The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Canada enacts new gun laws

by Lynde Langdon
Posted 5/01/20, 07:14 pm

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on Friday an immediate ban on the sale and use of semi-automatic rifles. He said Parliament would work out the details of a two-year grace period for gun owners, but noted, “Effective immediately, it is no longer permitted to buy, sell, transport, import, or use military-grade, assault weapons in this country.”

Why the strong stance? Trudeau cited numerous mass shootings in the country, including the rampage that killed 22 people in Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19. Two of the guns used by the suspect in that shooting are among the banned weapons. The list includes 1,500 models and variants of rifles such as the AR-15. Opposition Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer accused the prime minister of using the “immediate emotion of the horrific attack in Nova Scotia to push the Liberals’ ideological agenda.”

Dig deeper: Read Onize Ohikere’s report in The Sift on a similar weapons ban in New Zealand after the 2019 mass shooting at mosques in the city of Christchurch.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Lynde Langdon

Lynde is a WORLD Digital's managing editor. She is a graduate of World Journalism Institute, the Missouri School of Journalism, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Lynde resides with her family in Wichita, Kansas. Follow Lynde on Twitter @lmlangdon.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • OldMike
    Posted: Sat, 05/02/2020 02:44 pm

    Searching the internet for Canadian mass killings, it appears very few were committed by the guns Trudeau is banning. Yes, one killing is too many. But when politicians enact this type of ban, they are only pretending they care about the issue of mass killings.  Probably, then, the issue they actually are attacking is a certain type of gun they personally don't like.  This makes for bad policy. 

    I went back about 50 years, to the late 60's, looking for mass killings in Canada. In many accounts the type of gun used is not specified. Several killings did have the info that handguns or hunting rifles or shotguns were used. In 3 mass killings with 21 deaths, an axe, a knife, and a van were used. In at least 2 mass killings, both guns and knives were used.

    And several of the mass killings involved gang wars, or someone killing his family members. Since the mass killings most of us fear are somewhat random acts, where there is little or no prior connection between killer and victims, I generally consider family, gang, and similar killings to be in a different category. 

    All in all, I think Trudeau is playing to his liberal base and making a political statement.  He is not taking a particularly effective measure to deal with mass killings.  In fact, the proof of his political motivation  is in Trudeau's mis-statement, that "military grade" firearms are being banned.  It has been 50 years since most military rifles were the semi-autos Trudeau is targeting. 



  • Neil Evans
    Posted: Sun, 05/03/2020 11:09 am

    I don't know for sure, but I assume that there are thousands of people in Canada killed in alcohol related incidents.  If they actually care about preventable deaths where are the bans on alcohol and other evils, like abortion?  Anti-gun laws will be as effective at stopping criminal gun deaths as anti-drunk driving laws are at stopping drunk driving deaths.

  • mel
    Posted: Sun, 05/03/2020 09:59 pm

    There's a saying: bad guys with guns are stopped by GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS [aka Jack Wilson (].

  •  West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Sun, 05/03/2020 11:42 pm

    Yay Canada!!

  • OldMike
    Posted: Mon, 05/04/2020 11:45 pm

    Anyone who believes that having no guns is the true path to safety must post a prominent sign outside their front door saying "THIS IS A GUN-FREE HOME!" or they are hypocrites.  

    If one says, "I couldn't do that!  Advertising I have no guns will make me a target for thieves," they are admitting that the realization a homeowner might have guns causes criminals to hesitate.  In other words, even those who don't have guns are made safer by the fact that many of us do.  

    And I'm not even going to touch on the fact that a dictatorship can much more easily oppress a people who have no means of replacing an evil government by force, which is our responsibility according to the primary documents of the founding of our Nation. Oops, guess I just did touch on it.  

    But, we are not the people of resolve who fought to gain our Nation's freedom over two hundred years ago.  A great many place personal comfort over civic responsibility.  Truly sad. 

    You might check to see if Canada allows immigration.

  • Allen Johnson
    Posted: Tue, 05/05/2020 01:22 pm

    I have a .22, shotgun, and 30.06 for hunting and varmints that might get into our chicken coop. However, I own no weapons. How can that be? Because of intent. 
    The purpose of assault weapons is to kill people. Not hunting. And not a lot of target practicing unless one wants to shell out big bucks for bullets. 
    I find it sad that many who profess to be followers of Jesus seem to disregard His teachings and lifestyle on violence, retribution, and self-defense.

