How others see America and the Virginia shootings.

I could not get it loud enough for me to hear or understand. Problems with loudness and also the way it was spoken in louder and quieter volumes. Tried different ways but nothing real good so I finally just shut it off. Probably really a good talk.
 
My Friend, Canadian Gun-Owner

Since the OP is about non-American thoughts on the subject, I tell this. I "met" a young guy on a gun forum, of all places, couple of years ago. He was born in, and lived in, Saskatchewan, not very far from the border. A skilled welder, he was employed by a Power Plant, around 30 or so, wife and small child. His user name was "Tigger", short for user of Tungsten Inert Gas (welding).

Tigger was an avid shotgunner, had a 10 gauge scattergun with which he competed in skeet shooting. Here's how he told the story, be it true, trumped-up, or not, perhaps some of our Canadian members can add information.

To leave the house with the shotgun, he had to inform the local Sheriff (if that is the right name) in advance, describe exactly when and where and why he was toting it, and when he would be returning home with it. So closely observed was this, that if he had to stop enroute, say, to buy gasoline, he had to inform of that in advance of leaving. The gun was permitted by license, in some fashion. As I recall it, handguns were completely disallowed.

He also reloaded his own shotshells for the arm, and always found it difficult to obtain "hulls", as the empty shotgun shells are vernacularly called. I asked him about the possibility of my simply ordering a quantity, empty shells being shippable here by any means, and mailing them to him. Could we both be jailed for that? He was uncertain of the possible consequences, but had a "better" idea. His Mother lived in North Dakota, close to the border. He suggested I mail them to her, and he would pick them up the next time he visited her. Evidently, he had no qualms whatsoever about transporting the shells across the border. He got his goods and was very pleased.

I should like to ask what is thought here on the board of the hypothetical situation where Tigger for whatever reason, "lost it", and took that mini-cannon out and committed crime with it? The licensing and control could not stop that event. imp
 

To leave the house with the shotgun, he had to inform the local Sheriff (if that is the right name) in advance, describe exactly when and where and why he was toting it, and when he would be returning home with it. So closely observed was this, that if he had to stop enroute, say, to buy gasoline, he had to inform of that in advance of leaving.

I find that rather hard to believe.
 
Sounds more like someone trying to attain goods illegally and in affect, any way you look at it sounds like a crime and the shipper would be an accessory to the illegal act. No way in my right mind would I partake.
 
But back on topic. I visit several UK based sites daily and how do they see Americka? As Wild West City...every man, woman and child with a gun. The gun violence we have doesn't exist in other countries. There are countries where citizens are armed. Israel for instance, but armed for protection, not so they can go taking out a church or movie theater. Then there are other countries where it's so strict you need official government permission plus hoops of red tape to own even one firearm. Will we ever find a happy medium? Not in our lifetime I fear.
 
Sounds more like someone trying to attain goods illegally and in affect, any way you look at it sounds like a crime and the shipper would be an accessory to the illegal act. No way in my right mind would I partake.

Perfect example of the existing lack of understanding. A piece of paper, cardboard, basically, rolled up into a cigar-sized cylinder and glued thusly, with a thin cylindrical base crimped to one end. This item represents a crime in the making? Better not kill a fly with a rolled-up newspaper, use of a dangerous weapon, no? imp
 
Countries which share a common border, language, some similarities in heritage and lifestyle, often maintain distinct differences in certain cultural mores. Canadians for the most part feel differently about the gun/violence question than many pro gun Americans. In our minds, speculation around rolled up newspapers in this manner is disrespectful of our values. Perhaps humour was intended here, if so it fell short.
 
Perfect example of the existing lack of understanding. A piece of paper, cardboard, basically, rolled up into a cigar-sized cylinder and glued thusly, with a thin cylindrical base crimped to one end. This item represents a crime in the making? Better not kill a fly with a rolled-up newspaper, use of a dangerous weapon, no? imp

Me no speak gun language, but you were the one making it sound like explosives or something unattainable by legal means in the guys local. And even if it's bubble gum if it's illegal over the border there and you are importing it to someone you are still committing a crime, regardless of its harmless nature so in fact the characteristics of the item don't really matter you'd still be aiding a smuggler. :D The import of illegal goods is the crime I was referring to, not the what use of goods were for, that would just be a benefit for the judge to increase the sentence had there been one if the paper took someone's eye out. :playful: .
 
