-weapon ban was in place from 1994 to 2004, though it did not try to sweep up the guns already in circulation. As The New York Times has reported, it had no noticeable positive effect on American public safety. (Yes, that includes its impact, or rather its failure to have an impact, on mass shootings.) Such weapons' role in murder and crime is tiny, both in the U.S. (where shotguns and rifles of any kind, not just "assault weapons," are used in only 4 percent of murders) and Canada (where the larger category of non-sawed-off rifles and shotguns were used in 2018 in only 8 percent of murders)

About 25 percent of Canadian households possess guns, with about 3 million civilians between them possessing more than 7 million weapons, according to Canada's Department of Justice. A preponderence of the weapons are found in rural areas, and 95 percent of households who own any gun own a long gun, the larger category of which the "assault weapon" is a subset.

Bonus link: Jacob Sullum debunked the idea that "assault weapons" pose a special danger in a June 2018 feature for Reason.

NEXT: COVID-19 Modeling: How Many Coronavirus Deaths by the End of Summer?

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Trudeau make the familiar claim that these “weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.” This is almost laughably false, as the vast majority of people who own them in fact have never used them for the purpose of killing anyone, much less “the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.””

    This isn’t as absurd as you make it out to be. Weapons with military ambitions are indeed designed to be very efficient at killing people. That’s their purpose. That we use them to punch holes in paper from 100 yards away doesn’t change what they were designed for. There are other design considerations, like reliability and ease of manufacture, but “how good is it at killing people” is definitely a consideration.

    To that point, that’s part of why we own them and why 2A exists. It’s great that we enjoy target shooting and hunting and all of the other things you can do with guns; but ultimately 2A is about self defense. In a self defense situation, I want a gun that is very good at killing people.

    1. A gun is great for hitting specific targets. If your goal is to “kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time” the best tool is a bomb. And anyone can make those.

      1. True, bombs are better at that, if all the people you want to kill are in one spot and you don’t care what happens to anything else nearby. They aren’t terribly valuable as a self-defense tool though.

        Canada doesn’t have 2A; but my larger point here is that “assault weapons” are exactly the kind of thing regular people would want to own in a defensive situation. Their efficiency at killing people is a valuable feature, not a bug, and is an essential capability for 2A to accomplish what it was written to accomplish.

        1. “Bombs are better at that, if all the people you want to kill are in one spot and you don’t care what happens to anything else nearby. They aren’t terribly valuable as a self-defense tool though.”

          Especially since the feds frown on private Claymore mine ownership, sans a bunch of DD red tape.

          That the Canucks haven’t said what the piece of shit used actually used, and only recently admitted that he didn’t have any of their stupid gun licenses, is a pretty good inference he didn’t have an AR. Yet he was able to have a handgun, a ‘military-style’ shotgun (probably an 870 with an extended mag tube), and whatever other long guns he was claimed to have had. Again, despite Canada having existing laws against that sort of thing.

          Then the Mounties thought the best way to alert a widely dispersed area that an imposter was running around…was to put it out on Twitter. What they’re not openly admitting yet, was that they had a chance to take the guy down when he was getting gas the first time, and didn’t bother trying to identify him while they were all at the gas station. As I understand it they got him the second time he tried to get gas, sometime, and God knows how many additional dead, later.

          It’s going to turn out like the Pulse shooting. Any LE fuckups are only going to be, grudgingly, admitted six months or more later.

          1. did we ever get a number on the amount of people who were killed by LE’s “friendly” fire for Pulse? I have to imagine there were at least some when they started shooting into the hole in the wall everyone was trying to escape out of

            1. Nope, AFAIK. Had to be a bunch, considering a lot of the LEO fire was blind through cover/concealment, and they weren’t pulling non-ambulatory wounded out for awhile after it started.

              Delay, delay, delay, and eventually people stop asking unfortunate questions.

