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. 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.
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 (!).
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.
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.
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 🙄
When law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns, the biggest criminal they should fear is the state.
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. 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.
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 (!).
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.
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.
Interesting article on guns- considering we are in the midst of our government pushing forward with an already demonstrated gun buy back failure.
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 ;)
I hope their better trained than the Mounties are.