In Canada's opinion, do Americans really need to own handguns in US cities?

Question

Wouldn't this just increase the likelihood of law enforcement acting swiftly in fear and pre-emptive self-defense?

The US Supreme Court rules yesterday that US cities cannot pass local laws banning handguns because it violates the "Right to bear arms" clause in the 1789 US Constitution. However, other courts could have interpreted it as the right to defend against a militia.

I'm upset I have to fear handguns now in my home city where before these guns were banned by local laws. Do Canadians feel my pain?

Answer 1

i don't know why they even bother with those laws. It's not like a criminal will have it's gun registered. A normal,honest person who doesn't cause any trouble already has all the guns registered. Canadians have a ban,do you really think that's gonna decrease the crime? Toronto is getting worse by day. Nowhere safe to live anymore.

Answer 2

As a Canadian handgun and rifle owner I have to wade in on this one.  Just to clarify, it is NOT difficult for Canadians to own a handgun.  It is actually an incredibly simple and relatively cheap process.  We ARE allowed to own handguns in the cities (I have several handguns and rifles in a downtown apartment) and we can even store the ammo WITH the gun.  The only caveat is that the gun must be unloaded, and stored in a locked container or have a trigger lock in place.  The only real difference is that the Yanks are allowed to have fully automatics and larger magazines; and, depending on the state, are allowed to carry them in public.

To answer the posted question, nobody "needs" to own a gun for personal protection (mine are for sport by the way).  If your neighbourhood is really that dangerous - move! I remember reading a stat somewhere that most people who own guns for protection end up having the gun used on them. Also read somewhere that most of the guns in the US are actually in the middle-class and wealthier suburbs, not the inner cities...just wish I could remember where I sourced those from!

Answer 3

Yes they do.  And because they can the home invasion rate is much lower than in Canada and the rape rate is half.  And if you lived in a city where handguns were banned the laws were actualy more restrictive than in Canada, where anyone with the right licence can buy as many handguns as they want.

Answer 4

No offence but it seems to me that you are a well meaning but naive big city liberal. Criminals do not care one iota about local " handgun bans " ( I live in the Toronto area ). The "other courts " you refer to are also outranked by the US Supreme Court decision. Do not be fearfull but rather enjoy the freedom you have today which you did not have yesterday.

Answer 5

I am Canadian, and would just ask this: Why does my opinion matter? Canadians are allowed an opinion where their votes matter, and that's here at home.

I would be upset if my city were to pass a local law ALLOWING handguns in the city, when Canada's highest courts have already made it illegal without the weapon being registered and stored in a safe manner. But that affects me. I would not expect an American (or any non-Canadian) to voice their opposition to it, when it is up to me to write my senator or mayor or whoever about it.

But since you askedmy opinion, here are my two cents. On one hand, it is an effective deterrent to home invasion, car jacking, and assault if you have that handgun in the house or on your person. On the other hand, if you are irresponsible, hot-headed, or a Darwin award candidate, you may end up in jail or dead because of that weapon, and innocent people may suffer if it is used. So there are pros and cons to both sides of the issue.

One thing I would say is that when the US Constitution was introduced, the "right to bear arms" meant a muzzle rifle that you had to add the powder, load the pellets, c**k and fire....Once....Then you repeated the process. That may have taken 10-20 seconds for each round. Nowadays, guns are capable of firing 600 rounds a minute. Not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they were writing the document. So I always chuckle a bit when someone says it is my "right to bear an Uzi submachine gun" as per the constitution.

Answer 6

It seems like you need handguns more inside of a US city than anywhere else in the world. The crime is rampant in Washington D.C. and Chicago. It would be insane to leave yourself vulnerable. If you don’t own a gun you should go buy one. All of the criminals already had one anyway.

Answer 7

Yes, Americans really do need to own handguns in US cities.

Congress has the power to "raise and support armies" in the constitution - the bill of rights (first ten amendments) were to amended (by request to the Federalists) to protect civil liberties. They had the intention of the 2nd amendment to protect the right to army and the right to self defense arms. Many of the militia back then was "off duty" or "reserve" - on call militia, meaning they owned their own guns, etc.

Canada shouldn't be worried.

Mexico should probably be worried, since that's where most major crimes w/ violence, guns, etc. occurs.

The Supreme Court ruled the citizens of Washington, DC could own handguns within their own homes but could not freely carry them around. Even with this decision, much regulation, etc. still can occur and do occur at the local level.

Registration, too, must be done. It's not always done, but it SHOULD and is REQUIRED to occur.

If you are so worried about handguns affecting your neighborhood, may I suggest moving to a better area or buying a gun of your own for self defense?

Law enforcement doesn't judge someone just because a supreme court decision has been made. Regardless of any of that, law enforcement has and always will have the authority to do what it needs to do. Accidents happen, but in the end, society is protected.

