XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: yourdime@outlook.com   
      
   More than three years have passed since Canada’s Prime Minister Justin   
   Trudeau announced a ban and mandatory confiscation (“buyback”) of what he   
   called “military grade assault weapons,” which was followed by a national   
   handgun “freeze” and other gun control measures.   
      
   We’ve tracked these developments as a matter of interest for our members   
   and other readers. Today, we’ll examine recent articles by Canadian   
   commentators on how they view these measures and what they perceive will   
   be the real impact on crime, public safety, and the ultimate costs.   
      
   The 2020 Orders-in-Council criminalized thousands of makes, models and   
   “variants” of firearms, including ordinary semi-automatic firearms used   
   for hunting and sport shooting. Owners of these lawfully acquired but now-   
   prohibited firearms may continue to possess (but generally cannot use)   
   their property until the amnesty expires on October 30, 2023. A government   
   website is clear that, “[w]hen the Amnesty period ends, individuals and   
   businesses [that] remain in possession of prohibited firearms or devices   
   may be subject to criminal liability.” In the meantime, how the government   
   will implement the “buyback” remains TBA.   
      
   In June, Gage Haubrich, the prairie director for the Canadian Taxpayers   
   Federation (CTF), wrote an opinion piece in the Financial Post titled, New   
   Zealand’s gun buyback suggests Ottawa’s won’t work. The CTF has   
   consistently opposed Trudeau’s ban and buyback scheme as yet another   
   pointless waste of public money, noting that the “government still hasn’t   
   told taxpayers how much the gun buyback will cost.” Haubrich uses the 2019   
   government confiscation of firearms in New Zealand and the existing   
   (limited) cost estimates for Trudeau’s gun grab as the basis for   
   recommending that the federal government “scrap the gun ban and buyback.”   
      
   New Zealand initially budgeted $16 million (in Canadian dollars) for just   
   the implementation of the “buyback,” which ended up costing almost twice   
   that amount. Compensation payments added a further $106 million to the   
   bill, working out to a per-firearm price of about $1,800. (Keep in mind   
   that Canada’s population is eight times that of New Zealand’s and it is   
   geographically 37 times larger.) Another factor affecting the bottom line   
   is the federal government’s track record on costing-out gun control:   
   Canada’s failed long-gun registry was initially estimated to cost $2   
   million, but the final price tag was $2.7 billion, suggesting that a   
   sizeable suspension of disbelief is warranted in relation to an official   
   estimate of the “buyback” cost of $756 million (which excludes any   
   administrative expenses).   
      
   Given that the proffered justification for the ban and “buyback” is to   
   “keep Canadians safer,” the New Zealand experience is illustrative here as   
   well. Haubrich writes that after guns were taken away from law-abiding New   
   Zealanders, violent gun crime in that country increased significantly. The   
   “decade before the buyback[,] violent firearm offences averaged 932 a   
   year. In 2019, the year of the buyback, there were 1,142 offences; in   
   2020, 1,156; in 2021, 1,338; and last year, 1,444. That’s up almost 55 per   
   cent over the pre-ban decade.” If anything, this squares with the warnings   
   of Canada’s National Police Federation, describing the ban and “buyback”   
   law as not only ineffective to curtail crime, gangs, and the illegal use   
   of firearms, but “divert[ing] extremely important personnel, resources,   
   and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of   
   criminal use of illegal firearms.”   
      
   Another critical aspect of the economics of the ban and “buyback” was   
   analyzed by the Fraser Institute. Federal government plans to confiscate   
   $4 billion worth of private property via gun ban (July 21, 2023) by Gary   
   Mauser (Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University), observes that the   
   crackdown on responsible gun owners and “campaign by the Trudeau   
   government to disarm Canadian civilians” has “rendered valueless more than   
   $4.0 billion of private property from law-abiding Canadians while   
   simultaneously bankrupting hundreds of small businesses.”   
      
   Besides the mandatory buyback, Mauser points to another Trudeau gun   
   control law announced last year. A “national freeze” that prohibits sales,   
   purchases, and transfers (including through inheritance) of almost all   
   handguns, and that requires their surrender without compensation when the   
   owner dies, “effectively renders approximately one million legal firearms   
   (valued at more than $1.0 billion) worthless.”   
      
   The overall result is that the government “has essentially erased the   
   value of more than $4 billion worth of private property (i.e. firearms) by   
   ordering its confiscation. Property that was legally owned and used now   
   must be forfeited to the government to purportedly ‘reduce gun violence,’   
   but none of the owners have been accused of a violent act. Nor were any   
   likely to commit a violent crime.”   
      
   Moreover, these measures have grave and likely irreversible financial   
   consequences for firearm-related businesses. “[M]ore than 4,500 small and   
   medium-size businesses, which employ more than 40,000 people, are now   
   stuck with large amounts of inventory that are suddenly illegal for them   
   to sell or export. These businesses can’t absorb such losses; many will   
   need to cut jobs or close their doors. The Canadian Sporting Arms and   
   Ammunition Association estimates the economic loss at between $900 million   
   and $1.06 billion.” Yet another casualty of these government actions is   
   fish-and-game clubs, which face “severe financial pressure because they   
   rely on target sports for much of their income.”   
      
   What makes all this even more disastrous – as Mauser sets out in detail –   
   is that none of these measures are likely to make Canadians any safer.   
   Studies have shown that higher gun prevalence levels do not cause higher   
   crime or homicide rates, and “peer-reviewed research shows that previous   
   legislation prohibiting the possession and acquisition of certain firearms   
   made no discernable impact on the rates of homicide, spousal homicide or   
   suicide in Canada or other countries.” Canadians are required to have a   
   valid Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) to purchase a firearm, and   
   “be vetted by the RCMP and checked daily for any violation through the   
   ‘continuous eligibility screening’ program.” PAL holders are   
   “exceptionally unlikely” to be murderers – moose, as Mauser points out   
   elsewhere, kill more Canadians than licensed gun owners.   
      
   Another indicator Mauser cites is the homicide rate in America. Despite   
   increases in licensed carry and constitutional carry in the U.S., the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)