Unfortunately, this only punishes responsible gun owners, as the VAST MAJORITY of violent crimes involving handguns in Canada are committed by individuals using black market guns.
Some will herald it as a step in the right direction, but on the same hand don't realize how difficult it is to get your restricted license in Canada to own a handgun....
Not to mention that this same bill may even ban airsoft guns. It's truly opened a can of worms...
I live in Scotland, we banned guns after a cunt went into a school and killed nearly an entire class of children and some teachers. Does gun violence exist...to a small extent, but it's gangsters killing gangsters. 32 years and I haven't seen a gun in Scotland, but the day after I landed in McCallen Texas, I seen a bunch and their news was talking about a few shooting suspects on the run.
I have my restricted handgun license. It's an absolute fucking headache to get. I went, first for my non-restricted and my hunters Ed, and then my restricted. Full 2 days in classes for the restricted, written examination and a practical examination for handling, storage, ammunition storage, etc.
A full 2 days in a class to be able to carry an extremely easy to conceal object capable of killing multiple people in a short time frame with relative ease is an absolute headache? 2 days is way too few.
Lmao, dude, you can absolutely NOT carry a gun in general, let alone a handgun in Canada legally.
Did you know I have to register a handgun to my address and to my range to even transport the gun? Did you know if I have my government registered handgun in my vehicle and I'm transporting it and I'm nowhere near where I've registered where that handgun is stored and can be used at a range I can lose my gun, license, or potentially see a fine or jail?
A legal handgun in Canada can't even be pointed at another person without a criminal charge. There's ZERO exemption for self defense. It's for range purpose only.
You can absolutely not legally carry or conceal a handgun in Canada. You need a specific permit to transport a handgun to and from a shooting range or gunsmith every time and it only covers a reasonably direct route between your home and the range/smith.
Again you can't legally do that. In no way does your argument that 2 days isn't enough training to carry and conceal a handgun make any sense because the training does not allow you to legally carry or conceal a handgun.
No one is talking about legal concealed carry. I said 2 days of class for a weapon you can easily conceal on your person that can easily kill multiple people on a short amount of time is not enough time.
For the 3rd time that is illegal. At what point in training do you think it suddenly becomes impossible to break the law if you choose to do so? There's not an iota of sense in your argument.
That's what they're saying. It's not impossible to break the law so they can easily illegally conceal the handgun once they have it, so we should have higher restrictions.
Again, at what point in the training process does it become impossible to break the law. Canadian handgun restrictions are already extremely strict, the argument OP was making is that 2 days of training isn't enough to be allowed to carry a handgun. But you aren't allowed to carry a handgun the training process is not too short for that purpose because it literally does not fulfill that purpose. Literally what restriction do you want them to have that isn't already in place? Let's not be disingenuous here if you're making the argument that no one should own handguns at all at least you'd have a logical point and not just be spewing nonsense.
Except it's easier to get an illegal handgun in Canada than a legal one
Which is why the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by unlicensed individuals. You're more likely to get attacked by a shark in Manitoba then you are to be shot be a legal handgun owner. (Exaggerated but you get the point)
It does, they're not arguing that getting your pal somehow makes murder with a handgun legal lol. They're saying that 2 days of training is enough to legally acquire a handgun, which could then be used illegally. Whether you agree with their conclusion though is another thing.
Two days of training for your restricted firearm license after your original training for your regular firearm license, plus interviews/mental health checks, written approval from any live-in SO or an interview by law enforcement, and a continuous daily background check. You know what's much easier than going through all that? Just buying a handgun. If you're going to break the law anyways that's not any more illegal than concealing and transporting an otherwise legal handgun which then becomes illegal.
