Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Travis Bader, host of The Silvercore Podcast, discusses matters related to hunting, firearms, hiking, outdoor adventure, success, health and more with the people and businesses that comprise the community all from a uniquely Canadian perspective.
With the recent federal election
come and gone, I'm getting a lot
of people asking, what does this
mean for gun owners in Canada?
That's the purpose of this episode.
I've sat down with Daniel Fritter of
Caliber Magazine and we detail some of
the thoughts of what we've been hearing.
We also recorded a 40 minute
private podcast, which is available
for Silver Court Club members.
If you're a Silver Court Club member, log
into the Silver Core website and you're
gonna find that you have a unique RSS feed
for a private podcast called The Outpost.
You can plug that into most podcast
players and you'll get automatic
updates as it comes through
through your podcast provider.
If you're not a Silver Court Club member,
consider checking it out, silver court.ca.
Now, let's get on with this episode.
Well, today's guest needs no introduction.
My friend Daniel Fritter, caliber Magazine
is back again to share his ever eloquent
thoughts post-election and, uh, figured he
and I would just sit down and chat about,
uh, the state of the industry where we
see things going, and, um, go from there.
Dan, thanks so much for coming back.
Hey, happy to be here.
I may not be quite as eloquent as, as
always through this cold medicine induced
haze that I'm currently in with this
sinus infection, but, uh, I'll try.
Well, good for you for
braven it out and being here.
I know.
Uh, yeah, that's never fun.
You were planning to be here yesterday
and, uh, just couldn't do it.
Uh, heavy meds now.
So, uh, we'll just play it from there.
Yep.
So, uh, we had a, uh, an election
didn't go the way I figured it would go.
Uh, I don't know about you if you
predicted it going in that direction.
I had a feeling, um, from when
Kearney won, the polls did flip pretty
rapidly, and generally speaking,
Canada's pollsters are pretty accurate.
So I was kind of operating under
the assumption that it was not
necessarily going to go the way we want.
I did have some hope that there might
have been a surprise outcome, um, that
surprised the pollsters and whatnot,
largely on the back of the millennial
vote, uh, it's a huge voting block.
It's the biggest one in Canada.
Now.
They had been polling pretty consistently
as a demograph that was, uh, most
supportive of the conservatives,
but they're also a demographic that
historically does not show up to
vote like twice as many boomers
vote, as do young people typically.
So it was gonna be a case of
the ability to get the vote out.
And then of course, as the
campaign continued and at the
winding down phases of it, we see.
Poly have going to places like Alberta
where, you know, as a conservative,
you, you kind of should think those
are GIMs, so you shouldn't be wasting
your time there in the last week.
Um, but that was a pretty clear
indicator that what they were
seeing internally was the same as
what we were seeing externally.
So, um, yeah, good point.
Not the, not the result we wanted.
Certainly surprising, to be honest, the
makeup is maximum chaos in terms of what
the House of Commons looks like right now.
Um, and with Kearney saying that
he doesn't want a formal agreement
with the NDP, that he wants
everyone to kind of work together.
I'm not sure how, what the, what this is
gonna look like in the House of Commons.
And then of course, you know, I will say
the big surprise was Polly of not winning
his own seat was a bit of a shocker.
It's gonna be very interesting to see
how he manages to figure that out.
'cause he is currently the leader
of the Conservative party, but he
cannot be the official leader of the
opposition without a, without a seat.
Uh, which presents some unique issues.
So we learned earlier today, Andrew Shear
will take that role on a temporary basis.
Interim.
Well, PEV seeks the by-election over
there in Alberta, which I mean, if
you ever wanted to see a conservative
writing, the one he is running in,
it's like 80% conservative voters.
It's like, I think it was like 40,000
people voted for the conservative,
and like two people voted liberal.
So it's, it's about the safest
you could possibly imagine.
Uh, but it will be
interesting to navigate.
So it'll be interesting to see
how, how that party reacts to it.
Well, look, you know, you're way
more plugged in on the politics than
I am, but from, from my standpoint,
I wasn't trusting the polls.
And I don't know if I'm too stuck in
the wrong algorithm on, uh, social
media or whatever it might be, but
the, uh, it looked like there was some
Tom Foolery going on in the polls.
Maybe there wasn't.
It looked like there's some Tom Foolery
going on in EFS riding, what was it, 91
other candidates that put their name in.
The longest ballot initiative.
It's this really stupid protest
group that thinks the best way to get
electoral reform is to have a ballot
with like a metric ton of people on it.
So the thing is like literally as
long as your arm, and it's kind
of like this is just a waste of
everyone's time and effort is, it
is a uniquely stupid protest effort.
Like even, I don't care what your
opinion of electoral reform is, this
methodology of protesting anything,
it's like gluing your hand to a road.
It's just, this is no, you're
not winning over anyone.
You're not making an argument.
I mean, if anything, if you're trying
to get electoral form and, and then
you hand people ballots that are
three feet long, like this is where
elections happen, what you really
wanna do is, is make their process of
electing someone as painful as possible.
That's, it makes no sense.
I think though.
What everyone forgets in that
is that, and it's the same thing
with the writing redistribution.
'cause his writing also changed, right?
And absorbed an area that
had previously voted liberal.
But that area, although it had voted
liberal also demographically, has been
broadly supportive of conservatives it.
So it's like, yes, the long ballot
was annoying and it's a fun thing to
talk about, but enough people frowned.
Bruce Fanjoy name.
Sure.
So Sure.
It's not like, you know, it's not like
people were confused by these long bowels.
They're just a pain in the ass
for all the electoral workers.
'cause you gotta fold it up
like 16 times to fit in the box.
Mm-hmm.
So it's not really a huge deal.
I think, you know, Fanjoy had been
campaigning in that riding for two years.
Hard, hard, like knocking on doors
and that's what wins elections.
That's why before the election when
I was saying, you gotta go volunteer.
'cause that's what actually wins
elections is, you know, the mere
presence of someone at your doorstep.
Even if you don't agree with their
politics, that they took the step to
come to your house, knock on your door.
'cause the only way a politician
can really get ahold of you in a,
in a catchment zone, um, that moves
the needle in a very real way.
'cause people go, oh, he, he
cares enough to come to my house.
He cared to talk about what were the
issues and stuff and, and especially
when it's the candidate, when it's
a volunteer doing it on behalf of
a party, you're really just doing
what's called Get Out the Vote.
So for those that don't know, this is
gonna be a very quick little segment.
If you volunteer for a party on election
day or beforehand, and you're doing
what's called door knocking, which is
the, where everyone starts out, basically
you go to a bunch of people's houses
and you say, how do you plan to vote?
And if they say conservative,
you go, okay, tick box.
And you know their name and
their address because of the
census data and elections Canada.
Then on elections, when the election
happens, we don't know how people vote,
but parties do know who has voted.
So if it says, well, Daniel Fritters, he,
we knocked on his door three months ago.
We knocked on his door
again two months ago.
Both times he said he was
gonna vote conservative.
We got this sheet from the polling
place, which they do every hour,
and every hour goes by and they
go, well, we haven't seen, we
haven't seen Dan Fritter vote yet.
Then they'll call you
and they'll say, Hey Dan.
We, we noticed, you haven't
voted yet, could we?
Do you want a ride?
How can we get you to do this?
But when it's the candidate and he's
doing it for two or three years and
he's asking, what are your issues?
Yeah.
That's gonna convince a lot of people.
Like there will be people who are
motivated to get out and vote.
So I think, I think Fanjoy did somewhat
ironically what the Ford family has
done in Ontario of just connected
with people in a way that worked.
Um, and I think like most of us,
there's probably some truth in the
notion that Paulo took it for granted.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I could see that.
I mean, the way the polls were looking
previously, it was, it was gonna be
a blue wave, it was gonna be just
a landslide for the conservatives.
Even our local, um, candidate here
had lunch with him, chatted with
him, and I mean, he says, you know,
you don't, you don't count it until
it's hatched and all the rest.
But there was a real strong sense that
everybody knew where it was going and then
it didn't and he didn't get his position.
And I think that that notion of almost,
I dunno if I should, I mean almost
maybe it's the correct word, but like
almost a sense of entitlement that
historically things have lined up.
You know, Canadians elect
governments a couple times,
three times, 10 years, basically.
Then they get rid of the old guy.
It's never a vote for the next one.
It's always, we wanna get rid
of the previous one 'cause we've
run outta patients with them.
Yeah.
The polls had been swung to a massive,
you know, 20% or more, uh, margin
between the conservatives and liberals.
It had been years of saying, we just want
an election, we just want an election.
'cause we knew the outcome.
Everyone, like under Trudeau, we, the
outcome and polls since have shown that
if Trudeau had not stepped down, the
outcome of the election would have been
what the polls look like in December
with a massive conservative majority.
But I think there was a sense within
the conservative party, and I don't know
this because I don't work with them, like
to be honest, but from watching it, the
sense was a certain degree of entitlement
of not adapting, not understanding
that the conditions had changed.
The ballot box question
for a lot of Canadians had
shifted towards Donald Trump.
Um, and I didn't see any
reactiveness on the part of the
conservative party initially.
And moreover, what really frustrated
me, kind of more so was that what
I had seen from Pier P earlier on
in his career as leader, going back
to three years, four years, he was.
He, he was presenting a far different
image and option than he seemed to
during the campaign, during the election.
'cause I remember Pierre Pev doing
videos, talking about wood in his
house wearing flannel, which was very,
it was dumb 'cause I don't go around
and stroke the beams of a house.
But to a degree it was, it was more
relatable to me and I think most Canadians
than a guy with slicked back hair, walking
around in suits, constantly saying the
same things into the same microphones,
taking four questions from, at any given
event, barring the media from the tour,
like this was, on one hand he won the
leadership of the conservative party.
Kind of being the approachable
but experienced politician other
than during the election campaign.
It was like he turned into
this like, well, we're not
gonna let media on the plane.
We're not gonna take questions
from, you know, we're gonna kind
of denigrate journalists, like
we're gonna keep them outside.
Like, little things like if you're
trying to win over a country to win an
election, the media is a great tool.
Sure.
Podcasts and new media
is extremely effective.
But again, boomers who vote the
most go to the good old fashioned
CB, C, and they read their news.
