Gun Violence

It is difficult for me to post this because I know I am going to offend many people. This is how most Canadians think, Liberal and Conservative Canadians. Not all Canadians though.

cbc.ca/news/world/the-public-health-crisis-that-is-america-s-gun-culture-1.2611483?cmp=googleeditorspick&google_editors_picks=true

A small minority of USAnians think the same way, believe it or not.

ICXC NIKA

It is pretty simple for Canadian writers (or anyone for that matter) to be critical of FREEDOMS granted to American Citizens.

I find it very amusing to emphasize gun violence as a “health crisis”.

While guns are inanimate objects…they are designed to kill…but…automobiles kill more people. They are designed to be safe and their manufacture and operation is strongly regulated by governments. Why are automobiles NOT considered a more serious “health crisis” than guns???

I consider our neighbor to “the frozen north” to be rather progressive regarding gun control.

I remember, recently, that Canada repealed its expensive and failed rifle and shotgun registration program. Bravo for Canadians.

The amusing thing is that California has begun the exact same program for the same absurd reasons. I wonder how long and how many $$$ it will take California to wake up.

On about the same date the lunatic shot three people at the Jewish Community Center in the US a student at a party in Canada stabbed to death several other young people at a party.

It seems obvious that any sane person should see knives should be illegal everywhere.

The states in the US with the most liberal gun laws and highest percentage of gun ownership have the lowest levels of gun related crime. The places with the most restrictive gun laws are the opposite. Chicago is a shooting gallery.

Just last week in a nearby town there was a home invasion. A woman was home alone. Thankfully she had a pistol and held the intruder at gunpoint and called the police. She waited 45 minutes for help to arrive.

If Canadians are happy to be helpless and not be able to defend themselves it is their prerogative. It is their business. Why do they think what they think about American prerogatives should matter?

I would not presume to think my opinion of what laws Canadians pass or prefer should matter a bit, so I don’t have one.

The article did not offend me at all. Do shootings like this happen in Canada? Do only criminals have guns where you live? And is crime rampant up there, with law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves?

While guns are inanimate objects…they are designed to kill…but…automobiles kill more people. They are designed to be safe and their manufacture and operation is strongly regulated by governments. Why are automobiles NOT considered a more serious “health crisis” than guns???

You answered your own question.

Motor vehicles are already heavily regulated, because there are inherent risks in their operation, although they are not designed to kill.

Yet, in the USA, any regulation of items that are meant for killing is regarded as an attack on “freedom.”

I doubt that the Canucks consider themselves less “free” than their armed-to-the-teeth cousins down south.

ICXC NIKA

[quote=Zoltan Cobalt] While guns are inanimate objects…they are designed to kill…but…automobiles kill more people. They are designed to be safe and their manufacture and operation is strongly regulated by governments. Why are automobiles NOT considered a more serious “health crisis” than guns???
[/quote]

Automobiles are used far more than guns. The former are used by almost every adult in the country almost every single day, while the latter by only a minority of adults much more occasionally than cars, cars may not necessarily be more dangerous than guns (in terms of the number of deaths/injuries per car owned in the country, or per hour of car-usage). Baseball bats probably kill more Americans each year than dynamite does, but that’s just because there are a lot more baseball bats available for use than dynamite, not because a baseball bat is more dangerous than dynamite.

I don’t think gun control is an ‘either/or’ issue at all, but rather a ‘how much’ issue. If you believe that it should be illegal for a person to walk into a crowd with C4 strapped to their chest, then you clearly believe in some measure of control of possession of potentially dangerous things in some places or contexts. Cars may be dangerous too bu they are also quite necessary for transportation; guns are not quite so necessary for modern people. The extent of regulation of something shouldn’t just be a matter of how dangerous something is but how necessary it is for other purposes, hence why regulating guns isn’t quite analogous to regulating cars. It is also worth noting that in countries where the public transportation system is much more extensive and widely used, car ownership in cities at least is much more regulated partly because they are less necessary, usually for environmental reasons, though usually such regulation just requires one to pay more for a license to drive a car in certain areas than that prohibiting them altogether.

