"What's wrong with Canada? Please educate me.That was loooong time ago.
I was under the impression that it had a higher standard of living by many measures than the U.S."
For a long time Canada was ranked fourth in standard of living, but recently the fell to 27th, primarily because of the rapidly increasing crime rate.
The Canadian per capita overall crime rate is higher than the US (again this is a recent thing). The Canadian per capita rape and murder rate are higher than the U.S. as well, when take as a whole. Of course there are areas where the U.S. rates are VERY high, and we'll get to the reasons in a minute.
The problem in Canada is mostly due to relatively ineffective court and prison system, and excessive social welfare support for the criminal underclass.
Please note, that doesnt mean all the underclass are criminals; but that most criminals are in the underclass, which is supported extensively by social welfare systems.
When criminals are not effectively punished, and in fact effectively supported by the state, then criminal behavior will be the easist path to "success" (as determined by material gain) for the underclass.
The biggest impact of welfare reform, and the rise of concealed carry permits in the US has ben a radical decrease in violent crime per capita all around the country, except in heavily urban areas where such permits are rarely if ever issued, and where state and local social welfare systems prop up the criminal underclass.
The violent crame rate in Florida was among the highest in the nation; the combined effect of CCW and welfare reform (which took effect in the same couple of year period) was to reduce violent crime by more than 20% in less than 10 years.
One might have noticed that as the welfare states of Britain, Australia, Canada, France, and other places have grown, so has their crime rate. At the same time their educational achievement, economic growth, and standards of living have all fallen, in some cases dframatically.
One might also have noticed that the less private firearms ownership there is, the more crime there is. Violent crime in the UK since the effective gun ban has more than doubled.
Why is that? Simple, and cliche but true "Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns"
Where everyone has guns, people don't generally shoot at each other; because they know that guns arent some magical penis extension. They are tought from a young age that a firearm is a tool, and like other tools it can be dangerous, and must be respected and properly handled. There is no mythology of power or manhood surrounding the gun, as so many liberals assume (because they dont understand, and have no experience with guns, except as an adjunt of criminals).
Not only that, but people dont shoot others, because they know they'll get shot right back.
The fact is, the vast majority of violent crime is caused by poor morals, poor upbringing, poor education, and poor people. Not any one of these things is sufficient, you need to have most, if not all of them at the same time for a culture of violent crime to rise.
Guess what, social welfare systems almost deliberately cause these factors. Social welfare encourages (and sometimes requires) the abdication of personal, and parental authority and responsibility to the state. It provides significant counterincentive to self improvement, and to personal responsiblity. It discourages real parenting, and certainly discourages the strong presence of fathers, because if you have a father, you get no benefits. It discourages education, because why do you need when when the state will pay for you; it's jsut wasted effort.
Straight up, social welfare is the single most aggravating factor in the rise of violent crime.
The only factor mitigatitig these tendencies, is the presencee of arms among the potential victims. The firearm is the great equalizer, and when firearms are easily and lawfully available, no criminal can feel safe in their crimes.
In new york city recently, a repeat violent offender held a woman at gun point while his associates collected the belongings of her companions. The woman is reported to have said "what are you going to do, shoot me"... He did.
If the criminal hadn't been safe in the ssumption that he was the only one armed in that situation, do you think there might have been a different result?