A Canadian Perspective on U.S. and Guns

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier

Except there is the whole freedom of speech and debate persuading thing. I may not have a say in your state but I can surely have dialogue with people from it.

It does not make it anymore relevant that you have free speech or engage in a dialogue.

And...?

Never said it was just its not errelovant. People having dialogue is important.

Had to run an errand...appreciate the activity on this thread!

I'm glad no one has been nasty because it's not about who's right and who's wrong. This is strictly 'perspective', and yes...Canadians are different to Americans in subtle ways, including our perspectives on volatile topics.

I understand gun owners speaking up about their rights. I'm a smoker and would likely get defensive about MY rights (if that was the subject of discussion).

Living in SW Ontario, I am further south than some states....also an hour from the border. Life here is very much influenced by American tv shows/channels/news, cross-border shopping/work/holiday trips, etc. I'm sure we are much more aware of YOU (U.S.) than you are of US (Canada), lol.

American politics and media seem to really push 'separation' (instead of tolerance)....it's strange to us how vehemently Republicans and Democrats berate each other. Our three basic parties are NDP, Liberal and Conservative...but for most of us there isn't the hostility.

I do worry that this country will deteriorate until we're all packing heat too. I hope not though.

jacy

originally posted by: luthier

Never said it was just its not errelovant. People having dialogue is important.

It is wholly irrelevant to me and residents of New Jersey. Your opinion on how we should secure our firearms is just that, your opinion.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier

Never said it was just its not errelovant. People having dialogue is important.

It is wholly irrelevant to me and residents of New Jersey. Your opinion on how we should secure our firearms is just that, your opinion.

I don't think you speak for the people of NJ. For instance I have family there and my opinion is relevant to them.

Your just trying to insult me I get it.

The fact of the matter is my opinion is relevant to people who feel it is and some of them are from NJ and could be plenty of others who share my view.

I was born in meadowbrook PA (philly) and have plenty of family in NJ.

So really all you can say is my opinion is errelavant to you.

This is not a country where you are the dictator. People can form consesuses that go against your opinions. It doesn't make important dialogue errelovant.

I am sure we agree with plenty on guns. I just am willing to be held accountable if my guns are stolen because I was negligent with securing them.

Not only that I just pay too much money to have them stolen.

originally posted by: luthier
I don't think you speak for the people of NJ.

As a resident I do more than you. Further, your opining about our laws has zero influence on the subject.

I just am willing to be held accountable if my guns are stolen because I was negligent with securing them
.

Again, good for you. Your idea of 'negligence' is not one I share and is reflected by the laws we have on the books here in New Jersey.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier
I don't think you speak for the people of NJ.

As a resident I do more than you. Further, your opining about our laws has zero influence on the subject.

I just am willing to be held accountable if my guns are stolen because I was negligent with securing them
.

Again, good for you. Your idea of 'negligence' is not one I share and is reflected by the laws we have on the books here in New Jersey.

What is my idea of negligence? Did we get that far ?

originally posted by: luthier

What is my idea of negligence? Did we get that far ?

It would appear to be unsecured firearms.

Whatever. Guns, we have them. A LOT of them. The difference is that we aren't married to them like Americans are. Quite frankly it's much more satisfying to beat someone with a bat but that just MO.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: superman2012

Hunters and police are the only ones who need guns. The rest are either going to commit a crime, or are fearful. IMO.

Why don't hunters and police also fall into the "I'm afraid" category? Lot's of police in the US say they shoot someone because they are "in fear for their lives." Hunters are just afraid to take on a buck bare handed.

Do soldiers fall in the crime or fear category?

You want to take something out of context and try to stretch it to make an "argument", that's on you. I won't respond to it further than I have in this post.

a reply to: luthier

I didn't miss anything I just don't think you are as educated as you think about crimeneology.

Never claimed to be. The causation is as easy to see as my thumb.

People commit crimes most often when they feel society is against them and they have nothing to loose. Thats a fact.

Why do they feel that way? Do they perhaps feel victimized because they are not a productive member of society thereby trying to even it out by taking what they don't have? Wouldn't a little education and good upbringing change that?

Education in terms of scholastics has very little to do with it.

Has quite a bit to do with it, along with education from the family.

And no you aren't unbiased. You hold a belief of the liberal side.

You want to label me, go ahead. I can argue for or against either side. I'm pretty sure that makes me more unbiased than you.

Again patience is a bs answer. It doesn't say anything. It's as empty as a politicians word.

