A Canadian Perspective on U.S. and Guns

originally posted by: deliberator
Some stats I found from a UK perspective.

UK murders with firearms per million = 0.236

US murders with firearms per million = 32.57

UK violent crime murder rate per million people = 11.68

US violent crime murder rate per million people = 42.01

I am not sure if this is statistically significant. I did notice if you remove guns from violent crime the UK beats the US.

Link

They also have a US/Canada comparison here

Link

The problem with stats is they don't explain causation. Which is the root of the problem.

America is like no other country in the world. It's citizens are extremely diverse and immigration has been very open for its history.

Canada for instance has made a larger push for immigration in cities like Toronto. Where crime also happens to be some of the worst in Canada.

The real difference is Canada has been very active in social construction. The US has ignored this aspect of govenoring. The politicians are more inclined to divide the public instead of bring it together.

Both sides of the aisle.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: luthier

Well, here's an idea. The pro-gun side keeps arguing that the crimes committed are done via stolen, legal weapons. This is the fatal flaw in their argument-- you effed up securing your weapon, and it was stolen. Having it stolen off your person is a pass, hard to secure it t your body while being mugged & the like.

I propose mandatory lock & key storage, and a revamp of storage containers to make them as close to burgle-proof as possible. I know people will argue those gun safes are already good enough, but aim a little higher & strive for better. Many stolen weapons have been busted out of those safes without all that much effort. Tougher material & lock systems are needed. Would this be more expensive? Oh yes. But if you want a gun, you're going to make sure you're not part of the "piss-poorly stored" problem in the first place, right? Anyone found to have had their gun stolen while not mugged, i.e not locked up tight, gets their weapon revoked, X amount of time & remedial classes pass before being allowed to do purchase another/reclaim if found on a criminal.

THAT would hinder thefts. Making the owners significantly more responsible for the storage of their guns.

I have no argument there and agree. It's not a violation of the 2nd and is a good compromise.

I have well secured biometric safes and a home alarm.

I also support public funding for firearms training courses. We are supposed to be well trained militias not morons with guns. Don't know how many times I have been very UN easy at the range with morons who don't know anything about the gun they are using.

I also know a lot of very responsible gun owners.

First we need to come back to the table and learn to talk again.

The saddest part of this is gun bans are the only solutions ever being proposed. They are most definitely the least effective for the us. All the while we could have a real leader with ideas working on the aspects that don't require a constitutional amendment . which is beyond fantasy.

originally posted by: Nyiah
I propose mandatory lock & key storage...

The last thing I want to do in a home invasion situation is be screwing around with a lock and key on my handgun.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Nyiah
I propose mandatory lock & key storage...

The last thing I want to do in a home invasion situation is be screwing around with a lock and key on my handgun.

I have a biometric safe. It's expensive but instant. The gov could subsidize the cost for such an important American issue and responsibility.

Also if you are a gun owner you know damn well there are many types of effective locks that are pretty quick.

And no worries if you don't have your gun stolen. If it is and you were negligent in securing your firearms beyond reasonable doubt you should be held accountable. Just like if your four year old shoots his friend with your gun. Accidents happen regardless but that's what a jury is for.

originally posted by: luthier

I have a biometric safe. It's expensive but instant. The gov could subsidize the cost for such an important American issue and responsibility.

The government should not be subsidizing the expense of purchasing biometric safes.

Also if you are a gun owner you know damn well there are many types of effective locks that are pretty quick.

Yeah? And? I do not want to waste even one extra second if the time came.

And no worries if you don't have your gun stolen. If it is and you were negligent in securing your firearms beyond reasonable doubt you should be held accountable. Just like if your four year old shoots his friend with your gun. Accidents happen regardless but that's what a jury is for.

I cannot be held civilly liable in New Jersey for the criminal theft and misuse of my firearms as there are no laws mandating how they should be secured.

As a matter of fact, many gun theft laws make the owner immune from civil liability if they report the theft in a proscribed amount of time.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier

I have a biometric safe. It's expensive but instant. The gov could subsidize the cost for such an important American issue and responsibility.

The government should not be subsidizing the expense of purchasing biometric safes.

Also if you are a gun owner you know damn well there are many types of effective locks that are pretty quick.

Yeah? And? I do not want to waste even one extra second if the time came.

And no worries if you don't have your gun stolen. If it is and you were negligent in securing your firearms beyond reasonable doubt you should be held accountable. Just like if your four year old shoots his friend with your gun. Accidents happen regardless but that's what a jury is for.

I cannot be held civilly liable in New Jersey for the criminal theft and misuse of my firearms as there are no laws mandating how they should be secured.

As a matter of fact, many gun theft laws make the owner immune from civil liability if they report the theft in a proscribed amount of time.

Why shouldn't the gov be subsidizing an actual important American value and problem they subsidize everything else that doesn't matter.

Second your law is really messed up. It takes irresponsibility to another level.

