After the German defeat of World War 1 the country was left in shambles. The international community applied heavy pressure on the Germany government causing them to change their laws. Gun control was overall stricken during this period and in fact, for a short amount of time completely banned. These laws stayed in order until the National socialist party came into power with Hitler as their leader and enforced the new “Nazi” gun control reforms in 1938. In modern day Canada the latest bill passed regarding firearm control passed was Bill c-10. This reform amended the previous laws on gun control and made the law generally more stern in many ways such as raising the minimum penalty for offences. Through comparing the purpose, discussing the
…show more content…
Moreover, each government has an intent behind their laws. As discussed earlier the “Nazi” gun reforms were more lenient towards the German citizens than the former laws, but there was also a darker intent. The new laws were also more direct on who could own or manufacture firearms. It stated that Jews were not allowed to manufacture firearms or ammunition and that you had to be a German citizen to obtain firearm permits, which the Jews were not considered during the Nazi era. These reforms not only gained Hitler more support but also systematically disarmed the entire Jewish population in Germany, hopefully causing them to flee. In Canada the law was intended to increase the safety of its citizens. The Canadian government believed that tightening the gun control years would decrease the rates of gun related homicide. While in theory this may seem plausible, statistical analysis done by langmann() showed that there was no decrease in the homicide rates after each of the reforms but that the homicide rate generally stayed stable. This shows that the Canadian government had good …show more content…
To begin both laws uses similar modes of regulation. In Nazi Germany firearms were regulated by the federal government through the 1938 weapons act. This act stated that in order to buy a firearm one must have or apply for a Waffenerwerbschein or a weapons permit and in order to carry a firearm one must have a Waffenschein or a gun license. However, the most interesting part of this law is that if someone were to have a hunting license then they wouldn’t need a Waffenschein to carry a firearm or a Waffenerwerbschein to buy a hand gun. Similarly, in Canada gun control is also enforced through the federal level. In modern-day Canada individuals need to attain a PAL to acquire any ammunition or register a firearm. Once an individual has a PAL they have the ability to buy ammunition but in order to attain a gun, the gum must be registered. Also, the Pal does not allow anyone the ability to carry a fire arm. In fact the ability to carry a firearm for safety is highly restricted because the only civilians who can do so are people carrying dangerous materials or working with wild animals. Through the similar modes of regulation it can once again be seen that Canada's gun control is more strict than Nazi Germanys. Next, the nature of each country's gun control can be seen through the weapons that are prohibited. In Germany the list of firearms that are prohibited is small. In fact there are only
Moreover, each government has an intent behind their laws. As discussed earlier the “Nazi” gun reforms were more lenient towards the German citizens than the former laws, but there was also a darker intent. The new laws were also more direct on who could own or manufacture firearms. It stated that Jews were not allowed to manufacture firearms or ammunition and that you had to be a German citizen to obtain firearm permits, which the Jews were not considered during the Nazi era. These reforms not only gained Hitler more support but also systematically disarmed the entire Jewish population in Germany, hopefully causing them to flee. In Canada the law was intended to increase the safety of its citizens. The Canadian government believed that tightening the gun control years would decrease the rates of gun related homicide. While in theory this may seem plausible, statistical analysis done by langmann() showed that there was no decrease in the homicide rates after each of the reforms but that the homicide rate generally stayed stable. This shows that the Canadian government had good …show more content…
To begin both laws uses similar modes of regulation. In Nazi Germany firearms were regulated by the federal government through the 1938 weapons act. This act stated that in order to buy a firearm one must have or apply for a Waffenerwerbschein or a weapons permit and in order to carry a firearm one must have a Waffenschein or a gun license. However, the most interesting part of this law is that if someone were to have a hunting license then they wouldn’t need a Waffenschein to carry a firearm or a Waffenerwerbschein to buy a hand gun. Similarly, in Canada gun control is also enforced through the federal level. In modern-day Canada individuals need to attain a PAL to acquire any ammunition or register a firearm. Once an individual has a PAL they have the ability to buy ammunition but in order to attain a gun, the gum must be registered. Also, the Pal does not allow anyone the ability to carry a fire arm. In fact the ability to carry a firearm for safety is highly restricted because the only civilians who can do so are people carrying dangerous materials or working with wild animals. Through the similar modes of regulation it can once again be seen that Canada's gun control is more strict than Nazi Germanys. Next, the nature of each country's gun control can be seen through the weapons that are prohibited. In Germany the list of firearms that are prohibited is small. In fact there are only