The United States has the loosest gun control laws of all developed countries. In the US, there are virtually as many guns as there are people. According to FBI crime statistics, 8,775 of the 12,996 murders that occurred in the U.S. in 2010 were caused by firearms.
With a gun being the weapon of choice in so many of the homicides in the United States, consider other countries, with stricter gun control laws, and how murders involving firearms there are much lower.
Japan - In Japan, most kinds of guns are illegal, and almost no one owns a gun. Japan is known as one of the strictest gun controlling nation in the world, with only 0.6 firearms per every 100 people. In 2006, there were only two homicides caused by guns in Japan. In 2008 there were 11. The country has nearly eliminated murder by firearms.
Australia – Ranked at No. 25 in comparison of number of privately owned guns in 178 other countries, about 15 out of every 100 Australians owns a firearm. Annual homicide rates involving firearms in the country is relatively low, at 0.1% per every 10,000 in 2009.
Germany – Ranked No. 4, in a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 other countries, approx. 30 out of every 100 people in Germany own a firearm. Germany experiences far fewer gun related homicides annually than the United States. In 2010, there was a total of 158 homicides committed with a firearm.
United States – The United States is ranked at No. 1 for civilian gun ownership in comparison with all other industrialized countries. There are approximately 88.8 firearms for every 100 people in the U.S. In the past 14 years, the year with the greatest number of homicides caused by a firearm occurred in 2006, when 10,225 people were killed by the use of a gun. Annual firearm suicides within the United States are high as well. In 2005, 17,002 suicides were committed using a firearm.
The United States far surpasses other countries in terms of gun related violence and death. The numbers above tend to indicate that fewer gun-related homicides is a direct result of stricter gun control laws.
A particular quote by Benjamin Franklin says, Anyone who will trade freedom for security deserves neither.
Although the freedoms enjoyed in this country must be protected and upheld, statistics show that personal security within the United States is greatly hampered by lenient gun control laws.
Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.
I agree with Ken..."Do we really care how many people are killed with guns, or do we care more about how many people are killed, regardless of what tools are used".
It's like saying tons of people get killed from drunk drivers so we should all get our drivers license taken away...
We should care about how many people are getting killed not what tools they use
While Archie Bunker was written as a joke, showing the senselessness of the views he supposedly held, stop and consider carefully his reply to his daughter when she lectured him on the number of people killed in the US with firearms: "Would it make you happier, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?" It got a real laugh, but think about it. Do we really care how many people are killed with guns, or do we care more about how many people are killed, regardless of what tools are used? While greater availability of guns logically suggests that more killings would be committed with guns, it suggests nothing about the total number of killings. The unfortunate fact is that certain segments of the US population are significantly more violent than others, either in the US or in other countries. They kill and injure more people with guns, but they also kill and injure more people with knives, clubs, bare hands and many other means. Take away their guns, and they'd still be extremely violent. And the reality is that tighter gun control laws simply don't take away their guns; they only take guns away from the non-violent, law-abiding segment of society. This is hardly a new observation. Jefferson translated and quoted the early 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria:"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Anyone can post statistics that are skewed in favor favor of their argument. I can pick any countries at random years to make my argument look good too. For example Serbia is second in the world for gun ownership and they had 238 gun related homicides in 2010. You can't post lies on the Internet. Thats a fact. Grow up and do your own research.
It is difficult for me to understand that more guns means less deaths from guns? The NRA needs to take a course in basic logic.
Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world which overshadows its so called gun ownership accomplishment. Every year, for the last 10 years over 30,000 human beings have killed themselves in Japan. Why are genocide rates so high in many countries which practice gun control? I believe the United Nations is a very dangerous institution which needs scrutiny at every level. How can a nation like Israel be condemned for taking defensive measures? how can any nation question its legitimate and historic existence among nations. The United Nations Small Arms Treaty has roots in totalitarianism. Both my parents survived Hitlers final solution and have experienced so called gun free societies, both were apposed to gun prohibition and the annals of gun safety measures which accomplishes the same. Professor Rudolph J. Rummell provided an eloquent study defining Death by Government and the institutionalization of "Democide".
