Some Canadians want U.S. citizens disarmed . A new term used "“pistolization”...

[spin]

Canadian Gun Control Needs To Go Beyond the Border

By Dominique Millette

One third of all guns in the world are in the U.S. And half the guns used to commit crimes in Canada come from south of the border. So yes, this country needs and wants an International Arms Treaty. “Here in Canada we live next to a country with as many guns as people and those guns are killing Canadians. This is the main argument for an international agreement,” asserted Coalition for Gun Control president Wendy Cukier during an April 22 conference in Toronto.

The Coalition for Gun Control includes more than 300 policing, public safety and violence prevention organizations and was founded in the wake of the Montreal Massacre.

***snip***

“Guns tend to increase lethalization,” Cukier pointed out. As it happens, it’s a women’s issue: the percentage of women killed by partners in the past year was “55 % in U.S., 46 % in Brazil and 25 % in Canada”.

Firearms flow from unregulated areas to regulated areas. This is the case from gun-heavy South Africa to surrounding countries, as well as for the U.S. to Canada. Many guns may come from legal sources but are diverted into illegal use. Regulation addresses this problem by trying to plug the holes. The objectives of an international agreement are to lower the risk of misuse and diversion, as on the national level. The UN Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons seeks to ensure that states prevent illegal possession.

Since most guns in the world are in civilian hands, in non-conflict situations, the human rights aspect of gun control is that states which fail to adequately regulate firearms are failing to protect citizens from gun violence.

Though the impact of regulations is difficult to prove, Cukier asserts there is broad evidence. “The difference between Canadian and U.S. homicide rates (200 versus 10,000) is explained entirely by the difference in firearms,” she observes. Meanwhile, Canadian homicide rates without firearms are only slightly lower than the ones in the U.S.

***snip***

James Sheptycki described what he termed “pistolization” to describe the social phenomenon of the gun as an everyday item. Civilians own 650 million of the total 875 million combined civilian, law enforcement and military personnel weapons in the world; therefore, pistolization is a major concern. Non-conflict deaths due to firearms are high in many countries. They amount to 39,000-42,000 deaths per year in Brazil, where there are active, violent criminal networks. Meanwhile, the U.S. is the “only advanced industrial democracy in the world with a high rate of pistolization”.

Allowing civilians to bear arms can increase casualties immeasurably. The Virginia Tech shooting resulted in 32 deaths, while the one at Dawson College produced one death, with several wounded. Why the difference? Standing orders. In the U.S., police must worry about crossfire from self-defending civilians, so it takes longer to secure a perimeter. In Montreal, police were able to respond to gunfire immediately, notes Sheptycki.

Meanwhile, outside Canada, pistolization of local cultures affects peacekeepers’ security, development efforts and aid delivery, for example in the Congo. “More research is needed to integrate domestic and international levels of research on pistolization as a public policy issue,” asserted Sheptycki.

Rob Didanieli, Detective Sergeant with Organized Crime Enforcement at the Toronto Police Department, is in charge of the Arms analysis and investigation unit. Last year, 3,000 firearms were seized in Toronto alone. Many handguns are used in crime, since they are easier to conceal and use. Of these, 53 % were sourced to the U.S. and 47 % to Canada, where most were stolen from legitimate businesses.

Didanieli noted that gun running from the U.S. to Canada is a lucrative endeavour. A handgun easily available in Georgia for $300 can be sold on Canadian streets for five times that amount. Since this country is a source of high-grade meth and cannabis, drugs go down and guns come up. The large border is “impossible to police”, said Didanieli, with 300 million people going back and forth just last year.

http://womenmakenews.com/content/story/canadian-gun-control-needs-go-beyond-border

[Not Me]

1. "One third of all the guns in the world are in the US"

Good God in heaven, help us.

[cliffordu]

2. I'd like to see some sort of proof ot that.

Kind of a bold statement.

[shadowrider]

5. No proof needed when an anti-gunner is on a rant

They just say what pops into their mind and expect it to be believed.

[dmallind]

7. Actually I'd believe that

And yet we have way less than a 1/3 of the world's murders. Which kind of blows the causal link idea right away.

