My uncle was grazed by a bullet that rebounded off a steel target. Its a fringe example but it shows that even properly used guns are dangerous and can cause unintended harm. A more realistic example would be my grandfather, who lost his hearing in one ear because a double barrel shotgun malfunctioned and the round exploded in the barrel right next to his hear, cleaving open the barrel like a frozen soda can and burning his face.

The only reason I take issue with your post is that in gun safety its understood that a gun is ALWAYS dangerous. Its good practice to be mindful of where your barrel is pointing even if your gun is unloaded, with the safety on, without bullets on your person, with a bolt open. Its just something that always needs to be on your mind when handling a gun, which IMO translates somewhat to a Credit Card. Always be mindful of the harm it can do.

If you look at crime in the US that isn't gun related, it's pretty comparable to Canada/Europe.

Guns definitely increase the body count, especially for suicide.

But at least in the US, the 2nd amendment is too heavily apart of society and culture and isn't going away any time soon.

Which would probably mean we need to improve social conditions to limit the amount of crimes that could take place.

Switzerland !

Their gun ownership is insanely high, yet these military guns (obtained during mandatory service) are usually kept in a vault, only to be touched when the country is in danger.

This kind of weird structure wont happen in the US. Guns are not a commercialized product, nor do ppl walk around with guns. It hardly takes a part in their society.
Imo it is not about the amount of crazy ppl a country has. Every country has them, hell, 1% of us are psychopaths, usually proficient in manipulation.
It's more about how tempting we make it for the 1% to look cool.

Netherlands gun ownership/capita: .039
We are pathetic ^^

This post was edited by Knaapie on Sep 21 2016 02:24pm

Yes, if we accept there are low crime high gun culture niches in the US we must also accept that that same meta is technically possible for other populations to implement. The most telling stat we can look at is gun crime by income, which as you know are fairly clear. The funny thing is looking at the stats it appears its not a linear relationship but rather that there is a "breakpoint" at which point people stop committing large numbers of gun crimes once they meet an acceptable minimum economic comfort level. This level is lower that most people think, even though the evidence is there for all to see. Any and every middle class school in a large school district that isn't experiencing gun crime is an example, and they aren't what most people think of when they hear "gun crime free" school. We need to raise up the entire population to an acceptable minimum if we want to reduce gun crime, or just accept that we don't think that's a price worth paying, but that thought hasn't crossed most peoples' minds in context.

Should Corporations have a major role in communicating that?

Regardless of the context, guns or credit cards, I feel it's the responsibility of the government to provide a base education in both categories to outline and help identify risk factors. Elsewise you're asking to get skinned by the skinner.

I'll take that as a compliment. Someone's got too support the east and give you all jobs , but that just makes me an idiot I suppose.

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say CS is from Vancouver area. I get a serious Northwest (southwest to you) hipster vibe.

I'll say ontario