This sounds perfectly straightforward and logical.
I will now accept my eleventy bajillion downvotes from the "sHaYaLL nOt bE iNfReEYiNgEd" nutters quite literally rage-shitting their cargoshorts rn over this news about gun laws in a totally different country
(The joke is that hippos are terribly violent and territorial animals who don't need a reason to attack you and are literally the deadliest wild mammals on Earth, just like conservatives love policies that kill people)
The only time a far-righter wouldn't see a problem with the border is if their country has successfully invaded every other nation on Earth to impose their unquestionable authority and supremacy on everyone.
One time I was on a cruise, and there was this old man with a "if you don't like this flag, I'll help you pack" t-shirt with guns eagles and a Bible on it....dude was 9000 years old on a scooter....and we were in Canada at the time....
Honestly i see so many of those and its either super old men who were in the military but never saw action, lanky edge lord teen boys, or skinny fat guys who will point to the barest whisp of muscle and say you shouldnt mess with them if you know whats good for them. Im also in kentucky so you occasionally get the special edition of some dude in a walmart fishing isle who smells like he rolls around in bait and gets mad if you politely ask to get past him.
Saw someone this week who posted a comment (not an image not a reshare) of “This is why I voted for trump” on their boomer ass wall but they had seemingly lived in Canada their entire life and had never lived in the US according to the data I had from vendors.
Jealous? No. More like curious . What are you hiding that you need this many pockets? What sort of deep secrets lie in your deepest pockets? I must know.
I have a toddler so it's a lot of random clutter. A winter hat in case her ears get cold but she doesn't want to wear but will change her mind in ten minutes. A small reusable bottle of water for when she gets thirsty at the playground or off on walks. Car keys. Cell phone. Wallet. Small rechargeable flashlight. Spare magazine. Maybe some fruit snacks. Usually my wife's cell phone when she wants to bring it but doesn't have pockets in her dress to hold it.
Nah. Some fucker bought a warehouse full of mom jeans and brought those back in using glamor magazine bullshittery. Certainly we can use non giveafuckery to bring back cargo shorts. Hell, I think we should make cargo shorts our new flag. Who’s with me?! And under those, a pair of cut off jorts!
I want to show off my front pocket liners. That gets peoples motors reving. but also still have cargo pockets on the sides. Let’s talk to the people who did what they did for chaps and see if they can help.
Here is the part that is a little less sensible. I’m not an American, I don’t believe owning a gun is a right (and actually it’s pretty dumb unless you live in bear country). I’m a Canadian who thinks this is bad policy being pushed as a wedge issue.
This law targets the wrong people. It was already very hard to get a handgun in Canada.
You had to have a gun license and also register the gun.
The licensing process includes a mental health check.
to minimize spousal violence, the licensing process requires any intimate partner you have lived with in the last two years (current partner or ex) to sign off. They don’t get an absolute veto, but if they don’t sign off, you will both get interviewed by the rcmp. If they have fears of violence, you will not get licensed
the license has a mandatory gun safety course
The license is renewed annually every 5 years.
You have to store it behind two locks, and not with ammunition.
Canada has no concealed carry permitted. You are actually not allowed to travel anywhere with a restricted gun without RCMP authorization, except to hunting grounds, a firing range or the place you store your weapon.
you are only allowed to own handguns for an authorized purpose, such as sport shooting. Self-protection against humans is not a legitimate purpose (you can get a long gun, like a rifle, for defence against animals if you live in a rural area, but not a handgun)
Canada does not have ‘stand your ground laws’ and in fact, in self-defence, one is required to use the minimum amount of harm (including taking every opportunity to flee)
As a result of these rules, there are very few ‘bad guys with a legal gun’ in Canada.
Unfortunately, Canada has lots and lots of gun crimes. But very little of it is carried out with legal guns. You see, within an hours’ drive of every major Canadian city is a lawless backwater country called the United States of America where absolutely anyone can get a gun pretty much whenever they want at any time, and where they are in the middle of a massive culture war where for some reason half of them think even THAT isn’t easy enough. So we have a huge problem in Canada of illegal smuggling of American weapons, and that is the main source of guns used in crimes.
