There is something cultural in Canada ... that allows the Ecole Polytechnique [shooting]... to be meaningful events that drive policy
IMO, that's absolutely true, which is why I find this idea improbable--but interesting. (I'm leaving off NZ, or Oz, since I know so little about them.)
I do agree, avoiding
Ecole Polytechnique would be a good start, but AFAIK, Canada has never been close to allowing the kind of guns the U.S. routinely does. (That said, there are collectors who've got ex-military arms, like M1919s, AIUI, so it wasn't impossible.)
If we look at the NRA as an effect, rather than a cause of this different culture, then we see we have to go really far back for a POD.
I think both of those are true, in the U.S. case. (See
this thread for just how far back. {Unabashed plug.

})
I know a number of Canadians who own quite competitive sets of firearms for "three gun matches." (Pistol, shotgun, semi auto rifle.) IMHO magazine capacity limits are the main regulatory issue they need to deal with vis a vis their American colleagues. I'm told some Canadian three gun shooters buy different magazines when they visit the U.S. for matches and leave them behind when they return to Canada. (Even if they were legal in Canada I suspect they would need a U.S. Export permit to take them out of the U.S.)
I did not know about that. Thx. I agree, too, a permit is likely.
I'm less sure mag capacity is the biggest problem. I get a strong sense of restriction on type of arm, & use, here, & a strong sense all the Federal parties would ban all guns if they thought they could get away with it.
Canada is one of I think 2 countries (maybe 4) in the Americas that did not come to being in a revolution. (The others being Belize, and maybe Guyana and Surinam)
Canada does not imagine the musket over the fireplace is a tool for national liberation.
Canada is fine with the idea of the rifle as something regular soldiers use to storm Vimy Ridge or Juno Beach.
Canada is fine with the idea that a rifle is a tool you use in the bush.
I think you've captured the difference well. Why it turned out this way is what puzzles me (& something discussed fairly extensively on the other thread).
the 2nd Amendment (1791), it appears to have already been US law prior to then, as part of the English Bill of Rights (1689) ... 2A was just re-emphasising it.
That's something else I didn't know. Thx. (Honestly, it never occured to me to look at it.


)
So Maybe the POD would have to be the Upper and Lower Canada Rebellions of 1837 succeed, and Canada becomes a republic in 1837. Although the POD would have to start before then because those rebellions were doomed OTL. Dunno. First half of the 19th century is not my area of expertise.
Not my area, either, but AFAIK, there's never been much republican sentiment here, so that seems pretty unlikely. (Not to mention, I'm not really wanting to remake Canada entire.

)
I do wonder if 1837 might not lead to a sense of need for *Minutemen, & if that could be compounded by the
Fenian Raids. It might (just) be enough for a change in attitude at Confederation: maybe enough for a "right to own arms" (if not "bear"), maybe just a stronger sense of need & so seeds for a culture of acceptance (& not prohibition), & if it's in the English BoR, there's acceptance, since the Brits have already done it, & we had a strong attitude of being "junior Brits".
I hope you'll both carry on for a Family Size bucket of popcorn length.
So do I.
For anyone interested in a Family Size discussion of the (U.S.) flipside, see the other thread. I learned a lot, there. (I really have no shame, do I?

)