This website truly has all of the information I wanted about this
subject and didn't know who to ask.
Modern day man scientific version quite different and unique as well.
Have got fun doing this one and if you have children
show them what you will are doing.
Hi there i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anyplace, when i read this post i thought i could also make comment due to this
Greetings from Idaho! I'm bored at work so I decided to check out your blog on my iphone during lunch break. I love the information you provide here and can't wait to take a look when I
get home. I'm surprised at how quick your blog loaded on my mobile .. I'm not even using WIFI,
just 3G .. Anyhow, excellent blog!
Ten years ago, I paid no attention to guns. Now I'm in my second five year permit period in Minnesota and have been actively supporting MN Gun Owners Civil Rights Association pushing against the forming gun legislation in MN. I understand a few things. I understand guns are as American as apple pie - more so now since there's too much sugar in those pies, and have played a role in American culture since Lexington and Concord. Guns will go away when we don't need them anymore. It's been stated by many of you here where society needs to focus (social and economic factors, changed government) to attack the root problems.
I understand that the efforts to legislate guns strips and limits the rights of law abiding citizens without dealing with the difficult root causes, criminals and the mentally dangerous . Those pushing for gun restrictions state that any effort to reduce gun ownership, restricting both type of gun and citizens to own them, is worth it if one life is saved. Sen. Ron Latz of MN stated that people can "put up with a little inconvenience" in losing rights. He also countered the objection of stripping due process from taking gun ownership rights away from Minnesotans without adjudication by changing the law to read "who have ever been hospitalized for mental illness or chemical dependency" do have "due process" as they can use the courts after being stripped of them to petition to get back their rights. The original bills submitted in the MN legislature shocked me. I had to ask my representative if all bills start this way, from a fascist mass stripping of individual rights to finally meeting in the middle. I was told, yes. Okay, now I know. Thanks to the voices of organizations and rural Minnesotans, both bills have been pulled with an effort to solidify one aspect to present to our state government, that private parties at gun shows need to use a FFL intermediary.
I appreciate the tenor and tone of this thread. Intelligent discussion on all aspects of guns in society are revealed here, as are the more limited, less aware "sound bites" that many citizens buy into. I've not been this activist since I was a long haired hippee student at the U of M protesting the Vietnam War. Now I'm nearly 60 and I just want winter gone so I can walk a golf course. Oh, and I'll walk it with my personal safety tools in my bag (phone, meds, banana and XD45). Thank you all.
when I went to school they taught me that this country was ruled by the people for the people and of the people. Today it's ruled by the rich for the rich and to hell with the poor.kill em all so the rich can get richer, then they can kill each other.
It's still a fraction compared to motor vehicle deaths.
If we are willing to put up with much greater dangers just to have private transportation... then certainly we can handle far lesser dangers as a perpetual check against tyrrany.
Yesterday I attended a meeting of Tulsa citizens concerned with the violence, especially gun
violence in our community. For discussion. we had a number of tables with about six persons at each table.
The first question discussed was what do you think the factors are which cause violence.
There were many ideas. Not suprizingly poor parenting; children having children, (one put
this as children being raised by the streets); poor education , lack of morality and civility
in our social actions, interactions; need for better access to and more funding for mental
health; lack of hope, especially in some populations, and other ideas..
But overall there appeared to be a consensus that the easy assess to guns is a major
factor in gun violence. This was not just a group of liberal do gooders as it was comprised
of law enforcement officers,the county district attorney, a public defender, someone from
federal law enforcement, teachers, psychologists, a pediatrician ( whom I think had actually
treated some child victims of gun violence);, etc. On second thought perhaps we were a
bunch of do gooders as we tried to come up with some ideas of what we could do to reduce
violence of any or many kinds in our community ,
Of the reviews I have read here I have not seen a discussion of how many times a gun bought
for protection actually ended up being used to kill someone in the home, Not an intruder but a
a person living in the home or someone known by persons living there.