        2. First off I want to be clear that the idea of banning this category of weapons as a means of reducing violence or making people safer to any extent is a purely symbolic gesture that will produce no meaningful results either north or south of the border.

          That said, as far as “self defense” scenarios, the times when a 12-gauge with an 18.5″ barrel (or even something like the Shockwave/Tac-14 where those aren’t illegal at the state level) or a handgun is a better weapon than a AR-15 are far more common. Shot loads are far less likely to over-penetrate interior walls and endanger neighbors/family members than rifle rounds in a home-defense scenario, and the 14-inch pistol-grip “firearms” are easier to maneuver through doorways with; also with a pump-action shotgun just the sound of racking the action is distinctive enough to stop probably 80-90% of intruders without any need to pull the trigger (which should be a preferable outcome to any fatality). On the street, a concealed handgun is far more useful because the possibility that it might be present creates a deterrent even if you’re not carrying.

          I do own a 223 caliber carbine rifle, but it’s not the first (or second, or third) weapon that I’d reach for if I found myself in a home-defense situation; on the street living in L.A. county pretty much reduces my options of carrying anything (or even being seen as possibly carrying) to virtually zero anyway and my employer’s policies would make doing so impractical most of the time anyway.

          1. “Shot loads are far less likely to over-penetrate interior walls and endanger neighbors than rifle rounds in a home-defense scenario, and the 14-inch pistol-grip “firearms” are easier to maneuver through doorways with…

            No. This is incorrect. Review some recent terminal ballistics testing, and you’ll find that properly selected .223 ammunition penetrates less through common building materials than does most handgun defensive ammunition or shotgun defensive ammunition. The .223 will often fragment in building material, retarding penetration. Handgun bullets usually won’t. Neither will buckshot.

            “But birdshot!” Birdshot cannot be relied upon to stop an attacker. It can cause ugly surface wounds, but rarely to never will achieve enough penetration to reach an attacker’s vital organs and major blood vessels. Buckshot that will penetrate in an attacker, will also gleefully penetrate through multiple residential walls. Slugs are even worse. Nothing works great to stop an attacker, yet not go through all of the walls in your house. Light 5.56 is about the best though.

            Recoil is less with the carbine vs the shotgun. Follow up shots are much easier. It’s easier to hit targets with a sighted rifle vs a handgun, and probably a shotgun, unless you practice extensively with the shotgun. Shotguns without a stock, like that TAC-14, are even worse.

            As private citizens using lethal force to stop an imminent threat of serious bodily harm, we must account for every one of our shots. Why use a weapon that’s harder to shoot accurately?

            Finally, the ‘just rack the shotgun and they’ll go away’ school of thought needs to die with Biden. Great, you’ve just told the burglar where you are and that your weapon is likely unshouldered. Never mind that you’re probably shortstroking the gun due to your (understandable) adrenaline dump. If he’s a lethal threat, why are you dicking around and not shooting him and stopping that threat? If he’s not a lethal threat, why are you pointing a gun at him?

            Tl;dr. Everything that stops bad guys, also goes through walls. 5.56 does it less than most. Don’t rely on an unloaded gun to stop a deadly threat. Have some ear-pro close by. Guns can be permanently deafening when you shoot them indoors.

      2. Wait, you mean I can just go and buy a shit ton of chlorine?

        Uh oh!

        1. Chlorine? Are you serious?

          I guess you just disproved SM’s statement that “everyone knows how to make one”.

        2. Sarah H. James Single mom makes $89844/yr in her spare time on computer without selling or buying any thing. I got inspired and start work now i am making $175 per hour. Its to easy to do this, every one can do this no experience or skill required just join the given link and start earning from very first day. Here is link… More Read Here

      3. I would use a truck like that guy in Nice. What was his total 88?

      4. Whitey U. Redd Single mom makes $89844/yr in her spare time on computer without selling or buying any thing. I got inspired and start work now i am making $175 per hour. Its to easy to do this, every one can do this no experience or skill required just join the given link and start earning from very first day. Here is link… More Read Here

    2. If a gun is good for killing deer, it’s REALLY good for killing people.

      1. It would be good for killing 1 person, yes. Not necessarily good at more than that though depending on what you’re using to hunt deer.

