this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
102 points (98.1% liked)

Canada

9105 readers
1961 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

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

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. 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.

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
102
Gun control activist and Polytechnique massacre survivor Nathalie Provost to join Mark Carney’s team: report | CityNews Montreal (montreal.citynews.ca)
submitted 3 days ago by rabber@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

Damn. I really thought Carney would scrap this horrible gun buyback program citing sensible economic policy.

This could be such an easy win. All the data shows that law abiding gun owners aren't the problem. Stop the flow of illegal weapons from the states. Educate people on guns and encourage people to get their PALs should be the approach. I'm a gun dude and would even support stricter gun training if it helps weed out the crazies.

Really weird hill to die on.

Doubling down on this when we our sovereignty is threatented is just straight bonkers. You bet PP will make this a main talking point and it could really snowball.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago

I'm generally liberal but I've never really felt the need for increased gun controls or bans.

I'm okay with most of our gun policies -- fully automatic weapons and handgun bans make sense to me.

But I don't think legal gun owners in Canada are enough of a problem to really worry about.

We also have strict laws about storing and transporting guns. I would be all for better gun training, but frankly everyone I've met who was into guns was also VERY into gun safety. Gun owners seem like they care a lot about not getting their guns banned, and behave accordingly.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How did you get all that from the article? It was very short, am I missing something?

The only thing I read there is "person is running for this riding with this party".

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (3 children)

What else does she bring to the table other than gun activism? That's clearly what she's there to push

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

She won the nomination vote at her local EDA? That's all that becoming a candidate means.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

Competence maybe? The EDA supported her, so she clearly has something going for her.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Technically, she should be representing the needs of her riding. Kind of sad when a politician only runs on one issue, I hope that is not the case and that ridding gets a good representative.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago

There's nothing in the article stating that she's only running on one issue. She's worked as an activist, but the article doesn't really talk about her goals.

[–] Lulzagna@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I never agreed with the Liberals plans to ban so many guns that are clearly not intended for violence. The liberals were really transparent during their second campaign about it, and it's what the people voted for so I was accepting of it... But I don't own guns, so it's an easy pill for me to swallow.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

You might wish you have a gun though the way things are going. Tons of non gun people at my work are signed up to get their PALs after this annex talk.

Someone correctly said individual gun owners don't have much impact in war but I'd still much rather have one when shit hits the fan.

And I think a lot of liberal voters hate their stance on guns. I vote libs just because they're still so much better than the conservatives.

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

3 months ago, i was very much in the very few people need a gun camp. Me and a buddy in the same camp just started the process.

I still don't think a lot of people out there should have them, but those of us not batshit should be getting ready.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

If the PAL process was more strenuous you would weed out almost all the crazies. People who want to shoot people aren't interested in going through a gun safety program haha

[–] ragepaw@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

I know a gun owner who should not have one. He legit scares me, and i know one day he's going to pop off. However, to date, being an incel creep with despicable ideas isn't enough to prevent him from owning. He follows every rule and law while gleefully fantasizing about the day he can finally use his stockpile against the evil pedo Liberals in government and at the CBC.

He should not have a gun, but there is no legal reason to prevent him from having one.

[–] bowreality@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

I did mine about 7 years ago and I didn’t find it easy or quick. It took two full days of proper (theoretical and handling guns - no shooting) training and the tests were not easy. Maybe there is difference where or who puts them on but my brain was smoking lol. I passed with flying colours, so did my friend (we were both the only females). We were the two with the highest scores in the room. Several didn’t pass! I am a bit fuzzy on the number but I would say 7ish out of 40ish?! One was there for the second time and didn’t pass. The other one had tried several times before and never passed. The instructors were talking between them after they failed and left and I overheard.

Absolutely agree that criminals don’t care about gun safety and the proper paperwork. Neither for themselves nor for the guns.

[–] UnderFreyja@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be able to do anything with their "consumer" gun if we get invaded...

