Should we regulate firearms in Canada?

by GF11 on September 10, 2013 - 5:51pm

                    Canadian faces an issue towards gun owning and gun control. The government holds a registry that permits us to know who has a gun and basic information about that weapon. For some people this is offending and needless spending of money in addition to being a violation of privacy and freedom. Those in favour of the registry says it is valuable to law enforcement and could potentially save lives.

 

                     For the author, it would be best to preserve a well furnished registry to prevent gun-related crimes and also help for crime solving issues. Which seems obvious, Insecurity is the only thing that comes in mind when you think of a society were anyone can have a gun and the government doesn’t even know. I would say it is much easier to find a shooter knowing who has a gun instead of taking everyone as a possible suspect.

                     It is for safety and the respect of Canada’s values of public safety that we regulate hand guns and long-guns. The principle of greater good or common safety are important here because it does less harm to know what people posses than to let them have dangerous activities whit them. ? I would feel safer to know that not anyone can have a firearm and that if they do, the government is aware. For me it is evident that public safety takes over individual freedoms especially if these freedoms are a treat to society.

 

                     On the other hand, it can be said that it has not proved to reduce gun-related crimes in addition of costing many billions of dollars to keep up with and represents a violation in privacy, does the government really have to know what we posses?  ‘’The Harper administration's most substantial initiative is to remove the long-gun registry requirement. This would mean that rifle and shotgun owners would not be required to register their firearms. This move has prompted critics to accuse the government of attempting to dismantle gun control in Canada.’’(Ian Paul) No matter what length the gun is, it is a dangerous thing and must not be considered different because of its size. All guns should be regulated. The principle of autonomy let us think it is best to let people be responsible whit their firearms than to regulate them.

 

                      An other part of the issue arises when you think of the population of Canada. It includes the north, were the Inuits live and these people depend on the carry of firearms for their everyday safety. Not for self protection especially but for feeding purposes. They hunt almost every day from their villages with long-guns and they have lived this way for centuries. Are we going to regulate these also?

 

                       Can we trust the sense of judgement of every individual in our society or should we try to make sure they don’t represent a danger?  

 

 

 

 

Gun Control: An Overview. By: Paul, Ian, Eaton, Sarah E., Canadian Points of View: Gun Control, 2009

Comments

I think that firearms should continue to be regulated in Canada. As you mentioned in your analysis, for me, the safety of the population is the most important thing. It surprises me that there isn't any concrete evidence that the regulation of firearms has decreased the amount of gun-related crimes. However, I think that by lifting the regulation off of firearm ownership, there are surely people who would take advantage of this and these people may cause trouble in the long-run. As people say, it is better safe than to be sorry.

I had personally not heard of this topic being arisen in the news recently so I was surprised when I was reading your post. I'm wondering though, when you had brought up the point about the Inuits, do you mean they had be hunting for food for many centuries or using the guns for many centuries, for the purpose of getting food?

This argument is one of freedom and safety. Do you value the freedom of several individuals, or the safety of a community? Moreover, allowing people to own a gun without having to register it shouldn't be allowed because owning a gun shouldn't be a right but a privilege, and if you aren't willing to take responsibility for owning a firearm or any harm that may come of it, then you shouldn't own one. I also liked that last question you posed. Trust is something we all wish we could give everyone. It would be an amazing world if we could all trust one another, but we can't and someone is bound to break the trust given. So as a consequentialist, I do think that we should make sure that firearms are regulated because more harm could come of it rather than good.

The analysis is really well organized and we can easily understand the two conflicting point of views. The registry of firearm in Canada is an important tool for the police investigation and I clearly believe that we should keep the registry for our own security. The government needs to know who in this country has a gun and always keep up to date their information. The public security is way more reinforce when we know which individual possesses an arm of any type. Therefore I agree that in this case where two values are conflicting (public safety VS individual freedom) the public safety is more important and valuable. Can we really take the risk to let own guns by anyone without any regulations?

I totally agree with you. I think firearms should be regulated because it is ridiculous to let anyone own a gun just because they feel like it. I mean, apart hunting and other similar activities, what is the purpose of having a gun? And if the person who is buying a gun have no bad intentions, why should he or she be against the registry? I also agree when you say that public safety takes over individuals freedom and I think it is the ethical principle and value that defend the best this argument. In plus, the registry is already there, so it would be stupid to get rid of it. Even if it is expensive, it is worth it and I think there is plenty of other expensive things that we could cut before gun control don't you?

What first appealed to me is the title because I thought that firearms were already regulated in Canada. Actually, they are. But Harper wants to reduce the regulation and registration of firearms to hand-guns only (this excludes long-guns). I personally think that we can’t trust the judgement of every person in society by letting everyone have a gun because people living in Canada wouldn’t feel safe (including me). Regulating fire-arms in Canada is essential because it follows Canada’s values of public safety. Even if there was a vote upon regulating fire-arms or not, everyone knows that they’d be regulated. People wouldn’t feel safe, they wouldn’t feel Canada as their ‘’mother’’ because it would be so dangerous. Though, other inhabitants say that regulating firearms violates their privacy and freedom. I think this reasoning is too strong or extreme because we are talking about firearms here. Even cars are registered and people are not saying it is violating anything. What I am saying is that the freedom and privacy of a small amount of people doesn’t prevail the safety of a whole population! Fire-arms should be regulated strongly no matter what.
In addition, in the United States, guns are regulated less strictly and sometimes, mass murders happen. Here is what Obama thinks about gun control in his country:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/us/obama-to-attend-memorial-service-fo...