“Still want that open border?” I actually said I don’t want an open border. In fact, if you remember, it’s the United States that has made the border as restrictive as it is today (which is more restrictive than it was before 9/11.) This is a “hypothetical discussion”, I’m not sure any Americans here want a fully open border with Canada.
I want us to be on the same page here. When I said Canada does not have any massive criminal operations, I was talking about Mexican cartel-like organizations. The United States has nothing like that either, and we do let any of our citizens (just about) own firearms. So I find it very unlikely that the reason Canada doesn’t have massive criminal organizations that essentially openly war with your military is because of your gun control laws, because America has very different gun control laws than Canada and we don’t have anything like Mexican cartels here, either.
I guess I’m still really failing to follow your point. If what you’re saying is true, and the only thing stopping Canadians bent on destruction from being armed to the teeth is your gun control laws then why aren’t more of these dangerous Canadians buying black market guns or smuggling guns in from the U.S.?
I find it very strange from a Canadian, that you basically distrust your countrymen so much you think that your country would turn into Mexico if there was an open border because you’d suddenly be inundated with guns, and the presence of those guns would instantly make Canadians a more violent people. That just doesn’t sound likely to me at all.
If there are really so many bad people in Canada, bad enough to commit gun crimes, I question what would stop such bad people from buying black market guns or just driving south and buying a gun at a gun show or gun store and driving back across the border (knowing the % chance of being caught is low.)
Thanks for clarifying that, Martin. I think we can agree on your point–we have no Mexican cartel-like organizations, nor are we likely to, even if the border was fully open.
I think the difference lies in Canadians’ attitudes towards firearms. There are many Canadians who would like to see all guns made illegal, except for police and the military. But here’s the kicker: there are also many Canadians–usually gun owners themselves–to whom guns are not weapons. They are sporting goods, used for hunting and target shooting. In rural areas, they may be used to defend livestock from predators; but generally speaking, to Canadian gun owners, a gun is used recreationally; and never to attack anybody or defend oneself.
Contrast this with what seems to be the prevalent attitude in the US: I need a gun to defend myself/my home/my family; with recreational and sporting purposes somewhere behind that. In honesty, we have a few folks who think that way here, but one of the most effective ways I’ve heard of to make sure that you will never be allowed to own a firearm is to tell the authorities that you need it for self-defense. This may be at total odds with your experience in the US, but it’s the way things are here. To us legal and responsible gun owners in Canada, a gun is neither an offensive nor a defensive weapon.
I think what is worrying elbows about your assertion (and elbows, if I’m wrong, please correct me), is that if there was an open border, then Canadians would adopt the American attitude towards firearms, and we’d have a bunch of people obtaining firearms for self-defense, without observing the necessary legalities. There would be no checks to ensure safe storage, no checks to ensure that the prospective owner knew how the firearm worked, and no guarantees that children would be unable to get at a fully-loaded firearm. Who knows what else might happen? It would be a way to keep those pesky religious people off your doorstep, that’s for sure. And little Johnny could take care of the schoolyard bully permanently. Note that I’m not saying that these things will happen, but they are the fear that keeps our controls such as they are.
Beyond that though, there are always those who, given the chance, might commit more, and more violent, crimes than they already do. Parking lot bar fights aren’t uncommon hereabouts; and it’s usually two guys beating each other up over some perceived slight. Now, if one of those guys had a gun in his pickup truck–purely for self-defense, of course–we might not have two guys when the police break up the fight. We’d have one guy and a corpse. Or somebody might seize the opportunity to knock over a liquor store, because now they have the firepower, where before they didn’t. Again, these are the fears, not necessarily the reality; but we’re not willing to test what the reality might be.
Don’t get me wrong–it’s not all roses and sunshine. We’ve had Columbine-like school shootings, and we’ve had gang wars where innocent kids get caught in the crossfire. I once watched (carefully) a bunch of Russian gangsters have a shootout in the parking lot of my apartment building, years ago. But we’d like to keep these and similar events, to a minimum. Hence, the controls we have.
Those who really want black-market firearms get them. Not always easily or inexpensively, but they get them. Thing is, it still isn’t as easy as walking into a store and buying a candy bar; and I’d guess that the intricacies involved in getting a black-market gun are (ironically) as onerous as they are in getting a legal one. Except in the former case, there is no paper trail, no registration, no records of any kind–which is how the purchaser wants it, of course. But it would seem to me that if you don’t have the right connections or know the right words to say, you’re still not going to get what you want.
