Can the U.S. Learn From Canada’s New Gun Laws?

As America continues to grapple with the complex issue of gun violence, some look north for possible solutions. Canada, often praised for its public safety, has implemented sweeping changes to its gun laws – most recently with Bill C-71 and Bill C-21, as well as massive bans on semi-automatic firearms and handguns. But are these efforts genuinely reducing crime, or are they targeting the wrong people? 

Interviews with Rick Blakeley, President of the Lethbridge Fish and Game Association, and Hank Idsinga, former Toronto police officer and crime commentator, offer insight into the real-world consequences of these laws – both their intentions and their flaws. And in comparing Canada’s approach with American challenges, one can’t help but wonder: is there anything the U.S. can or should emulate?

Sweeping Bans That Leave Hunters in the Crosshairs

According to Rick Blakeley, the Canadian government’s recent gun bans are more about aesthetics and political posturing than actual safety. In his interview with Bridge City News, Blakeley emphasizes that many of the banned firearms – such as the AR-15 – were not designed for military use, but for competitive sport shooting. “AR” doesn’t stand for “assault rifle,” he explains, but “Armalite Rifle,” referencing the company that originally developed it. He highlights how even low-caliber .22 rifles have been banned, not because of their functionality, but because they had tactical-style stocks instead of traditional wood stocks.

The Gun Range as a Safe Haven

Blakeley paints a picture of Canada’s sport shooting community that clashes with the image often portrayed in media. At the Lethbridge Sport Shooting Facility, activities range from youth education programs to police training. The range even supports community outreach by offering firearms and ammunition at no cost to underprivileged youth. “We’re getting kids out of the basement and into structured environments,” Blakeley says, emphasizing how sport shooting teaches responsibility and discipline. In his view, these are exactly the kind of law-abiding citizens being unfairly vilified by federal policies.

A Legal Firearm Owner’s Risk

What might surprise American readers is how easily Canadian legal gun owners can lose their rights. Blakeley explains that even an act of aggression during a hockey game could lead to the revocation of a gun license. Canadian firearm owners undergo extensive background checks and licensing procedures, yet these same citizens are the ones targeted by sweeping legislation. Meanwhile, Blakeley argues, actual criminals operate with near impunity. “They allow the criminals to basically run free with firearms – even machine guns,” he says, frustrated by what he sees as double standards.

Law Enforcement Perspective: It’s the Border, Not the Buyer

From the law enforcement side, Hank Idsinga tells a different but complementary story. As a retired Toronto Police officer, he brings a pragmatic view to Canada’s firearm debate. Speaking to Global News, Idsinga states that over 90% of guns recovered from crimes in Canada are traced back to the United States. “Less than 10% are stolen here or come from lawful gun owners,” he says. The bulk of the problem, he argues, lies in border control – not licensed Canadian firearm owners.

Guns Already Banned? Criminals Don’t Care

Idsinga is blunt when asked about the effectiveness of Canada’s sweeping bans. “The ban would have had no effect whatsoever on the kinds of recent gun crimes we’re seeing,” he states, referencing incidents like the Edmonton security guard shooting. Even as Canada has added over 1,800 gun models to its prohibited list in recent years, the weapons showing up in gang-related violence are often handguns smuggled across the border. “The preferred weapon is definitely the handgun,” Idsinga notes. Not the rifles the government is banning.

An Expensive Program With Little to Show

The government’s buyback program has become a focal point for criticism. The effort, which aims to compensate owners for newly prohibited firearms, has already cost Canadian taxpayers $67 million – without collecting a single gun. Blakeley questions the legality and logic of the initiative. “They never owned them. They can’t buy something back that they never owned,” he says. Instead, he views the program as political theatre that punishes law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to curb real threats.

The Toll on Small Businesses

The impact of these laws isn’t just ideological – it’s economic. Blakeley points to the closure of sporting goods stores and firearm retailers as a direct consequence of these measures. He says billions have been lost across the industry, including in places like Lethbridge. When you attack a legal, regulated sector, you’re not just targeting a pastime – you’re hurting real jobs, local economies, and community institutions. The U.S. would do well to remember this when considering similar measures.

What About the Data?

Both Blakeley and Idsinga make compelling arguments grounded in statistics. Blakeley cites data showing that licensed gun owners are responsible for less than 1% of all violent incidents. “The stats say crime has gone up, not down,” he adds, especially in gang-dominated urban areas. Idsinga backs this up, noting that firearms used in crimes are rarely sourced from within Canada. If the goal is to reduce violence, both argue that the government’s actions are misdirected.

Real Solutions: Border Security and Police Resources

Idsinga offers some suggestions that go beyond the typical gun control talking points. He argues for tighter border security and more robust policing. “We’re seeing big arrests and seizures south of the border,” he says, but these efforts need to be mirrored in Canada. Running these investigations is costly and requires personnel – something Canada’s police services are struggling with. He also suggests harsher penalties for those caught with illegal firearms, reinforcing the idea that accountability, not virtue signaling, should guide policy.

Cultural Clash or Policy Failure?

There’s a cultural disconnect at play, too. Blakeley believes the government is out of touch with rural communities where firearms are part of life – for hunting, sport, and family tradition. Meanwhile, city-centric lawmakers craft policy that treats all gun owners as potential threats. “It’s like calling a fishing rod a harpoon,” he jokes. While it’s easy to make blanket assumptions about what looks “military,” understanding context and use is crucial for fair legislation.

A Missed Opportunity for Mental Health and Youth Outreach

Both sources suggest that money allocated for gun buybacks would be better spent elsewhere. “Spend it on mental health, youth outreach, and policing,” Blakeley urges. These are areas where real, measurable results can be achieved. The U.S., too, has had its fair share of debates around whether reactive bans are more effective than proactive social investment. On this point, there may be strong bipartisan support south of the border for rethinking priorities.

What the U.S. Can Actually Learn

So can the United States learn anything from Canada’s approach? Yes – but not necessarily what some might expect. It’s not about banning more guns or copying buyback programs. Instead, the lesson may lie in understanding the consequences of misguided policy. 

Canada’s experience shows what happens when governments target appearances instead of root causes. Border control, focused law enforcement, mental health investment, and respect for responsible ownership – those are lessons worth exploring. But political grandstanding at the expense of law-abiding citizens? That’s a warning the U.S. would do well to heed.