We've heard a lot about crassly opportunistic politicians exploiting low-info voters. I wonder how many of Canada's urbanites would be surprised to realize that this time, that means them.
This is a useful analysis, particularly for someone like me who both has no interest in owning a gun and doesn't really have a strong opinion about gun ownership. In some ways, I think this policy is aimed a disinterested people like me -- on the surface it seems like the government is doing something about gun crime, which is both in the news in the US and in Canada as the NS murder revelations come out. It's not something I care a lot about, but I'm sure they are banking on people like me nodding -- "well, they are addressing gun crime ..." and having a vague, positive impression.
But, your analysis makes me think of the government's equally odd approach to regulation in the digital realm, which again seems aimed at something people recognize is an issue (misinformation, upheaval in domestic news industries, etc) yet seems to come up with policy that doesn't really solve the problem (and potentially creates a bunch of new problems). But, hey, they're "doing something."
It's all feeling like the real problems we face are complicated and will takes years to solve so politicians of all stripes are left looking for initiatives that have the appearance of action without really solving anything. We need to keep calling this out until they are incentivized to focus on stuff that matters!
Nice piece. Although, while ostensibly about guns and regulations, it strikes me as really a commentary on our democratic politics and its dysfunctional, if not, irrational animating logic. The antidote to low-info voters may be higher-info observers willing to expend the necessary energy. Long piece writing platforms like Substack may be filling a void left by the thinning ranks of mainstream news rooms. The issue then becomes how to influence the wider discourse. Thanks.
"… a commentary on our democratic politics and its dysfunctional, if not, irrational animating logic."
The bullshit from the Liberals is all bromides and teddy-bear hugs. The Conservatives’ bullshit is fervid outrage.
But they both know their constituents. If you’re mad as hell and aren’t gonna take it anymore, then Pierre Poilievre is your guy. If sanctimonious virtue-signalling is more your style, then cosy up to Justin for a nice big hug.
Some friggin’ choice. If “crassly opportunistic politicians are exploiting low-info voters”, it’s because our media no longer keep us well-informed, and our leaders long ago stopped caring about actually leading.
I am amazed at the lack of knowledge on the regulations surrounding gun ownership in this country, by not just the citisens, but those that lobby the Government for change. How is it one can lobby the Government to bring in change or new laws when they have no idea what is already in place. Either they can not be bothered to research the problem or are purely ignorant of what guns are causing the problem and where they come from. Even worse this Government acts on the words of the ignorant when they have already been informed of the reality of the situation. They know what they are doing only harms the legal gun owner and does nothing what so ever to stop the criminals. Its what makes those who do know the rules and regulations even more angry. This happens with almost everything from the purposeful destruction of the energy sector to the decimation of our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its ignorance that destroys democracies and humanity, not gun ownership, not climate change, not the Governments attacks on our Rights and freedoms but the publics ignorance of what it is these regulations, laws, and rules actually consist of. That leads to the Governments purposeful, divisive, demonization, of those that do know what these documents, regulations, and laws entail and mean to the rights of all citisens, and who are willing to stand up against it. Suddenly those who know better become the enemy.
Think about what Matt is really saying here though. The anger is part of the GOAL. You're not going to vote for Trudeau no matter what right? So then rather than spend energy trying to win your support, he can push you far enough that your anger gets red hot and then turn to his urban base and say "See? I told you these racist homophobic gun nuts are crazy! Vote for me, send me money and I'll keep protecting you from the crazies!"
This is the same strategy as abortion. They can solve, forever the abortion question. The courts are onside and the majority of Canadians would be fine with enshrining abortion rights once and for all. But if it's an open question, he can tweak the social conservative's nose about it any time he wants, and when their anger goes red hot, he wins again!
He JUST won an election (and he was losing REALLY badly up until this point) because a bunch of anti-mandators threw rocks in his general vicinity. He doesn't even follow masking guidelines consistently, he doesn't care. But as soon as all mandates are gone (like travel restrictions), then he knows those anti-mandators will creep back into the woodwork. As long as ANY restrictions exist, he knows he can tweak noses at any time, and then point to the vicious backlash as proof that the conservatives are all knuckle-dragging selfish bigots who want your immune deficient children and grandparents to die so that they can eat in a restaurant without a mask.
Climate Change - the liberals have been gaslighting on this one for decades. But they never actually do anything meaningful. EVER. We’re actually at a point where many LPC members have retired on MP pensions to flit about the world with a second career, pulling in big consulting $$ for hanging out with the same crew they did nothing about the environment with for decades. They've imposed a carbon price that is ever increasing, but without any requirement that they ever show the efficacy of that carbon price. In fact, it's actually impossible for the "carbon tax" to have ANY contribution to reducing climate change because Canada's emissions are essentially nothing. All it was really ever meant to do was a) generate a war chest so that they have some money they can continue to write novelty checks for green causes from and b) draw a line between "progressive" political leaders and (regressive) ones. Viewed in that lens, it actually all makes sense. We're not just post-modern, we're post-government. Their aim isn't good government, it's the appearance of good government, and the ability to draw a line in the sand and say "everyone on the other side of this line is a terrible person".
