The Canadian take on gun ownership

[ckp160 10]

 

 

We had a thread a while back that got a little bit heated. Understandable. In light of recent events in CA, I thought I'd share a video I found very interesting. I think it's important to talk about gun control when violence happens, but it needs to be done objectively and without anger directed at opposing views. This video popped up in my YouTube feed. Thought I'd share. Any Canadians want to chime in? Hope we can keep this civil and without any personal attacks.

[Kelly Gruene 26]

Thank you for posting the link. It's a 22 minute video, though. Can you provide a synopsis rather than have us watch the entire video?

And know, of course, that this thread will of course become full of personal attacks.

Even if only Canadians chime in. (Too late; I'm not Canadian. I have visited several times, though.)

[ckp160 10]

Long story short:

 

1) Gun laws in Canada are geared more for recreational use. No stand your ground type stuff.

 

2) You must attend a safety course and get your Possesion and Acquisition License before purchasing a gun. It’s the same across the country.

 

3) There are magazine capacity limitations, but you can still own semiautomatic firearms.

 

There’s more to it, of course, but even watching the first 5 minutes will give you a quick overview. It’s by Vice. Essentially it’s a young Canadian woman going through the process to show what Canadians do. I’m sure there’s some slant to it, but it was really interesting. I assumed Canadians couldn’t own much of anything.... dumb American over here.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

Long story short:

 

1) Gun laws in Canada are geared more for recreational use. No stand your ground type stuff.

 

2) You must attend a safety course and get your Possesion and Acquisition License before purchasing a gun. It’s the same across the country.

 

3) There are magazine capacity limitations, but you can still own semiautomatic firearms.

 

 

#2 and 3 are logical and I think many would be acceptable to that reform, but not #1. #1 is absolutely not negotiable because American citizens have the RIGHT to defend themselves from those that would do them harm and from a tyrannical government.

[CanadianIrish 0]

As my name would suggest, I am Canadian (and proud of it). My honest opinion on American gun laws is that I don’t have an understanding of it, nor should I, nor will I. What I mean by that is that I think gun laws in the States are part of the fabric that makes it America. There are generations of strong feelings that I just can’t appreciate as an outsider. I think there’s so much more to it than “yes” or “no”.

 

That being said, while I’m proud of my country and for the most part feel very safe here, the presence or absence of a law still doesn’t stop a lunatic from doing what a lunatic is going to do....

[ckp160 10]

NDHoosier,

 

I would concur with what your sentiment. The way it's written, the 2nd Amendment is very much about self protection and the populace being able to stop a tyrannical government. At the time it was written, I'd say the average American was super self reliant and very suspicious of others. Not in a paranoid way, but more of a, "why would I need or want your help," sort of way.

 

CanadianIrish,

 

What you say is why any sort of gun control argument gets so heated. Guns are a part of American culture. The fact it was written in the founding paper on our laws is pretty incredible. Thing is, times HAVE changed. While I personally don't care for idea of changing the notion of freedom to own a gun, I understand why some people don't understand the appeal.

[coltssb 1,044]

I think some laws can be updated for the times. For instance, it’s not like people in Indiana are being arrested for wearing suspenders in public anymore...

[Jim2Dokes 3]

#2 and 3 are logical and I think many would be acceptable to that reform, but not #1. #1 is absolutely not negotiable because American citizens have the RIGHT to defend themselves from those that would do them harm and from a tyrannical government.

 

That’s relative as to what you believe a tyrannical govt is. Did you know that only one in five Americans supported the revolution? Did you know that it was started by the rich because they didn’t want to pay taxes, yet the rich didn’t even fight for the most part? Did you know that recruitment was so low that they had to frame people for crimes and threaten them with jail time or join the cause? Again, relative to the situation. I am not saying America is not better off, maybe we are, but you have to take everything into perspective and current times. Trust the fact that if the govt wants to bomb your house that gun isn’t going to do ****. So that prospective is outdated. You are better off staying everyone has the right to own anti-aircraft missle launchers.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Jim2Dokes

[jbrown_9999 1,020]

That’s relative as to what you believe a tyrannical govt is. Did you know that only one in five Americans supported the revolution? Did you know that it was started by the rich because they didn’t want to pay taxes, yet the rich didn’t even fight for the most part? Did you know that recruitment was so low that they had to frame people for crimes and threaten them with jail time or join the cause? Again, relative to the situation. I am not saying America is not better off, maybe we are, but you have to take everything into perspective and current times. Trust the fact that if the govt wants to bomb your house that gun isn’t going to do ****. So that prospective is outdated. You are better off saying everyone has the right to own anti-aircraft missile launchers.

