m4 / car15 rifle

[bigben2k]

Good point, I never looked at it that way!

Are we, by nature, xenophobic? Or are we just too busy to pay attention to the wonders of cultural/ethnic differences?

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Good point, I never looked at it that way!

Are we, by nature, xenophobic? Or are we just too busy to pay attention to the wonders of cultural/ethnic differences?

I would think that we are xenophobic by nurture rather than nature. We are influenced by our parents from a very early age to distrust "strangers". I am sure many on this forum have done/will do this, yet consider this merely a safety matter, and not a matter of xenophobia. I am not saying that one should not do this (I would, no doubt, do the same), merely pointing out one of the probable consequences.

Bob

[iroc409]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Being from Canada, and now living in the US, I think, gives me a different perspective.

Back home, having a gun is just rare: no one really, really wants one, and I guess they don't see the need. However, I had a few friends that had shotguns, rifles, and pistols. All were registered. I even knew a guy that got his license through his stint in the army, so he had an unusual weapon, but I don't remember which.

Here in the US, I have a hard time finding someone that doesn't have a gun in their house! Maybe it's a Texan thing, I dunno.

In the first few months I was here, there was a man that was arrested, for assaulting someone at the local hospital, yielding a semi-automatic rifle. I only read about it in the papers, but what hit me the most, is that it was almost inconceivable that someone would do that in Canada.

Since then, I've seen many reports of police officers being shot, to a terminal end, just in the Houston area!

I've never taken the time to compare crime statistics between Montreal, Quebec, and Houston, Texas, but it seems clear to me that the proliferation of weapons has had a significant impact here. Last I checked, Houston has an average crime rate, in this nation.

Then again, maybe it's just the brighter sun here, that's driving people crazy :shrug:

interesting perspective indeed. i have nothing against canada and their gun laws. and, there IS a registration process in the united states. if you buy a gun here today, the firearm is registered with the local law enforcement. there are guns out there that were purchased too long ago that are not in the system, but i find it hard to believe that many of these legally obtained items are used in crime. generally these are the types of things passed through families.

part of the problem with this bill is that it's primarily targeting firearms that are NOT used in violent crimes. how often do you see a criminal use a browning semi auto shotgun to rob a grocery store? not very often. what about a mini-14? never. they use mostly cheap stuff, or illegal stuff from the street. like a tec9 or a mac10. i don't even hear of much gun crime coming from the ever popular "sportster" series of rifles (ar15).

the other note, on americans owning guns. that's a big part of how this country was formed. the right to bear arms, and the right to defend ourselves. look at our earliest militia. it was formed of private citizens such as farmers and merchants with firearms. and they did pretty damn good.

as far as the increase in crime, i do not think that specifically is related to the fact that people own guns. in fact, i don't think that at all. i recently had an argument with someone about walmart selling guns, and the person was basically blaming walmart, and NOT the person doing the crime. this is assanine. it is responsibility of the person. it is their responsibility to use firearms appropriately. educated people, less oppressive situations, and people not so pissed off would make a lot less of this. my impression of canadia is that it's generally filled with rather pleasant people, fairly content with each other (perhaps with the exception of quebec). i believe it was one of our military leaders during WW2 that when canada decided to get involved in the war said "canada has an army?".

i think the differences between canada and the US are quite large in that respect. it very well could be the "melting pot" of cultures here in the states. but, canada also seems to have settled to a fairly compacent and inactive state. they're very neutral for the most part as a country, and it seems, at least from when i've been there, so are the people. there are of course always exceptions to the rule, but it seems very much so. it seems very much like the heart of the midwest, with a strange dialect.

if you are in the "slower" parts of the country, it would probably seem much more like canada. when a cop dies here, which is very rare, everyone knows about it. it's a HUGE deal, everyone talk about nothing but for months, huge ceremonies, lots of officials talking, blah blah. if even a shooting occurs, everyone hears about it, and it's definitely no daily occurance. just depends on where you are. and despite the fact that i live in a city with the highest church/capita and quite likely the larget gay/capita in the US, there are guns here just as much as anywhere else.




guns don't kill people, whoever pulls the trigger kills people.

