Can gun control laws help prevent the illegal purchase of weapons?
I live in the UK, which has strict gun laws. In this country, our gun laws do help prevent lower amount of gun crime, simply by making guns far harder and more expensive for criminals to obtain, and the punishment for illegal firearms possession is currently 10 years in prison, and no defence lawyer in the land will prevent it. So there is a stiff deterrent for anyone thinking about obtaining a gun in the first place.In the US, with such a large number of guns in circulation, and with citizens having the automatic right to own a weapon (rather than by police enforced vetting and licensing), I can’t see how any number of controls will ever work. If such a law is invoked, it would need to apply equally to every state, and every law abiding citizen would have to undergo the process for obtaining firearms legally.It is at the end of the day, a communal and actually, a cultural decision. Gun laws in the UK don’t restrict law abiding owners whatsoever. They are there to reduce the number of guns in circulation, protect the public and make it harder for criminals to obtain them in the first place. This is intrinsically the idea of the nature of firearms legislation. If you want a car, you have to prove you can drive, and you have your car and your details held on a central database. It is the same with guns. You don’t have the automatic right to drive a car which could kill people, same with a firearm.As a result of UK gun law, it can safely be said that licensed gun owners are probably more law abiding than the average UK citizen and have better mental health, since it is impossible to get a license if you have a criminal record and your GP will never allow you to get a license if you are not of sound mental health.The UK decided long ago that the right or need for the population to own a weapon was far outweighed by the risk to that same population posed by widespread and unlicensed firearm ownership. I’m a former gun owner myself, and I bet there is not a gun owner in the UK who wants to see school kids gunned down in exchange for less restrictions on firearms. The average UK citizen does not need a gun, and furthermore, a lot of the population would never be safe with them, either.
Why doesn't Canada have a president?
Lots of great answers already, so not much to add. Canada does not have a President as head of state; instead, we have the Queen. There is a lot of confusion in Canada about the Queen as head of state. Many Canadians think the Queen’s role is purely symbolic. That is true in one way but not another. The Queen exerts no control over Canadian affairs on a voluntary basis. She has accepted a symbolic role. But if she decided to throw her weight around, her symbolic power would become real power. She has enormous powers as head of state that she never exercises.Canada is a bit of an odd country on this front. It is one of the oldest and most stable democracies in the world. Canada has enjoyed a stable and effective government for 150 years. What’s odd is that when a law is enacted, it must be approved by three levels of government, only one of which is elected by the people. Parliamentary representatives (MPs) are elected and responsible for debating and approving legislation. They are voted into office by the people. But the Canadian Senate must also approve the legislation even though senators are appointed and not elected. And the Queen must finally provide Royal Assent (through the Governor General) for new legislation to take affect. The Queen is obviously not elected either. Both the Senate and the Queen merely apply a rubber stamp to legislation, subject to minor niggling at the Senate level. They have real power but don’t exercise it.It might be considered miraculous that Canada has achieved stability with a country so huge, with population concentred in the middle of the country, and with two competing cultures and languages vying for power and influence. The secret sauce is a federal 3 party (Liberal, Conservative, NDP) system with a First Past the Post (FPTP) election framework. Majority governments are routinely elected with 38–43% of the popular vote. Because they are majority governments and because law is enacted at one level of government, stuff gets done.Still not ideal to have a government system that relies on people with real power agreeing to not exercise that power. On the other hand, why tamper with something that has a 150 year record of success?
If the President wanted to carry a gun, would the Secret Service let him or would it be a security risk?
(1) Yes, the President can carry a gun if he wants.(2) It can be a security risk. Usually it is not.First rule of executive protection: The protectee cannot be the protector, at least not at the same time.The President has "been in possession" of a gun many times. Skeet shooting (remember Cheney?), target shooting, hunting, etc.But that really isn't "packing" a gun for protection, as the question implies.When Reagan was on his ranch, he used to carry a pistol. After he scared his Secret Service guy ****less by firing it without warning, by mutual agreement the guns were put away.But even that isn't really the context implied by the question.It comes down to this: If you are the protectee, you are concentrating on doing whatever it is you are doing. If you are the protector, you are concentrating on security. Period. The roles can be reversed, but you can never be both at the same time.Stated differently: If I need security at a function, I don't bring a gun--I hire a guy with a gun. Queue the "Magnificent 7" theme.If you are President and feel the need to carry your own gun, you probably aren't concentrating on being a President.EDIT: This is no longer an academic or hypothetical question. It has been confirmed that when he was President, Ronald Reagan carried a .38 revolver in his briefcase "just in case."However, he only wore a gun on his actual person when vacationing or enjoying his retirement at his ranch.P.S. Many answers to these questions get into considerations such as the President needing to get a concealed carry permit in every state he visits or somesuch. These individuals are mistaken: Federal officials operating in their official capacity who have been authorized & issued a firearm by the Federal government do not need permission from a state to carry a firearm, period. There may be questions or whatever if the guy doesn't have his badge on him or somesuch, but ultimately things are always sorted out--usually with just a phone call.