If you keep those journalists outside
in the cold in a pen, like literally a
little steel fenced in thing, and you
say, you guys gotta stay out here and you
can ask four questions, and we're gonna
choose who gets to ask the questions,
and it's probably not gonna be you.
Well, you've just pissed off a bunch
of people with platforms like it,
it doesn't, it doesn't make sense.
Mm-hmm.
Like, and I think that's where I do get
very tired of the fact that it, 'cause I,
I won't say Carney was a whole lot better.
Mm. Um.
But we need politicians that
realize they're supposed
to be winning people over.
You know, it's not this static.
I am me and you'll vote for me.
If you like me, it should be,
I'm trying to win you over.
Um mm-hmm.
And I didn't see that very much
from the campaign, so it was,
it was honestly one of the most
disappointing elections I've ever seen.
It was interesting objectively to watch,
but disappointing from the perspective
of, um, not the outcome, which I
think what most people are probably
thinking, when I say disappointing,
I mean the campaigns sucked, period.
Mm. Like Mark Kearney brings in an
anti-gun lobbyist to run for him.
Typically, lobbyists are not the
sort of people that you want to
be politicians because mm-hmm.
Newsflash, they used to
lobby the government, then
they become the government.
Mm-hmm.
There's a whole lot of room for
conflict there, and it's kind
of, uh, it's just improper.
On the other hand, I was looking at
the conservative campaign, and this
is where like al kind of rant a bit.
They had two years to prepare for this.
They were saying, we want an
election, we want an election.
We want an election.
Then they finally get one and they're
left scrambling for candidates.
They're turfing out popular candidates
and parachuting in other people,
which just pisses everyone off.
They're, their campaign
platform is abbreviated.
It's, it's not well researched.
It's not well acknowledged.
And you kinda go like, what did, what
have you spent the last two years doing?
Like you can't just run on,
we're gonna scrap the carbon tax.
Okay, well that's one thing.
What are you gonna do with
healthcare house price?
All of these key issues.
And there was no a disappointing campaign
'cause no one presented any bold options.
We're going into an election with huge
crisis level issues like food pricing.
I. And not a single candidate stepped
up and said, Hey, you know what?
Maybe if we stopped supply
management and flushing milk down
the drain, food could get cheaper.
No one even bothered.
It was just, no, we gotta, we
gotta protect those Quebec votes.
We gotta keep supply management,
you know, well, oh, we're facing
a potential invasion from America.
Here's A-T-F-S-A top-up like this
is, they're trying to sell us on
this existential fear that our,
we're gonna lose our sovereignty
and, and no one offers anything
better than, you know, well, I guess
we'll, we'll hire like a thousand
CBSA officers or something, maybe.
Mm-hmm.
You know, no one even bothers to mention,
we'll fix procurement because like, I
guess they just have all given up on that.
But like, there's just no bold ideas
on offer from any of the parties.
Like it all just kind of seemed
like, you know, if the needle
is right here, you vote one way.
It'll go that way.
It'll.
You know, there was nothing.
It was just very lame.
And I think that's, that's also, I
think partly why the conservatives lost.
I think they didn't, they didn't
do enough to win people's votes.
I think they needed to do more, you know,
yeah, we are going to cancel the gun bans
'cause it's a waste of $5 billion and
then we're gonna take that $5 billion that
would've gone to the gun ban and we're
gonna spend it on mental health instead,
we're gonna build seven new hospitals
and cross, you know, do something
like, tell us what you're gonna build.
So the, this idea of fear-based politics
has been spotlight in media recently.
And I mean the liberal campaign
was fear-based politics as well.
We've gotta watch out 'cause
Trump's gonna take over.
And what, why would it work for them in
this one and, and not the conservatives?
And how do we shift that perspective?
I think, I don't know if the, this
is where it gets tricky in politics.
'cause yet it's really easy to ascribe
victories and losses to individual things
like fear-based politics or demographics.
When in reality, it's always
a combination of things.
And I think at the end of the day,
this election was decided by the older
demographic that showed up to vote in
big numbers, in very safe areas that
the liberals were pretty established in.
And the fact that
neither of them put out what I would call
a building style plan, like none of none
of 'em said, here's what we're gonna do.
This is gonna be some
massive stuff we're gonna do.
It was all fear based.
But the difference was that when
someone who has the resume of
Mark Carney is running a machine
to make you afraid, his resume.
Is a powerful tool for his team to
then lean on and go, look, we are
facing some seriously scary moments.
Look at this guy.
He's done all of these impressive things,
so he's probably going to be capable
of handling this stuff in the future.
Whereas Paul Ev legitimately has, you
know, graduated, became a politician
as the, which is a valid skill and
something that I think, again, if
the conservatives had been a little
bit more bold and simply said, what
we need right now is a politician.
We need someone who has experience in
the House of Commons and knows how to
work with people from all parties that
has lots of experience with this stuff.
That wouldn't have been a bad
thing, because politician is one
of those few jobs that you can
only get experienced by doing it.
There's no training
school for it or anything.
Right?
Mm-hmm.
They could have done that and said, you
know, this guy's an investment banker.
He's been a bureaucrat his whole life.
Like, he doesn't, he doesn't know
how to make parties work together.
He doesn't know how to hold the balance of
power together and keep a country going.
Like it's, it's very, it's like they
tried to out Carney Carney, hence
why the suit thing bothered me.
'cause I really felt like that was like
a physical manifestation of them being
like, well, we're gonna dress you up.
So you look like an investment
banker that used to work at
Goldman Sachs and, but he's not.
Got it.
Got it.
He should have been that guy from that
Calgary Street that was raised by two
teachers, is what he should have been.
Mm-hmm.
Um, but I think it was just that in
a, in, in a crisis, a people will
generally vote for the incumbent.
That's a known thing.
Uh, the 2021 election during mid covid is
a great example of that, where it's just,
people just go, they just hunker down.
They don't wanna change anything.
You know, the world's scary enough.
More change is scarier.
Yeah.
The second thing is that, you know, the.
There was so much talk
about Kearney's resume.
He's done this, he's done
that, he's gone to Harvard.
You know, he, he can surely handle
anything the world will throw at him.
I mean, Paul F should just stood up and
said, look like you guys are being idiots.
If you think anyone can handle
Donald Trump, you're idiots.
The guy is nuts.
Like it doesn't what he
says to you on a given day.
Totally.
You can't control it.
You know, like, you sure.
All we can control is their own country.
We should not elect someone because
we're scared of Donald Trump.
'cause there's nothing
that we can do about him.
Well said.
So what does this mean going forward for,
I see all the rifles in the background.
You run Caliber Magazine.
I run a training company in firearms.
The people listening to this are probably
interested in what does it mean for
the guns, what's it mean for hunting?
What's it mean for, what's
the future gonna look like?
I don't entirely know.
And I'm hesitant to speculate
because we don't know.
And that was one thing that I'd said
earlier is there's, I've seen a lot
of speculation about they're gonna
do this, they're gonna do that.
And um, if you don't know, the
best thing to do is just shut
your mouth because speculation
tends to trend towards more fear.
Induction knowing very few
people speculate, oh, the
world's gonna get so much better.
'cause, you know, post nine
11, it kind of just hasn't.
But I think overall, um, if I were
to speculate, I don't know if there,
the big question for me is what de
what priority they'll place on this.
Because I did notice it during the
campaign, like, yes, they got Natalie
Provost to run, which seems like
a really bad thing for gun owners.
Now I've also heard from
Tracy Wilson actually that.
They're probably considering her
more for, um, an agricultural role.
'cause that's what her background is in.
It's what she does for the
Quebec government is, is
agricultural science type stuff.
Um, so that's her professional experience.
And like, like I said earlier, if, if
she's a, a lobbyist for guns installing
a lobbyist in the Ministry of Public
Safety, a lobbyist specifically who
lobbied public safety would be kind
of a big red flag that even normal
journalists would go, Hey, this doesn't,
this does not meet the sniff test.
Mm-hmm.
So they might actually keep
her away from the gun issue.
Um, Mark Carney didn't know her name.
He didn't know what school she'd gone to
or the shooting that she went through.
So that also tells you that he
was not associated with her.
Nomination.
Uh, she did put her name forward
to the liberal party and then
was made what's called acclaimed
where they don't do an election.
They just say, yeah, you
can be the candidate.
Uh, that might have been something
that was decided by like Marco Ticino,
who is Carney's chief of staff or
anyone within the liberal party.
Just when, yeah, she's got
a name recognition out the
wazoo, she'll probably win.
Mm-hmm.
She gets us a third of the
way there with her name alone.
Um, but if that's a bad thing, she's also
a brand new MP with no experience, which
generally relegates you to the back bench.
Um.
They want some experience and they have
so much in that caucus right now to choose
from not only the want experience, but
the experienced guys get pissed when
someone else gets parachuted over them.
Sure.
Because a cabinet ministerial have
experience, position comes with, well,
it's not just that, like you make
like a hundred and something thousand
more dollars as a cabinet minister.
Like normal mps make good money,
but cabinet ministers make like 300
grand a year or something like that.
Like it's a, it's a significant
bump and you get a huge staff,
so your job gets way easier too.
Mm-hmm.
So there's all these very real reasons
that I don't know how prominent she'll be.
And then the other thing is
that I just don't think Carney
breezed right past the gun issue.
During the debate, they asked him flat out
about, you know, assault style firearms.
Like they laid it up on, it was like
T-ball, it was kinda like, okay, you could
knock us outta the park if you want to.
And he totally backed away and said,
well, you know, like we have, we're
gonna reinvigorate the gun ban or
whatever he said of the buyback.
And then just kind of moved on to border
and that, and even in his first speech
afterwards, he didn't even mention.
Guns in his speech as the
part on public safety.
He mentioned border security, uh, x-ray
dog like, or, and drug stuff, uh, catching
smuggled guns was mentioned, but there was
no mention of getting, you know, assaults
now firearms off the street or something.
So I wonder if they have seen some
indicator, be it internal polling or, you
know, uh, some studies or something that
are showing that maybe this isn't the vote
winning thing that it once was for them.
Um, interesting because I think the
world has kind of changed, like, like we
said, like with Poly F he didn't adapt.
