Comments
Brensuun t1_j03dbmp wrote
People wouldn't be nearly as afraid as the media and politicians portray them if they only knew how many guns were kept within five miles of their home at any given time.
Luname t1_j03pjct wrote
Either that or they'd hyperventilate
ArmsForPeace84 t1_j04ta16 wrote
Tell them about the spiders at the same time. Upload to YouTube.
AlternativeComplex82 t1_j02ralr wrote
Jokes on you, Natives don't abide by any firearms or hunting regulations.
Kermit_El_Froggo_ t1_j032w5k wrote
I think it's more of a matter of the regulations simply not applying to them, rather than them simply disregarding rules.
AlternativeComplex82 t1_j03an2z wrote
Well, I don't have any hard evidence, since no one collects such data, so all I have are anecdotes. You are welcome to visit the rez I live on and listen to the gunshots AFTER dark, which is quite illegal, yet no one does anything about it.
PotatoAppreciator t1_j03y6aj wrote
> which is quite illegal
rez's literally have different hunting rights and most I've been to allow night hunting
AlternativeComplex82 t1_j050b9i wrote
Nope, Section 88 of the Indian Act allows for provincial laws (of a general nature) to be enforced on Indian reserves. Sames goes for animal cruelty laws. Ha ha, another one that's never enforced, cuz reasons ....
PotatoAppreciator t1_j05aecm wrote
It allows for that if the issue also is affecting non-rez lands/communities such as, say, a dog fighting ring run on a rez that outsiders come to or the like. Even the most conservative courts have ruled to uphold native sovereignty in issues that only affect native reservations.
AlternativeComplex82 t1_j06kol6 wrote
>It allows for that if the issue also is affecting non-rez lands/communities
Correct. As I said, Section 88 allows for laws "of a general nature", and specifically excludes laws pertaining to Natives.
Generally speaking, the only Canadian laws that DON'T apply on reserves are land related ones, which of course makes sense. So provincial landlord-tenant acts have no force on reserves. Everything else, from highway traffic laws to animal cruelty laws apply ... in theory. Enforcing them is another matter.
margmi t1_j063fgy wrote
>Even the most conservative courts have ruled to uphold native sovereignty in issues that only affect native reservations.
... conservative courts in Canada? Since when do Canadian courts have a political/ideological lean? Our court system has avoided the politics that have been commonplace in American courts.
PotatoAppreciator t1_j06rpre wrote
> Our court system has avoided the politics that have been commonplace in American courts.
lol you're joking right
margmi t1_j0750mo wrote
Let's see some examples of the politicization that you're talking about.
gerbal100 t1_j03wskv wrote
Don't most Rez's have treaty hunting rights entirely outside and predating US (and Canadian) law?
AlternativeComplex82 t1_j050q3s wrote
They can typically hunt out of season, but they have to abide by provincial firearm, hunting and fishing laws. So no dynamite, jack lighting, etc.
Blade_Shot24 t1_j03lruc wrote
Whelp this what many wanted, they just didn't know how far it would reach. This worked last with the Iroquois, and many groups. Now today it's just with blacks, Hispanics and Arabs. Canada doesn't have much gun violence but to deny a people who've been victim to hate especially when there's skeletons under the church? Great job.
31029372109 t1_j05bwk2 wrote
This is such a complex issue. Who gets the right to decide what the laws are? The official answer is the politicians who represent the people. If you are indigenous and those politicians don't represent you, they represent the culture that genocided yours. If all that was true for you, would you feel bound by the laws?
Blade_Shot24 t1_j05mgdm wrote
Complex? They didn't need this to be enacted at all. The gun crimes that happened are through illegal means. So why punish everyone for the acts of the few and criminal? This is why many don't want to vote blue in their red states because of what's going on in Oregon, IL, and Washington. This needs more coverage especially with the animosity from the skeletons.
I can mention my background and how I don't feel those in power don't represent me, but that doesn't matter by their law they will enforce it as they please. This isn't the first time a similar thing was enacted on the natives of Canada either.
puffinfish420 t1_j04uoal wrote
Yeah I mean, if you realistically look at the number of homicides committed with fire arms originating from a Canadian license, I can’t imagine it is statistically significant.
