r/canadaguns • u/SurtseyHuginn • Oct 09 '25
Keeping the fight going : Sharing My Letter to my MP + Data Sources for other to use.
Hey everyone,
I’m following up from my last post: Looking for official sources of data and critics
I asked you guys to share facts and stats to help support the letter I was writing to my MP.
First off: huge thanks to everyone who took the time to reply or DM me. I got dozens of messages full of solid references and thoughtful points. Really appreciate it.
I also wanted to use this post to remind and encourage everyone to:
- Reach out to your MP (it does make a difference)
- Invite new people to shoot
- Talk about this topic with your entourage, colleagues, friends get the conversation going. I am located in Montreal, and despite it's anti-gun reputation, I can assure you that 95% of the people I met and discussed this are clueless about this topic. When presented with facts they ALL sided with us. Even die hard liberals supporters.
- Give what you can (if you can) on associations protecting our rights, I personally gave to the CCFR on top of my yearly contribution after seeing this video where he's interviewed on global news. They are not always perfect but they are one of the most helpful org out there.
- And most importantly, don’t get demoralized
The program faces ton of criticism right now, and everyone still has around a year to surrender their possessions. Time is on our side I think. If (and that’s a big IF) this thing ever goes full roll out.
Also remember : data and experts are on our side. I watched hours of testimony in the parliament of RCMP, Various Police association testifying (ref included alter) if you ever had a doubt : that the buyback is a useless POS who has only the emotion of a handful of people as a support. It’s a minority government under heavy fire, and the broader context is shifting. We’re in for a wild year, but we gotta stay in the fight.
I will leave you with my letter if you want to use it as a template to reach out to your MP.
Thanks everyone, don't get demoralized, let's fight this BS.
----------------------- LETTER -----------------------
Dear <MP>.
My name is XXXXXX I am <some details about my personal life to make myself more relatable>. I have lived in your <electoral district> for years, am active in local communities, and am a constituent of your district. I am writing because the federal firearms “buyback” program deeply concerns me.
I had hoped the new administration would adopt evidence-based public safety measures, yet it seems to be doubling down on targeting the wrong people and diverting scarce resources away from law enforcement and essential services. This approach risks eroding public trust in the government’s ability to address real issues.
Personal Impact
This policy has hit me hard. I can no longer fully enjoy my hobby, compete, or hunt the way I used to. Overnight, over $XXXXX worth of legal firearms and accessories became worthless despite my full compliance with licensing, storage, and safety regulations. Years later, those firearms remain prohibited and untouched in my safe. Like hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners, I’m being punished despite doing nothing wrong.
Compensation barely covers a fraction of the real value. My shooting club lost millions, cut jobs, and raised membership fees, a story repeated across Canada.
Broader Concerns
1.Law enforcement, experts and studies oppose the program
Buybacks affect vetted, licensed owners, not those driving gun violence. Crime guns are mostly smuggled, stolen, or trafficked—not sourced from licensed PAL holders [1][2][3][4]. Licensed owners are statistically less likely to commit homicide than the general population [1][2][4]. Non-partisan voices, including the Toronto Police Association, the Canadian Police Association, the RCMP, and various experts, have stated that the program will not improve public safety [1][2][3][4][12][13][14].
2.Waste of resources
While already underfunded [5], the program still diverts precious resources that should go toward border enforcement, bail compliance, and targeted policing [12][13][14].
3.Misleading narrative
Calling the program “voluntary” is misleading as the alternative is uncompensated destruction [18]. Leaked comments from Minister Anandasangaree confirm it won’t improve safety and is largely designed for optics in Quebec [14].
4.Public opinion is not what’s claimed.
The government insists this policy reflects “what Canadians want,” but that alone doesn’t make it right, especially when it stands against proven facts and statistics. In reality, two of the five most-signed federal petitions in recent years call for repealing these bans [7]. The same funds could be far better used to strengthen border security, law enforcement, or to prevent harsh cuts on important social and economic programs Canadians surely value more [15].
