Sort of thread drift, but sort of not as details are clarified & fleshed out about the differences in settling the Canadian vs US west.

Rap, yes there was Riel. Twice in fact. I'm not saying there was no blood, not at all. But I think the fact that there's one notable resistance story in Canada and many in the US makes my point about the much smaller need for armed militia in Canada; this even though the 2nd Riel uprising was what turned the Canadian political tide in favour of guaranteeing operating loans during the final year of construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. [my apology for that verrrrry long sentence!] By early to mid-1885 Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition was vehemently against extending any more loan guarantees (with some good reasons) and it regularly threatened a non-confidence vote against Sir John A's minority parliament.

Were it not for Riel and the need to get an army to Manitoba post haste, plus the experience of Riel's 1st rebellion when it took several weeks to transport militiamen from the east by laker, canoe, on foot and Red River Cart--were it not for all that, the bill in front of parliament to extend the operating loans would almost surely not have passed and MacDonald's 2nd government would have fallen to a non-confidence vote. With all sources of funding exhausted and more, with the Canadian economy doing poorly, with all CPR investor goodwill already over-extended and with most navvies being 2-4 months behind in receiving pay, the CPR almost surely could not have met its debt obligations in the summer of 1885. Both the CPR and probably the Bank of Montreal would have gone bust without the additional loan guarantees.

Had all that happened, Canada's already weak economy would have suffered a vicious blow because in addition to its backlogged payroll the railway owed thousands of suppliers many millions of dollars. If the CPR had gone bust, and if the Canadian government had not moved in to finish the railway, the map of North America would probably look very, very different today; the fertile belt of the prairies nortg of 49 would probably be US territory.

As it happened, of course, all that did not come to pass, the bill for more loans did pass and people of mostly British descent and loyalty settled what is now the Canadian prairies.

Is it possible that those who settled the Canadian prairie, being comfortable with monarchy, were more willing than republicans to the south to be governed by a paternalistic, strong central body? Might that be part of the root of the difference in gun culture? I have no idea.

Aside: I find it interesting to note that the one notable Canadian resistor of European settlement represented people not living a FN lifestyle but Metis farmers? Perhaps thanks to their half-European background they had a better understanding of what the Europeans really intended by settling the west.