Countries which share a common border, language, some similarities in heritage and lifestyle, often maintain distinct differences in certain cultural mores. Canadians for the most part feel differently about the gun/violence question than many pro gun Americans. In our minds, speculation around rolled up newspapers in this manner is disrespectful of our values. Perhaps humour was intended here, if so it fell short.

Sorry! April's remark was, I thought, made by a Floridian, not Canadian. imp
 
Me no speak gun language, but you were the one making it sound like explosives or something unattainable by legal means in the guys local. And even if it's bubble gum if it's illegal over the border there and you are importing it to someone you are still committing a crime, regardless of its harmless nature so in fact the characteristics of the item don't really matter you'd still be aiding a smuggler. :D The import of illegal goods is the crime I was referring to, not the what use of goods were for, that would just be a benefit for the judge to increase the sentence had there been one if the paper took someone's eye out. :playful: .

Okay, Okay! I make amends for sounding as though illegal activity was involved. He had assured me the hulls were acceptable in possession as well as for sale in Canada legally. The problem was the size of his shotgun: 10 gauge is a large and not often encountered gauge, and thus no dealers stocked them up there. His concern was for the possibility of Canadian Mail regulations frowning upon shipment of paper shells. U.S. regulation has not gone so far as to declare illegal, pieces of paper in the mail. imp
 
But back on topic. I visit several UK based sites daily and how do they see Americka? As Wild West City...every man, woman and child with a gun. The gun violence we have doesn't exist in other countries. There are countries where citizens are armed. Israel for instance, but armed for protection, not so they can go taking out a church or movie theater. Then there are other countries where it's so strict you need official government permission plus hoops of red tape to own even one firearm. Will we ever find a happy medium? Not in our lifetime I fear.

I see us the same way. Gun crazy!
 
I hesitate to post this but this is a mirror that reveals how a lot of people not born in the USA think about current events in America.

This man is a comedian but he is being 100% serious in this segment of a BBC TV show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...-control-usa-virginia-shooting_n_8058288.html
Sorry, your copy and paste would not open for me!
I find the recurring anti-Americanism, based on gun incidents, very hard to take!
So you don't like the place--stay away, move to another country, ignore news from the U.S. altogether!
Rehashing the same bias over and over again gets tiresome.
 
Murder Rates Compared

Susie, I am with you. If we discuss murder rates of all types, not focusing on firearms-related, the U. S. is nowhere near the top of the list. El Salvador, for example, has experienced over 800 murders this year, through August.

Out of 218 countries listed, United States ranks 110th. in murder rates. El Salvador ranks 5th. Australia ranks 185th. The rates per 100,000 population for each of the three are:

U.S. 4.7

El Salvador 41.2

Australia 1.1

See all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

imp
 
Sorry, your copy and paste would not open for me!
I find the recurring anti-Americanism, based on gun incidents, very hard to take!
So you don't like the place--stay away, move to another country, ignore news from the U.S. altogether!
Rehashing the same bias over and over again gets tiresome.

I must protest that I am not anti America. I have long seen much to admire in the American character.
I was particularly impressed when America stood alone against Iran when the rest of the world was holding back for fear of losing access to oil.
I reminded me of Gary Cooper in High Noon, looking for support and finding none but resolutely standing up for the right nevertheless.

However, as a friend of America, I do not hesitate to challenge my friends on an issue that I see as a running sore, but a sore that is treatable.

There are a few running sores over here that I wouldn't mind if our overseas friends decided to focus on. It might even help bring about change.

By the way, a strongly held opinion is not necessarily bias. It may just be a concern.

bias noun
inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
 
I think you hit a nerve DW.

Being anti guns does not make anyone anti America it only makes you anti guns.

I am against our current government's immigration policies..........does that make me anti Australian? I wish other countries would criticise us and spotlight the failures in our system.
 
Well, the New York Times is up for criticising Australia's asylum seeker policy.
This is an issue I would love to see given an airing on this forum.

New York Times attacks Prime Minister Tony Abbott over 'stop the boats' policy

September 4, 2015


Nicole Hasham Environment and immigration correspondent

1441322861324.jpg



Asylum seekers inside the compound on Nauru. Photo: Angela Wylie



The New York Times
has launched a blistering attack on the Abbott government's asylum seeker policies, suggesting they are "unconscionable" and urging European nations struggling with a tide of migrants not to follow suit. The media outlet singled out Prime Minister Tony Abbott in an editorial on Thursday that indicates Australia's reputation is suffering in the eyes of some international observers under the government's hardline efforts to "stop the boats".

