Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[kandrathe]

Canada shares the world's longest undefended border with the United States. The US has a serious problem with legally purchased firearms (mostly handguns) being stolen and flooding the black market, and those guns find their way over borders.

The figures I've seen vary from 200,000 to 600,000 guns are estimated to be stolen -- then, what percentage of those flow north or south? I'd guess that 90% of stolen guns stay here in the US, and of the remaining 10%, most head south rather than north. So, maybe between 5,000 and 15,000 guns go into Canada, from a US gun census of 250-300 million guns. Also, the study you linked was from 2009 citing a murder rate of 5.7 for the US (the entire US), where as the FBI is showing that the rate was 5.0 in 2009, and has fallen to 4.7 in 2011. It has been steadily falling for a decade. Then, if you compare the murder rate of Canada (which this source says is at an all time low of 1.62) to the states that border Canada, you'd see similar rates. Maine 2.0, New Hampshire 1.3, Vermont 1.3, North Dakota 3.5 (was 1.5 last year) -- maybe a side effect of the oil boom, Minnesota, 1.4, Montana 2.8 -- Ergo, the states with large urban populations have the highest murder rates.

So, no. This does affect other countries, including one of mine. I'll accept "keep your nose out of our business" the day the US succeeds in keeping guns from crossing the border.

Well, we're neighbors. I think Canada gets a raw deal most of the time from the US. And, um, thanks for sending down all the BC bud. But, we also need to worry about people like Ahmed Ressam and relative safe haven Canada has become for those that would come south to do mayhem.

[Jester]

The figures I've seen vary from 200,000 to 600,000 guns are estimated to be stolen -- then, what percentage of those flow north or south? I'd guess that 90% of stolen guns stay here in the US, and of the remaining 10%, most head south rather than north. So, maybe between 5,000 and 15,000 guns go into Canada, from a US gun census of 250-300 million guns.

Let's see if we can clear this up.

First, that's a number of guns stolen per year, which is obviously a lot different from a stock. Second, the comparison with the US gun census is irrelevant. Canada and Mexico do not care how many guns you keep secure, we care how many guns are NOT secure. Third, your estimates of how many stay in the US are just guesses.

But, to run with it anyway, if what you're saying is 15,000 illegal guns a year are smuggled onto the Canadian black market, then yes, I would suggest that this is a problem Canadians have a right to be concerned about. Mexico, obviously, has a much bleaker situation.

Also, the study you linked was from 2009 citing a murder rate of 5.7 for the US (the entire US), where as the FBI is showing that the rate was 5.0 in 2009, and has fallen to 4.7 in 2011. It has been steadily falling for a decade. Then, if you compare the murder rate of Canada (which this source says is at an all time low of 1.62) to the states that border Canada, you'd see similar rates. Maine 2.0, New Hampshire 1.3, Vermont 1.3, North Dakota 3.5 (was 1.5 last year) -- maybe a side effect of the oil boom, Minnesota, 1.4, Montana 2.8 -- Ergo, the states with large urban populations have the highest murder rates.

I'm not sure how this matters, exactly? The counterfactual claim would be that the rate of gun crime would be lower in Canada if the US was not available as a cheap source of illegal guns. Telling me that crime is about the same on both sides of the border does not affect this claim.

IAnd, um, thanks for sending down all the BC bud.

You're welcome!

But, we also need to worry about people like Ahmed Ressam and relative safe haven Canada has become for those that would come south to do mayhem.

Because there have been so many terrorist attacks on the US from Canada?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

First, that's a number of guns stolen per year, which is obviously a lot different from a stock Second, the comparison with the US gun census is irrelevant. Canada and Mexico do not care how many guns you keep secure, we care how many guns are NOT secure. Third, your estimates of how many stay in the US are just guesses.

