U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2016, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
6,531 posts, read 7,487,675 times
Reputation: 10951

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugge View Post
American gun culture is illogical to me and so many others. It's logical to you because you were raised in this mental illness. I am sure you will spout off and say "criminals don't care about gun laws" but what you do not realize is that the reason why you have so many criminals with guns is because of the availability of guns in your country to begin with. If you did not have have "gun culture" your criminals would not have as many guns. Don't deny this.
I am not interested in a debate or argument. I am fully aware that most Canadians do not like or support our laws regarding guns. In fact every American knows how unpopular our gun laws are in Canada, Europe and Australia. I was simply responding to another poster and attempting to explain why we believe what we do, not arguing "our way vs your way".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2016, 05:19 PM
 
18,354 posts, read 10,418,262 times
Reputation: 13424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugge View Post
American gun culture is illogical to me and so many others. It's logical to you because you were raised in this mental illness. I am sure you will spout off and say "criminals don't care about gun laws" but what you do not realize is that the reason why you have so many criminals with guns is because of the availability of guns in your country to begin with. If you did not have have "gun culture" your criminals would not have as many guns. Don't deny this.
Yeah, but here's the rub. There are now so many guns floating around in the U.S. so as to make restricting them all but impossible. Establishing that the proliferation of firearms has led to this conundrum does nothing more substantial than assign blame. Too late for that now.

What are they to do now, given that so many people own them and would resist any attempts to confiscate them?

Freedoms have been eroded terribly within the U.S. with many studies showing them ranking down in the twenties compared to nations with measurable freedoms. So along comes a government that is going to suddenly address only the firearms issue et-voila there goes another freedom. The straw that broke the camels back (so to speak) might be the one that very many Americans maintain is the very epitome of their freedoms.

The horse has left the barn, that boat has sailed, the die is cast. They are now at the juncture of either accepting this as a fait-accompli or perhaps starting another civil war.

Either way the death count will continue to rise. A great pity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,714 posts, read 8,792,917 times
Reputation: 7329
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
I have read through this post and have a few thoughts on it as an American. Many of your positions are ones I have heard before from Canadians, Aussies and Europeans. Why do we allow guns after these massacres? Why do we not restrict "hate speech"? and why did we tolerate the Patriot Act after 9-11 restricting our freedom but we are unwilling to take the further steps you suggest?


1. Guns: Well this one is enshrined in our constitution and we are all brought up with guns and knowing our guaranteed freedom regarding guns. There is debate about this topic, especially involving assault weapons but overall most Americans are not willing to move much on this issue. This does not mean we are not horrified by the violence of the past 10 years or so. However many of us are aware that we have had a "gun culture" for over 200 years, and only the last 10 have been a real problem. There is something else wrong with our society that restricting a constitutional freedom will not fix. First there are so many guns already here that you will never get rid of enough of them to stop the crazies, and secondly the crazies ALWAYs find a way to do their crazy things. The real question is really why do we have so many crazies today?? What is wrong with our society and values that has brought this about? Our mental health system is more of an issue than guns are. These people need help BEFORE they go nuts. We also need to examine our values, why have we gotten this way?? Like I said it really is a rather recent trend.

Enshrined but misinterpreted is one argument. Enshrined but not averse to gun controls..otherwise you wouldn't have had the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act in the 1930's. It banned machine guns and imposed taxes and shipment of guns. There have been several other changes since then. 1968 outlawed mail order guns. Look at the changes in 1972, and also the legislation passed in 1994. All these changes have been in reaction go gun violence, the last being the Brady bill.
To through up ones hands and say it's enshrined and there any further regulation is not possible is false.

I'm also doubting your timeline of " the last 10 years " . Certainly mass shootings seem to be on the increase, but gun violence isn't really new.

Yes the crazies will try and get guns...but why make it easy for them? The crazies in Canada and other places do not always get guns. It much, much, much easier in the US.

Mental health issues are important, but isn't it simpler to restrict guns than trying to figure out who is the real crazy prone to violence. That science is less sure.

2. Hate speech laws: The idea of making it illegal to criticize gays, racial groups or women also treads upon our constitutional rights. The first amendment gives us the right to speak, and the only restrictions on this is when your free speech is inciting violence. If you make a threat you go to jail, but if you say you don't like black people, or you don't like gays that is protected speech. Americans are very supportive of our first amendment, in fact I think this one is held even more dear than the 2nd amendment. Also its worth noting that the Bill of Rights really cannot be changed, attempting to do so would violate the constitution (the bill of rights was added as part of the deal to get some states to accept the constitution so it really cannot be changed). It may lead to real violence or even civil war in the US if a serious effort was made to change it. We largely accept unsavory or unpopular speech like KKK rhetoric or Nazi rhetoric in order to protect our right to speak on the issues publicly. It is widely believed in the US that if we restrict the speech of offensive groups like Nazis then its only a matter of time before the speech of everyone will in some way be restricted. If you ever see a KKK rally in the US you will usually find the people of the community ignore them, that is how we handle it. We all know its their right to speak, but we don't have to listen to them either.

Not sure where you are getting the idea that Hate Speech laws make it illegal to criticize gays, or other groups. Are you insinuating that is the case in Canada, because it's not. Here is the law.


Criminal Code

Protecting groups like Nazi's and the KKK doesn't enhance your free speech. Not protecting hate speech by these groups in Canada doesn't infringe on mine.

3. The Patriot Act: This is unpopular in the US, most of us resent this government intrusion and its even seen as un-American. It is only a matter of time before its reversed. We over reacted to 9-11, that is obvious. The terrorist won when we restricted our own freedom in response to their violence. Very few people support any of the restrictions on our freedom brought about by the post 9-11 era.

