r/canadaguns • u/BrotherLefthand • Apr 27 '26
News / Politics / Activism Escaping the Gun Debate Trap | David Yamane | Bridging the gap on politics.
https://youtu.be/BzB8MX4v8ko?si=QWHy-SNhCIq5FO82Bill C-21 and the OIC has been a significant topic in the house of commons. Regardless of which side of the aisle you stand, the conversations about guns are often polarized and emotionally charged. Misunderstandings on both sides can lead to mistrust, oversimplified stereotypes, and policies that fail to reflect the complexity of the issue. Encouraging dialogue rooted in respect, education, and shared values can help create a more informed and constructive public conversation.
Please watch the attached video and consider what Professor Yamane has to say. If we can bridge the gap between the most polarized on the firearms spectrum, I believe we can make better policy to benefit Canada.
77
u/DougMacRay617 Apr 27 '26
"If we can bridge the gap between the most polarized on the firearms spectrum"
The gap was created by the same people getting their way. Firearms owners haven't got any more extreme over the years. The people being paid to push the agenda will continue to do so regardless of any facts presented to them. Extremely naive to believe there is any chance in reasoning with these people
29
u/Eisenbahn-de-order Apr 27 '26
We should not be reasoning with poly but instead with normal everyday Canadians. Think of yourselves as little missionaries.
11
u/Psynapse55 Apr 27 '26
100% agree.
Reasoning with Poly would be like trying to reason with a toddler that has been jumping on the couch and eating candy three meals a day for the last five years. Poly is not running on logic. They are all about feelings and personal agendas.
14
u/Eisenbahn-de-order Apr 27 '26
We should not be reasoning with poly but instead with normal everyday Canadians. Think of yourselves as little missionaries.
3
u/BrotherLefthand Apr 27 '26
This is how I see it. Poly and it's constuents are already deeply entrenched in their rhetoric.
The target should be the average person that doesn't really understand firearms or firearms laws and regulations.
7
u/willysnax Apr 27 '26
When I took my motorcycle safety course, I thought about how the course would benefit all drivers, even if you hate motorcycles simply because you learn about defensive driving and come out with a new respect for all vehicles in general. You learn to respect their dangers and benefits.
I felt similarly with my firearm safety courses. These anti-gun people would benefit by going for an evening session at a gun club so they learn about guns as no more dangerous than any tool, or vehicle, that isn't shown the proper respect. I grew up with guns in the house so my father felt it was important I understood how they worked, what they were capable of, and how to properly use and handle them for my own safety. Best thing he could've done for a curious kid who would've explored them on my own without any knowledge.
If the Libs really cared about the average citizen and guns, they would come up with a program designed to educate as that is the only way to make any "tool" safer. Criminals already have laws in place that simply need to be enforced to lower crime.
If the Libs wanted to come out of this debacle smelling like a rose and having an actual impact not only on safety but the economy, they would use these funds and set up voluntary safety and target shooting course and/club activities to promote the sport.
This is turn would revive and boost the sport, the businesses, and the safety of everyone. They want to be progressive? Well this approach would set the world standard for progressive safety measures. And LE could focus their attention on the criminals where they can actually effect the numbers for gun crime.
Progressiveness needs to swing far away from this nanny state that gets pushed everytime some activist who doesn't understand culture decides everything they don't like needs to be banned for "our own good".
The more they double down on this path, the more of a disaster both financially and statistically crime wise this is going to become. You don't have to have a degree to see this.
20
Apr 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Ok-Leopard-6480 Apr 27 '26
I think this is probably the biggest misconception. Yes and no. I agree that our government isn’t being held accountable though. In the short of it, Canada’s foundations imply an inherent civil liberty in owning guns and later explicitly named it as a right. Our modern Parliament has just regulated it out of existence. We don’t need an American solution in Canada for American problems. We don’t share their issues. But their issues often bleed over into our politics and social fabric as they are used by our politicians to score points. We need to abandon those narratives and recognize we are uniquely Canadian with our own culture and have done pretty damn well with it all up until C-21. Not only that, but if we are truly believing any threats to our sovereignty, we are being short sighted and missing an opportunity to send a clear signal to those making the threats in a language that they speak.
The long of it is…. Before confederation, and going back to the Magna Carta, the idea was of owning a gun as a citizen was implied as an inherent civil liberty as much as owning an axe would be. Owning a firearm was the same as owning a piece of property. It wasn’t explicitly carved out as an inherent right, but by reading the laws it was obviously expected that citizens would and should have firearms and was thus regulated accordingly. It was eventually explicitly mentioned in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which is foundational to our own rights as Canadians. Sir William Blackstone, who is foundational to Canadian legal philosophy, explicitly included citizens’ rights to possess firearms for self defense as an inherent auxiliary right to self preservation. This dynamic changed much later after we went from a trusted citizenry with explicit inherent rights for self preservation and implied inherent civil liberties expectant of citizens owning firearms. We transitioned from regulations governing public safety through parliamentary process to eliminating an implied inherent civil liberty, and explicit right expressed in our foundational legal philosophy, through parliamentary processes. Instead of creating an amendment to the charter/constitution, this right has been eroded through regulation despite it being foundational. It started with the 1885 North West rebellion, continued through the subsequent 1930’s riots, and crescendoed until the repeal of the gun registry. It happened a little at time with permits, registries, police certificates, and acquisition approvals so that we went from a firearms being and expectant piece of property to be utilized as a tool and in the defense of the sovereign to possession of a firearm being implicitly criminal contraband worthy of being blocked from citizenry that couldn’t be trusted. The shift implied that the citizenry is an existential threat to public safety and the political system. That is a wholesale shift. Senator Lang, a Liberal, argued that firearms served a necessary part of everyday life as a tool and part of our unique culture. He did this while arguing against the registry and calling for the destruction of the records as a way to restore trust in the citizenry, but also faith in those governing through parliament. We have since slipped back and must regain what was bestowed on us since colonial times and as an inherent right. But to say we haven’t explicitly held that right isn’t accurate either.
