Lord O' Bones Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 No.San Francisco and Vancouver have more in common.Of course, but that wasn't my point.Montreal has nothing in common with any other city in Canada or North AmericaI'm saying (let's forget Montreal then) a Canadian city has more in common to any other Canadian city than San Francisco and Colorado Springs do. Or San Antonio. Or New Orleans. Or Miami.ETA: Maybe that doesn't hold water; maybe neither does the Crown have anything to do with it. But allow me to attempt to show what I mean simply re: population.Take 9 people and have them come to a consensus on a policy. Then take 250 people and attempt the same. The results will likely be different. Keep this up for a couple hundred years and watch how things subtly continue to diverge and sometimes converge over time. Until now it's more like 35 people to 300 people, but a couple hundred years later. (Those numbers by the way are the relative populations from 1776 to now.)Maybe it's as simple as that? I mean assuming the Crown and lesser diversity play no part as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I'm curious why you think the relationship with the crown makes us less gun huggy? I mean, as a nation we were born of the wild frontier, explorers and trappers, we had some wars and battles, we have a military (a more robust military in the past) and police forces and we have crime and bad guys and crazy people. It's not like the crown is hovering over us to protect us from ourselves or some big bad, especially in the past many decades.For starters, because the crown is less gun huggy. That influence carried. Kinda like using celsius and kilometers you commie bastards :P Second, because you didn't worry about fighting the crown. The US did a couple of times, and didn't really get over it until World War II.How much does it have to do with a part of the US population having to live together with oppressed minorities in their own country for so long? Or basically isn't it just a hangover from the slave keeping culture via segregation?To me that seems to be a much more clearly distinguishing factor than the length of London overlordship.The legacy of slavery is the elephant in the room of the American gun debate. Black people make up about 14% of the population IIRC, but they commit about 45% of the murders (again from memory). A few years ago the NYPD reviewed their homicides and found out that 90% of both murderer and victim in that city were black or hispanic. We don't know the figures for hispanics nationally because the Feds do not track "hispanic" as a race, grouping them in with whites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Subjects of the Crown? I would not overestimate the importance of the monarchy; apart from the Queen's profile on coins, it's hardly relevant to politics except for a few vexing moves by the federal government to restore royal designations to the air force and navy. Concerning the long gun registry, it would still be in place if we had an electoral system that didn't allow a party winning barely 40% of the vote to govern with a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 For starters, because the crown is less gun huggy.The 'crown' really didn't care that much about the private ownership of firearms in the colonies either. There was obviously the one high profile period of the confiscation of weapons prior to the American Revolution but it's worth noting that they were actually confiscating (or trying to) centralised stores of weapons and munitions, a significant proportion of which had originally been supplied by the British government, rather than personal weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Take 9 people and have them come to a consensus on a policy. Then take 250 people and attempt the same. The results will likely be different. Keep this up for a couple hundred years and watch how things subtly continue to diverge and sometimes converge over time. Until now it's more like 35 people to 300 people, but a couple hundred years later. (Those numbers by the way are the relative populations from 1776 to now.)Maybe it's as simple as that? I mean assuming the Crown and lesser diversity play no part as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Why fight the Crown when you're more concerned about invading Americans? Overall I suppose there is less political diversity in Canada, but only insofar as more political questions are more or less "settled", though there are more parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I'm sure the slippery slope argument holds no water.Diane Feinstein on her desire for an outright gun ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durckad Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Wow, that is the absolute worst collection of youtube comments I've ever had the mispleasure of reading. The seeping pus of humanity indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 She can desire it all she wants. Is that a surprise? I'm not sure that the slippery slope argument means what you think it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Not to mention that the quote is from 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 She can desire it all she wants. Is that a surprise? I'm not sure that the slippery slope argument means what you think it means.The slippery slope that gun control opponents are always told is ridiculous is that gun control measures are only stepping stones to an outright ban. In most of these debates we are advised that this argument is lousy. Yet, time and time again we find (in this case from the author of the current bill) that that actually is the end goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 And again...so what? That can be that person's goal. It doesn't mean that it is actually going to happen that way, only that some people want it to.This isn't even the slippery slope fallacy. It's not even related. Tormund, does this mean you are opposed to any legislation from specific people because of their stated goals, even if the legislation is otherwise sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 RE: The previous discussion, I don't think the gun-advocacy groups and the local-government-proponents can be equalled that easily. After all what we've had recently is the central government and it's judiciary striking down local restrictions on gun ownership and usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Aside from the obvious, my gut tells me that over time the United States having ten times the population of Canada has to have something to do with it. Not sure how to articulate why though.So...MORE isolated/frontiersman like? The U.S. is the independence Goldylocks ate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Americans still test higher on individualism scales than everyone else - it is what it is. This is the kind of comment that either drives me up the wall or make me ask al kinds of questions like 'what scale? What definition of individualism?' etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 So...MORE isolated/frontiersman like? The U.S. is the independence Goldylocks ate?I don't even know what the hell this so means so I'm going to say no.Do feel free to keep reading though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 ETA: Re: population, I think maybe it's just a matter of smaller pop, ranging basically in a straight line (our borders) would lend to less cultural variety? I feel like (and could be completely mistaken) that Vancouver and Montreal have way more in common than say San Francisco and Colorado Springs.The second most populous province in Canada speaks an entirely different language. Toronto ranks as just about the most multicultural major city in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I don't even know what the hell this so means so I'm going to say no.Do feel free to keep reading though.It was earlier proposed that this version of American Exceptionalism was due to it being more isolated, frontier like and vast compared with Europe. Apparently being even more so also makes you less freedom-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 For starters, because the crown is less gun huggy. That influence carried. Kinda like using celsius and kilometers you commie bastards :P Second, because you didn't worry about fighting the crown. The US did a couple of times, and didn't really get over it until World War II.What? French Canadians didn't worry about fighting the Crown? And in addition we had to fight off an American invasion, or have you forgotten that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The second most populous province in Canada speaks an entirely different language. Toronto ranks as just about the most multicultural major city in the world.No shit Sherlock. We're talking about why the two countries developed differently as far as gun culture. Not how things were last Tuesday. Maybe finish the thread first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.