America's Gun Violence

HughFreakingDillon said:

I recall learning a tonne of american history. I recall actually reading somewhere that our Canadian curriculum was more in depth on american history than most history classes in the US were. but I have nothing to substantiate that claim with. 

I don’t doubt that, with a highly politicized core curriculum and standardized testing going on in the US.  Private schooling is the way to go unfortunately.

unsung said:

show previous quotes

jnimhaoileoin said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

So serious question guys: what are your thoughts/opinions if a shooter brings a 1000 rounds of ammo to a range?
granted all laws are being followed: firearms are secure and guns and ammo are separate. 

Why would they need to bring 1000 rounds to the range? Why couldn’t the range supply the ammo? I don’t understand why anyone would need 1000 rounds in their possession. How many rounds does a combat soldier take on patrol or on a mission to kill the enemy? On average?

I probably have brought 1000 rounds of ammo to a range. As mentioned, range ammo is about double what you can get other places. Just like everything else you can possibly buy, ammo is cheaper in bulk. I used to buy 300-500 rounds at a time because it would be double the cost of 100 rounds.
So why did I bring 1000 rounds to the range? Instead of a bachelor party at a strip club, mine was at a range. Had about 15 friends go with me. Most didn't own guns, and was just easier to have everyone pay me $50 and I buy all the ammo we needed. I can't remember how much ammo we brought, but was probably 2-3000 rounds. 
.22 ammo is so small it is often sold in boxes of 550 that is about the size of a softball. I'm guessing I probably had at least 2 boxes since half my guns are .22. And at least 1000 rounds of other ammo, probably more. Going through 100 rounds of ammo doesn't take long, easily less than an hour. So it makes sense to bring 2-3000 rounds when there was about 15 people there.
Probably not the scenario you had in mind. But if I saw just 1 person with 1000+ rounds, I'd probably just think he plans to sight in and practice with several guns and plans to be there 8 hours. Maybe he just got a few new ones he wants to try before entering a competition, maybe he wants to try different ammo, maybe he has to drive far and only goes once a year so wants to make a day of it. Maybe he just had a better deal on bulk ammo and keeps it all in one ammo can. I can tell you I only buy .22 ammo in those 550 boxes, and usually buy 2 or 3 boxes when I can, because sometimes they can be hard to find.
In any case, I wouldn't really think much of it. Unless he started pulling out some illegal belt fed weapon that can go through 1000 rounds in a few minutes, then he'd probably just be kicked out and banned.

I have to admit I find it quite disturbing that your stag party was at a shooting range. I know to you it's a hobby but I guess it just highlights the cultural difference between America and countries that don't have such high levels of gun violence (I.e. every other first world country). To you it's so normal to be around guns and for them to be commonplace, this is just so alien to me and for that I am extremely thankful

I have seen some of the Euro stag parties.  A friend of mine live in the capital of a small country and every weekend the stag groups come into town, get extremely drunk, start fights, break stuff.  

A range day by comparison was fun and relaxing.

Seriously, I've seen, in my opinion, far more disturbing bachelor parties. My wife, her parents, the wives of my friends were all happy to hear I had planned something less traditional than the go to Vegas and the "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" type of party.
Unless gun ranges in general are disturbing to you, then I don't know why this would bother anyone. And if that's the case, don't blame it on the party, just say you don;t like gun ranges.

oftenreading said:

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Hilarious.

The 'other countries don't know US history' comment... hilarious. Double hilarious because... even if that was true... that would imply the citizens need to be armed for a day's notice war. Based on the country's history, the only people that might need assault rifles in the US are those people who are black.

It also suggests that the poster thinks the US is the only country that was formed in conflict and rebellion. It really more points out the flaws in the teaching of history in the US, not in other countries. 

This part isn't the hilarious part. It's the sad part.

Canada's development was very similar to the US, Mace- even parallel timelines (roughly speaking).

Somehow I just knew the response was going to be "but it's not the same". 

