Canada has its share of crime and gangs etc.. But what makes the diference is they don't have "easy" access to assualt weapons which can be modified.

There are plenty of guns in Canada just mostly of the bolt rifle and shotgun variety, handguns are very strictly regulated and carry permits don't exist or needed for the most part.

The result of this is less violent gun crime and no AK 47's mowing down cops and school children.

flip

Thanks Flipper that is exactly what I've been getting it. Gun themselves aren't evil and not everyone that owns one is some sort of John Rambo nutter, the vast majority are decent people. The problem is when one of the nutters out there or one of the criminals or angry people with something to prove gets a hold of one, it gets ugly. Canadians are very protective of your country, and a lot of us own guns, my Grandpa has had a shotgun for years and I know several of my peers and their parents keep arms in house as well. This is not a issue of the will to protect yourself as I think you would find that quite evident in Canada, its a matter of responsibility. Take a shotgun, excellent home defence weapon, dependable, easy to maintain, a large spread pattern makes targeting in close quarters easy and shot does not penetrate through walls easily limiting risk. Now while a full auto M4 is cool it requires diligent cleaning to insure it is there when you need it, firing in full auto in the middle of the night is difficult and unless your a very disciplined individual (read: military trained) and burst fire even when panicked, your not likely to hit anything if your first or second shot misses. The added danger is that rifle munitions in say 5.56 or 7.62 can easily penetrate several walls and all those misses have to go somewhere so it puts your whole neighbourhood in danger, so its not a good home defence weapon. It would be overkill to use a automatic for hunting and while I wholeheartedly support accurate target shooting as a sport, fully auto weapons usually just get shown off by spraying down a clip at some cutouts or watermelons (not saying that’s not fun, just not much of a sport). About clip size, there are arguments both ways, 10 bullets as opposed to 15 are still very lethal from a crime point of view, but from a defence point if you need more than 10, you lost already.

In a risk to reward look at things, you stand to put people in a lot of danger proliferating assault weapons while not getting a lot of security in return. Do I want to ban guns? Hell no. Do I think responsibility should come before fun? Yeah.

I would like to add you guys are comparing two very different societies. Even though we speak the same language and share a long undefended border, there are two distinct cultures at work. Canada is far more like the European countries in it's outlook. We were the rebellious colonies, and you stuck with the mother country. I'm not totally up to date on some of the political associations, but Canada was/is a long time member of the British commonwealth (correct me on this if I'm wrong).

Basically what I'm saying is that I think your comparison overlooks far too many other variables than the availability of guns. The population difference alone creates very different societies, even between places in the states. Painting with that broad a brush would be like saying that we need to promote machete control in Central Africa. People will simply use whatever is at hand to create mayhem if they have a mind to. We managed to kill each other quite nicely for many thousand years without firearms. Stopping violence is much more a matter of changing society rather than simply removing the tools used for violence.

Our country developed with the aid of, and along with the firearm. It might be a stretch, but I think firearms could be the American version of the samurai sword, it's part of how we identify ourselves and our history. Therefore we have such virulent fights over control and possession of the gun. Taking the firearm away from the American, (basically, the goverment taking away any right without a well thought out valid reason), would be like taking the tea from the British, or the Machete from the jungle inhabitants of Costa Rica.

Now, as to the ban and such here in the states. The assault weapon you speak of is not the full auto military version everyone thinks of, they are semi auto rifles not easily converted to fully automatic or burst. They were banned simply because of cosmetic features. Quite a lot of people use the civilian version of the M-16 style rifle for competitions or for small animal hunting, in most places these rifles in semi auto form became illegal, when any other semi automatic 5.56 rifle was still legal. Hunters liked the M-16/M-4 style rifles ability to use a short stock/short barrel because it is easier and lighter to carry when hunting, and their ability to accept many different kinds of sights and parts, which was taken away with the ban. The rifle itself is reliable, easy to use, and a good design.....there was no reason for it to be taken away other then it looked like a military rifle. There wasn't even many crimes commited with those style rifles,.22LR rifles kill way more people yearly then the civilian version of the M-16/M-4 ever did.

With the magazine part, they made companies change the capacities on their magazines which made them much more expensive and less reliable, without a real valid reason other then basically a magazine over 10 rounds looks evil. You see, it isn't the "we just want the 5 extra rounds to defend ourselfs, or we want the civilian version of the m-16/m-4 so we can play army", the reason is we had them before, they were banned unjustly, so we want them back. It is as much a case of our rights as it is the object.

Anyway, how did we get to talking about firearms (which seems to be a rough subject on this forum)? I thought this was basically about if a multi-tool is a valid replacement for the folding knife for EDC. <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Joblot, LMAO at the Burberry pleb site, its been sent to a good few of my mates. I reckon I, as well as a few other posters got a bit off track on this question. Personally I carry a freebie micra clone from a pallet of Hesco bastion on my key ring, a KISS knife in my jacket pocket and a Wave or Gerber on my belt. The multitool gets taken off my belt if I'm not at work and usually ends up in the glove box. If I'm working in the field I up the ante with either a Colt Commander or a Muela Mirage. Both liberally wrapped with paracord and tape (just to let everyone know that I have taken something from this site <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />)

Getting back with the original question, I find having a multitool far mor useful than a fixed blade for EDC. For the simple reason that it is far more versatile than a blade. At the end of the day you can do lots of things with a fixed blade but, you can do more with a multitool.

Johno

Back on topic <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> In town I EDC a Victorinox Camper SAK, a Leatherman micra (dont like the SAK's with scissors) and a 4" Needle nose Vise Grip (prefer it to the ergonomics of a multitool). Also in the UK Leatherman multitools are rediculously expensive. The micra and SAK are on my carrabiner key ring. If I had to choose only one it would be the SAK.

I happen to prefer the SAK as I use more of its tools on a regular basis and its much smaller in my pocket. Find that for suburban EDC I dont need a larger blade.

I currently EDC both.
Due to my everyday environment (urban and office work), if I had to leave one at home, I would keep the Leatherman PST II on my belt.
More versatile.

As Canadian I totally disagree with the thrust of your argument. The only way a population can be completely free is to have the ability to stand up for itself, against either its own government, or against an invading force. Canada's gun control laws are a huge waste of time and money. There are millions of unregistered guns in Canada and it will stay that way for all time.

As for your argument that allowing people access to weapons is "pouring gas on a smouldering cigarette", what about Switzerland where every military reserve member, which happens to be just about every able bodied male in the country, has a government issue assault weapon in his home?

We don't see the Swiss engaged in violent gun battles in the streets. In fact, the Swiss homicide rate in 2000 was 0.96 per 100,000 while Canada's was 1.76 and England which has very strict gun control laws was 1.61. The control of guns does not control gun crime.

I had better stop here or I am going to start ranting more than I already have. Let's just leave it at this: the urban, Eastern Canadian desire to control guns is an attempt to force urban, Eastern values on all Canadians, including those of us in the West. And that, my fine fellow Canadian, is something we will never accept.

Good point, Nic, who says we're not?

Thanks Paul, VERY well said.

Troy