Guns N' Robes: A Canadian Perspective

I've always liked Canada. Its health care system apparently works; its comedians are consistently a hoot; and, with the exception of that tired old bickering over Quebecois sovereignty that seems to erupt every few years, the gentle behemoth just upstairs from us always manages to keep a cool head in a hot world.

I also like the way Canadians view American policy. For example, take this comment about the imminent Supreme Court decision over gun control (District of Columbia vs. Heller) from Toronto writer and attorney Tim O'Driscoll:

"America loves its guns, and a majority of the [Supreme Court] Brethren don't appear eager to spoil the fun. Wild West mentality is apparently here to stay. If a presidential candidate brags of ducking imaginary sniper fire at a Bosnian airport, let the winner dodge real bullets at Dulles."

By all accounts, the Supremes' upcoming decision in D.C. vs. Heller stands to have a lasting impact on the legal interpretation of our Constitution's Second Amendment. O'Driscoll's commentary, as they say, hits the bullseye. You can read the entire essay here, on AlterNet.org.

Comments

[1will]

I will start to care what Canada thinks about American gun laws when they become part of the USA.

[HeevenSteven]

What's up with all the comedians coming from the great white north? Also they don't have any shortage of guns up there, and Canadian snipers are among the best anywhere.

[condew]

Sometimes I think the best parts of what the United states once was are still alive in Canada, and I wonder if we can import them back. They still have both genuine outrage and civility. They've rejected he Bushism that we're all in this alone.

[messy]

Canada's equivilant of Secretary of State was forced to resign because he was dating a biker chick and he left some classified material with her.

[Sry0fcr]

Honestly, who cares what Canadians think? The Second amendment affirms the rights of the people to form militias to defend against government and the right to keep and bear arms for whatever legal purpose. Militia service is not necessarily a prerequisite or restriction of the latter. This interpretation has almost 2 centuries of precedent and follows a literal reading of the amendment. You don"t have to like it, but let"s not pretend that it means something that it doesn"t out of political expediency to effectively remove a right that you don"t agree with. Crime rates are of little consequence IMO when we"re discussing Constitutional rights. I"m sure that it"d be much easier to catch criminals if we neutered the 4th amendment as the 2nd has been. That doesn"t mean it"s a good idea nor does it make it right. Guns aren"t the root of crime, criminals are. There"s no statistical link between crime and guns. This is a fallacy perpetuated by both sides of the issue. More guns doesn"t equal less crime. Less guns doesn"t equal less crime. More guns doesn"t equal more crime. Less guns doesn"t equal more crime.

[SkimaskBob]

no, but more guns = more gun related deaths, of which there are thousands every year. The problem with the argument is that its always framed as all or nothing. Canadians still have guns, LOTS of guns in fact, however there are very strict laws as to who, when, and where you can buy, carry and shoot that gun - much stricter rules than the US - the gun show loophole (where basically anyone can walk in and buy a gun) is flat our ridiculous. If i remember correctly, Canadians are only allowed to carry a gun outside their homes with their license on them, while hunting or at a shooting range, or while on the way to hunting or that shooting range. This seems to make sense to me, but apparently not so much to Texas, where you can carry any gun anywhere you want.

[Sry0fcr]

"no, but more guns = more gun related deaths" This is absolutely false. Let"s assume that the supply of guns doesn"t decrease (which it doesn"t by any appreciable amount, however approx 4 million firearms transfers occur per year in the US on average). How would it be possible for gun violence to decrease for the last decade? Factor in that no significant gun control legislation has been passed these last 10 years but the "Assault Weapons Ban" sunset and several states passed shall issue concealed weapon legislation (40 states so far), and "Castle Doctrine" laws. How is this possible if more guns than ever are in circulation and people are allowed to carry them everyday and I can walk out of a gun store with a semi auto AK-47 clone in about 15 mins? Explain that, please. As far as gun laws go in practice, Canada"s gun laws really aren"t "more strict" than ours it"s just more paperwork. If you"ve got a clean record you can get a gun legally even those so called "assault rifles". On both sides of the border laws only affect the law abiding (and these aren"t the people typically involved with criminal activity in the first place) , those that operate outside of the law won"t be affected. Criminals will possess, carry and use firearms on their own terms and they prove it everyday.