The world has changed in, when Trudeau
announced this in 2020, everyone was
like going nuts over New Zealand's band.
Jaina Arden was seen as like a progressive
god amongst leaders because she had so
succinctly and immediately banned guns
after the massacre there and, mm-hmm.
Trudeau was trying to get that, hence
why our band looks so much like New
Zealand, hence why the New Zealand
police actually consulted on it.
Yeah.
But I don't think, I think in the
interceding years it's changed.
We've seen growth in gun ownership.
There's more people with pals
today than there ever have been.
I don't expect like for, for
your job, like I don't expect
that rate will decrease.
I think enrollment in PAL courses
will remain at the same level.
It is, if not higher.
Uh, because once you start
seeing things taken away, people
get interested in getting it.
Like if there's a, you know, oh,
the government could ban guns.
I should go get my pal now is
something that you hear from
people, they stop putting it off.
Yeah.
So, uh, in Australia when they banned
a bunch of stuff after Port Arthur
10 years later, there were more guns
in the country than there ever were.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I saw that stat.
It's
people just adapt and I think that's
what Canadian gun owners will do.
The people that used to shoot,
you know, tack rifle stuff,
if they can't shoot those.
They will just shift to, you know,
uh, rim fire precision or brutality
style matches where there's kind of a
physical component or they'll, they'll
find other com competitive venues,
they'll find other things to switch to.
Um, I don't think hunters will
be overall impacted very much.
'cause I think that thus far what the
liberals have tried to do is really avoid
targeting anything that could be conceived
as like a super popular hunting rifle.
So.
Mm. But that's a game where
we get into the priorities.
'cause I think if they do end up
prioritizing it, like if there's
a, if there is another prominent
news item involving a, a gun
in Canada, for example, yeah.
We could see them do what they promised to
do, which was take a look at the existing
legislation around classification.
And what concerned me is, was.
The one time they talked about
legislation and the platform
was around classifications.
It's kinda like, well, legislation's
a, a big thing to move for the
government, like OICs and regulations.
It's like a couple forms.
The minister signs and it's all done.
Legislation.
You know, you get a small army of lawyers,
you draft it, you gotta get it through
the house, the Senate, it's a big deal.
And if they do that, I think, and
this is what I don't wanna speculate
around 'cause I don't, I don't know
if this is gonna happen and I have
no idea if it's likely or unlikely.
But if they were to legislate around
guns, IE make a law, I would expect what
they would do would take the definition
that C 21 provided for bans on future
designs and make it retroactive.
So semi-automatic center fire rifle
with an detachable magazine capable
of holding more than five rounds would
just become banned, not by name as they
currently are, but banned by legislation.
And then you would get into things
where like, does the browning
BAR have a detachable magazine?
I mean, technically the floor
plate swings down, you pull it out.
Mm-hmm.
So it is, and then there are models
where it is just straight drop free
mag is the sks a detachable mag?
Well, the SKS D is so, and you
can convert all the other ones.
So I don't know how that
would land, basically.
And that's why I don't
like the speculation.
'cause it, it could happen,
it could also not happen.
But also if you're gonna go down that
rabbit hole of fear of it could happen,
you arrive at all these other, well
what if this and what if that, that
it's impossible to know this stuff.
So it's kind of just wait and see.
I'm, I'm getting a bit of a sense of
optimism actually listening to you here.
It sounds like you're not quite as
pessimistic as I figured you'd be.
And from what I'm hearing through the, uh.
Uh, through the gun community, I'm getting
a lot of people calling up or emailing
and, and, uh, they're getting rid of their
guns and they're, they're quite upset
and they don't know what they can do.
But that's not the tone that
you're projecting right now.
Yeah, I mean, I think I am not, I
mean, I'm, I'm, I am a naturally
optimistic person who then tries
to be even more optimistic.
So maybe I'm just naive 'cause I believe
what some people call that actually.
But I don't find a, I don't
find purpose in pessimism.
There's a lot of bad stuff
and I mean, if, if you want to
sell your guns, you go for it.
Someone will be there to buy them.
And I think that for every
person that sells a gun, there
is someone there to buy it.
So it's kind of a, a
zero sum qualifier there.
If someone's like, oh, I'm
gonna sell all my guns.
Okay, well, I'm sure you'll find
some to buy them, therefore, mm-hmm.
It's all the same, you know.
Um, I'm not that pessimistic,
I suppose, because.
When, when the conservatives are
looking at winning and I've been
talking to them about all this
stuff and saying, Hey, you know, we
could really get some reform going.
I was told so many times by so
many conservative people, well gun
owners are gonna have, be patient.
We've got a lot on our plate and
this is going back to like 2023.
It's like post covid, pre-Trump.
Now that sounds like a
downright quaint existence.
So for the liberals, I, I expect that,
uh, they have a lot on their plate.
Carney did not put a gun
buyback in his budget.
They are currently operating on the
caretaker convention, which is the,
the funding level the government got
last year is what they get this year.
No new, no new programmatic spending.
I supe, I suspect that we will see
more come out once the budget numbers
start coming out, but I really don't
think for the same reasons that
I've maintained for the entire time.
The gun buyback is such
an untenable thing.
I. Mm. And from Mark Kearney to go
up there and go, oh, we're we're
gonna do the reinvigorated gun
buyback sounds really great because
the reasons why the gun buyback is
untenable are not known to many people.
You need to know that there are an
unknown number of non-restricted
guns owned by people that they can't
identify, that they have made illegal
and thus have an obligation to now
buy back and provide compensation.
The government can't just go like,
well, we, we said it, but we're
not gonna, we don't really care
like they have to do this now.
Mm-hmm.
They have created the responsibility
that they must follow through, and
I think that's where it's kind of,
I don't know if Carney will, perhaps
someone's gonna walk into an office
in public safety at some point in
the next couple months, and they're
gonna get handed a, a pa a book, a
transition book, and they're gonna
go, okay, so we're gonna reinvigorate
this buyback and they're gonna open
the book and they're gonna go, oh.
Fuck, this is, this is
not, this is not good.
Why did we do this?
And it'll, we'll, 'cause it is just,
it's, it's a rock and a hard place.
It's, there's no good o option
for the government to do this.
They could do the air fifteens.
Sure.
But, and that's where I kind of wonder
if it's just gonna be more of the same.
Um, I still think they'll probably
extend the amnesty too, because
the government always has an
obligation to induce compliance.
Not, especially when there's no men.
There's no criminality intended by most
of the people that own these things.
So I. I'm sure there's legal statutes out
there that Ian and uncle could probably
cite, where like, you can't just make it
illegal because then some lady who, her
husband passed away and he had an rink
one 14 and she finds it in the garage.
Well now she's, you know, obligated
to go to jail or something.
Like, that's not a, that's not the
way that the legal system works here.
So they'll extend it and it'll just
keep getting kicked down the road.
And we will burn a metric ton of
money at the sacrificial altar of
liberal gun policies like we did with
the Long Gun Registry until someone
goes, the P is big enough, let's just
stop and rewinds the whole thing.
Um, and I have some optimism in that,
at least with Carney, he's, regardless
of his skill and ability, 'cause I have
no idea, he's had some very incredible
positions at jobs making tons of money.
But I don't know anything about money,
so I don't really know what he does
or what the skills that involves.
Um.
I think he, we can say he's trying to
distinguish himself from Justin Trudeau.
He is trying to create distance,
the carbon tax, for example.
I do know that he is someone
that once defended the carbon
tax with full throat of defense.
He loved carbon taxes, um, as a great
way of reducing carbon emissions.
And his, the particular area that
he worked in was sustainability,
finance, and investment.
So like it's all very tied together if
he's willing to, you know, sacrifice the
carbon tax, which is something he felt
strongly about, uh, it kind of feels
like everything's up in the air now.
Mm-hmm.
And maybe he sees what the bill is
like, maybe he said, yeah, we'll
reinvigorate the gun buyback.
'cause you know, Marco Medico, his
chief of staff champion the thing told
him this is gonna be the gun platform.
Or the people that are associated
with the party that are pushing
the, the liberal party's gun policy
forward was saying, yeah, we'll
just keep doing this, but, mm-hmm.
These are the same people that
also defended the carbon tax
for the last however many years.
And then he looked at it and went,
no, we're not doing this anymore.
Maybe he'll do the same
thing on the gun thing.
Maybe someone will finally hand
him the estimates and go, it's
gonna cost somewhere between 2.6
billion and $6 billion to do this,
and we're never gonna be done.
So we're gonna have to have the
office open for the rest of time.
Because whenever someone finds one of
these things, we're gonna have to have
someone there that can identify it,
verify it, provide an accurate value.
Then we have to have a second
string of people that if they want
to contest the value, they gotta
be there with, you know, audits.
Oh, the condition is this
and this forever is mm-hmm.
Like literally forever.
Like it's, and this maybe he just
looks at that and goes like, kinda
like the carbon tax now this is
not, this is just not gonna work.
It's not winning.
Um, 'cause I also too, this is a
bit anecdotal, but I think everyone
thought it didn't matter where.
People were commenting during the
campaign, be it Reddit, Twitter,
YouTube, Facebook, on individual
news stories like CTV, comments,
sections, anytime the gun bans came
up, it was just universally despised.
Mm. There was no groundswell of
support everywhere it came up.
Media members were saying it
doesn't make sense commenters.
Like no one, no one thinks it makes
sense anymore 'cause it's, we've
had the five year free trial, free
being a hundred million dollars.
But you know, in government talk, I
guess that's basically the same thing.
And everyone just sees more crime.
So it's like, I don't
see anyone supporting it.
The only people that are staunchly
supporting it are people who, in
political terms would never vote
for anyone but the liberals anyways.
So there is no more political capital to
be squeezed from this particular fruit.
The liberals could kill it tomorrow
and lose exactly zero votes,
but gain potentially a majority.
And I think that's, you know, if, if
Carney's trying to distance himself
from Trudeau to set up his identity,
he doesn't need to do that anymore.
To be quite honest.
He's one.
Mm-hmm.
He could just govern however he wants
to, but he is continuing to set us
different tone than Trudeau, which tells
you he's, he likely understands that with
a minority and with the way the block
is, there's probably going to be another
election within the next two years.
Mm-hmm.
