Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
Progressive

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #31 
I do advocate higher funding for mental health services so we can treat more people. And I think people with a DSV-IM recognized diagnosis may not possess firearms. Though most of the crimes are committed with hand guns. And honestly I don't know why civilians would need assault rifles anyways. But, I do believe in the castle doctrine, I have experienced a home invasion before (in California, where castle doctrine doesn't exist) and I do believe that I should have at least something in my possession (only at home) to protect myself.
__________________
"Ronald Reagan was the devil."-Huey Freeman
TheForeigner

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #32 
I find it funny how this thread started off to talk about gun control and all to how Canada and other countries are capitalist like the US and what Canadians think and other stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLK
The Canadian don't want guns they respect each other and humanity. I met a couple in Hawaii who were visiting from Canada. They told me they can't believe how archaic and backward we became as a country. I said I know the feeling. They went on to say People in Canada value more important things in life.


Canadians have guns. We have guns. We have less guns than the average americans, but we do. It really depends where you live, though. I'll generalize here and say that the couple you met don't see the reality. Reality is, Canadians are divised. And we don't respect each other really... Take a quick look at the last Canadian federal elections. 


The New Democratic Party (NDP) would be roughly the equivalent of the Justice Party in Canada. I don't personally like them really, since it's the federal. (I could explain my opinions here, but Canadian politics, not really interesting for you anyways) They were elected mostly in Quebec and in some urban parts of Ontario (Toronto & Ottawa area) and BC (Vancouver area).
The Conservative Party of Canada (CON), aka Tories, would be roughly the equivalent of something slitghly more at the right than Democrats but still at the left of Republicans. 
The Liberal Party of Canada (LIB) would be roughly the equivalent of the Democrats, but a bit more at the left, but still opportunists and slackers. They just elected as leader a little brainless lad called Justin Trudeau.
The Greens (GRN) got elected in BC (I think it was like in the some riding in the Northwest), 'cause BC has many hippies. They've got a more nature-oriented culture (with natives as well).

From that, Alberta is sort of the Texas of Canada. It has traditional right-wing social and economic values, and their economy is dependant of the disgusting oil sands, which are backed up by the Tories. The prairies, Alberta, and the West in general are more suspected to own guns than the East. People in Quebec for example, some of us do own guns, but only handguns and it's pretty rare anyways. Most of these handguns are owned by Montrealers, since Montreal is a big city, and other guns in circulation are mostly hunting rifles that people in rural areas own only to hunt.

FIREARMS MURDERS AND CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP

Canada
9,950,000 civilian firearms - 30.8 for every 100 people

Ranked 13 in the world for civilian gun ownership
In the latest year, there were 173 homicides by firearm - 0.51 per 100,000 population. 32% of all homicides are by firearm

FIREARMS MURDERS AND CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP

United States
270,000,000 civilian firearms - 88.8 for every 100 people

Ranked 1 in the world for civilian gun ownership
In the latest year, there were 9,146 homicides by firearm - 2.97 per 100,000 population. 60% of all homicides are by firearm

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

"In certain circumstances, more guns equal more violence. But for broader conclusions, more research is required. Yet if we are to believe the National Rifle Association (NRA): "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The implication is that all that is required to increase security is to increase access to guns for so-called good guys -- full stop. But the debate does not stop there, or at least it should not. In reality, guns often make it into the wrong hands, despite good intentions. And it looks like a sizeable percentage of these guns can ultimately find their way across borders to Canada [illegally]. In fact, the NRA's crude call for lax gun regulation actually makes it more likely that guns will end up in the hands of bad guys (and gals) on both sides of the border. Contrary to popular belief, it is not stolen guns that account for the majority of those used in crime. It is that firearms are purchased by intermediaries -- either dealers or friends -- and passed on to those that might not otherwise be able to legally obtain a one."
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/dariusz-dziewanski/us-gun-laws-effect-on-canada_b_2495773.html

"The study notes there is little research on illegal firearms in Canada and purchasing patterns within this market. It says that although the latest findings are "instructive," the small, non-representative sample means no definitive conclusions can be drawn."
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/10/illegal-guns-in-canada_n_1269448.html

So, really, the illegal gun market, in the US or in Canada; in North America in general, is huge. If I had to get a gun right now, it would be easier for me to get one illegally than legally. I know where to get one. I know the people to ask. This whole "Let's reform the gun system because of the recent shootings!" thing is ridiculous in my opinion. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. This is a reality that is forgotten most of the time. 

So in the end, I totally agree with you Progressive. Btw, nice signature  
Drew Voss

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #33 
@Ben Eastwood: Thank you very much for your strong and insightful piece on gun violence and assault rifle bans. I have myself spent a fair amount time in debate with other well-meaning progressives who see the assault rifle ban (or gun bans generally) as the end-all be-all of decreasing violent crime.

I feel that the assault rifle ban in a way epitomizes the flaws of the modern polarized political duopoly. The ban is an debate that inspires strong emotional feelings on both sides of the issue and is further emotionalized by a commercial and partisan mass media, which can sell paranoia (either fear of assault weapon violence or immense state tyranny) while leaving serious debate on underlying societal problems untouched. It provides reliable fuel for political campaigning, using people's emotions to win votes and increase turnout. And yet whether or not the ban is in place does very little to change the situation on the ground in our country. It offer minimal tangible benefit and completely fails to address the underlying challenges facing our nation. The result is a stalemate on the issue and an overall failure to address gun violence as a whole.