        Self-defense, in the 2A sense, also means defense from tyrannical government or other forces that may outnumber you. Your bolt action with the 5rd mag isn’t very good at that (good at deer though), which is why militaries stopped fielding them as infantry weapons basically as soon as technology allowed them to.

        1. How about a bolt action rifle with a ten round magazine?
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute

        2. Many snipers would disagree with you.

          1. For the longest time, the weapon for USMC Scout/Snipers was a (heavily) modified Remington 700 bolt action in 7.62 NATO with, IIRC, a 10x scope. It worked just fine for that role. Is it what they’d use if the targets were close and assaulting? Probably not.

            Agreeing with FMDH that the M-16 to M-4 pattern rifle has been adopted by a bunch of militaries, including groups that can get whatever they want, for a reason. It’s accurate, light, easy to use, effective against humans, be they behind light cover or wearing armor. Much better than a 5 shot bolt action, though as I hope the USMC example showed, the bolt is far from worthless.

    3. When you get down to it all guns had “military ambitions” and they were all capable killing the most people quickly for their era.

      A machine gun kills faster than a semiautomatic, a semiauto kills faster than lever action, a lever faster than a bolt action, a bolt faster than a flintlock, a flintlock faster than a matchlock, and a matchlock faster than a hand cannon.

      Its all just a matter question of what century someone thinks rights should apply to

      1. Yes. The very popular 1911 pistol was designed for military use and is still used for that today.

      2. The democrats are going to be ok with bolt actions until the next Charles Whittman shows how deadly a properly trained person can be and racks up another 14K/31W with one. They’ll be ok with handguns until after they ban “assault” rifles it shows no noticeable difference in the murder rate and mass shootings. I got into a lovely argument this weekend with a dumb bitch over guns, it was me and two other guys who actually knew what we were talking about vs one vapid cunt thinking her opinion on a subject she knew nothing about mattered. (If you think I’m being overly harsh, she’s a teacher who has spent the entire lockdown mocking anyone who’s against the quarantine as stupid/selfish).

        I say it was an argument, but it was more like Neil deGrasse Tyson arguing physics with a rando who only knew what he’d seen from movies.

        1. The left hasn’t been OK with handguns for a long time now. They’re just up against it Constitutionally since the Heller decision established a precedent that 2A affirmatively provides an individual right to own them for personal/home protection.

          Some places (CA especially) are using “safety” regulations to eventually phase in a de facto ban on new handguns (which might fully develop just in time for 3D printing to reach a point that every block in every neighborhood could have a “ghost gun” factory turning out glocks on demand in someone’s garage). It’ll be interesting to see if they end up somehow repealing it to avoid judicial review when the “roster” starts to get really restrictive.

    4. The thing is the AR lower, the part considered a gun, can be used with 50 different calibers of ammunition. So really it can kill anything from rats with .22 to Moose with .458 SOCOM.

      1. .458 SOCOM isn’t the biggest caliber available for the AR platform. That would be the .50 Beowulf

        1. ;-)Well, no, the AR-10 can be made for the 500 Phantom which larger and more powerful than the .50 Beowulf in pretty much every way. It is rare and expensive but is being reintroduced.

          1. “the AR-10 can be made for the 500 Phantom”

            Can be. There are companies making AR15s in .50 Beowulf.

          2. ” the 500 Phantom which larger and more powerful”

            It might be more powerful (can you cite balistics data for that?) but it’s not larger in terms of caliber. Anything larger than .50 caliber is prohibited for civilian use by US Federal law.

