Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff OTMG
> (I got a chuckle out of one 80+ year-old black woman from down the street threatening to "tan your n***er hides").
I love that. Have you seen the movie Ladykillers with Tom Hanks? Spent much time in the south and knew God fearing, strong willed, Christian, older black women who were much like that character. Sounds like there is at least one in Canada as well.
|
She's an interesting character to say the least - not really the southern style, more of an old British Empire rah, rah type... also very well educated (has a MA Anthropology from UofT).
Quote:
> The major problem is American influence -
I think that he influence may be Jamaican Posse gangs as has happened in the UK. Unless you think that Canadians are somehow more susceptible to absorbing some aspects of American culture than other countries. I would want to know details of the backgrounds of the perps on this before drawing any conclusions regarding U.S. cultural influences.
|
I cited US influence simply because it's pretty mcuh invasive up here - news, media, music, movies, books, magazines you name it... as for the Jamacian Posse (or Yardies) they where a bit of a problem in the 80s but died down after a serious police crackdown. 'Perp'-wise of the those involved only two have been 'immigrants': they shooter at the subway station had what sounded like Dominican accent, and the 14 year-old with the AK was from Rwanda.. all the others have been native black, white, hispanic Canadians (at least as far as I know).
Quote:
> whether it be simply cultural or more insidiously supply.
So Canadas gun problem is because guns are legal in the U.S.? You sound like the people who try to claim that the high gun homicide rate in Chicago is because of loose gun laws in Indiana or the high gun homicide rate in D.C. is due to loose gun laws in Virginia. My question has always been then why aren't the gun homicide rates in Indiana and Virginia higher than in Chicago and Washington, D.C.? It isn't the guns, it is the violent tendencies of some people.
|
It's more about the types of guns being used in the crimes and shootings - a definite increase in the quantity of illegal firearms... rifles and shotguns ain't the issue - after all we do have a fair number of firearms up here about 1/3 of the per captia ownership of the US... now that there are firearms more convient to crime (concealable and such) it seems there are more shootings.
Again it's the difference in firearm laws between Canada and the US - none of the weapons used are legal here (for civilians) and all have come from the US (that have been recovered). The gun trafficing has really taken off in the last couple of years as a result of the increased drug trade - pot from organized crime shipped south, guns shipped north; guns then sold, outsourced, or rented out.
Quote:
> the number of gun owners that believe they have "the right to bear arms" (nope it'd be a privilage)
They do have the right to bear arms. Everyone does. As they do the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a free press, freedom from unlawful search and seizure as well as the other rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. All person have those rights. Just because someone lives in China doesn't mean that we don't think that they don't have a right to free speech. They do. It is unfortunate that many governments have chosen to deny their people those rights guaranteed to us. A right is something that you are born with and are free to exercise if you can exercise the right responsibly and it can only be taken away by irresponsible action. That is why children are frequently denied rights such as gun ownership and even free speech and is why convicted felons are denied gun ownership and the right to vote. A privledge is something that must be earned, a drivers license for example.
|
Sorry - no they don't have the right to bear arms... it's not in the Charter of Rights & Freedoms as a 'right' but rather a privilage granted by the government/crown - something I am in absolute agreement with... to many wackos and idiots out there that should not have access to firearms. Like you said a privilage is something that must be earned, and the ownership of a firearm fits totally into that equation = you must earn it through background checks, training, registry, and just like a driver's licence renewal every 5 years...
Besides comparing gun ownership to free speach is frankly pointless - as well as insisting that the US is the ideal of freedoms and rights - a paragon yes, but not the ideal, there are many different approaches that create equally free societies without arming the populace.
Quote:
> Canada opposed to either the gun registry
I don't understand what the gun registry does to prevent crime. It has cost a BILLION dollars and I don't understand how it prevents crime. It only tracks the guns that law abiding citizens have chosen to register. Criminals ignored the law. The only purpose that I can see it serving is that when the time comes to ban a certain type of firearm then the govt will know who has the legal ones.
|
Lets see it creates as federal tracking system of all registered firearms - allowing automatic access by law enforcement agencies to the record of ownership and use - to me that's just common sense. If a gun is stolen it can be more readily trackes... or if someone commits a violent crime you can easily look at his record and revoke his ownership; to me another great trait when looking at domestic violence.
As for "chosen" to register - it's not a choice anymore, it's legally required... so yes the government can track all legal firearms - which means they can track the majority of firearms... and soon the sale of ammunition - which should raise some warnings if person A buys ammo of the wrong calibre (you'll have to have show your licence).
All of this would work better if: a- there wasn't such resistance from the gun lobby; b- there wasn't such resistance from the gun nut fringe (such as the tool that killed the RCMP officers recently); c- if the supply of illegal firearms was strangled; d- if the provinces co-operated with the federal government on the matter; e- if the federal government could get it's act together organizationally.
Finally for the government declaring certain firearms illegal or prohibited - fine... it's all open to debate and reform, and so far their reasoning hasn't bothered me... there is no purpose what so ever for Joe Blow to own an assault rifle or SMG... or really even a handgun.
Quote:
> in this case Charlton Heston and the NRA
Heston was President of the NRA from 2001-2003. Since then he has held a lifetime position as a member of the executive council. I am sure the money spent was partially from many of the Canadian members of the NRA. They want to help the U.S. so we can help them.
|
Well lets just say that the Conservative party, or more specifically the NFA boys out in Alberta have recieved substantial "grants" from the NRA (we don't have the NRA up here - at least officially/legally)... grants that have been used to air commericials produced in the US by the NRA or to lobby provincial politicans.
Quote:
> I do not store them at home, but at an "armoury" were I check them out when and if I need them -
That would be horribly inconvenient. I just had three friends come up from Texas for a vist. My 'armoury' is in a closet and we were able to handle some of my firearms right there. There was not time to go drive somewhere to handle something that I own. Besides, I have only 'needed' my guns twice. I have them because I want them.
|
1- some times inconvience could be a good thing, particularlly for anyone with a temper.
2- I don't see myself "defending" my home with a flintlock.
3- I would never want to store firearms around children (too curious) or people not properly trained.
4- I don't want them stored at home for insurance reasons.
5- The armoury is alot harder to rob than my home, thus reducing the possibility of the firearms entering the illegal market.
6- I use them for hunting or weapon displays, things I know about well in advance; immediancy just isn't an issue.
Quote:
> don't see the point or risk of keeping them at home in the city
Considering the incidents that you mentioned in your neighborhood I think that I would see a point in keeping at least one of them at home.
|
Again I don't exactly see myself using the flintlock to "defend" my home from the proverbial "invader".... besides all the shootings have been outside of my home and immediate 2 block area. Finally the number of people killed each year in Canada by their own firearms is very sobering - in fact the greatest rate of gun related fatalities is in the one area in Canada were gun laws are very lax indeed.
Linear Mode
