You know who is coming to take your guns?

[Tom Sawyer]

What does that even _mean_ ???

If we're going by statistics, it's more likely to mean that that guy is going to kill one of his daughters than anything else.

 

[Rhea]

What does that even _mean_ ???

If we're going by statistics, it's more likely to mean that that guy is going to kill one of his daughters than anything else.

Oh, that's right. Wonder which one it'll be.
(Plus he looks really weird raising his head and looking down like that. VERY strange photo.)

 

[ronburgundy]

ion that "trace the guns" link you can see where the guns found in Chicago crimes are traced to

http://tracetheguns.org/#/states/IL/imports/

Thank you, Indiana.

Now here's where the guns are owned
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-ownership-by-state-2015-7

Now, think about that. If there is equally common ownership in Iowa and Indiana, but TEN TIMES as many guns come from Indiana, do you think it's all theft? Or perhaps lax gun laws? Or Wisconsin, which is just as close and has an equal percent of gun ownership as both Iowa and Indiana, but Indian still has FIVE TIMES more guns flowing into Illinois.

You just think about that.

An equal number of gun-owning houses to rob from. TEN TIMES as many are "robbed" in one state over the other. Over a thousand "robberies" per year?

Now one might be tempted to argue, "well it's closer!" are you suggesting that a THOUSAND house robberies a year in that nearby county are not a matter of national discussion?




All of the maps that show the gun-shop of origin in the "stolen" crime guns seems to have an ASTONISHING rate of sales to people whose guns seem to get "stolen"

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/Bad-Apple-Gun-Dealer-Overview.pdf


Hmmmmm.
Not rocket surgery.

Looks an awful lot like it would look if lax gun laws were enabling straw purchasers and other easily recognizable retailer activity.

There are also numerous studies that interview convicted criminals and get anonymous information about the general method by which they obtain any guns the possessed prior to conviction. Only between 10%-25% stole a gun, and that includes all the guns "stolen" from other criminals who did not possess them legally and who bought them via the "gray" market (legal dealers and owners selling them to criminals).

[P] According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.[/P]

Also, almost all guns used in crime in the US are manufactured in the US, thus we know the international smuggling plays little role. Are criminals breaking into massive manufacturer warehouses and retailers and stealing truckloads of guns and then reselling them? No, such events are rare. So, the guns criminals get are made in the US, and the vast majority are not stolen from manufacturers, retailers, or legal gun buyers. What is left? There is only one possibility, the people who posses guns legally are deliberately giving (and most plausibly selling) them to criminals. This makes sense since there are almost no laws that keep track of how many guns any legal owner or dealer actually acquired and still have and there is massive profit to be made by reselling to criminals who cannot buy guns at retail prices. That is a recipe for guaranteeing a massive "gray" market where guns are distributed and sold legally for the express purpose of turning around and reselling them to people trying to hide the fact that they bought a gun. In fact in the states with the highest gun ownership, such straw sales are perfectly legal and the reseller does not need to do any background check and can get away with selling to any stranger on the street, and if that person commits a crime with it the reseller has no responsibility unless it can be proven (which it almost never can) that he knew before hand that the person was a criminal.

Bottom line is that intentional actions by legal gun dealers and owners are the source of most guns used to commit crimes. Thus, the only solution to reducing such criminal use of guns is massive increase in restrictions of legal dealers and owners regarding who and how they can resell guns to, how many guns they can acquire, and requirements that they continually prove that they still possess all guns they legally acquired and did not legally resell. Doing so will choke off the major supply of criminal guns, skyrocket the black and gray market prices for guns, and thus greatly reduce the % of criminals who have a gun (many who do simply because it is so cheap and easy to get one given the number of dealers and legal owners willing to sell to criminals.

 

[EricB]

The problem is they always try to overreach with the background checks.

I favor background checks to get a gun license. Background checks on transfer are a big problem, though--because they apply to things like loaning a gun to a friend.

How is that a problem as opposed to a really fucking good idea?

If you loan your gun to somebody who shouldn't have a gun and he commits a crime with it, you should share the criminal responsibility. The gun is your property, so the onus would be on you to make sure that it doesn't get into the wrong hands.

