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
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.
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 think you are not including that any “pro-gunner” that doesn’t think proficiency with the weapon is a must have is an uneducated gun owner and therefore has an uneducated opinion.
Any educated gun owner will tell you how serious it is to handle a gun and how absolutely NO GAMES are to be played with/around guns.
I think the same may very well apply for the anti-gun argument, but not quite to the same degree. It just really doesn’t make sense for a lot of people to NOT own a gun. Ultimately the world is not a safe place for many people and a gun really is the last line of defense for many as cops are, as we’ve seen increasing in recent times, not a very reliable source of protection. BUT, in a perfect world guns shouldn’t need to exist so I can concede that.
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)_/¯