 

A strict interpretation of the second amendment might actually allow for citizens to own fighter planes and anti-aircraft missiles.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

That’s relative as to what you believe a tyrannical govt is.

 

True, but that is not really the point we are discussing. Some people think the current government is tyrannical, but that is mostly the foolish SJW crowd. However, I think the reason the revolution happened is a valid one, Maoist China killing their citizens and Russia doing what they want with theirs is a good reason. The forefathers knew that a tyrannical government can take many forms, that is why they never defined one.

 

Trust the fact that if the govt wants to bomb your house that gun isn’t going to do ****. So that prospective is outdated. You are better off staying everyone has the right to own anti-aircraft missle launchers.

 

I have heard this argument a bunch of times and yes the government would be better equipped than the "militia." However, the militia would outnumber the government 300:1... and that is before mass desertion happens from the government's military.

 

But the main point being, the threat of an armed force opposing a tyrannical government is sufficient enough in itself to prevent a tyrannical government from happening. This is why Maoist China was able to kill millions without much trouble, what could the civilians do to protect themselves? Here in America, that would never happen. There would be mass desertion from the military and an armed force that outnumbers them ~400:1 commencing a coup d'etat. I like my chances there...

 

@coltssb, the laws regarding gun restrictions are already pretty well established and on the books. The main issue is the enforcement of those laws and the punishment for breaking these gun laws. As a cop, I know first hand how lenient some of these punishments can be when I find a felon with a gun or someone who does not have a permit and open carrying.

 

I also know how easy it is to get a gun license in terms of skill in America. Too many gun-totting Americans think they are 007 because they were able to pass pathetically easy qualification standards for their license. I shoot multiple times every month and I know how hard certain shots are, I know my limitations with my service weapon. I KNOW why that cop didnt shoot the guy's leg/arm in that video you saw on Facebook. Many gun owners do not understand this stuff, even my country guys who hunt deer. Shooting at a deer with a high-powered rifle is much different than shooting at an armed robber with your Colt 45, 1911, or Desert Eagle.

[ndomer4 532]

I think I started that thread, I don’t know why but it’s a topic that always gets me heated up.

 

If your not in the military, police officer, or hunter then I don’t see the need for a gun. I try not to waste my energy on people trying to defend the gun laws in the United States, the numbers don’t lie.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-41488081

 

This sums it up for me, if you have an argument after this then I got nothing. I don’t know when the second amendment was written but as society advances we usually adjust and make changes.

 

I thought after Sandy Hook when a bunch of innocent kids got murdered there might be a change but no. The gun industry brings in too much money so I never see anything major happening.

 

Money is more important than innocent lives apparently, that is capitalism for you however. I’m sure everyone has heard of the story with australia, I don’t see that happening but atleast get rid of anyone having the chance to own these stupid semi automatic guns that can kill masses in seconds.

[ckp160 10]

It is a topic that gets heated. I'm on the other end of the spectrum as you. I totally understand why you'd be frustrated. I really do. Thing is, as a responsible gun owner, I don't like the fact that because some dipshit with a gun goes crazy automatically means I should be punished by forfeiting my rights. I'm willing to discuss "common sense gun laws" but the term slippery slope completely applies. At what point have both sides reached an agreement and there will be no further laws made? A free society is an inherently dangerous society.