[spin]

11. USA Buys Enough Guns in 3 Months to Outfit the Entire Chinese and Indian Army...

Law abiding US citizens bought on average 3,177,256 guns every 3 months in 2008.

EveryTown, USA - -(AmmoLand.com)- In just 3 months Americans bought enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian army’s combined.

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto WWII

You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008. Yeah that is right, that is Billion with a “B”. This number takes no accounting of reloading or reloaded ammunition.

This is an evaluation of overall firearms and ammunition purchases based on low end numbers per Federal NIC instacheck data base Statistics. The numbers presented are only PART of the overall numbers of arms and ammunition that have been sold. The actual numbers are much higher.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/22/usa-buys-enough-guns-in-3-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/

[petronius]

72. That's about 1% of the population, right? If we pretend there are no repeat buyers,

that would mean that over a year, 4% of the population buys 1 gun. Or, everyone in the country buys one gun every 25 years. (All very very roughly speaking, of course.) That 3 million looks big, but relatively it's not all that surprising.

[shadowrider]

3. If you get out of bed in the morning

And go about your daily business, you're around guns. Don't think for a second someone around you or near you doesn't have one on them.

That is, if you're not too afraid to get out of bed.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Screw god, i've got a Colt

[proteus_lives]

32. Don't need his help.

Millions of Americans (including this DUer) own, carry and use firearms everyday safely and legally.

Don't worry, your fear is unfounded.

[Euromutt]

70. Depends how you define both "gun" and "civilian"

When it comes to single- and double-barreled shotguns, bolt- and lever-action hunting rifles, .22 target guns, antique military surplus rifles, and handguns in general, yes, I bet the majority is in the hands of private citizens, especially American ones. When it comes to automatic weapons--sub-machine guns, assault rifles, and machine guns--smart money says the majority are in the hands of armed forces, paramilitary formations and police forces; certainly the vast majority of those manufactured after 1986.

[onehandle]

4. How dare this women's site express concern over things?

They should be making pies instead of addressing topics.

[spin]

9. Some women get involved in RKBA issues ...

One example is Marion Hammer of Florida.

Marion P. Hammer was the first female President of the National Rifle Association<1>, an American gun-owners' rights organization.

She served from 1995 to 1998 and remains on the Board of Directors. Hammer has been the National Rifle Association's lobbyist in Tallahassee for more than three decades. Credit her with the intense, three-year push for the controversial guns-to-work bill that the Republican Legislature and Gov. Charlie Crist made law this session.<2> She was nominated by Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist (R) for the state's Women's Hall of Fame, has been chosen as one of ten finalists from all the nominees, by the Florida Commission on the Status of Women. said Crist.


"Marion Hammer has long proven herself to be a worthy recipient of appointment to the Florida Women's Hall of Fame. "Throughout her career she has diligently and uncompromisingly pursued issues that are beneficial to women and their families, as well as her community, her state and her nation." -Charlie Crist

"I have had the great fortune to know Marion for a quarter of a century and to have worked closely with her, especially during her historic term as the first woman President in the National Rifle Association's long history. I have always sought and valued her counsel, not only because of her legislative and political acumen, but more importantly, because of her rock-solid integrity. I concur 100% with Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R), who stated of Marion: 'When she says it, you know she means it, and you know her word is golden.'" - NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_P._Hammer

Marion Hammer as a force behind "shall issue" concealed carry in Florida. Similar laws largely based on the Florida example have swept our country. She is also largely responsible for the castle doctrine, "stand your ground" and "take your gun to work" law in Florida.

I don't know if she makes pies, but if she does I'll bet they are excellent.

This is one woman that I greatly admire. I have had some personal contact with her and let me tell you she's very impressive!

[TPaine7]

14. Women who can't count or think logically should avoid telling people in other countries what to do.

...the percentage of women killed by partners in the past year was “55 % in U.S., 46 % in Brazil and 25 % in Canada”.

So over half the partnered women in the US were killed last year?! Really? And 46% of the women with partners in Brazil were killed last year? And a quarter of Canadian women with partners?

Allowing civilians to bear arms can increase casualties immeasurably.

