Firearms (2024)

   At no time in history can we see when a government has disarmed its citizens that a reduction in crime takes place and that the governing body did not become tyrannical. If we go back through history, the two most glaringly evident times, of the many, when disarming the people went badly for the people are China, when an estimated 65 million people were killed and in Nazi Germany, during the Holocaust, around 6 million Jews were killed. A tyrannical government can do as they wish if the people are disarmed and can’t defend themselves. Gun control is about control. Period.

What does the Canadian Liberal Party plan on doing to want to disarm their citizens? To find the answer to this question, we can’t go to the government because we will never get the truth. Instead, we must go through history and see what happens when a government/dictator disarms the population. Most recently, Venezuela has shown the world what happens when people lose their firearms. What about the Jewish community in Nazi Germany? And the people under Mao or Stalin? We can see that tens of millions of people have been killed and many millions more severely impacted by just this one thing. A government should not have to fear its people unless they are planning on doing something that goes against the people. And telling their citizens lies about firearms to instill fear in them so that more people will go along is unconscionable. As the famous saying goes, to give up your liberty for freedom, you will have neither.

Under the Liberal government, since Trudeau came into office, gang violence is up 92% and violent crimes are up 32%. This trend is continuing upward even though he has banned thousands upon thousands of firearms through the Order in Council in May of 2020 and the handgun freeze in late 2022, which is now law. The vast majority of firearms used during the commission of crimes are illegally smuggled from the US and the Chiefs of law enforcement around the country have all stated that banning legal firearms will not change the outcome of crime rates. While Trudeau professes to want to curb violence and crime, his hypocrisy shines clearly in the fact that he has lowered the penalties for gang-related crimes. In order for crime to go down, there need to be reasons for individuals to not want to commit those crimes. Either by increasing penalties to dissuade them or something to incentivize them to do something else instead. Trudeau instead does neither and wants to take the property from law-abiding citizens. In 2018, according to StatsCan, there were a total 651 homicides and of those, 249 were by firearms and 51% of those were gang-related. This means that there were 122 homicides out of 651 where firearms were used not by a gang member. Out of nearly 2.2 million licenced individuals, you have a 0.0056% chance of being killed by someone with a firearm and the Liberal government wants everyone to believe that that is significant. However, in the same 2018 year in Canada, there were 1,922 fatalities due to car crashes, nearly 300 drownings, 119 people were beaten to death, 250 nutritional deficiency deaths, 54,182 people died from heart disease, 168 from medical & surgical care, ~15,000 from alcohol use, and ~48,000 from smoking.

Using our neighbour to the south, we can clearly see that restricting firearms does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. Look at California, New York, and the city of Chicago. Those are the places with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the country and yet crimes with firearms are extremely high. Over 90% of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. Criminals know that they can get away with whatever it is they want because they know no one will be armed and shoot back in defence. Over in Great Britain, we can see the same thing. They banned firearms and even knives but their crime rates are still not falling as was claimed would happen and are actually increasing. What we see around the world is that the governments, including our own, do not want their citizens armed. The Liberal party had a long-gun registry a few years ago and its cost was too high for the next to zero return they got from it. It showed how useless it was in preventing or catching criminals who used firearms because next to none of the firearms that were used in crimes were legally owned by the offenders. The firearms were either bought off the black market (registry wouldn’t help with that), stolen (registry wouldn’t help with that), or smuggled into the country (registry wouldn’t help with that). Now, the Liberals are using the Order in Council and C-21 to bring back a registry without calling it one. This is yet another one of their attempts to control the population. That, along with the banning of certain firearms because of the perceived danger that they pose.

Here in Canada, we are taking away peoples’ right to enjoy their property in the name of safety. Canada does not have a gun problem, we have a people problem and the Liberals continue to make it easier for them to commit crimes and at the same time vilify law-abiding citizens for enjoying something we have done for over a hundred years. Why would our government want to disarm its citizens closely after taking away most of our rights and freedoms in the name of safety during COVID? What are they planning for our future?

A government should want to have its populace trained and armed in case something goes off the rails, like in the Ukraine. We (the West) are giving Ukraine citizens AR-15s to help defend themselves against Russia and yet at the same time taking them away from us. If conservation officers need ARs to protect them from Canadian wildlife, then why can’t Canadians have and use them for the same reason?

In all of our history, only ONE person has died as a result of being shot from an AR-15. The ban on them as well as the ban on others and the bans yet to come serve no purpose to public safety. None. In fact, the government should be telling people to get their licence, to not be afraid of a tool. More vehicles kill people than firearms; more people are beaten to death than are killed with firearms; more people die from medical errors than are killed with firearms; alcohol kills more people than firearms. Many things result in the deaths of people in higher numbers than firearms. If it truly were about saving lives, then firearms wouldn’t even be in the top 10 things to ban. Again, it’s about control. They are fear mongers who play on your emotions to get you to side with them as well as targeting those who know little to nothing about firearms or the related laws to side with them.

Assault-style or military-style are made-up terms that are meant to make you think that they are assault or military weapons when they are not. Something-style is not the thing that is mentioned. They only use the term “assault-style” to make it sound scarier. Also, ehe magazine capacity restrictions in Canada make no sense- 5 rounds for a rifle, 10 for a handgun, and no restriction for a shotgun or .22 rimfire. Guess what the manufacturer standard capacity magazines are for the most common rifles? 30 rounds. That’s the actual standard that they come in. We have to modify them to meet Canadian standards. When competing in speed competitions with rifles on the international stage, Canadians are at a significant disadvantage since we can only train with 5 rounds before having to reload. When we go somewhere else to compete, they’re used to using the standard 30 rounds. Our laws are so mixed up and make no sense. We arbitrarily limit magazine capacity so that criminals have to take more time reloading, thus slowing them down. Criminals are already breaking the law, so they don’t care about undoing the modifications that limit the number of rounds in a magazine. Not to mention that it only takes a second or two to reload a firearm. As for real assault weapons, which are fully automatic, they have been banned for 50 years and use up their magazine in only a moment before needing to reload and are not as easy to keep aimed due to the kickback.

Finally, if law-abiding firearms owners were the problem, then we wouldn’t need the government and their paid media telling us that we are.

I believe that it should be everyone’s right to own firearms as long as they can pass a criminal background check and pass a safety course, which we do already. Furthermore, I am of the mind to allow citizens to carry firearms as they do in many States of the U.S. as long as they pass a safety course for that and go through regular range practice and testing to prove that these people can carry and use their firearms safely and competently. There should be no magazine restrictions because they do not do anything except create more complications. Finally, there should be three classes of firearms, as there is now. Prohibited firearms would be any automatics, restricted would be any handguns, and all rifles and shotguns would be non-restricted, including the AR-15.