These deaths may be intentional or accidental. I could cite a number of these in our community
just in the last few years but perhaps I have already written too much.
Skewed, inaccurate and totally oblivious to the constitution. I stopped reading after the United Kingdom part. Do I need to remind the writer that the EU considers the UK the most violent country within the EU? I agree with Mr. Schlesinger that there is no reliable causation between legal firearms and violence.
This is the most biased article that I've ever read. This article doesn't account for mental illness, illegal possession of guns, deaths via self-defense, the decline of morality in the U.S., the decline of personal responsibility in the U.S., high death rates in gun free zones and cities that have strict gun control yet much gun violence etc.; this article has no substance or anything that can really back up and correlate gun ownership (or legal gun ownership for that matter) to gun related crime. Instead, this article compares the U.S. (the greatest country in the world because of its freedoms listed in the Constitution) to shitty European countries. People fled/immigrated to the U.S. for freedom. This article spits on these freedoms and the European immigrants who came here for those freedoms. My point is the following: I'd rather be armed up to my teeth in the U.S. than live in failing, socialist Europe.
It never ceases to amaze how true the expression "figures don't lie, but liars figure". Since our colleges have been infested with liars I am not surprised that a recent college grad would take a Benjamin Franklin quote completely out of context. His words “Anyone who will trade freedom for security deserves neither” clearly and without question were telling people of the colonies to get a backbone and take arms against the British even though doing so would put their lives at risk.
First some facts: 3 out of 4 people arrested for illegal gun possession in Australia do not get jail as part of their sentence, in other words, its just a ticket and a fine. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5383565/Three-in-four-people-caught-with-guns-avoid-jail.html
I assume that what is being proposed here is similar. Now remember folks, laws do not prevent crime, the sentence severity is supposed to provide a deterrent to keep people from committing a crime.
The shooters commit MURDER. It is not an accident. They prepare detailed plans. its not like "gosh, I'm sorry officer, I usually obey the law. They know what they are doing, they know that they will break several laws. Yet still, the possibility of life in prison or the electric chair/gas chamber does nothing to stop their actions.
Please tell me what affect a new law will have on these kind of people? What are we going to do? I keep seeing the scene like it was another cop TV sitcom/reality show... show opens, gritty cop walks into a school, dead kids everywhere, one dead kid with a bunch of guns and one gun barrel stuck in his mouth and the back of his head blown off, Cop says something witty "Man, I should have had a V8" (camera pans to several others who are drinking V8 - you do high fives, and cash your check from whatever corporate conglomerate sells V8), Cop walks over to the dead kid with all the guns and stands there silent shaking his head..., then he whips out his citation pad, writes the corpse a citation for possession of an illegal firearm and duct tapes it to his forehead.
Yeah, that'll work. I believe we NEED to do something to stop this, but come on kids... grow up.
why is it so hard for men to give up their toys..err..their guns? Only men seem to defend and rationalize the continuous lack of gun control in this country.. Isnt the stats comparing countries not enough evidence? Of course, these men will find ways to rationalize- that what is effective in other countries is not effective here- why? are we such a special country so different from the world?!
Secondly, as Americans possess guns for self-defense apparently- the result is the other way around- more criminals get to have weapons to do crimes. Is that defense? I lived in Japan where people are mostly not afraid, a gun-free nation where people even leave their doors unlocked. Compare that here. now tell me if having guns made us safer and more secured? Yes, of course, we are Americans therefore the rule of the thumb doesnt apply to us.. whatever
To compare the US to all these other countries in some way is weak, because we have so many more people and so many more different people here. We have one of the most diverse countries if not the most diverse country in the world....a heavy mixing of different people and your telling me we're not going to have some people who arent a little off? Please.