[bigben2k]

I managed to dig up a page full of stats (you be the judge), about the US:
http://www.mppgv.org/a%20closer%20look.htm

Maybe I can find something similar for Canada.

There were 536 homicides in 1999, coast to coast, 22 fewer than in 1998, signalling the lowest rate per 100,000 Canadians since 1967. British Columbia had the highest homicide rate among the provinces, with 110 killings.

Source: http://fact.on.ca/news/news0007/gm000719.htm (but I really ought to secure a better source)

Last I checked, LA alone had that many homicides.

BC has a high number of Asian immigrants. Pattern?

A website excerpt: "Although Canada's rate (2.11) was much lower than the United States (7.50), it was still higher than in many European countries. England and Wales reported a homicide rate of 1.40 per 100,000 population, almost 34% lower than Canada's rate. Germany, Ireland and Italy also reported rates below 2 per 100,000 population."

source: http://www.fortunecity.com/littleita...81/stats2.html (again, highly questionable)

[Zhentar]

BB2k- texas is pretty big on guns, I think most states have way less proliferation.

My theory for such xenophobia is my "dick size" theory. People are naturally insecure, so they must convince themselves that they have a bigger dick than everyone else. They do this by convincing themselves that their brand spanking new $500 gfx card (which they will replace in 6 months) makes them superior to the peons around them. Or by deciding that they are superior to other races.

Of course, I have no qualifications other than 4 years observing high school students and watching the news...

I think automatic weapons should be banned; I don't think there is any legitimate reason (besides collecting) for owning such a weapon. However, beyond that, it should be easy for a trained, law abiding citizen to obtain a weapon- crime prevention is important, but so are our rights. The right to bear arms is a defense against dictatorship and similar problems in the government. If neccesary, a citizen can sacrifice himself for the good of the people and shoot the bastard. The only hard part is keeping things in the right order; the sane citizen shooting the crazy politician, not the crazy citizen shooting the sane politician.

[Geoff]

BigBen
I live in BC and I think those numbers are little skewed. Most of the murders around here are gang related, one gang killing another gang over drugs and turf. Very few regular citizens are "at the wrong place at the wrong time" the gangs are pretty good at killing one another and not letting it boil over into the streets. So for me murders like that don't count because its gangs not the general plublic. And the thing about the asians more or less true. Its not the asian people themselves its the asian gangs. The hells angles run BC marijuana trade and a lot of the other gangs do the dirty work. Operating grow-ops, dealing, enforcing etc. And those gangs tend to be the newcomers which are asian immigrants. Also the local gangs don't seem to do the spray and pray tactic that american ones do, which of course end up killing by-standers. The locals seem to very proficient at killing those and only those they wish to kill. Take the killing of Bindi Johal for example he was a very prominent gang member in the East-Indian gangs. Years back he pissed off some Chinese gang, the Lotus I think, by kidnapping the leader's nefew or brother or something to that extent. Well the Lotus got back at him, while he was downtown (Vancouver) at a club called Richards on Richards, which was packed full of people some lotus hitman entered shot Bindi in the neck and left with out anyone else getting hurt and without being seen either.

As far as crime that effects regular law-abiding citizens here in BC most of it is property crime. I think we're the highest on the continent where as states like texas and nevada are lowest. In fact the city I live in, Surrey, was labled the car theft capital of the world. Everyone around here has been robbed several times, but thats because the theives know no one will do anything ( too layed back? too spinless? too high?). Defending yourself is all but illegal, the thieves don't get prosecuted. The RCMP are useless and are nothing but glorified social workers with guns, who are criminals themselves.

Iroc409's comments are pretty much true about us Canadians but only outside a hockey rink

[bigben2k]

LOL!

Thanks for chiming in. I never knew that BC was like that, and it's nice to know some of the details. I've always liked BC, and thought about moving there, a few years back, until I came across the unemployment figures.

