In other news concerning the US:

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Rio56

good , you don't understand and are one of the reasons we have no carry .. and obviously our country disagrees with you and EZM ....

I don't recall offering my opinion .........????

What are you talking about....????

I was pointing out the grammatical irony of Newview's comments .... it made me laugh ....... like usual.

[Fur]

I thought the only people allowed to own/buy/possess guns in the USA are citizens and green card holders?

I thought Canadians need a purpose to possess a gun in the USA, like hunting, shooting comp, trade show etc?

Not speaking from experience but if you apply for a permit and have no other purpose but protection I think the Justice Department would not provide you with a ATF-6 NIA. And that only allows import of a firearm and its possession. Nothing about buying one down there.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-...immigrant-visa

An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing a firearm or ammunition unless the alien falls within one of the exceptions provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as: a valid hunting license or permit, admitted for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, certain official representatives of a foreign government, or a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official law enforcement business.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[270person]

Originally Posted by Newview01

So because a small fraction of the population might do something bad we should remove the ability of the law abiding people around the perp to defend themselves? That logic does not add up.

Crazies will do crazy things regardless of the law. It is already illegal to behead someone, but yet Mr Li did. Now what if there would have been a way for Tim to defend himself

He was sleeping so if anything him having a gun on his person may only have exacerbated the situation if Li had seen it.

I would be willing to bet you, and I have nothing to back this up whatsoever, that there are more accidental shootings, shooting "mistakes", and just outright stupid decisions made by people carrying weapons than there are cases of law abiding people having to defend themselves from those perps you mention. FYI in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides or cases of legitimate self defense in the U.S.

Also in 2012, in criminal firearm homicides in which relationship details were reported, three out of four victims knew their killers, and more than a third were family members or "intimate acquaintances" — such as spouses, ex-spouses or others involved in a romantic relationship. Who protects themselves from people they know?

From the LA Times:

The findings of the American Journal of Medicine study, focusing solely on the U.S. may seem like an open-and-shut case against the gun lobby's oft-repeated claim that if more law-abiding citizens had guns, we'd all be safer from gun violence: Fact: The higher the per capita rate of gun ownership, the higher the rates of firearm-related deaths, the study found.

The United States, with 88.8 guns per 100 people, had a gun-death rate of 10.2 per 100,000 people. At the other extreme, Japan, with less than one gun (0.6, in fact) for every 100 people, has a gun-death rate of 0.06 per 100,000, and the Netherlands, with 3.9 guns per 100 people, has a gun-death rate of 0.46 per 100,000 people.

Canada, Iceland and Norway, with 30.8, 30.3 and 31.3 guns per 100,000, have a relatively well-armed citizenry. And yet, their gun-death rates (2.44 and 1.25 and 1.87 fatalities, respectively, per 100,000 people) are roughly in line with those with many fewer guns per capita.

The study published last week by the American Journal of Public Health also concludes that a state's rate of gun-related homicide consistently went up and down as a function of its levels of gun ownership. That relationship held even after the researchers--led by Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel--adjusted for state-to-state variances in factors that influence gun-related homicides, such as urbanization, youth population, crime, alcohol consumption, unemployment and poverty rates, educational attainment, and prevalence of hunting licenses.

Moreover, that link between gun ownership and gun-related homicide held up over close to 30 years--from 1981 to 2010.

I find the lower rates in well armed countries, like Canada to be most interesting. For me it speaks to much bigger issues in the U.S. than just gun ownership. Attitude? Paranoia?

And for all the heat I'll take on this I'll just say I have guns...obviously or I wouldn't be in an AO forum, and I'd never stand for a law that threatened to take them away, but I would strongly disagree with those that say having one on you at all times makes you safer. There just isn't evidence of that being the case. In fact it's quite the opposite.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by 270person

He was sleeping so if anything him having a gun on his person may only have exacerbated the situation if Li had seen it.

I would be willing to bet you, and I have nothing to back this up whatsoever, that there are more accidental shootings, shooting "mistakes", and just outright stupid decisions made by people carrying weapons than there are cases of law abiding people having to defend themselves from those perps you mention. FYI in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides or cases of legitimate self defense in the U.S.

Also in 2012, in criminal firearm homicides in which relationship details were reported, three out of four victims knew their killers, and more than a third were family members or "intimate acquaintances" — such as spouses, ex-spouses or others involved in a romantic relationship. Who protects themselves from people they know?

From the LA Times:

The findings of the American Journal of Medicine study, focusing solely on the U.S. may seem like an open-and-shut case against the gun lobby's oft-repeated claim that if more law-abiding citizens had guns, we'd all be safer from gun violence: Fact: The higher the per capita rate of gun ownership, the higher the rates of firearm-related deaths, the study found.

