Gun Control

[Brian69]

I am for gun control....but one place that has intrigued me is Switzerland....one of the highest rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of gun crime. They actually have more stabbings then shootings in that country, where every male has a service rifle or handgun at home.

The Swiss example is what leads to me to believe that it has less to do with law than to do with culture. Could it be that the US with its high rates of social-economic inequality, abject poverty, less restrictive gun laws has created an environment that fosters gun crime?

I think culture is part of it--it seems that guns are not treated with respect but are glorified to some degree in American popular culture. Hollywood comes down hard on sex but kids can see pretty violent stuff from a young age. On the other hand, Canada gets a lot of the same stuff and we haven't turned out quite the same way.

There's also the economic side of things. A lot of gun crime comes out of robberies, gang activities and the drug trade, all of which are have an economic basis relating to poverty. Switzerland has a high standard of living, low unemployment and around 3% poverty level, all things that would keep guns locked in closets rather than out and about and being used for other purposes.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Obama win triggers run on guns

From The Star of Saturday, November 8, 2008:

Obama win triggers run on guns

November 08, 2008
Reuters

PHOENIX–Sales of rifles, pistols and ammo are surging in parts of the United States, as many gun owners fear President-elect Barack Obama's administration may seek to tighten ownership of certain weapons.

"The day after the election, I had many more calls than usual from people looking for semi-automatic rifles," said David Greenberg, the owner of the Second Amendment Family Gun Shop, in Bisbee, Arizona, who sold out of AR-15 rifles in recent days.

"There seems to be a fear they will be banned, and it's fairly likely," he added. "Obama and Biden are driven to eliminate firearms from the face of the country."

Gun stores and trade groups have reported a spike in firearms sales in the run-up to the Nov. 4 election victory of Democrat Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who many perceive as strongly pro-gun control.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the shooting, hunting and firearms industry, reported a 10 per cent jump in gun sales this year based on its analysis of an excise tax placed on firearms and ammunition, and a spokesman said the increase had grown dramatically ahead of the election.

"Gun owners are afraid of what Obama is going to do as far as guns," said spokesman Tony Aeschliman. "He has a clear record of being against us."

Obama stated his support for the right to bear arms during campaigning, although both he and Biden back a permanent ban on assault weapons – military-style semi-automatic rifles – and "common sense measures" to keep guns away from children and criminals, positions which spurred concern among some gun enthusiasts.

"It's always been the liberal or Democratic agenda to restrict gun ownership," said Jim Pruett, the owner of a gun store in a Houston-area strip mall, whose sales more than tripled on the Saturday before the election to $35,000.

In McPherson, Kansas, gun dealer Steve Sechler said demand at a gun show last weekend jumped by more than 50 per cent as buyers rushed to stock up on guns including Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles.

"Most of the people there were cussing Obama and saying we need home defense," Sechler said.

Obama loyalists say gun owners need not fear curbs when he takes office in January. The Democratic governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, told a rally last month he had spoken directly to Obama about the right to bear arms.

"If you are a sportsman, if you are a gun owner, if you are someone that honours and respects the Second Amendment, you have nothing to fear from Barack Obama," he told a crowd in Chillicothe.

The lobbying arm of the powerful National Rifle Association, however, stoked concerns during the campaign, calling Obama a "serious threat to Second Amendment liberties."

Among other complaints, they accused Obama of endorsing a 500-per cent increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition – a comment he made as an Illinois state Senator in Illinois in 1999, but has not repeated.

The sentiments are so strong Wall Street is taking notice. BB&T Capital Markets analyst Frank Mitsch on Wednesday raised estimates for Olin Corp. due in part to expected increased sales from its Winchester firearms ammunition business.

But despite surging sales, not all gun dealers are celebrating.

Scottsdale, Arizona, gun shop owner Manuel Chee sold out of AR-15 type rifles in the days on either side of the election, but said he would prefer to have steady sales and no prospect of curbs – whether real or imagined – in the future.