            1. It’s .510 so the caliber is larger. The case has only 1 grain of water (volume) more but the the cartridge OAL is 3.34 vs the Beowulfs 2.25 so more space can be used for powder. The max pressure it 62k vs the Beowulf’s 33k. The Beowulf loads top out at about 2,900ft-lbs of energy while the Phantom easily hits 3,900ft-lbs. I was just being impish as the Phantom is a pretty obscure round and I imagine that the number of guns chambered for it are in the triple digits at most and probably more likely in the double digits. Teppo Jutsu (that developed the .458 SOCOM with Tony Rumore) developed it and it died out when .500 Jeffrey cases got too expensive. Apparently they have found a less expensive case source so are reintroducing it.

              1. Oops, I copied the wrong energy number for the Phantom load, it was 3,300ft-lbs not 3,900. I composed that too quickly, sorry.

              2. “It’s .510 so the caliber is larger.”

                Then it’ likely not even legal to own it in the US. In addition to regulating automatic weapons, the NFA bans civilian ownership in anything larger than .50.

                1. The Phantom uses the same diameter bullets as the .50BMG which are .510 in diameter so that they fill the grooves of the bore rifling, but for the purposes of being considered a destructive device it is the measurement across the lands of the rifle bore than needs to be restricted to .5″. .50 Beowulf bores are .5″ across the lands but less than that across the lands. To restate: it is the bore dimension across the lands that determine whether a firearm is a destructive device under US law. It is clear to you that .50bmg rifles do not require an NFA stamp, no?

                2. There is the whole, ‘for sporting purposes’ exception. Shotguns go over .5 inch in diameter. The occasional redonkulous African rifle too (.577 Tyrannosaur, .600 Nitro Express), weirder crap like some of JD Jones’s creations or things like 20mm Anzio rifles.

                  I haven’t looked at BATFE regs for something like a .510 upper. It’s probably a PITA.

                  1. Look at the “Legal issues” section the Wikipedia .50BMG page. It explains why .50BMG semi-automatic weapons are legal without a tax stamp. It says the same thing I did, only better.

                3. Haven’t you ever noticed the .50BMG bullets are .510″ in diameter? Never looked at the .50BMG cartridge page on Wikipedia or looked at the bullet specs on reloading supply store websites like Midway or Grafs?

                  1. I meant the message for MatthewSlyfield. Sorry Gray_Jay.

                    1. No worries. I thought the .50 fired a .510 bullet, but wasn’t sure. Not like I own one, or could afford to feed the thing, or have a place to stretch its legs.

                      Sure looks fun though. The feeling when it goes, “Bang!”, then wait about ten seconds and hear the “Ting!” from the steel, has got to be amazing.

    5. Whatever you think of the weapons or the law, Doherty is making a category error with that reasoning.

      Many people drive vehicles “designed” for hauling. That the owners only putter around the suburbs in them doesn’t change that, and indeed, I think the owners would have a case if they didn’t perform well at that job, should they over load up their trucks.

      There is no question that some guns are “designed” to optimize killing efficiency. The post-sale behavior of consumers doesn’t retroactively change the product designer’s priorities or intent.

      1. The product designer’s priority is sales, not killing people.

        My guess is that most commercial guns are not optimized for killing at all, they are optimized for appearance and checklist items.

        1. Which is why bans on “assault weapons” are basically defined in terms of cosmetic features (aka “bits of plastic”) rather than caliber, rate of fire, or any actual lethality features.

          1. What about actual cosmetics? We could say these are designed for sexual attraction and copulation, and, in the most primitive sense, reproduction. But I doubt the average person putting on makeup has much desire for pregnancy.

            So we can ban cosmetics, right?

          2. I love how bayonet lugs somehow turn a rifle into an assault weapon. Because that definitely gets used in this day and age.

        2. Most buyers of fighting weapons also don’t have the death of their targets as their primary goal and would probably be even happier if it caused the target to switch sides and live forever – but are will to settle for making them no longer or threat or obstacle by injury or death. So it is really making the target no longer a threat or obstacle that most buyers are really after, death is just a frequent side effect.

