But first…
Following the terrible tragedy in Tumbler Ridge, questions about gun control will inevitably surface, as they often do after a mass shooting.
Canada’s largest mass shooting was in Nova Scotia in 2020. The gunman acquired three of his five weapons by smuggling them into Canada from the United States.
Nevertheless, after the shooting, the Trudeau government quickly announced a ban on more than 1,500 “assault-style” firearms, claiming they have no purpose other than causing harm to communities.
This October is the deadline to turn those guns in. The government says it’s earmarked $250 million to compensate gun owners, but the total cost, including administration and destroying the seized weapons, is estimated to be $1.8 billion.
Is it money well spent? More importantly, will it actually help prevent more shootings? The breakdown is below.
-Neil Malik
Photo via Scalia Media, Shutterstock
Remove the guns, reduce the risk
Back in 2020, when the ban on more than 1,500 models was first announced, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said “there is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada,” drawing a clear line between traditional sporting firearms and weapons capable of rapid, high-casualty fire.
It’s missing the target
Most of the guns being used in everyday shootings are being smuggled from the United States and illegally possessed. Meanwhile, the people most likely to step forward and turn in their firearms are “the most law-abiding” ones.
That raises a big question. Is this policy targeting the people most likely to cause harm, or the people most likely to follow the rules?
In other news
Air Transat is suspending all flights to the U.S. this spring (Montreal Gazette)
TELUS CEO Darren Entwistle is retiring after 26 years in the role, to be replaced by a former CIBC chief executive (Yahoo)
What it’s like wearing a bushel of grass in Bad Bunny’s halftime show (CBC)
And in case you missed it, here’s a link to the previous story breaking down Danielle Smith’s demands that Alberta gets more say in the selection process for judges
Where do you stand?
In our last issue, we asked if Danielle Smith’s demands for more say over judges was a good or bad idea.
The results:
Good idea: 17%
Bad idea: 83% ✅
Today’s question is:
We’ll publish the results in our next issue.
Stay strong, Tumbler Ridge 💛