You gotta love the RCMP for keeping a low profile

You also bring up a good point: a lot of homicides happen within criminal groups. there's another statistical search right there! I guess I'd hate to see them use bigger guns, and end up on the receiving end of a stray bullet, as a result. In that light, I'd favor a ban on fully-automatics.

IMO, there's a correlation between unemployment, and homicide rates. Give everyone something to do, and they'll probably avoid shooting each other. Leading a life of crime imposes no limits on the level of violence. Maybe the ban ought to be on gangs, not guns!

[ymboc]

Originally posted by bigben2k
... I'd favor a ban on fully-automatics...

Right! I'm in full in agreement with that... and to the best of my knowledge they are already banned or the equiv - a mostly unattainable license level such as the 'prohibited' status/level we have in canada. So it's technically possible to be able to legally own a fully auto weapon but it rarely happens.

Full-auto weapons have no place in civilian hands. When I was speaking against the ban earlier it was in reference to the banning of reasonable semi-automatics. Why are they banning those?

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by ymboc
Full-auto weapons have no place in civilian hands. When I was speaking against the ban earlier it was in reference to the banning of reasonable semi-automatics. Why are they banning those?

Here, here!

I believe that the objection is because they can be easily converted to fully automatics.

Maybe if the NRA had a decent opposition, and the gun manufacturers (a great number of which is ironically, in Canada) would cooperate in this direction, it wouldn't have become such a fuss.

Strangely, I don't have a problem with semi-automatics either: there is a sporting value to it, and although it can be labelled as a luxury more than anything, it's darn practical. Banning those would fall under banning something for the illegitimate use, where there is the possibility of a legitimate use, not unlike software copying.

I don't see a legitimate use/need for a fully automatic rifle though.:shrug:

[Geoff]

In Canada there is more a less a ban on full autos. Theres only a few exceptions, if you military you of course can have a full auto on the job. If you have one of those grandfathered full auto liscences, full autos were banned in the 70's and those with liscences were allowed to keep them but no more have been issued. The next and the one I benefit from is a Movie liscence given to an armoury business, this allows anyone on the bussiness liscence to transport and shoot "movie" guns, of course movie guns can only fire movie blanks but the exeption is that the guns have to be tested and are legally allowed to be taken the range and fired with live ammo. But a ban on full autos won't help as illegal ones are easy to get. Customs here on the west coast are severly under-staffed. Years back when the USSR broke up a large number of crappy russian, czech etc. full autos ended up in the local black market, it was so bad that they were trying to sell them in the local gun stores. Of course this was never really put on the news as there really isn't a way to stop it. Plus all the drug runners going across the border are continually bringing in more illegal arms from the states, recently the rcmp were able to stop one shipment. I could go on, but I highly doubt any amount of laws will stop the illegal importing, manufacturing, converting of full autos.

All of these people that are saying there should be a ban on full autos, have you ever shot one? Live rounds or blanks doesn't matter but do you have any personal experience to come to the conclusion that there is no reason to own one? If not how do you form an opinion on something you've never done? Isn't the best way to learn something is through experience, or is putting your faith in the government, media, special interest groups to tell the truth good enough to base an opinion on?

Maybe if the NRA had a decent opposition

They do, don't you watch the Rosie O'Donnel show

[ymboc]

Originally posted by Geoff
All of these people that are saying there should be a ban on full autos, have you ever shot one? Live rounds or blanks doesn't matter but do you have any personal experience to come to the conclusion that there is no reason to own one? If not how do you form an opinion on something you've never done? Isn't the best way to learn something is through experience, or is putting your faith in the government, media, special interest groups to tell the truth good enough to base an opinion on?

Generally a bad idea to go around and making assumptions like those you seem to have made or implied in the above quote. Don't assume that those discussing this subject haven't fired firearms or aren't familiar with firearms to one degree or another. Really I think the above quote is tad out of line... <snipped some retaliatory comments for the sake of the thread>

While I've never fired a full auto (for obvious reasons). I have fired my buddy's Famae SAF (SIG based, chilean manufactured MP5 equivalent but neutered to semiauto only - and rightfully so)... and let me tell you it shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger - which should be more than fast enough for anyone with good intentions.

