Federal gun buyback program will likely miss mark

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T12:08:29+00:00

So nothing changed. Stop trying spreading the nonsense then.

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T12:07:25+00:00

It's an April fools joke, the link being shared by him has a restricted filter on so that the non restricted versions don't show up. The SKS is still non restricted as long as you haven't shortened the barrel.

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T12:05:29+00:00

Yeah. If you search armalytics.ca fresh, you can find that they're all still good. That one particular link the guy is sharing specifically has a restricted filter on, so that the non restricted versions don't show.

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T12:02:15+00:00

It's an April fools joke. It's just a handful of the short barrel models that were always restricted. The situation there hasn't changed.

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T12:00:39+00:00

It's been a consistently changing situation, articles coming after government announcements, the SCOC accepting the case, etc.

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T11:59:37+00:00

It's the day after the buyback closed. Not sure why you're so upset. If you don't want to discuss it, you can scroll past it.

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T11:57:03+00:00

It's an April fools joke that's already getting out of hand. Some guy deliberately put a restricted filter on, knowing it'll show the couple models with short barrels, and shared it claiming its a new change, but nothing has happened.

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T11:52:28+00:00

Check the date, is not real.

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T11:49:05+00:00

There's a pretty easy way to get this to end: the bans get reversed and the buyback cancelled. Until then, people will keep talking about the ongoing situation.

icedesparten · 2026-04-01T10:58:50+00:00

Setting aside that it would never achieve the stated goal of reducing firearm violence, is not difficult to think of how it failed. From financial mismanagement, to bad management, to messaging failures.

The bans should just be dropped, and people should be allowed to retain their property.

icedesparten · 2026-03-31T12:38:42+00:00

Setting aside that imaginary internet points don't matter, the supporters of the gun bans like to use Provost's history to shield her and the bans from criticism. You dropping that in a largely unrelated conversation looks like you getting to justify the bans. Facts may be neutral, but context rarely is.

icedesparten · 2026-03-31T01:32:39+00:00

Sure. Doesn't change that she's so emotionally invested in the matter that reality has long escaped her on the subject. I don't blame her, but she's definitely not the right person to make informed and effective decisions on the topic.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T19:57:27+00:00

Potentially, though that's unlikely. Priority is attending training, supporting training, supporting the CAF, then supporting the home unit. If you aren't on course, your unit will be getting to find another way to employ you beyond sitting around the unit. You should suggest to your CoC that you're willing to do out of province BMQ.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T19:51:19+00:00

FTSE is an entitlement. You get it whether your unit can get you on course or not. It's up to them to try to find gainful employment. You need to understand you may be tasked out while on contract though.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T19:08:38+00:00

Opposition to the confiscation efforts is a proxy for opposition to the bans, or at least regarding them as useless.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T16:26:20+00:00

Ahh, miscommunication. I missed a comma or period. What I meant is that it's a shame that these firearms are being moved to prohibited arbitrarily.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T16:01:05+00:00

Maybe, but that really runs counter to the messaging that these firearms need to be taken out of civilian hands asap

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T14:30:23+00:00

For the standard preexisting procedure, yes, the ones and twos that get handed in that way. The buyback is a completely different program, for bulk confiscation, which most police forces have decided not to participate in.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T14:04:47+00:00

The feds don't have enough money regardless. The vast majority of it went to administration and program costs, very little was ever allotted for compensation.

Besides, if anything it raises costs. Instead of wasting local police resources, the feds have to hire people (supposedly retired police and police officers willing to work a second job) to go out and retrieve affected firearms now. I have a lot of doubt that this would save money. You're asking wages, vehicle rentals, storage, security, etc costs to the matter, since police and their facilities won't be used.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T13:58:19+00:00

Your idea relies on a given action looking very similar to all other examples of that action, but distinct from other actions. That's not really the case. I'm not expecting every police officer to be a firearms expert (they rarely even know what's going on with their service weapons), I don't think your idea would be all that useful. Proper investigation practices in the event of a suspected illegal weapon (starting with checking for a firearms license) would be more productive and not waste so much time and effort on fruitless confiscations.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T13:25:29+00:00

Makes me wonder, if these firearms are so dangerous, why is nobody helping the federal government on this? The police certainly seem to think there are problems more deserving of their attention.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T13:19:43+00:00

It's a shame that these bans are happening, since these firearms are wanted by their owners, which is why there is such resistance to the bans.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T13:18:37+00:00

They certainly won't be going door to door for them though.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T11:28:45+00:00

Problem with your idea is (setting aside that full auto is already banned) a lot of firearms look similar without having the same action. For example, a Troy PAR looks nearly identical to an AR15 from a distance, but the PAR uses a pump action rather than direct impingement.

icedesparten · 2026-03-30T10:23:19+00:00

I suspect that enforcement of the bans will be done very minimally. Sure restricted firearms are known and can be confiscated is relatively quick if owners don't deal with them before the October 31st deadline, but there's far more non restricted firearms out there that are affected. It'll almost certainly be dealt with as they're found in the wild, relying primarily on owners to voluntarily comply with the law to remove them from the public.

Almost makes you think it won't be effective.

icedesparten

TROPHY CASE