In short, we’re not worried about Mexican drug cartel-like behaviour; but I’d suggest that we are worried about American-like behaviour. As I said above, firearms are not seen as weapons up here, they are never to be used for self-defense, and they are only to be used for recreational and sporting purposes. If there was an open border, then I can see where a concern would arise that we would become more like Americans in our regard to firearms and their uses.
Spoons I’ll be honest that was a decent post that essentially said absolutely nothing. You’re essentially positing that the difference between a normal 60 second border stop as we have now for most people who go into Canada and a 0 second border stop in a truly open border would totally change Canadian society. I just find that ludicrous. You’re not positing a material flow of arms but a behavioral shift in Canadian society, that is only prevented by brief, typically 60 second or less border stops.
Do you not think that sounds a bit…unlikely?
Or let me phrase it this way:
Is Canadian society so weak that all it would take to be totally altered is removing a few border guards that typically do cursory, sub-60 second, stop and greets of incoming Americans?
I don’t think that’s necessarily his personal opinion, but rather what he believes would be many Canadians’ fear. I don’t see either why easier access to guns would change Canadians’ attitude to them so drastically. But it’s true that many Canadians fear they could lose their identity if the barriers between both countries are weakened. This is an expression of this fear.
So surrender, already. C’mon, we’re two countries as ain’t gettin’ any younger. Your nights are cold and lonely up there . . . Everybody we know thinks we should . . . Well, 'cept for Gramma Britannia, but she’ll adjust . . .
Well, I’ll admit I got a chuckle out of your reply here to it. Yes, I was rather long-winded about it, wasn’t I? Anyway, thanks, Martin; I needed a smile.
If the issue was limited to just firearms, then yes; such a severe behavioral shift is unlikely. I still maintain, though, that there would be some sort of behavioral shift as regards firearms, and it may not be for the better. Like I said, we’re not willing to test it.
But firearms are not the only thing that the current border slows down. Drugs, smuggled cigarettes, cheap booze, all manner of goods, and immigrants–yes, Canada is an immigrant destination for both Americans and others who want to come here through the USA. Returning Canadians who have purchased goods abroad that exceed their duty-free allowance and must pay tax on their purchases. And, of course, visiting Americans who have guns in their cars. These, and other things, are what we look for at the border.
The US is concerned about some of these–drugs, for example–but it is not so concerned about some of the others. It is concerned about some things that Canada doesn’t have to worry so much about: a land border with a comparatively poorer nation, and people who are looking to wreak terror in the US in the name of a religion (though in fairness, we have had at least one group planning an attempt, cite). In short, your border concerns are not necessarily the same as our border concerns.
But one of our border concerns happens to be guns. No concern to you, but one of many concerns to us. You’re right: we’re unlikely to form Mexican-like drug cartels, or start shooting Jehovah’s Witnesses because they show up on our doorstep. But there would likely be a shift in attitude towards firearms, and that just happens to be one of the number of things that would worry many of us about an open border.
It’s easy to keep saying the same thing over and over again, but you’ve offered no compelling reason that an open border would change the way Canadians think.
I can’t think like a Canadian, but I can think like an American. I know that regardless of what came from the North in a hypothetical open border, it would not change my opinion on a single political issue.
Anyway, Americans are the ones who want tighter border controls, not Canadians. We are the ones who instituted passport requirements (you guys only instituted the same in response to our actions), because Canada for all its amazing border controls wasn’t taking them very seriously in regards to keeping out Islamic terrorists. A bit of hyperbole? Maybe, but the fact is after 9/11 America isn’t willing to let the Canadians be responsible for our homeland security, and that is the truth of the situation in any hypothetical open border situation with Canada, it essentially means American borders are only as secure as Canadian borders.
Canada is a fine country, but it’s also a country whose military ran out of ammunition in recent years and who essentially embraces and houses Islamic extremists. That isn’t a country I want an open border with, so don’t be daft and act like Canadian concerns are why we don’t have an open border. We’d still be going back and forth without passports if not for American shift in policy.
What do we actually mean by, “open borders” does that just mean unmanned border controls or does it mean unlimited two-way immigration.
