Quote:"It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto...The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto," Miller said.Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada have more guns per capita than America? The logic behind this is beyond retarded; it is like America blaming violence and shootings on Mexico. Of course pointing the finger at other people to find excuses for your own problems has always resolved pressing issues, right?
Canada Blames America For Violence
Author
CNN Link
Canada may have more guns per capita, however that has also been used to show that gun ownership does not directly lead to gun crimes.
The accusations, while political, are linked to three main facts:
Despite equal gun ownership to the US, Canada experiences far, far less violent crime - though it should be noted the difference in ownership: Canadians tend to own guns for legitimate uses like hunting or rural defense (rifles and shotguns), while the US tends to excel in handgun ownership.
All other crime in Toronto is down.
Despite the fact that there are so many Canadians with Canadian bought guns ("same or more per capita"), the majority of guns being used in these murders are being found to be American supplied, smuggled across the border to satellites of American gangs.
In short the premise is "The numbers show Canadian guns and gun culture have never been a threat, but imported US handguns and violent gang culture is has doubled the murder rate". But again this is political. Even the double murder rate violence of Toronto pails in comparison to living south of the border, it's simply that the relative safety of living in a peaceful culture makes murder (especially with weapons) a shock to many Canadians, and thus an issue that politicians and the media want to sensationalize. Japan is much the same way (worse/better actually), in the 90s the old ladies over there practically fainted when the media came out with sensational stories of someone using a knife - their culture simply didn't have the slightest touch of American style street violence and disregard for life. Look at their police men: they aren't running around with guns to catch dangerous criminals, they're standing at street corners unarmed with an ash tray politely asking people to butt out.
The accusations, while political, are linked to three main facts:
Despite equal gun ownership to the US, Canada experiences far, far less violent crime - though it should be noted the difference in ownership: Canadians tend to own guns for legitimate uses like hunting or rural defense (rifles and shotguns), while the US tends to excel in handgun ownership.
All other crime in Toronto is down.
Despite the fact that there are so many Canadians with Canadian bought guns ("same or more per capita"), the majority of guns being used in these murders are being found to be American supplied, smuggled across the border to satellites of American gangs.
In short the premise is "The numbers show Canadian guns and gun culture have never been a threat, but imported US handguns and violent gang culture is has doubled the murder rate". But again this is political. Even the double murder rate violence of Toronto pails in comparison to living south of the border, it's simply that the relative safety of living in a peaceful culture makes murder (especially with weapons) a shock to many Canadians, and thus an issue that politicians and the media want to sensationalize. Japan is much the same way (worse/better actually), in the 90s the old ladies over there practically fainted when the media came out with sensational stories of someone using a knife - their culture simply didn't have the slightest touch of American style street violence and disregard for life. Look at their police men: they aren't running around with guns to catch dangerous criminals, they're standing at street corners unarmed with an ash tray politely asking people to butt out.
Quote:Original post by cyric74
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada have more guns per capita than America?
I don't know about that, but they do have relatively strict gun control laws.
There's a difference between having lots of guns, and having lots of guns finding their way to people who shouldn't have them.
The latter is what happens if a lot of guns are smuggled into the country.
So no, I don't think it's retarted.
It might still not be the full story, and as Michalson said, of course it's political as well.
But they might still have a point.
A good amount of the guns used in crimes in Canada are smuggled across the Canada-US border, apparently.
Quote:Original post by SpoonbenderQuote:Original post by cyric74
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada have more guns per capita than America?
I don't know about that, but they do have relatively strict gun control laws.
There's a difference between having lots of guns, and having lots of guns finding their way to people who shouldn't have them.
The latter is what happens if a lot of guns are smuggled into the country.
So no, I don't think it's retarted.
It might still not be the full story, and as Michalson said, of course it's political as well.
But they might still have a point.
Canadian gun laws can probably be summed up as:
"Self defense" against humans is not a valid use for a gun. Canada does not buy into the vigilante "cowboy" culture. The police are trained to use guns for those purposes, everyday folks trying to pretend they're a cop are just an accident waiting to happen (look at US gun death statistics - home handguns get far more use in a suicides, accidental shootings [often involving minors] and domestic squabbles then they are actually used for "home defense"). The carrying of guns by civilians for "defense" also creates an arms race with criminals - the unarmed thief who was going to steal your wifes jewellery instead carries a gun with him and shoots at anything that moves, like your daughter that came out to see what the noise was, because he expects the home owner to carry a gun.
If the gun is designed for military use, it's banned unless it's some sort of non-operational museum piece. The rest of the guns banned or restricted are based on whether they have a valid use - hunting rifles and shotguns are fine to own, handguns are heavily restricted, and high caliber weapons must have a minimum barrel length (hunting rifle size), otherwise they are considered weapons designed for crime (i.e. sawed off shotguns and other attempts to make high powered weapons easy to conceal, and more importantly, use in confined spaces).
Quote:Original post by MichalsonQuote:Original post by SpoonbenderQuote:Original post by cyric74
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada have more guns per capita than America?
I don't know about that, but they do have relatively strict gun control laws.
There's a difference between having lots of guns, and having lots of guns finding their way to people who shouldn't have them.