Why is gun control bad?
Gun control is not bad.The real issue is what is the agreed upon definition of gun control?To some gun control means no scary looking guns.To others gun control means the ability to control your weapon while executing a double tap to the forehead of a home invader.While both those examples are silly to a point the truth is there are so many different views on what gun control means to so many different people that getting a consensuses of reasonable gun control in virtually impossible.For instance a person living in New York City has access to police protection in 2 minutes because there is a massive police presence. However a city like Oklahoma City (Oklahoma City takes up 607 square miles) with a smaller police force may take several minutes longer to see police presence. Not to mention the people living out in the middle of no where that may need to wait for 30 -45 minutes for a sheriff to respond.From many people’s perspective we already have gun control laws. Convicted criminals are not allowed to own firearms. For some reason some of these criminals seem to ignore the laws, so with that in mind it would stand to reason, more gun control laws would only be followed by law-abiding citizens. Why are we worried about law-abiding citizens? We are not.I guess what you are really asking is, why do some people fight against gun control laws?I think the reason is because no one can define that for every group. Some would be happy with 10 round limits. Some would want no assault rifles. Some simply want guns banned altogether. Because no one can define what gun control means, gun rights people will fight against any and all changes because as soon as they give in on any issue the gun control advocates will simply want the next thing they can take away. It never stops, right up till the second amendment is rendered a non-issue.To be quite honest I don’t blame them for fighting against anything that infringes on their 2nd amendment rights. I am always amazed when people are so willing to give up any of thier constitutional rights, but of course someone always knows what is better for me than do right? Yep of course they do. LOL
Does canada have a debt? Like how the us does?
Sure Canada has debts but a smaller economy than the U.S. and they dont have a Pentagon running their domestic policy, and tighter banking regulations so they did not have a financial crisis like we did. And, the world's financial markets dont depend on Canada as much as the U.S. which has the most wealth. P.S. They didnt have a nutjob like Bush invading countries and ending up costing billions per year into the future.
What's wrong with gun control?
That depends on what you mean by "gun control". If you mean "sight alignment and trigger squeeze", "keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction" and "only aim at what you intend to shoot at", there is nothing wrong with it. If you mean restricting who can own what type of firearm based on some politician's definition or putting hurdles and roadblocks in the path of legally acquiring a firearm, there are huge Constitutional and criminal problems with your idea of "gun control".. First you need to tell everyone how you will get criminals to go along with it. Failing that, as you will, you need to quit,
Why does Donald Trump say Canada and Mexico are "being very difficult" when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA and keeps threatening to end the agreement?
There is a major push by all political parties except for the PRI to withdraw from NAFTA. The government is negotiating new treaties with several different countries (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Japan) to purchase agricultural products, such as, soy, corn, rice in order to eliminate the 18 billion dollar a year purchase from the US. If the US starts slapping tariffs on other products (many of them made by US companies that own manufacturing plants in Mexico - those profits stay in the US and not Mexico) then Mexico will hit the agricultural sector hard. Since the US withdrew from TPP which lowered tariffs mostly on US goods to Latin America, Japan and other Pacific region countries - the TPP partners are enacting the benefits of TPP among themselves and shutting the US out. For example, TPP was going to eliminate the 39% tariff that Japan charges on US beef and pork mostly imported from Texas, instead they eliminated it on Mexican beef and pork shipped to Japan. Consequently, Texan ranchers are shipping cattle to Mexico to raise it there in order to be able to sell directly to Japan without tariffs. So, withdrawing from TPP had the effect of a big loss for US agriculture and Texas, specifically and increased foreign investment from the US to Mexico.If the US or Mexico withdraw from NAFTA, what will happen? Not much. The GATT treaty will kick in, which limits the amounts of tariffs that can be charged. (maximum 2.5% on automotive products). Foreign manufacturers had a much better deal with Mexico before NAFTA - they could import raw materials without duty or IVA conditioned on the export of the product. NAFTA changed that and those manufacturers are now paying duty and IVA on non-NAFTA origin materials. The main thing that NAFTA accomplished was dispute resolution. If you are doing business in another country and you ship an amount of products to that country and they don’t pay you, what do you do? Who has jurisdiction? Do you sue them in your home country and then try to collect? If you are a NAFTA country you take advantage of the dispute resolution arbitration clause and you settle the dispute rapidly and economically. That is the main benefit of NAFTA. Manufacturers are private businesses and they are free to move from country to country and manufacture wherever they want.