He wants that to be a majority.
So he's looking for the
way to get more votes.
And like I said, with this particular
policy, it is one where absolutely.
The only people that vote for the
liberals because of gun bans will
vote for the liberals without gun
bans because they're Who else?
They're, they're liberals.
Sure.
Like they're, that's, it's kinda like
the conservatives have always said,
if you like guns, you vote for us.
'cause we're the only
party that won't ban guns.
Mm-hmm.
So it's sort of, what are you gonna do?
And that's why I say, I think a lot
of gun owners should probably get
out there and start talking to their
mps, especially if they're liberals.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
No, that's very wise.
And I, I agree with you.
I think the can's gonna get kicked down
the road history, history would show.
That's typically what happens.
It just gets kicked down further and
further hoping people forget about it.
It gets a little less on the radar,
barring a shooting or some massacre
or something in the news that comes
up, whether it's in our country
or not, uh, firearms related.
That's, that's usually the impetus
that will get something moving
again, in a, in an anti-gun way or
more regulatory, uh, restrictions.
Barring that.
I see you getting kicked
down the road further,
but I think we're gonna reach an intersect
at some point here where, you know, for,
for a long time now, headlines around
guns and crime have generally been
bad for the gun community, resulting
in more bans, this sort of stuff.
But I think we've reached a bit of
a, a, I think we've already reached
a bit of an inflection point.
It's just whether, how long it takes to
percolate to the surface and to Ottawa
where, like when I got my gun license from
Silver Corps, like 20 whatever years ago.
Mm-hmm.
If you, if you were to go into the gun
community on, at the time, the only way to
talk to the gun community was on Canadian
gun nuts, which was to, to date it.
Like when that was the only place.
Yeah.
If you mentioned defensive
use of a gun, you would be.
You wouldn't just be
ridiculed, you'd be railroaded.
Sure.
There'd be guys being
like, you can't say that.
Get GTFO, mute this guy.
Block the con, delete that.
Like they would lose their
minds over the notion of that.
Mm-hmm.
If you went to a gun club and you
mentioned defensive use of a gun, at that
time, gun owners themselves would look
at you like you'd run a third eyeball
and go, no, you can't do that here.
That's not what we have guns for.
You got your license, you
know what you understand?
You can only own them for recreational
shooting, hunting, and collecting.
Those are the only three valid reasons
you cannot have a gun for self-defense.
That was the overwhelming rhetoric
from within the gun community.
Hmm.
That is absolutely not the case today.
Like mm-hmm.
At all.
It is now common.
To talk about home defense,
talk about defensive gun uses.
We are seeing defensive uses of
firearms occurring with what would
be considered by 20 year ago.
Metrics.
Shocking regularity.
Like there were like two
cases for like 10 years.
There were huge news
because it was so uncommon.
It was so abstract.
It was so rare that like a Canadian was
having his house firebombed and he shot
his pistol in the air twice to scare the
intruders away was breaking news like
people were following that court case.
It was a huge story.
Now, like it happens and I don't
even notice, like people be like,
oh, did you hear about this guy that
his, he was having his truck stolen?
I'm like, no.
Oh yeah, he came out with a shotgun.
I, I had no idea.
'cause it happens so frequently now, and
I think that's where this intersection of.
And it's, it's almost ironic if it wasn't
so depressing that I've said for a long
time, there's, there has been for, up
until now, I suppose, no incentive for
the liberals to stop crime because the
policies that they also use to leverage
votes being gun stuff rely on crime.
If there were no mass shootings, they
couldn't use gun politics to win votes.
It just, it wouldn't work.
Mm. So they, they kind of don't,
there's, like I said, I don't think
they want to, but there's also no
motivation for them to stop gun crime.
It takes away a, a pretty big cudgel that
they've always carried, but it's almost
like they've let it fester for so long by
tilting at gun bans and gun owners instead
of the actual causes that now so many
people are seeing so many stories about.
Crime, really bad crime.
Like here in Colonna, there's a
story that came out two days ago, and
this is the perfect example 'cause
there's so many examples of it.
It was the headline was something
like Woman who Shot, brother in
head, released on time served.
Okay.
It is, it's as simple as that.
People are reading these
things and going, Jesus.
She shot her brother in the head
with a shotgun and she's out
a couple years later on time.
Served any, yeah, there were
circumstances around it.
There wasn't like, one of them was a
saint and the other one was the devil.
They were, they're arguing over
drugs, but like they're still people.
Mm. And I think that's where
even liberals are starting to go.
Those are still people, and yet
they're people that constitute
risk to me and my family.
Mm-hmm.
And they're just being let out.
They are committing these
crimes over and over again.
We're hearing always about these,
whatever, it's the, what's the term?
The offenders that do
a metric ton of crimes.
There's like eight guys in colon that
have done like 300 crimes like a month.
Right.
Under tying up all of the resources and
it's, it's such a common thing that it's
now resulting in more people getting gun
licenses because they don't feel secure.
Like this growth that we've seen
in people with gun licenses.
I think a large portion, I would love
to do a poll on it someday, but I, I
would argue a lot of the people that
are getting gun licenses now, a lot
of this current surge is people who
are concerned for their security.
'cause let's, hundred percent.
It's not like they're going into ips.
I
a hundred percent.
It's a safety security driver and that.
Uh, from what I've seen is two fronts.
One's gonna be personal safety,
just like you articulated.
And the other one's going to be, uh, the
idea that if everything goes sideways,
they still want to be able to get food.
They wanna learn how to hunt.
Like the,
the reality of that self-sufficiency
is a lot more self-sufficiency.
The idea of being self-sufficient.
And more and more people are coming in
just for that a lot more, uh, women and
bringing their kids in and families that
are coming in that are getting firearms
because of what they consume in the media.
And the idea that there is so much
uncertainty and, um, how unsafe
it is in the world right now.
I mean, the reality is we
live in a pretty safe time.
I mean, it's, it's pretty damn, I
think it's safer than it's, if you
look at the polls and it has been
in a ever really, but that's not
what people see on an ongoing basis.
Um.
So, yeah.
Why they're getting the
license a hundred percent.
It's because they fear for their safety
and they want to be self-sufficient.
Well, and I think too, like
the stats scan data shows that,
generally speaking, there's more
crime than there ever has been.
Now, the last 10 years has been
a pretty reasonable tick upwards
and a lot more crime of a serious
nature, which results in the violent
crime index number coming up.
But the, the rate of people
reporting crimes has gone way down.
Um, not way down, but it's gone down.
So we're getting farther
away from good outcomes.
Uh, 'cause when you see the
crime rate going up, like 30%
of crime is reported in Canada.
That's it.
The other 60% just goes unreported.
Now
in terms of what is reported, generally
speaking, crimes like homicides.
Are reported because it's hard
to cover up the fact, not fact
that someone is now missing.
Right.
Um mm-hmm.
But other crimes like assaults, sexual
assaults, and obviously property crime,
theft of a bike and stuff like that
are less reported because they're
not noticeable and people just move
on with their lives a lot of times.
Mm-hmm.
Um, the rate of reporting has gone down,
the clearance rate has gone down as well.
You can see all the sask
can does all this stuff.
Um, so we are seeing less
crimes reported than victims.
So they, what they do is they
compare the general census that
they do with the crimes that are
reported to the federal courts.
So they'll do the general census,
say, Hey, have you been the victim
of a violent crime in the last year?
Or whatever.
Right.
And then they'll compare that stat
to how many people actually reported
a violent crime the year prior.
And they'll say, okay, well 30%
of the people who've reported
the crime to the police.
60% said they were victims of
violent crime on our census.
So they, it's referred to basically
as a victim versus crime comparison.
Sure.
Um, yeah, it makes sense.
So we have a lot more
victims than we do crimes.
The gap is growing, the rates at
which we are solving these crimes
is going down, but at the same time,
stats, Canada's reported crime rate
has gone up by percentage points,
like 10% or more in various areas.
Um, so things are getting worse.
And I think too, it's younger people
specifically because a lot of the
victimization of crime heavily, heavily
impacts people at lower income levels
because they have to live in Sure.
More dangerous areas and stuff.
Right.
Well, if you're a 65-year-old who
bought your home in 1985 and you've
marched your way up the property
ladder, you probably don't live in a
very dangerous neighborhood anymore.
Mm. And that's why I think you're getting
a lot of young people coming out while
we're seeing the growth, especially
amongst young people and getting gun
licenses, is that they are also the
population that is most influenced
by these increases in crime rates.
'cause they are the ones
confronting these crimes.
They maybe they can't afford
a car, so they get a bike.
Well, bikes are stolen all the damn time.
Do you report it?
'cause it's a bike?
No, the cops aren't gonna do anything.
That's right.
So, and that sort of mentality leads
to, well if the cops, if I can't trust
the cops to find my bike, what happens
if something more serious happens?
Mm-hmm.
I should probably then get a gun.
And where I think the intersect
will happen is eventually this
liberal mentality of, oh, we'll
kick the can down the road.
Maybe a bad shooting
happens at some point.
A bad crime is going to happen.
If this trajectory
continues, it's inevitable.
If crime keeps rising, eventually a
bad crime will happen and Canadians
will turn around and instead of saying,
govern us harder, daddy, they'll go.
Why can't I get something to
stop it from happening to me?
Mm-hmm.
That will be the shift is they will
have just given up hope that the
system, the authorities, the courts
can stop these things and they'll
say, I need to have that right myself.
Uh, nothing else.
You obviously can't provide it.
If you won't provide me with the safety
and security that me and my family need,
then you cannot deny me getting the
security that me and my family need.
And that's why I say it is inevitable
because that's just how the world works.
Like people will not continue to
accept a less safe area, less safe
for their kids in Intuity, constantly
allowing the responsibility of safety
to be downloaded to an authority.
A court system.
A jail system that does not
seem to be capable of it.
Like you wouldn't hire a
taxi with a broken engine.
It, it's just one of those
like, I need to get there.
Well, my engine's broken, well.
I guess I'll have to walk 'cause
I'm not just gonna sit in the
back of your cab while you,
I I, I see that tipping point
further on down the road though.
Um, a fair bit further.