"I'd rather that (Republican Sen. John) McCain got in and there's not a big scare and we just followed our normal sales," Chee told Reuters.

"Rather than say right now we are going to make a lot of money for a few months, and then in a few months, possibly, our business could be shut down," he added.

 

[Brian69]

^^^

I think that's another factor that should not be underestimated--the way the second amendment has influenced thinking in America. Our nation is founded on the British tradition where there is a healthy respect for authority ingrained (for better or for worse) whereas America went through revolution and very libertarian thinking that is built on strength but is suspicious of authority. And this strong belief in gun rights along with the fear of big government taking them away crosses ideological lines even though Republicans are more likely to enunciate their defence of it.

On the other hand, while there is little chance Obama or any other American president will repeal gun ownership anytime soon (as opposed to limiting things no one needs such as assault rifles or being able to track guns more effectively) we have our own living example of the hysterical anti-gun bogeyman Americans fear right here in Toronto down at city hall.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Father shot dead by son, 8, had taught child to use guns

From The Star of Sunday, November 9, 2008 (includes a video):

Arizona man had asked priest if boy should learn to use weapons
November 09, 2008
Felicia Fonseca
Associated Press

ST. JOHNS, Ariz.–A man who police believe was shot and killed by his 8-year-old son had consulted a Roman Catholic priest about whether the boy should handle guns and had taught him how to use a rifle, the clergyman said yesterday.

The father, Vincent Romero, 29, was from a family of avid hunters and wanted to make sure the boy wasn't afraid of guns, said the Very Rev. John Paul Sauter of St. Johns Catholic Church. The boy's stepmother had suggested he have a BB gun, the priest said.

Romero taught his son how to use a rifle to kill prairie dogs, Sauter said. Police say the boy used a .22-caliber rifle Wednesday to kill his father and another man, Timothy Romans, 39, of San Carlos.

The priest did not say how he advised the couple but said yesterday that the boy "was just too young."

"That child, I don't think he knows what he did, and it was brutal."

The boy, who faces two counts of premeditated murder, did not act on the spur of the moment, St. Johns Police Chief Roy Melnick said. Police are looking into whether he might have been abused.

"I'm not accusing anybody of anything at this point," he said yesterday. "But we're certainly going to look at the abuse part of this. He's 8 years old. He just doesn't decide one day that he's going to shoot his father and shoot his father's friend for no reason.'

The boy's father and stepmother were married in September, said Sauter, who presided over the wedding.

Romero had full custody of the child. The boy's mother had visited from Mississippi the previous weekend and returned to Arizona after the shootings, said Apache County Attorney Brad Carlyon.

On Friday, a judge ordered a psychological evaluation of the boy. Under Arizona law, charges can be filed against anyone 8 or older.

The boy had no record of complaints with Arizona Child Protective Services, Carlyon said.

"He had no record of any kind, not even a disciplinary record at school," he said. "He has never been in trouble before."

Police are pushing to have the boy tried as an adult even as they investigate possible abuse, Melnick said. If convicted as a minor, the boy could be sent to juvenile detention until he turns 18.

The boy's lawyer, Benjamin Brewer, said his client is in good spirits. "He's scared," he said. "He's trying to be tough, but he's scared.''

Police are also investigating whether there were any domestic violence calls to the Romero home in the past, Melnick said.

Romans had been renting a room at the Romero house, prosecutors said. Both men were employees of a construction company.

The boy went to a neighbour's house and said he "believed that his father was dead," Carlyon said.

Melnick said police got a confession, but Brewer said they questioned the boy without representation from a parent or attorney and did not advise him of his rights.

 

[Archivist]

Brian69 commented on "very libertarian thinking that is built on strength but is suspicious of authority" - I disagree with this statement, although you do hear it frequently. In my mind, it all depends on what the issue is, Americans do not want to be separated from their guns and they do not want to wear seatbelts, but the same group of people wants the government to dictate on abortion, for instance. Few Americans really seem to understand or care about Bush's illegal monitoring of everyday activites by all Americans, including phone tapping, email monitoring, and obtaining lending records from libraries.

