American asked innocent question... wishes he had his gun.

That's because, no matter the stereotype, there are always those of are more than happy to perpetuate it.

Just like good old Walt.
 
I don't see how that's stereotyping. She made an argument and defended it using actual facts.
 
This thread should be merged with the Gun Control thread.
 
Not so much. It was more like "Hey this guy's a crazy gun nut. Americans are crazy, eh."
Well it used three different examples to support the argument that everyone doesn't have the right to bear arms.
 
I don't see how that's stereotyping. She made an argument and defended it using actual facts.

everything in the article was second-hand from the guy's letter, she had no other "facts." It was mostly assumptions about what the Canadians intentions were.

Quite frankly, this article is journalistic garbage written by some self-loathing "ex" American who's relocated to Canada, trying to pass us all off as a bunch of militia men.

The cop didn't even say he would've drawn his gun, just that he would've felt more comfortable in the situation knowing that he had it. Somehow the author extrapolates that him into being Dirty Harry along with the rest of us. The guy's a cop he's been trained for years to be suspicious, this is hardly surprising. That's not a reflection of our gun control laws.

I mean she ends the article with "THANK GOD I LIVE IN CANADA!" for cripe's sake. Her intentions with this thing are pretty transparent.
 
Last edited:
It gets really old when some Canadians have such a hard-on for lumping every American in with a few gun nuts.
 
everything in the article was second-hand from the guy's letter, she had no other "facts." It was mostly assumptions about what the Canadians intentions were.

Quite frankly, this article is journalistic garbage written by some self-loathing "ex" American who's relocated to Canada, trying to pass us all off as a bunch of militia men.

The cop didn't even say he would've drawn his gun, just that he would've felt more comfortable in the situation knowing that he had it. Somehow the author extrapolates that him into being Dirty Harry along with the rest of us. The guy's a cop he's been trained for years to be suspicious, this is hardly surprising. That's not a reflection of our gun control laws.

I mean she ends the article with "THANK GOD I LIVE IN CANADA!" for cripe's sake. Her intentions with this thing are pretty transparent.

^^ This x10000
 
Meh, we as Americans are the last acceptable targets. Yeah, we have some ****ed up ways, but come now.
 
everything in the article was second-hand from the guy's letter, she had no other "facts." It was mostly assumptions about what the Canadians intentions were.

Quite frankly, this article is journalistic garbage written by some self-loathing "ex" American who's relocated to Canada, trying to pass us all off as a bunch of militia men.

The cop didn't even say he would've drawn his gun, just that he would've felt more comfortable in the situation knowing that he had it. Somehow the author extrapolates that him into being Dirty Harry along with the rest of us. The guy's a cop he's been trained for years to be suspicious, this is hardly surprising. That's not a reflection of our gun control laws.

I mean she ends the article with "THANK GOD I LIVE IN CANADA!" for cripe's sake. Her intentions with this thing are pretty transparent.
Sure, but as a Canadian, this is an instant red flag:
"I have a unique perspective based on years of police experience. The perspective (is that) the police cannot protect everyone all the time. A man should be allowed to protect himself if the need arises... My perspective proved true a few days ago for my wife and I."
He still feels that his gun was needed. Even outside of being an officer - he said "the police cannot protect everyone all the time." That's him speaking as a man who "should be allowed to protect himself" not as a police officer.

I think her lumping Americans all in the same gun-carrying crazies pile is ******** same as he rest of you, but something's not right with this guy's mentality - at least from a Canadian cultural standpoint.

One thing I'll say has proven true about around 60% of the Americans I've met personally is that they are quick to defend the "American Way". As in if a Canadian/Mexican/Brit points out one "flaw" or "cultural difference" in even a small group of Americans, they get uppity and attack the other person. These same 60% are the ones who claim "Canadians have funny accents", assume we all say "eh" and that we're all stupid and that there are beavers and moose running around everywhere, or that Mexicans are lazy, or Brits are uptight control-freaks.

My point is simply this: she made a point and defended it using three different examples: This officer, the Sikh shooting and testimonials. That in itself is a basis for a valid essay. You don't have to agree with her if you don't want to but there's no point in getting uppity over it. It's one article that I would never have read had it not even been posted here by an American in the first place.

That cop has a screwy mentality IMO, as did the Sikh shooter - however, I'm not going to say "all Americans are crazy gun-lovers".

Just my stance on the article. You can "lawyer" me and high-five each other all you want, but it's just like my opinion, man.
 
The article is a bit dickish in tone, but there is something to learn from it: the fact is, the baseline for the gun debate in the United States and Canada (and most of the rest of the western world) is so radically different, on that issue alone we are like alien cultures from each other.