      2. Category error on one side, pathetic fallacy on the other. Inanimate objects don’t have purposes, purpose is an attribute of thinking beings.

    6. Power to kill people per unit of time is the political power politicians seek to maximize. For that they need Kristallnacht laws to make sure nobody is equipped to resist.

  2. I’ve been following this story, and to date I can find no report as to what weapons the shooter used. My cynical side tells me that PM Brown Face Douche Bag has instructed the police to not release this detail until well after his AWB is in place. And then it will be that the mass murderer used a much more pedestrian type of weapon, against which the AWB would have had no effect.

    1. “against which the AWB would have had no effect”

      Any proposed AWB would have had no effect anyway.

    2. Yes, that the information on the type of weapon used was not released assures me beyond any doubt that it was not an “assault weapon.” Sometimes what’s not reported is more revealing than what is.

    3. I’ve read a few articles stating it was an AR-15, but they don’t cite any sources, and given the media’s abysmal track record on this sort of thing in the past I feel you are correct, and the weapon was not one that this ban would even apply to

      1. Most of what I’ve read, at sources like the Globe and Mail online, was that he had bought some guns in the US (illegally), brought them into Canada illegally, didn’t have any firearms license, and was witnessed during the shooting with two handguns and a shotgun. Doesn’t mean he didn’t have more, of course. He did end up taking a handgun off the RCMP Constable he killed. Died with it in his hands, AIUI.

        If it had been an AR, they’d have screamed it from the rooftops, unless maybe they were trying to work a case against who ever sold him the rifle. Not legal for a nonresident alien to buy a firearm here—even a rifle—and take possession of it here.

      2. It was Joe Biden’s famous AR14.

        1. The AR in AR15 stands for Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle. Armalite is the company that designed the original AR15 platform.

          There actually was an AR14, but they don’t make it any more.

    4. 9 of 22 died from fire, and if you read the account of his actions, it’s likely that he used a pistol for most of the rest.

    5. I have a feeling that he ambushed a cop with a sidearm, stole the cop’s shit, and used that for the actual rampage. Has anything come out yet about motives?

      1. From those Globe reports, he got in a domestic with his girlfriend. She ran. Guessing he figured the first felony was the toughest, and started getting back at everyone he thought ever did him wrong. Starting with his ex- and her new beau. Tied them to a tree and killed them.

        After that, he looked sort of like a Mountie, drove what kind of looked like a Mountie car, and alternately killed homeowners who answered the door, or motorists who pulled over for him. Canadians being trusting sorts probably helped; the Mounties not getting the fucking word out that a maniac was on the loose probably did the rest. AIUI, the RCMP Constable who died, rammed the killer’s car at some point, either before or after she took crippling wounds to the chest. He got out of his car, dragged her from hers, and finished her off with shots to the head.

    1. Eh. Canada.

      1. There went LP Canada’s chances of repealing penal code sections 91 and 92.

  3. “Trudeau make the familiar claim that these “weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.”

    Whenever this is brought up I always remind the poster that virtually every cop car carries an AR-15 style weapon today… many of them the fully automatic version that is not available to citizens.

    I want to know which large number of people the cops want/need to kill in a short amount of time. I never seem to get an answer out of these posters.


    1. I want to know which large number of people the cops want/need to kill in a short amount of time. I never seem to get an answer out of these posters.

      Judging by New York, anyone with dark skin would be my guess.

    2. Drunk guys crawling down hotel corridors.

      1. “Drunk guys crawling down hotel corridors.”

        Law Enforcement ‘Simon Says’, Mesa, AZ version.

    3. Unarmed mothers holding their children while in the northern woods of Idaho. Very threatening.

      1. Be fair. Lon used a bolt-action suitable for shooting deer, a .308. No high capacity magazines are used, so just count the sins he avoided! Aside from the dead mother, that is.

