Gun Controll Glock 9

[Lord O' Bones]

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.

Being moreso? How do you figure. As has been pointed out, most of Canada's population is on or near the boarder. Obviously, Canada has more land mass, but the population sure isn't spread around the entirety of the country in a significant way.

[James Arryn]

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?

I don't get why you feel my points divorced from that discussion. French culture is a new influence in Canada?

And 9ers fans shouldn't get hostile with each other. This is a time of unity, not strife.

[James Arryn]

Being moreso? How do you figure. As has been pointed out, most of Canada's population is on or near the boarder. Obviously, Canada has more land mass, but the population sure isn't spread around the entirety of the country in a significant way.

Right...why is that, again? Because the weather/terrain are tougher. we have less than 10% of the populations era greater space...even accounting for tending towards the south, our density is less than yours outside of 2 or 3 significant urban regions. We're more frontier-like and isolated.

Where do really, really independent, frontier like Americans go to getaway from it all?

Alaska.

[Lord O' Bones]

Sorry bro, not trying to get hostile. Just answering for posts that are likely answered a page later really bugs.

And, I have to say, there is a lot more going on in what appears to be Alberta than I would have guessed. http://www.learnnc.o...ight_lights.jpg

What's that about?

ETA: Again you're missing the point. As our countries developed we started off more frontier-like as far as places you'd actually want to go full of people that probably want to kill you. What we are today is not how we got here. And come on, isolated? Like Windsor is from Detroit? Only if one of us closes our border.

[straits]

Wow, that is the absolute worst collection of youtube comments I've ever had the mispleasure of reading. The seeping pus of humanity indeed.

Did you see the calls for her execution for treason? Imagine if the people making those comments actually had access to guns? Mad world.

[James Arryn]

Never been to Alberta, but there are 2 main regions I know about...the Calgary/Rockies region, which is pretty cowboy/Colorado-ish, and the Edmonton region, which has a mall. Oil is pretty big out there, too.

Edit for edit...who wanting to kill you? what obstacles to survival do you feel Americans faced that Canadians didn't? Except, as mentioned, we had a much bigger martial neighbour who was a threat to invade.

And isolated in terms of where you live. 100 years ago 71% of Americans lived in rural areas...for Canadians it was approaching 85%.

[kairparavel]

And, I have to say, there is a lot more going on in what appears to be Alberta than I would have guessed. http://www.learnnc.o...ight_lights.jpg

What's that about?

http://www12.statcan...ttes/m1-eng.htm pop density map circa 2006 just to take this drift further away

[Lord O' Bones]

Wow. Alberta has a population of under 4 million. Much of that is oil related then?

[Durckad]

Did you see the calls for her execution for treason?

Yeah, that prompted me to post actually.

Imagine if the people making those comments actually had access to guns? Mad world.

:lol:

I'm guessing (just guessing mind you) that they constitute a significant portion of firearm sales.

[James Arryn]

Wow. Alberta has a population of under 4 million. Much of that is oil related then?

.

I told you, cowboys, oilmen and the mall.

[kairparavel]

Wow. Alberta has a population of under 4 million. Much of that is oil related then?

Oil, cattle, wheat and lumber mainly.

[James Arryn]

Oil, cattle, wheat and lumber mainly.

AND THE MALL.

[Lord O' Bones]

Edit for edit...who wanting to kill you? what obstacles to survival do you feel Americans faced that Canadians didn't?

For one, and I could be talking out of my ass here, pretty sure there were more Native Americans to the south than to the north.

Except, as mentioned, we had a much bigger martial neighbour who was a threat to invade.

For another, so did the US. Mexico and Spain. Both of which resulted in war.

Then there was that minor incident when we fought ourselves for a bit.

And isolated in terms of where you live. 100 years ago 71% of Americans lived in rural areas...for Canadians it was approaching 85%.

Um yeah. Exactly. Some might think that could mean more frontier even. :dunno:

Again, I'm not talking about how things stand now. I'm talking about the entire transition from then to now and how it may have resulted in different gun culture.

And it's not like people were all that interested in fighting over thousands of miles of ice and tundra near the arctic circle was it?

[James Arryn]

For one, and I could be talking out of my ass here, pretty sure there were more Native Americans to the south than to the north.

Yes, ass talk, I'm afraid. In terms of ratio of native to non-native, Canada has always been significantly higher. Up to 4-5 times higher. And then you have to add all the Native American tribes who would routinely headed up here to avoid the enforced reservation system. Underground Railroad II?

For another, so did the US. Mexico and Spain. Both of which resulted in war.

1) I specified much larger, to contrast with Mexico.