1441322861519.jpg

Immigration detention camp on Nauru. Photo: Getty Images

It described Mr Abbott's policies as "inhumane, of dubious legality and strikingly at odds with the country's tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and war".

It suggested asylum seekers who arrive in Australia's offshore detention network are forced into conditions "more hopeless and degrading than the ones that prompted them to flee". "Some European officials may be tempted to adopt the hard-line approach Australia has used to stem a similar tide of migrants. That would be unconscionable," the editorial said.

1441322861236.jpg

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton says Australia has 'a lot to be proud of'.

But a spokesman for Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said Australia "has a lot to be proud of", citing a dramatic reduction in the numbers of children in detention and an end to reported deaths at sea of asylum seekers headed to Australia. A Senate report into the Nauru detention facility this week concluded conditions were "not adequate, appropriate or safe" for asylum seekers, and called for children to be immediately released.

The Times editorial said the report revealed a "purgatory where children are sexually abused, guards give detainees marijuana in exchange for sex and some asylum seekers are so desperate that they stitch their lips shut in an act of protest".

But instead of stopping the abuses, the Australian government has "sought to hide them from the world".

It criticised the Border Force Act, which threatens employees at detention camps with two years in prison if they disclose conditions inside. It also criticised Nauru for raising the cost of journalists' visas from $200 to about $8000.
Fairfax Media revealed in June Australian border protection officials allegedly paid people smugglers to return asylum seekers intercepted north of Australia en route to New Zealand.

Indonesian officials have been investigating claims that crew members were paid $5000 each. The Times editorial said if true, the payments represented "a violation of international laws".

In April Mr Abbott suggested European nations must "stop the boats" to prevent people dying at sea, adding "that's why it is so urgent that the countries of Europe adopt very strong policies that will end the people smuggling trade across the Mediterranean".

The Times said while some European leaders seem inclined to take his advice and aggressively intercept boats, they should resist the urge. "It is inexcusable that some [refugees and economic migrants] find themselves today in situations that are more hopeless and degrading than the ones that prompted them to flee," it said.
Mr Dutton's spokesman said the migrant situation in Europe was "a human tragedy" and "Australia has a lot to be proud of".

There had not been a reported death at sea since Operation Sovereign Borders began "while 1200 people lost their lives on risky journeys to Australia under Labor governments who failed to secure our borders", the spokesman said. Under Labor there were 2000 children in detention while the Coalition had reduced this to about 100 "and is assiduously working to lower that number".

"By returning integrity to our borders we have been able to restore the integrity of our humanitarian intake of refugees from around the world to be the most generous resettlement nation in the world on a per capita basis," he said.

It is not the first time The New York Times has taken aim at the Australia's hardline border security stance. Last year it said the "boat people" issue was being exploited by Australian politicians of all sides in a way that "does Australia's otherwise commendable record on refugees no good".


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ats-policy-20150903-gjer14.html#ixzz3kj9vpgB8
 
Well, the New York Times is up for criticising Australia's asylum seeker policy.
This is an issue I would love to see given an airing on this forum.

It seems I've seen several stories of boats being turned away for a year or two. Unbridled unchecked immigration is problem in any country and can affect the dynamics of what goes out on in public out on the economy. I don't want to say gentrified but it seems at times that Aussies want a bit of very contrived if not controlled society. They're not the only ones either.
 
I must protest that I am not anti America. I have long seen much to admire in the American character.
I was particularly impressed when America stood alone against Iran when the rest of the world was holding back for fear of losing access to oil.
I reminded me of Gary Cooper in High Noon, looking for support and finding none but resolutely standing up for the right nevertheless.

However, as a friend of America, I do not hesitate to challenge my friends on an issue that I see as a running sore, but a sore that is treatable.

There are a few running sores over here that I wouldn't mind if our overseas friends decided to focus on. It might even help bring about change.

By the way, a strongly held opinion is not necessarily bias. It may just be a concern.
Lesson learned, D.W.!
I give up, as I'm no match for your very "high IQ"!
 
As a Canadian, America is my next door neighbour. Although I may disagree with the gun culture I see as so prevalent a part of their society, I refuse to buy into the view that makes me anti American. I have strong principals around some issues. I have frequently criticised aspects of my own gov't/culture which I believe are inappropriate and need to be addressed. This does not mean I am anti Canadian either. It means I care enough to want to work for change. Isn't that the true meaning of patriotism?
 

  • Like
Reactions: imp

Back
Top