It is "normal" when one side of a border has a prohibition, and the other side is permissive that things would get smuggled from the permissive side to the restrictive side. This is how it was during the US prohibition on alcohol, when Canadian whiskey freely flowed south. So, pick your commodity; alcohol, guns, cigarettes, sex slaves, or radical extremists. Criminals will thwart the law anyway, and prohibitions open black markets. If there is no effective way to enforce your border to prevent the flood of drugs from South America, or 15,000 stolen guns from coming north, what will you do? You cannot afford to effectively police the Canadian border, any more than the US can afford to police it's southern border with Mexico. Another interesting view of where the arms imported into the US come from, and it is no surprise to me that most of our rifles imported come from Canada and that our handguns come from Brazil, and Europe. You prohibit them from your own populations, but you still make them, and we buy them -- some get stolen and now you complain about the dispersions from criminals smuggling? It's kind of like the drug cartel king pin complaining when he catches his daughter smoking dope.

And, we think that the prohibition will work this time if we only make it global? Who made all those Glock's and AK47's on US streets? According to the Small Arms Survey 2012, the US exports 715 million in small arms, Canada exports at least 100 million and is 1/10 the size of the US -- ergo exports more arms per capita than the US. Small arms are made by over 1100 manufacturers in about 100 nations. In general, I'd say the US is a net buyer of small arms, since we have the rights to own them. If we legalized marijuana, Canada would have the same problem with weed gushing north too.

Telling me that crime is about the same on both sides of the border does not affect this claim.

My point is that in comparison of "we are 1.5 and you are 5.7" are disingenuous since when "all things being equal" the rates are equal. Which means... There is no correlation between violence and the number of guns. However, there is clear evidence of a link between ALL crime and urbanization, this also includes violent crimes. It appears that if we want to reduce crime to nearly zero, we'll all need to return to small towns and farms.

The incidence of mental illness influenced violence is a constant across all populations -- so if you have more population you have more murder and suicides by the mentally ill.

Because there have been so many terrorist attacks on the US from Canada?

Some, yes. About as many as have slipped past our other ports of entry. I liked that link as it was a Canadian Security Intelligence Services warning us of the risks you pose to the US; "Many Canadians may be surprised to learn that, with the exception of the United States, there are more terrorist groups active in Canada today than in any other country in the world."

[Jester]

So, pick your commodity; alcohol, guns, cigarettes, sex slaves, or radical extremists. Criminals will thwart the law anyway, and prohibitions open black markets.

Some of these things are extremely harmful, and need to be banned. Would you have accepted slaveowners smuggling their slaves into the North, because slaves were just dandy in the South? Some black markets should be legalized, and others need to stay black.

If there is no effective way to enforce your border to prevent the flood of drugs from South America, or 15,000 stolen guns from coming north, what will you do?

We suck it up, if Americans aren't willing to do anything about it. I'm not sure what other choice we have. But I don't understand why we're told we have no right to complain, because apparently Canada is on a different planet from the US, and could not conceivably be affected by these policies.

You prohibit them from your own populations, but you still make them, and we buy them -- some get stolen and now you complain about the dispersions from criminals smuggling?

We do not "prohibit" them from our population. Canadians own guns - lots of them. But we also have rules in place for how you buy them, rules that are flouted every time a gun comes across the border illegally. And, as you have already mentioned, rifles are not a major cause of gun violence. Handguns are.

If Canada sells guns legally to the US, and then the holes in American enforcement means they end up illegally smuggled across the border and back in the hands of Canadian criminals, outside of any established Canadian licensing system, then yes, we have a right to complain about that.

Canada is also a free enterprise country with a free trade agreement with the US - unless you're of the opinion that the government should tell businesses what they can and can't sell to Americans?

And, we think that the prohibition will work this time if we only make it global? Who made all those Glock's and AK47's on US streets?

Who cares? The question is not who manufactures guns. This is irrelevant. The question is, who lets them slip into the hands of criminals, and across borders?

If we legalized marijuana, Canada would have the same problem with weed gushing north too.

And I'd thank the US for it. Not really a user myself, but marijuana is a social good. Unregistered guns aren't.