Some background...
The famae is a restricted firearm in canada and the few of them that have been imported can carry no more than 5 bullets per magazine and fire in semi-auto mode only. Since it is restricted in canada you need an ATT (Authorization to Transport) to transport it *anywhere*. Usually standing ATTs are granted for transport directly between the owner's home and his/her gunclub. However, 'Single Use' ATTs can be applied for and obtained (for transport from owners home to cottage for example or when ownership is transferred).

A little bit about the 'movie guns'... Movie guns are real guns. They can fire real bullets and they can fire blanks. The big difference is the permit under which they are purchased. Normally you or a company can't purchase a full auto gun in canada. But a production company can - with a 'movie permit'. Admittedly I'm a little foggy on details but that's what an informed source told me.

EDIT: btw... restricted permits have been issued since the 1970s (to civilians). Here's how the story goes... a few years ago they (not sure about specifics) they changed the status of some previously 'restricted' guns to 'prohibited'. Those who owned said firearms were given notice that they had until a certain date to transfer them to someone with a prohibited permit or to hand them over to the police. However, those who held onto the firearms past the due-date (taking a big risk) were later given prohibited permits.

[cybrsamurai]

I don’t see any need for any civilians to own a full auto gun. I don’t think that the citizens in the US even with full auto guns could put up any kind of military resistance to our government. (Its prolly pretty tough to shoot down an F-16 with an M4, or stop an Abrams) People that believe they need to own a lot of firepower to keep our government in check are deluding them selves. The US army makes quick work of places where everyone and thier uncle have RPG's and full auto rifles, we wouldnt be any different.

[Geoff]

A little bit about the 'movie guns'... Movie guns are real guns. They can fire real bullets and they can fire blanks. The big difference is the permit under which they are purchased. Normally you or a company can't purchase a full auto gun in canada. But a production company can - with a 'movie permit'. Admittedly I'm a little foggy on details but that's what an informed source told me.

My fathers business has a movie licence or least what I m refering to it as, since i don't know the real legal name. But what your saying is pretty much true. But I don't think you have to be a production company to buy them, there are many amourers here in Vancouver area and most just buy, lease and rent the guns and nothing else.

As for my statement you quoted and said i was out of line. Maybe I'm being too picky about grammer (my gf must be wearing off on me) but when you said "Full-auto weapons have no place in civilian hands" along with a few others with similar satements it just comes off as if you have no intention in believing that there is no or might be an exception ever. That just sounds a little closed minded to me and throughout human history closed-minded statements and thinking has always caused us trouble. I was just trying to point that out. Sorry if I offened anyone

[airspirit]

I've shot fully automatic weapons, and that is the reason that I support banning them.

Mind you, now: I'm a firm supporter of gun rights and ownership. I think everyone should be taught to use a gun, and I feel that it is part of our cultural heritage to be able to go out into the woods and splatter animals into goo and carry out drive by shootings on stop signs, not to mention putting holes in people that illegally enter my house.

I do feel, however, that though semi-automatic "assault rifles" are perfectly fine since there is no significant difference from any other semiauto out there, that automatic weapons should be banned. There is no purpose to use one for hunting: they kick so much and cause such inaccuracy that they would be nearly useless. When using an automatic, you need to start low and sweep up through a target ... and the upward sweep would be greatly aided by the kick of the weapon. This is absolute insanity when putting in a hunter's perspective.

The only purpose of automatic weapons is to drop large numbers of targets quickly. As added clarification: the purpose is to drop large numbers of ADVANCING targets quickly. If you start spraying at some deer with an auto, they will scatter and you will have no hope of bagging one. If you start spraying at some soldiers advancing on you, you will likely kill a few at least. The only purpose of automatic weapons is being able to kill multiple people at a time, not multiple deer, elk, or beer bottles.

Since the modern purpose of firearm ownership is not to repel an army but rather is for personal use and protection (and your house will probably not be invaded by hordes of junkies any time soon), there is no lawful purpose for owning automatic weapons. The only domestic use would be the same use they saw in the prohibition era: gunning down other people.