Perhaps this is a sidetrack, but I always question those who uncritically comment on Americans suspicions of authority - I generally find this overstated.

 

[Brian69]

Brian69 commented on "very libertarian thinking that is built on strength but is suspicious of authority" - I disagree with this statement, although you do hear it frequently. In my mind, it all depends on what the issue is, Americans do not want to be separated from their guns and they do not want to wear seatbelts, but the same group of people wants the government to dictate on abortion, for instance. Few Americans really seem to understand or care about Bush's illegal monitoring of everyday activites by all Americans, including phone tapping, email monitoring, and obtaining lending records from libraries.

Perhaps this is a sidetrack, but I always question those who uncritically comment on Americans suspicions of authority - I generally find this overstated.

Americans can be more controlling when religious issues come up due to the stronger religious tradition there, hence the way the abortion battle goes there. Religion has a habit of trumping other values if it's a strong belief. A healthy dose of government-sponsored paranoia doesn't hurt the maintenance of the Patriot Act either.

But if you compare Canadians and Americans do you really believe we are as suspicious of authority in general as Americans? We accept our higher taxation levels and trust the government (with complaints, yes) to spend the money reasonably well. We don't privatize every industry we can and we sometimes regret privatizing the ones we've already done. We allow greater control over our drinking habits just as we don't put up a big fight over seat belt laws.

We allow judges to be appointed and don't have a popular vote on every provincial or local proposition that comes up. We still have an appointed senate and few people are howling to take down that hoary relic of a bygone era.

We allow the federal government to make national decisions that might be at odds with provincial boundaries and interests and our politicians are far more likely to toe the party line regardless of how we feel at the local level. We don't even argue over the best way to interpret our bill of rights in light of individual freedoms--I doubt many Canadians could name any of the specific rights and freedoms in the Charter much less have heated debates over their implications. We just get ticked off when individual cases of discrimination/political correctness come up and become Charter issues. These are all things that come about through an unspoken belief in the federal system rather than suspicion of it.

And we even have fewer militia units and compounds in our central-western regions. By the way, how many conspiracy theories have you heard about Trudeau, Marc Garneau or vaccinations lately?

If it seems to be an uncritical comment then you are indicating we should be more in line with our American brethren on this one. Instead, I find Canadians to be much more accepting of decisions made from above and we are certainly less likely to make trouble over it. It's not always a good thing but there you go. Hopefully the above examples are a little less uncritical for you but if you don't think so I'd be open to hearing otherwise.

 

[syn]

Americans can be more controlling when religious issues come up due to the stronger religious tradition there, hence the way the abortion battle goes there. Religion has a habit of trumping other values if it's a strong belief. A healthy dose of government-sponsored paranoia doesn't hurt the maintenance of the Patriot Act either.

But if you compare Canadians and Americans do you really believe we are as suspicious of authority in general as Americans? We accept our higher taxation levels and trust the government (with complaints, yes) to spend the money reasonably well. We don't privatize every industry we can and we sometimes regret privatizing the ones we've already done. We allow greater control over our drinking habits just as we don't put up a big fight over seat belt laws.

We allow judges to be appointed and don't have a popular vote on every provincial or local proposition that comes up. We still have an appointed senate and few people are howling to take down that hoary relic of a bygone era.

We allow the federal government to make national decisions that might be at odds with provincial boundaries and interests and our politicians are far more likely to toe the party line regardless of how we feel at the local level. We don't even argue over the best way to interpret our bill of rights in light of individual freedoms--I doubt many Canadians could name any of the specific rights and freedoms in the Charter much less have heated debates over their implications. We just get ticked off when individual cases of discrimination/political correctness come up and become Charter issues. These are all things that come about through an unspoken belief in the federal system rather than suspicion of it.

And we even have fewer militia units and compounds in our central-western regions. By the way, how many conspiracy theories have you heard about Trudeau, Marc Garneau or vaccinations lately?

