Owning guns- Right or Privilege?

[u/Low_Bar_804]

So obviously here in Canada our government sees private firearm ownership as a privilege rather than a right. My question is, how you guys feel? Do you think gun ownership is a right or a privilege?

When you look at other things people view as rights, such as abortion, freedom of expression and freedom of religion etc. These are all viewed by most as inherently “good rights”, but in many countries these rights are restricted. I think, along with many others, that it is justified to ignore unjust laws that restrict human rights.

I personally believe that firearm ownership is a fundamental human right because it protects all of our other rights and freedoms from being taken away. So even though legally speaking firearm ownership is a privilege that can be taken away at any time here in Canada, I don’t agree with the way our country and many others treat firearm ownership.

[u/Barbarian_818]

Legally, it is, in the direct case, a privilege. But it is also indirectly a right.

You have the right to own property. As long as you use that property in safe and peaceful ways, you should still be allowed to exercise that right. Requiring education, licensing, transport and storage rules does not infringe on that right. Under our legal framework, these are "reasonable" restrictions needed to enhance safety. (Which is why opponents of the assault style weapons program stress the "no effect on public safety" aspect of this boondoggle.)

Similarly, but even less directly, it should be a right that is tied to one's right to self defence. We have the legal right to self defence. But generations of legal precedent and legislation have created a definition of that right that is extremely narrow. And it forbids the carrying of anything with the intent to use it for self defence.

A woman fending off a rapist is permitted to use whatever comes to hand to stop him. But she is supposed to only use "reasonable force" to end the assault. And whatever she uses, whatever force she employs will be tested in court. If the judge concludes that she overreacted or used excessive force, then she faces jail time.

Meanwhile, the criminal has all the time in the world to pick a victim, plan and prepare for his attack on a person he can comfortably assume will be unarmed and unable to fight him off. And for him, compared to the sentence for rape, carrying a weapon to make himself safer is a minor concern.

Somehow I don't think a woman caught by surprise, overwhelmed with force, and only armed with an improvised weapon, has much chance to overcome her attacker. In my opinion, the law infringes on her right to be safe from sexual assault in order to preserve the criminals right to life.

The right to self defence doesn't mean much when there is a long standing systematic and systemic effort to deny everyone the means to do so.

[u/InitialAd4125 → u/Barbarian_818]

Hell if we're just arguing within Canada's legal system if our judges weren't shit they'd realize security of person is a lot easier with a gun.

[u/Barbarian_818 → u/InitialAd4125]

I think they do realize. But it's just given a LOT less weight than the risk of giving criminals a fig leaf to disguise their possession and carrying of weapons.

There is the saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But the corollary to that is that it's easier for police and judges that way. Because then it becomes easier to say a person carrying a firearm is a criminal. You don't need to get into the grey and messy area of intent. Does he have a gun, or a knife? Boom, he's a criminal on that alone.

[u/InitialAd4125 → u/Barbarian_818]

"But it's just given a LOT less weight than the risk of giving criminals a fig leaf to disguise their possession and carrying of weapons."

But criminals do that either way are the judges stupid?

"There is the saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But the corollary to that is that it's easier for police and judges that way."

Easier then having a conceal carry license? Like this seems to be them being lazy and not caring about how the stomp on peoples rights to self defense.

"You don't need to get into the grey and messy area of intent. Does he have a gun, or a knife? Boom, he's a criminal on that alone."

Again easy fix does he have a license to carry in public? No then he's a criminal just as easy a fix. By this fucking logic we wouldn't let people drive cars.

[u/Barbarian_818 → u/InitialAd4125]

You don't know he has a license until you stop him and ask.

[u/Natural_Comparison21 → u/Barbarian_818]

You also don’t know if he has a weapon until you stop him and ask if he’s doing something called conceal carrying. You know. The whole purpose of which is to conceal your weapon?

[u/Barbarian_818 → u/Natural_Comparison21]

Oh I agree. I'm just saying the logic is that, as soon as they detect a weapon, they can immediately react to take control of the guy and arrest him. Because under our stupid laws and legal precedent, only criminals will ever be seen in possession of a weapon in public. It doesn't have to be true in reality, it doesn't have to be exception free. It just has to be "reasonable" and consistent to people sitting in courts and boardrooms.

Remember that our legal precedents say you can't carry anything with the intent of using it for self defense. Even though the Firearms Act clearly states "defense of life" as a valid reason to issue a permit to carry a pistol. If you are issued a type III ATC, you become exempt from that legal precedent.

And the Firearms Program has had a long standing agreement between CFOs to never issue a self defense ATC. Last I heard, there was only 1 in actual existence. The Firearms Program agrees with the courts, that there is never sufficient reason to carry a weapon for self defense. So much so that the ATC application forms don't even mention the possibility. If you call and talk to a rep, they will say there is no such thing.

I'd read, anecdotally that pretty much the only way to get one is to be a politician or judge with active death threats and a local police chief willing to say that his dept can't guarantee your safety. That chief can call the CFP and request that one be issued to you. And that it will automatically be revoked at any time if you cause a problem or after a year if you can't go through the entire process again to justify continued possession.

[u/Natural_Comparison21 → u/Barbarian_818]

“I'm just saying the logic is that, as soon as they detect a weapon, they can immediately react to take control of the guy and arrest him." Can't they literally immediately react by saying "Hey you got a license?"

"Because under our stupid laws and legal precedent, only criminals will ever be seen in possession of a weapon in public. It doesn't have to be true in reality, it doesn't have to be exception free. It just has to be "reasonable" and consistent to people sitting in courts and boardrooms." Which honestly fuck that consistency. That consistency is why people are being forced to rely on the police who show up after the crimes been committed seldom during.

"Remember that our legal precedents say you can't carry anything with the intent of using it for self defense. Even though the Firearms Act clearly states "defense of life" as a valid reason to issue a permit to carry a pistol. If you are issued a type III ATC, you become exempt from that legal precedent." Which which is hilarious if you ask me.

"And the Firearms Program has had a long standing agreement between CFOs to never issue a self defense ATC. Last I heard, there was only 1 in actual existence. The Firearms Program agrees with the courts, that there is never sufficient reason to carry a weapon for self defense. So much so that the ATC application forms don't even mention the possibility. If you call and talk to a rep, they will say there is no such thing." The people who are in charge of the firearms program hate the idea of peons having the ability to defend themselves. As then that makes the need for cops just a little bit less. Which cops hate that as that threatens there job security. Like I remember a AMA with a CFO and they straight up were being incredibly anti self defense. These people live in different realities then pretty much everyone else. Because if you are on the firearms program or end up becoming a judge chances are you had a incredibly privileged life growing up.

"I'd read, anecdotally that pretty much the only way to get one is to be a politician or judge with active death threats and a local police chief willing to say that his dept can't guarantee your safety. That chief can call the CFP and request that one be issued to you. And that it will automatically be revoked at any time if you cause a problem or after a year if you can't go through the entire process again to justify continued possession." Yep. Because for some reason politicians or judges who receive death threats deserve more rights and freedoms then anyone else who receives death threats.