But let me tell you, the day someone trys to disarm me of my more sensible weapons is the day they'll get some rough surgery and acquire some advanced internal aircooling.

[Geoff]

I've shot fully automatic weapons, and that is the reason that I support banning them.

Thats what I wanted hear, especially from someone as blunt as airspirit. But whats wrong with going to the range and blowing off a few mags of live rounds or even blanks? What about collecting? Or collecting guns to sell to serious collectors? These are the few things that nobody has yet to dicuss but seems like perfectly viable reasons.

[airspirit]

Me? Blunt? Well I never ....

[iroc409]

Originally posted by airspirit
I've shot fully automatic weapons, and that is the reason that I support banning them.

Mind you, now: I'm a firm supporter of gun rights and ownership. I think everyone should be taught to use a gun, and I feel that it is part of our cultural heritage to be able to go out into the woods and splatter animals into goo and carry out drive by shootings on stop signs, not to mention putting holes in people that illegally enter my house.

I do feel, however, that though semi-automatic "assault rifles" are perfectly fine since there is no significant difference from any other semiauto out there, that automatic weapons should be banned. There is no purpose to use one for hunting: they kick so much and cause such inaccuracy that they would be nearly useless. When using an automatic, you need to start low and sweep up through a target ... and the upward sweep would be greatly aided by the kick of the weapon. This is absolute insanity when putting in a hunter's perspective.

The only purpose of automatic weapons is to drop large numbers of targets quickly. As added clarification: the purpose is to drop large numbers of ADVANCING targets quickly. If you start spraying at some deer with an auto, they will scatter and you will have no hope of bagging one. If you start spraying at some soldiers advancing on you, you will likely kill a few at least. The only purpose of automatic weapons is being able to kill multiple people at a time, not multiple deer, elk, or beer bottles.

Since the modern purpose of firearm ownership is not to repel an army but rather is for personal use and protection (and your house will probably not be invaded by hordes of junkies any time soon), there is no lawful purpose for owning automatic weapons. The only domestic use would be the same use they saw in the prohibition era: gunning down other people.

But let me tell you, the day someone trys to disarm me of my more sensible weapons is the day they'll get some rough surgery and acquire some advanced internal aircooling.

once again i concur with you.

it's interesting, but to think about fully automatic weapons, look at the army. the standard issue m16 is now, i believe, NOT fully automatic. last i heard, the newest variant is safe, 1-shot, 3-rd burst. i was at an interactive training session for the nat'l guard here a couple years ago, which is the actual similator the guard uses. it was pretty cool, included the beretta 9mm, m16, SAW, and m60. the m16s were all not 3rd and 1rd, i believe this to be accurate in the regular forces.

although, the g36 is still available in fully auto (some swat teams are now using these weapons), i'm sure before the army adopts this rifle it will be available to only 3rd burst. or, perhaps the army will skip the g36 (i dunno why... it's amazing) for a newer system such as hk's "smart" system, or their recoilless rifle.

just something to point out. if our foot soldiers don't use them, why should we? granted, they still have the SAW and the m60's. but you need something to sprraaaaaaaayyy with once in a while.

[iroc409]

Originally posted by Geoff
Thats what I wanted hear, especially from someone as blunt as airspirit. But whats wrong with going to the range and blowing off a few mags of live rounds or even blanks? What about collecting? Or collecting guns to sell to serious collectors? These are the few things that nobody has yet to dicuss but seems like perfectly viable reasons.

seen a few collectors around with things like the BAR and the browning .30 cal. lol... now that's a home defense system!

if you're looking to fire it though, why break an antique? get one of the great reproductions available. i believe the BAR is available in a semi repro, as is the m1 garand and i believe also the m1 carbine.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by Tar Man
I have a feeling the gun laws in Sweden are quite strict, PlawsWorth. Found this:

- Be 18 or older.
- Perform a shooting test within a calendar year Jan 1 - Dec 31.
- Be a member of a shooting club for at least 6 months.
- Not have a criminal record.

from here: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Laws/sweden

Not many countries in the world allow civilians to purchase Full Auto guns. Here in New Zealand, the most deadly type of gun is an MSSA or Military Style Semi-Automatic. So you can buy an AK 47, but it'll modified to be single shot only. Liscencing for this class is very hard and expensive though.