And the Conservatives are playing their part dutifully. Each nose tweak is responded to with the correct amount of vitriol and social media gotchas. And in the absence of any real information from the government, they’re more than happy to take some of the conspiracy theories that only exist in the fringe and bring them into the mainstream – because it gets attention and eventually, the Liberals will go too far, be too cynical, and PP will strike.
Just wanted to say that this is a really great comment, and I say that as someone who tends to vote Liberal. The dividing tactics of the federal Liberals upset me almost as much as populist rhetoric in the Conservative party. I try not to despair about the path we’re on, but it’s hard, especially when I see how easily people around me fall for the messages on both sides.
One of the things I love about the comments section on The Line is that people seem to "listen" without judging. I feel smarter when I read the comments here - lots of people contributing whatever knowledge (or opinion in my case) they have, but not in a smarmy, get one over on you kind of way. So much of social media (and mainstream media) has turned into an echo chamber serving to galvanize instead of bridging the gap. I'm happy if you feel that my opinion may have provided that feeling for anyone :) cheers!
I agree. The fact that Trudeau lowered the manditory minimum for the very criminals that are caught breaking the law with guns, be it robbing, raping, or bringing illegal guns into the country, proves that. It also proves how uninformed and gullible people are when he tells them he is freezing legal hand gun ownership to keep Canadian's safe. Its absolutey laughable.
I would have have thought you would be against mandatory minimum sentences as many consider them unconstitutional. Criminals will continue to be sentenced for committing crimes.
Until there is severe punishment for committing a crime with a gun and double that with an illegal gun there will be no change in crime rate. No one is afraid of the big bad wolf is he isn't really big and bad.
Agreed. Add 5 years to every sentence for smuggling, and 10 years to every sentence for using a gun in a crime. It won't fix a lot, but might make a few people think.
I was SO looking forward to this article MG - you are the king on a few topics and this is one of hem. I saw an obviously thrown together article on CTV.ca about how much of a problem handguns are becoming and thought "hey, Trudeau must have handgun legislation ready to drop". My second thought was "I can't wait to see MG's take on this!"
Absolutely nailed it. This whole charade is a screen door on a submarine. Looks pretty, but is useless. Canada's gun issue is the border...pure and simple. There is no reasonable solution; monitor with drones with heat seekers? Action for the appearance of action that accomplishes nothing isn't leadership......something that is already in very short supply in this government.
I wonder if the Liberal party has pondered the possibility that whomever the CPC picks as a leader might be the next PM simply because the Trudeau brand is so broken? AKA...the Wynee treatment.
This seems like extremely short term thinking on the part of the Liberals. Gun violence seems to be getting worse. The Liberals are telling us that they're doing something to fix the problem, but are really just rearranging deck chairs. Won't they be exposed as incompetent when the gun violence continues to get worse?
Or that will merely justify another round of even tighter regulations on guns. Never underestimate the capacity of politicians to keep doubling down on failed policy, or the inability of their supporters to recognize the failure.
Ed. I agree that it feels like gun crime is getting worse. I live in Calgary so cannot speak more broadly.
But I think the point here is that gun crime is not getting worse by citizens who are law abiding and buy legally and then become murderers. Gun crime is getting worse by owners of illegal weapons/criminals. Coming up with policy that makes it harder for the law abiding citizens who want a firearm is not the answer.
This is about getting tougher on crime, improving border controls to stem the flow of illegal firearms into Canada, becoming more efficient at convicting criminals, improving our social cohesion and fostering more connected families so fewer kids go down the wrong path, etc. And this means more police who have more capacity to deal with these issues.
So now I segue into a related discussion - is defunding the police a good idea to achieve these aims and reduce gun crime? Our woke Calgary mayor thinks so but I call BS. how about the rest of you?
Gun owning centre left leaning guy here. Yes it's a tenuous political identity.
Heavily regulated handgun hobbyists contribute almost nothing to gun crime directly, and very little indirectly. I make allowances indirectly for thefts of legal handguns and slippage from legal commerical transactions into the black market. These are small contributions to gun crime in our country. The only credit I give to the law is that it is slightly harder to smuggle when there is no legal importation. You can't fudge customs paperwork or file off the serial number of a legally imported gun. However, in a wide open free trade regime, this is very close to putting a screen door on a submarine as another commenter said. The guns will slip in.
I take issue with one fundamental argument Matt makes, that unless government fully solves a problem it has identified, it is craven political showmanship. The law as I understand it puts a generational prohibition on handguns. They can't be transferred, presumably only surrendered to your local police station when your estate is settled, if not before then.
This is a rational execution of politics by edging toward a policy goal rather than confronting it head on. This incrementalism is a way of dosing your foul tasting medicine a drop at a time to the affected constituency, in this case handgun hobbyists. We can call it chickenshit, but politicians are sometimes wise to enact change incrementally. The alternative risks actual violence in the streets.