If someone hurts themselves on my table saw in my garrage I am held responsible

It's rediculous gun owners that make these types of comments.

Hey when someone breaks in finds your gun and shoots you with it that's on you.

Personally getting my gun is as fast as opening a drawer so you are being rediculous.

The gov should have subsidized well trained militias since the start. Or went with the Swiss model. Personally I think everyone should be doing a couple years of civil service.

originally posted by: luthier

Why shouldn't the gov be subsidizing an actual important American value and problem they subsidize everything else that doesn't matter.

For exactly that reason, they subsidize enough useless crap as it is.

Second your law is really messed up. It takes irresponsibility to another level.

If someone hurts themselves on my table saw in my garrage I am held responsible

News flash. Someone hurting themselves on your table saw that you allowed them to use is a huge difference if they hurt themselves on it after they stole it. Try to follow along.

It's rediculous gun owners that make these types of comments.

No, it is firearms owners such as myself that understand the law that are not the problem, it is people like you who want more laws when they do not even understand the present ones that are the issue.

Hey when someone breaks in finds your gun and shoots you with it that's on you.

No problem, thanks for your concern.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier

Why shouldn't the gov be subsidizing an actual important American value and problem they subsidize everything else that doesn't matter.

For exactly that reason, they subsidize enough useless crap as it is.

Second your law is really messed up. It takes irresponsibility to another level.

If someone hurts themselves on my table saw in my garrage I am held responsible

News flash. Someone hurting themselves on your table saw that you allowed them to use is a huge difference if they hurt themselves on it after they stole it. Try to follow along.

It's rediculous gun owners that make these types of comments.

No, it is firearms owners such as myself that understand the law that are not the problem, it is people like you who want more laws when they do not even understand the present ones that are the issue.

Hey when someone breaks in finds your gun and shoots you with it that's on you.

No problem, thanks for your concern.

Thats a good one. I have a ccl and compete in marksmanship competitions. I have a very good understanding of the law. I also understand that when there is a public safety problem negotiations need to be had.

How does having a safe infringe on your right to bare arms?

You got me on the theft and use of a weapon I'll give you that. I was referring though to children who get a hold of there parents weapons.

Your rights end where mine begin though right. If you are a menace to society because you leave your gun lying around or shoot an innocent bystandard trying to protect yourself if your not a good shot you should be held accountable.

You got me on home break ins. Your right.
As a gun owner I am fine with being held accountable just like if you do demolishion and your explosives were not properly stored you are held accountable if someone steals them and they investigate and show negligence.

I am not OK with banning semi autos or having restrictions on the firearms themselves. I am for having people held accountable for improper treatment of a deadly weapon. In my personal opinion that includes not having them secured. I wonder why police and military have to secure their weapons. Hmmmm

originally posted by: luthier

I have a very good understanding of the law...

Could have fooled me since you did not even know that state laws are written which exonerate firearms owners from civil liability when they report their firearms stolen.

How does having a safe infringe on your right to bare arms?

Irrelevant.

If you are a menace to society because you leave your gun lying around...

I could leave my handgun on the goddamn kitchen table if I want it is none of your or anyone else's concern.

...or shoot an innocent bystandard trying to protect yourself if your not a good shot you should be held accountable.

What does this have to do with how I choose to secure my firearms?

As a gun owner I am fine with being held accountable just like if you do demolishion and your explosives were not properly stored you are held accountable if someone steals them and they investigate and show negligence.

Good for you. I on the other hand will hold the criminal responsible for any malfeasance they perpetrate with my stolen goods just as the law would.

In my personal opinion that includes not having them secured.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant as the laws on this are quite clear.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier

I have a very good understanding of the law...

Could have fooled me since you did not even know that state laws are written which exonerate firearms owners from civil liability when they report their firearms stolen.

How does having a safe infringe on your right to bare arms?

Irrelevant.

If you are a menace to society because you leave your gun lying around...

I could leave my handgun on the goddamn kitchen table if I want it is none of your or anyone else's concern.

...or shoot an innocent bystandard trying to protect yourself if your not a good shot you should be held accountable.

What does this have to do with how I choose to secure my firearms?

As a gun owner I am fine with being held accountable just like if you do demolishion and your explosives were not properly stored you are held accountable if someone steals them and they investigate and show negligence.

Good for you. I on the other hand will hold the criminal responsible for any malfeasance they perpetrate with my stolen goods just as the law would.

In my personal opinion that includes not having them secured.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant as the laws on this are quite clear.

I am sorry where did I say I didn't understand the law? I was saying I wouldn't be opposed to a law change for the safety of the general public. There is no 2nd protection for or against securing arms. The laws are legislation not rights. The can be changed and debated. Much easier than amending the constitution.

With that token nobody should lock up explosives or deadly chemicals either. After all it's the fault of the thieves.

Every base should have guns lying around and the police shouldn't have their riot gear locked up either.

originally posted by: luthier
I am sorry where did I say I didn't understand the law?