The baseline in the United States is "I need a gun to defend my land and my family from other human beings," with the debate being how far that right extends. The baseline in Canada is "I need a gun to keep wild animals off of my land and sometimes to hunt or to shoot inanimate objects as a hobby," with the debate starting from that point. Even the most right-wing gun supporter in Canada doesn't talk about concealed carry permits, that's not even on our radar.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but as a Canadian, this is an instant red flag:
"I have a unique perspective based on years of police experience. The perspective (is that) the police cannot protect everyone all the time. A man should be allowed to protect himself if the need arises... My perspective proved true a few days ago for my wife and I."
He still feels that his gun was needed. Even outside of being an officer - he said "the police cannot protect everyone all the time." That's him speaking as a man who "should be allowed to protect himself" not as a police officer.

I think her lumping Americans all in the same gun-carrying crazies pile is ******** same as he rest of you, but something's not right with this guy's mentality - at least from a Canadian cultural standpoint.

One thing I'll say has proven true about around 60% of the Americans I've met personally is that they are quick to defend the "American Way". As in if a Canadian/Mexican/Brit points out one "flaw" or "cultural difference" in even a small group of Americans, they get uppity and attack the other person. These same 60% are the ones who claim "Canadians have funny accents", assume we all say "eh" and that we're all stupid and that there are beavers and moose running around everywhere, or that Mexicans are lazy, or Brits are uptight control-freaks.

My point is simply this: she made a point and defended it using three different examples: This officer, the Sikh shooting and testimonials. That in itself is a basis for a valid essay. You don't have to agree with her if you don't want to but there's no point in getting uppity over it. It's one article that I would never have read had it not even been posted here by an American in the first place.

That cop has a screwy mentality IMO, as did the Sikh shooter - however, I'm not going to say "all Americans are crazy gun-lovers".

Just my stance on the article. You can "lawyer" me and high-five each other all you want, but it's just like my opinion, man.

I think the problem most are having is the article is very condescending in tone. It has this air of, "Oh, how sad that you think this way, why can't you see this way is better?" And that's ********.
 
I will be honest in saying if I ever felt I needed a gun, let alone a concealed weapon, to feel safe in my city and at home than I know it is time to move somewhere else.

I can understand for someone who deal with the worst of humanity on a daily basis to feel they need to be carrying a weapon at all times, not to say that is the right way of thinking, but lets be honest as he is not the only one who feels this way in America.
 
Woah...haven't did a double post in a along while and I only pushed the button once.
 
The baseline in the United States is "I need a gun to defend my land and my family from other human beings," with the debate being how far that right extends. The baseline in Canada is "I need a gun to keep wild animals off of my land and sometimes to hunt or to shoot inanimate objects as a hobby,"

This is a pretty skewed representation, if I were to be honest.

Eight out of ten people I know who own or carry guns do so for hunting and target shooting alone. Only the remaining two people I know enjoy target shooting, but are gun owners primarily for self defense. That's 2 out of 10 people.

The problem is, too many people think like you do - that Americans care about guns only for protection from the boogy man. A more appropriate and accurate statement would be:

Americans - "I want a gun to protect myself and to hunt and enjoy a hobby."
Canadians - "I want a gun to protect myself and to hunt and enjoy a hobby."

Notice how these are exactly the same? Yes, you might argue that WHAT one is protecting themselves from is different, but it's really not, depending on what part of the country(ies) you're in. The thought process is still the same. If you're in a large city in either country, what you'd possibly be "protecting" yourself from would be a human. If you're in the wilderness in either country, you'd be protecting yourself from wild animals.

Yes, US gun owners DO care about their right to carry weapons perhaps more than Canadians, but that has a lot to do with each countries culture and history in terms of those rights, as well as the risk of that right being taken away. Different countries do things differently and it doesn't make one better or more "right" than the other.

To go back to the article, I find it shocking that the writer expects someone to shed all career training and cultural/psychological conditioning as soon as one steps over the border. The brain doesn't work that way. If you're trained to be cautious of people and prepared for the worst, you'd be STUPID to ignore all of that because you stepped over an imaginary line. Never mind the fact that the writer wasn't there, and only has a brief statement to go on, and yet she's making plenty of accusations based on nonexistent information. People like her really need to learn and think a little more.
 
Have to say as someone who has lived in countries where there are no gun laws (or where it's virtually impossible to get one legally), there is something to be said for the right to have one.

Generally speaking, when it comes to personal safety I'm more concerned about armed people than wildlife.

Though those squirrels outside have been eyeing my house...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"