[Sry0fcr]

The "gun show loop hole" is a lie. All FFL dealers have to follow the same rules, what people are complaining about is private sales of firearms, and it"s a federal felony to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. I AM a Texan and you"re wrong. You may only carry a concealed weapon with a license and statistically speaking license holders are less likely to commit any type of crime compared to the general population. While it"s also technically perfectly legal to walk down the street with an AR-15 slung over you shoulder or carry a loaded weapon in your vehicle the per capita murder rate of Houston, Texas is lower than Washington D.C. and Oakland, California. The problem is that people don"t want to do any root cause analysis (I"m an analyst by trade) about WHY crimes are being committed, they just pick an easy target and blame an inanimate object. Gun violence isn"t a gun problem, it"s a socio-economic problem. And we have a larger demographic of young, poor, urban, minority males that make up a totally disproportionate portion of both perpetrators and victims than our neighbors to the North.

[Doofus]

Poke around on the 'Net a bit, and you'll discover that
gun ownership in Canada is quite prevalent, almost as
big an issue there as here, but of course they are way
more polite about it than US.

[dunno139]

HaHa yeah as a person living in Hamilton, Ontario I love seeing the view up here. We tend to be a lot less bias cause well its not are election. Not that I don't watch mostly American news coverage. And yes we do think it is funny that a lot of people south seem to think the more guns the safer it is.

[StinkyPete]

Part B

You go on to mock the notion of using arms for self-defense. Down here self defense is a pre-existing right that predates writing, or even civilization. Maybe even predates our species. Perhaps exists in a Platonic universe not based in our own as for example are The Laws of Mathematics " but I digress. Anyhow, in just shy of 40 states carrying a firearm for self-defense is a right and there seems not to be a problem with it. I don"t doubt that the average Canadian isn"t responsible or mature enough to be trusted with such a right.

The only problem you seem to have with the second amendment is literacy and a basic knowledge of law. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers and maybe Democracy in America. Then entertain us all by writing your own Constitution and getting a country to adopt it.

To help you get started.

The briefs " good read " you might try it.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html

Crime in the US. Don"t be shy about queries wrt race etc " I know it"s not PC but who cares?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/ntcm.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/index.html

http://www.usdoj.gov/a-z-index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

[StinkyPete]

Part A

Let"s try this approach. I"m not going to address every point " just offer some quick remarks.

First, try reading the briefs submitted by organizations on both sides of the issue. If you had read the oral arguments " the court was of the opinion that they were of high quality.

The second half of the amendment does not refer to the right of states, militia, police departments but that of the people. Why use the word people if they meant otherwise?

If you would consider the demographics of firearms crime in the US it is apparent that the problem is not evenly distributed throughout the US. Race and socio-economic status are very heavily weighted in the statistics. There are various agencies that present the data, Bureau of Justice Statistics, FBI etc. It is most unusual that firearms crime in Canada is committed by "approved target shooters and collectors", if that is so then the proposed law is understandable.

You really shouldn"t compare homicide rates between the US and Canada without considering the demographics. Makes no sense " especially since all the gun laws proposed would have no effect on the problem demographic, a demographic Canada just doesn"t have as we do.

[StinkyPete]

I just ran across this from the Toronto Police.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/release.php?id=14191

Maybe the Mayor of Toronto should pay attention to what his police department is doing. They are taking the approach of arresting criminals. The Mayor wishes to extend prohibitions against the law abiding, non-violent target shooters and collectors.

[avraamjack]

.
Canada will be perfect once global warming makes it liveable.
.