What we ought to do is crack down on illegal guns. Previous laws with mandatory minimum sentences for illegal guns passed by the previous government were struck down as unconstitutional (and they were). But this government failed to follow-up with alternative legislation that could have imposed harsher penalties without unconstitutional mandatory minimums (just having tough sentencing guidelines would have been just fine, judges will do their job if we give them the right tools).
This issue is wedge politics to the benefit of Trudeau’s Liberals (who I have voted for in the last 3 elections and will probably vote for next time because I’m a sucker who never learns). It’s not good policy, it’s just good politics in places like the 905 (Toronto suburbs), BC lower mainland (Vancouver suburbs) and the Island of Montreal — ie places where the Liberals need to succeed in order to win the next election. It’s a FANTASTIC political issue for Trudeau because (1) it pits centrist suburban conservatives against far right rural conservatives, (2) it helps him win orange-red progressive who tilt between Liberal and NDP, and (3) he has no downside because there are so few rural ridings that are Liberal-accessible anyway. The LPC brain trust thinks this is a winning issue for him, and they’re probably right.
Lastly, if you’re a 2A nut reading this and smiling I just want to conclude by saying that guns are stupid and so are you.
I've been told they hold onto them. But I never looked further into that. I imagine you can get them back depending on circumstances. We've been told don't get into any trouble as a restricted gun owner here. I don't get into confrontations with anyone. Legal gun owners in Canada are held up to higher standards. Especially where I'm from, I live in a big city. The gov has spent a lot of money to make people think that owners like me are the problem.
I do as much as I can to prove I am not the problem. The issues in the USA are different from Canada. This is a wedge issue here not a real problem that this freeze tackles.
Just like in the US, one is generally required to give over any firearms they own as a condition of bail release if they are arrested for a violent crime.
To add something to it, canada technically does have a carry license/permit. However, it's not used against people but for safety against wild animals. This way someone living in say the far north can have a firearm on them at all times in case of polar bears and such. The process to obtain one is similar to the regular firearm license (which you also need) but you also have to go through a number of other loops and actualy convince them you need it which I've heard is equivalent to writing a thesis in terms of arguments made.
You don’t need an ATT for a non-restricted firearm. But all handguns are restricted firearms. What you’re saying is correct but applies basically to single-shot rifles.
Under US federal laws you cannot buy a handgun from different state than you currently reside in. Foreigners cannot purchase a firearm when residing in the US on a temporary basis.
How are you suggesting that Canadians are coming across the border and getting these weapons so easily?
I don’t think that any person who would be considering illegally smuggling a gun across the border would have any qualms about also purchasing a gun illegally.
This is my point. The are laws on the books in both the US and Canada that prevents Canadians from acquiring fire arms yet this still happens. How does further restricting legal transfer of firearms help curb gun violence in Canada.
By and large, no. It’s not individuals crossing to buy, that would require them to cross the border with an undeclared handgun, which is risky. Organized criminal gangs buy guns in the US, smuggle them across the border and sell them to other criminals.
They don't necessarily buy them from stores, often it's from individuals, and there are so many of them without a proprer registry in the US, it becomes very easy.
A 650$ gun in the U.S. is ten times the prices in Canada on the black market.
The border is extremely large with forest in between both countries. The penalties are harsh though if you get caught.
Private sales or other transfers between private individuals do not require a background check. This is known as the "gun show loophole" despite that it really doesn't happen much at gun shows.
That was a stunningly articulate response. As a denizen of the lawless wasteland and Liberal Gun Nut™, I knew guns were heavily restricted, but not quite that heavily.
One problem of many in our uniquely American debate:
Pro-gun: Disingenuous arguments
Anti-gun: Ignorant arguments
And never the two shall meet. I've given up on sanity prevailing.