Answer 8

I liken it to Americas policy regarding it's war on drugs. A lot of dollars are being spent in drug producing countries to eradicate the drug trade since it has a cascade effect. Those drugs wind up on American ( and Canadian) streets. Getting rid of the root of the problem reduces what shows up on the streets later or at least makes it more expensive and harder to get.

The same applies to handguns, for us anyway. The fewer handguns avaliable in the US, the fewer that can make it onto our streets. A majority of illegally held handguns in Canada have an American origin and were smuggled. The rest have been stolen from careless "collectors" who, since they lost them, demonstrated they aren't responsible enough to own them in the first place.

In an ideal world, a total ban would be nice. It'll never really be totally effective though. Just like the war on drugs. It would reduce the number of deaths though, and even one less fatality through tougher laws would make it worth it, don't you think? That fatality prevented could be you or I. It doesn't always "happen to the other guy".

I'm not anti gun. I own a .22 bolt action rifle, properly stored with important parts scattered in various secure locations,( I'm that cautious that it takes 30 minutes to collect everything and re assemble), I'm not even anti "grow your own weed". I'm just anti handgun. Nobody I know goes hunting with a Glock.

I also believe you need to learn how to drive responsibly before getting behind the wheel of a car and it's a privilige, not a right. Is it really any different with guns of any type?

As for Rebecca's answer. That..scares me. Having a handgun readily at hand is just asking for it to be stolen and either used against you or in another crime. This is EXACTLY how some crooks are getting their paws on them. Not to mention that having one within easy access just makes it easier to use for the wrong reasons. There are other methods for defence that are options, most importantly, prevention.

Answer 9

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved by understanding.

Quote by Albert Einstein.

Answer 10

The right to bear arms was in case men were needed for a militia to fight the english. Things have changed in 200 years and in case the amercans haven't noticed, the english lost and left the US to its own devices. However, after all this time, US citizens still quote this in order to maintian their right to shoot each other at will. 50,000 a year i think is the statistic. No other country is able to kill and injure that many of its own citizens with guns, mostly by accident.

Answer 11

In my opinion... those bad guys are going to have guns, whether it is legal or not.  

Why shouldn't we at least have an equal chance of defending ourselves.  A baseball bat can't really compare during a robbery.  Then again, if you shoot a robber here in Canada, YOU go to jail.

As a woman, if I was living alone, I would definitely want a gun to keep near@hand at night, it would make me feel safer, and I wouldn't have to take a chance getting close enough to try to stab with my knife.  :)

Answer 12

Canada has a whole different take on the gun situation - it is difficult to own a handgun in Canada, but even with that caveat, people who engage in illegal activities seem to be able to get them with no trouble. The idea of everyone being able to have handguns scares the beejeebers out of me. Rifles are one thing - they aren't as easy to conceal as handguns, but the notion of gang members, teenagers, and anyone else having a handgun in their purse or pocket just sends shivers down my spine.

Answer 13

Do Canadians feel my pain?

I think they do although I honestly can speak only for myself. I feel pain for the parents  of Yoshihiro Hattori the exchange student who was shot simply because he went to the wrong house and was mistaken for a bad guy. I feel for the families of Selina Akther, Tyler Drake and especially of the family of 9 year old Tyler Matthew Marshall - all accidental shooting victims. The list goes on and on and on. But my feeling the pain does not heal the wounds or bring the dead back to life.

I keep hearing that guns do not kill people; people kill people. Sorry but I do not entirely buy that line at all. Guns make killing easy  and a lot of the people who presently kill people would not do it if it were difficult. It is also fast. A lot of the people who presently kill people would not do it if they had time to think about it first. Guns make killing impersonal. The fact is you seldom, if ever, hear of an accidental stabbing. A person has to be in very close proximity to stab them. With some of todays gun's, a person can be on the other side of the street or at the other end of the street. If the only weapon Rodney Peairs had had that fateful night had been a knife or a garrote, chances are that Yoshihiro Hattori would still be alive. The same holds true for all of the other victims of accidental shootings and in many cases for the victims of murderers. If guns were not as accessible in the States as they are today,  the number of murders and shooting accidents would be down from where they are. Pulling a trigger is so much easier, so much faster and so very much more impersonal than stabbing or strangling etc.

Steven N has pointed out that the Constitution was written to accommodate the times it was written in. If all the other laws took as long to catch up with the passing of time, the U.S. would be a third world country of the first order. So many of the gun fire crimes, if there were no guns, would be settled verbally or with a fist fight - no where near as deadly most of the time. I think guns are wanted and 'needed' by men who could not ever be part of a verbal debate nor a fist fight. Guns are needed by unintelligent cowards.

That's what I think.  Unfortunately for you, what I think on this issue has no weight in the halls of government south of the 49th parallel.