Why is Gothamist going political lately? Trying to lose in the game?

Correct me if I'm wrong, Canadians, but to me what's different about Canada is that they give more weight to the good of society as as a whole than to individual rights/wishes.

We in the US are more violent - I don't exactly know why, but we are, as a culture or a mind-set, much more prone to violence. The drug was and other recent developments certainly don't help, but we've been violent from the get go.

Canadian gun laws and restrictions are fine by me and while they won't solve all the problems, it certainly is hard to dispute that if a lot of our crazies and knuckleheads had to rely on machetes and clubs to exorcise their demons or have at their rivals - there'd be far fewer 9 year old girls and other innocents dying in Arizona parking lots.

We have tons of people here. The more people you have the more irresponsible, idiotic and violent people you have, just by default.

Comparisons to Canada show a lack of thought and logic. Bowling for Columbine has been on Starz or Showtime with high frequency, lately. I thoroughly enjoy most of it, but cringe at Moore's comparisons to Europe and Canada. It's also incredibly weak when Moore uses anecdotes and theories of three teenagers outside of a Taco Bell as to why Canada has fewer gun-related deaths.

Back to the point, a gun safety class is not the silver bullet, Michael Moore. I highly doubt that the bulk of gun-related deaths are committed by guys who would register their gun and take a safety class.

We have a lot of gun violence, in large part, because of how we deal with drugs and minorities.

Arguments like this make me think of the movie Alien. Remember that scene when the android tried to kill Ripley by choking her with a rolled up magazine? If someone wants to hurt another person, they will. They don't need a gun or a sharp blade if they want to kill.

True, a gun is purpose-made to kill but just saying "These laws work in Canada" is a horrible argument. There's no guarantee that those laws will work here. The point of large-capacity clips is a good one, though, there's no need for it to defend your home. Unless you're expecting the Zombie Apocalypse, but if you stock goods for that kind of thing, you're probably living in a shed in the middle of a forest anyway.

sure, there is no guarantee. maybe the registering/safety course/permission slip/limited clip approach isnt the right approach for this county. but just throwing a blanket "wont work in america" statement out there, not offering any other solutions, and sitting back as gun violent continues to be insanely high here comparatively...how is that going to change anything?

at the end of the day there HAS TO be a reason why its higher in this country than in others. the reasons moore lists seem like good places to start. but if you dont agree you have to provide the "right" causes/corresponding solutions.

Good Point, without offering any counter-proposal I'm not helping much. But what are the "right" causes? I don't think anyone can truly pinpoint that. The cause for the Arizona shooting is completely different than the cause of a gang shooting. One blanket "This is the cause" answer or solution to gun control won't work across the board. Like I said, I like the restriction on high-capacity magazines. It's a good place as any to start.

In the case of the Arizona shooting, I can't believe this is a gun law issue. Loughner is a mentally / emotionally unstable person who showed sign of aggression and should have gotten help. His family or his school should have intervened long before this happened. It's a failure of the people raising and educating him, not our gun laws. A gun probably gave him the courage to act, but the action he carried out was born from his mind.

And really, if your son is thrown out of college for making a video that calls the school a "Death Camp" and has an occult shrine with a skull and rotting produce in the back yard, wouldn't you sit down with your son and try to figure out what's wrong? Wouldn't it be apparent that something wasn't right?

sure. youre never going to get rid of ALL gun violence. as you said, a gang shooting isnt the same as a deranged kid. but you have to implement policies and restrictions that limit the greatest % of handgun violence.

doing nothing is going to give you the same result. but if you follow through and ban high-volumn clips, limit super-easy access to bullets, close some gun show loopholes that get weapons easily into peoples hands, and ban assault rifles that are totally unnecessary for self defense...

...sure you might not stop someone like loughner, but maybe you prevent a few hundred other unrelated gun deaths. thats still a few hundred less gun deaths than you would have had if nothing at all was done.

but with such powerful knee-jerk reactions and washington influence, its almost impossible to pass any type of limitations. even if 90% of the people agree its a common-sense issue, a super motivated group will freak out that its a slippery slope and insist we cant budge an inch in trying to correct our gun violence problem

I'm not sure what anyone could have done. Can you force someone to get therapy? Lock them up if they say or write things? Everyone has probably known at least one person they considered a ticking time bomb. But what do you do?

The problem was Loughner was an adult and no longer under his parents control. Since he didn't break any laws, until he started shooting, the police couldn't do anything.

This is factually incorrect. The local police dropped the ball on this one.

"Won't work in America" is valid in that we're throwing medicine at the symptoms, and not fighting the actual cause.

Our drug laws make hardened criminals out of average kids. Our expensive and failing education system doesn't help. We have the highest rate of single-parent families in the industrialized world. A lot of these issues lead to the problem. We can try and take away the guns, but name something we've successfully prohibited in this country? In practicum, further restrictions on guns will just create a stronger black market and create more crime. When will liberals and conservatives learn this economic fact?

"we're throwing medicine at the symptoms, and not fighting the actual cause."

This is why Michael Moore frustrates me. He gets close to, but doesn't address what the actual cause is. And I don't think anyone does know what that cause is. It may be an amalgam of what you've described but it's not just our gun laws. That's just the band-aid on a wound that needs surgery.

Dude is like the Liberal sarah palin. When I see him I want to vote republican. And when I see Palin I want to to take a shit and then vote democrat.

It's not good to be so reactionary.

A permission slip. That is cute.

I kind of like the idea. A spouse should have a say in the matter if such a weapon is in the house. What if they don't like the idea and are scared to death of guns but you go out and get one anyway? Now you've got one and are scaring the shit out of your spouse. Sure, if you don't care about their emotional state, go ahead, but it's the kind of thing I think should be discussed prior to purchase.

Also, I think if it's your choice to have a gun in your home, everyone in your home should be well trained on gun safety and go to the range to practice on occasion. Otherwise someone could accidentally fire it because they didn't respect it.

NYC requires an "Affidavit of Co-Habitant" from people in your residence to get a permit.

Did not know that, but good to hear.