I know in Australia some hunters on contract from the government are allowed to posses Full Auto guns for the culling of Kangaroos.

Often police forces require you to obtain written permission before allowing the import of a fire arm or related objects.

The info you wrote on the swedish laws are correct. A H&K USP cost about 755$ as an example.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by winewood
The Federalist papers do state that, and if you cant defend yourself with a comperable weapon, then you are going to have to remove the right to bear arms as well. The anti gun people who forsee nothing cept defending against toxic emmissions do not realise the premise in which this nation was formed nor free. They are vastly ill-informed.

I would recommend the CAR-15 or M4. Wonderful shooting guns. If they include everything, get them quickly. .223 ammo is cheap, buy a case of it at military surplus. You will go through alot of it!

What I have heard is that the M4 and the Car-15 is the same rifle. Though Car-15 is the civilian name of it.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by msv
True, I´ve passed those tests and got miself a target gun. Getting anything bigger than a .22 rimfire requires serious active target shooting, frequent competing etc. If You don´t prove on a regular basis that You use the gun for target shooting *and nothing else* You´re supposed to get rid of it (as in "selling to another target shooter"). I´m not confident with the rules for handgun hunting in Sweden, but I think it´s restricted to single shots.
What do this have to do with computer cooling and overclocking?
regards
Mikael S.

You don't need to sell you firearm or be a member of a target shooting club once you own the firearm. The idea is that you are supposed to be familiar with the firearm you are going to own. Once you know how to use it properly and you don't have any criminal record you can buy one (supposing all the other req. are o.k.) and then you can quit or join any shooting range you want. That's what I could found out by www.police.se

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Being from Canada, and now living in the US, I think, gives me a different perspective.

Back home, having a gun is just rare: no one really, really wants one, and I guess they don't see the need. However, I had a few friends that had shotguns, rifles, and pistols. All were registered. I even knew a guy that got his license through his stint in the army, so he had an unusual weapon, but I don't remember which.

Here in the US, I have a hard time finding someone that doesn't have a gun in their house! Maybe it's a Texan thing, I dunno.

In the first few months I was here, there was a man that was arrested, for assaulting someone at the local hospital, yielding a semi-automatic rifle. I only read about it in the papers, but what hit me the most, is that it was almost inconceivable that someone would do that in Canada.

Since then, I've seen many reports of police officers being shot, to a terminal end, just in the Houston area!

I've never taken the time to compare crime statistics between Montreal, Quebec, and Houston, Texas, but it seems clear to me that the proliferation of weapons has had a significant impact here. Last I checked, Houston has an average crime rate, in this nation.

Then again, maybe it's just the brighter sun here, that's driving people crazy :shrug:

It's the same thing over here in nothern europe. Very few people own firearms. If the do, it's almost only rifles for hunting. And I can't remember ever reading about any police officer shooting at or killing a criminal. The fun thing is that we have a national s.w.a.t. team that think they are so cool and everything, which they aren't that doesn't do anything at all. Since it takes at least 2 hours for them to get anywere and the few armed criminals are dealt with the local "swat" team, who rides around in a van armed with mp5:s. It's very fun how diffrent the situations are between the USA & the rest of the modern west world where almost every country have 100's of years of war, civil wars etc and still over crime rates and view upon the need of protection is so diffrent. And "bigben" is prob. the guy how can be most objective and still it isn't easy sorting it out.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
It may also be due to the relatively homogeneous makeup of Canadian society (esp. French-Canadian). American society is a mixing bowl of numerous cultures which don't always mix well. It is the price society pays for the dynamism we have here in America. While I am sure the presence of guns is a factor, it is not the root cause.