Here:

Second your law is really messed up. It takes irresponsibility to another level.

That is the law in many states, maybe even yours.

I was saying I wouldn't be opposed to a law change for the safety of the general public. There is no 2nd protection for or against securing arms.

No, but there is the Tenth.

With that token nobody should lock up explosives or deadly chemicals either. After all it's the fault of the thieves.

These are two wholly different items and once again shows your profound ignorance of enacted firearms laws.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier
I am sorry where did I say I didn't understand the law?

Here:

Second your law is really messed up. It takes irresponsibility to another level.

That is the law in many states, maybe even yours.

I was saying I wouldn't be opposed to a law change for the safety of the general public. There is no 2nd protection for or against securing arms.

No, but there is the Tenth.

With that token nobody should lock up explosives or deadly chemicals either. After all it's the fault of the thieves.

These are two wholly different items and once again shows your profound ignorance of enacted firearms laws.

Really how exactly does that show my lack of law understanding. I think cannabis should be legal too but I guess that means I don't understand the law....your making no logical sense and grasping at straws.

I was simply saying with your attitude there is no need to consider public safety. You can hide behind the law.

And yeah my state has very laxed gun laws much more so then new Jersey. I am from Texas and currently live in SC.

I don't think any of the things I am talking about should be done without debate mind you. It has to come from public consensus.

I am proposing how to cut down on accidents and thieves stealing a gun that will kill another human being. Holding them accountable after they kill someone just doesn't cut it for me personally.

PS you do understand laws change all the time right? If properly done its from the public to the reps.

The debate we are having is pretty important. I don't disagree with your interpretation of laws. Just that they may not be the best situation. Just like making a plant illegal that obviously helps a lot of sick people. It could keep me from going blind for instance. But in my state I can't even get the non intoxicating version.

Just because it's a law doesn't make it right.

originally posted by: luthier

Really how exactly does that show my lack of law understanding.

By thinking I would be held liable when the opposite is the case.

I was simply saying with your attitude there is no need to consider public safety. You can hide behind the law.

So following the law is 'hiding behind the law'? Good one.

I am proposing how to cut down on accidents and thieves stealing a gun...

Frankly I do not give a rat's ass about thieves and their intentions vis-à-vis how I need to behave in my own home.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier

Really how exactly does that show my lack of law understanding.

By thinking I would be held liable when the opposite is the case.

I was simply saying with your attitude there is no need to consider public safety. You can hide behind the law.

So following the law is 'hiding behind the law'? Good one.

I am proposing how to cut down on accidents and thieves stealing a gun...

Frankly I do not give a rat's ass about thieves and their intentions vis-à-vis how I need to behave in my own home.

Again find where i said you will be held accountable.

It's my belief you SHOULD be held accountable. Because it's not a gold watch here its a weapon.

I have a biometric in my car. Why? Because there are some places I can't bring my firearm. I don't want someone breaking my window and stealing my gun. I want to make it hard for thieves. I have had my tools stolen regularly.

Personally I like to consider my fellow man and protect him as much as I can while protecting myself as well. The includes keeping my firearms safe so a thug can't do a snatch and run and shoot my neighbor. Is it his fault it certainly is but if my neighbor is dead that doesn't really matter to his family.

I have enjoyed this. Thank you.

You are perfectly correct under the law that was never my arguement. I guess you trouble interpreting my words. Maybe that's my fault.

However I never said or stated anything about the current laws. You should go back and reread. I just stayed I don't agree with them.
Just like hundreds of other laws.

An interesting statistic, if anyone is interested.

Four out of five Canadians, claim that they are 80%.

No lie.

originally posted by: luthier

Again find where i said you will be held accountable.

It's my belief you SHOULD be held accountable. Because it's not a gold watch here its a weapon.

What you believe should occur is irrelevant. The law states otherwise.

Your analogy to a table saw and being held accountable for injury is what I am referring to.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier

Again find where i said you will be held accountable.

It's my belief you SHOULD be held accountable. Because it's not a gold watch here its a weapon.

What you believe should occur is irrelevant. The law states otherwise.

Your analogy to a table saw and being held accountable for injury is what I am referring to.

Sure and I explained I meant when a child gets his parents gun and shoots his friend by accident. I said that a couple times now and conceded you were correct.

Also it's not errelovant what I think. I live in a democracy where I vote and have contact with my reps.

Thats the beauty of this country.

originally posted by: luthier

Also it's not errelovant what I think.

It is when the law of my state says otherwise.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: luthier

Also it's not errelovant what I think.

It is when the law of my state says otherwise.

You got me there I guess....

Except there is the whole freedom of speech and debate persuading thing. I may not have a say in your state but I can surely have dialogue with people from it.

originally posted by: luthier

Except there is the whole freedom of speech and debate persuading thing. I may not have a say in your state but I can surely have dialogue with people from it.

It does not make it anymore relevant that you have free speech or engage in a dialogue.