I see the trucker protest as a direct analogy. The government took away truckers licenses to operate if they weren't vaxxed (yes there are nuances here but this is not the place). The marginal benefit to public health of these specific citizens being vaccinated was arguably low given their solitary careers. But by threatening to seize their means of income, we had a severe protest that could have gotten much more violent. It also got co-opted into a much dumber broad based protest.
Likewise, with handguns, the marginal benefit to society of prohibition would be low. But seizing them would animate rural Canadians to take to the streets in another movement that would risk political violence.
In my view, Matt is absolutely right in the totality of his argument, politicians will be craven sometimes, but being chickenshit on implementing a handgun ban over decades, not months, could actually save us all from a massive wave of protest and violence nobody wants.
There's part of the public that simply regards guns as something evil, and can't see any valid reason for private ownership. That's a big part of the audience for Liberal gun control legislation.
Like all Canadians I am sickened by the attacks using assault weapons in the US. I cannot speak to the legislation as I’m not familiar with it. I do know that I am glad the Canadian discussion right now is focused on bans rather than reflect the horrible US circle of 1. Assault 2. Thoughts and prayers 3. Argue about gun ownership
The US has a sick relationship with weapons - if Canadians can avoid that through discussion and reviewing all criticisms seriously - we will be the better for it.
"I cannot speak to the legislation as I’m not familiar with it. I do know that I am glad the Canadian discussion right now is focused on bans" - that's our problem in a nutshell.
Canada would be a better place if people instead said things like "I don't know what I am talking about, so I won't express an opinion".
I imagine you are a well-educated, white-collar, urbanite.
I think everyone must be allowed to voice an opinion, but I think it would be great if that were coupled with an individual self-reflection on whether one knows enough to have an interesting opinion. I have done my homework on Covid, and so express myself on it frequently. On Canadian gun policy, my knowledge is lacking, so I am very happy to let Matt educate me.
Not that long ago you suggested to me that covid results in Montana and Alberta were parallel, even though they followed different restriction protocols. I responded, comparing what actually happened in the two places. As you classify yourself as an expert, perhaps you can take this opportunity to explain the significant differences between Alberta and Montana which I pointed out at that time.
And, strictly speaking, I classify myself as someone who has done enough homework to have an interesting opinion. "Expert" is widely misused in the Covid debate.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the nearly identical pattern of ebbs and flows in Covid cases are caused by lockdown and mask policy? Did they really all have the same pattern of lockdown and mask policy, except that AB and SK were laxer than all the Americans in the spring of 2021, when they both had bigger bumps than the Americans? Come on.
Your observation about patterns is a superficial truism. Everyone agrees that pandemics occur in wave patterns whether or not restrictions are in place. That does not, however, mean that restrictions cannot make a significant difference. I invite you to revisit the comparison which I made and explain both the significant differences between the two locations and the correlations between the implementation of restrictions and the drop in covid numbers.
Harsh! She has expressed an opinion -- a fear of being in a similar situation that the US finds itself in regarding gun crime. That fear, I'd argue, is what drives a LOT Of debate on this file in Canada.
FWIW, I lived in Toronto for a bit over a decade. When gun crime spilled over into areas I sometimes frequented -- a shooting in the middle of the day in the Eaton Centre food court comes to mind -- for sure, that hits home. As someone with little interest in owning guns and a sense of forboding that there is a possibility someone I care about might get shot going about their day-to-day business (even if it remains a statistically remote possiblity) I fully understand this dynamic. Disregard it as the musings of a "well-educated, white-collar urbanite" all you like, but understanding it is how we get to better public policy.
In my case, my own fear reaction was/is somewhat balanced by an observation that public policy borne from fear and specific instances tends to not be well thought out!
When their entire licensing program was established many years ago the Canadian State criminalized every person who owned a firearm. If you’re a good citizen you get a “get out of jail card” good for five years or until you die when they come and take your property away from your heirs unless they jump through the required hoops. Tinkering at the edges with various objects and arcane regulations creating new subsets of paper criminals does not change the fundamental basis of the program. The majority - mostly uninformed urbanites -through their choice of elected representatives has decided that millions of deplorables living in fly-over country are unCanadian, somehow unworthy, and need to be watched over to ensure that they don’t stray too far from the barracoon. Any police contact is cross matched daily against the register of firearms licensee, and if a gun license holder moves he/she/it must notify the RCMP within 10 days for the lifetime of their license validity . Even convicted child molesters are only subject to this requirement for a limited time.
I agree in principle with this and other posts. However, perhaps being pedantic, you can deflate your argument with an inaccuracy. I was surprised with the molester comparison and checked the RCMP website. Convicted sex offenders must inform the RCMP within 7 days of moving. I do note however that molesters have an end date to their reporting responsibility, while gun owners reporting is permanent (while they still own).
Thank you for the correction will amend my post if I can find it.. Certainly from my discussions with people in Canada gun owners are considered a lower form of life than child molesters. Also there are CPIC daily checks for potential gun ownership of any police contacts. Not sure if child molesters are so included.
I wonder where you are hanging out that your discussions are gun owners are a lower life form than child molesters. Hyperbole. And one has nothing to do with the other.