Sorry. I forgot to qualify that answer with, "people need to be able to be capable of foresight as well".

How would you actually remove the 300 million firearms.

They would remove themselves over time...again with the "wanting an immediate solution". An immediate solution is not viable. I'm not so caught up in one side or the other that I can't see that.

Try thinking through the problem

Thought about it, and have laid it out plainly (or so I thought) for all to see. Sorry. How much more clear do I need to be for you to understand my point?

Same with the we could never win against a modern tyranical gov. Put that in perspective with revolutions in history. You think the redcots didn't have far superior weapons? What about vietnam when america lost?

I'm willing to admit that the general population would be quite a menace for the government, if it ever came to that, but the lack of leadership and cohesion amongst the general population would be the downfall.
Did the redcoats have superior weapons? I was under the impression that they had the same types of weapons on either side. The only difference being easier access to weapons and better training. Maybe that is just my poor Canadian education, couldn't be that you are wrong.

How many soldiers and cops would be willing to attack the general population during a sustained uprising with guerilla warfare? How many vets and defectors would bring their tactical knowledge to the militias? Who would protect you in a gov collapse or hostile takeover.

Labelled as terrorists? I'm sure most of the soldiers and cops would sign up to take care of domestic terrorism. Aren't some of the people accused of that actually thinking that they are doing good for their country? I'm sure there would be people signing up for both sides...I'm not a fortune teller though, I can't answer your hypothetical situation to even 50% accuracy.

I know it can't happen here...that's what everyone always thinks.

I actually think it will happen. You know what? Us Canadians will welcome the people who are fleeing their government with open arms...or hide you if need be.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: luthier

I didn't miss anything I just don't think you are as educated as you think about crimeneology.

Never claimed to be. The causation is as easy to see as my thumb.

People commit crimes most often when they feel society is against them and they have nothing to loose. Thats a fact.

Why do they feel that way? Do they perhaps feel victimized because they are not a productive member of society thereby trying to even it out by taking what they don't have? Wouldn't a little education and good upbringing change that?

Education in terms of scholastics has very little to do with it.

Has quite a bit to do with it, along with education from the family.

And no you aren't unbiased. You hold a belief of the liberal side.

You want to label me, go ahead. I can argue for or against either side. I'm pretty sure that makes me more unbiased than you.

Again patience is a bs answer. It doesn't say anything. It's as empty as a politicians word.

Sorry. I forgot to qualify that answer with, "people need to be able to be capable of foresight as well".

How would you actually remove the 300 million firearms.

They would remove themselves over time...again with the "wanting an immediate solution". An immediate solution is not viable. I'm not so caught up in one side or the other that I can't see that.

Try thinking through the problem

Thought about it, and have laid it out plainly (or so I thought) for all to see. Sorry. How much more clear do I need to be for you to understand my point?

Same with the we could never win against a modern tyranical gov. Put that in perspective with revolutions in history. You think the redcots didn't have far superior weapons? What about vietnam when america lost?

I'm willing to admit that the general population would be quite a menace for the government, if it ever came to that, but the lack of leadership and cohesion amongst the general population would be the downfall.
Did the redcoats have superior weapons? I was under the impression that they had the same types of weapons on either side. The only difference being easier access to weapons and better training. Maybe that is just my poor Canadian education, couldn't be that you are wrong.

How many soldiers and cops would be willing to attack the general population during a sustained uprising with guerilla warfare? How many vets and defectors would bring their tactical knowledge to the militias? Who would protect you in a gov collapse or hostile takeover.

Labelled as terrorists? I'm sure most of the soldiers and cops would sign up to take care of domestic terrorism. Aren't some of the people accused of that actually thinking that they are doing good for their country? I'm sure there would be people signing up for both sides...I'm not a fortune teller though, I can't answer your hypothetical situation to even 50% accuracy.

I know it can't happen here...that's what everyone always thinks.

I actually think it will happen. You know what? Us Canadians will welcome the people who are fleeing their government with open arms...or hide you if need be.

No no no.

The redcoats had far superior weapons. Cannons, fleets of ships and the newest weapons. The rebels nearly lost the war because of it.

The public leadership already exists with veterans groups. They are pissed. Thats how all revolutions go.

Causation is not plain as your thumb and no expert liberal or conservative would say so.

Education would greatly help guess you have trouble reading my posts. However it's not the cause. There are plenty of uneducated cultures that are not as violent as the US.

And no 300 million guns in our country would not just go away.

Do you understand how to amend the US Constitution? It's almost impossible.

