|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 12:49:25 GMT -5
You're right, nansel. The culture differences are significant on these issues. That's why I don't buy the argument that Canada/England/Australia are models of gun laws. We also have a very different view of the role of government, and that view is an even bigger marker of the urban/rural divide here.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 5, 2017 12:50:06 GMT -5
I think I’m starting to understand why things will never change. I’m not being snarky, I’m trying to be straightforward . The cultural difference between Canada and the US are massive on this one, and that’s why I’m having trouble. We have a mild rural/urban divide, but nothing like I’m seeing in this thread. Gun ownership here isn’t all that far off of the US, but the attitude and the type of guns do differ. Hugely. And I guess it shall remain so. I would guess that any culture that has a problem with shoes in the house would also have a problem with guns
|
|
|
Post by stellarfeller on Oct 5, 2017 12:59:50 GMT -5
Word. Doing "something" is pointless and potentially harmful. Neither side has much to offer about what will actually work. Being opposed to a "something" that has the very real potential to adversely affect people's lives is NOT the same as being okay with mass murder, and frankly that is a really shitty accusation to make. So I have a question, and I promise that I’m not being snarky or judgemental or condescending. I just want to know - how would someone’s life be adversely affected if they couldn’t own an AR-15? Or could own one, but not a bump stock? All other things being equal, ie. could still own as many handguns, shotguns, etc as they liked.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 13:53:18 GMT -5
An AR-15 is a semiautomaric rifle. It is not functionally different from any other semiautomatic rifle. Why the AR-15 in particular? Would the government really just ban that rifle but not other hunting rifles? And do we want the government to decide which hunting rifles we're allowed to have?
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_darkblue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_darkblue.png)
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Oct 5, 2017 13:59:10 GMT -5
You're right, nansel. The culture differences are significant on these issues. That's why I don't buy the argument that Canada/England/Australia are models of gun laws. We also have a very different view of the role of government, and that view is an even bigger marker of the urban/rural divide here. ITA. I had a conversation at work this week with some colleagues - one Brit, one Belgian, one Italian. I was trying to explain this cultural difference to them, the different relationship with the government, the difference in rights, etc but they still didn't agree. I almost laughed in the middle because it was like I was having the exact same back-and-forth as the WBTD Charlie Gard debate, except it was in person and I was explaining in the "other direction".
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 5, 2017 14:04:51 GMT -5
Maybe because other countries gave up some rights earlier they are ok with giving up more?
Then part of me wonders if because a lot of people in the US had to fight for their rights they are less willing to give up some rights.
Actually I doubt it’s that because people are more than willing to give up other people’s rights
|
|
|
Post by marianparoo on Oct 5, 2017 14:12:28 GMT -5
I especially despise it when it is only prayers
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 14:18:57 GMT -5
Maybe because other countries gave up some rights earlier they are ok with giving up more? Then part of me wonders if because a lot of people in the US had to fight for their rights they are less willing to give up some rights. Actually I doubt it’s that because people are more than willing to give up other people’s rights Yes. It's super easy to demand that others relinquish their guns, when you are 1) afraid of guns 2) don't rely on them to feed your family 3) can't fathom a life in which a loaded rifle is kept by the door in case a coyote goes after your livestock.
|
|
|
Post by Chat Rouge on Oct 5, 2017 14:20:57 GMT -5
Lor didn’t say that. She asked what can be done then? No one seems to have anything real to suggest, so carrying on seems to be the only option. I’ve been wanting to ask, but haven’t been able to figure out a way to ask what can be done that doesn’t put people on the defensive. Anything less than "more guns" seems to be the dog whistle that incites hysteria among the pro-gun crowd. I have no interest in banning all guns. My father was a collector and I still have those. They live happily in a safe deposit box. There are folks who hunt out of necessity or because that's how they choose to feed their family. So I can totally understand the need for a hunting rifle or something similar. Or a pistol for protection in the home. But the whole "I've got a right to have as many guns of any kind and that's more important than anything else" screed? Why must it be all or nothing with them? I just don't get the obsession. What could be done? Why not more extensive background checks? We certainly seem to have no issue having our existence verified if we want credit cards or loans or things like that. And I don't think that one's mental health necessarily comes into question during these checks. Companies can ask people to pee in a cup to screen for drugs. Why is asking for some, if any information from a gun buyer suddenly so intrusive? Acquiring a gun just isn't the same as going to the supermarket for a bag of frozen green beans. Why not put limits on the types of guns and firing capacity that private citizens can legally own? Does it really require a hail of bullets to bring down a single deer? Or a veritable buffet of firearms to keep the home secure? I'm far more fearful of being shot by the armed protector-citizen than I am of being shot by an actual criminal! Why not make it illegal to buy or sell kits that modify guns into something even deadlier than their original intent? We can manage to make buying other things against the law. Why not this? We've been able to regulate things such as how one buys a package of cold medicine and not too many people ascended the soapbox to squeal about their rights being trampled by making it less convenient to gain access to an ingredient in meth. And regarding the notion of adding bag screening into the hotel check in process. Why would that be any different than screening bags at an airport? Or upon boarding a train or cruise ship?