2) Spain, really? The Spanish American war was one of U.S. expansion, not the U.S. defending itself against invasion from Spain. It was begun by America,and was fought exclusively in Spanish colonial territories. How does this in any way

equate to the danger represented by a much larger neighbour who was a constant threat to invade?

Then there was that minor incident when we fought ourselves for a bit.

Right, but that being internal, it's a symptom, not cause, hence not party to this discussion. We got rid of slavery too...earlier, and through legal process.

Um yeah. Exactly. Some might think that could mean more frontier even. :dunno:

I'm honestly confused here. More Canadians living in rural areas...ie, not cities or towns...means we have less frontier/frontiersman? Even without accounting for ratio to land...I don't get this.

Again, I'm not talking about how things stand now. I'm talking about the entire transition from then to now and how it may have resulted in different gun culture.

Right, and I'm showing how the transition doesn't add up to what you think it does, IMO. Canada was more of a frontier, faced greater external threats, underwent a greater transition from rural to urban centric society, faced more native to settler obstacles, tackled the same issues of slavery, armed rebellion,

etc. All without developing a gun culture.

And it's not like people were all that interested in fighting over thousands of miles of ice and tundra near the arctic circle was it?

A little dismissive.

Both European and American strategists of days gone by identified Quebec and the St. Lawrence Seaway/entry into the Great Lakes as THE most geo-strategic area in North America. So not exactly nothing to fight for.

Also, the north represented issues like the Klondike, the NW passage, etc. But, more, 1/10the population in a greater land mass...even chop off the top and we're still looking at at least comparable if not greater vastness to people ratio.

[Lord O' Bones]

1) I specified much larger, to contrast with Mexico.

Guests are arriving, but I'll get back to you. You've given me a lot to research. Thanks!

[James Arryn]

Guests are arriving, but I'll get back to you. You've given me a lot to research. Thanks!

lol, cheers. I pathetically have had friends here the entire time, and yet keep heading off to squirrel away in my study. in my defence, I'm still feeling the hang over from last night, when I posted drunk, as is probably evident.

:)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

Getting to this late, but I think this is right. The most obvious difference in the development of the U.S. and Canada is that we rebelled from GB, and they didn't.

I think that in the aftermath of the French and Indian War, or Seven Years War, or whatever you want to call it, the English-speaking population of Canada viewed the Crown as an indispensable ally, and the guarantor of Canada remaining dominated politically by English speaking people. This is partly because of numbers -- there just weren't enough Canadians to hold that country together without the power of the Crown, and Canada wouldn't have been powerful enough to protect itself from any potential external enemies either -- including the U.S..

In contrast, Americans viewed the Crown as a burden -- "we don't really need you, and we'd be better off without your stinking redcoats in our houses". And one reason we didn't need them were that we were much more populous, and therefore more able to fend for ourselves. We had faith that our citizens were capable of protecting themselves and their interests, and believed we were generating enough wealth that we didn't need the Brits to keep us afloat either.

I think the "gun culture" developed kind of synergistically from both frontier and independence elements. I think it's difficult to argue with the proposition that the tremendous distance from the motherland and the necessary rise of colonial assemblies with a significant (and necessary) degree of freedom -- both "frontier" elements -- is part of what pushed us to independence. That was coupled with a belief -- based in part on how some militias had performed in the French and Indian Wars, and how active our militias were otherwise -- that we were capable of winning independence militarily. And of course, if we weren't largely a frontier country, it's unlikely those militias would have been as widespread as they were.

The U.S. owes its existence as a nation to the fact that it's citizen-soldiers managed to hold off one of the world's great powers for more than half a decade. Guns, and our ability as citizens to use them, became almost inextricably tied up with our existence as a nation, and therefore with the very concept of freedom. And that independence was based on armed rebellion against what was then viewed as a illegitimate, oppressive central government. Given that, it's not surprising that a great many Americans consider the right to bear arms as a core freedom, symbolic (at a minimum) of a peoples' right to throw of an oppressive government. And considering Jefferson's statement about having a revolution every 20 years or so, we had the idea from the founding of the country that an armed people reserve their right to rebellion.

Canada didn't have that same experience, viewing the mother country as more benevolent than malevolent, so guns never became as tied to the concepts of freedom and independence as they did here. And to the extent there were Canadians who may have wanted independence, they didn't have enough of a population to win anyway.

[Aemon Stark]

Getting to this late, but I think this is right. The most obvious difference in the development of the U.S. and Canada is that we rebelled from GB, and they didn't.

