Thread: USA Gun Laws Poll

Spender

With any issue that becomes polarized there is no way to find common ground and maybe improve things a least a little. A lot of times taking the adversarial approach to the extreme does not help in problem solving just creates a stalemate. Compromise has come to be a bad word. Anyone in a long standing and satisfying relationship knows that the art of compromise and tolerance go a long way to making it so. My second wife of 23 years is anti gun and anti hunting and I am not. We respect each others views and I think she is one of the finest people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. I still have guns in the house and that was never a problem so compromise does work in my case.

Bob

The elephant in the room that will not get discussed is the different in racial makeup of the different countries. If you sort out by race the US and Canada are not much different in murder rates. Blacks make up 12.4% of US but represent 50% of all of the murder victims( FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 1 ) 12,996 total what the FBI considers murder( if I read the table correct). 12,996 murders in US for a rate of about 4.2 per 100k, based on populatonof 308 million
Canada has 2.5 % Black population, but after some searching, turning up only the stat. of 554 murders ( 1.62 per 100k, based on population of 34 million), I was unable to see a stat. by race. is Canada too politically correct?. My only arguement about Crime in US vs. Canada, is that if you take out the slant of Blacks killing Blacks in the inter city mainly, our countries are much the same.
And most of this terrible black on black crime is done in the cities with the most strict gun laws.

Originally Posted by redrover66

The elephant in the room I was unable to see a stat. by race... is Canada too politically correct?.

Simply - Yes.

America

One opinion...

Originally Posted by earcutter

America

One opinion...

Auto accident deaths in the USA (latest year) 33,000

List of countries by traffic-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by earcutter

Simply - Yes.

Unfortunately I agree 100% that Canada is at times too PC. I believe it would be considered discriminatory to break crime stats down by ethnic grouping, at least publicly. It would and does make it hard to know where to concentrate limited resources to target the most troublesome areas to achieve the most benefit. If my poor memory serves me correctly, there was an incident years ago where a Toronto police officer made a public statement that stats showed there was a particular ethnic group which had more than it's average share of crime. He was promptly dropped in the Poo for that even though members of that ethnic community singled out said he was absolutely correct in their eyes. I am tired of shaking my head at things like this my brains are scrambled enough as it is. You have to wery wery careful how you say things. I find that hard to do. I was told by a super from another company that I should be more professional so I told him that I was right "professionally" fing POed just incase he misunderstood the first time. I don't like dancing around an issue.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Unfortunately I agree 100% that Canada is at times too PC. I believe it would be considered discriminatory to break crime stats down by ethnic grouping, at least publicly. It would and does make it hard to know where to concentrate limited resources to target the most troublesome areas to achieve the most benefit. If my poor memory serves me correctly, there was an incident years ago where a Toronto police officer made a public statement that stats showed there was a particular ethnic group which had more than it's average share of crime. He was promptly dropped in the Poo for that even though members of that ethnic community singled out said he was absolutely correct in their eyes. I am tired of shaking my head at things like this my brains are scrambled enough as it is. You have to wery wery careful how you say things. I find that hard to do. I was told by a super from another company that I should be more professional so I told him that I was right "professionally" fing POed just incase he misunderstood the first time. I don't like dancing around an issue.

Bob

It's a choice as to if you wish to profile or not. You kind of have to go all in, or not at all. There is no real in between on the issue if you ask me.

Being frank and discussing issues "head-on" is a fantastic way to combat things... but it can lead to a serious loss of freedom if you are targeted.
.... by the same token ....
Being PC and addressing everything as one, is a fantastic way to not subject individuals unequally... but can lead to a serious loss of efficiency.

Serving the public, and serving a corporation that pays you... are two different animals! At work profiling is a means to an end and is done on an ongoing basis.

Originally Posted by earcutter

America

One opinion...

Thanks, interesting article, not too hysterical. Although the author does contradict himself at times. He states that "Gun control will not stop the mad...", but then goes on to say that if the Assault Weapons Ban of 94-04 had still been in effect, "fewer might have died in Denver"... This is false conjecture on his part.

The AWB did prohibit the sale of hi-cap mags and assault rifles - those manufactured after 1994! There were still plenty of "pre-ban" hi-cap mags and assault rifles that were legal to possess and available for sale, albeit at much higher price points.

In last year's horrendous shooting in Norway, 69 dead and dozens injured, the killer used a Ruger Mini 14, a weapon that was never affected by the AWB here in the US. Two school shootings in Finland 07/08 were both carried out with .22 cal pistols, in Germany 2009 the killer used a standard 9mm, and patiently reloaded his mags when he ran out.

I for one doubt that fewer people would have been killed or injured if Holmes had been using a Glock or a Ruger w. a 17 or 20rd. mag...

Here's the opinion of a rather experienced "BurnedOutLEO" on some of the types of criminals that encourage gun carry and use in the U.S.; and those people are a big reason why more and more states have went with carry licenses/permits. The best part might be the tactics of defense that work against them. For those who are not very street-wise it can be a real eye-opener, or even save some medical bills later. This is a moderately long read, but may be worth the time. If you don't live (or go) somewhere where you might be robbed while out of your home, the link's info is strictly academic.

Dave

Being too PC can just drive the bigots underground and I would rather plainly see them for who they are. Ignoring stats gathered in an unbiased manner just to be PC is just wrong headed as is deliberately not gathering certain stats just to be PC. I did not mean that the Term "professional" meant profiling but rather it means never to be angry and ruffle the waters when in fact they need ruffling at times. Never had a supervisor position but I was sick and tired of my bosses not being able to remedy an ongoing problem with another company that I had to deal with on a continuous basis. All that because they were all running around being "professional" and by doing so were ineffectual in remedying the problem. No sense being nice after a certain point. Being "professional" is being corporate PC.

If stats point to a certain subset in the population as causing more than the average share of trouble that may be profiling in the broadest sense of the word but it does not mean you tar everyone in that subset with the same brush. It ideally means that more effort to correct a problem should be focused there. Unfortunately the bigots use these types of stats to justify their own unfounded prejudices to the whole subset indiscriminately and the backlash to that is to be too PC. Again there is no healthy middle ground.

Bob