CanadaPolitics

I understand where you're coming from with your concerns about gun violence and the environment. These are issues we all care about. However, I think your statement paints an incomplete and inaccurate picture of responsible firearm ownership in Canada, especially when it comes to sport shooters and hunters.

Let's break it down. You seem to be suggesting that legal gun owners are the problem, that their recreational use isn't worth the risk. But the data just doesn't support that. In Canada, the vast majority of gun crimes involve illegally obtained firearms, often smuggled in from the US. That's the real issue we need to tackle. Our licensed firearm owners go through extensive background checks, mandatory safety training, and strict rules about storing and transporting their firearms. They're actually statistically less likely to commit crimes than the general population.

The idea that cracking down harder on them will solve the problem is a misconception. The real problem is the flow of illegal guns across the border. That's where we need stronger border security and international cooperation, not more restrictions on people who are already following the rules.

On the environmental side, I agree that we need to be mindful. But modern shooting ranges in Canada have pretty strict environmental rules, including reclaiming lead and managing the soil. Hunters are also using lead-free ammo more and more. And while noise can be a concern, ranges are usually built away from residential areas and designed to contain the sound.

Here's something that often gets overlooked: hunters play a huge role in conservation in Canada. Their license fees and the taxes on firearms and ammunition fund a lot of wildlife management and habitat preservation. Organizations like Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters rely heavily on hunters, and they've done incredible work protecting our ecosystems. Plus, in many rural and Indigenous communities, hunting isn't just a hobby; it's a vital source of food and a core part of their culture. If you've been to a grocery store lately, the cost of food is incredibly high if it is even available at all, and many people rely on hunting to feed their families.

So, while it's absolutely crucial that we address gun violence and protect the environment, we need to do it based on facts, not fear. A blanket ban on legal gun ownership wouldn't just be ineffective against crime, it would actually hurt conservation efforts, damage our economy, take away a source of food from many communities, and take away the rights of law-abiding Canadians. I really encourage you to look into the statistics on firearm ownership and crime in Canada. You'll see that responsible gun owners and hunters are not the enemy. We need to work together on solutions that actually target the root of the problem – illegal firearms – while respecting the rights and important contributions of those who follow the law.

The good-guy-with-a-gun-stops-the-crime narrative is bullshit. However watching the events in the US, if I lived there as a leftist I'd seriously consider arming myself as the fascists are. Especially if I were of a visible marginalized group that the fascists like to target. I don't know where Canada will be in a few years time but I don't believe in the permanence of democracy anymore. If democracy cracks, violence will fill the gap. Guns are excellent at inflicting violence and I don't want law enforcement to have monopoly on this power, given that it might be indirectly serving corporations and the owner class. I probably would not have thought any of this a few years ago.

Imagine making this argument to my cousins who regularly take their rifles and go hunting for deer. Think of what their responses would be. Imagine how persuasive you would need to be to convince them to abandon that pursuit.

Drop the argument about casings. It weakens other, rational, arguments. The amount of lead in casings is minimal, and making that out to be some big issue makes you seem like a fool grasping at straws to prove their point. It's like saying cars are bad because touching hot engines causes burns. Ok, technically true; but there are so many bigger issues you could focus on that trying to hang your hat on that one feels like you're just pulling the reasons they're bad out of your ass and you haven't done any actual research beyond what you feel is right.

Canada needs better boarder controls. You can make buying and selling a gun a mandatory double life sentence but that doesn't do anything about the handcannons that get shipped up from the US.

If you want to pick a battle that saves the most lives go after cars and giant, pedestrian murdering, pickup trucks. Vehicle related fatalities were >5 per 100k in 2022 but firearms related fatalities were only 0.88 per 100k.

I used to think this, too.

If you want to play with guns like toys go take a vacation down south.

This is the problem, this is where the majority of guns come from. Mexico has the same problem but it’s north for them

No. Just...no.

It's not that I disagree with you per se. I personally would never use one and I personally feel that there needs to be strict registration requirements for owning one. But banning all guns is like using a sledge hammer on a thumb tack; it's a far more delicate issue than you want it to be.

For starters, who determines what constitutes a "remote area"? There are plenty of hunters who may not need to hunt to survive, still enjoy hunting and eating wild game when it's in season. Who gets to decide that they aren't allowed to?

Secondly, what do you then propose we do about wildlife overpopulation? Hunters play a critical role in keeping wildlife under control. Every year there are rules about how many of each sex and how many of each breed you are allowed to hunt because it:

• Keeps the populations under control. And,

• Functions as a health measure for those very animals, since overpopulation can lead to not only starvation as much of their land has already been taken over by us humans, but also a number of wildlife diseases that can run unchecked in an overcrowded population (some of which CAN and HAVE crossed over to humans...ie. Rabies, bird flu, ebola, and dozens more.)

So you say "people don't need guns"? Hunting and gun ownership make up one half of a very important system in rural areas. NOT just remote areas with no "access to alternative food sources".

You're entire premise reads like spoiled city folk who like to open their high-and-mighty mouths before knowing a damn thing about what they want to say.

Banning guns doesn't keep them out of violent hands though. They just get them from the states. I'm not sure what the stats are but I would be surprised if the majority of gun crimes occurred with a legally obtained gun and not something smuggled in from the states.

Guns don’t kill; bullets kill.

Bullets should be more heavily regulated; beyond guns that are only useful to inflict harm on humans, I see no reason to restrict firearms.

Someone’s resourceful enough to make their own bullets? Fine, but any misuse of said bullets, especially if they’re unregistered (think locksmiths), and there’s jail time waiting for them.

Gunpowder is also much easier to sniff out at the border than guns.