It's sort of like how if you pass a security check to be able to see classified information, the onus is on you to make sure that anyone you discuss this classified information with has passed a similar security check. If you don't make sure of this, you're the one at fault.

Could not agree more. Really, I cannot see myself loaning mine to anyone. If they need one so badly, they should go through the appropriate process.

 

[Rhea]

If you loan your gun to somebody who shouldn't have a gun and he commits a crime with it, you should share the criminal responsibility. The gun is your property, so the onus would be on you to make sure that it doesn't get into the wrong hands.

It's sort of like how if you pass a security check to be able to see classified information, the onus is on you to make sure that anyone you discuss this classified information with has passed a similar security check. If you don't make sure of this, you're the one at fault.

Could not agree more. Really, I cannot see myself loaning mine to anyone. If they need one so badly, they should go through the appropriate process.

Agreed. Can't imagine loaning my gun to anyone.
Amazed that someone would use the desire to do so as a reason to make criminals more likely to have guns.

Loren, do you just want to lend your gun to someone who has a bad-driving bratty black driver to shoot? Is that why you need that loophole?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This argument makes no sense. What's your reasoning for this assertion??

Simple math. If there are millions of illegal guns out there, your theory says that millions of guns have been stolen without anyone reporting it.

Doesn't that sound stupid?
Or are there really millions of gun owners out there who have no idea their pistols are missing?

Why do you assume a bunch of unreported thefts?

Studies have been done that show unequivocally EXACTLY how they get their guns.
And most of them are through straw purchases by people who meet one or all of the following:

The opposite of what I've encountered. Thus, sources, please.

You cahn google [where do criminals get guns] to choose your own source.

Link #2:

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/...generally-dont-buy-guns-legally-at-gun-shops/

Numerous studies conducted by academic researchers and by the federal government have shown that criminals do not use legal markets to obtain guns. And now we have more evidence of this reality, this time looking at criminals in Chicago.

Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Pollack conducted interviews with criminals being held in the Cook County Jail. Their primary findings were that criminals get guns from their “social network,” i.e. friends and persons known to them, but generally not from the various legal sources available to them.

It looks like you're overlooking the fact that you can get a stolen gun without stealing it.

But here's one:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

PBS used to be a good source of information. They've allowed politics to intrude into their science these days, though.

and there is this
http://tracetheguns.org/#/states/IN/exports/

Which shows absolutely nothing about how people obtain their guns.

Also, remember that anyone whose gun is used in a crime is going to say it was stolen -of course- and no current law helps stop that. But cross checking with inventory WOULD stop it.

Just a few sources, you can do the rest of the research.

The reality is that society is pretty much divided into the law abiding and the lawbreakers--few are on the edge here. It's very unlikely that someone willing to use a gun in a crime (beyond burglars carrying for self defense against the criminal elements they associate with) has kept their nose clean enough to buy a gun in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

View attachment 4578

That's one big penis he's got there.

Compensation for the fact his doesn't seem to make Ys?

- - - Updated - - -

[P] According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.[/P]

Also, almost all guns used in crime in the US are manufactured in the US, thus we know the international smuggling plays little role. Are criminals breaking into massive manufacturer warehouses and retailers and stealing truckloads of guns and then reselling them? No, such events are rare. So, the guns criminals get are made in the US, and the vast majority are not stolen from manufacturers, retailers, or legal gun buyers. What is left? There is only one possibility, the people who posses guns legally are deliberately giving (and most plausibly selling) them to criminals. This makes sense since there are almost no laws that keep track of how many guns any legal owner or dealer actually acquired and still have and there is massive profit to be made by reselling to criminals who cannot buy guns at retail prices. That is a recipe for guaranteeing a massive "gray" market where guns are distributed and sold legally for the express purpose of turning around and reselling them to people trying to hide the fact that they bought a gun. In fact in the states with the highest gun ownership, such straw sales are perfectly legal and the reseller does not need to do any background check and can get away with selling to any stranger on the street, and if that person commits a crime with it the reseller has no responsibility unless it can be proven (which it almost never can) that he knew before hand that the person was a criminal.

