What would you guess is the cause of the discrepancy between Canada and the U.S.? It’s probably the closest society in most ways to make a comparison.
I lived in Canada for about 2 years, but it would still be all guesses. I think part of it is Canada doesn’t have as much poverty as the US (it doesn’t have the concentrations of wealth that the US does either). It doesn’t have the population densities and pressures either. They have a diverse population, but it’s not a poverty entrenched minority population similar to ours…my impression of most non-white Canadians were they were pretty well off, well educated and urbane, though obviously I didn’t see a representative sample living in Ottawa and venturing to the capital a few times.
My WAG though comes back to population density…Canada is a huge country with very few people in it relative to it’s size. It’s also more a select population, if that’s the right word, than the US population. They seem to have fewer hang ups about stuff and so have fewer issues and problems. They have an easier, I suppose, history…and they weren’t formed in the crucible of fire and blood that was our revolution, with a longer history of slavery and systemic prejudice against blacks stemming from that longer slavery history, as well as the additional pressures and issues from our Civil War.
Canada is just a really nice country, IMHO, and one that I’ve seriously considered retiring too. It’s like yet vastly unlike the US, as one can see just on this one vertical issue. What are your thoughts? IIRC, you are from the UK, so might have some insights into this. Part of it I think is that Canada was more associated with you guys longer and have similar attitudes and preconceptions and outlooks, and they kind of left the empire under better and more congenial circumstances.
-
What state do you live in where there are no age limits on guns?
-
Why would a 26 year old man not be allowed to own guns? As mentioned above, a 26 year old can participate in every other “adult” activity. What age would you prefer? 30? 40? 50? What evidence are you basing this on?
-
If a man is allowed to own one gun, why would he not be allowed to own 17 guns? Name one mass shooting in which the shooter carried and employed all 17 guns. Just one. What, then, is the right number? What is “too many?” What are you basing this number on?
-
Should just anyone be allowed to own an assault rifle? Of course not. Criminals, children, and mentally unsound are all restricted from owning firearms. What state do you live in where literally anyone can own a gun?
Is there truth to the link between gun violence and psychotropic drugs?
Actually, I’m Canadian. Just moved down to Houston though a couple months ago.
While I think availability of guns makes a difference, just like if cyanide was available OTC, I agree it’s not the major issue. My bet would be the stronger social safety net, which would includes universal healthcare most significantly, as probably the biggest difference in making suicide a less likely choice in Canada.
Eta: if we are just looking at homicides, I can’t readily agree at mere density. That would mean similarly dense Canadian cities would have similar homicide rates to American ones. I don’t believe that’s the case.
For you to know this, it means you never transferred your gun to another entity. Or, if you did, you got rock solid assurance from the trusted person you transferred the gun to that he or she would not transfer it to anyone else.
If I correctly read the implication of your post, I applaud you. I do hope your will is set up so that your guns can’t be used to kill after your death.
What about the ones I own, antiques and military surplus, that might have already been used to kill? Should I be having the fantods over those?
Some nice sentiments there, and some of it I think is correct. By all means, come on over when you retire, or before. 
But as someone already mentioned, the high population density argument doesn’t wash. Canada has high population densities in various major urban areas – as I mentioned elsewhere, almost 7 million in the GTHA alone. Gun crime hasn’t followed. Nowhere even remotely close to what the US experiences.
Various socioeconomic factors explain the lower rate of homicide and violence in Canada. However, the rate of gun violence and gun deaths is much lower by many multiples. We’ve covered the numbers and cites over and over in other threads, and it seems to me to be impossible to deny that gun control is a significant factor in minimizing gun fatalities, not just in Canada, but in every freaking country in the first world.
