Gun Control: An International Comparison
By Heather Rogers | 07/25/2012 | Headline, Safety | 367 Comments
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.
United Kingdom – The rate of private gun ownership in the United Kingdom is 6.72 firearms per 100 people. In 2009, only 18 people were murdered with a firearm. Within the last 14 years, the year with the highest number of gun caused homicides was 2004, with 52 people killed.
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.
Leave Your Comment →
367 Comments
Brad R. Schlesinger
07.25.2012
@bradschlesinger
Arguments purporting to tie violent crime with the amount of guns circulating just does not work. Gun ownership has significantly risen in the last twenty years and guns are more prevalent than ever. Yet, over the last twenty years, violent crime has significantly declined and remains at historically low-levels, unseen in decades.
Heather Rogers
07.25.2012
@heatherrogers
While this is true, the argument here is that gun related violence is much higher in the United States then elsewhere in the developed world. This corresponds with the fact that gun ownership in the U.S. is much higher then elsewhere as well. Gun related violence is decreasing but it is still at extremely high levels. Were guns regulated, the opportunity for violent gun crime would decrease at a rapid pace.
George Prudden
07.25.2012
@user253
Heather, do you have any data that shows that increasing “gun regulation” in the US would decrease crime? The fact that gun ownership and gun-related violence are inversely proportional in the US argues against your premise.
Heather Rogers
07.26.2012
@heatherrogers
Here is a link to a paper explaining that strict gun control laws enacted in Germany reduced violent gun crime in that country substantially. It draws connections to the United States and looks at multiple sides of the argument. Its worth reading, and primarily argues that the inclination of people to commit violent crimes and the lenient gun control policies of the United States contribute to our high rate of gun related homicides. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/savelsberg1.html
Andy
11.09.2012
Sorry for reviving an old post, but I was curious what all of you thought about the following statement: I am personally more interested in violent crime statistics over all than just gun related violent crime. Some of the people I have met & worked with from the UK indicated that there was a lot more violence and murder in the UK than in the US. A violent crime with a crow bar or chain is no better than a violent crime with a firearm. Most of what I’ve heard indicates that higher gun ownership equals less violent crime & theft. Less gun ownership equals more crime, home invasions & theft, criminals just use different tools when guns are taken from the citizens hands.
Kevin Harkness
12.14.2012
@kevin_harkness
Heather..that’s just a biased paper..Not data…Show me actual data that backs your comment. Why don’t you try and find data showing how many of these crimes were committed by legal civilians that owned their firearms legally and how many crimes were committed by criminals who did not own their firearms legaly. Also, of the homicides committed by legal citizens that own their firearms legaly, how many killed someone in self defense?? A homicide does not necessarily mean a crime. It could be self-defense.
Richard Lemire
12.15.2012
@richard_lemire
Then Heather would you please explain why when Chicago and Washington DC enacted stricter gun control laws, the rates of gun related crimes went up instead of down? Criminals already have their guns so if you take away citizens rights to carry a or own guns it leaves them ripe for the picking. Also all of these mass shooting are carried out in places where guns are totally banned….IE malls, schools and movie theaters. I mean you can’t deny these facts and I don’t really see how you can compare Germany to the US and get a good reading on anything like that? Just questions that I have that I would like answers to, not trying to start an argument or anything. I myself do not own a gun but I do support our right to own one if we choose. I also support banning assault weapons and any type of rapid multi fire enhancement to guns.
Ed
12.19.2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop USA is #28
Eric
01.18.2013
Heather-
Two quotes from that paper.
1. “The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level.”
Reducing “gun violence” is no victory at all if violent crime doubles, and it should give you pause if you think otherwise.
2. “This is important because the vast majority of homicides in the United States involve young black men. I think that just listing and summarizing headline news or local news with all the cruel events–and not looking into the socioeconomic background factors of that violence–is very misleading and problematic.”
And there’s the problem. Guns aren’t the problem, socioeconomic conditions in the inner cities are the problem. Gun control has proven to do nothing about the actual problems, it is a bandaid, nothing more. It’s like addressing the problem of hate speech by not letting anyone talk.
Brad R. Schlesinger
07.25.2012
@bradschlesinger
Guns are regulated — background checks, waiting periods, concealed carry permits. It is true that gun related violence is higher in the US than other countries, but there is no correlation between the availability of guns and violent crime, so its is impossible to say that regulating guns will reduce gun violence. There are millions of guns criculating throughout scoiety, if someone wanted to use gun to kill others, regulation or no, they’ll be able to find one. All strict gun-control does is move the buying and selling of guns onto the black market, thus making it easier for criminal types to buy them. Black market gun sellers don’t conduct background checks. If you look at the cities with strict gun-control laws like Chicago and DC, you find that they have the highest rates of gun violence in the country.
Heather Rogers
07.26.2012
@heatherrogers
I understand and appreciate your argument. The point I am making, however is since homicides caused by guns are higher in this country than all other industrialized countries and gun control laws are more lenient, then it follows that with more regulation comes fewer gun related crimes. It doesn’t matter that gun related violence is decreasing in the United States, it is still the highest in the industrialized world.
Craig D. Schlesinger
07.26.2012
@craigschlesinger
Even still, what works in other countries might not work here in the US, and vice versa. Not just with gun control, but most things. Nations are sovereign, unique entities whose populations respond differently to the same stimuli. If the opposite were true, we’d have one global government with a true one-size-fits-all approach to everything.
As to your specific point, stricter gun control laws in this country will succeed in placing more guns in the hands of criminals than law abiding citizens. It’s a simple public choice incentive problem. Demand will not abate as a result of prohibition law. We’ve seen the same phenomenon with drugs, gambling, and prostitution. These well intentioned laws ironically and unintentionally give more power to black markets and criminals that seek to exploit them.
Dennis
07.26.2012
I’m sorry to disagree, Heather, but there is no indication in the studies that are generally quoted as purporting to show a correlation between tighter gun regulation and lower gun crime, that all confounding conditions have been accounted for, and the the result that the correlation does, indeed, indicate causation.
Are the socio-economic conditions comparable? Are the intra-national educational differences comparabe between nations being compared? Are there comparable levels of drug/alcohol abuse?
The United States has MANY conditions that are not extent in other nations. Are any of these, rather than lenient gun laws, responsible for the relationship indicated?
Until I see a substantive study that even ATTEMPTS to remove such other factors as possible causes, I will remain unconvinced.
The fact of the matter is, since the state of Florida loosened its gun restrictions, violent crime has decreased.
One of the problems in the US is that too many ppl think that the police will protect them; if they took their own safety seriously, and armed themselves, it is likely that they would be a great deal safer, and that violent crime would go down.
“…By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
President John F. Kennedy
Mark Are Reynolds
12.04.2012
I want to have the ability to protect myself from criminals on the street as well as criminals in the government. So I don’t give a crap what you think about this subject or what anyone else thinks.
Alex
12.14.2012
Thanks for that fine response Mark. It really helps to know that you dont give a crap.
Louise Butler
12.16.2012
Heather I understand what you are saying but those other countries do not have the constitution that we live by. The ownership of guns is one of our freedoms. You want one of your freedoms taken away? Also there is probably more hatred for others here than any other country. People here are jealous of their neighbors for having a better car. People will kill for pills, drugs etc. There are gun collectors that add to the ratio of guns per capita. You have to allow for things like that. If you will notice the timeline for school shootings you should note that it started around or just after God was taken out of our schools. Troubled children grow up to be troubled adults.
Scot Douglas
12.22.2012
@scot_douglas
I’m sorry, your syllogism may be only partially correct. We have about 100 years of experience with increasing regulation, and in no case that I’m aware of is there actual evidence that increase regulation actually reduced the overall rate of any relevant crime. Even your link to a not statistically rigorous article shows that regulation isn’t inherently even corelated to a reduction in even firearms violence. The author noted that even with laws when access to illegal firearms increased, firearms violence increased.
And it does matter that gun related violence is decreasing in the US, since at the same time the number of legally owned firearms is increasing it shows that access to firearms does not drive the firearms related violence rate.
Perhaps you can explain to me why ‘firearms related’ violence or homicide is so much worse than any other form of violence or homicide?
Mason
12.31.2012
I’m sorry….this is just crazy. First off, violence is not caused by guns. It’s caused by people. If you take away their guns, there will still be violence. And, law abiding citezens could not protect them selves against gun owning criminals.
Jeff Bostic
01.08.2013
However, violent crime is LOWER in countries with more lenient gun laws. And gun related crime in the US is predominately concentrated in cites WITH THE STICTEST gun laws. Murders are not typically the average person but rather people with a track record of violent crime. Many are not legally allowed to own a gun as it now stands. They also will NOT be the ones to turn in their guns if that were ever required. So the only people who will are the law abiding citizen, thus making them unarmed and defensless against those who have already shown their desire to commit violent crimes.
dana
12.15.2012
heather, look into Switzerland’s gun policy, then get back to me. Gun ownership is encouraged and gun related crimes and homocides are low. It is about the culture, not the gun. We need to make some changes in the country, but it’s not taking guns away from the citizens. Don’t you realize that if you enact stricter legislation, the only people who will suffer will be the innocent people. Do you think that criminals won’t get guns?? the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen or purchased on the street. Would you have us as a country surrender our nukes while other countries still have theirs? while Iran and Korea move forward with their nuclear plan??
Lawrence
12.19.2012
Personally, I detest guns. They make killing far to easy. A twitchy reaction from and over anxious law-abiding citizen could lead to the inadvertent deaths of one of more other innocent citizens. It takes more planning or t least more effort to commit a violent crime without a gun. That being said, I think that stricter gun laws (with the exception of automatic weapons and assault rifles) will not do much to lessen violent crimes, specifically gun violence. This is because most gun violence (I believe) involves people who obtain their guns illegally. Gun laws affect law abiding citizens much more than they affect criminals who break the law anyway. I believe that the true issue at hand is our society. Caring about others, respect, manners etc., are disappearing aspects of american culture. We seek only the betterment of ourselves at any cost. Society teaches us to be fiercely individualistic, and because of this we seek to put “the next man” down so that we may rise. We also seek to gain power and security to protect ourselves from “the next man” because they are seeking our destruction for their gain. When you add large amounts of firearms to this kind of society, you get A LOT of gun related violence.
Scot Douglas
12.19.2012
@scot_douglas
Actually, when you consider the number of people in the nation, and the number of guns, we don’t really have a lot of gun related violence. However, I still wonder why ‘gun related violence’ is worse than other violence.
Jeff Bostic
01.08.2013
I find it horific that a man in China used a knife to kill so many people (kids) the same weekend as Sandy Hook, and how this fact was totally ignored by the media. Especially due to the fact that it totally goes against stricter gun laws making it harder to murder large numbers of people.
Eric Abercrombie
02.16.2013
@eric_abercrombie
The argument here is simply false and a very poor comparison. It completely ignores the facts in order to support your personal view on gun ownership. It begs the question, who are you writing the false propaganda for? The government?
Batya Bauman
12.15.2012
I would like to see some citations to your statement. What are the sources of your information?
Glenn Webb
12.15.2012
Low levels as compared to what? To what country? Japan and Singapore? (= 0.3 per 100,000 people.) Canada? (= 1.6.) U.S.A.? (= 4.2.)
john lucier
12.24.2012
” Gun ownership has significantly risen in the last twenty years and guns are more prevalent than ever. Yet, over the last twenty years, violent crime has significantly declined and remains at historically low-levels, unseen in decades.”
I hope you didn’t offer that as an argument intelligent people should accept. There is no relationship between the two proven.
It’s far more likely the drop in crime has been through technology, information sharing, and tougher laws.
Police can look up a license plate in seconds from their own computer. 20 years ago they had to call it in and wait 5-10 minutes for an incomplete set of data. Just one example.
Scot Douglas
12.24.2012
@scot_douglas
I’m glad to see that you agree that there is no proven (or unproven) relationship between access to firearms and the rates of relevant crimes.
Please explain, obviously you consider yourself to be an intelligent person, exactly why “It’s far more likely the drop in crime has been…..”
BTW, the point wasn’t made to show that the number of guns reduces crime rates (although all the research has shown that criminals worry about running into an armed victim), only that it doesn’t increase crime rates.
Eric
12.24.2012
VICTIM SELECTION AND KINEMATICS: A POINT-LIGHT INVESTIGATION OF VULNERABILITY TO ATTACK
Rebekah E. Gunns, Lucy Johnston, and Stephen M. Hudson
“Victims of physical attack, human and animal, are not chosen at random; assailants select their victims. Wolves isolate and attack the most vulnerable among a flock of sheep whilst convicted offenders report that they select victims who offer adequate reward for minimal effort (Farrell, Phillips, & Pease, 1995; Fattah, 1991; LeJeune, 1977)”
Predatory rapists and victim selection techniques
Dennis J. Stevens
“University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
This article examines the self-reported target techniques of 61 sexual offenders incarcerated in a maximum custody prison. The data lend support to a rational choice perspective revealing predatory rapists as decision makers since they largely attack females whom they perceive as vulnerable.”