Bottom line is that intentional actions by legal gun dealers and owners are the source of most guns used to commit crimes. Thus, the only solution to reducing such criminal use of guns is massive increase in restrictions of legal dealers and owners regarding who and how they can resell guns to, how many guns they can acquire, and requirements that they continually prove that they still possess all guns they legally acquired and did not legally resell. Doing so will choke off the major supply of criminal guns, skyrocket the black and gray market prices for guns, and thus greatly reduce the % of criminals who have a gun (many who do simply because it is so cheap and easy to get one given the number of dealers and legal owners willing to sell to criminals.

1) Look at the year--that was before background checks on purchase.

2) It omits the category of buying off a friend rather than from a clearly illegal market.

- - - Updated - - -

Could not agree more. Really, I cannot see myself loaning mine to anyone. If they need one so badly, they should go through the appropriate process.

And what about a friend who wants to try out the type you have before they decide to buy?

 

[Rhea]

Why do you assume a bunch of unreported thefts?

You think there are 200,000 gun thefts a year reported as they happen and no one is talking about it? Well, do the google and show me that 200,000 guns a year are reported stolen BEFORE they show up as a crime gun.

I'm willing to be converted.....

Numerous studies conducted by academic researchers and by the federal government have shown that criminals do not use legal markets to obtain guns. And now we have more evidence of this reality, this time looking at criminals in Chicago.

Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Pollack conducted interviews with criminals being held in the Cook County Jail. Their primary findings were that criminals get guns from their “social network,” i.e. friends and persons known to them, but generally not from the various legal sources available to them.

It looks like you're overlooking the fact that you can get a stolen gun without stealing it.

Did you not read anything I wrote? People buy the guns legally and THEN sell them to non-legal people. These are not legal sources. They are "networks". The networks (the straw purchaser) are the point at which they move from legal to illegal.

This is not a theft. I said that from teh beginning. I said it was ludicrous to think they were all stolen.

And this network is fast, easy cheap AND DEPENDS UPON weak laws and dealers looking the other way.

When a man in Indiana buys SIX FUCKING HUNDRED HAND GUNS from a dealer legally, who is stupid enough to NOT KNOW these are going straight to criminals? The dealer just made fabulous sales. They won't report an OBVIOUS CRIME IN PROGRESS though.

http://tracetheguns.org/#/states/IN/exports/

Which shows absolutely nothing about how people obtain their guns.

You saw the logic I laid out. you can't come up with a different path that explains that same data.

The reality is that society is pretty much divided into the law abiding and the lawbreakers--few are on the edge here. It's very unlikely that someone willing to use a gun in a crime (beyond burglars carrying for self defense against the criminal elements they associate with) has kept their nose clean enough to buy a gun in the first place.

No shit, Sherlock. As I said, straw purchase. Middle men. FACT. something like 10% of gun dealers are the source for 90% of crime guns. We know this! And the laws can be made to stop it, if there isn't an NRA (gun manufacturer's lobby) standing in the way of that legislation.

Bottom line is that intentional actions by legal gun dealers and owners are the source of most guns used to commit crimes.

Yup. Ron's giving you additional information making the same point.

Could not agree more. Really, I cannot see myself loaning mine to anyone. If they need one so badly, they should go through the appropriate process.

And what about a friend who wants to try out the type you have before they decide to buy?

You go with them to wherever you are planning to shoot and you don't let your gun out of your sight.
And I believe most gun shops have ranges where you can go to try something. But if not, you go with them, as I said. If the gun hasn't left my sight, it's not "loaned" and I know where it is. It's still mine.

And in the end, even with that, the fact that you can't shoot your friend's gun to try it out is not a good enough reason to let guns range wild without background checks. File under boo fucking hoo.

 

[EricB]

Could not agree more. Really, I cannot see myself loaning mine to anyone. If they need one so badly, they should go through the appropriate process.

And what about a friend who wants to try out the type you have before they decide to buy?

Go to a range and rent one. Any of my friends that I ever go shooting with served with me, and they tend to have their own anyway, so it is pretty much a moot point.

Then, of course, there is the overall issue of responsibility. Out of my sight does not mean that I am no longer responsible for control of the firearm. So there is one way to really limit this being a potential issue.