YubNub81 t1_j05nenp wrote
It's almost like they have first hand experience with what happens when you allow the government to take your weapons away....
raider1v11 OP t1_j06zca5 wrote
No...the lies you say....
[deleted] t1_j035gvs wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j03qfzg wrote
[removed]
CraftyFellow_ t1_j03r4hz wrote
> The gun-control bill is desperately needed
No, it isn't. Violence is Canada is pretty low.
[deleted] t1_j03rgbq wrote
[deleted]
raider1v11 OP t1_j03rko4 wrote
Self-defense is a human right.
Also, way to casually shit on their culture and heritage. Jesus christ.
AmericoDelendaEst t1_j03uii4 wrote
I have quite a few Alaska native friends who are deeply committed to subsistence hunting. They desperately want to be able to hunt. (I even had a friend let me watch him gut a seal, and it was super cool to see.)
I once had a native fellow rant when we were talking, about how westerners are trying to rob them of their rights and heritage. I honestly kind of agreed with him.
They shouldn't be required to either hunt or starve, but anyone who tries to restrict their ability to do so should reassess why they want to compel indigenous folks to conform to western ideals.
The_Phaedron t1_j03zlmu wrote
> westerners
Um.
AmericoDelendaEst t1_j0431ka wrote
That's a pretty common way of referring to people of European descent.
[deleted] t1_j04qukj wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j063t01 wrote
[deleted]
celtickerr t1_j04b229 wrote
Our homicide rate involving firearms is negligible, and the majority of those homicides that do occur are primarily between gang members or involve indigenous people. Gun control isn't going to ameliorate either of those issues because gangsters don't source their firearms from Canada and indigenous communities won't be policed (where it comes to firearms) regardless of what the law says.
The remainder of Canadians either use firearms for hunting or for sport shooting and are 3x less likely to commit any crime than your average Canadian.
We don't need gun control. We need social services for at risk youth. We need to solve our housing crisis. We need indigenous communities to have economically meaningful employment. I can think of an endless list of possible solutions to violent crime in Canada that will have a higher impact on crime than gun control.
We already have extremely stringent gun control including: -mandatory background checks daily -a licensing process -registration -calling the rcmp for authorization to move restricted firearms anywhere -red flag laws -spot checks on individuals who own a large number of firearms -safe storage laws
The list goes on.
TheGarbageStore t1_j07ij71 wrote
You need social services, a solution to your housing crisis, and this bill. There's zero reason why any Canadian should be permitted to own weapons: they bring risk without benefit to a society.
Violence is low because gun control works. It could be even lower. The right number of gun deaths for a society is zero.
celtickerr t1_j07p2ay wrote
There are numerous reasons why Canadians can and should own firearms. Canadians are permitted to own firearms for hunting, for target shooting, for collecting (such as historical collectors), protection from wildlife and in extremely limited circumstances, protection from other people.
People seem to forget that a large portion of Canada is extremely rural or actual wilderness, and people regularly encounter dangerous wildlife where a firearms is the ideal tool to defend themselves with. Canadian conservation officers are equipped with AR10 rifles for the purpose of protection against dangerous animals, not people. There is no reason regular Canadians who live in those parts should not be similarly equipped.
Hunting is a way of life for many Canadians, and is a cultural practice amongst indigenous peoples as well as Canadians, many of whom choose to hunt to connect with their own heritaige, or need to hunt to feed their families.
Target shooting is a safe and fun activity that I partake in regularly with my father, my wife, and my friends. It is a social nexus, gets us outdoors, contributes to the economy, and is a positive impact on society.
Hunting brings value to society. Target Shooting brings benefits to society. People who live in the wilderness not getting mauled by bears, or their livestock not getting slaughtered by coyotes brings value to society.
Taking away firearms from these people will in no way meaningfully make Canada safer. The majority of gun violence in this country is perpetrated with firearms that have been smuggled into the country, and are largely avoidable by adequate social support and other factors I mentioned earlier.
You have population A, legal gun owners, who are extremely unlikely to commit any kind of crime, let alone firearms crime.
Then you have population B, the population that has access to black market firearms, and is responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms related crime in Canada.
