Why are Canadians So Anti-Gun?

Cognitive dissonance, or the fox calling the grapes he can't reach sour.

Urban Canadians are anti-gun. They make the rules.

I'M NOT ANTI-GUN!

But I notice a very condescending attitude towards Americans, much like many Europeans. Especially towards Southerners. People will mock the way they talk, etc.

Anti gun 'cos we had no real founding fathers or any revolution.

I'm in BC. And there are a lot of grizzly. And cougar. And black bear.
Don't try and smuggle a gun in, they will catch you and you will go to jail.
It happens all the time.

Too bad, great wilderness spoiled by dumb laws.

Can i carry a non restricted rifle while hiking in ontario?
have recently got into the shooting sports and am an avid hiker and i wanted to know if it is legal to carry a non restricted rifle in say a backpack of other bag while hiking. namely i was thinking the henry US survival rifle would be the best choice simply for its small size when folded up. as far as i can tell i think it would be legal but i'm not 100%.
9 months ago Report Abuse by stormgal... Member since:
September 01, 2008
Total points:
17,013 (Level 6)
Add Contact

Block

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
by personal research yes, but I'd ask your closest DNR if I were you, I know that legally you should be ok, but it depends on who your dealing with, a good DNR officer or an a**hole, if an a**hole, then you have some problems.
the Canadian gun laws are very flawed and unspecific, hard to understand and can be twisted by crooked officers to fit their description of the situation, possibly getting you in trouble for something that is legal in the law books, even if you prove your case, you had to go to court and prove your innocence, possibly costing you thousands of dollars and you can't get any of those court costs back.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/wild-sauvage-eng.htm

Using a firearm for wilderness protection.
It's legal for us. Make sure you know what qualifies as wilderness.

Are Canadians So Anti-Gun?

The response you posted is based on pure fact, Canadian law, the author offers on opinion, no bias there. If the posted information is correct Canada does allow persons who wish to visit Canada to import most types of firearms. Where is the bias?

Why are Canadians So Anti-Gun?

Click to expand...

They like the nanny state.

I suspect in the wild, everyone carries a gun.
The cities are where the libs think up more things for the government to do.

Guns are evil and kill people and stuff.:banghead:

I worked in Winnipeg for 3 months, in regular contact with what we would consider the "blue collar working man". I'm not real familiar with Canadian politics, but this type of guy in the US would probably ride somewhere in the middle politically; torn between standard conservative values, and the union wanting him to vote Democrat.... anyhow, I spent some time socially with these guys since I was there so long with little else to do, and they were gun owners/hunters/ice fishers. However they were very surprised that anyone in the US could/would want to CCW, etc. It is definitely a different culture than you find in the western/southern US. I don't know what their standard wilderness carry habits are.

I've talked to a bunch of Canadian anti-gunners in usenet and elsewhere in the internet, and to a "man", they seem to be passive-aggressive bullies. When it comes to government, they're like abused women defending the man who's kicking their teeth down their throats.

Years ago on the "Fullbore" long range rifle shooting mailing list, there was a retired Canadian cop. He literally WORSHIPPED government. He worked himself into a high dudgeon over the fact that several of us owned sniper rifles... while being COMPLETELY unable to explain any practical difference between a sniper rifle, a varmint rifle, and a 1,000 yard target rifle. He stated that if the government ordered you into a race based concentration camp, that you had a DUTY to go.

Then he got into some kind of dispute with the Canadian gun registration bureaucracy. At some point, they apparently started leaking private email communications between them to a couple of on the job Canadian cops who were his online antagonists. Totally lacking in sympathy for him, I posted Pastor Niemoller's famous "first they came for the..." essay in response to his whiny complaints about the government messing with HIM. In reply, he posted, "What does that mean???" That about said it all.

Contrast this with my best shooting buddy (formerly 12th F-Class shooter in the WORLD). He'd lived in the U.S. for years, but when I met him, he hadn't shot since he was in Canadian Cadets in the '70s. I took him shooting. Pretty soon he bought an M1911. Then he started buying surplus military rifles. He currently has SO many surplus rifles, there are some that he literally hasn't seen or handled since he unboxed them at the gun store. Then he started bullseye handgun. Then he started long range shooting, moving from a sporterized M1896 Swedish Mauser, to a Remington 700 Varmint in 7-08mm, then several custom long range bolt guns, an AR15 service rifle and an AR15 "space gun".

Still my friend retains some of his Canadian "traits". Whenever somebody proposes new gun control, or repealing existing gun control, he ALWAYS predicts gloom and doom for the pro-gun side. It's like a reflex action. On the other hand, when local anti-gun hack Toby Hoover organized a protest against one of the main supporters of legal concealed carry here, he came out with the rest of us to overwhelm the anti-gun side and steal their thunder.

I figured out the problem. I read the article about Canadians and guns. You can also click on the bottom and read it in French. Do I really need to say anything else?

Guys, around Seattle, we have a lot of Canadians. And they are well armed here State-side

Because they have their big brother the US to take care of them if something should REALLY go wrong---without having to take any real responsibility for their own well being---they are free to spew all the uninformed opinions they wish.

Make sence?

A few thoughts.