Inside the mind of the serial murder
RM Holmes, J De Burger
“Posteal Laskey, the Cincinnati Strangler, illustrates the non-random pattern of victim selection. He killed elderly women after carefully appraising their vulnerability. It appears, therefore, serial killing may not be as random as once thought (Wilson and Seaman, 1985)”
Jim Doyle
01.18.2013
Actually, gun ownership has declined in the US. In 1977, 54% of American households owned a gun. In 2010, that number was at 32%.
Scot Douglas
01.18.2013
@scot_douglas
You need to be careful with that assertion. The claim is based on anonymous telephone surveys. There is a good argument that today there are more people who are unwilling to tell someone who calls them with a survey that they own guns, Given that the number of guns in private hands has increased dramatically since 1974, either people are lying, former gun owners have given up their guns (along with there not being any new gun owners), or those that already own guns now own multiple guns.
Eric
01.18.2013
Agreed. Notice that the “decline” started around the same time as the initial “assault weapons ban” when people were worried about confiscation. I would never tell a stranger on the phone I have guns in the house, even if I weren’t concerned that someday the government would decide to confiscate my property “for the greater good”.
If you want to see something interesting, take a look at the increase of gun ownership among Democrats.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
Just like Republicans need to learn to drop abortion as an issue, Democrats need to learn to drop gun control as an issue. Both sides are being controlled by a vocal minority. Though I am all for abortion, at least the Republican stance that “maybe we shouldn’t kill babies” makes some understandable sense. “We should restrict what the law abiding can do so that criminals don’t kill people” doesn’t make the least bit of sense, and much of their own party doesn’t even believe it.
Well, either that or they’re hypocrites, but that’s not for me to say.
Faith Eischen
07.25.2012
@faitheischen
Great Benjamin Franklin quote. I think gun regulatory laws are necessary in order to avoid Aurora-type instances. If there really is no correlation between the amount of firearms in the U.S. and the number of homicides, then how has Japan almost eliminated murder via firearms? There is no denying the connection…
Brad R. Schlesinger
07.25.2012
@bradschlesinger
There is no connection. Gun ownership is at its highest since 1993, FBI reports a 30% increase in background checks for concealed weapons permits over the last few years, and retail gun stores report 40% increases in gun sales over the last few years. Despite this: (Courtesy of the Bureau of Justice Statistics) “The homicide rate declined sharply from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 in 1992 to 4.8 homicides per 100,000 in 2010.” While gun murders are down in the last five years from 10,225 in 2006 to 8,775 in 2010. Homicide by firearms are at their lowest levels since the mid 1980′s. From a high of 17,075 firearm homicides in 1993 down to 11,346 in 2005. Any way you look at it, deaths caused by firearms continue to go down as gun ownership and sales go up — and there is no denying that.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm
Craig D. Schlesinger
07.25.2012
@craigschlesinger
Brad, you really need to stop giving people factual data/information so they can make informed decisions. You’re killing their confirmation bias! Obviously, people would much rather formulate their opinions based on irrational passion and baser instincts like fear and greed.
And don’t you dare tell them about the robbery foiled by the old man (80 years old I believe?) because he was armed! I’d rather pack the heat and not need it then need it and not have it.
Heather Rogers
07.26.2012
@heatherrogers
Craig and Brad, you are obviously very informed on the subject. What are your ideas to further decrease gun related violence besides exacting stricter gun control?
Craig D. Schlesinger
07.26.2012
@craigschlesinger
One of my proposals is ending the prohibition of vices like drugs, gambling, and prostitution. These industries exist in a violent black market controlled by criminals engaged in an arms race against one another since they cannot rely on courts to adjudicate disputes. If we stop criminalizing behavior that is otherwise nonviolent and consensual, we remove the incentive and propensity for violence. And with gun violence already on a steady decline, as Brad noted, ending the aforementioned prohibition policies can only expedite the drop in gun related violence.
But perhaps the best thing we can do to reduce gun violence is by educating our fellow citizens about responsible, safe gun use and ownership – and start at a young age. Brad and I both learned how to shoot, safely and responsibly, at summer camp before either of us was 13 years old. And our folks are not exactly pro-gun by any stretch. We also took it upon ourselves to take a hand gun safety class, get conceal-carry permits, and take a rigorous hand gun training course – so in the rare event that we need to use our firearms, the training kicks in as opposed to just having an itchy trigger finger.
I’ll let Brad speak to the more relevant criminal justice issues since that is his undisputed area of expertise, but let me close by saying that violent people with the desire to commit violent acts will find a way, with or without gun strict control. If it’s not with guns it will be with knives, baseball bats, Chinese throwing stars, or anything they can get their hands on. That’s simply the nature of the violent criminal.
Thanks for engaging in this comment thread with us. This is EXACTLY the kind of constructive dialogue we need to promote.
Eric
12.20.2012
Totally agree with Craig. Us libertarians (small L) are slowly getting Republicans to understand that criminalizing marijuana use is a waste of resources and just drives the market underground, which creates a profitable business for criminals. The day drugs are all decriminalized is the day criminals will have to find real jobs.
But the main issue is racial. Google “Hood Life” and tell me that what you see doesn’t deserve immediate nationwide attention. I mean take the last week and multiply that by 52 weeks until that crap stops. Tell me that a subculture that’s violent, misogynistic, shallow, and perpetuates its own poverty and failure with nearly every decision of every day doesn’t deserve immediate national attention. If white people can’t say anything because of some self imposed moratorium, then the black community needs to step up, as in the way Bill Cosby has on several occasions. Any discussion about guns in that context is a laugh out loud joke, because those same neighborhoods are full of illegal drugs which came in from outside the country, where you can get GOOD guns, as in real fully automatic assault rifles.
We need to focus on the real causes of violence, because when you focus on the tools of violence you do nothing about the actual motivation toward violence. If we really value ALL of our fellow citizens, we need to stop focusing on the wrong things and focus on stopping ALL violence, not just gun violence.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Factual but completely irrelevant to the argument Heather is making. Don’t he dare tell us about the one solitary case of a guy actually helping with a gun. Given you’ve the highest gun ownership rates in the world you’d think you should have a few more instances of that happening!
SeanR
12.20.2012
So, you want more examples of self defense huh? How about a whole page of them that made the news? http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Self_Defense.htm
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Heather has already addressed this. Gun crime maybe going down in the US BUT it is still very high in comparison to countries of a similar socio-economic level with much lower ownership levels and stricter gun laws.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
In reply to Brad
Eric
12.20.2012
And we have lower rape, assault, and robbery numbers than much of Europe. Different countries have different problems. They don’t have a two thousand mile border with Mexico, our history of slavery, our incredible diversity which is not in itself a problem, but everyone brings their problems into the melting pot. Spain has or at least in 2005 had a HUGE robbery problem, something like twelve times ours. Guns do have a deterrent effect on that type of petty street crime.
If we took the amount of attention that’s been directed at mass shootings, which despite the tragedy the chances of which are infinitesimally small, and directed it at the daily slaughter in the inner cities. Our crime rate would PLUMMET. The vast majority of our violent crime is black criminals killing each other off. I would like to think that the reason no one seems to give a crap about this is because they’re criminals, but I’m honestly not so sure.
Douglas A. Palmer
12.16.2012
She actually misquoted Benjamin Franklin, quite to her advantage, I’m afraid.
The actual quote is as follows:
“Those who would trade essential liberty for a bit of temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Quite the opposite of what she rewrote his quote to be, and in fact, in direct opposition of her intent in using it.
Correlation Causation.
NeverBurnDecompose
07.25.2012
Of course You need Gun Control !!!
In India, A gun is licensed after analysis with limited Accountable number of bullets.
WAKE UP !
One individual Self Defense does not need 100 guns and 7000 ammunition !
That is for MASS KILL
Patrick Hollcraft
12.10.2012
Just because a person has that many guns and ammunition does not mean it is for “mass kill,” as you said. It is your right as a citizen of this country to have as many guns as you want. If someone is coming into your home to take your life or your families life you will wish you had a gun. On the other hand, I do understand that there should be a better screening process so events like the Aurora, Colorado shooting can be prevented. No statistic is perfect. Whether you are for stricter laws on gun control or against it. “CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!”
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Or you could live in country with decent gun laws like say the UK, and don’t bang on about my constitutional right to be a moron,with a gun homicide rate per 100,000 of 0.07 and not live in fear every day of your life thinking some guys gonna walk in my hose and shoot me. O wait a minute, I do, yeah! And by the way, only some complete muppet is gonna walk in your house, announce himself, wait for you to get your gun out your cabinet so you can shoot him.
Eric
12.20.2012
Don’t go bragging about your gun crime and forgetting to mention your overall violent crime. If I had to choose I’d rather get shot than get beaten to death with a plastic beer mug.
————————————-
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
Leigh
07.25.2012
You forgot New Zealand, with fairly moderate gun controls (you can still own an AR15 or SKS there) and no mass shootings. Very low homicide rate.
Look at the homicide rate in the US for weapons that are not firearms – I think you will find the US leads the world there, too. Your stats make no reference as to whether the homicides were justified.
Gun crime is on the rise in Australia… we’ve had a driveby shooting almost every other day. This was unheard of only a year or so ago. Home invasions are on the rise too. One relatively small criminal gang was successfully able to import over 200 Glock 22 handguns and several hundred high capacity magazines, through the postal service. It was only blind luck and a bit of idiocy on their part that lead to them being discovered. How did gun control help there? Australian gun control laws went too far, and I think that had they been more relaxed, like New Zealand’s, we would’ve had the same outcomes, without overly infringing on law abiding firearms owners.
The UK… where you are 4x more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, than in the US, is hardly a shining example either. Does it really matter if a gun or a knife killed you? You’re dead!
What the stats also dont say, is how many homicides were prevented by gun ownership. They may (or may not) displace gun related homicides.
Brad R. Schlesinger
07.25.2012
@bradschlesinger
Good point on preventable deaths. Here is a helpful interactive map on defensive gun use.
http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense/
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
I thin you’ll find violent crime doesn’t mean your dead, other wise it would be a murder rate.
And the US is 5.9 per 100,000 compared to England / Wales 1.6 so roughly 5 times as likely to be killed.
So for gun crime, yes the UK is a shining example along with the majority of the developed world. Ok, you’ll got beat up, but least your still alive!
Craig D. Schlesinger
07.26.2012
@craigschlesinger
@faitheischen You wrote, “Great Benjamin Franklin quote. I think gun regulatory laws are necessary . . .” Notice the disconnect?
Nanson Hwa
07.26.2012
The government is responsible in providing the security and safety in protecting its citizenry. Laxed gun control laws which caters to a minority of gun enthusists should not outweigh the interests in fostering a safe and peaceful society.
Craig D. Schlesinger
07.26.2012
@craigschlesinger
Julian Sanchez on the “trade-offs” between liberty and security: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/talking-about-trade-offs-between-liberty-and-security-begs-the-question/
George Prudden
07.26.2012
@user253
Actually, in the US, the police are NOT responsible for the protection of individual citizens. (most recently reiterated in Castle Rock v Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales).
One of my concerns about the current Arms Trade Treaty being secretly negotiated at the UN is that it relies on the “government” for protection of the citizens, though the Supreme Court has said that in the US the government is not responsible for the protection of individuals. Kinda leaves us mere mortals high and dry.
Partardo Detarpufarski
12.23.2012
@partardo_detarpufarski
Actually, that’s no longer true. It used to be. The cops now swear to “…uphold the law …”, completely different from “… Protect and serve …” But ayway, even if it were still the case, remember this: “When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away.” Ask any cop, and they will tell you they usually get to the crime scene in time to take a report or outline the body.
W. E. Messamore
07.26.2012
@W__E__Messamore
Reading through the article and the discussion thread, I must say that the inferences drawn here by comparing the US to other nations are methodologically unrigorous. For a truly scientific approach that yields sound conclusions, we must control for an impossible number of other factors and compare like with like. The US is not like Germany, nor like the UK.
A more useful, though still imperfect method would be to compare different jurisdictions within the United States, and an even more useful, though again, still imperfect method would be to compare crime rates in the same jurisdictions over time as policy changes and to do so for jurisdictions here in the United States, which what is under discussion: gun policy *in the United States*.
