Ridiculous, eh?
Apparently, the gun problem in Canada is (much like everything else in the world that isn’t quite working out the way people want it) America’s fault:
The roots of Canada’s gun problems are in the United States, and an NDP government would lobby the Americans for better gun control south of the border to improve things in this country, Jack Layton said Thursday.
“What we are focusing on is the increasing evidence that the biggest problem is illegal guns coming in from the U.S.,” Layton told reporters. “We’re proposing going across the border to the U.S. and actively engaging in lobbying to have gun-control laws in the U.S. strengthened.”
You read that right. Canadians plan on lobbying US politicians to increase gun control here in the states.
June 4th, 2004 at 11:19 am
I’m pretty sure that is patently and unambigously illegal under US law. Might even be an act of war.
June 4th, 2004 at 11:48 am
Phelps:
Oh, calm down.
Uncle:
Canadians plan on lobbying US politicians to increase gun control here in the states.
Why wouldn’t they? The US has repeatedly strong-armed the Canadian government on issues like marijuana decriminalization. If we’re blaming a part of our drug problem on them, why shouldn’t they blame part of their gun problem on us?
June 4th, 2004 at 12:01 pm
There’s an election going on in Canada and there is no better way to whip up the electorate than bashing America. It’s a time-honoured tradition in Canada.
Having said that, about half of all gun crime in Canada is committed using guns obtained in the United States.
June 4th, 2004 at 2:29 pm
So what if the guns are illegally coming from the US? It just goes to show that criminals have no problem breaking the law to get guns with which to commit their crimes. They can’t buy them legally here anyway so they are obviously getting them from illegal sources here. Even if guns were banned in the US, the canucks would just have to go further south to Mexico. I’ll finish with a favorite line: “It’s time to put the America back in North America”
June 4th, 2004 at 4:36 pm
Why do I feel a “South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut” moment coming on?
June 4th, 2004 at 4:58 pm
OUGryphon:
So what if the guns are illegally coming from the US? It just goes to show that criminals have no problem breaking the law to get guns with which to commit their crimes.
You know, that particular line of thinking has never had much hold with me. The idea that “people are doing it anyway, so a law to making it illegal is useless” is a simplistic one at best.
Besides, parties lobby for (and against) stuff all the time. How is this any different? It’s like having a neighbor who’s making a lot of noise late at night — are you wrong for asking him to tone it down? You don’t own his land, but the things he’s doing ARE affecting you…
June 4th, 2004 at 6:54 pm
That’s not my line of argument at all and I’m yet again dumbfounded by your lack of critical thinking (and reading) skills. We aren’t talking about decriminalizing something that people are already doing. There are already US and Canadian laws making it illegal for a Canadian to buy a gun in the US and transport it back to Canada. My point was that criminals don’t give a damn about the laws that already exist so why make new ones that put an undue burden on law abiding citizens.
Your “unruly neighbor” metaphor is also without any merit because the US isn’t being unruly – we have laws against what their citizens are doing. Furthermore, we aren’t talking about some noise ordinance. Earth to tgirsch!!! They are lobbying to severly curtain or eliminate our second ammendment rights. The two aren’t remotely comparable.
June 6th, 2004 at 10:18 am
(human) Nature abhors a vacuum, so if there’s a demand, someone will step forward and fill it. In England, the guns come from eastern Europe and the Balkans, not exactly being “tossed over the fence”.
June 7th, 2004 at 1:10 pm
OUGryphon:
OK, we have laws. Are we doing a good job of enforcing them? The story says that Canada is lobbying us to “strengthen” our gun control laws. You obviously read “strengthen” to mean “make them more restrictive.” But it could just as easily mean “make them easier to enforce,” or just “enforce them more rigorously.” What he actually wants is this:
I guess I’m some kind of pinko commie or something, because that really doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to me.
As for the neighbor analogy, it still works, because “unruly” or “noisy” wasn’t a requirement. It could just be that you’re not doing anything for your curb appeal, and bringing down my value as a result. You’re not doing anything wrong, per se, but there’s stuff that you could be doing better, and it’s in my interests (based on proximity) to try to convince you of this.