Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.
In signing, the references are saying that “I have known this person for three years and don’t believe them to be a high risk for violence.” One might argue that if you don’t know two people who don’t consider you a risk, you may actually be a risk!
Similarly, the sign-off from partners (current or recent) is in place to protect partners and exes from ending up shot dead. A bad breakup because someone was scared of their partner is probably a good indication that the partner shouldn’t have firearms.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
Nah, the RCMP has its problems but it’s a federal government division, and not in place to make a profit.
I think the difference in both legislation and acceptance thereof is that guns aren’t a right in Canada - they’re a privilege that carries a lot of responsibility.
At the end of the day, firearm offences in Canada have been rising, partly because of our proximity to the USA. The vast majority of intentional gun injuries and fatalities are carried out with guns illegally smuggled across the border. Even with the recent increases though, the rate of firearms-related deaths per 100k in Canada is 2.24, and in the USA it is 10.84. (In Texas, it was 15 and rising as of 2021.)
So the process is arduous, it’s restrictive, ownership is NOT a right, and carrying weapons in public is (mostly) illegal; and consequently, we have 15% of the per-capita fatality rate.
Edit: Just found some accurate stats which shows Texas at 15.60 in 2021, and it’s not even in the top half of the states. Conversely, Massachusetts at 3.40, is the lowest rate in the country and the only state that isn’t more than twice as high as Canada’s rate.
In signing, the references are saying that “I have known this person for three years and don’t believe them to be a high risk for violence.” One might argue that if you don’t know two people who don’t consider you a risk, you may actually be a risk!
Similarly, the sign-off from partners (current or recent) is in place to protect partners and exes from ending up shot dead. A bad breakup because someone was scared of their partner is probably a good indication that the partner shouldn’t have firearms.
Nah, the RCMP has its problems but it’s a federal government division, and not in place to make a profit.
I think the difference in both legislation and acceptance thereof is that guns aren’t a right in Canada - they’re a privilege that carries a lot of responsibility.
At the end of the day, firearm offences in Canada have been rising, partly because of our proximity to the USA. The vast majority of intentional gun injuries and fatalities are carried out with guns illegally smuggled across the border. Even with the recent increases though, the rate of firearms-related deaths per 100k in Canada is 2.24, and in the USA it is 10.84. (In Texas, it was 15 and rising as of 2021.)
So the process is arduous, it’s restrictive, ownership is NOT a right, and carrying weapons in public is (mostly) illegal; and consequently, we have 15% of the per-capita fatality rate.
Edit: Just found some accurate stats which shows Texas at 15.60 in 2021, and it’s not even in the top half of the states. Conversely, Massachusetts at 3.40, is the lowest rate in the country and the only state that isn’t more than twice as high as Canada’s rate.