By this methodology, the empirics show that when US jurisdictions enact stricter gun control policies, violent crime increases; and when they liberalize gun policy, violent crime decreases. Compared against each other, again, the data show that US jurisdictions with stricter gun control policy have notoriously higher rates of violent crime while those with more liberal gun control policy have lower rates.
Sources:
ivn.us/2010/06/12/more-guns-less-crime/
http://ivn.us/2011/04/12/gun-control-debate-heats-again/
Craig D. Schlesinger
07.26.2012
@craigschlesinger
It goes without saying, but I agree whole heartedly!
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
I hear this lame argument all the time. Ok, so I’m a dude trying to get a gun to pop a cap in my mates ass, o shit they just changed the guns rules in my state what do I do? Hey wait, I can just pop across to the next state, there are no border checks. Jeez that was easy. Useless argument.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
It is already against federal law to transfer a firearm across state lines. So you are complaining about current laws not being enforced, not a lack of laws. Please understand the subject at hand before spewing misinformation. Thanks
Mike Frey
12.21.2012
Mark, sorry to burst your bubble, but you cannot buy handguns in a state in which you do not reside. Purchasing of long guns (rifles, shotguns, etc…) out of state requires a background check. The simple fact of the matter is that when someone wants to commit a criminal act, they will commit a criminal act to acquire the means to do so. Take for example the shooters at Columbine High School who broke at least 16 state and federal fireamrs laws to acquire the weapons they used (which incidentally, they only used because the bombs they built to destroy the entire school and kill everyone inside failed to achieve their desired results). Also consider the two most deadly mass murders on US soil, the 9/11 attacks, and the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. In neither case was a single handgun used in the commission of those acts, and yet,on 9/11 some 3000 people were killed, and in the Murrah Building episode, some 168 people including 19 children under the age of 12 were murdered. I’m not a gun fanatic (I won’t say whether or not I own any guns), but I am a thinking individual who sees how criminals operate and understands that criminals do not obey gun laws. I also note that despite very restrictive gun laws in other nations, there are still gun related deaths as well as other homicides using other means. Simply trying to take away one of those means by limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire those weapons is insanity. And of course insanity is the condition most of the mass shooters are in when they go on their sprees.
john lucier
12.24.2012
“. Compared against each other, again, the data show that US jurisdictions with stricter gun control policy have notoriously higher rates of violent crime while those with more liberal gun control policy have lower rates.”
Quite irrelevant, since areas with liberal gun policies are almost all rural with lower population density.
Scot Douglas
12.24.2012
@scot_douglas
Hey, Mr. Intelligent Person, do you know what ‘rate’ means in this context, and why it shows that your comment is an unintelligent comment?
Jim Gaines
07.26.2012
The UN or Obama’s jackboots would have to kill me to abrogate my 2nd amendment rights.:|
Kevin Driscoll
07.27.2012
Japan has the lowest gun violence but look at its Knife violence, a guy ran amok in a shopping center killed seven and wounded seven more. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7508418.stm I’d much rather have my 2nd Amendment Right which allows me to conceal carry and the option to take a gun to a Knife fight. :)
Roger Dane
07.30.2012
@Roger Dane
Outstanding and seldom heard point. A strong person with a knife can create havoc. A skilled and strong person with a knife (silently slicing) can do as much or more close up damage as any firearm!
cardfan133
12.15.2012
But you have a better chance of surviving a stabbing than a gun shot wound. And a victim has at least some opportunity to fight back. How many drive-by stabbings have you heard of?
Scot Douglas
12.16.2012
@scot_douglas
No, actually knives are about as lethal as handguns.
Mike Frey
12.21.2012
Actually, statistics show that about 74% of people shot with a handgun survive the shooting. My son who was shot with a shotgun (a generally accepted hunting weapon which doesn’t hold 30 rounds and fire automatically) by an armed robber (notice the gun was used during the commission of a crime by a criminal) was not lucky enough to be shot with a handgun and did not survive.
Partardo Detarpufarski
12.23.2012
@partardo_detarpufarski
Yeah, not really. Even the cops, who are, I suspect, better trained than any local hoodlum, still hit what they are shooting at only about 13% of the time.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
But he whole country has the second lowest murder rate in the world you tool! 0.5% per 100k, that was probably all that happened that year!!
James Dell
12.16.2012
Yeah, lets compare a tiny island of mostly ethnic Japanese, who live in very large, densely populated cities and have an extreme sense of ethnic pride, as well as a bit of xenophobia (no offense)…. to America, with more than twice as many people, one of the most diverse, spread out, and largest countries on the planet, where all kinds of people come from all over the world to make lives for themselves, have very little sense of local ethnic ties, and a worse social support system.
Clearly, that isnt a biased comparison at all. How about you at least pretend to have a little intellectual honesty and scientific integrity and admit there are other factors that contribute to the homicide rate than simply the availability of guns. I won’t hold my breath.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Mark – you are being noticed by others as having “intellectual dishonesty” which is simply called lying! And you’re still being the broken record. Really???
Steve
12.17.2012
I hear over and over again “2nd amendment rights”….. what really gives you the right to an outdated amendment?
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Tell me what’s outdated by it, Einstein. Are you another one of these muzzleloader guys? “Contemporary weapons of the time of the Second Amendment…” blah blah blah blah
Spare us all the drivel moonbat. And look at the very First Amendment you use while posting this crap on the internet.
What gives me the right? You want to go there too? Steve, have you ever served your country in the military? I am, I swore an oath, I also swore one as a law enforcement officer, people fight, they die, the suffer, to protect that right. You are an insult to every one that I know that has fought and bled for the RIGHT to your preceived “outdated amendment.” Thanks for playing. Get lost. If you’re a citizen of the U.S., you’re a piss poor example of one. Choose your amendments and rights wisely you life depends on it.
Angus
12.22.2012
@Jason MacGregor. I was really enjoying this thread, and in a mild state of shock, that this subject was being discussed in such a rational and reasoned way by people on all sides of it, when I reached your posts. To say you lack the respectful, rational arguments the previous posters exhibited is a dramatic understatement akin to stating that you have poor grammar, when in fact, its atrocious. Here is a link to the IVN Etiquette guidelines: http://ivn.us/2012/07/25/gun-control-an-international-comparison/
Jason MacGregor
12.22.2012
@jason_macgregor
How do you be rational with irrational people?
My grammar is atrocious or my argument?
I went to your link, it took me back around to this article, and I knew that was going to happen based on the address, so I looked at the top of the page and I noticed the Etiquette length, I read ot over and I found you’re right, no personal attacks. I offer my apologies.
Now, can you offer anything to the subject at hand, or are you attacking my grammar and/or my argument citing lack of a rational argument just expressing your opinion without supportive facts?
Scot Douglas
12.22.2012
@scot_douglas
Your link doesn’t go to the etiquette guidelines.
Most of the discussion was neither rational nor reasoned. Much of it, including the article that started the discussion, is emotion based, and lacking in understanding of both the history and the facts of the gun control issue.
Mike Frey
12.21.2012
What gives us the right is the fact that it is STILL the governing document of our homeland.
Steve
01.22.2013
Yea if anyone is taking the easy way out, it is gun-control advocates. Gun-controlers are running to the government to have them do the opposite of why we have a government in the first place – to protect our freedoms/rights.
Roger Dane
07.30.2012
@Roger Dane
If cows could fly… within America today there are some 300 to 400 ‘million’ guns if you believe registration “and” statistics. Gun use in interwoven in the historic thread of America’s founding and, as politicians are often happy to say about illegal immigrants, “we can’t get ‘em all!” The criminal elemen it “so” because they break laws. The very laws that moral, law abiding citizens try to obey about firearms are LAUGHED at by criminals. Don’t tell me that “we can add ten years” to gun crimes… look at the prison population. Okay, “death for gun crimes?” Perhaps that will help. But education and practice will help prevent accidentals AND proactive law enforcement, if it makes a comeback, might help curb crime. Guns are hand made in Pakistan and other third world nations. If you “could” stop all firearm manufacturing in the US it would be other countries then making and “cartel” like gun runners bringing them over the boarder! Drugs are illegal, they come across the border. Better to stop the joke of “more laws (already plenty)” and concentrate on bringing back morality, stop the ‘ego’ basing self-esteem crap and try and reinforce the old “Golden Rule.” Unlikely happenings but we’ve tried the ‘man is great stuff.’
Brian Bower
08.26.2012
I’ve been running some analyses on public data regarding gun ownership rates and rates of gun violence, and it seems that it is nearly impossible to derive a meaningful correlation between the two. While the extremely high gun ownership rates and gun homicide rates compared with much of europe show a statistically significant correlatuon (.0003) this comparison is inaccurate due to the US being an outlier on both axis. Comparing gun ownership and gun hoimicide rates within all developed nations except the US reduces the apparent correlation to the point where it is no-longer statistically significant (.46). Likewise, comparing the US against nations with similarly high gun ownership and/or gun homicide rates eliminates the signifigance of such a correlation. the picture is less clear than one may like.
Private
11.20.2012
If someone wants to kill another person, and there is no gun available to do it. They will figure out another way to do it. This article would have been a lot less slanted if you showed the entire murder rate of the countries that out lawed guns as much as possible. If its anything like Washington D.C. I bet they are high.
If someone is breaking into your house, or chopping at your bed room door with the intent on raping your wife in front of you after you’re tied up. You will wish you had a gun.
AB
11.29.2012
The flaw in this arguement is that it’s not about gun ownership of gun ‘control’, it’s about the penalties for those who circumvent the laws we have now. Under Giuliani, violent crimes have gone down 70% in NYC. Not because he added restrictions or tightened up gun control, but because he demanded the procecution AND the sentences be carried out – for those committing these types of crimes, gun-related or not. Everyone one of the countries have SERIOUS penalties for overstepping gun related boundries. NYC should be an example of how to allow people to protect themselves as well as how to actually punish those who break the law. THAT is a win-win.
Matt
11.30.2012
Your argument doesn’t really make since, Germany has twice as many guns as Australia, but Australia has much more gun related Homicides per capita than Germany. Having all the statistics in different units is confusing, but your basic argument isn’t even held up by the numbers you present.
Jessica Lucinda Williams
12.14.2012
@jessica_lucinda_williams
Maybe Japan, UK, Germany, and Australia are onto something. Tougher laws.
Michael Rice
12.14.2012
@michael_rice
Gun crimes and violent crimes, in general have actually increaased in Australia, since they banned guns. Having a smaller rate than the US does not mean the ban works. http://thebrennerbrief.com/2012/12/03/gun-control-does-it-work-to-reduce-crime/
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Australia starts from a very low level gun crime rate anyway 1994 0.44 (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html) per 100k compared to US 5 plus. So, big changes in an already low level are more difficult to achieve. I think you’ll find that Australia rate per 100k is now lower at 0.14 per 100k (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list) after the ban was brought in. By the way, that article is shockingly poor, she sites pretty much ever crime under the sun but gun crime, she even argues the a rise in sexual crime as some indicator that strict gun laws don’t work, I mean come on, what has guns got to do with rape.
Eric
12.20.2012
Maybe it’s cultural, but it seems pretty obvious what the relationship is between guns and rape.
Armed women are inversely associated with rape.
Jason MacGregor
12.16.2012
@jason_macgregor
This is very twisted and overly simplistic “research” directly copied from the U.N. it looks like who is largely anti-gun and is no friend to the liberties and guns enjoyed lawfully by the American people. The double-tongue in this article is an insult to truth.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
And your argument is…..
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Really?
Dennis Kirby
12.16.2012
@dennis_kirby
Statistics don’t lie. This have got to change in this Country. The same senseless continue to happen, time and time again. There is a direct relationship to the easy access to firearms and murder. This article does a great job illustrating this point. It’s going to take radical change to combat this problem.
Jason MacGregor
12.16.2012
@jason_macgregor
Dennis Kirby – which would you like me to call a lie, you who say that statistics don’t lie (which is a blatant lie – anyone with even a modest education knows this, I’ll show you an example in a minute), or the source of statistics. In this case, you own your statement, which is a lie, so therefore, logically I must deduce one lie just came from you. Let’s start there. I’ll follow up with my example that statistics do and can in fact lie. Example follows:
If I polled a group of people, that were all of the same opinion as you, entirely unfounded on facts, and they amounted to small, but yet “comprehensive” number in a given population and 90 out of those 100 people said that guns should be banned and that crime is higher in the US because the US has more guns, and that 90% of “the people” agree that crime is higher in the US vs Britain, then common sense and logic illustrates your statement and the statistics do in fact lie. You must take into account the parameters that matter, that the mere presence of a gun in society has zero impact on the violence visited upon people, gun ownership per capita (taking into account population versus the number of guns), the crimes perpetrated by criminals vs the law abiding population, the violent crimes carried out against good people vs good people carrying out crimes against good people, I could go on, etc.
