The Liberal Gun Buyback: A Solution in Search of a Problem
Yesterday, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree announced that the long-promised Liberal firearm buyback program will finally be rolled out next month, with the expectation it will be completed within the next year. For a government already struggling under the weight of economic woes, health-care strain, housing shortages, and global instability, the decision to devote this level of political capital and public money to what is essentially a non-issue is not only baffling—it’s reckless.
Canada, unlike our southern neighbor, does not have a “handgun problem.” We don’t see weekly headlines about mass shootings. We don’t live in fear of sending our children to school or stepping into a shopping mall. Our firearm regulations are already some of the strictest in the Western world, with licensing, background checks, storage requirements, and transport restrictions. To suggest that Canada is teetering on the edge of an American-style gun crisis is nothing more than political theatre.
And yet, here we are: the Liberals are determined to pour time, money, and political will into a program designed to confiscate firearms that are already owned legally by vetted, licensed Canadians.
In these politically turbulent times, when trust in institutions is fragile and polarization is on the rise, politicizing issues that don’t actually pose a pressing threat is dangerous. The buyback program is not about public safety; it’s about optics. It’s about signaling to urban voters that the government is “doing something” on gun control, even if the numbers show Canada’s situation does not remotely resemble the United States.
What this really amounts to is a distraction. Canadians are grappling with runaway grocery prices, mortgage stress, emergency rooms stretched to breaking, and an opioid crisis claiming thousands of lives each year. Against this backdrop, is a billion-dollar buyback scheme really the best use of taxpayer resources? Or is it a calculated attempt to score political points while diverting attention from the government’s inability to address the issues that actually keep Canadians up at night?
The Liberals have framed the buyback as a matter of principle—fulfilling a campaign promise. But campaign promises mean little if they don’t align with the needs of the moment. Leadership requires prioritization. It requires knowing when to set aside ideological pet projects and focus on the fires burning hottest.
Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is a fraction of that in the United States. The overwhelming majority of crimes involving guns here are committed with illegally obtained firearms, often smuggled across the border. No buyback targeting law-abiding gun owners will change that fact. At best, this program will reduce the number of licensed citizens who own a certain class of rifles. At worst, it will erode trust between government and citizens while draining funds that could have been used to improve border security or bolster law enforcement’s fight against organized crime.
The heart of the matter isn’t just about guns—it’s about freedom and government overreach. Canada has a long-standing culture of responsible firearm ownership, particularly in rural communities where hunting and sport shooting are part of daily life. To demonize these citizens by lumping them in with criminals is unfair and unproductive.
More broadly, the buyback represents a troubling pattern: a federal government that increasingly views its citizens not as partners in public safety, but as problems to be managed. When the state tells law-abiding Canadians what they can and cannot own—not because those items are being misused, but because of political posturing—we should all take note. This is not about safety. This is about control.
The Liberals may believe they are scoring points with this announcement, but they are likely underestimating the potential backlash. Canadians are patient, but they are also pragmatic. They understand when their money and their freedoms are being squandered in the name of empty gestures.
At a time when people are choosing between heating and eating, how will the government justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying back firearms that were never misused in the first place? How will they defend the decision to prioritize this initiative over addressing ER wait times, fentanyl overdoses, or housing affordability?
If the Liberals want to continue their culture of government overreach, Canadians must decide whether to push back. Freedom does not erode all at once; it erodes piece by piece, policy by policy, until suddenly the space for personal responsibility and individual rights is gone. The buyback is not just about guns. It is about whether Canadians are willing to accept that erosion in the name of political theater.
Minister Anandasangaree’s announcement may have been intended as a sign of progress, a way to reassure voters that a long-stalled promise is finally coming to fruition. But it should instead serve as a wake-up call. Canada does not have a handgun epidemic. We do not have an assault-weapon crisis. What we have are pressing, immediate challenges that demand urgent solutions.
If the government truly wishes to make Canadians safer, it should invest in mental health supports, tackle organized crime, secure our borders, and strengthen community policing. Instead, it has chosen to chase headlines with a buyback program that will do little to protect anyone.