My point is that in comparison of "we are 1.5 and you are 5.7" are disingenuous since when "all things being equal" the rates are equal. Which means... There is no correlation between violence and the number of guns.

You stand by the claim that, causality aside, there is no correlation between violence and the number of guns? Really? Because some, but not all, US/Canada border states have levels of violent crime about the same as Canada?

The incidence of mental illness influenced violence is a constant across all populations -- so if you have more population you have more murder and suicides by the mentally ill.

Not per capita, you don't.

]Some, yes. About as many as have slipped past our other ports of entry.

Which attacks are we talking about?

I liked that link as it was a Canadian Security Intelligence Services warning us of the risks you pose to the US; "Many Canadians may be surprised to learn that, with the exception of the United States, there are more terrorist groups active in Canada today than in any other country in the world."

CSIS makes its living keeping track of left-wing "subversives." They had files on several of the most harmless people I knew back in 2001, but apparently didn't have the first clue who Osama Bin Laden was. I'm not a big fan. Be that as it may...

"Active" is one of those wonderful vague verbs, where just about anything counts. What did these groups actually do? And what did they do, that they couldn't already do in the US? Fundraise? I'm still missing the part where terrorists "radical extremists" came "flooding" over the border.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Some of these things are extremely harmful, and need to be banned. Would you have accepted slave owners smuggling their slaves into the North, because slaves were just dandy in the South? Some black markets should be legalized, and others need to stay black.

I agree. The issue here is our differences on "the problems of legally owned guns". A black market exists due to the abundance on one side of the border and unmet demand on the other. That was all I was pointing out.

We suck it up, if Americans aren't willing to do anything about it. I'm not sure what other choice we have. But I don't understand why we're told we have no right to complain, because apparently Canada is on a different planet from the US, and could not conceivably be affected by these policies.

I agree that you have a right to complain. We complain about your cheap lumber, and you should complain about the stuff we do that bugs you too.

We do not "prohibit" them from our population. Canadians own guns - lots of them. But we also have rules in place for how you buy them, rules that are flouted every time a gun comes across the border illegally. And, as you have already mentioned, rifles are not a major cause of gun violence. Handguns are.

Ok, prohibit was too strong. Restrict might be a better term then. I would posit that it's not the gun, so much as the criminal using it who is the cause of gun violence. These criminals tend to prefer easily concealable handguns.

...then yes, we have a right to complain about that.

Canada is also a free enterprise country with a free trade agreement with the US - unless you're of the opinion that the government should tell businesses what they can and can't sell to Americans?

It's just ironic that most of the guns that are the "source" of the issue, are not made in the US anyway. We import them from elsewhere and as they are freely exchange, a small percentage get smuggled north and a smaller percentage are used by your criminals.

You stand by the claim that, causality aside, there is no correlation between violence and the number of guns? Really? Because some, but not all, US/Canada border states have levels of violent crime about the same as Canada?

The ones that have higher crime have big cities as the source of deprivation resulting in crime. New York, New York -- Detroit, Michigan -- Chicago, Illinois -- Seattle, Washington.

Which attacks are we talking about?

PBS special - Canada has become a safe haven for terrorists

[Jester]

A black market exists due to the abundance on one side of the border and unmet demand on the other. That was all I was pointing out.

There are some demands that should not be met. Unregistered guns seem to me to be in that category.

It's just ironic that most of the guns that are the "source" of the issue, are not made in the US anyway. We import them from elsewhere and as they are freely exchange, a small percentage get smuggled north and a smaller percentage are used by your criminals.

It's not that ironic. Nobody is complaining that the guns in Canada have "Made in USA" stickers on them. The problem is allowing the guns to fall into the hands of criminals, which is corrosive of any effort at gun control. All the heavily-armed countries that have low gun violence manage it by having pretty strict regulations on the purchase, storage and use of guns. A smuggling market makes that hard to enforce.

The ones that have higher crime have big cities as the source of deprivation resulting in crime. New York, New York -- Detroit, Michigan -- Chicago, Illinois -- Seattle, Washington.