 

Let me ask you something.... assuming we took drastic measures to curb gun ownership..... would you be willing to harden schools as targets? By this I mean gating off schools with blast proof doors, metal detectors that EVERYONE must go through to gain entry. Multiple layered entry points and heavily armed guards. Just removing guns from the public won't stop criminals from getting guns. Take a look at Paris.

 

I completely agree with your sentiment about the 2nd amendment being written at a time that couldn't even comprehend the firearms we have today. At the same time, they also couldn't understand the internet, fake news, and people blowing themselves up in the "name of God'. It's a living document. In my opinion it was written with the understanding that times change, but freedom is freedom.

 

I appreciate the civility in the discussion thus far. It's great when people with differing points of view can discuss things without it turning into name calling. It's not about changing people's minds.... it't about learning to understand each other. Something we're seriously lacking as a society right now.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

I think I started that thread, I don’t know why but it’s a topic that always gets me heated up.

 

If your not in the military, police officer, or hunter then I don’t see the need for a gun. I try not to waste my energy on people trying to defend the gun laws in the United States, the numbers don’t lie.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-41488081

 

This sums it up for me, if you have an argument after this then I got nothing. I don’t know when the second amendment was written but as society advances we usually adjust and make changes.

 

I thought after Sandy Hook when a bunch of innocent kids got murdered there might be a change but no. The gun industry brings in too much money so I never see anything major happening.

 

Money is more important than innocent lives apparently, that is capitalism for you however. I’m sure everyone has heard of the story with australia, I don’t see that happening but atleast get rid of anyone having the chance to own these stupid semi automatic guns that can kill masses in seconds.

 

After reading your stats, it is not a very strong argument at all. All I have to say is that guns save more innocent lives than take. Also, majority of the gun deaths are done by illegal gun owners, therefore, stricter laws wont change anything. Criminals will get the guns anyway, because they do already. You would just be taking away the guns that were used to protect the innocent family from that home invasion.

 

You may think that link is all-knowing, but it really does not change anything and it is seriously biased (and seems somewhat politicized)...

 

The only argument I see against gun ownership are these mass shootings... If you think these mass murders wont happen with super strict gun laws, then you dont understand how these people think, nor do you realize how dangerous other weapons are. Give an average man a knife in a crowded mall and he could kill 15-20 people in 2 minutes. Give an ex-soldier on PTSD who is in great shape, he could kill 50 people in that time. He doesnt have to worry about running out of ammo either.

Edited November 12, 2018 by NDhoosier

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Lol unless that knife holder is daredevil or on some James Bond **** there is not way 50 people are going down by knife. No way.

[ndomer4 532]

After reading your stats, it is not a very strong argument at all. All I have to say is that guns save more innocent lives than take. Also, majority of the gun deaths are done by illegal gun owners, therefore, stricter laws wont change anything. Criminals will get the guns anyway, because they do already. You would just be taking away the guns that were used to protect the innocent family from that home invasion.

 

You may think that link is all-knowing, but it really does not change anything and it is seriously biased (and seems somewhat politicized)...

 

The only argument I see against gun ownership are these mass shootings... If you think these mass murders wont happen with super strict gun laws, then you dont understand how these people think, nor do you realize how dangerous other weapons are. Give an average man a knife in a crowded mall and he could kill 15-20 people in 2 minutes. Give an ex-soldier on PTSD who is in great shape, he could kill 50 people in that time. He doesnt have to worry about running out of ammo either.

 

 

Well my stats show it’s too easy to get guns and too many people who shouldn’t have them have them. In Canada people can get guns illegally but they are not the semi automatic guns you have down there. I also have never worried about someone having a gun or seen anything but a hunting rifle.

 

I don’t buy your knife scenario because I’ve never heard of that happening but I hear about a mass shooting every week in the USA, and there’s a bunch I don’t hear about cause they’re so common. It just seems like the USA is so oblivious to the facts, this stuff only happens there and you seem to be the only place that thinks everyone needs guns.

 

Well you say mass shootings but you guys also have tons of homicides/suicides where guns were used but are just so common that they don’t make the news.