Conclusions
This policy isn’t evidence-based, wastes public funds [17], harms the economy, and unfairly targets responsible Canadians. Cancelling it would demonstrate pragmatic leadership, respect for facts, and smarter spending. Reallocating these resources toward evidence-driven public safety measures or preserving essential programs would help restore trust in government at a time when many citizens feel it is fading.
I would be glad to meet or provide further details. The numbered references cited are attached separately.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
<your name>
<your location>
A concerned citizen
----------------------- REFERENCES -----------------------
Trusted References on the Federal Firearms Buyback Program
Prepared by : XXXXX
Date : October 2025
Introduction
This document provides a list of trusted sources supporting concerns about the federal firearms buyback program, including research studies, government reports, and expert testimony.
[1] Mauser, Gary — “Do Triggers Pull Fingers? A Look at the Criminal Misuse of Guns in Canada”
This paper examines how often legally owned firearms are misused in crimes in Canada, arguing that criminal misuse by licensed owners is relatively rare compared to criminal trafficking and possession of illegal guns.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3002650
[2] Mauser, Gary — “How Dangerous are Gun Owners?”
In this work, Mauser explores risks associated with gun ownership and finds that lawful gun owners in Canada do not significantly elevate public risk challenging the notion that more legal firearms necessarily mean more violence.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3002660
[3] Standing Committee on Public Safety & National Security – Report on Firearms Buybacks
- Argues criminals are unlikely to surrender weapons, so buybacks primarily affect law-abiding gun owners
- Emphasizes that most crime guns come from illicit sources (smuggling, theft, diversion), not voluntary legal return
- Warns that buybacks have high costs and resource burdens, making them less efficient than targeted enforcement or preventive strategies
- Notes that empirical support for buybacks is weak or mixed (e.g. Australia example)
- Raises the fairness concern: penalizing law-abiding owners may seem unjust https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/SECU/Reports/RP11706338/securp03/securp03-e.pdf
[4] Statistics Canada — Firearm-related homicide and licensing data
- A small proportion of accused in firearm homicides held valid licences.
- Nearly half of firearm homicide cases were connected to organized crime.
- This suggests legal rifles/shotguns are a minor component of violent crime in Canada; the bigger issue is the illicit handgun market (through theft, diversion, smuggling). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2024001/article/00001-eng.htm
[5] Fraser Institute – Estimated cost of buyback far exceeds government claims
Independent policy analysis argues the firearm buyback program could cost between $1.6 billion and $6.7 billion — far higher than the ~$750 million figure cited by the government.
[6] American Journal of Public Health – Long-term study on Australian firearm laws
A 50-year statistical analysis found no measurable additional reduction in firearm-related suicide or assault deaths attributable specifically to Australia’s post-1996 gun laws.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304640
[7] House of Commons – Petition database (sorted by most signatures)
In the last six years, 2 of the 5 most-signed federal petitions in Canada called for repealing gun bans (Petitions e-2574 and e-2341), indicating sustained public opposition.
[8] PMC / Peer-Reviewed Study – Impact of Firearms Legislation on Suicide and Homicide
This research reports that firearms legislation showed no associated beneficial effect on overall suicide and homicide rates, and that the prevalence of firearm ownership was not significantly associated with suicide rates.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7302582/#abstract1
[9] Canadian Medical Association Journal – Study on firearm mortality prevention
Researchers conclude that reducing firearm deaths requires multifaceted strategies such as reducing youth gang involvement, investing in community-based suicide prevention, and improving access to care for marginalized groups (e.g., Indigenous populations), rather than relying on bans alone.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7302582/#abstract1
[10] Parliamentary brief by Dr. Caillin Langmann (SECU Committee submission)
This evidence submission challenges several common claims, stating that research does not support that bans, registration, or stricter firearm control policies reduce homicide or suicide, nor that Australia’s model is a universal success story.
