Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre dodged questions Sunday about whether he would repeal the federal government’s handgun ban, a measure brought in to tamp down on the diversion of legal firearms into the hands of bad actors.

Poilievre hasn’t said much during this campaign about what he would do with the Liberal firearms legislation he voted against while in Parliament, but he has blasted the last government’s “assault-style” firearm buyback program as a “gun grab” that he would scrap.

Gun control advocates say any legislation to curb the flow of firearms is a worthy measure to try and reduce incidents of crime and violence. Firearms rights advocates meanwhile say the Liberal suite of policies only punish lawful gun owners who play by the rules.

    • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.caEnglish
      141·
      4 hours ago

      He wants to play to his base. Canadian licensed gun owners are overwhelmingly not the problem.

      US border porosity is.

      This is a wedge issue. Cons lock up the gun vote which is larger than you think, especially in rural areas.

      The Libs lockup the antigun vote popular in urban areas and especially Québec.

      Both parties have abandoned “good government” policies, with over and under reach respectively while ignoring the real issues.

      If you want to tackle gun crime, that 2 billion Fentanyl Czar and Hellicopter patrol needs to be chasing drugs AND guns. It’s the same people, using sthe same methods. We also need to build more prisons and jails so violent offenders don’t get the “commit another crime while on bail from the last one”.

      Libs and Cons need to stop playing wedge politics and do their duty to grounded, evidence based legislation that doesn’t flip flop and turn innocent gun owners into paper criminals or wastr money buying back legally acquired guns that were never used in crimes or by criminals.

      • sbv@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        41·
        8 hours ago

        Libs and Cons need to stop playing wedge politics and do their duty to grounded, evidence based legislation

        This is the key problem.

        Canadian parties don’t come up with broad, well considered policies to solve a problem. Instead, they have a portfolio of individual policies designed to attract different demographics at election time.

        • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.caEnglish
          11·
          7 hours ago

          Everything increases deaths in Canada. Cars, food, chemicals. Evidence based policy means you tailor the response to the problem. Legal firearms are a fart in a hurricane and doesn’t warrant the disproportionate bans and buybacks while ignoring the real problems of smuggling and crime, especially repeat criminals.

          • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caEnglish
            21·
            6 hours ago

            A whole lot of whatboutism. We should regulate things that are dangerous and not sit on our hands doing nothing. Canada is way better off without guns.

              • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
                11·
                5 hours ago

                Ad-hominem when someone wants to take away your emotional support pistol? Not a good look.

              • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caEnglish
                11·
                6 hours ago

                The evidence shows that gun ownership is positively correlated with more deaths. Your selfish wants does not override everyone’s safety.

                A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state’s poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence.

                Source

                Pathetic response that sounds like a veiled threat.

                • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.caEnglish
                  1·
                  5 hours ago

                  sounds like a veiled threat.

                  No. I want you to go away, for precicely these irrational associations.

                  You cannot compare American gun juggling dipshit society, with Canadian licensing storage and usage regulations and a culture of general safety and collective cohesion.

    • turnip@lemm.eeEnglish
      13·
      1 hour ago

      Well forcing the drug treatment lockup of people addicted to hard drugs would probably do a lot to hurt the gangs that are funded via selling hard drugs. I’m assuming most of the gun crime is gang related violence.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
        3·
        5 hours ago

        lockup of people addicted to hard drugs

        Ah, so addiction is a crime again? I forget whether it’s a disease people want to escape or a crime people want to keep partaking in.

        I know. Jail those who definitely want to get clean and see if we can learn from their autopsies.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      22·
      8 hours ago

      I dislike Poilievre as much as the next Lemmite, but do you have evidence of that?

      He’s clearly a prick whose party has done really well by catering to the concerns of some rural gun owners. It’s pretty easy to say this is a continuation of established CPC fundraising and get-out-the-vote activities.

      It’s possible he wants to increase gun violence, but that’s a pretty strong allegation. Why? What is your evidence?

      • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        7 hours ago

        There are two conflicting positions toward gun ownership in the United States. Proponents of stricter gun control argue that guns are responsible for 32,000 gun-related deaths each year and that the introduction of stricter gun control laws would reduce this death toll. Gun rights advocates argue that the general availability of guns reduces homicide rates, due to deterrence and because guns are effective means of self-defense. Based on a review of the evidence, I draw the following conclusions: Gun prevalence is positively related to homicide rates. There is no evidence for a protective effect of gun ownership. In fact, gun owners have a greater likelihood of being murdered. Furthermore, gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of serious injuries, accidental death, and death from suicide. The evidence on the effectiveness of gun control measures has not been encouraging, partly because the influential gun lobby has successfully prevented the introduction of more effective measures. A federal registration system for all firearms would address many limitations of present gun control measures. To mobilize public opinion, a culture change in attitudes toward firearms is needed.

        Source 1

        It is contended that easier access to small arms increases the likelihood of misuse, on the basis of evidence comparing rates of firearm mortality and availability both between comparably developed countries, contrasting particularly the United States and others, and in different regions of individual countries. For example, firearm mortality is often greater in rural areas than urban. Possible inaccuracies in data collection are considered, but felt not sufficient to account for the finding. Measures to restrict availability such as stricter licensing, regulations governing storage and legally‐imposed ‘gun‐free zones’ may all reduce the death toll. In conflict zones, measures to remove arms post‐conflict reduce subsequent mortality. Breaking the supply chain is also important and the link between supply, demand and the values of a society must be kept in mind.

        Source 2

        This study examines the relationship between firearm availability and national homicide rates. The theoretical and empirical literatures are reviewed, and a cross-national two-stage least squares regression analysis is described. The relationship between a circa 1990 measure of firearm availability and the average 1990–1994 homicide rate is examined across 36 countries. Two-stage least squares regression, which controls for homicide’s effect on firearm availability in addition to a number of other confounding factors, reveals a statistically significant positive effect of firearm availability on national homicide rates. The magnitude of the association is considerable. The observed relationship is found to be insensitive to sample composition. Results also indicate that homicide rates do not influence levels of firearm availability. The limitations of the study and avenues for future research are discussed.

        Source 3

        Background: Between 1979 and 1997, almost 30 000 Americans died from unintentional firearm injuries, half of whom were under 25 years of age and 4600 of whom were less than 15 years old. Purpose: To explore the association between state firearm levels and rates of unintentional firearm deaths by age group, accounting for several potential confounders. Methods: The study used a proxy for firearm availability and pooled cross-sectional time-series data on unintentional firearm deaths for the 50 United States from 1979 to 1997. Negative binomial models were used to estimate the association between firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths. Results: A statistically significant and robust association exists between gun availability and unintentional firearm deaths for the US as a whole and within each age group. Multivariate analysis found that, compared to states with the lowest gun levels, states with the highest gun levels had, on average, 9 times the rate of unintentional firearm deaths. These results hold among men and women, for Whites and African Americans. Conclusion: Of the almost 30 000 people who died in unintentional firearm deaths over the 19-year study period, a disproportionately high number died in states where guns are more prevalent. The results suggest that the increased risk of unintentional violent death among all age groups is not entirely explained by a state’s level of poverty, urbanization, or regional location.

        Source 4

        • sbv@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          11·
          5 hours ago

          Your original comment states that Poilievre wants more gun violence.

          You’ve made an assertion about his personal goals - supporting that requires information about him: either stuff he has said or reliable second hand reports of what he has said.

          • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caEnglish
            1·
            4 hours ago

            Poilievre has acted in favour of loosing gun restrictions leading to an inevitable increase of gun violence. He has done it before, there’s no need beat around the bush on it. Supporting guns is supporting violence period.

            Prior to the election, he told a prominent gun control critic that he will repeal Liberal gun laws.

            “reverse the wasteful multi-billion dollar gun grab that targets our hunters and our sports shooters.”

            Source

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
        31·
        14 hours ago

        If one isn’t afraid of being shot they have never been shot at and can thank strict gun policy for that.

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          5 hours ago

          I’d like to see some of these people who aren’t “afraid of getting shot” and put that to the test! I suspect we’ll all learn something after the first attempt.