 

For the sensible gun owner, I hate to tell you but sometimes one bad apple can ruin it for the bunch. I’ve heard some politicians in the states say that you guys have a mental health issue, well newsflash... every country has a mental health issue but your country seems to be the only one that allows these same people to own guns.

 

I get that background checks wouldn’t stop a criminal from obtaining a gun but it would make it a lot tougher. It’s tough to compare to Canada because gun culture has been such a big part there for so long and there are so many guns that they’d be tough to regulate for a very long time. The fact is the gun industry brings in so much money that all this talk is pointless. Nothing will change.

[ndomer4 532]

It is a topic that gets heated. I'm on the other end of the spectrum as you. I totally understand why you'd be frustrated. I really do. Thing is, as a responsible gun owner, I don't like the fact that because some dipshit with a gun goes crazy automatically means I should be punished by forfeiting my rights. I'm willing to discuss "common sense gun laws" but the term slippery slope completely applies. At what point have both sides reached an agreement and there will be no further laws made? A free society is an inherently dangerous society.

 

Let me ask you something.... assuming we took drastic measures to curb gun ownership..... would you be willing to harden schools as targets? By this I mean gating off schools with blast proof doors, metal detectors that EVERYONE must go through to gain entry. Multiple layered entry points and heavily armed guards. Just removing guns from the public won't stop criminals from getting guns. Take a look at Paris.

 

I completely agree with your sentiment about the 2nd amendment being written at a time that couldn't even comprehend the firearms we have today. At the same time, they also couldn't understand the internet, fake news, and people blowing themselves up in the "name of God'. It's a living document. In my opinion it was written with the understanding that times change, but freedom is freedom.

 

I appreciate the civility in the discussion thus far. It's great when people with differing points of view can discuss things without it turning into name calling. It's not about changing people's minds.... it't about learning to understand each other. Something we're seriously lacking as a society right now.

 

I sort of replied to you in my other post but what do you mean by punished? Do you use your gun for hunting or do you like shooting targets or do you like looking at it? I’m just curious. I mean to each their own but guns are made to kill, whenever I see this argument on knives killing it makes no sense. Knives were not made to kill but to be used in a kitchen, ive also never heard of a mass murder with knives and most of the time the victim survives.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

Lol unless that knife holder is daredevil or on some James Bond **** there is not way 50 people are going down by knife. No way.

 

You just dont know how deadly someone can be in a crowd with a knife.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-28/at-least-nine-young-students-killed-in-a-mass-stabbing-in-china/9706196

 

Knives are not the only weapons

https://ijr.com/13-mass-killings-where-no-guns-were-involved/

Edited November 12, 2018 by NDhoosier

[NDhoosier 1,229]

For the sensible gun owner, I hate to tell you but sometimes one bad apple can ruin it for the bunch. I’ve heard some politicians in the states say that you guys have a mental health issue, well newsflash... every country has a mental health issue but your country seems to be the only one that allows these same people to own guns.

 

One bad apple should not ruin it for everyone. That is why America is called land of the free. We do not have governments who control our lives and limit our rights. UK does not even have free speech.

 

I get that background checks wouldn’t stop a criminal from obtaining a gun but it would make it a lot tougher. It’s tough to compare to Canada because gun culture has been such a big part there for so long and there are so many guns that they’d be tough to regulate for a very long time. The fact is the gun industry brings in so much money that all this talk is pointless. Nothing will change.

 

There already are criminal background checks to get a license.

 

Is America the worst for mass-killings?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-despite-gun-control-advocates-claims-u-s-isnt-the-worst-country-for-mass-shootings/

Edited November 12, 2018 by NDhoosier

[ndomer4 532]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands

[ndomer4 532]

You just dont know how deadly someone can be in a crowd with a knife.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-28/at-least-nine-young-students-killed-in-a-mass-stabbing-in-china/9706196

 

Knives are not the only weapons

https://ijr.com/13-mass-killings-where-no-guns-were-involved/

 

These are very rare cases, there are mass shootings everyday in the States but how often is there a mass stabbing? Most of the time people have time to run and actually can defend themselves.

 

Also notice how they’re all in China? By far the most overpopulated country on earth.