Really? Does this mean that if we count up all gun related casualties we won't have an extremely conservative upper limit on the casualties due to citizens bearing arms? Does it mean that if we count up all shootings outside the home by adult civilians with clean criminal records and no mental disqualifications (the only ones "allowed" to bear arms under US law), we won't have a very good estimate of the highest possible increase in casualties due to "allowing civilians to bear arms"? (Of course this would NOT count lives saved by "allowing civilians to bear arms.")

In what sense is the increase immeasurable? I doubt these folks are complaining because any estimate will likely be too high.

They should be making pies instead of addressing topics.

No, they would probably burn down the house. Anyone who actually believes that over half of US women with partners were killed last year should be in protective custody, not meddling in international politics.

I'm glad the vast majority of women aren't this stupid.

[onehandle]

15. Dominique Millette: bilingual author, journalist, photographer, feminist...

...'stupid' woman.

[spin]

16. Well she obviously failed math. (n/t)

[TPaine7]

17. There is always the possibility that she's insane...

Here's what I said:

Anyone who actually believes that over half of US women with partners were killed last year should be in protective custody, not meddling in international politics.

I'm glad the vast majority of women aren't this stupid.

Most women aren't stupid enough to believe that. Even fewer women are intelligent enough to know better, but delusional enough to believe such reality distorting BS. So you have a point; please excuse my omission. Intelligent people CAN believe that over half the women with partners in the US were killed last year--but only if they're insane.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that you believe that 55% of of US women with partners were killed last year. Do you believe it? Do you believe it is a reasonable, sane opinion?

[onehandle]

18. x% of women killed in x country last year were killed by their partner. Better? nt

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

31. That's what I took to mean, but even so, it doesn't tell you anything

Okay, so of women murdered, 55% of American ones were murdered by an intimate partner, against 25% of Canadian ones. You can't derive any information from that data without additional data. Those figures, for example, do not preclude the possibility that Canadian women are murdered by their partners at the same rate as American women, but that the rate at which Canadian women are murdered by persons other than their partners is 5/3 that of American women. E.g. say the American femicide rate is 100/100,000, of which 55% consists of intimate partner killings; if the Canadian rate of women killed by their partners is also 55/100,000 women, but the overall femicide rate is 220/100,000, you still get "only" 25% of murdered Canadian women murdered by intimate partners, even though Canadian women are just as likely to be murdered by their partners, and more than twice as likely to be murdered as American women.

I'm not saying that's the case (I doubt it is), but it's a scenario that would be consistent with the data without demonstrating that Canada women are any safer. The data might just as readily be interpreted to show that Canadian women are at higher risk of being murdered by a non-intimate because they can't carry a gun in Canada.

[HALO141]

45. x% of women killed in x country last year should have picked a better partner.

They're called 'bad' for a reason.

[TPaine7]

47. Not much.

You can't use the same variable to represent two different things in the same scenario.

A better statement would be something like:

X% of women killed in country Y last year were killed by their partners

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Make pies? A trip to the range can be more fun. N/T

[shadowrider]

20. Agreed

My daughter and I went to the range a few weeks ago and had a blast (pun intended).

[Euromutt]

28. Are you even capable of writing a post in this forum that ISN'T fallacious?

As opposed to a combination of straw man with attached ad hominem, like you just did, and usually do? There is actually some satisfaction to be derived from addressing the arguments of the person you disagree with, instead of just trying to mischaracterize both your opponent and his argument. Try it sometime.

[proteus_lives]

33. My mother makes great pies and is a great shot.

Women are and should be at the forefront of defending the 2nd Amendment.

[HALO141]

44. FINALLY, we agree on something! n/t

[dmallind]

6. Cops have to worry about crossfire in gun free zones?

Shows what use gun free zones are I guess

And what does the fact that 75% of women are killed by non-partners have to do with guns? Isn't taht a strange comparison? Can non-partners not use guns or something? Why use percentages at all here?

If the difference in US and Canada homicide rates is entirely due to guns how do we explain Russia's, Switzerland's etc?

[spin]

8. We had a revolution ...

and the first battles were fought over an attempt by the British to disarm citizens.

The battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.<8><9> They were fought on April 19, 1775, in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge, near Boston. The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in the mainland of British North America

***snip***

On April 14, 1775, Gage received instructions from Secretary of State William Legge, Earl of Dartmouth, to disarm the rebels, who were known to have hidden weapons in Concord, among other locations, and to imprison the rebellion's leaders, especially Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Dartmouth gave Gage considerable discretion in his commands.<14><15>
http://www.kidport.com/reflib/usahistory/americanrevolution/lexingtonbattle.htm

As we celebrate the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, evidence has been discovered that shows the Second Amendment was prompted by British plans to disarm each and every American.

In 1777, William Knox, Under Secretary of State in the British colonial Office, circulated a proposal entitled “What is it to be Done with America?” Knox advocated the creation of a ruling aristocracy loyal to the Crown, establishment of the Church of England throughout the colonies and an unlimited power to tax. To keep them servile, Knox offered the panacea of disarming all of the people and relying solely on a standing army:

The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, & every piece of Ordnance removed into the King’s Stores, nor should any foundry or manufactory of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be evre suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without License; they will have but little need of such things for the future, as the King’s Troops, Ships Forts will be sufficient to protect them from any danger. (1)

It all began in September 1768, when rumors of an impending occupation by British troops, allegedly to suppress riots and collect taxes, inflamed Boston. A group of the freeholders led by James Otis and John Hancock met at Faneuil Hall and passed several resolutions, including the following:

WHEREAS, by an Act of Parliament, of the first of King William and Queen Mary, it is declared, that the Subjects being Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence; it is the Opinion of this town, that the said Declaration is founded in Nature, Reason and sound Policy, and is well adapted for the necessary Defence of the Community.

And Forasmuch, as by a good and wholesome Law of this Province, every listed Soldier and other Householder (except Troopers, who by Law are otherwise to be provided) shall always be provided with a well fix’d Firelock, Musket, Accountrements and Ammunition, as in said Law particularly mentioned, tot he Satisfaction of the Commission officers of the company; . . . VOTED, that those of the Inhabitants, who may at present be unprovided, be and hereby are requested duly to observe the said Law at this Time. (2)

A convention of Boston and several other towns met to consider the resolutions, and then petitioned the royal governor. When the governor rejected the petition, a patriot “A.B.C.” (probably Samuel Adams) wrote:

It is reported that the Governor has said, that he has Three Things in Command from the Ministry, more grievous to the People, than any Thing hitherto made knonw. It is conjectured 1st, that the Inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed. 2d. The Province to be governed Martial Law. And 3d, that a Number of Gentlemen who have exerted themselves in the cause of their country, are to be seized and sent to Great-Britain.

Unhappy America! When thy Enemies are rewarded with Honors and Riches; but thy Friends punished and ruined only for asserting thy Rights, and pleading for thy Freedom. (3)

Two days later, the British troops landed in Boston and took over key points, including Faneuil Hall. (4) However, only one report could be found that the inhabitants were being disarmed.

Advices, so late as the 10th of October, mention….

That part of the troops had been quartered in the castle and barracks, and the remainder of them in some old empty houses..

That the inhabitants had been ordered to bring in their arms, which in general they had complied with; and that those in possession of any after the expiration of a notice given them, were to take the consequences. (5)
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1422

note: this entire article is interesting.

[onehandle]

12. America! God shed his grace on thee...

I feel all warm and fuzzy.

[spin]

13. We are a strong enough country to survive Sarah Palin ...

she might be a footnote in history at best.

The point of my post is that an effort to control guns in the colonies started the Revolutionary War. The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because of that as was freedom of the press and the protection from quartering of troops in a persons house without permission.

[proteus_lives]

34. Nohandle loves pictures and hates facts.

:rofl:

[HALO141]

58. +1 ;)

[jeepnstein]

10. Tell you what....

How about they take care of their side of the border and we take care of ours. They're free to inspect each and every car, truck, cargo container, aircraft, goat cart, and mail package that enters Canada. I have no problem at all with that. Any time I go to Canada, I gladly obey their laws. It's not a place I'd care to live but it is a really nice country.

And perhaps if they'd do something about being "a source of high-grade meth and cannabis" they'd see the gun violence drop?

[Spoonman]

22. I notice the goofy douche bag

is not advocating any type of enforcement on the Canadian side.
Seeing as almost half the firearms confiscated originated in Canada, maybe they ought to "mow their own lawn", before bitching about their neighbors! - “Since this country is a source of high-grade meth and cannabis”

I guess she blames the guns for the drug dealers!?