 

[DBT]

A background check, including mental health record, a firearm safety course and well defined secure storage of firearms requirements, should be basic law in all states.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A background check, including mental health record, a firearm safety course and well defined secure storage of firearms requirements, should be basic law in all states.

Background check: Yes--but note that I much prefer a license to possess guns over a check at the time of acquisition.

Mental health record: Careful, here. It should only involve matters that would be relevant to gun possession, not all mental health records.

Firearms safety course: Opposed--I dislike all mandated courses. Pass a written and practical test on firearms safety instead. Whether you took a course or not shows nothing of what you know.

Secure storage: Big problem. Secure storage is usually defined as heavy, bolted-down safes. This precludes apartment dwellers from owning guns and it means you can't store one upstairs--and thus precludes self-defense weapons in most two story houses. Now, if you simply define it as locked storage I would be happy with it.

 

[Rhea]

Mental health record can be combination of something that your mental health provider gives to you stating that you are fit to own PLUS a database of gun permit holders and buyers that mental health professionals can download and check against their databases, sending a response if they find one of their patients on the list that they would not approve.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Mental health record can be combination of something that your mental health provider gives to you stating that you are fit to own PLUS a database of gun permit holders and buyers that mental health professionals can download and check against their databases, sending a response if they find one of their patients on the list that they would not approve.

Most people do not have a mental health provider and it's going to be hard to evaluate whether someone is fit for a gun without a bunch of visits.

I think it should be handled like we do with doctors and driving--if your doctor thinks you shouldn't be driving he tells the DMV. Likewise, if a shrink thinks you shouldn't have a gun he should tell the licensing board. If you have a license it's pulled.

 

[DBT]

A background check, including mental health record, a firearm safety course and well defined secure storage of firearms requirements, should be basic law in all states.

Mental health record: Careful, here. It should only involve matters that would be relevant to gun possession, not all mental health records.

That's right, a history of violence and/or irrational behaviour, etc.

Firearms safety course: Opposed--I dislike all mandated courses. Pass a written and practical test on firearms safety instead. Whether you took a course or not shows nothing of what you know.

A written and practical test may be a part of the course.

Secure storage: Big problem. Secure storage is usually defined as heavy, bolted-down safes. This precludes apartment dwellers from owning guns and it means you can't store one upstairs--and thus precludes self-defense weapons in most two story houses. Now, if you simply define it as locked storage I would be happy with it.

Not that big a problem, a solid timber cabinet with deadlock, a built in lockable storeroom. Upstairs or downstairs makes no real difference, we are not talking about a 500 kg + safe as a requirement. The point being, only the licensed person has access to, and control of, his or her firearms and no other members of the household unless supervised or permitted by the licensed individual.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Mental health record: Careful, here. It should only involve matters that would be relevant to gun possession, not all mental health records.

That's right, a history of violence and/or irrational behaviour, etc.

Except the gun-grabbers don't want to restrict it to that, report everything, let the cops decide--and in a database any cop can access.

Firearms safety course: Opposed--I dislike all mandated courses. Pass a written and practical test on firearms safety instead. Whether you took a course or not shows nothing of what you know.

A written and practical test may be a part of the course.

Then what's the point in the course? Mandating a course is taking the lazy way out and not making a proper test.

Secure storage: Big problem. Secure storage is usually defined as heavy, bolted-down safes. This precludes apartment dwellers from owning guns and it means you can't store one upstairs--and thus precludes self-defense weapons in most two story houses. Now, if you simply define it as locked storage I would be happy with it.

Not that big a problem, a solid timber cabinet with deadlock, a built in lockable storeroom. Upstairs or downstairs makes no real difference, we are not talking about a 500 kg + safe as a requirement. The point being, only the licensed person has access to, and control of, his or her firearms and no other members of the household unless supervised or permitted by the licensed individual.

Once again you're looking at reasonable requirements, rather than the unreasonable ones the gun-grabbers want.

 

[bilby]

That's right, a history of violence and/or irrational behaviour, etc.

Except the gun-grabbers don't want to restrict it to that, report everything, let the cops decide--and in a database any cop can access.

