I'm willing to say it. With enough training, testing, and vetting, individuals should be allowed to carry and defend themselves with firearms.
Our elected leaders are now surrounded by a praetorian guard of armed men, allowing them to be as unpopular and despised as they want without fear, moving confidently through a society of increasing crime and containing more and more unhinged people spurred by their actions and policies. We saw Justin Trudeau's retinue grow from 1-2 guards to a wall of typically 10 or more - I wonder why that was. If the ones making the rules are entitled to such protection at taxpayer expense, we should each expect to be able to avail ourselves of similar protection.
Ah, but KRM, our worsers (definitely NOT our betters) simply won't allow we, the unwashed, to possess handguns because we might use said handguns on said worsers, i.e. those with all the protections. Very telling, I think.
With all due respect the article is about how many angels can dance on the head (point?) of a pin. Canada is set up where all power flows from the State down to the people and not the other way around. The word “allow” in the title says it all. What in God’s (please don’t report me to the speech police) green (for now) earth requires a human being to seek permission to defend his/her life by any and all means possible? The answer IMO is that unless you are one of the ruling class your life doesn’t matter. And making the lower classes kneel and kowtow and do other related things and jump through hoops to get the tools to save their own and their children’s lives is merely a way to make sure that you know your place. Slaves were not allowed firearms in pre civil war USA either.
The whole State civilian disarmament initiative is a way for the elites to reduce the chances of the majority being able to bring them to account for their depredations and restore equity. Particularly to restore power to the people. The anti Americanism of Canada’s ruling class - abetted and proselytized to the masses by the CBC and other rented legacy media spokespeople - is not a fear of the US size and power. It’s a fear - indeed phobia - of the concept of individual God-given freedom that underlies that country’s dynamism and success.
And until the power structure changes, you can expect the aberrations (indeed abominations) described in this article to continue.
You can always arm yourself at your own risk, but with the benefit of being able to defend your own life if and when needed.
The current state of affairs will increasingly lead to citizens taking their safety into their own hands and quietly burying bodies in the countryside, whenever a daring criminal knocks on the wrong door and gets taken out.
Oh I agree 100%. And I’m sure funeral arrangements by John Deere are not unheard of in rural areas. A lot cheaper than spending $30K in legal fees to defend against unsafe storage charges 🙄
Well, if one is going to have John Deere arrange the funeral, it's hardly a stretch that one would find a way to get their hands on a gun, if you catch my drift.
You can’t at least not legally. All handgun transfers and sales - with infinitesimal exceptions -,are prohibited. Of course the black market seems to be flourishing.
I saw the smirking faces of our halfwit public safety minister and the gun banner in chief Natalie Provost (now elevated to MP of course) making their latest non sequitur announcement yesterday and I wondered to myself: "Why must I be in a timeline where I am continually tormented by these bottom of the barrel fools? Why do these particular people, these banal dunces, who I would utterly dismiss and have no reason to ever give so much as a second thought if I met them in any other capacity in life, have so much power over myself and so many people?"
I'd support the idea with conditions. Those who will carry the guns must receive a full "police-like" training program, including annual or biannual recurrent training, and must be paid a wage commensurate with the responsibility. No, I'm not in favour of a minimum wage wandering around schools, or malls or churches armed with a handgun. The US has proven conclusively that more guns aren't the answer.
Agreed that we must be mindful not to swing too far the other way.
My father was a manager for RBC in the 60s and 70s, and a typical bank branch was issued two 38 calibre revolvers. One was to be stored in the manager's desk and the other “somewhere where the tellers could reach it”. No one in the branch was ever taught safe firearm handling procedures, or how to load or aim a pistol. The RBC office supplies requisition form even had a line for ordering additional boxes of bullets (!).
Agreed. As you noted, the implementation would require an elevation of the role to that of a well-trained person expected to act in such a scenario, not just be a pair of eyes who would 'call it in'.
As other have said, I am not sure we as a country are prepared for the implications of this kind of shift, either socially or economically, however we don't seem to have a choice unless we accept having this role filled by police, which is where Canada has traditionally placed that responsibility. Many would not want to shoulder that shared tax burden because in aggregate we are cheap and unserious.