Let me guess, all the drug manufacturers and dealers were respectable accountants or factory workers before they got their hands on a gun. (remember: guns cause crime :sarcasm:)

And of course their high-grade meth is not harming anyone in the US.:eyes:

This "logic" has been touted here before, and it fails every time!

Changing US laws will not eliminate Canadian criminals.

What fucking morons these people prove themselves to be each and every day!

[Callisto32]

23. I'm an equal opportunity critic so, here's the same thing I said about Mexico.

Don't try to take away my rights, over your crappy border security.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. COME AND GET THEM

I'll be waiting on ya with a whiff of the ol' brimstone!

[jody]

26. ROFLMAO. Our rights are natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable & don't depend upon kings/govt.

I'll never understand the minds of those who give 100% of their freedoms to a government when history shows such governments eventually become totalitarian.

[jody]

27. Many Americans want Canadian citizens armed. An old term called self-defense. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Could this be considered a massive case of pistol envy?

[Xela]

30. "Pistolization" ain't new...it's been over used in the Mexican anti*gun media...

...for years.

Maybe because it's a Latin thing.

Xela

[spin]

36. Interesting. I hadn't caught that. Thanks. (n/t)

[proteus_lives]

35. I hope they're not holding their breath.

:eyes:

[Kurska]

37. Okay Canada, they are right here

Just come and take them HAHAHAHAHA. No seriously, the UN is not making local laws for gun control in the US. We would pull out of it before we surrender our sovereignty to it.

[Euromutt]

38. There's some screwed-up arguments in that piece

First, it illustrate that, in spite of various style guides' insistence on using the active voice, when used inappropriately, it can cause flawed reasoning. "Those guns are killing Canadians," "firearms flow from unregulated areas to regulated ones"; wrong. Firearms are inanimate objects, not some kind of migratory predator. This personification of firearms leads one to mistakenly treat firearms as actors in crime, rather than as tools. If there is an influx of crime guns from the U.S. to Canada, it is because they are being smuggled (note passive voice) in response to demand. The very fact that a smuggled gun sells at 400% markup in Canada tells you that the trafficking is driven by demand.

“Guns tend to increase lethalization,” Cukier pointed out. As it happens, it’s a women’s issue: the percentage of women killed by partners in the past year was “55 % in U.S., 46 % in Brazil and 25 % in Canada”.

Without knowing how many women were killed overall, and how many were killed using firearms, those numbers tell us nothing.

And again we see the personification of guns, which blinds the speaker to the possibility that the influx of guns is an effect, not a cause, of crime becoming more lethal; i.e. there is an increased criminal demand for guns because the criminals desire the increased lethality. According to StatCan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/091028/dq091028a-eng.htm) spousal homicides are showing a downward trend; in 2008,

Both the rate of females killed (0.87 per 100,000 population), as well as the proportion (24%), were the lowest since 1961.

The increase in the homicide rate is mostly due to gang-related killings, according to StatCan.

“The difference between Canadian and U.S. homicide rates (200 versus 10,000) is explained entirely by the difference in firearms,” <Cukier> observes.

Those aren't the not the homicide rates, those are the absolute number of firearm homicides. I get the impression Ms Cukier lacks even a rudimentary grasp of statistics.

Meanwhile, Canadian homicide rates without firearms are only slightly lower than the ones in the U.S.

Well, no.
The Canadian homicide rate in 2008 was 1.83/100,000; 68.3% (200/661) of Canadian homicides were not committed using a firearm, yielding a non-firearm homicide rate of 1.23
The U.S. homicide rate in 2008 was 5.4/100,000; 33.1% (4,696/14,180) of U.S. homicides were not committed using a firearm, yielding a non-firearm homicide rate of 1.79
That's a difference of 0.56; to compare, the entire Norwegian homicide rate is 0.71 (interestingly, in the 2004-2005 ICVS, http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf of Canadian respondents, 15.5 reported owning a firearm of any kind, a 2.9% a handgun; of Norwegian respondents, 26.1% reported owning a firearm, and 3.7% a handgun).