I think there would have to be a lot of
civil unrest and a lot of, um, people
grabbing a pair essentially to stand up
and start, um, um, recognizing the amount
of agency that they have as an individual
to be able to affect their own destiny.
And I think that's something for a
long period of time that's been, uh,
intentionally, uh, taken from people.
Whether that's through school
systems, whether that's through
media, whether it's, whatever
it might be through legislation.
You can't defend yourself.
Don't you worry we have the
police, I'll take care of you.
You know, seconds count.
The police are minutes away.
Is is how the saying always goes?
I think.
I think we have a lot of.
Timid individuals who don't understand
how much power that they actually have.
And that's one of the things that I, like
you and I were asked to do a chat for the
National Firearms Association recently for
their A GM, and that's something that's
always been on the back burner that I try
to help people with is just understand
what the rules are, understand what you're
able to actually do in effect, in a legal
way, in order to push things further
for the benefit of yourself, your
family, and those around you.
It's not gonna be somebody else
who makes these things happen.
You're not gonna rely on an
organization, have given you some
money and it's all gonna happen.
You're not gonna rely on the police.
Okay, the government's got the
police in here and now I'm safe.
Right?
At some point people are going to
have to be, I think, pushed into a
position where they start standing up
and I, and I see that slowly happening.
I mean, there's a saying too that, I
can't remember what the exact wording
is, but it's basically like, you know,
very slowly then all of a sudden is
how change usually seems to occur a
lot of times is it's, it's incremental.
It's incremental, it's incremental, and
then suddenly a tipping point is breached.
And it's whoosh.
You know, it's, we've
seen it all so many times.
Um, I mean, the us, the housing crisis,
everyone knew it was a bubble, knew it's
a bubble, oh, it's gonna be a bubble,
it's gonna, then it bursts and it's, oh
yeah, that was a bubble and now it's a
giant recession, and that sort of thing.
I think, um, it could happen on an, on
a more evolutionary standard of just,
you know, okay, well things are getting
worse and police can't protect me.
But I think what will more likely
happen, especially given today's media
makeup and the, the way politics works
is, is you reach these moments in
time that are like a perfect push pull
opportunity wherein something happens.
Uh, in, in this context for, for
the hypothetical, say there's some
terrible crime that someone could
have prevented if they'd had a gun.
And there's some sort of key piece
of clear evidence that if this person
had been armed, they would have done
something outstanding, phenomenal, saved
a bunch of people, something like that.
Um,
with that clarity, politicians
then get the license, the political
license to entertain the notion
that we need to move forward.
And it inspires people
to push for that change.
And you get that push pull where you
get a massive uprising in people,
but it won't be, uh, it, it won't be
because Statistics Canada releases
a report and people just keep going.
Yeah.
Things are getting worse and worse.
And at this point, with that
number, that's the thing
that we need to now pursue.
It'll be some really emotionally
motivating event that will
provide people with enough.
Yeah.
Emotional motivation to push forward
and go, that can never happen again.
We need to do whatever we can to
prevent that from ever happening again.
And politicians will look at it
and go, there is a critical mass
of support for this process.
It may be historically speaking, not
something that we wanted to touch with
the 10 foot pole, but we are recognizing
a moment of zeitgeist in social, I guess
engineering at this point was what we're
talking about is sure they'll see that
and they will be able to pull towards it.
And the combination is usually what
results in, in wholesale change.
Um.
Mm-hmm.
I mean, good example would be that movie
that Al Gore did that really inspired
the whole climate change discussion.
Mm. The movie comes out, people
watch it, it's emotional 'cause it's
got animals dying and everyone sees
the sad looking polar bear on the
ice flow that's starving to death.
And they go, wow, we, we
can't let this happen.
And that gives people the incentive
and the politicians respond to it.
And you get that, that kind of.
Cooperative effort.
I don't know what that
looks like in Canada.
I also don't know as well because
there's, I feel like there are,
there's two Canadas at this point.
There's, there's like my parents Canada,
and then there's me and my brother's
Canada, and they're not the same country.
Hmm.
Because you will never convince
my parents that things are worse
today than they were in 1985.
Like, you can't even convince them
that houses are more expensive.
I've had that debate.
It didn't go well.
Um, sure.
When you try and have these
discussions, they just, Nope, nope.
It was tough for us too.
The interest rates really high and you
kinda go, well, you know, interest rates
and principle are two different things.
Like, would you rather have a
really huge principle and a low
interest rate, or like a really low
principle and a huge interest rate?
I, I know which I would prefer.
Um mm-hmm.
It's not the one I've got
unfortunately, but, uh mm-hmm.
I think that if you can't convince
people of, of these basic facts that.
Younger people are confronting
in a very, like daily basis.
Uh, you're dealing with, with a, such
a general generational divide as I'm
not sure the closest that I can come
with, uh, for a comparator would be
like Americans in the sixties with the
hippie movement in the Vietnam War.
Sure.
War, drugs, Reagan, that whole period.
But that whole period was also one
of extreme violence in the us like
multiple presidential assassination
efforts, some that were successful,
multiple, like Martin Luther
King, the Black Panthers bombings.
Like it was, it was a phenomenally, people
do not realize how the sixties in America
was an exceptionally violent period of
time because of that generational divide.
And I think Canada is going
to have to confront that.
And that's where I start to go.
You know, it's really easy to say, well,
I think Canada's really far away from
accepting firearms and self-defense as.
An innate Right.
Well, we're also the only country where
foreign diplomat's ever been executed.
The FLQ did it.
We have that history with the
Mohawk Nation of Armed Insurrection.
We have the FLQ bombing
things in Montreal.
Like these are not, this
is not ancient history.
Like my mom moved out of Quebec
during the War Measures Act
there because of the bombings.
Mm-hmm.
Like this is recent stuff.
Um, and unless this is where I do
hope, like this is one of those cases
where I hope Mark Carney can do better,
some politician needs to do better
because of that gap keeps growing.
If that misunderstanding between the
generations continues to grow, uh, we
will reach a point where the violence that
was born out in the sixties in America,
or the race riots and all the other
things that were largely generational.
'cause young people didn't have a problem
with integration, their parents did.
Mm-hmm.
If, if.
Kids today are going,
I can't afford a home.
'cause they're way too expensive and their
parents are going, it was hard for us too.
It was just as expensive.
You're gonna start to see people do things
that will become the inciting moments.
That could be the emotional push that
will make a politician go, Hey look,
the young generation seems really upset.
The sound of explosions indicates
that we should be, and they're
also the largest voting block.
So maybe what we should do is listen
to them and start making some changes.
Um, and those changes are, I
agree that it's down the road.
I don't think it's as far down
the road as most people think.
Um, and I don't know where the
change will take us, because some
of these things can go very far.
Some of them can be somewhat more
incremental, but they, I think there
will be much larger changes than
most Canadians are used to seeing.
I agree with a lot of
what you said there and.
One of the things that you touched
on was the zeitgeist, you know,
the spirit of the times, which
is the literal translation of it.
And I, so I just got back from
Montreal when I was over there.
I dropped by one of the local gun stores.
I talked to Dante, uh,
or sorry, not Dante.
I talked to Rudy at Dante's, uh, sporting
Goods and had a really good chat with him.
And he comes in, he says,
Trav, you come over here.
I, I don't show this to many
people, but take a look at this.
And he opens up his books
and he says, look at this.
Here's how long I've been running for.
I mark all the months, all the years,
how it goes up and how it goes down.
And I correlate what's
happening at the time.
You know what other gun stores at
this point right here, when this thing
happened politically, they shut down.
I didn't, here's what I did.
And he talks about how he pivoted.
And any good entrepreneur
and business person.
He can find a way to make a
pivot within their business.
Like I walk in his business, it's a gun
store, but it's also got like higher
end kitchen equipment in there too.
I don't know if you've ever been
there, but uh, and his wife's got
all her stuff and the son's a chef
and he is got a kitchen next door.
And I'm like, it's a pretty cool
family operation they got going and
it didn't happen just by a accident.
It's a longstanding
ongoing family operation.
But you know, I get something from that.
What I get from it is there's
always gonna be winners and
there's always gonna be losers.
Losers will whine, well, what happened?
Well, it was 2008 and there's a recession.
So if it wasn't for them, my
business would've thrived.
There's a lot of businesses that
did thrive in that time because
they pivoted and they adapted.
And I look at this in a similar way.
What can individuals do?
What can businesses do?
Businesses can adapt.
I mean, there's a lot of different
ways and ideas that a business
can actually, uh, use current
legislation in order to be successful.
It's the individual portion that I
think I'd like to touch on a little
bit, because a lot of people will
listen to you talk by self included.
I'll listen to what you have to say and
the holy crap, you're well informed.
Yeah, that's a really good point.
Yeah, that's pretty good.
Right?
And people will then sit back and
wait, okay, I guess we'll just wait
and see what happens, when will
this spirit of the times happen?
But individually, we have a lot of power.
We've got a lot of ability to
influence that spirit of the times.
And I, I think of Daniel
Bofski, you know Daniel, um.
He called me up many years back.
I'd love to have him on the podcast if he
could get his microphone figured out too.
But, uh, called me up many
years ago and says, Trav.
I'm a silver Court club member and
I'm having a hard time getting my, uh,
authorization to transport a restricted
firearm and my restricted firearms
license renewed here in Ontario.
I, they say I have to belong to a
gun club arranged, I belong to the
Silver gu, silver Court Gun Club,
and you are an RCMP approved club.
So I started helping him and he is,
I think he's an accountant by trade,
so he is meticulous in his approach.
He's not a lawyer, but what he did is he
made a legal issue out of it, one person,
and he pushed the issue into the courts.
I think when he went to the courts, he
ended up getting another club membership
through Silverdale, if I'm not mistaken,
and, uh, used that as an expedience
point so that they couldn't argue the
fact that Silver Court is a federal club
and this one's now a provincial club.
But he pushed it and pushed it
and pushed it and came back with
a somewhat favorable result.
The judge says, yes, Chris
Wyatt, current head of OOPP and,
and, uh, head of the Ontario.
Um, firearms office there.
You issue him his license.
He, you have to issue him his
license and give him his at TT.
So Daniel left all happy.
Chris Wyatt says, yeah, not a problem.
We'll do that.
We've got this court order and
then tells Daniel, not a problem.
