Canada LGBT Police Hate Crime Rainbow Fascism

Canadian Liberal Party proposes ban on shotguns and hunting rifles

Canada is ahead of the United States on policy by about 10 years. Whatever you see the Canadians doing – infanticide, euthanasia, mass importation of unskilled immigrants who don’t speak English – Canada will do it 10 years before the US does. So, we should all be concerned when Canada introduces legislation to ban almost all shotguns and hunting rifles.

Here’s the latest from National Post – the less progressive of Canada’s two national newspapers:

Quietly tabled by Liberal MP Paul Chiang last month while the bill is debated at committee, two new amendments to Bill C-21 would widen the definition of “prohibited weapon” to include “a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed,” as well as add new firearms to its regulation schedules that, if approved, would outlaw many popular hunting and sport rifles.

Got that? It’s not banning magazines of size greater than 5 rounds. It’s banning guns that COULD accept a magazine with more than 5 rounds. That means all revolvers, all semi-automatics, and basically all rifles.

And it’s worse than that.

In an earlier article from CBC, Canada’s state-run, government-funded, far-left propaganda outlet:

The list also names guns that fall afoul of two rules nominally intended to ban powerful military weapons such as .50-calibre sniper rifles and mortars. One rule bans long guns that can generate more than 10,000 joules of energy, and the other bans guns with a muzzle wider than 20 millimetres. Critics say those rules would ban everything from antique blunderbusses to the Nine O’clock Gun in Vancouver’s Stanley Park.

Lastly, the amendment prohibits, by name, a large number of semi-automatic firearms that do not have detachable magazines and don’t meet the definition of an “assault-style firearm,” or infringe the other two rules, but which the government wants to ban anyway. They include a number of long guns in wide use by Canadian hunters.

What about .22 rifles, used for hunting very small animals?

[…][O]ne version of the [Mossberg 702 .22 Plinkster long rifle]… is individually listed for prohibition in the amendments.

There isn’t anyone in the Liberal Party of Canada who has read anything about the evidence on how firearm ownership reduces rates of violent crime. They not only haven’t read anything about it, they couldn’t even formulate the idea that firearms owned by law-abiding citizens would deter criminals from committing crimes. It literally makes no sense to them.

Gun ownership up, gun violence down
Gun ownership up, gun violence down

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

The book by economist John Lott, linked above, compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, which shows that the 1997 UK gun ban caused violent crime rates to MORE THAN DOUBLE in the four years following the ban. But both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

One of the common mistakes I see anti-gun advocates making is to use the metric of all “gun-related deaths”. First of all, this completely ignores the effects of hand gun ownership on violent crime, as we’ve seen. Take away the guns from law-abiding people and violent crime skyrockets. But using the “gun-related deaths” number is especially wrong, because it includes suicides committed with guns. This is the majority (about two thirds) of gun related deaths, even in a country like America that has a massive inner-city gun violence problem caused by the epidemic of single motherhood by choice. If you take out the gun-related SUICIDES, then the actual number of gun homicides has decreased as gun ownership has grown.

For a couple of useful graphs related to this point, check out this post over at the American Enterprise Institute.

So, back to Canada’s Liberal Party. Their answer to law-abiding people who are about to have their homes broken into by burglars, rapists and murderers is “who cares?” They have nothing for you to defend yourself. And if you do defend yourself, you would probably be arrested, treated like a criminal, and punished, for making the real criminal feel bad.

2 thoughts on “Canadian Liberal Party proposes ban on shotguns and hunting rifles”

  1. I think the Liberals are fully aware that gun bans won’t reduce crime. From what I can see, it’s not even that they don’t care. They know what the result will be, and that’s the result they WANT.

    When trying to debate with anti-gun people, they aren’t interested in data. In their minds, if you ban guns, the guns will magically disappear, and not even the criminals will have them. When you try to use logic, reason and evidence to show how their position is flawed, the most common fall back position tends to be “No one needs a gun.” And if that doesn’t work, “the only purpose of a gun is to kill.”

    You just can’t argue with stupid.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Alberta and I beleive also Sask have instructed the RCMP in their province that they are under provincial authority and they can’t be used to confiscate guns

    I know the media and Trudeau didn’t like that. But due to far left over reach. Sask and Alberta have started to pass laws to make it clear the jurisdiction of federal and provincial power and the far left media and Trudeau cry that this is horrible for a province to try and protect their constitutional power

    Alberta has the Alberta sovereignty within Canada act passed and Sask is passing the Sask first act to place rights of the province in place due to gov’t over reach and to protect their rights to control their own resources

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s