    4. Dogs.

  4. Wait, in Canada the PM can just blanket ban things without any legislation whatsoever? I mean, I knew Canadian government was different but that’s surprising to me.

    1. Canada’s Federal gun laws divide guns into three categories: Unrestricted (hunting rifles and shotguns), restricted (hand guns, “assault style” guns), and prohibited (machine gun, for example). The law allows an ‘Order in Council’ which is an executive order to designate under which category a gun falls under. Historically, the RCMP were authourised by Canada Gov to categorize guns. There are more details, but these are the basic ones. In this case the government slid 1300 types into the prohibited category.

      For people who own a restricted gun they need permission from the police to move it, I also believe the police can knock on your door and ask you to present it for inspection and to view the cabinet that it is locked up in, no warrant required. These are a few differences when gun ownership is a privelege, not a right.

      1. Might as well rent guns from the state at that point.

      2. Gun registration turns into a shopping list for the government when they change their minds about you owning guns.

        1. Time to buy a crapload of lower receivers and distribute them as presents.

          1. During floods in 2013 in Alberta, the RCMP spent most of its time breaking into houses in the flooded zone and confiscating weapons. It is a shitty country.

            1. The RCMP ended up paying more than $2.3 million in compensation and a couple of bureaucrats got fired for that.
              They were only supposed to enter the evacuee’s houses to shut off the gas and look for any abandoned pets, but then they decided to start grabbing the guns left behind too.

              It is a shitty country
              Before you get too high on your horse, if this had happened in New York or California do you honestly believe they would have voluntarily fired anyone and paid compensation like that?

              1. Quick, I’m trying to write a limerick: what rhymes with “qualified immunity”?

                1. “Theft with impunity”?

            2. During Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans police confiscated weapons from citizens. Thankfully, laws have since been passed to make this illegal (even though, technically, it was already unconstitutional to begin with).

              https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/us/nationalspecial/police-begin-seizing-guns-of-civilians.html

    2. Wait, in Canada the PM can just blanket ban things without any legislation whatsoever?

      No. Normally the PM doesn’t have the power to make an “exective order”. Particularly with a minority government.

      However, the Emergencies Act which he invoked on April 9 for the first time since it was created due to Coronavirus, allows for the PM to issue orders outside of parliament in dealing with the declared emergency.

      He’s abusing the powers of the Emergency Act to ban guns which have nothing to do with the reason the Emergencies Act was invoked. This is a huge violation and will probably get him in a lot of trouble.

      But he’s not very bright and his handlers are astonishingly arrogant.

      1. Maybe he’s worried people will start shooting the virus?

  5. According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn, the proper libertarian approach to gun safety is to demand far more comprehensive regulations than we currently have in the US. This country will sadly have to wait until early 2021 for President Biden to ban deadly military style assault weapons. But it’s good to see Canada is on the right side of history already. That’s what happens when you have progressive (and totally not racist) leadership.

    #LibertariansForTrudeau

    1. Speaking of (the Devil), haven’t seen him around in some time. Did he catch the virus?

  6. Bans them how? Trudeau’s goin’ door-to-door?

    1. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police will find the AR-15 you are sheltering in your attic!

      1. ~~does best Snidely Whiplash ~~

      2. Who’s been mounting these police anyway? Eeeeeeeew!

      3. If Anne Frank had had an AR-15 in the attic, there might’ve been fewer Gestapo agents in Holland

  7. It is about time that we Americans realize that weapons of war are no longer needed by the common man or woman. These deadly machines designed to destroy and maim human lives only belong on a battlefield. Enough machismo attitude! Save the children and ban all weapons of war!

    1. You’ll have to pry my trebuchet from my cold dead hands!

    2. I truly cannot tell whether you’re a parody account…

    3. These deadly machines designed to destroy and maim human lives only belong on a battlefield and with your local halfwit, bigoted pig.

