I have been considering writing this take for some time now, but a recent ridiculous manipulation of the laws by the RCMP combined with the constant demonization of this segment of society has pushed me to get off my ass and write it. Going to split this into a couple parts, I have a lot to cover and a lot of venting to do. I will include basic facts debunking some popular anti-gun myths and a bit of personal opinion and ranting.
I take points from both sides of the argument, not trying to insult anyone, so lets keep this calm and respectful, please and thank you.
A Canadians take on gun control-
I firmly believe there can be a reasonable middle ground on this debate. Measures do need to be taken to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but banning them is not the solution.
I'm am a firm believer in licensing. Basic training and background checks seem very reasonable to me. To get a license here involves a 2 day course with written and hands on tests, references and thorough background checks. Processing time is typically a couple months and once you receive your license you are run through mental health watchlists, and criminal record checks daily. I will probably get some shit from other pro gun guys for this, but I like it this way. It seems to do very well at weeding out the nutjobs and idiots.
Another issue that I'm likely to piss off the pro gun crown is on carrying. In a nutshell, I am very happy it is illegal here. The concept is sound, and in a really ban area I can see the appeal. But honestly there is just no need here, and quite frankly, people are too stupid. I do not trust the average Joe walking around with a loaded gun.
Where I start to leaning to the other side of the argument is on the banning, or proposed banning, of particular firearms based on uninformed, meaningless, usually incorrect assumptions about functions or capability. It is utterly ridiculous for people to condemn guns based on appearance alone when they know nothing about them.
I always laugh at the people using terms like "military grade" or calling ARs and other semi autos "assault weapons". The military has always been the driving force in the advancement of firearms technology. Every major advance in firearms ever was brought on by military demands, of yes, killing people more efficiently than the other guy. There is no denying why guns were invented, but no one is more guilty than the other. Just different stages of technology.
People that know guns can sit this next part out, trying to prove a point.
What makes these 2 guns different and one "more deadly" than the other?
Answer? Not a damn thing.
Exact same gun, different stocks. Yes, one has a bigger magazine - not a clip, those are two very different things. But in reality, reloading is a negligible factor and the rate of fire with a 5, 10, 40 round mag is basically the same.
Or how about this one, it looks super scary and must be banned, right?
Wrong. This gun fires a .22lr round, shown on left below, next to a standard AR round (.223, 5.56mm) in the middle and a common hunting round on the right. See why so called "assault rifles really aren't very powerful? The .223 round is used, outside of law enforcement and military, to hunt rabbits and gophers.
I am tired of people acting like they have an informed opinion to offer and arguing strictly off emotion and preconceptions.
I welcome opinions, but like I said, lets keep it respectful.
Most Helpful Opinions