Gun control advocates:
"What compromises or concessions are peaceful, responsible, and safety-conscious firearms owners willing to make with this latest legislation to keep Canadians safe from violent crime, especially involving firearms?"
"What compromises or concessions are peaceful, responsible, and safety-conscious firearms owners willing to make with this latest legislation to keep Canadians safe from violent crime, especially involving firearms?"
Peaceful, responsible, & safety-conscious firearms owners: Well, let's put some context around our answer first.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime
• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime
• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for
storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime
• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.) which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2021, you REDUCED judicial consequences for those ILLEGALLY using their ILLEGALLY acquired and already prohibited firearms.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.
• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.
• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in
violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place.
And yet violent crime continues to escalate.
And yet violent crime continues to escalate.
So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely
Ignoring the contributing
Ignoring the contributing
factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes?
Absolutely none.
Absolutely none.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