Your millions of deplorable in fly-over country are in the States, not Canada. And you should be aware that we now have these things called computers. They hold databases of just about anything linked to anything you can imagine at the press of a key. They even know how many barracoons there are in any given neighbourhood and how many children are in them.
Do the regs about 10 notification days anger you because of the child molesters?
I’m sorry if my use of US analogies offends you or invalidates anything I wrote- it fits what I have perceived in discussions with Canadian urbanites since the 1960s when this regulatiory empire was started.
In my view Canadian politicians and bureaucrats suffer from what I would describe as “penis envy” of the US and unthinkingly adopt US solutions to US problems as soon as they can be translated into the other official language. Whether the problem exists in Canada is immaterial. Canada’s set of gun control regulations followed the US gun control act to a tee.
Part of the issue IMHO is that Canada with its cold civil war between French and English and all the other frictions still seems to lack a unifying vision. But calling themselves “not Americans” is something enough Canadians agree and define themselves with. And since Americans have the second amendment and Canadians don’t it’s a no-brainer for politicians to affirm their Canadian-ness by being seen as picking on gun owners. The statistics that more Canadians have guns than play hockey. and that huge resources are expended on vetting them, and that it does not seem to prevent tragedies, is immaterial IMHO
My discussions with Canadian urbanites have 90-% favored child molésteles over gun owners. And sorry if my use of US analogies offends you it certainly describes the attitude of Canadian urbanites I know to gun owners. I have been a gun owner since way before this regulatory empire started and.there were no issues then nor are there now in my view which you are free to disagree with vAnd I am b not aware of pieces of paper that have stopped madmen and madwomen from carrying out their actions.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people" Well, no shit.
We want mandatory safety courses for people not guns.
We want more background checks of people, not guns.
We want stricter negligence penalties on people, not guns.
If you are stupid enough to think we are pissed at guns, you are too stupid to own one.
Meme 2019, El Paso, Texas, 23 dead, 22 wounded. 21 yo white man said he wanted to “stop the Hispanic invasion of Texas”, in a Walmart no less. Texas Gov. Abbott (R) originally expressed sympathy and anger at "hateful ideologies". Two years later Abbott has passed a permitless carry bill. Texans are now allowed to carry handguns without permits or training.
But hell, who remembers El Paso? Or any of the others.
Criminals don't care about these bans and it won't stop them getting their greasy mitts on weapons, either. More LPC uselessness and wasting tax dollars to come. Quell surprise.
Great article. Don’t own a gun and never will. But I have no problems with responsible people having them and using them appropriately.
Brilliant politics, terrible public policy. Go after a “relatively” small group of individuals – lawful and responsible gun owners – in order to court a demographic the Liberals need to hold onto to remain in power – the "well-educated [sic] white-collar urbanites".
The Liberals know exactly where all the legal and registered handguns are (including Matt’s) thanks to the gun registry so they probably have a pretty good idea of what ridings the owners live in, and what their political leanings are (and I know that there are gun owners across the political spectrum).
But the Liberals have done their math, and have targeted a small group of law abiding individuals who probably live in ridings the party has written off anyway. And they have done this to target their base in the big cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.
I am willing to bet that the next step is to ban semi-automatic handguns (maybe leaving an exception for .22 cal) and institute a mandatory buyback as they are now pledging to do with the “assault style weapons”. But they will do this later, because they will want the press coverage generated from such an announcement during the next election campaign.
They take this approach with Covid vaccine mandates too - 12+ vaccination status by public health unit in Ontario varies from 84% to 97%, boosted from 51% to 71%. Targeting a "small group of law-abiding individuals" works wonders, as long as your base hates/fears/dislikes them enough.
I wouldn't make it through the first layer of vetting, even if I was stupid enough to try. A life in politics seems like the worst possible use of my time. Less money to see my kids less and accomplish less. Great idea, Blackrobe, I'll be sure to mull it over.
At some point and time the Liberal Gov't is going to have to admit that the vast majority of shootings in Canada are done by handguns smuggled into Canada from the United States. This Government will never be accused of shooting themselves in the foot. If they attempted to shoot themselves in the foot, they would miss.
Another reason why this is pure politics is that this was done in response to sth that didn't even happen in Canada. It has always bothered me that events in USA have such an outsized influence on the Canadian politicians and media's narratives and actions. (Think Roe v Wade recently).
This is a useful analysis, particularly for someone like me who both has no interest in owning a gun and doesn't really have a strong opinion about gun ownership. In some ways, I think this policy is aimed a disinterested people like me -- on the surface it seems like the government is doing something about gun crime, which is both in the news in the US and in Canada as the NS murder revelations come out. It's not something I care a lot about, but I'm sure they are banking on people like me nodding -- "well, they are addressing gun crime ..." and having a vague, positive impression.
But, your analysis makes me think of the government's equally odd approach to regulation in the digital realm, which again seems aimed at something people recognize is an issue (misinformation, upheaval in domestic news industries, etc) yet seems to come up with policy that doesn't really solve the problem (and potentially creates a bunch of new problems). But, hey, they're "doing something."
