Tim Thurley @timthurley

In our new policy paper with @MLInstitute my team shares our research showing that the ASW ban and buyback is unlikely to improve public safety. Federal government should focus funds on community policing and violence interruption. macdonaldlaurier.ca/off-target-eva…

Canadian competitive sports shooters caught in the crosshairs of sweeping federal gun control reforms trib.al/Y0W5FXu

@stphnmaher The data did not show tangible public safety benefits from the registry.

ourcommons.ca/Content/Commit…

The Australian program did no such thing. Data show no statistically significant deviation from the preexisting trend. See page nine of my SECU brief, submitted with @Dr_Langmann, which summarizes the major research on this. It is linked in the next post.

Doug Saunders @DougSaunders

5 months ago

The very fact that most mass shootings are committed using weapons that are or recently were legally owned by someone ought to erase any objection. And I suspect the current horror has, everywhere but flaky margins. Australia’s buyback caused gun deaths to drop by more than 2/3.

63 1 3 9K 1

@stphnmaher @TWilsonOttawa www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-…

Hey guys. This is going to be the most personal update I’ve ever shared publicly. I live in public view — my work does, anyway. I’ve never been shy about sharing my ideas or passions. But I’ve always worked very hard to keep my family out of view. That’s partly for their safety. But also because, despite appearances, I am an intensely private person. The public part of my job is exhausting and often a little frightening. I’m now facing something far more frightening. And I may need your help. Last fall, my wife became very ill. A series of medical tests ruled out the non-scary explanations. Just before Christmas, we were told it was metastatic cancer. She has since undergone urgent surgeries, including successful removal of the primary tumour. She is young, strong, and otherwise healthy, and her recovery so far has been remarkable. Now we are entering a long, grinding phase of this fight — chemotherapy and we hope other treatments — with the goal of getting ahead of this nightmare. We have cause for optimism. The metastasis is real and terrifying, but limited and small. We didn’t catch this “early,” but we may have caught it early by the standards of such things. We have a real shot, and we are determined to fight as hard as we possibly can. Many of you noticed I went completely to ground. This is why. If you are the praying type, we would appreciate your prayers. For those who may be able to offer medical help and options, please reach out — I’m easy to find. I’m assembling an army for her. This is the most important thing I’ve ever done, and I can’t imagine a better use of my energy or my skills. As we settle into a new rhythm, I’m beginning a gradual return to work. Don’t be surprised if you see more thoughts from me about the health-care system. I’ve been amazed and humbled by some of the care we’ve received. I’ve also been shocked and frightened by other parts of the experience. I’ll have more to say about that later. But now I want to talk about my wife. We met when we were 17. We had math class together. I changed my seat so I could look at her. She was stunning. I can still see her in my mind’s eye exactly as she was then. To me, she is as beautiful today as she was at 17. I did, and still do, feel like I’ve been winded when I just look at her. We weren’t high-school sweethearts. Our journey was longer. We didn’t become an official couple until late in university, after a long period of circling each other — trying to understand what to do with a deep friendship that was evolving into something much scarier and more consequential. We made the jump. Not without false starts. Not without fear. But we made it. And my life has been amazing since. Because of her. She is all I have ever wanted. She isn’t perfect. She isn’t easy. Neither am I. We’ve had good times and bad. But she is the absolute foundation of my world. My entire sense of self is wrapped up in her. I don’t know where I end and she begins. Nearly 20 years after we stood in a park and agreed to be together, I am as hopelessly in love with her as I was then. It is a crippling love — more than I contain. I can barely think about it. It just feels like too much when I try. She and our two children are my everything. And I am going to fight for her and for this family with absolutely everything I have. I will never surrender. I can’t. There is no me without her. So that’s the story. Please be patient with me. Please be kind. Pray for us if you can. And help us if you have the power.

"...He is the living refutation of the idea that to be Canadian means having a negative identity, based self-consciously on not being something else."

The Hub @TheHubCanada

8 months ago

.@howardanglin: Don Cherry: The last Canadian thehub.ca/2025/12/13/don…

3 22 91 23K 14

@duchofb_dorothy It has occurred multiple times in multiple countries on the fur side that, whether due to changing societal attitudes or legislation, the animals still need to be trapped for pop management but the pelts are destroyed instead of sold. Waste in the name of animal protection.

Encouraging net numbers for hunting given Canada's highly urbanized society, but I'm so curious about that 9% of people who favour eating meat but disapprove of one of the most ethical and beneficial ways of obtaining it.