  •  West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Tue, 05/05/2020 02:45 pm

    There's no way in the world that civilians need AR-15's and other weapons' grade semi-automatics. If all such guns were outlawed, then one would know immediately who the outlaw is--the guy with the army weapon of mass murder. I saw the photo of demonstrators armed with "long guns" in front of the door to their rep's government office. Anyone who thinks this is normal, or a good thing, has really been in the soup pot far too long. They've not noticed that the water is boiling. A semi-automatic weapons' grade filled America is not the America I want. Notice, "guns" does not equal semi-automatic military weapons. I salute Canada for still having the clear vision needed to perceive this.

  • OldMike
    Posted: Thu, 05/07/2020 06:21 pm

    I own a few old military surplus rifles, dating from the 1870's to the 1960's. And I also own civilian semi-auto replicas of modern military rifles, that only look like the full-auto rifles issued to modern armies.

    But it's a hobby.  I do not have homicidal designs on my neighbors, persons of other races/ethnicity, or members/supporters of the liberal political parties. Even though I consider some of their policies to be foul and murderous. 

    My particular interest in military rifles comes from a sense of kinship and respect between myself and all others who took an oath and placed themselves in danger between their Nation and forces who wished to destroy it. The technology is also very interesting to me, as firearms changed over the decades. 

    I also occasionally hunt, and sorry Mr. Johnson, but you telling me what is suitable or not suitable for my hunting is ignorant and inappropriate. You say there is no way one can hunt with an AR-15. That is as ridiculous as if I told you, "you may not own certain kinds of cars, because the only people that drive those cars are people who drink and drive." 

    By the way, since you claim that by your "intent" your firearms cannot be called weapons, that also applies to those I own. However, if someone came in my home or my grandchildren's home with the apparent intent to do them harm, I would use firearms to defend my family if necessary. Are you saying you would not?  And why would you imply that those who own certain types of guns are not really followers of Jesus?  Isn't that kind of  Pharisaical?

    Now, West Coast Gramma, as I said, my guns are simply a hobby.   I have no idea what your hobbies might be, but let's just say your hobby is tennis.  I know nothing about tennis or tennis rules. But from now on, I will be telling you what you may or may not do, how you and your opponent will score, etc., while you are in the tennis court. Ridiculous? Indeed. Or let's say your hobby is cross-stitch. I know nothing about cross-stitch, but presuming those needle points are deadly, I convince Congress to pass a ban on all needles 1" or more in length.  No doubt you would have some quarrel with that.  Similarly, I find it offensive that you presume to tell me what I "need," or exactly how I may enjoy a hobby which you do not like or have any knowledge of.  

    All that aside, let me explain quite plainly something I and many millions of your fellow Americans believe in, strongly enough to fight about it. Something I sometimes refrain from saying around people who disagree:  

    There is a Supreme Authority over all men, and that is the Lord of Creation. For Americans, next in the chain of command is the U. S.  Constitution.  Third is the current government. Did you get that?  The Constitution has authority over any of us including government officials. Any official, elected or appointed, who takes action in opposition to the United States Constitution is no longer a legitimate authority in this Nation. I and millions of others will support and uphold the Constitution before we obey those who have violated the oath of office they took to uphold and defend the Constitution. 

    In the past few years, some of our officials have taken actions, or even passed laws which I think are in violation of the Constitution, but which I expect would actually have to be decided by the Supreme Court. One of those is Obamacare, with its mandate that one must buy insurance or pay fines. Another might be some of the "transgender protection" laws which are infringements on the rights of other people.

    But concerning the 2nd Amendment, there is no question some laws have infringed upon it, and the Supreme Court has agreed in several cases. Keeping in mind those infringements, plus the beliefs of a lot of anti-gun people that every gun owner is actually hoping for opportunities to kill: is it not remarkable that we have somehow managed to restrain ourselves from outright open warfare?  Could it be we are more level headed and decent than we are sometimes given credit for?  

    As for whether a majority in this Nation want to ban some or all guns, just passing laws that violate the Constitution does not work.  There is a correct way, and that way is to change--amend--the Constitution.  Convince enough of your fellow Americans to get that done, and I will obey it. 

    But restraint in the face of offense has its limits, as one of the Founding Fathers said.