I just got felony arrested, not kidding.

And we are still waiting for that (theme-related) cartoon 

Let's look at the positive side.  If Slarti had actually been a car thief, and had been booked and spent a night in jail, he'd have been let out in the morning, no bail required, free to steal another car!  There's one kid 'round here who has something like 16 car thefts and just keeps on doing it.  If you need a car, it's marginally more hassle (actually probably less, you need a credit card to rent a car) but cheaper than Hertz. 

Dean wrote: The size of the USA has little bearing on anything. In terms of population it is equivalent to Europe. land area has little to do with it in terms of population density since most people live in towns and cities that are equivalent in size to most European towns and cities. All European countries (and Canada) have less than 5 deaths per million of population - in the USA it is 29 per million.   India has 4 times the population of the USA in 1/3 the area and has 3 times less firearm related deaths within some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world (their gun control is so strict it is cheaper to buy a gun on the black market than buy it legally).

This is the central issue in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, and it's never really answered.  My feeling is that it's a kind of independence gone a bit too far.  Guns have of course been legal since European settlers arrived, and rightly so.  If I had been a 1st generation American, especially one living in a rural area, you bet I would've wanted a gun, probably several.  And so firearms had to be legal, and therefore had to be legal universally - that is by Federal or Constitutional mandate, not state-to-state - as you can't tell John Smith he may protect his cabin but John Doe he may not protect his townhouse.

The problem arises as things slowly change: culture, technology, government and policing, education, economics, all have an impact on the reality of public gun ownership, or the need thereof.   If one would prefer significantly fewer guns out there, and their availability reduced, a drastic change of mindset in American society would have to occur involving the public's perception of personal security, how it would be provided, and the need look out for themselves.  In our time of terrorism paranoia let alone common crime, this would be quite difficult. 

In short, it's a bad time politically (or socio-politically)in the U.S. for any real effort to change gun laws.  Maybe in the future these threats will be lesser and a saner gun policy can be pursued.  Even Obama knows guns are a third rail of politics, as much or more than Entitlements.

Finnforest wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I wish I knew this was a gun rights discussion instead of a lame car story like 6 pages ago. Slarti planned it that way Pat, just to keep you out.  It's his new strategy.....creative thread titling.  (kidding!)

Dr Who won't even touch a gun.

Atavachron wrote: Dean wrote: The size of the USA has little bearing on anything. In terms of population it is equivalent to Europe. land area has little to do with it in terms of population density since most people live in towns and cities that are equivalent in size to most European towns and cities. All European countries (and Canada) have less than 5 deaths per million of population - in the USA it is 29 per million.   India has 4 times the population of the USA in 1/3 the area and has 3 times less firearm related deaths within some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world (their gun control is so strict it is cheaper to buy a gun on the black market than buy it legally).   This is the central issue in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, and it's never really answered.  My feeling is that it's a kind of independence gone a bit too far.  Guns have of course been legal since European settlers arrived, and rightly so.  If I had been a 1st generation American, especially one living in a rural area, you bet I would've wanted a gun, probably several.  And so firearms had to be legal, and therefore had to be legal universally - that is by Federal or Constitutional mandate, not state-to-state - as you can't tell John Smith he may protect his cabin but John Doe he may not protect his townhouse. The problem arises as things slowly change: culture, technology, government and policing, education, economics, all have an impact on the reality of public gun ownership, or the need thereof.   If one would prefer significantly fewer guns out there, and their availability reduced, a drastic change of mindset in American society would have to occur involving the public's perception of personal security, how it would be provided, and the need look out for themselves.  In our time of terrorism paranoia let alone common crime, this would be quite difficult.  In short, it's a bad time politically (or socio-politically)in the U.S. for any real effort to change gun laws.  Maybe in the future these threats will be lesser and a saner gun policy can be pursued.  Even Obama knows guns are a third rail of politics, as much or more than Entitlements.

Why is it so drastically different in Canada?

Dean, there's only 10 people in Canada. 

A Person wrote: Finnforest wrote: What's up with Dr. Who?    Kirk and Spock still have the phasers.   Well, he is the Doctor.

  I never got around to that show unfortunately.  Was it kinda like Blake 7?

Dean wrote: Why is it so drastically different in Canada?

Good question, and I don't know.  But I would wager Canadian culture and guns are old acquaintances, the difference is that they don't seem to shoot each other as much.  Maybe they were affected by different things, a more gradual and less violent process of autonomy from Anglo/European countries, less of an emphasis on industry, who knows.

Atavachron wrote: Dean wrote: Why is it so drastically different in Canada? Good question, and I don't know.  But I would wager Canadian culture and guns are old acquaintances, the difference is that they don't seem to shoot each other as much.  Maybe they were affected by different things, a more gradual and less violent process of autonomy from Anglo/European countries, less of an emphasis on industry, who knows.

Moore touched on the simularties of gun ownership and differences in usage between Canada and the US in the film, but I don't recall any real answers or conclusions from that section.