[11] Calgary Herald – Firearm manufacturer forced to close
Canadian gun companies report shutdowns due to arbitrary bans, including Sterling Arms International, whose R9 Mk1 was prohibited despite prior approval.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/calgary-gun-manufacturer-sterling-international-r9mk1-firearm-ban
[12] House of Commons – FINA Committee Evidence (November 5, 2024)
Toronto Police Association president Clayton Campbell testified that at least 85% of Toronto crime guns are sourced from the U.S. He stated there is no evidence that gun bans reduce violence and argued that billions spent on confiscation should instead go to policing, border enforcement, and detaining repeat offenders.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/FINA/meeting-163/evidence#Int-12976696
[13] Chief of Toronto Police Service – SECU Committee testimony
Chief Myron Demkiw stated directly that a federal gun buyback program “is not going to reduce crime,” emphasizing the need to focus on criminal misuse rather than licensed ownership.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-6/evidence#Int-11503468
[14] ParlVu – FINA/SECU Committee Witness Testimony (Sept 25, 2025, 16:30–16:33)
Tom Stamatakis (Canadian Police Association): Highlighted a lack of resources to monitor violent repeat offenders on bail. And lack capacity in general
Brian Sauve (National Police Association): Emphasized that targeting illicit smuggling from the U.S. is a more effective use of resources for public safety. Mentioned that the RCMP spokesperson was on record during bill c-21 that
Clayton Campbell (Toronto Police Association): Stated that the federal gun buyback program will have zero impact on safety.
https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=13125883
[15] YWCA Canada – WAGE budget cuts of 80%
The Department for Women and Gender Equality is facing reductions of up to 80% in its newly released departmental plan, threatening critical programs serving women, gender-based violence survivors, and LGBTQ2S+ communities.
[16] Leaked Recording Reveals Political Motives Behind Canada’s Gun Buyback Program
In a leaked recording, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree admitted the $742M gun buyback is driven more by politics than public safety, citing enforcement challenges and Quebec voter appeasement.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11440145/canada-gun-buyback-anandasangaree/
[17] Carney government should scrap gun ‘buyback’ program and save taxpayer money
The Fraser Institute argues that the Carney government should abolish the $742-million gun buyback program to reduce taxpayer burden.
[18]Forcing people to hand over their guns isn't a voluntary program
Prime Minister Carney calls the gun buyback “voluntary,” but in practice, owners of banned firearms have only three options: hand them in for compensation, deactivate them at personal cost, or face legal consequences.
This means the program is effectively coercive, not truly voluntary.
[19] Hui, Eliss H. — “Statistics vs Politics: Rethinking Canada’s Firearm Policies”
This article critically examines Canada's firearm policies, highlighting that over the past decade, only 0.8% of violent crimes involved legal firearms. It emphasizes that approximately 91% of solved shooting homicides were committed using illegal firearms, with a significant portion originating from the United States. The piece argues that current policies disproportionately target law-abiding firearm owners and suggests reallocating resources to address the root causes of violent crime.
https://medium.com/@elisshui/statistics-vs-politics-rethinking-canadas-firearm-policies-136a9d15c562
11
11
3
3
u/paulz_ Oct 09 '25
Just in case you need motivation to ask the LPC to stop wasting money on useless projects
-4
Oct 09 '25
Ain't nobody reading all that .
Trim it down by 80%
5
u/SurtseyHuginn Oct 09 '25
References are not to be read like this, they support the letter in cases they want to check. The letter is a page and half granted it's on the longer side but still in the norm.
17
u/Lumindan Oct 09 '25
OP I want to say this is really well put together first of all. I'm all for pushing facts and science when it comes to firearms stuff in Canada.
But the cynic in me who also lives in a liberal stronghold (with an MP who has gone dead silent about EVERYTHING) feels that sending them another strongly worded letter won't do anything because the votes are whipped.
That being said, I respect the hustle behind this (hell I'm pretty sure I was one of the first posters to contribute). I hope this at least pressures some of the MPs that are in tighter ridings to at least feel the heat.