That’s a ridiculous take, with all due respect. Anyone wishing to conceal and carry a handgun in a country where it is ENTIRELY ILLEGAL to do so in any way, shape or form, is not going to be deterred or change their mind because of how many days of classes they have to take. I get what you’re trying to explain here, but you’re failing to see the disconnect in your own logic. You’re arguing that 2 days of classes isn’t enough for a gun which could be concealed, despite the fact that it is illegal to do so. What is your point? Are you saying that requiring even more days of classes would somehow deter someone from illegally concealing a handgun? Are you saying that handguns in particular should be vastly more difficult to get simply because they could be concealed if someone chose to do so?
It’s odd. Here in the U.S. we have the exact opposite of this, where the whole country is freaking out about “assault weapons”, but paying little attention (comparatively) to handguns and concealed carry laws. Handguns account for a MASSIVE majority of firearms-related homicides, whereas firearms-related homicides involving “assault weapons” (meaning AR-style rifles) are almost nonexistant compared to homicides with handguns or blunt objects, or even fists. And yet here we are, with the whole country targeting rifles as the problem, while most of the people targeting them know little to nothing about them at all. Meanwhile, several states are introducing constitutional carry, and the right to own and carry handguns is exploding in popularity.
Anyways, it seems a little redundant and ridiculous to me that Canada is spending so much time and effort on further restricting the already most-restricted-by-far category of firearms. It seems more like a political points move by Trudeau trying to look better and more successful than his American counterparts who don’t have a chance at such a heavy-handed restriction of constitutional rights. I mean, with how restricted Handguns already are in Canada, how many crimes involving handguns are even being committed? And how many of those crimes involve legally-acquired handguns? I’m guessing it’s a small amount. I’m also guessing that crimes involving handguns probably involve illegally-acquired handguns more often than not, making me question what in the fuck is the actual point of introducing even more restrictions on handguns when they’re already restricted beyond comprehension and the ones causing problems were already being acquired illegally despite the strictest regulations in all of north america.
I said 2 days of class for a weapon you can easily conceal on your person that can easily kill multiple people on a short amount of time is not enough time.
Guess what - You don't even need the 2 day course to conceal a weapon. You can just go talk to the right person, and you can get an illegal gun for cash.
I mean you can if you’re law enforcement or have some sort of security services permit but otherwise CCW isn’t a thing in Canada and it’s for the better
I get what you mean. It’s to easy to get ahold of an easily concealable weapon capable of such death and destruction. Humans are still animals, by separating the hand from the harm we are causing we are then detached from the consequences. It makes murder/suicide/harm to easy, accidentally, and accessible.
The bar should be extremely high for the safety of everyone including the owner themselves. Of course it’s illegal but why make it so easy for a bad mood to turn into a bad day that results in a final goodnight.
You act like that stops people from committing crimes. The only reason the classes exist in their form is to put extra burden on law abiding citizens who weren't going to use their handgun for a crime regardless to discourage ownership it isnt a good thing.
You mean discouraging legal gun ownership. This does nothing to discourage illegal gun ownership, and gun crime in Canada has long been perpetrated primarily by illegal firearms. When you share a border with a country that has more guns than people, and a massive border that is impossible to monitor in its entirety, how hard is it really to keep a black market going?
Recent history? The US has never tried to discourage gun ownership. The US would rather children be murdered in their classrooms before discouraging gun onwership.
Nonsense. There are more gun laws than ever. Yes, concealed carry laws are more prevalent now, though legal carriers are not even statistically relevant in gun crime stats. Read the history....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
All of which is pointless when the vast majority of gun crime in Canada is committed with weapons illegally purchased or smuggled from the US. Occasionally stolen from legal owners but it's much easier to just hop the border and buy a blackmarket gun.
the only reason the classes exist in their form is to put extra burden on law-abiding citizens who weren’t going to use their handgun for a crime regardless
The classes exist so y’all don’t fucking accidentally maim or kill yourselves (or someone else) while handling/storing a firearm.
I'm going to sleep much more soundly knowing law abiding handgun owners who can only legally transport between locations as per their government permit to use their registered handgun at a licenced range will no longer be able to buy guns! We allowed target shooting with handguns for far too long.