But even if the numbers were accurate cum hoc ergo propter hoc (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/cumhocfa.html); there are a number of differences between the U.S. and Canada that may contribute to the difference in murder rates, such as greater socio-economic inequality in the U.S. and existence of a socio-economic underclass descended from a slave population and discriminated against for a hundred years after their liberation.

James Sheptycki described what he termed “pistolization” to describe the social phenomenon of the gun as an everyday item. Civilians own <several metric assloads of guns>; therefore, pistolization is a major concern.

You can concoct cool-sounding buzzwords, but it doesn't clarify matters if you fail to establish whether "pistolization" is a cause or an effect. Does pistolization cause a society to become more violent, or does pistolization occur as a result of that society becoming more violent? Which leads to me next objection to the term, which is that it's too damn vague. It doesn't distinguish between mere possession and carrying of a firearm "as an everyday item," and use of a firearm as an everyday item.

Allowing civilians to bear arms can increase casualties immeasurably. The Virginia Tech shooting resulted in 32 deaths, while the one at Dawson College produced one death, with several wounded. Why the difference? Standing orders. In the U.S., police must worry about crossfire from self-defending civilians, so it takes longer to secure a perimeter. In Montreal, police were able to respond to gunfire immediately, notes Sheptycki.

Horseshit. Given that Virginia Tech is notionally a "Gun Free Zone," responding officers had no reason to expect a crossfire any more than Canadian cops do. The difference in time taken for the responding officers to enter the building is readily explained by the fact that Cho chained all three entrances to the building shut from the inside and it took an extra five to six minutes for the responding officers to get inside the building. Also, Gill fired fifty rounds inside the building, whereas Cho fired 174 (counting the rounds both fired to commit suicide).

Meanwhile, outside Canada, pistolization of local cultures affects peacekeepers’ security, development efforts and aid delivery, for example in the Congo. “More research is needed to integrate domestic and international levels of research on pistolization as a public policy issue,” asserted Sheptycki.

Aside from the fact that that should more probably be called "Kalashnikovization," it again confuses cause and effect. Peacekeepers and humanitarian aid, by definition, tend to go to places where civil society has broken down (or at least been severely disrupted) due to war or disaster; if "pistolization" occurs in such places, it is because civil society has broken down (or was never particularly strong to begin with), not vice-versa.

In short, as various other posters have pointed out in various ways, the author and the people cited are confusing cause and effect. It is not that the influx of weapons smuggled from the U.S. is driving an increase in homicides in Canada; it is an increased desire on the part of Canadian criminals to commit homicide (probably mostly on each other) that is driving the smuggling of firearms.

[old mark]

39. One more reason to invade Canada.... Back from Kabul, on to Ottowa!!!nt

[Euromutt]

40. Invade, hell; why don't we make everything west of Ontario an offer?

The offer being that the United States will accept every province or territory that secedes from Canada into the United States with full statehood. I figure Alberta would be eager to join; Manitoba and Saskatchewan might need a bit more persuasion, and British Columbia even more so, but still, they should all like the idea of having more influence in D.C. than they have now in Ottawa.

[old mark]

49. We still need better health insurance first-they might make US an offer! nt

[sui generis]

41. hey we worship our constitution

it gives us "rights".

I imagine theirs gives them rights too. I'm on board with obeying the law of the land and shutting the fuck up about the laws of other lands, as a courtesy, if they don't happen to agree with ours.

If Canada doesn't want America's gun affectation carrying over into Canada, I don't see anything wrong with that. Americans are welcome to stay in America where their rights to bear arms are protected.

:shrug:

What's the problem again?

[Euromutt]

42. The problem is...

...that some Canadians, of a criminal inclination, want firearms with which to kill each other, and the author of this piece and two of the people she cites seem to be under the impression that the problem is not that those Canadians want to kill each other, but that they're acquiring the firearms with which to do it from people who traffick them from the United States.

I'm on board with obeying the law of the land and shutting the fuck up about the laws of other lands, as a courtesy, if they don't happen to agree with ours.

Including those of places like, say, Saudi Arabia?

[sui generis]

43. just talking 'bout guns, not god or gays or gals.