It's all feeling like the real problems we face are complicated and will takes years to solve so politicians of all stripes are left looking for initiatives that have the appearance of action without really solving anything. We need to keep calling this out until they are incentivized to focus on stuff that matters!
Nice piece. Although, while ostensibly about guns and regulations, it strikes me as really a commentary on our democratic politics and its dysfunctional, if not, irrational animating logic. The antidote to low-info voters may be higher-info observers willing to expend the necessary energy. Long piece writing platforms like Substack may be filling a void left by the thinning ranks of mainstream news rooms. The issue then becomes how to influence the wider discourse. Thanks.
"… a commentary on our democratic politics and its dysfunctional, if not, irrational animating logic."
The bullshit from the Liberals is all bromides and teddy-bear hugs. The Conservatives’ bullshit is fervid outrage.
But they both know their constituents. If you’re mad as hell and aren’t gonna take it anymore, then Pierre Poilievre is your guy. If sanctimonious virtue-signalling is more your style, then cosy up to Justin for a nice big hug.
Some friggin’ choice. If “crassly opportunistic politicians are exploiting low-info voters”, it’s because our media no longer keep us well-informed, and our leaders long ago stopped caring about actually leading.
Ahh...but will our low-info voters read and believe our media? Which media? What will you do if FB is the go-to for all your friendly "news"?
Crassly opportunistic pols have always been with us. The nice thing about democracy is eventually they leave one way or another.
I am amazed at the lack of knowledge on the regulations surrounding gun ownership in this country, by not just the citisens, but those that lobby the Government for change. How is it one can lobby the Government to bring in change or new laws when they have no idea what is already in place. Either they can not be bothered to research the problem or are purely ignorant of what guns are causing the problem and where they come from. Even worse this Government acts on the words of the ignorant when they have already been informed of the reality of the situation. They know what they are doing only harms the legal gun owner and does nothing what so ever to stop the criminals. Its what makes those who do know the rules and regulations even more angry. This happens with almost everything from the purposeful destruction of the energy sector to the decimation of our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its ignorance that destroys democracies and humanity, not gun ownership, not climate change, not the Governments attacks on our Rights and freedoms but the publics ignorance of what it is these regulations, laws, and rules actually consist of. That leads to the Governments purposeful, divisive, demonization, of those that do know what these documents, regulations, and laws entail and mean to the rights of all citisens, and who are willing to stand up against it. Suddenly those who know better become the enemy.
Think about what Matt is really saying here though. The anger is part of the GOAL. You're not going to vote for Trudeau no matter what right? So then rather than spend energy trying to win your support, he can push you far enough that your anger gets red hot and then turn to his urban base and say "See? I told you these racist homophobic gun nuts are crazy! Vote for me, send me money and I'll keep protecting you from the crazies!"
This is the same strategy as abortion. They can solve, forever the abortion question. The courts are onside and the majority of Canadians would be fine with enshrining abortion rights once and for all. But if it's an open question, he can tweak the social conservative's nose about it any time he wants, and when their anger goes red hot, he wins again!
He JUST won an election (and he was losing REALLY badly up until this point) because a bunch of anti-mandators threw rocks in his general vicinity. He doesn't even follow masking guidelines consistently, he doesn't care. But as soon as all mandates are gone (like travel restrictions), then he knows those anti-mandators will creep back into the woodwork. As long as ANY restrictions exist, he knows he can tweak noses at any time, and then point to the vicious backlash as proof that the conservatives are all knuckle-dragging selfish bigots who want your immune deficient children and grandparents to die so that they can eat in a restaurant without a mask.
Climate Change - the liberals have been gaslighting on this one for decades. But they never actually do anything meaningful. EVER. We’re actually at a point where many LPC members have retired on MP pensions to flit about the world with a second career, pulling in big consulting $$ for hanging out with the same crew they did nothing about the environment with for decades. They've imposed a carbon price that is ever increasing, but without any requirement that they ever show the efficacy of that carbon price. In fact, it's actually impossible for the "carbon tax" to have ANY contribution to reducing climate change because Canada's emissions are essentially nothing. All it was really ever meant to do was a) generate a war chest so that they have some money they can continue to write novelty checks for green causes from and b) draw a line between "progressive" political leaders and (regressive) ones. Viewed in that lens, it actually all makes sense. We're not just post-modern, we're post-government. Their aim isn't good government, it's the appearance of good government, and the ability to draw a line in the sand and say "everyone on the other side of this line is a terrible person".
And the Conservatives are playing their part dutifully. Each nose tweak is responded to with the correct amount of vitriol and social media gotchas. And in the absence of any real information from the government, they’re more than happy to take some of the conspiracy theories that only exist in the fringe and bring them into the mainstream – because it gets attention and eventually, the Liberals will go too far, be too cynical, and PP will strike.
Hold on tight folks!
Just wanted to say that this is a really great comment, and I say that as someone who tends to vote Liberal. The dividing tactics of the federal Liberals upset me almost as much as populist rhetoric in the Conservative party. I try not to despair about the path we’re on, but it’s hard, especially when I see how easily people around me fall for the messages on both sides.