The United States, with 88.8 guns per 100 people, had a gun-death rate of 10.2 per 100,000 people. At the other extreme, Japan, with less than one gun (0.6, in fact) for every 100 people, has a gun-death rate of 0.06 per 100,000, and the Netherlands, with 3.9 guns per 100 people, has a gun-death rate of 0.46 per 100,000 people.

Canada, Iceland and Norway, with 30.8, 30.3 and 31.3 guns per 100,000, have a relatively well-armed citizenry. And yet, their gun-death rates (2.44 and 1.25 and 1.87 fatalities, respectively, per 100,000 people) are roughly in line with those with many fewer guns per capita.

The study published last week by the American Journal of Public Health also concludes that a state's rate of gun-related homicide consistently went up and down as a function of its levels of gun ownership. That relationship held even after the researchers--led by Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel--adjusted for state-to-state variances in factors that influence gun-related homicides, such as urbanization, youth population, crime, alcohol consumption, unemployment and poverty rates, educational attainment, and prevalence of hunting licenses.

Moreover, that link between gun ownership and gun-related homicide held up over close to 30 years--from 1981 to 2010.

I find the lower rates in well armed countries, like Canada to be most interesting. For me it speaks to much bigger issues in the U.S. than just gun ownership. Attitude? Paranoia?

And for all the heat I'll take on this I'll just say I have guns...obviously or I wouldn't be in an AO forum, and I'd never stand for a law that threatened to take them away, but I would strongly disagree with those that say having one on you at all times makes you safer. There just isn't evidence of that being the case. In fact it's quite the opposite.

The article you are quoting takes into account all gun deaths, including suicides and accidental shootings. Both of which we should not include in the homicide rate, or criminal acts. FBI crime statistics show that an increase in law-abiding gun ownership correlates with lower violent, gun related crime.

And BTW, people who are carrying used their weapons over 2,000,000 times in 2007. We can be assured that number has not dropped.

http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

I will admit that in Canada we do not have a violent crime problem, yet. Our mentality is different, we don't seem to have as many people bent on killing. That doesn't change my opinion as all it takes is for one to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So yes, they do have a unique problem. But removing firearms from law-abiding citizens will not help.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

North Dakota just did away with permits for concealed carry. See 2nd Amendment.

Contrary to popular belief the streets are not running red with blood. Wonder why that is???

Could it be the anti carry crowd are WRONG?

There are a ton more murders per capita in the States (10.54/100,000 people) versus Canada (1.97/100,000 people) using guns.

To counter that we need comparative stats. What I want to see is normalized gun murder rates with criminal on criminal removed from both countries. I care less if criminals kill each other so long as there are no bystanders injured.

Then there is a strong argument that the extra guns in the US and the fewer guns in Canada impact murders.

Until then the stats show increased gun ownership and access to guns in the US (113/100 residents) versus Canada (31/100 residents) is telling.

[colroggal]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

There are a ton more murders per capita in the States (10.54/100,000 people) versus Canada (1.97/100,000 people) using guns.

To counter that we need comparative stats. What I want to see is normalized gun murder rates with criminal on criminal removed from both countries. I care less if criminals kill each other so long as there are no bystanders injured.

Then there is a strong argument that the extra guns in the US and the fewer guns in Canada impact murders.

Until then the stats show increased gun ownership and access to guns in the US (113/100 residents) versus Canada (31/100 residents) is telling.

Actually the US National homicide rate is closer to 4.0. Canada is 1.5.

[colroggal]

It should be interesting to note that if one were to break the US up and compare homicide rates the areas with the strictest gun laws are more consistently the areas with higher rates of crime and homicide.

Colin

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

There are a ton more murders per capita in the States (10.54/100,000 people) versus Canada (1.97/100,000 people) using guns.

To counter that we need comparative stats. What I want to see is normalized gun murder rates with criminal on criminal removed from both countries. I care less if criminals kill each other so long as there are no bystanders injured.

Then there is a strong argument that the extra guns in the US and the fewer guns in Canada impact murders.

Until then the stats show increased gun ownership and access to guns in the US (113/100 residents) versus Canada (31/100 residents) is telling.

I think this is where many anti-carry people get it wrong. They assume gun crime is perpetrated by all spectrums of the population when in reality it is a small group(s) that are the problem - i.e. Chicago is a great example. Not saying that there not anomalies, but the road rage turning into gunfire simply is not an everyday occurrence, unless the participants belong to the said small group(s).