If I may, I must first excuse myself that as a human being I really have no hope of comprehending the hell so many of us must live (or not) through. I have read so much this year from all sides of guns and shootings and still cannot fathom why these crimes occur and what could fix it. I could pick from so many reasons, pick apart so many other reasons, yet still not come close to even a hint of an answer. So I regret that I must state the following:
I don't know why we have guns and Japan does not. I am not Japanese. I'm also not Australian, Canadian nor English.
I don't know why evil people are successful in Norway, China, the USA, Russian Schoolhouses and Spanish trains.
I do believe from what I learned from my founding fathers; from what I've gathered from the growth of our culture, from what I've seen in other countries - Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Stalinist Russia and Poland, present day Mexico and our own USA - I am totally at home with being born in, and a citizen of this country. My safety is my concern. My country and state has not taken from me the tools I require to be safe, those tools being the appropriate force to meet the criminal force. I see threats from home invasion, car invasion, random acts of cruelty at the mall, the theater, at church, at school and in day care/office complexes in Oklahoma City. I feel free in my country because I have the means to protect myself: I can run away, drive away, chase away and when cornered, present a reliable response to any threat including assault baseball bats (mentioned earlier in these threads), assault knives, guns or the simple assaulters, period. For that I feel safe and in control of my life and those of my loved ones.
In part because of these protections, I start most every day in my world with a bright and positive outlook. I do not start my day with fear.
Personal security in the US is hampered by lenient gun control laws? Tell that to the people who used semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines (and other types of firearms) to protect their homes and business from the rioters and looters who ran wild in the aftermath of the acquittal of the Los Angeles policemen who beat the late Rodney King. Take the time to read 'The Armed Citizen' section of the National Rifle Association's magazines; then, seek out and tell each of those people who used guns to defend themselves that they shouldn't have had a gun in the first place because they are a threat to personal security. Tell the Angelenos who used the aforementioned semi-automatic rifles to ward off rioters and looters that they should never have been allowed to possess such rifles for the same reason.
Personal security is enhanced when peaceable, law-abiding citizens are armed, and I have no compunction about choosing to live in such a society. Civil unrest such as that seen in the so-called Rodney King riots in Los Angeles seldom occurs, but I am convinced that many more people would have been killed if the population were completely disarmed.
Personal (and national) security is enhanced in Switzerland, where every enlisted military reservist is given a true assault rifle to take home. Why don't the Swiss have the same rate of firearms violence as the US? The problem is to be found squarely between the ears of certain people in the US. It is not the guns.
I reiterate: If you're serious about banning civilian possession of handguns and rifles, seek out those who have used firearms to defend themselves against criminal attack and tell them face-to-face that instead they should have submitted to their assailants. I dare say that what they would say to you would violate IVN's etiquette guidelines.
I appreciate that you are trying to use statistics and facts, but the problem I have with this is that for the US you give TOTAL number of homicides, but for Australia you give us gun-related homicides per person. So it's an apples vs. oranges comparison. For Germany you also give us gun-related homicides, but not the total population of Germany - Germany is less populous than the US. Also, you don't give us total number of murders. In some places (Australia) TOTAL murders has gone down since they passed gun control laws. But in other countries (the UK) violent crime including murders has gone up. In some countries (Japan) there is very low gun ownership AND low crime. In other countries, though, there is high gun ownership and low crime (Switzerland).
In the US, there have been several times increased gun ownership has led to lower crime rates. For example, there was a city in Florida that was having high rape rates until the police started providing women with training in using hand-guns. Rapes went down 30%. In a county in Goergia, I believe, they made it mandatory for every household to have a gun - and burglaries went down dramatically.
In China, recently, a man killed over 20 school children with a knife. And, in the Wild West, murder rates were actually lower even though guns were much more prevalent.
My thought is - the US has the 2nd Amendment and it is part of our tradition. Instead of making guns illegal, look at other factors that increase violent crime rates - for example, most murderers come from broken homes. In prisons, there was a study done that showed that violent criminals almost all had come from father-less households. Either the Mom was an unwed mother or she was divorced. However, gun control advocates ignore this statistic.
