Gun control is one of those ideas pushed by many of the same people who claim to be the champions of the poor. It’s amazing to me how often those denigrating the wealthy and calling for more effort to help the poor, then take on positions that negatively impact those very same poor people.
The coronavirus pandemic in the US has been accompanied by soaring gun sales attributed to fears around social unrest and crime and, in some cases, people having more time for hunting.
But now ammunition has fallen into short supply.
Manufacturers say they are producing as much as they can but in many gun stores shelves are sparse and prices are concurrently rising.
In May 2020, Prime Minister Trudeau issued an Order-In-Council immediately outlawing more than 1,500 makes and models of “military-style assault weapons,” which would be confiscated in due course. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s recent estimate, it will cost between $47 million and $756 million to compensate or “buy back” now-banned firearms from legal owners. The wide range and higher estimate contrasts with estimates made in February by federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair who said compensation costs would be between $300 million and $400 million.
Growing up in a decidedly left-wing household, I was lectured on a regular basis about the dangers and evils of firearms and the horrible kinds of people who own them. This despite the fact that my father kept a .22 rifle hidden in the basement. Granted, a .22 does not pack the firepower of most other guns, but on rare occasions when he thought he could get away with it, my dad would take me out plinking with the admonition that I keep it on the sly, since my mother would have, shall we say, “registered her disapproval.” Very adamantly.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said his new Justice Department is focusing on five American cities to tackle illegal gun trafficking. On Thursday, while in Chicago, the official announced he’s sending gun trafficking strike forces to the Democrat-led cities of Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco and Washington D.C.
They’re going to say guns used in crimes in Democrat run cities are supplied by GOP run areas and demand gun control there.
In response to sharp increases in violent crime, President Biden stressed again last week that his administration is focused on “stemming the flow of firearms used to commit violent crimes.” But critics warn that this “guns first” approach ignores a basic fact—about 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms.
Although firearms were used in about 74% of homicides in 2019, they comprise less than 9% of violent crimes in America.
The vast majority of violent offenses—including robberies, rapes and other sex crimes—almost always involve other weapons or no weapons at all.
When Justin Trudeau banned 1,500 popular firearm variants with the stroke of a pen last year, then introduced a bill that would severely curb legal handgun usage, he said in no uncertain terms that sport shooters would not be affected. That simply is not true.
The term “buyback” isn’t just a loaded term in the gun world, it’s a misnomer. It implies that guns were someone else’s first and that the entity holding the buyback is simply buying them back. That’s generally not the case. However, the term gets used whenever a government offers money for guns. It’s the term the Canadian government is using for their efforts and they’re far from the first to use it.
Biden had announced the concept of the red flag rule in April and directed the Department of Justice to publish a model rule within 60 days. At the time, Biden called on Congress to pass “an appropriate national ‘red flag’ law,” but said the White House will move forward with gun control policy “whether Congress acts or not.”
A new study suggests otherwise.
Gun sales in the U.S. exploded last year, first when the Covid-19 pandemic reached our shores and again when the death of George Floyd set off a wave of protests and violence in cities. Some commentators maintain that these sales in fact fueled the violence—a theory that fits nicely with some advocates’ preexisting priorities. President Biden and his team have been especially eager to turn the conversation about the abrupt crime spike into a conversation about guns and gun dealers.
On May 1 2020 the Canadian Liberal Government announced an Order In Council (OIC) firearms prohibition. As part of this order the Government implemented an amnesty period (ending April 30 2022) to allow legal firearms owners the time necessary to become compliant with the new law. They also announced that they would introduce a buy-back program for the legal firearms owners affected by the OIC.
Since the mention of the buy-back program, there have been many questions around how much this federal buy-back would cost Canadians. Well, as of June 29 2021, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has finally released their report on what they estimate the cost of this program to be. Spoiler alert, it’s not cheap. They’re estimating a cost that ranges between $47 million to $756 million.
Here we go again. Ottawa’s budget watchdog is on the trail of another big taxpayer boondoggle in the making with the federal government’s latest gun policy.
In a unanimous vote Tuesday night that is certain to be challenged by advocates for gun rights, the San Jose City Council passed ordinances to require every gun owner to buy liability insurance coverage for their firearms. Gun owners would also be required to pay a fee to compensate taxpayers for the emergency medical and police responses to gun-related injuries and deaths.
OTTAWA — The parliamentary budget officer says it could cost the government $756 million to buy back guns now prohibited in the country, depending on how many there are in Canada and how the Liberals structure the program.
The high-end buyback figure is the budget officer’s estimate for how much it would cost for the government to buy back every gun that the industry estimates is owned across Canada.
Biden detailed a gun control proposal that that would outlaw “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines as Democrats continue to endorse the “Defund the Police” movement.
“Talk to most responsible gun owners they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds in a magazine,” said Biden during remarks on Wednesday, reiterating his opposition to high-capacity magazines.
In response to critics who say this is a violation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights, Biden responded, “We’re not changing the Constitution. We’re enforcing hit,” he stated, shortly after meeting with law enforcement officials.