Certainly improving the background check system should be a priority, particularly when it comes to gun shows. Nor do I see any particular harm in maintaining records of gun ownership (or at least "personal and home defense type weapons" for aiding in police records.

Even more significant will be overall efforts for economic improvement, improving the nations capacity to provide effective mental health support and treatment, greater efforts to ensure that children are born into supportive families (through access to birth control, family planning, etc), and changes in drug laws that will lower violent crime levels.

I also think it is worth mentioning the importance of maintaining a responsible and informed hunting culture for use as a wildlife management tool. A well regulated state managed hunting system is key to maintaining optimal animal populations in the absence of natural predators, as well as helping to bring in valuable incomes for use in wildlife conservation.


Drew Voss

Korimyr the Rat

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #34 
I consider myself a progressive. I came to the Justice Party website, from Facebook, because I believe in ending the culture of corruption and corporate dominance in Washington and throughout the United States. I believe in freedom and equality for all Americans; I believe in fighting for an end to racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, and all other forms of bigotry. I believe in the right of homosexuals to marry and raise their families. I believe in the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions. I believe in a fair wage for fair day's work, and that a "fair tax" is one in which the people who can afford the most pay the most. I believe in the principles of the Justice Party as displayed on their website.

I say this to explain that I want to support the Justice Party. I want to believe in the Justice Party.

But I am dismayed to see, on the discussion forums of that same Justice Party-- a party committed to equality, human rights, and constitutional government-- people advocating for more violation of our Constitutional and human right to keep and bear arms.

It's a shame, because as much as I believe that America needs what the Justice Party stands for, I can not and will not support any party or any candidate that wants to disarm me.
Drew Voss

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #35 
@Korimyr, first of all, welcome to the forum. We appreciate your opinion, and I for one feel that your perspective on this issue is one that truly does need to be brought to the party's attention. You are not alone among the many firm and wholehearted believers in progressive political philosophy who have felt pressured away of many progressive movements on account of their defense of the Second Amendment. And although I suspect that you may support an even more strict defense than myself, I think we can agree that there are strong progressive arguments in opposition to gun control, to often lost in the convoluted political discussion of today. 

I do not believe my support for gun rights is in spite of my being a progressive. Rather I believe that progressive doctrines should support the right of the people to bear arms, as popular arms do present the final bulwark of defense for liberty. It is not a defense that I desire or expect to see rightly exerted in my lifetime, but one ought not tear down the defenses of tomorrow because they are unnecessary today. 

Furthermore, gun control is not a solution, it is a political tool. It has been built up by the Duopoly in such a way as to best inflame the passions of the party base and buy their persistent vote, while distracting them from the underlying social and economic ills endemic in our nation. We ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn too deeply into our opponents' manufactured partisan debate.

Korimyr, I strongly encourage you to not loose hope in the party simply because of this sole issue. While many in the party might not agree with these sorts of arguments, there are many others who do. I believe there is room within the party for this internal debate, after all, this page itself was just about split 50-50. Indeed we must leave this room for discussion and dissent if we are to survive and succeeded in our greater common goals. I know that within the state party to which I belong, there is substantial difference of opinion on this issue. There are members who might consider an assault weapons ban. There are, I think, more like myself who would oppose it and other measures that would prevent the "keeping and bearing of arms", but would be willing to consider expansion of background checks and some reasonable gun tracking measures. And there are members who see even this as an undue infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. But the prevailing opinion within our state party, among those I have discussed this with, is that it is neither proper nor expedient at this time to try and force a party doctrine upon a diverse membership. Rather, it should be the prerogative of individual members and individual candidates to make their own decisions on this issue, so that we might better unite around the progressive values we all share. It is my hope that the national party will maintain a similar stance as we move forward.

I am most interested in hearing your thoughts, and would look forward to reading further postings from you, as well as from others how may disagree with me from the other direction. After all, this is the greatest strength of our party, that it is founded not upon doctrine enforced from above, but rather in honest and open dialogue such as this.

Sincerely 

Drew Voss
Justice Party of New Hampshire

morris7200

Avatar / Picture

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 14
Reply with quote  #36 
@Korimyr:

There is no mention of limiting gun ownership in the Justice Party USA platform (http://www.justicepartyusa.org/platform).  The JP's intent is to build a movement around the core issues that unite us--many of the issues you mentioned--without being distracted by the wedge issues that divide us (such as gun ownership).  For me, that's one key aspect of the Justice Party that distinguishes it from other political parties and organizations.

I sincerely hope that you heed Drew's advice to not be discouraged by these conversations.  Debates such as this one are healthy and generally encouraged, but they are not intended to detract from our ultimate goal of making real progress on our core issues.

__________________
Best Regards,

Aaron Morris
Pittsburgh, PA
morris7200

Avatar / Picture

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 14
Reply with quote  #37 
@Drew:  Nicely stated!
__________________
Best Regards,

Aaron Morris
Pittsburgh, PA
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!