Derek 2.0

Exactly, there can be arguments made fore or against any class of firearm and ammo.......just as there is a never ending debate over what constitutes the "correct" carry handgun, concealed or open.

I don't know that it would, outside a third party CHL holder involving themselves in one in progress. A long and never ending debate.......try walking through your house at night, with the lights out, with a broom extended in front of you versus a cordless drill for example......inversely, over penetration (and liability) comes into play, as 00 buck or a foster slug from a shotgun (to say nothing about a high powered rifle round) could end up in a neighbor's house.

Oh, like it is now? The difference with interim decriminalization is that the day it receives Royal Assent nobody can be charged with having dope on them.........

Huh? They simply table an amendment to the current laws removing Pot........They're not rewriting the Magna Carta Huh? The Liberals made their intention quite clear, an interim decriminalization of Pot until full legalization will halt any future (or pending before the courts) Pot related convictions........ Do you want to be the last guy charged with having some dope on them in Canada? Who cares if they intend to legalize it.........inversely, if they take years legalizing it and people are still getting criminal records over Pot I'd imagine the Huxley's would be as equally pissed.

What reasons? Removing Pot from the list of controlled substances would be easy.

Removing laws are simple (The Tories tossed the LGR in months), it is the creation of new laws to make it a legally regulated substance that will take time.....if they had of tabled changes to the Controlled Substance Act before Christmas, removing Pot, there is no reason the changes couldn't receive Royal Assent by late March or early April of this year.

Trudeau and the Liberals could very simply remove Marijuana from the list of controlled substances resulting in it becoming decriminalized until they formulate a plan for full legalization............decriminalization could be done in a mater of months with the political willpower present......

Source:

What needs tightening? Their laws? Funny enough I'd consider teenagers trespassing and causing mischief a reflection of poor parenting, further heightened in this day and age of armed home invasions..........

I see, so you can't actually demonstrate a difference........

In Texas?

You forgot cronyism...............it's 2016 don't you know

Or loss/damage of property

Of course that isn't the case, as Texas has clearly defined laws encompassing use of deadly force.

What are the differences between both definitions?

Not at all........and so called "gun control" has little effect on said rates of gun crime, made evident by none other than Mexico, which has rates of gun violence 5-6 times that of the United States, despite far stricter gun laws than what is found in the United States (or Canada)........ From your linked study: Thanks for confirming what I already cited (from the DoJ), of which the majority of said crimes were drug related.....The statistics confirm my point quite clearly, in that the highest rates of gun violence are found among young minorities involved in drugs.

That would suggest victims of gun violence are gun owners.........Of course the cited statistics don't indicate that, what they do indicate are that the highest rates of gun violence are found among black males shooting black males over drugs.......

You base this opinion of yours on what? I wonder what Freud would call a person that projects mental illness onto people that don't share his or hers own opinion.

Who knows, but Brownsville and Corpus Christi are full of pale Canadians.....

Indeed, and in many aspects relating to personal freedoms, Texas is one of the more progressive bastions within the United States and North America, putting actual action ahead of talk...........how many other locals have for instance openly gay three term mayors and three term gay minority elected Sheriffs?

And that is a statement not supported by fact, as indicated, Texan CHL holders have a far smaller conviction rate, for any crimes, then the general public, as such, a return to the "Wild West" isn't predicated by the lawful carrying of firearms.

How are such laws "crazy"? Both the Canadian RPAL and Texas CHL licenses contain provisions to omit mentally disturbed people.

Not the slightest, the laws are already enacted, the only requirement would be the the issuing of licences via each Province's chief firearms officer. I've lived there and travel to a handful of times each year for work.........but I fail to see what my geographic location has to do with this topic, and this is the second time you posed the question in as many days.

That doesn't equate to the cited stats of convictions of CHL holders in Texas.

The issuance of ATC permits (as found with the Canadian Firearms Act) to be more commonplace for those individuals that feel they require one for the protection of their life and the life of their family. That of course would include both the carrying of firearms concealed and openly as prescribed within the Firearms Act, as such, in some examples, would be similar with the Texan laws from the OP.