We'll, we're gonna issue your
at t as soon as you, uh, show
us your, your club membership in
the way that we want to see it.
Daniel says, hold on a second.
That's not what I said.
That's not what the court said.
Took him back and he lost on the appeal.
But a byproduct of that one
individual's efforts was that that
province removed the requirement
to belong to a gun club or a range.
They changed how they approach
things 'cause they didn't want that.
Pushed further.
And I'm not saying the courts
are the proper mechanism for
individuals to move through.
They're expensive, they move slow, and
most often history has shown you're
not gonna get a favorable result.
However, how we comport ourselves,
how we help control the dialogue so
that the truth is getting out there
is something that's, that we're able
to do easier and easier through online
blogs, through podcasts like this,
through talking with your neighbor.
And that's the piece of the puzzle that I
think I would like to touch on further is
what can the masses the many do to help
affect a bit of a change in a way that's
gonna be positive for them, at least in
this one regard in the firearms arena.
It's an interesting question.
Um, 'cause it, it also brings up
something that I've thought about
in the, the days after the election.
You know, comparing a game to those
old CGN days where gun owners in
Canada had like literally one web
forum, uh, as this kind of solitary
platform upon which to have these
discussions and share ideas and whatnot.
We now have so many tools at our
disposal that, although especially in
the last five years, we've been hit
pretty hard by regulatory changes.
We as a community have
also never been stronger.
Uh, all of the organizations
have grown tremendously.
We even grew a third organization like
in, in the interceding years, we've, we've
gotten more organized than ever before.
Our gun clubs have an easier
time getting ahold of us.
There's, there's a much bigger network
of gun owners and it's created a much
more informed gun owner in general.
Um, I. W way back when we were
trying to get rid of the Long Gun
Registry, I would go to gun clubs
and I would hand out pamphlets.
'cause I was that guy.
This is before Caliber.
This was when Harper still had a
minority and we were trying to get it
Jack Layton's, NDP, to come on board.
And the pamphlets were super simple.
It was just basically like, this is why
I want get rid of the Long Gun Registry.
You know, go contact
your MP sort of thing.
And I would say at the time, probably
about 50% or more of the gun owners
that I would talk to would tell me
that the Long Gun Registry was a great
tool because it helped the police
catch criminals because they could
get the ballistics off of the bullet
and then run it through the registry.
And like then the guy from CSI
comes along and takes his sunglasses
off and he goes, it's that guy.
And I was like, that's not, I eventually
realized you can't convince these people.
'cause I kept being like, that's
not how any of this works.
Um, right.
But they were grossly
misinformed to be blunt.
Hmm.
That's not such a case these days.
Like when you go to the gun ranges and
you talk to people, you find people that
are quite aware of the bans and the effect
that they're going to have and stuff.
But at the same time, it's, it's
created this neural network of great
intelligence coming across the community.
It has also absolved every
one of personal responsibility
because back then we didn't have.
You know, there were organizations and
you could call them, you could pick
up the phone, you could talk to, you
know, the CSSA, the NFA, eventually
the CCFR, but like, they weren't
places that you could just post a
comment, fire, and forget, right.
You know, activism.
Um, and because you had to get on
the phone, no one really bothered.
So it was kind of just more a case of,
well, the, the organizations would tell
you, go meet with your mp, go do this.
We're doing a phone
drive, that sort of thing.
And there would be very real, like
24 hour phone drives where gun owners
would just, everyone's gonna call their
mp and over the next 24 hours, the
liberal party's phones would ring off
the hooks and everyone would get really
frustrated and remember that everyone
would go on Cgn and be like, man, so
and so-and-so's voicemail inbox is full.
Ha ha like jokes on him.
And like everyone enjoyed it.
That's what we need to get back to
doing now, is I think the liberal
party has seen on a macro scale.
From, from the fact that, and I'm
basing this solely on the fact that
like, it doesn't seem like people
really want the gun ban anymore.
Like when I do an interview with the CBC
and even they're like, yeah, this gun ban
doesn't really seem like it makes sense.
Um, that's, that's kind of evidence
that like there's no media outlet
that's overly supportive of this except
for like maybe the ones in Montreal.
Hmm.
Now you need to apply the pressure.
If they are aware that this is no longer
a winning policy for them, they will not
change it unless they have incentive to
do so, or they're being pushed to do so.
If it's such a pain in the ass,
then they go, we're, we know that
we can gain votes by losing this.
And also too, these people are
being a giant pain in my ass.
That's when they will start to actually
push things through the cabinet
table and say, yeah, you know what?
We could probably just find a compromise
and what that would probably look like.
And I'm not saying this is what I want.
'cause I would just like it all to
go away and we could just go back
to the way things were, which is
what I think what most people want.
But there is, you know, within the
realm of politics, that's unlikely
to happen to just completely, I
mean even with the carbon tax, Mark
Carney reduced the rate to zero.
He did not get rid of the legislation.
Right, right, right.
What they could do is go
up, we'll grandfather them.
You can still use 'em, you can
keep 'em, we'll go back to the
way the ban was sold to you.
You can keep them, you can use
them, but you can't sell them.
Okay, fine.
That's even, that's easier to
walk back down the road because
now it's an incremental thing.
A future conservative government
could come along and go like, well,
everyone can keep them and use them.
It's silly that they can't sell them.
Let's just make them legal again.
Right.
It moves us closer to what we want.
Um, and I think that's where gun
owners just need to take the personal
responsibility and say, look like.
I know a lot of people are intimidated by
their MP because the constant media cycle
and the way things are portrayed, they
seem like people who, like, for example,
Mark Carney is someone's MP in Neon.
He's just their member of Parliament.
Mm-hmm.
The guy does have an
incredibly advanced resume.
You have every right in the world to sit
in his office, not be rude, but tell him
your gun policy is absolutely retarded.
Like, you should just stop this.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Like you, you know nothing about our
existing gun laws that you made this
law because you would've known this
is impossible to do because you don't
know where any of these guns are.
You can tell him you're gonna burn
money in perpetuity 'cause you
don't know where the guns are.
And you have no legal avenue to make
the people give them to you right away.
And even if you could, you still
wouldn't know who has them.
So you would never know
if you got them all.
Like there's no, there's no way to tick
the box that says gun buyback complete.
It's literally impossible.
No one knows how many there
are, so they can never go.
We've got them all.
So it's.
It is just programmed forever.
You have every right to sit and tell
him that even though he's got Bank
of England on his resume and Bank
of Canada, like you have that right?
And that means that every MP has
the obligation to listen to you.
So if you're a gun owner, I think that
your obligation as a gun owner to the rest
of you know, your kids, your community,
is to go down and just meet with your mp.
Don't email them, don't do
something that they can ignore.
Say, I want to sit down and
have a meeting with you.
There is policy that is dramatically
impacting my life and I, I intend
to speak with you about it.
And again, don't be rude,
don't be derogatory.
But you can absolutely say
this is, this is stupid.
It is beyond the realm of stupidity.
And the best thing you
can do is roll it back.
I. Because I, I think like
that's, and that's the thing
that everyone's just gotta do.
I've done it.
I've done it with mps and MLAs 'cause I
get involved in some provincial stuff too.
And it's quite satisfying.
And to be honest, you get more
done in a 15 minute meeting with
an elected representative than
you do in three months of emails.
'cause they'll never read the email.
Eventually.
Like we can do the big email mass
drive thing that floods the inbox,
which gives them the impression
of volume, which is really good.
We can tie up their phone lines for a
day, which is good for the same reason.
But the best thing is to be
the constituent that steps up,
confronts them, and goes your
like hugely impacting my life.
It has impacted my life
for the last five years.
Please stop.
It's not benefiting anyone.
I think that's, it's as simple as that.
There's no, we can do lots of
other stuff, but that's all
secondary and tertiary things.
The first thing is to just,
they're your member of parliament.
You pay a metric buttload in taxes,
as we all just figured out recently.
You know, you fill out those CRA forms
when you send it off and look at all
the money that you gave to the CRA
guess who's getting some of that?
Your mp?
Mm-hmm.
Make them earn it, like mm-hmm.
You've paid them.
Why not get some value out of it?
Right.
Like it's, it's pretty simple.
And resources like this.
People listen to the podcast,
people reading your magazine.
We'll help them approach your MP
in, in a more articulate way, in a
way where they can, 'cause there's
gonna be emotion and it's hard to
separate emotion when you come up to
something like this emotion from fact.
And sometimes maybe it's not the
best to separate the emotion from the
fact, because if you try to fight an
emotional argument with simply Facts,
well that doesn't really work too well.
But there is a way that individuals
can comport themselves, how they can
couch a letter, how they can, uh, meet
with an MP and, uh, stay on point.
And that's the area that I think
that the gun organizations could
be of real value is in talking
to their membership and saying.
Okay, let's have an
accountability, uh, check.
Who here has talked to
their, their local mp?
How did it go?
What worked, what didn't?
Here's some tools that you can
bring in when you talk and some
talking points that you can go off.
They're not all gonna be the same
if everyone comes in and says the
exact same thing over and over again.
Okay.
They're like, yeah, yeah.
I heard this one when Bob came in last,
or when Jane came in, she said the
same thing, but here's some issues.
Pick the one that you find is most
important to you within it, and here's
some, here's some fodder, here's
some facts that can go behind it,
or ways that you can approach it.
I think that would be an effective
way for the gun organizations to
help her help mobilize people.
Oh, for sure.
And I think that's the, like from
a top down and bottom up approach.
If, if you, me, Joe, gun owner is
at the bottom, best thing you can
do is just reach up to your mp.
It's the, the best sphere
you could influence.
So do that.
But from the, the top down,
the organizations, um.
I mean, there's nothing stopping them from
making appointments for their members.
Like they could, you know, they,
they could do an accountability
check where they could just go, do
you wanna make us, do you want us
to make an appointment with your mp?
Yes.
No, they know your name.
They know your address.
So they could then just go,
hi, we represent so and so
at Blobbity blah riding.
He would like to have a meeting with you.
When would you like to schedule it?
And then they just email the
member and go, okay, well you're
meeting with your MP at this time.
You know, does that work for you?
That's brilliant, Dan.
Just do it.
That's brilliant.