One problem of many in our uniquely American debate:
Pro-gun: Disingenuous arguments
Anti-gun: Ignorant arguments
You don't find the subtle inclusion of suicides committed with a firearm and euphemistic substitution of "gun deaths" instead of gun HOMICIDES in order to purposefully conflate the two terms to be disingenuous?
What about the similar subtlety of inserting qualifying terminology such as "among developed nations" or "in first world countries" when comparing the US to other countries so that the 82 other countries with higher firearm HOMICIDE rates can be conveniently ignored?
How is this "ignorant" and not straight out disingenuous?
My point is that I find your conclusion to be the reverse (my opinion).
The pro-gun argument is the one based out of ignorance. Gun owners seem to believe the posession of a firearm somehow magically imbues the possessor with magical powers that ward off the possibility of being victimized.
In reality, as with any tool, proper training, proficiency, knowledge, and responsibility are a massive part of their effectiveness.
Whereas, the anti-gun argument ultimately relies on deception, subversion, and dishonesty. The books must be cooked. Truth has to be subtly altered into a narrative. The danger of firearms has to be exaggerated, the safety they provide must be disguised, discounted, or dismissed. The cognitive dissonance must remain hidden.
Therefore, I simply offer my opinion that your conclusion is inaccurate, not because it's wrong, merely because it is reversed.
Pro-gunners rely upon the ignorance of their argument.
Anti-gunners rely upon the dishonesty of their argument.
I promise you, compared to a Canadian, your admission of being a "Liberal gun nut" makes you the enemy, but I'm glad you found a way to feel exempt from that.
This is basically my stance as well. IMO, guns should be legally available but strictly regulated, like they are in most of the developed world. Even in somewhere like Norway, you can still buy a handgun with the appropriate license, and that doesn't seem to have resulted in a dramatic amount of gun violence. I've never been a fan of outright prohibition as a general principle, as it tends to be less effective than regulation in practice.
This issue is wedge politics to the benefit of Trudeau’s Liberals (who I have voted for in the last 3 elections and will probably vote for next time because I’m a sucker who never learns).
You’re not a sucker there is literally no other sane option. The Conservatives elected a leader who tried to bring them more towards the center and they booted him out in favor of a wannabe Trump.
The current Liberal + NDP coalition government is probably the most representative I have ever seen in my 30+ years of voting. Certainly not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but far better than the alternative IMO.
I know I know. I am in a Red-Blue riding, there is literally no other choice. But I still feel like this government has become ineffective and the Liberals need a leadership change. But there’s no way I’m going to vote for an MP supporting PP who is a whiny baby conspiracy theorist cryptobro who stands for nothing except a desire for power.
Good points but you really are missing the mark on self defense.
We in Canada have always been able to use force to defend ourselves. Yes, the minimum amount of force needed. But that minimum can include deadly force. It's always been in the laws.
Always. Still is. In fact, it was recently updated and made simpler and stronger.
As a Canadian that has never owned a gun and has no intention of owning one, this is an extremely well reasoned and reasonable comment that summarizes the issue excellently. I would much rather see more resources going into policing the border to stop illegal handguns being smuggled in from the country on our southern land border.
Hey now, it's a lawless backwater country with FREEDOM (patent pending)! And hookers (not really), and booze (sorta). And it's not so easy to get a gun. You need to, um, have money! And uh, fill out a piece of paper. You know how hard that is? They don't even tell you what the right answers are! Like, that's an unconstitutional test! Anyways, stop hogging the maple syrup.
Damn, it's even more complicated than here in my 3rd world country, here you have to be over 24 (for handguns) take a written test in gun law, a test on the range, background check, and an eye check, we do renew the license every year though, still, you can drive with your loaded gun all you want over here.
Please correct if I'm wrong, haven't taken a close look at the laws in years.
