The Topline
- Following the Nova Scotia mass shooting that killed 22 people in 2020, Ottawa banned roughly 1,500 makes and models of “assault-style” firearms, arguing they are designed for military use and do not belong in civilian communities.
- Last month, owners of the prohibited firearms were notified they must surrender or permanently deactivate them before Oct. 30, 2026, or risk facing the loss of their firearms licence and criminal charges.
- To incentivize gun owners, the government has set aside nearly $250 million to compensate people who must now surrender their firearms.
Switch sides,
back and forth
Remove the guns, reduce the risk
Ottawa’s firearms ban and buyback program are built on a straightforward concept: fewer guns in circulation means less risk to the public.
Back in 2020, when the ban on more than 1,500 models was first announced, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said “there is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada,” drawing a clear line between traditional sporting firearms and weapons capable of rapid, high-casualty fire.
Since then, the list of banned firearms has grown to more than 2,500 as part of an effort to “strengthen gun control” in Canada.
But prohibiting a firearm on paper is one thing. It still needs to be taken off the street. That’s the intention behind the government’s buyback initiative , also known as the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program.
According to Public Safety Canada, the program offers “fair compensation” to affected owners by giving people an opportunity to follow the law, while also removing these newly-prohibited firearms from circulation.
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree told reporters, “While participation to obtain compensation through the program is voluntary, compliance with the law is not.” In other words, the government means business – and that’s not a bad thing.
Anandasangaree added that “removing every assault-style firearm from our communities is a significant advancement for public safety.”
Obviously, no single measure will completely eliminate gun violence, but each weapon removed is another step towards making us safer.
Advocates focused on violence prevention see it the same way. A coalition of gun-control groups called the launch “a win for public safety in Canada,” arguing the firearms outlawed by Ottawa “are not reasonably used for hunting” and that “such weapons are commonly used in mass shootings and the killing of police officers.”
The National Association of Women and the Law described the buyback as “another concrete step towards making Canadians safer from the risk of mass shootings,” calling assault-style firearms “uniquely lethal.”
Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns have similarly argued that firearms with “the capacity to injure and kill many people in a very short period of time” have no place in our society.
Ultimately, the logic here is simple. This is all about prevention. By removing the weapons and compensating owners, it will reduce the likelihood and potential severity of the next tragedy.
It’s missing the target
Canada’s assault-style firearms ban and national buyback program are aimed at the wrong problem.
The government says the banned firearms are “designed for military use” and have no place in civilian communities. But on Village Media's Closer Look podcast, Noah Schwartz, a professor of political science at the University of the Fraser Valley, calls that “a very unfair description.”
Schwartz says the ban ignores the fact Canada hasn't allowed high-capacity magazines for over three decades. While rifles in the United States can legally use 30- or 50-round magazines, most semi-automatic rifles in Canada are limited to five rounds.
He goes on to say that if anything will reduce deaths during mass shootings, it’s limiting magazine size. Since Canada already does that, framing these newly-banned firearms as military-style weapons ignores the already-tight regulations.
As for how these guns are actually used, critics of the legislation say they are primarily owned for hunting and sport shooting. In rural communities, semi-automatic rifles are often used for predator control, such as managing coyotes that threaten livestock. Not criminal activity.
Schwartz points out that legal gun owners who have taken safety courses and passed background checks aren’t the problem here.
Most of the guns being used in everyday shootings are being smuggled from the United States and illegally possessed. Meanwhile, as Schwartz describes, the people most likely to step forward and turn in their firearms are “the most law-abiding” ones.
That raises a big question. Is this policy targeting the people most likely to cause harm, or the people most likely to follow the rules?
There are also major concerns about how the buyback is being rolled out.
Gun owners are required to declare ownership of their firearms by registering them online. But once you turn them in, receiving financial compensation isn't even guaranteed. It’s “based on availability of program funds.”
It’s like you bought a car that was perfectly legal. Then after several years, the government decides your car isn’t safe to drive and you have to junk it, without any guarantee you’ll be compensated for its value.
But if that’s not bad enough, police and political leaders in more than half of Canada’s provinces and territories have rejected taking part in the buyback. Many police forces say they lack the capacity to help carry out the program while managing other public safety pressures.
Obviously, nobody wants to see another mass shooting tragedy. But it’s time for the Carney government to acknowledge this Trudeau-era program was ill-thought-out, and to scrap it before wasting any more time and money.