Other statistics have to do with education vs. homicide rates, drug use vs. crime rates, the use of prescription drugs vs. murder rates - just about every school shooter was on prescription meds. Also, what about violent video games and movies? How do they affect gun violence and violence in general?
I'm not for banning violent movies - I believe in the First Amendment as well. But if the link between these types of movies and violence was discussed more (does it exist? and if it does, how serious is the correlation?) perhaps, if it is an issue, more movie-producers would be more careful, etc. It's a thought, anyway.
Your statistics are flawed. You mention ONLY gun related homicide in the other countries not TOTAL homicides as you did in the US. So instead of isolating gun related killings please provide ALL the homicides in the countries in question.
You also too Ben Franklin's quote out of context. He was referring to trading "national" security and making deals with tyrents with the false sense of security that would bring, to then only find that you have lost both freedom and security.
Crime rates in the US have been falling over the past 20 years despite the loose gun control laws, and violent crime rates in Austrailia have shot up after their guns have been taken. In their case gun bans HAVE hampered their security and freedoms.
It would be nice if you looked at the murder rates of other nations say in Africa or South America or anyplace where guns have been restricted. Pay particular attention to the murders committed by their governments on the people they have taken the guns from.
I don't care about reducing "gun violence", I want to reduce ALL violence. We are wasting our time fighting about whether or not gun laws should be more or less strict. In the meantime, the root cause of ALL CRIME (poverty, unwanted children, poor public education, the absence of universal health care, a democracy that would rather throw everyone in jail than give them food stamps, a society that puts more emphasis on having a reality show than knowing the difference between 'to' and 'too', 24 hour news networks that feed liberal-conservative hatred, our workaholic middle-class) continues to be ignored.
we would have less crime, if everyone was allowed to carry a gun... check out Switzerland for an example!
Mike is right. CT already has very strict gun laws and more laws will not prevent what happened. We need to start blaming the shooter, not the gun or his teacher or his illness or anythign else.
@Rob You are wrong. The statistic is valid because it refers to DEVELOPED countries. Nations with capable law enforcement, not nations were the police themselves are part of a criminal organization.
You are just angry because the facts prove you are wrong. This is not a hallmark of an intelligent being.
That's right Art. We know that generational poverty, incentivizing dysfunctional families with careless social spending, the drug trade, and politicians buying votes from the masses perpetuates the violence in the inner cities, and we know that pushing those populations out into smaller communities only gives the appearance of having done something to improve crime in the inner city at the expense of pushing the criminal element out into smaller communities which are ill equipped to handle them, and we know that the resulting "crime waves" will be used by fear mongers to insist that we have to take "common sense" measures to combat all of that generational poverty, drug trafficking, social dusfunction, violence, and political manipulation....
...by banning guns.
I'm curious as to why you are especially concerned with 'gun violence' as if somehow a murder, assault, or other crime is somehow worse if the criminal involved uses a gun rather than some other tool?
I doubt if your group could point to any instances, anywhere, in which implementing restrictions on legal firearms ownership ever resulted in lower overall rates of relevant crimes. In over 99% of the cases such laws don't even reduce the firearms related rate of relevant crimes.
As to your question about how many times a gun bought for protection has been used to kill someone in the home, the answer is the number is statistically tiny unless you include suicide, and all studies that I'm aware of show that suicide rates are means independent, someone intent on killing themselves will do so whether they have access to firearms or not.
I read the first part of your comment so full of hope, only to have my hopes dashed. From your description it sounded like the discussion was initially about the causes of violence, which is precisely the problem to be solved. Children raised by the streets, poor education, and hopelessness are all serious problems worth addressing all by themselves, even if you don't accept that they are root causes of violence.
But those things are difficult to discuss, because they involve race. We get uncomfortable, can't imagine a way government could do anything about any of those things, and so we turn to the easy way out, the path of least resistance. "Let's ban guns" we say, or limit magazine size, or whatever.
