Thread by @Dicky_Paul_95

The Docs and @najmadoc have written an article in @TIME trying to sway the government to ban most semi-automatic firearms in Canada.

Its time for another fact check.

#C21 #CancelC21

time.com/6258603/canada…

Right off the hop they frame “military-style assault weapons” to include any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine (while also giving a nod to the SKS).

This has never been established as accurate. It’s one reason Canadians pushed back so hard on the amendments.

A claim is made that such bans, “are supported by public health science.” None is provided (at least at this point).

They also claim “They would bring Canada’s gun control laws closer in line with other peer nations.”

Which ones? There are plenty of European nations where civilians can still purchase all sorts of semi-automatic rifles and handguns… some include AR-15’s! 😱

The article continues, blaming gun lobby disinformation and the CPC for forcing the minority Liberal government …

…to withdraw the amendments. That’s simply not true. The NDP and Bloq both stood against it. The NDP elbowed their way to the soap box to claim victory for stopping the amendment and standing up for Canadians.

The article is entirely misleading on this.

The authors then drone on about poll results and gun death rates. They fail to mention the 100% increase in our gang homicide rate since 2013.

A 🇺🇸 study is cited claiming firearms in the home increase risk of suicide and homicide. In the US, that could be true. But…

We are not them. No one has ever associated firearm ownership to increased homicide or suicide risk in Canada. In fact multiple 🇨🇦 research papers have found risk in suicide remains unchanged after new gun laws, as victim’s switch methods. It’s well established here, not so in 🇺🇸

The authors double down on suicide in Canada, but fail to mention the scientifically established method switching phenomenon. Our suicide rates are lower than the countries they compared us to.

https://twitter.com/dicky_paul_95/status/1451390311272484865?s=46&t=CtjA7qLzAbFKJFJGlrXlBQ

Anyone who knows me will know the lies about our red flag laws are the bane of my existence. The authors claim C21 will “establish a red flag law”.

Oh really? So we currently do not have an established red flag law? This is pure propaganda to scare folks who don’t know.

We have red flag laws. Good ones. Since the 90’s.

Police can enter any place at any time to seize any weapon when reasonable grounds exist there’s a safety issue.

One thing they didn’t mention (conveniently), is that women’s groups don’t want this new red flag law. They prefer our current ones. You won’t see that written about very often in the media. Why?

nawl.ca/letter-to-mini…

The authors stated “The assault weapons ban—first introduced in response to one mass shooting—aims to prevent further such events.”

Oh? What evidence suggests this? In 2018 Public Safety Canada released a report that stated:

publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cnslttns/h…

There’s plenty of evidence supporting this.

I recently created a thread detailing some of this research indicating gun bans are not the solution to our problems:

https://twitter.com/Dicky_Paul_95/status/1622321223299473411

Najma and her fellow Docs are aware of these studies. Several once lived on their own website under “Further Reading”.

They have since revamped their website, which now conveniently lacks those papers that disagree with them. Huh.

I did a thread on that here:

https://twitter.com/dicky_paul_95/status/1529913824375185409

So it’s interesting when they state “What should not be up for political debate is the public health science underpinning the proposed bans.”

That’s not what multiple research papers indicate… papers they removed from their website.

They did cite a paper from Phillip Alpers presented at the Nova Scotia Shooting Inquiry.

Note this is just a report and is not peer reviewed.
apo.org.au/sites/default/…

Philip Alpers and Simon Chapman have partnered for several papers reviewing the 🇦🇺 NFA. They hit the media circles claiming the NFA was effective and lives have been saved as a result.

Chapman was a lobbyist for the NFA in the 90’s and Alpers created a gun control website.

The most prominent paper they co-authored is used all over the world as proof gun bans work.

Yet here is the conclusion to that study. It’s almost as if they just don’t expect people to read the paper.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…

Other papers directly challenged Alpers and Chapman’s claims.

This paper dissected it in detail, and in my opinion destroys the credibility of Chapman and Alpers.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

This paper also called out the study, claiming they failed to look at all data, and did not explain how the NFA could have affected the higher drop in non-firearm homicides that occurred.

ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.21…

The conclusions of this paper summed it up nicely.

The bulk of research does not support the NFA gun ban as having lowered gun deaths. The same thing Public Safety stated in that 2018 report.

melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/w…

An interesting note, of the three sources cited on Australian gun policy, all three were written by either Chapman or Alpers. Weird.

It wouldn’t be the first time the Docs have lied about research on gun policies.

Its certainly not the first time Najma lied.

@najmadoc submitted an affidavit for the CCFR vs Canada case that is still making its way through the courts.

In that affidavit, she outright lied about a significant paper. The paper actually claimed the US assault weapon ban increased the risk of gun violence.

She claimed the opposite.

With that kind of integrity, I’m surprised anyone would want her writing articles for their publication. @TIME

In conclusion, this is just another propaganda piece.

They’re pushing as hard as they can to get their way. They support the misinformation of @Polysesouvient on the withdrawn amendments, despite zero political support for their claims.

We can’t ban our way out of this.