What is the difference between Canada and the USA?
-Canada has 35 million people while the USA has 330 million people-American flags are very common throughout the United States - while in Canada, the national flag is seen very rarely when it’s not in front of a government building-Canada legalized weed federally, while in the USA it’s only legalized in certain states-Canada is officially bilingual - English and French - while USA technically has no official language-While the USA has more visible minorities and ethnic groups, Canada has more of them relative to its population-Canadians generally do not care and possess little knowledge about their country’s military and armed forces-Canada has more socialist aspects in its economy than the USA (ex. universal healthcare)-Canadian passport is stronger than the American one and lets you travel to more countries without any restrictions (ex. Cuba)-Canada consistently ranks higher in the Human Development Index (HDI) in comparison to the USA-Canada is MUCH colder than the USA as it doesn’t have any tropical regions within its borders-Canada is generally very liberal in relation to the USA-Canada is a constitutional monarchy while the USA is a federal republic-Canada’s head of government is the Prime Minister while the USA’s head of government is the President-Canada has very strict gun control laws - nowhere near as many people can access guns as easily as they can in the USA-Canada has provinces and territories while the USA has states-Canada uses the metric system while the USA uses the imperial one-Canada’s drinking age is lowered to either 18 or 19 (depending on the administrative division) while in the USA it’s 21-Canada has a significantly lower crime rate than the USA-Canada is less individualistic than the USA and places more emphasis on the community as a whole-Canadian currency is generally weaker than the American currency-Canada has little influence in the world while the USA is a superpowerThese are some basic differences between the two nations.
Why was Congress given the power to tax?
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S., that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.
What facts about Canada do people not believe until they come to Canada?
I guess the first “fact” that outsiders haven’t wrapped their head around is the size.Canada has pretty decent roads—a lot of them. Typically it takes about 10 hours to cover a thousand kilometers. It still takes three days to drive across Ontario, the province I live in—and it’s the FOURTH largest political area out of thirteen.Second surprise—-Water! Canada has more freshwater, by area, than any other country on the planet.Third surprise: The diversity. Sixty years ago almost everyplace was “wasp only”—but now, no-one is surprised by “a Palestinian in Paris (Ontaro)” nor a Muslim in MooseJaw, or even Manitou Beach (Saskatchewan) let alone a “Haitian in North Hadley” (Quebec). It’s really doubtful that any other place can match our cultural diversity.Fourth surprise: There’s lots to do in winter, even if you don’t skate. Or Ski. Or snowboard. Or snowmobile. In winter, Canadians may spend more time indoors, (in there very warm houses) but nobody hibernates for long—-and we all appreciate a beautiful snowstorm until we have to shovel the driveway.Fifth surprise—-It’s almost EMPTY! Once you get outside the major population centers one can drive for an hour or so, with very little sign of human life—-other than the road. Buildings become few, and far between, traffic almost disappears, and it’s not unusual to see more cows than cars. more turkeys than trucks.Sixth surprise: The Sunsets: I’ve been in every province, and every territory, and always been stunned by how beautiful the sunsets can be. I’m basically a nightowl, but I can even remember a few spectacular sunrises as well.Seventh surprise: The sense of “community”. There are ALWAYS exceptions, but most Canadians are pretty friendly and keep an eye out for places they can help…it’s almost as if we have a common “enemy”: (We do—it’s called “the weather” and it can kill.) Canada has excellent (and “free”-or “free at the time”) healthcare, childcare, social programs, and police forces that are generally trusted and effective.Eighth surprise: The sophistication: in 2012 Canada ranked seventh in Science and Math skills: (the U.S. ranked 24th) Since then we’ve gotten very serious about STEM education for our students. Canadians are well-educated, pay attention to global occurances, and alternate between amusement and horror at the antics to the south of us.