Gun Control in Canada

On February 21 and 22 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule whether th... ... middle of paper ... ...legitimate recreational pursuits; and guns are the tools of some trades. At the same time, guns intimidate; guns maim; and guns kill. It is precisely because of this paradox that guns are used for good as well as evil- that controversy surrounds government efforts at gun control.” It is clear that the new firearms legislation is looking out only for the best interests of the citizens of Canada. Public safety and well-being undoubtedly takes precedence to a traditional gun culture. The argument by pro-gun advocates that licensing and registering firearms will turn them into criminals is invalid since guns have the potential to seriously injure and kill people and thus, should be treated with caution and special care.

Firearm laws have become an extensive debate in society and also politics. Politicians from western provinces and rural areas are opposed to these stricter laws because there is a more widespread acceptance and use for guns around them. On the opposite side are politicians from urban areas where crime rates are higher, who embrace the new harsher gun control laws as one solution to violent crimes. There are many pros and cons to the recently passed Firearms Act to control guns in Canada. Severe gun control laws do not limit crime sufficiently enough and it is not worth the government money being spent on it.

The Canadian Criminal Code has changed over the years to accommodate the needs of changing times, such as amendments for gun control and the elimination of the death penalty. In 1892, the Criminal Code of Canada was established, copying much of the English 1878 bill. “The Canadian Criminal code which copied the English bill of 1878 has been revised numerous times to accommodate the needs of the Canadian citizens” (Monroe). At that time there was no distinguishing between different types of murder through degrees of severity, because the punishment for every type of murder was the death penalty, and manslaughter was a life sentence in prison (Designs). In 1955, a major reform was carried out and the Canadian Criminal Code was reduced from 1100 sections to only 753.

They were also one of the first nations to sign (December 2000) and ratify (May 2002) the Protocols. On the home front, an arranged Independent Working Group coordinated with the Canadian Federal Government reguarding trafficking. In the aftermath of 911, IWG members did not know the ins and outs of trafficking, therefore, a security lens was useful in getting human trafficking onto the public agenda, and members feel this issue should be part of the public framework,(Oxman-Martinez, et al. ,2005,). The Federal Minister of Justice formalized the role of the IWG in the spring of 2004.

Canada was once a liberal internationalist country, and Harper changed this dramatically during his time in Ottawa. The major question that will be asked about this is whether Harper’s foreign affairs have changed the way in which the world associates itself with Canada. The next section would be whether or not Canada as a whole currently things of itself as a peacekeeping nation. In today’s society many adults are continuing to tell their children that Canada is a peacekeeping country, and while that may have been true in the time that they grew up themselves, it may no longer be accurate. This section will analyze public opinion of Canada as a peacekeeper and address the main question that this paper will attempt to solve: is Canada still a peacekeeping nation?

A century ago, Canada was under control by the British Empire. The battles we fought the treaties we signed and the disputes we solved all helped us gain independence from our mother country “Britain”. Canadians fought a long battle protecting others, and from these battles we gained our peaceful reputation and our independence from Britain. Canada became a nation on July, 1st 1867. Although we were an independent country, our affairs and treaties were all still signed by Britain.

Also if everybody was armed, Criminals and under-the-radar insane people would all want to perform heinous acts against society. In Gun Control by Earl Kruschke he states, “Someone who keeps a gun in their house for self-defense is more likely to injure themselves than to ward off an attacker” (Kruschke 34). That means owning a gun for self-defense and recreational use is statistically not worth doing, but it may offer some much needed peace of mind. Many citizens believe that owning a gun in a home can be an effective way to defend their

While the writer is an advocate of gun control laws, the literature demonstrates all too clearly that creating, passing and enforcing such laws is difficult, and... ... middle of paper ... ...owning family. As we just saw in McConnell's piece, in fact, many if not most American gun-owners do support some form of gun control laws which try to prevent the use of firearms by criminals or those with mental problems. The question, as with all laws, is determining precisely what measures will prevent such use of firearms, without infringing improperly on the rights of law-abiding Americans to own firearms. This debate rages in part because there is much emotion on both sides of the argument. Gun-control advocates seek to quell firearms-related violence with laws.

Gun violence is a crucial predicament in North American society. The stringent fundamental laws put in place and enforced by the federal, provincial, and state governments of Canada and the United States of America are efficacious in dealing with fire arms and the violence that accompanies them. In essence the American system is flawed; hence the higher death rate due to gun violence in comparison with Canada. The American system is fallacious because of their adamant belief in the Second Amendment; which is not of cardinal significance in the 21st century America. The Canadian governments approach to gun crime reduction is moreover efficient; which is due to the total ban on owning and possession of handguns in the country.

Gun Control in America I do not believe there is a need for more gun control in the United States. Gun control is strict enough. Gun control law is designed to impose legal measures to license, control, or restrict the ownership of firearms by members of the public. By strengthening the gun laws you are only hurting the average citizen who has the right to bear arms. They should do background checks for any mental illnesses, past criminal activity including petty crime, and whether or not they contribute to the community.