Give me facts, not BS. Radical….yep, indeed, your radical change is exactly to what end, using what means? Radical? That should be a great indicator, by your own word, radical indeed, not factual, not logical, but extreme and unbased on fact. Bring me something real Dennis, then we’ll talk.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
I’ve not read one fact from you yet… Statistics don’t lie, they can be manipulated and presented in a certain manner to serve a purpose but the statistics themselves don’t lie.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
Exactly, and the way you present them is misinformation. Im glad you admit that statistics can so easily be manipulated and pulled out of context to push your agenda.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
I’ve got some for you:
Let’s set the stage, Paul Helmke, manipulator – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMNMihiUW3w, actually admits his policies and ideas don’t work, and haven’t. He dodges questions, he consistently repeats himself, as if he’s trying to convince himself.
A Harvard study which shows banning guns increases crime rates. It’s Harvard, not some NRA or other organization you demonize.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
How about me not re-creating the wheel and leaving thi right here for you:
http://gunowners.org/a12062012.htm
How about daily accounts, I’ll let the facts speak for themselves, this is also in response to one of your other comments somewhere in this huge comment section:
http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1174/October-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html
http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/1902/November-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html
Clackamas Shooter stopped by lawful Concealed Carry citizen:
http://easybakegunclub.com/news/1943/Clackamas-Mall-Shooter-Was-Confonted-By-Concealed-.html
And then a professional in the field:
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
How does that work for statistics for you?
Ana Zuniga-Maus
12.16.2012
You miss Switzerland, where every one owe a gun and killing are non existent, what we need is not a ban on guns, but holding those who choose to have them, responsible to keep them out of the hands of mentally ill children and children in general. When we choose to have them, we have to take responsibility for them, and keep them lock up safe, that is the answer.
James
12.16.2012
The 2nd admendment was written when muskets were teh weapon of choice fro hunting and the army. No matter what the NRA says, we do not need assualt automatic weapons nor concealed handguns in this country. Let’s try a compromise and keep single bolt hunting rifles ONLY. Does that work with everyone as middle ground?
Jason MacGregor
12.16.2012
@jason_macgregor
No that absolutely does not work with everyone as middle ground. The Second Amendment was written specifically the way it was not defining any particular arms, and included shall not be infringed. What are you going to say next? The National Guard is the militia? Have you looked up what the definition of a militia is? If you don’t like living here, move to another country. I hear the UK has banned guns, so has Australia. Go do the research and let me know what you find out. Bolt action rifles are more powerful that semi-automatic rifles same caliber to same caliber. No matter what the NRA says…um, they educate. That’s like telling people not to listen to their parents because they don’t know anything. Your unfounded and uneducated opinion of the US not needing “assualt automatic weapons” are owned legally by SO FEW people and have extensive paperwork, background checks, and concealed handguns are legally carried by roughly 5-10% of the population and have by FAR the lowest crime rate, even lower than law enforcement officers and clergy. I can prove all of these statements, you can prove none of yours.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
UK and Australia = Vastly lower rates of gun homicides, that’s what the research shows. Kind of shooting yourself in the foot there with your own semi automatic…
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
I gave you statistics and facts in another comment to one of yours, see that one, unless you want me to double post and prove you wrong twice as much.
Frank Fontenot
01.08.2013
I find your National Guard comment quite ironic, seeing as I was writing a research paper tonight and came across a surprising fact. In the early 1800′s there was quite a dispute as to who had control over the State Militias. In 1827, the Supreme Court case Martin v. Mott it was ruled that the president had exclusive control over these militias. In 1903, the Dick Act transformed State Militias into the National Guard; so technically State Militias are the National Guard. What you are referring to would be the State Defense Force, the modern day example of a State Militia.
Frank Fontenot
01.08.2013
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-21st-century-militia-state-defense-forces-and-homeland-security
Eric
01.08.2013
10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Important part that bears repeating-
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Frank Fontenot
01.08.2013
I apologize for my last comment, I was mistaken on who responded to my comment. This unorganized militia is more commonly known as the State Defense Force. My purpose in posting was to show that the militia is in fact the National Guard. When Jason attacks someone, he should either be more specific or do some research beforehand.
Scot Douglas
01.08.2013
@scot_douglas
That’s not exactly what Justice Story wrote in the decision. The President is the commander and chief of the militia only “when called into the service of the United States”.
Frank Fontenot
01.08.2013
Well, either you were too vague in your previous comment, or you completely contradicted yourself. Your rebuttal to my comment states that the organized militia is in fact, the National Guard.
Scot Douglas
01.08.2013
@scot_douglas
Yes, but the NG is not the entirety of the militia.
Scot Douglas
01.08.2013
@scot_douglas
You’re still wrong. The National Guard is part of the militia. However, the unorganized militia includes ALL males (who aren’t currently either on AD or in the NG) between certain ages, not just those that are members of a state defense force.
Jason MacGregor
12.16.2012
@jason_macgregor
Hunting and the army??? Show me in the Constitution. The Amendment was written for contemporary weapons of the time and needs common sense to understand that, do you possess the same?
Scot Douglas
12.16.2012
@scot_douglas
So in your view the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to broadcast media, the internet, or any type ‘press’ that was contemporary with the Bill of Rights?
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
I’m a little confused by your comment here, I can’t tell whether you mean to ask me if I want to restrict 1st Amendment Rights, or that because my case is that the 2nd Amendment was written for contemporary times, to include today, that obviously the 1st Amendment is ambiguous/vague in order to allow for contemporary times to change. So that means, according to the argument that we need to restrict back to muzzleloaders is completely moronic, so therefore the internet needs to be banned because the Framers/Founding Fathers had absolutely nothing pertaining to the internet in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment.
Scot Douglas
12.17.2012
@scot_douglas
If the 2nd Amendment only applies to ‘contemporary weapons of the time’ then the 1st Amendment, by analogy, should only apply to ‘contemporary media of the time.’ The 2nd amendment is just as ‘ambiguous/vague’ as is the 1st. It merely speaks of ‘arms,’ not muzzle loaders. Or perhaps your post wasn’t clear, and that you were not advocating limiting firearms to muzzle loaders.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
To Scot below –
The 2nd absolutely does not only apply to contemporary weapons of the time. I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear. I am definitely not for limiting firearms to muzzleloaders or any other firearm “time of the Second Amendment was written”.
Eric
12.20.2012
Blue on blue. :)
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
The Constitution was written ambiguous so as to remain relevant despite change. The forefathers were not imbeciles, but ncredibly intelligent and anticipated change, but also understood the need for the common man to retain arms if the need ever arose for an uprising, or a mainland invasion.
I am always amused when modern products of the American education system are so haughty as to believe they know better, or can even comprehend all of the situations the forefathers not only had already lived through, (including mutinies, revolutions, all out war and deceptive politics), but sat down and planned and designed a form of government meant to be able to withstand such acts. To those who do not know history, or say history could never repeat itself, and believe society and mankind has “advanced beyond” corruption is a travesty of freedom, and those people will be subject to a rude awakening.
Bill Light
01.15.2013
This is the oldest and most ridiculous of all of the anti-gun group propaganda. The fact is that the 2nd amendment was added with the idea of arming the general population of the new republic with the most modern firearms of the time so that the population could rise up against its own government if said government tried to circumvent the directives of the constitution. This was the most brilliant constitution ever written in support of the layman, and now uneducated laymen are being led like stupid sheep by those elite who honestly believe their are superior and should CONTROL the helpless sheep. How stupid!
Peter Fodera
12.16.2012
@peter_fodera
The facts about Chicago Gun violence:
There were 192 shootings in Chicago throughout the month of November – a 49 percent increase from a year earlier – according to police records obtained by the Chicago Tribune.
In November of 2011, Chicago recorded 129 shootings compared to the 192 shootings this November. Police records also reveal that shootings increased more than 11 percent in the first 11 months of 2012 compared with a year earlier.
Total homicides in Chicago rose to 480 for the first eleven months of 2012; a 21 percent increase from last year. On November 30, 2012, there were four fatal shootings within the city. These murders brought the homicide total to 38 for the month, just above the 37 recorded in November of last year.
Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans on restricting gun ownership further by banning individuals with a violent misdemeanor conviction from getting a gun permit for five years. The mayor also hopes to ban convicted felons from ever owning a gun.
Emanuel’s intentions are no doubt well intentioned, but like many cities with strict gun laws, the disarming of law-abiding citizens doesn’t remove guns from the hands of those who wish to do harm. On the contrary, it often leaves innocent victims vulnerable to criminals.
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/inconvenient-reminders-about-chicagos-bloody-gun-control-failure/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
Eric
12.20.2012
Apparently Rahm Emanuel, the good people of Chicago, or both are so ignorant of federal gun laws that they don’t know that convicted felons already are prohibited from owning guns. Well, never let a good crisis go to waste I guess.
FastFour
12.16.2012
In one of those countries in the not too distant past the leader confiscated privately owned weapons and murdered over 6 million people. Our 2nd Amendment to our Constitution ensures that will not happen here.
Len Lattanzi
12.16.2012
What gun control?
Stormy Leigh
12.16.2012
No because in the countries with less gun violence they are not adjusted per capita and homicide rates are still the same regardless of the means.
Paula Ralaford Davis
12.16.2012
You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead body.
john lucier
12.24.2012
I’m sure that’s what the Sandy Hook shooter’s mom said too.
Scot Douglas
12.24.2012
@scot_douglas
She was a mom, she trusted her son. The last Century tends to show that trusting one’s government results in worse outcomes than trusting one’s children.
James Davis
12.16.2012
No. We need mental health c
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Excellent point. Along with stricter gun laws.
Scot Douglas
12.16.2012
@scot_douglas
Where has an implemented restriction on firearms access ever resulted in a reduction in the overall rates of relevant crimes? Reducing firearms related murder without reducing overall murder is meaningless.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
You’re a broken record Mark, with nothing factual to support your position. I get your opinion, I understand it, I used to be an anti- (military, law enforcement, guns, etc.), a gun grabber like you, you’re welcome to have your opinon. But I would be complicit in letting you believe lies when I know better and don’t go well to show you the truth of the matter.
Edmund Burke wrote:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Justin Starr
12.16.2012
James Davis
12.16.2012
*controls
Om Nader Sarah
12.16.2012
yes
Paul Grubbs
12.16.2012
Not unless the real culprit, mental health, is equally held accountable. Most of these perpetrators are very deranged young men who have fell through the cracks of adequate health care.
John Scott Rogers
12.16.2012
After Friday’s tragedy, a serious conservation has finally started. A little perspective is long overdue.
It’s time to concede that our 2nd Amendment rights are not in serious jeopardy, despite a near-continuous chorus stating otherwise. Under the watchful eye of our Constitution, the following has occurred:
-Americans have somehow managed to acquire 300,000,000 guns, nearly 1 for every man, woman and child.
-It is permissible for any adult in the United States who has not been diagnosed with a mental illness or is a felon, to legally obtain military-grade weapons of almost unimaginable efficiency.
-There are almost zero restrictions on how much ammunition a citizen can acquire and store–only how often and at what quantity it can be purchased.
-With restrictions, it is legal to carry concealed weapons. In some states, there are almost zero restrictions.
Seriously, I can’t imagine how our govt. could be any more accommodating or liberal in its application and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
No other developed country on earth allows its citizens these freedoms. There are numerous countries with extremely restrictive or totally restrictive gun laws that function just fine.
Believe it or not, after saying all that, I am still not an advocate for implementing greater restrictions on guns in America, at least at the present time. Why? Because I believe we are so fearful and I dare say addicted to weapons, that pulling the “bottle out of our hands” so to speak will have worse consequences than maintaining the status quo. We couldn’t handle going “cold turkey,” we’d have serious withdrawals that would likely result in more violence and the unraveling of our social fabric.
But we can continue this conversation and begin traveling down a road to what I hope will be a little more sanity in regards to our relationship with guns.
Eric
12.21.2012
We value human life enough to allow our citizens to protect theirs. That is not a value off of which I wish to be weaned.
Aaron Barrow
12.16.2012
I dont think adding any more laws on top of the multiple layers of laws will change the fact that humans are violent in nature, they will inflict pain and kill each other whether its with a rock, fire, guns, knives, bombs, or bare hands. Also last time I checked criminals and mentally unstable people arnt known for following laws. If you wanna try and curb gun violence why dont you try and start by teaching kids compassion and how to talk out their problems and violence is not the answer and you should probably get the government to lead by example because they use violence to solve problems everyday, what message do you think that is teaching children and the future world leaders?