The latter is what happens if a lot of guns are smuggled into the country.
So no, I don't think it's retarted.
It might still not be the full story, and as Michalson said, of course it's political as well.
But they might still have a point.
Canadian gun laws can probably be summed up as:
"Self defense" against humans is not a valid use for a gun. Canada does not buy into the vigilante "cowboy" culture. The police are trained to use guns for those purposes, everyday folks trying to pretend they're a cop are just an accident waiting to happen (look at US gun death statistics - home handguns get far more use in a suicides, accidental shootings [often involving minors] and domestic squabbles then they are actually used for "home defense"). The carrying of guns by civilians for "defense" also creates an arms race with criminals - the unarmed thief who was going to steal your wifes jewellery instead carries a gun with him and shoots at anything that moves, like your daughter that came out to see what the noise was, because he expects the home owner to carry a gun.
If the gun is designed for military use, it's banned unless it's some sort of non-operational museum piece. The rest of the guns banned or restricted are based on whether they have a valid use - hunting rifles and shotguns are fine to own, handguns are heavily restricted, and high caliber weapons must have a minimum barrel length (hunting rifle size), otherwise they are considered weapons designed for crime (i.e. sawed off shotguns and other attempts to make high powered weapons easy to conceal, and more importantly, use in confined spaces).
Yeah...That may work for you up in Canadia, but down here in the good ol' US of A, we treasure our right to bear arms lest King George III rise from his grave and attempt to steal our liberties and lives!
Quote:Original post by CrimsonSun
Yeah...That may work for you up in Canadia, but down here in the good ol' US of A, we treasure our right to bear arms lest King George III rise from his grave and attempt to steal our liberties and lives!
Well technically your actual second amendment rights have already been taken away - the right to own and train in the tools needed for revolution should the government cease to properly represent the people (the founding fathers where of a mind that it was inevitable given time). Today basic firearms would be useless in forcing such a revolution, and the government has already made such action illegal (the 2nd amendment was made to try and stop that, since it was assumed the main vehicle would be outlawing militias or private gun ownership).
Instead it was silently morphed from "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " into "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", changing the meaning completely. The same can be said for the 1st amendment - the founding fathers where not writing a bill of human rights (though it did come to be a blue print for future efforts), they where righting a bill of citizens rights to protect them from the government - Washington would probably be all for censoring hate groups and the like, what he wanted was to ensure that no one could be prevented from critizing or speaking out against the government - the right to point out and inform others about the government without reprisal was and remains the cornerstone of a free society. The entire bill of rights (if you want I can cover it amendment by amendment) was designed exclusively as a protection of the people from the government.
Quote:Original post by Michalson
Well technically your actual second amendment rights have already been taken away - the right to own and train in the tools needed for revolution should the government cease to properly represent the people (the founding fathers where of a mind that it was inevitable given time). Today basic firearms would be useless in forcing such a revolution, and the government has already made such action illegal (the 2nd amendment was made to try and stop that, since it was assumed the main vehicle would be outlawing militias or private gun ownership).
Don't tell JTWatters [grin]
Quote:The police are trained to use guns for those purposes, everyday folks trying to pretend they're a cop are just an accident waiting to happen (look at US gun death statistics - home handguns get far more use in a suicides, accidental shootings [often involving minors] and domestic squabbles then they are actually used for "home defense").
Okay, let's look at US gun death statistics. Link(s)?
Quote:Original post by cyric74
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada have more guns per capita than America? The logic behind this is beyond retarded; it is like America blaming violence and shootings on Mexico.
You'd probably be correct in questioning the logic. Blaming the U.S. does make some sense from a cultural perspective because violent crime seems more culturally linked than weapons access linked. So, an argument that the U.S. is "exporting" its violent culture does hold water.
I doubt that it's as simple as gun culture, though.
Disenfranchised minorities are one primary source of violence in the U.S, for instance. If you removed statistics involving poor, inner-city African-Americans and first generation or illegal immigrants, the U.S.'s violent crime rate falls off the map. Toronto's current sky-high immigration levels are also a plausible reason there's a temporary spike in violence.
To curb violence, the U.S. needs to address its complex, long-standing social issues -- or at least continue to alleivate them. I doubt very much that stopping Middle class Americans from buying handguns or assault rifles will amount to even a blip on the violent crime radar.
Fortunately, the violent crime rate in the U.S. and Canada has been dropping steadily for decades -- a possible sign that cultural disenfranchisement and tolerance for violence is waning in North America.
Quote:Original post by Michalson
The police are trained to use guns for those purposes, everyday folks trying to pretend they're a cop are just an accident waiting to happen
Police CAN NOT protect anyone they can't do much except clean up after the fact. Violent crimes happen so fast there would have to be a police officer on every corner of every street in order to be able to defend anyone. Their job is to catch criminals, not stop them.
Quote:(look at US gun death statistics - home handguns get far more use in a suicides, accidental shootings [often involving minors] and domestic squabbles then they are actually used for "home defense").
That is a false assertion considering the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the mere presence of a gun is enough for "defense" but will not be calculated in the usage statistics since no one was killed.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
