[SteveM]

Tonto,

It's actually not strange that you do not understand why we Americans value our firearms rights. After all, Australia has no established tradition of private ownership of firearms (by anyone other than nobles or rich folk anyway) other than those used for hunting (one good reason to carry a weapon outside of a restricted area by the way) or protection from dangerous animals (saltwater crocodiles and rabid dingos come to mind). This has a lot to do with the fact that the earliest colonies in eastern Australia were established as penal systems. There is also the common British (and European) concept that the common people should not generally be armed. From a perspective of maintaining power and control over a population, this makes a lot of sense. And I suspect that England resolve to keep their citizens disarmed was reinforced when the armed citizens of the American colonies rebelled in 1776.

This comes from American folklore and is not true. While currently not funded by the feds as we are not at threat of invasion, SVI Rangers is still alive and well here, as are other public militias. The militias further north are still active and funded. The war of 1812 was fought by the British, but it was equally fought by Canadian colonists that like their US counterparts, used private arms. Gun ownership in Canada is only about 10% less than the US (% of gun owners and not guns), but the guns tend to be intended for hunting animals and not neighbors.

[MRRiley]

This comes from American folklore and is not true. While currently not funded by the feds as we are not at threat of invasion, SVI Rangers is still alive and well here, as are other public militias. The militias further north are still active and funded. The war of 1812 was fought by the British, but it was equally fought by Canadian colonists that like their US counterparts, used private arms. Gun ownership in Canada is only about 10% less than the US (% of gun owners and not guns), but the guns tend to be intended for hunting animals and not neighbors.

What part is folklore? That the British Empire restricts private firearms ownership??? While it may be true that Canada has a more of a tradition of private firearms ownership (owing in part to the savage nature of this continent during the colonization period) than I realized (an assumption fed by Bill's insistence that Canada is a gun-free-paradise), it is certainly not true of England herself. As far as I know it is fairly uncommon for a private citizen in England to own a traditional long gun (shotgun or rifle) and damned near impossible for them to own a handgun or a military type rifle.

Good to hear about the "militias" in Canada. I'll have to google SVI Rangers.

And if I am mistaken about firearm ownership rates in Australia or other erstwhile members of the British Empire I would like to hear about it. Although I suspect the concept did apply more strongly to the indigenous populations of the colonies (Indians in India and Aborigines in Australia were certainly forbidden weapons) than to caucasian "Englishmen."

p.s. It's true that criminals hunt their neighbors, but law-abiding gun owners seldom do.

[jogiba]

You Tube

You Tube

[shooz]

criminals hunt their neighbors

Crazy people hunt their neighbors.
Very important distinction.
Another reason why republican cuts to health care are detrimental to society.

[SteveM]

I can't speak for Australia, but a quick google search and I don't see any indication of any sort of British Empire involvement or gun restriction in the history of Australia.

While there is now a registry for long guns, there has never been restrictions on sporting rifles in Canada. There have however been restrictions on handguns since 1892, and it was the Canadian government in control of those restrictions and not the British Empire.

Some background from the web....

Canadian gun control laws must be understood in the context of Canadian history. From the start, the advance by pioneers on the frontier in Canada was much less violent than in the United States. Since French fur traders could cooperate with the Indians, the French inhabitants of Canada had little to fear from the indigenous tribes. While America had sixty-nine Indian wars, Canada had none.

Settlers of the American West staked their claim years before a government was around to protect their lives and property. They enforced their own law and order, living in a Hobbesian, chaotic world where government was either not present or simply ineffective. Individuals had to protect themselves. Citizens were forced to adapt to a practice of local control. When the time came to form western state governments, the settlers drew on their existing experience of local control and enacted laws particular to their local conditions.

By contrast, the law and established practices of governing came to the Canadian West even before the Canadian people. The Laurentian Shield, a giant stretch of brushy, barren soil sitting on hard precambrian rock, originally blocked Canada's westward expansion. Only when railroads penetrated this barrier in the nineteenth century did settlers reach the rich interior prairie.[32] These settlers came directly from the "civilized" eastern provinces and brought their established practices with them.

Partly because of much slower growth, Canada did not suffer the long and bloody wars that marked the American occupation of the far west. The Mounted Police maintained much tighter control of western settlements and the six-shooter never became the symbol of Canadian freedom. Ottawa negotiated treaties with the plains Indians which secured relatively peaceful opening of the most fertile land.

The British North America Act of 1867, which granted Canada autonomous Dominion status within the British Commonwealth, mandated that all firearms legislation is within the national government's jurisdiction.[39] Canada's first significant firearms law, in 1892, required a carrier to obtain a permit to carry a pistol.

[Wheatfield]

Bill's insistence that Canada is a gun-free-paradise),

Amazing isn't it. We have such a strong gun culture here that we can have an amazingly large % of ownership, and at the same time, very, very low rates of gun crime or public displays and talk about guns, to the point that citizens forget that there actually are a lot of guns here.

You do realize that we keep firearms that are designed to hunt moose, elk, deer and birds, not so much guns that are more designed for hunting people.

It's actually not strange that you do not understand why we Americans value our firearms rights. After all, Australia has no established tradition of private ownership of firearms

Apparently we do have an established tradition of firearm ownership here, and yet many Canadians don't understand why Americans value their firearm rights.