I think that in the aftermath of the French and Indian War, or Seven Years War, or whatever you want to call it, the English-speaking population of Canada viewed the Crown as an indispensable ally, and the guarantor of Canada remaining dominated politically by English speaking people. This is partly because of numbers -- there just weren't enough Canadians to hold that country together without the power of the Crown, and Canada wouldn't have been powerful enough to protect itself from any potential external enemies either -- including the U.S.

Rather important to mention that "Canada" consisted of the colonies of Quebec, Nova Scotia (+/- New Brunswick, PEI, Cape Breton), and Newfoundland. Quebec was French-speaking and Catholic, and the Quebec Act (1774) was one of the "intolerable acts" inasmuch as it guaranteed language, legal, and religious rights (and considerable territory) to that colony. In Nova Scotia, there was considerable Patriot sentiment, not least because many settlers had come from New England, but the mercantile political elite found more profitability in loyalty. On the other hand, raids by American privateers did not engender rebellion.

Anyway, I don't know where you're getting this idea that some hypothetical "English-speaking population" of Canada viewed the Crown as "indispensable". "Canada" as of 1776 was Quebec, i.e. New France, and did not acquire much of any English-speaking population (apart from the colonial elite) until Loyalists moved north after the Revolution. The only other British colony at the time apart from NS was Newfoundland, and it didn't enter Confederation until 1949.

Canada didn't have that same experience, viewing the mother country as more benevolent than malevolent, so guns never became as tied to the concepts of freedom and independence as they did here. And to the extent there were Canadians who may have wanted independence, they didn't have enough of a population to win anyway.

Once again, this claim is completely without basis in fact. We even had armed rebellions in 1837 and 1838 - both crushed - which had various aims, but ultimately paved the way for responsible government. I suppose there was no mythology about guns, but that didn't stop an angry mob from burning Parliament to the ground in 1849. Canadians were too busy fighting each other along linguistic and sectarian lines to fight for independence anyhow.

[James Arryn]

Getting to this late, but I think this is right. The most obvious difference in the development of the U.S. and Canada is that we rebelled from GB, and they didn't.

I think that in the aftermath of the French and Indian War, or Seven Years War, or whatever you want to call it, the English-speaking population of Canada viewed the Crown as an indispensable ally, and the guarantor of Canada remaining dominated politically by English speaking people. This is partly

because of numbers -- there just weren't enough Canadians to hold that country together without the power of the Crown, and Canada wouldn't have been powerful enough to protect itself from any potential external enemies either --

including the U.S..

A few points of contention.

First, I think you underestimate how much of Canada was not English in language or sympathy: a majority.

Secondly, how much do you know about the War of 1812? One of the reasons the U.S. chose to invade when they did was because Britain was entirely tied up with war in Europe. There were only around 5000 regulars here, and most of those were Canadians who had joined up. In addition we had about 10,000 irregulars, and a few thousand militia. (our militia were more irregulars, if you get me).

Whereas the U.S. had more regulars, more irregulars, and about 400, 000 more militia, although admittedly many of those were on home guard duty and might never play a role.

Still, Canada was facing a HUGE disadvantage, and still won the war by most definitions...certainly we beat off the invasion although seriously outnumbered, and we managed to take and briefly hold the White House on our retaliatory raid...eventually burned it to the ground, sorry, the new one looks really swell...but by this point some of the British reinforcements had begin to make their way over.

Point being, Canada DID fight off the U.S., largely alone. We had 3 advantages.

1) Canadians have always made great warriors. Maybe it's the outdoorsy thing, or the dumb/brave thing, but we have always shone in war in a manner quite out of scale with our population or importance. Just as one example, D-Day. 300 million USA, 2 beaches. British Empire, countless souls, unsettling sun, 2 beaches. 15 or 20 million Canada, 1 beach.

2) The native advantage. It could be argued this was the real difference maker. We had a much better relationship with the natives of our land than the US did, and we had more of them, and it played a huge role. 10,000 First People's fought for us, and were essential to many of our victories.

3) Organization. Your command structure and campaign strategy was pretty awful, and we saw it and exploited it from the get go...often taking the fight to you when you expected to catch us unawares, etc. In some minor ways, it stylistically mirrored your Revolution, only in this case you were the Redcoats. :)

Additionally you also kinda assumed we might welcome you, and to be honest, until you committed some atrocities that swayed the tide of popular opinion strongly against you, it might have been kind of on the fence for a while. :)

(remind you of anything recent?)

So I think you are somewhat off in your assessment of Canada, and as a result, I am unconvinced by your reasoning for why you developed a gun culture and we did not. We had guns back then too, and used to them to fight off an Imperial Power, and unlike you, ours remained next door. And yet it still never became a symbol of personal freedom for us as it did for you.