|
|
|
Post by stellarfeller on Oct 5, 2017 14:30:32 GMT -5
An AR-15 is a semiautomaric rifle. It is not functionally different from any other semiautomatic rifle. Why the AR-15 in particular? Would the government really just ban that rifle but not other hunting rifles? And do we want the government to decide which hunting rifles we're allowed to have? I used the AR-15 as an example only because that’s the only kind of semi-automatic rifle I know of. And that still doesn’t answer my question. I would like to know how someone’s life would be adversely affected if they could not own *insert preferred type of semi-automatic rifle here*.
|
|
|
Post by Sprockey on Oct 5, 2017 14:37:41 GMT -5
Asking how anyone would be adversely affected misses the point. I probably own a hundred things that wouldn't adversely affect my life without. It's not up to the govt to take those things away from me because some people don't use them responsibly.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 5, 2017 14:38:27 GMT -5
Semi automatic rifles and pistols were always up for debate when it comes to gun control laws.
Semi automatic pistols especially because they are small and easy to conceal, I remember the outcry when police departments switched to semi automatic pistols from revolvers.
You either ban semi automatics all together or not at all because there is no difference between the types except capacity.
|
|
|
Post by stellarfeller on Oct 5, 2017 14:38:51 GMT -5
Maybe because other countries gave up some rights earlier they are ok with giving up more? Then part of me wonders if because a lot of people in the US had to fight for their rights they are less willing to give up some rights. Actually I doubt it’s that because people are more than willing to give up other people’s rights Yes. It's super easy to demand that others relinquish their guns, when you are 1) afraid of guns 2) don't rely on them to feed your family 3) can't fathom a life in which a loaded rifle is kept by the door in case a coyote goes after your livestock. I can’t fathom that kind of life because I’m not a farmer. I don’t have livestock to protect. That doesn’t mean that I can’t understand why a farmer would need to do that; of course I understand that, just as I understand that hunters need guns to hunt, and people need guns to defend themselves. Not all “liberals” are saying that gun owners should give up their guns; that’s a false narrative.
|
|
|
Post by stellarfeller on Oct 5, 2017 14:40:50 GMT -5
Asking how anyone would be adversely affected misses the point. Well, Alice made that point. I’m trying to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Tpatt100 on Oct 5, 2017 14:41:50 GMT -5
If somebody asks “why do you need that type of gun or a gun at all” then it’s natural to expect people to be concerned about expansion of a proposed law.
Once you accept the logic behind “why do you need that type of gun” then you will get “ok you accepted losing that gun what difference does this other one make?”
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 14:48:59 GMT -5
Exactly. If a raccoon is trying to get my laying hens, I would rather grab a gun than a bow and arrow. That is how I would be affected.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 14:52:18 GMT -5
An AR-15 is a semiautomaric rifle. It is not functionally different from any other semiautomatic rifle. Why the AR-15 in particular? Would the government really just ban that rifle but not other hunting rifles? And do we want the government to decide which hunting rifles we're allowed to have? I used the AR-15 as an example only because that’s the only kind of semi-automatic rifle I know of. And that still doesn’t answer my question. I would like to know how someone’s life would be adversely affected if they could not own *insert preferred type of semi-automatic rifle here*. They all work the same. If you want me to give up my AR-15 then why not also expect me to give up my .30-06?
|
|
|
Post by nansel on Oct 5, 2017 14:53:08 GMT -5
You guys do realize that there are 7 guns for every 10 Canadians, right? It's not like they don't exist here.
I grew up very urban, but a whole whack of my classmates went to the farm every summer to work for the grandparents, some hunted in season, and even more people had rural property for vacationing. My dad was military and had all kinds of experience with weapons, he just didn't have a use for them off the job (fishing was more his style), same goes for all of my friends dads. I've known many cops.
I have literally never seen a gun IRL that wasn't being used as a work tool, whether for shooting critters, hunting, or on a military or law enforcement person. And I don't know anyone who is afraid of them. We don't have to be.
So Canada has lots of guns, what it doesn't have is the "you'll take my gun out of my cold dead hands" mentality.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Oct 5, 2017 15:00:20 GMT -5
Perhaps that is because you don't have political groups using tragedy to justify taking those tools out of people's hands.
|
|
|
Post by TapToTalk on Oct 5, 2017 16:14:12 GMT -5
Canada has about 37 million people. We have 323 million people and a lot more diversity. So, yes, there are cultural differences. For example, we separated ourselves from that monarchy "across the pond".
|
|