    4. The Biological Weapons Convention took effect in 1975, yet here we are under Communist Party of China Wuhan virus lockdown. Feel better now?

  8. The guy was impersonating a cop so we definitely need to ban those too.

    1. At least ban Assault Cops.

    2. The Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929 Chicago was carried out by men in police uniform driving a police car. Newspapers somehow managed to blame Al Capone, who was at the old Busch mansion in Florida at the time.

  9. Trudeau has announced that he will—via executive order, with no new law required or requested—ban the ownership and sale of several guns he categorizes as “assault weapons.”

    Trudeau’s bodyguards hardest hit.

  10. He’ll get about as much compliance as Australia and New Zealand did.

    But it’s mostly for show for PM Blackface. He knows he’s on thin ice.

  11. “via executive order”

    Just like the left loves to remind everyone about Trump, Trudeau and his party lost the popular vote to the Conservative Party by a much more significant margin.

    So he’s in a minority government situation; and even though he could probably get tepid Bloc Quebecois and NDP support in Parliament, as soon as the powerful First Nations lobby come out against it (Indians aren’t big on gun control) they’ll bail.
    So he’d have to issue an “executive order”.

    However a PM isn’t a President and can’t really declare laws (executive orders) unless he uses Emergencies Act which he invoked on April 9 for the first time since it was created due to Coronavirus.
    And this would be a constitutional crisis level violation of the Emergencies Act.

    Of course Trudeau being functionally retarded still probably doesn’t understand the mess his puppet masters advisors have just dunked him in.

    That said, never underestimate the Conservatives ability to miss an opportunity.

  12. “Trudeau also intends to buy back banned weapons from their owners”

    he’s not buying them “back” – he never owned them, nor did the government of Canada. he’s forcibly confiscating them, with remuneration (likely at a steep discount).

    1. Yeah, that terminology has always annoyed me, too. The only person who can buy something “back” is the person who sold it to you in the first place.

  13. Why not go all out and ban assault?

  14. They’re just not his *style*, doncha’ know…

  15. Mankind.

  16. Whelp, I guess it’s time for the US to have this fucking argument again.

  17. “Trudeau also intends to buy back banned weapons from their owners”

    So Trudeau originally owned all these guns?

  18. “Such weapons’ role in murder and crime is tiny, both in the U.S. (where shotguns and rifles of any kind, not just “assault weapons,” are used in only 4 percent of murders) and Canada (where the larger category of non-sawed-off rifles and shotguns were used in 2018 in only 8 percent of murders)”

    How can the category of “ non-sawed-off rifles and shotguns” (with limiting qualifier) be larger than the category of “ shotguns and rifles of any kind”?

    1. US and Canada have different groupings and different rates within those groupings?

  19. After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.” — William S. Burroughs

  20. Trudeau make the familiar claim that these “weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.” This is almost laughably false, as the vast majority of people who own them in fact have never used them for the purpose of killing anyone, much less “the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.”

    In the US anywhere from 8 to 15 BILLION rounds of ammunition are purchased per year. Some of that is stockpiled, so actual number of rounds fired is impossible to determine, but it is almost certainly several billions rounds per year.

    If we count all gun deaths, including the ~22k suicides, we have about 34k gun deaths. Roughly speaking, guns are actually used to kill people about 0.00045% of the time (based on 8B rounds of ammo). Or rather 99.99955% of the time, people are NOT using them for the “designed purpose”. It’s time to rethink the “designed purpose”.

    P.S. the odds of getting struck in your lifetime being roughly 1 in 12,000 or about 0.0083%.

    1. should be “struck by lightning in your lifetime”

    2. And of course, for the suicides, the intended purpose is to kill one and only one person.

  21. Non sequitur, but if Trudeau gets ousted, may we can get some traction in repealing the twin “bad ideas” that Obama and Trudeau have foisted on people living on the northern and southern shores of the Great Lakes. I’m talking about Plan 2012 and Plan 2014, which collectively have led to several years of historic flooding on the Great Lakes as Superior and Ontario have been turned into hydro-power reservoirs. Specifically the plans have used dams on the lakes to prevent the normal winter outflows from lower the lakes in the winter, such that spring inflows from snow melt and rain push the lakes well above historic highs and cause billions of dollars of shoreline erosion and flooding. Response from government has basically been “suck it.”