I can guarantee you that neither country would want unlimited two-way immigration. For one, Canada is a very refugee friendly country, and I have serious concerns about the political ideology of many of those refugees. I worry about them wanting to immigrate to America solely to cause trouble.
I also worry about people from the third world using Canada as an easy means to sneak into the United States.
I don’t have any 2011 statistics on immigration, but in 2007 10,000 Americans were accepted as immigrants to Canada while 23,000 Canadians were accepted as immigrants to America, so calling Canada an “immigrant destination” for Americans is only about half as true as the converse.
Can you offer cites for each of these assertions, please?
“I can’t think like a Canadian, but I can think like an American,” were your words, and it works both ways. I can’t think like an American, but I do know that Canadian concerns–as silly and as frivolous as they may seem to you–are why the border is the way it is, from the Canadian point-of-view. Hypnagogic Jerk makes a good point when he mentions our sovereignty–while various among us would welcome the chance to get cheap gas, booze, and smokes from a daytrip south; we’re not prepared to compromise on elements of national policy: multiculturalism, bilingualism, single-payer health care, trade with Cuba, and so on. This is the worry we have–that we’d be buried by Americans who feel that Canada is simply “America Junior,” and things are the same here as there. And if they’re not, then they should be changed.
No stupid, they’re brown and poor. If they were brown and rich like the Kuwaitis or something that would be a different story.
On the plus side, if we made each of your provinces a state (which, lets face it, is where this will end up), you would pretty much get to pick our president because the rest of the country is so divided, you would be the Anthony Kennedy of the electoral college. Our policies would look a lot more like yours than the other way around.
While your last sentence is true, I have to admit - as a person on the northern side of the border - that I really can’t understand the predictive side of your claim, either. You’ve really not explained why Canadians’ attitude towards owning firearms would change. You haven’t even tried to make an argument, in fact, you’re just asserting it to be the case without explaining why.
I’m equally confused as to how things like “multiculturalism, bilingualism, single-payer health care” would affected. What the hell does multiculturalism have to do with it? Yu’re seriously concerned about there being a challenge to multiculturalism - from, I might add, people coming from one of the most multicultural countries in the world - crossing the border to visit Niagara Falls? Are you kidding?
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Canada is a fine country, but it’s also a country whose military ran out of ammunition in recent years and who essentially embraces and houses Islamic extremists.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that it is the time of the stop (60 seconds vs 0 seconds) that prevents someone from taking contraband across the border. Rather it is the reasonable fear that you very well may be caught with the contraband, and suffer a penalty. Like jail time. After all, the purpose of the border stop is to catch and penalize those who are bringing contraband across the border.
The thinking then is that if you remove this potential (very serious) penalty, then the behaviour that you don’t want (ie having total and unfettered access to handguns for example)
Canadians have no “right to bear arms”. We restrict access to handguns. The border controls as they exist have the effect of restricting movement of handguns across the border, because there is a substantial penalty if you are caught. No, it does not eliminate the illegal transport of handguns across the border, because there are criminals who will take the risk. In the same way, any law will not completely eliminate crime, but that does not mean we just toss the law away.
Yeah, it sure sounds like a paranoid fantasy, doesn’t it? I remember the rumours immedaitely post 9/11 that said all (or most) of the hijackers entered the U.S. through Canada, and though none of them did, I have to wonder just how persistent beliefs like this are. Heck, John McCain said it as late as 2009, years after it had been thoroughly debunked.
I’m very unconcerned about American guns flooding into Canada. Fact is, we have guns. We have a lot of guns. What we don’t is this pervasive fear of each other and outsiders. We will react strongly to someone who firebombs a synagogue. We will not react strongly to someone who wants to build an Islamic community center with (GASP!) a miniature mosque in it a few blocks from a historical site.
And nobody cares what religion the Prime Minister is. I think historically about half were Protestants and half Catholics. What’s the religion of the current guy? Fuck, I dunno. It didn’t come up during the campaign.
Seriously, America… you worry about the wrong fucking things.
That’s a fair question, Rick. Why would we change our attitude?
Honestly, I don’t know. Perhaps, as a shooter and gun owner myself, I run into a number of people who wish they could blow away those @#$% who cross their lawns without permission. They wonder why I do not. Of course, it is totally illegal for me to do so; and so the best I can muster is a baseball bat–something I never had to use here in Alberta; but that I did use to good effect in Ontario.