One of the things I love about the comments section on The Line is that people seem to "listen" without judging. I feel smarter when I read the comments here - lots of people contributing whatever knowledge (or opinion in my case) they have, but not in a smarmy, get one over on you kind of way. So much of social media (and mainstream media) has turned into an echo chamber serving to galvanize instead of bridging the gap. I'm happy if you feel that my opinion may have provided that feeling for anyone :) cheers!
I agree. The fact that Trudeau lowered the manditory minimum for the very criminals that are caught breaking the law with guns, be it robbing, raping, or bringing illegal guns into the country, proves that. It also proves how uninformed and gullible people are when he tells them he is freezing legal hand gun ownership to keep Canadian's safe. Its absolutey laughable.
I would have have thought you would be against mandatory minimum sentences as many consider them unconstitutional. Criminals will continue to be sentenced for committing crimes.
Until there is severe punishment for committing a crime with a gun and double that with an illegal gun there will be no change in crime rate. No one is afraid of the big bad wolf is he isn't really big and bad.
Agreed. Add 5 years to every sentence for smuggling, and 10 years to every sentence for using a gun in a crime. It won't fix a lot, but might make a few people think.
I was SO looking forward to this article MG - you are the king on a few topics and this is one of hem. I saw an obviously thrown together article on CTV.ca about how much of a problem handguns are becoming and thought "hey, Trudeau must have handgun legislation ready to drop". My second thought was "I can't wait to see MG's take on this!"
Great analysis!
Absolutely nailed it. This whole charade is a screen door on a submarine. Looks pretty, but is useless. Canada's gun issue is the border...pure and simple. There is no reasonable solution; monitor with drones with heat seekers? Action for the appearance of action that accomplishes nothing isn't leadership......something that is already in very short supply in this government.
I wonder if the Liberal party has pondered the possibility that whomever the CPC picks as a leader might be the next PM simply because the Trudeau brand is so broken? AKA...the Wynee treatment.
I hadn't heard "This whole charade is a screen door on a submarine." expression before. Good one. Thx.
You're welcome. "Sharp as the leading edge of a bowling ball" also has many applications. :)
Is it broken among his supporters, though? I'll bet they are lapping this up.
I would think it would make the Cons donate.
Those aren't who he needs to win an election. He'll get his 30%. That and a nickel will get you a nickel :)
Ah, but they'll donate to the cause.
Nonsense policy has worked well for them on Covid. Why wouldn't it work for guns?
This seems like extremely short term thinking on the part of the Liberals. Gun violence seems to be getting worse. The Liberals are telling us that they're doing something to fix the problem, but are really just rearranging deck chairs. Won't they be exposed as incompetent when the gun violence continues to get worse?
Or that will merely justify another round of even tighter regulations on guns. Never underestimate the capacity of politicians to keep doubling down on failed policy, or the inability of their supporters to recognize the failure.
Ed. I agree that it feels like gun crime is getting worse. I live in Calgary so cannot speak more broadly.
But I think the point here is that gun crime is not getting worse by citizens who are law abiding and buy legally and then become murderers. Gun crime is getting worse by owners of illegal weapons/criminals. Coming up with policy that makes it harder for the law abiding citizens who want a firearm is not the answer.
This is about getting tougher on crime, improving border controls to stem the flow of illegal firearms into Canada, becoming more efficient at convicting criminals, improving our social cohesion and fostering more connected families so fewer kids go down the wrong path, etc. And this means more police who have more capacity to deal with these issues.
So now I segue into a related discussion - is defunding the police a good idea to achieve these aims and reduce gun crime? Our woke Calgary mayor thinks so but I call BS. how about the rest of you?
Gun owning centre left leaning guy here. Yes it's a tenuous political identity.
Heavily regulated handgun hobbyists contribute almost nothing to gun crime directly, and very little indirectly. I make allowances indirectly for thefts of legal handguns and slippage from legal commerical transactions into the black market. These are small contributions to gun crime in our country. The only credit I give to the law is that it is slightly harder to smuggle when there is no legal importation. You can't fudge customs paperwork or file off the serial number of a legally imported gun. However, in a wide open free trade regime, this is very close to putting a screen door on a submarine as another commenter said. The guns will slip in.
I take issue with one fundamental argument Matt makes, that unless government fully solves a problem it has identified, it is craven political showmanship. The law as I understand it puts a generational prohibition on handguns. They can't be transferred, presumably only surrendered to your local police station when your estate is settled, if not before then.
This is a rational execution of politics by edging toward a policy goal rather than confronting it head on. This incrementalism is a way of dosing your foul tasting medicine a drop at a time to the affected constituency, in this case handgun hobbyists. We can call it chickenshit, but politicians are sometimes wise to enact change incrementally. The alternative risks actual violence in the streets.
I see the trucker protest as a direct analogy. The government took away truckers licenses to operate if they weren't vaxxed (yes there are nuances here but this is not the place). The marginal benefit to public health of these specific citizens being vaccinated was arguably low given their solitary careers. But by threatening to seize their means of income, we had a severe protest that could have gotten much more violent. It also got co-opted into a much dumber broad based protest.
