this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
8 points (70.0% liked)

Canada

9507 readers
1735 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter
mp3
otters_raft
8
PolySeSouvient says Liberals, Bloc Québécois are Canada’s best options for gun control (montreal.citynews.ca)
submitted 1 day ago by Sunshine to c/canada
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago

I hope that if they go ahead with changing the laws surrounding guns, they do so in a clearcut easy to understand manner. I feel like anytime gun laws in Canada are up for reworking they really sensationalise it and it never really accounts to anything different.

Like one concern I had about the past is what about replica fire arms that are airguns, do they fall under this categorisation? It would be nice to have it be clear and easy to understand.

I say this also as someone who has always been around guns, and has had a passing interest in the hobby.

I also have very complex feelings about weapons for self defense. Like it really is true that an armed minority group is harder to oppress. However, I dont think its okay for a functional society to just have everyone walking around strapped all the time. Ugh.

This is annoyingly complex, and nuanced and I wish I could just go "Yay! They're taking dangerous things off the streets"

[–] dermanus 9 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Canada already has good gun control. We've had it for decades. Very, very few lawful gun owners commit crimes with their guns.

The last government has been great at announcing ever longer lists of guns to ban but has yet to seize a single one. The list gets longer, the date it takes effect keeps getting pushed out too.

Focus on the source of guns used in crimes: our neighbors to the south. Performative bans of experimental guns and historic rifles makes no one safer.

[–] Thepotholeman 2 points 4 hours ago

The best thing that came from the gun control bill the liberals passed was giving municipalities the right to ban ownership of handguns and gave more powers to the police to help stop gun trafficking throughout our nation from the USA.

[–] Rentlar 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Good thing dealing with our neighbours to the south is part of the Liberals' plan this time (including as part of their gun control plan).

[–] dermanus 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Is it? All I see in the article is talk about broader bans, nothing about addressing the border or smuggling.

[–] Rentlar 3 points 7 hours ago

I had learned it from watching Carney's campaign speech, but here's the CBC write-up.

Key elements regarding America include upping resources for CBSA to stem the flow of illegal guns and drugs, having the RCMP classify new models of guns rather than manufacturers themselves, and increasing funding for RCMP ballistics labs to help trace the source of guns used in violent crime.

[–] overcooked_sap -2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Carney had one simple job to earn my vote, stop this ridiculous ideologically driven hatred of legal gun owners by the liberal party. He chose otherwise.

Guess I’ll waste my ballot or worse vote CPC. As a white upper middle class male with savings I won’t suffer any of the fallout of a CPC win and honestly why should I care about people who use me as a wedge issue and vote to take away my property due to ignorance of the current laws. Fuck em and if they suffer some consequences then maybe they’ll reflect on that.

[–] Sunshine 9 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Choosing guns over human rights. This comment reeks of entitlement and selfishness.

[–] overcooked_sap -1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Hyperbole much? People only ever care once something affects them personally. Do I think the CPC is the better option, probably not. But I won’t reward the same bunch of clowns just cause they put a new face on the party and rolled back some policies in the face of election annihilation. They should have done that before it got to that point instead of talking down to people. Since I can’t vote green in my riding I’m left with little choice.

[–] pticrix 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

People only ever care once something affects them personally

Highlighted the usual Conservative Projection™ for you.

[–] overcooked_sap 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry but I don’t get the point of your comment. Are you saying only conservatives exhibit this behavioural pattern? Cause I’d have to strongly disagree on that point.

And just for you, the last election I voted NDP. The one before that I voted Libs. And before that I didnt bother. So get lost with your bullshit generalizations. I’m far from a conservative but I also think people blindly voting a color is dumb and wish parties were not listed on ballots.

[–] pticrix 2 points 3 hours ago

Was it a bullshit generalization? Sure. I've seen the "doing a lot of projection without realizing it" mostly - but not exclusively - from those considered "right wing", but they're not the only one doing it. I'm sure I've been guilty of it at a time or another, but if you ask everyone that spouts bullshit generalization to "get lost", given that

People only ever care once something affects them personally

Is also a bullshit generalization, I'd say we should both get lost.

Not together, evidently.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Why trust government employees to be the only people with guns? They kill people too and justify their killings with politics like "war" or "crime prevention" as if they have an acceptable perspective that allows for the death of other humans. Gun control needs to go both ways and they should stop taking guns from citizens until they are willing to disarm themselves.

[–] Sunshine -1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

We should greatly reduce guns for cops. And only allow them to be available for the special forces, army and First Nations in remote areas.

[–] Arkouda -3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

First Nations in remote areas.

No.

[–] isVeryLoud 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Do you think polar bears take "no" for an answer?

I've been to Churchill, MB. People there have guns to fend off polar bears. A polar bear WILL maul you if you do not fire first. We were not allowed in some areas of the territory unarmed.

[–] Arkouda 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Do you think polar bears take “no” for an answer?

I’ve been to Churchill, MB. People there have guns to fend off polar bears. A polar bear WILL maul you if you do not fire first. We were not allowed in some areas of the territory unarmed.

Do you think Polar bears care if you are indigenous or not?

Indigenous people do not have a right to weaponry in rural areas over others as sunshine argued and I disagreed with.

We should greatly reduce guns for cops. And only allow them to be available for the special forces, army and First Nations in remote areas.

[–] cyborganism 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Good point.

[–] Arkouda 2 points 6 hours ago

Thank you.

[–] isVeryLoud 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Sunshine simply took a speech shortcut by referencing first nations, which remote areas with polar bears are mostly populated by, but anyone living there would need a rifle to deal with the wildlife.

[–] Arkouda 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Sunshine simply took a speech shortcut by referencing first nations, which remote areas with polar bears are mostly populated by, but anyone living there would need a rifle to deal with the wildlife.

Not a very good shortcut when it is easier to type "People in remote areas" than it is "First nations in remote areas".

[–] isVeryLoud 2 points 6 hours ago

I don't disagree with you on that, it could have been better worded.

[–] Sunshine -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ban those useless guns as they only lead to senseless violence.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Well, let’s just ban cars then. They kill more people than guns do in Canada.

[–] alsimoneau 3 points 16 hours ago

Please do. Fuck cars.