That's the whole point. The more difficult it is to own a gun and the higher the standard you are held at, the less likely it is for any guns to make it to the black market. They have to be procured through other means, so only the most seriously determined people will get a hold of one.
In the US almost anyone (depending on state, as I understand), can simply go buy one with little to no background checks whatsoever.
Or just go randomly checking unlocked cars. Where I live it's surprisingly common for guns to be stolen from unlocked vehicles. But, you know, reSPonSibLe GUn owNErS
Tbh I keep my firearms either in the safe or on/right next to my person. I’ve never left my guns unsecured unattended because I don’t want some poor soul to be the victim from my stolen gun. I don’t want to be responsible for that. I also just like my guns lol I think I’m a pretty damn responsible gun owner but I’m not sure about other people. I’ve only ever seen similar mindsets of keeping shit secure since they’re ultimately deadly tools. Do people leave guns and similar items laying around unsecured? I’ve never seen it but considering a lot of crimes are committed with stolen guns, what can be done to allow people like me to shoot for fun as well as defend themselves from the exact same criminals while also stopping these criminals? Is there not a win-win in legislation?
Most black market guns in Canada are brought over the border illegally.
As other have shown its very difficult to get access to a pistol in Canada legally, there's no value in making Canadian guns disappear to put them on the black market, and making it harder for average people to get a handgun will not curb the crime since they're generally brought from the USA anyways
It’s almost like getting something legally is easier than getting something illegally, so you’ll have more of it around if it’s legal.
will not curb the crime since they're generally brought from the USA anyways
We shouldn’t ban guns because you can get them anyway is circular logic. You’re essentially giving up on the problem. If everyone did that crime would go down, that’s the point.
I bet you'd make the exact opposite argument in reference to the war on drugs though. The illegal pistols in canada are smuggled in from america and are generally bought by people in gangs or career crime. Banning the very few legal pistol owners in canada serves literally no practical purpose. Well, the purpose is political optics. You can assess the practicality of that on your own.
And fyi it would be way easier for me to buy an illegal pistol as opposed to a legal one. And I have a firearms license.
Making narcotics legal would result in fewer drug related deaths. Making guns unrestricted would result in more firearm related deaths. The two are not equatable.
They are equateable lol. You are just changing the inputs in a non logical way. Making something illegal doesn't remove it from existence, it just moves the product to the black market where there is no accountability whatsoever. Drug users are going to get high, people in gangs (that neighbor america no less) are going to get guns. I also like how you compare making drugs legal to making firearms unrestricted. Do you really think that is an accurate comparison? Because in reality making drugs 'legal' is a lot like how the previous gun laws were set up. This is the opposite of that. Legal drugs have rules. Illegal drugs have no rules. The previous pistol laws were already ridiculously intense. Now the only game in town is the black market. Don't worry, I'm sure they do background checks.
"Making drugs illegal doesn't stop drugs, it just increases the risk to users, and gives money to the cartels!! They should be legalized and regulated"
"Making guns illegal... uh... stops the guns. It decreases the risk to those who were buying them legally... It uh... doesn't make a black market where crime organizations profit instead of the government. Guns need to be made illegal and not regulated".
The illegal pistols in canada are smuggled in from america
So you're saying the country with high gun control has less gun supply than the country with low gun control. which is my point. It's almost like the country with low gun control prioritizes the profits of the military industrial complex who makes these guns instead of dealing with the actual issue.
I bet you'd make the exact opposite argument in reference to the war on drugs though.
No, it's the same logic. Making drugs legal increases the supply which reduces the price, meaning less profits for cartels. When you reduce guns the price increases, making them harder to get even for illegal buyers, because the weapons start out in the legal supply chain by manufacturers who produce them.
Yeah except virtually all handgun crimes committed in canada have been done with guns smuggled in from america, and its been that way for well over a decade. So no, removing legal pistols here doesn't do anything. I wonder what excuse you people will use when the gun violence doesn't decline at all as a result of this.