Rick, think about the people you know. Do you know any who would just love to have a gun to back them up in an argument? I knew a few. They went to work for Brinks. They got to carry guns. These were the fellows who wanted to kick ass and take names when we were at high school. They may have been my friends, but IMHO; they were the least qualified to handle firearms. They ended up being armed as Brinks guards. I am unsure how I should feel about this.
I guess my point, Rick, is this: I maintain that legal Canadian gun owners will not use their firearms in self-defense. This is at odds with our American friends, who seem to be able to draw down on trespassers with impunity, thanks to the Second Amendment. You and I call police, while our American friends blow the Girl Scouts selling cookies away–the Constitution says they can, after all.
Until our OP defines exactly what he means, this question is up in the air. An American daytripper will not upset our health care system (he or she will simply have to pay for care given, should an injury occur).
But I would suggest that multiculturalism is the hot button. It is my impression that Canada allows and encourages immigrants to maintain their culture; while the United States encourages immigrants to be American. We are happy to have, say, Jamaicans celebrate Caribana; but where do Americans do the same? They seem to want (note my use of the verb “seem”) everybody in the USA to be All American All the Time. In other words, there is no multiculturalism in the USA if everybody is expected to be American. At least, not according to our definition of the term.
Yep, according the Supreme Court, “Possession and use of firearms is a heavily regulated privilege” which is exactly how the majority of Canadians view this issue.
The OP talks about the Schengen agreement, which eliminated border controls between countries in the Schengen zone, but as far as I know is separate from the agreement allowing EU citizens to live and work in any EU country. Though we can argue both possibilities I guess.
Well he’s Protestant, of course. And it’s not true that it didn’t come up during the electoral campaign: there’s a widespread fear that Harper’s government will allow the Christian (American-style Evangelical Protestant) right to influence public policy in Canada. Despite the wishes of some backbencher MPs, it probably won’t happen, at least not to the level feared, but it’s not true that religion isn’t an political issue in Canada.
What is true is that the prime minister doesn’t have to constantly appeal to God to satisfy a section of voters who require that. It would be seen as “American” and would cause a backlash. Distinguishing themselves from Americans is of major import to Canadians.
And you think that if those people have easier access to guns, they will use them irresponsibly? It’s possible: gun crime is higher where guns are easier to obtain. But I suggest that most of them aren’t serious about shooting people who walk across their lawns.
I do appreciate your posts about Canada’s gun culture, though. It’s interesting to see that even in Alberta, which is generally seen as Canada’s most “American” province, where gun ownership is high and where crime and the need for punishment seem to be important issues in people’s minds, people still see guns as sporting goods and not as something to carry on you to defend yourself, your house and your family. I’ll suggest that establishing further links with the United States is unlikely to change that.
Is it the second amendment that allows Americans to use deadly force to protect their homes? I thought the second amendment was only about not infringing citizens’ right to bear arms. What they’re allowed to do with these arms is something else.
You’re probably aware that I think “Canadian multiculturalism” is not nearly as unique a concept as some Canadians think it is. It’s in large part a device intended for Canadians to view themselves as distinct from Americans. “Americans are a ‘melting pot’ and require everybody to adopt American culture, while in Canada we respect and value the cultures of our ethnic communities.” But the truth is that the US has many minority communities with their own very distinct culture (think of African Americans, and of Hispanics). Furthermore, while Canadians may enjoy “displays of ethnicness”, for lack of a better word – cultural festivals like Caribana, for example – there’s no way they’d let cultural communities live in their own bubbles apart from the rest of the country. Especially not when it conflicts with the values of the country. If there were a Jamaican enclave in Toronto where homosexuals were persecuted – as I understand is common in Jamaica – I guarantee Canadians would not stand for it.
And I’m sure we can find plenty of “displays of ethnicness” in the US as well. If there’s a country where I’d expect to find pretty much everything I can think of, it’s the US. Caribana seems to be the specific name for the Jamaican festival in Toronto, but Googling a bit I’ve found a Jamaican Jerk Festival in Sunrise, Florida. The point is, what Canadians think of as the difference between “Canadian multiculturalism” and “American melting pot” is simplistic at best.
I realise that this post doesn’t necessarily exactly reflect your own views, but describes what you know many Canadians would say when asked for the differences between Canada and the US.
