[cal5k]

CEO of a (different) Canadian crypto company here.

Two things are simultaneously true in Canada right now: 1) the government has become unwilling/unable to actually keep repeat violent offenders in jail (and has totally failed to prevent them from acquiring illegal firearms), and 2) the law essentially outlaws the use of any tools (firearms, pepper spray, knives) for the express purpose of self-defense.

It's functionally impossible to get a concealed carry permit in Canada. They just don't issue them, even if you have a restricted firearms license, even if you're a high-profile individual, and even if there's an immediate threat to your life. You have to rely on police and, if you can afford them, expensive private security who probably can't carry a firearm either. I should note that the kidnappers in this case (plural) were all armed.

The politicians, of course, are protected by the armed Parliamentary Protective Service. They just don't believe you deserve similar protection.

[JumpCrisscross]

Huh, violent crime in general is up [1].

[1] https://thehub.ca/2024/09/21/violent-crime-has-seen-the-most...

[mosselman]

The article claims violent crime is up 30% over the last decade. An important note the article only mentions in the subtitle is that this is recorded crime.

So recording might have gotten better/loose or the methodology is super stable and violent crime exactly as it was defined 10 years ago is up.

This seems unlikely, but plausible.

From the article though:

“The top violent crimes in 2023 were assault not using weapons or resulting harm, uttering threats, and assault employing weapons or resulting in harm.”

To me the recording of “uttering threats” pops out as something that would easily change depending on society’s sensitivities.

I am not saying violent crime isn’t up. These are just some thoughts that I wish were addressed in the article. The article doesn’t go into any of the recording methods and possible changes in what is categorised as a certain type of crime that could also impact the stats.

[sndslikeseattle]

Sounds like Seattle, the police cannot chase criminals who steal cars, use them to brake into businesses and then drive off with the ATM in the back. The last is so left there that they are not allowed to chase them.

On top of the homeless craziness everywhere.

[93po]

this is some weird conservative talking point and isn't true. here's a news article showing SPD chasing a stolen car just months ago:

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/police-chase-truck-down-i-5...

I'm sure there are more recent examples too

the event you're likely referring to is a cop that pursued without authorization and was reprimanded. this is a good thing, cops should get permission before going on a wild car chase

[RaftPeople]

> this is some weird conservative talking point and isn't true. here's a news article showing SPD chasing a stolen car just months ago:

The poster you responded to was correct until June 2024 and you're correct after June 2024, here are the details (I live in Seattle):

Law passed in 2021 restricted chases to people suspected of:

1-Violent offense

2-Sex offense

3-Domestic violence assault

4-Vehicular assault

5-DUI

6-Escape from prison/jail

That law was rolled back in June of 2024 to allow pursuit if there is reasonable suspicion of violating the law.

The link you provided is from Sep 2024, after the law changed.

[93po]

Sure, that's fair. To be clear that's a Washington state law, not a Seattle thing.

[bugtodiffer]

Your Argument is: if more good people had guns this wouldn't have happened?

This is such an American take.

> The politicians, of course, are protected by the armed Parliamentary Protective Service. They just don't believe you deserve similar protection.

What are you talking about. A gun is not at all even close to anything regarding trained professional lifeguards. Wtf?

You Imagine you alone with a AR-15 vs 5 terrorists with AK's and you win, right?

Your logic is very flawed. I bet you I know how the robbers got the guns. From their fucking neighbors selling them at Walmart, legally.

More accidents and bad things happen with guns, by a ton, than your imaginary hero self-defense stories.

[leovingi]

Like another commenter has replied, not only are you factually incorrect, you are incorrect on a moral level, because your argument is that if the statistics show that more bad things happen with guns acquired legally, then that somehow trumps an individual's right to self-defense.

It does not and I hope you never get into a situation where you have to experience that choice for yourself.

[munksbeer]

> then that somehow trumps an individual's right to self-defense.

As a note, you don't have individual rights. That is a man made concept. You only have the rights that other humans grant you. There is no universal tablet of morals or rights, inscribed into the fabric of reality.

[ultimafan]

That's a very cynical viewpoint and one that's not very easy to convince people of. I don't think it's a very moral stance to take either because it can be used to justify immoral stances. There have always been actions in human society that are held as reprehensible regardless of time or culture that would seem to imply the opposite (or at least that the majority of people who live or have lived at the very least believe in the opposite being true)

[munksbeer]

It might not be to people's liking, but unfortunately it's just the truth. Human's have had what we would now consider absolutely awful "moral codes" throughout history. The only real truth is "might makes right".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right

[fennecbutt]

It's a realistic view point. I'm gay and I don't delude myself on the fact it can be dangerous to express that in public. No matter "how far we've come" "we don't need pride parades anymore" etc.

[ultimafan]

Sorry, didn't see your response until today. But I'd argue that those two truths aren't incompatible with one another. Something can be an innate human right and also perceived poorly within a given culture at that moment in time. Someone not respecting a human right doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist. It's just being infringed. "Individual human rights don't exist" seems like a defeatist statement to me and also (looking at religion) doesn't seem to be one believed in by the majority of humans throughout history (though the nature of what is and isn't a right is probably what is usually argued about). There are some things that seem to be universally frowned upon in just about every culture (like unjustified, by their definition of unjustified, murder, rape, etc.) The idea of human rights should be sacred and inarguable because the alternative leaves room for pushback against them.

[kaliqt]

That is factually incorrect.

It is 1. A deterrent and 2. Accidents are just a result of poor training and 3. The amount of defensive gun use is exceptional, it does not get reported on purpose due to state propaganda in Canada, America, and so on.

Also all concealed carry holders regularly train, much of it is for fun, and their skills rival or surpass law enforcement.

[LeafItAlone]

>Also all concealed carry holders regularly train, much of it is for fun, and their skills rival or surpass law enforcement.

I generally disagree with your other bullets points, but this statement is so absurdly inaccurate I feel the need to call it out explicitly. It is absolutely not true that all concealed carry holder fit this description. Not even a majority of the concealed carry holders that I know do. It is, quite honestly, a fantasy.

(I am generally pro-gun rights combined with smart gun restrictions laws)

[ImPostingOnHN]

You are likely right, not all concealed carry permit holders practice, but cops practice even less, and generally are worse-trained to carry a firearm.

Instead of training in the legality of use of force, and to hit a target with a bullet, like most CCP holders get, cops get training that everyone is a potential enemy, and to spray and pray first, ask questions later. Considering they're essentially immune to going to prison when this goes poorly, the result is often bad.

[fouc]

guns don't really seem to be much of a deterrent in the US, instead gun crime is way up.

and what's worse is it becomes an "arms race" at the individual level. many people end up buying guns because everyone else already have guns (especially criminals), so they feel obligated to acquire guns to defend themselves from other people with guns. it's a vicious cycle.

the ideal solution is to keep the gun supply low all together, meaning your average criminal are much less likely to have guns, which is what most countries do.

not only that, having a massive amount of guns around & having a culture of guns probably directly leads to school shootings.

[rangestransform]

The ideal solution is that the government demonstrates overwhelming effectiveness at stopping violent crime so people won’t feel the need to have a self defense gun