To illustrate, compare Switzerland, which is among the most heavily armed of all countries yet has one of the lowest rates of gun violence, to the United States. What is the difference btwn. the two societies?

Bob

The whole idea that USA is so much more mixed than the rest of the world I believe isn't true. For example there lives around 0,5million muslims in Sweden (total population of about ~8,6million) and then there are italians, yugoslavians, germans, polish, estonians, and people from loads of other countries. And there is England with people from all it's former colonies (black peole, indians etc) and still the % of people who own firearms are lower. What I believe might be fun to know is how many homeless people and poor people there are in usa. Since over here we pay about 25% taxes and the social security is enormous. While in the USA you have to have pay for hospital, have doubble works etc. I don't know a single person who have more than 1 job over here. And even though the taxes are the highest in the world you can still buy dvd, cd's, pc games, cars etc to fairly prices. Poor people survive and the rich still is rich. Low taxes I think is a egoistic way of helping the rich and strong to survive, and they don't need help to survive since they are rich. I know I have written everything in a somewhat "bad/poor" english. But please shout out what about my opinion that you find f***** up

[bigben2k]

Actually, there is a large african-american population in the USA.

In Canada, if you're "african-american", you're probably actually from Africa! Actually, the "black" population in Canada comes from a wide number of countries, wether it's somewhere in Africa, or Haiti, Tahiti, or somewhere in South America. Their culture is a bit unique, but they blend in very well.

In the USA, the "african-american" culture seems to have taken a road of it's own, and maybe it's just me, but I don't think they blend in very well at all: they're loud, very vocal, and generally seem to be more concerned by the social scene, instead of concentrating on more serious aspects of life.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm not biased against them, not at all, I rather see them as different, that's all! When I was growing up in Canada, most of my friends were of different ethnicity, and came from various countries, including Lebanon, Vietnam, Chile, Congo, Tahiti, Iran, Belgium, France, Greece, etc... I really enjoyed the flavor of the various cultures.

Looking at the crime statistics, there is a predominance of african-americans involved in crimes. I have no idea why though.:shrug:

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Actually, there is a large african-american population in the USA.

In Canada, if you're "african-american", you're probably actually from Africa! Actually, the "black" population in Canada comes from a wide number of countries, wether it's somewhere in Africa, or Haiti, Tahiti, or somewhere in South America. Their culture is a bit unique, but they blend in very well.

In the USA, the "african-american" culture seems to have taken a road of it's own, and maybe it's just me, but I don't think they blend in very well at all: they're loud, very vocal, and generally seem to be more concerned by the social scene, instead of concentrating on more serious aspects of life.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm not biased against them, not at all, I rather see them as different, that's all! When I was growing up in Canada, most of my friends were of different ethnicity, and came from various countries, including Lebanon, Vietnam, Chile, Congo, Tahiti, Iran, Belgium, France, Greece, etc... I really enjoyed the flavor of the various cultures.

Looking at the crime statistics, there is a predominance of african-americans involved in crimes. I have no idea why though.:shrug:

I know the feeling. Even though many people with non swedish background blends in very well, there are few individuals that behave loudly, race cars, teen gangs robbing old people etc. It's always these people you read and hear about on the news so even though almost everyone isn't rasist, people have a very prejudiced mind (didn't spell that very well) and since young guys in the 20+ drive around in the BMW racing downtown, living out of the the social security that is built up by the people who work and pay taxes and while some ethnic groups changes their names and try to adapt some people that has lived here for 15years still can't speak clean since the use their native language at home and with friends and a very poor swedish at work/school. As when I come to my high school more than 70% is non "swedes" and you hear loads of langauges but not much swedish. But as few people seem to crash everything there are people who try their best and who adapt and who totally change the normally onesided picture. I always try to picture myself how I would live if I moved to Iran. Only then I can understand how hard it must be. Or at summer when we travel outside Sweden and I have to speak english and I realize that my accent is really crappy.

Language is the key to communication and communication is the key to getting through life. If you can't communicate with your friends, you co-workers, goverment etc then you get isolated and when everyone expect you to steal then you end up doing it.