Firearms safety course: Opposed--I dislike all mandated courses. Pass a written and practical test on firearms safety instead. Whether you took a course or not shows nothing of what you know.

A written and practical test may be a part of the course.

Then what's the point in the course? Mandating a course is taking the lazy way out and not making a proper test.

Secure storage: Big problem. Secure storage is usually defined as heavy, bolted-down safes. This precludes apartment dwellers from owning guns and it means you can't store one upstairs--and thus precludes self-defense weapons in most two story houses. Now, if you simply define it as locked storage I would be happy with it.

Not that big a problem, a solid timber cabinet with deadlock, a built in lockable storeroom. Upstairs or downstairs makes no real difference, we are not talking about a 500 kg + safe as a requirement. The point being, only the licensed person has access to, and control of, his or her firearms and no other members of the household unless supervised or permitted by the licensed individual.

Once again you're looking at reasonable requirements, rather than the unreasonable ones the gun-grabbers want.

You needn't worry Loren, the gun grabbers won't get you if you leave a night-light on.

It's the ones hiding under the bed that are the worst, but a check with a flashlight before bed should help with that.

 

[Underseer]

Except the gun-grabbers don't want to restrict it to that, report everything, let the cops decide--and in a database any cop can access.

Firearms safety course: Opposed--I dislike all mandated courses. Pass a written and practical test on firearms safety instead. Whether you took a course or not shows nothing of what you know.

A written and practical test may be a part of the course.

Then what's the point in the course? Mandating a course is taking the lazy way out and not making a proper test.

Secure storage: Big problem. Secure storage is usually defined as heavy, bolted-down safes. This precludes apartment dwellers from owning guns and it means you can't store one upstairs--and thus precludes self-defense weapons in most two story houses. Now, if you simply define it as locked storage I would be happy with it.

Not that big a problem, a solid timber cabinet with deadlock, a built in lockable storeroom. Upstairs or downstairs makes no real difference, we are not talking about a 500 kg + safe as a requirement. The point being, only the licensed person has access to, and control of, his or her firearms and no other members of the household unless supervised or permitted by the licensed individual.

Once again you're looking at reasonable requirements, rather than the unreasonable ones the gun-grabbers want.

You needn't worry Loren, the gun grabbers won't get you if you leave a night-light on.

It's the ones hiding under the bed that are the worst, but a check with a flashlight before bed should help with that.

But what if the gun confiscation conspiracy is being run by the same lizard aliens who took Elvis' brain? If so, then no one is safe! First, they will confiscate all the guns, and then before you know it we will be living in Red Dawn-style "re-education camps" where they will use gay beams to turn all of our children into homosexuals!

You don't want the homosexual lizard aliens to win, do you? Why do you hate our freedom? [/conservolibertarian]

 

[ronburgundy]

Numerous studies conducted by academic researchers and by the federal government have shown that criminals do not use legal markets to obtain guns. And now we have more evidence of this reality, this time looking at criminals in Chicago.

Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Pollack conducted interviews with criminals being held in the Cook County Jail. Their primary findings were that criminals get guns from their “social network,” i.e. friends and persons known to them, but generally not from the various legal sources available to them.

It looks like you're overlooking the fact that you can get a stolen gun without stealing it.

Incorrect interpretation. Until last year it was illegal for any civilian to possess a handgun in Cook County. So, even if they bought it from a friend who served as a legal proxy buyer outside of Cook Country, then the criminals purchase was technically illegal even though it was made possible only buy a legal sale to the proxy buyer. If that criminal then loans or sells it to another criminal, then the second criminal got it from another criminal that got it illegally. However, 80%-90% of such obtained guns made into the first criminals hands only because a dealer or registered gun owner used their ability to acquire guns legally to profit off of funneling guns into the gray and then black markets.

The reality is that society is pretty much divided into the law abiding and the lawbreakers--few are on the edge here. It's very unlikely that someone willing to use a gun in a crime (beyond burglars carrying for self defense against the criminal elements they associate with) has kept their nose clean enough to buy a gun in the first place.