If a criminal has a gun he IS likely to shoot you, regardless of whether you have a gun to defend yourself with or not. If you don't have a gun, you are completely at his mercy and your survival depends upon his mood. If you have a weapon, you at least have a chance of scaring him off since, as I have pointed out over and over, Criminals are COWARDS! They vastly prefer to prey on sheep rather than sheep dogs.

Could you give us a citation (and not an NRA sponsored one) that backs up your first sentence please?

Regarding criminals being cowards, that is an interesting concept coming from a guy whose country was founded on the back of criminal actions and terrorism.

I guess guys like George Washington, Henry Knox, Ethan Allen, Benedict Arnold, and all those other criminals who overthrew the rightful government of the day were also cowards?
Even I don't believe that one.
And how about the people of present day Syria and Libya?
Are they cowards too? After all, they are engaged in anarchy.
How about people like Nelson Mandela?

Or perhaps, we should just throw out the jingoism and crackerjack box psychology about what a criminal is.

By this logic we should never give anyone a driver's license because they might someday decide to drink and drive or to succumb to road rage and run over a gaggle of nuns in a crosswalk. Idiots in automobiles kill far more people every day than people with guns do. What some people refuse to understand is that the vast majority of guns are never used in anger or defense. Naturally it is a statistical certainty that some otherwise law-abiding citizen will go nutters and shoot up the place but that is more a calculation about humans than it is about guns.

Why is it, the best argument the gun worshipers can come up with is drinking and driving?

You realize, I trust, that cars, while potentially lethal, are not designed to be that way (I suppose there are exceptions, the Ford Pinto and anything made by Yugo come to mind), while guns, although potentially benign, are designed to kill, and pistols are designed precisely with killing people in mind.

Actually, most law-abiding gun owners follow the laws that they travel through or into.

Canada customs picks up a large number of guns from Americans who, while otherwise law abiding, try to smuggle guns into Canada (and not for the ilicit trade, they are just good ol' boys who wanna feel safe)
Canada Customs estimates that they find perhaps 3% of the guns brought in illegally, and this number is about 600 per year.
You guys sure do a good job of being law abiding..

As for your "one slip up, one drunken night"supposition... that's true, but again, it's a human issue, not a weapon issue. Many people are completely capable of killing someone in a fit of rage or drunkenness using whatever falls to hand.

And it's far easier, far more likely to succeed, and far more likely to injure or kill an innocent third party when a gun is used.

In a society where only criminals have guns only their victims will die. In a society where the criminal's target is armed, at least some of the time, the criminal will be the one to die.

Well Mike, lets assume this is just hyperbole, but if you say otherwise, show me some citations that this is a universal truth, or retract the statement as an untruth.

Sorry but it's really just the same unrealistic perspective that we get from the gun crowd all the time.

I fixed you last sentence for you.

[Workingdog]

"Amazing isn't it. We have such a strong gun culture here that we can have an amazingly large % of ownership, and at the same time, very, very low rates of gun crime or public displays and talk about guns, to the point that citizens forget that there actually are a lot of guns here.

You do realize that we keep firearms that are designed to hunt moose, elk, deer and birds, not so much guns that are more designed for hunting people."


So, it REALLY is the people who do the killing then and not the guns as evidenced by your very own stetement above. Also, all guns are designed to fire bullets. Your moose, elk, deer, or bird gun can kill a human just as easily. Regarding the oft cited automobile fatalities; people killed by drunk drivers are just as dead as those killed by guns, only there are a whole lot more of them. I suppose that they weren't killed by a gun should make their families feel better, eh.

[SteveM]

So, it REALLY is the people who do the killing then and not the guns as evidenced by your very own stetement above.

You can argue the semantics regarding if the gun is to blame or the person pulling the trigger, but it is really a diversion from the issue. You wouldn't use the same logic to argue that atomic bombs don't kill people, people that use them do, and argue that private nuclear arsenals are therefore OK. Similarly, the argument that handguns don't kill people is also not a reasonable point to defend their proliferation.

The point is one that outlines the ease and volume of death that a handgun provide and more importantly, lends itself to use in the heat of a dispute when emotion takes over reason. Someone can reach into their pocket and pop 1 or 6+ people without giving it a second though and then wonder "what have I done?". Highly unlikely to pull a hunting rifle out of your pants to do the same. Highly unlikely to take out 6 people with a knife especially since they can run away.

[shooz]

Round and round and round we go, circular argument, ho ho ho.

it's like I said.
Crazy people kill other people. Guns, cars, kitchen knives, whips and chains. makes no difference to a nut.
To that end, I do curse the NRA for it's own insane position.

Sound to me like Canadians are a bit more sane than my countrymen.
In America we are much more likely to call crazy people criminals and throw them in jail.
It's cheaper that way I guess.
Perhaps it's why right wingers are so dead set against national health care.
Have you ever tried to get help for someone with a mental problem?
I have. It's a bitch and VERY limited, if do happen to get a positive response.

No gun nut yet has come up with a real solution.
They just quote the same old same old, time and time again.
NRA BS really.
Bumpersticker solutions.
Ineffective at best, dangerous at worst.

I say lets get busy identifying those with mental illness and treat them to resolution.
That includes habitual drunks, that kill with cars.
Jail has never proven to be an effective solution, but we do it again and again-------------------------------Isn't that lunacy by even right wing definitions?

I stand by this, until someone comes up with something better.

[Parallax]

I think this horse is ready for the glue pot.