None of that will help. Kids kill each other with revolvers and baseball bats too. If we reduce violence by giving kids role models and opportunities, ALL violence will decrease, not just gun violence, and we don't have to infringe on the rights of the law abiding to do it.
And unfortunately, it is the "liberal do gooders" who are particularly likely to fall victim to this error in logic. As someone who has worked in medicine, law enforcement, and comes from a family of teachers, I can tell you that there are a lot of liberal do gooders in all of those professions, especially education and medicine.
There's nothing wrong with being a do gooder, or even dare I say a liberal. But I object to saying that we can cure a disease by ignoring the cause and treating one specific symptom. Especially when that treatment involves infringing on the rights of millions of others who have never committed a crime.
Don't take the easy way out. Let's work the problem.
Here is a case of a woman who would disagree with the idea taking her "toys" errr guns.
Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot
I for one am very glad she had a gun and killed the man.
I thought I would forward this email that sums up 170 million good reasons why stricter gun control is NOT a good idea.
Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Sunday, January 6, 2013
After every mass shooting, we hear the unenlightened politicians and knee-jerk liberals wailing, "If we can save just ONE life by getting guns off the street, then it is worth passing stricter gun control..."
Well, the next time you hear that from anybody, I want you to respond with: "Over 170 million people would disagree with you... if they could. You can't talk with them, because they are dead! They were killed by their own governments after strict gun control disarmed them."
Then I want you to hand them a copy of Innocents Betrayed, an award-winning documentary DVD that I co-produced with Aaron Zelman and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).
You have probably seen the e-mails that float around the Internet that look like this:
WORLDWIDE HISTORY OF GUN CONFISCATION
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated...
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Well, I co-produced Innocents Betrayed because it dramatically and irrefutably documents the direct connections between government gun control schemes and the subsequent genocides that have taken the lives of over 170 million people!
This is a must-see DVD because it contains documented, proven facts of history that even the most ardent gun control advocate cannot deny.
Watch a short trailer of this riveting and educational film. Then order your own copies to share with your family, friends and co-workers. All proceeds go directly to JPFO and assist in their efforts to educate Americans and expose the fallacy of gun control.
I personally put my money where my mouth is to co-produce the DVD because the message is so important to the future of our country and our offspring. The dangers of gun control are real. Innocents Betrayed exposes them in such an undeniable manner in this DVD that you simply must have it in any well-stocked information arsenal for sharing with anyone who thinks otherwise.
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
7975 Cameron Drive, #900
Windsor, CA 95492
I'm constantly amazed at how people like you are so unaware. In this comment section, and elsewhere, you find many women who support firearms rights.
Second, none of the laws in other countries actually worked to reduce the levels of violent crime, in fact, in most cases (England a prime example) as their legal restrictions on firearms ownership have gotten tighter, their violent crime rates (including firearmes related crime rates) have gone up.
In Japan the police can come into your home whenever they want to. The suicide rate in Japan is through the roof, and, for cultural and historical reasons, they prefer edged weapons to guns. However, criminals in Japan are still able to get guns when they want them.
Harvard Criminologists Study on gun Control US, Foreign and Historical statistics showing that high rate of gun ownership equated with lower crime rate and vice versa.
Americans should all own assault rifles for self-defence. The population was growing too fast anyway.
Sean, this is the post I was referring to. You, and many others who I would classify as being on the left, seem too worry a lot about mean-mouthing individuals, but have no problem do the the same thing with large numbers of people, or whole societies. The things you list have nothing to do with the overall violent crime rate particular a lack of universal health care or food stamps. Poverty may corelate with economic crimes, not necessarily with violent crime. You act as if society is an entity, rather than a collection of individuals who all act as they see fit.