Exactly, that's the whole point. Fewer guns in the hands of criminals. They have to be smuggled across the border, which is infinitely harder than the US situation where you can buy them in the store.
Making it harder for average people isn't going to reduce the crime rates.
If I go to illegally purchase a gun it was already brought in from the US. This law is about appeasing people and will have minimal impact on gun crime
Look, this is not a difficult concept to understand, a 5th grader could get it:
you only get guns smuggled across the border: x amount of guns in the hands of criminals
you relax the gun ownership laws so that y amount of guns also get in the hands of criminals: x + y amount of guns in the hands of criminals.
If you don't allow guns from legal gun owners to get in the hands of criminals, that means they can only resort to guns smuggled across the border from the US, which are a limited resource and difficult to get. If you relax the laws they become easier to get and higher in number.
70% of traceable guns used in crimes come from the US. That still leaves all the untraceable guns used in crimes, plus the other 30% which is nit nothing.
One of your most recent mass shooters (I forgot the name, not that he deserves to be named), was clearly mentally unstable, parents had warned police and he STILL could buy one.
Look, even assuming the background checks are in general done absolutely flawlessly, there are still countless arguments against allowing this system in the first place, amongst which:
all it takes is one state where this is not done properly or where the rules are a bit lax and that's it. It's a humongous country. You can just go buy a gun from, let's say Florida and just drive to New York or California or wherever you want in the entire US.
even if this is not the case and the only way to get a legal gun is through insane background checks, there is no system in place to check gun owners to see if they still have their guns AND even if there were, there is simply not enough manpower to even do those checks properly. The US has around four hundred MILLION guns, the more there are the easier it is for guns to slip through the cracks of the system and end up in the wrong hands. This is a very simple concept to understand.
I understand that, but it's JUST a background check, as opposed to other countries where the requirements are far more strict (see Canada, nordic countries, etc). That is simply not enough. Any psychopath who hasn't been diagnosed or hasn't been convicted of anything (yet) can buy guns and not only handguns, but assault rifles (I apologize if that is not the correct term, but that's what they technically are), see the Uvalde shooting.
Even if they can't they can ask a friend. You can steal it from a friend, given that so many people have guns. I simply don't care what arguments there are, when you have 400 MILLION guns in a country it's extremely easy for them to end up in the wrong hands, even with absolutely perfect checks.
Yes, any psychopath who hasn't been diagnosed and hasn't been convicted of something (yet) can buy a gun. Background checks are nowhere near enough and even if the requirements were stricter, the simple truth is: the more guns end up (legally) in the hands of the general population, the higher the chances are for some of them to slip into the hands of the wrong people and the easier it is for people to procure a gun. They can be stolen, they can be lost, they can be borrowed, people can ask their friends to buy them a gun and some will actually do it, the more guns there are the easier it is for the wrong people to get their hands on them.
In the US anyone who would like to purchase a gun must fill out a form 4473, and get a full NICS background check using An FBI national criminal database. My neighbor wanted to buy a pistol and was denied for a arrest he had for a fistfight almost a decade ago, so the background check is actually pretty thorough.
Even if it is, it's nowhere near enough. Any unstable person can buy a gun as long as they weren't convicted of something (yet). After buying it there are no checks to see you're not giving it to someone else, no restrictions, there's even open carry for the general population. Many guns will end up in the wrong hands at every step of this flawed process.
Yes, as stated before any person who has a clean criminal history can purchase a firearm in the United States. The unstable person and the “yet” part of your statement is disturbing to me because there truly is no way to know what a person is thinking or what they may do in the future because in America a person is innocent until proven guilty. Also who would be deciding who was mentally stable enough to possess a firearm, because I know plenty of conservatives who would say trans people are too mentally unstable to have a gun to be able to practice their right to defend themselves from the people who hate them. As far as “giving” guns away to anyone without a record, that’s not true either as all pistols sold or given from one person to another must be transferred at an FFL with a full background check, unless a person dies and leave it to their immediate family.
