[qball]

It may surprise you to know that Canada currently has more restrictive gun laws than any European country. It bans handguns, most modern rifles, and magazine size limits are very low, and treats down-converted rifles (from full-auto to semi-auto) as being full-auto. It additionally restricts the sale of pressure-bearing components for certain firearms and magazines, though you don't actually have to own the rifle it's a part of to buy it.

We have a licensing scheme that takes roughly 6 months to issue you a license, and special transport rules for handguns and short rifles. We don't have gangs from the East smuggling in machine guns; and most crime guns come from an intentionally-porous border.

However, guns are a cultural flashpoint in most of the New World in ways they just aren't in most European countries. Part of this is an export of US politics, where sub-polities who want to ban guns are in a constant and bitter culture war with those that do not; Canadians copy a lot of US politics along whatever fault lines they happen to be on (currently, it's largest cities vs. everyone else). It's also a filter bubble problem, where the polities and voters that don't see guns as an issue are several thousand kilometers away from those that do (100km is a daily commute for us, but it can be the other side of the country for you), so you're not going to be exposed to 'normal' people on the other side.

>what in your view was their purpose?

Revenge. The sitting government did not like the fact that people from several thousand kilometers away came and protested certain edicts pertaining to a novel cold virus; those people are most likely to own guns.

This was simply a "fuck you". There are no problems with the crime rate here; other than that which the sitting government has encouraged with their policies, but European countries all have that problem too and for the same reason. Which makes people want guns -> government doesn't like that -> government limits that ability, naturally.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

The 'revenge' theory of politics has a number of benefits to those who claim it. It removes any need for evidence (you can claim no would admit out loud), it allows to bypass any debate about the core issues (because the revenge claim means its isn't even about the issues), and it allows you to vilify the other side (because only a villainous and evil party would use government policy for such an goal as revenge). Really a perfect mix of unprovable, issue/reason bypassing, and maximizing of emotional response.

[crustycoder]

> It may surprise you to know that Canada currently has more restrictive gun laws than any European country.

It certainly would, as it's not true.

[snapplebobapple]

That depends how you define restrictive. Last I checked (which was admittedly five or six years ago) many of the countries had non restrictive laws on silencers and rifle lengths and most, if not all, allowed you to own pistols (although it is quite difficult to get a licence in some). To me that would make Canada's gun laws much more restrictive. One could argue that in some European countries it is much harder to get a license and that makes it more restrictive but I would disagree with that because there is still a pathway to own and use many guns not legal in Canada in those countries (at least as of five or six years ago when I last looked).

[crustycoder]

> most, if not all, allowed you to own pistols

Still wrong. In the UK, for example, it's virtually impossible to own a handgun of any sort. The info is easily available online.

[qball]

The UK is not a European country.

[meiraleal]

It is what then?

[snapplebobapple]

your own answer highlights your reading comprehension fail. go read it again and notice how, if your claim was that it was impossible rather than virtually impossible, my statement would still be true. now notice you didnt say that because it is not impossible, just very hard and realize that is less stringent than canada for new purchases becaus eof recent and foolish changes by canada's government.

[crustycoder]

Oh well, if we are going full Ad hominem, not only are you mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence, you are lazy as well. If you'd bothered to look, you'd have found that under UK law, all modern handguns are totally illegal. Specifically, any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall, other than an air weapon, a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus, is forbidden. Any form of semi-automatic solid projectile weapon is also banned, so the weapon that's issue in Canada (Glock handgun) is illegal on multiple counts.

Good luck fitting a switch to a handgun dating before 1919, which in theory can be held - although you'd struggle to get a license because you can only hold antique handguns if ammunition isn't readily available for them in the UK, you are a bona-fide collector and central government don't object - they have to individually approve all such licenses.

As you seem to be struggling, I'll simplify it as much as I can for you. The situation that's causing concern in Canada can't happen in the UK because it's illegal to own that sort of weapon in the first place.

That means our laws are stricter than those in Canada.

That means Canada's laws are weaker than those of at least one European country.

That means you are wrong.

[snapplebobapple]

sigh taking your words as truth regardless of whether they are or not, we then fall back into the "most" category of my statement, meaning you continue to utterly fail at reading comprehension.