[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Training is what we need to promote - and broader training than just weapons usage and safety.

I don’t have a firm enough position on gun control to want it costing us money right now, but that mainly opens me up to accepting whatever position is most politically expedient. I'll take bad gun control laws over a PP government every time, and I think you might have a sheltered view on what position is most popular.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Maybe. I'm on Vancouver Island where shooting is very ingrained in the culture. Our guns are tools more than weapons.

I think majority of city people have a sheltered view of guns and that's why this garbage ass policy ever even seen the light of day. The libs who made the policy obviously have zero understanding of the "gun problem". This policy has seemingly no effect on gun violence.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

You comment is very confusing. I understand not supporting the gun restrictions introduced in the last 5 years, but why would you oppose the buyback program? If the government makes a citizen's property illegal to own, they should compensate the citizen.

All the data shows that law abiding gun owners aren’t much of the problem.

FTFY. Also, the issue (generally) isn't gun owners, it's their guns that get stolen, misused, etc.

Doubling down on this when we our sovereignty is threatented is just straight bonkers.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Individual gun owners have no impact on preserving our sovereignty. Modern militaries are on a different level than "A well regulated Militia" or whatever other 2A BS this is.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Because it's a waste of money. My taxes will have to pay for this.

No one is using legally attained weapons to kill people. Spend the money on stopping guns coming across the border instead, and on better gun training programs. IMO it's actually too easy to obtain a PAL and that should be made more strenuous.

They plan on shipping the bought back guns to Ukraine which is also super embarassing. That would be a logistical nightmare. There's a reason why armies use a standardized rifle/ammo haha. What is Ukraine going to do with my now illegal semi auto .22?

Restricting weapons just props up the illegal market on them.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No one is using legally attained weapons to kill people.

The problem is, they are using legally attained weapons to kill people.

And every time they do, the news makes sure that it is described, and politicians use it as an argument for more restrict control and weird rules.

They do that because it is easy, and it does not alienate their base and lobbyists. It does not mean it will solve the problem in the long term.

Not so long ago, they banned a tamagotchi because thieves were using 15K USD devices to unlock cars.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the last time a legal weapon killed people was the 1989 montreal one?

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

Montreal was a big one. I think the last big mass shootings were all smuggled from the USA, or stolen from the police (Nova Scotia 2020).

I meant murder with guns in general. It feels like there is always a pundit saying the weapon being black, or having a handgun handle increases lethality… and red makes it faster, more dakka. It feels it is more for economic reasons (block competition) than to solve any real problem.

There is this one in 2022, it is not as big, but the guy killed multiple people with legal handguns. https://siu.on.ca/en/directors_report_details.php?drid=2360

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Modern militaries are on a different level than "A well regulated Militia" or whatever other 2A BS this is.

Uh... Afghanistan would like to object?

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

If you're talking about the Taliban, I'd argue they are a full-blown military which just wasn't attached to an internationally recognized government for ~2 decades. They had professional soldiers and equipment which would way out-class even the most intense private militia in the US.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago (3 children)

And switzerland but I guess they all have military training.

[–] bowreality@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

And are armed!!

[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The training is what we need to promote, for sure.

I don't have a firm enough position on gun control to want it costing us money right now.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would actually support mandatory basic training. As long as they don't make me cut my hair. Lol

[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ditto on both points. I'm genuinely struggling with the prospect of having to shorten my beard if I joined the reserves. I've been working for years to train/develop it into a distinctive style and I'm not even there yet.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

My hair is almost down to my ass and I wouldn't cut it for any reason lol

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Do you prefer the Switzerland bureaucracy than ours?

Also, not sure how that helped them with…

/Check notes on the Switzerland wars./

Afghanistan war.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well more like nobody dares attack switzerland because it would be impossible. Everyone has a bunker and an assault rifle and they know how to use it.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

They are also very friendly with everyone, try to stay neutral, and more important, hold the key to a lot of money.