Likewise, with handguns, the marginal benefit to society of prohibition would be low. But seizing them would animate rural Canadians to take to the streets in another movement that would risk political violence.
In my view, Matt is absolutely right in the totality of his argument, politicians will be craven sometimes, but being chickenshit on implementing a handgun ban over decades, not months, could actually save us all from a massive wave of protest and violence nobody wants.
There's part of the public that simply regards guns as something evil, and can't see any valid reason for private ownership. That's a big part of the audience for Liberal gun control legislation.
Three silly sentences.
Like all Canadians I am sickened by the attacks using assault weapons in the US. I cannot speak to the legislation as I’m not familiar with it. I do know that I am glad the Canadian discussion right now is focused on bans rather than reflect the horrible US circle of 1. Assault 2. Thoughts and prayers 3. Argue about gun ownership
The US has a sick relationship with weapons - if Canadians can avoid that through discussion and reviewing all criticisms seriously - we will be the better for it.
"I cannot speak to the legislation as I’m not familiar with it. I do know that I am glad the Canadian discussion right now is focused on bans" - that's our problem in a nutshell.
Canada would be a better place if people instead said things like "I don't know what I am talking about, so I won't express an opinion".
I imagine you are a well-educated, white-collar, urbanite.
You raise an interesting point Mark. Can only experts in a field voice an opinion?
If that were true, it certainly would have interesting ramifications re the discussion on Covid.
I guess I have been called worse things than well-educated, white-collar and an urbanite.
I think everyone must be allowed to voice an opinion, but I think it would be great if that were coupled with an individual self-reflection on whether one knows enough to have an interesting opinion. I have done my homework on Covid, and so express myself on it frequently. On Canadian gun policy, my knowledge is lacking, so I am very happy to let Matt educate me.
Individual self-reflection. That's your prerequisite to interesting opinions?
Not that long ago you suggested to me that covid results in Montana and Alberta were parallel, even though they followed different restriction protocols. I responded, comparing what actually happened in the two places. As you classify yourself as an expert, perhaps you can take this opportunity to explain the significant differences between Alberta and Montana which I pointed out at that time.
And, strictly speaking, I classify myself as someone who has done enough homework to have an interesting opinion. "Expert" is widely misused in the Covid debate.
Thanks for reminding me. It was too much trouble to address on my phone. Here I tweeted Covid case charts for MT, ND, SD, AB and SK - all the prairies. https://twitter.com/ChMark161/status/1531750514492424193
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the nearly identical pattern of ebbs and flows in Covid cases are caused by lockdown and mask policy? Did they really all have the same pattern of lockdown and mask policy, except that AB and SK were laxer than all the Americans in the spring of 2021, when they both had bigger bumps than the Americans? Come on.
Your observation about patterns is a superficial truism. Everyone agrees that pandemics occur in wave patterns whether or not restrictions are in place. That does not, however, mean that restrictions cannot make a significant difference. I invite you to revisit the comparison which I made and explain both the significant differences between the two locations and the correlations between the implementation of restrictions and the drop in covid numbers.
Harsh! She has expressed an opinion -- a fear of being in a similar situation that the US finds itself in regarding gun crime. That fear, I'd argue, is what drives a LOT Of debate on this file in Canada.
FWIW, I lived in Toronto for a bit over a decade. When gun crime spilled over into areas I sometimes frequented -- a shooting in the middle of the day in the Eaton Centre food court comes to mind -- for sure, that hits home. As someone with little interest in owning guns and a sense of forboding that there is a possibility someone I care about might get shot going about their day-to-day business (even if it remains a statistically remote possiblity) I fully understand this dynamic. Disregard it as the musings of a "well-educated, white-collar urbanite" all you like, but understanding it is how we get to better public policy.
In my case, my own fear reaction was/is somewhat balanced by an observation that public policy borne from fear and specific instances tends to not be well thought out!
When their entire licensing program was established many years ago the Canadian State criminalized every person who owned a firearm. If you’re a good citizen you get a “get out of jail card” good for five years or until you die when they come and take your property away from your heirs unless they jump through the required hoops. Tinkering at the edges with various objects and arcane regulations creating new subsets of paper criminals does not change the fundamental basis of the program. The majority - mostly uninformed urbanites -through their choice of elected representatives has decided that millions of deplorables living in fly-over country are unCanadian, somehow unworthy, and need to be watched over to ensure that they don’t stray too far from the barracoon. Any police contact is cross matched daily against the register of firearms licensee, and if a gun license holder moves he/she/it must notify the RCMP within 10 days for the lifetime of their license validity . Even convicted child molesters are only subject to this requirement for a limited time.
I agree in principle with this and other posts. However, perhaps being pedantic, you can deflate your argument with an inaccuracy. I was surprised with the molester comparison and checked the RCMP website. Convicted sex offenders must inform the RCMP within 7 days of moving. I do note however that molesters have an end date to their reporting responsibility, while gun owners reporting is permanent (while they still own).