Time for the other many other solutions to be talked about.

a reply to: luthier

Education would greatly help guess you have trouble reading my posts. However it's not the cause. There are plenty of uneducated cultures that are not as violent as the US.

And no 300 million guns in our country would not just go away.

Uneducated masses combined with the 300 million guns...what do you think happens? lol

You answered your own question.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: superman2012

Hunters and police are the only ones who need guns. The rest are either going to commit a crime, or are fearful. IMO.

Why don't hunters and police also fall into the "I'm afraid" category? Lot's of police in the US say they shoot someone because they are "in fear for their lives." Hunters are just afraid to take on a buck bare handed.

Do soldiers fall in the crime or fear category?

You want to take something out of context and try to stretch it to make an "argument", that's on you. I won't respond to it further than I have in this post.

I can understand that. I have yet to see someone explain why police need guns to protect themselves, but average people don't. That's a question the "you don't need your guns" crowd tends to avoid.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: superman2012

Hunters and police are the only ones who need guns. The rest are either going to commit a crime, or are fearful. IMO.

Why don't hunters and police also fall into the "I'm afraid" category? Lot's of police in the US say they shoot someone because they are "in fear for their lives." Hunters are just afraid to take on a buck bare handed.

Do soldiers fall in the crime or fear category?

You want to take something out of context and try to stretch it to make an "argument", that's on you. I won't respond to it further than I have in this post.

I can understand that. I have yet to see someone explain why police need guns to protect themselves, but average people don't. That's a question the "you don't need your guns" crowd tends to avoid.

In my experience, people that don't get what a discussion is about, and try to twist it to "prove" their argument, usually can't see anything other than their limited viewpoint.

a reply to: superman2012

Yep.



When it comes to gun control, I tend to focus on my ability to protect myself, my loved ones, and my home. That is my reality. No one who means me no harm need fear my guns.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: luthier

Education would greatly help guess you have trouble reading my posts. However it's not the cause. There are plenty of uneducated cultures that are not as violent as the US.

And no 300 million guns in our country would not just go away.

Uneducated masses combined with the 300 million guns...what do you think happens? lol

You answered your own question.

When I said you didn't think it through I meant it. It wasn't an insult.

How do you take those guns away?

How do you amend the constitution? It requires a massive vote. 2/3 of the states.

The problem with gun control is nobody knows how to actually do it.

I don't believe it's necessary but let's just say we do it. There is no pathway to do it. That wouldn't cause more civil unrest than the gun violence....which mind you is half what it was in the 90's

Gun control is not the answer for the US.

There are safety measures that could most likely be impacted by consensus. But its a democracy and no matter how much you believe something you still have to negotiate with the other side. Or else your just a dictator.

Switzerland has lots of guns. France has lots of guns. No where near the problems. Even proportionately speaking.

It's not guns its society.

Help society elevate the poor, enforce the laws that exist already, create mandatory civil service, increase law enforcement, stop giving money to the ME, get out of the ME.

Those things are far more effective than gun control.

Which mind you is not legal in the US. The constitutional amendment ain't happening lets focus on what we CAN actually do.

www.ctvnews.ca...

From the article:

"Sending greetings from what she calls an “ordinary American family,” a Republican assemblywoman from Nevada has shared a Christmas card featuring her family members – including a 5-year-old boy -- carrying guns.

Michele Fiore posted the card to Facebook on Nov. 30 with the caption, “It's up to Americans to protect America. We're just your ordinary American family.”

The comments after the article are interesting.
jacy

Edit: Just found this comment, figured I should add it, lol.
"We had, a few years ago in Bruce County Ontario Canada .. an MP of MPP can't remember which, that did the same thing with hunting rifles. I wasn't impressed then and not impressed now." (Bruce County is an area where people tend to hunt.)

a reply to: jacygirl

It is their choice to make a card like that but I personally find it rather tacky.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: jacygirl

It is their choice to make a card like that but I personally find it rather tacky.

Yeah, but at least they're colour coordinated, lol.

Around here lately, everyone is all PC worried about whether to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays". We're so worried about offending somebody...it's getting ridiculous.
I'm sure their card is offending people on so many levels...but like you said...they have the right.

It is what it is.
jacy

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: superman2012

Yep.

When it comes to gun control, I tend to focus on my ability to protect myself, my loved ones, and my home. That is my reality. No one who means me no harm need fear my guns.

I don't need or own a gun and never will. I also tend to focus on my ability to protect myself, my loved ones and my home. That is my reality. No one who means me no harm need fear me.