Gerald Granat
12.16.2012
Gun control. Hell no! Only the thugs will have guns.
Noël Barna
12.16.2012
No. We need to address mental health and bring it to the forefront and let our children know it’s nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed of and that there are others out there… It’s ok to get help and talk about it..
Maybe we should be educating kids on mental health instead of where to get abortions, condoms and birth control.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Or maybe you should do all of them.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Education is key. If we had proper, honest, education with integrity, many of the problems we experience today would cease to be…
Leafsfan Torontofan
12.16.2012
@leafsfan_torontofan
I agree this is what we should be working on.
David Lowenthal
12.16.2012
We do need gun control–for the federal government. The amount of destructive fire power they own and use on a regular basis around the world and on American soil is truly horrendous. Federal drones have murdered something like 850 people (about 168 of them children) since the program’s inception during the Bush administration.
Tell me, where does an organization like that get the moral authority to deprive people of the right to armed self defense?
Chris L Johnson
12.16.2012
Perhaps gun control should start with the current administration who feels it’s ok to supply Mexico with guns.
Sharon Mooningham
12.16.2012
Gun control, yes. Eliminating the 2nd Amendment, no. Why people can’t grasp the difference is beyond me.
Davis Jackson
12.16.2012
Because the mentally unstable, the suicidal, and the just downright evil people, are going to definitely going to obey new laws right? Lol are you kidding me. This shouldn’t even be a debate about guns. We should focus on getting help for the mentally unstable. We will never eliminate the killings entirely, but we can certainly make them much less frequent by taking steps to aid the mentally unstable.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Is it entirely inconceivable to do both?
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
Yes, absolutely, because of the 2nd Amendment. This is not tyranny by majority, and no matter how much you want to control people Mark, they have rights that cannot be denied. If you do not like it, you are free to leave and go live somewhere else, where you are subject to police protection, and if someone breaks into your house and endangers you or your family, you can just sit and cry in the corner in fear of hurting the criminal and being sued. Enjoy being a subject to a criminal’s will. Hope the police response time in your area is short.
The problem does not stem from weapons at all, since they are merely tools. The problem stems from the mental and emotional health of the people in this country. It is primarily focused in the cities. Tighter knit communities in the rural areas (ironically mostly religious and republicans/libertarians/independents) don’t have this problem anywhere near as often. If any further legislation should be enacted, it should be only within city limits of those cities whos citizens vote to regulate. The problem does not effect the rural communities, many of which their way of life relies on weapons on a daily basis, so neither should the restrictions imposed due to poor use of tools.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Precisely, this is a great addendum to what I was telling Mark in another comment and why I left it where I did, great post Jenny.
Phil Kragnes
12.16.2012
Although there are certain types of weapons, particularly assault rifles, that I believe need not be in the hands of the general public, the real topic for discussion should be issues around mental health.
Kaitlin Perkins
12.16.2012
Yes, and also focus on mental health, education, the respect for all life, ending the many wars we are involved in… so many things influence people’s actions. If not guns, they would find other ways to create such destruction… but I still don’t think we need semi automatic weapons.. they are designed to kill people, period.
Mic Kilroy
12.16.2012
I think it’s time to get rid of these useless “gun-free safe-zones” THAT AREN’T, & follow the lead of Indiana by stationing police officers & metal detectors in every school.
An even more effective measure is no longer allowing whacked-out posessos to roam the streets wild and free on a flimsy tether of Big Pharma DOPE!
Gabe Iacoboni
12.16.2012
This shooter acquired legal guns and did not even use automatic weapons for this act. Banning assault weapons to stop this from happening again would be like banning razor blades on planes to stop another 9/11. Oh wait, we have that, brilliant.
Chris L Johnson
12.16.2012
Mental health issues will never be addressed unless the entire culture of medicine changes. Big Pharma wants a medicated society with a constant revenue stream – not a mentally healthy society where the actual disease is treated.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
Don’t talk like this. “Liberals” who’s candidates are funded by Big Pharma will scoff at such facts as “conspiracy theories” and “fear mongering”, despite all proving the contrary. A sedated, complacent society, willing to accept changes to longstanding rights and protections, for a little “security” (security theatre).. This isn’t the first time, and it won’t be the last. But this is what happens when a group pushes for public education and then purposefully dumbs down the populace.. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of the fall.
Sharon Mooningham
12.16.2012
Aaron- Amen!!!! Well said on every level.
Norma Jean Bowman
12.16.2012
Less gun ownership equals more crime, home invasions & theft, criminals just use different tools when guns are taken from the citizens hands.
Mic Kilroy
12.16.2012
Punishing the innocent will not stop criminals!
Norma Jean Bowman
12.16.2012
Heck even Obama has armed security guards protecting him everywhere he goes.
Do we the citizens Not deserve to be equally protected?
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
Most people are ignorant to the fact that the police owe you no protection, nor are they required to even respond to every call. Multiple cases have gone to the courts and declared this. The police’s duty is only to protect the public at large, not any individual. Self defense is all you have, legally. There are cases linked in the comments on this very page… If you rely on the police in a home invasion, and give up the force multiplier(gun) that enables a smaller/older/less athletic person to defend himself, his family etc, from an attacker, no one is responsible for any tragedy that happens, but YOU.
Mace Gill
12.16.2012
I think all of our laws always need consideration at all times as part of our living/breathing American tradition. That being said, gun control is not the issue. Mental health is the issue. If there is anything to do with guns about this, perhaps it is in addressing access of guns to the mentally ill … but even that will do little if we don’t address the state f mental health in this country. Here is an emotional article that also includes some chilling facts: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html
Ted E. Bear
12.16.2012
Time to ban all assault weapons, clips, semi-automatics, and gun shows.
Michael Fisher
12.16.2012
Fear has consumed the country. After every tragedy people go into a state of panic and willingly give up their freedoms and constitutional rights for a false sense of security. Americans put up with sexual assaults at the airports because they think it prevents terrorism which shows government the people are mindless sheep that will put up with anything if they think it gives them security. I will NOT give up my rights because of a few drugged up lunatics. The founders wrote the 2nd amendment in the constitution for a very good reason, and if Americans allow government to disarm the population we are in deep trouble.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Your right fear has consumed your nation, hence why your the number one gun owning nation in the world and have one of the highest gun homicide rates in the developed world.
Scot Douglas
12.16.2012
@scot_douglas
Why do you believe that being killed by a person using a firearm is worse than being killed by a person using some other tool?
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
Scot.. its naivety. Inexeperience.. Blind faith in politicians and statistics. They have never been in a situation where they needed a weapon and did not have one. They have never been in danger or legitimate peril. They are not a single mother, with kids, who lives in a rough area. Or a rancher who has to deal with wild animals attacking his family and cattle. Or an older frail man who has to go to the ATM alone. They likely live in a city, and have police on street corners, with a response time under the national average (around 14 minutes.. its 26 in my area). They have not grown up around weapons, and do not see them for what they are, merely a tool, that can be used for good, as well as bad. They merely sit and watch the outside world, other deranged, lost people who commit senseless acts, and use a tool incorectly. They feel rage and anger for what they do not understand, and misplace this on the weapon.. Something inanimate that cannot possibly be evil, when it belongs on the person who uses the object. It is easier to place blame on something that cannot fight back, rather than place it on the parents, or the schools who raised up the monster.
By the way Mark, America’s statistics for firearm homicide, they include murders, AS WELL AS cases where guns are used in self defense. If you aren’t able to cite statistics while understanding all the situations those statistics encompass, you probably should hold back for clarification.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Jenny you sound like someone who knows some things about this topic. I don’t see any way to follow each other here, as you seem to have some good insight. I can be found at http://www.MacGregorSpecialties.com however.
Jenny Jo
12.20.2012
Thanks Jason, I know this is offtopic so I will keep it short, but great comments as well. Nice site you have there! Some great info and pictures. Ill keep it handy, and checkup on it, as well as pass it on to friends and family to view if that’s ok. Take care out there! It’s a sick world we live in now days.
Jason MacGregor
12.20.2012
@jason_macgregor
Hey Jenny – offtopic as well, please don’t hesitate to LIKE my page on Facebook, there’s a link/icon at the bottom of my page if you didn’t notice.
Joyce Marie Dern
12.16.2012
no. we should allow sane adults to carry when and where they feel the need.
Kenny Catron
12.16.2012
I believe we can amend the 2nd amendment. I’m all for the right to bear arms, always have been, always will be. But with our military and police aside, do we need assault rifles? Can we get by with fewer rounds per clip? I don’t know if this is the answer, I wish I had an answer. Just a view. Feedback?
Mic Kilroy
12.16.2012
To your point though, the Second Amendment DOES NOT SAY “Let any knuckle-dragging moron or inbred fool with the money to buy have a gun.”
That is the Confederate private interpretation!
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
Who are you to decide who is able to protect themselves and who is not? If those people are not allowed to protect themselves, who is going to? The police are not obligated to, and you certainly aren’t with the way you lack respect for their humanity.
Since when do we try people as guilty of crimes they will commit in future, right now? Is stupidity a crime, and should we regulate stupid people out of everything? How about, no more stupid people who lack empathy and respect for strangers they may disagree with, and percieve as less intelligent, are allowed on the internet? I guess you wouldn’t be doing much web surfing anymore Mic, but I believe its the best for the nation, and the world….
See how it feels to have someone who doesnt know you, dictate what you can and can’t do? Lucky your life does not depend on internet access, like a lot of rural people’s lives depend on their weapons.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Excellent post
Rock Tipton
12.16.2012
True dat!… Mental health should be the first focus, I (think), I also think these disturbed types of people would find another way to do the same or worse, if there were no guns at all… Please tell me, or better yet, show me if I`m wrong.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Look at the gun homicide rate per 100k people and compare to the rest of the developed world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list). They have the same mental health issues which also need to be addressed.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
The rest of the world is not America. Please don’t naively believe that law can be universally transferrred between countries with different makeups. They do not have the same social divides, racial homogenization, historical past, economic situations, population density, weather and climate.. there are so many factors that go into stimulating violent crime and unhappiness in a populace that to ignorantly propose laws the same as other countries and point at a chart and go “but this highly cohesive group of people whos ancestors have lived and cooperated like this for 500 years can do it!” Its merely intellectual dishonesty, and a lack of understanding of cultures and behavior of peoples.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Nailed again Jenny! Great post.
Victor Friskey
12.16.2012
They need to get off this gun control idiocy…What law will they pass that a criminal will obey….and how do you put mental health in the subject when no one knows who will be the next perpetrator….I don’t know what the answer is unless we allow God back into the schools..If parents don’t want to send their kids we can always put the believers in one school and the non-believers in another…but there is no way complete protection can be given….
Vicki
12.17.2012
You cannot support one constitional right, and ignore the others.. Separation of Church and State is also a right we have.
Scot Douglas
12.17.2012
@scot_douglas
Actually it isn’t. The 1st Amendment actually says that Congress can make no law respecting the establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise of the same.
Dwayne Morse
12.16.2012
we need to educate everyone about firarmsnot control them so all the crimanas still have them and we have nothing to protec ourselfs with.
Jeff Egan
12.16.2012
No
D.j. Starr
12.16.2012
Unless we are going to outlaw cell phones and cars, because of all those who are injured or killed by idiots using their phones while driving. The shooter at the school stole the guns he used! How will any law help prevent that?
Rock Conner
12.16.2012
I’d like to take guns away from everyone but with as many guns in the US as there are people, I don’t think that is possible. Since, then, there will continue to be guns out there, I don’t want to unilaterally disarm the good guys & leave guns only i the hands of lawbreakers.
Erin Bo Barin
12.16.2012
They should be revisited. That doesn’t mean take everyone’s rights away but some things should certainly be addressed and possibly changed.
Lenny Crespo
12.16.2012
This recent tragedy should be a shinning example of why gun bans and stricter gun control do not work. The shooter was a 20-year old boy. Under the law, he was not legally allowed to purchase firearms. Due to his mental health state, he would have also been denied to purchase a firearm. One of the firearms used was considered an assault rifle that was banned in the state of Connecticut. This means that, although gun bans and restrictions were in place, a person obtained the firearms illegally. The same thing occurred in the Columbine shootings. Ultimately, people that are set on killing will find a way to do so. Banning firearms or putting severe restrictions on gun ownership only hurts the law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
This tragedy has no bearing on the effectiveness of gun bans at all. The article written discusses gun crime as a whole and international comparisons clearly show that stricter gun laws impact homicide rates. So he got the guns illegally, so what. It’s about ease of access to firearms. The case in fact shows how easy it is to get hold of firearms.