    In particular a body created by treaty, the International Joint Commission, cannot be sued for their malpractice.

  22. Trudeau is using the pandemic as a political weapon to make law abiding citizens criminals when they can’t even gather to protest.

    The lesson that should have been learned from the Nova Scotia shooting is that people cannot be protected by police. People need the ability to protect themselves or they will die.

    The shooter had police uniforms and vehicles. Trudeau should also have learned that simply identifying as and looking like a police officer should not immediately guarantee access to private dwellings.

    He pandered to stupid people who think becoming helpless makes them safe.

    1. His handling of the pandemic has been weak.

      He let events dictate him.

      He’s moist.

  23. my understanding is it was 13 shooting victims and 9 fire victims.

    did they ban fires? #ForTheChildren

  24. With any competence at all, after the cost of components, a reloader can be rewarded at the rate of slightly less than $22/hr. A friend told me.

  25. Welp, now that they have the test run done – when will they have some entrapped lone-nut sneak in a large killing while Covid-19 takes the front pages?
    Next year sometime?

  26. If I’m reading the pulse of the nation right, he doesn’t have support for this outside, obviously hipster-urbanites and the usual suspects like academics and the like.

    Most of those guns are already restricted and some are out of production.

    People see this for what it is. A moist and weak leader of low character is reaching. The general feeling (and Ford in Ontario took dead aim at this), is making criminals of law-abiding Canadians is unconscionable especially considering Canada is fairly safe from gun violence. They want a crack done on illegal gun smuggling; not these stupid measures only stupid people like Justin could support. And Bill Blair has been equally pathetic in all this with the usual ‘no one needs’ crap.

    I see little voluntary compliance coming. It’s an EO. He passed it without Parliament’s consent (because he’s a wannabe little shit tin pot dictator) and in a country that is very fragmented. Recall it was Toronto that gave him a minority government. Quebec and Alberta fired his ass. He has NO popular support as losing the popular vote attests.

    A couple of years back, Quebec started a voluntary gun registration program. Only 20% complied. The vast majority of gun owners in Quebec are hard core hunters and many live in the MASSIVE hinterlands of Quebec. You think they give a shit?

    You think they give a shit what this clown does or say?

    I don’t think we’re quite ready to go NZ or Aussie…yet anyway.

    Canadians have to get rid of this government. They’re really that bad.

  27. This post is really interesting! I will surely tell this to other people that they must visit this site. Well let me introduce you our website https://poolservicegardengrove.com/ We’re a Garden Grove pool service for more than 10 years. In this time, we have gained the resident’s trust in the city for providing an efficient, thorough, and cost-effective and all-encompassing pool service. In addition to serving both large and small pools, we also handle all pool maintenance, pool start-up, and pool repairs, pool renovations, and pool cleanup.

  28. “A U.S. assault-weapon ban was in place from 1994 to 2004, though it did not try to sweep up the guns already in circulation. As The New York Times has reported, it had no noticeable positive effect on American public safety.”

    It did have a noticeable negative effect on safety though, Mcveigh is on the record for choosing a bomb over a rifle because of Biden’s assault weapon ban. I don’t know how many people he would have killed with a rifle, but I can guarantee it wouldn’t have been 160+, and I bet it also wouldn’t have included any children in a nursery.

  29. so here’s a question, Canada has a very long, undefended border with the US, with something like 90% of their population lined up on it. What do you think the chances are that some enterprising Americans are going to start supplying a Canadian demand for AR-15s if this goes through?

  30. Only law-abiding citizens obey gun laws.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.