# How others see America and the Virginia shootings.



## Warrigal (Sep 2, 2015)

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


----------



## BobF (Sep 2, 2015)

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.


----------



## imp (Sep 2, 2015)

*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


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 2, 2015)

> 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.


----------



## imp (Sep 2, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I find that rather hard to believe.



I did, too; do you mean that the rules were hard to imagine, or simply the fact that he was allowed to own the shotgun?    imp


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 2, 2015)

I find the regulations hard to believe.

Here are the sort of regulation that pertain to hunting with shotguns in Saskatchewan.

http://www.highlandoutfitters.com/huntingseasonswaterfowl.htm

They seem pretty sensible IMO.

I do have a family member from Saskatchewan. I might ask his opinion on the story you have been told.


----------



## AprilT (Sep 2, 2015)

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.


----------



## fureverywhere (Sep 2, 2015)

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.


----------



## imp (Sep 2, 2015)

AprilT said:


> 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


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 3, 2015)

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.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 3, 2015)

I liked the gross PooPourri ad more than the show...nthego:


----------



## AprilT (Sep 3, 2015)

imp said:


> 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.   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. layful: .


----------



## imp (Sep 3, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> 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


----------



## imp (Sep 3, 2015)

AprilT said:


> 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.   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. layful: .



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


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 3, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> 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!


----------



## Susie (Sep 3, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> 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.


----------



## imp (Sep 3, 2015)

*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


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 3, 2015)

Susie said:


> 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.


----------



## mitchezz (Sep 3, 2015)

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.


----------



## mitchezz (Sep 3, 2015)

Something like this

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...ps-off-australian-treatment-of-asylum-seekers


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 3, 2015)

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
> 
> ...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 3, 2015)

Snap Mitchezz


----------



## WhatInThe (Sep 3, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> 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.


----------



## Susie (Sep 3, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Lesson learned, D.W.!
I give up, as I'm no match for your very "high IQ"!


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 3, 2015)

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?


----------



## mitchezz (Sep 3, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> 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.



true. Our current government led by Liberal (what a misnomer) Tony Abbott is very conservative and Abbott has often said he wishes Australia could go back to the 1950s. Believe me, he is doing his best to drag us back there. The only reason Abbott is in power is because the previous government (Australian Labor Party) was consumed by infighting and leadership battles and the country had had a gutful of them.


----------



## BobF (Sep 3, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> 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?



Not much chance of changing the US as our Constitution does require good efforts from both House and Senate and for some problems, also a round of state referendums on the subject as the Congress has decided it to change to.   Over all the final votes must be large, likely in the 60% area.    Can look it up if really needed, but hoping the comment is sufficient for now.    And especially for the guns this is true.   Other means have been proposed and it works partially but not completely till the Second Amendment gets changed.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 3, 2015)

If you were able to watch the video, you would see that Adam Hills did address the fact that amendments to the constitution are possible and historically have happened. Even amendments to cancel previous amendments.

One of the valid points he did make is that the media called an attempted massacre on a train in Europe "a wake up call to America." He then asks why two journalists being murdered on camera is not a wake up call. A guest on the show (not shown in the clip) who is a Canadian observed that if Sandy Hook wasn't a wake up call then nothing else will be. Ever.

Am I to take away the message that it doesn't matter how many people are murdered using firearms, let alone accidentally killed or injured, in the United States there will never be any tightening of the laws relating to firearms ownership? 

This is the realpolitik?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 4, 2015)

Realpolitik indeed...nthego:


----------



## BobF (Sep 4, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> If you were able to watch the video, you would see that Adam Hills did address the fact that amendments to the constitution are possible and historically have happened. Even amendments to cancel previous amendments.
> 
> One of the valid points he did make is that the media called an attempted massacre on a train in Europe "a wake up call to America." He then asks why two journalists being murdered on camera is not a wake up call. A guest on the show (not shown in the clip) who is a Canadian observed that if Sandy Hook wasn't a wake up call then nothing else will be. Ever.
> 
> ...




Yes, it is possible to make amendments to our Constitution and we have done so over the 200 years of our existence.   But it is not easy nor fast to do.   We have 27 right now already done.    I don't know how many others may be in the mill and no way of telling if others are ready for the state by state effort to make them real.   It is not easy or fast for good reasons.   We want stability in our Constitution which means basically leave it alone and only change for real reasons, not just for some folks idea of 'better' for personal reasons.   Once done in our Congress it then requires a high margin from the states to make it happen.   I believe the numbers of acceptance for any proposed changes is 2/3 of each house in Congress and then also 2/3 of the states.   Lots of legal stuff to make this difficult to do.   Which does give us a long term, stable, Constitution to follow and live with.  This is good as today's big issue may in twenty years or more will become somehow a joke or unnecessary for many reasons.   We go slow, all you non US folks telling the US how to operate.   We know how to operate very well and have done so for well over 200 years now.   Something hard for some folks to manage, if any.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 4, 2015)

I've looked the process for amending the Constitution and it seems that there are two possible pathways.

From the National Archives



> *The Constitutional Amendment Process*
> 
> The authority to amend the Constitution   of the United States is derived from Article V   of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist   of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration   (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process   under the provisions of 1   U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties   associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither   Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process   in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures   and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties   until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity   until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
> 
> ...



This article is vague about how the states ratify the proposed amendments but it comes into effect when 38 out of 50 states ratify it. It's a high bar and not easy to achieve, but if the people are behind it, it should be possible. Clearly, three amendments were made in our lifetimes - 24th, 25th and 26th.

Our process is a lot simpler. A question is put to the people in a referendum and it is passed if the result is a majority of voters overall plus a majority vote in a majority of states i.e. 4 out of 6 states. Mostly these changes are rejected by the people but when there is bipartisan support it is possible for a successful outcome.


----------



## BobF (Sep 4, 2015)

Yes you do have changes to your government and one recently, may still be going on.    A change to your government style.    Which would once again in short number of years give you a new government to learn and fix.   And you are still short of shaking the crown from having driving abilities in your land.


----------



## mitchezz (Sep 4, 2015)

The Crown is a passenger only these days Bob. I hope we ditch it in the not too distant future.


----------