Thank you for the correction will amend my post if I can find it.. Certainly from my discussions with people in Canada gun owners are considered a lower form of life than child molesters. Also there are CPIC daily checks for potential gun ownership of any police contacts. Not sure if child molesters are so included.
I wonder where you are hanging out that your discussions are gun owners are a lower life form than child molesters. Hyperbole. And one has nothing to do with the other.
Your millions of deplorable in fly-over country are in the States, not Canada. And you should be aware that we now have these things called computers. They hold databases of just about anything linked to anything you can imagine at the press of a key. They even know how many barracoons there are in any given neighbourhood and how many children are in them.
Do the regs about 10 notification days anger you because of the child molesters?
I’m sorry if my use of US analogies offends you or invalidates anything I wrote- it fits what I have perceived in discussions with Canadian urbanites since the 1960s when this regulatiory empire was started.
In my view Canadian politicians and bureaucrats suffer from what I would describe as “penis envy” of the US and unthinkingly adopt US solutions to US problems as soon as they can be translated into the other official language. Whether the problem exists in Canada is immaterial. Canada’s set of gun control regulations followed the US gun control act to a tee.
Part of the issue IMHO is that Canada with its cold civil war between French and English and all the other frictions still seems to lack a unifying vision. But calling themselves “not Americans” is something enough Canadians agree and define themselves with. And since Americans have the second amendment and Canadians don’t it’s a no-brainer for politicians to affirm their Canadian-ness by being seen as picking on gun owners. The statistics that more Canadians have guns than play hockey. and that huge resources are expended on vetting them, and that it does not seem to prevent tragedies, is immaterial IMHO
I'm not the least bit offended. It just seems to me that your entire argument is little more than clichés and weird claims.
Maybe you agree with Ted Cruz who wants to ban doors in schools?
My discussions with Canadian urbanites have 90-% favored child molésteles over gun owners. And sorry if my use of US analogies offends you it certainly describes the attitude of Canadian urbanites I know to gun owners. I have been a gun owner since way before this regulatory empire started and.there were no issues then nor are there now in my view which you are free to disagree with vAnd I am b not aware of pieces of paper that have stopped madmen and madwomen from carrying out their actions.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people" Well, no shit.
We want mandatory safety courses for people not guns.
We want more background checks of people, not guns.
We want stricter negligence penalties on people, not guns.
If you are stupid enough to think we are pissed at guns, you are too stupid to own one.
Meme 2019, El Paso, Texas, 23 dead, 22 wounded. 21 yo white man said he wanted to “stop the Hispanic invasion of Texas”, in a Walmart no less. Texas Gov. Abbott (R) originally expressed sympathy and anger at "hateful ideologies". Two years later Abbott has passed a permitless carry bill. Texans are now allowed to carry handguns without permits or training.
But hell, who remembers El Paso? Or any of the others.
Republicans be crazy.
Criminals don't care about these bans and it won't stop them getting their greasy mitts on weapons, either. More LPC uselessness and wasting tax dollars to come. Quell surprise.
Life’s short. Good decision.
Great article. Don’t own a gun and never will. But I have no problems with responsible people having them and using them appropriately.
Brilliant politics, terrible public policy. Go after a “relatively” small group of individuals – lawful and responsible gun owners – in order to court a demographic the Liberals need to hold onto to remain in power – the "well-educated [sic] white-collar urbanites".
The Liberals know exactly where all the legal and registered handguns are (including Matt’s) thanks to the gun registry so they probably have a pretty good idea of what ridings the owners live in, and what their political leanings are (and I know that there are gun owners across the political spectrum).
But the Liberals have done their math, and have targeted a small group of law abiding individuals who probably live in ridings the party has written off anyway. And they have done this to target their base in the big cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.
I am willing to bet that the next step is to ban semi-automatic handguns (maybe leaving an exception for .22 cal) and institute a mandatory buyback as they are now pledging to do with the “assault style weapons”. But they will do this later, because they will want the press coverage generated from such an announcement during the next election campaign.
They take this approach with Covid vaccine mandates too - 12+ vaccination status by public health unit in Ontario varies from 84% to 97%, boosted from 51% to 71%. Targeting a "small group of law-abiding individuals" works wonders, as long as your base hates/fears/dislikes them enough.
For goodness sakes Matt just run for the conservative party already it is clear you have drank from many of their glass bottom tankards.
I wouldn't make it through the first layer of vetting, even if I was stupid enough to try. A life in politics seems like the worst possible use of my time. Less money to see my kids less and accomplish less. Great idea, Blackrobe, I'll be sure to mull it over.
At some point and time the Liberal Gov't is going to have to admit that the vast majority of shootings in Canada are done by handguns smuggled into Canada from the United States. This Government will never be accused of shooting themselves in the foot. If they attempted to shoot themselves in the foot, they would miss.
Another reason why this is pure politics is that this was done in response to sth that didn't even happen in Canada. It has always bothered me that events in USA have such an outsized influence on the Canadian politicians and media's narratives and actions. (Think Roe v Wade recently).
Because the powers that be in actions believe the US is the real country that matters.