*slaps crispy for not using his banner*

I don't think of a right to bear arms as a good thing at all, myself; if people don't have access to concealable weaponry -- and a pistol was designed exclusively for close-quarters human-versus-human combat with a small and readily concealable weapon -- then very few situations can result in the death of someone unless the death was pre-meditated and long arms were used. Such circumstances are equally horrible, but they're at least preventable, provided the would-be victim is consciously aware of a threat and contacts the police.

[snip]

As far as I can tell, a good portion of the American population owns firearms for self-defence. If most Americans didn't own a firearm, however, there'd be no need for such self-defence in the first place. It's much easier to avoid someone with a knife than it is to avoid someone with a gun, after all.

What happens in practice, though, is that removing legal access to firearms ensures that the only people who will have them are people who don't have any regard for the law in the first place. One could counter that argument by saying that if prohibitions on firearms and firearms manufacturing were implemented on a global scale and consistently enforced, there might be no more firearms after a few generations -- but this doesn't take into account the relative ease of setting up a workshop to manufacture simple firearms, nor the vast profit motive that arises in the case of virtually anything that becomes a black-market item. For all intents and purposes, guns will always be with us, and they will always be available to criminals. The right to bear arms is not intended for their benefit, but for the benefit of the rest of us.

Plus, arming civilians, maintaining the largest military on the planet, and threatening small countries with war for reasons that have not been confirmed nor even backed with evidence doesn't exactly help your image as a passive friendly nation either. That's how *I* perceive the situation, and, frankly, it scares me.

Sure, I'd like to have people think of Americans as friendly, but if there's one thing I don't want, it's for Americans to be considered passive. People -- or nations -- that are viewed as passive are sooner or later going to have to deal with predators who see them as an easy mark.

As for evidence, well, I guess we just have different ideas of what constitutes evidence, or perhaps different ideas of what it is that needs to be proved in the first place.

I'm aware that murder in the 'States is quite rare, but compare it to Canada -- my estimates (educated guesses -- non-statistical) would place Canadian figures at at one thousandth of crime-related deaths for only one tenth of the population (i.e. Canada is 1/10th the population but 1/1000th of the crime-related deaths).

That's because in Canada the government provides everything the people need, and everyone lives too far apart to make crime worthwhile. :)

But seriously, I think American violence is largely a product of two influences: the attempt to create a "melting pot" of citizens of widely varied backgrounds on a scale unprecedented in history, and a general cultural emphasis on individualism, achievement, and dynamism. Just like nuclear fuel produces radioactive waste, the forces that make America prosper have their own sinister by-products. Does this mean that the project -- and the value it creates -- should be scrapped, or does it mean that we should find new ways of containing, reducing, and recycling the by-products? I tend toward the latter view.

As far as I can tell, a good portion of the American population owns firearms for self-defence. If most Americans didn't own a firearm, however, there'd be no need for such self-defence in the first place. It's much easier to avoid someone with a knife than it is to avoid someone with a gun, after all.

What happens in practice, though, is that removing legal access to firearms ensures that the only people who will have them are people who don't have any regard for the law in the first place. One could counter that argument by saying that if prohibitions on firearms and firearms manufacturing were implemented on a global scale and consistently enforced, there might be no more firearms after a few generations -- but this doesn't take into account the relative ease of setting up a workshop to manufacture simple firearms, nor the vast profit motive that arises in the case of virtually anything that becomes a black-market item. For all intents and purposes, guns will always be with us, and they will always be available to criminals. The right to bear arms is not intended for their benefit, but for the benefit of the rest of us.

True, but the distribution and even existence of handguns in Canada is almost non-existent outside of the military or the police.

Long arms have always been legal, provided (and only provided) they were designed for hunting purposes. In the case of shooting deaths, a rifle is usually used. Removing guns certainly doesn't get rid of the problem, but it does certainly control it. (My uncle was shot and killed before I was born about a block from my house, actually. The person that did it got off by pleading insanity, but was shot and killed a year later by what the police determined to be a Hell's Angels-related gang shooting.)

Plus, arming civilians, maintaining the largest military on the planet, and threatening small countries with war for reasons that have not been confirmed nor even backed with evidence doesn't exactly help your image as a passive friendly nation either. That's how *I* perceive the situation, and, frankly, it scares me.

Sure, I'd like to have people think of Americans as friendly, but if there's one thing I don't want, it's for Americans to be considered passive. People -- or nations -- that are viewed as passive are sooner or later going to have to deal with predators who see them as an easy mark.

As for evidence, well, I guess we just have different ideas of what constitutes evidence, or perhaps different ideas of what it is that needs to be proved in the first place.

Hmm. As might have been brought up before, I'm mixed on the whole subject, actually. Since you're alluding to a specific reference, I'll refer as if you were specifically mentioning it. =)


When the terrorists made their attacks, I still feel that the United States, with a majority of the population being Christian, should *not* have retaliated, and should have simply played as the victim -- that's what you were, and if you remained on the defensive, then that would send a message to the Islamic extremists that the Christians are not bloodthirsty, are not evil, etc.

I might be naive in that sense, however. Sometimes, a person can never change the opinions and beliefs that were ingrained into their very existence. However, I'm maintaining a shred of hope that it is possible to do so.

I'm aware that murder in the 'States is quite rare, but compare it to Canada -- my estimates (educated guesses -- non-statistical) would place Canadian figures at at one thousandth of crime-related deaths for only one tenth of the population (i.e. Canada is 1/10th the population but 1/1000th of the crime-related deaths).

That's because in Canada the government provides everything the people need, and everyone lives too far apart to make crime worthwhile. :)

Heh. Actually, 97% (yes, that's statistical) of the Canadian population is urban, and only 3% is rural.

But seriously, I think American violence is largely a product of two influences: the attempt to create a "melting pot" of citizens of widely varied backgrounds on a scale unprecedented in history, and a general cultural emphasis on individualism, achievement, and dynamism. Just like nuclear fuel produces radioactive waste, the forces that make America prosper have their own sinister by-products. Does this mean that the project -- and the value it creates -- should be scrapped, or does it mean that we should find new ways of containing, reducing, and recycling the by-products? I tend toward the latter view.

Canada is also a melting pot of ethnical backgrounds -- arguably of a larger sampling than the 'States -- and we don't have nearly as many problems. Sure, there are skinhead groups that are beating Sikh monks to death (happened about a year ago); sure, there are youth gangs that are going into cybercafes, dragging another from their ethnic background into the parking lot and slitting his throat (happened about two months ago); but, at least, there are no neighbourhoods -- as a Caucasian male, I can safely walk anywhere in the Lower Mainland without fear of prejudice towards me. (Of course, prejudice isn't the only thing I would be afraid of, which is why I'd never go to East Vancouver's Skid Row. Or, for that matter, a large portion of the lower-class areas of Vancouver.)