Polling Canada @CanadianPolling

8 months ago

Net-Support For: Eating animals: +46% Hunting animals for meat: +28% Keeping animals in zoos/aquariums: -24% Using animals in rodeos: -40% Killing animals for their fur: -62% Hunting animals for sport: -71% Research Co. / Nov 23, 2025 / n=1002 / Online

10 2 57 38K 14

The launch of the ASFCP is delayed until at least January 2026. One small note on an excellent article: we can't determine if the expert panel was an expert panel, since we still have no idea who was on it despite the best efforts of myself and others. nationalpost.com/news/politics/…

@MarkMe60 American gun laws can get surprisingly complex for non-resident non-citizens or part-time residents intending to own guns there. You're better off asking a US-based firearm lawyer about your own personal situation.

The Final report from the Expert Advisory Panel on Firearms came out today. This will be a bit of a long post. The Panel - whose identities and expertise the government refused to disclose, so we can't determine their expertise - examined firearms on the so-called 'gap list'. These were the firearms that Liberals on SECU attempted to prohibit by adding the G4/G46 amendments to C-21, which were eventually withdrawn due to strong disagreement from Committee and Parliament, but which were included in later OICs anyway. The panel seems solely concerned with hunting purposes. They only mention firearms in the context of hunting, and never in defensive or farming use. Sport shooting is ignored where the firearm is used for sport shooting, or dismissed as secondary to public safety needs (no evidence is provided for this), but a firearm's lack of perceived use for sport shooting is used as a reason for a ban when it isn't. They recommend the prohibition of most items on the 'gap list', excluding some rifles - however, they suggest the government consider banning all semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines, all modified semi-autos, and any rifles which fire handgun ammunition. They also recommend prohibition on additional items not on the list, including rotary magazine shotguns. The panel also recommends banning the SKS if it has been modified to accept a detachable magazine. The panel still repeats Kim Campbell's outdated and inaccurate 'assault weapon' language without question and uses 'assault-style' as a term of fact. It's rather odd for an expert panel to use this terminology. The panel recommends that these bans be done by Order in Council. They suggest this as a stopgap while the classification regime (which they obliquely acknowledge that OICs broke in the first place) be simplified. Unfortunately, as expected, they want to do this through expanding prohibitions. The panel repeats the government language that these firearms are particularly dangerous (evidence writ large indicates otherwise). They seem to accept this prima facie. The panel does not cite much evidence for this beyond quoting Kim Campbell and the Mass Casualty Commission. The public report doesn't grapple with whether Canada's system has largely worked (1) (the MCC case used smuggled guns; Kim Campbell spoke prior to the current Firearms Act and both her and Chretien deliberately did not ban these guns). In short: this would be one of the strictest gun control regimes in terms of prohibitions in the Western world, it will expand, and there's no particular evidence in favour of it. However, all the signals are that the government intends to push forward. NB: The panel actually submitted this report last January. It's coming out a year later. 1: It's possible they did grapple with it in another place. Sections of the report are redacted.

So many questions on the RCMP’s troubling firearms report: Why was it done in secret? Why no consultations? What were the qualifications of those who wrote it? What’s hidden in the redactions? And what intentions do they have in their next attack upon our law-abiding firearms communities? Grateful to catch up with Teri Bryant, my dear friend and Alberta’s Chief Firearms Officer, on defending the rights of all our legal firearms owners. publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblc…

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

'Assault-style' and 'buy back' are used as neutral descriptors. They're not. (3/3)

The recommendations aren't PSC's (though PSC chose the panel). PSC has adopted some of them; they banned some guns on the list last March. The government 'must' not complete the ASFCP by October. They have options, from the good (repeal) to neutral (delay) to bad (many). (2/3)

There is indeed much wrong with this article. Parliament isn't evaluating the SKS; it was done anonymously, behind closed doors. Parliament was instrumental in getting the government's previous SKS ban in C-21 withdrawn, but the government seems to want another outcome. (1/3)

Terry Newman @terrynewman

8 months ago

Rise in "masculinist" discourse? Equating Andrew Tate with Charlie Kirk. @CTVMontreal has no idea what they're writing about ctvnews.ca/montreal/artic…

24 22 193 10K 3

Here is the list of conditions under which such an order can be made, provided a minister has the power under 12(1).

"...Prime Minister Mark Carney plans to grant cabinet ministers the power to exempt any individual or company from any federal law on the books — except for the Criminal Code — for up to six years." thestar.com/politics/polit…

parl.ca/DocumentViewer…

It's about halfway through Bill C-15 under "Exemptions to Encourage Innovation, Competitiveness or Economic Growth".