Agree on this...but what's taking so long?

Of course I am one person expressing my opinion of how we feel about these things but I thought I would take a stab at it. I will also say I am a rather conservative person, and I live in the Southern US so these views reflect those two facts. A firery liberal from Oregon would have a different view on these topics, but I do think my views are at least common. I know many Canadians don't think we make much sense but there are very old and deep cultural and historic reasons for us being the way we are. I hope I have done a reasonable job of explain this.
As you say this is your take, and I appreciate your honesty. I think the trouble many Canadians have, myself included is, where is the logic ? Meaning, hanging onto an amendment that was written by people who had no way of conceiving the type of weaponry or society we would live in 225 years later ( the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 ) just doesn't make sense.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,265 posts, read 13,191,175 times
Reputation: 13467
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post


2. Hate speech laws: The idea of making it illegal to criticize gays, racial groups or women also treads upon our constitutional rights. The first amendment gives us the right to speak, and the only restrictions on this is when your free speech is inciting violence. If you make a threat you go to jail, but if you say you don't like black people, or you don't like gays that is protected speech..

I always like your posts, danielj. Reasonable, and well thought out. You're are always welcome in the Canada forum, so far as I'm concerned.



I would just like to show you section 319, of the criminal code of Canada regarding hate speech. I don't see a huge difference than what you just described......unless I'm missing something. Certainly not what appears to be what a lot of Americans seem to think our "hate speech" laws are.



Quote:
Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 08:02 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,189 posts, read 1,761,081 times
Reputation: 2673
Mags, Nat--you're doing my job! And doing it well, too.

I do want to add that "hatred," as used in the Criminal Code and the caselaw (e.g. Zundel, Keegstra, and other cases) dealing with CC s. 319 has a specific meaning in Canadian law: basically, it means to encourage harm to a specific group. Thus, saying, "I hate Martians" is perfectly legal; while publicly saying "Let's round up all the Martians and shoot them," would not be.

Notice also the defences implicit in CC s. 319(2) and explicit in CC s. 319(3). Because this section treads upon a basic right (freedom of speech), it must be very carefully circumscribed, with definite limits. These limits are further defined in the s. 319 commentary of my annotated copy of the Criminal Code, with citations to applicable caselaw.

In other words, when Daniel states, "The idea of making it illegal to criticize gays, racial groups or women also treads upon our constitutional rights," he's correct for Canada also. Canadians can criticize all those groups, and others too--they just can't encourage harm towards them, outside of certain defined parameters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 08:05 PM
 
3,156 posts, read 2,079,155 times
Reputation: 1256
How surprising....another thread degenerating into gun control nonsense (not that should not be reasonable gun control but in the context of the latest horrifying shooting whatever has been said so far in this thread does not apply)

I love how some media did not waste time perpetrating the myth that this crime was committed using " an assault rifle".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 08:30 PM
 
3,156 posts, read 2,079,155 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
As you say this is your take, and I appreciate your honesty. I think the trouble many Canadians have, myself included is, where is the logic ? Meaning, hanging onto an amendment that was written by people who had no way of conceiving the type of weaponry or society we would live in 225 years later ( the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 ) just doesn't make sense.


Nonsense...the spirit and reasoning for the 2nd amendment apply as much today as they did over 200 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,265 posts, read 13,191,175 times
Reputation: 13467
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
I love how some media did not waste time perpetrating the myth that this crime was committed using " an assault rifle".

I'm actually hearing there may have been two other shooters in there? Any truth to this that you know of?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,170,425 times
Reputation: 3738
A good read from Owen Jones on how far some will go to ignore homophobia. Well worth reading.

Quote:
Orlando was both a terrorist attack and a homophobic attack on LGBT people. It was both the worst mass shooting in US history, and the worst targeted mass killing of LGBT people in the western world since the Holocaust. It is possible for an atrocity to be more than one thing at the same time. You are not compelled to select one option or the other. Life – with both its horrors and its joys – is incredibly complicated, and we have a rich language able to capture its complexities.
Quote:
If a terrorist with a track record of expressing hatred of and disgust at Jewish people had walked into a synagogue and murdered 50 Jewish people, we would rightly describe it as both terrorism and an antisemitic attack
Quote:
Omar Mateen could have chosen many clubs, full of people laughing and living, but he chose a LGBT venue. This was homophobia as well as terrorism. It is not enough to simply condemn violence: we have to understand what it is and why it happened.
On Sky News last night, I realised how far some will go to ignore homophobia | Owen Jones | Opinion | The Guardian

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
I don't think one gets to accuse him of both: homophobia AND religious extremism. It is too convenient.
We just don't know yet. Maybe it has nothing to do with either. The guy is just crazy.
So the probability that he would just say randomly one Saturday night go into a Gay club and spray said targeted audience with bullets from a gun that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute, had nothing to do with Homophobia.... He just walked into a random club because he was crazy - no clue he was walking into a gay club???

Last edited by fusion2; 06-13-2016 at 09:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,714 posts, read 8,792,917 times
Reputation: 7329
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
How surprising....another thread degenerating into gun control nonsense (not that should not be reasonable gun control but in the context of the latest horrifying shooting whatever has been said so far in this thread does not apply)

I love how some media did not waste time perpetrating the myth that this crime was committed using " an assault rifle".
It does apply. The nut job was able to buy his weapons legally. Something is VERY wrong with that.

The term assault rifle or assault weapon who cares? He bought an AR -15 semi-automatic. He could shoot 45 rounds to 60 per minute. Not exactly a hunting rifle. No one needs that kind of firing power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top