45
u/Batsinvic888 Bats888 on YouTube Apr 27 '26
The gap? Seriously lmao?
The gap is total ban and not banning. You can't half ban something. You could argue we did with licenses before and well...
There is no rationality to the debate, and there never will so long people like Poly and Provost have power. It's like trying to argue with toddler that only wants one thing.
I'm sure this guy is rational in his explanations, possibly even provides good options. But that doesn't matter.
37
u/Apologetic-Moose Apr 27 '26
Yamane is American, he's not approaching this from a Canadian perspective. He coined the term "Gun Culture 2.0" and is friends with John Correia from Active Self Protection. There's a high likelihood he's more pro-gun than anyone in Parliament.
The gap is in knowledge, not legislation. Closing the gap doesn't mean compromising with Poly, it means educating the public to bring us to a point where we can base policy on evidence rather than emotion - something Poly fundamentally cannot do.
3
u/BrotherLefthand Apr 27 '26
Exactly. We need to bridge the gap between us, the people. Us, the voters. Poly is entrenched in their rhetoric. There's nothing we can do about that.
However, your neighbour or mine may not have a clue about firearms or firearms laws and doesn't consider the impact of their voting. I'd argue most people don't consider the impact of their voting, but that is another topic for another day.
28
u/thisghy Apr 27 '26
The polarization is due to the existing dichotomy that the liberals forced on us. You either keep your firearms, and have property rights by extension of that: or you dont.
There is no middle ground.
8
u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Apr 27 '26
I watched this, but its doesn't really apply to Canada unfortunately.
They is no meeting in the middle, thats what gun owners have been told for 50+ years. Property rights, never mind firearms are not recognized in Canada and unfortunately due to the subject being "taboo" many Canadians and politicians won't have a discussion about this that is framed in any angle that would even ask the government and activist to concede.
Non compliance is unfortunately the only way. Its how people have had to fight prohibition and restrictions in the past and its proven to be as effective as peaceful protest can be.
18
u/dgod40 Apr 27 '26
I watched this earlier today. The theory of coming together to come up with something sensible only works if one side is willing. And I think time and again, when it comes to guns, the left doesn't want to play nice. We all know that the ultimate goal is for no law abiding citizen to own a firearm. Period. Slowly everything will be chipped away.
Also that last proposal is absolute nonsense. He says "90% of all crime guns are sold by 5% of gun dealers" no shit sherlock. Gun manufacturers that make good guns are used by lots of people including criminals. Their "workaround" is more scrutiny for the big gun dealers, we all know they're talking about glock, and immunity for the 95% other dealers who only have a 10% market share. What they're trying to say is fuck up the 90% market share. It's another form of whittling down gun ownership.
Colion Noir, doesn't get everything correct but this new ban on BB guns is another way they are doing away with gun culture in the US. Kill it at it's "infancy". My kids started with BB guns and I've started taking them out with the 22s. Without the early appreciation of the BB guns they may never have wanted to go to the range.
2
u/NormalBill76 Apr 27 '26
As a liberal gun owner, I can confirm most people who don’t own guns have no idea how our laws work. I think if people realized how strict they already are there would be no more debate to make them more stringent.
Besides giving the rcmp full access to my bum hole whenever they desire an inspection, I don’t think there’s much else to be done in terms of increasing safety
3
u/WeightedDips95 Apr 27 '26
Liberals: *Do something insane, stupid, and evil*
Conservatives/ normal people: *calls them out*
Liberals: "You are maple MAGA NRA funded putler kremlin threat to Democracy and Women & Girls and we will freeze your bank accounts and destroy your life
Mega-brained Liberal who fancies himself a "centrist": "guys both sides!"
2
Apr 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/BrotherLefthand Apr 27 '26
And those are the people that would be best to bridge the gap with. If someone doesn't have a personal interest in firearms, the likelihood of them understanding the culture/community as well as the laws and regulations are slim to none.
I don't blame them either. I don't know anything about horseback riding. I couldn't be assed to learn about how the sport is regulated nor what the community is like. I could see myself voting for a policy I fond favourable even if it had concessions for horseback riders.
1
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Apr 27 '26
Agreed. The anger and upset on both sides is definitely justified in their own way, but we only move backwards when we engage in disrespectful dialogue or promote polarizing attitudes
119
u/FluffyPlays22 Apr 27 '26
We sure can make better policy to benefit Canada, it's called repealing bill c21 and the OICs. Canada does not have a legal gun problem, it has an illegal gun problem.