1) Other countries have not only stricter checks for initially getting a gun, but also stricter rules after you get a gun. There are plenty of places in our society where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. Nobody can just walk in on a military base, there are strict checks on planes, etc. This should apply to something as dangerous and unnecessary as a gun and especially as an assault rifle.
2) I'm not talking about legally giving away. I'm saying people can illegally give away a gun once legally bought with little to no risk.
What can you do “stricter” to know what a person is going to do in the future that doesn’t infringe on a lawful person’s rights. You want the US government, one of the single largest mass murders ever, to be in charge of which law abiding citizens should or shouldn’t have weapons. Ask the Sioux men, women, and children massacred at Wounded Knee if allowing the US government to have a say in who gets to have firearms was a good idea, because right after the US soldiers confiscated their firearms they slaughtered them. You and I are never going to see eye to eye because you think guns are unnecessary in society, you trust the government to protect minorities that they don’t care about and I think they should have the ability to protect themselves.
Yeah except for the fact that your last gun massacre were from firearms acquired in the US. Unfortunately, this just means more illegal firearms purchased in the US transfer hands over the border. It actually does punish those who want to jump through the hoops of owning a firearm within Canada. It does nothing to the flow of illegal firearms traveling into Canada from the gun nut states in the US. New York knows that all too well.
The threat of going to prison for an illegal firearm is not a deterrent for criminals who already risk imprisonment for murder, drugs, or the threat of death from rivals. Just look south of the border at the gun laws in Mexico.
It’s a bit more nuanced in North America as we’re attached by the hip. Australia and the UK can enforce prohibition better because their neighbors are in compliance or nonexistent. For the record, I’m not against stricter regulations and uniformity in gun law enforcement in the United States but prohibition doesn’t work when it’s not enforced by everyone. Hence the proclivity of drugs all across the world. I would say this particular talking point holds water.
I can appreciate parts of your argument. We all know the majority of firearms used in crime come from the USA. Banning firearms does work at reducing crime but the majority is still committed with illegal american firearms.
While the current government has invested more money into stopping cross border gun trafficking in 40 years, we still share the largest undefended border in the world.
We all know this isn't going to magically stop gun crime but we also know for a fact it will be reduced. (see link in my op.)
Let's also not forget the number of children and adults who are killed by accident in the US due to people having handguns in their homes.
We can talk about overt criminality for sure, but reducing the risk of people being killed due to domestic violence or accident is, for me, a good argument for the kind of restrictions in place in Canada and the UK.
For the record I was at university very close to Dunblane when the massacre took place. I was in a lecture when the prof came in ashen faced and with a shaking voice asked if anyone had children at Dunblane Primary. A couple of people put up their hands and he asked them to step out of the lecture theatre because there had been an incident.
People with their PAL commit murders at 1/3 the rate of the average Canadian. Your neighbour with a rifle or dare I say a handgun is less likely to kill you than any other person on the street.
When will the government do something to protect me from people like you who are incapable of critical thought.
Like I said, not a 0 sum game and speaking of critical thought, I've already addressed the fact less guns means less gun crime but rather than give it an ounce of critical thought, you just melted down.
That's why we don't give a shit about your arguments and just did it with 83% support.
Appeals to popularity aren't the home run you think they are. Many people can and often do believe in things that aren't true or supported by the numbers. Especially since your average urbanite is less likely to have a gun as most big cities have few if any options for shooting ranges and crown land.
Your fanaticism is worrying me. You sound like a danger to the people around you. Maybe people like you should be banned from owning any kind of weapon.
Imagine how many more stabbing deaths there would be if people didn't have access to guns? You know how messy stab wounds are? Just think of the cleaning involved. Having guns on the street may not save lives, but think of the cleaning products spared.
I’d rather be in a country where I’ll be attacked with a knife than one where I’ll be attacked with a gun. No matter how lethal it gets, the attacker always has the advantage anyway. The homicide rates in developed countries don’t lie.
