I do not support the gun ban but I do support many of their other laws. Does that clear it up for you? LOL
Is making it illegal to have a handgun outside your home reasonable? Is prohibiting all the currently owned compact pistols in America reasonable? Is automatically charging you with a crime if you use any gun anywhere for self defense reasonable? There are many Canadian restrictions that are incompatible with the 2A. You can’t expect to lower gun crime stats to Canadian levels unless you adopt all their restrictions. Advocating for these prohibitions and restrictions means you must advocate to repeal the 2A.
Registration, universal background checks, mandatory safety course, wait periods, firearms license.....all reasonable
i thot the goal was less death. yet you chose a country with the laws you like as the goal. it doesnt seem like you're being sincere in what you actually want
Permits are so you can OWN. You cannot possess handguns outside your home in Canada. They are a restricted class firearm.
Canadian law says the use of force with a firearm is legal as long as the accused can prove that his or her life was in danger. Sections 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code provide the legal framework of the use of force against intruders.[40]
well I guess we won't ever know then will we. because if your goal is less crime and you one day believe their gun bans are partly responsible for that, will you support the bans then?
Again not true. They issue over 8,000 authorizations to carry every year. But I do think they should make that less strict
So you are only for these restrictions and not of any of Canada’s other laws? How can you expect us to significantly reduce gun violence like Canada? The most significant Canadian restriction is a prohibition of handguns in public. Most gun crime in the US is committed by those having handguns outside the home. If you expect a meaningful difference, you have to adopt that restriction, otherwise, gun crime will continue in public. While you believe your restrictions are reasonable, they won’t change the body count in Baltimore and the like.
Correct, but you have to prove your case in court because they will charge you. You probably will get off if you have done nothing wrong, but you will be charged with a serious crime, you will have a ton of lawyer fees. The use of self defense bettter be in your home and not in public or you probably will go to prison.
Wait, so now you want to test the handgun prohibition outside the home? Your list keeps getting longer.
the laws you push are unreasonable because they are at best inconclusive about decreasing crime while creating guaranteed harassment of gun owners here is the question many of wonder about your aims you can push for laws attacking armed criminals and get no resistance from gun owners and such a goal would be far more likely to decease violent crime or you can push for laws that do not meet even a burden of persuasion when it comes to crime control but clearly harass gun owners which is why most of us who are well known advocates for gun rights oppose your schemes. so why do you insist on laws that are at best speculative as crime control but guaranteed to harass gun owners instead of pushing for laws that have no harassment but are at least as effective and most likely MORE EFFECTIVE in decreasing violent crime?
and more importantly, why does he insist on laws that he knows harasses gun owners instead of laws that target criminals and would have support from most gun owners?