Scot Douglas
12.16.2012
@scot_douglas
No, it is not true that ‘international comparisons clearly show that stricter gun laws impact homicide rates.’ To show that one would have to do a time series analysis of all of those countries to analyze data from both before and after changes in the laws. (And you’d have to get off the fixation that firearms related crimes are somehow qualitiatively different from non-firearms related crimes.)
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
A criminal, bent on evil criminal intent, will get access to weapons from anywhere, I see your point there. However, just because it’s (perceptively) easy to get access to firearms (with your spin and bias of getting those weapons for criminal intent) does NOT mean we need to crack down by putting more laws on the books, while the criminal noted broke SEVERAL LAWS just in the first few minutes. Capitalizing on a tragedy that cost the lives of several people, kids mind you, for an agenda of a personal vendetta against guns themselves does not hold water. The evidence for law-abiding uses of guns DRASTICALLY outweighs criminal uses of the same, especially in self defense against a would-be successful criminal attacker. I cited information/stats/documented stories for you elsewhere in this thread.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
And did you notice that you said this tragedy has no bearing on the effectiveness of gun bans at all? That is my first little hope for you on the topic, except that I would add that BECAUSE the guns were banned, many people were killed.
Finnegans Opinions
12.16.2012
The 2nd also does NOT say “… shall not be infringed, except/unless…”
Ben Marcus
12.16.2012
Repeal the 2nd amendment and start confiscating assault weapons.
Jeff Egan
12.16.2012
Did we already forget they guy murdered his mother and took her guns. To bad we don’t have laws that protect us against this….wait, we do. So just banning things and passing laws doesn’t prevent bad things from happening.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
No shit Sherlock, passing laws doesn’t completely abolish crime. Hmmm, might help lower it though.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
Or it could disarm law abiding citizens, so that criminals have a field day, and can break in at will, knowing civilians likely will not be breaking the law by owning illegal firearms, and that they have a much greater chance of taking on a startled, likely sleeping homeowner 1v1, and around 14 minutes from the time the call is made though.
I guess that seems to be what you want though. I wonder how you would feel if this type of law were enacted and someone dear to you were lost in a home invasion. I hope you never have to experience it.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Broke record with no susbtance…
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Broken record with no susbtance…another opinon touting, with no fact behind it.
Rob Brown
12.16.2012
I don’t know you tell me and then explain it to these kids parents why we shouldn’t try. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200151535698171&set=a.2223614356915.2134261.1444428438&type=1&theater
Mike Hardy
12.16.2012
The shooter broke 40-some laws during this crime. Why would we assume that it wouldn’t have happened if we had MORE laws?
Connie Miller
12.16.2012
No. Repeal strict gun laws and arm school teachers.
Stormy Leigh
12.16.2012
The age to own a handgun is 21, this kid was 20. He was denied the ability to purchase a rifle. This happened in a gun free zone. Connecticut requires a permit and license to buy and he didn’t do neither. He also unlawfully took the guns.
So he broke 5 coveted gun control laws.
He also did not use high round magazines or assault rifles. So what exactly would adding those bans on top of the listening restrictions actually done?
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
It would be more security theatre from the left, “comforting” people that they are now “safe” under the government and police protection, when in reality, they would be ripe for the picking for both the criminals on the streets, and the ones in the administration.
Michelle Theuer
12.16.2012
I would like to look at some examples of countries that do have liberal gun laws, yet have much less homicides than we do in the U.S. (Israel and Switzerland to name two). They are doing something right that we aren’t, obviously. Is it cultural? Social? Is it healthcare related in that mentally ill people have better access to care than they do in the US?
Jeff Egan
12.16.2012
How about we take a look at the causes of the tragedy. What happened to this man to make him do this?
Michael Hill
12.16.2012
No. I hate all the violence, but it is the person behnd the trigger that is causing the issues.
Aaron Barrow
12.16.2012
LOl @ Ben Marcus….GOOD LUCK! You want to stop gun violence by throwing the country in to a civil war and causing probably hundreds of thousands of people to die by trying to confiscate assault weapons and repeal the second ammendment? What kind of fantasy land do you live in? Plus someone could just as easily kill that many people (or more) with a double action revolver and enough rounds, so your discrimination against assault rifles is based off pure ignorance that you probably read on your favorite mainstream media news channel.
Lenny Crespo
12.16.2012
I love how Hollywood liberals are always the first to call for gun bans, yet they are the primary reason for gun glorification in America. Of course, they would never accept any of the blame. In Europe, gun glorification and violence is frowned upon, but sexual content is accepted. It is quite the opposite in the U.S. Perhaps that is where some of the issues arise. That is only the start.
Paulette Hussey
12.16.2012
mental health and viiolent video games
Roy Daman
12.16.2012
You failed to mention Switzerland who has the highest ratio of guns to people and have very little gun crime.
Put simply, gun free zones are open season for killers and murderers. You attempt to place the problem around an inanimate object. You fail to consider the person who uses such a device for killing innocent people. That is a phenomenal lapse in logic.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Still a lot higher than the majority of Europe at 0.77% per 100k. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Also, their gun control laws are stricter than the US. So, your argument points at tighter gun control laws.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
Not really, it points to mostly highly cohesive groups of people who have healthcare, lower poverty, better mental health facilities, and social safety nets.
To try to expound on possibly why Europe is more laid back, due to more social programs, I would be interested in the number of psychotic instances in the US and Europe, and the party affiliation they associated with before their episodes. How ironic it would be if politically left people are using guns to act out, as these instances primarily occurs in large cities and around the edges, at the same time as they chant for higher regulation. I have a very strong feeling it is merely a small segment of the population misusing firearms, and as such, would not be opposed to a ban based on political affiliation. Extremists on the left, social democrats, communists, socialists and progressives, and extremists on the right, those who affiliate with the nazi party, etc should be banned from owning weapons. I imagine this would solve most problems.
Bonnie
12.16.2012
I appreciate your perseverance. One never sees statistics about how many break-ins were prevented by a homeowner with a gun. Gosh, I wonder why? It’s way too easy for folks to get guns here in the USA. If that 20 year old troubled young man had a more difficult time obtaining the guns, those children, or more of them, would likely be alive today. YES we need to focus on better mental health care, but we also need to attack this problem from several angles at a time. Thanks for your comments, Ashworth.
Scot Douglas
12.16.2012
@scot_douglas
You don’t see those stats because you don’t look for them, the media don’t report them, and **drum roll** in the US, unlike the UK, the rate of ‘hot’ burglaries (burglaries that take place while someone is at home) is quite low. Surveys of felons indicate that they prefer to hit empty houses **because** of the possibility that a resident might be armed. Look for and read “Armed and Considered Dangerous” by Wright and Rossi
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
You do not see those statistics because they are hidden from you! “Firearm homicide” includes the people who used a firearm for self defense, so of course you will not hear about them when the people who wish to disarm Americans uses them and includes them in negative propaganda.
Almost every 13 seconds, an American uses a gun in self defense. There are at LEAST between 800,000 and 2.5 million “DGUS” (defensive gun uses) per year in our country, and these are old numbers.. According to the Journal for Quantitative Criminalogy, these seem to be holding constant or even growing slightly from 1993 to present. There have been multiple studies by professors in criminalogy, such as Gary Kleck, and various others at other universities who have done surveys out the ying yang stating that guns have a massive role in self defense in this country.
It is ok to disagree with me, but at least have knowledge of the issue, and a logical reason why.
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Bonnie – You never see how many “break-ins” (burglaries), murders, robberies, rapes, etc. were prevented by a homeowner with a gun because indeed you’re not looking for them. I commented on Mark Ashworth’s response giving websites where daily, documented stories of self defense, among the approximately 6500 cases daily (compare that to the mass murders and other crimes you base your opinionx on) that occur in the US. For the sake of you not hunting around this comment section, I’ll deliver on a silver platter:
http://www.GunsSaveLives.net
http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1174/October-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html
http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/1902/November-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html
These are just a few examples, there are many, many more.
Bonnie
12.16.2012
My apologies, I accidentally hit Jenny Jo’s reply button when I meant to hit yours….Sorry Jenny Jo, but I disagree with you and instead agree with Mr Ashworth.
Eric
12.21.2012
Mark, you should direct your attention to Iceland. Ranked #15 with 90,000 guns in private ownership. ZERO firearm deaths. None whatsoever. This is what happens when guns are in an environment where people don’t want to kill each other. Guns are not the problem.
Aaron Barrow
12.16.2012
oh paulette STFU with the video game and metal music causes violence nonsense. That is such a ignorant statement it makes me literally laugh out loud
Esther Garvett
12.16.2012
Yes!!! No guns PERIOD!!! The only exceptions should be for law enforcement and the military!!!
Amsterdam Birdlady
12.16.2012
No more gun control!!!! Had armed concealed carriers been allowed on school grounds lives could have been saved. Criminals will always have access to guns. So should law abiding citizens…..
Vanessa White
12.16.2012
He had a will so he made away!
Allan Carroll
12.16.2012
and how about hollywoods graphic, violent influence on youths and how about the graphic, violent video games that some kids play for hours on end, and how about the 22 Chinese children slashed w/a knife in school last week and how about the parents that don’t know anything about their childrens patterns and friends …..they’ll always be w/us (crazies) and there’ll always be a way to inflict damage on many peoples … because of the instantaneous information through the media today, every single day we receive too much negative information .. we are bombarded w/it. … my suggestion is to have several teachers and or school officials that are licensed to carry a weapon and that are trained (and given extra pay) to be available to defend the school ground should the situation arise.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
What I find ironic is that it is mostly extreme leftist Hollywood that glorifies, shows and portrays guns in unsafe and dangerous situations as well as the fact that if you are troubled, whether at school or work, its “normal” (we know how Americans have trouble discerning the movies from reality), to use a gun in offense as response to a minor threat.
You rarely see such arrogance and recklessness with weapons in more rural areas where growing up with a weapon as defense is a way of life, not some silver screen plotline. I know personally, my family and friends all keep their tools locked up, away from children, and train them from a very young age that guns are tools, very dangerous, and a last resort. The second you do not treat that weapon with caution as respect, it will bite you in the ass.
Edward Theilmann
12.16.2012
No it’s time to address the violence our government inflicts on the rest of the world.It’s time to stop allowing them to indoctrinate our youth into this culture of violent endless war for profit and it’s time to hold the corporate media accountable for all the violent and graphic images and program content they are poisoning our minds with. Taking away guns from law abiding citizens isn’t going to do anything but disarm law abiding citizens .You can take all the guns away from the population and the sickness will still be there .It will just show it’s ugly head in another way.Perhaps the wackos will start throwing gasoline bombs or using other home made weapons . It’s not about controlling weapons,it’s about ending our collective violence and until we do that nothing will ever change
Somaura Jackson
12.16.2012
Realize that if we had a well regulated militia like the founders intended…
every citizen would be armed and would be enrolled in the national guard.
And be made to train at least once a month
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Somaura Jackson
12.16.2012
And haven’t gun control laws constantly been revisited?
Aaron Barrow
12.16.2012
Esther…and by that statement let me guess you support the war on drugs and think its helping curb drug use and addiction? HAHAHA!
Linda Hower Melones
12.16.2012
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/england-warns-america-dont-let-them-take-your-guns-video/
Linda Hower Melones
12.16.2012
http://www.radiofreedom.us/this-is-what-happens-when-guns-are-banned-the-war-zone-at-your-home/
Wendy Innes
12.16.2012
The problem with comparing the US to other nations is that we are different. A better idea might be to compare states, in which case statistics show that the states with the strictest gun laws have higher crime rates. This also doesn’t take into account crimes commited using other weapons. We can’t outlaw fists, sticks and rocks and yet both have killed plenty of people over time.
Linda Hower Melones
12.16.2012
Esther Garvett – when only the police and military have guns, the government will have all the power to do whatever they please and we will have no way to stop them. That’s why the Second Amendment was written.
Mike Moore
12.16.2012
First off, the 2nd amendment will never be repealed. Second, how do we really define what an assault rifle is. Under the 1974 Clinton bill, my .22 match rifle became an assault rifle because of the detachable magazine, a stock with a pistol grip, and a removable barrel weight I used for balance. Do we ban all black guns? Are only wooden guns allowed, even if they are semi auto. Anyone with reasonable dexterity, will be able to reload a 10 round magazine without any real effect on the number of rounds going downrange. I may not know exactly what the answer is, but I know what it isn’t.
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
They certainly believe it’s okay to kill Pakistani children.
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
He used stolen guns.
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the citizenry the ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
Also consider this:“… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen… — Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
And this:“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others. Instead, their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public. — US Supreme Court 1989
If the Government has them we should have them too!
