The idea has appeal to me insofar as gun laws would be relaxed. I chafe under Canada’s nanny state approach to firearms restrictions.
Not the nanny state- the "dad" state, as in "paternalism", and I am okay with that. People need a firm hand, society needs discipline, and that takes more courage than a lot of individualist "I want it and that's justification enough" bluster.
Canada has never considered weapons ownership a right, just a privilege for those who can be trusted to not abuse it.
I'm absolutely on board wit the idea of the legal standard being "need" rather than "want". The approach of not giving benefit of the doubt when it comes to weapons works great in places like Japan.
The problem with Canada's government right now is that they are correct about regulating weapons more strongly, but have still not shown the resolve to actually punish anyone who breaks these or any other laws.
It's like our legal system is required to be automatically naive, and that benefits criminals of all sorts, including those who dabble in the grey areas, winking at the law with regard to weapons. I doubt anyone actually law abiding would try to sneak around the laws or consider the value of having the private means to wage war against this country or its citizens.
However, the system needs to be ruthless on this issue, and thus far, no political party has had the stomach to actually carry it out in a manner that would be effective. They all seem to like weak restrictions like there are now can easily be circumvented; arguments are made that are just rhetorical gamesmanship & legal trickery, but which have no real-world credibility.
Each political party seems to have some measures that might help the overall situation, but then deliberately leave out others. They keep their supporters blind to some things on purpose, and then agitate them with hysteria on others.
Does this seem like a mature society taking a serious issue seriously? I don't think so.