Or, and then go to, you could,
you could download that as well.
'cause one thing that I will, I will
criticize our gun organizations for one
thing, and that is quite a few of them,
or I guess all of them, to be honest.
It's not that many of them, but they
all, uh, I'm not saying that they
exclusively focus on members, but they
almost exclusively focus on members.
Mm-hmm.
And good organizations don't do that Good.
What good organizations do
is they user members to speak
for everyone in that area.
Mm-hmm.
Um.
There are, for example, a great
example would be the Royal
Automobile Club in England.
Their membership is like, like,
like you gotta, you gotta have some
money to be in that club, right?
But they try and advance all drivers.
They not just their members.
And I think that's where the gun
organizations could make a lot of progress
is saying to their members like, look,
yeah, we're gonna do this for you.
We'll make appointments for you, but
we're also gonna reach out to all of
the gun clubs members are not, and
we're gonna offer them the same service.
Mm-hmm.
Because A, they get more
members who just make sense.
But also two, it's, it's, I
don't know why it is, but yeah,
they're so focused on just kind
of working with their memberships
and not getting out beyond that.
Um, that I think would also be a really
good step for them 'cause it would
amplify their voices quite a lot.
'cause right now they kind of just
purport to speak for the people
who have paid them the annual fee.
Mm-hmm.
But they, there's nothing stopping them
from expanding out into a much broader
perspective and saying, yeah, we have,
you know, 40,000 members, but because of
the work we do with people who are not
members, we can now kind of com purport
to speak for all gun owners, you know?
Um, and I think especially with the,
the hunters and stuff that's, that
would be something that would be quite
effective if they were to, you know,
perhaps I don't, and this is beyond my
like stuff, but like they could work
with BC Wildlife Federation or Offa, um,
to kind of bridge a gap and recognize
like, we're gonna spend some money.
On these wildlife federations on
some of the stuff they're doing.
'cause we support what they're
doing and, and we think our members
do too, that would then give them
that, that credibility that when
they approach government they go,
yeah, we do, we have 40,000 members.
We represent people like the BCWF
membership, offa membership sport
shooters, like much broader in scope.
So I'd like to see them do that.
But I think also to really,
like I said previously, some,
some straight up tactical stuff.
'cause I've not seen a ton of actionable
work, like from any of 'em going, okay, so
here's, so we sent out this thing asking
and we made, you know, 25,000 appointments
between members and our, their mps.
We did that and I would go, wow, like
I'm, I'm guessing what half of the
people forgot the appointment existed and
didn't go to the meeting with their mp.
But that's life.
But you still got half of those.
Which is better than the zero
that we're currently getting.
Um.
Mm-hmm.
But they really are, they're
not, I don't see them using
their members in the same way.
It is, it does seem to be a bit more
of the, you pay us and we'll represent
you instead of you're a member of our
organization and we're gonna give you the
tools and empower you to do the advocacy
that we are also doing on a macro scale.
Yeah.
The using of members, I've seen some
of the organizations essentially
weaponize their members, but more in a
recruitment driving fashion as opposed to,
or in a negative way where they put
out some information and knowing full
well that it's going to result in
like a cavalcade of brigade comments
or angry emails to people mm-hmm.
That don't.
Really deserve it.
Like, you know, there, there was, there's
been a few cases of that where it's
like, you know, someone's just trying
to do a job and I don't like it, I don't
like the result of what they're doing,
but like, it's just their nine to five.
Mm-hmm.
They don't need to be
inundated with hatred over it.
Um, and it's tactically not sound.
And in the long term too, it's just, it
doesn't benefit advocacy organizations.
They never benefit from,
from destruction, ever.
Like Right.
You look at Ducks Unlimited and, and
the really successful organizations
over the years, doctors the Borders,
like they build things, they build
better things than they previously had.
Uh, and it's never done by
tearing down other entities.
It's always through
collaboration and support.
Um, and you just don't see that's,
I hope we need, I hope we see more
of that in the next little bit.
I'm not optimistic.
I, I think that's a strong,
I think it's a strong indicator
that people can be looking at.
I mean, I. People want to savior
people want somebody to come
in and say, it's gonna be okay.
I give you the my money, they're gonna
go out, they're gonna do their thing.
I've done my part, we're gonna be fixed.
That seems to be the sentiment and
that's reinforced by some of the
organizations, uh, through the fear-based,
if you don't donate, we're doomed.
Right?
More, more money, then we can do things.
But, you know, I've had the chance to
peek behind the curtains on some of the
organizations and some of the wildlife
organizations and these different
groups and seeing how they try and, uh,
mesh together to reach a unified goal.
And a lot of egos get involved.
You know, it always comes down to the
same things, money and power or perception
of money and perception of power.
And it seemed, I, I think members
should be demanding a higher level of
transparency from where their money is
going within an organization and how
the efforts are being actually used.
Not in an anecdotal where we are so
transparent parent and anyone can
ask for things, but in an actual
way where it's, it's tangible
where you can actually see it.
And if you wanted the, uh, the things
that are being, they say they're being
transparent about, they're out in the
open because I, I think, I think we have
something here in Canada that can be quite
successful, but we have to change the
conversation and we have to change this
paradigm that we're stuck in of infighting
and, uh, people abro getting control
to a, just to a third party to solve
their issues for them and walking away.
Yeah, it's, um, I, I wanna say it's
kind of, it's, it's bizarre, uh, for me.
'cause like, I'm not naturally that way,
but I mean, even if, like, even being
involved on a low, low level, like on a
gun club board, like how I was president
here of a club in Kelowna for a while
and, you know, I guess I think I've said
it before and I don't know if it's a
shocker to the people listening, but like,
I don't really shoot for fun anymore.
It stopped being fun some time ago.
This is my job now.
Um, I think that's a bit of a, uh,
a strength when it comes to me doing
media stuff because I, if someone's
like, you love guns, they're like, no,
I actually really love motorcycles.
But you were close.
Um, they're both loud, I suppose.
Um, I feel passionately about
guns and I feel very passionately
about the policy around them.
To me, they're more about what firearms
and how a country handles them, what
it says about the country and how it.
How it feels about its own citizens.
So they're hugely important.
I don't want to, you know,
I'm, I'm not walking it back.
I'm saying they're hugely
important, but it's work for me.
Sure.
So when I was running the gun
club, I kind of fell into it.
So I moved to Kelowna
like eight years ago.
I think I've told you the story,
but it was kind of comical.
Chris Weber here who works at Weber
and Mark and Gunsmith, he's the
Weber part, in case anyone's curious,
um, he, I've known him before.
He's a very tall, large, kind
of grumpy German guy, and.
When I moved up here, I went to a
shop, we chatted, we hung out, had
lunch, you know, he's like, Hey,
you should come out to the, the Joe
Rich Club Ag GM, and I went off.
I mean, sure, why not?
That sounds like the club that I'll join.
I'll, I'll go pay my money, go
to the club, go to the Ag gm.
There's like 12 people in the room.
The president basically goes, well,
we have like three grand of the bank.
We'll be broke next month.
Uh, I'm not gonna be president again.
Who wants to be president?
And no one stuck their hand up.
And I'm sitting there going,
what the hell have I gotten in?
Okay.
And then eventually they did the one
call, two call, then the third call.
Chris goes, I, I nominate Daniel Fritter.
And they're like, I had
never been on the property.
I'd never even seen the club.
I had paid for a membership
like two weeks prior.
Everyone turns around in the room,
looks at me, and I'm like, I don't
know who any of these people are.
Like, I don't, I don't even know
where this frigging place is.
I know it's up Highway 33.
That's it.
So like, I fall into this
position and it went really well.
But what I learned was that.
I think when I was in a lot of
those meetings, my only goal was
to build a shooting facility for
people in the Okanagan period.
Hmm.
I don't shoot for fun, so I don't really
care if it's the 300 meter range, the a
hundred meter range, the 50 meter range.
It was, which range do
people use the most?
That's the one we should
spend the money on right now.
Hmm.
That attitude is unfortunately
not super common.
No.
Because as every gun member knows there's
been involved in a gun club, there'll
be people that go, well, I really like
shooting at 300, so we should invest
all of our money in the 300 meter range.
There's no collectivism, there's no
sense of we're here for the people down
the road, or we're here for the other
person before the before ourselves.
And I think that's where
people need to be asking their
organizations like, are you if
is what you're doing for your
organization or is it for gun owners?
Period.
Mm-hmm.
Is it looking to grow your organization?
Which is, it is a very noble goal 'cause
organizations do need to have memberships
and be big to have a good voice, but they
also need to be putting as much or more
effort into initiatives that move the
ball forward for gun owners in real ways.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and I think that's the one
where it's, you don't, there there
are things, they're all doing it.
'cause again, I'm sure there will be
people that hear this and think, I'm
speaking of individual organizations.
They all do this.
They all do it.
It's true.
They all do it in varying ways.
Like every organization has at times
done a phenomenal job of something
that is great for gun owners.
They have all done stuff that is
extremely self-serving at other times.
'cause nothing is perfect and that's life.
But what people and gun owners need to do
is push for more and better and say, look
like we do deserve organizations that do.
Not just well or better than the other
organization, but do properly good work.
There are a ton of gun
owners in this country.
There is a, there's a lot.
And I think the fact that none of our
gun organizations have ever gotten really
huge memberships, even though there are
millions of gun owners in the country,
which are very accessible, is largely
because they're, they're not, they're not
doing the things of reaching out to other
organizations, meshing with them so that
they can expand their own sort of reach.
Um, and, and I guess their own, I'm
trying to think of the word, but
like basically what they represent.
It's almost like they've all become
hyper distilled into these very small
organizations that represent very
specific things about gun ownership.
Maybe it's mm-hmm.
That they represent, you know, a
regional area or they represent, you
know, and I guess it's their name, but
shooting sports, you know, there'll be
organizations where it's like everyone
thinks that's what they represent.
Like the CSSA Canadian Shooting
Sports Association grew out of
the Ontario Handgun Association.
So you get a regional tie and then you
get a specific tie to pistol shooting that
grows into a shooting sports association,
which they represent gun owners of
every strike with their membership.
But like, you know, the name is, is
something that people kind of go there
for shooting sports, other organizations
that are a bit more on the rights side
of things, which comes with a whole
political set of problems for advocacy.
