I didn’t just have more to say about a story in this week’s issue, I have a suggestion on how to fix it.
Let’s start with the story, from the 22 September issue:
Tax Dollars, Hard At Work
“The Government of Canada continues to engage with various stakeholders and service providers to ensure a safe, efficient, and cost-effective program,” Public Safety Canada told CTV News after an inquiry. The inquiry: the status of a government program to “buy back” military style “assault” rifles. The government says there are about 150,000 such weapons in private hands, and such rifles were banned in 2020 with the promise of paying “fair market value” to citizens who own them. So far, the program has cost “nearly” C$67.2 million (US$49.5 million); the resulting average of $448 per gun doesn’t sound like it quite covers “fair market value,” and it’s unlikely they’ve bought back all 150,000 by now, so how many guns have been taken in for that cost? None. So far, $56.1 million has been spent by Public Safety Canada to set up the program, and “almost $11.1 million” by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Of those amounts, “nearly $11.5 million” was spent on “external consultants” for “software, logistics, communication support, and more.” (RC/CTV) …It could be worse: it could be not “cost-effective.”
Breaking It Down
The parliamentary budget officer estimated — in 2021 — that it might ultimately cost C$756 million (US$557 million) to pay “fair market value” for the 150,000 rifles, or C$5,040 (US$3,714) each.
A “mid-level” AR-15 costs (in the U.S.) $800–1,500 each. So more than a 100 percent “markup” (if you will) to support the bureaucracy involved, which presumably includes some significant amount to destroy and dispose of the guns.
A Modest Proposal
Or they could think about it a bit. Let me try: maybe they could set up a “donation” program where the owners could take them to their nearest military centre and exchange a subjected gun and its ammo for $800 cash no questions asked, and the military could airlift it all to Ukraine for use in repelling the Russian invasion. Hm? Or, I mean, Eh?
Win-freaking-Win, with nowhere near the $3/4-billion expense. (Canada: my “consulting fee” for this idea is a mere $1 million — hell, I’ll even take payment in your dollars.)
Seriously, if Canuck gun owners are even 10 percent similar to U.S. gun owners, they will resist the “take-away.” But they might just line up to voluntarily help support Ukraine.
Wild guess: 80-90 percent could well go for the above idea, and be proud of “sticking it” to the Russians instead of being forced into something by “the government.”
Think about it …please! I bet your citizens want you to (and to pay my very reasonable consulting fee).
Update: Canada Agrees!
I woke up this morning here in the Caribbean to headlines from last night (5 December 2024) that Canada has now proposed to send a newly-expanded list of Assault Weapons to Ukraine, and that country is indeed interested in at least some types.
Shockingly, the Canadian government has not mentioned me in any of this, nor have they called to ask how to make payment. Yeah, I get that they “are busy” and I will need to give them a little time, but the least they can do is mention me in their press briefings. Just say the URL clearly and distinctly, please: “This … is … True … dot … com”. Thank you. Your friend in honesty and fairness, Randy.
– – –
Bad link? Broken image? Other problem on this page? Use the Help button lower right, and thanks.
This page is an example of my style of “Thought-Provoking Entertainment”. This is True is an email newsletter that uses “weird news” as a vehicle to explore the human condition in an entertaining way. If that sounds good, click here to open a subscribe form.
To really support This is True, you’re invited to sign up for a subscription to the much-expanded “Premium” edition:
Q: Why would I want to pay more than the minimum rate?
A: To support the publication to help it thrive and stay online: this kind of support means less future need for price increases (and smaller increases when they do happen), which enables more people to upgrade. This option was requested by existing Premium subscribers.
Just a comparison on this from Australia.
In 1996, the Howard LNP government (our version of the US Republican Party) enacted the National Firearms Agreement to buy back auto and semi auto rifles and shotguns.
The program bought back over 700,000 guns and cost $230 million AUD. So $328AUD per gun or about $200USD per gun. This is about $425USD in today’s dollars.
I have shooter friends who sold their entire collections and made a profit. It wasn’t a fixed rate per gun. They paid based on the actual weapon being handed in.
There is currently (since mid 2021) an amnesty on handing in illegal weapons. Nearly 18,000 were handed in during the first year.
—
An excellent data point in just how outrageous Canada’s costs are. -rc
Seems like a good idea. New York State could do similar with Israel.
Of course, these AR-15 “military style” “assault” rifles are neither military nor assault rifles, and would not be suitable for actual combat. Most are neither built to military standards nor capable of automatic fire. Many (those designed for .223 Remington cartridges) are not capable of safely handling a military load (the NATO 5.56 cartridges used in battle are higher power).
—
I would bet Ukraine would be happy to have them, if only to provide eager civilians with improved firepower to defend their own neighborhoods. -rc
Your idea is promising. The only question in my mind is whether the Canadian government is officially supportive of Ukraine and if so are they committed enough to offer material help.
—
“Since the beginning of 2022, Canada has committed $4.5 billion in military assistance to Ukraine.” —Canadian government. -rc
If not Ukraine, there’s always Israel. Or Nigeria.
—
Nigeria has enough U.S. dollars to pay full market prices! -rc
This idea makes far too much sense for any government to adopt it.
You have at least one Canadian supporting your idea. But Ed’s got it right. Governments never opt for what’s really best for everyone. We could have been done with COVID-19 in 2 months tops, if all governments just shut down their countries (except for essential goods and services) for 3 weeks and paid a fair wage to everyone for those 3 weeks. It would have cost far less than all the money they ended up spending on vaccines, treating COVID patients, etc.
Setting aside for a moment that not a single civilian in Canada owns a “military style “assault” rifle”, why would it be okay for one nation’s citizens to be armed well enough to defend themselves while another nation’s citizenship is forced to be defenseless?
—
You’re being pedantic. It’s obvious that the law has some sort of definition, with “assault” (I put that IN QUOTES for a reason) being used as shorthand. And under that definition, they estimate 150,000 such weapons are in civilian hands. But no, you have to nitpick and divert from the entire point in a foolish way. This is a great example of the opposite of thinking. -rc
James in Nevada did have a good point however. Why should we disarm people in one society only to arm people in a different society?
It kind of reminds me of the old sick NRA riddle: What do you call a building in a gun free zone? A target.
—
Or, as I put it…. But to be clear, I’m not arguing the merits of the law, just the ridiculousness of how they’re implementing it. Other arguments are for other pages, such as the one linked here. -rc
Speaking as a Canadian, I fully support this initiative! Og knows the Canadian government can’t figure this out for the life of them.
I’m sorry, but what our government is doing is a stupid idea! They need to stop criminalizing legal gun owners because a few criminals commit crimes with guns. It’s not like more gun laws will stop the criminals anyway.
I would expect no less from the current Canadian government (or either major party here in the USA)–lots of flash, lots of noise, hip, hot, “cool”, lots of self-congratulations, no actual results.