As a non-gun owner, Trudeau’s firearms’ policies make me want a gun

Written By Wyatt Claypool, Posted on January 15, 2020

I do not own any firearms, nor have I ever taken a PAL course to gain a firearms licence. That all may change as my interest in obtaining a licence and purchasing a firearm, have increased over the past few weeks. The Trudeau government’s policies have been my greatest motivator.

This is not to say I feel threatened by the current Liberal government, but the restrictions and push for outright bans have woken me up to the reality that, if passed, it will be harder to protect oneself. The justification behind such restrictions has been surface-level and weak thus far.

Bill Blair, during and since the election, has claimed that the Liberal government intends to ban all “military-style” guns outright, and force a buyback on gun owners currently owning prohibited models.

In a gross political appeal, Blair said, “We will strengthen gun laws and ban the type of weapons used at Ecole Polytechnique,” effectively standing on the graves of the women murdered at Ecole Polytechnique for his political gain.

Blair then went on to claim those “military-style” firearms are, “designed to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time, have no place in our communities, in our streets, in our country.” with no reference to real gun deaths per year.

Supposedly Bill Blair and the rest of the Liberal caucus lack the necessary information needed to formulate a palatable narrative, which Statistics Canada provides with stats on gun-homicides in Canada.

Unsurprisingly not only are gun homicides in Canada very low, only 249 in 2018, but the percentage of rifle/shotgun homicide deaths per year is only 22% of the total, and it can’t be determined how many of those rifles and shotguns were “military-style.”

On top of that, most guns used to commit crimes are illegally obtained, and in the US, which has significantly more gun crime than Canada, Politifact, a left-leaning fact-checking website confirmed that illegal guns are involved in the vast majority of gun crimes.

Gang violence and gun smuggling should be of greater importance to the Liberal government to tackle. The latter in Canada has generally been increased from 523 gang homicide victims in 2014 to 651 in 2018. The Liberal government may want to consider focusing on fighting organized gang violence before targeting a grandfather who owns a rifle for pest control on his ranch.

The Liberals estimated that their gun buy-back program would cost taxpayers $400-$600 million to buy back their firearms, while the Liberals have only pledged $54 million to combat gang and gun violence in Ontario.

There is a good reason why the Liberal government has received such a strong negative response from gun-owners. When the Liberals don’t take the initiative to tackle gang violence, why in the world would gun-owners be jazzed to hand over their ability to protect themselves? Why does gun violence negate their ability to own firearms responsibly?

The National Firearms Association sent a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau warning there would be “civil resistance” over gun bans. This was no threat but a prediction, as the letter said:

“It is clear that there will come a time when those affected will express themselves in civil resistance and righteous indignation.” 

This was a warning to the Liberal government that citizens will not willingly give away their firearms, let alone at the expense of their tax dollars. Why shouldn’t they resist when they have done nothing to deserve gun confiscation?

A petition on the Parliament of Canada’s website, e-2341, back on January 8th, had already reached 76,000 signatures against the Liberals gun regulations, and the petition still has until the 15th of February. As one of the most popular petitions ever on the Parliament website, gun-owners feel widely mistreated by the Liberal government.

I wanted to own a gun once I was aware that my ability to protect myself is going to be restricted. Not only do I advocate for firearms as a self-defence mechanism, but I stand by all law-abiding firearm owners with their self-preservation threatened.

It is a testament to the Liberal government’s lack of self-awareness that their anti-gun push will likely increase gun ownership in Canada. Bill Blair himself admitted he couldn’t reveal what weapons will be banned so people won’t go out and purchase those models. 

I predict these actions against gun owners will either outright fail logistically or will not be undertaken when the Liberal government realizes the broad support for firearms. They will lose appeal if they pass a “military-style” gun ban and further their progressive talking points to no end.

Wyatt Claypool

Wyatt is a student at Mount Royal University, where he is the president of its Campus Conservative club. In his writing, he focuses on covering provincial and federal politics, firearms regulation, and the energy sector. Wyatt has also previously written for The Post Millennial.

7 responses to “As a non-gun owner, Trudeau’s firearms’ policies make me want a gun”

  1. Marc Gauthier says:

    Je n’aime pas trop les fusils de style AR-15. Je n’ai pas besoin d’un fusil de style AR-15. Des gens militent pour que les Canadiens ne puissent plus posséder de fusils de style AR-15. Je vais acheter légalement deux fusils de style AR-.

  2. Jonah says:

    Guns in Canada are still pretty heavily regulated. AR-15s are restricted and have to be registered, and they can only be fired at a licensed range. The maximum magazine capacity is only 5 rounds. Yes they’re black, yes they might look scary to someone else, but they have no added function compared to traditional semi auto. I don’t see how this is any less than a ploy to disarm as many canadians as possible.

  3. Mark says:

    First off. Thank you for this lets get that right. However, you refered seversl times to being able to protct yourself with firearms. In Canada you can not do this. Period. Our laws are clear that you are not able to defend ones self with any firearm.
    Prohibited weapons can not be obtained any more, and you must have an RPAL to obtain restricted.

    • R. says:

      Wrong. That is flat-out incorrect. There are many instances of Canadians protecting self and family with firearms that were perfectly legal. This is something peddled by the occasional RCMP officer, the CFC and other organizations, but in Canadian law you are allowed to use necessar force to avoid grievous bodily harm to yourself and others and that includes with firearms.
      The stupid thing is that the CFC won’t give you an RPAL for the reason of self-defense. Whether or not you do is another matter entirely.

  4. Morgan Lewis says:

    Certainly when Blair refers to the kind of firearm used in the Montreal Massacre he is directly referencing the Ruger Mini-14.

    This is a non-restricted rifle which has been sold in Canada for 40 years. Unfortunately it was used in a horrific event 30 years ago. But perception is everything; it’s significant not so much that one madman used one Mini-14 three decades ago to murder people, but that nobody had used one similarly since. Because the Mini-14 is non-restricted, it has never had to be registered. Nobody know how many are in the country but a safe estimate is more than 150,000. It is a very popular rifle, and until recently was inexpensive to buy. Now they fetch arounf $1000. If, for the sake of argument, the confisc— er, the "buyback" pays 75% of market value, that model rifle alone would cost $112 million, PLUS the cost of administering the program. That is assuming, once more for the sake of argument, that Mini-14 owners were 100% compliant in surrendering an item no agency can confirm they own.

    It is also worth nothing that in direct response to the Montreal Massacre, magazine limits were set with apply to all centrefire firearms including the Mini-14, and that the one used on the Massacre had been damaged by its owner to the point that it didn’t even function as a semi-auto. It had to be manually-cycled for each shot, just like a bolt-action rifle. So the argument that banning semi-auto (or self-loading) firearms makes streets safer is spurious, it is base on an outright lie of omission.

    I definitely don’t own a Mini-14, definitely not unloaded and and behind two locking devices, and I definitely wouldn’t surrender it if I did.

  5. 308Pete says:

    Yup, Trudeau’s plan to ban legal AR-15s will prompt smuggling and make them a ‘status weapon’ for gangs, who may even decide to use them to show up the gov. Offering only $1,500 won’t be enough for those ARs built for competition that often cost $6,000!

  6. Al says:

    Its a good thing that the list mentions two guns from Grand Theft Auto 5 and 5 guns that are on the game Call of Duty Modern Warfare. Just to let you know that these two companies didn’t get the rights to use the real names. So I’m sending my games in for the Buy Back program I don’t want to be caught with these in my possession…