Canada has Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. They also have higher crime rates than the surrounding areas.

PBS special - Canada has become a safe haven for terrorists

One pre-9/11 foiled attempt? Is that it? That really doesn't sound like a lot. You said "About as many as have slipped past our other ports of entry." Do you mean to suggest that almost nobody has ever slipped past any port of entry at any time?

-Jester

[Alram]

PBS special - Canada has become a safe haven for terrorists

One pre-9/11 foiled attempt? Is that it? That really doesn't sound like a lot. You said "About as many as have slipped past our other ports of entry." Do you mean to suggest that almost nobody has ever slipped past any port of entry at any time?

-Jester

For years--going back to the 1980s Canada has been a haven for Sikh separatist terrorists. In case you are unfamiliar with the terrorist actions of the Sikh separatist or Khalistan movement, they are responsible for the bombing of Air-India flight 182 (which originated in Canada) in which 329 people were killed. They are responsible for the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. They are responsible for numerous murders and rapes of Hindus living in the Punjab. Their groups in Canada provide financial political and logistic support.

Apart from the Sikh separatists there are multiple other terrorist groups who operate in Canada. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has said that Canada is rife with international active terrorist organizations.

[Jester]

For years--going back to the 1980s Canada has been a haven for Sikh separatist terrorists. In case you are unfamiliar with the terrorist actions of the Sikh separatist or Khalistan movement, they are responsible for the bombing of Air-India flight 182 (which originated in Canada) in which 329 people were killed. They are responsible for the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. They are responsible for numerous murders and rapes of Hindus living in the Punjab. Their groups in Canada provide financial political and logistic support.

Fair point. Every free country is a "haven" for some group of terrorists or another. There is a reasonably large Sikh population in Canada, and they have free association rights. The US is the same, just for different groups. The various militant Irish groups certainly did their share of fundraising, organization and logistics via the US East Coast over the years.

However, in relation to Kandrathe's point: Why would Sikh nationalist-terrorists attack the United States? Via Canada or at all? As you point out, they have more obvious enemies. The question was about terrorism in the US via Canada, not about any terrorism originating in Canada, directed anywhere.

Apart from the Sikh separatists there are multiple other terrorist groups who operate in Canada. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has said that Canada is rife with international active terrorist organizations.

Call me cynical, but given that CSIS's entire reason for existence stops if they don't have domestic threats to worry about, I take their warnings with a grain of salt. This is not to say there are no threats, just that it is obviously in their interests to play them up, not down, no different than their US counterparts.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

It may not be threats against Canadians, Jester, but a privileged sanctuary from which to operate.

Open societies have a lot of advantages for you and me. They also provide advantages for criminals of all stripes.

Part of that messy thing called freedom.

EDIT:
Hmm, this is sorta interesting.

Canadians part of terrorist gang in Algeria.

Later info may not support this, but this is an early report.

[Alram]

For years--going back to the 1980s Canada has been a haven for Sikh separatist terrorists. In case you are unfamiliar with the terrorist actions of the Sikh separatist or Khalistan movement, they are responsible for the bombing of Air-India flight 182 (which originated in Canada) in which 329 people were killed. They are responsible for the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. They are responsible for numerous murders and rapes of Hindus living in the Punjab. Their groups in Canada provide financial political and logistic support.

Fair point. Every free country is a "haven" for some group of terrorists or another. There is a reasonably large Sikh population in Canada, and they have free association rights. The US is the same, just for different groups. The various militant Irish groups certainly did their share of fundraising, organization and logistics via the US East Coast over the years.

However, in relation to Kandrathe's point: Why would Sikh nationalist-terrorists attack the United States? Via Canada or at all? As you point out, they have more obvious enemies. The question was about terrorism in the US via Canada, not about any terrorism originating in Canada, directed anywhere.

Apart from the Sikh separatists there are multiple other terrorist groups who operate in Canada. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has said that Canada is rife with international active terrorist organizations.