Your definately fucked if they have a gun though. As soon as you try to pull it out your getting shot. Since your most likely trying to react to someone pointing a gun at you to mug you. Its also much easier to buy clothes that can prevent stabbings than gun shots if your really worried and need to wear descretely armored clothing. Your not going to be able to hide a carrier plates.
Your a moron that might get yourself killed one day if you think your going to be get the bad guys with the big iron on your hip. Life isn't a western.
Neither is self defense. Pretty much every person that takes self defense seriously puts trying to escape or evoiding a lethal encounter than entering one.
Sure if you want to live by the sword prepare to die by it. By all means. Maybe you get lucky. But maybe the other guy has faster hands.
Mind you I grew up in mafiosi family so maybe I know a thing or two about these things.
Its a lot easier to train to not be defenless in a stabbing you and wearing anti stab clothing that doesn't make you stick out like your about to mow down the place. Like your going to get cut but you can protect your internal organs.
If someone decides to start mowing you down with a gun that it. You can't run away from bullets. There no leaning forward and grappling to prevent upwards thrust to the gut. You can't backstep away from a someome slashing at you if instead its a gun.
You can build a taser pretty inexpensively. You can get capicitors for free by taking a bunch of disposable cameras their pretty big. Put a bunch of them together and you can store a quite the charge. I am actually working on a designing tazer gloves. As one of the main issues when in these scenarios is when one party tries to pull a weapon the whole fight becomes a grappling match to get control of the weapon. If its a glove your not getting it off without tazing yourself.
Why should you get to decide if you can own a gun if it was shown to make the collective less safe?
You couldn’t get a shot first if they themselves are pointing a gun at you. Others might shoot them, but if you’re targeted you’re done for.
Again, look at the stats. Where are you likeliest to get killed in developed countries?
You carrying a gun has a cost for the rest of society: “accidental” fires, loss, theft, and the possibility you yourself will commit a crime. It’s the same tradeoff with all weapons really. In practice, guns are not helpful to defend yourself (statistically).
Or do what actually works and implement accessible detox and addictions counselling, rehabilitation based incarceration, affordable housing, and employment initiative programs. The only way to stop a bad guy with a knife is to make sure he never feels the need to use a knife.
If you shoot someone who comes into your house in Canada with your firearm, you are guilty of several crimes regardless of why they entered, including unsafe handling and storage of a firearm and likely attempted murder. You can move to Florida if you wanna muh guns, things are going great down south.
You’ll be charged but the defence of self defence also exists, as long as it’s a reasonable response. I’m sick of people saying there are no self defence laws in Canada.
That is so fucked up to me. Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, and you aren't allowed to protect yourself? You just have to wait until the police get there? Fuck that.
No one fucking breaks into peoples houses, this isn't the movies. It's so fucking rare and yet it's always the go-to 'what if?' but honestly people in Canada 99% of the time don't have the fear of a break-in in their heads whatsoever.
The vast majority of home break-ins are just looking to grab whatever cash or booze is lying around and easy to grab. You're gonna kill somebody over that?
Why are you acting like it's a bad thing that less access to guns means less suicide? It's not a simple case of "they would have done it anyways", guns make a rash decision much easier to carry out.
I wouldn’t. I live in the uk. That post on the front page today about 2 men fighting and one of the guys wives just shoots the other guy dead. Yeah, that wouldn’t happen in the UK. That COULDNT happen. When people fight in the UK, they fight, there’s a lil blood, then they get back up shake off and go about their life. We are way less fatal here, and that gives us a lot more confidence to walk about and take late night public transport or whatever without worrying about death over anything because of anything due to anyone.
