Compensation is not guaranteed. Budgeted $248.6 million for 136,000 firearms which is only enough to cover the cost all previous AR-15 style Restricted Firearms and roughly ~15k previous Non-Restricted firearms.
The declaration portion of the program is set to start Monday, January 19th to March 31st with letters/emails sent to PAL holders.
Not once mentioned the NS shooting in 2020 which sparked this program but instead kept bringing up Polytechnic which occurred 30 years ago.
Gary cannot pronounce Ruger.
Assured we would be labelled as criminals if we choose to not participate in this “voluntary” program.

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

IIRC the NS shooter used unregistered firearms, prolly why the bastards didn't mention it.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Those firearms never came from the legal Canadian market to begin with. These measures would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the shooting.

Also from what I can see there is no guarantee of payment for participating in the program. Even those who are willing to turn anything in will be extremely hesitant to send anything in without guarantee of payment.

And finally, if anyone turns in their firearm or receivers, I strongly recommend that you crush the lowers in a vise or cripple them in such a way that they cannot be made usable again. If anything makes my blood boil more than the waste of public funds this thing is, it is the idea of POS criminals stealing from the post office and getting their irresponsible hands on a functional firearm.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

His firearms were illegally smuggled in from the US. One gun he got was done through a fuckup by the RCMP who didn't bother taking it away. He was the executor of someone's estate and that person owned a firearm. Despite not having the permits and being forbidden from owning a gun the cops didn't do anything.

Another handgun he got was from the police officer he murdered in the shooting.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They should be giving the guns back at this point so we have armed citizens against a US invasion.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

While I appreciate where you’re coming from, even if the government let us keep our firearms I will reiterate. These are not weapons of warfare, hell even NATO rejected sending these firearms to Ukraine, so that tells a lot.

Unfortunately the Americans would cook us as we’re at a huge disadvantage. If our magazines weren’t pinned to 5-10 rounds and our firearms offered select-fire then I would argue and say we have a chance against a full-on invasion but alas our government wants to make it as easy as possible for our opponents.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right???? They're not even meant for actual "assault". They're "assault-like" rifles because they made them look like M-16s or whatever.

And yeah, what we have in terms of gun ownership doesn't even come close to what the U.S. population has in terms of firearms at home.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Most guns nowadays use polymer frames and stocks. The term 'assault weapon' was first coined when most guns were still old fashion wooden stocks and didn't have many of the post-ww2 features such as protruding pistol grips and barrel shrouds/heat shields. Most guns in the 1970s and 80s that your average person had was probably a ww2 surplus rifle since there were tons of those around in the market.

But since then, and especially post -2000, most guns use more modern material and features. They aren't more powerful than old guns, but they do look different.

One thing that did change that no one talks about is ammunition. Modern ammo is much better and more consistent than older formulations, especially regarding primers and powders. But no one wants to make older corrosive and fouling mixtures that make maintenance annoying and reduce the useful life of the firearm.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Canada needs more people. It only has the population of California, but a lot more land to defend.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The problem won't be the number of guns but the number of capable hands that can use them.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

People on here bang the insurgency drum as if we will put up the same fight as vietnam or the middle east. I love the sentiment, but Canada doesnt have the same number of guns nor the same desperate population as those conflicts did. We glorify the resistance fighting but seem to forget those wars saw several resistance fighters killed per US casuality. And given Americas track record, succesful insurgent missions will be met with air strikes and civilian casualities. If invasion happens by all means we should resist, but prioirty absolutely should be preventing invasion in the first place.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

Maybe we need to loosen a bit of the laws and allow for training groups of Canadians in warfare while also remaining living among civilians.

They did this during ww2 in Britain. All resistance groups that formed did so after Nazi occupation. The UK wanted to make a ready made resistance force well before hand. They trained people on resistance techniques, bombmaking, how to sneak around, sentry removal, etc.

Canada needs something like that, and yes I am willing to join.

[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Join the Canadian army?

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or the reserves. You can work on the weekends

[–] CanadianCarl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am asking you why don't you?

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 1 month ago

I'm really thinking about it. I might inquire about it soon. But I'm getting old. I don't know if I'll be of any use.

[–] Skater2065@lemmings.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

More than half the victims were burned, beaten, and/or stabbed to death. Fewer than half were murdered with firearms.

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, in the US 80% of homicides were committed with a firearm, so if your goal is to achieve that outcome, I guess you’d make guns more available.

[–] Skater2065@lemmings.world 1 points 1 month ago

The USA non-gun homicide rate is higher than Canada's homicide rate. Without guns you guys kill a higher percentage of your population. I'm thinking it is not just the guns.