I think this is a good point broadly, we have a more than one profession that is struggling because they are required to provide services that could reasonably be offloaded. Let pharmacists diagnose minor ailments and issue prescriptions for example. Do we need fully trained police doing traffic stops (maybe we do, maybe the risk of pulling over a drug dealer and getting in a shootout are too high)? I wonder if this stems from our small community history, where it made sense to combine jobs. At our current population density I'm all for roles like security guard, nurses, pharmacists, traffic officer, etc. (Still highly trained but in a limited, less time consuming and accessible way) taking up tasks that our other professionals handle (police, doctors, etc.) so that they can focus on tasks that require the more advanced, robust skill set. I imagine there's a cost savings going down this route, and you could "surge" to meet demand faster with a one year training program vs a four year program.
And broadly I'm in favour of individuals taking charge of themselves and their personal security. I accept we need boundaries, but I do not agree the default answer should be "call the cops and hope you don't get hurt too badly waiting."
Great article, and this is a criticism of the constraints on speech in Canada, not of the article.
The words you didn't use say a lot. Very late in the article you mention Oct 7 and then virulent antisemitism, but never identify Islam or Muslims as the problem. Maybe my mentioning those words is Islamophobia and maybe not. We will never know because we aren't allowed to know the demographics of the the "virulent antisemites." I suspect the police and politicians know, and that is why the demonstrators are allowed to be masked.
The lack of interest in investigating the roots of problems like this is becoming far to common.
We abandoned some of Tam's pandemic recommendations during Covid but don't seem to care if that was the correct response.
We never go back and see if the government actions on health care, housing, green technology, and basically everything else accomplished anything.
Until the 70s, high schools in Ontario had shooting ranges. Hard as it may be for many who have drunk the Kool-Aid about what a nice, kind, and non violent country Canada has 'always' been - with a reluctant nod to the role of peacekeepers and all that jazz - it is only recent history that has divided Canadians from firearms - by incremental legislation - and eliminated public training of the proper handling and storage of firearms. The National Rifle Association in the US was formed to better compete with Canadians who were perennial winners of shooting contests post civil war and this was somewhat embarrassing to our southern neighbours. My Burlington parents' first date was a shooting outing and both were excellent (a trait that skipped a generation). Our history as a country is seeped in many regular people able to shoot things very well and this served as a handy element in our contribution to the Allies in WWII. It was common trait among army, navy, and air force servicemen.
Today, we have lost more - far more - than firearms to the significant minority of voters of Canada in their quest to rewrite not just history but the reality of inherited Canadian values and practices to remake all of it in their delusional timid image of the country filled with folk who need ever more government guidance and safety; we have lost in this pursuit of social utopia is the country's promise. Maybe that's why those under 25 score Canada as 71st on the happiness scale.
I got to try out the shooting range under the student centre at U of T during one of its last years in operation. Single shot .22's, Cooey's I think, but still a chuckle that they let me shoot guns at school. I think this was closed as part of the "no ranges in Toronto" policy of the David Miller era. Way to fight crime there David.
It's brutal. This national government has essentially destroyed gun culture basically for its own sake, for the reasons you describe, remarkably and demonstrably without affecting crime statistics whatsoever.
Notice that there is NEVER a metric that accompanies the latest idiotic 'public safety' bill to relate it to efficacy (in this case stripping law abiding citizens of their right to own guns and help make them just that much more defenceless against those who are not law abiding, but it could just as easily be 'harm reduction' for illicit drugs, the latest anti-Semitic education program, some new wealth transfer to some 'struggling community', whatever). Once all of our equity has been successfully transferred to the state and all means of self defence has been criminalized, I'm almost sure utopia for the masses will have finally arrived. All we have to do is learn Chinese.
I am currently visiting in USA in an open carry state. I recently observed an obviously high man walking into a grocery store with a handgun shoved in his waistband. We surely don’t want to go down that route. Having said that I have often thought that our attitude towards guns is not only antiquated but actually backwards and expressive of a domineering and contemptuous elite. Arming well trained and vetted security guards poses little or no risk to the general population and will protect the most vulnerable from the major threats of criminals and terrorists who care little or nothing of our laws. Accepting the world for what it is……….. PM are you listening?
Having an increased number of private employees armed has not made the US safer than Canada.
Yes we need to actively investigate and prosecute the recent shootings of places of worship and gathering. But having armed private guards isn't the answer.
I'm willing to say it. With enough training, testing, and vetting, individuals should be allowed to carry and defend themselves with firearms.