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”
William S. Burroughs
If the government’s got ‘em I want one too because no one is going to protect me from the government except me!
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others. Instead, their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public. — US Supreme Court 1989
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
According to the FBI the weapon must used in murders is a BASEBALL BAT!
Jerry Sawchuk
12.16.2012
Well said Stormy . They won’t be happy until all guns are band. Laws are useless in this case . This guy would of found another way too kill if there wasn’t guns available.
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”
William S. Burroughs
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable the citizenry to PROTECT THEMSELVES from the government!
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Sounds like a horrible place that, a bit like Japan where there’s 0.01 per 100k people getting killed by guns. Hey wait a minute, that sounds pretty good…
You not heard of a free press and voting to change your government…
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Mark, do you have anything relevant and factual to add to this conversation?
Eric
12.21.2012
And Japan’s suicide rate is off the charts. Different countries have different problems.
George Dana Johnson
12.16.2012
You did not include the number of killings in other countries that murders were committed using other methods than guns, and compare that to the number of murders we had using that same method. Killers will kill however they need to. We will keep our guns thank you!
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Your welcome to them. I’ll keep my low homicide rate thank you
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
“Statistics are going to protect me from death better than a gun in a home invasion!”
Good luck with that.
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
Lock up Progressives and other kind of dimwits!
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
MORON
Mike Dodson
12.16.2012
Why not take a look at banning the NFL? There’s a large population of shooters, knife weilding, wife beating, drug taking, dog fighting, party brawling thugs that harm society.
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
George Washington
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison
“
Keith Pyron
12.16.2012
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?”
Patrick Henry
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Apparently so with a gun homicide rate higher than Sierra Leone…
Perry Eyler
12.16.2012
The guns and the law are not the problem…the problem was with the shooter…more effort, time, money put into action to deal with the mentally ill would be a better place to start…not more gun laws
Troy Ricciardi
12.16.2012
Eliminate the psychotropic drugs that all of the killers have been using. Psychiatry kills. The article does not mention the fact that many if the countries mentioned have equal or higher violent crime and murder rates. They just don’t use guns as much.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Rubbish, none of them have anywhere near the same homicide rate http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data
USA 5.9 per 100k the one quoted in the article are around 1 per 100k. So nearly 6 times worse!
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
Shall I prove you wrong in triplicate?
http://ivn.us/2012/07/25/gun-control-an-international-comparison/#comment-71093
Bill Long
12.16.2012
No! We need to revisit how we care for the mentally impaired and teach our children that less is more. Christmas and all the days of our lives should be about honesty, integrity and hard work. Not just about getting but giving.
Jim Willis
12.16.2012
Of course there is not going to be any gun deaths, when all guns are banned……..Duh……..lets hear about the Swiss, where all citizens not only own guns, but are required to have them and are trained in their use………
Susan Crouse
12.16.2012
Educate children about mental health?!?! How about TREATING mental health issues. Stop muddying the waters with abstinence and anti abortion mantra. This is not an either/or situation. Until there is publicly funded (with our tax dollars – less a huge profit margin) health care system, mental health will be under funded, under treated, and a huge problem.
Ralph Stephens
12.16.2012
It is time to get real about mentally ill people that cannot control themselves. Our nation has let the families of these metally ill people go too long without the right laws and safety net proprams,. Furthermore it is time to bring back PROPERLY ran mental institutions where the uncontrollable patients can reside safely away from our schools. As it stands now they wait until a crime has been committed then, after the fact, they lock them up in a system that makes them worse and is already overburdened.
Sean Campbell
12.18.2012
Amen Ralph.
Matthew J. Kaeder
12.16.2012
It’s time to put money and effort into mental health issues instead of pointing the finger on “gun control”, besides “gun control” is the exact same as the “drug war” a blind ambition to try and take away what people want.
Susan Crouse
12.16.2012
And, not having better gun control because we already have so many laws?!?! How about the novel idea that instead of filling private prisons with pot smokers, we fill them with persons illegally selling and/or owning firearms!
John Glass
12.16.2012
Can anyone name a killing such as this that was not committed by a deranged person? Is not rather obvious where the problem really lies?
Tara Wood
12.16.2012
We can make all the laws in the world we could stop selling them but they are sold on the streets and back corners lets enforce the laws we have , stricter consequences and close the loop holes so people pay for what they’ve done.we have the right to bear arms put a limit on how many each single person needs Hunters have reasons for Multiple guns but you can only shot one at a time get the illegal guns and salesman Off the streets make the law strict enough that people won’t do this anymore and the corruption in theses task forces caught quickly loss of job no retirement pack and jail time we have to enforce and quit letting people get off with a slap on the wrist it’s not working so lets try a different way.this is insanity and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.I will continue praying for these families it’s not over there is a lot of hard times ahead they need all the prayer we can give!! Lets work on a real concise solution!!!!! And follow it through until we get the results we are all looking for.
Gerry Feldman
12.16.2012
Prohibition doesn’t work. They will always find a way to get a gun. Better to increase the number of security guards in and around public places like malls and schools.
Donna Williams
12.16.2012
No
Ronn Greek
12.16.2012
No.
Trinda Martin-Wolfe
12.16.2012
no, it’s time to start talking about mental health, and how we can better our society without making more bogus laws.
Leo Zicc
12.16.2012
the advent of 3d plastic printers will usher in an age where guns can be homemade. either way, its not the weapon it is the evil of the user that needs despised.
Andrew Lopert
12.16.2012
The article, besides the other objections already pointed out, is taking the “United States” as a whole, but the laws vary state by state and within cities. Other sets of statistics demonstrate gun homicide rates are highest in the cities (Chicago, Washington DC, New York, Detroit, etc.) where gun laws are strictest. So you’re letting the gun fatalities in the places with the strictest gun laws justify passing stricter gun laws everywhere else.
Mark Ashworth
12.16.2012
Because they just go out of state for the guns of course, jeez, if you don’t ban effectively country wide and put borders with checks in place of course the law is useless! Come on.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
I am not ok with punishing 300 million people for the acts of a few ignorant people who do not even live anywhere near them. Apparently you are, since this issue does not effect you in the slightest, since you do not use a gun for your survival, so of course you will play armchair law maker and oppress people you disagree with.
Why should people in Indiana, or Montana, or Florida, or Oregon suffer and lose a legitimate, non harmful way of life, and traditions like hunting, etc that have been going on for thousands of years, because the state next door is so full of scum they will travel hundreds of miles there and back to kill people? If Illinois has a problem with people going out of state and bringing weapons back, maybe the people in Illinois need to fix their own issues and get on the ball. What you are suggesting is that since the government in Illinois and Chicago, cant do their jobs, that the rest of the citizens have to lose rights. No thanks, this is not tyranny by majority.
Scot Douglas
12.16.2012
@scot_douglas
If guns were the problem, the locals with the easiest access to guns should have higher crime rates. (Unless you agree that in the areas with more restrictions the crime rate is higher because the law abiding cannot defend themselves?)
Anne Doyle-Jones
12.16.2012
Better screening and no buying off the internet.
Patrick De Simone
12.16.2012
this guy from conn had asburgers or however its spelled. thats doesnt make him insane. i served in iraq with a guy who had that and he is a darn good soldier.
Patrick De Simone
12.16.2012
gun control like we had thanks to clinton that lasted 10 years is proof gun control is pointless. there is also no way in hell they can abolish the 2nd amd. that would just lead to eventually others rights being taken away and for sure. a New American Revolution. Then again thats wh
Patrick De Simone
12.16.2012
whut we have the right to bear arms
Patrick De Simone
12.16.2012
sigh… why* stupid cracked cell phone.
Gerry Feldman
12.16.2012
Israel has compulsory military service.
Patrick De Simone
12.16.2012
i also read a murder with a shovel…are we going to ban shovels too? and cars, bats, hammers, knifes, rocks, rope, ?? if anything its the medias fault for focusing so much in shock stories and glorifying the killers
Luke Enoch
12.16.2012
Two points:
The same people who want more security and more mental health treatment are the same people who want lower taxes (And they are more likely to deny human induced global warming). So their pov is utterly worthless.
Lastly, anyone who advocates the availability of human hunting guns, like the one used on the 6 and 7 year olds, that have 30 round clips, really shouldn’t be in on the conversation because their mind is so incredibly warped that all sense and reality are beyond their operating system that is of the level of the normal persons brain stem.
*More US kids and teens die every ~2 years than all the soldiers killed in the 9 year Iraq war. More preschoolers are killed each year by guns (most are homicides) than police officers killer in the line of duty.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
“Your opinion is invalid is because I said so and you disagree with me”
Thanks, comrade.
Ron Barney
12.17.2012
It’s already illegal to kill someone with a gun. There, problem solved.
Gable Bates
12.17.2012
If passing a nice-sounding law is all it takes, then let’s mandate everyone be given a wish-granting unicorn.
Steve Jennings
12.17.2012
Banning guns to stop violence is like banning forks to fight obesity.
Kate Swigonski
12.17.2012
More laws will do nothing to deter criminals now. The young man was obviously ill. I would like to know where he and the other mass shooter in Colorado got their protective kevlar. Prep law officers, medical staff, teaching staff, gun and ammo sellers and mental health officials lots better. Keep them immunized from legal recourse if they faithfully turn in someone they think may be a problem but isn’t. I think too many good people are just afraid to get involved if they dont have to. We need to encourage students and families to recognize signs and be proactive. Mental Health Screenings should be mandatory if that person is identified by a professional. Free if need be. Perhaps monitoring should last a year or as long as necessary. I would gladly pay a fee to cover this kind of program for my continued right to carry concealed .
David P. Semak
12.17.2012
You cant legislate away crime and or mental illness. We write laws continually to feel good about ourselves, a waste of time. Better care of the mentally ill May be helpful but I doubt our selfish country will spend anymore More on mental illness.
Sean Campbell
12.18.2012
I completely agree David. Our society has been over-loaded with consumerism for so many years that we are now ignoring our fellow citizens that cannot care for themselves so that we can buy a new cell phone, tablet or car (or firearm) every two years. Black Friday (and now Thursday) is a prime example of the erosion of our culture.
Johnny Ritchie
12.17.2012
Of course, I have children and grandchildren I do not want caught in a massacre at school or the movie theaters.
james
12.16.2012
The compromise is ban all guns but rifles used for sport & protection. We do not need assualt weapons and handguns. The NRA is a MANUFACTURING lobby. You can hunt game and protect your home with a rifle. You can not easily conceal a rifle. A government would not attack an armed populance. Yes the ration would be skewed towards criminlas for the first few years , but this would level off. Any more moronic defenses?
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
Who are you to decide what someone who lives 1500 miles away from you, needs or does not need? I don’t need running water.. Clearly that means I should be able to legislate no running water for people on the other side of the country. I do not need an SUV, I should clearly be able to legislate SUVs be banned for other people. I do not need any medications, pain relievers, sleep aids, or pharmaceutical drugs, clearly that means I should be able to regulate and ban these things for the rest of the country right? I could be like you too, and blatantly admit that my brain is incapable of understanding how anyone could possibly have diffrent needs than I do… But I won’t do that.
Btw, more people die from recklessness in vehicles alone than both murders and self defense firearm homicides, so I won’t even bother including how many people drowned, or overdose accidentally, or injure/kill others while on medication.
Scot Douglas
12.16.2012
@scot_douglas
You do know that many hunting rifles are more powerful that the .223 ugly gun, right? And that handguns for home and personal defense are inherently safer than long guns?
Gary Sanders
12.17.2012
Assault weapons are designed and manufactured to kill many people in a short amount of time. Would you feel safe knowing the nut down the street owned one?
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
I would feel safer knowing I have one as well, since the government is not going to, and has no right to search every home in America and then spy on us to make sure no one else can ever get one again.
Johnny Ritchie
12.17.2012
There are a whole lot of STUPID comments on this post concerning lessons learned and the “fix to prevent the same occureance repeated” for 20 innocent children and 6 school Teachers/women being shot and killed with an assault weapon, with each being shot 3 to 10 times each. Must be FOX watchers. Lord help our children and grandchildren and America.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
You can’t be religious, so please do not taint the issue, because if you were, you would realize the problems in this country do not stem from a tool… but the degradation of the society who raises the people who use that tool incorrectly.
Jenny Jo
12.16.2012
I also love the personal attacks, and lack of respect for people who merely have a differing opinion than yours. You are clearly a praying person, who loves and cares for others.
Also, perhaps you missed it on ABC or NBC, but the offender in Conn did not use an assault rifle, but pistols and semi auto rifle built to LOOK like an assault weapon. Assault rifles are currently banned and extremely rare, as you need extensive background checks by 3 different federal agencies, and at least a 10,000 fee to even be considered for ownership of an automatic weapon, which they can revoke at any time.