Americans seems to have a very strong need to believe themselves to be unique when there's really no evidence of that. I'm beginning to think that explains the gun culture - they know it's out step with virtually every other country and it doesn't make sense, and they're kind of proud of that. 

Okay, but I asked for input. I'm willing to listen.
You have yet to tell me how one country with a population of 32 million that almost entirely lives within an hour drive from the American boarder is the same as developing a country of 320 million that covers almost all of something like 3 million square miles that takes 24 hours to drive across (the short way).
The population growth isn't the same, the land isn't the same, the territory covered isn't the same. So what is exactly the same about it then?
And aside from all that, my only point was that pioneer/cowboy culture had a major influence well into the 20th century. Only makes sense that some of it still lingers around. I didn't say its the only reason for our gun culture, but it has to be at least a contributing factor. 

Too busy a work day planned to get into any detail. Maybe TBU will have the time, or failing that maybe I will later. 

Certainly the population of Canada is smaller, but aside from that the essential factors of expansion and colonization into what became this country were the same. The same harsh conditions, the same conflicts with First Nations, the same injuries and epidemics and starvation and wars and death. Exploration and settlement covered the whole country, a larger land mass than the US, so I'm not convinced that the current  population distribution is relevant. More than 50% of the American population lives within a relatively short drive from the coastline, so by your argument that minimizes the impact of exploration and settlement in the middle. 

oftenreading said:

Too busy a work day planned to get into any detail. Maybe TBU will have the time, or failing that maybe I will later. 

Certainly the population of Canada is smaller, but aside from that the essential factors of expansion and colonization into what became this country were the same. The same harsh conditions, the same conflicts with First Nations, the same injuries and epidemics and starvation and wars and death. Exploration and settlement covered the whole country, a larger land mass than the US, so I'm not convinced that the current  population distribution is relevant. More than 50% of the American population lives within a relatively short drive from the coastline, so by your argument that minimizes the impact of exploration and settlement in the middle. 

But that last statement you made is actually one of the main reasons it is so different. The expansion from the east to the west coast is what drove that "western" image. For 100 years there was this expansion with almost no government in many places. People settling in all of the midwest states, and Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and much of California were not part of major cities with police. New England was entirely different that the expanding US. If the US just stayed on the east coast I doubt there'd even be a gun culture in this country. That's really what started it all. I've always believe the Indian population was much larger in the US, and therefore a much larger threat. The civil war certainly influenced a lot of violence and promoted guns. Many of the late 1800 outlaws were civil war veterans.
Every mining town was just a pot of violence and crime that slowly spread. Canada of course had mining, but nearly every territory or state had some sort of gold rush/mining attraction at one point. Much of western Canada wasn't settled until the railroad was available. Just a few decades makes a huge difference in settling by covered wagon or by train. There are many small differences in the expansion of our two countries, and I don't think it has anything to do with pride or anything else. Its just different and there's nothing good or bad about it. I dont understand why it is such a negative to think there is.
Seems very reasonable to me that could be part of the culture. The states that were already established and weren't involved in that western expansion are pretty much anti-gun today. Pretty much the rest that did expand west are the big pro-gun states. There was obviously some cultural influence from the life those had moving west.
Like I said, maybe they just teach it wrong, but the impression I always get is Canada's history may be similar, just a much smaller scale. Therefore the impact it would have would not be the same. The impression I always got is much of settled Canada was closer to New England culture than the expanding wild west. 

The reason I found the idea of a stag at a gun range disturbing is because I find the implied relationship with guns disturbing. Guns were invented for one purpose, to kill people. If you want to have fun hitting targets with an implement, why not do archery or even paintballing? Why do you need to use a lethal weapon? I know that you seem to be able to see guns differently but that doesn't change the fact that they are designed for killing and always carry that risk, a risk that is not associated with a paintball gun. Can you (Mace I guess) explain to me why it would be so much more enjoyable to you to use a lethal weapon than, say, a paintball gun? Is it actually the thrill of it and the knowledge that it is a lethal weapon? If so, then what disturbs me should be patently obvious