• The Canadian government is adamantly anti gun ... many folk tend to think of their governments as wise and as such assume if their government says its bad it probably is. We have this same problem down here.
• If you look at Canadian media, most of it is government run and is additionally a few steps to the left of our media, so it tends to be a mouthpiece for the government's anti gun position (with little or no conservative media to dispute it).
• If you look at commenters to even somewhat conservative newspapers you'll find that there is a disproportionately large percentage of them that are liberals (who are more likely to be anti gun) If you were to look at the comments posted on Colorado Springs Gazette articles you'd think Colorado Springs was as far to the left as Boulder (when in reality we're one of the most conservative/libertarian cities of its size in the country).
• The simple fact is that antis tend to be louder than pro gun folk regardless of where you are, so when communicating with people far away via the internet you're more likely to run into those loud folk and assume they speak for the majority of their countrymen.

The only thing I can add, is to quote a post that Zoogster made a while back. I think it applies.

99% of the population becomes antis after guns have been banned a generation or two. Even in places where guns previously had a lot of cultural support.

What does it prove? The best way to make a population support gun prohibition is to have gun prohibition.

Want people to support a ban on full auto? Put ownership of full auto out of reach of the average person and within a generation or two most will think it is crazy to freely allow it.
They will invent and repeat any logic to support the ban on the dangerous foreign object.

Put ownership of firearms in general out of reach of most people and within a generation or two most people will support extreme restrictions.
They will support keeping the dangerous foreign object out of the hands of most people.

I heard the same arguments about assault weapons after they been banned for almost a decade except by people that owned one. "Who needs 'assault weapons' when anything you need to do with a firearm can be done by these non-'assault' weapons".
Even by many gun owners. Now that the ban has sunset and several years have passed and such targeted firearms are more common that sentiment is disappearing.

Want to find the largest number of anti-gun people? Go to places that have had extreme firearm restrictions for a generation or two.
Some will be a little more for or against, but the majority will eventually be near the set standard.

Unfortunately it proves that people in general are easy to control. It is easy to make the population approve or disapprove of ideas or freedoms just by forcing them to adhere to one for a generation or two.
Many other places around the world have shown it too. Who would have thought a place like Australia with huge wide open landscape, a "bush" culture, and a population density relatively low overall would in a generation go from quite pro gun to primarily antis.
The population can easily be forced to adjust to a new "normal" that they base future acceptance of freedoms or liberties on.
Put legislation in place enough years and that becomes their new median in determining what is acceptable.
Some will stray a bit from that median, but most will not stray too far.

In the 1920s and 1930s the thought of restricting firearms in the way the NFA did was considered un-Constitutional by the majority. Most judges thought it would be thrown out as soon as it went to court. Even judges that supported the restrictions generally thought it would not pass Constitutional review.
Then the first time it was challenged and up for review (Miller case) the challenger dies before it gets to the Supreme Court. Nobody argues on his behalf. Even the Supreme Court acknowledges it would have been thrown out if someone could have submitted evidence such weapons were suitable in the "militia" or in the military (easy to do considering numerous short barreled shotguns had been used in WW1.) But that they could not consider evidence never submitted.
Then there was no similar challenges heard for decades, it became the new normal, and now it is firmly entrenched in the public's mind as normal and acceptable.
So simply by existing for a few generations it became the new normal. The median from which people draw their opinions.

Click to expand...

Because they have their big brother the US to take care of them if something should REALLY go wrong---without having to take any real responsibility for their own well being---they are free to spew all the unimformed opinions they wish.

Make sence?

Click to expand...

You truly are an ambassador to your country with your deep insight and meaningful words.

deleted...

Especially towards Southerners. People will mock the way they talk, etc.

Click to expand...

Thanks to urban sprawl, we sometimes get that in our own hometowns these days.

Because they have never had to secure their freedom or lives by force of arms. Find the Canadians that have had to do so, individually because of environment or human attackers, and I doubt they will be anti-gun.

In the States, we still remember our Revolution and subsequent threats (well some of us do.) This memory and tradition, kept strong, will teach us that our founding fathers intended that firearms be used by the weak to protect themselves from the strong.

On the border

I live on that border and have many Canadian friends,some are VERY pro - gun.

Back a few decades ago the Canandians could get a Niagara County CCW permit and they actually got the RTK&BA = in this country and NOT in theirs.

That eneded and now we cannot cross that border w/o arrst,same for them.

they do allow rifle's for hunting = period and since they dont allow handgun hunting - I dont try.

I vote with my dollar !.

A few close Norks [ endearing term for the Canadians ] that I shoot with do bemoan the loss of the RTK&BA,they once had.

A few wacko's did for them what the congress is trying to do to us [ sometimes ] .

The Canadian govt does cost them much money that I would spend there = IF allowed to at least have a gun in my possession while in the woods.

I do agree that they have a fairly low crime rate = but they also have a very low population .

Quote:
Especially towards Southerners. People will mock the way they talk, etc.
Thanks to urban sprawl, we sometimes get that in our own hometowns these days.

Click to expand...

ESPECIALLY in Florida

Jealousy, giving them an elitist attitude and government dependence on decision making. Remember we had our citizens arm England during WWII and just maybe we may be called to help our neighbors to the North. Possibly they still either think they are an English colony or worse, French.

That is the way they were programmed.

Had to watch the video again, great song.