Our elected leaders are now surrounded by a praetorian guard of armed men, allowing them to be as unpopular and despised as they want without fear, moving confidently through a society of increasing crime and containing more and more unhinged people spurred by their actions and policies. We saw Justin Trudeau's retinue grow from 1-2 guards to a wall of typically 10 or more - I wonder why that was. If the ones making the rules are entitled to such protection at taxpayer expense, we should each expect to be able to avail ourselves of similar protection.
Ah, but KRM, our worsers (definitely NOT our betters) simply won't allow we, the unwashed, to possess handguns because we might use said handguns on said worsers, i.e. those with all the protections. Very telling, I think.
When law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns, the biggest criminal they should fear is the state.
With all due respect the article is about how many angels can dance on the head (point?) of a pin. Canada is set up where all power flows from the State down to the people and not the other way around. The word “allow” in the title says it all. What in God’s (please don’t report me to the speech police) green (for now) earth requires a human being to seek permission to defend his/her life by any and all means possible? The answer IMO is that unless you are one of the ruling class your life doesn’t matter. And making the lower classes kneel and kowtow and do other related things and jump through hoops to get the tools to save their own and their children’s lives is merely a way to make sure that you know your place. Slaves were not allowed firearms in pre civil war USA either.
The whole State civilian disarmament initiative is a way for the elites to reduce the chances of the majority being able to bring them to account for their depredations and restore equity. Particularly to restore power to the people. The anti Americanism of Canada’s ruling class - abetted and proselytized to the masses by the CBC and other rented legacy media spokespeople - is not a fear of the US size and power. It’s a fear - indeed phobia - of the concept of individual God-given freedom that underlies that country’s dynamism and success.
And until the power structure changes, you can expect the aberrations (indeed abominations) described in this article to continue.
You can always arm yourself at your own risk, but with the benefit of being able to defend your own life if and when needed.
The current state of affairs will increasingly lead to citizens taking their safety into their own hands and quietly burying bodies in the countryside, whenever a daring criminal knocks on the wrong door and gets taken out.
-Not legal advice-
Oh I agree 100%. And I’m sure funeral arrangements by John Deere are not unheard of in rural areas. A lot cheaper than spending $30K in legal fees to defend against unsafe storage charges 🙄
Shoot, shovel, shut up ;)
Welllll.... PERHAPS you could arm yourself. If, of course, you could actually buy a handgun in Canada. Prohibited weapon and all that.
I have not been around firearms in 40 years, but I know a guy, who knows a guy.
It's not that hard, especially if you want an old 9mm.
Well, if one is going to have John Deere arrange the funeral, it's hardly a stretch that one would find a way to get their hands on a gun, if you catch my drift.
You can’t at least not legally. All handgun transfers and sales - with infinitesimal exceptions -,are prohibited. Of course the black market seems to be flourishing.
Interesting article on guns- considering we are in the midst of our government pushing forward with an already demonstrated gun buy back failure.
I saw the smirking faces of our halfwit public safety minister and the gun banner in chief Natalie Provost (now elevated to MP of course) making their latest non sequitur announcement yesterday and I wondered to myself: "Why must I be in a timeline where I am continually tormented by these bottom of the barrel fools? Why do these particular people, these banal dunces, who I would utterly dismiss and have no reason to ever give so much as a second thought if I met them in any other capacity in life, have so much power over myself and so many people?"
I'd support the idea with conditions. Those who will carry the guns must receive a full "police-like" training program, including annual or biannual recurrent training, and must be paid a wage commensurate with the responsibility. No, I'm not in favour of a minimum wage wandering around schools, or malls or churches armed with a handgun. The US has proven conclusively that more guns aren't the answer.
Agreed that we must be mindful not to swing too far the other way.
My father was a manager for RBC in the 60s and 70s, and a typical bank branch was issued two 38 calibre revolvers. One was to be stored in the manager's desk and the other “somewhere where the tellers could reach it”. No one in the branch was ever taught safe firearm handling procedures, or how to load or aim a pistol. The RBC office supplies requisition form even had a line for ordering additional boxes of bullets (!).
Agreed. As you noted, the implementation would require an elevation of the role to that of a well-trained person expected to act in such a scenario, not just be a pair of eyes who would 'call it in'.
As other have said, I am not sure we as a country are prepared for the implications of this kind of shift, either socially or economically, however we don't seem to have a choice unless we accept having this role filled by police, which is where Canada has traditionally placed that responsibility. Many would not want to shoulder that shared tax burden because in aggregate we are cheap and unserious.