That's troublesome, but like.
There's no, like, as much as they're
vilified and as much as they have
huge problems related to money and
power, the nras program is huge.
Like when you go through what the
NRA does from legal battles at state
levels to their Junior Eagle program
or whatever it's called, for like Kids
Gun safety, Eddie, Eddie Eagle, it is
a wide range of stuff that they do that
supports gun owners that are maybe not
NRA members, period like, but that's
what allows them to be the NRA if.
If a gun organization Canada wants
to truly be the NRA of Canada,
they need to do those things.
They need to go to school boards
in remote areas and say, Hey, look,
we have a program for gun safety.
You are in a rural area.
Gun ownership is a very high rate here.
We can send someone along that can do this
to your grade 12 class that can show them
that if they come across the gun, how to
handle it safely, what to do, et cetera.
You know?
Mm-hmm.
We have this, we've got it through
ba we, we've talked to the advisors,
we've got people to sign off on it.
We've got the pediatrician signature
here, it's best practice has been
followed, et cetera, et cetera.
Do the necessary steps to
get a school board to Yes.
On that, while also taking a court case
to a judge while also trying to get people
to make appointments with their mps.
Like that's, that's what
they should be doing.
Um, but,
you know, and you know how simple that is.
Like a lot of these things
can be, can be automated.
I mean, if you want to have appointments
with nps, you can leverage AI in order
to organize schedules, calendars, call
outs, emails, whatever it might be.
Like these are really simple initiatives
that, that can move the needle.
Yeah.
I mean.
You could automate the whole thing.
We used to have the email machine that,
I can't remember who made it, but uh,
there was a system where he would do,
like, you wanted to email your mp, you
pressed on a button and it just, like, it
was, again, this is going back to cg, you
pressed on a button and it just opened
your email client into your MP and it was
like you just write whatever you want or
read a form letter that you just copy.
And it's stuff like that where there could
just be a portal where like maybe they
make the appointment for you or maybe they
just send you a link with a button and
you click on it and voila, there's a form
letter in your email client or you copy
paste it in of, hi, I'd like to meet with
you, what time is available, et cetera.
You know, and it is really,
really easy stuff to do.
Um, I struggle with it as well from
the perspective that, you know, the
organizations are the only people that
can rely on volunteers to do this.
The rest of us have to pay people.
So, right.
It'd be when, when you can have volunteers
that are doing this stuff for you on a
volunteer basis, which it's, I don't say
that to denigrate it 'cause it's awesome.
Like that's what makes
this system work, right?
Yes.
But it's also what drives
further volunteerism.
If some guy mm-hmm.
Is, oh, well I can do code
and, and computer programming.
I can make a website for you that
will automate people clicking
on the link, figuring out where,
you know, accept your location.
Yes, this is where I am.
This is your mp.
Fire off the email.
If they see the number of emails going
through that system, they're satisfied.
They go, that was good work.
And now they're more likely to volunteer.
They tell their friends and that's how
the organizations blossom in really
organic ways compared to, you know, the
kind of just beat you over the face.
Donate, donate, donate, uh,
thing, which, you know, I'm
pretty exhausted with personally.
A hundred percent.
Um.
That was one of the things on my checklist
that I wanted to touch on without pointing
fingers at anyone in in particular.
'cause like you say, we could do that.
They've done good, they've done
bad, but we can all do better.
Uh, the biggest thing though is the
individuals and their ability to hold
their organizations accountable and what
they can actually do to affect change.
And number one on my list I put together
here was get politically literate.
And you're one of the more
politically literate people I know.
Like subscribe to Caliber Meg,
listen to you got a YouTube channel.
Listen to the podcast that we do together.
They tend to do quite well.
I ask the stupid questions, you come back
with an articulate answer as to great.
So we we can figure these things out.
Um, normalizing firearms ownership.
That's another thing I put down there.
Um, you know, don't, don't take the bait.
Why does anyone need to know?
Own a gun.
Maybe just flip the script,
change the conversation.
There's, there's no reason why we can't.
Firearms ownership is normal.
It, it just is, it's like
car ownership is normal.
Um, it's how we talk about it and how we,
uh, comport ourself that quote unquote
normalizes it in the, in the public eye.
I've got a whole list of things here.
I think maybe what I'll do is
I'll point form them off and
we can talk about that after.
In the, uh, in the Silver Core clubs, uh,
we've got a private podcast through there.
And, um, just, just a quick point
form, people can look at that
if they, they're interested.
Is there anything else that we
should be talking about that
we haven't talked about so far?
I think the one thing that I would say,
since you mentioned that thing about,
you know, who needs a gun, and it kind of
triggered something in me, 'cause that's
a pretty triggering phrase these days.
But sure.
That people should like,
think about these things.
It sounds dumb, but just
think about these things.
Don't just parrot back the comments
that you've heard other people say,
like you're an individual person.
And unfortunately because Canada
is 40 million people in the
States is like 440 million people.
Our media space, be it on social
media or on any streaming service or
TV or whatever, however you consume
your media, is hugely influenced
by the US culture, which I think
is, uh, I don't like it personally.
Not that I don't like American
culture, but I don't like that
Canadian culture has been so subsumed
by American culture and in few areas.
Is that more true than gun culture?
'cause although Canadians did, you know,
a few years ago, going back like the 20
years ago, they, they had a weird attitude
around guns and were kind of misinformed.
There was a unique Canadian gun culture.
We, we shot things like visa at 50 eights.
We really proud of the fact that we got
to divorces before the Americans did.
Um, right.
A lot of Canadians were proud of the
fact, like when I say that at some
point we'll probably reach a, an
intersection where gun ownership and
public safety, IE like a crime happens
and people see it as a reason to
own a gun rather than not own a gun.
Unless the trajectory
changes, we will get there.
I don't like that.
I actually liked it better when
Canadians could go, you don't need
a gun for self-defense because
crime here was so uncommon.
That was a great thing.
Um, it, it sounds great to
carry a gun for self-defense.
It sounds super cool and badass.
It sounds like John Wick.
Then you realize it's five
pounds you gotta carry around
on a sweaty day in July.
It's not mm-hmm.
It's not that awesome in
the reality of things.
No.
It's better if you don't need to sit down.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Like it's, it's just, it's
better if you don't need to.
So I think it's, Canadians
think about our own gun culture.
So when someone says, well,
why do you need a gun?
A, one of the biggest problems with
us gun culture is it's combative.
Because it comes from that
defensive perspective, and it's a
bilateral system with two parties,
so it's naturally compatible.
You have one party that doesn't like
guns, one's that does hates guns, one's
that like guns, and they just fight.
And a lot of the talking points that
you see around guns are engineered
around that combative perspective.
Canada is getting that way, but
I would really prefer it didn't.
So try and find common ground with people.
If someone's saying like,
well, why do you need a gun?
We'll start to, instead of, okay,
so they have an issue with guns.
So if you bring up gun stuff,
you're, well, why do you need wine?
Well, A, you sound like
a dickhead, first of all.
Yeah, because like, yeah, yeah.
No one likes that.
But B, ignore the gun entirely.
Say, well, I do you think we, we should
legislate around perceptions of necessity.
Mm. Is that a great thing
for a country to do?
Because now you're into
legislative fairness and mm-hmm.
And basic citizenship and you know,
why does one person's perception
of necessity mean it should
be illegal and someone else's?
Doesn't it?
It allows you to find common
ground where if you both go, Hey,
it seems fair that if I think is
something is unnecessary, I probably
shouldn't be able to make it illegal.
And if you think something is unnecessary,
then you probably shouldn't as well.
Well, now you're at a common ground
where you can say, well, so, so
if I don't need a gun, who cares?
It's not important.
Necessity is not an
issue around legislation.
We don't legislate around need.
Right.
Find ways to say yes,
but guns are only made to kill people.
Right.
Well,
they aren't though.
But that, that's, that gets
into the combative stuff
where you say, well, right.
Why do you think guns are made to kill?
Well, because they can
shoot a lot of people.
Well, that's a person that does that.
The guy who engineers the
gun just designs it to shoot.
No one can engineer a
gun to shoot someone.
It would have to have legs,
it would be the Terminator.
And no one's made that yet.
But, you know, give you
Elon Musk some time.
Like it's, it's once you start to stop
going at the bait, stop taking the bait
and swallowing it so deeply and start
actually picking apart some of the stuff.
It sounds like pedantics and not a
lot of people have the patience for
it, so most people just go, yeah,
whatever, and move on with their day.
But some people will hear you out and
it can change a lot of perceptions.
Like, you know, way back to the
beginning of this conversation.
Did we get the election result we wanted?
No.
Did we get the election
result we wanted yet?
No.
But that doesn't mean
we won't down the road.
Mm-hmm.
Like you change one word, the whole
sentence means a different thing.
And I think where that's.
What gun owners kind of have to start
doing is thinking about this stuff
pragmatically, thinking about it
from their own perspective, thinking
about it from the Canadian side of
things, and tell people, look, we
never had American style gun laws.
That's why we don't have
a lot of mass shootings.
What I want to see is that we
don't get American style gun laws
wherein they have been weaponized
by political parties for gain.
That's what I don't want.
Mm. I think most people
would agree with that, so.
Mm-hmm.
And, and even most anti-gun people
would agree with that sentiment.
So it's kind of, you know.
Yeah.
Did you, do you remember a
lot of shootings in 2008?
No, and we had Canadian gun laws.
I could buy an AR 15, like most people
will kind of go, oh yeah, that's
weird, you know, then you hit 'em with
your dad could buy a machine gun, a
Canadian tire and see what they do.
But, you know, that doesn't always work.
We could go right back
to like 1962 and it'd be great.
Daniel, thank you so much.
I really enjoyed chatting with you.
Um, always a breath of fresh air.
Always learn something
when I talk with you.
And for the listeners, of course, there's
gonna be links in the description to your
website where they can subscribe to te
Caliber Bank, social media, all the rest.
Um, and if they had questions, if
they have, uh, thoughts or ideas on
anything that's been covered in here.
Throw it in the comments.
I read every single one of them.
I'm sure you do as well, Dan.
Yep.
Dan, thanks so much.
Thank you.