Seriously - it's Canada. They have a right to their opinion just as we do here. Their constitution aligns with their worldview, just as ours does here and the two do not have to jive as far as guns are concerned.

[Travis Coates]

46. Canada has a right its opinion

but Saudi Arabia doesn't.

Break that down for me

[sui generis]

50. I already did

not all "opinions" are of the same weight or merit, and the right to bear arms isn't even remotely in the same category as human rights.

That's as granular as it gets.

[Travis Coates]

55. I don't know that I agree

There are many ( say for instance homosexuals in Muslim countries) who equate the right to bear arms to the right to self defense with the right to life , the most basic human right(at least, once the human is out of the womb).

And isn't the idea that all perspectives do have equal value one of the core tenants of tolerance?

I have the right to worship any Deity (or no Deity at all) I choose so do the people of Saudi Arabia

You don't sound very progressive my friend

[sui generis]

57. I don't believe in "tolerance"

I believe in acceptance. All perspectives do not in any way have equal value or one could claim that burning jews has equal value with liking puppies.

I've been on DU for a very long time - calling me out on progressive POV is just off base, off field, not even in the stadium.

We're talking about the right to bear arms, not the right to choose who you live with, how you use your pink parts, or whether you have to wear a blue potato sack over your entire body at risk of being caned if your gender sports an innie in stead of an outie.

The right to bear arms IN AMERICA is worthless without a political system that makes bearing arms for the original reasons of the second amendment a moot exercise. In any other developing nation or country bearing arms is not about civil rights - I'm thinking Mogadishu, Cali, Caracas, Chiapas. America is not those places. Yes if someone tries to kick down my door I will most certainly take them out of the gene pool, but am I even the tiniest bit worried about anything beyond my front sidewalk?

Not in the slightest - I don't feel threatened by the unknown and gun violence - if someone is sneaky enough to have the draw on YOU because they intend you fatal harm - a gun in even the best trained holster wouldn't make the tiniest bit of difference. Ask any cop.

Anyway, the right to bear arms is not a human right and should not be equated with "human rights". It's a civil right, and it's not always appropriate to exercise in public, nor civil to do so - my opinion.

[TPaine7]

68. It depends.

...if someone is sneaky enough to have the draw on YOU because they intend you fatal harm - a gun in even the best trained holster wouldn't make the tiniest bit of difference.

As a categorical statement, that is false.

There are many factors that could make a gun in the hand of a trained shooter--holsters make poor students--very effective. If an attacker intends to rape and kill a woman who has a concealed weapon, her gun can make the difference between life and death. If he shoots her in the head from behind, her weapon won't make much difference. But if he misses and she can get to cover and draw...

In the real world, people often win lethal force encounters against criminals who "have the draw" on them. In some of those cases it is very clear that the criminal intended fatal harm. These are actual, real life events, not speculation solidly based in the imagination of a biased person trying to make a point. Several such stories have been posted on this board. Look them up, unless you prefer your imagination to reality.

Ask any cop.

Why? Cops consistently do worse in defensive shootings than civilians. Some of them are seriously prejudiced against non-LEO personnel being armed. What are their special qualifications to speak to your thesis?

[shadowrider]

67. You and I disagree on this

I have the right to worship any Deity (or no Deity at all) I choose so do the people of Saudi Arabia

You do have the right to worship any Deity (or none at all) in Saudi Arabia, at least once. There are very severe punishments for not following Islam, up to and including caning, torture and execution. Your religion there may say it's ok to hold hands in public. Actually doing it is another thing. You get arrested by the "Religion police" (Whatever their official title is), are detained, questioned, taken to an Islamic trial and duly punished.

Your opinion may differ, no harm, no foul.

[Travis Coates]

69. I was actually just making a point

But I get your drift

[Euromutt]

66. Problem is, according to the Canadians in the OP, they *do* have to jibe

Ms Cukier cum suis feel that the fact that Canadian drug dealers are murdering each other should be addressed by the United States adopting more "adequate regulation" of firearms. I.e. they want to force their agenda on us.

[virginia mountainman]

48. You know...If they can try to push gun control down here...

Why don't we, help to push gun rights UP THEIR????