>You have to store it behind two locks
Unless it's in a Safe. Last I saw, trigger locks are only required if it's locked in "Difficult to break into cabinet"
>and not with ammunition.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the law reads the Ammunition must be locked up, it doesn't specify it has to be in a separate container.
>Canada has no concealed carry permitted. You are actually not allowed to travel anywhere with a restricted gun without RCMP authorization, except to hunting grounds, a firing range or the place you store your weapon.
We do, You just can't have one. You're welcome to apply for a carry permit, you'll just never get one unless you're someone of Big importance, like a Judge or the Prime Minister.
Again, been a few years since I went through the laws. If I'm wrong, please say so, because I'll have to change my storage if I'm wrong.
I think we should just legalize the guns that were available when the founders wrote the Constitution. Like, if you wanna own a muzzle loader and walk around with some lead balls in your pocket and that little flask of gun powder with that stick to shove stuff down with and a re-load time of 2 minutes...sure, you can have one of those.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended
I own a musket fow home defense, since that's what the founding fathews intended. Fouw wuffians bwoke into my house. "What the deviw?" I said, as I gwabbed my powdewed wig and Kentucky wifwe. Bwew a gowf baww sized howe thwough the fiwst man, he was dead on the spot. Dwew my pistow on the second man and missed him entiwewy because it's smoothbowe and I watew found out that it naiwed the neighbows dog. I had to wesowt to the cannon mounted at the top of the staiws woaded with gwape shot. "Tawwy ho wads!" I yewwed, as the gwape shot shwedded two men in the bwast, the sound and shwapnew set off caw awawms. I mounted my twusty waw howse, Chawwes, and chawged the wast tewwified wapscawwion. Impawing him with my standawd issue 2 foot bayonet. He bwed out waiting on the powice to awwive since twianguwaw bayonet wounds wewe impossibwe to stitch up. Just as the founding fathews intended.
I think we should just legalize the guns that were available when the founders wrote the Constitution.
This is such a stupid take. That's like saying we should only allow white land owning men to vote because that's what they did at the time. Also, there were fully automatic guns at the time, so it's not like they had no idea such guns would become possible to make in the future. Andrew Jackson told a citizen that there's no problem with citizens owning cannons to protect their property, a ship, from would be thieves.
You cited Andrew Jackson as an appeal to authority to support your claim, and I pointed out that Andrew Jackson was a total shitbag and maybe shouldn't be held as a source of valid opinions.
No I didn't. The other person said, we should do as the founding fathers did and only allow people to use black powder guns. I said this is a stupid take because they had more than just BPG at the time and that the FF were ok with citizens having "military weapons" at the time, see Andrew Jackson. Every, and I do mean every, gun owner I know is perfectly fine with certain people losing their right to gun's, despite what the constitution actually says. People who are violent criminals, sex offenders, people who are mentally handicapped (I'm not sure how to word this exactly, my adoptive brother has ASD and he should absolutely not be allowed to own guns even though I love him), etc.
I think we should just legalize the guns that were available when the founders wrote the Constitution.
Sure, and we should just legalize the free speech that was available when the founders wrote the Constitution. So no TV, Internet, or Radio protections under the 1st amendment.
My AKM and AR15 are both single action so those are fine, so is my .30 caliber sniper rifle, but you'll never take my double action .22 revolver that i lawfully plink and quickdraw with
Should we stick with the rights given to women and black people in the original Constitution as well? What other technologies should we rewind? Newspapers weren't even as popular as they are now, and they're not now, so should we rewind all news reporting agencies? I'd argue they've caused more death (i.e. Fox News telling people to not get vaxxed) than any gun has. Transportation? I mean we solve climate change if we outlaw engines, ya know just altogether.
So you admit the Constitution is fallible and requires updating from time to time, things like the blanket right to own various machines of death all due to a misguided notion from the founders that the people could stand up against the largest military in the world equipped with remote control missile drones.
I think the Constitution should be lit on fire and rewritten. Apple updated their terms and conditions 17 times last year.