You are correct that they couldn't get through a background check, and even if they could, they don't want the gun to be linked to them. The problem is that it is completely legal in almost all the gun-filled Red states for them to buy a gun from any private gun owner without any background check or any verification of ID or any enforcement that they register it, etc.. That is the whole issue. They laws do nothing to prevent legal buyers from being a proxy buyer for others who can't or don't want to get a gun from a dealer where checks and paperwork are involved. These "straw purchases" are included in what you and the research you cite refer to as "buying from a friend or acquaintance"

[P] According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.[/P]

Also, almost all guns used in crime in the US are manufactured in the US, thus we know the international smuggling plays little role. Are criminals breaking into massive manufacturer warehouses and retailers and stealing truckloads of guns and then reselling them? No, such events are rare. So, the guns criminals get are made in the US, and the vast majority are not stolen from manufacturers, retailers, or legal gun buyers. What is left? There is only one possibility, the people who posses guns legally are deliberately giving (and most plausibly selling) them to criminals. This makes sense since there are almost no laws that keep track of how many guns any legal owner or dealer actually acquired and still have and there is massive profit to be made by reselling to criminals who cannot buy guns at retail prices. That is a recipe for guaranteeing a massive "gray" market where guns are distributed and sold legally for the express purpose of turning around and reselling them to people trying to hide the fact that they bought a gun. In fact in the states with the highest gun ownership, such straw sales are perfectly legal and the reseller does not need to do any background check and can get away with selling to any stranger on the street, and if that person commits a crime with it the reseller has no responsibility unless it can be proven (which it almost never can) that he knew before hand that the person was a criminal.

Bottom line is that intentional actions by legal gun dealers and owners are the source of most guns used to commit crimes. Thus, the only solution to reducing such criminal use of guns is massive increase in restrictions of legal dealers and owners regarding who and how they can resell guns to, how many guns they can acquire, and requirements that they continually prove that they still possess all guns they legally acquired and did not legally resell. Doing so will choke off the major supply of criminal guns, skyrocket the black and gray market prices for guns, and thus greatly reduce the % of criminals who have a gun (many who do simply because it is so cheap and easy to get one given the number of dealers and legal owners willing to sell to criminals.

1) Look at the year--that was before background checks on purchase.

The same findings have been duplicated in many other studies and the BJS replicated theirs in 2004.

2) It omits the category of buying off a friend rather than from a clearly illegal market.

No, that is the point. Such guns usually enter the black market via a criminal buying off a "friend" who has legal access to guns.

And what about a friend who wants to try out the type you have before they decide to buy?

Too fucking bad. There are plenty of places they can go and try out various guns at controlled and regulated ranges.

 

[arkirk]

Reasonable and mature people frighten me. I think I'll buy a few more guns to protect myself from this potential threat.

Tom: I always thought you were more liberal than you actually are. Canada is a funny place. It seems to have its own backwoods crowd that plays ignorance to a number of issues like strip mining (not just in Canada, but anywhere Canadian companies are allowed anywhere in the world) and it looks like guns also are on that list. Canadian culture is easily as suspect as the U.S. one. The only difference is that it is not yet as powerful as its neighbor to the south...though it does seem to take better care of its citizens medically.

 

[DBT]

Once again you're looking at reasonable requirements, rather than the unreasonable ones the gun-grabbers want.

Sure, but isn't that a separate issue? Securing firearms in order to prevent misuse or theft should be standard practice regardless of whether it's defined in law or not.

The issue with lobbyists and groups who would like to see firearms banned, no private ownership whatsoever, should be dealt with separately.

Every incident of firearm misuse gives them ammunition for their cause, so prevention comes first.

 

[bilby]

Reasonable and mature people frighten me. I think I'll buy a few more guns to protect myself from this potential threat.

Tom: I always thought you were more liberal than you actually are. Canada is a funny place. It seems to have its own backwoods crowd that plays ignorance to a number of issues like strip mining (not just in Canada, but anywhere Canadian companies are allowed anywhere in the world) and it looks like guns also are on that list. Canadian culture is easily as suspect as the U.S. one. The only difference is that it is not yet as powerful as its neighbor to the south...though it does seem to take better care of its citizens medically.

Of course the really strange thing about Canadians is that they have a sense of humour; in stark contrast to their neighbours to the south.