[sui generis]

51. as several are wont to point out

a right is only a right if it's in the constitution. U.S. gun rights are no right at all in Canada. We are our constitutions, nothing more, and often less.

The rationale for that "right" in the U.S. came out of a post revolutionary period when the stability and potential abuse of power by the government was not out of the realm of possibility given that the structure of government and balance of powers wasn't fully conceived yet, much less local law, and certainly not well enough observed historically to place bets on actually succeeding.

Also America was largely unexplored and wild - and quite a dangerous place to live. In the 18th century. Canada has evolved somewhat since the 18th century, in spite of large areas of Canada being wild and dangerous to this day.

[X_Digger]

52. Well, not really..

"a right is only a right if it's in the constitution. "

There is the ninth amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")- we have unenumerated rights (e.g. privacy).

Obviously none of this applies to Canada, but I wanted to set that straight.

eta: also see US v Cruikshank (2nd related, but still apropros)- "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "

[sui generis]

53. doesn't Scalia hold as a matter of literalist doctrine

that any right perceived to exist not explicitly set forth in the constitution is not a right at all?

Anyway in practice the ninth amendment does NOTHING for me in my personal life that the states can't easily override. I'd let us "push for a Canadian second amendment (written in Canadian of course) if we'd let them push for a federal marriage amendment that overrides "states rights".

I mean, if we're trading wisdom on rights and all, it would only be fair . . .

[X_Digger]

54. The SCOTUS (not just Scalia)

is hesitant to move unenumerated rights into the enumerated (via decision) realm. It does happen (Roe) occasionally though.

The problem with the philosophy that rights flow from the government is that government can then take them away.

At the time of the debate surrounding the Bill of Rights, there was an expressed fear of exactly that. Some didn't want to pass the Bill of Rights because they feared future generations would take that very opinion. Hence the ninth / tenth.

The UN calls them 'human rights' for a reason. Flowing from the natural law philosophy, they are the rights of being human, and are protected or infringed to different extents by different governments.

[HALO141]

59. "written in Canadian of course" Ummm WTF?

[sui generis]

60. snort.

That was so utterly clearly a joke it doesn't even require a response, but I'm wicked so here goes.

And the NAACP stands for Novascotians Are Actually Canadian People. Seriesly.

I'm torn between giving you an eyes or a rofl. I'll settle for :evilgrin:

[HALO141]

64. Heheheh n/t

[Euromutt]

65. And that's why "strict constructionism" is rubbish

The Ninth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights explicitly to assuage fears (on the part of Alexander Hamilton, among others) that enumerating certain rights would prompt arguments that anything not explicitly enumerated is therefore not a right.

Rights, in my opinion, derive from the negative Golden Rule, as formulated by Rabbi Hillel, to "do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you." If enough people agree that they would not want a certain thing done to them, freedom from that thing ipso facto becomes a human right.

[Travis Coates]

56. Not a single right decends to me from the Constitution

The founding documents are very clear that our rights are from the "Creator" (nature if you will) and do not come any government

[slackmaster]

63. You may be thinking of the Cuban constitution

a right is only a right if it's in the constitution.

That's not how our system works.

[Indy Lurker]

61. Lame Lame Lame

“Guns tend to increase lethalization,” Cukier pointed out. As it happens, it’s a women’s issue: the percentage of women killed by partners in the past year was “55 % in U.S., 46 % in Brazil and 25 % in Canada”.

Once again correlation is confused with causation. Just because two things are occurring, doesn't mean one causes the other.

If guns cause more women to be killed in the US, what's the explanation as to why Canada has twice as many rapes per capita?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people

****************************************************

"The large border is “impossible to police”, said Didanieli, with 300 million people going back and forth just last year."

If they can't stop guns at the boarder, how do they expect the US to disarm the entire country?

****************************************************
Short of a US supreme court reversal (of a 2007 ruling), handguns can't be outlawed by federal law.

No matter what any congress or president sign into law.

[Euromutt]

62. Oh, careful with those international comparisons

If guns cause more women to be killed in the US, what's the explanation as to why Canada has twice as many rapes per capita?

Because the Canadian number is for "sexual assaults," which includes but is not limited to forcible rape.

[spin]

71. You point out a valid point ...

statistics can be misleading especially when the definitions vary.