Bob Gielczowski
12.17.2012
Criminals don’t follow the laws. Law abiding Citizens are the ones who suffer from restrictive gun laws.
Ulfr Dokkr
12.17.2012
This article does not look at the typical rise in “Any Other Weappn” crimes once guns are confiscated as in the UK. I’m seriously disappointed that you would even post such a biased article. Perhaps IVN is not a place I care to be afterall.
Libby Blondin
12.17.2012
Yes, yes and yes!!!
Eddie Denise
12.17.2012
Some here are stating it’s a mental health issue. So does that mean anyone who legally owns a gun PLUS all family members should take periodic mental health tests?? Others state that all schools/institutions should have armed guards..to protect us from…US? Some state you don’t need a gun to kill. True, but how many mass-knifings or mass-bludgeonings do you see? So, now I get to see my 7 year old friend Daniel be buried this week.
Dale
12.16.2012
I know someone who was killed by a regular soccer mom who was putting on makeup instead of paying attention to driving. She tboned my friends car and killed the passenger, not instantly, but she burned to death, stuck inside the vehicle. Is it ok to direct my rage at makeup and cars?
You friend didn’t die because of a gun. No gun got up on Friday and decided to attack your friend. To help ease your sorrow, your friend, in all likelihood, died faster and less painfully, than if the psycho who murdered her would have used something else to commit his heinous act. Please dont disgrace the memory of your friend by misplacing your rage and anger on an inanimate object, but seek solutions to the problem that is caused by sick individuals.
Stu McNichols
12.17.2012
No!
Bethany Carson
12.17.2012
Yes. We need to look at a multi-faceted solution that includes gun control and mental health. As a starting point, we should bring back the assault weapons ban and close gun show loop holes. Just because weapons are out there and can be obtained illegally doesn’t mean we can give up. We also need to do a better job in the schools identifying children who need psychological help, because who have a mental illness and want to commit this type of crime will manage somehow to get their hands on a weapon. That doesn’t mean we need to make it easier for them. Also, we need to recognize our responsibility as individuals to embrace and aid the outcasts / loners in society before they become so resentful that they have the desire to retaliate in a violent manner. This especially includes our responsibility to care for and stay close to our own families.
Grant Duffey
12.17.2012
I think we need much less regulation on guns. Banning or regulating guns won’t solve this problem anymore than banning drugs would end drug use.
Grant Duffey
12.17.2012
Also, the same day of the Connecticut incident, a man in China stabbed 22 children with a knife in a school, around ages 6-7. Banning weapons only removes them from the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals who do not care about the law.
Carlos
12.17.2012
numbers dont lie. It is time to ban guns. I would do anything to fight for the extermination of guns. It sucks that i cant get paid for that… gun facotories pay the dumbest people to defend them
Jason MacGregor
12.17.2012
@jason_macgregor
I think you should win the award for respouting the simplest most often repeated BS in this comment section of “numbers don’t lie.” You are a liar. That is evidenced in your first sentence. I would do anything legal, moral, and ethical to fight for the support of proper education regarding guns. I do get paid for it, but that came from a long journey of getting educated first before teaching it.
You’ll do anything to fight for extermination of guns, TRANSLATED, you’ll do anything to fight for the extermination of good, law-abiding people, because that’s precisely what will happen, I gurantee it. This is evidenced in gun free zones, such as schools.
Bob
12.17.2012
Excuse me, but these statistics are all wrong. You are comparing gun related deaths to gun owers only, yet there are many countries, Brizil for one, that have a much higher gun related deaths per (27.9 per 100,000) as compared to the U.S. at 5.2 per 100,000, yet in Brazil guns are illegal. So excuse me Heather Rogers, but your facts are wrong. And I could go on. Mexico has gun related deaths at 11.5 per 100,000, Venezuela at 47.2 per 100,000, and remember, guns are illegal in these countries. Furthermore, more deaths are cause by alcohol related deaths and doctors misdiagnosing patients, yet no one is talking about that. And I have to ask myself, why not?
Doyle Blaylock
12.17.2012
He’ll no. It’s time for our government to stop throwing away money on wasteful things the people don’t want or need. They need to improve mental health awareness and put some money into that. They need to fix our economy and stop putting us in debt. The economic problems breaks a lot of people. You need to fix the cause if these incidents. Guns are only a tool, they aren’t the cause. 99.999% of lawful gun owners and guns aren’t involved in any crimes. Guns don’t turn people into psycho’s. It’s our society that breeds it and it’s our lack of understanding that keeps us from stopping it. Crazy people will be crazy no matter what. Take guns away and they’ll use homemade explosives and other weapons. People will find ways to kill people. Let us law abiding citizens protect ourselves from evil and tyranny as the 2nd amendment was intended.
I think its sickening that our government always finds something else to do instead of fixing our economy. Our economy is the biggest cause of crimes in America. Fixing the economy is the most important issue at hand. Stop being brainwashed people. Putting a band aid on an infectious would does not heal the would. Using gun control to reduce violence makes the same amount of sense. None. Criminals don’t follow laws. That’s what separates them from the rest of us. Gun control would only put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage and make the problem worse.
Instead of attacking guns right all the time we need to attack these “gun free zones” these shootings keep happening in. There are laws in place that put the good people at risk and give criminals the upper hand. I’ve NEVER heard of 26 people getting killed in a gun store or NRA meeting. These psycho’s are gutless. They look for defenseless victims. If only one of those adults he killed had a gun. If only that nurse he didn’t shoot had a gun… Maybe there would be a few less dead kids. Guns don’t kill people. Gun free zones do.
Dale Wratten
12.17.2012
gun control will not solve this type of problem. i used to drive a fuel truck, most of the time it was loaded with 5,000 gallons of fuel. all a person would have to do is steal the truck drive through the school! and nothing can stop that much weight! and lite a match!
D'Yaisha Reid
12.17.2012
There is no need for anyone to have an assault weapon
Eric
12.18.2012
Tell that to the Koreans who were able to keep rioters from burning their stores to the ground during the LA riots because of their rifles (it’s not a “assault rifle”). Firearms allow the weak and the few to effectively defend themselves against the many and the strong, something a minority should understand.
That’s why guns are a civil right. We are all inherently endowed with the right to defend ourselves from ANYONE who wants to victimize or oppress us. That means having effective weapons to do so. Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy both showed us what happens when society breaks down. Weapons allow good people to defend themselves against bad people. If you decide that you don’t need to defend yourself because it’s the government’s job to do it for you, don’t blame the weapon that the bad person uses to victimize you.
Kathryn Moore
12.17.2012
I have seen many changes in our culture. As a youngster I recall unlocked pickups with a gun rack over the back window with the gun visible. My Dad kept his guns on a gun rack on the back porch (enclosed) and we never locked our doors. I never heard or read about mass murders. Saturday afternoon movie was Gene Autry. Roy Rogers or Tom Mix. The bad guy never got away. I felt safe to go to school or play in my yard alone. And now I never leave my house at night to go anywhere and that is no guarantee that some thug won’t break in. But I know he would be met by my Mr. Smith & Wesson.
Sean
12.18.2012
Kathryn, you didn’t hear about that stuff “back in the day” because there was no such thing as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel and local “news” to report only the violent, scary, ratings-generating sensationalist junk. Turn off the “news” and you won’t feel so paranoid. You’re more likely to be killed in a car accident than mass shootings, home invasions and terrorist attacks combined, but you don’t mind driving everywhere, everyday. Why is that?
Patrick Gossett Hffhstuff
12.17.2012
Hey Dumbycrats.. Didn’t you just pass laws decriminalising Pot because as you claim drug bans don’t work? But gun bans do right..Looking stupid is only preceded by sounding stupid.
Sean Campbell
12.18.2012
Patrick, I thought this was the INDEPENDENT voter network, why are you spewing the same political party name-calling BS that I can read on Fox News or MSNBC comments sections? People come here for intelligent discussion without the nonsense from the political parties. If you want to call people names, go somewhere else.
Jason MacGregor
12.18.2012
@jason_macgregor
You have to sugar coat stuff for these people, while you speak the truth from a common sense standpoint, your tone scares them.
Sean Campbell
12.18.2012
His tone doesn’t “scare” me, it’s counterproductive. A significant reason why independent voters are pushed out of the conversation is because they refuse to get involved with childish name-calling. Go ahead and have a political discussion with 12 year-olds (or Republicans and Democrats) if you like; I prefer to discuss these issues with adults.
Scot Douglas
12.18.2012
@scot_douglas
And you, with your laundry list of things that you claim are the ‘real’ reason for crime are engaging in rational discussion? Arrogant much?
Sean Campbell
12.18.2012
What, because I have more to say about the topic than “I love guns” or “I hate guns” makes me arrogant? God forbid I try to engage an intelligent discussion about a really complicated issue that involves liberal and conservative ideas on the INDEPENDENT voter network. I guess we shouldn’t let those “arrogant” criminologists and sociologists collect data because it might get in the way of Dummycrats or Repuklicans getting on Sunday morning talk shows and spewing the same sensationalist garbage from their respective lobbying groups.
Instead of calling me a name Scot, how about you point to one of my points and debunk it?
Scot Douglas
12.18.2012
@scot_douglas
No reply button on your lower post.
Arrogant because you gave a long liberal laundry list of things that serious criminologists don’t believe cause crime. I find the idea that this website is ‘independent’ to be even funnier.
I haven’t seen any attempt at intelligent discussion from you. You pontificate as if you have the answers, and heaven forfend that anyone might not agree that you know it all.
Sean Campbell
12.19.2012
Scot, there is a huge difference between disagreeing with someone and calling them names. I have no problem being wrong and I encourage constructive criticism so that I can better understand issues. I never attacked Patrick for disagreeing with me (which he never did), I attacked his name-calling.
Agree to disagree I guess.
Myrna Jetton
12.17.2012
Nuts can’t have them. I feel safe knowing Tony has one. Passing a law banning drugs has certainly worked.. not..
Karen James
12.17.2012
True, Noel. It’s harder to get mental health care than it is to get a gun.
Marlene Tran
12.17.2012
It’s long overdue!!!!
Kat Palmer
12.17.2012
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.
Dennis E. Squier
12.17.2012
No
David Paganucci
12.17.2012
we would have less crime, if everyone was allowed to carry a gun… check out Switzerland for an example!
Sean
12.18.2012
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.
Eric
12.18.2012
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.
Scot Douglas
12.19.2012
@scot_douglas
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.
Sean Campbell
12.20.2012
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
12.20.2012
@scot_douglas
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.
Jeff Bostic
12.18.2012
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.
Marko
12.19.2012
Americans should all own assault rifles for self-defence. The population was growing too fast anyway.
Jason MacGregor
12.19.2012
@jason_macgregor
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.
Shefali
12.27.2012
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.
Sharlie
12.30.2012
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.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
John SFO
12.27.2012
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.
Nick P.
12.31.2012
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.
Casey Thomas Rodriguez
01.01.2013
@casey_thomas_rodriguez
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.
Vill
01.05.2013
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/21/the-declining-culture-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/
Vill
01.06.2013
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
Scot Douglas
01.06.2013
@scot_douglas
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.
Jeff Bostic
01.06.2013
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
Dear Jeffrey,
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.
Sincerely,
Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
7975 Cameron Drive, #900
Windsor, CA 95492
http://www.frontsight.com
[email protected]
1.800.987.7719
Nick Perlick
03.23.2013
@nick_perlick
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.
Jeff Bostic
01.06.2013
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
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605
I for one am very glad she had a gun and killed the man.
ChrisJL
01.12.2013
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.
Bill Light
01.15.2013
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.
Steve
01.15.2013
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.
Nick Perlick
01.15.2013
@nick_perlick
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.
Thelma Riggs
01.18.2013
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.
Eric
01.18.2013
Ms Thelma-
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.
Scot Douglas
01.18.2013
@scot_douglas
Your final line is somewhat amusing, as it is the gun control advocates like you who are trying to take the easy way out.
Eric
01.18.2013
Negative sir, check fire.
Scot Douglas
01.18.2013
@scot_douglas
Sorry, LOL the format messed me up.
Eric
01.18.2013
That’ll happen.
:)
Scot Douglas
01.18.2013
@scot_douglas
Ms. Riggs,
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.
Ryder
01.26.2013
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.
art nunez
03.22.2013
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.
Eric
03.22.2013
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.
Nick Perlick
03.23.2013
@nick_perlick
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.
organic wine
03.24.2013
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!
Launa
04.16.2013
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
brilliant paragraph.
Minnie
05.18.2013
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.