this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025

26 points (93.3% liked)

Canada

10142 readers

578 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

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

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

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.
Misinformation is not welcome here.

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

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

'It's a paperweight now': Why the Mounties' ban of popular rifle led to so much pushback (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 16 hours ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When it comes to Canada's often tense debate around gun laws, most Canadians likely will not have heard of an RCMP database called the Firearms Reference Table, or FRT.

The FRT is a database used by the RCMP to help classify firearms. That classification determines whether a gun is non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.

Technically, the FRT isn't a legal instrument, but instead just an internal RCMP tool based on definitions set out in the Criminal Code and Firearms Act. But in practice?

"It's both the law and not the law," said A.J. Somerset, the author of Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun.

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 22 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

My issue with this is the RCMP have moved into de facto position of making rules/laws about what is legal and illegal ... AND THAT'S NOT THEIR FUCKING JOB.

When LEOs are given those kinds of responsibilities, without oversight, it is in direct violation of our Charter and Constitution.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have limits on some weapons. I'm saying the cops shouldn't be setting those limits.

[+] masterspace@lemmy.ca -7 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Can you cite exactly which part of the charter and constitution it violates? Or is this more gun nut, trying not to sound like a gun nut, bullshit?

Last time I checked, the charter provides you with no guarantees to buy AR-15 mock military rifles that you don't need for hunting.

"There's nothing we can do. What sucks is that [the R9 MK1] was kind of the last hope for [pistol-calibre carbine shooting] in Canada."

Yeah, cause pistol-calibre carbine shooting it not for hunting deer, it's for killing as many human beings as possible as quickly as possible. It's a fucking joke that gun nuts think anyone should give one rats ass about this. Because, let's be clear, the problem here is not with banning this gun, and not with the RCMP being the agency banning this gun, the only problem is that manufacturers are allowed to start manufacturing and selling new guns without oversight or regulation:

"The problem of manufacturers introducing new models to the market based on their own interpretations is at the root of this kind of problematic situation, where the RCMP has to play catch-up after the models start being sold to Canadians," reads a release attributed to PolySeSouvient, sent to CBC News.

The group said there were many examples of industry misclassifications, including labelling prohibited guns as legal.

"Which is a huge public safety concern in addition to the inconvenience this causes those who purchased them," the group said. "The Liberals have repeatedly promised to change the process so that the RCMP vets and classifies new models before they hit the Canadian market.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Can you cite exactly which part of the charter and constitution it violates?

Criminal Defence lawyer & Firearms lawyer - Ian Runkle (YouTuber: Runkle Of The Bailey) has made a request to the Supreme Court challenging for procedural fairness in regard to the firearm confiscation fiasco, given that Justin Trudeau bypassed the House of Commons and Parliament with his OIC, it’s fair to say Canadians are expected a proper judicial due-process especially when it comes to confiscating people’s private property.

It’s not a “buyback”, the Canadian Government never owned these firearms to begin with, it’s a forced confiscation with a monetary compensation. You know it’s bad when the Ontario Government won’t divert RCMP resources to assist in this confiscation and that Canada Post won’t assist either.

Yeah, cause pistol-calibre carbine shooting it not for hunting deer,

You forget about sports shooters and that the International Practial Shooting Confederation exists, which rely on these firearms being accessible to practice and participate.

Just recently Wes Steven’s had to borrow a firearm from an American competitor just to participate in the competition.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Criminal Defence lawyer & Firearms lawyer - Ian Runkle (YouTuber: Runkle Of The Bailey) has made a request to the Supreme Court challenging for procedural fairness in regard to the firearm confiscation fiasco, given that Justin Trudeau bypassed the House of Commons and Parliament with his OIC, it’s fair to say Canadians are expected a proper judicial due-process especially when it comes to confiscating people’s private property.

So, you basically think that when Canadians broadly elected Trudeau on a platform of reigning in gun crime and banning assault style firearms, they were mistaken in their choice?

You're nitpicking a procedural issue, not grossly violating a charter right.

It’s not a “buyback”, the Canadian Government never owned these firearms to begin with, it’s a forced confiscation with a monetary compensation. You know it’s bad when the Ontario Government won’t divert RCMP resources to assist in this confiscation and that Canada Post won’t assist either.

"You know it's bad when a conservative idiot panders to his base?"

"You know it's bad when Canada Post doesn't want to take on the responsibility of collecting and storing mass amounts of firearms, something they've never done before, have no training or expertise in doing, and would make them obvious targets for violent criminals?"

LMFAO. What the fuck are you talking about?

Yeah, cause pistol-calibre carbine shooting it not for hunting deer, it's for killing as many human beings as possible as quickly as possible

You forget about sports shooters and that the International Practial Shooting Confederation exists, which rely on these firearms being accessible to practice and participate.

No, I didn't. I explicitly asked why anyone should give two shits about gun nuts participating in fake sports. Buy a big buck machine, or take up darts, they're cheaper and more fun.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

So, you basically think that when Canadians broadly elected Trudeau on a platform of reigning in gun crime and banning assault style firearms, they were mistaken in their choice?

