Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
This sounds to be a conversation I would LOVE to have.
One of my favourite things is a good discussion with a reasonable person who believes something fundamentally different than me.
A conversation where we don't try and convince the other that they are wrong but merely try and understand the other's position and find flaws in the other's beliefs not to rub it in their face but make the other's argument/belief better.
To your conversation partner being able to carry a con sealed weapon is so fundamental to her sense of self and safety that shed rather due than give it up. To me (and presumably you as well) you'd rather not have the threat of the unknown gunman with a state controlled check on who has dangerous weapons.
I don't understand the gun culture, but if like to know more about it.
|
Most times on a discussion level I've realized that I am never going to change someones minds, especially on something like this debate. My intent going into conversations is that I want to understand the viewpoint and how they came to that point.
Like I said, this was a very lovely woman, very well educated and smart, our gun culture was completely alien to her, as was the American viewpoint to me. By the way she was shocked at that considering my military background, and my belief in very strong gun control laws.
However the civil war and revolutionary war and the old west legend are prevalent to the Americans. They fought for their independence against what they view as an occupation. In Canada we didn't as much fight for our independence as we negotiated it and defended it.
To be honest, in Canada when we learn about our charter or rights and freedoms its a few weeks in school, and its a background to any discussion, its a fairly complex document and most people don't know what's even contained in it.
In the States the Constitutions is an extremely simple yet powerful document that starts with the phrase "We the People". So while its literally a government blueprint and rights document, its a document defended by the people. The viewpoint is that a government will eventually change it so that its not a document by the people for the people and will be used against the people, so the freedoms within have to be defended with their life and any government that trys to take away those freedoms must be over thrown. So I get the 2nd amendment arming yourself to protect yourself from the government, I think its stupid since democracy is far more powerful now then back then, and the founding fathers didn't have the M1A1 main battle tank in mind when it came down to a rights to bear arms.
On the crime thing, while Canada and the U.S. were basically founded the same way. The U.S. is based around the concept of the old west, fighting lawless indians and horse thieves. Steely eyed civil war vets defending the town folks against criminals, gun fights homestead battles. When you look at Canada's history its more about the establishment of railroads explorers walking across the country. The great claim races. If you look at the histories, the America is still based around the simplest terms which was based around whatever it takes to protect your own. In Canada it with the exception of wars between the French and the British was almost outright civilized.
So I get the gun culture, and I get how they come to the view point. In terms of the concealment to protect yourself. I think it does go back to the romantic image of the dentist turned lawman etc. But when you combine it with nightly reports of murders and robbery and rape, and the gun culture and the need to stand your own ground like the lonely farmer against hordes of Indians, you get the gun culture that you have now. Then you throw in an institutional mistrust of the police and the government, and I almost get the point.
Its a negotiated history versus a romanticized history and based around a document that rises above common sense.
Like I said, I wasn't going to change her mind, there was a logic to where she was going, but she wasn't a complete kook, she knew that the system is broken and that the laws are broken, but they are only willing to take reformation so far, but if it crosses the boundary of second amendment rights the debate ends.
In Canada because we don't have a second amendment and because our constitution or bill or rights is a far more cloudy document without the place in history at the same level, we are not as fervent.
It was interesting, like I said I respected her points, but they weren't points that I would ever adopt, and vise versa.