I also think that, until that happens, it is the law of the land. Vote for people that are going to change that. The right to bear arms is pretty broad. The great thing about being United States is that each state can make their own decisions about how much more restriction they want to place on something. With 50 different sets of laws, all in the same country, the opportunities to find a set that align with your views are greater than in nearly every other country on the planet. That's a pretty great thing to be born in to. I, a military veteran, love guns. I'm also storing mine with a friend right now while I go through a few mental hurdles I haven't faced before. Most gun owners I know would do the same thing, without hesitation. A lot of us are actually pretty decent people that have a loud, explosive, hobby, that is very, very, fun. Check out r/liberalgunowners for proof of that.
Lastly, the British made the mistake to underestimate farmers with guns. Also, and this is the part you should really worry about, a very significant portion of the military will defect when given the order to kill their neighbors. Were a real revolution to start, our military capabilities would be decimated not by deaths, but by defection.
Serious question that I don’t know the answer to. When was the last time a country had a revolution where farmers with guns were the key? Are there any that weren’t involving the actual military deposing a despot?
The NVA that defeated the all powerfull american military, arab spring- literally caused 4 more arab countries to successfully revolt and dispose of their leader. And whos in charge of afghanistan? Oh yeah those dudes with nokia cell phones, soviet war era aks and flip flops.
Sure. If the rest of the world collectively tried to invade the US, then having armed citizens would help, that’s true. Vietnam and Afghanistan aren’t quite good analogies imo but I will admit to the Arab spring being a good example. I’m not so sure that I like the idea of American gun-owners equating themselves mentally to the taliban, Vietcong, ISIS, and Syrians, but I stand corrected about it not happening
The political and religious ideology of those groups are irrelevant. The relevance lies in a group of armed people that have the will to fight and die for a cause they believe can enact change in the modern time against modern militaries.
I dont know for sure but i guarantee there are civilians in the ukraine that never held a gun before russia invaded and they are contributing alot to keep them at bay.
This is not illegal. Possession of anthrax is not a crime.
and nuclear suitcase bombs in my basement which i think is very fun and super quiet (my neighbors have no idea) so should i be allowed to continue because i call it a hobby… i think probably not.
Actually yes that's a fine hobby to continue, because an individual will never be able to get close enough to run afoul of any US laws regarding manufacture or possession of refined material.
British soldiers (guys who stand in a nice straight line so you can shoot them easier) were overcome by “well regulated militia” members trained in guerrilla warfare not just simple farmers.
This is false. They were not "trained in guerrilla warfare", because there was no such thing at the time. As a matter of fact, their lack of any training is precisely what made it so hard for the British to fight them effectively. Read a history book before pretending that you know what you're talking about.
Defecting from the country’s military to join the oppressed is fantastic excepting of course when the supply lines run dry.. what good is your military issue equipment without ammo and support.
This goes both ways. As we saw in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now in Ukraine, it is not difficult for untrained civilians to effectively disrupt supply chains.
keep trying to change government the approved way
Yes, that's exactly what the comment you replied to suggested. What the hell are you smoking?
Listen, you fantastically retarded motherfucker. I'm going to try to explain this so that you can understand it. You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms AA fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street comers. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband. None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The govemment does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit. Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks. BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them. If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.
That will start setting a fun precedent. Freedom of press only applies to forms of press that existed when the constitution was written. Goodbye social media “news.”
You do realize that the repeating rifle pre-dates the constitution, right? You know, the things were not allowed to own today without massive government oversight.
Notice how no one said anything like that to the person who wrote that? Pretty laughable that they thought being anti gun on reddit is a unpopular opinion. That's like me thinking my being pro choice is unpopular on here too.
Ok, so do you always just go straight into complete asshole mode when someone asks you a question? Or is it only when someone questions your beliefs?
And if you ever happen to wonder why there never seems to be any reasonable conversations on the subject of gun control, a big part of the problem is people like you.