Can you see how taking guns away from population A does not address the problem? The population of Canadians that legally own firearms is not a risk for society, statistics back this claim up. By removing firearms from the legal population, you do absolutely nothing to address inner city gang violence, or domestic violence in first nations communities, which are the real drivers of firearms violence in Canada. Not to mention gun control is extremely expensive. Removing firearms from legal owners would cost many billions of dollars, which is money better spent in areas that would actually move the needle on violent crime.
TheGarbageStore t1_j07sjc5 wrote
Neither hunting nor target shooting brings any benefit comparable with the societal negatives it also brings. There are ways to deter wildlife that do not require civilians being allowed to possess weapons.
Canada can crack down on both legally owned firearms and illegal firearm smuggling: that's a false dichotomy. It may cost money but a lot of desirable social programs do.
Your position is 100% unjustifiable.
celtickerr t1_j07uti8 wrote
How can you possibly hold the position that hunting holds no value. Hunting is a perfectly legitimate and sustainable way to feed oneself and one's family, regardless of wildlife conservation. Your position is untenable. Name one target shooter responsible for a homicide or violent crime. More people die playing hockey than are killed by target shooters or during target shooting accidents. There are in fact more target shooters in Canada than there are hockey players. There are over 2 million licensed firearms owners in Canada and it annually contributes billions to the economy. Christ, more people die from drunk driving yet we don't ban alcohol because people like it.
>Canada can crack down on both legally owned firearms and illegal firearm smuggling: that's a false dichotomy.
It isn't a false dichotomy. Confiscating the lawfully obtained, legally used private property of 2 million Canadians, vs taking meaningful action to reduce the flow of illegal firearms into the country, are two totally separate issues, coming from the same budget. The Canadian government does not have limitless resources. Option one (confiscate guns) is incredibly expensive and will have a negligible effect at best on reducing firearms crime. Option two (increase border security) would be a moderately effective method to reduce the access to firearms for the criminal population. Option three (social supports) isn't even being discussed and would be the best bang for buck Option to address gang or domestic violence. It isn't a false dichotomy but we are dealing with scarce resources (tax dollars, police resources/manpower, pu lic service resources) to accomplish a stated goal. It would behoove the government to choose the most efficient option that doesn't involve forcibly removing property from 2 million Canadians.
TheGarbageStore t1_j08hfh8 wrote
Hunting holds no value: we have better ways for citizens to feed themselves and the sustainability is highly suspect. What you have to accept is that every gun death is a preventable death that didn't have to happen, and that there are plenty of legitimate pastimes people can engage in that do not require civilians to possess weapons.
I also don't think gun confiscation will really be all that expensive to implement.
celtickerr t1_j08hx49 wrote
>Hunting holds no value: we have better ways for citizens to feed themselves and the sustainability is highly suspect.
Ah yes, factory farming, so much better
TheGarbageStore t1_j08nqio wrote
Do you argue entirely with false dichotomies?
Turambar_or_bust t1_j03r3d0 wrote
And if they like hunting?
14DusBriver t1_j04m1lx wrote
> The gun-control bill is desperately needed
It isn't. All it does is say to legal gun owners in the dominion - as in people who have Possession and Acquisition Licenses - that they can no longer own certain models of firearms. PAL-holders have their records regularly checked by the RCMP. Getting a PAL already means one has some form of training plus they are vetted to have a clean background.
Lots of the guns that they seek to ban have been allowed for hunting use for ages. Even some single shot rifles and semi auto shotguns commonly used for duck hunting are on the list. Clearly, this isn't a law written under careful deliberation with input from the public and subject matter experts, but a poorly assembled sham with less value than used toilet paper put together by scared, uninformed MPs acting out of fear of something they refuse to understand.
Hananners t1_j04dl9a wrote
Hunting is a big part of the general culture here in Canada. Hunting is definitely a part of native cultural heritage and should be protected. In my personal opinion, it would be better for the gov't to focus on ensuring clean drinking water for every native population. There are quite a number of communities that still don't have that, despite it being promised years ago.
Pirson t1_j02rq40 wrote
Hopefully the whole bill gets rejected soon.