Thank you. This is the thing that drives me absolutely nuts about the calls for gun control. When you say "If you restrict guns, they'll just uses knives like they do in China" and the response is "well, they won't kill as MANY". So just a couple dead kids is acceptable? Why restrict the rights of millions of Americans for a solution that's no solution at all?
Here's one reason why- because nobody likes those moody loners. They're awkward and scary to be around. As long as guns are the culprit we don't have to admit that there are those among us who are lonely, sad, and sick and it's not our fault that we never made an effort to be friends with that kid. It's a lot easier to blame it on an inanimate object.
Your final line is somewhat amusing, as it is the gun control advocates like you who are trying to take the easy way out.
Thank you Jeff. I trained at Dr. Piazza's Front Sight location in Pahrump Valley, Nevada. Good tactical training to instill good habits with practice.
I see what you did there. Are you passive-aggressive all the time or just right now?
There are laws against people owning "assault rifles" which are the fully automatic military ones, without extensive paperwork, very expensive costs of the guns, and the hoops to jump through.
Yep, I have a liberal view of the criminal justice system so that automatically means I have a liberal view of gun control, size of government, foreign policy, education and regulatory policy too, doesn't it? I did generalize a segment of conservative Americans as worrying about paying for food stamps, but not worrying about the costs of mass incarceration: but I didn't call them names. Perhaps you don't see a difference between the two, I do.
Universal Healthcare does have to do with violent crime: the lack of access to mental-health care portion of it. Additionally, the bankruptcies caused by the system that can lead people to commit (violent) crime(s) out of desperation.
My major criticism of this article is that it tries to take an extremely complicated issue and boil it down into something very simple: gun control. I brought up all of the things that I believe feed into the complicated issue of "why do mass-shootings of innocent people occur and why with such frequency in the United States?" to point out how complicated the issue is. Perhaps the problem isn't as complicated as I believe it to be. Perhaps it's bigger.
I agree that society is a collection of individuals acting independently, but I think that the decisions of those individuals has a ripple effect onto others and that the outside influences of the successful marketing departments of manufacturers and television networks have a lot do with how those individuals act together or act in a similar way.
@Scot Douglas Protecting freedom is never easy and is a daily chore. do you think by banning guns and its owners is the way to go? think before you make such statements. Perhaps Jewish Partisans "Took and easy way out" and as such perhaps accepting the initiative every despot prescribes is another easy way out. intelligent discourse based upon fact and history is our only recourse, otherwise history has a way of repeating itself. there is no easy way out my friend.
As far as I can tell you have liberal views, period. Since much of what you seem to espouse would result in a larger government, it's not likely that you support shrinking it.
If you don't think that telling people that because they care that the amount of money spent on food stamps is ever increasing they are part of the root causes of crime you're not mean-mouthing them, I don't know what I can do to help you.
You also seem to think that 'mass incarceration' leads to increases in crime, when many, at least a plurality and perhaps a significant majority, of criminologists believe that incarcertaing people reduces crime rates.
At one point it was much easier to involuntarily commit people, so we had fewer people with severe mental problems on the street, and at that time we did not have 'universal' health care. To assume the need for the one in order to get the other isn't reasonable. Plus, if you're opposed to 'mass incarcertations' and the costs involved with incarcertating people who commit crimes, how likely is it that you would support paying the costs of involuntarily committing people?
You say you brought up things that you "believe feed into the complicated issue of "why do mass-shootings of innocent people occur and why with such frequency in the United States?"" However, in looking at the mass shootings that have occurred since Columbine (or even to go back to the UT shootings), it would appear that except for Columbine and the Fort Hood shooting the issue was mental health, not any of the rest of your laundry list. Fort Hood was ideology, and Columbine arguably was ideology as well.
However, notice that except for the shooting in Tucson, the common factor is that they took place where all of the potential victims were disarmed by law.
Why people decide to try to kill others in these types of incidents may be complicated, but why they choose schools, post offices, or military bases isn't. In those locations they'll have the run of the place for as long as it takes armed response to get there.
I would say that you prove the truth of your last paragraph.