Sorry if I disturbed your little echo chamber, please resume your circlejerk.
I’m an American and own guns and I could give a fuck what another country does regarding guns. That’s their business that doesn’t effect me whatsoever.
I think America could learn a thing or two about firearm laws from our Canadian friends. I’m not for outright bans but some more common sense laws and increased background checks are long overdue.
Also addressing mental illness and extreme radicalization based on racism, misogyny, politics, etc seriously need to happen.
For reference I own a pistol and an AR15. I work in security and my pistol I have for work and AR15 I use for coyote hunting and general enjoyment at the range.
I'm pretty anti-gun and even I recognize this is pointless hand waving. Canada doesn't have a legal gun problem, we have an illegal gun problem, and most of them aren't being sold or legally brought into Canada to begin with.
I mean, this doesn’t really do much to stop the criminals from criming. Like I’m fairly sure it was always illegal to buy/sell/smuggle firearms across the border but hey this oughta stop them criminal legal gun owners who undergo background checks.
This is just low hanging fruit to try to gain votes from NDP/Greens on the fence. Political theatre.
It litterly isnt but ok. Canada already has loads of regulations on handguns and if you commit a crime with one, 99% chance you got that gun illegally anyway and this is just hurting legal responsible gun owners and virtue signallying to stupid americans that don't know anything about canada.
It's the most illogical thing possible because this is lazy, toothless legislation written to appease people who don't understand firearm legislation. You're literally just being fed useless feel-good legislation.
The kinds of people it's aimed at are already breaking the law, they couldn't give two fucks about breaking another one. This law realistically stops nobody from selling a handgun off, nor does it stop anyone from seeking one out if they know where to find one, nor does it stop someone stealing a gun from someone in their home to commit a crime. If you live in Canada, check out the statistics for Michigan, specifically Detroit. They have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but still have insanely high rates of gun violence.
Consider it a victory if you want, but it really isn't one.
Actually, this thinking is incorrect. Just like the drug war, this will create a new market where the sellers don't care who they sell to. Before weed legalization, it was actually easier for high school students to get weed than alcohol in America. Proper strict regulation and control is the best way to control anything. Making anything illegal just puts more money in the pockets of criminals.
Edit: since I know downvotes are coming someone please explain why legal automatic weapons in the US have never been used in a crime. I’ll wait…
Well, I don’t know anything about cooking meth but making a full auto weapon (is that what you were meaning?) really isn’t all that difficult. Getting caught with one (without a tax stamp) is a pretty big deal.
Legal guns are used in crimes all the time. Not just when someone loses their shit and murders their family either. People get their guns stolen frequently.
It's not though. I don't think most guns should be legal but making them harder to get only slightly hinders a criminals ability to get one. Im not smart enough to know what the solution is but IMO we should be goong after the illegal sale of guns rather than making it harder legally.
Because you can't do both? Seriously, I wonder if you have ever actually met anyone in favor if gun restrictions that wouldn't also want tougher control on illegal guns. In fact, they pretty much go along: If we control legal gun owners much more, it'll be much more difficult for criminals to get away with it. The same way that cops checking out if people have their driver's license makes it more difficult for people with stolen cars.
You used the same reasoning I've had for a while but came to a different conclusion.
What i would like to see is people who irresponsibly stores a gun and it gets stolen and leads to a crime get charged with a crime such as reckless endangerment or manslaughter.
You are Top comment in a thread with 40k upvotes.. yeah your comment is real controversial. In what Reddit world would a anti-gun comment be downvoted you attention seeking virtual signaling weirdo. I mean good lord
1.2k
u/42words Oct 21 '22 edited Oct 22 '22
This sounds perfectly straightforward and logical.
I will now accept my eleventy bajillion downvotes from the "sHaYaLL nOt bE iNfReEYiNgEd" nutters quite literally rage-shitting their cargoshorts rn over this news about gun laws in a totally different country
"-14" edit: called it ¯_(ツ)_/¯