I think this is a good point broadly, we have a more than one profession that is struggling because they are required to provide services that could reasonably be offloaded. Let pharmacists diagnose minor ailments and issue prescriptions for example. Do we need fully trained police doing traffic stops (maybe we do, maybe the risk of pulling over a drug dealer and getting in a shootout are too high)? I wonder if this stems from our small community history, where it made sense to combine jobs. At our current population density I'm all for roles like security guard, nurses, pharmacists, traffic officer, etc. (Still highly trained but in a limited, less time consuming and accessible way) taking up tasks that our other professionals handle (police, doctors, etc.) so that they can focus on tasks that require the more advanced, robust skill set. I imagine there's a cost savings going down this route, and you could "surge" to meet demand faster with a one year training program vs a four year program.
And broadly I'm in favour of individuals taking charge of themselves and their personal security. I accept we need boundaries, but I do not agree the default answer should be "call the cops and hope you don't get hurt too badly waiting."
Great article, and this is a criticism of the constraints on speech in Canada, not of the article.
The words you didn't use say a lot. Very late in the article you mention Oct 7 and then virulent antisemitism, but never identify Islam or Muslims as the problem. Maybe my mentioning those words is Islamophobia and maybe not. We will never know because we aren't allowed to know the demographics of the the "virulent antisemites." I suspect the police and politicians know, and that is why the demonstrators are allowed to be masked.
The lack of interest in investigating the roots of problems like this is becoming far to common.
We abandoned some of Tam's pandemic recommendations during Covid but don't seem to care if that was the correct response.
We never go back and see if the government actions on health care, housing, green technology, and basically everything else accomplished anything.
Until the 70s, high schools in Ontario had shooting ranges. Hard as it may be for many who have drunk the Kool-Aid about what a nice, kind, and non violent country Canada has 'always' been - with a reluctant nod to the role of peacekeepers and all that jazz - it is only recent history that has divided Canadians from firearms - by incremental legislation - and eliminated public training of the proper handling and storage of firearms. The National Rifle Association in the US was formed to better compete with Canadians who were perennial winners of shooting contests post civil war and this was somewhat embarrassing to our southern neighbours. My Burlington parents' first date was a shooting outing and both were excellent (a trait that skipped a generation). Our history as a country is seeped in many regular people able to shoot things very well and this served as a handy element in our contribution to the Allies in WWII. It was common trait among army, navy, and air force servicemen.
Today, we have lost more - far more - than firearms to the significant minority of voters of Canada in their quest to rewrite not just history but the reality of inherited Canadian values and practices to remake all of it in their delusional timid image of the country filled with folk who need ever more government guidance and safety; we have lost in this pursuit of social utopia is the country's promise. Maybe that's why those under 25 score Canada as 71st on the happiness scale.
I got to try out the shooting range under the student centre at U of T during one of its last years in operation. Single shot .22's, Cooey's I think, but still a chuckle that they let me shoot guns at school. I think this was closed as part of the "no ranges in Toronto" policy of the David Miller era. Way to fight crime there David.
It's brutal. This national government has essentially destroyed gun culture basically for its own sake, for the reasons you describe, remarkably and demonstrably without affecting crime statistics whatsoever.
Notice that there is NEVER a metric that accompanies the latest idiotic 'public safety' bill to relate it to efficacy (in this case stripping law abiding citizens of their right to own guns and help make them just that much more defenceless against those who are not law abiding, but it could just as easily be 'harm reduction' for illicit drugs, the latest anti-Semitic education program, some new wealth transfer to some 'struggling community', whatever). Once all of our equity has been successfully transferred to the state and all means of self defence has been criminalized, I'm almost sure utopia for the masses will have finally arrived. All we have to do is learn Chinese.
I am currently visiting in USA in an open carry state. I recently observed an obviously high man walking into a grocery store with a handgun shoved in his waistband. We surely don’t want to go down that route. Having said that I have often thought that our attitude towards guns is not only antiquated but actually backwards and expressive of a domineering and contemptuous elite. Arming well trained and vetted security guards poses little or no risk to the general population and will protect the most vulnerable from the major threats of criminals and terrorists who care little or nothing of our laws. Accepting the world for what it is……….. PM are you listening?
Having an increased number of private employees armed has not made the US safer than Canada.
Yes we need to actively investigate and prosecute the recent shootings of places of worship and gathering. But having armed private guards isn't the answer.
Should the armoured car private guards be unarmed too?
I hope their better trained than the Mounties are.
The world and along with it, Canada has changed. Government is slow and ineffective at anything except raising taxes and their own pay.