How have you figured that most Canadians think this way, i.e., look at what happened in Alberta when the RCMP literally broke into homes and took people’s guns away during last year’s flood, i.e., it created a s*** storm. And the federal government (Conservative) did away with the long gun registry act. Moreover, here are some statistics concerning gun ownership in Canada (Canada ranks thirteen in number of guns per capita).

news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/23/more-guns-in-canada-this-year-but-fewer-owners-rcmp/

nfa.ca/resource-items/number-firearms-and-firearms-owners-canada

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Also:

CANADIANS WANT MORE RESTRICTIVE �GUN CONTROL� LAWS�

On the contrary: more than 90% of Canadians do not believe that stricter �gun control� laws are a solution to violent crime, and two-thirds of Canadians believe that passing more severe laws over legitimate gun owners will have very little influence on criminals. Eighty-eight per cent of Canadians favour severe penalties for crimes involving firearms; only 8% favour increasing restrictions over existing firearm owners. Eighty per cent of Canadians do not support the confiscation of firearms from legitimate gun owners. Ninety per cent of Canadians believe that citizen compliance with mandatory firearm registration will be minimal. Two-thirds of Canadians believe that using a firearm in self-defence is justified. Support for more �gun control� dramatically decreases after the Canadian public is informed about existing firearm laws.

cdnshootingsports.org/tenmyths.html

You and Raskolnikov miss my point.

Autos kill more people than guns (FACT) why are autos not considered to be a “health hazard” to be controlled and regulated by a public health agency???

Oh heck! I’ll answer my own question.

Because this is nothing more than a political agenda rather than any real concern for public safety.

Yet, in the USA, any regulation of items that are meant for killing is regarded as an attack on “freedom.”

Since the right to keep and bear arms is PROTECTED by the U.S. Constitution…any infringement would certainly be an "attack on freedom.

[quote=Zoltan Cobalt] Autos kill more people than guns (FACT) why are autos not considered to be a “health hazard” to be controlled and regulated by a public health agency???
[/quote]

Of course autos are a health hazard, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the statistics indicated that the more one drives the lower one’s life expectancy is due to higher likelihood of being in an accident. They are, however, regarded as a necessary health hazard, as they are our primary means of transportation.

Because this is nothing more than a political agenda rather than any real concern for public safety.

There need be no distinguish between the two. Clearly it is a concern for public safety that drives gun control advocacy. It is a belief that the lack of sufficient regulation of guns contributes to an unnecessary increase in risk of harm done. Right or wrong, that’s the belief, it is not merely a phobia of firearms. I’m not sure what difference it makes calling it a “political” agenda as opposed to some other kind of agenda.

Though I suppose it would be correct to say it would be a ‘public safety’ issue rather than a ‘public health’ issue.

Since the right to keep and bear arms is PROTECTED by the U.S. Constitution…any infringement would certainly be an "attack on freedom.

All infringements on freedom are not equal though. Again, a civilian is not and should not be free to carry active explosives around in public. This is not merely because explosives are dangerous (as you mention so are cars) but because it is generally accepted that pretty much the only reason one would carry explosives in public is to do something bad. Now, a person may possess a gun for reasons other than doing something bad, so I would put it somewhere between active explosives and automobiles on the spectrum of how legitimately necessary/useful a dangerous object is. Hence why their possession shouldn’t be (and isn’t) as severely restricted as that of active explosives, but should be more restricted than possession of an automobile, which could not be so restricted simply because they are so necessary and useful compared to guns.

Regarding the 2nd amendment, I entirely agree that more gun control advocates should formally state that they support the amendment of the constitution rather than trying to contort it. It would be more honest; there’s no shame in disagreeing with the constitution, if one is honest about it. Hence how we got so many amendments, and it is quite clear that the writers of the constitution were not omniscient nor infallible. In their times, guns were more necessary, mainly for hunting, but perhaps also for protection given the absence of organized law enforcement and a formidable standing army. But they are not so necessary anymore, and have become considerably more deadly than they were back then as well.

i realize this will seem irrelevant, but one wonders how things would be going in Ukraine if Ukrainians were as well-armed as Americans and if Putin knew that.

No, I’m not worrying about an armed invasion from Canada or Mexico, but there is some point in people having arms with which to protect themselves or throw off tyranny, and most say that thought is behind the adoption of the 2nd Amendment.

Canadians talking about U.S. gun control laws. :shrug:

I mean yes, it is possible to compare apples to oranges, but the only relevant comparisons will begin by acknowledging the differences between the two.

How about some mention of the tens of thousands of times every year, a firearm is used in the U.S. to prevent or stop a crime? This article’s bias is showing.

I told my friend about my post. She was in Texas recently and U.S. customs at the airport told her that she couldn’t behave the same way in Texas as she does here because many people are armed and if the feel threatened she might have problems. I guess you have to be careful when you speak your mind.

Well, it’s the CBC, i.e., it is very leftist and as such biased, so it doesn’t represent the voice of Canada.

Opinion piece, not a news article

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.