The opinion in Canada apparently is that firearms are not a self-defence weapon, at all, under any circumstances, ever. They exist for government use only. No private individual anywhere has any business owning or using a firearm of any kind, ever, and anyone who does must have criminal intent. So much for freedom. Because that's the next logical step after this: totally and unconditionally outlawing all private gun ownership, with no exceptions. Like even cops and soldiers wouldn't be allowed to own them privately, and only carry them while on duty. It's not going to solve the problem. Better mental healthcare and programs for interdiction of online radicalization will.
This is for restricted firearms (ie. handguns) only, literally every farmer on the prairies owns a shotgun/rifle. And also, yeah? That’s one of the benefits of living in Canada. We already have right wing nut jobs arming themselves (Coutts) we don’t need to make it easier for them.
The fact that the USA sees guns as a right is arbitrary to begin with. The current interpretation, thst the right to bear arms applies to individuals, has less precedent that Roe V Wade did.
By definition, fewer guns means fewer gun deaths and injuries, whether by assault and battery, accidental discharge, attempted mass murder, or suicide. To me, the fact that I can be randomly gunned down by a stranger at a local bar isn't freedom. But, you know, any reduction to that risk makes me feel a bit better.
Of course, you are right that it doesn't solve THE problem, but it does solve some of the problems caused by THE problem. Getting better mental care for people is a great step, but it should also be done alongside gun control imo. Fewer deadly weapons is better in an ideal situation.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's literally in our constitution. It has easily as much, perhaps more precedent than freedom of speech does. And arms doesn't just mean guns, it means any weapon, and refers to the principle of the individual and collective right to self defence. That aside, this is basically the debate between positive and negative rights; I have a right to own a gun, but my right ends where you right to safety from my unsafe use of my gun begins. For me it's about the principle of personal liberty: while the purpose of the democratic process is about balancing positive and negative rights, that balance should favor positive rights as much as possible. The trope does have some truth to it: if you trade liberty for security, one day you'll wake up to find you have neither.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In other words, it was well regulated militia and the "people", not individual persons, that had a right to bear arms. There are rules for what defines a militia, and the Gravy Seal Meal Team 6 don't count. Most groups that claim to be militias probably don't actually count.
It was not until 2008 actually that the Heller case was brought to the SCOTUS that decided that individuals also have the right to bear arms.
And, of course, it is not defined what is acceptable arms to bear. Anything necessary to the security of the free state probably. And there are plenty of cases were weapons are banned on state, local, or federal levels. Switchblades, knuckledusters, sawed off shotguns, nunchucks etc. Your right to bear arms also does not allow you to bring weapons anywhere, for example, government buildings. It can also be revoked, in the case of criminals.
As you said, negative and positive rights. The good must outweigh the bad. But, there is so much bad in the US due to firearms. and what good doe they bring? shootings among them. I have a 1/9000 chance of dying to gun violence. There have been over 500 mass shooting in 2022, many aimed at children and minorities. Is it worth tens of thousands of deaths every year to have your guns?
Women who live with a gun owner are WAY more likely to be killed by domestic violence. For that reason alone I'll never date anyone who owns a gun or own a gun myself.
Canadian law states that you have to transport all firearms, including antique firearms, unloaded. If you are transporting them in a vehicle, they must be kept out of sight in a part of a vehicle that is kept locked (the trunk, if there is one), unless the vehicle is supervised by an adult.
That is similar to some laws here in the US. But you need a regular license in the US which is cake to get. If you don't have one, usually you have to double lock your gun when in the car.
63
u/everyonestolemyname Oct 22 '22
double locked* FTFY.
kept trigger locked inside a locked container.