But they did not achieve that just by giving people guns, they teach it in schools, hold shooting competitions, lots of bureaucracy, and you can be charged for improper use of your equipment. Their society is not as divided, and they also have good support for their citizens.

Looking around the world, the places that controlled gun violence well either banned or added more bureaucracy. But it appears that people prefer to go the Australian way.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sorry, I don't follow, care to explain, please.

Wasn't the equipment and training they got to resist many invasions over the century, always from external groups? As far as I know, Afghani gun laws are very restrictive and bureaucratic.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I was responding to the idea that militias with low-power guns only can't resist a foreign military.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not really sure where you read that statement, it was not what you quoted.

But I don't know of a nation that allows civilians to buy the equipment Afghanis used to resist Russia or USA.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not really sure where you read that statement, it was not what you quoted.

It is. It literally says "well regulated militia".

But I don't know of a nation that allows civilians to buy the equipment Afghanis used to resist Russia or USA.

Admittedly I don't know what equipment they used, so can you give examples?

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, just infantry, we are talking about rocket launchers, anti-tank grenade launchers(RPG famously), LMG, manpads. Then you have things you can mount on a truck, then you have vehicles itself...

You also have support from other countries and people, sharing resources, and intelligence. You do not resist USA or Russian with just a bunch of minutemen with walmart weapons. Even harder if they do not care for civilian lives.

You might have some success disrupting some logistics in the partisan life, but not without a considerable support from modern military and allies.

well regulated militia

I might be wrong, but that person's argument seems to be about the individual owner's paper on preserving our sovereignty, independent of the calibre size.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah, just infantry, we are talking about rocket launchers, anti-tank grenade launchers(RPG famously), LMG, manpads. Then you have things you can mount on a truck, then you have vehicles itself...

So admittedly I know next to nothing about this stuff, but you can make RPGs if you're dedicated. The IRA did it. IEDs will also get you pretty far.

I might be wrong, but that person's argument seems to be about the individual owner's paper on preserving our sovereignty, independent of the calibre size.

By low-power I meant things you can get legally, so not sniper rifles and shit.

You also have support from other countries and people, sharing resources, and intelligence. You do not resist USA or Russian with just a bunch of minutemen with walmart weapons. Even harder if they do not care for civilian lives.

You might have some success disrupting some logistics in the partisan life, but not without a considerable support from modern military and allies.

The Irish and Algerians did it.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Modern militaries are on a different level than “A well regulated Militia” or whatever other 2A BS this is.

.22 will be useless and they start shelling us.

I feel like anyone LARPing or dreaming with military campaign would be better served by practicing with RC planes and drones, tanking cool pictures, breathtaking videos, or just doing cool aerial tricks.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I'm an experienced drone pilot and that's how I would plan to contribute.

The Canadian Rangers use tikka t3x rifles which we can still legally buy. In the event of war you probably want something that can fire 7.62 NATO as that will be the ammo which is distributed.

Canada is mostly wilderness. A bolt action rifle still has a place in your pack. It is reliable and simple. Lightweight.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

My 80yo father-in-law has some drones, he will be more useful than me, I should probably save for a good one and start practicing.

Found some tikka t3x on the used listing here, I was trying to find their brochure to see which model they recommend for conversion to 7.62, I imagine a .308 Win would work.

[–] bowreality@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And he is not going to win over any rural people with this. Damn. I was hoping he is handling this a bit smarter.

[–] rabber@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I convinced my redneck cousin to vote for Carney until he saw this headline. For the simpler folk the gun policies are their biggest issue.

[–] bowreality@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago

I am hearing some people starting to talk about Carney in a positive way here in Alberta. We are rural and lots of farmers. This is not going to fly. It’ll be over with them before he even gets going. Such a shame.

[–] PandaParent@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago

Just because she’s running for the liberals doesn’t mean that Carney (or anyone else) shares her position on gun control. They have to field candidates in every riding. There will always be some who don’t agree with every stance a leader takes.