If it seems to be an uncritical comment then you are indicating we should be more in line with our American brethren on this one. Instead, I find Canadians to be much more accepting of decisions made from above and we are certainly less likely to make trouble over it. It's not always a good thing but there you go. Hopefully the above examples are a little less uncritical for you but if you don't think so I'd be open to hearing otherwise.

I would say Canadians can be just as suspicious of government as Americans. We just have different priorities.

I also wouldn't equate the government providing services with a lack of suspicion.

 

[Brian69]

I would say Canadians can be just as suspicious of government as Americans. We just have different priorities.

I also wouldn't equate the government providing services with a lack of suspicion.

It's not just government services; it's the way the government was created and the way it's run. They did away with an unelected leadership (King Georgie boy) that we continued to support and still retain ties to; the American Revolution is still a central part of U.S. history that is taught in schools and colleges. How can that not influence people?

Again, in one example we put up with an unelected senate that shuts out some of our national parties from a key part of the decision-making process--do you think that would have ever worked for any length of time down south?

Sure we can be suspicious of government in our own way but we don't have such a historical basis for it. If our priorities are different then we perhaps we don't care as passionately about the issue.

 

[digi]

If our priorities are different then we perhaps we don't care as passionately about the issue.

Perhaps we're better educated and less paranoid....why do you want Canada to be like the US?

 

[Tewder]

Yes, there is a high percentage in blacks involved in in the crime reports listed. The point is that being black has nothing to do with anything. Crime is a social issue, not a racial one. Attempting to prevent crime by targeting specific racial/ethnic groups will not work. It would also set a very dangerous precedent. The root causes - such as poverty - have to be addressed.

To claim poverty is at fault here would be offensive to poor people who do not commit crime, wouldn't it? Saracasm aside, it's not just about being poor and its not just about being black, but a big part of gang/ghetto culture is also about being young, urban and black and opting out of mainstream culture/values. To evacuate race out this equation would be incredibly disingenous, and to suggest that we are unable to discuss race in this issue without automatically being racist is simply ridiculous and borders on censorship.

 

[Brian69]

Perhaps we're better educated and less paranoid....why do you want Canada to be like the US?

I don't. Being passionate doesn't necessarily make one correct. I was attempting to point out the differences, not judge one over the other.

 

[theowne]

To claim poverty is at fault here would be offensive to poor people who do not commit crime, wouldn't it? Saracasm aside, it's not just about being poor and its not just about being black, but a big part of gang/ghetto culture is also about being young, urban and black and opting out of mainstream culture/values. To evacuate race out this equation would be incredibly disingenous, and to suggest that we are unable to discuss race in this issue without automatically being racist is simply ridiculous and borders on censorship.

I agree.

If black have a high percentage of committing crime, then it is not sincere to say "being black has nothing to do with it", because obviously there is some reason why the crime exists.

But beyond being black, the hip-hop gangster culture is the worst. When I was in high school, I can tell you that the amount of trouble caused by any group of students was correlated to how much of an influence hip-hop had on them. One one side, very few Chinese and Indian students caused any trouble, and surprise, they were all busy watching anime or Bollywood movies. On the other side, Vietnamese, Filipino, Bengali, and black students always seemed to be the ones which had more students getting in trouble, and no surprise that that is where I saw more hip-hop "gangster" influence. It should be obvious that any kind of culture which promotes being criminal and being "against the law" will produce more criminals.

 

[Mot]

I don't. Being passionate doesn't necessarily make one correct. I was attempting to point out the differences, not judge one over the other.

Digi is a one trick pony with US vs Canada snark oozing into every topic.

 

[digi]

Digi is a one trick pony with US vs Canada snark oozing into every topic.

Only an idiot hypocrite would make a statement like this, in a forum where past posts can be reviewed.

 

[Mot]

We get it, you've already said over and over you think my University education in the US makes me an idiot. You remind me of Rudy Guiliani with his noun, verb and 9/11 routine.