Call me cynical, but given that CSIS's entire reason for existence stops if they don't have domestic threats to worry about, I take their warnings with a grain of salt. This is not to say there are no threats, just that it is obviously in their interests to play them up, not down, no different than their US counterparts.

-Jester

You are correct about the Irish on the East coast of the USA. However, they never committed acts of domestic terrorism like blowing up flight 182 and thus perpetrating the largest mass murder in Canadian history.

Canada has the highest rate of immigration per capita of any industrialized
country...it has been widely acknowledged for more than a decade
that the Canadian refugee determination system needs a major overhaul
to make it less susceptible to abuse from fraudulent claimants, some of
whom pose security risks...Because
the current immigration level is so high, it is not possible to screen every
newcomer thoroughly. Canadian officials cannot always verify that the
newcomer actually is who he or she claims to be. As a result, it is inevitable
that dangerous people will gain admission...
Since 9/11, the border has assumed a more prominent place in American
consciousness, not as a defining element in its collective identity, but
rather as a zone of vulnerability along its entire northern rim. The danger
comes not from a hostile country to the north, but from an immigration
policy that makes it easier for aliens hostile to the United States to enter
Canada, disappear within the country, and connect with networks submerged
in its large immigrant communities.

Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat
in Canada and the United States

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has apprehended more suspected terrorists on the nation’s northern border than along its southern counterpart, CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin said Tuesday.

“In terms of the terrorist threat, it’s commonly accepted that the more significant threat” comes from the U.S.-Canada border, Bersin told a hearing of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/canadian...trol-chief

[Jester]

You are correct about the Irish on the East coast of the USA. However, they never committed acts of domestic terrorism like blowing up flight 182 and thus perpetrating the largest mass murder in Canadian history.

Only if you ignore pretty much all of Canadian history, and assume that everything anglo-descended white folk do to anyone else is of no relevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Expulsion

And even if not, that many people have died in US-instigated wars in a matter of minutes. The Canadian border just doesn't seem that relevant, in the grand scheme of things.

Canada has the highest rate of immigration per capita of any industrialized country.

Go us!

..it has been widely acknowledged for more than a decade
that the Canadian refugee determination system needs a major overhaul to make it less susceptible to abuse from fraudulent claimants, some of whom pose security risks...Because the current immigration level is so high, it is not possible to screen every newcomer thoroughly. Canadian officials cannot always verify that the newcomer actually is who he or she claims to be.

The results of which have been so terrible that there have been literally... single incidents per decade of terrorists trying to cross the border?

As a result, it is inevitable that dangerous people will gain admission.

In theory. And in practice?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Conquest causes displacement. Conquest also creates, and unmakes, nations.

Suggest the following: learn about 4000 years of history before you pick and choose your evils.

My next cause worth donating to is a free Kurdistan. It hurts me inside since I used to work for a Turk, a fine gentleman, and with Turks, all of whom I'd like to work with again.

But it's about damned time. If the Bosniaks are allowed to assert "we get our own country" then the Kurdish case is about ten times as strong.

You with me?

[kandrathe]

You with me?

As long as it's their war and not ours. Even with the best diplomacy they cannot extricate Kurdistan from Turkey, Iran, and Iraq without either decades (maybe a century) of careful negotiation, or bloodshed.

In theory. And in practice?

It is a problem, and not just for Canada. Take Ahmed Ressam, or Abdelghani Meskini, or Mokhtar Haouari, or Haydar Abu Doha, or Fateh Kamel, or Said Atmani. There are only a few individuals who carry out the terrorist operations (tip of the spear), but they are backed by a larger organization (which can be white market, gray and black) carrying out "fund raising" and illegal activities (smuggling, forgery, thefts) in support of the logistics of future operations.

That is a network that spans at least to Algeria, Canada, US, Britain, France, Bulgaria, and Spain. That is a network that was uncovered. What we don't know is the number of networks that remain hidden.