Canada, like many nations, started implementing meaningful gun restrictions in the 30s and ramped them up several times, most notably in the 70s. What may be hard for Americans to fathom is the cultural difference that resulted. I posted pictures before (in another thread, I think) of 2nd Amendment activists walking down the street with assault rifles slung over their shoulders, of some yahoo in a fast-food restaurant with a big handgun on his hip. Any of those activities in Canada aren’t just illegal, they’re serious criminal offenses. They’ll result in a criminal record and probably jail time. Guns aren’t banned – they’re just restricted and licensed and above all, not regarded as toys or fetishes, but as dangerous and restricted weapons. It’s really hard to imagine anyone not getting the fact that this leads to a completely different attitude to guns, to their numbers and availability, to their social acceptability, and ultimately to a much, much lower number of people getting shot with them.
I’m not the person who went on a racial rant. That would be you. And now you’re calling me names.
Wah.
How would you see it applied? The violence in our cities goes beyond mental healthcare. We have extremely high rates of children dropping out of school. There is no magic arch they can walk through and a mental healtlh alarm goes off and they’re put back on track. There are other issues at play. It doesn’t take much for a teenager to spin completely out of control.
The recent shooter was a known problem-child who went to a special school. At some point he’s out on his own and it’s difficult to incarcerate someone like that.
Maybe he shouldn’t have had a gun.
But instead he had many.
Maybe the Newton shooter shouldn’t have had a gun (but he had many). Maybe the Virginia Tech shooter shouldn’t have had a gun (but he had many).
Your post is a really awesome example of just totally not getting it. The last thing we should strive to do with the mentally ill is incarcerate them. This harks back to the 19th century “lunatic asylums” where it was fashionable to lock 'em up and chain 'em up for good measure.
What civilized countries strive to do is help and treat their sick and disadvantaged as best we can. But we don’t give them access to guns. In virtually every country in the civilized world this is possible.
In the US, where every person and quite possibly their dog and cat can personally own an entire arsenal of guns, this is not possible. Do you get it now? No, I’m sure you don’t.
Once my guns are transferred to another person, they are by definition no longer “my guns.”
Another problem the anti-gun crowd can’t seem to grasp: One person cannot and should not be held responsible for a crime someone else commits.
You keep saying this as if it has weight, but it’s childish. As a principle, it cannot stand even a moment’s contemplation when applied to a society. We accept all manner of restrictions on our behavior as a function of living in a society.
For instance, my 14 year old has never had a traffic accident. It’s not fair that he is not legally allowed to drive! He has never broken any laws due to intoxication. Why can’t he drink?
I’ve never crashed a plane. There shouldn’t be any restriction on my liberty to take a plane up for a spin whenever I like.
I bet I could find a simple treatment for ebola. Why can’t I just order up a sample? I’ve never caused an outbreak.
I’d like to sell people ebola. I’ve never violated any laws about selling things. Why are my business rights restricted?
I know my burgers would sell like hotcakes! I’ve never broken any laws. Why can’t I just turn my garage into a restaurant?
And so on and so forth.
The father of the Ohio shooter recently claimed that his son wouldn’t have been able to commit the crime if it weren’t for all those guns. Maybe we should start with the bigger problem, which is the fact that he raised a sadistic, soulless abomination. I’m much more concerned about that part.
So are you proposing some sort of parenting legislation? That’s more comfortable to you than gun legislation? I guess there’s no Constitutional right on raising your kids how you want…
Please tell us exactly what you know about how he was raised.
Empirical evidence (I know, we don’t really like that around here) illustrates that callous-unemotional traits are highly heritable. Somewhere around 75% of the variance is attributable to genetic factors, and almost none to shared environment. The remainder is due to environmental factors unique to the individual.
So, really your concern is about the genetic factors contributed by the dad and mom. Seems lke the logical step is to prevent these types of folks from having children in the first place.
At least, that makes more sense than reconsidering how easy it is for them to get firearms. THAT would unfairly infringe on their rights!
By the way, which is the Ohio shooter? I lose track, since there are so very, very many of these incidents these days.
Well, we know that he was raised by a gun nut mother whose views are indistinguishable from our resident gun lovers. She stockpiled, she took him shooting, she took pride in his gun knowledge.
Are these the parenting behaviors that raised a soulless monster?