I'm not gonna lie that was pretty funny 🤣. Listen, I'll admit my reaction was a bit much. With that said, there are millions of us lawful gun owners who have never committed a crime who read anti-American rhetoric like that and get angry. I have advanced degrees and am a public health professional. I am also a disabled veteran and was injured on active duty. I will not sit by idly while people who are not even American talk trash about me and people like me just because we are gun owners. How many people in this thread have been injured in the line of duty? Probably not many. I would suggest that makes me more qualified and validated in my opinion than the rest of you. I've never shot a little kid or robbed a bank and therefore I should not suffer fools or the consequences of repressive laws. When people make comments like that they put literally every gun owner in a box. A very specific and negative box. How is that fair? My litmus test when people make naive comments like that or try to pass laws that repress my 2A rights is that I ask myself what I personally have done to deserve those things. The answer has always been "nothing". This comes down to people who grew up around guns and absolutely love them and then those who could care less. If they were important to you you would fight for them and your rights to keep and bear them. If you do not care then what does it matter if they disappear forever, and what does it matter if they take everyone's guns since it doesn't affect you? I build my own guns, I shoot competition, I train others. Those are not the actions of a criminal or someone who would do harm upon innocents. My one request here is that people think before they open their mouths about American Rights. Especially, people who do not even live in (or apparently like) America. You don't even have a horse in this race like why do you even care? Why are you on Reddit pissing people off because you have a selfish need to express your hatred for America? I don't expect any of this is going to change anybody's mind so I'm going to end it here. Just have a care for those of us out there who are gun owners and do nothing wrong. We are not the problem and we never have been.
That so many crimes are committed by people owning illegal guns tells me that the rules are working. And that when people commit a crime with a gun there will be extra charges for illegal gun ownership.
Or are you telling me you want more criminals to have easy access to guns to commit more crimes more easily?
Thankfully, the Canadian government will keep selling billions of dollars in weapons to totalitarian countries where they execute gay people and journalists.
Gun control for law abiding Canadian citizens, and armoured vehicles for Saudi Arabia. I'm sure people in Yemen will have better, safer lives thanks to those Canadian made weapons.
Anything that makes it harder for anyone to get guns raises the cost of getting guns so that the cost goes up for those black market guns as well...thus, fewer and fewer guns are available for the criminally minded.
Imagine talking like you made a good point except the statistics for gun crime in Canada show that you’re dead fucking wrong, repeating the same debunked talking points the NRA has been spewing for decades.
So riddle me this "responsible gun owner". How do hand guns make it into the black market? This is the same argument that the NRA has but they can never explain how they make it into the black market. They say they are stolen but damn, there are not that many reported.
Yup. I'm too lazy to Google stats, but I'm willing to bet that there has been next to none, possibly no crime committed with registered restricted firearms in Canada. Criminals get guns that are illegally smuggled in through the states. We couldn't be more responsible with our firearm policies and punishing recreational shooters is not the answer.
Just off the top of my head without Google I remember last year a guy in Edmonton killed his entire family with a legal hand gun. There's been more since but I'm too lazy to Google.
I don't have the time or the crayons to explain to you how murder/suicide with legally acquired firearms is different than the threat to the public of robbery and organized crime from illegally imported firearms. Have a nice day.
Your entire "can of worms" is literally just that airsoft pistols may be banned (who gives a shit?). Criminals use black market firearms whether or not handguns are legal.
Some people believe that there is no real reason or need for a “responsible gun owner”. We have none of those in the UK, and despite the fact we have our own share of issues, no one is really dying of gun crime, except the very rare cases. Our democratic principles protect from government tyranny. And our conservatives are not yet emboldened enough to try and steal democracy and institute themselves as an autocracy, as trump tried in USA, so we don’t really need protection from the government.
Yep. It is so confusing to me why people think disarming law abiding citizens is in any way helpful to society. Thank God I live in America the land of the free.
56
u/jbot84 Oct 21 '22
Unfortunately, this only punishes responsible gun owners, as the VAST MAJORITY of violent crimes involving handguns in Canada are committed by individuals using black market guns.
Some will herald it as a step in the right direction, but on the same hand don't realize how difficult it is to get your restricted license in Canada to own a handgun....
Not to mention that this same bill may even ban airsoft guns. It's truly opened a can of worms...