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

There are a ton more murders per capita in the States (10.54/100,000 people) versus Canada (1.97/100,000 people) using guns.

To counter that we need comparative stats. What I want to see is normalized gun murder rates with criminal on criminal removed from both countries. I care less if criminals kill each other so long as there are no bystanders injured.

Then there is a strong argument that the extra guns in the US and the fewer guns in Canada impact murders.

Until then the stats show increased gun ownership and access to guns in the US (113/100 residents) versus Canada (31/100 residents) is telling.

May I recommend "More guns, less crime" by John Lott.

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by 270person

Or angry driver that I just accidentally cut off in traffic. Maybe some honest folk lose their minds once in a while and do irresponsible things.

Who determines who's "honest folk" anyways? The guy selling the handguns? Politicians?

Didn't Trump just sign a resolution blocking an Obama-era rule that would have prevented an estimated 75,000 people with mental disorders from buying guns? They could be "honest folk" I guess. Just with the odd tic or quirk here and there. Like the guy on the Greyhound bus in Manitoba. He's good to go now apparently as long as he takes his meds. No reason he shouldn't be packing some heat.

I think the biggest reason so many carry in the U.S. is simple. Paranoia. Or according to the bear whisperer doofus because it's their God given right, which blows me away because I did not know God was present during the drawing up of the American constitution. He must have photobombed the proceedings.

Actually the 75000 was people adjudicated to not being able to take care of their finances by the social security administration. Way different then from what your implying. ...

[jrowan]

Having spent some time working at a public pool I can say for sure that the general population is not very bright.

Proof of this was also evident in my firearms safety course. No less than 2 minutes after the instructors told everyone to not put their finger on the trigger while handling the instructional firearms at least 5-10 people out of the class of 30 pulled a trigger. 2-5 did several cycles on a pump action shotgun with pulling the trigger (these people were promptly kicked out of the class).

I don't think people in general are out to get each other for no reason, it's just a lot of people lack basic reasoning/cause and effect thinking. Just go to any club or popular bar after 9:30 on a Friday. Will there be a fight? Probably. No what would have happened if one of them was carrying?

Side note: Unless you are constantly being conditioned and have encountered a high stress and life or death situation before you are likely going to:
1) Forget all or part of your training
2) Perform lower than your training level

Lifeguards for the most part train so that double the distance/time they would have to swim for is easily done, since in a high stress situation you will probably only be able to do half of what you normally could.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by colroggal

Actually the US National homicide rate is closer to 4.0. Canada is 1.5.

Correct. I was looking at total gun related deaths on my iPhone.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

May I recommend "More guns, less crime" by John Lott.

Looked into it a fair bit. Unfortunately often such books refer to select areas that also happen to be affluent.

I see gun violence tracking poverty very closely.

Still as mentioned before if one can show no significance between Canada and the US once criminal on criminal crime is removed then you may have something.

Otherwise the facts are murder rate in the US is far higher than in Canada. Violent crime is far higher in US also.

I like Canada. Don't want to change anything.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by colroggal

It should be interesting to note that if one were to break the US up and compare homicide rates the areas with the strictest gun laws are more consistently the areas with higher rates of crime and homicide.

Colin

You need to also look at affluence. Your stats fail as many places with strict gun laws immediately offset counties with lax gun laws. You can't stop every car coming back to Detroit.

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by jrowan

Having spent some time working at a public pool I can say for sure that the general population is not very bright.

Proof of this was also evident in my firearms safety course. No less than 2 minutes after the instructors told everyone to not put their finger on the trigger while handling the instructional firearms at least 5-10 people out of the class of 30 pulled a trigger. 2-5 did several cycles on a pump action shotgun with pulling the trigger (these people were promptly kicked out of the class).

I don't think people in general are out to get each other for no reason, it's just a lot of people lack basic reasoning/cause and effect thinking. Just go to any club or popular bar after 9:30 on a Friday. Will there be a fight? Probably. No what would have happened if one of them was carrying?

Side note: Unless you are constantly being conditioned and have encountered a high stress and life or death situation before you are likely going to:
1) Forget all or part of your training
2) Perform lower than your training level

Lifeguards for the most part train so that double the distance/time they would have to swim for is easily done, since in a high stress situation you will probably only be able to do half of what you normally could.

Done some research myself and yes this is the truth. It's callled being in SNS. You always revert back to your training and if that is little or non existent, crazy stuff can happen.

Count me in for leaving Canada the way it is. I'm for one not willing to test drive this scenario. The funny thing is, it will never happen or ever be considered. So no use going around and around the mulberry bush...