Trudeau never reigned in gun crime which ruined his credibility, he had 10 whole years to accomplish that task, the statistics are public knowledge.

In Toronto, Canada’s largest census metropolitan area (CMA), the proportion of violent crimes that were firearm-related (4.7%) was the second-highest among CMAs. Its rate of firearm-related violent crime (43.2 incidents per 100,000 population) rose 36% from 2021 and 93% since a low in 2013.

Canada’s other two largest CMAs also saw their rate of firearm-related violent crime increase in 2022. In Montréal, the rate (28.0 incidents per 100,000 population) increased slightly (+0.4%) from 2021, following a 12% increase from 2020 to 2021. In Vancouver, the rate (23.6 incidents per 100,000 population) increased 24% from 2021.

No, I didn't. I explicitly asked why anyone should give two shits about gun nuts participating in fake sports. Buy a big buck machine, or take up darts, they're cheaper and more fun.

You call people who own firearms gun nuts but it’s a hobby just like any other, it’s like if I called people who like to knit sewing-freaks.

Frankly quite insulting and unnecessary.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Trudeau never reigned in gun crime which ruined his credibility, he had 10 whole years to accomplish that task, the statistics are public knowledge.

That has literally nothing to do with the constitutionality of his mandate.

You call people who own firearms gun nuts but it’s a hobby just like any other

No, it's fucking not. It's a hobby that requires the mass manufacture and ownership of instant, point and click, murder tools.

[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

Out of curiosity, in a perfect world and existing regulations excepted, what sort of firearm regulations would you like to see in Canada?

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago

The only issue here is that a gun manufacturer was allowed to sell a new gun without having it assessed by regulators first.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

I just love that picture of the gun-control advocates that typifies the "scary black rifle" bullshit that they use all the time.

Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners are not the problem in Canada and never have been; smuggling weapons out of the US to known criminals is where the issue lies, and where the violence comes from. But hunters, collectors and competitors get to pay the price for these groups to keep the gravy train going that keeps them employed. If they ever managed to get all firearms banned, they'd have a very bad day.

[–] teppa@piefed.ca 1 points 7 hours ago

People keep being surprised by Liberal corruption, how often do you need to see the same story play out before you change your vote?

https://globalnews.ca/news/11287613/public-safety-minister-support-letters-immigration-applicant-terror-group/

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Fun fact: this is all political theater

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Indeed.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 2 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners are not the problem in Canada and never have been; smuggling weapons out of the US to known criminals is where the issue lies, and where the violence comes from.

What causes you to believe that Legal Firearms are never used by a Licensed firearm owner in a problematic way?

Do you believe that 100% of illegal firearms in Canada are smuggled?

But hunters, collectors and competitors get to pay the price for these groups to keep the gravy train going that keeps them employed.

Have you considered that we do not need firearms for hunting, do not need to collect very dangerous weapons, and that firearm competitions are incredibly wasteful because of the resources needed to create firearms, bullets, targets, and the like?

If they ever managed to get all firearms banned, they’d have a very bad day.

What do you mean by this?

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Never said "never". 13% of handgun homicides and 12% of rifle/shotgun homicides were by licensed individuals for known incidents.

from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2024001/article/00001-eng.htm

Maybe I mispoke about the source, but a large amount are American and a much larger amount are "unknown". Where would you figure these come through, given who our neighbor is and their level of firearms traceability?

What do you mean by this?

Did you take it as a threat? I obviously meant they'd have to go find a job instead.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -4 points 14 hours ago

I responded to your last comment, and if you wish to continue the conversation I expect you to respond to my questions and the points in good faith without deleting and editing your posts.

[+] ikidd@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Never said “never” but it’s certainly not a very large amount compared to illegal weapons.

Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners are not the problem in Canada and never have been; smuggling weapons out of the US to known criminals is where the issue lies, and where the violence comes from.

I would recommend a rephrase of your argument then, because you clearly said legal weapons and owners are not the problem and never have been.

My suggestion:

"Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners make up a small percentage of violent crimes using firearms in Canada; Smuggling illegal weapons into Canada makes up a larger percentage of violent crimes using firearms, and the priority should be increased border enforcement."

I’ve bowhunted, it’s a pain in the ass for providing food and frankly, I’m not in it for the thrill of the chase. I’m feeding myself and my family.

There are ways to feed your family without hunting. I don't find "I am not good at bow hunting" to be a solid argument in support of firearms being necessary. This is because hunting isn't necessary.

And if they got them banned, they’d have to actually find a productive job.

Who is they?

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

"“Legal firearms and licensed firearm owners make up a small percentage of violent crimes using firearms in Canada; Smuggling illegal weapons into Canada makes up a larger percentage of violent crimes using firearms, and the priority should be increased border enforcement.”

13%, i.e. 3 out of every 25 guns is not a small percentage.

A small percentage that is not worth talking about is less than 5% to fractional percentages. 13% is rather significant.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -3 points 12 hours ago

Not my argument to defend so I won't.