聽 聽 聽 聽 聽 聽 聽 聽 聽 Discussion is good. If people are open to understand where another person is coming from then they can better understand why things are the way they are or why change is needed.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 When it comes to firearms, I believe that people should be allowed to have them, but that they do need to be monitored. Rifles and shotguns are used for hunting, which many people do, and handguns are more so used for target shooting here than they are protection. (The rules surrounding how to store them means that they are not easily accessible as they must be locked away separate from its ammunition.)
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 I myself have both my non-restricted and restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence. When I was going through the process of obtaining the 鈥渞estricted鈥� PAL, I had to list references and the RCMP called those people inquiring if they were worried about me having a handgun and asking about my mental health. In addition to writing the exam and providing references, I also have to maintain a membership to a gun club if I were to purchase a handgun. (Although I have my licence, I do not own a firearm.)
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 I enjoy target shooting with handguns and rifles, and skeet shooting with shotguns is quite fun. It鈥檚 a challenge and I like challenges which require precision.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 However, because of the laws in Canada 鈥� we have had mass shootings and issues surrounding firearms 鈥� but not to the same extent as the United States has.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Many people say that in the United States it is their 2nd Amendment right 鈥� the right to bear arms. That Amendment, however, was created at a time when one bullet could be loaded and fired鈥� and it took a long time to reload the weapon. It was based on safety and protection being that they lived in a different time: think frontier and modes of transportation available.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 The vast number of weapons in the United States makes them accessible, more accessible than Canada because of our laws surrounding firearms. Many people over the last week have stated how that if someone wants to commit a mass shooting they鈥檒l find a way鈥� but will they? I wonder if there were fewer firearms (legal or illegal) in the United States would there be as many deaths. Just prior to the Las Vegas shooting there was an individual in Edmonton who was set on injuring and possibly killing people. Instead of a firearm he used vehicles and a knife. Both are easier to protect yourself against than a firearm.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Vehicles being driven into pedestrians is dangerous, but if you see it coming you can run into a building and potentially get out of its way. The knife is an intimate weapon as you have to be right next to someone to use it. Weapons that can be used from a distance are the dangerous ones.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Rifles and shotguns for example are dangerous, but in Canada they are mitigated by limits to the clip or how many shells can be loaded at a single time.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 So although the argument is that people who are set to carry out something like a mass shooting will find a way to cause terror and kill鈥� would it be to the same degree as being easily able to access firearms.
聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 And for those that carry firearms鈥� they didn鈥檛 help them at all. The gunman was on the 32nd floor, people wouldn鈥檛 have necessarily known where it was coming from, and had someone in the crowd pulled a weapon out the police likely would have identified them as hostile. So, is defending being able to have them as a 2nd Amendment right really for protection?
